This is becoming cyclical, so I'm going to step out. Defender Kills were removed. There are reasons. They've given their reasoning, and I have my own. At this point, it's semantics after the fact because they're gone.
This is becoming cyclical, so I'm going to step out. Defender Kills were removed. There are reasons. They've given their reasoning, and I have my own. At this point, it's semantics after the fact because they're gone.
How is it semantics? lol. Actually don't answer that. Step out by all means.
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.
That's exactly what it is. They weren't removed arbitrarily.
They removed them because there were issues, and as evidence of the issues is the fact that they removed them? Um... Circular reasoning?
This is becoming cyclical, so I'm going to step out. Defender Kills were removed. There are reasons. They've given their reasoning, and I have my own. At this point, it's semantics after the fact because they're gone.
How is it semantics? lol. Actually don't answer that. Step out by all means.
It's semantics. My interpretation, someone else's interpretation, why they were removed, why they shouldn't be removed, semantics. It's been months. They're gone.
This is becoming cyclical, so I'm going to step out. Defender Kills were removed. There are reasons. They've given their reasoning, and I have my own. At this point, it's semantics after the fact because they're gone.
Please step out. You keep saying you will but don’t. Half of this thread is you spamming non sense.
So tired of the new alliance war. The war is decided before it begins. Ties are supposed to be a rare occurrence not the norm. With every war we win or lose it comes down to diversity and defense rating because everyone 100%s the map. Losing wars because of defenders rating when you have 40 - 50 more defender kills than your opponent may be padding your pockets with pot sales but it is discouraging those of us who truly Know how to fight. Isn't that the point of wars to begin with. If this is going to continue to be your system for aw why not just skip the war altogether and have a unit war instead where each alliance just donates units and the one who spends the most wins. It's pretty much what we have now.
This is becoming cyclical, so I'm going to step out. Defender Kills were removed. There are reasons. They've given their reasoning, and I have my own. At this point, it's semantics after the fact because they're gone.
How is it semantics? lol. Actually don't answer that. Step out by all means.
It's semantics. My interpretation, someone else's interpretation, why they were removed, why they shouldn't be removed, semantics. It's been months. They're gone.
All forum posts are semantics. But no one is arguing semantic quibbling in the thread. One person does not make an argument.
So tired of the new alliance war. The war is decided before it begins. Ties are supposed to be a rare occurrence not the norm. With every war we win or lose it comes down to diversity and defense rating because everyone 100%s the map. Losing wars because of defenders rating when you have 40 - 50 more defender kills than your opponent may be padding your pockets with pot sales but it is discouraging those of us who truly Know how to fight. Isn't that the point of wars to begin with. If this is going to continue to be your system for aw why not just skip the war altogether and have a unit war instead where each alliance just donates units and the one who spends the most wins. It's pretty much what we have now.
It is important to note here that I don't think everyone understands how the alliance war situation has seesawed around between 14.0 and 16.0. Some people are complaining about 16.0 as if it is 15.0. It is *sometimes* true that wars are lost because of defender rating or because defender kills no longer count. But this was an unavoidable mess in 15.0. It is not entirely an avoidable mess in 16.0. In 16.0 the nodes are now strong enough that many alliances in many tiers have a choice: place maximum diversity or place strongest defense.
If you place the maximum diversity, you are probably placing a weaker defense than you could. If both sides place max diversity and you then lose because both sides 100% and they win on defender rating while you generated the most defender kills, that suggests that had you placed a stronger defense you might have been able to block their attackers, since they died a lot to a diverse defense. A blockade defense or a max strength defense might have won.
Because every alliance is different and every tier is collectively different, I don't think everyone knows yet what the optimum strategy is for every situation. That meta gameplay is still being worked out, and it takes days to try anything and see what it does. But while the current version of war still has problems, and it still has really bad corner cases, it is important to not give up trying alternate strategies under the new system. It may be flawed, but it isn't the same monochrome trap that 15.0 was.
If you're tier 1 and you're in a highly competitive environment, my understanding is that there seems to be some back and forth between whether max diversity or strong defense is the best strategy. If you are in a lower tier, then below tier 2 I don't think everyone is 100% completing anymore.
Hi @Kabam Miike thank you for creating a new discussion post.
I have gone through 30% of comments of other players, trying to get an idea of punctual proposals, as well as your explanations you gave on certain items of concern.
Based on my experience in Tier 5-3 and other comments above, I have thought of the following proposed fixes to improve the immediate state:
1)Bring back defender kills points, making them work similar to how Defender Points are awarded, giving you just some extra points, not significant as in AW 1.0.
Note: For opening the next item, my view on why Defender Kills didn't work awesome before is because it didn't have something to balance out and benefit the opponents. Simply put, true attack skill was left out of rewards. Exploration could be achieved with ally suport, but performance in is not being measured.
2)So to improve the skill balance factor, add "Clean Defeat" points for attackers, awarded to those that don't die in combat. This creates a balance scenario between how defeats and victories happen. Timeouts should not reward the points, as considering them could be abused if not taken into account. From a "revenue' standpoint this would incentivate use of items, enough to get pass a next node by seeking a survivability scenario. This could also add to gold rewards
3)I believe in the purpose of diversity to avoid massive mystic and auto passive damage enemy deployments. This is what is was made for and it is OK, it is working. The issue still not addressed in my opinion, is that it interacts with placed defenders & defeated adversaries scores. If points for defeated adversaries are removed from score, then you avoid the hole of having less points attacking due to incomplete placement of the other alliance, balancing out the equation to reward the better coordinated alliance that did full and diverse placement, which is fair. For me that is the easy fix. Note: Keep the count of killed opponents for the gold rewards!
4)To add further tie breaking, points could be awarded for mini boss defeats to add other tie breaking. Certain scenarios exist in Tier5 and below in which defeating a boss without the minibosses is feasable, and extra points could go to those that choose the challenge of full clear.
I think the above creates more skill based scoring mechanisms, addressing main issues and really rewarding the better alliance in all senses, not just how powerful defenders are. Node difficulty increases being designed can help to hinder 100% exploration efforts, but this was never the point. The point is about how to make skill more tangible in the end result.
Hopefully these proposals can be analyzed and taken to consideration, I believe it would help to put AW 2.0 in a good spot!
This is becoming cyclical, so I'm going to step out. Defender Kills were removed. There are reasons. They've given their reasoning, and I have my own. At this point, it's semantics after the fact because they're gone.
How is it semantics? lol. Actually don't answer that. Step out by all means.
It's semantics. My interpretation, someone else's interpretation, why they were removed, why they shouldn't be removed, semantics. It's been months. They're gone.
All forum posts are semantics. But no one is arguing semantic quibbling in the thread. One person does not make an argument.
When we're debating our interpretation on a comment made about the removal of DKs, it's semantics because regardless, they've been removed, and have continued to be removed.
(Granted, one of our players is semi-retired and his 4/55 Mephisto seems kind of unfair as a boss; many of our opponents seem to give up early on seeing our end platform. But we didn't design the system, so I don't feel very guilty.)
I don't feel guilty about anything that happens to our opponents. Kabam has, intentionally or otherwise: it is irrelevant, created an evil metagame. They've established the premise that if players complain about war being "unfun" because the other side is too hard, they will change it to prevent those players from disengaging.
They have thus created a situation where if you want to affect change in AW, the most effective thing you can do might be not post about it, but instead torture your opponents with the cruelest possible defenses imaginable. Make the players that complained about the hard nodes in 14.0 cry tears of misery at the hard nodes in 16.0.
Don't hate the defender: hate the game. Maybe that's the only way Kabam changes the game.
I'm glad that they at least gave us another strategy besides diversity to use. I think it still sucks but at least you can gamble a bit and not be forced to leave r4 5* juggs sitting on the bench because someone else placed theirs first. That was my biggest issue with the first iteration, a lot of guys had ranked up certain champs solely to use as defenders and they were forced to place other champs instead.
I would still like to see defender kills come back even as a pure tie breaker the way they said defender rating would be when in another thread we see that isn't the case.
This is becoming cyclical, so I'm going to step out. Defender Kills were removed. There are reasons. They've given their reasoning, and I have my own. At this point, it's semantics after the fact because they're gone.
How is it semantics? lol. Actually don't answer that. Step out by all means.
It's semantics. My interpretation, someone else's interpretation, why they were removed, why they shouldn't be removed, semantics. It's been months. They're gone.
All forum posts are semantics. But no one is arguing semantic quibbling in the thread. One person does not make an argument.
When we're debating our interpretation on a comment made about the removal of DKs, it's semantics because regardless, they've been removed, and have continued to be removed.
When people say we are arguing over semantics they mean terminology rather than substance, like the argument over whether defensive rating is a tie breaker. You might say it's irrelevant or its academic or a host of other things because they have been removed, but having been removed doesn't make the debate a debate over semantics.
Skilled players with PI between 350 and 450 k are getting tier 8 tier 9 3*/4* shards...
We get more of those shards from opening premium hero crystals duplicating 2* champions playing couple rounds in basic champion 4* arenas achieving 1.5 m milestone rewards!!! Plus those rank rewards. Really??? Does that look like more fun?
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Whats your alliance tag?
That's not the topic of the subject and I'm not sharing my information. The purpose of the Thread is to discuss War. Not to pony up or put others on the spot.
Hmmm. Hardly ever lose a war but doesn't want anyone to see what the alliance is... sounds reasonable to me lol
If you can't deduce why I respect my own privacy, of all people, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line is, I'm not sharing my information and I won't be provoked into doing so. The topic is War. Not me. I'm moving on in the discussion.
Hey. So I was thinking.... Attacker deaths seems like something that could be a good points metric. Or maybe defender kills. One of the two should work I'd think.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Whats your alliance tag?
That's not the topic of the subject and I'm not sharing my information. The purpose of the Thread is to discuss War. Not to pony up or put others on the spot.
Hmmm. Hardly ever lose a war but doesn't want anyone to see what the alliance is... sounds reasonable to me lol
If you can't deduce why I respect my own privacy, of all people, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line is, I'm not sharing my information and I won't be provoked into doing so. The topic is War. Not me. I'm moving on in the discussion.
How many r4 5*s do you have?
The details of my Account and Roster have nothing to do with the topic of Wars.
I think it was ever established that GW did not even had a single 4* R5 (a few months ago) and yet was talking as if he knows everything about Tier 1 & Tier 2 wars. That's why it lends even lesser credibility to his arguments. And it didn't help when all he does just spam and lap up whatever kabam says,
btw, with the amount of flagging in GW posts, doesn't anything need to be done about it?
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Whats your alliance tag?
That's not the topic of the subject and I'm not sharing my information. The purpose of the Thread is to discuss War. Not to pony up or put others on the spot.
Hmmm. Hardly ever lose a war but doesn't want anyone to see what the alliance is... sounds reasonable to me lol
If you can't deduce why I respect my own privacy, of all people, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line is, I'm not sharing my information and I won't be provoked into doing so. The topic is War. Not me. I'm moving on in the discussion.
How many r4 5*s do you have?
The details of my Account and Roster have nothing to do with the topic of Wars.
I disagree, if you don't have a r4 5* or a bunch of r5 4*s then you can't really compare or relate to high level players. I have 8 r4 5*s and am in the top 100 of total pi. Does that information give out anything useful....nope but now people know I've been playing a long time and have completed all content so they know that I know what I'm talking about. You claim to barely ever lose wars which is impossible unless you are in a top 10 alliance so right now I don't think anyone can take your posts seriously. Providing how many r4 5*s you have lets everyone know what level you are at in the game. Im assuming you dont have any which explains a lot.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Whats your alliance tag?
That's not the topic of the subject and I'm not sharing my information. The purpose of the Thread is to discuss War. Not to pony up or put others on the spot.
Hmmm. Hardly ever lose a war but doesn't want anyone to see what the alliance is... sounds reasonable to me lol
If you can't deduce why I respect my own privacy, of all people, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line is, I'm not sharing my information and I won't be provoked into doing so. The topic is War. Not me. I'm moving on in the discussion.
How many r4 5*s do you have?
The details of my Account and Roster have nothing to do with the topic of Wars.
I disagree, if you don't have a r4 5* or a bunch of r5 4*s then you can't really compare or relate to high level players. I have 8 r4 5*s and am in the top 100 of total pi. Does that information give out anything useful....nope but now people know I've been playing a long time and have completed all content so they know that I know what I'm talking about. You claim to barely ever lose wars which is impossible unless you are in a top 10 alliance so right now I don't think anyone can take your posts seriously. Providing how many r4 5*s you have lets everyone know what level you are at in the game. Im assuming you dont have any which explains a lot.
This is exactly why I'm not having the discussion. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the topic of Wars. This is a discussion for all Players. There is no requirement to participate. Secondly, your only purpose in asking is to try and discredit any point I make using the details of my Account. Shaming Players about where they are in the game is against the rules of the Forum. Have a look. It has nothing to do with the War system overall. It's a discussion on Wars in general. Sorry, but you're not bullying me out of the conversation using Tiers and Ranking. Perhaps it would be more productive to address the points I make.
The only way we could have won this war was that we had 98-100 different defenders. There is 109 playable champions in this game and I can asure you, my alliance does not have all all of those.
Well, not to quibble but you misunderstand how diversity is calculated. You just need each bg to have 50 unique defenders... which isn't any less stupid a metric for winning, it's just more achievable than you think. You just need a spreadsheet and a deep commitment to wasting a lot of time organizing your rosters.
Terrible that this is what it's come to.
Apparently you've never had to rearrange 30 people in 3 BGs before. Organization has always been present. Not all Allies just jump in and place who they want where they want. Not if you want to win. I've been doing it every War I open. There's always forethought required, especially if you have new Players or someone switches up their Defense.
I usually don't engage you , but you have no clue what you're talking about. Spare me your pathetic, baseless judgement.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not new at this. I've been organizing Wars since they began. The large majority of the few losses I've seen were because people didn't follow instructions, so I'm pretty sure I have some base knowledge. Taking cheap shots at me is not a constructive way to have a conversation. It's really not hurting me any.
If you've only seen a few losses since AW began, you're in tier 1.
First of all, not all Alliances play steadily. If I can't foresee the availability of Players and the power to organize a Win, I don't open a War. Secondly, I've had more than one Ally. What Tier someone is in has nothing to do with an understanding of Wars in general. I'm very happy that people take pride in where they are at. That's no justification for using it to discredit someone's understanding in a theoretical discussion. I could care less what people think of me. I know what I'm talking about, and that's enough. Having an understanding of the entire War schematic means looking at how it operates at all Tiers. Not just Expert level.
The justification for questioning your credibility is that you keep making statements that are at best astronomically improbable and more likely are completely impossible. No one wins almost every war they are in. That's statistically impossible, and pretty much everyone reading knows this. It is not something it would even occur to me to exaggerate, because in bracketed PvP the only way for this to be true, even accounting for alliance jumping, is to be the literal best player within the game. Even then, the absolute best alliances in the game are probably winning not a huge amount more than 50% of their matches, because either they are matched against similar strength alliances or they are deliberately dropping down to lower brackets. Either way, they can't win every time.
I'm just really astounded you don't realize how deep a hole you are digging. You don't even understand why I mentioned tier one, even though I'm pretty sure everyone else does. I'm not making fun of your tier: I don't know what that is. I'm pointing out the obvious: that only the absolute best players on the absolute best alliances can make the claim that they've only seen a few losses in AW and have been playing since the beginning, and even then it would be a stretch. Jumping alliances doesn't help, because no one keeps jumping into eternal winners.
Your story is that you almost always win, you always jump into winning alliances, and you are always taking over their alliance set ups when you do. That's Mary Sue territory.
I don't claim to be a tier 1 alliance war player, and I have to defer to tier 1 players when it comes to how they play. I don't claim to have won nearly every war, because that's impossible: I win maybe slightly more than 50%, because my alliance has slowly crept upwards from tier whatever to about tier 6 currently. I care about credibility, so I'm honest about the basis of my opinions. I'm not hard to find in-game, so what I say is mostly verifiable. And if I didn't care what people thought about my opinions, I wouldn't post them on a public forum. That would be a waste of my time.
The numbers speak for themselves. I don't have to prove anything. The rarity is when we lose. I know how to organize a Win and I know how to respond in the moment when Attack is active. I don't care what the statistical probability is. I've seen our Streaks, I've fought our Wars. I have nothing to prove. The point I'm making is that I know what I'm talking about and I have the experience. The implication was that I know nothing. Let's call a spade a spade. No matter what I say it will be argued against and dissected because I'm for the removal of Defender Kills. That's the bare bones of it.
Whats your alliance tag?
That's not the topic of the subject and I'm not sharing my information. The purpose of the Thread is to discuss War. Not to pony up or put others on the spot.
Hmmm. Hardly ever lose a war but doesn't want anyone to see what the alliance is... sounds reasonable to me lol
If you can't deduce why I respect my own privacy, of all people, then I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. Bottom line is, I'm not sharing my information and I won't be provoked into doing so. The topic is War. Not me. I'm moving on in the discussion.
How many r4 5*s do you have?
The details of my Account and Roster have nothing to do with the topic of Wars.
I disagree, if you don't have a r4 5* or a bunch of r5 4*s then you can't really compare or relate to high level players. I have 8 r4 5*s and am in the top 100 of total pi. Does that information give out anything useful....nope but now people know I've been playing a long time and have completed all content so they know that I know what I'm talking about. You claim to barely ever lose wars which is impossible unless you are in a top 10 alliance so right now I don't think anyone can take your posts seriously. Providing how many r4 5*s you have lets everyone know what level you are at in the game. Im assuming you dont have any which explains a lot.
This is exactly why I'm not having the discussion. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the topic of Wars. This is a discussion for all Players. There is no requirement to participate. Secondly, your only purpose in asking is to try and discredit any point I make using the details of my Account. Shaming Players about where they are in the game is against the rules of the Forum. Have a look. It has nothing to do with the War system overall. It's a discussion on Wars in general. Sorry, but you're not bullying me out of the conversation using Tiers and Ranking. Perhaps it would be more productive to address the points I make.
He said you can't really compare or relate to high tier players. It wasn't an attack on your level, but when you come here saying what's better for war like you know better than anyone, your credibility is questioned.
Comments
How is it semantics? lol. Actually don't answer that. Step out by all means.
They removed them because there were issues, and as evidence of the issues is the fact that they removed them? Um... Circular reasoning?
It's semantics. My interpretation, someone else's interpretation, why they were removed, why they shouldn't be removed, semantics. It's been months. They're gone.
@Anonymous he wins like 90% of his wars. Surely he's at the top...
Please step out. You keep saying you will but don’t. Half of this thread is you spamming non sense.
All forum posts are semantics. But no one is arguing semantic quibbling in the thread. One person does not make an argument.
It is important to note here that I don't think everyone understands how the alliance war situation has seesawed around between 14.0 and 16.0. Some people are complaining about 16.0 as if it is 15.0. It is *sometimes* true that wars are lost because of defender rating or because defender kills no longer count. But this was an unavoidable mess in 15.0. It is not entirely an avoidable mess in 16.0. In 16.0 the nodes are now strong enough that many alliances in many tiers have a choice: place maximum diversity or place strongest defense.
If you place the maximum diversity, you are probably placing a weaker defense than you could. If both sides place max diversity and you then lose because both sides 100% and they win on defender rating while you generated the most defender kills, that suggests that had you placed a stronger defense you might have been able to block their attackers, since they died a lot to a diverse defense. A blockade defense or a max strength defense might have won.
Because every alliance is different and every tier is collectively different, I don't think everyone knows yet what the optimum strategy is for every situation. That meta gameplay is still being worked out, and it takes days to try anything and see what it does. But while the current version of war still has problems, and it still has really bad corner cases, it is important to not give up trying alternate strategies under the new system. It may be flawed, but it isn't the same monochrome trap that 15.0 was.
If you're tier 1 and you're in a highly competitive environment, my understanding is that there seems to be some back and forth between whether max diversity or strong defense is the best strategy. If you are in a lower tier, then below tier 2 I don't think everyone is 100% completing anymore.
Quoting myself to bring this to the front of all
@LeNoirFaineant this was the post I mentioned
When we're debating our interpretation on a comment made about the removal of DKs, it's semantics because regardless, they've been removed, and have continued to be removed.
I don't feel guilty about anything that happens to our opponents. Kabam has, intentionally or otherwise: it is irrelevant, created an evil metagame. They've established the premise that if players complain about war being "unfun" because the other side is too hard, they will change it to prevent those players from disengaging.
They have thus created a situation where if you want to affect change in AW, the most effective thing you can do might be not post about it, but instead torture your opponents with the cruelest possible defenses imaginable. Make the players that complained about the hard nodes in 14.0 cry tears of misery at the hard nodes in 16.0.
Don't hate the defender: hate the game. Maybe that's the only way Kabam changes the game.
I would still like to see defender kills come back even as a pure tie breaker the way they said defender rating would be when in another thread we see that isn't the case.
When people say we are arguing over semantics they mean terminology rather than substance, like the argument over whether defensive rating is a tie breaker. You might say it's irrelevant or its academic or a host of other things because they have been removed, but having been removed doesn't make the debate a debate over semantics.
We get more of those shards from opening premium hero crystals duplicating 2* champions playing couple rounds in basic champion 4* arenas achieving 1.5 m milestone rewards!!! Plus those rank rewards. Really??? Does that look like more fun?
Go screw yourselves!
How many r4 5*s do you have?
The details of my Account and Roster have nothing to do with the topic of Wars.
Nothings changed
btw, with the amount of flagging in GW posts, doesn't anything need to be done about it?
I disagree, if you don't have a r4 5* or a bunch of r5 4*s then you can't really compare or relate to high level players. I have 8 r4 5*s and am in the top 100 of total pi. Does that information give out anything useful....nope but now people know I've been playing a long time and have completed all content so they know that I know what I'm talking about. You claim to barely ever lose wars which is impossible unless you are in a top 10 alliance so right now I don't think anyone can take your posts seriously. Providing how many r4 5*s you have lets everyone know what level you are at in the game. Im assuming you dont have any which explains a lot.
This is exactly why I'm not having the discussion. For one thing, it has nothing to do with the topic of Wars. This is a discussion for all Players. There is no requirement to participate. Secondly, your only purpose in asking is to try and discredit any point I make using the details of my Account. Shaming Players about where they are in the game is against the rules of the Forum. Have a look. It has nothing to do with the War system overall. It's a discussion on Wars in general. Sorry, but you're not bullying me out of the conversation using Tiers and Ranking. Perhaps it would be more productive to address the points I make.
He said you can't really compare or relate to high tier players. It wasn't an attack on your level, but when you come here saying what's better for war like you know better than anyone, your credibility is questioned.