Potential Delay to v44.1 Launch
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
Options
Comments
If they completed the Map using the metrics present, they earned the Win. Sorry, but it's not about how many times you die.
What's the point in replying if you don't even answer the question? We all know they 'earned' the win. My alliance knew we would lose before our first fight.
We also all know that it's not about how many times you die anymore, hence the amount of negative feedback regarding new AW.
That's not what I asked, as you are well aware.
Simply repeating these commandments of yours whilst throwing in the word metric at every opportunity is an odd use of your time.
So, one more time... I highlighted how an alliance diversifying against a mystic defence in tier 1 did indeed win at the cost of 200 deaths. As these are the tactics you endorse do you think this is how it should be, 3 times per week?
If you're going to question what I said, at least get the statement correct. I never said that anyone should do anything. I said eventually, the Diversity metrics will matter because it's not possible to stop all Allies from completing the Map, and eventually you're left with Allies in the same Tier that can. You can place who you want, but you can't escape the math of it. As for what I think should be, do I think Kills shouldn't be a metric? Yes. We all know that. They're not, and they haven't been for months. They've been removed. So paying attention to how many times the opponent died is irrelevant.
Also, you say that what tier of alliance war you are in does not matter in the discussion when it actually plays a large role in the outcome of the argument. First off, with no experience in tier 1 alliance wars you will almost certainly have less credibility on the subject matter than those who have been in tier 1 for months actually experiencing the game mode first hand. You instantly you will be under more scrutiny from the community than them and since one of your main points was flawed you lost a lot of ground on getting your argument across to the community. Secondly, just understanding the way a system works while very important can actually translate differently to the practicality of a situation without experiencing it first hand. You can understand the US political system but that in no way would make you more credible or knowledgeable than a seasoned politician and it is the same situation here. You might think you know the ins and outs of what top tier alliance wars are but the seasoned players who have experienced it for months have a greater understanding of it than you.
Oh yeah, just a side note the bully mentality you reference with insecurity is also incorrect. Numerous recent studies on the psychology of bullying found that bullies tend to not have issues with insecurity and have the same if not more self-esteem than the average person.
So you want War to be for a mere handful of the Player Base, and the rest of the population shouldn't matter. How about playing for keeps. If they die, they lose their Account. How does that work for you? I find your ideas unreasonable.
When you're discussing matters that affect all Players, it does not matter what Tier someone is in. It's the same system for everyone. As for the whole idea on bullying, that's not what we're discussing here. Inappropriate is inappropriate no matter what context it's in, and it's not appropriate to abase people based on where they are in the game.
War is not about making it through the Map without dying. The entire reason they were removed according to the Mods is to remove the penalty for trying. I have other reasons I've stated in other Threads. What you're suggesting makes War ALL about penalty for dying and the only ones that will advance are those who don't die. It's unrealistic because that system would make War impossible to grow or advance, save for those who are able to refrain from dying. That's not at all reasonable, or the goal of Wars. Sorry.
I would assume the reasoning behind not counting defender kills is well.. Kabam expects people to spend limitless money, but if that's the case they should also remove item cap
As for "getting better", well the conversation of Champs nerf or "random champion generator" could be brought up but its a topic that has been beat to death. How about attacker diversity? Kabam certainly never corrected that, certain Champs clearly give distinct advantages,. Irrelevant topic however so really who cares
I don't like wars anyways, never have, never will. I don't find most nodes to be fun or creative, I certainly don't like that even on garbage nodes it's like kabam ramps up abilities. All too often I've parried and as I slide in get parried, over and over until the dreaded corner pin. Another common thing with AW and AQ is a very subtle lag before opponent attacks which throws of fight timing and wrecking ball commence.
But hey that's just me I guess I need to "adapt,".. Or move on
Ok. For someone who doesn’t play Tier 1, please elaborate on “road blocks”. Thanks.
@GroundedWisdom You put yourself in the firing line. By stating what you believe happens in higher tiers, you're being asked to state your credentials on why you made that statement.
I had a more substantial post planned and then scrapped it. It's like someone complaining about the complete lack of T4CC in the game, but they don't run map 5 or 6 or get substantial glory. Where you are in the game does matter and does affect the validity of your statements especially outside of the context of your own experience.
No. Someone.doesn't need to state where they are in the game by making mathematical statements about Wars. Diversity is a metric. Placing blockades will only work up to the point that Allies can complete the Map. Then you're left with Allies that can, and Diversity will have to be looked at. Unless they don't care about the Points. Either way that's what it will boil down to. I don't need to "cred up" to state that the Points are what they are. The metrics speak for themselves.
Getting better is for everyone. That's not the same as penalizing the efforts by Losses. What you're describing is a do-or-die scenario, and that's not about getting better at all. Just separating those who can and cannot complete the Map without KOs.
You didn't make a purely mathematical statement. You made an observation upon what is happening in higher tiers of war. If you read my other posts, you will see that I consistently make differentiations between qualitative and quantitative statements. It's like the whole defender rating is a tie breaker argument using Kabam's intent as an argument to what their implementation actually was.
If you had left your post simply as stated " if both BGs 100%, it comes down to Rating and Diversity". That is entirely correct and purely mathematical.
You went on to say "Which will be the case the higher you go, simply because those Allies are skilled and stacked enough to deal with those Champs." That's an observation based on what?
You do also realise that the nodes get tougher as the tier increases.
Based on how the system works and probability. An Ally loses, it loses Rating, and it goes down. Statistically, you will end up with Allies that can finish the Map. Eventually you will have beaten out those that cannot complete the Map and will end up with a pool of Allies that can. It doesn't matter what Tier I'm in. I have an understanding on how the entire system works. You can continue to beat out the Allies that cannot complete the Map and that leaves the ones that can in said Tier. It is a mathematical certainty that.the metrics WILL matter at some point because they exist. It's not just about Defender Rating. It's also about Diversity because it is a metric.
You will note that I have made no assessment on whether I think your statement about higher alliances is correct or not. I'm merely stating that if you are going to comment on the activity of higher alliances, you should be able to support that with credibility.
My turn to make a subjective statement. I feel that sacrificing best defenders for the sake of optimising diversity is a pessimistically defensive strategy. You're essentially saying from the outset, I expect my opponent to clear 100%. You're guarding against an inevitable mathematical loss by sacrificing the likely wins you would have leading up to it.
In a theoretical discussion pertaining to the War system, it is not necessary to back it up with what Tier someone is in. Nor is it pertinent to the discussion. If I had said "When I was in X Tier," that may make more sense, but it's still irrelevant. The question comes up to discredit someone's point of view based on where they are at in the game, and that's about it. It is not necessary to have experience in any part of the game to have an understanding of it. One simply needs knowledge. Many disagree, but the point of view is incredibly limited. The idea that only people at a certain point can register valid thoughts is, frankly, ignorant. Not directing that at anyone in particular, just that the mentality is limited. When discussing what happens in War, it is not necessary to provide credentials. Knowledge does not require experience. Nor do opinions. The fact is, I said the solution is temporary because eventually, Diversity will come into play when facing Allies that can complete the Map. I didn't say Allies should do one thing or the other. I said there's no removing the significance of the metrics. What they do with that is up to them.