Why wasn’t anything on line 9 changed? Shifting hazard is whatever but the reflect stun nodes are a joke, if you just accidentally parry you’re done for. Encroaching stun on the mini is also really annoying. Last time you guys made an update yly overhauled the whole map. Why wasn’t the whole map overhauled and only a few things here and there adjusted.
Encroaching stun is just as bad as stun reflect. You didn’t make anything better on the maps, you just tweaked a few things here and there.
As much as I need to do Alliance war. Nothing here makes me like it, like I did 5 years ago. Alliance war has been horrible since the intro of war seasons.
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.
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?
Comments
Now I need to plan not only my BG’s attackers but also how that plays with Attack Tactics.
DON’T NEED MORE PLANNING
Encroaching stun is just as bad as stun reflect. You didn’t make anything better on the maps, you just tweaked a few things here and there.
As much as I need to do Alliance war. Nothing here makes me like it, like I did 5 years ago. Alliance war has been horrible since the intro of war seasons.
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.
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?