Options

AW Winner = He Who Has the Biggest Wallet

MyradralMyradral Posts: 154 ★
in General Discussion
I am sure this is nothing new for anyone - but I just wanted to vent a little bit.

We just finished our Alliance War yesterday. Our Alliance lost. Interesting stats:

Our Defender Kills: 156
Their Defender Kills: 71

So basically, they had to "REVIVE" 66 of their players to get 1 of our Bosses down. I personally watched one player revive his whole team with a Level 3 Team Revive - and then heal with a Level 4 Team Health Potion. Hell, that's 1370 units worth of potions right there. So for all players on their team, I calculated (yes just my estimate) that they spent close to 21,000 units in order to beat us. Were they better than us? No chance. They simply SPENT MORE MONEY.

My POINT is that there needs to be a cap to this madness. Our Alliance simply can't spend 20,000 units every war to advance. - but that seems like the only way in this game. Am I off base here?

My SUGGESTION would be to bring down the number of revives/potions a person can use. 15 is just ridiculous.

Thoughts and suggestions welcome on this.

Thanks for reading!!
«13

Comments

  • Options
    MyradralMyradral Posts: 154 ★
    No comments??
  • Options
    Primmer79Primmer79 Posts: 2,968 ★★★★
    I know I am purposely grinding arena and saving glory purely for war. I havent spent cash in weeks for it, but you bet I've spent a lot of resources.
  • Options
    JRock808JRock808 Posts: 1,149 ★★★★
    It’s pay to win. Always has been, always will be. The revenue from whales at the top is likely unfathomable.
  • Options
    SidDDragonSidDDragon Posts: 1,183 ★★★
    At the end of the day u guys valued logic over other team...they want better rewards so are going all in and this is how this game mode is and it won't change cuz it's a good source of revenue for the company...some losses u just gotta accept and move on
  • Options
    crystaldsmithcrystaldsmith Posts: 471 ★★
    I agree that a pay to win system sucks but it's not going to change. Those that don't pull out their wallets will just continue to fall behind.
  • Options
    Liss_Bliss_Liss_Bliss_ Posts: 1,779 ★★★★★
    I would love to see the score sheet. Those kills could very well be inflated. I have seen nodes collect 10/20+kills before. My alliance usually just laughs because we know they aren’t getting past it and we take the rest of the war easier.
  • Options
    dtapedtape Posts: 35 ★
    Kabam is a company. All company around the world is founded to earn money. There is no reason to block a way Kabam earn our money. However, based on the result you gave, it doesn't mean your ally was better than your opponent either. Being killed on a specific node 66 times is less harmful to the war than being killed 66 times on two or more nodes. They just knew to exploit the rule Kabam makes. They did use more resources but they did win more attack bonus or diversity. Maybe they were only stuck on some difficult nodes but always careful on the rest. I am just a middle class player in the game and free to play but I am willing to follow the rule as long as I am still addicted. Cheers.
  • Options
    MarriMarri Posts: 260 ★★
    IDK what tier you play, but if you are conceding 71 deaths and stil not 100% the map, you are doing something wrong or you are in a map that's out of your league. Only in that case can the other alliance win.

    Because let's face it: With 100% map, and both max diversity you would not have lost this one. So you probably lost the war somewhere else. Maybe not 100% it, or maybe less diversity, IDK.

    We occasionally pull a spending alliance like that. Since both alliances 100% the map and we always have max diversity, we often still win. But that's in tier 10-11 (old retired dogs). If we lose because they revived 1000 times, we played terribly ourselves.
  • Options
    MyradralMyradral Posts: 154 ★
    We had higher diversity than them. It was simply units spent. Period.

    They were terrible attackers.
  • Options
    Deadbyrd9Deadbyrd9 Posts: 3,469 ★★★★
    If they had that many more kills it seems like they explored more of the he map than you did. There are points for other things than just attack bonus. Seems this is more on your alliance for not having a willingness to clear all your bg maps
  • Options
    RapRap Posts: 3,194 ★★★★
    That was something i identified at the very start, that in the end it wasn't going to matter much if you were a skilled player, at some point we were bound to face opponents capable of spending their way to victory and if we/i were not willing to drop tons of units the end result would be repeated losses dispite equal abilities.
  • Options
    dtapedtape Posts: 35 ★
    edited August 2018
    zeezee57 wrote: »
    Make defender kills count. My ally just lost a war by some diversity points, we had a higher attack rating and all but slightly less diversity. Defender kills should count for more than just removing attack bonus. If it takes 30 fights to take down a boss that should count for something more than just removing attack bonus.

    Those good old days had gone. That old war system would stop people from using resource and spending money. The current system could have been competitive and purely based on skill but you can never stop some people who wants more rewards from using resource.
  • Options
    New_Noob168New_Noob168 Posts: 1,571 ★★★★
    Why would they change it if it brings them money?

    If you can sell X widget for $1000 always and always, why would you lower the price?
  • Options
    EvilEmpireEvilEmpire Posts: 639 ★★★
    A few more attack bonus on main boss would be nice. Otherwise what your suggesting won’t happen. They have a decent balance of skill and spending right now atleast imo. Your obviously not a very high tier group if you are getting 66 kills from a main boss tho. That doesn’t happen where I’m at.
  • Options
    krauserhuntkrauserhunt Posts: 365 ★★
    edited August 2018
    My_Superior wrote: »
    My_Superior wrote: »
    Did you just assume their gender? They might have the biggest purse for all you know. They might even have a fannypack.
    Hey, whoever flagged this joke for abuse, can you explain who the victim is?

    First of all, it contributes nothing to this discussion. Second, it is not funny for everyone, it is bordering on the offensive.

    As for this thread, I think OP @Myradral your alliance did not explore enough. We need a scoring screenshot to know exactly what happened.
  • Options
    RiegelRiegel Posts: 1,088 ★★★★
    AW Winner = Who can cheat the most
  • Options
    AdiMukh555AdiMukh555 Posts: 756 ★★★
    Not true, while I agree having cash does help in aw, I seriously doubt any alliance would be willing to spend so many units on the war unless they're way high im the rankings

    And even if they did spend cash, then too "skills" play way more important role for victory
  • Options
    krauserhuntkrauserhunt Posts: 365 ★★
    Myradral wrote: »
    We had higher diversity than them. It was simply units spent. Period.

    They were terrible attackers.

    lol, says the guy whose alliance couldnt clear the map? (Joke's on US)

    IMHO, we've suffered the same fate but we are free alliance, we use items IF we have them, nothing more.
  • Options
    R4GER4GE Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    edited August 2018
    Sounds like neither alliance did very well. Both struggled to explore and they chose to spend to keep exploring. Also seems like you all died just as much early on and chose to give up. Hard to say w/o a screen cap of the war stats
  • Options
    EnderDraco58EnderDraco58 Posts: 957 ★★
    I mean, there's no real way to stop this. On the one hand, they could take alliance potions out of the store completely, but that would ruin the AW's for obvious reasons, the greatest one being a complete lack of alliance potions to the point where AW's are incredibly tedious to complete. On the other hand, we could increase the price of units, but that is unwanted for even more obvious reasons.
Sign In or Register to comment.