Alliance Wars Discussion 2.0

Hey All,

Since so much has changed since we first introduced the new Alliance Wars Map and scoring method, most of the information contained within is no longer relevant. We're starting a new discussion thread on Alliance Wars here.

You can still find the old thread archived here.

Comments

Armaganon00

I do not think alliance wars should be mismatch. 12mil should not be fighting a 9 mil. It bs that its rigged from the very start to force a loss.

GroundedWisdom

Armaganon00 wrote: »

I do not think alliance wars should be mismatch. 12mil should not be fighting a 9 mil. It bs that its rigged from the very start to force a loss.

With the Defender Rating as a metric, that's actually how it's balancing itself. For the most part, anyway. There will still be Matches that are off. I haven't had that large of a mismatch in many Wars now. It's based on War Rating for Matches. There are also other factors like availability, and it all depends on who is Matchmaking at the same time you are.

LeNoirFaineant

How on earth is defender rating balancing it? If you get a mismatch due to the matchmaking, defender rating makes what would have been a difficult match an impossible match. That's balancing?

GroundedWisdom

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

How on earth is defender rating balancing it? If you get a mismatch due to the matchmaking, defender rating makes what would have been a difficult match an impossible match. That's balancing?

When it's a factor over time, it has an effect.

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

How on earth is defender rating balancing it? If you get a mismatch due to the matchmaking, defender rating makes what would have been a difficult match an impossible match. That's balancing?

When it's a factor over time, it has an effect.

I see what you are saying but it's garbage. That just means over time the inevitable wins from groups with stronger teams should eventually pair them up with other groups with similar defensive ratings. But that ignores the many alliances that jump tiers and the inconsistency of the war rating system. I don't think it has enough of an effect to actually achieve balance. Just enough to continually provide unwinnable matches for large groups of the community.

Anonymous

Kabam definitely is having a good month between 5.4 being released and the excitement built around it and MODOK's lab.

This is currently the one area of the game that really needs work. There needs to be an aspect of skill involved here. We've been saying defender kills until we're blue in the face and they're not listening or don't care. In any case, somehow someway we need skill added as a metric. The predetermination is really disheartening to most people in tier 1 (notice I mention my tier since I know it affects us). Some alliances have gone to mystic wars again which at least gives a chance for either side to win, and it's a much more fun and competitive war. In my opinion, that proves that diversity has removed fun and competition from this aspect of the game. So maybe, at least in tier 1, you should consider revision to add some form of skill. There have been suggestions that don't include defender kills such as attacker performance and things of that nature.

winterthur

winterthur wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

@winterthur maybe I'm missing something but the boss has always been boosted by the mini bosses. That's why you have to take out the minis. My apologies if I misunderstood your post and am stating the obvious.

In the previous week at Tier 11, and quite a few weeks, it was not boosted.

Still at Tier 11, AW boss is not boosted by miniboss this round. Will be fighting an Ultron at 18,850 PI.

Should have taken a screenshot showing with miniboss boost on previous round. We lost on exploration, boss not taken down by both sides.

Confusing on the miniboss boost.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

_ASDF_ wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Armaganon00 wrote: »

I do not think alliance wars should be mismatch. 12mil should not be fighting a 9 mil. It bs that its rigged from the very start to force a loss.

With the Defender Rating as a metric, that's actually how it's balancing itself. For the most part, anyway. There will still be Matches that are off. I haven't had that large of a mismatch in many Wars now. It's based on War Rating for Matches. There are also other factors like availability, and it all depends on who is Matchmaking at the same time you are.

Its a completely irrelevant, absurd and nonsensical metric that only serves to discourage alliances when they lose based on defender rating.

Now what would make sense is if the alliance with a lower rating got more points for offensive kills based on how much lower their alliance is. IE if a 7 mill alliance is paired with a 10 mill alliance, they both get the same amount of kills but the 7 mill alliance truly had more of an achievement got more points. That would be a great tie breaker, skill rather than a rating that kabam mismatched at the start.

That makes no sense at all. More Points for being lower? How does the opposite side of the spectrum solve anything? The mismatches are the result of Allies jumping Tiers beyond their size and power. That's not a good thing. We can call it skill, but there is no logical reason why an Ally should be Matched agaisnt one two or three times its size. It threw the whole system off.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

People jumping Tiers is not the problem. That's what happens when you progress. When you have Allies being Matched agaisnt opponents with extreme differences, and metrics penalizing Kills, that's an imbalanced trap. Now I'm sure those that bypass that consider themselves very skilled. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Defender Kills are not necessary for skill. What they serve to do is penalize the opponent for dying. That's it. Rating is indicative of many things. Time invested, Resources used, etc. It's not just some arbitrary number after Prestige is considered. When you have an entire system that is mismatched because metrics aren't a reflection of actual overall capabilities and Rosters, that creates a problem. War is not about keeping the growth in the hands of people who die less, regardless of the general idea. It's about progressing as a collective. Which is why collective metrics are important.

Anonymous

@GroundedWisdom tell me more about war since you know so much. What is war about? Exploration, boss kills, defeating your opponents? So people who die less shouldn't progress in the game?
You have yet to explain why defender kills are not necessary for skill. It's basically impossible for a lower rated alliance to progress in this current setup regardless of skill. They might as well just give up when they see the +-. Whereas before if it shows +124 -6, we could still win based on skill if we really play well and work together. There's no possible chance to win in the current format.

Anonymous

It's basically like saying a Soldier going to Afghanistan shouldn't worry about body armor because getting killed doesn't matter (spent a year there and 2 years in Iraq).

GroundedWisdom

They're not necessary for skill. I've said it many times. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. We're not going info Afghanistan. We're working as a team to try and gain more Points than the opponent.

Anonymous

That was an analogy. As in comparing one thing with another thing.

Anonymous

And you haven't explained how they're not necessary for skill

GroundedWisdom

Yes, I have. Many times. It's just not heard because that's not the response people want to hear.

Anonymous

Or it just didn't make any sense because you really have limited experience with it.

Snizzbar

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

They're not necessary for skill. I've said it many times. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. We're not going info Afghanistan. We're working as a team to try and gain more Points than the opponent.

Whilst I *maybe* agree that Def Kills aren't necessary for skill - even if I'm not entirely sure exactly what that could possibly mean - the fact that they've taken the skill out of Alliance Wars and replaced it with zero metrics that actually measure skill is what gets my goat. There must be SOMETHING that Kabam can introduce as a way to measure the relative skill levels between warring alliances, because without any actual skill involved then there is no fun. And what is a game without fun? A pointless waste of time.

Anonymous

Maybe people who do war 3 times a week should give their feedback and kabam should consider them more seriously.

LeNoirFaineant

@Snizzbar @Anonymous there is no point in talking to @GroundedWisdom about war because he has a different vision for War than 99.99% of the player base. He doesn't see it as a chance for different groups to test their fighting skills against one another, or in other words have a war, he sees it as another alliance event like AQ or even Perfect Series. An alliance event in which the alliance accumulates points. The skill involved is what already happened in achieving the teams you have. We have no interest in his version of War, and he apparently has no interest in ours, so the conversation is pointless because we are arguing for fundamentally different things. Just like in AQ if my alliance has higher prestige than yours and we both run 5x5 we will always finish higher, so also in war with defender rating, etc. This is what he believes ought to be the case. So the very problems that we find with the current system he views as strengths. Discussion at this point is pointless.

Anonymous

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

@Snizzbar @Anonymous there is no point in talking to @GroundedWisdom about war because he has a different vision for War than 99.99% of the player base. He doesn't see it as a chance for different groups to test their fighting skills against one another, or in other words have a war, he sees it as another alliance event like AQ or even Perfect Series. An alliance event in which the alliance accumulates points. The skill involved is what already happened in achieving the teams you have. We have no interest in his version of War, and he apparently has no interest in ours, so the conversation is pointless because we are arguing for fundamentally different things. Just like in AQ if my alliance has higher prestige than yours and we both run 5x5 we will always finish higher, so also in war with defender rating, etc. This is what he believes ought to be the case. So the very problems that we find with the current system he views as strengths. Discussion at this point is pointless.

Very good point. I just got fed up with reading his senseless posts.

LeNoirFaineant

LOL been there done that.

WOK

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

With the Defender Rating as a metric, that's actually how it's balancing itself. For the most part, anyway. There will still be Matches that are off. I haven't had that large of a mismatch in many Wars now. It's based on War Rating for Matches. There are also other factors like availability, and it all depends on who is Matchmaking at the same time you are.

You do realize that an alliance with X alliance rating with X War rating can, have, and still do create a "new alliance" to move over to which would keep their ally rating unchanged but War rating down to ZERO. Albeit they start at the lowest tier and work back up, but that's not the point I'm highlighting.

Let's assume an ally with 12mil ally rating does this and goes up against another new ally starting out that are at 100k ally rating. Is this your idea of "balancing itself"?? Would you like to clarify just how it "factors over time"?

LeNoirFaineant

@WOK read my post above. I think that GW's version of what war should be is so fundamentally different from ours that dialogue is pointless

WOK

LOL, I wish it were only fundamentally different. The truth of the matter is, it's also full of upside down contradictions in his statements, ambiguous in his "details", and has no constructive aspects in which to build upon. Unless building more ambiguity on top of the ambiguous "reasoning" is the result we're looking to build.

WOK

And please for Pete's sake @GroundedWisdom , don't bother replying back with your usual "Yes, I have. Many times. It's just not heard because that's not the response people want to hear", or any other one of your usual evading generalizations. Because sadly I am the type of person that will take time off work, lose sleep and ignore all my family responsibilities just to go over every one of your previous comments just to call BS. LOL

GroundedWisdom

I've already outlined my reasons for supporting the removal of Kills in the last Thread. Which is why I'm not interested in repeating them. I'm not so concerned with being in tandem with the Player Base on that because my view is my own. It is not necessary to agree on everything. Not that I accept the idea that 99% of the Player Base feels that way. The Forum is not representative of that. War will always be competitive. People want to win, and will do anything to maximize that possibility. Kills are not necessary for skill. Nor would I say that was the goal of adding that metric on the onset of Wars. It was a metric. With the addition of newer, stronger Champs that combined with very specific Nodes, Kills became larger, to the point where they became more of a defining aspect than originally implemented. We can call it skill all we want, but all it amounted to was penalizing the other side for dying and using that to gain Wins. That wasn't the focus of Wars, whether Players made it so or not. The focus of Wars is to earn the most Points through Defense and Offense. It's a team effort. As much as people take pride in having less Kills, the only thing those Kills accounted for was Points. There is still skill involved in competing on the Map. Perhaps not for some, but as with many areas, some don't find anything to be challenging. The fact of the matter is, it is not necessary to punish Players for losing Champs in the name of skill.

LeNoirFaineant

Whatever dude. "punish" is a funny word. You want to "punish" more skilled alliances for not playing as long and not having better defensive ratings? How is that better than "punishing" them for playing the game badly and dying more? You have lost the room. But as I said we are arguing for diametrically opposed versions of war so discussion is pointless.

GroundedWisdom

If you're trying to convince me that removing the ability to penalize others is punishment itself, then yes. We won't agree.