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

GroundedWisdom

R4GE wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.

I don't think many if anyone is debating what problems the devs believe existed, or what the devs did to address them. Almost the entirety of the discussion surrounding the AW changes has revolved around a) were those problems significant enough to address, b) are the changes the devs made reasonable ways to address those problems, c) what the side effects are of those changes, and d) taken as a whole, does the new AW system present a reasonable alliance competition platform.

Just separating the two. Meaning, I'm owning my thoughts and not adding conjecture as to what their intentions were.

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.

Xroxfist

DNA3000 wrote: »

JRock808 wrote: »

If you had killed that last defender you would have won.

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.

unknown

This content has been removed.

RagamugginGunner

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

WOK wrote: »

@GroundedWisdom @Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.

Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.

@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.

What I said is I'm for Diversity and the removal of Defender Kills. I am not in support of a revert. It's also pretty clear that's not happening. As for solid evidence, that's already been presented by the issues that have existed. Whether the current system resolves those or not, I don't debate. It needs work. Here are the issues I see that existed in the previous War schematic, and I will not go into whether they were issues or not because that seems to be the source of a great deal of argument. These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
1. Monopoly on Tiers. Both as a result of the maximizing of Defender Kills accumulated from overpowered Matches and an abundance of the same overpowered Defense, and the various other forms of monopolizing (Shell Allies, arrangements to "peck off" lower Allies by avoiding fighting people in said agreements, etc).
2. Discouraging Players from participating by having a penalty for Defender Kills. Which may be a profitable way to accumulate Wins, and may be viewed as skill by some, but it translates into unavoidable roadblocks for others. It ruins the experience when you have to sacrifice effort for losing.
3. The existence of multiple, similar Champs in BGs. Not only monotonous, it also increases the challenge 10-fold. Various Champs and buffs have been added since Wars began, and Players have maximized efficiency accordingly, but it has created a very diminished experience for others.
4. Stagnancy. Outlined in the other issues, there was very little movement among Tiers, creating a separation between those who have said buffed Champs in multiples, and those who are trying to advance with what they have.
5. Overemphasis on the "Top Tier Champs". As a result of the drive for the same few Champs, Players have become set in a way of playing that has really affected the way they view all Champs. Not at all mentioned by any Kabam representative, it's my personal view that Diversity will encourage people to use Champs they have ignored otherwise. The game has over 100 Champs. It's not about acquiring the select few for domination. That's a very limited way to play. It means Resources are being wasted out of group conscience, and those Resources are meant to be used.
6. The addition of Max 5*s and 6*s. Which is not far off. People may view it as too easy, but these Champs will primarily be among select few Allies in the beginning. When placed in the old Map, the difficulty will be amplified greatly. That means in the old system, further roadblocks and stagnancy for others, and the issues I've mentioned are magnified.
7. It's become too competitive. I would almost say covetous. That's not a statement so much as my opinion.
8. It's time for a change. It's been the better part of 2 years that the game has had Wars, and it's changed greatly. More changes are coming. I have no doubt that the meta they've introduced is partly preparing for the future.

Now, as for your request for suggestions, my personal suggestion is to adjust the Diversity scoring to reflect the "tiebreaker" effect they've mentioned. I wouldn't suggest making Defender Kills a significant metric because it contradicts the idea of Diversity. That will be the bigger focus. If at all, introduce it as a small metric. Say, 5-10 Points per Kill. To encourage people to use more of their Rosters, I would suggest including more Nodes with small Buffs that accommodate a range of Champs. I would also suggest scaling the Paths like Expert Proving Grounds, where some Paths are harder than others. I wouldn't suggest increasing the difficulty too greatly because after all, all ranges of Players are participating. There's very little else I would change, except the mathematical balancing which I'm sure they could work out. I personally feel that the emphasis on Defender Rating is how the system is actually balancing itself with the mismatches and it will take time to do so. That's all I can say for now. I'm really not trolling or being controversial. My views and ideas are different than the majority. So, people can take or leave my thoughts.

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.

GroundedWisdom

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

WOK wrote: »

@GroundedWisdom @Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.

Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.

@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.

What I said is I'm for Diversity and the removal of Defender Kills. I am not in support of a revert. It's also pretty clear that's not happening. As for solid evidence, that's already been presented by the issues that have existed. Whether the current system resolves those or not, I don't debate. It needs work. Here are the issues I see that existed in the previous War schematic, and I will not go into whether they were issues or not because that seems to be the source of a great deal of argument. These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
1. Monopoly on Tiers. Both as a result of the maximizing of Defender Kills accumulated from overpowered Matches and an abundance of the same overpowered Defense, and the various other forms of monopolizing (Shell Allies, arrangements to "peck off" lower Allies by avoiding fighting people in said agreements, etc).
2. Discouraging Players from participating by having a penalty for Defender Kills. Which may be a profitable way to accumulate Wins, and may be viewed as skill by some, but it translates into unavoidable roadblocks for others. It ruins the experience when you have to sacrifice effort for losing.
3. The existence of multiple, similar Champs in BGs. Not only monotonous, it also increases the challenge 10-fold. Various Champs and buffs have been added since Wars began, and Players have maximized efficiency accordingly, but it has created a very diminished experience for others.
4. Stagnancy. Outlined in the other issues, there was very little movement among Tiers, creating a separation between those who have said buffed Champs in multiples, and those who are trying to advance with what they have.
5. Overemphasis on the "Top Tier Champs". As a result of the drive for the same few Champs, Players have become set in a way of playing that has really affected the way they view all Champs. Not at all mentioned by any Kabam representative, it's my personal view that Diversity will encourage people to use Champs they have ignored otherwise. The game has over 100 Champs. It's not about acquiring the select few for domination. That's a very limited way to play. It means Resources are being wasted out of group conscience, and those Resources are meant to be used.
6. The addition of Max 5*s and 6*s. Which is not far off. People may view it as too easy, but these Champs will primarily be among select few Allies in the beginning. When placed in the old Map, the difficulty will be amplified greatly. That means in the old system, further roadblocks and stagnancy for others, and the issues I've mentioned are magnified.
7. It's become too competitive. I would almost say covetous. That's not a statement so much as my opinion.
8. It's time for a change. It's been the better part of 2 years that the game has had Wars, and it's changed greatly. More changes are coming. I have no doubt that the meta they've introduced is partly preparing for the future.

Now, as for your request for suggestions, my personal suggestion is to adjust the Diversity scoring to reflect the "tiebreaker" effect they've mentioned. I wouldn't suggest making Defender Kills a significant metric because it contradicts the idea of Diversity. That will be the bigger focus. If at all, introduce it as a small metric. Say, 5-10 Points per Kill. To encourage people to use more of their Rosters, I would suggest including more Nodes with small Buffs that accommodate a range of Champs. I would also suggest scaling the Paths like Expert Proving Grounds, where some Paths are harder than others. I wouldn't suggest increasing the difficulty too greatly because after all, all ranges of Players are participating. There's very little else I would change, except the mathematical balancing which I'm sure they could work out. I personally feel that the emphasis on Defender Rating is how the system is actually balancing itself with the mismatches and it will take time to do so. That's all I can say for now. I'm really not trolling or being controversial. My views and ideas are different than the majority. So, people can take or leave my thoughts.

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.

Huluhula

Since you dodged my question the first time, I’ll repeat it what’s stopping them from doing any of this now? @GroundedWisdom

RagamugginGunner

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

WOK wrote: »

@GroundedWisdom @Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.

Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.

@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.

What I said is I'm for Diversity and the removal of Defender Kills. I am not in support of a revert. It's also pretty clear that's not happening. As for solid evidence, that's already been presented by the issues that have existed. Whether the current system resolves those or not, I don't debate. It needs work. Here are the issues I see that existed in the previous War schematic, and I will not go into whether they were issues or not because that seems to be the source of a great deal of argument. These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
1. Monopoly on Tiers. Both as a result of the maximizing of Defender Kills accumulated from overpowered Matches and an abundance of the same overpowered Defense, and the various other forms of monopolizing (Shell Allies, arrangements to "peck off" lower Allies by avoiding fighting people in said agreements, etc).
2. Discouraging Players from participating by having a penalty for Defender Kills. Which may be a profitable way to accumulate Wins, and may be viewed as skill by some, but it translates into unavoidable roadblocks for others. It ruins the experience when you have to sacrifice effort for losing.
3. The existence of multiple, similar Champs in BGs. Not only monotonous, it also increases the challenge 10-fold. Various Champs and buffs have been added since Wars began, and Players have maximized efficiency accordingly, but it has created a very diminished experience for others.
4. Stagnancy. Outlined in the other issues, there was very little movement among Tiers, creating a separation between those who have said buffed Champs in multiples, and those who are trying to advance with what they have.
5. Overemphasis on the "Top Tier Champs". As a result of the drive for the same few Champs, Players have become set in a way of playing that has really affected the way they view all Champs. Not at all mentioned by any Kabam representative, it's my personal view that Diversity will encourage people to use Champs they have ignored otherwise. The game has over 100 Champs. It's not about acquiring the select few for domination. That's a very limited way to play. It means Resources are being wasted out of group conscience, and those Resources are meant to be used.
6. The addition of Max 5*s and 6*s. Which is not far off. People may view it as too easy, but these Champs will primarily be among select few Allies in the beginning. When placed in the old Map, the difficulty will be amplified greatly. That means in the old system, further roadblocks and stagnancy for others, and the issues I've mentioned are magnified.
7. It's become too competitive. I would almost say covetous. That's not a statement so much as my opinion.
8. It's time for a change. It's been the better part of 2 years that the game has had Wars, and it's changed greatly. More changes are coming. I have no doubt that the meta they've introduced is partly preparing for the future.

Now, as for your request for suggestions, my personal suggestion is to adjust the Diversity scoring to reflect the "tiebreaker" effect they've mentioned. I wouldn't suggest making Defender Kills a significant metric because it contradicts the idea of Diversity. That will be the bigger focus. If at all, introduce it as a small metric. Say, 5-10 Points per Kill. To encourage people to use more of their Rosters, I would suggest including more Nodes with small Buffs that accommodate a range of Champs. I would also suggest scaling the Paths like Expert Proving Grounds, where some Paths are harder than others. I wouldn't suggest increasing the difficulty too greatly because after all, all ranges of Players are participating. There's very little else I would change, except the mathematical balancing which I'm sure they could work out. I personally feel that the emphasis on Defender Rating is how the system is actually balancing itself with the mismatches and it will take time to do so. That's all I can say for now. I'm really not trolling or being controversial. My views and ideas are different than the majority. So, people can take or leave my thoughts.

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.

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.

R4GE

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

R4GE wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.

I don't think many if anyone is debating what problems the devs believe existed, or what the devs did to address them. Almost the entirety of the discussion surrounding the AW changes has revolved around a) were those problems significant enough to address, b) are the changes the devs made reasonable ways to address those problems, c) what the side effects are of those changes, and d) taken as a whole, does the new AW system present a reasonable alliance competition platform.

Just separating the two. Meaning, I'm owning my thoughts and not adding conjecture as to what their intentions were.

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.

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.

R4GE

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

WOK wrote: »

@GroundedWisdom @Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.

Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.

@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.

What I said is I'm for Diversity and the removal of Defender Kills. I am not in support of a revert. It's also pretty clear that's not happening. As for solid evidence, that's already been presented by the issues that have existed. Whether the current system resolves those or not, I don't debate. It needs work. Here are the issues I see that existed in the previous War schematic, and I will not go into whether they were issues or not because that seems to be the source of a great deal of argument. These are my views on what problems existed, and what the actual changes were set out to do has been stated by staff.
1. Monopoly on Tiers. Both as a result of the maximizing of Defender Kills accumulated from overpowered Matches and an abundance of the same overpowered Defense, and the various other forms of monopolizing (Shell Allies, arrangements to "peck off" lower Allies by avoiding fighting people in said agreements, etc).
2. Discouraging Players from participating by having a penalty for Defender Kills. Which may be a profitable way to accumulate Wins, and may be viewed as skill by some, but it translates into unavoidable roadblocks for others. It ruins the experience when you have to sacrifice effort for losing.
3. The existence of multiple, similar Champs in BGs. Not only monotonous, it also increases the challenge 10-fold. Various Champs and buffs have been added since Wars began, and Players have maximized efficiency accordingly, but it has created a very diminished experience for others.
4. Stagnancy. Outlined in the other issues, there was very little movement among Tiers, creating a separation between those who have said buffed Champs in multiples, and those who are trying to advance with what they have.
5. Overemphasis on the "Top Tier Champs". As a result of the drive for the same few Champs, Players have become set in a way of playing that has really affected the way they view all Champs. Not at all mentioned by any Kabam representative, it's my personal view that Diversity will encourage people to use Champs they have ignored otherwise. The game has over 100 Champs. It's not about acquiring the select few for domination. That's a very limited way to play. It means Resources are being wasted out of group conscience, and those Resources are meant to be used.
6. The addition of Max 5*s and 6*s. Which is not far off. People may view it as too easy, but these Champs will primarily be among select few Allies in the beginning. When placed in the old Map, the difficulty will be amplified greatly. That means in the old system, further roadblocks and stagnancy for others, and the issues I've mentioned are magnified.
7. It's become too competitive. I would almost say covetous. That's not a statement so much as my opinion.
8. It's time for a change. It's been the better part of 2 years that the game has had Wars, and it's changed greatly. More changes are coming. I have no doubt that the meta they've introduced is partly preparing for the future.

Now, as for your request for suggestions, my personal suggestion is to adjust the Diversity scoring to reflect the "tiebreaker" effect they've mentioned. I wouldn't suggest making Defender Kills a significant metric because it contradicts the idea of Diversity. That will be the bigger focus. If at all, introduce it as a small metric. Say, 5-10 Points per Kill. To encourage people to use more of their Rosters, I would suggest including more Nodes with small Buffs that accommodate a range of Champs. I would also suggest scaling the Paths like Expert Proving Grounds, where some Paths are harder than others. I wouldn't suggest increasing the difficulty too greatly because after all, all ranges of Players are participating. There's very little else I would change, except the mathematical balancing which I'm sure they could work out. I personally feel that the emphasis on Defender Rating is how the system is actually balancing itself with the mismatches and it will take time to do so. That's all I can say for now. I'm really not trolling or being controversial. My views and ideas are different than the majority. So, people can take or leave my thoughts.

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.

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.

GroundedWisdom

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.

Huluhula

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

TomieCzech

@Kabam Miike

Speaking for myself and my alliance:

1) WE'RE NOT PATIENT, WE'RE PISSED AND INSULTED!!!

2) " ...will be an iterative process - one that we are dedicated to. We have greatly appreciated all of the constructive feedback..." - DO IT WHILE YOU'RE PREPARING BIG UPDATES AND CHANGES, NOT AFTER YOU RELEASE SOMETHING INSULTING AND BROKEN LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO!!!!!

3) "...diversity dependant on Battlegroups, not based on the entire Alliance" - HOW PATHETIC!!! Unintentional mistakes work out better for the game and the player base than ALL THE INTENTIONAL CHANGES!!!!

4)"We will continue to make more iterations and adjustments until we have fulfilled our goals..." DO IT IN-HOUSE, BEHIND THE CURTAINS!!! WHY ARE YOU BOTHERING US WITH THIS BROKEN NONSENSE???? GIVE US THE OLD WAR BACK, WORK ON THE NEW ONE, COLLECT FEEDBACK FROM US WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT AND WHEN IT'S READY, TEST IT FIRST WITHIN A CLOSED GROUP AND THEN PUT IT ONLINE!! DO YOU WANT US TO BE TELLING YOU HOW TO DO YOUR JOB EACH TIME????? IT'S EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU RELEASE SOME DRAMATIC CHANGES, IT'S BROKEN AND IT'S GARBAGE AND IT'S INSULTING YOUR PLAYER BASE!

5) "Stay tuned!" - WE'RE PISSED AND WE'RE STAYING THAT WAY UNTIL IT'S FIXED!!!

R4GE

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

TomieCzech

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%$#!!!!!!

TomieCzech

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!!!!!!!!!

Mcord11758

You can take an educated guess who flagged you

GroundedWisdom

If that educated guess is me, then that would be incorrect.

Anonymous

bryndenrivers

DJSergy wrote: »

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 amount of items that any user can use remains the same, so every Alliance Member can still only Revive/Heal 15 times. This hasn't changed. Additionally, 5 Minibosses doesn't mean that any one person will be taking on more than 1.

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.

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 amount of items that any user can use remains the same, so every Alliance Member can still only Revive/Heal 15 times. This hasn't changed. Additionally, 5 Minibosses doesn't mean that any one person will be taking on more than 1.

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.

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

RagamugginGunner

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

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.

Phantom

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

GroundedWisdom

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

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.

Phantom

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

GodMan114

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.

GroundedWisdom

Phantom wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Phantom

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Phantom wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

Kpatrix

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.

GroundedWisdom

Phantom wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Phantom wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

Badrose

Remember: he will not debate any further.

Snizzbar

Badrose wrote: »

Remember: he will not debate any further.

He won't stop - he's the biggest master debater on the forums