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.
Stop posting losses where u don’t diversify so your good defenders are getting kills while you run over spider gwens and iron patriots. What sucks is when both sides 100% diversity and it comes down to only defender rating.
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.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Our last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
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.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Or last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
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.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Or last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
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.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Or last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
I CALLED IT!!! hahahahaha
If it's another reference to where I am at in the game, it's irrelevant. It was a close War. Which meant I had to rally for the last bit of Exploration because people have varying availabilities.
Well you strategized the **** out of that! I'm sure that war victory felt well earned. Good job defeating the real,life schedule boss. Clearly that is what war is all about.
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
Social Justice implies there is some sort of violation to need it. Not the case. I also don't need a spreadsheet to keep track of Wars. Just a general knowledge of Points and an ability to predict an advantage.
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
Social Justice implies there is some sort of violation to need it. Not the case. I also don't need a spreadsheet to keep track of Wars. Just a general knowledge of Points and an ability to predict an advantage.
Its not a case for you when you have 1/2 an alliance and you're not competitive.
Again, another argument holding little meaning. We are still talking about the competitive play and massive rosters in the higher tiers
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
There is a difference between personal experience and the system as a whole. When discussing the system as a whole, I'm fully capable of seeing as whole a picture as possible. When talking about my last War, I'm talking about my last War. This is not the first time you've implied my focus is on my situation alone. It is still incorrect.
Who takes what Path can change based on who brought what. Assigning Paths may be how you play, and I respect that. That doesn't mean everyone plays the same. Isn't that what you accused me of?
If Kabam wants to tune war to,meet the needs of single bg low tier alliances like yours, fine. I'd like to see how that goes really. I'm getting my popcorn ready.
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
There is a difference between personal experience and the system as a whole. When discussing the system as a whole, I'm fully capable of seeing as whole a picture as possible. When talking about my last War, I'm talking about my last War. This is not the first time you've implied my focus is on my situation alone. It is still incorrect.
Who takes what Path can change based on who brought what. Assigning Paths may be how you play, and I respect that. That doesn't mean everyone plays the same. Isn't that what you accused me of?
If you're gonna quote be, try to refute it.
I've been clear to point out the your way vs the other sides. I didn't list every way, just the most popular.
How you do things is much different, we are ALL clear in that.
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
There is a difference between personal experience and the system as a whole. When discussing the system as a whole, I'm fully capable of seeing as whole a picture as possible. When talking about my last War, I'm talking about my last War. This is not the first time you've implied my focus is on my situation alone. It is still incorrect.
Who takes what Path can change based on who brought what. Assigning Paths may be how you play, and I respect that. That doesn't mean everyone plays the same. Isn't that what you accused me of?
If you're gonna quote be, try to refute it.
I've been clear to point out the your way vs the other sides. I didn't list every way, just the most popular.
How you do things is much different, we are ALL clear in that.
When you're talking about all Players, it's not govered by the top or the most popular. The point is to be as encompassing as possible. What you're getting at indirectly, is that my points aren't valid because of where I am. This is where I will end the conversation because this is becoming more personal than debate.
th
this is what happens when maintenance is too long. thanks kabam i literally finished the last duel that would of pushed me over with 2 hours to spare but instead i get screwed by kabam maintenance. you guys need to pause event timers for maintenance since we cant log on during that time
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
There is a difference between personal experience and the system as a whole. When discussing the system as a whole, I'm fully capable of seeing as whole a picture as possible. When talking about my last War, I'm talking about my last War. This is not the first time you've implied my focus is on my situation alone. It is still incorrect.
Who takes what Path can change based on who brought what. Assigning Paths may be how you play, and I respect that. That doesn't mean everyone plays the same. Isn't that what you accused me of?
If you're gonna quote be, try to refute it.
I've been clear to point out the your way vs the other sides. I didn't list every way, just the most popular.
How you do things is much different, we are ALL clear in that.
When you're talking about all Players, it's not govered by the top or the most popular. The point is to be as encompassing as possible. What you're getting at indirectly, is that my points aren't valid because of where I am. This is where I will end the conversation because this is becoming more personal than debate.
No, this is about what everyone knows what WAR should be. You're just that player who thinks something "easier" will advance you through the tiers. If you can't keep up now, you sure stand no chance with this system.
And when I mention ALL players Im talking about everyone in this thread other than you.
This conversation is over because every time me or someone else shuts you down and you post 5 replies with no rebuttal.
Now, lets get this thread back to its ignored feedback and quit making it the sole Wisdom thread.
Small changes don't help, they need to find some kind of balance between the two wars i enjoyed the old wars and only had to check in a few times as opposed to this new one depending on the path you take and the team work of your allaince.
The changes to the war didn't need to be so extreme, they just needed to make some changes to the war and the nodes and change a few things instead of making sweeping changes that no one wanted which were obviously untested considering how many issues the launch created and the fact that it still doesn't work as you intended it to and are still making changes to. If you weren't ready then you shouldn't have pushed it out, it kinda seems like you're just making it up as you go a long and that this is just a beta test.
The point system now is incredibly flawed and forcing diversity on you, and they are still emphasizing it to much. There's still no penalty to stop people from chucking tons of items at the opposition regardless or whether or not you buy the items or already had them people are still using them which is why some alliances have a hundreds more deeaths then the other one which we've see numerous times on these forums.
By removing defender kills kabam basically said here you go this is your opponent and your have free reign to use or buy all the items you to beat the other alliance without a penalty for playing poorly, without a penalty for being unskilled, without a penalty for dieing hundreds of times which is just stupid.
They need to readd defender kills to stop this and make further changes to said point system because as it is now it's incredibly flawed and needs major revision as does the layout of the map and the cost of portals and make even more changes to the war and nodes.
The war is still kinda of easy and alliance's are clearing 85-100% of the map and I doubt that your current changes are going to curb this at all.
Some alliances still don't actually care about diversity at all, I've seen and asked around some of my friends alliances and there opposition who are getting 38 diversity or lower in 3 battle groups.
They're still putting in tons of Spiderman's, tons, of captains, tons of nightcrawlers, tons of ultrons, tons of Juggernauts, tons of dorms, tons of magik. So those who had an issue with it in the previous version will see the same thing in the lower to mid tiers.
In a lot of ones the opposition is barely trying, some aren't even bothering to put an effort in some are just chucking 2* and 3* in wars and are barely putting in a defense. And barely even putting an effort in the attack because they gave up hope or just don't want to even bother with this war.
I don't control who they place but in both versions I do decide how to set up the groups, there's not as much stragey in placing anymore as opposed to the previous version because the nodes are terrible and fights are to easy.
Also In some tiers your whole defense is exposed which gives your opposition your whole defense stragey and allows them to adjust their attack teams to deal with your alliances defense which is something I don't really understand mainly because it further takes away the stragey that goes into placing.
There are still some terrible match ups, having a higher rating doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win the war, it just means you have a better chance to do so in some tiers.
A friend of mine alliance whose around 2mill with a terrible average rating took down a 6+ mill one because they paid to win, while the 6 mill one was full of unskilled people who put terrible defense and attackers in and they lost to an alliance that they should've crushed because there was no penalty, and purely because this iteration is just easier than the previous one.
It could also have the oppiste affect, in my most recent war we got matched up against a much smaller rated alliance whose average rating was much much smaller than ours and they had no chance of winning so that issue is still there as well.
There's still a lot of shell alliances, there's still a lot of hacking, there's still a lot of allaince jumpers, there's people leaving the game left and right or flat out refusing to play this version of war amoung numerous other issues.
If they want this whole thing to succeed then they need to redo the whole map again and shrink it, readd defender kills, readdjust the point system, cut the cost of portals or do away with them entirely, lower diversity even more or do away with it entirely, readd hidden information to the tiers that they changed, etc.
We've given you a lot of feedback on this, so I hope you listen to us and bring back the fun and challenge to alliance war because it's really not about skill anymore it's about bringing different defenders in, it's about throwing yourself at the opposition without a care in the world because there's nothing to prevent them from doing so, it's about who has the most items or the deepest pockets, it's about who has the bigger and deeper alliance, etc.
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
There is a difference between personal experience and the system as a whole. When discussing the system as a whole, I'm fully capable of seeing as whole a picture as possible. When talking about my last War, I'm talking about my last War. This is not the first time you've implied my focus is on my situation alone. It is still incorrect.
Who takes what Path can change based on who brought what. Assigning Paths may be how you play, and I respect that. That doesn't mean everyone plays the same. Isn't that what you accused me of?
If you're gonna quote be, try to refute it.
I've been clear to point out the your way vs the other sides. I didn't list every way, just the most popular.
How you do things is much different, we are ALL clear in that.
When you're talking about all Players, it's not govered by the top or the most popular. The point is to be as encompassing as possible. What you're getting at indirectly, is that my points aren't valid because of where I am. This is where I will end the conversation because this is becoming more personal than debate.
You always make that comment "its getting personal." Its never getting personal. If you're gonna make something about you than we are gonna be sure to make it about you.
This whole "personal attack" garbage is nonsense. You do that every time someone goes against you.
When I point out where you are at in the game vs some of us its not a personal attack. It shed light on the topic that our views will be different based on that alone. Anything else is based on comments you make. Please stop playing the victim when you choose to debate against multiple people.
@Run477 absolutely not. The point of war defenders is to prevent the enemy from clearing your map and defeating your boss. That’s not an arguable point. The fact that diversity has replaced that ability is not even really the point. I don’t want diversity gone. What I want is defender kills back. When you go through the trouble of ranking up defenders and testing and testing and testing to find what nodes work best for them, and then suddenly it doesn’t matter because you’re better off putting a Howard the Duck because even if the enemy dies, they can revive their way through with no penalty. They’ve replaced skill with willingness to spend and throw terrible (and no, that’s not subjective) defenders on the map.
We didn’t lose that war because we didn’t diversify, we lost it because there’s no penalty for being awful fighters so long as you pony up to big daddy Kabam with pockets full of cash. Diversity was intended to be the tie breaker when all else is equal, but that was nowhere near equal. Where is the reward for being the higher skilled fighters? It’s gone, along with a lot of people’s will to keep playing this game. I thought I was playing a game to test my fighting skill against my opponent’s, not my secretarial skills. Friggin spreadsheet wars.
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
There is a difference between personal experience and the system as a whole. When discussing the system as a whole, I'm fully capable of seeing as whole a picture as possible. When talking about my last War, I'm talking about my last War. This is not the first time you've implied my focus is on my situation alone. It is still incorrect.
Who takes what Path can change based on who brought what. Assigning Paths may be how you play, and I respect that. That doesn't mean everyone plays the same. Isn't that what you accused me of?
If you're gonna quote be, try to refute it.
I've been clear to point out the your way vs the other sides. I didn't list every way, just the most popular.
How you do things is much different, we are ALL clear in that.
When you're talking about all Players, it's not govered by the top or the most popular. The point is to be as encompassing as possible. What you're getting at indirectly, is that my points aren't valid because of where I am. This is where I will end the conversation because this is becoming more personal than debate.
You always make that comment "its getting personal." Its never getting personal. If you're gonna make something about you than we are gonna be sure to make it about you.
This whole "personal attack" garbage is nonsense. You do that every time someone goes against you.
When I point out where you are at in the game vs some of us its not a personal attack. It shed light on the topic that our views will be different based on that alone. Anything else is based on comments you make. Please stop playing the victim when you choose to debate against multiple people.
It is personal. You went out of your way to laugh about my last War experience. You then went on to imply that my only focus is for my own situation, and that I really have no say in the conversation based on where you think I am. It's not the first time you've made those points, and the more the conversation progresses, the more personal it becomes. However you choose to word it, it is shaming someone in the conversation based on their experience in the game. I offered my last War experience. Shaming someone out of the conversation because of what Tier they're in is not a constructive way to have a debate. Especially when I never mentioned what Tier I'm in. That means you're on the offensive. I am not playing a victim. It's getting personal. So we will end it here.
Defender diversity and rating now stop people from fighting till end, just like defender kills did in the past. We analyse opponent defense and raise the flag to revive or not... When win chance is low there is nothing that will make people go on fighting, other than putting extra and big rewards on completing and 100%, as in solo quests! Right now my crew goes till minibosses and only takes those down if there is a real chance to win, otherwise the 90% of max loose rewards were captured so why bother...
But I have to say it, I truly hate this AW, in short you brought prestige to AW, disguised as defender rating. The stronger always wins unless they do stupid mistakes like miss portals, which everyone will get it right very soon.
Comments
Stop posting losses where u don’t diversify so your good defenders are getting kills while you run over spider gwens and iron patriots. What sucks is when both sides 100% diversity and it comes down to only defender rating.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Our last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
For example, the node 2 of expert map doesn' have
1. +125% Attack & Health
2. +75% Health
3. +50% Recovery
4. Adaptive
I CALLED IT!!! hahahahaha
You called what? That I commented?
This is so bad
If it's another reference to where I am at in the game, it's irrelevant. It was a close War. Which meant I had to rally for the last bit of Exploration because people have varying availabilities.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
Its not a case for you when you have 1/2 an alliance and you're not competitive.
Again, another argument holding little meaning. We are still talking about the competitive play and massive rosters in the higher tiers
There is a difference between personal experience and the system as a whole. When discussing the system as a whole, I'm fully capable of seeing as whole a picture as possible. When talking about my last War, I'm talking about my last War. This is not the first time you've implied my focus is on my situation alone. It is still incorrect.
Who takes what Path can change based on who brought what. Assigning Paths may be how you play, and I respect that. That doesn't mean everyone plays the same. Isn't that what you accused me of?
If you're gonna quote be, try to refute it.
I've been clear to point out the your way vs the other sides. I didn't list every way, just the most popular.
How you do things is much different, we are ALL clear in that.
When you're talking about all Players, it's not govered by the top or the most popular. The point is to be as encompassing as possible. What you're getting at indirectly, is that my points aren't valid because of where I am. This is where I will end the conversation because this is becoming more personal than debate.
The money doesn't come from you and this is not going to last. Enjoy it while you can, I'll take that flag too, I give zero fudge.
this is what happens when maintenance is too long. thanks kabam i literally finished the last duel that would of pushed me over with 2 hours to spare but instead i get screwed by kabam maintenance. you guys need to pause event timers for maintenance since we cant log on during that time
No, this is about what everyone knows what WAR should be. You're just that player who thinks something "easier" will advance you through the tiers. If you can't keep up now, you sure stand no chance with this system.
And when I mention ALL players Im talking about everyone in this thread other than you.
This conversation is over because every time me or someone else shuts you down and you post 5 replies with no rebuttal.
Now, lets get this thread back to its ignored feedback and quit making it the sole Wisdom thread.
The changes to the war didn't need to be so extreme, they just needed to make some changes to the war and the nodes and change a few things instead of making sweeping changes that no one wanted which were obviously untested considering how many issues the launch created and the fact that it still doesn't work as you intended it to and are still making changes to. If you weren't ready then you shouldn't have pushed it out, it kinda seems like you're just making it up as you go a long and that this is just a beta test.
The point system now is incredibly flawed and forcing diversity on you, and they are still emphasizing it to much. There's still no penalty to stop people from chucking tons of items at the opposition regardless or whether or not you buy the items or already had them people are still using them which is why some alliances have a hundreds more deeaths then the other one which we've see numerous times on these forums.
By removing defender kills kabam basically said here you go this is your opponent and your have free reign to use or buy all the items you to beat the other alliance without a penalty for playing poorly, without a penalty for being unskilled, without a penalty for dieing hundreds of times which is just stupid.
They need to readd defender kills to stop this and make further changes to said point system because as it is now it's incredibly flawed and needs major revision as does the layout of the map and the cost of portals and make even more changes to the war and nodes.
The war is still kinda of easy and alliance's are clearing 85-100% of the map and I doubt that your current changes are going to curb this at all.
Some alliances still don't actually care about diversity at all, I've seen and asked around some of my friends alliances and there opposition who are getting 38 diversity or lower in 3 battle groups.
They're still putting in tons of Spiderman's, tons, of captains, tons of nightcrawlers, tons of ultrons, tons of Juggernauts, tons of dorms, tons of magik. So those who had an issue with it in the previous version will see the same thing in the lower to mid tiers.
In a lot of ones the opposition is barely trying, some aren't even bothering to put an effort in some are just chucking 2* and 3* in wars and are barely putting in a defense. And barely even putting an effort in the attack because they gave up hope or just don't want to even bother with this war.
I don't control who they place but in both versions I do decide how to set up the groups, there's not as much stragey in placing anymore as opposed to the previous version because the nodes are terrible and fights are to easy.
Also In some tiers your whole defense is exposed which gives your opposition your whole defense stragey and allows them to adjust their attack teams to deal with your alliances defense which is something I don't really understand mainly because it further takes away the stragey that goes into placing.
There are still some terrible match ups, having a higher rating doesn't necessarily mean you're going to win the war, it just means you have a better chance to do so in some tiers.
A friend of mine alliance whose around 2mill with a terrible average rating took down a 6+ mill one because they paid to win, while the 6 mill one was full of unskilled people who put terrible defense and attackers in and they lost to an alliance that they should've crushed because there was no penalty, and purely because this iteration is just easier than the previous one.
It could also have the oppiste affect, in my most recent war we got matched up against a much smaller rated alliance whose average rating was much much smaller than ours and they had no chance of winning so that issue is still there as well.
There's still a lot of shell alliances, there's still a lot of hacking, there's still a lot of allaince jumpers, there's people leaving the game left and right or flat out refusing to play this version of war amoung numerous other issues.
If they want this whole thing to succeed then they need to redo the whole map again and shrink it, readd defender kills, readdjust the point system, cut the cost of portals or do away with them entirely, lower diversity even more or do away with it entirely, readd hidden information to the tiers that they changed, etc.
We've given you a lot of feedback on this, so I hope you listen to us and bring back the fun and challenge to alliance war because it's really not about skill anymore it's about bringing different defenders in, it's about throwing yourself at the opposition without a care in the world because there's nothing to prevent them from doing so, it's about who has the most items or the deepest pockets, it's about who has the bigger and deeper alliance, etc.
You always make that comment "its getting personal." Its never getting personal. If you're gonna make something about you than we are gonna be sure to make it about you.
This whole "personal attack" garbage is nonsense. You do that every time someone goes against you.
When I point out where you are at in the game vs some of us its not a personal attack. It shed light on the topic that our views will be different based on that alone. Anything else is based on comments you make. Please stop playing the victim when you choose to debate against multiple people.
We didn’t lose that war because we didn’t diversify, we lost it because there’s no penalty for being awful fighters so long as you pony up to big daddy Kabam with pockets full of cash. Diversity was intended to be the tie breaker when all else is equal, but that was nowhere near equal. Where is the reward for being the higher skilled fighters? It’s gone, along with a lot of people’s will to keep playing this game. I thought I was playing a game to test my fighting skill against my opponent’s, not my secretarial skills. Friggin spreadsheet wars.
It is personal. You went out of your way to laugh about my last War experience. You then went on to imply that my only focus is for my own situation, and that I really have no say in the conversation based on where you think I am. It's not the first time you've made those points, and the more the conversation progresses, the more personal it becomes. However you choose to word it, it is shaming someone in the conversation based on their experience in the game. I offered my last War experience. Shaming someone out of the conversation because of what Tier they're in is not a constructive way to have a debate. Especially when I never mentioned what Tier I'm in. That means you're on the offensive. I am not playing a victim. It's getting personal. So we will end it here.
But I have to say it, I truly hate this AW, in short you brought prestige to AW, disguised as defender rating. The stronger always wins unless they do stupid mistakes like miss portals, which everyone will get it right very soon.