Mcord11758 wrote: » IAmNotUrMom wrote: » Mcord11758 wrote: » Only rational I can see for rank down tickets is rank 4 5* champs like juggs, antman, Cyclops. People who have ranked these champs have now wasted their t2 alpha. There is no making up for that If only Juggernaut or Antman could be used as a part of a special team that boosts critical damage for things like the Labyrinth of Legends. One can only dream... So you are saying they are worth 4 t2a just for the synergy? I use a 2* antman and it does what is needed to raise my starlord attack over 2100. Hardly worth ranking the 5*
IAmNotUrMom wrote: » Mcord11758 wrote: » Only rational I can see for rank down tickets is rank 4 5* champs like juggs, antman, Cyclops. People who have ranked these champs have now wasted their t2 alpha. There is no making up for that If only Juggernaut or Antman could be used as a part of a special team that boosts critical damage for things like the Labyrinth of Legends. One can only dream...
Mcord11758 wrote: » Only rational I can see for rank down tickets is rank 4 5* champs like juggs, antman, Cyclops. People who have ranked these champs have now wasted their t2 alpha. There is no making up for that
Schodiac wrote: » I believe that Rank down tickets are in order since our new defense teams will be based on mostly diversity instead of Defender kills.
IAmNotUrMom wrote: » Mcord11758 wrote: » IAmNotUrMom wrote: » Mcord11758 wrote: » Only rational I can see for rank down tickets is rank 4 5* champs like juggs, antman, Cyclops. People who have ranked these champs have now wasted their t2 alpha. There is no making up for that If only Juggernaut or Antman could be used as a part of a special team that boosts critical damage for things like the Labyrinth of Legends. One can only dream... So you are saying they are worth 4 t2a just for the synergy? I use a 2* antman and it does what is needed to raise my starlord attack over 2100. Hardly worth ranking the 5* Truthfully no. But it's a moot point when the topic of rank down tickets has been shut down.
DD2 wrote: » Sha59 wrote: » You honestly telling me its more fun facing 10+ Magiks, 10+ Dorm, 10+ Iceman, throw in a few other mystic champs and maybe the odd NC and there is your AW D in a nutshell. You know what was more fun? Suiting up with your buddies and waging war against another alliance using champs that you put your blood, sweat, and tears into. Getting a knot in your stomach after clicking "fight", wondering who you'll really go up against and if your choice of attacker was the right one. Hands shaking, knowing that it's not just a quest or arena fight, knowing full well that any screws up mean giving points to the other team. Watching in real-time with pleasure as your bad ass defenders turn the opposition into dust. Watching with nervously with your team on LINE wondering who's going to take it. Was it enough? They don't seem like they're moving? Will they make a last minute rush? Everyone be on guard! Will they break through our defenders and heal up for the boss?? Watching down to the wire who's strategy paid off and who's didn't. THAT WAS WAR. What we have now is a participation trophy for lazy leeches.
Sha59 wrote: » You honestly telling me its more fun facing 10+ Magiks, 10+ Dorm, 10+ Iceman, throw in a few other mystic champs and maybe the odd NC and there is your AW D in a nutshell.
Sha59 wrote: » Your kind of making the EXACT point of what was wrong with the old war format. I could name all 30 defenders in every single BG before you even started fighting... No Champ worked well on Unblockable SP2 Node at the higher levels of AW, purely because the champ was not stun immune, and was basically just cannon fodder for 1 champ. I cannot comment on the lower wars. The issue with the old war format at the top level was some of the utterly idiotic nodes that Kabam put on the Tier 1 AW Map, this they fixed on the new map, but also made some strange changes to the scoring system that you MAY or MAY NOT disagree with. People asking for Rankdown tickets, seriously not understandable. Who do they want to rank down and for who? Magik, Dorm, Hood are all A Grade mystics, and wouldnt be deranked. Nightcrawler is mainly a defensive champ agreed, however can be great on offense Antman ? Well there hasnt been a good science in forever so honestly your just gonna waste any science cats you get back on another useless science champ. Tech Champs where barely placed in AW Cosmic champs where barely placed in AW Skill champs where barely placed in AW. So who exactly do you want to rank down? some of the other mystic champs like Juggs, UC and so on? Even seen people asking for a refund on Mystic Dispersion which is utterly ridiculous because of how good it is on the offensive end. I can understand people being annoyed that they ranked for AW D and now kabam have made some changes to AW D. But as i have said before, this current format is way better than the boring oh look its another Magik, the 5th one on this path such fun. Atleast you get to fight some champs you didnt fight in a while.....
Kabam Miike wrote: » Crammer2020 wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » Crammer2020 wrote: » GREAT! 5 minis with the same 3 attackers on a much bigger map, means more revives needed! No defender kill points! BIG SPENDERS WIN EVERY WAR!!! FUNNN!!!!! Bigger map doesn't mean that you'll be having more fights. There will be just as many Defenders as there were before. ok, just as many defenders. But defender kills, in combo with 5 mini bosses means $$ wins every war. No more skill. Good job killing wars. The goal with the removal of Defender kills wasn't to increase the use of Potions or Revives, but to relieve the feeling of defeat that comes with taking one shot at a defender, losing, and feeling that you're now helping the other Alliance, so you stop playing, even though you have 2 perfectly good attackers still there.
Crammer2020 wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » Crammer2020 wrote: » GREAT! 5 minis with the same 3 attackers on a much bigger map, means more revives needed! No defender kill points! BIG SPENDERS WIN EVERY WAR!!! FUNNN!!!!! Bigger map doesn't mean that you'll be having more fights. There will be just as many Defenders as there were before. ok, just as many defenders. But defender kills, in combo with 5 mini bosses means $$ wins every war. No more skill. Good job killing wars.
Kabam Miike wrote: » Crammer2020 wrote: » GREAT! 5 minis with the same 3 attackers on a much bigger map, means more revives needed! No defender kill points! BIG SPENDERS WIN EVERY WAR!!! FUNNN!!!!! Bigger map doesn't mean that you'll be having more fights. There will be just as many Defenders as there were before.
Crammer2020 wrote: » GREAT! 5 minis with the same 3 attackers on a much bigger map, means more revives needed! No defender kill points! BIG SPENDERS WIN EVERY WAR!!! FUNNN!!!!!
Anonymous wrote: » @Sha59 I understand that some didn't like the old war format because of the multiple magiks and dorms placed everywhere and it seemed repetitive, but it's more the competitive nature of war that everyone was into. That made this game continually playable for a lot of people. I know you're in a top alliance and understand how things work. Many play the game to be on top of prestige, and that's fine. Others want a competition. They ranked their best defenders for that reason. I do, however, agree that rank down tickets are not necessary, just fix that part of the game.
Sha59 wrote: » Anonymous wrote: » @Sha59 I understand that some didn't like the old war format because of the multiple magiks and dorms placed everywhere and it seemed repetitive, but it's more the competitive nature of war that everyone was into. That made this game continually playable for a lot of people. I know you're in a top alliance and understand how things work. Many play the game to be on top of prestige, and that's fine. Others want a competition. They ranked their best defenders for that reason. I do, however, agree that rank down tickets are not necessary, just fix that part of the game. The point is valid, however Top prestige guys mostly have the biggest rosters, most R5 4* and so on and so on. It really doesnt bother me, old format, new format. I find the new format far more enjoyable, we actually have to 100% the map now Old format, only 4-5 alliances could even think about 100% our D, it just was not going to happen, unless they where dropping 1+ odin per member. There is a balance i agree, but honestly i find it laughable that people are complaining about cheap, easy shards, but then moan about everything else in this game being expensive. Like i said, the difference between Top Tier 1 wars and low level tier 1 and below is massive.
Anonymous wrote: » My only complaint about war before was top 50 or 100 rewards were not indicative of the difficulty to win. Winning or losing to mmxiv or iso8a or xilem should grant much higher rewards than a victory in tier 2 or 3.
Kabam Miike wrote: » PeacockJazz wrote: » @Kabam Miike We could really use an update about any tweaks that will be made to alliance war scoring and when we can expect the Diversity score to go back to alliance wide as it was intended. It is really hard to plan for an entire alliance when we don't know what to plan for and the longer it goes, the more people will rank up champs that might not even be needed if there are changes. This thread is spiraling and an update would help. Sorry guys, but we can't offer any more information until we have it. You guys know this. We're working with the team and are gathering information to share from you to them, and vice versa. Changes will not be made in a rush, and as we have said before, this will be an iterative process.
PeacockJazz wrote: » @Kabam Miike We could really use an update about any tweaks that will be made to alliance war scoring and when we can expect the Diversity score to go back to alliance wide as it was intended. It is really hard to plan for an entire alliance when we don't know what to plan for and the longer it goes, the more people will rank up champs that might not even be needed if there are changes. This thread is spiraling and an update would help.
Husky54 wrote: » Anonymous wrote: » My only complaint about war before was top 50 or 100 rewards were not indicative of the difficulty to win. Winning or losing to mmxiv or iso8a or xilem should grant much higher rewards than a victory in tier 2 or 3. This doesn't make any sense at all. Wanna get rewards you have to win.
TomieCzech wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » TomieCzech wrote: » "Diversity will be just a small amount of points - a tiebreaker..." Tiebreak my A** Actually, evidence suggests that it is in fact behaving that way. Unintentionally but not entirely unexpectedly, it is also helping to generate ties in the first place in combination with the new scoring system. Whoever designed the new scoring system apparently is unfamiliar with Nash equilibrium. The system contains a very strong and very nasty attractor to a bad equilibrium point: the maximal diversity point. It tends to encourage weaker but more diverse defense, which increases the likelihood for maximal exploration, which increases the odds of a close score, which increases the probability that the diversity score will become the deciding factor. And as players come to realize this as being a problem it encourages them to lock their defense strategy into perpetuating the problem indefinitely because no change in strategy can differentially improve matters. That's basically the textbook definition of a Nash equilibrium, for budding game theorists out there. This should have been a predictable flaw. As much as you made my head spin, I totally understand and agree. For those who passed out from the spinning - it's just really fancy way of saying - Kabam did a bad bad job and came up with a game design that is fundamentally not functional, so now they have to fix it, having very little idea about how, because they came up with this the first place, so we're all F^%#ED.
DNA3000 wrote: » TomieCzech wrote: » "Diversity will be just a small amount of points - a tiebreaker..." Tiebreak my A** Actually, evidence suggests that it is in fact behaving that way. Unintentionally but not entirely unexpectedly, it is also helping to generate ties in the first place in combination with the new scoring system. Whoever designed the new scoring system apparently is unfamiliar with Nash equilibrium. The system contains a very strong and very nasty attractor to a bad equilibrium point: the maximal diversity point. It tends to encourage weaker but more diverse defense, which increases the likelihood for maximal exploration, which increases the odds of a close score, which increases the probability that the diversity score will become the deciding factor. And as players come to realize this as being a problem it encourages them to lock their defense strategy into perpetuating the problem indefinitely because no change in strategy can differentially improve matters. That's basically the textbook definition of a Nash equilibrium, for budding game theorists out there. This should have been a predictable flaw.
TomieCzech wrote: » "Diversity will be just a small amount of points - a tiebreaker..." Tiebreak my A**
Thestoryteller6 wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » TomieCzech wrote: » "Diversity will be just a small amount of points - a tiebreaker..." Tiebreak my A** Actually, evidence suggests that it is in fact behaving that way. Unintentionally but not entirely unexpectedly, it is also helping to generate ties in the first place in combination with the new scoring system. Whoever designed the new scoring system apparently is unfamiliar with Nash equilibrium. The system contains a very strong and very nasty attractor to a bad equilibrium point: the maximal diversity point. It tends to encourage weaker but more diverse defense, which increases the likelihood for maximal exploration, which increases the odds of a close score, which increases the probability that the diversity score will become the deciding factor. And as players come to realize this as being a problem it encourages them to lock their defense strategy into perpetuating the problem indefinitely because no change in strategy can differentially improve matters. That's basically the textbook definition of a Nash equilibrium, for budding game theorists out there. This should have been a predictable flaw. Great analysis. Does removing defender kills also add to this, because now there's a way for a weaker alliance to match a stronger alliance in exploration and attacker kills?
JRock808 wrote: » As a software developer, it's appalling. You DO NOT DO iterative design in production, much less ANY design. Especially for something that people are expected to pay for.
LocoMotives wrote: » Well said @DNA3000. I really think the simplest solution to fix AW is to make diversity points equal to a single defender kill. Then there are actual choices to strategize and risk/reward incorporated in choosing what kind of defense to run (full diversity, strongest available, or a mixture of both). I can't see how to fix the idea of AW without having d kills involved in some manner.
DNA3000 wrote: » LocoMotives wrote: » Well said @DNA3000. I really think the simplest solution to fix AW is to make diversity points equal to a single defender kill. Then there are actual choices to strategize and risk/reward incorporated in choosing what kind of defense to run (full diversity, strongest available, or a mixture of both). I can't see how to fix the idea of AW without having d kills involved in some manner. I don't like the idea of diversity points in general. What if we implemented a "conservation of ninjitsu" principle (sorry for the tvtropes reference)? Suppose that if an alliance placed more than one copy of the same champ, each successive copy would be weaker. So the first Magik you place would be full strength. But the second one would be only 80% of the strength or something. The next one would be 60%. The fourth would be 50%. Pick the right numbers, something that eventually leveled off. And the game would choose which one was "first" by node number. The highest node number would be the "top" one. The second highest would be "second" as so forth. That way the bosses and miniboss nodes would get priority. This way nobody gets "points" at the start of the war for doing anything in particular. The incentive and disincentives for placing a diverse defense are built into the map and the combat, not in the scoring. This serves two purposes. First, instead of an abrupt transition where the first Dormammu is worth a ton of points and the second one is worth almost zero points (under the most recent revision a kill equals his placement, plus or minus a few points for rating), we now have a more gradual penalty where the first one is worth full points, and the second one is worth the same amount of points but is easier to kill, etc. This only works if we bring back some kind of defense side points, otherwise we will end up with too many ties. But we want to disguise defense points so people don't think they are getting penalized for trying and failing to kill the node. So what if we change the attacker points so that instead of just handing the attacker points for the kill, we give the attacker more points if they are a good attacker, which also means we give less points of the defender is a good defender. One way I can think of to do that is to use time. Suppose that we give the attacker points based on how much time it takes to defeat the node? This automatically factors in defensive kills in a sense, because if it takes multiple attackers to kill the node the tendency is for that time to be longer. Suppose we give the attacker 100 points per kill, but we divide that by the number of minutes it takes to kill the node. And for mathematical numberish scorey reasons lets make the first minute free. So if you kill the node within the first minute, you get 100 points. If you kill it in two minutes, 50 points. If you die in two minutes and then try again and kill it in 30 seconds with your second attacker, 40 points (100 / 2.5 minutes). This reincentivizes placing strong defenders because strong defenders in effect take points away from the attackers. But placing the same defender over and over makes them weaker, which hands the attacker points. Even in the very top tiers of war, even in tiers where everyone gets 100% complete, there is still a way to distinguish between good attackers and bad, between good defense and bad. This would be the second purpose: to return tactical decision making to the players. Instead of being told what to place, which the diversity system essentially does, this system hands the players a set of pros and cons and asks them to find their own balance point that trades them off against each other. And instead of the Nash equilibrium being at one extreme or the other, it is actually in a fuzzy middle of the game where you want diverse defenders, but you also want the strongest defenders, and there's no easy way to calculate the perfect balance between them. So different players and different alliances will likely compute different "optimal" strategies. Which means you could get diverse defense placement. And that's I think the important diversity. Not diversity of different champions. Diversity in unexpected map placements. I think this could be tweaked into a reasonable balance, although I admit I would want to think about the precise numbers to use. I'm just tossing out numbers to illustrate the principle at the moment. I would want to have top tier alliances playtest this for best balance between the attacker scoring and the defensive penalty. Maybe a minute is too long, and the defensive penalty almost certainly needs to be tweaked. This idea isn't perfect, but it does reward good attackers without penalizing defensive kills directly, it encourages diverse defense placement without awarding point advantages, and it strongly encourages direct attacker/defender competition again. I wouldn't say it "fixes" AW, but it shows it is possible to fix it even within the parameters that Kabam appears to be operating under and what I perceive the players' strongest complaints about 15.0 are. I also think it is less likely to encourage degenerate player behavior. Placing a bunch of 3* champs for diversity gets significantly punished.