15.0 Alliance Wars Update Discussion Thread

17475777980120

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,135 ★★★★★
    R4GE wrote: »

    In many of your debates you will counter peoples thoughts and opinions buy using Kabams thoughts or what something is or was intended for. Ill use RDT's as an example: When people ask for them for reasons that are good for them you counter with "thats not what they were designed/intended for." And I'll agree, because you are right. And those people will go on and on and argue how they feel its right and good for them and choose to ignore you.

    On this thread you do the complete opposite and turn into those people. Your argument seems to be a case of something being good for you while others argue thats not what war was designed for. And you end up being the one going on and on with trying to find justification to something being best for you and not actually for the game as a whole.

    First of all, this is a Thread for feedback on the new system. When discussing issues that multiple Threads have been opened on and the response has been given, I will usually reiterate the response given. You are correct about that.
    I was asked to give my views and opinions, and I did so. I also offered what I would suggest. If people want to focus on the more personal view I have, that's up to them. That opinion is detached from the other issues I've outlined.
    It is not about what would benefit me personally. I'm not operating out of any motive. I described my thought on existing issues. I did so with the system as a whole in mind, and not my own or any other specific demographic or position in mind.
    I can choose to reiterate information shared, and I can also share my personal thoughts on it. I did so with hesitation because not everyone agrees with them. That still doesn't mean I don't have the ability to share them if I choose. I won't be criticized for that. They are ideas. Not demands. I will not debate them any further.
  • XroxfistXroxfist Member Posts: 18
    DNA3000 wrote: »

    Actually, when I look at those scores it seems the OP's alliance had the diversity advantage, and the other alliance won due to one more attacker kill and the associated exploration score (and slightly higher defender rating, but the old war also gave points for defender rating). If we remove diversity scoring they just would have lost by more.

    No matter how bad the current system is, you can't blame every close loss on the new system. If nothing else, it just undermines the valid claims against the system if the devs perceive that many of the complaints are not based in the real properties of the system, or if players are so irrationally angry that nothing they do will change that, so nothing should be done.

    Actually at some point when everyone gets used to diversity every war will automatically be decided by rating under this system so it’ll all be by this system.
  • This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,135 ★★★★★
    edited September 2017

    lol, too competitive? This game is literally called "Contest" of Champions and you're complaining about it being too competitive? Maybe it's time to find a new game chief.

    The game itself is a competition. Perhaps you missed the comment where I explained that view. Where the Players take it is what I view as top competitive and covetous. As in, manipulating the system to maintain Wins by any means necessary. Shell Allies, taking over Tiers by agreeing not to fight each other, Account Sharing, doing whatever it takes to maintain some sort of position. It has an effect on the entire system when a monopoly is created. Some methods may be legit, and some may not. When it gets to the point that "whatever it takes" includes questionable and unfair game tactics in general, I would call that too competitive, yes. The actual game itself is not. The place people take it is. To the point where if the possibility of losing comes, it's seen as some sort of injustice. That's about all I will say about that view.
  • HuluhulaHuluhula Member Posts: 263
    Since you dodged my question the first time, I’ll repeat it what’s stopping them from doing any of this now? @GroundedWisdom
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Member Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★

    The game itself is a competition. Perhaps you missed the comment where I explained that view. Where the Players take it is what I view as top competitive and covetous. As in, manipulating the system to maintain Wins by any means necessary. Shell Allies, taking over Tiers by agreeing not to fight each other, Account Sharing, doing whatever it takes to maintain some sort of position. It has an effect on the entire system when a monopoly is created. Some methods may be legit, and some may not. When it gets to the point that "whatever it takes" includes questionable and unfair game tactics in general, I would call that too competitive, yes. The actual game itself is not. The place people take it is. To the point where if the possibility of losing comes, it's seen as some sort of injustice. That's about all I will say about that view.

    I read that drivel earlier and it's still wrong. If you don't want a competitive game play a different one. Don't try to ruin MCOC and bring it down to your level.
  • R4GER4GE Member Posts: 1,530 ★★★★

    First of all, this is a Thread for feedback on the new system. When discussing issues that multiple Threads have been opened on and the response has been given, I will usually reiterate the response given. You are correct about that.
    I was asked to give my views and opinions, and I did so. I also offered what I would suggest. If people want to focus on the more personal view I have, that's up to them. That opinion is detached from the other issues I've outlined.
    It is not about what would benefit me personally. I'm not operating out of any motive. I described my thought on existing issues. I did so with the system as a whole in mind, and not my own or any other specific demographic or position in mind.
    I can choose to reiterate information shared, and I can also share my personal thoughts on it. I did so with hesitation because not everyone agrees with them. That still doesn't mean I don't have the ability to share them if I choose. I won't be criticized for that. They are ideas. Not demands. I will not debate them any further.

    I'm aware of what this thread is. I mentioned it in my comment before the one you chose to quote. You should read that one as well as it has much to do with your comments.

    Who asked you for your thought's and opinions? You mentioned you were asked for them, so a bit curious what you mean.

    After reading all that I'm unable to pinpoint a part where you you began to refute what I said. Your logic is flawed because you do want changes, but none that go back to the actual competitive part of War and makes this a true contest of alliance vs alliance and the victor being the actual better, stronger, and most skilled team. The longer comment that I previously made is the one you should try to touch on first if you want to counter me and have an actual debate on the meaning of war and whats needed to make it what it was actually designed for.
  • R4GER4GE Member Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    edited September 2017

    The game itself is a competition. Perhaps you missed the comment where I explained that view. Where the Players take it is what I view as top competitive and covetous. As in, manipulating the system to maintain Wins by any means necessary. Shell Allies, taking over Tiers by agreeing not to fight each other, Account Sharing, doing whatever it takes to maintain some sort of position. It has an effect on the entire system when a monopoly is created. Some methods may be legit, and some may not. When it gets to the point that "whatever it takes" includes questionable and unfair game tactics in general, I would call that too competitive, yes. The actual game itself is not. The place people take it is. To the point where if the possibility of losing comes, it's seen as some sort of injustice. That's about all I will say about that view.

    Where are you going with that? You think that the new system is a means to stop any of that? Shell alliances can still be a thing, wrong or not is another matter. Only a handful of alliances have the chance to make an attempt not to fight each other, but they do battle. I have seen threads on that but never seen any actual proof of it to make it anything other than a rumor. Not that its not true, I just haven't seen the proof. But again, even if it is true it can still happen with the new system.

    I'm not sure how you are able to determine someone has a monopoly in AW.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,135 ★★★★★
    I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.
  • HuluhulaHuluhula Member Posts: 263
    I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.

    But how are we supposed to understand where you’re coming from if you don’t fully explain it.
  • R4GER4GE Member Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    I didn't respond to the question because I didn't say the new system will resolve every issue I see with the old system. I simply listed the problems I saw. I have my theories on how this system will curb some of the issues which I will keep to myself for now. Some could be addressed more directly, but if I am correct, things will balance more with time. I'm not adding anything further than that.

    Oh, my bad. I thought that was the point in quoting and making a reply.
  • TomieCzechTomieCzech Member Posts: 79
    We've dropped a tier down with 4 losses in a row, nothing that had happened to us before this update. No matter what we do, the war is ALWAYS A TIE and it's always about 1-100 pts that decide. It's either defender rating, or diversity and it's ANNOYING!!! We had only had 2 or 3 ties like these in the history of Alliance Wars! Usually around 500 pts!! Only about once or twice both alliances managed to explore 100% or nearly 100% - it's every DAMN WAR NOW!!!

    WTF Kabam!!!!!

    There is often nothing any of us can do about it! In order to play this game, everyone needs to sit in front of another device to watch a life feed of conversation (LINE App etc.) and only place defence when everyone else knows about it!!!! This war two guys managed to join at the exact time and they both joined with duplicates. We were one diversity percentage away from winning the damn thing, but no, one technicality before the attack even starts decided about the war to our disadvantage.

    How were you testing the new mode, @Kabam Miike ????? It doesn't seem to have been even tested!!! Only perhaps for coding bugs, if it's stable or not, but not the concept, it's so F@#$%$ BROKEN it's unbelievable!!

    It's so sad once so brilliant team as KABAM is now releasing such SH#%$ out their doors.

    Do you need help? Why don't you ask for it BEFORE YOU RELEASE ALL THIS SH%$#!!!!!!

  • TomieCzechTomieCzech Member Posts: 79
    edited September 2017
    Why is anyone flagging my posts yo?! I'm expressing my and my alliances opinions, I'm not using foul language and I'm not being rude to anyone, especially not @Kabam Miike. He's not the one developing these changes, or deciding about them or releasing them. He's just the voice of Kabam and so everything I have to say to Kabam I'm telling him. Although he does post some weird statements, but those I guess are passed down onto him, so can't blame the guy for much.

    I'm gonna keep pounding at them UNTIL SOMEONE READS my comments and LEARNS TO TEST THEIR UPDATES BEFORE RELEASING THEM!!!!!!!!!
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,135 ★★★★★
    edited September 2017
    If that educated guess is me, then that would be incorrect.
  • bryndenriversbryndenrivers Member Posts: 443 ★★
    DJSergy wrote: »

    Anytime you put financial concerns ahead of gameplay quality it backfires, and nobody sits there with 2 perfectly good attackers. The removal of defender kills was done to encourage spending in all situations. Please just be frank about that. Defender kills was a skill based system and Its been replaced with defender diversity which has o skill involved. There is no way to encourage alliances that haven't spent in the Las t 2 years to all of a sudden start spending. Please return alliance wars to a skill based experience again if you don't want to put back defender kills. Put a timer on it so if there's a close matchquickest team wins, that involves coordination and skill. Regardless of what the developers say doing anything other than changing the map was a mistake, hope wars return to a skill based system. Tweaking the current system won't work, not that developers listened before the change when you got the emails about how changing wars was a bad idea.... that's my 2 cents
  • PhantomPhantom Member Posts: 228
    If that educated guess is me, then that would be incorrect.

    I do have to give you credit on this one; you aren't one to flag people unreasonably.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,135 ★★★★★

    lol. I totally have an awesome plan, I'm not going to tell you what it is but trust be it's totally awesome. This is getting silly.

    What's getting silly is the semantics over every comment I make. "I" don't have a plan. I offered suggestions as to what they could
    do to improve what is currently in place. I said I have theories on how some of the existing changes would curb some of the issues. Which I am choosing to keep to myself. For obvious reasons.
  • GodMan114GodMan114 Member Posts: 45
    How much longer must we put up with this STUPID AW setup?
    Their "fixes" aren't helping the underlying cause. Nearly every AW match is 100% to 100% and it comes down to defender rating and diversity. As long as all top alliances are willing to pay with items, it's going to be the same game over and over... I'm already bored of it. I already know a ton of people bored of it and saying if it's not fixed soon enough, it could be the end of their time with MCOC.

    Skill is no longer affecting the outcome of an alliance war matchup. Any AW match we've lost, we've had AT LEAST double the defender kills... this is just idiotic. I can't believe we are all falling for this mayhem and greed by Kabam.

    We know diversity is a good idea, but this new implementation is elementary. Every... single... person knows what the goal here by Kabam is. It's only a matter of time that this is going to go belly up. Mark my words. People will leave, or change will HAVE to be implemented. Pulling defender kills is just a ploy. They REALLY need to rethink what they're doing here. The changes I've seen haven't been fixing the underlying problem by any means.

    I've put a lot of time/money into this game. I'm already bored of AW and thinking about quitting. AW was the one thing I found extremely fun in this game, and I did everything else to help reach milestones and achieve items. If AW stays this way, I won't be the only one leaving... and I'm a paying member... so while I'm just one person, I'm sure I'm speaking for thousands, if not tens of thousands of other members.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,135 ★★★★★
    edited September 2017
    Phantom wrote: »

    What's silly is that you've repeatedly said you're done debating your point, tell us to stop talking, and then when we do, you bring it up again.

    I'm not debating my points. I'm responding to being quoted. I've never told anyone to stop talking.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Member Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    edited September 2017
    What bugs me is someone who is the leader of a small alliance that is close to 200k rating higher than his next highest and has 40k rated players talk about manipulation. This is clearly hypocritical. He is fighting players nowhere close to his roster strength yet wanting to eliminate the harder fights so he can lead his team to victory based on the strength of his roster in relation to those he faces.

    Sure, he is in a low tier, but his titles show how skill full he is. He's like the bully in the playground and likes it like that. He doesn't want to play with others at his level it seems, he wants to be the alpha so he has to surround himself with weaker players and is totally in favor of this new system. It's an endless wonder that he speaks of. Perhaps if he was really pushing himself he would find these rules ridiculous. There's a big difference between competitive play and manipulative play, and to see him condoning one in which he participates speaks volumes about his integrity.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,135 ★★★★★
    edited September 2017
    Phantom wrote: »

    You respond to be quoted until someone brings up a point you can't refute. Then you say you're done talking. If we try to continue. You just say "I'm done debating this topic" over and over. When we finally stop talking, someone else will say something not even directed at you, and you bring the point up again until you start losing the argument.

    I'm fine if you don't wanna debate something. We all have preferences, and you can't debate feelings. But you try to until there's an objective case against you. Then you stop the discussion till everyone forgets about it and start it back up again. Don't debate us or keep the debate going. You can't restart the argument every time it goes wrong. It's like resetting MCOC if you're losing a fight. It's cheap and petty.

    That's not the case at all. I'm not debating my views because it just furthers the reaction. I went into them in a general sense at first, then I outlined them in detail because it was pointed out that it came across as if I wasn't really saying much at all. Rather than be vague, I explained what I thought were the preexisting issues, and I offered what I thought would be good suggestions. It has nothing to do with an objective case. It's called being selective with what I contribute to. I specifically said that people can take or leave my thoughts. I can accept the fact that we have different views. People are free to debate on my ideas if they choose. I'm not. I don't care about winning or losing the debate because my thoughts are my own. I've commented, but I haven't engaged in a debate about it. Because of the difference of my ideas, I am not contributing to a passionate subject that could become any more personal than it already has. Quite honestly, I don't have to if I don't want to. That's not stopping anyone else from discussing them. As this is becoming off-topic, I won't be responding to this conversation either.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Member Posts: 2,286 ★★★★★
    Badrose wrote: »
    Remember: he will not debate any further.

    He won't stop - he's the biggest master debater on the forums
This discussion has been closed.