nuggz wrote: »
GroundedWisdom wrote: » So, to reiterate, skill is the ability to finish all Fights without dying, and those that have skill should be rewarded. While those that KO and keep trying to help the team should have a forced penalty. Is that what we're saying? I honestly don't understand how I'm the only one who sees how unreasonable that is to say, so I'm just going to state my view rather than debate that. Skill in War is about working together as a team, through strategy of Offense and Defense, to complete the Map and gain the most Points. There should be no penalty for making an effort. People may view the ability to win unharmed as skill, but that doesn't mean that view has to be enforced through penalty. There should be no penalty for making an effort to complete the Map because it creates a lose/lose situation where you need to complete to have a chance, but you have consequences for trying. There is nothing fair or skillful about that scenario. It's not about finishing without dying. It's about helping your team to make as many Points as possible. I don't agree that Defender Kills are the earmark for skill, so I will peace out of that aspect of the conversation. Anyone can KO, whether through their efforts, or lagging controls and other issues, and trying to fight shouldn't be a penalty.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » PlasmaKing wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Which means the current solution would be Ranking or boosting in other ways. Without forming an opinion, that would be the answer to optimizing efficiency. We are going to lose Wars now and then in whatever system we play. Sorry again you miss the point alliance war isn't fun and isn't war. It's a cheap diy AQ right now. You don't need to actually fight to win, you know before starting the result in the main. War needs to allow the ability for weaker teams to win and tbh that's through skill and dying less. There are many cases of real battles were strategy and the captains ensuring they kept their troops alive longer while killing the enemy faster won the day. If you're in an alliance and you don't like dying then don't play AW, but war has to be war otherwise call it short AQ because right now at best that's what it is. What you're talking about is penalizing the opponent through trying, and having a penalty for attempting has very little to do with skill at all. It's not necessary to have Defender Kills in order to have a skill component. That can be achieved through adding some other form of difficulty. By having metrics for Defender Kills that become the main focus, you're actually creating a situation that removes the ability for Offense. Thereby making it Defense Wars. I'm sorry, but I do not agree that Defender Kills are absolutely necessary for a skill component. The only time that is used as an argument is in reference to the opposing team. What it really means is people are upset that they can't win by causing the other team to try itself into a Loss.
PlasmaKing wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Which means the current solution would be Ranking or boosting in other ways. Without forming an opinion, that would be the answer to optimizing efficiency. We are going to lose Wars now and then in whatever system we play. Sorry again you miss the point alliance war isn't fun and isn't war. It's a cheap diy AQ right now. You don't need to actually fight to win, you know before starting the result in the main. War needs to allow the ability for weaker teams to win and tbh that's through skill and dying less. There are many cases of real battles were strategy and the captains ensuring they kept their troops alive longer while killing the enemy faster won the day. If you're in an alliance and you don't like dying then don't play AW, but war has to be war otherwise call it short AQ because right now at best that's what it is.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Which means the current solution would be Ranking or boosting in other ways. Without forming an opinion, that would be the answer to optimizing efficiency. We are going to lose Wars now and then in whatever system we play.
Greywarden wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » So, to reiterate, skill is the ability to finish all Fights without dying, and those that have skill should be rewarded. While those that KO and keep trying to help the team should have a forced penalty. Is that what we're saying? I honestly don't understand how I'm the only one who sees how unreasonable that is to say, so I'm just going to state my view rather than debate that. Skill in War is about working together as a team, through strategy of Offense and Defense, to complete the Map and gain the most Points. There should be no penalty for making an effort. People may view the ability to win unharmed as skill, but that doesn't mean that view has to be enforced through penalty. There should be no penalty for making an effort to complete the Map because it creates a lose/lose situation where you need to complete to have a chance, but you have consequences for trying. There is nothing fair or skillful about that scenario. It's not about finishing without dying. It's about helping your team to make as many Points as possible. I don't agree that Defender Kills are the earmark for skill, so I will peace out of that aspect of the conversation. Anyone can KO, whether through their efforts, or lagging controls and other issues, and trying to fight shouldn't be a penalty. There should be a penalty if both groups 100% but one does it by dying less times, not sure how that doesn't make sense. Right now the 'penalty' with all else being equal is defender rating which is as far from skill as you can get. Maybe there is a better metric for skill than kills but I haven't heard it in this 100+ page thread. Surely you can't argue that rating is a better metric of skill than defender kills.
GroundedWisdom wrote: »
nuggz wrote: » If they wanna make the nodes ridiculously hard then we just end up going back to placing hard defenders with a little less diveristy and hope we aren't facing whales. And @GroundedWisdom adding points for ppl that don't die is the same difference as defender kills. Still the more skilled players (the ppl who died the least) get more points. Half the stuff you say makes no sense at all
DNA3000 wrote: » hurricant wrote: » linux wrote: » Max_ wrote: » We have adjusted our game playing as a group we focus on feature 4 and 5 start champs. It’s nice to see different champs in AW defense. The MD is no longer and issue. Thank you. I hardly come across it now. The new system is not the best but it’s playable. But the problem with taking slow action is that Kabam will wind up losing all the players who liked competitive AW in favor of those who just want another easy chore like AQ. Like someone said earlier, they could ruin war in one big change, but suddenly fixing it takes months Unfortunately, this is typical for how MMO development works. When it works it works, when it doesn't work it just doesn't work. A project like this generally starts with a problem statement. Alliance War needs work because blank. Greatly simplifying things, blank turns into a list of problems, the list of problems turns into a set of metrics that can quantify the problem, a redesign is created that is intended to address those problems, the design is implemented and pushed out. Then the game is run with the new design and data collected on those very same metrics to see if they are improving. If they get to where the devs want them to go, they are done (as done as anything is ever done in an MMO). If not, the tweak parts of the design and go again: test, measure, repeat. Typically, the major design and implementation work happens in one long phase under development conditions completely different from what's going on when the devs are just tweaking things, so they don't just redesign things. It is always design, implement, datamine, review, tweak, datamine, review, tweak. This loop doesn't go back to design often, and datamine generally takes a significant amount of time: at least a week, sometimes a month or more. The fact that Kabam has gone relatively quiet tells me there's a good chance they are in a tweak, datamine, review, tweak loop. There's nothing to talk about while data is being collected. And since the tweak loop doesn't generally make major design changes (there are complex operational reasons this is generally true) and since I know only design changes are going to address the problems I perceive in the current version of war, I'm unwilling to simply wait and see. Keep in mind: I defended the devs when it came to the equally controversial balance changes to Dr. Strange. I thought they cut too deep, but I said then and I continue to say that sometimes the devs design/tweak/datamine/tweak methods are the only way they can really get to where they want to go, and Strange was an example. I think it was obvious his healing was cut too drastically, but that's something you can iterate to a better solution. I wish it could be done better and faster, and many people still think he's cut too deep, but no process can guarantee the devs will agree with the players on what needs to be changed. The point is when you're tweaking numbers anyway, iteratively tweaking numbers is a legitimate way to try to find the right ones. But here, tweaking numbers is not the right way to solve the problems AW has. So datamine-driven iterative tweaking isn't going to get there no matter how many iterations and no matter what metrics are being monitored. Maybe they've gone back to the drawing board and that's why they are quiet. I suppose it is possible. But if they were doing that, there's no reason to keep that a secret. The most logical reason for being quiet is they still believe that they can datamine their way to a solution and they are just waiting for the good news to come from the game data. You think it is frustrating not knowing what's going on. It ain't less frustrating when you have a pretty good guess.
hurricant wrote: » linux wrote: » Max_ wrote: » We have adjusted our game playing as a group we focus on feature 4 and 5 start champs. It’s nice to see different champs in AW defense. The MD is no longer and issue. Thank you. I hardly come across it now. The new system is not the best but it’s playable. But the problem with taking slow action is that Kabam will wind up losing all the players who liked competitive AW in favor of those who just want another easy chore like AQ. Like someone said earlier, they could ruin war in one big change, but suddenly fixing it takes months
linux wrote: » Max_ wrote: » We have adjusted our game playing as a group we focus on feature 4 and 5 start champs. It’s nice to see different champs in AW defense. The MD is no longer and issue. Thank you. I hardly come across it now. The new system is not the best but it’s playable. But the problem with taking slow action is that Kabam will wind up losing all the players who liked competitive AW in favor of those who just want another easy chore like AQ.
Max_ wrote: » We have adjusted our game playing as a group we focus on feature 4 and 5 start champs. It’s nice to see different champs in AW defense. The MD is no longer and issue. Thank you. I hardly come across it now. The new system is not the best but it’s playable.
Badrose wrote: » For the love of god... using revives is not an effort, it's just buying the win because you can't compete!
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Badrose wrote: » For the love of god... using revives is not an effort, it's just buying the win because you can't compete! Considering one of the main complaints is that the Map is too easy, I doubt that's the issue. Spending has always been an option. People were spending in the old system. Effort is exactly what it is. If people choose to, or need to use Resources, that shouldn't be a penalty either. They've been doing it all along. The difference is if you die, you have a penalty. Which means they were spending for less chance to Win.
Anonymous wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Badrose wrote: » For the love of god... using revives is not an effort, it's just buying the win because you can't compete! Considering one of the main complaints is that the Map is too easy, I doubt that's the issue. Spending has always been an option. People were spending in the old system. Effort is exactly what it is. If people choose to, or need to use Resources, that shouldn't be a penalty either. They've been doing it all along. The difference is if you die, you have a penalty. Which means they were spending for less chance to Win. What you call "penalty" we all refer to as an intelligent decision to rank up certain champs for their effectiveness. They didn't take points away for dying in the old system anyway so not sure why you're referring to it as a penalty.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Penalty is exactly what it is. You fight, you die, you lose Points for dying.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Anonymous wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Badrose wrote: » For the love of god... using revives is not an effort, it's just buying the win because you can't compete! Considering one of the main complaints is that the Map is too easy, I doubt that's the issue. Spending has always been an option. People were spending in the old system. Effort is exactly what it is. If people choose to, or need to use Resources, that shouldn't be a penalty either. They've been doing it all along. The difference is if you die, you have a penalty. Which means they were spending for less chance to Win. What you call "penalty" we all refer to as an intelligent decision to rank up certain champs for their effectiveness. They didn't take points away for dying in the old system anyway so not sure why you're referring to it as a penalty. Penalty is exactly what it is. You fight, you die, you lose Points for dying.
Etaki_Lirakoi wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Anonymous wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » Badrose wrote: » For the love of god... using revives is not an effort, it's just buying the win because you can't compete! Considering one of the main complaints is that the Map is too easy, I doubt that's the issue. Spending has always been an option. People were spending in the old system. Effort is exactly what it is. If people choose to, or need to use Resources, that shouldn't be a penalty either. They've been doing it all along. The difference is if you die, you have a penalty. Which means they were spending for less chance to Win. What you call "penalty" we all refer to as an intelligent decision to rank up certain champs for their effectiveness. They didn't take points away for dying in the old system anyway so not sure why you're referring to it as a penalty. Penalty is exactly what it is. You fight, you die, you lose Points for dying. Penalty means either punishment for breaking a rule or given a disadvantage or handicap because of not complying with the rules, what you are talking about is a “Failure”, “Defeat” or “Loss”. It’s not penalty, that’s not what the word means exactly, it’s a little misguiding.