A controlled variable is something that doesn't change between a series of tests. The only points that change is defender rating. That can be influenced by a nber of things, masteries, ranking, ppl that have the ability to get all the new champs with huge pi's
I'm not against diveristy.
But yes all the points are controlled and by that i mean they have a cap. Which if there's a cap then we will hit it. So all points are maxed out with the exception of defender rating. I also don't have a problem with that either. But it shouldn't be the tie breaker in a war. That's just letting the more inflated allaince win. Even if both teams have there very highest maxed out diversified champs placed. There will still be one with a higher/lower rating to determine the outcome. Which leaves no balance in actual game playing abilities, "skill"
I wouldn't mind if diversity scores were literally a tie breaker. Which is to say that if and only if both sides demonstrate the same skill in exploring the map and explore the same amount of the map and clear the same amount of nodes, then the higher diversity side wins.
That's not what 15.0 does. In 15.0 we are only going to judge what you do, not how well you do it, and if both sides do the same thing then diversity scores will decide the war. Also, even if both sides aren't tied diversity and rating scores are worth a substantial amount of effort and can decide a war in which even when one side does substantially more the other side can win on diversity points.
A real tie breaker is ignored until there is a tie. That's the definition of "tie breaker." Diversity points and defender ratings are not tie breakers. Diversity points and defender ratings are straight up scoring points before the war begins. And the absolute magnitude of the diversity and rating points are comparable to the points earned for actually killing nodes.
You can say that in AW 16.0 alliances will get 1000 points for every Luke Cage they place in defense, but that's just a tie breaker. But only if you don't care what words mean.
I'm not against diveristy.
But yes all the points are controlled and by that i mean they have a cap. Which if there's a cap then we will hit it. So all points are maxed out with the exception of defender rating. I also don't have a problem with that either. But it shouldn't be the tie breaker in a war. That's just letting the more inflated allaince win. Even if both teams have there very highest maxed out diversified champs placed. There will still be one with a higher/lower rating to determine the outcome. Which leaves no balance in actual game playing abilities, "skill"
I wouldn't mind if diversity scores were literally a tie breaker. Which is to say that if and only if both sides demonstrate the same skill in exploring the map and explore the same amount of the map and clear the same amount of nodes, then the higher diversity side wins.
That's not what 15.0 does. In 15.0 we are only going to judge what you do, not how well you do it, and if both sides do the same thing then diversity scores will decide the war. Also, even if both sides aren't tied diversity and rating scores are worth a substantial amount of effort and can decide a war in which even when one side does substantially more the other side can win on diversity points.
A real tie breaker is ignored until there is a tie. That's the definition of "tie breaker." Diversity points and defender ratings are not tie breakers. Diversity points and defender ratings are straight up scoring points before the war begins. And the absolute magnitude of the diversity and rating points are comparable to the points earned for actually killing nodes.
You can say that in AW 16.0 alliances will get 1000 points for every Luke Cage they place in defense, but that's just a tie breaker. But only if you don't care what words mean.
Defender rating is a tie breaker. Even though it's decided before the war is started. It's the only point that isn't tied up. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AN ABSOLUTE TIE. Every alliance has the capability of scoring the exact same points in every catagory except rating. That will always be different
I’m sure this has been said many times but I just need to chime in also.
While I understand the idea of diversity points making it people don’t face the same enemies, I still dislike it.
We just finished a war a few minutes ago and lost only by a few hundred due to diversity. What I dislike about that we now have to make sure we don’t have any of the same champs in defence. In order to make this happen in our alliance I’ve had to pick 5 Champions who I will use as defence in every war. Well that sucks because I enjoy using Hulk and Vision on offence in AQ or AW from time to time but now I can’t because if I switch them out for someone else we will be duplicating.
It’s headache enough to constantly discuss with the alliance who will be used as defence and such. It’s ridiculous.
No one wants diversity, everyone wants defence kills to matter. I want to be able to use hulk and vision.
Between what has been done to AW and all the bugs, I have one foot out the door. I’ve stopped spending money and I’m just not having fun
There is no case where in a war that both alliances max every point, explore, diversity, boss kills, etc... that a winner can be decided.
And this is in fact the case more often then not.
But then again her comes defender rating??? To decide who played a btter war? It that was the case then the football team with the best player stats should win every game. That would be their pi. They win. Who cares if they played worse. Their players have higher stats.
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.
...and those upgraded nodes do not do that. We'll still easily 100% the map.
Removing Defender Kill Points has removed skill from Alliance War. Resulting in a boring, uncompetitive alliance quest 2.0.
I can see where you're coming from.
If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference?
I can take that information to the team and see what they think.
Defender kills points adds more points to the more effective team. As it is right now even upgraded both teams still clear and defender rating only variable meaning higher rated alliance wins. Period. Every time. Period. 100 percent. Period. Not 50. Not 70. Not 90 not 99>> 100. Thanks for playing.
A controlled variable is something that doesn't change between a series of tests. The only points that change is defender rating. That can be influenced by a nber of things, masteries, ranking, ppl that have the ability to get all the new champs with huge pi's
The term "controlled variable" is a term used in science to refer to something that can change in a set of experiments but is intended to not change to the best degree possible to allow for comparison and analysis when other variables change.
I'm not against diveristy.
But yes all the points are controlled and by that i mean they have a cap. Which if there's a cap then we will hit it. So all points are maxed out with the exception of defender rating. I also don't have a problem with that either. But it shouldn't be the tie breaker in a war. That's just letting the more inflated allaince win. Even if both teams have there very highest maxed out diversified champs placed. There will still be one with a higher/lower rating to determine the outcome. Which leaves no balance in actual game playing abilities, "skill"
I wouldn't mind if diversity scores were literally a tie breaker. Which is to say that if and only if both sides demonstrate the same skill in exploring the map and explore the same amount of the map and clear the same amount of nodes, then the higher diversity side wins.
That's not what 15.0 does. In 15.0 we are only going to judge what you do, not how well you do it, and if both sides do the same thing then diversity scores will decide the war. Also, even if both sides aren't tied diversity and rating scores are worth a substantial amount of effort and can decide a war in which even when one side does substantially more the other side can win on diversity points.
A real tie breaker is ignored until there is a tie. That's the definition of "tie breaker." Diversity points and defender ratings are not tie breakers. Diversity points and defender ratings are straight up scoring points before the war begins. And the absolute magnitude of the diversity and rating points are comparable to the points earned for actually killing nodes.
You can say that in AW 16.0 alliances will get 1000 points for every Luke Cage they place in defense, but that's just a tie breaker. But only if you don't care what words mean.
Defender rating is a tie breaker. Even though it's decided before the war is started. It's the only point that isn't tied up. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AN ABSOLUTE TIE. Every alliance has the capability of scoring the exact same points in every catagory except rating. That will always be different
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. A tie is when both sides score the same amount of points. It is not when both sides *could* score the same amount of points. That's fundamental to the definition of a tie.
I don't understand why there should be any effective strategy for a much weaker team to win. Fix the match system to reduce the number of blowouts and let the better team win. Literally nobody would have a problem with that. A system that leaves people guessing as who the better team was, even after all the fights have been fought is plainly ridiculous.
The problem is how do you define the "weaker" team. Even in 14.0, it was not always true that the alliance with the more skilled players always won. In 14.0, the "stronger" team was a combination of the alliance with the more skilled attackers, the players possessing the stronger defenders in their rosters, and the alliance willing to spend the most resources.
Even in 14.0 people complained that the "best" alliance didn't consistently win, for their personal definition of "best." The only reason why people aren't complaining about those things now is because 15.0 is perceived to be so much worse.
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.
...and those upgraded nodes do not do that. We'll still easily 100% the map.
Removing Defender Kill Points has removed skill from Alliance War. Resulting in a boring, uncompetitive alliance quest 2.0.
I can see where you're coming from.
If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference?
I can take that information to the team and see what they think.
Defender kills points adds more points to the more effective team. As it is right now even upgraded both teams still clear and defender rating only variable meaning higher rated alliance wins. Period. Every time. Period. 100 percent. Period. Not 50. Not 70. Not 90 not 99>> 100. Thanks for playing.
I am compelled to point out that this sort of hyperbole doesn't help anyone's cause. If your argument is that literally 100% of all wars are decided by the higher rated alliance, a single counterexample disproves the argument and renders it worthless.
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.
...and those upgraded nodes do not do that. We'll still easily 100% the map.
Removing Defender Kill Points has removed skill from Alliance War. Resulting in a boring, uncompetitive alliance quest 2.0.
I can see where you're coming from.
If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference?
I can take that information to the team and see what they think.
Defender kills points adds more points to the more effective team. As it is right now even upgraded both teams still clear and defender rating only variable meaning higher rated alliance wins. Period. Every time. Period. 100 percent. Period. Not 50. Not 70. Not 90 not 99>> 100. Thanks for playing.
I am compelled to point out that this sort of hyperbole doesn't help anyone's cause. If your argument is that literally 100% of all wars are decided by the higher rated alliance, a single counterexample disproves the argument and renders it worthless.
And what single point would that be. Nothing? Because it’s correct? Please don’t post meaningless drivel. There is no variation that can gave someone with a lower rating win vs a person with a higher rating and max diversity etc. so your lack of a point about hyperbole wasted all our time.
More amusingly even if you put 145 defenders in (which hurts your rating yes) the attacker kill points is still the exact same so both teams lose the same amount of points rendering everything besides rating the same
Save the arguments for those that deserve it. Let's focus people.
New plan.
Every time @GroundedWisdom says that he's not gonna say anymore...and then says more...we have to drink.
And every time @Kabam Miike says that they've added some meaningless change that will make AW fun and engaging...for conscientious objectors...we have to drink.
I never said I wouldn't speak. I'm being selective on what conversations I'm having. Certain aspects of the debate become tense and it really isn't prodictive to go back and forth like that, so if something is getting repetitive or animated, I back off.
I never said I wouldn't speak. I'm being selective on what conversations I'm having. Certain aspects of the debate become tense and it really isn't prodictive to go back and forth like that, so if something is getting repetitive or animated, I back off.
Why don't they transfer this diversity nonsense to all the competitive aspects of the game ? Make legend runs dependent on the number of champs you use to win fights. Make arena based on who uses the largest number of champs to reach milestones. Make AQ scores dependant on the total diversity of champs used over 5 days.
This is supposed to be a contest. It seems more like a football game that is played for four quarters then at the end the team who used the most players, all 53 on the roster, the win would be decided by the combined weight of the team. Players would all drink as much water as they could to get the win. It wouldn't matter who scored the most or gained the most yards, as these were.capped.
Now if one of those players had an accident on the sideline and couldn't get in to play, that team would already lose. The team would still be forc d to go through the motions but they would have no chance at winning.
I am not completely against diversity, but I really believe the cap on points should be reached at less than the maximum number of defenders. This would allow a 9 man bg to have a chance, and it would also allow more than one player to fight the same champ. And since this is a competition, there needs to be some metric that can affect outcome based on skill. Since defender kills discourage spending, that aspect has been lost. It is no longer a competionn, it's just a weight competition like the football game I described earlier. The heaviest team always wins. It just amazes me that the developers won't accept this fact and keep pushing there flawed mode.
Sometimes people have to step back and admit they are wrong. In this case it is the developers new scoring system. It is easily exploited and goes against everything the game has stood for in the past, and it really only affects the middle and lower tiers the most. It is the perfect reason for shelling. Just keep yourself in a tier that you easily outweigh your opponents and rake in the rewards. There would be no risk of loosing. If that is the goal of this new system then the people the change was made for are going to suffer more now.
Save the arguments for those that deserve it. Let's focus people.
New plan.
Every time @GroundedWisdom says that he's not gonna say anymore...and then says more...we have to drink.
And every time @Kabam Miike says that they've added some meaningless change that will make AW fun and engaging...for conscientious objectors...we have to drink.
Who's with me?
Everyone would be in the hospital due to alcohol poisoning
If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference?
I can take that information to the team and see what they think.[/quote]
Defender kills make a difference because that is the only thing that makes sense as a tie breaker in alliance war. The defining metric when placing a defense should be how effective it is and not how diverse it is. I can't predict the future but I think it's safe to assume people will still 100% maps whether by skill or spamming items.
I've suggested it in this chat before but making defender kills the same amount of points as diversity seems like a great alternative. It gives the players a choice of whether they'd take the guaranteed 50 points from diversity or risk it if they think they'll get more than kill.
How can 1 group win a war where the other group has a more effective defense but spams items to get through it?
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.
...and those upgraded nodes do not do that. We'll still easily 100% the map.
Removing Defender Kill Points has removed skill from Alliance War. Resulting in a boring, uncompetitive alliance quest 2.0.
I can see where you're coming from.
If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference?
I can take that information to the team and see what they think.
Defender kills points adds more points to the more effective team. As it is right now even upgraded both teams still clear and defender rating only variable meaning higher rated alliance wins. Period. Every time. Period. 100 percent. Period. Not 50. Not 70. Not 90 not 99>> 100. Thanks for playing.
I am compelled to point out that this sort of hyperbole doesn't help anyone's cause. If your argument is that literally 100% of all wars are decided by the higher rated alliance, a single counterexample disproves the argument and renders it worthless.
And what single point would that be. Nothing? Because it’s correct? Please don’t post meaningless drivel. There is no variation that can gave someone with a lower rating win vs a person with a higher rating and max diversity etc. so your lack of a point about hyperbole wasted all our time.
Don't be a twat. I've been in 2 wars where some players on the opposing side didn't show up, so they didn't even make it to the boss and they lost the wars. So since your point is, "defender rating is the only variable 100% of the time", those 2 examples render your point invalid. If there are 2 exceptions, then obviously it cannot be 100% of the time.
DNA3000 is giving good advice. You don't have to take it, but responding impolitely to one of the most lucid, sensible and patient posters in this thread because you don't have the patience or capacity to understand his point does not make you look good.
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?
Why, they are getting closer in the fourth dimension, of course! They are getting closer... in time!
What is kabams mission statement on AW ? What is it exactly that they are wanting to do with this change ? So far the only objectives they have stated is to encourage diversity and to make players feel that by dying and reviving they are not hurting their team.
But what if you have a highly skilled player with a relatively small roster, and in order for your alliance max diversity and defender rating they have to bench other players stronger champs because they have a larger roster of r5s that can be used instead.
Call the guy with the smaller roster player A. He has magik at r4 sig 20 5*, Dormammu r5 sig 12 4*, Mordo r5 sig 20 4*, hood r5 unduped 4*, and Juggs, r3 sig 20 5*. He has 6 other champs that are at the same rank he uses for attack, let's say iceman, AA, starlord, Dr. voodoo, CM, and Black Panther. That is all his 5/50 or better champs.
Now player B has the same champs as player A, but higher sig levels. He also has more champs at high level. So instead of player B placing his 4/55 sig 120 magik, he has to place psylocke as the combined rating of his psylocke and player A's magik is greater than player B's magik and a 4/40 from player A.
Eventually, the alliance will decide player A needs to be replaced by someone with him sig Spider Gwen, Luke Cage, Iron Patriot, etc.. so that the alliance can raise it's defender rating. This player C isn't as skilled as player A, but he still gets the spot and Player A is left without an alliance and has to join a lower rated one where his champs give that team a better advantage.
Sounds pretty logical I'm sure, I'm just wondering what exactly the goal of the new iteration of AW is. I want to see an official statement from Kabam laying out their vision of how this will improve gameplay for as wide of a player base as possible. So many have shown how flawed the system is, but there has been nothing but silence from Kabam on their design parameters. It just feels cobbled together and an attempt to maybe level the playing field a bit, but it's so far failed.
I know we won't get any answer from the horses mouth, but maybe some others can make educated guesses as to what they are trying to accomplish with this system and how it makes anything more interesting, skill based, or strategic.
@Kabam Miike You guys need to bring back points for defense kills. Let alliances figure out how to balance diversity and duplicates of tough defenders. Otherwise what’s my incentive to rank up any new champs I get?
If someone in my BG already has an R5 Hyperion and I pulled one, why would I awaken and rank him up??? It’s only going to cost my team points.
Also remove the ability to see defenders class and rating in higher tiers... that’s rookie **** right there. Maps will continue to be dominated with 100% exploration if we know every fight we’ll have the class advantage and NEVER put ourselves in a disadvantage.
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.
...and those upgraded nodes do not do that. We'll still easily 100% the map.
Removing Defender Kill Points has removed skill from Alliance War. Resulting in a boring, uncompetitive alliance quest 2.0.
I can see where you're coming from.
If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference?
I can take that information to the team and see what they think.
Defender kills points adds more points to the more effective team. As it is right now even upgraded both teams still clear and defender rating only variable meaning higher rated alliance wins. Period. Every time. Period. 100 percent. Period. Not 50. Not 70. Not 90 not 99>> 100. Thanks for playing.
I am compelled to point out that this sort of hyperbole doesn't help anyone's cause. If your argument is that literally 100% of all wars are decided by the higher rated alliance, a single counterexample disproves the argument and renders it worthless.
And what single point would that be. Nothing? Because it’s correct? Please don’t post meaningless drivel. There is no variation that can gave someone with a lower rating win vs a person with a higher rating and max diversity etc. so your lack of a point about hyperbole wasted all our time.
Don't be a twat. I've been in 2 wars where some players on the opposing side didn't show up, so they didn't even make it to the boss and they lost the wars. So since your point is, "defender rating is the only variable 100% of the time", those 2 examples render your point invalid. If there are 2 exceptions, then obviously it cannot be 100% of the time.
DNA3000 is giving good advice. You don't have to take it, but responding impolitely to one of the most lucid, sensible and patient posters in this thread because you don't have the patience or capacity to understand his point does not make you look good.
Don’t be an idiot that doesn’t qualify for maxing out everything including diversity does it. Once again. If the higher rating MAXES OUT EVERYTHING. There is no chance of winning that would be zero percent. Not showing up doesn’t really qualify for the discussion. Post more meaningless **** like what if only one person placed. Obviously diversity and rating would suffer though attacker kills and defenders placed on alternate sides would still equate to the same amount of points.
Your response as does his adds nothing to the discussion simply points out alternatives that have nothing to do with the point being made.
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.
...and those upgraded nodes do not do that. We'll still easily 100% the map.
Removing Defender Kill Points has removed skill from Alliance War. Resulting in a boring, uncompetitive alliance quest 2.0.
I can see where you're coming from.
If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference?
I can take that information to the team and see what they think.
Defender kills points adds more points to the more effective team. As it is right now even upgraded both teams still clear and defender rating only variable meaning higher rated alliance wins. Period. Every time. Period. 100 percent. Period. Not 50. Not 70. Not 90 not 99>> 100. Thanks for playing.
I am compelled to point out that this sort of hyperbole doesn't help anyone's cause. If your argument is that literally 100% of all wars are decided by the higher rated alliance, a single counterexample disproves the argument and renders it worthless.
And what single point would that be. Nothing? Because it’s correct? Please don’t post meaningless drivel. There is no variation that can gave someone with a lower rating win vs a person with a higher rating and max diversity etc. so your lack of a point about hyperbole wasted all our time.
It's easy for Kabam to find wars (esp out of T1-T3, but including T3 too) decided by something other than defender diversity and defender rating -- in particular, 4/55 bosses and minibosses can be hard to clear (Spidey, Magik, etc) for some players. So your claim is in a literal sense obviously false, make it too easy for someone to disregard the fact that diversity an defender rating decide far too many wars, especially in T1-T3. (I don't know what it's like below that, but I'd imagine that even with the current map not all alliances clear all 3 BGs every time.)
Most of the time when there aren't 3 boss kills it's because the alliance is discouraged by the fact that even if they spend to revive and get the kills, they have already figured out they would lose anyway based on diversity or defender rating. There is no reason to spend for the rewards received for losing. Sometimes it's not even worth it to spend when it will get you a win. You can just save that money for the next offer that comes up for a $30 4* or t4 cats.
For more competitive alliances that are skilled and clear maps without items, it's a slap in the face to lose when you have outplayed your opponent but lose to defender rating. Think about it, your team faced a harder defense, gave up less defender KO's, but still lose, if this was like aq, the higher rated defenders would give more points and you would come out ahead. At it's most fundamental point, AW is no longer skill based.
Comments
I wouldn't mind if diversity scores were literally a tie breaker. Which is to say that if and only if both sides demonstrate the same skill in exploring the map and explore the same amount of the map and clear the same amount of nodes, then the higher diversity side wins.
That's not what 15.0 does. In 15.0 we are only going to judge what you do, not how well you do it, and if both sides do the same thing then diversity scores will decide the war. Also, even if both sides aren't tied diversity and rating scores are worth a substantial amount of effort and can decide a war in which even when one side does substantially more the other side can win on diversity points.
A real tie breaker is ignored until there is a tie. That's the definition of "tie breaker." Diversity points and defender ratings are not tie breakers. Diversity points and defender ratings are straight up scoring points before the war begins. And the absolute magnitude of the diversity and rating points are comparable to the points earned for actually killing nodes.
You can say that in AW 16.0 alliances will get 1000 points for every Luke Cage they place in defense, but that's just a tie breaker. But only if you don't care what words mean.
Defender rating is a tie breaker. Even though it's decided before the war is started. It's the only point that isn't tied up. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AN ABSOLUTE TIE. Every alliance has the capability of scoring the exact same points in every catagory except rating. That will always be different
While I understand the idea of diversity points making it people don’t face the same enemies, I still dislike it.
We just finished a war a few minutes ago and lost only by a few hundred due to diversity. What I dislike about that we now have to make sure we don’t have any of the same champs in defence. In order to make this happen in our alliance I’ve had to pick 5 Champions who I will use as defence in every war. Well that sucks because I enjoy using Hulk and Vision on offence in AQ or AW from time to time but now I can’t because if I switch them out for someone else we will be duplicating.
It’s headache enough to constantly discuss with the alliance who will be used as defence and such. It’s ridiculous.
No one wants diversity, everyone wants defence kills to matter. I want to be able to use hulk and vision.
Between what has been done to AW and all the bugs, I have one foot out the door. I’ve stopped spending money and I’m just not having fun
And this is in fact the case more often then not.
But then again her comes defender rating??? To decide who played a btter war? It that was the case then the football team with the best player stats should win every game. That would be their pi. They win. Who cares if they played worse. Their players have higher stats.
Played our 150 diversity
Explore 100%
Max all our champs.
But yet still lose due to "stats" pi.
Aka, defender rating
Defender kills points adds more points to the more effective team. As it is right now even upgraded both teams still clear and defender rating only variable meaning higher rated alliance wins. Period. Every time. Period. 100 percent. Period. Not 50. Not 70. Not 90 not 99>> 100. Thanks for playing.
The term "controlled variable" is a term used in science to refer to something that can change in a set of experiments but is intended to not change to the best degree possible to allow for comparison and analysis when other variables change.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. A tie is when both sides score the same amount of points. It is not when both sides *could* score the same amount of points. That's fundamental to the definition of a tie.
The problem is how do you define the "weaker" team. Even in 14.0, it was not always true that the alliance with the more skilled players always won. In 14.0, the "stronger" team was a combination of the alliance with the more skilled attackers, the players possessing the stronger defenders in their rosters, and the alliance willing to spend the most resources.
Even in 14.0 people complained that the "best" alliance didn't consistently win, for their personal definition of "best." The only reason why people aren't complaining about those things now is because 15.0 is perceived to be so much worse.
I am compelled to point out that this sort of hyperbole doesn't help anyone's cause. If your argument is that literally 100% of all wars are decided by the higher rated alliance, a single counterexample disproves the argument and renders it worthless.
And what single point would that be. Nothing? Because it’s correct? Please don’t post meaningless drivel. There is no variation that can gave someone with a lower rating win vs a person with a higher rating and max diversity etc. so your lack of a point about hyperbole wasted all our time.
New plan.
Every time @GroundedWisdom says that he's not gonna say anymore...and then says more...we have to drink.
And every time @Kabam Miike says that they've added some meaningless change that will make AW fun and engaging...for conscientious objectors...we have to drink.
Who's with me?
You're the something that is repetitive. Lol.
This is supposed to be a contest. It seems more like a football game that is played for four quarters then at the end the team who used the most players, all 53 on the roster, the win would be decided by the combined weight of the team. Players would all drink as much water as they could to get the win. It wouldn't matter who scored the most or gained the most yards, as these were.capped.
Now if one of those players had an accident on the sideline and couldn't get in to play, that team would already lose. The team would still be forc d to go through the motions but they would have no chance at winning.
I am not completely against diversity, but I really believe the cap on points should be reached at less than the maximum number of defenders. This would allow a 9 man bg to have a chance, and it would also allow more than one player to fight the same champ. And since this is a competition, there needs to be some metric that can affect outcome based on skill. Since defender kills discourage spending, that aspect has been lost. It is no longer a competionn, it's just a weight competition like the football game I described earlier. The heaviest team always wins. It just amazes me that the developers won't accept this fact and keep pushing there flawed mode.
Sometimes people have to step back and admit they are wrong. In this case it is the developers new scoring system. It is easily exploited and goes against everything the game has stood for in the past, and it really only affects the middle and lower tiers the most. It is the perfect reason for shelling. Just keep yourself in a tier that you easily outweigh your opponents and rake in the rewards. There would be no risk of loosing. If that is the goal of this new system then the people the change was made for are going to suffer more now.
Everyone would be in the hospital due to alcohol poisoning
I can see where you're coming from.
If the idea is that you think you'll still be able to 100% clear this map as it is now, how would defender kills have made a difference?
I can take that information to the team and see what they think.[/quote]
Defender kills make a difference because that is the only thing that makes sense as a tie breaker in alliance war. The defining metric when placing a defense should be how effective it is and not how diverse it is. I can't predict the future but I think it's safe to assume people will still 100% maps whether by skill or spamming items.
I've suggested it in this chat before but making defender kills the same amount of points as diversity seems like a great alternative. It gives the players a choice of whether they'd take the guaranteed 50 points from diversity or risk it if they think they'll get more than kill.
How can 1 group win a war where the other group has a more effective defense but spams items to get through it?
Don't be a twat. I've been in 2 wars where some players on the opposing side didn't show up, so they didn't even make it to the boss and they lost the wars. So since your point is, "defender rating is the only variable 100% of the time", those 2 examples render your point invalid. If there are 2 exceptions, then obviously it cannot be 100% of the time.
DNA3000 is giving good advice. You don't have to take it, but responding impolitely to one of the most lucid, sensible and patient posters in this thread because you don't have the patience or capacity to understand his point does not make you look good.
Why, they are getting closer in the fourth dimension, of course! They are getting closer... in time!
But what if you have a highly skilled player with a relatively small roster, and in order for your alliance max diversity and defender rating they have to bench other players stronger champs because they have a larger roster of r5s that can be used instead.
Call the guy with the smaller roster player A. He has magik at r4 sig 20 5*, Dormammu r5 sig 12 4*, Mordo r5 sig 20 4*, hood r5 unduped 4*, and Juggs, r3 sig 20 5*. He has 6 other champs that are at the same rank he uses for attack, let's say iceman, AA, starlord, Dr. voodoo, CM, and Black Panther. That is all his 5/50 or better champs.
Now player B has the same champs as player A, but higher sig levels. He also has more champs at high level. So instead of player B placing his 4/55 sig 120 magik, he has to place psylocke as the combined rating of his psylocke and player A's magik is greater than player B's magik and a 4/40 from player A.
Eventually, the alliance will decide player A needs to be replaced by someone with him sig Spider Gwen, Luke Cage, Iron Patriot, etc.. so that the alliance can raise it's defender rating. This player C isn't as skilled as player A, but he still gets the spot and Player A is left without an alliance and has to join a lower rated one where his champs give that team a better advantage.
Sounds pretty logical I'm sure, I'm just wondering what exactly the goal of the new iteration of AW is. I want to see an official statement from Kabam laying out their vision of how this will improve gameplay for as wide of a player base as possible. So many have shown how flawed the system is, but there has been nothing but silence from Kabam on their design parameters. It just feels cobbled together and an attempt to maybe level the playing field a bit, but it's so far failed.
I know we won't get any answer from the horses mouth, but maybe some others can make educated guesses as to what they are trying to accomplish with this system and how it makes anything more interesting, skill based, or strategic.
If someone in my BG already has an R5 Hyperion and I pulled one, why would I awaken and rank him up??? It’s only going to cost my team points.
Also remove the ability to see defenders class and rating in higher tiers... that’s rookie **** right there. Maps will continue to be dominated with 100% exploration if we know every fight we’ll have the class advantage and NEVER put ourselves in a disadvantage.
Don’t be an idiot that doesn’t qualify for maxing out everything including diversity does it. Once again. If the higher rating MAXES OUT EVERYTHING. There is no chance of winning that would be zero percent. Not showing up doesn’t really qualify for the discussion. Post more meaningless **** like what if only one person placed. Obviously diversity and rating would suffer though attacker kills and defenders placed on alternate sides would still equate to the same amount of points.
Your response as does his adds nothing to the discussion simply points out alternatives that have nothing to do with the point being made.
Most of the time when there aren't 3 boss kills it's because the alliance is discouraged by the fact that even if they spend to revive and get the kills, they have already figured out they would lose anyway based on diversity or defender rating. There is no reason to spend for the rewards received for losing. Sometimes it's not even worth it to spend when it will get you a win. You can just save that money for the next offer that comes up for a $30 4* or t4 cats.
For more competitive alliances that are skilled and clear maps without items, it's a slap in the face to lose when you have outplayed your opponent but lose to defender rating. Think about it, your team faced a harder defense, gave up less defender KO's, but still lose, if this was like aq, the higher rated defenders would give more points and you would come out ahead. At it's most fundamental point, AW is no longer skill based.