There doesn't seem to be any point in us wasting our time here in this thread. This has been up for 3 weeks without a peep from Kabam other than it's back up, nope it's back down. Garbage way to handle this Kabam
im only doin 2 Bg for war . How would i be able to remove teammates defenders so others can join without kicking them since it doesnt release like it used to ?
There doesn't seem to be any point in us wasting our time here in this thread. This has been up for 3 weeks without a peep from Kabam other than it's back up, nope it's back down. Garbage way to handle this Kabam
Convince everybody to stop spending for month , let s see how they ignore community then.
Good points and reasoning are completely ignored. They instantly teleport instead when it comes to be petty.
Yeah buddy, I agree with you. But convincing everyone to stop spending would be almost impossible. Especially now. Those July deals created an even bigger rift between spenders and ftp. Even casual spenders like myself got left behind. And it seems that gap will only get bigger with 7* r3s around the corner already. Paragon accts can range anywhere from 2 to 5+ million right now.
Preseason Matchmaking/Wars has resumed. Targeting Aug 16 to start the actual Season 43. So will be just 1 war short of 2 weeks of Preseason to try things out.
We are auto-enlisted for one BG both on and off season and the new system opens up 3 BG's to place defenders. We are a casual alliance that runs one BG in AW with whoever is available. Now I have a handful of people randomly placed across three BG's and I don't have the ability to move them from one group to another or turn off the extra open BG's that we don't want. I have unchecked, re-selected, and confirmed that I want to enlist for ONE BG. Does anyone have a clue how to turn off the BG's that I absolutely do not want? You have *not* made my job as an officer any easier. Old system was much easier to understand and manipulate. Not happy with the "new and improved" system at all.
We are auto-enlisted for one BG both on and off season and the new system opens up 3 BG's to place defenders. We are a casual alliance that runs one BG in AW with whoever is available. Now I have a handful of people randomly placed across three BG's and I don't have the ability to move them from one group to another or turn off the extra open BG's that we don't want. I have unchecked, re-selected, and confirmed that I want to enlist for ONE BG. Does anyone have a clue how to turn off the BG's that I absolutely do not want? You have *not* made my job as an officer any easier. Old system was much easier to understand and manipulate. Not happy with the "new and improved" system at all.
I haven’t tested it but it should only go to Attack Phase with 1 BG and the other BGs won’t be active on defense. The people that placed in BG 2/3 should still be able to attack as part of your single BG as long as 10 other people don’t join attack first.
It seems like it’s going to be a big mess for casual alliances that had different people join every war. I haven’t seen anything from Kabam explaining how they intended this to help 1/2 BG alliances.
We are auto-enlisted for one BG both on and off season and the new system opens up 3 BG's to place defenders. We are a casual alliance that runs one BG in AW with whoever is available. Now I have a handful of people randomly placed across three BG's and I don't have the ability to move them from one group to another or turn off the extra open BG's that we don't want. I have unchecked, re-selected, and confirmed that I want to enlist for ONE BG. Does anyone have a clue how to turn off the BG's that I absolutely do not want? You have *not* made my job as an officer any easier. Old system was much easier to understand and manipulate. Not happy with the "new and improved" system at all.
I haven’t tested it but it should only go to Attack Phase with 1 BG and the other BGs won’t be active on defense. The people that placed in BG 2/3 should still be able to attack as part of your single BG as long as 10 other people don’t join attack first.
It seems like it’s going to be a big mess for casual alliances that had different people join every war. I haven’t seen anything from Kabam explaining how they intended this to help 1/2 BG alliances.
Yes, that is what was happening when wars were last active before this week. If ally ran 1 BG war, anyone who placed defense in BG's 2/3 were able to instead join BG1 as Attack only (provided there was attack slots open), and their 2/3 defenders were “discarded” for that war (but still “locked” out of being able to use for AQ because they were still “Persistent Defenders”, even though in a BG that was beyond what the Ally was enlisted run for wars).
@Kabam Miike Unable to spectate the opponent info when they are alone in a path on DEFENSE. But the list is shown when a group of members are available at same spot
@Kabam Miike Unable to spectate the opponent info when they are alone in a path on DEFENSE. But the list is shown when a group of members are available at same spot.
Is this same issue as what has been happening in AQ ? Insightful that it depends if there are multiple people at that node, or just single person.
(don’t know if I saw it explained that way for similar AQ issue, which I think was just if looking at different BG, akin to in AW looking at your defense map since it is not your own offense map your looking at)
@Kabam Miike Unable to spectate the opponent info when they are alone in a path on DEFENSE. But the list is shown when a group of members are available at same spot.
Is this same issue as what has been happening in AQ ? Insightful that it depends if there are multiple people at that node, or just single person.
(don’t know if I saw it explained that way for similar AQ issue, which I think was just if looking at different BG, akin to in AW looking at your defense map since it is not your own offense map your looking at)
its on the defense, when we try to see the info of a member offensive map works fine with info/poke
@Kabam Miike Unable to spectate the opponent info when they are alone in a path on DEFENSE. But the list is shown when a group of members are available at same spot.
Is this same issue as what has been happening in AQ ? Insightful that it depends if there are multiple people at that node, or just single person.
(don’t know if I saw it explained that way for similar AQ issue, which I think was just if looking at different BG, akin to in AW looking at your defense map since it is not your own offense map your looking at)
its on the defense, when we try to see the info of a member offensive map works fine with info/poke
But how about viewing a different BG offense in AW ? (similar to issue seen in AQ) Is it OK no matter which BG offense you look at ?
@Kabam Miike Unable to spectate the opponent info when they are alone in a path on DEFENSE. But the list is shown when a group of members are available at same spot.
Is this same issue as what has been happening in AQ ? Insightful that it depends if there are multiple people at that node, or just single person.
(don’t know if I saw it explained that way for similar AQ issue, which I think was just if looking at different BG, akin to in AW looking at your defense map since it is not your own offense map your looking at)
its on the defense, when we try to see the info of a member offensive map works fine with info/poke
But how about viewing a different BG offense in AW ? (similar to issue seen in AQ) Is it OK no matter which BG offense you look at ?
there is just the problem with the defense info screen as in the picture, thats it, its so tough to see who is the opponent who is facing our defenders with what champs they have at the moment for data and analysis for next war placement
hope they fix this before the season launches @Kabam Miike mate, please take a look into this
@Kabam Miike Unable to spectate the opponent info when they are alone in a path on DEFENSE. But the list is shown when a group of members are available at same spot.
Is this same issue as what has been happening in AQ ? Insightful that it depends if there are multiple people at that node, or just single person.
(don’t know if I saw it explained that way for similar AQ issue, which I think was just if looking at different BG, akin to in AW looking at your defense map since it is not your own offense map your looking at)
as a part of planning the defense, this play an important role to take data about the champs used against our defenders and which champs get koed by our defenders and a lot more
its not just like that place a defender on a spot without analysing these things when coming to WIN Focus
Hello first time commenting. I have noticed that even though our defensive characters are available to use the relics on those characters are locked. Is this intentional? It makes sense to me that if those characters are available to use that the relics should be removable. Thanks
im only doin 2 Bg for war . How would i be able to remove teammates defenders so others can join without kicking them since it doesnt release like it used to ?
The alliance leader should have the ability to at least remove a player from a battlegroup so an open slot is made - what happens when we have a member who cannot connect for whatever reason and we need to swap their spot out ?
If we cannot remove a player from alliance war once they placed heroes at least let leaders be able to move the players within the 3 battle groups .
This whole thing is still way too broken and way too confusing.
So I have persistent placement - I added my defenders to BG 2, a couple weeks ago (placing them three times you know the drill)
But now I'm "assigned" BG 1 (attack only?) and it tells me to "join" or "continue" depending on which BG, and when I actually go to join attack, I get the lovely error message many of us are getting. Can anyone make sense of this?
This has to be the worst implemented mode change we've had in a really long time. Hopefully we get some adjustments and clarification before an actual season starts.
This whole thing is still way too broken and way too confusing.
So I have persistent placement - I added my defenders to BG 2, a couple weeks ago (placing them three times you know the drill)
But now I'm "assigned" BG 1 (attack only?) and it tells me to "join" or "continue" depending on which BG, and when I actually go to join attack, I get the lovely error message many of us are getting. Can anyone make sense of this?
This has to be the worst implemented mode change we've had in a really long time. Hopefully we get some adjustments and clarification before an actual season starts.
I’ll take a stab at it..
(**first, for reference..) When going to Setup Defense screens, if you are already placed in say BG2 (like you seem to be), you still will see it say Join for BG 1/3, and Continue for BG2. That indicates you are already placed persistent defense in BG2. Now, clicking JOIN on either BG 1/3 (we are still in the Setup Persistent Defense area), that will have the effect of REMOVING your defenders from BG2, and allowing you to continue to put them in BG 1/3 instead (starting from scratch though, just can’t “move” them all over with single click)
(**so, now onto joining ATTACK..) The Join/Continue/Join you see in Attack screens is probably piggy-backing off of the same situation as above. First, the “Assigned” is nothing more that leadership's wish for you to join a certain group. Doesn’t actually indicate you “have to” or are “committed to” joining that BG. BUT, the JOIN option on BG 1/3 seems to be something that still needs to be flushed out in the new system.
?? Will they allow someone who placed defense in BG2 to then change their mind and join Attack in BG1 ?? (For Ally’s that only run 1 or 2 BG's, that is what you can do if you had placed your defense in BG3, since BG3 isn’t being run, you can join BG1 on attack)
?? Or does Kabam want to require you to stick to your defense-placed BG for Attack too ? Maybe this is why this ERROR message is coming up. Maybe you can’t do that (with the exception I mentioned above if a higher BG isn’t actually enlisted and used, even though you can set defense in those higher BG #’s)
I check the first 3 pages of recent discussions almost daily looking for any kind of response from Kabam about AW concerns. Haven't found a single one. But I have noticed @SummonerNR responds to just about everything. And also that he/she tags Kabam Mike and another for some type of list. Are these the official Kabam responses we've been looking for? NR seems to have some kind of inside track of what's happening. What exactly is going on? It's extremely frustrating to not have any kind of input from Kabam about such a large part of the contest.
I check the first 3 pages of recent discussions almost daily looking for any kind of response from Kabam about AW concerns. Haven't found a single one. But I have noticed @SummonerNR responds to just about everything. And also that he/she tags Kabam Mike and another for some type of list. Are these the official Kabam responses we've been looking for? NR seems to have some kind of inside track of what's happening. What exactly is going on? It's extremely frustrating to not have any kind of input from Kabam about such a large part of the contest.
He's a forum guardian so he is trying to help us out by trying to provide info and answers to questions that Kabam refuse to address. I believe the forum guardian program was updated some time ago to actually provide them with some direct access to Kabam people for information but to my knowledge Kabam hasn't said they are supposed to be official go-betweens such that we should be looking to them for official Kabam communications.
Kabam should still be the ones providing most of their information to us and as usual they mostly don't.
(I know, the forums are mainly for us to communicate amongst ourselves and aren't a direct line of communication with Kabam, blah blah blah. Changes this big should have plenty of info provided to us and we should be able to get questions answered when there's confusion and things inevitably go wrong and the forum seems a logical spot for that to happen. We are just being ignored the same as all the threads asking for info on what they are doing about all the 6/7* champs and other rewards that supposedly weren't removed from the mythic crystal fiasco when they promised they would be. No one was asking for account specific info, just info on what they will do to complete the removal they promised they would do.)
I have posted a rather long feedback about my problems with this system. I edited the message because one of the words was wrong. The entire message entered in "moderation" expecting approval from a mod. After 24 hours my message is not visible.
Comments
Otherwise the next offseason war won’t happen
Convince everybody to stop spending for month , let s see how they ignore community then.
Good points and reasoning are completely ignored.
They instantly teleport instead when it comes to be petty.
Preseason Matchmaking/Wars has resumed.
Targeting Aug 16 to start the actual Season 43.
So will be just 1 war short of 2 weeks of Preseason to try things out.
It seems like it’s going to be a big mess for casual alliances that had different people join every war. I haven’t seen anything from Kabam explaining how they intended this to help 1/2 BG alliances.
If ally ran 1 BG war, anyone who placed defense in BG's 2/3 were able to instead join BG1 as Attack only (provided there was attack slots open), and their 2/3 defenders were “discarded” for that war (but still “locked” out of being able to use for AQ because they were still “Persistent Defenders”, even though in a BG that was beyond what the Ally was enlisted run for wars).
Insightful that it depends if there are multiple people at that node, or just single person.
(don’t know if I saw it explained that way for similar AQ issue, which I think was just if looking at different BG, akin to in AW looking at your defense map since it is not your own offense map your looking at)
offensive map works fine with info/poke
Is it OK no matter which BG offense you look at ?
hope they fix this before the season launches
@Kabam Miike mate, please take a look into this
its not just like that place a defender on a spot without analysing these things when coming to WIN Focus
If we cannot remove a player from alliance war once they placed heroes at least let leaders be able to move the players within the 3 battle groups .
So I have persistent placement - I added my defenders to BG 2, a couple weeks ago (placing them three times you know the drill)
But now I'm "assigned" BG 1 (attack only?) and it tells me to "join" or "continue" depending on which BG, and when I actually go to join attack, I get the lovely error message many of us are getting. Can anyone make sense of this?
This has to be the worst implemented mode change we've had in a really long time. Hopefully we get some adjustments and clarification before an actual season starts.
(**first, for reference..)
When going to Setup Defense screens, if you are already placed in say BG2 (like you seem to be), you still will see it say Join for BG 1/3, and Continue for BG2. That indicates you are already placed persistent defense in BG2.
Now, clicking JOIN on either BG 1/3 (we are still in the Setup Persistent Defense area), that will have the effect of REMOVING your defenders from BG2, and allowing you to continue to put them in BG 1/3 instead (starting from scratch though, just can’t “move” them all over with single click)
(**so, now onto joining ATTACK..)
The Join/Continue/Join you see in Attack screens is probably piggy-backing off of the same situation as above.
First, the “Assigned” is nothing more that leadership's wish for you to join a certain group. Doesn’t actually indicate you “have to” or are “committed to” joining that BG.
BUT, the JOIN option on BG 1/3 seems to be something that still needs to be flushed out in the new system.
?? Will they allow someone who placed defense in BG2 to then change their mind and join Attack in BG1 ?? (For Ally’s that only run 1 or 2 BG's, that is what you can do if you had placed your defense in BG3, since BG3 isn’t being run, you can join BG1 on attack)
?? Or does Kabam want to require you to stick to your defense-placed BG for Attack too ? Maybe this is why this ERROR message is coming up. Maybe you can’t do that (with the exception I mentioned above if a higher BG isn’t actually enlisted and used, even though you can set defense in those higher BG #’s)
But I have noticed @SummonerNR responds to just about everything. And also that he/she tags Kabam Mike and another for some type of list. Are these the official Kabam responses we've been looking for? NR seems to have some kind of inside track of what's happening. What exactly is going on? It's extremely frustrating to not have any kind of input from Kabam about such a large part of the contest.
Kabam should still be the ones providing most of their information to us and as usual they mostly don't.
(I know, the forums are mainly for us to communicate amongst ourselves and aren't a direct line of communication with Kabam, blah blah blah. Changes this big should have plenty of info provided to us and we should be able to get questions answered when there's confusion and things inevitably go wrong and the forum seems a logical spot for that to happen. We are just being ignored the same as all the threads asking for info on what they are doing about all the 6/7* champs and other rewards that supposedly weren't removed from the mythic crystal fiasco when they promised they would be. No one was asking for account specific info, just info on what they will do to complete the removal they promised they would do.)
I edited the message because one of the words was wrong.
The entire message entered in "moderation" expecting approval from a mod.
After 24 hours my message is not visible.