15.0 Alliance Wars Update Discussion Thread

Summoners!

Our 15.0 Update is just about a week away, and with it, it's bringing a huge change to Alliance Wars! Check out everything you need to know about the Brand New Map, Scoring Changes, and new boosts in the Loyalty Store here: http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/17902/15-0-alliance-wars-update/

Comments

Draco2199

Thawnim wrote: »

WorkingAsIntended wrote: »

Lmfao @Draco2199 take a lesson from Kendrick and sit down be humble

He cannot...he's a phony. He just proved it. My little trap worked perfectly. I was top 10 but really did get tired of spending. That is why my 500k (I'm rounding up) account now sits in an alliance that only does map 5.

How is it a trap, you aren't even close to a high level player? How is this a trap lol? How did you get me? You want my login name, not gonna happen. Not sure what you proved other than you aren't a top level player....so....good job.

Draco2199

WorkingAsIntended wrote: »

Lmfao @Draco2199 take a lesson from Kendrick and sit down be humble

I don't understand what this even means.

Thawnim

Draco2199 wrote: »

Thawnim wrote: »

WorkingAsIntended wrote: »

Lmfao @Draco2199 take a lesson from Kendrick and sit down be humble

He cannot...he's a phony. He just proved it. My little trap worked perfectly. I was top 10 but really did get tired of spending. That is why my 500k (I'm rounding up) account now sits in an alliance that only does map 5.

How is it a trap, you aren't even close to a high level player? How is this a trap lol? How did you get me? You want my login name, not gonna happen. Not sure what you proved other than you aren't a top level player....so....good job.

The only reason you don't give up your game name is because you are a fake! It's true. I was in a top 10 alliance up until the nerf months ago. The moment you give up your game name I will go and check it with my brethren in the actual top 10 alliances. I may only have 2 r4, but until you provide a legit account we all know that you have NONE!

Thawnim

Draco2199 wrote: »

WorkingAsIntended wrote: »

Lmfao @Draco2199 take a lesson from Kendrick and sit down be humble

I don't understand what this even means.

It means that you need to stop with the lies and spamming threads.

Draco2199

Thawnim wrote: »

Draco2199 wrote: »

Thawnim wrote: »

WorkingAsIntended wrote: »

Lmfao @Draco2199 take a lesson from Kendrick and sit down be humble

He cannot...he's a phony. He just proved it. My little trap worked perfectly. I was top 10 but really did get tired of spending. That is why my 500k (I'm rounding up) account now sits in an alliance that only does map 5.

How is it a trap, you aren't even close to a high level player? How is this a trap lol? How did you get me? You want my login name, not gonna happen. Not sure what you proved other than you aren't a top level player....so....good job.

The only reason you don't give up your game name is because you are a fake! It's true. I was in a top 10 alliance up until the nerf months ago. The moment you give up your game name I will go and check it with my brethren in the actual top 10 alliances. I may only have 2 r4, but until you provide a legit account we all know that you have NONE!

I don't give it up because I don't want people contacting me in game. You were never in a top 10 alliance with that roster so quit just stop.

TheOneAndOnly

Draco2199 wrote: »

Thawnim wrote: »

Draco2199 wrote: »

Thawnim wrote: »

WorkingAsIntended wrote: »

Lmfao @Draco2199 take a lesson from Kendrick and sit down be humble

He cannot...he's a phony. He just proved it. My little trap worked perfectly. I was top 10 but really did get tired of spending. That is why my 500k (I'm rounding up) account now sits in an alliance that only does map 5.

How is it a trap, you aren't even close to a high level player? How is this a trap lol? How did you get me? You want my login name, not gonna happen. Not sure what you proved other than you aren't a top level player....so....good job.

The only reason you don't give up your game name is because you are a fake! It's true. I was in a top 10 alliance up until the nerf months ago. The moment you give up your game name I will go and check it with my brethren in the actual top 10 alliances. I may only have 2 r4, but until you provide a legit account we all know that you have NONE!

I don't give it up because I don't want people contacting me in game. You were never in a top 10 alliance with that roster so quit just stop.

Fact there are about 5-9 guys in top alliances that are skilled and run AQs and AWs offense, I know I used to run a bunch of accounts and I still have all the logins.

Put down the shovel and quit digging. You've lied enough and been caught. No one here believes you. At least Nick is truthful and does not hide behind a fake forum name.

Draco2199

Kocheese

Think this was purposely done to extend the game. Making us rank up champs otherwise we have no use for. Said that diplomatically since I'm in jail now lol smh

Mcord11758

My feeling is that they introduced the concept of 6* champs largely making 4* champs soon to be irrelivant. Now people will need to continue to rank 4* champs to diversify their defense as well as continue to grind arena and buy crystals. Imo diversity is artificially giving value back to 4* champs while we sit in limbo for the arrival of 6*

Dark_King888

MEKA5 wrote: »

I believe the problems about the current condition of AW are not directly related to dexterity and MD.
It's the scoring system that does not reward skills. Attackers kills and defenders kills had the purpose to make you feel your fight had a purpose. They motivated you to be a better player.
Now there's no real challenge. Also showing all defenders classes in high tiers it's just a bad idea, since that hidden variable was something nice to play out as a strategy for defense.

You are right. The whole issue was Kabam stupidly eliminated the defense element from a war. Removing defender kills to encourage item use and spending is what got them into this BS situation. Defender kills ought to count in ANY war, even a 2nd grade kid will tell you that.

On top of it, they ranked diversity so high. It was a simple case of putting their scoring system in a spreadsheet and running all the scenarios. Its what functional consultants do. And the attack nodes became way too easy. Thats what the testers check. I guess both didnt do their jobs.

I wonder what the tolerance level of unprofessionalism at Kabam are... With the stupid ideas and half baked updates they keep putting out, ideally, we should see some heads roll.

vikky89

Voluntaris wrote: »

WorkingAsIntended wrote: »

Revert it for the love of god. Diversity is beyond stupid and your punishing people for ranking up champs in your old system.i want rdt if this system stays period. It should not. This is worse then 12.0 imo because now everyone's favorite mode in game is worthless and boring. Not only that but my work for a solid defense destroyed rewards not greater then before. More time in game moving. This game is getting more stale everyday and the idiots running it have no clue what's going on. the whole new wars need to be scraped and left alone until you can actually put something out that isn't complete garbage.

Solution: everyone hates mystic wars so easy solution update the rewards for each tier. Until you can decide the new map and nodes. It's that simple if I get better rewards I will work harder.

I don't hate mystic wars, so "everyone" does not hate mystic wars.

Correct statement would be most people hate MD wars, but hey instead of fixing whats broken lets reduce complete AW to garbage

GroundedWisdom

Captain_Amazing wrote: »

When even Seatin is calling out how bad AW is and saying Kabam should be handing out rank down tickets you know you have a problem.

Draco2199 wrote: »

Psymonsez68 wrote: »

Lol. This discussion is hilarious. Obviously people dont understand the diversity. The map is easy to complete. Place a diverse defense. Who cares about rank. They are gonna get beat! A smaller alliance can beat a bigger alliance with diversity. This does make it so smaller alliance have a chance. Take the time to coordinate a diverse defense. And 100% the map!

How can a smaller alliance beat a bigger alliance? You will lose on defense rating and diversity automatically.

Defender Rating is a toss up, depending on who goes up against them and what they place. I don't agree that they will have more diversity automatically. Many Allies have a range of Champs outside the Top 10, or however many. It's just my view. I agree that it's a major problem. I'm thinking the new system will help is all.

DD2

Posting this for posterity.

All credit goes to @JJW

JJW wrote: »

As a statistician and analyst I intend to offer a suggestion or two regarding Alliance war.

"Game Theory is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."

In Game Theory all complex decisions can be reduced to a series of Choices within a given Environment in order to achieve desired Outcomes.

I won't bore you with descriptive analogies.

As this applies to Alliance War:
Desired Outcomes = defeat opposing alliance.
Environment = Alliance War map with 9 necessary routes + a given Point Rubric
Choices = Constrained by the environment such that an Alliance has exactly 1 strategic option.

The third item (Constrained Choices) is the visible complaint that you have with Alliance War 2.0, and is seemingly why everyone is upset.

The second item (Environment) is the root cause of the of the Constrained Choices problem.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Alliance War map allows the for the placement of 50 defenders across a map with 92 tiles, 54 of which are capable of containing a defender.
The Alliance War map can be traversed entirely by an alliance moving on as few as 9 paths.

Due to the relative high-value of Boss kills (20,000 each) and Exploration (300 per tile), there are no viable strategies that do not include full exploration. Therefore, those values (totaling 150,000)can be canceled and removed from the victory calculation.

Victory Calculation

= placement * (X1 - Y1) + diversity * (X2 -Y2) + kills (Y1 - X1) + rating * (X3 - Y3)

Where,
placement = 50
diversity = 125
kills = 50
uniquechamps = 106 (at the time of writing)*
rating = 0.02

X1 = Alliance A # defenders
X2 = Alliance A # unique defenders
X3 = Alliance A total defender rating (avg defender rating * X1)
Y1 = Alliance B # defenders
Y2 = Alliance B # unique defenders
Y3 = Alliance B # defender ratings (avg defender rating * X1)

* side-note this calculation is written with respect to the scoring system as presented within the Forums, not as presented within the game itself. I.E. this calculation is consistent with Alliance-Wide diversity.

With the above Victory Calculation in mind, there are now (2) potential strategic options, and only (1) viable option.

Option 1) Strong Defense, attempt to prevent Opposition from 100% Exploration
Option 2) 100% Exploration, Maximize Diversity, Maximize Defense Rating.

The Alliance War Map can be traversed and fully explored by 9 people on 9 routes. An Average Alliance with 10 members will have 1 member out of 10 reserved entirely as backup. So the Map environment does not prohibit 100% exploration.

There is no penalty for an attacker Knock Out so a given determined attacker could revive his entire team for 40% hp 15 times. More than enough to make it through any given path, albeit expensively.

The Alliance War node buffs are regarded as being weak and insufficient from prohibiting a determined assault.

Best possible outcome = Opposition is unable to take 1 or more boss tiles.
Most likely outcome = Opposition will 100% explore map.

Scenario 1 = Max Diversity, High Quality

Let's assume that two imaginary Alliances are able to field 150 defenders totaling 750,000 defense rating (avg defender = 5000). Both are able to provide 106/150 unique champions, both are able to 100% all three BGs.

The score for both teams would be 193,250

Scenario 2 = Minor Diversity, High Defense Quality

Let's assume that Alliance A executes strategic Option 2, while Alliance B forgoes diversity for maximum defender quality, fielding 3 identical battlegroups of 50 unique champions. Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 193,250
Alliance B = 186,250

Alliance B loses by a 7,000 spread, all Diversity points.

Scenario 3 = Minimum Diversity, Highest Defense Quality

Let's now assume that Alliance A executes strategic Option 2, while Alliance B miraculously is able to field the 30 teams of the exact same 5 strongest quality defenders. (probably full mystic teams). Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 193,250
Alliance B = 180,625

Alliance B loses by a 12,625 spread, all Diversity points.

Scenario 4 = Maximum Diversity, No Duplicates

Ok, let's say Alliance B thinks there is some advantage to ONLY fielding the 106 unique defenders. Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 191,050 (can only kill 106 defenders, but larger defense rating)
Alliance B = 186,650 (can kill 150 defenders, but smaller defense rating)

Alliance B loses by 4,400 points, all Defense Rating & Placement overcomes Kills.

When you chart those 4 strategies:

Only 2 Strategies actually have a viable outcome.

Max Diversity, High Quality can outmatch 3 of 4 potential opponent strategies, and tie against a matching strategy.
Max Diversity, No dupes has an opportunity to win against Min Diversity, High Quality.

GAME THEORY HAPPENING NOW

So, if you are to consider your own potential strategies, Min Diversity, High Quality has no chance of winning against any of the four opponent strategies.

When that happens in Game you discard that as a viable strategy, and you discard that strategy as a viable strategy for your opponent since they will arrive at the same conclusion. This effectively reduces the choice table.

Now you have 3 potential strategies rather than 4, as does your opponent.

Since we do not know in advance what the opponent will decide, we will assume that each potential strategy is equally likely for the opponent.

Max Diversity, High Quality has 1 chance to tie, and 2 chances to win, a 66% probability of success and a 33% probability to tie.
Minor Diversity, High Quality has 1 chance to lose, 1 chance to tie, and 1 chance to win, a 33% probability of success, and a 33% probability to fail.
Max Diversity, No Dupes has 2 chances to lose and 1 chance to win, a 33% probability of success, and 66% probability to fail.

ANOTHER REDUCTION

Since the Max Diversity, No Dupes strategy has a better chance to reward the opposition than me, I will remove that from my choice of viable strategies. Since I remove that choice for myself, I will assume that my opponent has come to the same conclusion:

And now we have arrived at the root of the problem.

Under the environment and conditions of Alliance War 2.0, there is only (1) viable strategy any rational Alliance can pursue.

If the only way you could play chess was Torre Attack Wagner Gambit, then you would probably not want to play chess.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So what can be done?

Change the Environment such that more than 1 strategem is viable:
Potential options include
More PATHS than 10, such that no Alliance can possibly 100% exploration.

Introduce COSTS to the equation. Defense kills was a sufficient Cost in AW 1.0, but is not necessarily the only cost that could be introduced.

Restructure the points Rubric such that the rewards for Exploration (90,000) and Boss kills (60,000) are not so disproportionate to Diversity (13,250) & Rating (< 2000)

Micklownick

Wow, I'm honestly surprised Kabam hasn't deleted this thread yet. I agree with all of you

BigDaddyJoe

Alliance Wars just plain suck now bottomline

Speeds80

Mcoc is number 34 on my countries top grossing apps, seriously kabam start to realise these lame money grabbing antics you keep pulling are just alienating you're spender base. Fix the bugs, start listening to your players, give us a good quality product and new people joining will get hooked and you can grow your player base, this diversity system is lame it's just a grind within the alliance and people all unhappy they are having to place **** defenders

DD2

With AW 1.0 you could use your skills and smarts to beat a stronger team. That's what made it so fun.

Now you can't do that. Now it's all based on the strength of your roster (diverse champs and defender ratings).

Congrats you just killed the spirit of AW.

Might as well skip attack and let the computer calculate the winner once you're matched up, because that's all it is now. Attack phase is a formality at this point.

Ron_H

DD2 wrote: »

Posting this for posterity.

All credit goes to @JJW

JJW wrote: »

As a statistician and analyst I intend to offer a suggestion or two regarding Alliance war.

"Game Theory is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."

In Game Theory all complex decisions can be reduced to a series of Choices within a given Environment in order to achieve desired Outcomes.

I won't bore you with descriptive analogies.

As this applies to Alliance War:
Desired Outcomes = defeat opposing alliance.
Environment = Alliance War map with 9 necessary routes + a given Point Rubric
Choices = Constrained by the environment such that an Alliance has exactly 1 strategic option.

The third item (Constrained Choices) is the visible complaint that you have with Alliance War 2.0, and is seemingly why everyone is upset.

The second item (Environment) is the root cause of the of the Constrained Choices problem.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Alliance War map allows the for the placement of 50 defenders across a map with 92 tiles, 54 of which are capable of containing a defender.
The Alliance War map can be traversed entirely by an alliance moving on as few as 9 paths.

Due to the relative high-value of Boss kills (20,000 each) and Exploration (300 per tile), there are no viable strategies that do not include full exploration. Therefore, those values (totaling 150,000)can be canceled and removed from the victory calculation.

Victory Calculation

= placement * (X1 - Y1) + diversity * (X2 -Y2) + kills (Y1 - X1) + rating * (X3 - Y3)

Where,
placement = 50
diversity = 125
kills = 50
uniquechamps = 106 (at the time of writing)*
rating = 0.02

X1 = Alliance A # defenders
X2 = Alliance A # unique defenders
X3 = Alliance A total defender rating (avg defender rating * X1)
Y1 = Alliance B # defenders
Y2 = Alliance B # unique defenders
Y3 = Alliance B # defender ratings (avg defender rating * X1)

* side-note this calculation is written with respect to the scoring system as presented within the Forums, not as presented within the game itself. I.E. this calculation is consistent with Alliance-Wide diversity.

With the above Victory Calculation in mind, there are now (2) potential strategic options, and only (1) viable option.

Option 1) Strong Defense, attempt to prevent Opposition from 100% Exploration
Option 2) 100% Exploration, Maximize Diversity, Maximize Defense Rating.

The Alliance War Map can be traversed and fully explored by 9 people on 9 routes. An Average Alliance with 10 members will have 1 member out of 10 reserved entirely as backup. So the Map environment does not prohibit 100% exploration.

There is no penalty for an attacker Knock Out so a given determined attacker could revive his entire team for 40% hp 15 times. More than enough to make it through any given path, albeit expensively.

The Alliance War node buffs are regarded as being weak and insufficient from prohibiting a determined assault.

Best possible outcome = Opposition is unable to take 1 or more boss tiles.
Most likely outcome = Opposition will 100% explore map.

Scenario 1 = Max Diversity, High Quality

Let's assume that two imaginary Alliances are able to field 150 defenders totaling 750,000 defense rating (avg defender = 5000). Both are able to provide 106/150 unique champions, both are able to 100% all three BGs.

The score for both teams would be 193,250

Scenario 2 = Minor Diversity, High Defense Quality

Let's assume that Alliance A executes strategic Option 2, while Alliance B forgoes diversity for maximum defender quality, fielding 3 identical battlegroups of 50 unique champions. Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 193,250
Alliance B = 186,250

Alliance B loses by a 7,000 spread, all Diversity points.

Scenario 3 = Minimum Diversity, Highest Defense Quality

Let's now assume that Alliance A executes strategic Option 2, while Alliance B miraculously is able to field the 30 teams of the exact same 5 strongest quality defenders. (probably full mystic teams). Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 193,250
Alliance B = 180,625

Alliance B loses by a 12,625 spread, all Diversity points.

Scenario 4 = Maximum Diversity, No Duplicates

Ok, let's say Alliance B thinks there is some advantage to ONLY fielding the 106 unique defenders. Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 191,050 (can only kill 106 defenders, but larger defense rating)
Alliance B = 186,650 (can kill 150 defenders, but smaller defense rating)

Alliance B loses by 4,400 points, all Defense Rating & Placement overcomes Kills.

When you chart those 4 strategies:

Only 2 Strategies actually have a viable outcome.

Max Diversity, High Quality can outmatch 3 of 4 potential opponent strategies, and tie against a matching strategy.
Max Diversity, No dupes has an opportunity to win against Min Diversity, High Quality.

GAME THEORY HAPPENING NOW

So, if you are to consider your own potential strategies, Min Diversity, High Quality has no chance of winning against any of the four opponent strategies.

When that happens in Game you discard that as a viable strategy, and you discard that strategy as a viable strategy for your opponent since they will arrive at the same conclusion. This effectively reduces the choice table.

Now you have 3 potential strategies rather than 4, as does your opponent.

Since we do not know in advance what the opponent will decide, we will assume that each potential strategy is equally likely for the opponent.

Max Diversity, High Quality has 1 chance to tie, and 2 chances to win, a 66% probability of success and a 33% probability to tie.
Minor Diversity, High Quality has 1 chance to lose, 1 chance to tie, and 1 chance to win, a 33% probability of success, and a 33% probability to fail.
Max Diversity, No Dupes has 2 chances to lose and 1 chance to win, a 33% probability of success, and 66% probability to fail.

ANOTHER REDUCTION

Since the Max Diversity, No Dupes strategy has a better chance to reward the opposition than me, I will remove that from my choice of viable strategies. Since I remove that choice for myself, I will assume that my opponent has come to the same conclusion:

And now we have arrived at the root of the problem.

Under the environment and conditions of Alliance War 2.0, there is only (1) viable strategy any rational Alliance can pursue.

If the only way you could play chess was Torre Attack Wagner Gambit, then you would probably not want to play chess.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So what can be done?

Change the Environment such that more than 1 strategem is viable:
Potential options include
More PATHS than 10, such that no Alliance can possibly 100% exploration.

Introduce COSTS to the equation. Defense kills was a sufficient Cost in AW 1.0, but is not necessarily the only cost that could be introduced.

Restructure the points Rubric such that the rewards for Exploration (90,000) and Boss kills (60,000) are not so disproportionate to Diversity (13,250) & Rating (< 2000)

AMEN to that☝️

Ron_H

And indeed we ranked up certain champs for AW and now they are worthless for that purpose because other members from your alliance did the same. You make us grind and spend money for certain champs.. people bought offers to rank up certain champs. But all of that is wasted..AGAIN!! And now we have to rank up crappy champs you normally woudnt rank up.

Do you really not keep things like that in mind when you come up with new ideas. Besides new champs that wil come in future that might be good for defence will now have lost alot of value. Cause seeing only 1 can be used in AW defence whats the point opening ton of crystals or grinding for them?

Quit trying to control wich champs we use to play the game. If your statistic tell you certain champs dont get used other then arena..maybe think about why they dont get used.. like spidey gwen (only champ in game with a sp1 that doesnt do damage) or luke cage or pheonix (with useless sig abilities).. and there are more.
But if champs get used to much in offence you nerve the **** out of them.. now this diversity bs. Just bring back defensive kill points.. that also brings back the fun of tactical placement

Kabam Miike

Hey All,

Thank you for the feedback on Alliance Wars and the recent changes that we made to the Mode!

We’ve made some further adjustments to the mode following the first week of Alliance Wars, and we’re not done yet! We had a set of goals from the get go to make Alliance Wars more fun, engaging, varied, and to address a lot of the concerns that you all had brought up over the course of Alliance Wars existence in game.

We agree we haven't hit those goals yet, but we expect this process to require some iteration based on data collection and feedback.

We're continuing to plan more adjustments and changes, and will be sure to update you all as we make progress. Thank you for your patience as we work to make Alliance Wars the best that it can be!

unknown

This content has been removed.

andrade5184

Kabam Miike wrote: »

Hey All,

Thank you for the feedback on Alliance Wars and the recent changes that we made to the Mode!

We’ve made some further adjustments to the mode following the first week of Alliance Wars, and we’re not done yet! We had a set of goals from the get go to make Alliance Wars more fun, engaging, varied, and to address a lot of the concerns that you all had brought up over the course of Alliance Wars existence in game.

We agree we haven't hit those goals yet, but we expect this process to require some iteration based on data collection and feedback.

We're continuing to plan more adjustments and changes, and will be sure to update you all as we make progress. Thank you for your patience as we work to make Alliance Wars the best that it can be!

what about rank down tickets @Kabam Miike so we can readjust our war defenders?

JJW

Ron_H wrote: »

All credit goes to @JJW

DD2 wrote: »

AMEN to that☝️

Thanks fellas.

vikky89

Kabam Miike wrote: »

Hey All,

Thank you for the feedback on Alliance Wars and the recent changes that we made to the Mode!

We’ve made some further adjustments to the mode following the first week of Alliance Wars, and we’re not done yet! We had a set of goals from the get go to make Alliance Wars more fun, engaging, varied, and to address a lot of the concerns that you all had brought up over the course of Alliance Wars existence in game.

We agree we haven't hit those goals yet, but we expect this process to require some iteration based on data collection and feedback.

We're continuing to plan more adjustments and changes, and will be sure to update you all as we make progress. Thank you for your patience as we work to make Alliance Wars the best that it can be!

Just give us alliance wars where we want to use our top champs and show our skills. Most of us were working towards ranking up our 5* to be more competitive in AW. After AW 2.0 I dont feel like ranking up anymore, except LOL all other content can be cleared with our 4*.

BigDaddyJoe

Kabam Miike wrote: »

Hey All,

Thank you for the feedback on Alliance Wars and the recent changes that we made to the Mode!

We’ve made some further adjustments to the mode following the first week of Alliance Wars, and we’re not done yet! We had a set of goals from the get go to make Alliance Wars more fun, engaging, varied, and to address a lot of the concerns that you all had brought up over the course of Alliance Wars existence in game.

We agree we haven't hit those goals yet, but we expect this process to require some iteration based on data collection and feedback.

We're continuing to plan more adjustments and changes, and will be sure to update you all as we make progress. Thank you for your patience as we work to make Alliance Wars the best that it can be!

Pretty vague response. How about let's get some more specifics into the set of goals you mentioned. A change of this magnitude should at least be met with a hand full of rank down tickets for our defenders. I understand Kabam, in a perfect scenario would want us to utilize all the champions for a defense but the problem is most people have already set their strategy with specific champs that took months to even a year to get them there.

DD2

@Kabam Miike

Please listen. The game HAS to be based on skill and NEVER about roster diversity or rating. You have to take out diversity because frankly it defeats the purpose of war. Skills win, not rosters or collections. Effectiveness matters. Please revert everything back to the old map and the old scoring system.

You can make slight changes without ruining the balance. Maybe adjust dexterity's relationship with MD so it becomes more of a skilled game?

The FUNNEST part of this game was working incredibly hard to find and rank up the most effective champs and take them to war against other teams. We've spent an enormous amount of time working this and to have it all worth nothing will kill everyone's motivation to play this game. Not all champs are equal, so why treat them that way?

You HAVE to get rid of diversity and defender ratings as part of the criteria for winning wars. Defender kills matter, effectiveness matters.

RagamugginGunner

DD2 wrote: »

Posting this for posterity.

All credit goes to @JJW

JJW wrote: »

As a statistician and analyst I intend to offer a suggestion or two regarding Alliance war.

"Game Theory is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."

In Game Theory all complex decisions can be reduced to a series of Choices within a given Environment in order to achieve desired Outcomes.

I won't bore you with descriptive analogies.

As this applies to Alliance War:
Desired Outcomes = defeat opposing alliance.
Environment = Alliance War map with 9 necessary routes + a given Point Rubric
Choices = Constrained by the environment such that an Alliance has exactly 1 strategic option.

The third item (Constrained Choices) is the visible complaint that you have with Alliance War 2.0, and is seemingly why everyone is upset.

The second item (Environment) is the root cause of the of the Constrained Choices problem.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Alliance War map allows the for the placement of 50 defenders across a map with 92 tiles, 54 of which are capable of containing a defender.
The Alliance War map can be traversed entirely by an alliance moving on as few as 9 paths.

Due to the relative high-value of Boss kills (20,000 each) and Exploration (300 per tile), there are no viable strategies that do not include full exploration. Therefore, those values (totaling 150,000)can be canceled and removed from the victory calculation.

Victory Calculation

= placement * (X1 - Y1) + diversity * (X2 -Y2) + kills (Y1 - X1) + rating * (X3 - Y3)

Where,
placement = 50
diversity = 125
kills = 50
uniquechamps = 106 (at the time of writing)*
rating = 0.02

X1 = Alliance A # defenders
X2 = Alliance A # unique defenders
X3 = Alliance A total defender rating (avg defender rating * X1)
Y1 = Alliance B # defenders
Y2 = Alliance B # unique defenders
Y3 = Alliance B # defender ratings (avg defender rating * X1)

* side-note this calculation is written with respect to the scoring system as presented within the Forums, not as presented within the game itself. I.E. this calculation is consistent with Alliance-Wide diversity.

With the above Victory Calculation in mind, there are now (2) potential strategic options, and only (1) viable option.

Option 1) Strong Defense, attempt to prevent Opposition from 100% Exploration
Option 2) 100% Exploration, Maximize Diversity, Maximize Defense Rating.

The Alliance War Map can be traversed and fully explored by 9 people on 9 routes. An Average Alliance with 10 members will have 1 member out of 10 reserved entirely as backup. So the Map environment does not prohibit 100% exploration.

There is no penalty for an attacker Knock Out so a given determined attacker could revive his entire team for 40% hp 15 times. More than enough to make it through any given path, albeit expensively.

The Alliance War node buffs are regarded as being weak and insufficient from prohibiting a determined assault.

Best possible outcome = Opposition is unable to take 1 or more boss tiles.
Most likely outcome = Opposition will 100% explore map.

Scenario 1 = Max Diversity, High Quality

Let's assume that two imaginary Alliances are able to field 150 defenders totaling 750,000 defense rating (avg defender = 5000). Both are able to provide 106/150 unique champions, both are able to 100% all three BGs.

The score for both teams would be 193,250

Scenario 2 = Minor Diversity, High Defense Quality

Let's assume that Alliance A executes strategic Option 2, while Alliance B forgoes diversity for maximum defender quality, fielding 3 identical battlegroups of 50 unique champions. Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 193,250
Alliance B = 186,250

Alliance B loses by a 7,000 spread, all Diversity points.

Scenario 3 = Minimum Diversity, Highest Defense Quality

Let's now assume that Alliance A executes strategic Option 2, while Alliance B miraculously is able to field the 30 teams of the exact same 5 strongest quality defenders. (probably full mystic teams). Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 193,250
Alliance B = 180,625

Alliance B loses by a 12,625 spread, all Diversity points.

Scenario 4 = Maximum Diversity, No Duplicates

Ok, let's say Alliance B thinks there is some advantage to ONLY fielding the 106 unique defenders. Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 191,050 (can only kill 106 defenders, but larger defense rating)
Alliance B = 186,650 (can kill 150 defenders, but smaller defense rating)

Alliance B loses by 4,400 points, all Defense Rating & Placement overcomes Kills.

When you chart those 4 strategies:

Only 2 Strategies actually have a viable outcome.

Max Diversity, High Quality can outmatch 3 of 4 potential opponent strategies, and tie against a matching strategy.
Max Diversity, No dupes has an opportunity to win against Min Diversity, High Quality.

GAME THEORY HAPPENING NOW

So, if you are to consider your own potential strategies, Min Diversity, High Quality has no chance of winning against any of the four opponent strategies.

When that happens in Game you discard that as a viable strategy, and you discard that strategy as a viable strategy for your opponent since they will arrive at the same conclusion. This effectively reduces the choice table.

Now you have 3 potential strategies rather than 4, as does your opponent.

Since we do not know in advance what the opponent will decide, we will assume that each potential strategy is equally likely for the opponent.

Max Diversity, High Quality has 1 chance to tie, and 2 chances to win, a 66% probability of success and a 33% probability to tie.
Minor Diversity, High Quality has 1 chance to lose, 1 chance to tie, and 1 chance to win, a 33% probability of success, and a 33% probability to fail.
Max Diversity, No Dupes has 2 chances to lose and 1 chance to win, a 33% probability of success, and 66% probability to fail.

ANOTHER REDUCTION

Since the Max Diversity, No Dupes strategy has a better chance to reward the opposition than me, I will remove that from my choice of viable strategies. Since I remove that choice for myself, I will assume that my opponent has come to the same conclusion:

And now we have arrived at the root of the problem.

Under the environment and conditions of Alliance War 2.0, there is only (1) viable strategy any rational Alliance can pursue.

If the only way you could play chess was Torre Attack Wagner Gambit, then you would probably not want to play chess.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So what can be done?

Change the Environment such that more than 1 strategem is viable:
Potential options include
More PATHS than 10, such that no Alliance can possibly 100% exploration.

Introduce COSTS to the equation. Defense kills was a sufficient Cost in AW 1.0, but is not necessarily the only cost that could be introduced.

Restructure the points Rubric such that the rewards for Exploration (90,000) and Boss kills (60,000) are not so disproportionate to Diversity (13,250) & Rating (< 2000)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't placing a 5000 dupe hurt more than placing anything at all? 50 points for a kill vs 10 points gained in PI.

DD2

Kabam, please listen. If you go through with AW 2.0 you will kill your game and everyone's motivation to play it.

It boggles my mind why DIVERSITY even has any relevance to defender effectiveness? Cause it doesn't and never will.

There's a reason people rank up Dormammus and Magiks instead of Spidey Gwens and Kamala Khans. It's cause the former is effective and the latter isn't.

It's that simple. We don't have a fetish for any specific champ, we seek the ones that are effective and avoid the one`s that aren't.

It's a game and a competition and the best and the smartest win. Don't make it any different. Changes that bring everyone to "an even playing field" is opposite of a fun competition. Everyone right now has the same long term chances to grow their accounts and rosters. It's all RNG. It's already an even playing for the most part.

Don't ruin this great game. Give us back the old map and the old scoring system. Reverting it back to 1.0 doesn't make you weak, it makes you look like you actually value what your customers are saying.

JJW

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

DD2 wrote: »

Posting this for posterity.

All credit goes to @JJW

JJW wrote: »

As a statistician and analyst I intend to offer a suggestion or two regarding Alliance war.

"Game Theory is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers."

In Game Theory all complex decisions can be reduced to a series of Choices within a given Environment in order to achieve desired Outcomes.

I won't bore you with descriptive analogies.

As this applies to Alliance War:
Desired Outcomes = defeat opposing alliance.
Environment = Alliance War map with 9 necessary routes + a given Point Rubric
Choices = Constrained by the environment such that an Alliance has exactly 1 strategic option.

The third item (Constrained Choices) is the visible complaint that you have with Alliance War 2.0, and is seemingly why everyone is upset.

The second item (Environment) is the root cause of the of the Constrained Choices problem.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Alliance War map allows the for the placement of 50 defenders across a map with 92 tiles, 54 of which are capable of containing a defender.
The Alliance War map can be traversed entirely by an alliance moving on as few as 9 paths.

Due to the relative high-value of Boss kills (20,000 each) and Exploration (300 per tile), there are no viable strategies that do not include full exploration. Therefore, those values (totaling 150,000)can be canceled and removed from the victory calculation.

Victory Calculation

= placement * (X1 - Y1) + diversity * (X2 -Y2) + kills (Y1 - X1) + rating * (X3 - Y3)

Where,
placement = 50
diversity = 125
kills = 50
uniquechamps = 106 (at the time of writing)*
rating = 0.02

X1 = Alliance A # defenders
X2 = Alliance A # unique defenders
X3 = Alliance A total defender rating (avg defender rating * X1)
Y1 = Alliance B # defenders
Y2 = Alliance B # unique defenders
Y3 = Alliance B # defender ratings (avg defender rating * X1)

* side-note this calculation is written with respect to the scoring system as presented within the Forums, not as presented within the game itself. I.E. this calculation is consistent with Alliance-Wide diversity.

With the above Victory Calculation in mind, there are now (2) potential strategic options, and only (1) viable option.

Option 1) Strong Defense, attempt to prevent Opposition from 100% Exploration
Option 2) 100% Exploration, Maximize Diversity, Maximize Defense Rating.

The Alliance War Map can be traversed and fully explored by 9 people on 9 routes. An Average Alliance with 10 members will have 1 member out of 10 reserved entirely as backup. So the Map environment does not prohibit 100% exploration.

There is no penalty for an attacker Knock Out so a given determined attacker could revive his entire team for 40% hp 15 times. More than enough to make it through any given path, albeit expensively.

The Alliance War node buffs are regarded as being weak and insufficient from prohibiting a determined assault.

Best possible outcome = Opposition is unable to take 1 or more boss tiles.
Most likely outcome = Opposition will 100% explore map.

Scenario 1 = Max Diversity, High Quality

Let's assume that two imaginary Alliances are able to field 150 defenders totaling 750,000 defense rating (avg defender = 5000). Both are able to provide 106/150 unique champions, both are able to 100% all three BGs.

The score for both teams would be 193,250

Scenario 2 = Minor Diversity, High Defense Quality

Let's assume that Alliance A executes strategic Option 2, while Alliance B forgoes diversity for maximum defender quality, fielding 3 identical battlegroups of 50 unique champions. Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 193,250
Alliance B = 186,250

Alliance B loses by a 7,000 spread, all Diversity points.

Scenario 3 = Minimum Diversity, Highest Defense Quality

Let's now assume that Alliance A executes strategic Option 2, while Alliance B miraculously is able to field the 30 teams of the exact same 5 strongest quality defenders. (probably full mystic teams). Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 193,250
Alliance B = 180,625

Alliance B loses by a 12,625 spread, all Diversity points.

Scenario 4 = Maximum Diversity, No Duplicates

Ok, let's say Alliance B thinks there is some advantage to ONLY fielding the 106 unique defenders. Both alliance can field champs avg defender rating = 5000

Alliance A = 191,050 (can only kill 106 defenders, but larger defense rating)
Alliance B = 186,650 (can kill 150 defenders, but smaller defense rating)

Alliance B loses by 4,400 points, all Defense Rating & Placement overcomes Kills.

When you chart those 4 strategies:

Only 2 Strategies actually have a viable outcome.

Max Diversity, High Quality can outmatch 3 of 4 potential opponent strategies, and tie against a matching strategy.
Max Diversity, No dupes has an opportunity to win against Min Diversity, High Quality.

GAME THEORY HAPPENING NOW

So, if you are to consider your own potential strategies, Min Diversity, High Quality has no chance of winning against any of the four opponent strategies.

When that happens in Game you discard that as a viable strategy, and you discard that strategy as a viable strategy for your opponent since they will arrive at the same conclusion. This effectively reduces the choice table.

Now you have 3 potential strategies rather than 4, as does your opponent.

Since we do not know in advance what the opponent will decide, we will assume that each potential strategy is equally likely for the opponent.

Max Diversity, High Quality has 1 chance to tie, and 2 chances to win, a 66% probability of success and a 33% probability to tie.
Minor Diversity, High Quality has 1 chance to lose, 1 chance to tie, and 1 chance to win, a 33% probability of success, and a 33% probability to fail.
Max Diversity, No Dupes has 2 chances to lose and 1 chance to win, a 33% probability of success, and 66% probability to fail.

ANOTHER REDUCTION

Since the Max Diversity, No Dupes strategy has a better chance to reward the opposition than me, I will remove that from my choice of viable strategies. Since I remove that choice for myself, I will assume that my opponent has come to the same conclusion:

And now we have arrived at the root of the problem.

Under the environment and conditions of Alliance War 2.0, there is only (1) viable strategy any rational Alliance can pursue.

If the only way you could play chess was Torre Attack Wagner Gambit, then you would probably not want to play chess.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So what can be done?

Change the Environment such that more than 1 strategem is viable:
Potential options include
More PATHS than 10, such that no Alliance can possibly 100% exploration.

Introduce COSTS to the equation. Defense kills was a sufficient Cost in AW 1.0, but is not necessarily the only cost that could be introduced.

Restructure the points Rubric such that the rewards for Exploration (90,000) and Boss kills (60,000) are not so disproportionate to Diversity (13,250) & Rating (< 2000)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't placing a 5000 dupe hurt more than placing anything at all? 50 points for a kill vs 10 points gained in PI.

+50 placement
-50 kill
+0 diversity (cause dupe)
+ 100 defense rating (5,000 x 0.02)

net +100

(quick napkin math, rubric from memory, so might be off)

RagamugginGunner

The scoring is:
50 for placed
.002 per PI
150 per kill

50 (placed) + 10 PI (5000*.002) - 150 (kill) = -90