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

I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".

Kabam Miike

Speeds80 wrote: »

It's not enough mike, another important change needed is portals to stop requiring energy, i took path 2 yesterday and played all day and could not get to the miniboss before I needed to sleep, nobody wants to check in twice as much for war as they used to. if we couldn't see class and minibosses it might almost be hard enough again to prevent 100%,

Portals require the same amount of energy that taking a step would. If another Summoner has already made it to that portal, that doesn't require any energy. If you take the portal to a place another player has already been, it will not cost energy. But if you're the first one to get there, and take the portal to somewhere another player has not been, then it will cost energy.

unknown

This content has been removed.

JRock808

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".

In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.

Anonymous

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".

Yes you can, it's war. Either you are better or worse than who you are fighting against. Been in the military for 16 years. If you don't kill the enemy, they kill you.

Kabam Miike

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Huluhula

JRock808 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".

In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.

That’s exactly the point I’m trying to make
WAR Should based on who has the best skill and strategy not who has the best collection

unknown

This content has been removed.

Voluntaris

MCB05 wrote: »

Portals are not the issue. They are annoying but not the issue. We still finish with hours to go.

Agreed, earlier today we cleared MMX's defense in one of our battlegroups with next to no items and 10 hours left in "War".

unknown

This content has been removed.

LeNoirFaineant

Couldn't disagree more. You will advance in the game just by playing whether or not you are actually good at it. I know lots of people with good rosters who aren't that good at the game. War, alliance vs. alliance, should be about which group is better, not which group has had more crystal luck or which has more players who have played longer. No interest in the kind of war you seem to be advocating.

LeNoirFaineant

For some reason 1/2 my post kept getting deleted after I posted it, but there it is @GroundedWisdom

RagamugginGunner

Kabam Miike wrote: »

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

It really isn't that hard Miike. It's simple math. Team A has 50 defender kills and team B has 100 defender kills. Team B wins. Honestly, 5th grade math.

Run477

I like that kabam has tried and I acknowledge @Kabam Miike belief that war should not be easy to 100% every time. I agree with that. I don’t think these changes will prevent 100% clear for moderately skilled alliances in almost every war. Obviously you are wedded to the no duplicate defenders per bg, and that’s fine (I guess). But I think what the dev team is missing was that even under old map, most kills came as a result of only a few tiles. Kills were being generated by difficult defenders—and frankly there isn’t 50 very difficult defenders in the game.

If you are going to stick with diversity, either 1. Nodes have to generate kills to possibly prevent 100% (which I don’t advocate), or 2. U need to give a defensive kill metric. The same problem exists—diversity plus rating will win nearly every war

Voluntaris

Kabam Miike wrote: »

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

well if that's you're intention, for it to be extremely difficult for both alliances to 100% the War map, then you're going to have to make the map SOOOO much harder than the old war map.

I'd prefer for skill/strategy to be brought back into the fold with Defender Kill Points though, makes it so much more fun/exciting.

JRock808

Kabam Miike wrote: »

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

So about those beta testers...

What you are doing is what we developers call Bill O'Reillying it. "LETS JUST DO IT LIVE!!"

Hint: it's not great.

GroundedWisdom

JRock808 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".

In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.

Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.

Anonymous

Kabam Miike wrote: »

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

We have usually been able to 100% our opponents maps in the old war system. Even with all the magiks, dorms, juggs, nightclub, etc. Most top 100 alliances have. How is this new design supposed to stop that?

Anonymous

Nightcrawlers *

JRock808

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

JRock808 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".

In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.

Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.

The way to increase rating is to spend. New high pi champs, more rank up materials. Money rules here, and the more they do, or don't do, and the more they say, or don't say, I'm thinking this is the idea. Drive new champ revenue up by forcing people to stay ahead of the curve to win a war while those behind have no shot despite skill level.

Enjoy AQ 2.0.

Voluntaris

Without Defender Kill Points/skill in Alliance War ... I recommend a game name change from: "Marvel CONTEST of Champions" .... to: "Marvel PARTICIPATION of Champions"

nuggz

This is pointless. Why is it so hard to understand what we are saying. In a war, the winner should NEVER be decided by pi/rating before the war has started. It's a WAR, a battle of skills, we don't care about the item usage or lack therof, we don't care about diversity staying or leaving. We just don't want to lose a war against an allaince that we clearly did better then

DNA3000

Kabam Miike wrote: »

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

I don't understand this comment. You stated earlier that the goal of removing defender kills was to prevent the situation where players would get killed and decide to stop fighting rather than continue on. But that's illogical: there are only two possibilities: the alliance completes the map, or at least one player stops moving forward. The only other corner cases are that they run out of time or their battle group isn't full.

You want to encourage the players to place defenders to try to stop the attackers, and you want to encourage the attackers to not stop moving forward. You can't really do both at the same time.

I'm also greatly concerned that the devs are concerned about alliances 100% completing the map when that is just a corner case of a more pervasive problem. It sounds like you're fine with both sides 99% completing the map and one side losing to diversity points because you can always blame both sides for not doing enough to win. That's very disturbing to me because it feels like Kabam is trying to change the game to undermine the ability to complain about the system, not trying to eliminate the problem from the system.

JRock808

In all honesty rating should not be a factor in war. You detract from the skill aspect of a skill based challenge mode. It should only come down to who performs better via kills and not being killed. That's it. Thats all people want. This is not rocket surgery.

Kabam Miike

Anonymous wrote: »

Kabam Miike wrote: »

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

We have usually been able to 100% our opponents maps in the old war system. Even with all the magiks, dorms, juggs, nightclub, etc. Most top 100 alliances have. How is this new design supposed to stop that?

That's a fair Question! The goal is to make the map more engaging and difficult so that where you place which Defenders is a conscious decision that you have to think about. If we find that you guys are all still 100%ing this Map, then it means that we need to make further revisions.

We're not through with this, and we plan on keeping a close eye on this next round. If there are more changes that need to be made, just like the last couple weeks, we'll make more.

Anonymous wrote: »

Nightcrawlers *

I kind of like Nightclub

Qwerty

Kabam Miike wrote: »

Anonymous wrote: »

Kabam Miike wrote: »

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

We have usually been able to 100% our opponents maps in the old war system. Even with all the magiks, dorms, juggs, nightclub, etc. Most top 100 alliances have. How is this new design supposed to stop that?

That's a fair Question! The goal is to make the map more engaging and difficult so that where you place which Defenders is a conscious decision that you have to think about. If we find that you guys are all still 100%ing this Map, then it means that we need to make further revisions.

We're not through with this, and we plan on keeping a close eye on this next round. If there are more changes that need to be made, just like the last couple weeks, we'll make more.

Anonymous wrote: »

Nightcrawlers *

I kind of like Nightclub

so what you're saying if this band aid fix doesn't work, then you're going to be to crank up the difficulty on the next band aid fix? why not make more compelling nodes where it makes sense to bring LC or spider gwen or something?

the trouble isn't the difficulty, it's the simplistic and STATIC scoring.

aside from completion of the maps there is no variable score that will make or break a war. we go in with the same diversity and defender rating throughout the entire war and NOTHING will change from it.

if kabam doesn't change the scoring method and just keeps turning up the difficulty, AW will turn into war of the credit cards.

Run477

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

JRock808 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".

In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.

Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.

I really don’t understand your comments at times. A lot of times, like this time you seem to just restate what kabam has said (and before you flag this which I know u love to do, I’m not calling you a shill or a kabam employee, just saying that you seem to repeat the talking points posts—not even saying you don’t honestly agree with them, just noting that observation).

But regardless, your post doesn’t address the problems with THIS war map. Can you honestly say that your alliance isn’t 100%ing the current map fairly easily? If they aren’t...I guess I can see why you advocate support for this new war setup. If you can’t 100% these maps, you didn’t have a prayer in old war.

Frankly, I don’t care what kabam’s states reason of a “penalty” was for defensive kills. We are trying to discuss what would improve the current setup. As I posted previously, if we are sticking with “diversity” (which we apparently are), the only way to keep diversity + rating not deciding every war is as follows:

1. Drastically make the map harder (which I do NOT advocate) and I have to assume u wouldn’t want to see a map filled with caltrops, degen, thorns (basically a combo of map 6 + max md/evade champs) either.

2. Give kill points so the ultimate outcome, at least partially, results in skill. Heck, u can even weight diversity points so high that an alliance effectively auto loses for placing a second no -diverse defender in the same bg. But at least you are putting in a metric for winning where the tie-breaker FIRST is diversity and SECOND is skill. As it is now, the metrics are diversity and money/length of time playing.

You expres a concern about how alliances didn’t have a shot against some bigger rosters under old system. To me, the new system GUARANTEES that result. I’m not sure how u argue otherwise. It’s just basic math.

World Eater

Can y'all please stop quoting and replying to GW so I don't have to gloss over such nonsense?

Game has gone way downhill this year. Good changes were made with the arena, but nerfs, bugs, poor service and a terrible vision for the future have killed what was once a fun game.

Voluntaris

Qwerty wrote: »

Kabam Miike wrote: »

Anonymous wrote: »

Kabam Miike wrote: »

NevvB wrote: »

Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.

We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps.

We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.

We have usually been able to 100% our opponents maps in the old war system. Even with all the magiks, dorms, juggs, nightclub, etc. Most top 100 alliances have. How is this new design supposed to stop that?

That's a fair Question! The goal is to make the map more engaging and difficult so that where you place which Defenders is a conscious decision that you have to think about. If we find that you guys are all still 100%ing this Map, then it means that we need to make further revisions.

We're not through with this, and we plan on keeping a close eye on this next round. If there are more changes that need to be made, just like the last couple weeks, we'll make more.

Anonymous wrote: »

Nightcrawlers *

I kind of like Nightclub

so what you're saying if this band aid fix doesn't work, then you're going to be to crank up the difficulty on the next band aid fix?

if that's the route they really want to go (keeping the skill removed from AW with no defender kill points), they're going to need to add Labyrinth of Legends nodes to AW tier 1 --- it'll still suck though since higher defender rating will still always win at high competitive levels.