**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.

Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.

**AW Boosting for Defender Rating, How Much Longer Will You Be Able To Buy a Win??*

Ever since the launch of Alliance War 2.0, boosting has effected defender rating, which was little known at first behind the shockwave of diversity, but now is common knowledge throughout at least Tier1-2 AW. Despite Kabam efforts, 100% is still very easily achievable, and everyone for the most part has 150 diversity, so defender rating becomes the tiebreaker in most situations.

Having boosts effect that number is reprehensible to me, because it forces people to boost for every war if they want to stay competitive, which is impossible to maintain without eventually spending units on boosts. If every alliance member is required to place a full suite of boosts before placing, thats an ODIN a war per ally in kabam's pocket. This makes AW a PAY TO WIN experience, causes huge alliance strife between members who want to win and those who don't want to feed kabam/free-to-play, NOT TO MENTION the swapping of defender rating which is widespread at the start of an AW now. (PS Kabam, I know you wanted to remove the feeling that one guy got when he was stuck behind a node in AW 1.0 and felt helpless, well now the whole alliance can feel hopeless 10 minutes into AW....yea....feels bad guy)

Now I'm not accusing Kabam of doing this intentionally to drive revenue, but in the posts Ive seen so far on this topic, the mod didn't know it even existed, and then there was no followup, I would like to see a mod weigh in on this issue and if it is being worked on as a fix or if this is a permanent fixture of AW now.

Possible solutions are....

1) Recode scoring so boosts have no effect

2) Removing defender rating as tiebreaker, and make defender kills the tiebreaker, that way they still impact the game, and are not as stressful to that one guy at a node because they only come into effect in a tiebreaker. Skill would decide AW in these cases, which I think most would agree, is how it should be.

Thank you for reading and I tried to explain the issue clearly and constructively, a response from a mod detailing the awareness and progress towards a fix of this issue would be greatly appreciated, I know my alliance is demotivated from wars straight of coming up on the short end of the stick rating wise because I won't mandate boosting, and it's seriously in need of light at the end of the tunnel time dudes.

Comments

  • Wow .
  • mum_m2mum_m2 Posts: 1,776 ★★★★
    I thought the PI drops back down once you enter the fight and that it doesn't change the overall defender rating.

    Even if true or not, you could easily just remember to apply a boost yourself. Why not, if it gives your alliance a little edge within the scope of the game? It's not an exploit, or a hack by Kabam's definition.
  • mum_m2 wrote: »
    I thought the PI drops back down once you enter the fight and that it doesn't change the overall defender rating.

    Even if true or not, you could easily just remember to apply a boost yourself. Why not, if it gives your alliance a little edge within the scope of the game? It's not an exploit, or a hack by Kabam's definition.

    It unfortunately definitely does effect the overall defender rating, and its easy to say boost yourself, but at 3 wars a week, each requiring a full suite just to place, you run out of naturally earned boosts quickly, and find yourself spending, if you run the math, its about an ODIN an ally per war, just to have a shot at winning. I never said it was hack or exploit, simply that AW tier1/2 at least (the only places I have experience) are now PAY TO WIN
  • KhanMedinaKhanMedina Posts: 927 ★★★
    mum_m2 wrote: »
    I thought the PI drops back down once you enter the fight and that it doesn't change the overall defender rating.

    Even if true or not, you could easily just remember to apply a boost yourself. Why not, if it gives your alliance a little edge within the scope of the game? It's not an exploit, or a hack by Kabam's definition.

    Did you read the post? He's saying they could do that, but the cost would be excessive just for a PI boost. Not sure what evidence there is that everyone is doing this either though. If I'm planning to boost for something else, then I'll make sure to drop defense while boosted, but I wouldn't go out of my way to drop 1 hour long attack, health, and champ each war before placing.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,965 ★★★★★
    So don’t boost. Seriously all you are doing is buying war rating with resources. Eventually you’ll end up at the ~50% win rate while expending resources to maintain it because if you don’t you will likely have a losing streak equal to the win streak that brought you to your peak. Boosting is extremely shortsighted, so yeah if you are required to boost find another ally or trade your resources for war rating.
  • I'm simply trying to bring some clarity to the issue, because if this is an unintended side effect of the new scoring, then I think its only right the community be made aware so that we can look forward to a fix, rather then hating life every time you swap defender rating in AW, or if its not going to be fixed/changed, we deserve to know that too
This discussion has been closed.