**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Comments
Ever since the start of this new AW, it's been repeated losses (7 times in fact) and it's either because the opposing alliance is willing to spend to win or because the gameplay is almost rigged for failure. Parry barely works (unless it is by the opposition), special 1 or special 2 attacks are almost always blocked. The game, specifically from an AW perspective, has become more and more disappointing. I am not asking for an easy win, I appreciate a challenge as much as any player but sometimes this is entirely unbalanced and it obviously favors the company if someone pays to win.
We prefer win some points by unfair match that lose all the points by not play the war.
1. Dying is penalized, up to a point, per defender, under the current scoring rules.
2. You cannot do this because it creates exploit opportunities. If you can get more points for defeating stronger defenders than weaker defenders, that means your opponent can actually deny you points by placing weak defenders. The optimum strategy would become placing 2* defenders on all the weak nodes and 5* defenders on all the hard nodes, so that your chances of defeating the strong nodes in one try are low, and your bonus points for defeating a weaker node would be reduced.
We already went through a war iteration where the rules encouraged players to do something other than to place the strongest defense possible and failed to reward the stronger attackers in the war. It is not a good idea to implement rules that allow players to manipulate scoring in any way other than by trying to fight as hard as possible. That's why the "empty node" rule exists: to prevent the opponent from denying the attacker points by taking defenders away you can attack. That was also a defect in previous alliance war iterations.
The constant logging in & logging out on a regular basis for both AQ & AW, is starting to severely interfere with my job. The constant piloting of multiple accounts when facing an alliance is a total turnoff. The way alliance members turn on their "so-called" brethren in top alliances, or how top alliances break up & disband, because some of their members are not as skilled, is also a total turnoff. I'd rather run solo & enjoy my Summer, then deal with this season nonsense, tbh. I mean, the rewards are very nice if you're able to rank in for them, but they come with many complications.
I don't think you can really put the bulk of the blame on AW seasons. AWS might be bringing out the worst in some, or amplifying already bad behavior in the pursuit of rewards, but since the rewards give more to everyone than before, I think it is up to the alliances to decide how much they are willing to do to pursue the best rewards. Alliances have the choices to continue to do what they have always done and still get more than before, which is a net plus for all their members. And it is then up to the players to decide if the alliance they are in is compatible with the game play they want to get out of the game.
I have nothing against the players that want to do whatever it takes to compete for the top rewards, and I'm also actually glad the game actually contains top rewards for them to compete for. I don't need the top rewards and I don't want to do what it takes to achieve them, but I believe a good game offers something for everyone. Maybe going solo is the best thing, or maybe joining a casual alliance and being the resident behemoth would be a good downshift. But I believe moderation relative to desire is the best thing: do as much as you want, but no more. The game can still be enjoyable outside of the very top tier of play. Seasons doesn't change that in my opinion, it just makes the choice a lot more obvious than it was before.
Absolutely! I still very much enjoy the game, & totally love the new & improved monthly quests. It will be a treat for me to actually play them at my own pace, while enjoying some time off. Sometimes it's needed, brother, especially if you've been playing for 3 1/2 years non-stop like myself. The AW rewards don't really fancy me either, even though they are nice; but, I'm not going to kill myself & lose sleep in trying to attain them. I actually want to enjoy this Summer coming up & use up my vacation days, without having to worry about logging in all the time.
I think that is an entirely admirable attitude to take to an MMO, where there is no end to the game unless you quit. When I used to play PC MMOs, I used to take breaks all the time.
Yes: the tiers are based on percentages of the total active alliances ranked by war rating. The information is listed oddly in the game, but I believe tier 4 includes the alliances from the top 1% to 3% of all alliances. In other words, to jump out of tier 4 and enter tier 3 you have to rise into the top 1% of all alliances and the competition there might be extremely high. You can look up your alliance war rating in the leaderboard to see if you are gaining in actual rank with each win and by about how much. My best guess is you have to get somewhere above the top 500 to 600 alliances to enter the top 1% and rank 3.
Incidentally, Kabam still hasn't corrected the rank breakdowns yet. For example, tier 3 is listed as "0.6% - 1%" and tier 4 is listed as "2% - 3%" leaving the range between 1% and 2% in limbo. I'm assuming tier 4 actually covers 1% to 3% excluding 1%.
There’s a couple reasons why this may be the case but this is probably the main reason. Multipliers at t1-3 are keeping you from gaining any ground.
You can win a war at t4 and get aproximitetly 200k with the 50k win bonus. While in t3 you can lose and the multiplier makes up for 50k win bonus.
It works the same as the tiers increase.
It can be difficult to catch up with alliances in tier 3 from tier 4 because of the multiplier, but the multiplier alone can't fully explain this. The multiplier means a loss in tier 3 can score comparable points to a win in tier 4, but non-stop wins in tier 4 ought to eventually jump you into tier 3, since multiplier doesn't help you keep war rating.
We were able to do it last week but it took 6 wars wins in a row and starting matchmaking while we were in T3 because we had a war over other who had not finished theirs.
You don’t fully make up for it in points but it’s pretty close.
144,770 x 6 = 868,200 for a loss
197,370 x 4.5 = 888,165 for a win.
Oh, and thanks again for removing thorns and slashed tires. We are oh-so thankful to you for doing that ...... and then introducing Act 5 nodes and throwing limber and bleed/poison immunity all over the place.
#kabam Miike
To crown the top allies with these rewards and given the AW matching is coin-toss, may I offer a suggestion.
To be fair and To Crown Best allies, there should be a round robin round of top 10 allies (by season points standing) in the last 3 weeks of the AW season 1.
Seasons end April 3. That means there are only 4 wars left, after the current one ends. So, both statements are correct.
How many wars a week are you running? It is possible to run 3 wars a week. Between now and April 3, that leaves about 12 wars left to participate in before the end of the season
Miike said in the beginning of this discussion that you had to participate in 5 wars, not 5 weeks of wars, in order to get the season rewards. It was one of the first few questions asked regarding blackouts.
This is his quote.
yeah... no...this is not how it should be run. no reward system has a wait period of a month+
You have to be in your alliance to claim SA rewards. Were people expecting to claim multiple rewards from multiple alliances?