Allowing my members to have lives and still having effective strategies seems like it will now cost us.
Its up to you to decide whether having a life is worth some catalysts and 6* fragments. That's an easy decision for me, and it would be for anyone who actually treats this as a form of entertainment.
@Kabam Miike is kabam aware that many alliance's are now discussing mergers that involve taking only their members with the best rosters and kicking the rest, which cost the game a huge number of players? I get this will increase profits per player, but won't it actually cost profits due to the amount of players lost or pushed to smaller alliance's? It just seems slightly short sighted to always push immediate profits over long-term loyalty among customers.
Whenever you add competition, and provide sufficient rewards to make that competition meaningful, you will draw out the best in some people and the worst in others. That's unavoidable, and you shouldn't be beholden to the impulses of the worst players. For any player that isn't a psycho, the new system will give them more rewards for the same level of play, and the opportunity for more rewards with more play on a completely voluntary basis. Players that find themselves with incompatible goals with their current alliance can find new ones or form new ones. The same thing happened to some extent with season three and season four of AQ.
We can't deny the vast majority of players something nice just because a tiny minority can't control themselves. I'm perfectly fine with an alliance of thirty like-minded people that want to go all-out and take the top spot. Everyone has to have a hobby, and frankly the time and money it takes to take that top spot isn't out of line relative to lots of other perfectly acceptable adult hobbies. We don't ridicule people whose hobby is amateur astronomy or owning classic cars, two hobbies that take comparable or higher amounts of time and money. And I'm perfectly fine with the alliances who won't devote that kind of effort into it, and are willing to just do what they are willing to do and let the reward tier fall where they may. And the people who want more than they are willing to devote effort to get? They need to recalibrate their wants.
What bothers me the most is this automatic accusation thrown at Kabam whenever they do anything remotely controversial, which is to frame it as Kabam pushing for "immediate profits." I often disagree with many of the details of what they do, but things like expanding and modifying how 5* champions work, the introduction of 6* champions, and the AW season system? These are all *obvious* future development expansions that would be obvious even if this was a subscription game with no microtransactions in it.
I don't know if this will be a short-term revenue enhancer for Kabam. But adding more strong player competition elements isn't a short sighted maneuver. In the long run, games like this depend for their long term survival on balancing the PvE content of the game and the PvP competitive elements that are usually the ultimate end game of most MMOs. This game is currently extremely light on competition. That's unusual in a game as old as this. That situation cannot last indefinitely. This is a lesson I hope the version 15 Alliance War fiasco taught them.
@Kabam Miike My Alliance's Rating is 7.3Mil .
So where will be placed in the bracket ?
(Gold , Silver or Stone)? Plz , I want to know.
Your war rating will not determine where you start, only your Multiplier. You can see where you stack up there in the Chart in the original post. Your bracket is determined by how many points you win during the Season.
So there is a multiplier for ratings...
Well top 300 Alliances truely wont move then because they will always get multiplier to start them in better tiers.
Why stop there? Shouldn't every alliance be unable to go anywhere, because every alliance above them will have advantages in scoring? And shouldn't every player that starts today be doomed to be in the bottom 1% of all players forever?
It seems like to be even in gold 1 or 2 you will have to 100% every map you play for the entire season, win or lose. I haven't seen anything related to how matchmaking will be determined, if it will still be based on war rating or points standing. Hopefully this has all been thought out by the team and some spreadsheet guys can't find a way to shell and have easy wars that allow them to rack up more points than guys playing it straight and doing the standard where you win a few and lose a few.
@Kabam Miike do you have any response at all to the overwhelming negativity? I read through 4 pages of comments and saw only 1 comment defending this system and it was a guy in the top 300. Maybe you dont realize what it takes to get into the top 300 (diddy money and years of playing) which I find it highly unlikely that you dont, or you just flatout dont care whatsoever about the average players. I love the grinding aspect of the game, but even in the top 1500 tier (which will be flatout unattainable for the average alliance no matter how hard you work towards it) it would take 10 months to earn a 6 star!! In the same period of time the top 20 alliances will have earned five 6*s!! Idk what 6* Ratings will be starting off but let's say they start at 5k, the top 20 alliances would gain a rating of 750k in that time period just off of unranked 6*s where top 1500 gain a measly 150k in the same period. This doesn't even begin to cover the exponential increase that would occur because of the top 20 routinely gaining the materials needed to rank these 6*s up. Are you seeing the enormous gap youre creating by having such small brackets and such huge dropoffs in rewards? This system keeps everyone in the same spot they're in. I get that the game has to make money, but you're literally only making the top money spenders happy and giving a huge **** you to the guys who can't afford to throw all their families money into the game
I still say the rewards are good, but the issue is...it will temp the alliances that run one or two member pilots to always do it. It will also make the rich richer so this may be the end of my play soon. It's getting silly.
@Kabam Miike do you have any response at all to the overwhelming negativity? I read through 4 pages of comments and saw only 1 comment defending this system and it was a guy in the top 300.
I found five separate posters in the first three pages, not counting posters who appeared to be fine with the system but only posted counter-arguments for other players or made quips.
I love the grinding aspect of the game, but even in the top 1500 tier (which will be flatout unattainable for the average alliance no matter how hard you work towards it) it would take 10 months to earn a 6 star!! In the same period of time the top 20 alliances will have earned five 6*s!!
Well of course the average alliance can't reach top 1500 when there are over 30,000 alliances. The average alliance is approximately rank 15000, or about Bronze 1 tier. But you appear to have read the rewards wrong. Assuming the rewards remain the same and the season duration remains the same, a top 20 alliance would have earned three 6* champs in the same time a top 1500 alliance earned one. Rank 20 gets only three times the 6* shards as rank 1500, which doesn't seem out of whack at all. Only one alliance gets 10,000 6* shards for the season, and that's Master 1 - i.e. the top alliance period. Exactly one alliance gets that reward.
It looks like we forgot to mention one very important thing in the original post! I've seen a number of you commenting that there is not enough progression materials in the Gold brackets. Well, if you look at the Rewards again, you'll notice that next to the Tier 4 Class Catalyst Crystals, there are some Black Crystals.
These are Seasons Crystals. Seasons Crystals contain only Tier 2 Alpha Fragments and Tier 5 Basic Fragments, with a small chance to score an entire Tier 2 Alpha Catalyst!
Wow that makes the jump even bigger between 300 and 301. WAY TO GO KABAM :-(
Gold 1 should get 9k alpha tier 2 shards and 2000 tb5 shards. That would be a way for it being more fair and not just a creditcard/unit battle about getting into the execlusive top 300 club!!!!!
I just have a question. Let’s say I join 4 different alliance within a season. Each of them I do at least 5 wars. At the end. I got 4 different rewards or only the last alliance one ?
@Kabam Miike do you have any response at all to the overwhelming negativity? I read through 4 pages of comments and saw only 1 comment defending this system and it was a guy in the top 300. Maybe you dont realize what it takes to get into the top 300 (diddy money and years of playing) which I find it highly unlikely that you dont, or you just flatout dont care whatsoever about the average players. I love the grinding aspect of the game, but even in the top 1500 tier (which will be flatout unattainable for the average alliance no matter how hard you work towards it) it would take 10 months to earn a 6 star!! In the same period of time the top 20 alliances will have earned five 6*s!! Idk what 6* Ratings will be starting off but let's say they start at 5k, the top 20 alliances would gain a rating of 750k in that time period just off of unranked 6*s where top 1500 gain a measly 150k in the same period. This doesn't even begin to cover the exponential increase that would occur because of the top 20 routinely gaining the materials needed to rank these 6*s up. Are you seeing the enormous gap youre creating by having such small brackets and such huge dropoffs in rewards? This system keeps everyone in the same spot they're in. I get that the game has to make money, but you're literally only making the top money spenders happy and giving a huge **** you to the guys who can't afford to throw all their families money into the game
i disagree and ill tell you why. Exactly one year ago my alliance was a 6 mil alliance and not close to being a top 300 alliance. We all worked hard for a year in an alliance that had very little turnover. We still have most of our core but did lose people to having other priorities. None of us have Diddy money or at least I know for sure I dont. We are now a 15 mil alliance and in the top 100. So all I'm saying is if your alliance works hard enough you can get in the top 300. Let the changes take place before you complain. None of us know how it will be and who knows maybe everyone in the top 300 will hate it.
Wow the new rewards for a war victory suck!! What happened to the 4* shards? Will be worse off now in the long run considering 4* dupes give is 275 5* shards. These rewards need to be looked at again. Must be some sort of mistake...
@Kabam Miike can you verify that the split of the old tier 1 into 3 tiers was sorted correctly? My alliance is currently ranked 19 in war rating and placed in tier 3 (.6% - 1%). That would mean with 18 alliances ahead of us, tier 2 consists of around 14 alliances (.2% - .5%) and tier 1 consist of around 4 alliances (top .1%). This is assuming best case scenario where rank 19 alliance is around .6%, it would be even less if there are higher ranked alliances in tier 3. By this logic, the cutoff for tier 3 (top 1%) should be no greater than the top 40 alliances. Just want to verify if that is right.
New rewards for AW, ridicilous smal,omfg ,whats going on to the game ,whats happening to kabam? Why your all innovations is such a dissappointing your almost all players,just think about it
@Kabam Miike
Please little more questions..
1- for ally doing 2 BG wars is it effects on the rewards and how's different ?
2- for the jumpers , we all suffered from those so if we brought new members during the season running will Missed all rewards ? Or need to do 5 wars at least ?
3- for who doing 2 BG .. is only one from the alliance who shared on the full season who will got the rewards , or just doing 5 wars during this season?
Multipliers work both ways right? So you win more, but lose more at the higher levels... so those in lower tiers can catch alliances who lose a few on the bounce...
Multipliers work both ways right? So you win more, but lose more at the higher levels... so those in lower tiers can catch alliances who lose a few on the bounce...
You don't lose points for losing though. You still get points and theyd be multiplied. So losing a war in tier 1 can be just as beneficial as winning a war in tier 8 or whatever.
Multipliers will greatly impact an alliance’s score. Just imagening the difference in score between playing map5 vs map6 is clearly apparent. I am seeing a top30 aw alliance in tier3. Please elaborate how you guys place an alliance into which tier.
In my opinion, you guys should reduce the reward difference between each bracket a bit more. Although it will depend on how much more t2a and t5b will become available, based kn current standing, it seems too much of a difference between lets say a platinum1 or 2 vs top ranks in master bracket. Another suggestion is to broaden the master bracket more.
Multipliers will greatly impact an alliance’s score. Just imagening the difference in score between playing map5 vs map6 is clearly apparent. I am seeing a top30 aw alliance in tier3. Please elaborate how you guys place an alliance into which tier.
In my opinion, you guys should reduce the reward difference between each bracket a bit more. Although it will depend on how much more t2a and t5b will become available, based kn current standing, it seems too much of a difference between lets say a platinum1 or 2 vs top ranks in master bracket. Another suggestion is to broaden the master bracket more.
So @Kabam Miike my quastion is... how many alliances there are in first 1% ? If is 300 then only 1% of all alliance have chance to take t2 alpha,right?
So @Kabam Miike my quastion is... how many alliances there are in first 1% ? If is 300 then only 1% of all alliance have chance to take t2 alpha,right?
Pretty much, unless you get lucky and pull one from the seasons crystal.
I think the reason all alliances are in Tier 3 is so that everyone starts at the same level/tier.
If you have alliances that are already in 1 & 2, which means they are already ahead of everyone else, which is extremely unfair for those that have to fight an uphill battle.
But, my question is, when will winning and loosing actually count?
Starting today? or Starting on the first war of the new season?
Comments
Its up to you to decide whether having a life is worth some catalysts and 6* fragments. That's an easy decision for me, and it would be for anyone who actually treats this as a form of entertainment.
Whenever you add competition, and provide sufficient rewards to make that competition meaningful, you will draw out the best in some people and the worst in others. That's unavoidable, and you shouldn't be beholden to the impulses of the worst players. For any player that isn't a psycho, the new system will give them more rewards for the same level of play, and the opportunity for more rewards with more play on a completely voluntary basis. Players that find themselves with incompatible goals with their current alliance can find new ones or form new ones. The same thing happened to some extent with season three and season four of AQ.
We can't deny the vast majority of players something nice just because a tiny minority can't control themselves. I'm perfectly fine with an alliance of thirty like-minded people that want to go all-out and take the top spot. Everyone has to have a hobby, and frankly the time and money it takes to take that top spot isn't out of line relative to lots of other perfectly acceptable adult hobbies. We don't ridicule people whose hobby is amateur astronomy or owning classic cars, two hobbies that take comparable or higher amounts of time and money. And I'm perfectly fine with the alliances who won't devote that kind of effort into it, and are willing to just do what they are willing to do and let the reward tier fall where they may. And the people who want more than they are willing to devote effort to get? They need to recalibrate their wants.
What bothers me the most is this automatic accusation thrown at Kabam whenever they do anything remotely controversial, which is to frame it as Kabam pushing for "immediate profits." I often disagree with many of the details of what they do, but things like expanding and modifying how 5* champions work, the introduction of 6* champions, and the AW season system? These are all *obvious* future development expansions that would be obvious even if this was a subscription game with no microtransactions in it.
I don't know if this will be a short-term revenue enhancer for Kabam. But adding more strong player competition elements isn't a short sighted maneuver. In the long run, games like this depend for their long term survival on balancing the PvE content of the game and the PvP competitive elements that are usually the ultimate end game of most MMOs. This game is currently extremely light on competition. That's unusual in a game as old as this. That situation cannot last indefinitely. This is a lesson I hope the version 15 Alliance War fiasco taught them.
Why stop there? Shouldn't every alliance be unable to go anywhere, because every alliance above them will have advantages in scoring? And shouldn't every player that starts today be doomed to be in the bottom 1% of all players forever?
I found five separate posters in the first three pages, not counting posters who appeared to be fine with the system but only posted counter-arguments for other players or made quips.
Well of course the average alliance can't reach top 1500 when there are over 30,000 alliances. The average alliance is approximately rank 15000, or about Bronze 1 tier. But you appear to have read the rewards wrong. Assuming the rewards remain the same and the season duration remains the same, a top 20 alliance would have earned three 6* champs in the same time a top 1500 alliance earned one. Rank 20 gets only three times the 6* shards as rank 1500, which doesn't seem out of whack at all. Only one alliance gets 10,000 6* shards for the season, and that's Master 1 - i.e. the top alliance period. Exactly one alliance gets that reward.
Wow that makes the jump even bigger between 300 and 301. WAY TO GO KABAM :-(
Gold 1 should get 9k alpha tier 2 shards and 2000 tb5 shards. That would be a way for it being more fair and not just a creditcard/unit battle about getting into the execlusive top 300 club!!!!!
I just have a question. Let’s say I join 4 different alliance within a season. Each of them I do at least 5 wars. At the end. I got 4 different rewards or only the last alliance one ?
Why I’m already tired thinking about it
i disagree and ill tell you why. Exactly one year ago my alliance was a 6 mil alliance and not close to being a top 300 alliance. We all worked hard for a year in an alliance that had very little turnover. We still have most of our core but did lose people to having other priorities. None of us have Diddy money or at least I know for sure I dont. We are now a 15 mil alliance and in the top 100. So all I'm saying is if your alliance works hard enough you can get in the top 300. Let the changes take place before you complain. None of us know how it will be and who knows maybe everyone in the top 300 will hate it.
So for any decent rewards you have to wait for 2 months....wth these guys think it would be acceptable to the community.
Kabam thinks we need to grind for wars for straight 2 months..NO thanks 🙏🏼
#RIPWARS
#RIPFEATUREDCRYSTALS
Yeah,thats kabam baby,there are know better )))
Please little more questions..
1- for ally doing 2 BG wars is it effects on the rewards and how's different ?
2- for the jumpers , we all suffered from those so if we brought new members during the season running will Missed all rewards ? Or need to do 5 wars at least ?
3- for who doing 2 BG .. is only one from the alliance who shared on the full season who will got the rewards , or just doing 5 wars during this season?
also, it appears that most if not all of the very top AW alliances are all in "tier 3" ... even the 3rd ranked AW alliance is tier 3.
You don't lose points for losing though. You still get points and theyd be multiplied. So losing a war in tier 1 can be just as beneficial as winning a war in tier 8 or whatever.
In my opinion, you guys should reduce the reward difference between each bracket a bit more. Although it will depend on how much more t2a and t5b will become available, based kn current standing, it seems too much of a difference between lets say a platinum1 or 2 vs top ranks in master bracket. Another suggestion is to broaden the master bracket more.
Exactly,kabam hate us,i think!
Pretty much, unless you get lucky and pull one from the seasons crystal.
Is this a bug that not one Alli is in Tier 1?
If you have alliances that are already in 1 & 2, which means they are already ahead of everyone else, which is extremely unfair for those that have to fight an uphill battle.
But, my question is, when will winning and loosing actually count?
Starting today? or Starting on the first war of the new season?
(what's up Fabi!)