Alliance War New Format Feedback

With this season of Alliance War coming to a close, I'd like to give some genuine feedback about what I think was done well and what could have been done better.

1. 10 fights make it so everyone can participate, I get that. However, sometimes people can have emergencies and if they can't make it in time then the war is just lost. I think the 10 fights can be kept, but have 9 normal fights and then a 10th that is a boss that can be taken by anyone after they take their fight, or if they join and go through one of the already completed paths to get there. This way, all 10 players can participate, but all 10 aren't absolutely forced to, just like with the original format.

2. Having 2 days to complete 1 fight I think is fine. It doesn't force players to be too active, and lets them still succeed. However, I do think the break after every 3 wars is not necessary for this format.

3. MVPs don't mean anything anymore. The MVP in this format should be based on who finishes their fight the fastest and with the most health, but I have no idea how it was being calculated this season.

Overall, I really like this new format and think that it should be kept moving forward, although with a few changes.

Comments

Furrymoosen

1. Agree completely.
2. The break is really only there to make it an even week and therefore make the season an even month(ish). It's useless in one sense, but also very important for the calendar.
3. MVPs really never meant anything anyway. And even then, there was a fight I had in a war where I took it in the first 20 minutes and finished at full health. Still didn't get MVP. Could just be RNG lol

I enjoyed this format because the time investment was nice and the fights were fun. It was fun to bring in a specific champ built for the fight I was taking without several other variables or fights to think through. I'd be happy to see this format stay, but I also don't dislike the other format. It's been nice to either spend less time in the game or invest that time into other content.

Kabam Crashed

There will be a survey sent out to Summoners who played in the season after it finishes, so please keep your eyes open for that and make sure to share the feedback there as it will be summarized by our UXR team and shared with the AW mode owners.

psp742

I really dislike the new AW.. the fight are just annoying and in my alliance with inactive summoners.. even though there are 28 to 30 (some are new people) so in reality probably less than 19 but only 7 are semi active..

One defender and two attacker seem good on paper but the nodes make some of these champion SUPER ANNOYING.

I use 7* rank3 Gentle vs 6* rank5 sig200 ascend Bullseye and still had to use multiple revives.. the 'over' tuned up AI makes fights more difficult: intercept but get countered, back draft intercepted and comboed into oblivion.. it makes fights a chore.. not everyone has rank4 sig200 7* champions nor multiple rank4 7* champions..

my other alliance mates just quit fighting if their attackers are defeated.. in order to clear map, I sometimes go over all open paths (if i brought attackers that could take the defenders).

Only positive is the generic 7* rank 1to2

I can't wait for the survey..

ahmynuts

I really dislike the new AW.. the fight are just annoying and in my alliance with inactive summoners.. even though there are 28 to 30 (some are new people) so in reality probably less than 19 but only 7 are semi active..

One defender and two attacker seem good on paper but the nodes make some of these champion SUPER ANNOYING.

I use 7* rank3 Gentle vs 6* rank5 sig200 ascend Bullseye and still had to use multiple revives.. the 'over' tuned up AI makes fights more difficult: intercept but get countered, back draft intercepted and comboed into oblivion.. it makes fights a chore.. not everyone has rank4 sig200 7* champions nor multiple rank4 7* champions..

my other alliance mates just quit fighting if their attackers are defeated.. in order to clear map, I sometimes go over all open paths (if i brought attackers that could take the defenders).

Only positive is the generic 7* rank 1to2

I can't wait for the survey..

Ill take bad opinions for 500.

Also the fact that you can take multiple fights means this opinion carries even less weight

SirGamesBond

Mvps are decided by highest pi defender + attacker, it's stupid. But most players don't care about it anyway.

Usagicassidy

I'm a big fan of the Solo event rewards, that's for sure.

SummonerNR

(although this was just a Test Season, some definite feedback for whenever they bring it back.

(1) Agree totally. 9 normal Defenders (3x3 islands) plus a BOSS. For many reasons.
The huge increase in points for this (imaginary) Boss Kill (aka, just step on the node for free).
The occassional EMPTY node from people changing alliances, getting kicked, etc, makes that huge Point bonus for Boss Kill even more silly.
Anyone can just step thru such Empty node and get Boss Kill points.

Even without an Empty node, how many times have you seen a whole BG where NOBODY can get past their fight ? (none probably, and I'd bet the house on that).
So make a Boss Kill actually mean something by doing 3x3 +1.

(2) As has been said, it is about taking an odd # of calendar days in a week and fitting in an even number of days for wars into it.
Don't think the “day off” after every 3 wars was ever meant as a little break (neither in old format or especially now), but rather a calendar issue.

(3) MVP is very skewed toward the Strength/Prestige of the DEFENDER you placed.
And that's totally different from whether or not the Defender actually got any Defensive Kills or not (or eve was left standing from opponents not even trying).
So many times, someone with Strong Defender is much higher up the “points placement” of your alliance, and I’ve just had a case where that person didn’t even join in on Attack (0 Explore, 0 attack kills, and their Defender didn’t have any kills either). Was just from stronger defender vs people who actually did attack, got kills, explore, etc.

JESUSCHRIST

I absolutely hate the new format

1. As a 7.7 million valiant and alliance leader, I can handle any and every defender on any node but not every member in my alliance are as strong as me, if they find it difficult, they give up and chances are the alliance loses the war bcos of the weakest links in the alliance

This forces the alliance leader to either kick the weakest players from the alliance or lose AW. This is brutal for weak players who cannot handle defenders with huge healthpool that requires specific attackers, I used to carry AW as MVP in the old format and I don't have to think about kicking weak players from my alliance (By weak, I'm referring to new valiant accounts)

Weak players are getting kicked everywhere they go so the playing experience is really bad for them right now, they need a good alliance to help them grow but strong alliances doesn't want weak players so they get kicked left right centre

2. 10 defenders, 10 players means 100% participation and 100% is hard to come by in this game, 1 BG is easily possible, 2 BG is difficult and 3 BG means your alliance have to have 30 hardcore players

Even with 48 hours for them to join and play, some players are casual valiants and it's hard for the alliance leadership to chase after every player every 48 hours

I can be strict and kick every player who doesn't play but that means constant kicking bcos many players are simply casual players

MrSakuragi

Solo event improvement was nice, not having a backup was not.

RoyalRose1510

No please

NoahSansman

I absolutely hate the new format

1. As a 7.7 million valiant and alliance leader, I can handle any and every defender on any node but not every member in my alliance are as strong as me, if they find it difficult, they give up and chances are the alliance loses the war bcos of the weakest links in the alliance

This forces the alliance leader to either kick the weakest players from the alliance or lose AW. This is brutal for weak players who cannot handle defenders with huge healthpool that requires specific attackers, I used to carry AW as MVP in the old format and I don't have to think about kicking weak players from my alliance (By weak, I'm referring to new valiant accounts)

Weak players are getting kicked everywhere they go so the playing experience is really bad for them right now, they need a good alliance to help them grow but strong alliances doesn't want weak players so they get kicked left right centre

2. 10 defenders, 10 players means 100% participation and 100% is hard to come by in this game, 1 BG is easily possible, 2 BG is difficult and 3 BG means your alliance have to have 30 hardcore players

Even with 48 hours for them to join and play, some players are casual valiants and it's hard for the alliance leadership to chase after every player every 48 hours

I can be strict and kick every player who doesn't play but that means constant kicking bcos many players are simply casual players

Do you realize what you're saying? The new AW is bad because the bad players can't be carried anymore and have to be kicked instead?

ahmynuts

I absolutely hate the new format

1. As a 7.7 million valiant and alliance leader, I can handle any and every defender on any node but not every member in my alliance are as strong as me, if they find it difficult, they give up and chances are the alliance loses the war bcos of the weakest links in the alliance

This forces the alliance leader to either kick the weakest players from the alliance or lose AW. This is brutal for weak players who cannot handle defenders with huge healthpool that requires specific attackers, I used to carry AW as MVP in the old format and I don't have to think about kicking weak players from my alliance (By weak, I'm referring to new valiant accounts)

Weak players are getting kicked everywhere they go so the playing experience is really bad for them right now, they need a good alliance to help them grow but strong alliances doesn't want weak players so they get kicked left right centre

2. 10 defenders, 10 players means 100% participation and 100% is hard to come by in this game, 1 BG is easily possible, 2 BG is difficult and 3 BG means your alliance have to have 30 hardcore players

Even with 48 hours for them to join and play, some players are casual valiants and it's hard for the alliance leadership to chase after every player every 48 hours

I can be strict and kick every player who doesn't play but that means constant kicking bcos many players are simply casual players
Do you realize what you're saying? The new AW is bad because the bad players can't be carried anymore and have to be kicked instead?

Yeah that's where he lost me too

JESUSCHRIST

I absolutely hate the new format

1. As a 7.7 million valiant and alliance leader, I can handle any and every defender on any node but not every member in my alliance are as strong as me, if they find it difficult, they give up and chances are the alliance loses the war bcos of the weakest links in the alliance

This forces the alliance leader to either kick the weakest players from the alliance or lose AW. This is brutal for weak players who cannot handle defenders with huge healthpool that requires specific attackers, I used to carry AW as MVP in the old format and I don't have to think about kicking weak players from my alliance (By weak, I'm referring to new valiant accounts)

Weak players are getting kicked everywhere they go so the playing experience is really bad for them right now, they need a good alliance to help them grow but strong alliances doesn't want weak players so they get kicked left right centre

2. 10 defenders, 10 players means 100% participation and 100% is hard to come by in this game, 1 BG is easily possible, 2 BG is difficult and 3 BG means your alliance have to have 30 hardcore players

Even with 48 hours for them to join and play, some players are casual valiants and it's hard for the alliance leadership to chase after every player every 48 hours

I can be strict and kick every player who doesn't play but that means constant kicking bcos many players are simply casual players
Do you realize what you're saying? The new AW is bad because the bad players can't be carried anymore and have to be kicked instead?

I think you don't understand this, new valiant accounts can be just 1 million rating, they are not bad players, they are new players who just started playing not very long ago, they need a good alliance for them to grow

AW is brutal in that if the new valiants can't defeat the defender bcos they lack the roster to counter the defender, they can easily be kicked

This is very bad playing experience for newer players

50% of older valiants (4 million and above) are quitting the game based on the large number of valiants joining my alliance

I have no choice but to kick those who stopped playing but those who are still playing and struggling should be given a chance to grow and learn the game

MrSakuragi

I absolutely hate the new format

1. As a 7.7 million valiant and alliance leader, I can handle any and every defender on any node but not every member in my alliance are as strong as me, if they find it difficult, they give up and chances are the alliance loses the war bcos of the weakest links in the alliance

This forces the alliance leader to either kick the weakest players from the alliance or lose AW. This is brutal for weak players who cannot handle defenders with huge healthpool that requires specific attackers, I used to carry AW as MVP in the old format and I don't have to think about kicking weak players from my alliance (By weak, I'm referring to new valiant accounts)

Weak players are getting kicked everywhere they go so the playing experience is really bad for them right now, they need a good alliance to help them grow but strong alliances doesn't want weak players so they get kicked left right centre

2. 10 defenders, 10 players means 100% participation and 100% is hard to come by in this game, 1 BG is easily possible, 2 BG is difficult and 3 BG means your alliance have to have 30 hardcore players

Even with 48 hours for them to join and play, some players are casual valiants and it's hard for the alliance leadership to chase after every player every 48 hours

I can be strict and kick every player who doesn't play but that means constant kicking bcos many players are simply casual players
Do you realize what you're saying? The new AW is bad because the bad players can't be carried anymore and have to be kicked instead?
I think you don't understand this, new valiant accounts can be just 1 million rating, they are not bad players, they are new players who just started playing not very long ago, they need a good alliance for them to grow

AW is brutal in that if the new valiants can't defeat the defender bcos they lack the roster to counter the defender, they can easily be kicked

This is very bad playing experience for newer players

50% of older valiants (4 million and above) are quitting the game based on the large number of valiants joining my alliance

I have no choice but to kick those who stopped playing but those who are still playing and struggling should be given a chance to grow and learn the game

Sounds like they need to be in a lower level alliance then

HungaryHippo

Trying to keep a T1 ally together because people are so apathetic. I actually like this but we wouldn’t survive another season.

Cap_Murica

I'm gonna miss this format next season. My entire alliance loves this format as everyone is active, no one has to be carried and most importantly, war is done in 5 minutes. Plus you need to make sure that you are bringing in the right counter(s)/synergy, else it's going to be a revive fest. Seen Korg get over 150 kills 2 wars back and Onslut get 109 kills last war.

BloodyRose

I don't think people are putting enough of Serpent and Enchantress on the nodes. 5 or 6 out of 10? Come on! Put them on all the spots!

Montycarlo

I loveeeeed this war meta this season I lovveeed that we had to fight 1 no matter how hard just had to bring counters and focus on gaining force charges meanwhile my entire alliance with massive rosters died like flies and hated this seaosn... I loved this war meta it was AWESOME 😎 I wish this is this is the FUTURE OF WAR.

Corkscrew

Ill take bad opinions for 500.

Also the fact that you can take multiple fights means this opinion carries even less weight

It's not the multiple fights that the problem. It's that he didn't say what node bullseye was on that invalidates the opinion. For example, Gentle will do nothing against Bullseye on prowess - I would expect it to be a revive fest. FWIW, easily soloed with Sentinel + LDS synergy.

I have an account in high tier and an account in low tier. I've fought every node on the map and there is very little difference in the multipliers that make a sufficiently tangible difference. Preventing multiple nodes from being covered in high tier forces full participation and prevents getting a "ringer" with a massive account.

The salient difference between tiers is obviously better placements, higher rank and higher sig defenders.

Serpent can be countered on about 8/10 nodes in the map with one spiral and she will probably come out with full health. Yet low tiers love to spam ""tough"" defenders and throw out diversity. I've fought 3 in a war before.

Rebark

Never do that again.
Any planning error or problem costs 10 bonuses and consequently the war.
It is a welcome format as another game mode, it can never replace the alliance war.
Extremely complex and meaningless interactions.
The regeneration node itself is extremely confusing. We sent a Count Nefaria on Sasquatch and in 7 fights, he only gained charge in one. It is hell as a planner having to keep thinking about these interactions. If there are champions whose HP cannot be blocked or reversed, all we had to do was place a node that placed some kind of healing block or ability that prevented regeneration through some mission during the fight. Both Sasquatch and Sersi caused headaches due to the lack of consistency with the node.
In the first war we made Sersi from Kushala, then the following week she no longer gained charges.
All the planners were exhausted and one decided to stop playing, it was the most stressful and frustrating season we have ever played. Not to mention the war where you accidentally banned one of our players and hurt us a lot. It cost us a lot of points, probably our top 10 in the Masters and then he was unbanned and compensated, but the alliance was not compensated in any way.

Dr_Yeti1

I absolutely hate the new format

1. As a 7.7 million valiant and alliance leader, I can handle any and every defender on any node but not every member in my alliance are as strong as me, if they find it difficult, they give up and chances are the alliance loses the war bcos of the weakest links in the alliance

This forces the alliance leader to either kick the weakest players from the alliance or lose AW. This is brutal for weak players who cannot handle defenders with huge healthpool that requires specific attackers, I used to carry AW as MVP in the old format and I don't have to think about kicking weak players from my alliance (By weak, I'm referring to new valiant accounts)

Weak players are getting kicked everywhere they go so the playing experience is really bad for them right now, they need a good alliance to help them grow but strong alliances doesn't want weak players so they get kicked left right centre

2. 10 defenders, 10 players means 100% participation and 100% is hard to come by in this game, 1 BG is easily possible, 2 BG is difficult and 3 BG means your alliance have to have 30 hardcore players

Even with 48 hours for them to join and play, some players are casual valiants and it's hard for the alliance leadership to chase after every player every 48 hours

I can be strict and kick every player who doesn't play but that means constant kicking bcos many players are simply casual players

Absolutely correct! In this new war format, all casual & weaker players will always get kicked until we join a new alliance that does not engage in war. Where is the fun in that? Might as well change the name to “ Contest FOR Whales” since that is what Kabam really wants.

NoahSansman

Never do that again.
Any planning error or problem costs 10 bonuses and consequently the war.
It is a welcome format as another game mode, it can never replace the alliance war.
Extremely complex and meaningless interactions.
The regeneration node itself is extremely confusing. We sent a Count Nefaria on Sasquatch and in 7 fights, he only gained charge in one. It is hell as a planner having to keep thinking about these interactions. If there are champions whose HP cannot be blocked or reversed, all we had to do was place a node that placed some kind of healing block or ability that prevented regeneration through some mission during the fight. Both Sasquatch and Sersi caused headaches due to the lack of consistency with the node.
In the first war we made Sersi from Kushala, then the following week she no longer gained charges.
All the planners were exhausted and one decided to stop playing, it was the most stressful and frustrating season we have ever played. Not to mention the war where you accidentally banned one of our players and hurt us a lot. It cost us a lot of points, probably our top 10 in the Masters and then he was unbanned and compensated, but the alliance was not compensated in any way.

As someone who's on the regen node in a tier 2 ally I have to say that's on you. I've had both a sersi and a sassy on my path before, but what I did is read their kits before going into the fight so stuff like what you described wouldn't happen. This format actually takes less planning than the former because of how many less fights there are.

Rayven5220

I love the format. Easier to plan, less time intensive.
Bring it back!

Rebark

Never do that again.
Any planning error or problem costs 10 bonuses and consequently the war.
It is a welcome format as another game mode, it can never replace the alliance war.
Extremely complex and meaningless interactions.
The regeneration node itself is extremely confusing. We sent a Count Nefaria on Sasquatch and in 7 fights, he only gained charge in one. It is hell as a planner having to keep thinking about these interactions. If there are champions whose HP cannot be blocked or reversed, all we had to do was place a node that placed some kind of healing block or ability that prevented regeneration through some mission during the fight. Both Sasquatch and Sersi caused headaches due to the lack of consistency with the node.
In the first war we made Sersi from Kushala, then the following week she no longer gained charges.
All the planners were exhausted and one decided to stop playing, it was the most stressful and frustrating season we have ever played. Not to mention the war where you accidentally banned one of our players and hurt us a lot. It cost us a lot of points, probably our top 10 in the Masters and then he was unbanned and compensated, but the alliance was not compensated in any way.
As someone who's on the regen node in a tier 2 ally I have to say that's on you. I've had both a sersi and a sassy on my path before, but what I did is read their kits before going into the fight so stuff like what you described wouldn't happen. This format actually takes less planning than the former because of how many less fights there are.

Kushala should decrease Sersi regen because of her kit.
Count Nefaria should farm the node against sasquatch.
If they weren't supposed to, they wouldn't have gained charges in some fights and not in others.

In the last war, a member of another group died 7 times because he didn't gain charges, and in only one of the fights for some reason did he gain two charges. We tried all kinds of changes in the proficiencies.

They could have sent Archangel or Warlock, but the fight isn't exactly safe and someone else from another alliance had played Count Nefaria.

It's inconsistent. So much so that this same node was changed 3 times throughout the season. We're having to send Archangel on Sersi and it's a fight close to timeout, because sometimes Kushala works and sometimes it doesn't. Some champions can't be blocked by healing or have their health reversed. For these, only Archangel and Warlock work with any certainty.

NoahSansman

Never do that again.
Any planning error or problem costs 10 bonuses and consequently the war.
It is a welcome format as another game mode, it can never replace the alliance war.
Extremely complex and meaningless interactions.
The regeneration node itself is extremely confusing. We sent a Count Nefaria on Sasquatch and in 7 fights, he only gained charge in one. It is hell as a planner having to keep thinking about these interactions. If there are champions whose HP cannot be blocked or reversed, all we had to do was place a node that placed some kind of healing block or ability that prevented regeneration through some mission during the fight. Both Sasquatch and Sersi caused headaches due to the lack of consistency with the node.
In the first war we made Sersi from Kushala, then the following week she no longer gained charges.
All the planners were exhausted and one decided to stop playing, it was the most stressful and frustrating season we have ever played. Not to mention the war where you accidentally banned one of our players and hurt us a lot. It cost us a lot of points, probably our top 10 in the Masters and then he was unbanned and compensated, but the alliance was not compensated in any way.
As someone who's on the regen node in a tier 2 ally I have to say that's on you. I've had both a sersi and a sassy on my path before, but what I did is read their kits before going into the fight so stuff like what you described wouldn't happen. This format actually takes less planning than the former because of how many less fights there are.
Kushala should decrease Sersi regen because of her kit.
Count Nefaria should farm the node against sasquatch.
If they weren't supposed to, they wouldn't have gained charges in some fights and not in others.

In the last war, a member of another group died 7 times because he didn't gain charges, and in only one of the fights for some reason did he gain two charges. We tried all kinds of changes in the proficiencies.

They could have sent Archangel or Warlock, but the fight isn't exactly safe and someone else from another alliance had played Count Nefaria.

It's inconsistent. So much so that this same node was changed 3 times throughout the season. We're having to send Archangel on Sersi and it's a fight close to timeout, because sometimes Kushala works and sometimes it doesn't. Some champions can't be blocked by healing or have their health reversed. For these, only Archangel and Warlock work with any certainty.

No. Sersi's regen rate cannot be lowered below 0%, so before the node was changed, it was clear that only champs with healblock or special abilities to prevent healing like warlock and AA would work for her. Meaning no kushala. And for sassy, it says in his kit that if regen rate is inverted all regen effects are removed. So logically, nefaria would not work. I fought both and did not time out, in fact I'd say this is an easy node. Its fine if you don't like the new format, but your criticisms have no legs to stand on.

ShaggyM

I would like to see something in the middle. Two paths, 4 defenders(minimum) and 4 Boss islands are too much and one fight is too little. Maybe 2-3 fights and A boss island or something like that. I don't have a real fix I just know both ways are missing the mark.

Elux

Fighting 10m+ to 12m defenders is ridiculous but doable the boosts soon go down

ahmynuts

Never do that again.
Any planning error or problem costs 10 bonuses and consequently the war.
It is a welcome format as another game mode, it can never replace the alliance war.
Extremely complex and meaningless interactions.
The regeneration node itself is extremely confusing. We sent a Count Nefaria on Sasquatch and in 7 fights, he only gained charge in one. It is hell as a planner having to keep thinking about these interactions. If there are champions whose HP cannot be blocked or reversed, all we had to do was place a node that placed some kind of healing block or ability that prevented regeneration through some mission during the fight. Both Sasquatch and Sersi caused headaches due to the lack of consistency with the node.
In the first war we made Sersi from Kushala, then the following week she no longer gained charges.
All the planners were exhausted and one decided to stop playing, it was the most stressful and frustrating season we have ever played. Not to mention the war where you accidentally banned one of our players and hurt us a lot. It cost us a lot of points, probably our top 10 in the Masters and then he was unbanned and compensated, but the alliance was not compensated in any way.
As someone who's on the regen node in a tier 2 ally I have to say that's on you. I've had both a sersi and a sassy on my path before, but what I did is read their kits before going into the fight so stuff like what you described wouldn't happen. This format actually takes less planning than the former because of how many less fights there are.
Kushala should decrease Sersi regen because of her kit.
Count Nefaria should farm the node against sasquatch.
If they weren't supposed to, they wouldn't have gained charges in some fights and not in others.

In the last war, a member of another group died 7 times because he didn't gain charges, and in only one of the fights for some reason did he gain two charges. We tried all kinds of changes in the proficiencies.

They could have sent Archangel or Warlock, but the fight isn't exactly safe and someone else from another alliance had played Count Nefaria.

It's inconsistent. So much so that this same node was changed 3 times throughout the season. We're having to send Archangel on Sersi and it's a fight close to timeout, because sometimes Kushala works and sometimes it doesn't. Some champions can't be blocked by healing or have their health reversed. For these, only Archangel and Warlock work with any certainty.

I used nefaria against enchantress on this node too. He just nukes it

Nameless_IW

To be quite honest the only change i will make for this new war format, is to make it 9 fight so we have a back up. We are all humans and make mistakes from time to time. You can't expect us to be error free right Kabam? specially knowingly all the errors and mistakes you guys have had with 95% of all your new monthly updates.

One of the major reason i love this new map is the fact that i only need to boost up once. Instead of 2 or 3 or even sometimes 4 times with the old map.

Rayven5220

Never do that again.
Any planning error or problem costs 10 bonuses and consequently the war.
It is a welcome format as another game mode, it can never replace the alliance war.
Extremely complex and meaningless interactions.
The regeneration node itself is extremely confusing. We sent a Count Nefaria on Sasquatch and in 7 fights, he only gained charge in one. It is hell as a planner having to keep thinking about these interactions. If there are champions whose HP cannot be blocked or reversed, all we had to do was place a node that placed some kind of healing block or ability that prevented regeneration through some mission during the fight. Both Sasquatch and Sersi caused headaches due to the lack of consistency with the node.
In the first war we made Sersi from Kushala, then the following week she no longer gained charges.
All the planners were exhausted and one decided to stop playing, it was the most stressful and frustrating season we have ever played. Not to mention the war where you accidentally banned one of our players and hurt us a lot. It cost us a lot of points, probably our top 10 in the Masters and then he was unbanned and compensated, but the alliance was not compensated in any way.
As someone who's on the regen node in a tier 2 ally I have to say that's on you. I've had both a sersi and a sassy on my path before, but what I did is read their kits before going into the fight so stuff like what you described wouldn't happen. This format actually takes less planning than the former because of how many less fights there are.
Kushala should decrease Sersi regen because of her kit.
Count Nefaria should farm the node against sasquatch.
If they weren't supposed to, they wouldn't have gained charges in some fights and not in others.

In the last war, a member of another group died 7 times because he didn't gain charges, and in only one of the fights for some reason did he gain two charges. We tried all kinds of changes in the proficiencies.

They could have sent Archangel or Warlock, but the fight isn't exactly safe and someone else from another alliance had played Count Nefaria.

It's inconsistent. So much so that this same node was changed 3 times throughout the season. We're having to send Archangel on Sersi and it's a fight close to timeout, because sometimes Kushala works and sometimes it doesn't. Some champions can't be blocked by healing or have their health reversed. For these, only Archangel and Warlock work with any certainty.
No. Sersi's regen rate cannot be lowered below 0%, so before the node was changed, it was clear that only champs with healblock or special abilities to prevent healing like warlock and AA would work for her. Meaning no kushala. And for sassy, it says in his kit that if regen rate is inverted all regen effects are removed. So logically, nefaria would not work. I fought both and did not time out, in fact I'd say this is an easy node. Its fine if you don't like the new format, but your criticisms have no legs to stand on.

Nefaria wrecks sassy on node 3. Been there, done the fight, and he works. Not sure why but he does.

He works so well that our alliance got accused of cheating because, and I quote "that fight is impossible with the team I brought".
The team is brought was Void which obviously doesn't work, and nefaria which wrecked him.