**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
Comments
Kabam had a choice, current system or the old system. Whether you want the one that punishes high prestige alliances and lets lower prestige alliances skip a large chunk of the standard progression (through earning platinum rewards when they’re still rocking 4*s or low ranked 5*s) or the one that pits everyone against anyone at an equal war rating, is entirely up to you.
I know I prefer the one that gives me balanced matches for rewards worth my time, and that wasn’t the old one.
I once likened AW to Wimbledon, some schmuck has to face Nadal or Federer or any other top rated player in the first, second or maybe even the third if they are playing well, everyone starts equal but the best rise to the top eventually.
Everyone loves an underdog but they are probably not going to the final, they will win when they are good enough but are owed nothing by the tournament other than a chance to compete.
That post got deleted, probably because it was a reply to someone who thought the idea of rating alliances was unfair and isn't shy about posting it at every opportunity but the point I made is valid, just as yours here.
Prestige means nothing, total player rating even less. It has nothing to do with performance. War rating is pure, you win it goes up, you lose it goes down. More champs at higher rarity gives you an edge but does nothing for your thumbs.
You can maybe put your regulations in place, if you do it with a different scoring system, you’d need to include Something like prestige in the scoring multiplier, but then of course you’ll get other alliances complaining that they feel forced to make prestige rank ups to boost their multiplier.
Or of course have a ‘casual war’ matchmaking system that will completely ignore war rating and just focus on alliance rating or prestige or whatever these people want, but you don’t get any points towards a war season.
I’ve dealt with what you refer to as “unfair, un-winnable” wars in the past, I’ll deal with them in the future, you shrug and get on with it, you don’t whine like a child that’s just lost at a board game.
As for whining like a child, that saying could be said for anyone that poses a problem, but I'm going to dog that and address your other point. You're saying if people want to win or lose fairly, they should play their own game, for no Rewards? That's pretty flippant, TBH.
if you restrict limits on size in matches it allows people to manipulate the system.
I have a 1.5m account, with 648 heroes. What do the other 640 heroes that provide pretty much all of that 1.5m have to do with if a war is fair or not?