Alliance Wars Discussion 2.0

18911131419

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    edited November 2017
    To be fair, Bonus Points for 0 Kills is less punitive, so I could reason with it, but again, it creates the same effect where the push is not to die, and for that reason, I'm not really for it. It's pretty much the same as Defender Kills. I'd be more inclined to consider it though. Just that I can see the aim is to bring back Kills without Kills. Lol.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    Oh, so you think this is about me. Sorry, but issues affect more than just myself. I'm talking about the entire system and the problems they created. Not myself.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    You're the only person I've seen disagree with the majority wanting defender kills back.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    That's because it's not a vote. I'm looking at the reasons they created problems. It's not about want. They were taken out for reasons, and I'm pretty much the only one who is accepting those reasons. Regardless of what people want, the issue doesn't go away.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    No one else had an issue with it but you.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    Clearly that's not the case. It was enough of an issue to remove them and keep them out. That wasn't on my behalf. I haven't even commented about them before the removal. I was fighting regardless. You keep localizing the issue but it's not about me.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    I don't see a single other person say they're for the removal of defender kills but you.
  • LocoMotivesLocoMotives Posts: 1,200 ★★★
    That's because it's not a vote. I'm looking at the reasons they created problems. It's not about want. They were taken out for reasons, and I'm pretty much the only one who is accepting those reasons. Regardless of what people want, the issue doesn't go away.

    The issue is you created the reasons yourself. The only reason we were given from Kabam was the “feeling of defeat” BS, everything else that you have stated as reasons is your own conjecture. Why should we believe your reasons are valid? Maybe I’m wrong and Kabam has elaborated further at some point, but at the very maximum your opinion is only as valid as anyone else’s.

    And IMO, arguing just to argue is trolling. There are no facts that you present, only re-spouted Kabam gobbledygook. We all know their official responses, not entirely necessary for you to constantly reiterate. The convo drifts to you because of outlandish statements that most players find unbelievable at best and ignorant of how the game is played at worst. While your presence here cannot be denied by any player, your statements can not be ignored either as they go against the mindset of 99% of this “community” (that being the players that show up in the forum).

    But that’s just my two cents, which has no more or less value to our overlords than yours 😀
  • Anonymous wrote: »
    You're the only person I've seen disagree with the majority wanting defender kills back.

    Officially, Kabam's stated position is that defender kill points discouraged players from attacking a node when they felt it was insurmountable. That is at least a clear unambiguous, and not nonsensical position that can be reasonably debated.

    Kabam's position is not nonsensical because there exists a reasonable situation in which it is actually the *correct* decision to not attack a node, even if you have live attackers, under 14.0 rules. Suppose you are confronting a node you attempt once and realize you will not be able to defeat at all. Suppose also that you are in a full battlegroup and your only extra attacker has already been dispatched elsewhere. No help is coming. If you stop attacking you lose that node and the path beyond. It could have been, say, the thorns node. But the rest of the map could still be completed, minus that node. Trying and failing over and over again would not increase your score, but would increase your opponent's score. In this situation, not attacking is the correct strategy.

    If you decide this is a problem worth addressing, then there is a logical way to address it. Eliminate points for defender kills - which are really attacker deaths - and fold them into the points for the node. If the node starts at a certain point count and then that point count decreases for every time you die on it, the above problem disappears. If you quit attacking at any time you forfeit *all* the points for that node so by definition it is always better to at least try to defeat it. Furthermore it is illogical to claim that this is some new penalty because even in 14.0 the situation was the same: you don't get any points unless you defeat the node in both 14.0 and the proposed situation. The amount of *potential* points drops if you die and continues to drop if you continue to die, but the act of giving up is the same as dropping the points to zero - exactly the same as in 14.0.

    There are other ways to address this problem, but this one directly addresses the argument set forth by Kabam. At the moment, that is the only logical argument for eliminating defender kill points that has been proposed, and it has a valid work-around. Kabam simply hasn't acknowledged that such a work around exists or what objection they might have to it.

    In fact, some of the alternatives presented by myself and other posters are actually good enough that I'm not sure I want defender kill points back. I think those alternatives are actually better than defender kill points, specifically because they still give credit to good attackers but also address the problem with the best strategy sometimes being not attacking. I'm actually growing to like my previous suggestion to award points per node won with the fewest attacker deaths. It adds an extra dimension of trying to actually win every node. Every node on the map becomes potentially important.

    Just for reference, the basics of the suggestion was to track every node on the map and count the number of attacker deaths it took to kill it. Whichever side kills the node with the fewest deaths "wins" the node and bonus points for winning the node. You get no points for defender kills, but generating kills helps win nodes. Something between 20 and 50 points per node sounds about right to me, absent testing.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    Anonymous wrote: »
    I don't see a single other person say they're for the removal of defender kills but you.

    We also haven't seen anyone complain that they won, just that there was a Loss with less Kills.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    You're the only person I've seen disagree with the majority wanting defender kills back.

    Officially, Kabam's stated position is that defender kill points discouraged players from attacking a node when they felt it was insurmountable. That is at least a clear unambiguous, and not nonsensical position that can be reasonably debated.

    Kabam's position is not nonsensical because there exists a reasonable situation in which it is actually the *correct* decision to not attack a node, even if you have live attackers, under 14.0 rules. Suppose you are confronting a node you attempt once and realize you will not be able to defeat at all. Suppose also that you are in a full battlegroup and your only extra attacker has already been dispatched elsewhere. No help is coming. If you stop attacking you lose that node and the path beyond. It could have been, say, the thorns node. But the rest of the map could still be completed, minus that node. Trying and failing over and over again would not increase your score, but would increase your opponent's score. In this situation, not attacking is the correct strategy.

    If you decide this is a problem worth addressing, then there is a logical way to address it. Eliminate points for defender kills - which are really attacker deaths - and fold them into the points for the node. If the node starts at a certain point count and then that point count decreases for every time you die on it, the above problem disappears. If you quit attacking at any time you forfeit *all* the points for that node so by definition it is always better to at least try to defeat it. Furthermore it is illogical to claim that this is some new penalty because even in 14.0 the situation was the same: you don't get any points unless you defeat the node in both 14.0 and the proposed situation. The amount of *potential* points drops if you die and continues to drop if you continue to die, but the act of giving up is the same as dropping the points to zero - exactly the same as in 14.0.

    There are other ways to address this problem, but this one directly addresses the argument set forth by Kabam. At the moment, that is the only logical argument for eliminating defender kill points that has been proposed, and it has a valid work-around. Kabam simply hasn't acknowledged that such a work around exists or what objection they might have to it.

    In fact, some of the alternatives presented by myself and other posters are actually good enough that I'm not sure I want defender kill points back. I think those alternatives are actually better than defender kill points, specifically because they still give credit to good attackers but also address the problem with the best strategy sometimes being not attacking. I'm actually growing to like my previous suggestion to award points per node won with the fewest attacker deaths. It adds an extra dimension of trying to actually win every node. Every node on the map becomes potentially important.

    Just for reference, the basics of the suggestion was to track every node on the map and count the number of attacker deaths it took to kill it. Whichever side kills the node with the fewest deaths "wins" the node and bonus points for winning the node. You get no points for defender kills, but generating kills helps win nodes. Something between 20 and 50 points per node sounds about right to me, absent testing.

    Been in many situations of war that required us to consider not taking a node down (be it thorns, slashed tires, magik, dorm, etc). Essentially your suggestion is very similar to defender kills. It can definitely work, I just think it's easier to calculate the amount of deaths vs their amount of deaths.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    Anonymous wrote: »
    I don't see a single other person say they're for the removal of defender kills but you.

    We also haven't seen anyone complain that they won, just that there was a Loss with less Kills.

    Not true, I've seen a few in the previous alliance war forum.
  • MenkentMenkent Posts: 592 ★★★
    edited November 2017
    I complained our first war in the new format when we won only because we placed 145 to their 150 and won on attacker kills. I think thats the only major scoring flaw they've addressed.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 6,401 ★★★★★
    Clearly that's not the case. It was enough of an issue to remove them and keep them out. That wasn't on my behalf. I haven't even commented about them before the removal. I was fighting regardless. You keep localizing the issue but it's not about me.

    The fact that Kabam removed defender kills is not evidence that they were an issue.
  • Anonymous wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    You're the only person I've seen disagree with the majority wanting defender kills back.

    Officially, Kabam's stated position is that defender kill points discouraged players from attacking a node when they felt it was insurmountable. That is at least a clear unambiguous, and not nonsensical position that can be reasonably debated.

    Kabam's position is not nonsensical because there exists a reasonable situation in which it is actually the *correct* decision to not attack a node, even if you have live attackers, under 14.0 rules. Suppose you are confronting a node you attempt once and realize you will not be able to defeat at all. Suppose also that you are in a full battlegroup and your only extra attacker has already been dispatched elsewhere. No help is coming. If you stop attacking you lose that node and the path beyond. It could have been, say, the thorns node. But the rest of the map could still be completed, minus that node. Trying and failing over and over again would not increase your score, but would increase your opponent's score. In this situation, not attacking is the correct strategy.

    If you decide this is a problem worth addressing, then there is a logical way to address it. Eliminate points for defender kills - which are really attacker deaths - and fold them into the points for the node. If the node starts at a certain point count and then that point count decreases for every time you die on it, the above problem disappears. If you quit attacking at any time you forfeit *all* the points for that node so by definition it is always better to at least try to defeat it. Furthermore it is illogical to claim that this is some new penalty because even in 14.0 the situation was the same: you don't get any points unless you defeat the node in both 14.0 and the proposed situation. The amount of *potential* points drops if you die and continues to drop if you continue to die, but the act of giving up is the same as dropping the points to zero - exactly the same as in 14.0.

    There are other ways to address this problem, but this one directly addresses the argument set forth by Kabam. At the moment, that is the only logical argument for eliminating defender kill points that has been proposed, and it has a valid work-around. Kabam simply hasn't acknowledged that such a work around exists or what objection they might have to it.

    In fact, some of the alternatives presented by myself and other posters are actually good enough that I'm not sure I want defender kill points back. I think those alternatives are actually better than defender kill points, specifically because they still give credit to good attackers but also address the problem with the best strategy sometimes being not attacking. I'm actually growing to like my previous suggestion to award points per node won with the fewest attacker deaths. It adds an extra dimension of trying to actually win every node. Every node on the map becomes potentially important.

    Just for reference, the basics of the suggestion was to track every node on the map and count the number of attacker deaths it took to kill it. Whichever side kills the node with the fewest deaths "wins" the node and bonus points for winning the node. You get no points for defender kills, but generating kills helps win nodes. Something between 20 and 50 points per node sounds about right to me, absent testing.

    Been in many situations of war that required us to consider not taking a node down (be it thorns, slashed tires, magik, dorm, etc). Essentially your suggestion is very similar to defender kills. It can definitely work, I just think it's easier to calculate the amount of deaths vs their amount of deaths.

    Since a computer is doing the calculations, the difficulty of the calculations is not a big deal.

    If you mean it is easier for the players to keep track, the players wouldn't keep count of kills under the system I mention above. They would just have to keep count of the number of nodes they won, which is something they could actually do in theory. The attackers know how many attacker defeats it took to defeat node X (the attacking player in particular knows), and the defender kills generated on node X would tell them how many attacker defeats the other side got, and that would allow you to know how many nodes you are up or down by.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    You're the only person I've seen disagree with the majority wanting defender kills back.

    Officially, Kabam's stated position is that defender kill points discouraged players from attacking a node when they felt it was insurmountable. That is at least a clear unambiguous, and not nonsensical position that can be reasonably debated.

    Kabam's position is not nonsensical because there exists a reasonable situation in which it is actually the *correct* decision to not attack a node, even if you have live attackers, under 14.0 rules. Suppose you are confronting a node you attempt once and realize you will not be able to defeat at all. Suppose also that you are in a full battlegroup and your only extra attacker has already been dispatched elsewhere. No help is coming. If you stop attacking you lose that node and the path beyond. It could have been, say, the thorns node. But the rest of the map could still be completed, minus that node. Trying and failing over and over again would not increase your score, but would increase your opponent's score. In this situation, not attacking is the correct strategy.

    If you decide this is a problem worth addressing, then there is a logical way to address it. Eliminate points for defender kills - which are really attacker deaths - and fold them into the points for the node. If the node starts at a certain point count and then that point count decreases for every time you die on it, the above problem disappears. If you quit attacking at any time you forfeit *all* the points for that node so by definition it is always better to at least try to defeat it. Furthermore it is illogical to claim that this is some new penalty because even in 14.0 the situation was the same: you don't get any points unless you defeat the node in both 14.0 and the proposed situation. The amount of *potential* points drops if you die and continues to drop if you continue to die, but the act of giving up is the same as dropping the points to zero - exactly the same as in 14.0.

    There are other ways to address this problem, but this one directly addresses the argument set forth by Kabam. At the moment, that is the only logical argument for eliminating defender kill points that has been proposed, and it has a valid work-around. Kabam simply hasn't acknowledged that such a work around exists or what objection they might have to it.

    In fact, some of the alternatives presented by myself and other posters are actually good enough that I'm not sure I want defender kill points back. I think those alternatives are actually better than defender kill points, specifically because they still give credit to good attackers but also address the problem with the best strategy sometimes being not attacking. I'm actually growing to like my previous suggestion to award points per node won with the fewest attacker deaths. It adds an extra dimension of trying to actually win every node. Every node on the map becomes potentially important.

    Just for reference, the basics of the suggestion was to track every node on the map and count the number of attacker deaths it took to kill it. Whichever side kills the node with the fewest deaths "wins" the node and bonus points for winning the node. You get no points for defender kills, but generating kills helps win nodes. Something between 20 and 50 points per node sounds about right to me, absent testing.

    Been in many situations of war that required us to consider not taking a node down (be it thorns, slashed tires, magik, dorm, etc). Essentially your suggestion is very similar to defender kills. It can definitely work, I just think it's easier to calculate the amount of deaths vs their amount of deaths.

    Since a computer is doing the calculations, the difficulty of the calculations is not a big deal.

    If you mean it is easier for the players to keep track, the players wouldn't keep count of kills under the system I mention above. They would just have to keep count of the number of nodes they won, which is something they could actually do in theory. The attackers know how many attacker defeats it took to defeat node X (the attacking player in particular knows), and the defender kills generated on node X would tell them how many attacker defeats the other side got, and that would allow you to know how many nodes you are up or down by.

    Sounds good, as long as there's a metric to determine performance differences between two alliances in a war.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    I don't see a single other person say they're for the removal of defender kills but you.

    We also haven't seen anyone complain that they won, just that there was a Loss with less Kills.

    My recollection was that at least five separate posters complained about winning under the new system but still not liking it. In fact, in a different thread I commented that many players are currently winning but still complaining because for many players it is important to win under a reasonably fair competitive system. A system that shifts the winning conditions to things that have nothing to do with competition is often unpalatable, even to the winners.

    Only people who value competition will understand when a victory is soured by the belief that it was not won on a genuinely competitive decision.

    A few examples, yes. I wasn't being literal. Displaying a point. Defender Kills are not necessary for Wars to be competitive. They're intrinsically competitive. People want Wins. The fact that the focus of Wars has shifted to Defender Kills just further supports their removal in my opinion. The focus of War is to work as a team to gain the most Points and win Rewards. There is skill involved in completing the Maps. That doesn't necessitate penalizing Kills.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    edited November 2017
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    That's because it's not a vote. I'm looking at the reasons they created problems. It's not about want. They were taken out for reasons, and I'm pretty much the only one who is accepting those reasons. Regardless of what people want, the issue doesn't go away.

    Actually, you aren't even accepting anything Kabam says, except when it fits your world view. You repeatedly stated that war was "becoming about defender kills" and that was a problem, however when specifically asked by me what Kabam thought players should be doing when selecting defenders, @Kabam Miike specifically stated that he believed the goal was the same as it was in 14.0 which was to place a defense that could stop the attackers by defeating them.

    You continue to assert that this is not true, and that Kabam doesn't want it to be true, when @Kabam Miike makes the only statement from Kabam about the subject: that the point to defenders is to generate kills and stop the other side. And that was always true.

    Furthermore you supported Kabam when they decreased the difficulty of the map, and you now support their decision to increase the difficulty of the map. That pretty much nullifies any credibility you might have had as an objective observer.

    You're translating that statement into your own interpretation yourself. I'm aware of what they've said. I've also given my own reasons for supporting their removal, and highlighted other issues I've seen. Stopping the Attack doesn't mean accumulating Points for repeated attempts at taking down Nodes. That's the part you're leaving out. It means having a Defense that attempts to stop the other team. There is a difference.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    Anonymous wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    I don't see a single other person say they're for the removal of defender kills but you.

    We also haven't seen anyone complain that they won, just that there was a Loss with less Kills.

    My recollection was that at least five separate posters complained about winning under the new system but still not liking it. In fact, in a different thread I commented that many players are currently winning but still complaining because for many players it is important to win under a reasonably fair competitive system. A system that shifts the winning conditions to things that have nothing to do with competition is often unpalatable, even to the winners.

    Only people who value competition will understand when a victory is soured by the belief that it was not won on a genuinely competitive decision.

    A few examples, yes. I wasn't being literal. Displaying a point. Defender Kills are not necessary for Wars to be competitive. They're intrinsically competitive. People want Wins. The fact that the focus of Wars has shifted to Defender Kills just further supports their removal in my opinion. The focus of War is to work as a team to gain the most Points and win Rewards. There is skill involved in completing the Maps. That doesn't necessitate penalizing Kills.

    Defender kills was not the focus in 14.0, it was all about exploration and boss kills, then defender kills was the real tie breaker to determine who performed better. Which was the most fair way to determine a winner.

    We're looking at page upon page of people saying Defender Kills are absolutely essential for War. I'm not going to entertain the thought that War hasn't become focused on Defender Kills for one second.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 508 ★★★
    Anonymous wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    I don't see a single other person say they're for the removal of defender kills but you.

    We also haven't seen anyone complain that they won, just that there was a Loss with less Kills.

    My recollection was that at least five separate posters complained about winning under the new system but still not liking it. In fact, in a different thread I commented that many players are currently winning but still complaining because for many players it is important to win under a reasonably fair competitive system. A system that shifts the winning conditions to things that have nothing to do with competition is often unpalatable, even to the winners.

    Only people who value competition will understand when a victory is soured by the belief that it was not won on a genuinely competitive decision.

    A few examples, yes. I wasn't being literal. Displaying a point. Defender Kills are not necessary for Wars to be competitive. They're intrinsically competitive. People want Wins. The fact that the focus of Wars has shifted to Defender Kills just further supports their removal in my opinion. The focus of War is to work as a team to gain the most Points and win Rewards. There is skill involved in completing the Maps. That doesn't necessitate penalizing Kills.

    Defender kills was not the focus in 14.0, it was all about exploration and boss kills, then defender kills was the real tie breaker to determine who performed better. Which was the most fair way to determine a winner.

    We're looking at page upon page of people saying Defender Kills are absolutely essential for War. I'm not going to entertain the thought that War hasn't become focused on Defender Kills for one second.

    They are essential in higher tier wars since everyone has been capable of 100%, even in 14.0. There must be a fair way to determine a winner if both sides explore 100% all the time.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    Anonymous wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Anonymous wrote: »
    I don't see a single other person say they're for the removal of defender kills but you.

    We also haven't seen anyone complain that they won, just that there was a Loss with less Kills.

    My recollection was that at least five separate posters complained about winning under the new system but still not liking it. In fact, in a different thread I commented that many players are currently winning but still complaining because for many players it is important to win under a reasonably fair competitive system. A system that shifts the winning conditions to things that have nothing to do with competition is often unpalatable, even to the winners.

    Only people who value competition will understand when a victory is soured by the belief that it was not won on a genuinely competitive decision.

    A few examples, yes. I wasn't being literal. Displaying a point. Defender Kills are not necessary for Wars to be competitive. They're intrinsically competitive. People want Wins. The fact that the focus of Wars has shifted to Defender Kills just further supports their removal in my opinion. The focus of War is to work as a team to gain the most Points and win Rewards. There is skill involved in completing the Maps. That doesn't necessitate penalizing Kills.

    Defender kills was not the focus in 14.0, it was all about exploration and boss kills, then defender kills was the real tie breaker to determine who performed better. Which was the most fair way to determine a winner.

    We're looking at page upon page of people saying Defender Kills are absolutely essential for War. I'm not going to entertain the thought that War hasn't become focused on Defender Kills for one second.

    They are essential in higher tier wars since everyone has been capable of 100%, even in 14.0. There must be a fair way to determine a winner if both sides explore 100% all the time.

    In higher Tiers, this is the case either way. They will be completing the Maps. There is a way to determine the Win. It's not necessary that it be Defender Kills. However, everyone shares the same system.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,270 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    That's because it's not a vote. I'm looking at the reasons they created problems. It's not about want. They were taken out for reasons, and I'm pretty much the only one who is accepting those reasons. Regardless of what people want, the issue doesn't go away.

    Actually, you aren't even accepting anything Kabam says, except when it fits your world view. You repeatedly stated that war was "becoming about defender kills" and that was a problem, however when specifically asked by me what Kabam thought players should be doing when selecting defenders, @Kabam Miike specifically stated that he believed the goal was the same as it was in 14.0 which was to place a defense that could stop the attackers by defeating them.

    You continue to assert that this is not true, and that Kabam doesn't want it to be true, when @Kabam Miike makes the only statement from Kabam about the subject: that the point to defenders is to generate kills and stop the other side. And that was always true.

    Furthermore you supported Kabam when they decreased the difficulty of the map, and you now support their decision to increase the difficulty of the map. That pretty much nullifies any credibility you might have had as an objective observer.

    You're translating that statement into your own interpretation yourself. I'm aware of what they've said. I've also given my own reasons for supporting their removal, and highlighted other issues I've seen. Stopping the Attack doesn't mean accumulating Points for repeated attempts at taking down Nodes. That's the part you're leaving out. It means having a Defense that attempts to stop the other team. There is a difference.

    This statement is completely nonsensical in the context of how alliance wars work. There are only two ways to stop an attacker. Kill all of his attackers, or convince the attacker to give up while he still has attackers. When Kabam says the point to placing defense is to stop the attackers, they can only mean one of those two things. As they have already stated they do not want attackers to give up while they still have live attackers, they cannot mean that. They therefore can only mean, when they say that the point to placing defense is to stop attackers, is to kill them. Whether we get points for doing it, the singular objective of placing defenders is to actually kill attackers, according to Kabam.

    You can call it a "translation" but that doesn't make it so. It is pretty self-evident on its face what it means, to all reasonably objective readers. Those are the only ones I care about.

    They don't want to penalize efforts. Ergo, no metrics for Kills.
This discussion has been closed.