Saving Resources to the point that they're expiring is really not a wise choice when you can use them to Rank something. Spider-Gwen is used often as an example, but she's literally 1 out of over 100. Whereas people used the same few over and over in the old system. Better is all relative to the uses. The use has changed. Which is why they are introducting new Nodes, and that's also why some are lost at the idea of Diversity. It's not about the same few Champs. People can say they're better, but that's really relative.
The Leaderboard may be for those who are into it, but Rating is not worthless. Far from it. Many things can be determined from Rating. We saw that with the Adjustment Packages, and how people were upset they missed the cutoff. Rating is a significant cumulative metric.
I would go further, but it's really going off-topic, so I will just leave it with the comment that Ranking Champs is how we progress, both in the game, and in War. We may not be able to Rank everything at once, but that's certainly the goal for anyone who wants to progress fully. It's no different in War where Ranking Champs increases your chance of winning. Ranking different Champs opens more possibilities for people than the same Champs used over and over.
Saving Resources to the point that they're expiring is really not a wise choice when you can use them to Rank something. Spider-Gwen is used often as an example, but she's literally 1 out of over 100. Whereas people used the same few over and over in the old system. Better is all relative to the uses. The use has changed. Which is why they are introducting new Nodes, and that's also why some are lost at the idea of Diversity. It's not about the same few Champs. People can say they're better, but that's really relative.
The Leaderboard may be for those who are into it, but Rating is not worthless. Far from it. Many things can be determined from Rating. We saw that with the Adjustment Packages, and how people were upset they missed the cutoff. Rating is a significant cumulative metric.
I would go further, but it's really going off-topic, so I will just leave it with the comment that Ranking Champs is how we progress, both in the game, and in War. We may not be able to Rank everything at once, but that's certainly the goal for anyone who wants to progress fully. It's no different in War where Ranking Champs increases your chance of winning. Ranking different Champs opens more possibilities for people than the same Champs used over and over.
Your spamming them same nonsense over an over. You have stated many many many times your done but come back an spam the same e stuff, you do know that is a ToS violation
Your spamming them same nonsense over an over. You have stated many many many times your done but come back an spam the same e stuff, you do know that is a ToS violation
If you think there's someone spamming with repetitive arguments, one reasonable strategy is to ignore them -- especially if either you're not getting anything out of the discussion, or you don't think they're approaching it in good faith. I'm ambivalent about ignoring folks as I'd like to hear contrary opinions -- but sometimes that's the only real option.
On topic: looks like we'll have another week of boring and meaningless wars. :-( I'm still participating as losing one player means our alliance would lose (! you can't make up the points from missed defenders !), but it feels like a chore ... sort of like AQ map 5 on days 1-2 (day 3+ isn't hard, but mistakes start to matter).
I have him on my ignore list an have since the day the feature was introduced. However am still able to see his comments when he is quoted. I really hope kabam can change this an stop the quotes from displaying blocked users
Answer the real problem here!!!
Defender Rating should not decide the outcome of a war. The nodes won't make a difference.
In the end all our points will be tied up regardless of the node adjustments except for defender rating.
What's the big deal here????
Why is kabam holding on to this, being stubborn, and not looking at the facts?
Big problem here... and a problem that kabam seems to be completely blind to.
Member of a tier 1 alliance (2800+ rating). I hear y’all wanna make war “difficult” again. But I’m looking through the nodes, and I see the same old ****.
Not sure if y’all know this, but at a higher tier of war, WE DON’T GET HIT. We all have optimized attack teams to help us with that. The past month of “war” has been nothing but a sparring match. We don’t use items, the opponent doesn’t use items, both teams 100% even if we already know we’ve lost.
We do it because there’s nothing else to do in game.
It might surprise you but most of the top tier players are done with all the content. They have 100%ed all of act 5 (which I really like the design of, and appreciate the work y’all put into it) and are also done with 1+ lanes of LOL.
At this point I have no incentive to do my remaining 4 paths of lol considering how much time/money they cost. I don’t want another 4/55 just to stick on defense for a high defender rating.
Kabam, you’re lost touch with your more advanced players (I can go on a limb and say even a growing players feels the same way).
War HAS TO be about SKILL. Not how much I’m willing to spend on turning on suicides or buy champ boosts (if you’re wondering, it’s costing us 700 units per war, and we as an alliance decided that the last war was the last time we’re gonna fork over our hardearned units to such an idiotic system.
The other day I soloed a 4/55 dormammu war boss. I looked around, but couldn’t find a **** to give. It took our opponents 19 tries to take our boss. They won. By 100 points of defender rating.
The game has always been about progressing our Rosters. While some play the Prestige Race and focus on Ranking certain Champs only, the game has always been about progressing through Ranking everything. That's why we have a Leaderboard based on Rating. In this sense, it means that progressing in War is a reflection of that as well. Not just a closed system that involves the same Champs being the focus and excluding others.
While everyone is sticking to facts you drop opinions. This game has NEVER been about ranking your entire roster. If any bit of that was true the resources would be in max abundance. Fact is, they aren't and that causes the issues with diversity. You literally just said the complete opposite of what every one else is saying. No matter how you argue it, our options on who we want to rank up has been taken away from us. There is no circling around that.
This game is about strategy, something you bounce around on. One minute you say there is strategy, next minute you say there is none. Using strategy you rank the BEST champ for the task at hand. If you are fortunate enough, at some point you can focus on ranking all your champs once every thing else is.
And lets not ignore the fact that many of us are talking about r5 4*s and r4 5* champs. Naturally we take many 4* champs to r4 for arenas. But we are arguing who we are being forced to r5 and waste resources on. Let me know when you have reached the goal of taking all your 4* champs to r5.
Saving Resources to the point that they're expiring is really not a wise choice when you can use them to Rank something.
Says who? YOU? What resources you think everyone is letting expire? t3, no....we can easily use or sell those. t4 basic, nah, we can use them for r4 champs for arenas. t4 class catalysts? Oh yeah, those people are smart to hold onto. You don't get 3 science t4cc and waste them instantly on spider gwen. You play smart, use some STRATEGY, and wait for the right champ that can be of the best use.
You love to constantly comment on what we are saying on this thread, yet actually have no clue or understanding what we are saying and dealing with in our realm of the game.
The game has always been about progressing our Rosters. While some play the Prestige Race and focus on Ranking certain Champs only, the game has always been about progressing through Ranking everything. That's why we have a Leaderboard based on Rating. In this sense, it means that progressing in War is a reflection of that as well. Not just a closed system that involves the same Champs being the focus and excluding others.
You can keep repeating the same statement but it doesn't mean its correct.
You're free to disagree. There is a difference between how people choose to play, and how the game is designed.
Link me to any mention of thats how the game was designed. You think because there's a ratings leaderboard that that simply means "you should rank your entire roster." Thats a minor aspect of the game that no one focuses on but a very very small select few. Champs are designed to do all different things and you rank based on who can get you through content the best and use your resources wisely.
The game has always been about progressing our Rosters. While some play the Prestige Race and focus on Ranking certain Champs only, the game has always been about progressing through Ranking everything. That's why we have a Leaderboard based on Rating. In this sense, it means that progressing in War is a reflection of that as well. Not just a closed system that involves the same Champs being the focus and excluding others.
While everyone is sticking to facts you drop opinions. This game has NEVER been about ranking your entire roster. If any bit of that was true the resources would be in max abundance. Fact is, they aren't and that causes the issues with diversity. You literally just said the complete opposite of what every one else is saying. No matter how you argue it, our options on who we want to rank up has been taken away from us. There is no circling around that.
This game is about strategy, something you bounce around on. One minute you say there is strategy, next minute you say there is none. Using strategy you rank the BEST champ for the task at hand. If you are fortunate enough, at some point you can focus on ranking all your champs once every thing else is.
And lets not ignore the fact that many of us are talking about r5 4*s and r4 5* champs. Naturally we take many 4* champs to r4 for arenas. But we are arguing who we are being forced to r5 and waste resources on. Let me know when you have reached the goal of taking all your 4* champs to r5.
Saving Resources to the point that they're expiring is really not a wise choice when you can use them to Rank something.
Says who? YOU? What resources you think everyone is letting expire? t3, no....we can easily use or sell those. t4 basic, nah, we can use them for r4 champs for arenas. t4 class catalysts? Oh yeah, those people are smart to hold onto. You don't get 3 science t4cc and waste them instantly on spider gwen. You play smart, use some STRATEGY, and wait for the right champ that can be of the best use.
You love to constantly comment on what we are saying on this thread, yet actually have no clue or understanding what we are saying and dealing with in our realm of the game.
The guy has 1 r5 4* champ, stating a fact an in no way shaming so keep your flags to yourself. He is always trying to argue an comment on content an issues that he doesn't have experience in
These node adjustments will bring the difficulty of the Maps closer to where they were in the last iteration of Alliance Wars, and place more emphasis on the choices you make with Defenders and the nodes you choose to place them on.
We’ll be continuing to monitor how these changes affect Alliance Wars, and will continue to make adjustments as necessary until we make Alliance Wars into the mode we know it can be! Once you’ve had a chance to run the map a few times, pop back here to share your thoughts and provide us with your feedback on it!
Saving Resources to the point that they're expiring is really not a wise choice when you can use them to Rank something. Spider-Gwen is used often as an example, but she's literally 1 out of over 100. Whereas people used the same few over and over in the old system. Better is all relative to the uses. The use has changed. Which is why they are introducting new Nodes, and that's also why some are lost at the idea of Diversity. It's not about the same few Champs. People can say they're better, but that's really relative.
The Leaderboard may be for those who are into it, but Rating is not worthless. Far from it. Many things can be determined from Rating. We saw that with the Adjustment Packages, and how people were upset they missed the cutoff. Rating is a significant cumulative metric.
I would go further, but it's really going off-topic, so I will just leave it with the comment that Ranking Champs is how we progress, both in the game, and in War. We may not be able to Rank everything at once, but that's certainly the goal for anyone who wants to progress fully. It's no different in War where Ranking Champs increases your chance of winning. Ranking different Champs opens more possibilities for people than the same Champs used over and over.
I don't have a problem with the things you say. I don't agree or disagree with your statement/opinions.
The problem I have is that you talk as if you work there or are privileged to inside information. If you are that's great, but you should disclose that.
If you don't work there then it doesn't matter a hill of beans to me when you say what the game (or AW) was meant or not meant to be. It's all just assumptions on your part.
War is seriously out of control now. We used to have a 2000 war rating, and we consistently used to play and beat alliances that were bigger than us. Why? Because of smart placement which racked up defender kills, and skillful offensive players who could kill bosses with minimal deaths. Now we have lost 5 wars in a row and war rating has dropped over 300 points. We are 9 million now, and every war we are matched up with an alliance that is 1-2 million rating higher, just like before. But whereas before we could beat them with skill and smarts, now we have no chance of winning because of defender rating. We get 100%, they get 100% and we lose on defender rating. We put our highest ranked champs, and we still lose. It's like we are being punished. This is so frustrating and ridiculous. I have 5-6 people who might leave within a week because everyone hates losing, and Kabam is not doing the one thing that can fix this - bringing back defender kills. Today's war the opponent has over 115 deaths and we have 50. Yet we might still lose because of defender rating. When everyone leaves the game and Kabam can't sustain the business, they can look back at the changes that were made in war as the reason.
War is seriously out of control now. We used to have a 2000 war rating, and we consistently used to play and beat alliances that were bigger than us. Why? Because of smart placement which racked up defender kills, and skillful offensive players who could kill bosses with minimal deaths. Now we have lost 5 wars in a row and war rating has dropped over 300 points. We are 9 million now, and every war we are matched up with an alliance that is 1-2 million rating higher, just like before. But whereas before we could beat them with skill and smarts, now we have no chance of winning because of defender rating. We get 100%, they get 100% and we lose on defender rating. We put our highest ranked champs, and we still lose. It's like we are being punished. This is so frustrating and ridiculous. I have 5-6 people who might leave within a week because everyone hates losing, and Kabam is not doing the one thing that can fix this - bringing back defender kills. Today's war the opponent has over 115 deaths and we have 50. Yet we might still lose because of defender rating. When everyone leaves the game and Kabam can't sustain the business, they can look back at the changes that were made in war as the reason.
Totally agree. I know people will just tell me to stop whining but THIS IS WHY DEFENDER KILLS MATTER!!!!
Harder nodes won't matter here, the same groups will just revive through and win on defender rating just the same.
War is boring, nodes are cake, system in broken. Bring back the old war format!
Also how lame is it that teleports cost energy? Isn't the whole damn purpose of a teleport to save time and energy? You guys crapped the bed, rolled around, crapped again and tried to tell us that it would somehow get better.
Everything about alliance wars both blows and sucks at the same time. Congratulations you guys achieved a damned anomaly of modern science!
I use to spend hundred and hundred a week buying deal, and been playing this game for over 2 years, ever since this AW update, i am not giving them a penny. If this AW doesnt change. Bye
We are yet another victim of the broken aw system. We had 19 more defense kills and we lost. We performed better than our opponents yet we lost. Bring back defender kills. Make them only half the points attacker kills if you want but bring them back.
We are yet another victim of the broken aw system. We had 19 more defense kills and we lost. We performed better than our opponents yet we lost. Bring back defender kills. Make them only half the points attacker kills if you want but bring them back.
Only 19? I have an example of 95 more defender kills resulting in a loss
We are yet another victim of the broken aw system. We had 19 more defense kills and we lost. We performed better than our opponents yet we lost. Bring back defender kills. Make them only half the points attacker kills if you want but bring them back.
That's what happens when you don't place for diversity, there is no reason why you shouldn't have 150 diversity every war, or 100 if you only run 2 bgs
We are yet another victim of the broken aw system. We had 19 more defense kills and we lost. We performed better than our opponents yet we lost. Bring back defender kills. Make them only half the points attacker kills if you want but bring them back.
Not only you failed with your diversity after a month of new AW, but you also failed to black out anything in those screenshots. Well done
We are yet another victim of the broken aw system. We had 19 more defense kills and we lost. We performed better than our opponents yet we lost. Bring back defender kills. Make them only half the points attacker kills if you want but bring them back.
Not only you failed with your diversity after a month of new AW, but you also failed to black out anything in those screenshots. Well done
I thought I had blacked it out enough and from my phone screen it looked like I had. You don’t have to be such an ass about it man. Most of us agree AW is broken right now. Having your defense hold off an attack but losing war because of defender rating or diversity sucks. Then, you have situations where you have lower defense rating because not everyone has high champs and have to place 3/30s to increase diversity. It makes no sense.
"As we’ve collected data, and gathered your feedback, we have been making adjustments as we’ve gone along, each time getting closer to our goals that we’ve made for Alliance Wars, which are to make the mode more varied, fun and engaging."
I don't think Kabam has gotten any closer to making AW fun at all. It's not engaging. It's boring. There are too many empty tiles and teleports. People use 5 energy and fight one person. That's not fun or engaging. It's definitely varied, but that's not a good thing. I don't want to fight captain america ww2 on defense because he's easy to kill and that's not fun. Bringing back defender kills would make war more engaging. People who have to make decisions about whether to try to revive and kill an enemy, or whether an extra death would cost them the game, instead of blindly spending until every node is down, which is what will continue to happen.
Saving Resources to the point that they're expiring is really not a wise choice when you can use them to Rank something. Spider-Gwen is used often as an example, but she's literally 1 out of over 100. Whereas people used the same few over and over in the old system. Better is all relative to the uses. The use has changed. Which is why they are introducting new Nodes, and that's also why some are lost at the idea of Diversity. It's not about the same few Champs. People can say they're better, but that's really relative.
The Leaderboard may be for those who are into it, but Rating is not worthless. Far from it. Many things can be determined from Rating. We saw that with the Adjustment Packages, and how people were upset they missed the cutoff. Rating is a significant cumulative metric.
I would go further, but it's really going off-topic, so I will just leave it with the comment that Ranking Champs is how we progress, both in the game, and in War. We may not be able to Rank everything at once, but that's certainly the goal for anyone who wants to progress fully. It's no different in War where Ranking Champs increases your chance of winning. Ranking different Champs opens more possibilities for people than the same Champs used over and over.
I don't have a problem with the things you say. I don't agree or disagree with your statement/opinions.
The problem I have is that you talk as if you work there or are privileged to inside information. If you are that's great, but you should disclose that.
If you don't work there then it doesn't matter a hill of beans to me when you say what the game (or AW) was meant or not meant to be. It's all just assumptions on your part.
I'd rather hear that directly from Kabam.
I never said I work for them. I don't have to work for them to have an understanding of the overall design of the game. I have the same information as everyone else. I'm just not swayed by one specific way of playing. Which means I can look at it with a more detached view. Theories and opinions are exactly why we're here. To discuss them. The metrics are significant. While some focus on Ranking certain Champs alone, there is still a value to everything else. At the end of the day, Diversity means focusing on other Champs in War, and War is only one aspect of the game. Ranking anything has never been worthless overall. It is progression.
As we’ve collected data, and gathered your feedback, we have been making adjustments as we’ve gone along, each time getting closer to our goals that we’ve made for Alliance Wars, which are to make the mode more varied, fun and engaging.
I know I'm asking a question unlikely to be directly answered, but by what possible metric could you be thinking that the war is getting "closer" to anything? I'm struggling to figure that out. The players that wanted diversity at any cost already have that: they cannot be getting anything closer to that goal. The players that want direct competition don't have that, and cannot get it so long as attack performance is not valued in the points calculation. The changes are fiddling around with secondary things like map difficulty and progress-side points that only indirectly value attacker performance and cannot distinguish between alliances with comparable map exploration capability.
Is there really a large contingent of players that is saying they are fine with no defender kills and no attacker performance per node equivalent, fine with diversity deciding matches before they begin, fine with assignment-based battlegroup placement, fine with roster rating escalation in defense driving AW, but just think the nodes need tweaking? If so, where are they?
I know the precepts of the religion of iterative number tweaking, better than most. Kabam seems to be taking it on faith that if they don't want to change these numbers, but do want to change those numbers, then there always exists a set of numbers that will fix a problem, even if the problem is that players actually want you to change the first set of numbers. Like if players complain about a champions damage but you don't want to change the damage, there exists a buff to armor rating that will compensate for that.
I feel, and I believe many players feel the same way but can't express it in the same way, that I'm debating religion with Kabam, not game design. Kabam believes religiously that there exists a set of numbers you can put on the nodes that will make players accept the current implementation of highly valued defense diversity, even if their specific complaint is that they don't want defender diversity to decide wars. They think if they keep changing them, they will get "closer" to the right numbers and then finally get close enough to be successful.
There are no such numbers. This is not difficult to prove. The frustrating part is that even though these kinds of changes are completely incompatible with the primary set of complaints about Alliance War, there seems to be no acknowledgement of that fact. Kabam seems to want to claim the changes will address those complaints without actually making any changes that have any chance to address those complaints. I think players would rather be told what they want is no longer what Kabam wants war to be, then be told that in spite of what they know to be true they should just wait and see because the changes eventually will help them.
As we’ve collected data, and gathered your feedback, we have been making adjustments as we’ve gone along, each time getting closer to our goals that we’ve made for Alliance Wars, which are to make the mode more varied, fun and engaging.
I know I'm asking a question unlikely to be directly answered, but by what possible metric could you be thinking that the war is getting "closer" to anything? I'm struggling to figure that out. The players that wanted diversity at any cost already have that: they cannot be getting anything closer to that goal. The players that want direct competition don't have that, and cannot get it so long as attack performance is not valued in the points calculation. The changes are fiddling around with secondary things like map difficulty and progress-side points that only indirectly value attacker performance and cannot distinguish between alliances with comparable map exploration capability.
Is there really a large contingent of players that is saying they are fine with no defender kills and no attacker performance per node equivalent, fine with diversity deciding matches before they begin, fine with assignment-based battlegroup placement, fine with roster rating escalation in defense driving AW, but just think the nodes need tweaking? If so, where are they?
I know the precepts of the religion of iterative number tweaking, better than most. Kabam seems to be taking it on faith that if they don't want to change these numbers, but do want to change those numbers, then there always exists a set of numbers that will fix a problem, even if the problem is that players actually want you to change the first set of numbers. Like if players complain about a champions damage but you don't want to change the damage, there exists a buff to armor rating that will compensate for that.
I feel, and I believe many players feel the same way but can't express it in the same way, that I'm debating religion with Kabam, not game design. Kabam believes religiously that there exists a set of numbers you can put on the nodes that will make players accept the current implementation of highly valued defense diversity, even if their specific complaint is that they don't want defender diversity to decide wars. They think if they keep changing them, they will get "closer" to the right numbers and then finally get close enough to be successful.
There are no such numbers. This is not difficult to prove. The frustrating part is that even though these kinds of changes are completely incompatible with the primary set of complaints about Alliance War, there seems to be no acknowledgement of that fact. Kabam seems to want to claim the changes will address those complaints without actually making any changes that have any chance to address those complaints. I think players would rather be told what they want is no longer what Kabam wants war to be, then be told that in spite of what they know to be true they should just wait and see because the changes eventually will help them.
Couldn't agree more. It's basically:
Users: bring back defender kills
Kabam: Ok guys, we will make diversity by bg now
Users: bring back defender kills
Kabam: ok, ok, we will set diversity at a lower value
Users: bring back defender kills
Kabam: alright we hear you, we will make the nodes harder
Users: bring back defender kills
Kabam: we have listened to the feedback and we are almost at our goal. this is good.
Comments
The Leaderboard may be for those who are into it, but Rating is not worthless. Far from it. Many things can be determined from Rating. We saw that with the Adjustment Packages, and how people were upset they missed the cutoff. Rating is a significant cumulative metric.
I would go further, but it's really going off-topic, so I will just leave it with the comment that Ranking Champs is how we progress, both in the game, and in War. We may not be able to Rank everything at once, but that's certainly the goal for anyone who wants to progress fully. It's no different in War where Ranking Champs increases your chance of winning. Ranking different Champs opens more possibilities for people than the same Champs used over and over.
Your spamming them same nonsense over an over. You have stated many many many times your done but come back an spam the same e stuff, you do know that is a ToS violation
I have him on my ignore list an have since the day the feature was introduced. However am still able to see his comments when he is quoted. I really hope kabam can change this an stop the quotes from displaying blocked users
Answer the real problem here!!!
Defender Rating should not decide the outcome of a war. The nodes won't make a difference.
In the end all our points will be tied up regardless of the node adjustments except for defender rating.
What's the big deal here????
Why is kabam holding on to this, being stubborn, and not looking at the facts?
PERFECT!!! Couldn't have said it any better.
While everyone is sticking to facts you drop opinions. This game has NEVER been about ranking your entire roster. If any bit of that was true the resources would be in max abundance. Fact is, they aren't and that causes the issues with diversity. You literally just said the complete opposite of what every one else is saying. No matter how you argue it, our options on who we want to rank up has been taken away from us. There is no circling around that.
This game is about strategy, something you bounce around on. One minute you say there is strategy, next minute you say there is none. Using strategy you rank the BEST champ for the task at hand. If you are fortunate enough, at some point you can focus on ranking all your champs once every thing else is.
And lets not ignore the fact that many of us are talking about r5 4*s and r4 5* champs. Naturally we take many 4* champs to r4 for arenas. But we are arguing who we are being forced to r5 and waste resources on. Let me know when you have reached the goal of taking all your 4* champs to r5.
Says who? YOU? What resources you think everyone is letting expire? t3, no....we can easily use or sell those. t4 basic, nah, we can use them for r4 champs for arenas. t4 class catalysts? Oh yeah, those people are smart to hold onto. You don't get 3 science t4cc and waste them instantly on spider gwen. You play smart, use some STRATEGY, and wait for the right champ that can be of the best use.
You love to constantly comment on what we are saying on this thread, yet actually have no clue or understanding what we are saying and dealing with in our realm of the game.
Link me to any mention of thats how the game was designed. You think because there's a ratings leaderboard that that simply means "you should rank your entire roster." Thats a minor aspect of the game that no one focuses on but a very very small select few. Champs are designed to do all different things and you rank based on who can get you through content the best and use your resources wisely.
The guy has 1 r5 4* champ, stating a fact an in no way shaming so keep your flags to yourself. He is always trying to argue an comment on content an issues that he doesn't have experience in
Wrong.
I don't have a problem with the things you say. I don't agree or disagree with your statement/opinions.
The problem I have is that you talk as if you work there or are privileged to inside information. If you are that's great, but you should disclose that.
If you don't work there then it doesn't matter a hill of beans to me when you say what the game (or AW) was meant or not meant to be. It's all just assumptions on your part.
I'd rather hear that directly from Kabam.
Totally agree. I know people will just tell me to stop whining but THIS IS WHY DEFENDER KILLS MATTER!!!!
Harder nodes won't matter here, the same groups will just revive through and win on defender rating just the same.
Also how lame is it that teleports cost energy? Isn't the whole damn purpose of a teleport to save time and energy? You guys crapped the bed, rolled around, crapped again and tried to tell us that it would somehow get better.
Everything about alliance wars both blows and sucks at the same time. Congratulations you guys achieved a damned anomaly of modern science!
Only 19? I have an example of 95 more defender kills resulting in a loss
That's what happens when you don't place for diversity, there is no reason why you shouldn't have 150 diversity every war, or 100 if you only run 2 bgs
Not only you failed with your diversity after a month of new AW, but you also failed to black out anything in those screenshots. Well done
This is the kinda **** that makes me want to wish horrible things on the MCoC design team...
That sucks man.
BUT YOU SHOULD MAX OUT DIVERS--- oh wait.
Yup, we placed unique defenders instead of repeats of the ones we have that are stronger. Lost us the war doing that.
I thought I had blacked it out enough and from my phone screen it looked like I had. You don’t have to be such an ass about it man. Most of us agree AW is broken right now. Having your defense hold off an attack but losing war because of defender rating or diversity sucks. Then, you have situations where you have lower defense rating because not everyone has high champs and have to place 3/30s to increase diversity. It makes no sense.
Sorry that happened. This new war system is awful. They need defender kills back to even out the playing field.
"As we’ve collected data, and gathered your feedback, we have been making adjustments as we’ve gone along, each time getting closer to our goals that we’ve made for Alliance Wars, which are to make the mode more varied, fun and engaging."
I don't think Kabam has gotten any closer to making AW fun at all. It's not engaging. It's boring. There are too many empty tiles and teleports. People use 5 energy and fight one person. That's not fun or engaging. It's definitely varied, but that's not a good thing. I don't want to fight captain america ww2 on defense because he's easy to kill and that's not fun. Bringing back defender kills would make war more engaging. People who have to make decisions about whether to try to revive and kill an enemy, or whether an extra death would cost them the game, instead of blindly spending until every node is down, which is what will continue to happen.
I never said I work for them. I don't have to work for them to have an understanding of the overall design of the game. I have the same information as everyone else. I'm just not swayed by one specific way of playing. Which means I can look at it with a more detached view. Theories and opinions are exactly why we're here. To discuss them. The metrics are significant. While some focus on Ranking certain Champs alone, there is still a value to everything else. At the end of the day, Diversity means focusing on other Champs in War, and War is only one aspect of the game. Ranking anything has never been worthless overall. It is progression.
I know I'm asking a question unlikely to be directly answered, but by what possible metric could you be thinking that the war is getting "closer" to anything? I'm struggling to figure that out. The players that wanted diversity at any cost already have that: they cannot be getting anything closer to that goal. The players that want direct competition don't have that, and cannot get it so long as attack performance is not valued in the points calculation. The changes are fiddling around with secondary things like map difficulty and progress-side points that only indirectly value attacker performance and cannot distinguish between alliances with comparable map exploration capability.
Is there really a large contingent of players that is saying they are fine with no defender kills and no attacker performance per node equivalent, fine with diversity deciding matches before they begin, fine with assignment-based battlegroup placement, fine with roster rating escalation in defense driving AW, but just think the nodes need tweaking? If so, where are they?
I know the precepts of the religion of iterative number tweaking, better than most. Kabam seems to be taking it on faith that if they don't want to change these numbers, but do want to change those numbers, then there always exists a set of numbers that will fix a problem, even if the problem is that players actually want you to change the first set of numbers. Like if players complain about a champions damage but you don't want to change the damage, there exists a buff to armor rating that will compensate for that.
I feel, and I believe many players feel the same way but can't express it in the same way, that I'm debating religion with Kabam, not game design. Kabam believes religiously that there exists a set of numbers you can put on the nodes that will make players accept the current implementation of highly valued defense diversity, even if their specific complaint is that they don't want defender diversity to decide wars. They think if they keep changing them, they will get "closer" to the right numbers and then finally get close enough to be successful.
There are no such numbers. This is not difficult to prove. The frustrating part is that even though these kinds of changes are completely incompatible with the primary set of complaints about Alliance War, there seems to be no acknowledgement of that fact. Kabam seems to want to claim the changes will address those complaints without actually making any changes that have any chance to address those complaints. I think players would rather be told what they want is no longer what Kabam wants war to be, then be told that in spite of what they know to be true they should just wait and see because the changes eventually will help them.
Couldn't agree more. It's basically:
Users: bring back defender kills
Kabam: Ok guys, we will make diversity by bg now
Users: bring back defender kills
Kabam: ok, ok, we will set diversity at a lower value
Users: bring back defender kills
Kabam: alright we hear you, we will make the nodes harder
Users: bring back defender kills
Kabam: we have listened to the feedback and we are almost at our goal. this is good.