**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
I would like to know if it is possible for Kabam to comment on why the new system is arbitrarily configured to initiate war attack phases at a time when almost no one was starting them before. In the old system, most alliances (at least most that were trying to fight three wars a week during seasons) were starting wars between 11am Pacific (the earliest you could start) and about 5pm Pacific (any later risked not finding a match or drifting towards the 7pm cutoff). The new system runs match making basically during this time but then sets the attack phase to start 20 hours later, which is four hours earlier the next day. That means attack phase starts between 7am and 11am Pacific in the new system. This is earlier than any alliance used to start attack phase (of the alliances fighting three wars a week), and by as much as four hours.
This seems to be the worst possible time to start attack, as it doesn't align with anyone's original preferred start time. Meanwhile, it seems to be completely arbitrary when match making is calculated, so if it was calculated between 3pm and 7pm Pacific, then everyone's wars would be starting between 11am and 3pm, which is on or very near when they used to start in the first place.
This seems like it is a completely arbitrary decision (you could have chosen any time to start matching) and yet Kabam seems to have chosen the worst possible option. Is there any good reason for start times to fall where they are falling now that no one seems to be considering? If not, why not just change it? It seems to be something that requires no structural change to the system, just literally what time the sequence starts.
Why wait to observe what happens in this case? Datamining can only show when people fail. It won't show if people succeed, but at higher personal cost. It won't show people setting alarms, or rushing to finish, or changing their life schedule to try to accommodate their alliance requirements. Datamining doesn't show pain. And in this case, it seems to be completely unnecessary pain.
I'm not arguing the technicalities over what might cause this, only that since Kabam gave an actual reason for doing it, and not an obvious ex post facto one, it must have been intentional that it was done that way.
We start that late for a reason, we are all adults with jobs and lives outside of this game. Not all of us can take breaks throughout the day long enough to facilitate the first quarter of attack phase. This just isn’t tenable for us.
I realize it won’t be this early EVERY time, but even just once a week is way too much. We were willing to try working around a 3pm start time, but 11am is way way way too early.
Please make time slots or something. This is going to end up hurting our performance.
Matchmaking window: 11a - 3p PST = 7p - 11p UTC...you got that part right.
"Enlistment begin" you have starting at 3p PST (7PM UTC), but 3p PST = 11p UTC, not 7p UTC, as you stated above, @Kabam Miike.
That's one possibility, but I think the more likely possibility is that AW maps are more computationally intensive than AQ maps. AQ maps are all identical for all alliances (running the same map number, of course) while AW maps are all different due to defender placement. Also, AQ has to update one map per BG, AW has to update two (your attack map and your defense map).
Without knowing the exact implementation, sometimes there are hidden computationally explosive things hiding in the game when you run certain things that make them burn a lot more resources than you might think. AW maps might be one of those things.
Question @Kabam Miike Maybeuse the workaround correctly for adding new members, we need to de-enlist, wait for attack /rewards to come, and in the small window between this and the begging of matchmaking, the change would need to happen right? This of course, still opens a possibility of not enlisting on time due to changes for alliances matched close to the end of the matchmaking phase. You guys need to look into this.
If this period of time was to be defined, let's call it, "Alliance Maintenance" window, after attack and before Matchmaking, then enlisting will still possible during this period but having the option to be ready before Matchmaking. Risk es kind of controlled.
I think there still needs to be a way to control attack time; but hopefully ideas flow fast and we can be ready for S8 before hand.
I was just writing the same thing. There's a great many factors that increase the information needed to run AW over AQ. With Defense placement alone, each champ being semi-unique in the sense of where they are growth wise. Tier, rank, level, and sig level (if applicable). Then there's player Masteries that need to be taken into consideration and how they could potentially interact with the Node, per champ. There's literally 150 unique situations per side, making it a grand total of 300 unique situations per war vs the set Maps of AQ. Some of which will be similar, but very few would be identical. i.e. 1 player's champ gets placed on the same node as another player's champ in a different BG; that's also running the same mastery setup, at the same stage of growth.... yeah, that's likely not a common occurrence. So I agree @DNA3000 that there's clearly more needed to run AW over AQ.
Our war started at 9am... this is utterly ridiculous. We don't lime it one bit.. this handicaps us because we lose hours of fight time
Can something be changed???
Can something be changed about this??????
I like it. I know others that do. There are definitely things that need to be tweaked. In the end, players have shown they shouldn't be in charge of matching. I'd much rather go thru growing pains to get to a better system than going back to such easy manipulation of the system.
It's also pretty funny to watch people completely lose their **** over one meaningless war.
How can your amazing new war system match our two alliances together and how can it lower our map to there level when on the menu it clearly states tier 5
If I understand this suggestion correctly (to be honest I had to think about it for a while) the biggest problem is that it is possible for alliance A and alliance B, who are fighting each other in a war, to start their attack phases at different times. That seems problematic for two reasons. First, whoever starts later gets a significant advantage (they will know what the other side did and can react to that) and second, it might be technically infeasible to run a war in which both sides are not on the same schedule (as in, literally a limitation in the implementation of the game).
In the original system both sides "agreed" to the start time by starting matching at that time. In the current system everyone starts at different times but both sides in a single war are still guaranteed to start at the same time.
There's a theoretical way to fix this, but it layers a significant amount of implementation complexity. Allow everyone to set a preferred start time. When alliance A matches against alliance B, start their war at the average of the two preferred times. If alliance A wants to start at 9am but alliance B wants to start at 11am, the war starts at 10am. This gives some control to the alliances while still starting both sides at the same time.
You could also eliminate the ability to view the other side, but that then eliminates counterplay completely. In other words, you can't react to getting ahead or falling behind. That's honestly better than what we have now (giving the win to which ever side has the best hats would be better than what we have now) but it is still something I think we should try to avoid if possible.
Very nice match making system . So much improved
The war schedule graphic suggests it.
With a grey maintenance filling out Tuesday/Wednesday
Seems it isn’t the case at all..
Just poor design
If it was just one meaningless war, I'd just sit it out. And if it isn't important enough to express a strong opinion on, it should be doubly not important enough to express any metacommentary on.
what is the reason?
It relly screwed us around.
And as for ‘fair’?
Man we are silver 3 and we are up against an alliance with 2 ‘Legends’
We never seen a legend before haha
This should be impossible in a top-down matching system. And I can't even imagine how you can screw up top-down match making.
Is there a fix for this? Did u guys know about that? (That it was going to affect half the globe)
Any word on this would be appreciated
... I got nothing here. If this can happen at all, even once, the entire system implementation has to be horribly broken.