Summoners. We are aware of issues with Alliance Wars Enlistment/Matchmaking. We are exploring the cause of this issue and possible solutions.

Developers Thoughts: Improving Alliance Wars Discussion Thread

1161719212229

Comments

  • Is it possible to provide extra info on alliances, specifically the number of hours team members have logged in a week? That way we can sort the alliances by their level of activity and join the one that suits our play style. Inactivity is the number one reason alliances kick members and that can be remedied by simply giving players more information when they search for alliances to join.

    Let the hardcore players form their alliance and the casual players form theirs. Alliance officers wouldnt need to work as hard trying to keep players active and everyone would go in knowing what to expect.

    My2cents.
  • DTMelodicMetalDTMelodicMetal Posts: 2,777 ★★★★★

    100% wrong. There aren't enough t2a in the game for people outside the top ~20 in AQ to get that many r4 champs.

    Beat me to it
  • if we cant utilise bleed champs ill need rank down tickets otherwise i cant play with my team after putting all my T2A into them for war only for you to move the goalposts again.

    Sadly, I agree with that. Rank Down tickets would be nice to have a chance to rework team.
  • FixxxFixxx Posts: 234
    Fixxx wrote: »
    People who are crying for RDTs because their 5/65 Archangels will be briefly nerfed by global Bleed-Immunity nodes are missing the point

    ANY champ can now be temporarily nerfed by whatever global node Kabam decides to trot out. They can decide on a global Poison-Immunity node in a futile bid to stop Doctor Voodoo for a season, or a global Rage node to remove the Corvus Glaives, or a global Evade node because people aren't using Iceman enough. They can bring out any global node to stop the most used attacker of the previous season or bring back the least used attacker and force a meta-shift

    Are you all fine with that?
    Fixxx wrote: »
    Moreover, the temporal nature of the nerfs induced by global nodes in one aspect of the game--never mind that it's the most competitive and lucrative aspect right now--means any demands for RDTs will be shut down quickly. Because it's "just for a season, you guys"

    Again, are you all fine with that?

    I don't like this global node, full stop
  • mum_m2mum_m2 Posts: 1,708 ★★★
    not sure if it's not mentioned yet, but the unblockable SP2 mini boss has only 1 teleport to gain access to him. The linked node to that champ is completely useless because the only line to get there requires you to take the ensuing link down. this needs to be addressed, to allow a second path access to that portal to not only fulfill the purpose of that linked node, but also provide the initial player a back up from another path.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 946 ★★★
    Looks like they are ignoring serious questions on whether the bleed immune global node will prevent champs that gain other debiffs against naturally bleed immune champs from working. This is really frustrating and not at all transparent.
  • TheVyrusTheVyrus Posts: 297 ★★
    I do not understand why the solution is always sticking to the players. I realize the end game to get more players to spend money & resources, or in a different manner than they do, but upsetting everyone is not the solution. I guess it is though since all of the top spenders will just spend more. So I am sure it will be for nothing, but just in case the developers want some true solutions.

    1. You want more diversity? - Easy solution limit the number of times the same champion can be used on offense and defense. Maybe 2 of the same on offense and two of the same on defense. This would force more diversity and players to rethink which champions they upgrade.
    2. You want more people participating? - Fix the matchmaking. Have your analysts pull some different data categories to use for matching alliances. Whatever is being done right now isn't working so try something new. This is a standard business practice among the biggest companies in the world, not reinventing the wheel. Just try it.
    3. Cheaters? - Known cheater alliances get moved into their own bracket where they have to complete with each other only. The rewards are diminished and honest players are not penalized.
  • RodsteinRodstein Posts: 205
    TheVyrus wrote: »
    I do not understand why the solution is always sticking to the players. I realize the end game to get more players to spend money & resources, or in a different manner than they do, but upsetting everyone is not the solution. I guess it is though since all of the top spenders will just spend more. So I am sure it will be for nothing, but just in case the developers want some true solutions.

    1. You want more diversity? - Easy solution limit the number of times the same champion can be used on offense and defense. Maybe 2 of the same on offense and two of the same on defense. This would force more diversity and players to rethink which champions they upgrade.
    2. You want more people participating? - Fix the matchmaking. Have your analysts pull some different data categories to use for matching alliances. Whatever is being done right now isn't working so try something new. This is a standard business practice among the biggest companies in the world, not reinventing the wheel. Just try it.
    3. Cheaters? - Known cheater alliances get moved into their own bracket where they have to complete with each other only. The rewards are diminished and honest players are not penalized.

    While it may seem like a good idea point 1 would be bad unless resources were more attainable otherwise it would have a similar effect that the one caused by the amp up/blleed immune global nodeAll the others i like a lot
  • TheVyrusTheVyrus Posts: 297 ★★
    edited October 2018
    Rodstein wrote: »
    TheVyrus wrote: »
    I do not understand why the solution is always sticking to the players. I realize the end game to get more players to spend money & resources, or in a different manner than they do, but upsetting everyone is not the solution. I guess it is though since all of the top spenders will just spend more. So I am sure it will be for nothing, but just in case the developers want some true solutions.

    1. You want more diversity? - Easy solution limit the number of times the same champion can be used on offense and defense. Maybe 2 of the same on offense and two of the same on defense. This would force more diversity and players to rethink which champions they upgrade.
    2. You want more people participating? - Fix the matchmaking. Have your analysts pull some different data categories to use for matching alliances. Whatever is being done right now isn't working so try something new. This is a standard business practice among the biggest companies in the world, not reinventing the wheel. Just try it.
    3. Cheaters? - Known cheater alliances get moved into their own bracket where they have to complete with each other only. The rewards are diminished and honest players are not penalized.

    While it may seem like a good idea point 1 would be bad unless resources were more attainable otherwise it would have a similar effect that the one caused by the amp up/blleed immune global nodeAll the others i like a lot

    It still provides 4 players out of 10 the opportunity to place a particular champion, lets say Blade for example. 2 players place him on defense and 2 use him on offense. Any alliance should be able to communicate and coordinate within those parameters. Remember the idea was diversify the champions this will diversify them without taking away their specific abilities. It does still require some re-tooling and thinking, but it does not make 33% of the champions out of play like bleed immune would.
  • RodsteinRodstein Posts: 205
    @TheVyrus true and it is better than what they are doing
  • Dannyt90Dannyt90 Posts: 31
    @Kabam Miike I think the value of these changes will really depend on how the player selection of the global nodes would be implemented. If alliances can pick the same global node every war, it will likely revert to the same selection every time. For example, bleed immunity as a counter to blade will likely be one of the favorites to use.

    In order to keep this from stagnating wars again, it could be implemented in a variety of ways:

    1. Whichever global node your alliance selects, you get matched against an alliance that has selected the same global node. So for blade heavy alliances, they will be matched against other blade heavy alliances.

    2. Over the course of the war season, an alliance will be limited on the number of times they can use a global node. For example, alliances will be given six global nodes to choose from over the course of the season. Each of these global nodes can only be used twice each. This will encourage more strategy on when to use certain global nodes and promote variety throughout the season.

    3. Instead of global nodes, add a randomized buff to individual nodes in war as in Modok Labs. Each player would then be given a limited number of re-rolls to use each war in case they come up against a deadly buff combination. This would remove the ability of alliances to select buffs but would still create dynamic and constantly changing war experiences.
  • DhruvgajjarDhruvgajjar Posts: 46
    Dannyt90 wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike I think the value of these changes will really depend on how the player selection of the global nodes would be implemented. If alliances can pick the same global node every war, it will likely revert to the same selection every time. For example, bleed immunity as a counter to blade will likely be one of the favorites to use.

    In order to keep this from stagnating wars again, it could be implemented in a variety of ways:

    1. Whichever global node your alliance selects, you get matched against an alliance that has selected the same global node. So for blade heavy alliances, they will be matched against other blade heavy alliances.

    2. Over the course of the war season, an alliance will be limited on the number of times they can use a global node. For example, alliances will be given six global nodes to choose from over the course of the season. Each of these global nodes can only be used twice each. This will encourage more strategy on when to use certain global nodes and promote variety throughout the season.

    3. Instead of global nodes, add a randomized buff to individual nodes in war as in Modok Labs. Each player would then be given a limited number of re-rolls to use each war in case they come up against a deadly buff combination. This would remove the ability of alliances to select buffs but would still create dynamic and constantly changing war experiences.

    Most sensible input I've seen. Without crying for rdts or complaining, this post has some smart and legit inputs that can actually make alliance wars more fun and interactive.
  • I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths.

    I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King.

    I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3).
  • Dexman1349 wrote: »
    If we are expected to be able to quickly adapt to the flavor of the month, Kabam will have to make rank up resources significantly more available. Either through more rewards or via RDTs (yes I know I said the banned word).

    There are other options.
  • BrainimpacterBrainimpacter Posts: 577 ★★★
    These new global nodes have just made it reasonable for gold alliances to tank to get out of Challenger for at least the beginning of the Season, its just going to cause tanking to get deeper down the brackets.
  • Dannyt90 wrote: »
    @Kabam Miike I think the value of these changes will really depend on how the player selection of the global nodes would be implemented. If alliances can pick the same global node every war, it will likely revert to the same selection every time. For example, bleed immunity as a counter to blade will likely be one of the favorites to use.

    In order to keep this from stagnating wars again, it could be implemented in a variety of ways:

    1. Whichever global node your alliance selects, you get matched against an alliance that has selected the same global node. So for blade heavy alliances, they will be matched against other blade heavy alliances.

    2. Over the course of the war season, an alliance will be limited on the number of times they can use a global node. For example, alliances will be given six global nodes to choose from over the course of the season. Each of these global nodes can only be used twice each. This will encourage more strategy on when to use certain global nodes and promote variety throughout the season.

    3. Instead of global nodes, add a randomized buff to individual nodes in war as in Modok Labs. Each player would then be given a limited number of re-rolls to use each war in case they come up against a deadly buff combination. This would remove the ability of alliances to select buffs but would still create dynamic and constantly changing war experiences.

    Most sensible input I've seen. Without crying for rdts or complaining, this post has some smart and legit inputs that can actually make alliance wars more fun and interactive.

    Unfortunately, #1 and #2 create match making nightmares by exacerbating already existing ones.

    The subtle problem with #3 is that it doesn't create any real change to how wars are fought, it just makes them harder. As an attacker, I can only respond to changes I can *see*. However imperfect the global node idea is, I can see it, so I can react to it in theory. A random buff that I cannot know before I enter the map means nothing to me except extra difficulty. That's actually a far more direct cash grab than anything Kabam is currently proposing.

    The most important element to any change to the meta gaming context of Alliance war is, and this is something I emphasized in my feedback, information. If you want me to think about who I bring as an attacker more, and make more strategic choices, I *must* have information that would lead me to change my mind about anything. If it is invisible, then for the purposes of strategic options it does not exist. I always have to presume I will face the worst possible defense, because I don't know what it will be. Ditto defense: I don't know who you are bringing on attack, so I have to simply always place my best possible defense, however I define that to be. No matter what crazy or novel thing you do, since I don't see it, I can't react to it.

    Anything that tries to change or shake up the meta of Alliance War must have at least one property: it must be visible. It must be knowable, or no one will react to it. Defenses must change in a way attackers have some knowledge of, and can try to react to. Attackers must change in a way that defenders must have some awareness of, and can try to react through placement changes, even if that reaction takes place for the next war but even better if it happens during the same war. It doesn't have to be perfect information: if season fifteen contains some sort of advantage to evade champs, that could suggest to attackers to bring champions designed to handle evade champs. That could then suggest to defense placement officers to try to outmaneuver their opponents by placing champs that are the best counters to the true strike champions. Players wouldn't know anything with certainty, but they would know enough to make a legitimate game of it, and only those kinds of situations encourage genuine counterplay.
  • DNA3000 wrote: »
    I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths.

    I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King.

    I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3).

    last i knew tiers 1-3 were Expert and 4-5 challenger so a lot more alliances than you think, almost everyone from gold brackets up basically

    I'm probably misremembering this then. However, I think this is basically everyone from Platinum upward, and some of Gold 1, if they were fighting competitively. My alliance was right on the border of Gold 1/Gold 2 and was hovering in tier 7-8 for the most part.. I doubt there are many players even in tier 5 that would throw up their hands and give up due to bleed immunity.
  • BrainimpacterBrainimpacter Posts: 577 ★★★
    edited October 2018
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths.

    I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King.

    I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3).

    last i knew tiers 1-3 were Expert and 4-5 challenger so a lot more alliances than you think, almost everyone from gold brackets up basically

    I'm probably misremembering this then. However, I think this is basically everyone from Platinum upward, and some of Gold 1, if they were fighting competitively. My alliance was right on the border of Gold 1/Gold 2 and was hovering in tier 7-8 for the most part.. I doubt there are many players even in tier 5 that would throw up their hands and give up due to bleed immunity.

    there is 100s of gold alliances that are challenger, Im in a Gold alliance that does 2 group wars as it was a retirement alliance and every alliance running 2 groups in Gold have to be in challenger to get enough points to stay in it.
    we were planning to push this season as we have recruited to push with 3 group wars
  • DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths.

    I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King.

    I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3).

    last i knew tiers 1-3 were Expert and 4-5 challenger so a lot more alliances than you think, almost everyone from gold brackets up basically

    I'm probably misremembering this then. However, I think this is basically everyone from Platinum upward, and some of Gold 1, if they were fighting competitively. My alliance was right on the border of Gold 1/Gold 2 and was hovering in tier 7-8 for the most part.. I doubt there are many players even in tier 5 that would throw up their hands and give up due to bleed immunity.

    It’s about top 1000 in gold 1
  • bryndenriversbryndenrivers Posts: 429 ★★
    arni2 wrote: »
    Sooo,
    let's try and break thing apart:
    Buff 1 - Amped Up:
    - Female Champions you bring to this fight receive increased Class Bonus effects. Half of the Attack bonus is always applied. Specific tuning values will be revealed soon
    - Amped up affects the Attacker, so bringing in Female Champions will give your Attack team an offensive
    Good Female attackers - Magik, Emma Frost and Domino (33% new champs), luck biased again

    Buff 2 - Bleed Immunity:
    - Bleed immunity affects Defenders
    - Bringing in Debuff heavy Champions will still be a viable option, but Champions that rely heavily on Bleed will not be as effective this Season.
    NO BLADE, Nice, But also new Symbiote Supreme will suffer from this node, interesting...
    Issue 2: Unfair Play in Alliance Wars

    This issue is integral to the mode. Alliance Wars is a highly competitive mode, and our goal is to make it the MOST competitive mode in the game, so fairness is paramount. No Alliance should feel that they can play their best, and fairest, but be let down when another Alliance does not play fair, and beats them, or 2 Alliances collude to manipulate the standings.

    All the solutions that proposed are generic and won't do much.

    In order to make alliance wars to be skill based, limit the amount of boost (attack, health) that player can use per war, otherwise the maxed boosted alliance usually win. (I know it probably won't happen because those boosts are one of the main income from war system, but you might surprise)


    im sorry you left out the best female champion and medusa, domino is a close second especially awakened so theyre abilities and nodes consistantly fail to work properly. you left out ghost who has a ton of utility and in the hands of a skilled player has better damage than any champion except maybe corvus. nobody uses her maybe cause of the high skill threshold required to play her but ive tested all these champions and have them in 5* and ghost is hands down the best all around female champion with domino a close second followed bu magik and medusa also emma frost is great but just no quite as good domino or ghost.

  • BrainimpacterBrainimpacter Posts: 577 ★★★
    Werewrym wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths.

    I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King.

    I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3).

    last i knew tiers 1-3 were Expert and 4-5 challenger so a lot more alliances than you think, almost everyone from gold brackets up basically

    I'm probably misremembering this then. However, I think this is basically everyone from Platinum upward, and some of Gold 1, if they were fighting competitively. My alliance was right on the border of Gold 1/Gold 2 and was hovering in tier 7-8 for the most part.. I doubt there are many players even in tier 5 that would throw up their hands and give up due to bleed immunity.

    It’s about top 1000 in gold 1

    and all the alliance running 2 groups in gold 1 and 2
  • DTMelodicMetalDTMelodicMetal Posts: 2,777 ★★★★★
    Werewrym wrote: »
    It’s about top 1000 in gold 1

    Top 3
    Top 20 for master
    Top 21-50 for plat 1
    Top 51-100 for plat 2
    Top 101-300 for plat 3
    Top 301-1,500 for gold 1
This discussion has been closed.