Full attack bonus achieved clearly states no death
We are having trouble getting players to speak to each other in-game. Ain't no way people are posting screenshots of each of their matches. Also, why do we need to work around the system when kabam can easily give us the information we need. All I'm seeing from all the high level alliances is work-arounds to get the info I think kabam should already be giving to us.
What's hidden? We can see play-by-play what happens, how many KOs, who uses Items....nothing is hidden. Adding a KO counter would just encourage people to watch it and add another layer to booting people. We don't need any added pressure. The system is designed to pressure people enough as it is.
Item use means nothing . You can use 15 items and die 0 times and use zero items and die 3 times. Someone has to stay and babysit the war map to see who dies and who does not by watching ecah player move. If deaths are not hidden as you claim then what's the porblem in showing it clearly
Exactly. I don't think people understand that attacker deaths are fkin hidden lmao. You are relying on players being honest, but HONESTLY speaking, most players either do not willingly tell you they messed up or they lie when asked. Like you reiterated, item use is meaningless, so unless we babysit the war we won't know who actually died if they don't communicate.
For those that say "then you should promote communication" ... we already do. Some are open to it and others just don't want to talk to random guys/girls on an online game so we aren't going to boot them for that.
As an officer if I fk up, I post to in-game chat to let everyone know it was me.
Our ally is pretty good with reporting deaths but once in a while someone either forgets or purposely hides. Officers keep posting about the death with no response and we are in the dark about which fight plan failed and whether to replace that fight or not
Was gonna say this, it'd definitely worsen the toxicity going on in like gold-plat alliances
I've never been in a Plat alliance but I feel like Plat 4 and above are pretty organized so they must already have an idea of who died. I don't think this additional stat will make much of a difference for the higher tiers. I've literally seen masters matches where there are 7 total deaths in 3bg. We are dealing with 20 - 40 deaths in 2bg and trying to figure out what happened is actually hard to do. I'm sure other alliances are in similar positions.
Yep you are right. Plat 2 player here, we just make a list of deaths for every war. Not as a toxic thing or anything, just so that if someone is dying more and more we'll assign them an easier path. Also we got a rule, 1 death is fine. But 2 deaths over a same champion, then you stop fighting that champion. Tell someone else in the alliance to take that fight
Back when I was in a plat 1 alliance we used to keep records of the defense for every alliance we fought, which nodes got kills, who died etc. It was fun for awhile but I'm so much happier playing relaxed plat 4 with limited item use lol. @FlameGod I see your point and how that could be helpful. I'm certain Kabam won't do it as they would regard it as creating more stress. I've played war since it was first introduced and given their reasoning throughout many changes and iterations I'd be shocked if they added this. It sounds like you just need to require people to communicate better.
Was gonna say this, it'd definitely worsen the toxicity going on in like gold-plat alliances
I've never been in a Plat alliance but I feel like Plat 4 and above are pretty organized so they must already have an idea of who died. I don't think this additional stat will make much of a difference for the higher tiers. I've literally seen masters matches where there are 7 total deaths in 3bg. We are dealing with 20 - 40 deaths in 2bg and trying to figure out what happened is actually hard to do. I'm sure other alliances are in similar positions.
Yep you are right. Plat 2 player here, we just make a list of deaths for every war. Not as a toxic thing or anything, just so that if someone is dying more and more we'll assign them an easier path. Also we got a rule, 1 death is fine. But 2 deaths over a same champion, then you stop fighting that champion. Tell someone else in the alliance to take that fight
Back when I was in a plat 1 alliance we used to keep records of the defense for every alliance we fought, which nodes got kills, who died etc. It was fun for awhile but I'm so much happier playing relaxed plat 4 with limited item use lol. @FlameGod I see your point and how that could be helpful. I'm certain Kabam won't do it as they would regard it as creating more stress. I've played war since it was first introduced and given their reasoning throughout many changes and iterations I'd be shocked if they added this. It sounds like you just need to require people to communicate better.
Fair point. Maybe they could compromise and make it an option for ally's to record deaths or maybe only make it for the top 3 tiers. But then again, if deaths don't matter in your ally then no issue showing it
What's hidden? We can see play-by-play what happens, how many KOs, who uses Items....nothing is hidden. Adding a KO counter would just encourage people to watch it and add another layer to booting people. We don't need any added pressure. The system is designed to pressure people enough as it is.
Item use means nothing . You can use 15 items and die 0 times and use zero items and die 3 times. Someone has to stay and babysit the war map to see who dies and who does not by watching ecah player move. If deaths are not hidden as you claim then what's the porblem in showing it clearly
Exactly. I don't think people understand that attacker deaths are fkin hidden lmao. You are relying on players being honest, but HONESTLY speaking, most players either do not willingly tell you they messed up or they lie when asked. Like you reiterated, item use is meaningless, so unless we babysit the war we won't know who actually died if they don't communicate.
For those that say "then you should promote communication" ... we already do. Some are open to it and others just don't want to talk to random guys/girls on an online game so we aren't going to boot them for that.
As an officer if I fk up, I post to in-game chat to let everyone know it was me.
Our ally is pretty good with reporting deaths but once in a while someone either forgets or purposely hides. Officers keep posting about the death with no response and we are in the dark about which fight plan failed and whether to replace that fight or not
Thanks for the insight on the inner workings of a Plat alliance. So you agree this would be useful if it were added?
I feel like the extra things your alliance does would still be beneficial.
Was gonna say this, it'd definitely worsen the toxicity going on in like gold-plat alliances
I've never been in a Plat alliance but I feel like Plat 4 and above are pretty organized so they must already have an idea of who died. I don't think this additional stat will make much of a difference for the higher tiers. I've literally seen masters matches where there are 7 total deaths in 3bg. We are dealing with 20 - 40 deaths in 2bg and trying to figure out what happened is actually hard to do. I'm sure other alliances are in similar positions.
Yep you are right. Plat 2 player here, we just make a list of deaths for every war. Not as a toxic thing or anything, just so that if someone is dying more and more we'll assign them an easier path. Also we got a rule, 1 death is fine. But 2 deaths over a same champion, then you stop fighting that champion. Tell someone else in the alliance to take that fight
Back when I was in a plat 1 alliance we used to keep records of the defense for every alliance we fought, which nodes got kills, who died etc. It was fun for awhile but I'm so much happier playing relaxed plat 4 with limited item use lol. @FlameGod I see your point and how that could be helpful. I'm certain Kabam won't do it as they would regard it as creating more stress. I've played war since it was first introduced and given their reasoning throughout many changes and iterations I'd be shocked if they added this. It sounds like you just need to require people to communicate better.
I mean .... I feel that if we get enough traction on this topic then maybe we can make it happen. I got a job and kids and I play this game for fun. I don't think people understand how hard it is to get 29 other people organized enough to communicate with each other. It's very time consuming especially in lower alliance tiers where players are changing every few weeks.
Also, with the new solo competitive mode (battlegrounds) they may be willing to add this change since players have another outlet to play with or without an alliance.
Needing to know who died and how many times sounds kind of toxic, not gonna lie.
No it won't if only this feature is available to Leader and officers
As leader, I can look at the AW map and see who dies and how many times. All of my officers can too.
Additionally, all my teammates report their deaths in AW chat. It is not required but just communicating. "Sorry guys. I lost 1 to Mojo. Can backup help? " (Everyone feels comfortable doing this bcuz I do not allow ANYONE to be called out for dying. They know if someone needs a "talking to," I will do so privately).
Was gonna say this, it'd definitely worsen the toxicity going on in like gold-plat alliances
I've never been in a Plat alliance but I feel like Plat 4 and above are pretty organized so they must already have an idea of who died. I don't think this additional stat will make much of a difference for the higher tiers. I've literally seen masters matches where there are 7 total deaths in 3bg. We are dealing with 20 - 40 deaths in 2bg and trying to figure out what happened is actually hard to do. I'm sure other alliances are in similar positions.
Yep you are right. Plat 2 player here, we just make a list of deaths for every war. Not as a toxic thing or anything, just so that if someone is dying more and more we'll assign them an easier path. Also we got a rule, 1 death is fine. But 2 deaths over a same champion, then you stop fighting that champion. Tell someone else in the alliance to take that fight
What's hidden? We can see play-by-play what happens, how many KOs, who uses Items....nothing is hidden. Adding a KO counter would just encourage people to watch it and add another layer to booting people. We don't need any added pressure. The system is designed to pressure people enough as it is.
Item use means nothing . You can use 15 items and die 0 times and use zero items and die 3 times. Someone has to stay and babysit the war map to see who dies and who does not by watching ecah player move. If deaths are not hidden as you claim then what's the porblem in showing it clearly
Exactly. I don't think people understand that attacker deaths are fkin hidden lmao. You are relying on players being honest, but HONESTLY speaking, most players either do not willingly tell you they messed up or they lie when asked. Like you reiterated, item use is meaningless, so unless we babysit the war we won't know who actually died if they don't communicate.
For those that say "then you should promote communication" ... we already do. Some are open to it and others just don't want to talk to random guys/girls on an online game so we aren't going to boot them for that.
As an officer if I fk up, I post to in-game chat to let everyone know it was me.
Our ally is pretty good with reporting deaths but once in a while someone either forgets or purposely hides. Officers keep posting about the death with no response and we are in the dark about which fight plan failed and whether to replace that fight or not
Thanks for the insight on the inner workings of a Plat alliance. So you agree this would be useful if it were added?
I feel like the extra things your alliance does would still be beneficial.
When I used to play more competitive war and was an officer, at the start of every war I'd post a sheet with the date and the name of the alliance we were facing in the battle group chat. It had all the nodes by number for each section. Every time someone completed a section they would copy and paste it with the defender, rank, and deaths if any. At the end of the war we had a complete list of the entire defense, where any deaths occurred, and who died. This was helpful for modifying our defense, switching player paths if needed, and knowing what to expect if we fought them again, which happened frequently. It didn't really take much time and people got used to communicating throughout the war. Back then War was my favorite game mode. Kabam found new and innovative ways to make me hate it. I don't hate it now but I still have no interest going back to more competitive war. We're tier 4 plat 4 every season. We have good communication but we are AQ first and not that fussed about war.
Was gonna say this, it'd definitely worsen the toxicity going on in like gold-plat alliances
I've never been in a Plat alliance but I feel like Plat 4 and above are pretty organized so they must already have an idea of who died. I don't think this additional stat will make much of a difference for the higher tiers. I've literally seen masters matches where there are 7 total deaths in 3bg. We are dealing with 20 - 40 deaths in 2bg and trying to figure out what happened is actually hard to do. I'm sure other alliances are in similar positions.
Yep you are right. Plat 2 player here, we just make a list of deaths for every war. Not as a toxic thing or anything, just so that if someone is dying more and more we'll assign them an easier path. Also we got a rule, 1 death is fine. But 2 deaths over a same champion, then you stop fighting that champion. Tell someone else in the alliance to take that fight
Back when I was in a plat 1 alliance we used to keep records of the defense for every alliance we fought, which nodes got kills, who died etc. It was fun for awhile but I'm so much happier playing relaxed plat 4 with limited item use lol. @FlameGod I see your point and how that could be helpful. I'm certain Kabam won't do it as they would regard it as creating more stress. I've played war since it was first introduced and given their reasoning throughout many changes and iterations I'd be shocked if they added this. It sounds like you just need to require people to communicate better.
I mean .... I feel that if we get enough traction on this topic then maybe we can make it happen. I got a job and kids and I play this game for fun. I don't think people understand how hard it is to get 29 other people organized enough to communicate with each other. It's very time consuming especially in lower alliance tiers where players are changing every few weeks.
Also, with the new solo competitive mode (battlegrounds) they may be willing to add this change since players have another outlet to play with or without an alliance.
I've been in several alliances throughout my playing career and all have had fantastic communication. I've been in a few that haven't and didn't stay long. I also have kids and limited time and have no time for bad, unorganized alliances with poor communication. As stated previously, I have been playing war for every iteration for which it has existed. My belief is that there is no amount of traction that will convince Kabam to make this change. Many, if not most of the changes they have made have failed to do what they claim they wanted to accomplish, however reducing stress has been at the forefront. They aren't going to do this. If this were an option on my sports betting app I'd bet the farm regardless of the vig.
Needing to know who died and how many times sounds kind of toxic, not gonna lie.
No it won't if only this feature is available to Leader and officers
As leader, I can look at the AW map and see who dies and how many times. All of my officers can too.
Additionally, all my teammates report their deaths in AW chat. It is not required but just communicating. "Sorry guys. I lost 1 to Mojo. Can backup help? " (Everyone feels comfortable doing this bcuz I do not allow ANYONE to be called out for dying. They know if someone needs a "talking to," I will do so privately).
We had on my previous ally on line a little death note for war.
Deathnote : Playername - Many deaths
Each time you died you just counted up your deaths so lets say you die now then you write
Name - 1
And u die 2 times again
Name - 3
We just kept coppying the previous deathnote post to see how many members died. And if someone didnt write, officers would have counted deaths and how many were wrote and worked out who didnt write
Was gonna say this, it'd definitely worsen the toxicity going on in like gold-plat alliances
I've never been in a Plat alliance but I feel like Plat 4 and above are pretty organized so they must already have an idea of who died. I don't think this additional stat will make much of a difference for the higher tiers. I've literally seen masters matches where there are 7 total deaths in 3bg. We are dealing with 20 - 40 deaths in 2bg and trying to figure out what happened is actually hard to do. I'm sure other alliances are in similar positions.
You can guess, especially if you're paying attention to item use, but as said above it would be constant monitoring. It'd be good as OP said for leader & officers to be able to see how many deaths a players has had in war. Might mean changing that player's path etc, or worst case dropping them from AW (if you have less than 3 BGs) or the ultimate...
I do agree it can cause toxicity if it was the entire alliance seeing each others' deaths, but I think it would be a good management tool for officers.
Some won't do this, and as said before some even lie. I'm officer in a plat 4 (right now Plat 3) ally and you'll always get the hothead or bluffer who acts as if they can take any fight, and despite officers preaching caution or assigning fights they will jump in. They take personal glory more important than alliance. It's good to have hard evidence to show them they are not helping (which you can share with them privately) and to justify removing them if necessary.
I think you got confused bro. He meant feature which show each kill given by every player in war. Eg. Player 1: 0 deaths as attacker Player 2: 4 deaths Player 3: 2 deaths
Hope this little demonstration can help you out from your confusion and understand the OPs post.
Needing to know who died and how many times sounds kind of toxic, not gonna lie.
I agree with you partially but leader can't ignore 1 or very small number of members who constantly die and make while ally suffer There can be lot of factors for it as Bugs, Wrong attacker or any other situation. But most of the time, players hide their death cleverly, when asking their ally could have been better option.
As you said this feature can be kind of toxic and troll but for majority of time can helpful too. I can see it as necessary evil
Needing to know who died and how many times sounds kind of toxic, not gonna lie.
No it won't if only this feature is available to Leader and officers
As leader, I can look at the AW map and see who dies and how many times. All of my officers can too.
Additionally, all my teammates report their deaths in AW chat. It is not required but just communicating. "Sorry guys. I lost 1 to Mojo. Can backup help? " (Everyone feels comfortable doing this bcuz I do not allow ANYONE to be called out for dying. They know if someone needs a "talking to," I will do so privately).
There is no way you can just look at the map and know who died unless you were monitoring the war. If you join the war 1 hr late and there are 6 people with 12/15 item usage and there is 1 death on the board, who died? You can't know if they don't tell you or if one of your officers didn't monitor the matches.
The whole point of all this is so we don't have to monitor every second of AW and can speak to those members who are messing things up to try and fix it or remove them if they refuse to change. It's not fair to everyone else to keep them.
Full attack bonus achieved clearly states no death
We are having trouble getting players to speak to each other in-game. Ain't no way people are posting screenshots of each of their matches. Also, why do we need to work around the system when kabam can easily give us the information we need. All I'm seeing from all the high level alliances is work-arounds to get the info I think kabam should already be giving to us.
Honestly it sounds like you need a new alliance. There are many that have 29 other players who communicate. I won't play in an ally that doesn't.
All the officers are good, some more skilled than others, but every one of us communicates. Then we have about 5 other solid guys who play well and communicate.
From the remaining 15 there are about 12 players that have been with us for at least 1 year, but aren't the most skilled and play AQ consistently. Would you kick 12 players over lack of communication and being unskilled? The 3 or 4 players we need to remove can easily be identified with this feature. So I don't think I need a new alliance, I just think we as a whole need to be given info that will help us decide who is helping the alliance and who is secretly hurting it.
there is one major problem with this. let's say a bg has 3 people with deaths
person 1 - 2 death person 2 - 2 death person 3 - 5 deaths
all of the deaths happened in one fight.
person 1 died first, person 2 died second, person 3 deaths happened last.
the only people that have cost the bg points are 1 and 2. person 3 despite having the most deaths never cost them any points because all of the points were lost before they fought.
showing just the death count person 3 would look like the person that lost the most points
What's hidden? We can see play-by-play what happens, how many KOs, who uses Items....nothing is hidden. Adding a KO counter would just encourage people to watch it and add another layer to booting people. We don't need any added pressure. The system is designed to pressure people enough as it is.
Item use means nothing . You can use 15 items and die 0 times and use zero items and die 3 times. Someone has to stay and babysit the war map to see who dies and who does not by watching ecah player move. If deaths are not hidden as you claim then what's the porblem in showing it clearly
If people are that concerned, then sure. They can watch it. I don't know about you, but we talk all the time about when we K.O. It really sounds like you want them to implement a reason to kick more people. That's an in-house thing.
What's hidden? We can see play-by-play what happens, how many KOs, who uses Items....nothing is hidden. Adding a KO counter would just encourage people to watch it and add another layer to booting people. We don't need any added pressure. The system is designed to pressure people enough as it is.
Item use means nothing . You can use 15 items and die 0 times and use zero items and die 3 times. Someone has to stay and babysit the war map to see who dies and who does not by watching ecah player move. If deaths are not hidden as you claim then what's the porblem in showing it clearly
If people are that concerned, then sure. They can watch it. I don't know about you, but we talk all the time about when we K.O. It really sounds like you want them to implement a reason to kick more people. That's an in-house thing.
Kicking has always been an in house thing. Even after this change if they ever implement it, it's an in house thing. Is your insinuation that when people die after the change they are going to be visible to the ally and will be kicked because of that whereas now they aren't kicked because they hide their deaths?
Timezones are a thing. And having to sit and watch a war map and a timer go down to track deaths is a ridiculous waste of time
there is one major problem with this. let's say a bg has 3 people with deaths
person 1 - 2 death person 2 - 2 death person 3 - 5 deaths
all of the deaths happened in one fight.
person 1 died first, person 2 died second, person 3 deaths happened last.
the only people that have cost the bg points are 1 and 2. person 3 despite having the most deaths never cost them any points because all of the points were lost before they fought.
showing just the death count person 3 would look like the person that lost the most points
I see your point, but that is an exaggerated example which likely won't happen in most alliances. There should never be 9 deaths in one fight for AW. Also, that is what the attack bonus is for. You can easily calculate how many deaths did not count, but the point of this isn't to assign blame and point the finger at someone. it's to figure out why it's happening and give us the chance to make a change to prevent it. If the solution is for the individual not to join wars because they are costing everyone else better rewards then that is fair imo. I'm not saying let us see deaths so we can boot everyone who dies a lot. If your alliance works that way then rather than tell me I need a new alliance, I would say maybe take a step back and look at your own situation.
Comments
I feel like the extra things your alliance does would still be beneficial.
Also, with the new solo competitive mode (battlegrounds) they may be willing to add this change since players have another outlet to play with or without an alliance.
Additionally, all my teammates report their deaths in AW chat. It is not required but just communicating. "Sorry guys. I lost 1 to Mojo. Can backup help? " (Everyone feels comfortable doing this bcuz I do not allow ANYONE to be called out for dying. They know if someone needs a "talking to," I will do so privately).
Deathnote :
Playername - Many deaths
Each time you died you just counted up your deaths so lets say you die now then you write
Name - 1
And u die 2 times again
Name - 3
We just kept coppying the previous deathnote post to see how many members died. And if someone didnt write, officers would have counted deaths and how many were wrote and worked out who didnt write
It looked like this
Deathnote :
Name - 2
AnotherName - 1
Then if someone else died
Deathnote :
Name - 2
AnotherName - 1
NextName - 3
And if name dies again its another copy
Deathnote :
Name - 3
AnotherName - 1
NextName - 3
I do agree it can cause toxicity if it was the entire alliance seeing each others' deaths, but I think it would be a good management tool for officers.
Eg.
Player 1: 0 deaths as attacker
Player 2: 4 deaths
Player 3: 2 deaths
Hope this little demonstration can help you out from your confusion and understand the OPs post.
There can be lot of factors for it as Bugs, Wrong attacker or any other situation. But most of the time, players hide their death cleverly, when asking their ally could have been better option.
As you said this feature can be kind of toxic and troll but for majority of time can helpful too. I can see it as necessary evil
The whole point of all this is so we don't have to monitor every second of AW and can speak to those members who are messing things up to try and fix it or remove them if they refuse to change. It's not fair to everyone else to keep them.
From the remaining 15 there are about 12 players that have been with us for at least 1 year, but aren't the most skilled and play AQ consistently. Would you kick 12 players over lack of communication and being unskilled? The 3 or 4 players we need to remove can easily be identified with this feature. So I don't think I need a new alliance, I just think we as a whole need to be given info that will help us decide who is helping the alliance and who is secretly hurting it.
person 1 - 2 death
person 2 - 2 death
person 3 - 5 deaths
all of the deaths happened in one fight.
person 1 died first,
person 2 died second,
person 3 deaths happened last.
the only people that have cost the bg points are 1 and 2.
person 3 despite having the most deaths never cost them any points because all of the points were lost before they fought.
showing just the death count person 3 would look like the person that lost the most points
It really sounds like you want them to implement a reason to kick more people. That's an in-house thing.
Timezones are a thing. And having to sit and watch a war map and a timer go down to track deaths is a ridiculous waste of time