**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
Comments
This is an interesting conjecture, so I decided to test it, especially since I wasn't sure what I would find myself.
I took a look at the top rated players by rating, and starting from number one I checked their profile to see if a 4* was in it. I was wondering how far down the list I would need to go before finding one. Turns out it was sooner than I thought: player #38 had a 4* in profile. I looked at the top 50, and that wasn't an isolated incident: below 38 there were several more with 4* champs in profile
But sorting by PI isn't necessarily representative: I don't sell champs so my PI is pretty high also even though I don't have a single 4/55 yet (I could, but I'm holding the resources for better 5* champs). So I resorted by strongest team. I didn't have to go far: the very first player had a 4* in profile. Most of the top five had one.
But technically speaking, you didn't say the top rated players considered 4* champs an afterthought, you said the players in the strongest alliances. So I went back and looked up the strongest alliances by war rating and by hero rating. I figured that the number one alliance could very well have nothing but players with a ton of 4/55s just because of how they recruit and maintain the membership, and I didn't want to look at hundreds of profiles in dozens of alliances so I arbitrarily picked #10 as the place to start. In both cases, the tenth strongest alliance had a significant number of 4*s in the profiles of many different players.
So the notion that 4*s are irrelevant or inconsequential for the strongest players or the players in the strongest alliances appears to be false, unless you restrict that comment to the top couple of dozen players. Once you get to the top couple of hundred players, 4*s re-enter the game. And this only looks at the top 5 champions, not the top eight or eleven they must be using in different parts of the game.
Incidentally, for those interested: the number one 4* champ I saw at 5/50 in the top players' profiles: Mordo, by a huge margin. Voodoo was a very, very, very distant second.
So, you agree with my assertion that they are not worthless? Thanks.
Next time read what someone post before completely dismissing it. That's what I just did for you.
If you actually read what I posted, you would know I specifically said that your statement about them being an "afterthought" for the highest hundreds or thousands of players appears to be false.
I'm talking about what I first posted yesterday. Thanks.
What you first posted yesterday was:
Unless you are now repudiating your full statement "but not to those in top alliances" I still disagree with the original statement as originally stated.
I might as well also note that challenger rating is not huge in AQ and AW if you are comparing 5/50s vs 4/55s.
You're assertion is wrong at this point. I caught you in a mistake and now you only have moved on to trying to be right. Have a good one cause I'm not talking to you anymore. You obviously don't get that YOU'RE WRONG!