Alliance Wars Discussion Thread

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

The same high metrics? Most wars were won then by boss kills or exploration. Defender kills only factored into the equation when one group tried to overcome being beaten by reviving over and over again. This looks like it will function very much in the same way. Do you have some numbers that show how defender kills were a "high metric" as opposed to this system? Just curious.

When you had Wars won by 100-200+ Defender Kills metrics, yes.

These numbers only showed up with war 2.0 for the most part. But keep going. Second batch of popcorn is almost ready.

DTMelodicMetal

Well done Kabam! The changes are creative and effectively reward skill/alliance performance in AW. Very excited to see how the new system plays out!

JJW

withdrawn to revise

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

The same high metrics? Most wars were won then by boss kills or exploration. Defender kills only factored into the equation when one group tried to overcome being beaten by reviving over and over again. This looks like it will function very much in the same way. Do you have some numbers that show how defender kills were a "high metric" as opposed to this system? Just curious.

When you had Wars won by 100-200+ Defender Kills metrics, yes.

That will still be the case. Under the current system the lost points from dying more will sway the balance in a similar way. It won't overcome an extra boss kill, just like defender kills didn't. But under the current system if we have similar exploration and boss kills and you die more you lose, just like the old system. Not seeing this high metric distinction you are making. Can you be more specific?

DTMelodicMetal wrote: »

Well done Kabam! The changes are creative and effectively reward skill/alliance performance in AW. Very excited to see how the new system plays out!

Agreed. I'm excited to play it. Looks like strategy and skill have both re-entered the contest after a long hiatus.

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

The same high metrics? Most wars were won then by boss kills or exploration. Defender kills only factored into the equation when one group tried to overcome being beaten by reviving over and over again. This looks like it will function very much in the same way. Do you have some numbers that show how defender kills were a "high metric" as opposed to this system? Just curious.

When you had Wars won by 100-200+ Defender Kills metrics, yes.

These numbers only showed up with war 2.0 for the most part. But keep going. Second batch of popcorn is almost ready.

If the numbers weren't mounting to significant enough Points, they would have never been an issue, and we wouldn't have had months of debating to bring them back. Not only the numbers, but the way they altered the shape of War over time. When you have 30 potential Players, 3 Champs to start, 15 Item Uses, and Points deducted for every KO, those Points are significant and mount.

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

I love this so much.

If I was going there, I might start saying "you died more than us so we're better than you" is now the focus of alliance wars. If I was going there.

bloodyCain

Oh boy. Mystic War is gonna make a comeback. "Fun and interactive", right? @Kabam Miike

Yeah, I agree w u gdub... We should not have had to go thru all that at all to get here cuz they weren't a problem to start with. But hey buddy, the long nightmare of the dumbest things ever implemented in the game is kinda over now I think. *high five*

Qwerty

JJW wrote: »

@Kabam Miike

I am checking my work but I am pretty sure there is a flaw in the new AW Scoring system.

Evidence A Kabam Miike Scenario in AW points News.

Evidence B Control example - 100% neutral draw, as expected

Evidence C Zero-Defense Strategy wins.
0 defenders > 150 defenders

Note that Alliance 2 placed 0 Defenders (ORANGE), and wins by 31,500 points.

Evidence D Fewer-Defense Strategy wins
50 defenders > 150 defenders
[img]https://us.v-cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/kx/8rfmtart80np.png[/ig] 100 defenders > 150 defenders[/img][img]https://us.v-cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/91/kby2lq2z1jqu.png[/mg] 149 defenders > 150 defenders[/img][img]https://us.v-cdn.net/6029252/uploads/editor/er/mfnisjs47qpz.png[/ig] Disclaimer: no score changes are live, these projections are based entirely on the announced AW Score changes for December 13. best regards, @JJW[/img]

you numbers seem to assume that both sides die the same amount of times. rare occasion, but it'll happen inevitably.

DNA3000 wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

I love this so much.

If I was going there, I might start saying "you died more than us so we're better than you" is now the focus of alliance wars. If I was going there.

To be fair, I did say I would be cooler with Points for Attack. I admit I was a bit obstinant after a while. Bottom line is, I'm okay with this setup on paper. Will see how it pans out.

DNA3000 wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

I love this so much.

If I was going there, I might start saying "you died more than us so we're better than you" is now the focus of alliance wars. If I was going there.

It's the holiday season. We should all go there together. We've had so many months of whatever you wanna call those arguments that were made. It's a celebratory time for some.. A time to back track and twist prior arguments for others. Much enjoyment will and has already come from this new war.

unknown

This content has been removed.

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

The same high metrics? Most wars were won then by boss kills or exploration. Defender kills only factored into the equation when one group tried to overcome being beaten by reviving over and over again. This looks like it will function very much in the same way. Do you have some numbers that show how defender kills were a "high metric" as opposed to this system? Just curious.

When you had Wars won by 100-200+ Defender Kills metrics, yes.

These numbers only showed up with war 2.0 for the most part. But keep going. Second batch of popcorn is almost ready.

If the numbers weren't mounting to significant enough Points, they would have never been an issue, and we wouldn't have had months of debating to bring them back. Not only the numbers, but the way they altered the shape of War over time. When you have 30 potential Players, 3 Champs to start, 15 Item Uses, and Points deducted for every KO, those Points are significant and mount.

This begs the question of whether there was an issue. You can't use the fact that defender kills were removed as evidence that they were this huge metric. The new system seems to be functioning in very much the same way with the exception that after dying there is still incentive to keep trying to clear the node in a way that sometimes the old system wouldn't have. So I agree that they aren't exactly the same. But that has nothing to do with the huge metric that you are claiming defender kills were. Defender kills didn't factor into most wars. Hard as this is to believe you are wrong again.

Namo10

Will we be able to see the points earned after each fight from that specific node? ie 240 points for killing the opponent + 150 for expo? Or will that just tally up in the total score? Ideally if it showed it would make it easier.

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

The same high metrics? Most wars were won then by boss kills or exploration. Defender kills only factored into the equation when one group tried to overcome being beaten by reviving over and over again. This looks like it will function very much in the same way. Do you have some numbers that show how defender kills were a "high metric" as opposed to this system? Just curious.

When you had Wars won by 100-200+ Defender Kills metrics, yes.

These numbers only showed up with war 2.0 for the most part. But keep going. Second batch of popcorn is almost ready.

If the numbers weren't mounting to significant enough Points, they would have never been an issue, and we wouldn't have had months of debating to bring them back. Not only the numbers, but the way they altered the shape of War over time. When you have 30 potential Players, 3 Champs to start, 15 Item Uses, and Points deducted for every KO, those Points are significant and mount.

This begs the question of whether there was an issue. You can't use the fact that defender kills were removed as evidence that they were this huge metric. The new system seems to be functioning in very much the same way with the exception that after dying there is still incentive to keep trying to clear the node in a way that sometimes the old system wouldn't have. So I agree that they aren't exactly the same. But that has nothing to do with the huge metric that you are claiming defender kills were. Defender kills didn't factor into most wars. Hard as this is to believe you are wrong again.

They were

Namo10 wrote: »

Will we be able to see the points earned after each fight from that specific node? ie 240 points for killing the opponent + 150 for expo? Or will that just tally up in the total score? Ideally if it showed it would make it easier.

I think this is the part where he said something visual would be coming later. Probably gonna just be in the results scoring for now, I'd imagine

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

The same high metrics? Most wars were won then by boss kills or exploration. Defender kills only factored into the equation when one group tried to overcome being beaten by reviving over and over again. This looks like it will function very much in the same way. Do you have some numbers that show how defender kills were a "high metric" as opposed to this system? Just curious.

When you had Wars won by 100-200+ Defender Kills metrics, yes.

These numbers only showed up with war 2.0 for the most part. But keep going. Second batch of popcorn is almost ready.

If the numbers weren't mounting to significant enough Points, they would have never been an issue, and we wouldn't have had months of debating to bring them back. Not only the numbers, but the way they altered the shape of War over time. When you have 30 potential Players, 3 Champs to start, 15 Item Uses, and Points deducted for every KO, those Points are significant and mount.

This begs the question of whether there was an issue. You can't use the fact that defender kills were removed as evidence that they were this huge metric. The new system seems to be functioning in very much the same way with the exception that after dying there is still incentive to keep trying to clear the node in a way that sometimes the old system wouldn't have. So I agree that they aren't exactly the same. But that has nothing to do with the huge metric that you are claiming defender kills were. Defender kills didn't factor into most wars. Hard as this is to believe you are wrong again.

I'm not arguing it endlessly. You can feel free to go back and examine my issues I've stated with Defender Kills in previous Threads because I'm not restating them here. At this point, you're arguing with me across multiple Threads and I'm not engaging with it anymore.

RagamugginGunner

Leiva_dark wrote: »

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

what happens if you do not place defenders as shown in these examples the alliance that DOES NOT PLACE DEFENDERS WINS !!! ??? please an answer kabam

They put it in the post. Blank nodes award the full 240 bonus points.

Idk where the "they were" or the quote of @LeNoirFaineant came from... Was replying to @Namo. But rest assured I agree with LeNoir

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

chunkyb wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Overall, I think I'm cool with it. I admit I have to have more coffee and consider it deeper. Lol. My main issues with metrics for Kills and penalizing Resources are respected, so I'm okay with this. Interesting angle. Actually, some ideas I remember shared here. On the surface, looks good.

DEFENDER KILLS ARE BACK! (under another name)

No. Not really. When the idea was presented before, I was iffy about it because it seemed to that effect, but there is a limited number with this system, and it doesn't actually penalize dying. There are Points given, then deducted for attempts. Now, the most you can lose are the Points allotted. I may have been a bit rigid originally, but I'm cool with this. It won't amount to the same high metrics Defender Kills did. There are limited Points and limited penalizations. After that, nothing is deducted, so it doesn't penalize Item Use.

The same high metrics? Most wars were won then by boss kills or exploration. Defender kills only factored into the equation when one group tried to overcome being beaten by reviving over and over again. This looks like it will function very much in the same way. Do you have some numbers that show how defender kills were a "high metric" as opposed to this system? Just curious.

When you had Wars won by 100-200+ Defender Kills metrics, yes.

These numbers only showed up with war 2.0 for the most part. But keep going. Second batch of popcorn is almost ready.

If the numbers weren't mounting to significant enough Points, they would have never been an issue, and we wouldn't have had months of debating to bring them back. Not only the numbers, but the way they altered the shape of War over time. When you have 30 potential Players, 3 Champs to start, 15 Item Uses, and Points deducted for every KO, those Points are significant and mount.

This begs the question of whether there was an issue. You can't use the fact that defender kills were removed as evidence that they were this huge metric. The new system seems to be functioning in very much the same way with the exception that after dying there is still incentive to keep trying to clear the node in a way that sometimes the old system wouldn't have. So I agree that they aren't exactly the same. But that has nothing to do with the huge metric that you are claiming defender kills were. Defender kills didn't factor into most wars. Hard as this is to believe you are wrong again.

I'm not arguing it endlessly. You can feel free to go back and examine my issues I've stated with Defender Kills in previous Threads because I'm not restating them here. At this point, you're arguing with me across multiple Threads and I'm not engaging with it anymore.

Excellent! Glad to hear it.

Leiva_dark wrote: »

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

what happens if you do not place defenders as shown in these examples the alliance that DOES NOT PLACE DEFENDERS WINS !!! ??? please an answer kabam

I was reading JJW's post when he withdrew it. He made an error and I suspect he discovered it and is correcting for it. Basically, he didn't account for a property of the system I mentioned earlier the system includes to prevent the problem he was highlighting.

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

Leiva_dark wrote: »

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

what happens if you do not place defenders as shown in these examples the alliance that DOES NOT PLACE DEFENDERS WINS !!! ??? please an answer kabam

They put it in the post. Blank nodes award the full 240 bonus points.

Just to amplify: *if* you traverse them you are awarded the full 240 bonus points for "defeating" the node with zero deaths. You do have to actually walk through the node to get those points, which I'm assuming most alliances will be able to do if the other side places no defenders anywhere.

But if you place 150 and the other side places 140, you only get those extra 2400 points for those ten absent defenders if you reach and traverse those empty nodes.

JJW

DNA3000 wrote: »

Leiva_dark wrote: »

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

what happens if you do not place defenders as shown in these examples the alliance that DOES NOT PLACE DEFENDERS WINS !!! ??? please an answer kabam

I was reading JJW's post when he withdrew it. He made an error and I suspect he discovered it and is correcting for it. Basically, he didn't account for a property of the system I mentioned earlier the system includes to prevent the problem he was highlighting.

Yes. I did not account for the empty tile scores.

I'm back on the wait-and-see bench.

DNA3000 wrote: »

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

Leiva_dark wrote: »

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

JJW wrote: »

withdrawn to revise

what happens if you do not place defenders as shown in these examples the alliance that DOES NOT PLACE DEFENDERS WINS !!! ??? please an answer kabam

They put it in the post. Blank nodes award the full 240 bonus points.

Just to amplify: *if* you traverse them you are awarded the full 240 bonus points for "defeating" the node with zero deaths. You do have to actually walk through the node to get those points, which I'm assuming most alliances will be able to do if the other side places no defenders anywhere.

But if you place 150 and the other side places 140, you only get those extra 2400 points for those ten absent defenders if you reach and traverse those empty nodes.

So that's what he meant by the possibilities.

Reformation_Ryan

3 things:

1) Well done Kabam and I like these changes.

2) I agree completely with @Lagacy69. War is a large component of this game and it’s future longevity. Time to have the rewards reflect the state of the game.
6 stars are coming for better or for worse...#stillnotsold

3) Will defenders go back to being hidden yet @Kabam Miike?

DNA3000 wrote: »

Istenmajma wrote: »

Also I am not sure if the scoring sheet on the end of your info thread is actually accurate.
You count full exoration on 3 maps as 300 instances wirh 150 points per explored node. Underneath that you are counting attacker rating as 450 instances with 240 points per node in best case.
Either it is 150 points per explored percent or the amount of nodes is off...

That does sound wrong. I don't know what the correct numbers are off the top of my head, but logically speaking the attack bonus maximum count must be between the maximum number of defenders (150) and the total number of nodes (stated to be 300 in the spreadsheet). Obviously, the number of possible places you can place a defender must be more than the number of defenders we place (because there are always empty placement points) and less than the total number of nodes altogether.

I think I figured out the error. The spreadsheet is wrong, but what it shows is 450 "bonus kills" possible at 80 points per kill, or 240 points maximum for 150 nodes (three kills per node maximum). That implies that 150 nodes have bonus buckets (one for each placed defender), but in fact according to the original announcement every node that can hold a defender has this bonus, not just the nodes that actually have defenders. @Kabam Miike implied this was deliberate and not accidental when he emphasized my point about arranging the empty nodes.

They need to correct the scoring spreadsheet to increase the bonus count from 3x3x50 (kills x battlegroups x defenders) to 3x3xD (kills x battlegroups x "defensive nodes") where D is the total number of nodes on the map that can hold a defender.

Speeds80

So defender kills bit more technical and harder to work out so we don't know when we get to the boss if we can still win and not stop using potions if we can't win... makes sense. Could we change possibly change back the matchup parameters now that skill is a major factor, it sucks to lose 8/10 wars from alliance issues and still be against all 10m alliances in tier 8. Seriously the skillful alliances can handle higher prestige matchups, they've literally been asking for them

LocoMotives

Speeds80 wrote: »

So defender kills bit more technical and harder to work out so we don't know when we get to the boss if we can still win and not stop using potions if we can't win... makes sense. Could we change possibly change back the matchup parameters now that skill is a major factor, it sucks to lose 8/10 wars from alliance issues and still be against all 10m alliances in tier 8. Seriously the skillful alliances can handle higher prestige matchups, they've literally been asking for them

Unless your ally dies more than 3 times at a given node, you can just multiply defender kills (if still shown) by 80 pts. Anyone dying more than 3 times at one node just has to say so it can be accounted for.