Ban discrepancy T1/T2 in AW issue
QuietusDK
Member Posts: 57 ★
Hello. My alliance was T1 in the first war in season, and chose our 5 bans. We lost the war, fair enough, we were outplayed. Now, for war 2 we were T2, ad we are one of the so called elevator alliances that balance between t1/T2.
Bans are in place, I see there was an announcement about the reverting 5 to 3 bans due to t1/T2 issue. We think no more of it, we have our bans set.
War 2 starts, enemy has 5 bans set, but we see we suddenly only have 3 bans set.
I _then_ see (as per attached screenshot) that an announcement has been made later on in forums that we need to perform manual tasks to re-set bans, if we also wanted to have ban #4 and #5?
I need to ask, seriously - you back and forth in bans because there is an issue, you end up backpedling on your announced changes with less than 24 hours before attack phase, and you expect your players to go through hoops to manually patch up the issue... And this on top of the current issue where loading war screen/map takes between 30 seconds and 5 minutes - with no solution to that in sight.
Is it correct that we only get 3 bans because we didn't see that you backpedaled on the ban change under a day before war went live, and that we were unfortunate enough to face a T1 alliance while we are T2, and we get double punished, or what is the deal here?
Is the 3 vs 5 bans a visual bug on our end, or did we just get shafted 2 bans because of inconsistent and insufficient communication from your end?
High tier AW is pretty damn competitive. Losing 2 out of 5 bans to limit our enemy counterplay to our placement is _massive_. So I'm just trying to get confirmation on whether I am correct in reading this, or if I'm seeing a visual bug, somehow.
Bans are in place, I see there was an announcement about the reverting 5 to 3 bans due to t1/T2 issue. We think no more of it, we have our bans set.
War 2 starts, enemy has 5 bans set, but we see we suddenly only have 3 bans set.
I _then_ see (as per attached screenshot) that an announcement has been made later on in forums that we need to perform manual tasks to re-set bans, if we also wanted to have ban #4 and #5?
I need to ask, seriously - you back and forth in bans because there is an issue, you end up backpedling on your announced changes with less than 24 hours before attack phase, and you expect your players to go through hoops to manually patch up the issue... And this on top of the current issue where loading war screen/map takes between 30 seconds and 5 minutes - with no solution to that in sight.
Is it correct that we only get 3 bans because we didn't see that you backpedaled on the ban change under a day before war went live, and that we were unfortunate enough to face a T1 alliance while we are T2, and we get double punished, or what is the deal here?
Is the 3 vs 5 bans a visual bug on our end, or did we just get shafted 2 bans because of inconsistent and insufficient communication from your end?
High tier AW is pretty damn competitive. Losing 2 out of 5 bans to limit our enemy counterplay to our placement is _massive_. So I'm just trying to get confirmation on whether I am correct in reading this, or if I'm seeing a visual bug, somehow.
1
Comments
If you were still set for MANUAL Placement, then in theory you would have been able to still have your 5 Bans for a Tier-1 War, and 3 Bans for a Tier-2 War, still in place.
Parsing the various announcements, it does not look like they actually implemented the temporary fix to roll back to just 3 Bans for both.
It says “the previously PROPOSED” fix. Tells me that they never took away anyone's 4+5th Banned setup.
Originally, the PROPOSED fix (to just 3 Bans for both) would have been implemented on the 14th, but they changed their mind on the 13th and kept things as they were.
Need to stay with MANUAL Placement for now (until eventually they come up with additional Setup boxes for when using Auto)
"In this case, we are able to confirm that what you expereinced with your Alliance's bans during this war would be an intended outcome of the current system. That said, we always want to understand our players’ concerns, and your ideas can help us to improve the game. Towards that goal, we would like to get some additional insight from you to ensure your feedback is accurately represented and considered"
Seriously? You're telling us that besides matching a T with a T2 alliance, that it is working as intended that the T2 alliance only gets to ban 3 attackers, while the T1alliance gets to ban 5 attackers?
This is _seriously_ what you want to go with?
You want to understand my concerns? Okay, here's one: your system is broken, inherently favoring T1 over T2 alliances (which only exacerbates the hurdle of going from T2 to T1, given the recent increase to T1 point multiplier), you're making it incredibly murky to figure out how the system works, your communication about your decisions has been a train wreck (seriously, AW ban decision flip flopping and you don't deign it relevant to send an in game announcement about it?), and all this on top of that you have made, reverted and then sloppily I plementee changes to a pretty core functionality in alliance war _during an active season_.
My concern is that you will do absolutely nothing to rectify the poorly thought our and worse executed ideas you have implemented, and unless you come join a T2 elevator alliance, you will have zero ides how morale breaking it is to tell your crew that their dreams of P1 is getting railed by Kabam. Again.
The previous couple seasons you've fumbled tactics, off season war rating changes accidentally being activated, and let's not forget the train wreck of first half of last season with the bug exploits that was never punished.
Now you're basically telling T2 alliances that are unfortunate enough to get matched with T1 alliances that they have to overcome a -2 attacker ban disadvantage, on top of facing a a T alliance.
And that this is "working as intended".
So yeah, that's pretty damn concerning to me.