15.0 Alliance Wars Update Discussion Thread

Summoners!

Our 15.0 Update is just about a week away, and with it, it's bringing a huge change to Alliance Wars! Check out everything you need to know about the Brand New Map, Scoring Changes, and new boosts in the Loyalty Store here: http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/17902/15-0-alliance-wars-update/

Comments

Anonymous

The first rule of fight club is we don't talk about fight club!

GroundedWisdom

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

k666k wrote: »

Everyone wants defender kills back, how hard is that to understand, but I guess its not designed to be what we want.

I don't want or need defender kills back. What I want is a way for a good defender to help me win the war in a way other than pray that the other alliance gives up and stops fighting because they are afraid of it.

Defender kills did that. A defender was worth placing on the map if it could get even a single kill, because that single kill helped me win. In 15.0, that single kill is worthless. Kabam would say it is not worthless because a kill helps stop the other side. That is a meaningful statement if your defenders got an assist like in basketball. Kabam is wrong: they do not.

Defender kills were just a tool. There's nothing special about defender kills. But if we are going to eliminate them, we need something else to judge the performance of a defender by. RIght now, 15.0 has no way to judge a defender, except by some nebulous idea of oh, maybe, if we are really lucky, this defender might help stop the path by some miracle.

Give me another way to judge a defender. Give me some way for a good defender to earn me points, or cost the attacker points. This thread has at least six separate suggestions on how to do that, that does not involve bringing back defender kills. Give me any one of them, and lets test it out to see if it works.

I completely agree it's not about defender kills it's about having some sort of metric that rewards your defense. As it stands right now the only way to win is with a higher defender rating, which is not a fighting war but a war of spreadsheets.

You could instead take away points for every item used in war, but a game mechanic like that would discourage spending units on those items, and as a business you want to promote item use without having content that demands that items be used ie a skilled player should be able to solo fights in the game where a less skilled player might have to use items to defeat that particular obstacle. That's literally my only complaint about the Collector fight.

That's what occurred to me as well with Item Restrictions. Spending has always been optional, and really won't logically be discouraged by any paradigm put forth by them. Nor should it be in my opinion. That leaves me sort of blank for suggestions. Trying to add a metric element that doesn't involve Defender Kills, or Item Use Points. Which is why I suggested Bonus Points of some sort for completing without dying. I'm still considering ideas. I'm just not debating the addition of Defender Kills, and I can't justify them penalizing people for using Resources either.

Every option to replace 14.0 defender kills with a metric that rewards good defender placement (cleaned up and simplified a bit) either suggested or that I can think up:

1. Deduct points from the attacker for every attacker revived by the attacking alliance.

2. Make the points awarded to attacker for defeating a defender a function of the number of defenders defeated by it (i.e. points = 100/kills)

3. Make the points awarded to attacker for defeating a defender a function of the cumulative amount of time it takes to defeat the defender (i.e. points = 100 / (minutes to defeat), minimum one minute)

4. Award defender kill points as before, but no points for the first three defeats from any one player (i.e. no penalty for using all initial attackers)

5. Award bonus points to the attacker based on health remaining when defender is defeated, normalized across multiple attackers (if any).

6. Award points to the defending alliance based on the amount of cumulative damage dealt by placed defenders on non-boss nodes.

That's what I recall off the top of my head. I'm sure if given a set of constraint parameters I could come up with more.

There have been suggestions, I mean in terms of offering my own.
1. I can't really get behind because that's essentially penalizing Item Use.
2. Could be interesting. Limited by the number of Champs you can defeat, but still an element.
3. Pretty much an extension of 1, so I'm not too keen.
4. Same as 1.
5. That could be something I'd consider.
6. Also something that could work. Cumulative Damage could be a mechanism.

I just meant in terms of my own thoughts. There have been suggestions for sure.

How are (3) and (4) variations of (1)? They aren't remotely similar.

That's why I specified that the idea of Time peaked my interest, but I'd have to understand more about the cumulative aspect because if it's carrying over, and no doubt will be governed by Suicides, then that's the same as penalizing those that need to Revive. Not a fully formed disagreeance, just a questionable one for me. Number 4 is both instances of what I'm not for. It brings Defender Kills back in a way that counts after the use of Items.

How are (3) and (4) variations of (1)? They aren't remotely similar.

I just responded to this.

Not really. Which is why I repeated my question. Exactly none of what you said responds to this question.

Yes I did actually. In terms of basing it off of Time, I'm questioning it. Which is why I posted after the first reply and indicated that I'm intrigued by the idea of it, but I would have to know more about the proposal. If it's awarding more Points for Time, Suicides would make faster Kills. Then it becomes less about Skill and more about Masteries. I commented again because I was questioning whether it indirectly relates to the first idea because essentially, having to use Items accumulates more Time. Therefore penalty. I'm not so much rejecting that idea as curious to know more.
Number 4 is essentially number 1. If Defender Kills are brought back, an idea that I am not for, and they take effect after Reviving, that's the same as penalizing Item Use. To the tune of the amount that Kills accumulate to. Two birds, one stone. That penalizes dying AND using Items.

KamalaWantsToPlayToo

Oh, but wait! There will be several more iterations to come!

Ok seriously, it's my take on where they're headed and why. Given all of the information they've given so far, it's as good as any.

Just out of curiosity how's your suggestions to them coming along?

Draco2199

OnlyOneAboveAll wrote: »

Where are our top alliances? You guy should be all over every chat group (Facebook, Line App, Twitter) whatever and organize a no war strike to all alliances. Or only use 3stars. Enough is enough. My comment will for sure be deleted.

Top alliances basically have automatic wins so why would they complain? They manipulate match making so they dont fight each other. They know their defender rating is higher so 100% completion is a win. They literally can't lose under this system.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

Draco2199 wrote: »

OnlyOneAboveAll wrote: »

Where are our top alliances? You guy should be all over every chat group (Facebook, Line App, Twitter) whatever and organize a no war strike to all alliances. Or only use 3stars. Enough is enough. My comment will for sure be deleted.

Top alliances basically have automatic wins so why would they complain? They manipulate match making so they dont fight each other. They know their defender rating is higher so 100% completion is a win. They literally can't lose under this system.

That's what I'm hoping the Defender Rating situation is averting. I suspect the system is balancing itself. If Allies are winning or losing based on Rating metrics, then they will end up in Tiers that are more in tune with their Rating. Therefore, less smaller Allies in proximity to peck off. Now, I would not be opposed to a more direct way of stopping this from happening. I'm not keen on it myself.
Having said that, Top Allies have the Rosters, Rating, Champs, skills, etc., to win regardless. I'm not entirely sure that there is much stopping them from winning in either system, unless metrics are introduced that provide a playing field that gives equal opportunity outside of everything else. Quite simply, the top has more of everything. I would be satisfied to see Wars won by Defender Rating that were not manipulated by some form of Agreement to maintain positions.

Claytons2112

So we give it the 2 weeks and it's still happening, are you guys guaranteeing that you'll bring back defender kills? Cuz it's not gonna stop anything. People will just use more items and still clear 100%

GroundedWisdom

If there were limitations placed on the proximity of War Rating that is Matched, that would solve the "Agreement" manipulation. They could Match for days, but unless an Ally Matches within that range, they won't be Matched.

Midnightfox

We need some kind of Real change to war. Right now I’m so bored it is ridiculous. The only spots that matter on the map are mini boss and boss. Oh wait never mind, instead of giving us back defenders kills you decided to make the game ridiculous again. We’re going to take away thorns and slashed tires which hurt you even with skill and oh we’re going to give you act 5 nodes and make the map even worse. Can you actually listen to your community. We don’t mind what nodes are out there but we want our skill to count for something and right now it does not in any way. Part of me likes to keep upgrading and at times I’m willing to spend to do so. However, with the rate you are chasing off players I’m not sure that is a good investment any more. You are quickly chasing off your customers and no customers means no games. Get your heads out of your rears and listen to your players before you kill the game well before 2020.

Jaffacaked

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Draco2199 wrote: »

OnlyOneAboveAll wrote: »

Where are our top alliances? You guy should be all over every chat group (Facebook, Line App, Twitter) whatever and organize a no war strike to all alliances. Or only use 3stars. Enough is enough. My comment will for sure be deleted.

Top alliances basically have automatic wins so why would they complain? They manipulate match making so they dont fight each other. They know their defender rating is higher so 100% completion is a win. They literally can't lose under this system.

That's what I'm hoping the Defender Rating situation is averting. I suspect the system is balancing itself. If Allies are winning or losing based on Rating metrics, then they will end up in Tiers that are more in tune with their Rating. Therefore, less smaller Allies in proximity to peck off. Now, I would not be opposed to a more direct way of stopping this from happening. I'm not keen on it myself.
Having said that, Top Allies have the Rosters, Rating, Champs, skills, etc., to win regardless. I'm not entirely sure that there is much stopping them from winning in either system, unless metrics are introduced that provide a playing field that gives equal opportunity outside of everything else. Quite simply, the top has more of everything. I would be satisfied to see Wars won by Defender Rating that were not manipulated by some form of Agreement to maintain positions.

Stop taking about stuff you have no experience in, your in some bottom tier alliance where 99% of the changes just don't effect you yet your babbling on. Defender rating should never be the deciding factor

Jaffacaked

Only reason they are keep diversity is to keep 4* relevant

Zingooria

In our last war . Opponents went for boss take down. Ignoring 100% map Exploration. We did 87% MAP explored and 1 bossdown
Opponents. 2 boss take down and 64% Map explored.

Their defender Rating 211482
Our Defender Rating 202769

Our Attacker Kills 85 (4250 points)
Opp Attacker kills 41 (2050 Points)

the difference is only 1800 points, Boss is difficult to defeat because of nodes their. and selection of our defender.

Now, we defeated their more defenders with high ratings and they defeated our low rating champs.,

We do not get any advantage of getting high rating defenders than ours. Removing Boss seems more important than exploring Map.
The difference in killing defenders are 34 ( not a little difference). But there are no big points for this just 1800 points.

Hack to win common WAR is explore 50% but Kill both Bosses.

As per current point system we cannot win war by exploring more than our opponents and killing more opponents.
Exploration can be easily done via empty nodes. But another scenario is killing more opponents do not have much points.
If we recruit 4 players to follow 2 same paths and go for boss take down. Chances to Win War is easier.
In comparison to 1 Boss take down and less exploration.

BDLH

Jaffacaked wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Draco2199 wrote: »

OnlyOneAboveAll wrote: »

Where are our top alliances? You guy should be all over every chat group (Facebook, Line App, Twitter) whatever and organize a no war strike to all alliances. Or only use 3stars. Enough is enough. My comment will for sure be deleted.

Top alliances basically have automatic wins so why would they complain? They manipulate match making so they dont fight each other. They know their defender rating is higher so 100% completion is a win. They literally can't lose under this system.

That's what I'm hoping the Defender Rating situation is averting. I suspect the system is balancing itself. If Allies are winning or losing based on Rating metrics, then they will end up in Tiers that are more in tune with their Rating. Therefore, less smaller Allies in proximity to peck off. Now, I would not be opposed to a more direct way of stopping this from happening. I'm not keen on it myself.
Having said that, Top Allies have the Rosters, Rating, Champs, skills, etc., to win regardless. I'm not entirely sure that there is much stopping them from winning in either system, unless metrics are introduced that provide a playing field that gives equal opportunity outside of everything else. Quite simply, the top has more of everything. I would be satisfied to see Wars won by Defender Rating that were not manipulated by some form of Agreement to maintain positions.

Stop taking about stuff you have no experience in, your in some bottom tier alliance where 99% of the changes just don't effect you yet your babbling on. Defender rating should never be the deciding factor

Is GW flagging every post exposing how low he is commenting on end game content just like in the previous forums? You're being flagged for pointing out he has no understanding on anything beyond heroic mode close you're eyes and smash buttons yets comments on tier2/1 wars, LOL and Legends events, and you get a flag for pointing out a very pertinent point?

It has been requested/stated over and over how much trash and toxicity that consumes > 70? >80? >90? percent of these forums? Why can't we filter by user tier, achievements, rating, etc., so it doesn't take all day reading through huge loads of trash to get pertinent information? The amount of useless information here is overwhelming with no way of filtering for these things - this FACT alone drives players away from even coming to the forums. I'm stuck on a certain boss in LOL, I'm having trouble breaking 4h on a certain Legends run, etc, I want to get input on players who actually know what these are without wasting all day here. How is this a bad thing for the community much less something constantly flagged and called abuse? It is a very valid point and request that would improve how useful and efficient your forums are for sharing PERTINENT information.

I'm not suggesting anyone should be blocked from commenting anything they want, they can post all they want like these low tier guys with thousands of posts who live in the forums instead of playing and/or learning the game. Let us just filter by Tier1 player posts, legends posts, LOL finisher posts, etc. Or explain why this is a bad thing for the community.

Burger

Kabam Miike wrote: »

R4GE wrote: »

2 changes made to war system, both involved buffs to nodes.

After the 1st time you buffed nodes pages among pages were argued that we needed changes to the scoring system. Please point out the changes you made that were from the majority feedback to show us you are listening.

The node changes were directly linked to players being worried that their rosters were no longer useful in Alliance Wars because of Diversity. This pointed to a problem where the Map was not providing enough of a challenge, so that Defender Diversity was making the decisions on who won, and not acting as the tie breaker.

As we said, we're still looking into more revisions that may need to be made after, but this was based on your guys feedback.

You are missing the whole point Miike, making the map harder is just secondary. BRING BACK DEFENDER KILLS POINTS. Try this and see what happens.

DNA3000

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

k666k wrote: »

Everyone wants defender kills back, how hard is that to understand, but I guess its not designed to be what we want.

I don't want or need defender kills back. What I want is a way for a good defender to help me win the war in a way other than pray that the other alliance gives up and stops fighting because they are afraid of it.

Defender kills did that. A defender was worth placing on the map if it could get even a single kill, because that single kill helped me win. In 15.0, that single kill is worthless. Kabam would say it is not worthless because a kill helps stop the other side. That is a meaningful statement if your defenders got an assist like in basketball. Kabam is wrong: they do not.

Defender kills were just a tool. There's nothing special about defender kills. But if we are going to eliminate them, we need something else to judge the performance of a defender by. RIght now, 15.0 has no way to judge a defender, except by some nebulous idea of oh, maybe, if we are really lucky, this defender might help stop the path by some miracle.

Give me another way to judge a defender. Give me some way for a good defender to earn me points, or cost the attacker points. This thread has at least six separate suggestions on how to do that, that does not involve bringing back defender kills. Give me any one of them, and lets test it out to see if it works.

I completely agree it's not about defender kills it's about having some sort of metric that rewards your defense. As it stands right now the only way to win is with a higher defender rating, which is not a fighting war but a war of spreadsheets.

You could instead take away points for every item used in war, but a game mechanic like that would discourage spending units on those items, and as a business you want to promote item use without having content that demands that items be used ie a skilled player should be able to solo fights in the game where a less skilled player might have to use items to defeat that particular obstacle. That's literally my only complaint about the Collector fight.

That's what occurred to me as well with Item Restrictions. Spending has always been optional, and really won't logically be discouraged by any paradigm put forth by them. Nor should it be in my opinion. That leaves me sort of blank for suggestions. Trying to add a metric element that doesn't involve Defender Kills, or Item Use Points. Which is why I suggested Bonus Points of some sort for completing without dying. I'm still considering ideas. I'm just not debating the addition of Defender Kills, and I can't justify them penalizing people for using Resources either.

Every option to replace 14.0 defender kills with a metric that rewards good defender placement (cleaned up and simplified a bit) either suggested or that I can think up:

1. Deduct points from the attacker for every attacker revived by the attacking alliance.

2. Make the points awarded to attacker for defeating a defender a function of the number of defenders defeated by it (i.e. points = 100/kills)

3. Make the points awarded to attacker for defeating a defender a function of the cumulative amount of time it takes to defeat the defender (i.e. points = 100 / (minutes to defeat), minimum one minute)

4. Award defender kill points as before, but no points for the first three defeats from any one player (i.e. no penalty for using all initial attackers)

5. Award bonus points to the attacker based on health remaining when defender is defeated, normalized across multiple attackers (if any).

6. Award points to the defending alliance based on the amount of cumulative damage dealt by placed defenders on non-boss nodes.

That's what I recall off the top of my head. I'm sure if given a set of constraint parameters I could come up with more.

There have been suggestions, I mean in terms of offering my own.
1. I can't really get behind because that's essentially penalizing Item Use.
2. Could be interesting. Limited by the number of Champs you can defeat, but still an element.
3. Pretty much an extension of 1, so I'm not too keen.
4. Same as 1.
5. That could be something I'd consider.
6. Also something that could work. Cumulative Damage could be a mechanism.

I just meant in terms of my own thoughts. There have been suggestions for sure.

How are (3) and (4) variations of (1)? They aren't remotely similar.

That's why I specified that the idea of Time peaked my interest, but I'd have to understand more about the cumulative aspect because if it's carrying over, and no doubt will be governed by Suicides, then that's the same as penalizing those that need to Revive. Not a fully formed disagreeance, just a questionable one for me. Number 4 is both instances of what I'm not for. It brings Defender Kills back in a way that counts after the use of Items.

How are (3) and (4) variations of (1)? They aren't remotely similar.

I just responded to this.

Not really. Which is why I repeated my question. Exactly none of what you said responds to this question.

Yes I did actually. In terms of basing it off of Time, I'm questioning it. Which is why I posted after the first reply and indicated that I'm intrigued by the idea of it, but I would have to know more about the proposal. If it's awarding more Points for Time, Suicides would make faster Kills. Then it becomes less about Skill and more about Masteries. I commented again because I was questioning whether it indirectly relates to the first idea because essentially, having to use Items accumulates more Time. Therefore penalty. I'm not so much rejecting that idea as curious to know more.
Number 4 is essentially number 1. If Defender Kills are brought back, an idea that I am not for, and they take effect after Reviving, that's the same as penalizing Item Use. To the tune of the amount that Kills accumulate to. Two birds, one stone. That penalizes dying AND using Items.

It was so long ago apparently that I feel the need to repeat the question. In what way does suggestion three and suggestion four resemble suggestion one? You said a lot of things completely unrelated to all of that, then said 4 is essentially 1 again, and failed to mention suggestion three at all. Again.

To the extent that you responded at all, simply stating as an obvious fact that two different suggestions (4 and 1) are essentially the same when a) one awards points to the defending alliance and one modifies the points awarded to the attacking side, and b) one changes the net scoring difference when an attacker is defeated and the other does not, is not really a serious objection. To the extent that you don't mention (3) at all, I guess we have to agree to disagree on how English works, because I've heard of the silent "e" but not the invisible paragraph.

GroundedWisdom

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

k666k wrote: »

Everyone wants defender kills back, how hard is that to understand, but I guess its not designed to be what we want.

I don't want or need defender kills back. What I want is a way for a good defender to help me win the war in a way other than pray that the other alliance gives up and stops fighting because they are afraid of it.

Defender kills did that. A defender was worth placing on the map if it could get even a single kill, because that single kill helped me win. In 15.0, that single kill is worthless. Kabam would say it is not worthless because a kill helps stop the other side. That is a meaningful statement if your defenders got an assist like in basketball. Kabam is wrong: they do not.

Defender kills were just a tool. There's nothing special about defender kills. But if we are going to eliminate them, we need something else to judge the performance of a defender by. RIght now, 15.0 has no way to judge a defender, except by some nebulous idea of oh, maybe, if we are really lucky, this defender might help stop the path by some miracle.

Give me another way to judge a defender. Give me some way for a good defender to earn me points, or cost the attacker points. This thread has at least six separate suggestions on how to do that, that does not involve bringing back defender kills. Give me any one of them, and lets test it out to see if it works.

I completely agree it's not about defender kills it's about having some sort of metric that rewards your defense. As it stands right now the only way to win is with a higher defender rating, which is not a fighting war but a war of spreadsheets.

You could instead take away points for every item used in war, but a game mechanic like that would discourage spending units on those items, and as a business you want to promote item use without having content that demands that items be used ie a skilled player should be able to solo fights in the game where a less skilled player might have to use items to defeat that particular obstacle. That's literally my only complaint about the Collector fight.

That's what occurred to me as well with Item Restrictions. Spending has always been optional, and really won't logically be discouraged by any paradigm put forth by them. Nor should it be in my opinion. That leaves me sort of blank for suggestions. Trying to add a metric element that doesn't involve Defender Kills, or Item Use Points. Which is why I suggested Bonus Points of some sort for completing without dying. I'm still considering ideas. I'm just not debating the addition of Defender Kills, and I can't justify them penalizing people for using Resources either.

Every option to replace 14.0 defender kills with a metric that rewards good defender placement (cleaned up and simplified a bit) either suggested or that I can think up:

1. Deduct points from the attacker for every attacker revived by the attacking alliance.

2. Make the points awarded to attacker for defeating a defender a function of the number of defenders defeated by it (i.e. points = 100/kills)

3. Make the points awarded to attacker for defeating a defender a function of the cumulative amount of time it takes to defeat the defender (i.e. points = 100 / (minutes to defeat), minimum one minute)

4. Award defender kill points as before, but no points for the first three defeats from any one player (i.e. no penalty for using all initial attackers)

5. Award bonus points to the attacker based on health remaining when defender is defeated, normalized across multiple attackers (if any).

6. Award points to the defending alliance based on the amount of cumulative damage dealt by placed defenders on non-boss nodes.

That's what I recall off the top of my head. I'm sure if given a set of constraint parameters I could come up with more.

There have been suggestions, I mean in terms of offering my own.
1. I can't really get behind because that's essentially penalizing Item Use.
2. Could be interesting. Limited by the number of Champs you can defeat, but still an element.
3. Pretty much an extension of 1, so I'm not too keen.
4. Same as 1.
5. That could be something I'd consider.
6. Also something that could work. Cumulative Damage could be a mechanism.

I just meant in terms of my own thoughts. There have been suggestions for sure.

How are (3) and (4) variations of (1)? They aren't remotely similar.

That's why I specified that the idea of Time peaked my interest, but I'd have to understand more about the cumulative aspect because if it's carrying over, and no doubt will be governed by Suicides, then that's the same as penalizing those that need to Revive. Not a fully formed disagreeance, just a questionable one for me. Number 4 is both instances of what I'm not for. It brings Defender Kills back in a way that counts after the use of Items.

How are (3) and (4) variations of (1)? They aren't remotely similar.

I just responded to this.

Not really. Which is why I repeated my question. Exactly none of what you said responds to this question.

Yes I did actually. In terms of basing it off of Time, I'm questioning it. Which is why I posted after the first reply and indicated that I'm intrigued by the idea of it, but I would have to know more about the proposal. If it's awarding more Points for Time, Suicides would make faster Kills. Then it becomes less about Skill and more about Masteries. I commented again because I was questioning whether it indirectly relates to the first idea because essentially, having to use Items accumulates more Time. Therefore penalty. I'm not so much rejecting that idea as curious to know more.
Number 4 is essentially number 1. If Defender Kills are brought back, an idea that I am not for, and they take effect after Reviving, that's the same as penalizing Item Use. To the tune of the amount that Kills accumulate to. Two birds, one stone. That penalizes dying AND using Items.

It was so long ago apparently that I feel the need to repeat the question. In what way does suggestion three and suggestion four resemble suggestion one? You said a lot of things completely unrelated to all of that, then said 4 is essentially 1 again, and failed to mention suggestion three at all. Again.

To the extent that you responded at all, simply stating as an obvious fact that two different suggestions (4 and 1) are essentially the same when a) one awards points to the defending alliance and one modifies the points awarded to the attacking side, and b) one changes the net scoring difference when an attacker is defeated and the other does not, is not really a serious objection. To the extent that you don't mention (3) at all, I guess we have to agree to disagree on how English works, because I've heard of the silent "e" but not the invisible paragraph.

I've offered my thoughts on the suggestions from the reference point of what I am ultimately for and not for. I see issues with those based on my stance. 4 and 1 are the same because the first accosts Points for using Items and the fourth begins accumulating Defender Kills after the first 3 Champs are used. Ergo, after Items are used. Unless there is another way to use more that Champs that I am unaware of. Some suggestions I am intrigued by, and others may be spun, but the ultimate effect is the same. I'm opposed to penalizing Item Use and Defender Kills, and I will see any spin of those.

GroundedWisdom

At this point, I'm just repeating myself, and I've explained my view. I'm offering my opinion through the reference of what I support and what I do not. 3 I've already explained that I would have to know more about it, but I'm concerned it may be the same. I've explained this 3 times now. 4 is absolutely related to 1. Bringing Defender Kills and having them take effect after the first 3 Champs are used means one must use Items, unless there is another way to use more than 3 Champs I am unfamiliar with. Ergo, penalty for having to use Items, compounded by Defender Kills. There are some suggestions I am intrigued by, some I would want to know more, and some I am not for because they are variants that have the same effect. I am not in support of those aspects, and I will see a spin because the end result is the same.
Bottom line is, I do not support any penalty for Item Use or Defender Kills. They could make those the defining metrics tomorrow, and I would still not support it. I would play, obviously. I wouldn't be in support of it. I'm really not interested in going over it again. I said I was considering my own suggestions, and I offered my view based on my thoughts. I'm pretty sure it was as clear as possible.

DaywalkerUK

Amongst all the suggestions for different ways to approach or fix an issue that kabam have themselves created we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that prior to changes the complaints relating to AW were that the alliances who got lucky with pulling 5* mystics could dominate because of how MD works. The overwhelming call was always for dexterity to no longer proc a buff. That was all that was required to relieve the frustration of, for example, dying unfairly without getting hit. Instead Kabam decided war needed a complete overhaul because it was too hard. It wasn't, the combination of 5* Mystic defenders on powergain or unstunnable nodes with full MD was hard. Now we have this new iteration which arguably contains nodes harder than anything we had to face previously in war. And alliances will forego diversity to cover those nodes with their big mystics, taking us all right back to where we were only with a tougher map and new champs like Mephisto to deal with on it.
With 6* champs on the horizon I wonder has Kabam given any thought as to how much fun they will be to fight on the upgraded nodes? Have you even tested the new nodes with 6*s kabam? Have you tested them at all?

winterthur

Crine60 wrote: »

I can only find Act 5 Chapter 2 & 3 threads and don't see the nodes breakthrough, rolling thunder, brute force, flare or spite listed. Can someone explain these or provide a link to where they are described? So pathetic that Kabam can't even put together an announcement with all relevant information after all this time working on AW.

Flare
-You have a 300% Attack Boost.
-You Degenerate 100% of your Max Health over 60 seconds.
-The strength of this Degeneration is affected by Class relationships.•If you have a Class disadvantage, it will be 150% over 60 seconds (essentially 100% over 40 seconds).
•If you have a Class advantage it will only deal 50% of your Max Health over those same 60 seconds.

This buff was a big sticking point for a lot of you in our original thread, and we definitely know why. Straight up degens can be scary, we know, but the degen here isn’t meant to force you to buy potions. It’s actually meant to act as a looming challenge for players to finish fights quickly as opposed to playing hyper-defensively. In our tests, aggressive players were able to finish fights very fast with teams of 4/40s, taking very little damage, especially when they had a Class Advantage. Basically, Flare is designed to encourage aggressive play.

Breakthrough
-Champion (the boss) has +5,000 Armor Rating.
-Every time you land a hit, you reduce Armor Rating by 200 permanently.•Once you land 25 hits, this bonus Armor Rating will have been overcome.
•All subsequent hits continue to apply the same reduction to boss’ base Armor Rating.

We’ve actually changed this one after some more playtesting since we announced it. Now, it will take half as many hits to remove the additional Armor Rating, but it’s worth noting that this is not persistent between fights, so if you die, you’ll have to land another 25 hits before the Armor Rating is gone again. Breakthrough is designed to do a couple things: first, it’s meant to discourage brute forcing (no relation to the other buff in this list) a fight. We want you to carefully consider who you’re bringing into the fight, and expect to use them for a decent period of time instead of simply throwing as many champions at it as you can. Secondly, it’s meant to speed the pace of the fight up over time. The fight will start slow, but eventually, if you play well and don’t die, you’ll reduce the opponent’s Armor Rating to 0 and start dealing way more damage.

Life Transfer
-You degenerate 2% of your Max Health Per Second.
-You steal 125% of the damage you deal as Health.•This percentage is affected by Class relationships (+ or - 25%)

This buff can be considered a cousin to Flare, but it has a slightly different intention in-game. Its is meant to loom over a fight, and may very well bring you close to death if you’re playing too defensively, but it’s also meant to reward well considered sequences of attack. The result is a yo-yo of tension throughout a fight. As an example, one of our playtesters was inches from death, playing as Storm, trying to bait a special. They dodged it, then threw her Special 2 and they were suddenly back at full health. This isn’t the only instance of this happening but it was exciting to watch, and easy to see how the buff facilitated a good risk-reward scenario, which is our intention.

Burden of Might
-Every time you gain a buff, you lose 25% of your Max Power.•You also get a 15% reduction to Power Gain for every buff currently active on you.
•This is NOT per unique buff. For example, a Phoenix with 7 Furies will have a ~100% reduction in Power Gain.
•This doesn’t affect power sources like Power Gain, only the Power gained from being hit or hitting an opponent.
•For example: Mordo will still get his Power Gain Buff’s full effect, but every time it activates, he will immediately lose 25% of his current Power, since it’s a buff.

Power Focus
-You gain increased Critical Rate equivalent to 25% of the percentage of your Max Power you currently have.•For example, if you have 100% of your Max Power, you will have a 25% increase to your Critical Rate, and if you have 40% of your Max Power, you will have a 10% increase to your Critical Rate.

Burden of Might and Power Focus are only used together in Chapter 1, so they essentially function as one buff in this context. Burden of Might is pretty straightforward in that it’s meant to encourage you not to bring champions that buff themselves into the fight, but originally, that was it. We realized quickly that this was more stick than carrot. Playing in the way the buff encouraged you to didn’t give you anything, it just became not noticeable and the fights didn’t feel unique. To fix this, we added Power Focus to incentivize champions who would gain power from somewhere other than Buffs (i.e. Champions who wouldn’t proc Buffs). The result is a scenario where it’s possible - but harder - to complete fights with a buff Champ, but it’s way more beneficial to A) bring someone who doesn’t proc Buffs,

bring someone who has a high Crit Rate or Crit Damage, and C) think about your masteries. When you play in this way, the fights will end super quickly comparatively.

Brute Force
-If you have not landed a hit in 6 seconds, you begin to suffer a Degeneration that deals 100% of your Max Health over 30 Seconds.•The strength of this Degeneration is affected by Class relationships (+ or - 50% Max Health). Below is the strength of this Degeneration per second it is on you:
•Disadvantage: 5% Max Health per second
•Base: 3.3% Max Health per second
•Advantage: 1.6% Max Health per second
-Landing a single hit on an opponent (the boss) will reset this timer and remove any Degeneration Effect.

Kinetic Instigator
-When you strike a blocking opponent (the boss), you gain the same amount of power as you would normally when hitting an opponent.

Like Power Focus and Burden of Might, Brute Force and Kinetic Instigator are used together, and they’re designed to encourage players to be more conscious of the rhythm of a fight, and to interrupt the normal flow of combat in interesting ways. We want to discourage the normal parry-combo-parry or evasion heavy play and instead place difficult decision points into those patterns. If the degen is about to start, do you keep baiting a special or do you land a single hit to reset it? What would be more dangerous for you? If you’re playing in a solid rhythm, and skilled at baiting specials, you will likely never even feel the degen at all, but just because it doesn’t take effect doesn’t mean it’s not affecting the rhythm of combat. Kinetic Instigator is here as a “bailout” from languishing in a cycle of not being able to land a hit. If you’re unable to land a hit to reset the timer, you can just pound on the enemy’s block enough to throw a special 3, and reset the timer.

LeonBeni93

So i am worried as all of us of the current situation in AW.I read a few comments from the past pages as well, @DNA3000 comments are the ones who caught my eye(as always!).Regarding the comment with the suggestions,I totally agree as the rest say that the basic problem is that we need a metric to value our defence and skills.That said i still believe the best way is the DEFENDER KILLS!!

To explain this i will compare it with the proposed suggestions by DNA:

1. Deduct points for champs revived...the reason you are reviving is obviously because you died,as so defender kills penalise this already.Also a problem with it could be that for example you might need to revive your vision for a bleed node fight,but you still have 2 more champs at full life(or alive) meanwhile somebody needs to revive because every champ on is team is dead

2. Thats similar to defender kills,just changing the amount if points you gain from them

3. Time...yes skilled players will do it in less time generally,but that could become a real mess,imagine luke cage becoming great just because he needs time to be beaten...

4.Thats defender kills again but maybe can work..(i still prefer the old defender kills).

5.Health remaining...again i agree skilled players would take less damage,but it its complicated and there is luck involved.Also the most important that with defender kills that was kind of existing...there was no penalty for damage taken..but you knew you had to take the less possible damage if you where to give the least possible deaths.

6.Damage dealt...again i agree skilled players would take less damage or a better defender will do more damage,But as i explained in 5 that was also covered with defender kills.You may weren't awarded points for it but you knew they others would suffer to not give deaths if they lost life.

To Conclude i like the suggestions from everyone ,and i mostly agree with DNA comments.I am not trying to neutralise his/her proposals but i am trying to point why(in my opinion) Defender Kills are and always will be the Fairest way to measure the skills of each Alliance and award a winner!!!

And something i wanted to add,changing the nodes of the map to add difficulty is a good first step.I am also not sure why there was so much whining about Thorns,i mean yes electro was mostly placed there but yet again with a champ decreasing defending ability you could still come out of it with very little damage taken,and that was quite like facing a duped Dormammu(not on a boss node where you will eventually die) .Took this specific example to explain that some tough nodes(even annoying ones) might give champs even more utility so we won't choose the same set of attackers in each war.Lastly I had also saw a previous comment(some days ago) from DNA again about buffing nodes and that it would be like searching a number above 9 and lower than 5.Thats true but only if you had to use the same number for the lower tier maps as well as the higher ones.I believe that they can found way to buff the node as needed to provide the necessary completion in lower maps and buff them in different ways for the higher maps!

For the record i am not a top tier player,but i am trying my best to see this from everyone's perspective!

Huluhula

@GroundedWisdom

You should add this to end of all your posts for comedic relief

MEKA5

@Kabam Miike ...Introducing more variety in nodes is nice, kudos for that!
...but even with harder nodes, it's just not interesting to win/lose AW based on diversity or rating.

#bringbackdefenderskills

Xthea9

What the...... i can’t read these posts are way too long like a book ..... lol
Guys be specific and talk only points , Dont expect any changes ......it’s not just game anymore it’s business.

Cosmic_Ray13

Xthea9 wrote: »

What the...... i can’t read these posts are way too long like a book ..... lol
Guys be specific and talk only points , Dont expect any changes ......it’s not just game anymore it’s business.

amen to that lol

Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming

LegionDestroier wrote: »

Seems all these changes are just to keep MMXIV (the biggest whales) happy as under this system they cannot lose as they will always have the highest defender rating

Having fought them twice since the changes I can assure you they are not happy about the new war changes.

Jaffacaked

Hulk_77 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

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.

What I said is that Defender Kills are not necessary for skill. There are other ways to add more difficulty. It's the fact that it's a penalty for dying and trying that is the issue. People shouldn't be penalized at the cost of the War for KO'ing and making a continued effort to finish the Map. They could add more difficulty to the Map. They could add Bonus Points to those that finish without dying for that matter, if they wanted to reward that aspect. It's not necessary to make it a penalty.
I don't agree that skill requires penalizing the Offense for trying. That's exactly what it is. It's limiting the Offensive effort through penalty of death. That's not at all skill to me. That's a trap.

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.

So that's just defender kills dressed up as something else so not to hurt any precious snowflakes feelings

Draco2199

Kabam Miike wrote: »

R4GE wrote: »

2 changes made to war system, both involved buffs to nodes.

After the 1st time you buffed nodes pages among pages were argued that we needed changes to the scoring system. Please point out the changes you made that were from the majority feedback to show us you are listening.

The node changes were directly linked to players being worried that their rosters were no longer useful in Alliance Wars because of Diversity. This pointed to a problem where the Map was not providing enough of a challenge, so that Defender Diversity was making the decisions on who won, and not acting as the tie breaker.

As we said, we're still looking into more revisions that may need to be made after, but this was based on your guys feedback.

Map difficulty has been increased so why haven't rewards been increased?

Donn1

Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: »

LegionDestroier wrote: »

Seems all these changes are just to keep MMXIV (the biggest whales) happy as under this system they cannot lose as they will always have the highest defender rating

Having fought them twice since the changes I can assure you they are not happy about the new war changes.

I don't see any of them voicing their concerns...?

Kabam only tend to listen to the whales. Hence why everyones suggestions so far have been ignored.

JRock808

Donn1 wrote: »

Qu1ckshoT32_Gaming wrote: »

LegionDestroier wrote: »

Seems all these changes are just to keep MMXIV (the biggest whales) happy as under this system they cannot lose as they will always have the highest defender rating

Having fought them twice since the changes I can assure you they are not happy about the new war changes.

I don't see any of them voicing their concerns...?

Kabam only tend to listen to the whales. Hence why everyones suggestions so far have been ignored.

Because they know it's pointless to come here. This place is not for legitimate concerns or feedback. It's just an illusion. You see what they did with the all the feedback since AW 2.0, which was 99% in favor of having defender kills matter and on the 3rd, 4th? iteration we get.. Bane. And other **** that won't matter.

Auto-win scenarios will still exist and it makes a competitive game mode virtually pointless. It's now basically a random login calendar, some days you get a little more, some days you don't. At least no one will feel bad.. well if you don't count those that actually enjoyed head to head skill based competition rather than comparing the thickness of wallets.

RagamugginGunner

What sucks about this new system is that you know who the winner should be as soon as you look at the other team. Really sucks for both sides.