**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
15.0 Alliance Wars Update Discussion Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
To some (small) degree I can see some logic in this, but this scenario still sort of exists just now in a different place.
Without defender kills, it is almost impossible to beat a higher rated alliance. Before, as long as we had a decent defence we still had a chance to win, whereas now you don't really have a chance.
My last war (tier 2) we are against an alliance 2 mill higher rating. With a few hours left (this is where the old system was fun with the last ditch effort), our leader told us not to use potions as the other team had placed way more 5* champions than us so we knew we would lose via defender rating. Once the result came out we were right and even if we had continued we would have lost.
This tells me that we have replaced 1 issue of stopping people from moving with another (worse) issue.
Without defender kills it is nearly impossible to beat a higher rated alliance and so this needs to be added again in some form to bring strategy back into the war.
They don't listen to feedback. The only feedback in these 90+ pages is war is bad, bring back defender kills. So far they have 1) changed how diversity works, 2) updated nodes, 3) lowered defender rating points. How is that listening to feedback?
The only thing that encourages people to play is rewards. Take them away and no one would bother. War sucks, but we still play it right now for the rewards. All thats being asked for is a better balance to the scoring so the right alliance is winning.
Also, this thread has become complete ass and a one man show.
I guess agree to disagree because we both have the exact opposite feeling towards defender kills.
In its current state everybody goes for max diversity which in turn makes it incredibly easy to 100% every war sans a portal mistake. This in turn leads to defender rating being the only metric that matters. You may think there is no skill in setting a trap defense but it's definitely more of a skill than having a higher defender rating.
I agree that there are other ways to increase difficulty but with diversity it will almost never matter. If you're forced to go diverse whatever change you're making would have to be incredibly difficult for it to make an IP or KK a half decent defender. So another metric NEEDS to be in place.
That's what I've heard also, from public statements. I'm willing to see if the next iteration of AW is clearly an iterative number tweak - and you can't disguise those from me - or an actual design change. If it is an actual design change, even a bad design change, I would consider that progress if it means they are reopening the design.
What is necessary for skill to be meaningful in any game is it must be measurable. Two different performances must contribute differently to the outcome of the game. In 14.0 offensive skill was measured in terms of the balance between node exploration and kills verses defensive kills, which are offensive defeats. Measuring progress verses cost for that progress is a valid measure of offensive performance. In 15.0, offensive kill is measured only in terms of map progress, and against quantitatively weaker defenses. Because the current system is easy to saturate (i.e. it is possible for both sides to fully explore the map) 15.0 does not meaningfully use offensive skill as a metric for winning the war.
You are correct that defender kills literally are not the only way to measure offensive skill. However, you have yet to address any of the alternatives I've proposed to replace defender kills with an alternate offensive side metric. You've simply parroted the idea that all other offensive metrics are basically identical to defender kills, which is patently false.
A part of me wishes Kabam would implement this for a couple rounds of AW just to show to the people who think this is a good idea that it is not a good idea.
Eliminating defender kills didn't make all defenders equal. It eliminated all shades of grey between defenders (a caveat I made sure to repeat often). It is still true that Magik is better than Spider Gwen. It is just that at the moment there are two kinds of defenders: those that can literally kill multiple players dead (quantitatively, they have the theoretical capability of getting more than four defeats when placed on a particular node) and those that can't (which, given the current way AW works, are all basically equally marginally useful). If you change the nodes, you can change things in one and only one way: you can move the dividing line up or down. You can make more top-tier defenders or more ****-tier defenders. And if you make the nodes strong enough, you can even return the illusion of 14.0 AW: every node is so hard that the right defender placed there can stop a player dead in his or her tracks.
And when the nodes get that strong, we can all ignore diversity and rating points completely and go back to placing an entire map of Magiks, Dormammus, Icemen, and so on. But this time, players won't be giving up after attacking once. Some alliances will look at the maps and give up at the starting gate before even attacking once.
I don't think anyone really wants that. But in my darker moments I sometimes think it would be fun to take that implementation and swing it around until 95% of the alliances beg for mercy.
FYI: in our most recent war we reached 100% and killed all three bosses. I get the impression that at least one whole battlegroup in the opposing alliance saw that, saw they were behind, and just gave up trying.
In the current AW system, among the many very bad and very predictable problems they created, I don't think they even solved the problem they were trying to solve. While removing defender kills might now be encouraging players to fight on that were giving up before, they have also created all new ways for entire alliances to give up a war when they realize there is no hope for winning on points, because the other side already has too much points.
You can see how diverse your opponents are in theory as you play through. You know how diverse you are. If you are not maximally diverse or likely to out-diverse your opponent and they reach 100%, you're dead right then and there, no matter how many attackers died to reach 100%. You can't catch up even if you have infinite offensive skill.
As I keep saying, the problem wasn't eliminating defender kills. The problem was failing to understand the role defender kills was playing in AW, and not recognizing the need to fill that role with something else.
This is really important, and I hope the devs understand this in the next iteration of AW. Contrary to what some players have been saying in this thread, ON BOTH SIDES, defender kills were never about defenders. They were about measuring the skill of the offense. And the reason why it is CRITICAL to make the most important variation in points be offensive performance is that offensive performance IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS DURING THE WAR.
Every other source of points is static and is determined the moment the war starts. From that point on, the only thing that "happens" is offense. How the players play the game is the only thing that changes from minute to minute during the war, and we only play on offense. If the deciding metric is measuring that performance, then (outside of extreme overkill situations) the war isn't decided until the end of the war. But if it is decided by anything other than offense, then it was decided before the war started.
Removing defender skills removed one way to reward better offense. Adding defender diversity (and adjusting the nodes) lowered the offensive difficulty making it harder to tell the difference between offensive performance. These two things are called "defensive" things but both actually cripple the ability for the game to judge and reward good offense. That shifts the decisive factor to defensive points, which are static and fixed throughout the war. Which makes war intrinsically more predictable and it makes it feel more passive.
Frankly I don't really care on a fundamental level if defender diversity is rewarded or if defender kills are eliminated. These are cogs in a larger system that is broken not because those cogs were added or removed, but because the machine wasn't redesigned to accommodate the new parts list. Most cars don't need or use carburetors anymore but if you remove a carburetor from a 1972 Camaro you can't replace it with some paperclips and a fidget spinner and expect it to work. It is wrong to argue that all cars need carburetors or carburetors are bad and should be replaced. That argument misses the point entirely.
What I said was that there are other ways to add a degree of difficulty and skill besides making it punitive and limiting. There's no question that the old metrics were accumulating to the point of being the definitive aspect. Again, I never debated your suggestions.
And you are 100% wrong.
Any specific element of them, really.
When you do respond, do so appropriately, in that our concerns are addressed in a manor that we have been asking for. Whether or not we like the response just give us answers. Then we can decide for sure if we would like to continue playing or not based on the answers.
Again be very specific in your plan of action moving forward
NO WHERE!
Let me scroll back when I have some time and I'll process.
Members are leaving and honestly it was hard enough to recruit before the AW changes. Now you can't have life first alliances cause you need everyone to fill up the BGs and everyone to join on the first day of the attack or everyone will have conflicting schedules. Oh I can't attack tomorrow until the AW is almost done cause I have this, that and the other to worry about.
Theses AW changes hurt life first alliances. Maybe not all but mine and others, probably a good chunk of life first alliances. How am I supposed to fill up my alliance now? It's no longer possible to play the AW if you have a busy week, so if you played or went at a snails pace in other game modes, you might as well just not play anymore.
They stripped the AW of everything that made it about strategy and skill and replaced it with a boring tedious chore to do. Where you spend all of your starting energy on 0-1 fights, maybe 1-2 but only if you come in late.
So, keeping in mind it's 5:30 A.M. here and I'm skimming with the Search Engine, I can offer my thoughts on this.
I can see what you're suggesting with the diminishing strengths for multiples placed, but I'm not sure I could get behind that as a viable encouragement for Diversity. Inevitably, people will place repeats regardless. Of course this comment may have been made before the Diversity Points were lowered, but I'm assuming you still feel the same way about having them in general. I actually agree with having them, for a few reasons.
The idea on Points for timing are interesting. I'm just curious how Suicides would play into that. They would no doubt become the norm, and that doesn't necessarily translate to skill to me as much as Masteries.
I agree that an element of engagement for Defense would help. One thing you mentioned in another Thread (may have been this one, I was scrolling Search Results) that is sticking to my mind is the idea of alternating Nodes. That could be interesting. If they were set on a randomizer and hidden from the opponent, at least partially, that would be interesting. Perhaps Nodes that are useful for two or three Champs to encourage using a selection.
Another idea that occurs to me is Traps. This would encourage Placement as well as provide challenge for Attack. Traps could be hidden until the Map is engaged. For example, let's say a Trap is Heal Block, or Degen, or 1% Poison. If there are a certain number of Traps allowed to be used, it could make it interesting with placing different Traps with different Champs on various Nodes.
To be clear, I wasn't ignoring any of your ideas. I've just been focused on certain aspects of the conversation. I understand the point you're making. We may not always agree on things, but I still respect your views.
So, keeping in mind I am surfing the Search Engine at 5:30 A.M., I can offer my thoughts on this.
I hear what you're suggesting with diminished strengths. I'm just not entirely sure that will encourage Diversity because inevitably, people can place who they want in various strenghts. I understand that you don't agree with Diversity Points, but I do for a few reasons.
The idea on timing is interesting. What I'm wondering is what effect Suicides would have on that. That would most likely become the norm, and Fights would be over quickly. I can hear what you're saying about adding a component. Again, I have been focusing on certain aspects of the conversation, and not at all trying to discredit your suggestions. I've been skimming. We may not always agree, but I still respect your ideas.
One thing you mentioned, could have been in another Thread, that peaked my interest is shifting Nodes. That could be interesting if they were on a randomizer. That could break the monotony. If there were a variety of Nodes that could be used with two or more Champs in a way that encouraged using a selection of Defense, that would be helfpul. Another idea I came up with is Traps. They could encourage Placement as well as Attack. Now, Nodes are generally Buffs. What if Traps were Debuffs. Traps would be hidden. Placing various Champs with various Traps could get engaging. For example, if a Trap was Heal Block, or Degen, or 1% Poison, I'm sure there could be other ideas. Having a certain number of Traps available would make it quite unique because they could be paired with Nodes and make Attack a surprising event.
I hear what you're saying about the competitive element. I'm not too on board with the idea that Wars have to be some personal triumph in skill as outlined with not dying, but I also don't disagree with making it an engaging experience or having a degree of challenge. It's just that Wars for me are about working as a team, not so much about avoiding dying. Ultimately the goal is common. Which is why I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. I feel there are other ways to introduce measures. I think your ideas are interesting. Very clever about
"disguise". It goes in tandem with what I was saying about rewarding rather than penalizing.
Imagine a relay race. Team A and Team B.
Team A hustles, works as a team, is really great at running, and finishes the race in 60 seconds.
Team B hustles, works as a team, is okay at running, and finishes the race in 70 seconds.
Since both teams hustled and worked as a team, they are tied. The tie breaker is height, and Team B is taller so they are awarded the win and a prize 4 times larger than Team A.
This is the problem with the current set up. Team A can only grow taller so much in preparation for the race much like an alliance can only get their defender rating so high (by switching to suicides, placing high prestige heroes with synergies, and boosting). But in the end, they still might be too short.
I believe most of us don't want war to be a challenge of who's taller. We want it to be who's faster that wins the race.
That actually is not a half bad idea.
+100 points for clearing a node without any deaths.
+50 for clearing it with 1 death.
+0 for clearing it with 2 or more deaths.
With Mephisto and Morningstar, they now have the code in place to track that sort of thing easily. Just tweak it and apply it.
It would be a skill metric. Not as precise as defender kills were in my estimation, but at least it would make it a factor again.
Hit the nail on the head
As a side note, you guys claim that this new system was designed not to discourage people that get knocked out. It encourages them to revive and use items to get back into the fight. Why on earth would we do that knowing the war is a loss from the start? When a 12M alliance is up against a 13-15M alliance there is absolutely zero point in people using items because it's a loss anyway. Even though we have 3-4x the defender kills we still lose. This system is flawed. You have to change it. It doesn't work!
Same issue here. We frequently have less deaths, but we played above our rating in old wars, so we were constantly matched up against higher rated alliances and always won. Now, we are being punished for having a low rating while still getting matched up with bigger alliances. It's bs. This is not fun. Please bring back defender kills and stop punishing smaller alliances.