Please just admit the root of what this is about.. you're pushing defender rating and diversity as the point values because it forces people to rank champs vs. hold resources for future use. You want people to spend.
It is absolutely ridiculous that you have a system where the decider in victory vs. loss is who did a better job of resetting their masteries before placing defenders so they could maximize the rating of their defense.
You have eliminated the one thing that should matter in the case of war... a players skill and effectiveness at clearing their lane or a map...
As for the "not clearing 100%"... get real.
You said no one would ever run map 6 multiple times a week... very low tier alliances are running it 3-4 times a week.. top tier running it all days.
You said it would take a very long time for anyone to clear LoL.. it took a week. And even after your fixes, it's being dominated left and right...
Bottom line is you continually have underestimated the lengths to which your player base will perform... and you are doing that again... every alliance that takes war seriously, regardless of tier, will 100% their map...because, regardless of the nodes you implement... there will always be a champion/mastery setup/play style combination that will make it fairly easy to over come in one, two or three fights...
And this will put us all in the same place as before... skill playing no factor in how a war is decided...
Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor.
Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot.
If I'm understanding this correctly and everything was about Defender rating than thats gonna smack the hell out of smaller alliances and push them further down the food chain with no hope of ever advancing. Growth? That would instantly get shut down while they forever enjoy their PHC victory shards with no hopes of ever getting to a tier for 5* shards.
Can a 8mil alliance compete with a 12 mil alliance? In the old system yes, because a 8 mil alliance could have players more skilled to drop defenders while the 12 mil alliance is just high rated cause they have played longer, but less skill. In old system that 8 mil alliance could be tier 3 through 5 while that 12 mil alliance struggles to hang in those same tiers. So from what I am understanding of your "theory" with the new system is that the 12 mil alliance will advance higher in the tiers because of their rating. And that 8 mil alliance will drop down, because skill no longer plays a factor.
Like I said, maybe I'm not understanding your view. Either way, Im playing a guessing game.
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.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
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.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
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 fixes it because even if both alliances 100% the map, defenders kills decides who wins. If you died more times then you loose. How hard is that to grasp? You guys can't make the maps hard enough for the top tiers to not still 100% the maps. Yes! Most are that Good!
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.
You’re messing around with War. War was fun considering how boring AQ is. Now you made War unpleasant. Why don’t you make these iterations with Bases?
Just admit that having two variables to decide a winner is a terrible decision. Every score could be the same between two alliances. Defender rating will now be the tie breaker. You didn’t accomplish anything. You just made the tie breaker something else we already had. How about making a scoring system on item use? Or average time it took to 100% all 3 BGs. Anything. Add something if it isn’t going to be Defender kills.
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.
At the risk of being repetitive, please explain how map changes are going to accomplish this. You say you want players to think about which defender to place on which node. But what the node does or where it is doesn't matter directly. What matters to the players is "if I place this defender here, what will the result be: good for me, or not good for me."
How do you expect a player to make that decision? Under 14.0, that question had an easy answer: place the defender that will get the most kills. Kills give points, and the more kills the defender gets the greater the chance the defender will also blockade the path. That's logical. That's how we made our decisions.
You say Kabam is adjusting the nodes to make them harder. No matter how easy they are or how hard they are, what should the players be thinking about which defender is better or worse? The only thing we can possibly think in 15.0 is "try to place a defender that can stop a player dead. If that can't happen, then it doesn't really matter what we place." But trying to stop an attacker from continuing to try to attack is your stated reason for removing defender kills. If we aren't allowed to compel an attacker to stop attacking, if we don't get points for defender kills, what's left to judge?
Kabam's position seems to be that if the nodes are harder, then it will matter which defenders get placed. But it only matters if being harder matters. And in 15.0, "harder" only matters if you stop the attacker cold. If you just kill him a couple times, that doesn't affect the war.
A defender isn't better because it hits harder or because he has a difficult to evade special attack or because he regenerates health. That's incidental. A defender is better if it helps us win a war. A defender has one and only one way to ultimately do that. Change the score. We don't get points when it kills an attacker. We only get points if the entire attacking alliance gives up on that path. Short of that, the only points we get is on placement. Nothing about the defender capabilities affects placement points.
Your question: How do you expect a player to make that decision?
The answer is that this still hasn't changed. Those defenders you're placing are still getting kills. Even if your defender doesn't stop a Summoner dead in their tracks, if you manage just one kill, you are still improving your defense in war.
That kill means that you are making them either use another champion to continue to compete, or use a revive/potion (of which there is a limited amount they can use every war). If they lose again, they have to make that choice again. So while that kill no longer grants you points, to say that there is no easy answer to your questions is not true. You still want to place your best defender for the situation/node that gets Kills, because Kills reduce your opponent's ability to move forward.
Just because there are no longer points awarded for a Defender Kill doesn't mean there is no value in defense. Reducing the Champions and offense that your Opponent has at their disposal is a victory. Every time you reduce your opponent's ability to output in the War, it's a victory.
Basically, just like before, you're trying to halt or negatively impact your Opponent's ability to progress, rather than have them award you points. The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
This is not a real reflection of scoring. We lose for placing our “best” defenders and I’m not even talking about diversity. I’m talking about defender rating—your best chance at winning is placing high PI champs that aren’t necessary good at defense bc 100% is basically guaranteed on these maps no matter who gets placed.
IThe reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
If this is true, than why are you the only one saying that while the rest of the community disagrees.
I get that this is another debate of "being at opposite ends of the spectrum," but the point of war should always be to shut down an enemy from advancing. This is why we build the heavy rosters for defense and build the heavy attack teams to counter their defense. Along with skill playing the ultimate factor.
If an alliance does lack the same skill as their opponent than at least they still have the chance to win if they have a solid defense in place.
In the higher tiers we see both opponents with a solid defense and ultimately the most skilled alliance wins. This is how it should always be. Anything else is not war.
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.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense.
When you take away the ability for one side to field an effective defense it is called a turkey shoot. When you take away the ability for both sides to field an effective defense it is called a demolition derby.
Apparently when you penalize both sides for fielding an effective defense and reward the side with the most colorful uniforms, it is called alliance war.
Yes I can be brief and yes I have a sense of humor and no someone has not hijacked my forum account.
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.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
Huh? Literally, what are you trying to say? Diversity isn’t the tiebreaker now except for with alliances of people who can’t do basic math and understand not having 100% diversity is a certain loss. The tiebreaker is defender rating.
And one thing you said in that whole thing made sense: make defender kills a small point value. That’s all I have been saying. If you are going to stick with requiring diversity (which is dumb, but whatver), defender kills could at least serve as the tiebreaker instead of defender rating so that you actually have an incentive to put your best (diverse) defenders in, instead of just your highest PI champs
In my opinion the people who complained all the time about the old war system war the same ones complaining they couldn't complete the monthly event quests and demanded it be easier.
Anytime there is a decent reward you will always have a newer player, less skilled player, or casual player demanding or expecting a means for them to have what everyone else is accomplishing.
@Kabam Miike We don’t care if we lose one defender and still have two remaining that are useless because someone can’t clear a node! Those people that can’t clear the node can simply go to a smaller rated alliance with a lower rating and tier. It’s simple, if you can’t clear go to a lower tier alliance
@Kabam Miike At the end of the day no one likes this ****. Listen to everything you’re hearing from the community and make it right. Why spend all the time to defend what you guys messed up instead of simply fixing it to what we want
@Kabam Miike At the end of the day no one likes this ****. Listen to everything you’re hearing from the community and make it right. Why spend all the time to defend what you guys messed up instead of simply fixing it to what we want
This is no longer about what the competitive players and end-gamers want.
. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. . .
This describes the current war perfectly. You already know going in if you have a chance to win or not.
Oh you were talking about the old system, where you could win against a higher rated alliance, not the one we have where it is physically impossible to win if matched against a higher rated alliance. Absolutely no chance to win whatsoever. You could 100% the map with no deaths and you will still lose. Do you get it yet?
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War.
I can't believe I'm gonna say this, but I actually agree with you.
In my neck of the woods when you eliminate the ability for one side to engage it's not called war either.
It's called getting your a$$ kicked.
Moral of the story? Learn how to not cry after the first punch and keep on fighting like a big boy win or lose.
Thats not actually war. War is when one attacks, the other retaliates. The strongest attack pushes the other into a defense mode and tries to force them to surrender or wipes them out.
This thread has become completely pointless. In the end it was Kabam's thoughts vs the Community's thoughts and we see how well it ended up. So much for feedback
Obviously time to move on from this thread. Good luck with it
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.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
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.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
Ok, I can't resist. One more comment and I'm done lol
But this is the part where he mentions again how he does all that as well. But we can't do a call out to point out how effective he is based on his war rating or size of alliance, but we are all aware.
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.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
Ok, I can't resist. One more comment and I'm done lol
But this is the part where he mentions again how he does all that as well. But we can't do a call out to point out how effective he is based on his war rating or size of alliance, but we are all aware.
This is why we hate the new system. This is not getting fixed with your changes. This war was bought and paid for by our opponent. I like the idea of diversity, but getting rid of defender kills entirely has made this a war of who is willing to spend the most. Yes, they had us on diversity. But if defender kills mattered, and just look at that disparity and tell me it shouldn’t, then diversity wouldn’t have been THE deciding factor. This is the scenario I see a exponentially more often than I EVER saw defender kills deciding the outcome. You’ve encouraged pay to win, intentionally or not. And frankly, I’m losing interest in this game more every day that this continues. And I know I’m not the only one.
This changes change nothing....LOL
Why u can't listen what your player want???
So many leave the game and more coming soon...
This is not a change, this is just a money grab....
We want AW that u can win with Skill and not with more diverstiy and defender Rating....
Change that defender Rating don't rated by Mastery....
AW will now so expensive....every time u need to change Mastery to Max PI Mastery and now use a lot of pots for 100%....and than u lose Because of defender rating
**** system
Comments
Please just admit the root of what this is about.. you're pushing defender rating and diversity as the point values because it forces people to rank champs vs. hold resources for future use. You want people to spend.
It is absolutely ridiculous that you have a system where the decider in victory vs. loss is who did a better job of resetting their masteries before placing defenders so they could maximize the rating of their defense.
You have eliminated the one thing that should matter in the case of war... a players skill and effectiveness at clearing their lane or a map...
As for the "not clearing 100%"... get real.
You said no one would ever run map 6 multiple times a week... very low tier alliances are running it 3-4 times a week.. top tier running it all days.
You said it would take a very long time for anyone to clear LoL.. it took a week. And even after your fixes, it's being dominated left and right...
Bottom line is you continually have underestimated the lengths to which your player base will perform... and you are doing that again... every alliance that takes war seriously, regardless of tier, will 100% their map...because, regardless of the nodes you implement... there will always be a champion/mastery setup/play style combination that will make it fairly easy to over come in one, two or three fights...
And this will put us all in the same place as before... skill playing no factor in how a war is decided...
Put defender kills back in as a measurement. NOW!
If I'm understanding this correctly and everything was about Defender rating than thats gonna smack the hell out of smaller alliances and push them further down the food chain with no hope of ever advancing. Growth? That would instantly get shut down while they forever enjoy their PHC victory shards with no hopes of ever getting to a tier for 5* shards.
Can a 8mil alliance compete with a 12 mil alliance? In the old system yes, because a 8 mil alliance could have players more skilled to drop defenders while the 12 mil alliance is just high rated cause they have played longer, but less skill. In old system that 8 mil alliance could be tier 3 through 5 while that 12 mil alliance struggles to hang in those same tiers. So from what I am understanding of your "theory" with the new system is that the 12 mil alliance will advance higher in the tiers because of their rating. And that 8 mil alliance will drop down, because skill no longer plays a factor.
Like I said, maybe I'm not understanding your view. Either way, Im playing a guessing game.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
I disagree with everything said here.
It fixes it because even if both alliances 100% the map, defenders kills decides who wins. If you died more times then you loose. How hard is that to grasp? You guys can't make the maps hard enough for the top tiers to not still 100% the maps. Yes! Most are that Good!
Then you will need to fix most champs. Cause only a handful of champ pose a challenge no matter how buffed up you make them.
Just admit that having two variables to decide a winner is a terrible decision. Every score could be the same between two alliances. Defender rating will now be the tie breaker. You didn’t accomplish anything. You just made the tie breaker something else we already had. How about making a scoring system on item use? Or average time it took to 100% all 3 BGs. Anything. Add something if it isn’t going to be Defender kills.
This is not a real reflection of scoring. We lose for placing our “best” defenders and I’m not even talking about diversity. I’m talking about defender rating—your best chance at winning is placing high PI champs that aren’t necessary good at defense bc 100% is basically guaranteed on these maps no matter who gets placed.
If this is true, than why are you the only one saying that while the rest of the community disagrees.
I get that this is another debate of "being at opposite ends of the spectrum," but the point of war should always be to shut down an enemy from advancing. This is why we build the heavy rosters for defense and build the heavy attack teams to counter their defense. Along with skill playing the ultimate factor.
If an alliance does lack the same skill as their opponent than at least they still have the chance to win if they have a solid defense in place.
In the higher tiers we see both opponents with a solid defense and ultimately the most skilled alliance wins. This is how it should always be. Anything else is not war.
When you take away the ability for one side to field an effective defense it is called a turkey shoot. When you take away the ability for both sides to field an effective defense it is called a demolition derby.
Apparently when you penalize both sides for fielding an effective defense and reward the side with the most colorful uniforms, it is called alliance war.
Yes I can be brief and yes I have a sense of humor and no someone has not hijacked my forum account.
Huh? Literally, what are you trying to say? Diversity isn’t the tiebreaker now except for with alliances of people who can’t do basic math and understand not having 100% diversity is a certain loss. The tiebreaker is defender rating.
And one thing you said in that whole thing made sense: make defender kills a small point value. That’s all I have been saying. If you are going to stick with requiring diversity (which is dumb, but whatver), defender kills could at least serve as the tiebreaker instead of defender rating so that you actually have an incentive to put your best (diverse) defenders in, instead of just your highest PI champs
Anytime there is a decent reward you will always have a newer player, less skilled player, or casual player demanding or expecting a means for them to have what everyone else is accomplishing.
I can't believe I'm gonna say this, but I actually agree with you.
In my neck of the woods when you eliminate the ability for one side to engage it's not called war either.
It's called getting your a$$ kicked.
Moral of the story? Learn how to not cry after the first punch and keep on fighting like a big boy win or lose.
This describes the current war perfectly. You already know going in if you have a chance to win or not.
Oh you were talking about the old system, where you could win against a higher rated alliance, not the one we have where it is physically impossible to win if matched against a higher rated alliance. Absolutely no chance to win whatsoever. You could 100% the map with no deaths and you will still lose. Do you get it yet?
Thats not actually war. War is when one attacks, the other retaliates. The strongest attack pushes the other into a defense mode and tries to force them to surrender or wipes them out.
Obviously time to move on from this thread. Good luck with it
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
Ok, I can't resist. One more comment and I'm done lol
But this is the part where he mentions again how he does all that as well. But we can't do a call out to point out how effective he is based on his war rating or size of alliance, but we are all aware.
I don't understand why Kabam is hell bent on keeping things in the game people don't want. Is it a pride thing?
Oh!!! He’s going to flag you!
This is why we hate the new system. This is not getting fixed with your changes. This war was bought and paid for by our opponent. I like the idea of diversity, but getting rid of defender kills entirely has made this a war of who is willing to spend the most. Yes, they had us on diversity. But if defender kills mattered, and just look at that disparity and tell me it shouldn’t, then diversity wouldn’t have been THE deciding factor. This is the scenario I see a exponentially more often than I EVER saw defender kills deciding the outcome. You’ve encouraged pay to win, intentionally or not. And frankly, I’m losing interest in this game more every day that this continues. And I know I’m not the only one.
Why u can't listen what your player want???
So many leave the game and more coming soon...
This is not a change, this is just a money grab....
We want AW that u can win with Skill and not with more diverstiy and defender Rating....
Change that defender Rating don't rated by Mastery....
AW will now so expensive....every time u need to change Mastery to Max PI Mastery and now use a lot of pots for 100%....and than u lose Because of defender rating
**** system