Kabam Miike wrote: » NevvB wrote: » Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war. We understand how they can impact wars, but what I've gotten a lot of Private Messages about and have now seen posts of is that players are concerned that they will continue to 100% the map, and that Defender kills would fix this. This is what we're trying to avoid, a case where an Alliance is able to 100% Explore the map very easily, and even less so should it be possible for both Alliances to fully explore their opponent's maps. We're working towards this, and will continue to make more iterations if we think that they are necessary.
NevvB wrote: » Dunno if it’s funny or sad that kabam doesnt understand how defender kills can impact war.
DoctorJ wrote: » So glad i spent hours going through my battlegroups rosters and creating defender lists for diversity for it to now be negligible. My stupidity i suppose.
Kabam Miike wrote: » Twunt wrote: » The end all summary of this will be that you are making Defender rating and Diversity the two tie breakers. Doesn’t matter how you allocate the points. If both teams explore 100%, no skill required. The one with the higher Defender rating (now you lowered diversity points) will win. How can you have two variables to determine winners? That’s a sloppy formula. The point of the map changes is that we want you guys to emphasize your Defenders again. Prevent the other team from getting 100% exploration.
Twunt wrote: » The end all summary of this will be that you are making Defender rating and Diversity the two tie breakers. Doesn’t matter how you allocate the points. If both teams explore 100%, no skill required. The one with the higher Defender rating (now you lowered diversity points) will win. How can you have two variables to determine winners? That’s a sloppy formula.
FEYi wrote: » The chart posted doesn't match with the actual nodes in the map. For example, the node 2 of expert map doesn' have 1. +125% Attack & Health 2. +75% Health 3. +50% Recovery 4. Adaptive
Quick_Silver1 wrote: » So the changes will be here today. Seems like the old nodes are on steroids now. Looking forward to the challenge. Now, @Kabam Miike what about the rewards? There has been no word on if the rewards will be increasing to match the level of difficulty. Or just increase cause it's long over due. Can you comment?
Verzz wrote: » Just going to leave this here - close war where we actually had the diversity edge by 1 but lost the war because our opponents were about 70k stronger in defence than us. We even had 5 more kills than them but it doesn't matter. I can't complain because we have won by doing the same thing also a few times but those wins seem so hollow. There is no satisfaction anymore for me even while winning. Has anyone been trying to exchange information on line or something for defender rating and diversity? I feel like this would benefit both sides as one side would know they have the win guaranteed if they 100% the map and the other alliance would know they can stop at 85% and still get the same rewards.
Verzz wrote: » Voluntaris wrote: » Verzz wrote: » Just going to leave this here - close war where we actually had the diversity edge by 1 but lost the war because our opponents were about 70k stronger in defence than us. We even had 5 more kills than them but it doesn't matter. I can't complain because we have won by doing the same thing also a few times but those wins seem so hollow. There is no satisfaction anymore for me even while winning. Has anyone been trying to exchange information on line or something for defender rating and diversity? I feel like this would benefit both sides as one side would know they have the win guaranteed if they 100% the map and the other alliance would know they can stop at 85% and still get the same rewards. since Defender Rating is the only score different in top tier wars, yes, I am aware of alliances touching base at start of attack to compare defender rating so they know from the outset which alliance will win, no matter how hard both alliances fight and clear all maps 100%. such awful game design #BringBackDefenderKillPoints Thanks, I am going for to start asking the opponent for an information exchange right when attack phase starts from now on. I can't believe this is war now
Voluntaris wrote: » Verzz wrote: » Just going to leave this here - close war where we actually had the diversity edge by 1 but lost the war because our opponents were about 70k stronger in defence than us. We even had 5 more kills than them but it doesn't matter. I can't complain because we have won by doing the same thing also a few times but those wins seem so hollow. There is no satisfaction anymore for me even while winning. Has anyone been trying to exchange information on line or something for defender rating and diversity? I feel like this would benefit both sides as one side would know they have the win guaranteed if they 100% the map and the other alliance would know they can stop at 85% and still get the same rewards. since Defender Rating is the only score different in top tier wars, yes, I am aware of alliances touching base at start of attack to compare defender rating so they know from the outset which alliance will win, no matter how hard both alliances fight and clear all maps 100%. such awful game design #BringBackDefenderKillPoints
Kabam Miike wrote: » JRock808 wrote: » andrade5184 wrote: » great job everyone now you got kabam to make wars even harder which will not only result in diversity still being the deciding factor as well as it costing more to win. i mean without defender kills it really sucks that the maps going to be harder now. Think about it. It's not an accident. The whole goal was to increase revenue via AW. Our goals were to make Alliance Wars more diverse, engaging and fun. We've said this before. I know you're going to believe whatever you want to believe, but I promise you, that was not at all our goal here. When we removed Defender kills, it's because we didn't want players to simply give up after a fight. Not playing should never be the optimal strategy. We wanted everybody to fight for the very last node. Stuck because your Alliance mate couldn't take down the link to the node in front of you? Well fight it anyways! See if you can take it down! We've said before that getting this mode to where we want it to be will be an iterative process. So if there are more iterations that need to be made, we will. But first, we've got to get through a few days of War until we can see how this is working out.
JRock808 wrote: » andrade5184 wrote: » great job everyone now you got kabam to make wars even harder which will not only result in diversity still being the deciding factor as well as it costing more to win. i mean without defender kills it really sucks that the maps going to be harder now. Think about it. It's not an accident. The whole goal was to increase revenue via AW.
andrade5184 wrote: » great job everyone now you got kabam to make wars even harder which will not only result in diversity still being the deciding factor as well as it costing more to win. i mean without defender kills it really sucks that the maps going to be harder now.
LeNoirFaineant wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. That's not a theory. That is an observation. If the alliances with higher rated defenders win more wars than they lose, the tier sorting algorithm will sort them into higher tiers, and by definition everyone else into lower tiers, with alliance defender rating acting indirectly by affecting the win/loss record. That's a given. The problem is, there's no good justification for making that change. If the devs arbitrarily started giving additional points to alliances with defensive champions that were taller, you could say the exact same thing. The height of the champions was "balancing" the alliances into a new configuration, and eventually the taller alliances would be matched up with other taller alliances and their scoring would become more even. Growth would come from alliances growing their rosters, acquiring an increasingly large percentage of the tall champions. The fact that we could make that observation doesn't make it a good thing to happen. It's actually a good thing from my perspective. Advancing in War Tiers is a reflection in part, of advancing in the game. I don't want to argue too much about it. That's my opinion. It's still a theory because we haven't seen enough results to call it an observation. That will be seen over time. Couldn't disagree more. You will advance in the game over time whether or not you are actually good at it. I know people with incredible rosters who aren't actually good at the game. War, alliance vs. alliance, should not be about which alliance has had better luck with crystals or who has played longer, it should be about which alliance is better. No interest in the kind of war you seem to be advocating.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. That's not a theory. That is an observation. If the alliances with higher rated defenders win more wars than they lose, the tier sorting algorithm will sort them into higher tiers, and by definition everyone else into lower tiers, with alliance defender rating acting indirectly by affecting the win/loss record. That's a given. The problem is, there's no good justification for making that change. If the devs arbitrarily started giving additional points to alliances with defensive champions that were taller, you could say the exact same thing. The height of the champions was "balancing" the alliances into a new configuration, and eventually the taller alliances would be matched up with other taller alliances and their scoring would become more even. Growth would come from alliances growing their rosters, acquiring an increasingly large percentage of the tall champions. The fact that we could make that observation doesn't make it a good thing to happen. It's actually a good thing from my perspective. Advancing in War Tiers is a reflection in part, of advancing in the game. I don't want to argue too much about it. That's my opinion. It's still a theory because we haven't seen enough results to call it an observation. That will be seen over time.
DNA3000 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot. That's not a theory. That is an observation. If the alliances with higher rated defenders win more wars than they lose, the tier sorting algorithm will sort them into higher tiers, and by definition everyone else into lower tiers, with alliance defender rating acting indirectly by affecting the win/loss record. That's a given. The problem is, there's no good justification for making that change. If the devs arbitrarily started giving additional points to alliances with defensive champions that were taller, you could say the exact same thing. The height of the champions was "balancing" the alliances into a new configuration, and eventually the taller alliances would be matched up with other taller alliances and their scoring would become more even. Growth would come from alliances growing their rosters, acquiring an increasingly large percentage of the tall champions. The fact that we could make that observation doesn't make it a good thing to happen.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor. Shared this theory in another Thread. Rather than retype it, I'm just going to post a screenshot.
Brr762 wrote: » Without defender kills, defender rating is still going to be the deciding factor.
OnlyOneAboveAll wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » JRock808 wrote: » andrade5184 wrote: » great job everyone now you got kabam to make wars even harder which will not only result in diversity still being the deciding factor as well as it costing more to win. i mean without defender kills it really sucks that the maps going to be harder now. Think about it. It's not an accident. The whole goal was to increase revenue via AW. Our goals were to make more money. When we removed Defender kills, it's because we didn't want players to simply give up after a fight. We want them to use items. To buy units. To spend spend spend! Not playing should never be the optimal strategy. We wanted everybody to fight for the very last node. Stuck because your Alliance mate couldn't take down the link to the node in front of you? Well fight it anyways! See if you can take it down! USE ALL 15 ITEMS! AND MAKE THEM BIG ONES!! We stopped after we died cause most of us are broke and can't afford to keep going.
Kabam Miike wrote: » JRock808 wrote: » andrade5184 wrote: » great job everyone now you got kabam to make wars even harder which will not only result in diversity still being the deciding factor as well as it costing more to win. i mean without defender kills it really sucks that the maps going to be harder now. Think about it. It's not an accident. The whole goal was to increase revenue via AW. Our goals were to make more money. When we removed Defender kills, it's because we didn't want players to simply give up after a fight. We want them to use items. To buy units. To spend spend spend! Not playing should never be the optimal strategy. We wanted everybody to fight for the very last node. Stuck because your Alliance mate couldn't take down the link to the node in front of you? Well fight it anyways! See if you can take it down! USE ALL 15 ITEMS! AND MAKE THEM BIG ONES!!
JRock808 wrote: » In actuality, diversity does not really increase the champs an individual can use. Everything is going to be coordinated by who has the highest pi version of whatever unique champ needs to be placed. In effect this has locked me in to the 5 same defenders every war. I can no longer try to throw a curveball by placing an unexpected champ somewhere. The spreadsheet dictates my every defensive option. I am told who to place in order to not lose the war for the alliance and that is it. I have no options, other than to try to out pi an existing defensive champ or cost the alliance points and the win. So how am I given more options for whom to place and where? I'm not. I'm told what to place, and the node is basically irrelevant. This is not true diversity, it's affirmative action, forcing us to employ lesser qualified candidates in order to meet a quota.