I am concerned about the impact of smaller win bonuses on alliances that don't run three groups.
Those win bonuses are a substantially bigger percentage of our total score, so if they get reduced in favor of more exploration points, it's going to put us at an even bigger disadvantage than we are now. Currently, a 2-group win is worth more points than a 3-group loss. With this change, those will flip, and those of us running fewer groups are going to start seeing our rankings drop.
Great point (reduced Win points), wish it would remain 50,000 (although I can understand how a 2 BG Ally Win had maybe been artificially inflating our 2 BG season score vs some not-as-good 3 BG Ally's that had lesser wins during the season).
But don't think that is coming at the expense of increased Explore (the Explore sounds like will directly offset the removal of “Defenders Remaining” points, although not sure it is an exact replacement).
——— Also (regarding TIES) some others have brought up. They should finally implement partial-win points for a TIE. Not on the order of 50/50 % split. But at least like 33/33 % split (so teams won’t conspire for a tie as some potential points will still be lost).
But don't think that is coming at the expense of increased Explore (the Explore sounds like will directly offset the removal of “Defenders Remaining” points, although not sure it is an exact replacement).
In most of the wars we do (tier 6), there are rarely any defenders remaining, so the removal of surviving defender points has minimal impact. Each BG has somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 nodes, so 50 more points means an extra 5k or so points per group.
Over the course of a 12 war season, these changes will give a 3-group alliance roughly 60k more (new) points than a 2-group alliance with an identical record and exploration—before factoring in modifiers. That amounts to a whole extra win (and more!) in the current system.
In most of the wars we do (tier 6), there are rarely any defenders remaining, so the removal of surviving defender points has minimal impact. Each BG has somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 nodes, so 50 more points means an extra 5k or so points per group.
Over the course of a 12 war season, these changes will give a 3-group alliance roughly 60k more (new) points than a 2-group alliance with an identical record and exploration—before factoring in modifiers. That amounts to a whole extra win (and more!) in the current system.
Ah, you’re right. I was just thinking about extra points for exploring those previously-unbeaten nodes (vs losing of the Defender Remaining pts). But it adds to all the other explore nodes along the whole map. Definitely favoring 3 BG Ally’s.
And @Ebony_Naw , it means that now there will be a whole lot more 10m Ally's who run 3 BG jumping Medals above those 30m high-prestige Ally’s who prefer to just run 2 BG and were happy with G3-S1 rewards. Forcing ally's into pushing everyone into War, even though some ppl don’t care about it.
The rationale behind changing exploration is ill-conceived. Let’s say that a team skips one lane in each pod in phase 2, and that they 100% phase 1. They leave 6 defenders standing and 8 nodes unexplored, assuming they skip lane 5. (I don’t have the map in front of me...apologies if that’s one off.)
The net result for that in the current system is a 2700 point swing, 150*8=1200 for exploration, and 250*6=1500 for defenders remaining.
In the new scoring system, the attackers lose 200*8=1600 and the defenders gain nothing. It’s only a 1600 point net swing. You forego possible attack bonuses on nodes you skip, but you might recoup those by being healthier when you fight shared nodes and minis.
In other words, I think these changes hurt a boss rush that only hits one lane or one pod. Getting to 100% is less important, and now I think diversity is (again) more important by proxy, as are attack bonuses.
Just realized the reduction in win bonus from 50k to 30k will hurt alliances playing 1BG war. We play between T4/5. In season 26, we won either 8 or 9 wars and we ranked 394 in gold 3. If we win 8 wars in season 27, that is potentially 640k less points. Enough to possibly put us in silver 1.
I'm guessing it's an unintended side effect, but why should a 2 BG alliance outrank a 3 BG alliance even with a couple more wins? A 3 BG alliance needs more depth to fight, and if I were Kabam I would always want to incentivize more alliances to use maximum battlegroups. If an alliance wants to take it easy, I understand that they still want g3 rewards (for example) but why should they pass the s1 ally that runs 3 BG and puts in work every single war?
I'm not suggesting that a 2-BG alliance should have a leg up over a 3-BG alliance. I believe exactly the opposite, in fact, because it's significantly more difficult to wrangle those extra ten players.
The current system already accounts for this, as having that extra group theoretically nets a bit under 40% more points (assuming a 50% win/loss ratio) compared to a 2-BG alliance at the same tier. That's a big advantage, baked right into the scoring. If a 2-BG alliance wants similar rewards, they have to play at a much higher tier in order to make up the difference with bigger point multipliers. That means stiffer competition, and potentially tougher maps--certainly not taking it easy. There is also a practical limit as to how high they can ultimately reach.
This new system, as described, is basically going to force 2-BG alliances to either play at an even higher tier, or win one extra war each season, just to maintain the same spot they occupy right now. It's hard enough as it is to earn respectable rewards with only two groups. I don't think it needs to be made harder yet, particularly considering how unpopular war is in general.
The rationale behind changing exploration is ill-conceived. Let’s say that a team skips one lane in each pod in phase 2, and that they 100% phase 1. They leave 6 defenders standing and 8 nodes unexplored, assuming they skip lane 5. (I don’t have the map in front of me...apologies if that’s one off.)
The net result for that in the current system is a 2700 point swing, 150*8=1200 for exploration, and 250*6=1500 for defenders remaining.
In the new scoring system, the attackers lose 200*8=1600 and the defenders gain nothing. It’s only a 1600 point net swing. You forego possible attack bonuses on nodes you skip, but you might recoup those by being healthier when you fight shared nodes and minis.
In other words, I think these changes hurt a boss rush that only hits one lane or one pod. Getting to 100% is less important, and now I think diversity is (again) more important by proxy, as are attack bonuses.
Boss rushing was never an intended thing, especially as a way to win wars. If you win wars like this, good for you but I 100% understand why Kabam encourages exploration.
We already have many tags in game....I seriously don't understand the need to have AW specific tags If the developers are smart enough to build nodes around in-game tags fr variants & story content, they cn surely do it fr AW content as well
High ground seems like a direct quake nerf. Don’t understand why the need to nerf a champ that requires the most skill to play? Since shes only available as a 5* shes going to lose relevancy in story mode as healthpools continue to rise. Wish the team was more transparent about these controversial defense tactics
High ground seems like a direct quake nerf. Don’t understand why the need to nerf a champ that requires the most skill to play? Since shes only available as a 5* shes going to lose relevancy in story mode as healthpools continue to rise. Wish the team was more transparent about these controversial defense tactics
It's a node that counters Quake? Just like other nodes counter other champions?
Don't know why there is Safeguard in the game, seems like a direct nerf to high-damage champions who have no utility...
Great post @Zan0 , because previously Kabam stated over and over again that 100% exploring shouldn't be the meta. What has happened with that 😅.
Boss rushes happens mostly I think in 2 occasions.
1) Alliances are learning the nodes of a higher tier and it is too costly to lose the boss points so they skip some paths. After getting more experienced they will also 100%. I think a very healthy and sensible learning curve.
2)At the last week of the season, your officers did the math. You can't reach te upper breaket anymore and you have enough points that you don't have to win anymore. So you can play easy and save pots/boosts. Also I think healthy and normal behaviour.
Why are you suddenly so bothered with Boss rushes Kabam?
Great post @Zan0 , because previously Kabam stated over and over again that 100% exploring shouldn't be the meta. What has happened with that 😅.
Boss rushes happens mostly I think in 2 occasions.
1) Alliances are learning the nodes of a higher tier and it is too costly to lose the boss points so they skip some paths. After getting more experienced they will also 100%. I think a very healthy and sensible learning curve.
2)At the last week of the season, your officers did the math. You can't reach te upper breaket anymore and you have enough points that you don't have to win anymore. So you can play easy and save pots/boosts. Also I think healthy and normal behaviour.
Why are you suddenly so bothered with Boss rushes Kabam?
Could be to have more units spent on war resources. I really wish everything in the game didnt have to always be monetized. First its resources like sig stones being behind paid offers, now its enforcing 100% exploration
Vision (Timely??) is one of the champs that can use the Slow Your Roll attack tactics but he doesn't have an armour up buff nor does does he have an armour break debuff so he can't actually benefit from it.
High ground seems like a direct quake nerf. Don’t understand why the need to nerf a champ that requires the most skill to play? Since shes only available as a 5* shes going to lose relevancy in story mode as healthpools continue to rise. Wish the team was more transparent about these controversial defense tactics
It's about as much as a nerf as true strike is to evade champions. Aww, poor babies can't use quake. Boo hoo.
High ground seems like a direct quake nerf. Don’t understand why the need to nerf a champ that requires the most skill to play? Since shes only available as a 5* shes going to lose relevancy in story mode as healthpools continue to rise. Wish the team was more transparent about these controversial defense tactics
Not really, more than half the champs in that pool you dont want to quake anyway because of passive power gain, and inbuilt anti evade mechanics (Prof X, IMIW). And the rest are bad defenders anyway. Modok seems to be only outlier. Quake is still gonna be as relevant as always.
Why isn’t warlock in the slow your roll champs. He has an armor up buff and an armor break. I hope this is just a major oversight snd he’s included. He’s the perfect counter to node 25 with this so please include him
Boss rushing was never an intended thing, especially as a way to win wars. If you win wars like this, good for you but I 100% understand why Kabam encourages exploration.
Except, as I explained earlier, Kabam bungled the numbers.
The net trade off for less than 100% exploration is actually better now than it was before. It produces slightly fewer season points but a much better trade off within the war itself because defenders remaining aren’t counted for 250 each.
You can leave a lane up for 600 points. You can make up that 600 with 10 diversity (300) and 4 attack bonuses (320). So it punishes the type of boss rush that’d go straight down one lane, but a controlled partial clear actually isn’t bad, especially if you’re in the camp that realizes it’s not worth spending glory on war.
The meta is objectively easy The map is ~1 year old and the nodes haven't changed Teams have caught up in planning and no one dies Rosters have progressed past the map The map is so easy that dying is more stress We've seen every fight imaginable a dozen times over
The problem isn't rewards or necessarily an easy map, war stinks because it's been repeated to death.
Turning the difficulty up to 11 won't change anything if we keep going through the same motions. In fact, if we go from easy and boring to difficult and boring, that's just worse because we get the same mess and it costs more.
The problem goes deeper than just changing difficulty or adding more rewards. We need fresh new problems because we've done the current ones a million times already.
Give us a new way to play AW.
This sounds like the perspective of a top Tier player. Which is fine, but that’s not the experience that me and my Alliance have. We still have lots of deaths in our Tier 5 wars and we don’t consider the rewards nearly good enough to justify boosting and healing up for every fight. So we focus on AQ (much better rewards for the effort) and take whatever we can without much effort in AW.
For this mentality to change in my Alliance, I think the rewards in the P4/G1 range would have to be A LOT better.
They're not going to ban 3 Champs from War, and they're certainly not going to nerf them. As long as War has been around, people have been using the most effective ones.
They're not going to ban 3 Champs from War, and they're certainly not going to nerf them. As long as War has been around, people have been using the most effective ones.
Kabam doesn't ban them, the opposing players can. 2 attacker bans per battlegroup per war. Makes war fresh again, along with the other suggestions.
Players have always used the most effective attackers, but the current top 3, Quake, Ghost, and to a lesser extent Red Mags, have affected the meta much worse than 2 years ago. Didn't you read my post?
Good luck with that. I take it you don't remember when kabam was going to remove diversity from defense points. Everyone went nuts because of rank-ups for defense only. People rank up champs for offense for war. The same thing will happen and people will be upset and rank down tickets will be all the rage again.
They're not going to ban 3 Champs from War, and they're certainly not going to nerf them. As long as War has been around, people have been using the most effective ones.
Kabam doesn't ban them, the opposing players can. 2 attacker bans per battlegroup per war. Makes war fresh again, along with the other suggestions.
Players have always used the most effective attackers, but the current top 3, Quake, Ghost, and to a lesser extent Red Mags, have affected the meta much worse than 2 years ago. Didn't you read my post?
Good luck with that. I take it you don't remember when kabam was going to remove diversity from defense points. Everyone went nuts because of rank-ups for defense only. People rank up champs for offense for war. The same thing will happen and people will be upset and rank down tickets will be all the rage again.
I think his idea is for T1 only. And at that level, they do need something new and they have super diverse rosters. Could be something that might add spice to war. If it happens to lower tiers, then yes. There wi be an outcry. Not sure if T1 folks will complain a lot.
Comments
But don't think that is coming at the expense of increased Explore (the Explore sounds like will directly offset the removal of “Defenders Remaining” points, although not sure it is an exact replacement).
———
Also (regarding TIES) some others have brought up. They should finally implement partial-win points for a TIE. Not on the order of 50/50 % split. But at least like 33/33 % split (so teams won’t conspire for a tie as some potential points will still be lost).
Over the course of a 12 war season, these changes will give a 3-group alliance roughly 60k more (new) points than a 2-group alliance with an identical record and exploration—before factoring in modifiers. That amounts to a whole extra win (and more!) in the current system.
And @Ebony_Naw , it means that now there will be a whole lot more 10m Ally's who run 3 BG jumping Medals above those 30m high-prestige Ally’s who prefer to just run 2 BG and were happy with G3-S1 rewards. Forcing ally's into pushing everyone into War, even though some ppl don’t care about it.
The net result for that in the current system is a 2700 point swing, 150*8=1200 for exploration, and 250*6=1500 for defenders remaining.
In the new scoring system, the attackers lose 200*8=1600 and the defenders gain nothing. It’s only a 1600 point net swing. You forego possible attack bonuses on nodes you skip, but you might recoup those by being healthier when you fight shared nodes and minis.
In other words, I think these changes hurt a boss rush that only hits one lane or one pod. Getting to 100% is less important, and now I think diversity is (again) more important by proxy, as are attack bonuses.
The current system already accounts for this, as having that extra group theoretically nets a bit under 40% more points (assuming a 50% win/loss ratio) compared to a 2-BG alliance at the same tier. That's a big advantage, baked right into the scoring. If a 2-BG alliance wants similar rewards, they have to play at a much higher tier in order to make up the difference with bigger point multipliers. That means stiffer competition, and potentially tougher maps--certainly not taking it easy.
This new system, as described, is basically going to force 2-BG alliances to either play at an even higher tier, or win one extra war each season, just to maintain the same spot they occupy right now. It's hard enough as it is to earn respectable rewards with only two groups. I don't think it needs to be made harder yet, particularly considering how unpopular war is in general.
If the developers are smart enough to build nodes around in-game tags fr variants & story content, they cn surely do it fr AW content as well
If not no change will be good enough.
At least imo
Don't know why there is Safeguard in the game, seems like a direct nerf to high-damage champions who have no utility...
Boss rushes happens mostly I think in 2 occasions.
1) Alliances are learning the nodes of a higher tier and it is too costly to lose the boss points so they skip some paths. After getting more experienced they will also 100%. I think a very healthy and sensible learning curve.
2)At the last week of the season, your officers did the math. You can't reach te upper breaket anymore and you have enough points that you don't have to win anymore. So you can play easy and save pots/boosts. Also I think healthy and normal behaviour.
Why are you suddenly so bothered with Boss rushes Kabam?
Vision buff confirmed?!
The net trade off for less than 100% exploration is actually better now than it was before. It produces slightly fewer season points but a much better trade off within the war itself because defenders remaining aren’t counted for 250 each.
You can leave a lane up for 600 points. You can make up that 600 with 10 diversity (300) and 4 attack bonuses (320). So it punishes the type of boss rush that’d go straight down one lane, but a controlled partial clear actually isn’t bad, especially if you’re in the camp that realizes it’s not worth spending glory on war.
-- no timers
-- no boosts or potions allowed
Makes it quicker and harder.
For this mentality to change in my Alliance, I think the rewards in the P4/G1 range would have to be A LOT better.
If it happens to lower tiers, then yes. There wi be an outcry. Not sure if T1 folks will complain a lot.