They have a vision of where they want Wars to be. People have feedback. It's about finding a middle ground. There is a difference between compromise and democracy. It's not a democracy. If they decided to remove Defender Kills, then that is the direction they are going. Part of moving forward is letting them go and working towards a compromise as it stands now.
If everyone hates the way War is being adjudicated, things are changed that don't reflect the broader communities desires and the chances of more change mean it is a risk upgrading champs based on today's version of War can I ask the Mod Team why my alliance would even want to participate in it?
We are a casual group looking for more opportunities at gaining resources but having read almost every post on the subject you guys (Kabam) are not really selling it to people like me.
One thing that struck me after it was suggested by someone whose posts reflect a great understanding of what is happening, we are probably better off just matching as often as we can and walking away to get some free stuff rather than actively trying to compete because it sounds less stressful than busting our backside and still losing.
I think that was probably me, and I still think it is a good idea for casual alliances. If you don't like war, I recommend matching anyway and having your members go as far as possible without spending anything. Explicitly tell your members you don't care if you win or lose, so you don't want them to waste units. But if they want to they can still enter and fight - because you get small rewards for doing so and who knows: you might run into a similar alliance and actually win. Good practice if nothing else.
But either way, you might as well get the rewards for showing up while costing you nothing to get it. And here's the weird part. A lot of alliances don't participate in war constantly. They might not want to run war on day five of AQ, or their members might want a break periodically. But you can participate constantly because you don't care about winning. Which means you're actually collecting more rewards than you might expect relative to alliances trying to win every time.
My space I'm choosing to write is about node 24. Please for the love of the game do not allow nodes that make characters live forever. A 4/55 nebula on that node is insane as is GG
Their argument is likely that by making nodes harder, it requires more skill to get past them. If it takes ppl to use items to do so, they’ll be al the happier for it (and I get that - they’re a business and they need to make money). We’re not happy, because we see no return for forcing the opponent to use items.
Defender kills were good, but they obviously don’t want them anymore. So how about a compromise then? If a defender gets one or more kills before getting ko’d, you only get half the attacking kill points for that particular defender? I know it’s not much, but with rating giving such a slim margin of victory / defeat, it could still prove a tipping point.
Their argument is likely that by making nodes harder, it requires more skill to get past them.
I believe their unspoken argument, which I predicted would happen a while back, is that by making nodes harder they are doing two things. First, they are reducing the likelihood of alliances consistently completing the map 100%. As long as both sides do not full complete, they can argue all other flaws in the system are irrelevant because both sides could have done more to win so its their fault. Second, they are making the nodes strong enough to put show-stopper node placement back on the table, which is essentially the mystic wars problem in disguise. People didn't place mystic defenders with MD because they were just hard: they did so because they had a decent probability of stopping the other side dead. With defender kills gone, the *only* reason to place a defender that isn't a diverse non-unique defender is because it is a show stopper (I believe the term being used by others is a "blockader"). The right defender on the right node can make the other side literally just give up, knowing they don't have the right attackers or the will to spend past, and that means (given the map configuration) that they are unlikely to complete when the other side will.
So they can argue that defender points (diversity and rating) don't decide wars (when they aren't 100%) and players are placing a diverse set of defenders, and strong defense is as important as it used to be.
Fascinatingly, they are doing that by taking their original problem - an attacker giving up - and converting it into whole alliances choosing to give up, and the original bad situation players were actually complaining about - mystic wars - and turning it into right-defender-wins-wrong-attacker-loses wars.
I'm having flashbacks to the statements given to some of the attendees to Comic con.
They have a vision of where they want Wars to be. People have feedback. It's about finding a middle ground. There is a difference between compromise and democracy. It's not a democracy. If they decided to remove Defender Kills, then that is the direction they are going. Part of moving forward is letting them go and working towards a compromise as it stands now.
You know what? I agree with you! But then, they need to make an official statement and say something like "diversity no one want will stay and defender kills will never come back", then close the comments because no one is gonna agree with that. That's the only good thing they can do, accept it or leave it, end of story.
But if they want us to comments, what they'll get is only heat from angry players who pay their bills!
They have a vision of where they want Wars to be. People have feedback. It's about finding a middle ground. There is a difference between compromise and democracy. It's not a democracy. If they decided to remove Defender Kills, then that is the direction they are going. Part of moving forward is letting them go and working towards a compromise as it stands now.
You know what? I agree with you! But then, they need to make an official statement and say something like "diversity no one want will stay and defender kills will never come back", then close the comments because no one is gonna agree with that. That's the only good thing they can do, accept it or leave it, end of story.
But if they want us to comments, what they'll get is only heat from angry players who pay their bills!
It's just clear. Defender Kills were removed. They outlined the reasons. We've had several iterations since and they have not been added. It hasn't been said outright, but the reasons they were removed still stand, and the discussion has revolved around them. I'm saying if we are moving forward, it's probably more productive to look at suggestions outside of them, that don't create the same issues that Defender Kills created. They haven't said they're not coming back outright. I'm displaying the evidence. Personally I would like to see suggestions moving forward, but the feedback has been centred around them. They're not here. I think it's more prudent to move on.
You are turning this game into a clown fiesta. Pleas stop. No one likes war at all Go back to 14.0 and remove thorns and ****. It would be infinitely better than this nonsense.
They have a vision of where they want Wars to be. People have feedback. It's about finding a middle ground. There is a difference between compromise and democracy. It's not a democracy. If they decided to remove Defender Kills, then that is the direction they are going. Part of moving forward is letting them go and working towards a compromise as it stands now.
You know what? I agree with you! But then, they need to make an official statement and say something like "diversity no one want will stay and defender kills will never come back", then close the comments because no one is gonna agree with that. That's the only good thing they can do, accept it or leave it, end of story.
But if they want us to comments, what they'll get is only heat from angry players who pay their bills!
Actually, the problem is that while I'm open to compromise, Kabam's current position seems to be that we don't need to compromise because they are doing exactly what we're asking for, and are getting closer to that target with every iteration.
They are doing that because they are oversimplifying everyone's complaints to "everyone is 100% completing the map and everything is a tie and defender points are deciding wars" so anything that eliminates 100% completion fixes the problem. So of course cranking up difficulty is helping *us*.
The fact that I keep saying increasing difficulty is actually making the problem worse, I guess is being interpreted as I just don't understand game design math. But everyone that complains about the problem being that everyone is 100% completing the map is feeding the idea the devs have that what they are doing is the magic bullet to solving most complaints.
A prerequisite to compromise is both sides are speaking the same language. But three months and a couple thousand posts later it seems we can't get the devs to explain what their definition of "tie breaker" is, and why it is so different from the one used by everyone else in the English speaking world.
Ended up with 35 defender kills by juggernaut alone last week...we lost that AW by like11k because we didnt want to spend/waste money on revives, but our opponents felt it was necessary to spend almost $60 collectively just to take one bg....outscored them 150 defender diversity to 100ish as well...oh ya it really is gearing towards skill alright...skills if pulling out your credit card and typing the digits fast
Kabam Community to Kabam Developers and Representatives: WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE
***Please remove head from your backside and come to the realization that continually making the AW nodes harder isn't going to fix the problem the community has with AW. Your current scoring system is wayyyyyyyyy more broken than those nodes you keep tinkering with.
As stated by many players and closed or deleted threads.....Please remove the ability for allIances to artificially inflate their defender rating through attack / health boost and changing Masteries temporarily to suicides when placing defenders. In order to remain competitive does Kabam expect players to use units and resources every single war to artificially inflate defender rating @KabamMiike????? It does the community not one once of good by closing or deleting threads and ignoring this very simple issue.
This would be no issue at all if they added a skill related scoring point. Wether it's defender kills or something else skill related [?], defender rating would cause little issues. So yeah, boosting or suicides would become irrelevant again.
Remove rating and diversity from scoring entirely. Make defender kills worth 1 point.
This makes performance the key metric. It makes one extra kill, one more explored node, one anything decide the outcome.
In the case all else is even, defender kills will be nothing but a tiebreaker, not a major contributor to scoring,
If those are tied, well.. you tie. It can happen. Many battles and even wars end in a draw with both sides gaining little. That's life, that's competition. Football, futbol, etc all have ties. It's ok, bro. We can live with the occasional one when the majority of wars are decided on relative performance.
Their vision was to just keep increasing difficulty which is basically a slap in the face to the customer base. Thats not how you solve the problem you are just increasing the costs for the end user with nothing to show for it. At this point myself and many alliances have decided just to abandon aw and not use any resources at all, if we die we die, the difficulty isn't worth the pitiful rewards.
Goodbye to some old Nodes!
This is one that we know many of you have been waiting to hear… We’ve removed all instances of Thorns and Slashed Tires across every difficulty level!
and instead have decided to include nodes that are even harder and in some cases without 1 specific champ impossible like our happy go lucky Node 24 when a champ can regen 14,000 hit points just from you evading! Good Luck kids bet you wished Thorns and Slashed Tires were back!
Players - it's bad
Kabam - we'll adjust it
Players - again it's bad
Kabam - we'll adjust it
Players - again it's bad
Kabam - we're still adjusting ourselves, we are not interested in the players
P.S. the stronger the node = less 100% = less diversity
Players - it's bad
Kabam - we'll adjust it
Players - again it's bad
Kabam - we'll adjust it
Players - again it's bad
Kabam - we're still adjusting ourselves, we are not interested in the players
P.S. the stronger the node = less 100% = less diversity
Yes with Stronger nodes now we just place hardest defense therefore eliminating diversity as Kabam has stated you aren't supposed to 100% all the time it should be rare. So if you aren't going to aim for 100% then you already lost. Doesn't make any sense as they have now removed diversity from the game as Spending alliances will spend to 100% and still win regardless of diversity. All I can do is shake my head.
If diversity & champion rating are supposed to be a tie breaker then they shouldn't be part of the scoring unless the result is a tie and then they are used.
Either way, the main problem will not go away until defender kills are brought back into the war in some form.
Now maybe they only give 5 points per kill, or you only start to earn points on the 2nd death or another method (there has been loads of possible suggestions), but we do need defender kills back to make war fun again.
The question we all have to ask, is the current war "fun & interactive"???
I think this is a classic example of understanding the words, but not the spirit, of a complaint. This superficially addresses the problem of MD-everywhere, by handing the players a much more nasty alternative. @Kabam Miike basically told us what is going on here when he said that node 24 is working fine, you just have to bring the right attacker. They made AW into you pick the "right" defender and you win, unless the other side picks the "right" attacker and then you lose. Which is kind of a move-counter-move gameplay option but an extremely reductive one, and fundamentally no different from the thorns nodes they got rid of in AW for I can't imagine what reason now.
And the hilarious part about this...remember about a year ago when Kabam claimed they wanted all champions to be on more of an even playing field? "We want people to be able to rank the people they like and for them to be useful." Well, node 24 is the new thorns with minimal ways to get around it. Very disingenuous IMO.
I think we got it all backwards. If we keep telling Kabam to make the nodes harder, maybe then they will add defender kills back? Because whatever we are doing now isn't working for the last 3 months.
Comments
I think that was probably me, and I still think it is a good idea for casual alliances. If you don't like war, I recommend matching anyway and having your members go as far as possible without spending anything. Explicitly tell your members you don't care if you win or lose, so you don't want them to waste units. But if they want to they can still enter and fight - because you get small rewards for doing so and who knows: you might run into a similar alliance and actually win. Good practice if nothing else.
But either way, you might as well get the rewards for showing up while costing you nothing to get it. And here's the weird part. A lot of alliances don't participate in war constantly. They might not want to run war on day five of AQ, or their members might want a break periodically. But you can participate constantly because you don't care about winning. Which means you're actually collecting more rewards than you might expect relative to alliances trying to win every time.
Defender kills were good, but they obviously don’t want them anymore. So how about a compromise then? If a defender gets one or more kills before getting ko’d, you only get half the attacking kill points for that particular defender? I know it’s not much, but with rating giving such a slim margin of victory / defeat, it could still prove a tipping point.
keep the new map, but reinstate the old scoring system.
I believe their unspoken argument, which I predicted would happen a while back, is that by making nodes harder they are doing two things. First, they are reducing the likelihood of alliances consistently completing the map 100%. As long as both sides do not full complete, they can argue all other flaws in the system are irrelevant because both sides could have done more to win so its their fault. Second, they are making the nodes strong enough to put show-stopper node placement back on the table, which is essentially the mystic wars problem in disguise. People didn't place mystic defenders with MD because they were just hard: they did so because they had a decent probability of stopping the other side dead. With defender kills gone, the *only* reason to place a defender that isn't a diverse non-unique defender is because it is a show stopper (I believe the term being used by others is a "blockader"). The right defender on the right node can make the other side literally just give up, knowing they don't have the right attackers or the will to spend past, and that means (given the map configuration) that they are unlikely to complete when the other side will.
So they can argue that defender points (diversity and rating) don't decide wars (when they aren't 100%) and players are placing a diverse set of defenders, and strong defense is as important as it used to be.
Fascinatingly, they are doing that by taking their original problem - an attacker giving up - and converting it into whole alliances choosing to give up, and the original bad situation players were actually complaining about - mystic wars - and turning it into right-defender-wins-wrong-attacker-loses wars.
I'm having flashbacks to the statements given to some of the attendees to Comic con.
You know what? I agree with you! But then, they need to make an official statement and say something like "diversity no one want will stay and defender kills will never come back", then close the comments because no one is gonna agree with that. That's the only good thing they can do, accept it or leave it, end of story.
But if they want us to comments, what they'll get is only heat from angry players who pay their bills!
It's just clear. Defender Kills were removed. They outlined the reasons. We've had several iterations since and they have not been added. It hasn't been said outright, but the reasons they were removed still stand, and the discussion has revolved around them. I'm saying if we are moving forward, it's probably more productive to look at suggestions outside of them, that don't create the same issues that Defender Kills created. They haven't said they're not coming back outright. I'm displaying the evidence. Personally I would like to see suggestions moving forward, but the feedback has been centred around them. They're not here. I think it's more prudent to move on.
Actually, the problem is that while I'm open to compromise, Kabam's current position seems to be that we don't need to compromise because they are doing exactly what we're asking for, and are getting closer to that target with every iteration.
They are doing that because they are oversimplifying everyone's complaints to "everyone is 100% completing the map and everything is a tie and defender points are deciding wars" so anything that eliminates 100% completion fixes the problem. So of course cranking up difficulty is helping *us*.
The fact that I keep saying increasing difficulty is actually making the problem worse, I guess is being interpreted as I just don't understand game design math. But everyone that complains about the problem being that everyone is 100% completing the map is feeding the idea the devs have that what they are doing is the magic bullet to solving most complaints.
A prerequisite to compromise is both sides are speaking the same language. But three months and a couple thousand posts later it seems we can't get the devs to explain what their definition of "tie breaker" is, and why it is so different from the one used by everyone else in the English speaking world.
Ended up with 35 defender kills by juggernaut alone last week...we lost that AW by like11k because we didnt want to spend/waste money on revives, but our opponents felt it was necessary to spend almost $60 collectively just to take one bg....outscored them 150 defender diversity to 100ish as well...oh ya it really is gearing towards skill alright...skills if pulling out your credit card and typing the digits fast
***Please remove head from your backside and come to the realization that continually making the AW nodes harder isn't going to fix the problem the community has with AW. Your current scoring system is wayyyyyyyyy more broken than those nodes you keep tinkering with.
This would be no issue at all if they added a skill related scoring point. Wether it's defender kills or something else skill related [?], defender rating would cause little issues. So yeah, boosting or suicides would become irrelevant again.
This makes performance the key metric. It makes one extra kill, one more explored node, one anything decide the outcome.
In the case all else is even, defender kills will be nothing but a tiebreaker, not a major contributor to scoring,
If those are tied, well.. you tie. It can happen. Many battles and even wars end in a draw with both sides gaining little. That's life, that's competition. Football, futbol, etc all have ties. It's ok, bro. We can live with the occasional one when the majority of wars are decided on relative performance.
Goodbye to some old Nodes!
This is one that we know many of you have been waiting to hear… We’ve removed all instances of Thorns and Slashed Tires across every difficulty level!
and instead have decided to include nodes that are even harder and in some cases without 1 specific champ impossible like our happy go lucky Node 24 when a champ can regen 14,000 hit points just from you evading!
Kabam - we'll adjust it
Players - again it's bad
Kabam - we'll adjust it
Players - again it's bad
Kabam - we're still adjusting ourselves, we are not interested in the players
P.S. the stronger the node = less 100% = less diversity
I just love it how my previous comment in here that said the same was deleted.
Defender kills tho
Yes with Stronger nodes now we just place hardest defense therefore eliminating diversity as Kabam has stated you aren't supposed to 100% all the time it should be rare. So if you aren't going to aim for 100% then you already lost. Doesn't make any sense as they have now removed diversity from the game as Spending alliances will spend to 100% and still win regardless of diversity. All I can do is shake my head.
Either way, the main problem will not go away until defender kills are brought back into the war in some form.
Now maybe they only give 5 points per kill, or you only start to earn points on the 2nd death or another method (there has been loads of possible suggestions), but we do need defender kills back to make war fun again.
The question we all have to ask, is the current war "fun & interactive"???
And the hilarious part about this...remember about a year ago when Kabam claimed they wanted all champions to be on more of an even playing field? "We want people to be able to rank the people they like and for them to be useful." Well, node 24 is the new thorns with minimal ways to get around it. Very disingenuous IMO.
Tier 1 wars and we lost