Alliance Wars Discussion 2.0

1131415161719»

Comments

  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 4,846 ★★★★★
    edited December 2017
    If you're trying to convince me that removing the ability to penalize others is punishment itself, then yes. We won't agree.

    I'm beyond trying to convince you of anything war related.We are starting from fundamentally different views of what war is supposed to be. But the idea that defensive kills was a "punishment" is stupid. Especially if you don't grant that a lower defensive rating in the current system is a "punishment." I disagree with the pejorative nature of your terms and your idea of what war should be. It's not worth debating at this point. I believe that the vast vast majority of the player base wants a war like I want and that should be the determining factor so it really doesn't matter who is right.
  • WOKWOK Posts: 468 ★★
    In all fairness, I try to look at both sides perspective as I am capable of and I'd like to add some explanation for those that may be new to the game and reading @GroundedWisdom hardline notion that D kills did not involve skill and pinished the team that died more.
    The AW defense champs are run by the AI with just our champ rank/lvl and PI to go by, as far as I'm aware this game is not setup to record our individual playing style and incorporate it into the AI(would be pretty incredible though).
    For the ally placing defense there is no skill involved in obtaining kills, I make this statement for ONLY that context.
    I view the points during a war as accruing(+ X) points because there have never been or present now, a scoring metric that deducted(- X) points from any participating alliance(other than the War rating after a winner is determined). Every category during the battle accrues points for their respective alliance, as did D kills. So the idea that an ally is being "punished" for dying more is akin to them being punished for not taking out the Boss node.

    The skill aspect most are arguing for is on the Allys Attack phase. Simply put as some fail to agree with, is that the allys Attack is being rewarded intrinsic points for taking down the opponent while submitting to less KO's. TBH, I find it laughable to think anyone could disagree that the team that gave up less kills to the opponent(especially if the opponents were much stronger in rating) is not reflective of displaying skill, and that skill should not be rewarded.

    Also the idea that an opponent that is not as skilled in fighting and gives up more kills should be rewarded the same amount of points goes against everything I've come to learn of competition.

    In boxing, do judges give the same amount of points to both fighters although 1 fighter hit his opponent 100 times more or got hit 100 times less?(other than a KO or crooked contests LOL)
  • Defender kills was not the defining metric. Shows how much you actually know about war. The defining metric was exploration along with boss kills. Then, if that was tied, defender kills was looked at as a tie breaker. It was a fair system with few flaws. Of those flaws, defender kills was not one. The main flaw that I would say existed in 14.0 and before was that a top tier alliance that fought hard and barely lost to another top tier alliance got less rewards than a winner in tier 3. Tier 3 alliance wars were nowhere near as tough and competitive as a top 50 matchup.
  • Mmx1991Mmx1991 Posts: 674
    edited December 2017
    The fact of the matter is, it is not necessary to punish Players for losing Champs in the name of skill.

    In a contest to see who's better, losing champs should result in a deduction in points, otherwise, how does a contest measure who's better?

    Or do you not care who is better?
  • MikeHockMikeHock Posts: 1,330 ★★★
    linux wrote: »
    Carames wrote: »
    I don't think that that's a bad thing, though. Wars shouldn't be 100% completion from both sides every time. There should just be a better way of going about it. The whole thing needs a good rethinking, in my opinion

    With a different configuration (buffs like arc overload off required paths), I'd agree with this -- having optional paths which are hard but give alliances a chance to show how they can beat difficult content would provide some competition. The current map doesn't encourage treating paths as optional -- there are ways to do so, but you don't avoid all the overpowered nodes, and given how the links are set up using one of those approaches makes user error likely (clicking on the wrong side and dooming your BG or wasting one of your reserves).

    The current map doesn't encourage treating paths as optional

    is only of the biggest downfalls of this new map. Kabam claiming 100% (or something close to that) wasn't the intended goal, but making a map like this is a huge contradiction.
  • Mmx1991Mmx1991 Posts: 674
    Wolvie wrote: »
    Does this node look reasonably healthy to you Kabam?



    Exactly what kind of planning would we need here?

    3u8y946cjz4k.jpg



    You explicitly stated that you took out defender kill points because it discouraged players from attacking and instilled feelings of defeat.

    l171obh2wbxk.jpg



    What kind of feeling do you think 20k heals every 6 seconds gives to players other than contempt for having to spend units on a largely unbeatable node?

    f0360i17dsqs.jpg



    We lost war cause we gave up on this node. It "discouraged us from continuing our assault on the opposing alliance". What do you have to say about this?

    242d9oymwlww.jpg

    Like an answer to this.
  • AcanthusAcanthus Posts: 447 ★★★
    Mmx1991 wrote: »
    Wolvie wrote: »
    Does this node look reasonably healthy to you Kabam?



    Exactly what kind of planning would we need here?

    3u8y946cjz4k.jpg



    You explicitly stated that you took out defender kill points because it discouraged players from attacking and instilled feelings of defeat.

    l171obh2wbxk.jpg



    What kind of feeling do you think 20k heals every 6 seconds gives to players other than contempt for having to spend units on a largely unbeatable node?

    f0360i17dsqs.jpg



    We lost war cause we gave up on this node. It "discouraged us from continuing our assault on the opposing alliance". What do you have to say about this?

    242d9oymwlww.jpg

    Like an answer to this.

    They already answered that the node is working as intended
  • Mmx1991 wrote: »
    Acanthus wrote: »
    They already answered that the node is working as intended

    We know it's what they intended. We want answers to that poster's reasonable questions.

    I'm afraid there's only one question in the poster's post that can be reasonably answered, and it has been answered many times by both Kabam and other players. The "kind of planning" you need to prepare for that node is to bring an attacker that can either block or reverse heals, or doesn't feed buffet. That's Kabam's current official statement on the difficulty of that node as far as anyone is aware.

    The rest of it aren't, to be fair, reasonable questions. They are rhetorical challenges. I currently don't have a high estimation of the devs' design skills as they pertain to alliance war at the moment, but they would have to be completely brain dead to walk into a rhetorical challenge.

    I'm not saying I agree with the design of node 24 or anything else about 16.0 AW. I think it reflects a poor understanding of the game specifically and basic game design principles in general. But "what do you have to say" is never a reasonable question. "Does this look reasonably healthy to you" is also a pretty leading question I would not directly answer myself.
  • AcanthusAcanthus Posts: 447 ★★★
    Mmx1991 wrote: »
    Acanthus wrote: »
    They already answered that the node is working as intended

    We know it's what they intended. We want answers to that poster's reasonable questions.

    Which are...?
  • Hulk_77Hulk_77 Posts: 778 ★★★
    Mmx1991 wrote: »
    Wolvie wrote: »
    Does this node look reasonably healthy to you Kabam?



    Exactly what kind of planning would we need here?

    3u8y946cjz4k.jpg



    You explicitly stated that you took out defender kill points because it discouraged players from attacking and instilled feelings of defeat.

    l171obh2wbxk.jpg



    What kind of feeling do you think 20k heals every 6 seconds gives to players other than contempt for having to spend units on a largely unbeatable node?

    f0360i17dsqs.jpg



    We lost war cause we gave up on this node. It "discouraged us from continuing our assault on the opposing alliance". What do you have to say about this?

    242d9oymwlww.jpg

    Like an answer to this.



    I would love for you to stop bumping this. This is like the 8th time.

    I don't work for Kabam but I'm happy to answer for you. Node 24 is not meant to be attacked with Starlord. Try Guilly or a healblocker. It's really simple, my alliance never dies to it.
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Posts: 1,897 ★★★★★
    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.

    Wrong.
  • Mmx1991Mmx1991 Posts: 674
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I'm not saying I agree with the design of node 24 or anything else about 16.0 AW. I think it reflects a poor understanding of the game specifically and basic game design principles in general. But "what do you have to say" is never a reasonable question. "Does this look reasonably healthy to you" is also a pretty leading question I would not directly answer myself.

    Well, how would you phrase it then counselor? ;)

    Cause Kabam hasn't said anything other than its working as intended. But that doesn't do us any good. Given the right champ node 24 is harder than all boss and miniboss nodes. Didn't they give take out Thorns and Slashed Tires because it's whats we wanted? If they wanted to give us a break why did they add Buffet and Masochism and Bane?

    "Here's some new and exciting changes. No Thorns. Diversity!". There is no diversity. We're facing the same few champs on these ridiculous nodes making it feel like 14.0 all over again...and it's even worse because if you don't bring the exact specific precise tool from your toolbox you're dead and throwing as many units on it won't help. And some of these nodes can be countered but the defenders on those nodes can't.

    Try fighting a MD Magik on Node 44 in Tier 1 (bleed and spite). Limbo all day. You can counter the node or you can counter Magik but you can't do both. Dorm, maybe. 14.0 wasn't like this. Everything could be countered back then with a simple champ. Need a power control champ? You could use Vision or Hawkeye or Magik. Needs a champ to deal with Thorns? Black Widow, Crossbones, Arch Angel. Now if you don't have the exact one you're toast.

    These nodes are much worse than 14.0. The map layout is terrible. There is no express routes to kill the boss like under 14.0. Now it's 100% or nothing. And 5 minibosses instead of 3. And skill doesn't matter. And outcomes are predetermined. And you need a tax accountant to set up your defense. And Mystic Wars will be back full time once Kabam tweaks nodes yet again.

    They took out A because they wanted to give us B, then they slowly made it A again and much worse than A. How can they not see what they're doing? Their actions contradict their words.
  • Mmx1991Mmx1991 Posts: 674
    Hulk_77 wrote: »
    I would love for you to stop bumping this. This is like the 8th time.

    Try twice, not eight. Others want answers too.
  • Hulk_77Hulk_77 Posts: 778 ★★★
    Mmx1991 wrote: »
    Hulk_77 wrote: »
    I would love for you to stop bumping this. This is like the 8th time.

    Try twice, not eight. Others want answers too.

    Whoever. It's been bumped endlessly, it is on every page since it was posted at least one time, usually twice.

    All it is doing is making noise and distracting from the actual issue: war is no longer a competition and no longer fun
  • Mmx1991Mmx1991 Posts: 674
    edited December 2017
    Hulk_77 wrote: »
    Whoever. It's been bumped endlessly

    As it should be. Need Kabam's honest thoughts on this. Working as intended or not it's a ridiculous node.

    All it is doing is making noise and distracting from the actual issue: war is no longer a competition and no longer fun

    The real issue is Kabam not listening to us. That post he made about node 24 exemplifies this perfectly.
  • Mmx1991 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I'm not saying I agree with the design of node 24 or anything else about 16.0 AW. I think it reflects a poor understanding of the game specifically and basic game design principles in general. But "what do you have to say" is never a reasonable question. "Does this look reasonably healthy to you" is also a pretty leading question I would not directly answer myself.

    Well, how would you phrase it then counselor? ;)

    Cause Kabam hasn't said anything other than its working as intended. But that doesn't do us any good.

    Kabam has stated that the node is working as intended and that the intent of the node is to encourage players to put defenders on it that will then require the attacking team to use the right attackers with the right tactics to defeat it.

    You may not like the answer, but asking the question repeatedly isn't going to change the answer.

    It is a valid question to ask, why is node 24 appropriate when other nodes like Thorns were not, but the fact that node 24 is only one of many high strength nodes added to AW suggests that the answer to that question is that they didn't remove thorns because it was hard, they removed thorns because of the very specific nature of thorns but were willing to replace thorns with nodes equal to or even greater difficulty that simply didn't have the specific mechanics of thorns.

    It is obvious to me that this is their answer to the removal of defender kill points. Rather than use medium strength nodes and judging how hard it is for us to get past them (via attacker deaths), they would rather use high strength nodes and judge whether we get past them at all. Which seems to contradict everything else they said about what the were trying to achieve with the initial 15.0 AW changes, but they don't appear to be responding to questions regarding what their intent is, except to repeat prior contradictory statements and to say we wanted them.
  • Mmx1991Mmx1991 Posts: 674
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Rather than use medium strength nodes and judging how hard it is for us to get past them (via attacker deaths), they would rather use high strength nodes and judge whether we get past them at all. Which seems to contradict everything else they said about what the were trying to achieve with the initial 15.0 AW changes, but they don't appear to be responding to questions regarding what their intent is, except to repeat prior contradictory statements and to say we wanted them.

    Exactly.

    Anyway you can finesse them into answering with your non-threatening but hard hitting questions? They're ignoring everyone else.
  • Is possible revamp rewards? From December, a monthly quest give more red fragments than a full month of rank 1 wars (whit 12 win.....).
    Game evolving (finally). Is worthy aw rewards (the same from more than 2 years) been revamped.
  • NinjaWarrior99NinjaWarrior99 Posts: 301
    q7wdmrpxqz5n.png
    Merry Christmas kabam
  • linuxlinux Posts: 262
    Merry Christmas kabam

    They'd have won in the old system -- defenders kills were only 100 each and you only had 95 more of them. And you'd have won if you'd killed as many bosses. I agree that the current war system is not fun (especially with T1 nodes -- I see you've got them), but I'm not sure how this image will fail their metrics (other than that it's clear you both decided to give up on diversity).

    Our last war (T2) was decided by DR points -- 1913 to 2028; I assume they placed 4/55s, boosted, or used suicides more than we did. They got 66 defender kills, we got 63 which seems mostly a wash (we both would have played differently if DKs mattered); this is T2 nodes, but fundamentally a different beast since T2+ is still dominated by diversity. It's an incredibly unengaging mode; when we're on T2 nodes and don't face an alliance stacking with duplicate defenders, we know we're going to clear the map and the war will come down to defender rating. It feels like a meaningless slog; but we need loyalty for AQ, and there are shards, I guess.

    I still want Kabam to provide an update -- any update -- indicating how they intend to change AW (or what their criteria is for success) since they seem to agree that it's not in a good place -- but their last set of changes made it worse rather than better (IMO).
  • VoluntarisVoluntaris Posts: 1,133 ★★★
    Been months now with the continued abysmal state of Alliance Wars.

    Can we please get an update on future changes.... please don't just give us yet another "node adjustments" update.

    Alliance War is in desperate need of a point system to reflect SKILL - this can take the form of Defender Kill Points or via reduction of attack points for each time an attacker dies against a defender.

    Without having such points to reflect skill, AW 2.0 is just a more expensive/more boring/uncompetitive Alliance Quest.

    What used to be the most fun part of MCoC is now the most boring and not fun.
This discussion has been closed.