We are aware of the issues surrounding collecting items from an in-game message(s). The team is working to resolve the issue and is hoping to have it sorted by the end of the week. More information and future communications will happen here.
We will be closing/merging any newly created threads related to this issue.
We will be closing/merging any newly created threads related to this issue.
While that is a potential problem, I don't believe it is the most important one, because even if the rate of 100% explore was exactly the same in all tiers, the multiplier would still be necessary for AW seasons to function at all. The notion that it is not necessary rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of how war tiers themselves function: the notion that being in a higher tier means you win more often. That's subtly but critically wrong: being in a higher tier means you won more often, placing you in a higher tier. But once you reach the tier that matches you against comparable competition, your win rate must then eventually stabilize to something close to 50/50.
If every alliance started in tier 22, and then win/loss record pushed every alliance up or down based on win/loss record, then the multiplier would be less necessary. But in that situation everyone would be randomly matched against potential behemoths who would run them over on their way to marching to tier 1. That's not ideal.
As I said, based on a some simple back-of-the-envelope numbers, if we clear at least two bosses it doesn't make sense for us -- that is, I don't think this is a problem because of the specific multipliers.
But if we rise to hard matches in T1-T3 where we average 1 boss or so for losses (and especially if we average fewer than 3 bosses for wins) then we should sandbag defense to go down in ranking to get easier matches -- I know we can ~always clear 3 maps in T4 (easier nodes), so if we lost on attacker kills in T4 we'd get at least ~900k for wins and ~675k for losses (average of about 787.5k, ignoring the fact that you lose a little more rank on loses than you gain on wins).
I think that probably won't happen though -- the extra 1/3 (4.5 -> 6) makes up for missing a fair chunk of the map at T3 and better.
What I'm trying to say is that while that situation exists for you, that can't be the primary reason for the multiplier because even if that wasn't true the lack of a multiplier would still break the season system. The multiplier helps you out of that problem, but it would be there with or without that problem.
A small mistake but now I'm wondering what other errors could be in the announcement.
That one is for us to be able to see the live leaderboard. It was supposed to be available in 7 days from now not 14.
plz be a fluke just for this war and have AW matchmaking still only by war rating alone.
edit: match found in 45 mins, may have just been due to higher war rating than last week or two
what happens if we choose to switch alliances during the season?
The announcement specifies that you must have fought at least five wars with the alliance you are in at the end of the season to be eligible for end of season rewards. If you switch alliances, the counter resets to zero, and you must fight at least five wars with your new alliance to be eligible for the end of season rewards.
I believe you should protest this by starting up match making constantly, and then just not fighting in the war at all. That way you get the loser bracket rewards for free, Kabam gets no money or time from you, and everyone else moves up in rank for better rewards. This is a win-win all around.
Is the Master Bracket still top 20 as the original post suggested or top 25 as the rewards show right now on the AW Season Page in-game?
Every match rewards should be buffed .
Such a terrible idea ...
I got a single L2 health potion last time which was pretty worthless.
It also messed up that my alliance was top 100 until we had seriously 10 matchups in dec/Jan in a row with crazy stronger alliances and now we are tier 6. Those rewards are awesome do top 300 and awful for 95% or the other alliances in the game. Gap is going to be huge now and no one can recover from that after a season or two.
That has more to do with changing how war was scored. It went from PI/diversity based back to mostly skill based. My alliance has won 13 straight wars. Get better at winning fights without dying if you want to move back up.
I do agree that the t2a and t5b cutoffs are a bit too high. T5b should come down another tier or two before disappearing altogether and t2as should extend down about 4 or 5 more tiers.
1)Season score calculation change:
I have yet to see the end point screen, however, based on kabam mike’s announcement post, i can assume tat each war’s final score is counted as part of the calculation. This means tat every death counts which is no good. Of course, number of deaths reflect skill, but level of difficulty also depends who u r matched with varying alliance’s death count. Instead, a fixed number for win and lose should only be used with the multiplier...this suggestion makes competition more fair imo. Also, every single death counting, not only as a win condition to each war, but impacting total season score will UNDOUBTEDLY encourage more piloting. Yes, piloting is against tos, but it is a fact tat top alliances pilot. Very easy to prove.
I am guessing that the leaderboard is disabled because u guys wanna monitor how alliances end up on the rank chart. I really hope u guys take my suggestion in mind.
I have criticized multiple times that u guys need to adjust ur search parameters, so alliances dont take 4 hours to search. Aside time search issues, fair matchups is also a concern, but not a big one atm.
30 points still affects aw too much. Top 50, esp top20 alliances r being forced to place high diversity because of increasing piloting and low death rate. Should lower diversity points to 10-15 points. Or even better, diversity should be capped at 20 or 30 out of 50 per bg. This will still encourage people to place diverse defenders, yet not place too-weak defenders which may in turn affect and evaluate attackers’ skill more accurately also.
4)AW season rewards:
I believe the reward difference should be tweaked more. I suggest master bracket to be top30 at least. Or improve platinum brackets’ rewards.
Don't they give a hugeboost, to the score of top alliances, and let them stay at top at the end of every season?
It makes top alliance to grow thier roster much faster and dominate top spots.
AW season can be much better for all the players if there isnt huge score booster for the top alliances.
This has been asked and answered more than once. There are lots of reasons for the multiplier, but the most important reason for the multiplier is that it is absolutely necessary for alliance war seasons to work. Outside of the multiplier, everyone earns more or less the same amount of points in alliance war. Without a multiplier, an alliance with a 50/50 win/loss record in tier 22 could easily have more points at the end of the season as a tier 1 alliance with a 50/50 win/loss record in tier 1.
Because of this, without a multiplier the logical thing for all tier 1 alliances to do would be to disband at the start of every season and create a new alliance that would start at the bottom in tier 22, and promptly destroy every alliance they face, earning a 100% win record and beating everyone else while making a mockery of the match making system. The multiplier creates an incentive to start the season as high as possible. Without it, the incentive would be to start as low as possible - to get the easiest competition. And no one really wants that to be the way seasons work.
To put it another way, you can give tier 1 alliances an incentive to start in tier 1 and gain more points per war, or you can give them no incentive to stay in tier 1 and instead force them to improve their performance by winning more wars - which they can do by dropping down and fighting lower tier alliances and getting guaranteed wins. Pick one. Either way, they are going to be unbeatable.
Maybe the huge imbalance you are creating will be solved by 7*’s?
I don't see how you could possibly know how much shards will be in the black crystal, but okay let's say you're correct, and it is an insignificant amount. In that case, let's ignore them when comparing Platinum 3 and Gold 1. Gold 1 has zero T5B shards. Platinum 3 has 4500 shards, which is one tenth of a T5B crystal. Every two months. Please explain how this "huge imbalance" is something every single player in the Platinum 3 tier will be able to parlay into permanently locking out everyone in Gold 1 tier from being able to advance into the Platinum 3 tier.
Just wait bro.
Gold 1 will give minimum of 6k t2a frags + whatever bonus frags are in each crystal.