@Kabam Miike We don’t care if we lose one defender and still have two remaining that are useless because someone can’t clear a node! Those people that can’t clear the node can simply go to a smaller rated alliance with a lower rating and tier. It’s simple, if you can’t clear go to a lower tier alliance
@Kabam Miike At the end of the day no one likes this ****. Listen to everything you’re hearing from the community and make it right. Why spend all the time to defend what you guys messed up instead of simply fixing it to what we want
@Kabam Miike At the end of the day no one likes this ****. Listen to everything you’re hearing from the community and make it right. Why spend all the time to defend what you guys messed up instead of simply fixing it to what we want
This is no longer about what the competitive players and end-gamers want.
. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. . .
This describes the current war perfectly. You already know going in if you have a chance to win or not.
Oh you were talking about the old system, where you could win against a higher rated alliance, not the one we have where it is physically impossible to win if matched against a higher rated alliance. Absolutely no chance to win whatsoever. You could 100% the map with no deaths and you will still lose. Do you get it yet?
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War.
I can't believe I'm gonna say this, but I actually agree with you.
In my neck of the woods when you eliminate the ability for one side to engage it's not called war either.
It's called getting your a$$ kicked.
Moral of the story? Learn how to not cry after the first punch and keep on fighting like a big boy win or lose.
Thats not actually war. War is when one attacks, the other retaliates. The strongest attack pushes the other into a defense mode and tries to force them to surrender or wipes them out.
This thread has become completely pointless. In the end it was Kabam's thoughts vs the Community's thoughts and we see how well it ended up. So much for feedback
Obviously time to move on from this thread. Good luck with it
I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".
In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.
Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".
In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.
Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
Ok, I can't resist. One more comment and I'm done lol
But this is the part where he mentions again how he does all that as well. But we can't do a call out to point out how effective he is based on his war rating or size of alliance, but we are all aware.
I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".
In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.
Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
Ok, I can't resist. One more comment and I'm done lol
But this is the part where he mentions again how he does all that as well. But we can't do a call out to point out how effective he is based on his war rating or size of alliance, but we are all aware.
This is why we hate the new system. This is not getting fixed with your changes. This war was bought and paid for by our opponent. I like the idea of diversity, but getting rid of defender kills entirely has made this a war of who is willing to spend the most. Yes, they had us on diversity. But if defender kills mattered, and just look at that disparity and tell me it shouldn’t, then diversity wouldn’t have been THE deciding factor. This is the scenario I see a exponentially more often than I EVER saw defender kills deciding the outcome. You’ve encouraged pay to win, intentionally or not. And frankly, I’m losing interest in this game more every day that this continues. And I know I’m not the only one.
This changes change nothing....LOL
Why u can't listen what your player want???
So many leave the game and more coming soon...
This is not a change, this is just a money grab....
We want AW that u can win with Skill and not with more diverstiy and defender Rating....
Change that defender Rating don't rated by Mastery....
AW will now so expensive....every time u need to change Mastery to Max PI Mastery and now use a lot of pots for 100%....and than u lose Because of defender rating
**** system
This is why we hate the new system. This is not getting fixed with your changes. This war was bought and paid for by our opponent. I like the idea of diversity, but getting rid of defender kills entirely has made this a war of who is willing to spend the most. Yes, they had us on diversity. But if defender kills mattered, and just look at that disparity and tell me it shouldn’t, then diversity wouldn’t have been THE deciding factor. This is the scenario I see a exponentially more often than I EVER saw defender kills deciding the outcome. You’ve encouraged pay to win, intentionally or not. And frankly, I’m losing interest in this game more every day that this continues. And I know I’m not the only one.
Stop posting losses where u don’t diversify so your good defenders are getting kills while you run over spider gwens and iron patriots. What sucks is when both sides 100% diversity and it comes down to only defender rating.
I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".
In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.
Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Our last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".
In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.
Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Or last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".
In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.
Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Or last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
I'm not new to War. I've been organizing them since they started. I'm not getting into personals. Which this is. When you have a Player Base that encompasses all levels and everyone plays the same system, you can't devalue the issues that exist by simply saying, "Git gud".
In a head to head competition yes you absolutely can. There is nothing else to say. You lose, you learn, you try again. You don't claim the win because you spent more for your cleats. Jeez.
Spending is really irrelevant because the larger metric is the Defender Rating. If Players want to finish the Map and choose to spend, that has always been an option. There's never been a penalty for that. The penalty was from trying and getting KO'd. When the opponent has a strong enough Roster, those numbers add up greatly. To the point of making a Win impossible no matter what was chosen for strategy.
So, war. Yeah.
That's how it works
You can't kill me, I can kill you, I win. War.
By your so-called theory, the losing alliance would rank up over time and something something metric, something something, and that would all come out in the wash.
War is engagement in battle between two or more sides. When you eliminate the ability for one side to engage, it is no longer called War. It's called Defense. People mention strategy, but there's really very little strategy involved. "Okay, boys. Do we stop trying and take a Loss, or keep trying and take a Loss?". There is very little strategy for the winning side either. Just place the "Top Tier Champs" in drones and watch the enemy scramble and lose. Besides the penalty, whenever Diversity is a part of the equation, Defender Kills will contradict it. People will inevitably create the same problem by overpowering with Defender Kills. I'm nearly positive that given the choice, that will be the primary focus. So, there's no real way to have both as a significant aspect. Not unless the metrics for Defender Kills are so minimal that they become difficult to mount into a deciding factor, in which case THAT becomes the tiebreaker, which is the objective of Diversity. Even then, it would only be done for amusement. The reality is, Defender Kills are not necessary to make it engaging, and they're more penalty than people realize. It is not a fair experience to sacrifice making a try for it because if you try, you fail. I'm sorry. Regardless of who prefers the old way, that's not a fair situation for anyone but the ones winning.
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
The goal of defense hasn't changed: Exhaust your opponent's Champions and ability to proceed.
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Or last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
I CALLED IT!!! hahahahaha
If it's another reference to where I am at in the game, it's irrelevant. It was a close War. Which meant I had to rally for the last bit of Exploration because people have varying availabilities.
Well you strategized the **** out of that! I'm sure that war victory felt well earned. Good job defeating the real,life schedule boss. Clearly that is what war is all about.
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
Social Justice implies there is some sort of violation to need it. Not the case. I also don't need a spreadsheet to keep track of Wars. Just a general knowledge of Points and an ability to predict an advantage.
I'm not entertaining a conversation about what Tier who is in. The subject is not about that, and it's really not relevant. The fact is, there is strategy involved. It's not always "Set it and forget it!". Placement is somewhat easier because there are less Nodes to consider. That will no doubt be looked at. Diversity and Defender Ratings are easy to consider. Use a variety of Champs with as high as possible PI. The real strategy begins when Attack starts. It's a system of checks and balances. You have to consider what the opponent has placed, how many Points they're accumulating, who to assign to what Paths based on availability, how far the opponent is getting, how much Exploration you need to gain an advantage, etc. Not everyone is able to be present 24/7. People have jobs and lives. Which means if someone is unable to return, you need to organize well enough to get the Exploration you need. Regardless of myself, all it is, is Points. Accumulate enough Points to win. Whether those Points come from Defender Kills or not really doesn't matter, as long as they come from somewhere else. What matters is the effect they have on the game experience. Anything can happen after Attack Phase starts, and when you have to keep track of Points, there is strategy involved. Not sure why people find that humorous.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.
Comments
I can't believe I'm gonna say this, but I actually agree with you.
In my neck of the woods when you eliminate the ability for one side to engage it's not called war either.
It's called getting your a$$ kicked.
Moral of the story? Learn how to not cry after the first punch and keep on fighting like a big boy win or lose.
This describes the current war perfectly. You already know going in if you have a chance to win or not.
Oh you were talking about the old system, where you could win against a higher rated alliance, not the one we have where it is physically impossible to win if matched against a higher rated alliance. Absolutely no chance to win whatsoever. You could 100% the map with no deaths and you will still lose. Do you get it yet?
Thats not actually war. War is when one attacks, the other retaliates. The strongest attack pushes the other into a defense mode and tries to force them to surrender or wipes them out.
Obviously time to move on from this thread. Good luck with it
On a more serious note, Kabam Miike specifically stated in his reply to me:
In other words, Kabam Miike explicitly states that Kabam's position is we should still be trying to place the strongest possible defenders to destroy the enemy alliance's ability to attack. They just seem to be unclear on why that isn't happening.
Also, Kabam Miike stated that my thought process in 15.0 should still be the same as it was in 14.0 or at least similar because the goal should still be the same. I assert that is not true from personal experience. You are asserting that 14.0 contained no strategy for either attack or defense placement, but that is also not true from direct personal experience. I was the placer for my battlegroup. I was the one employing strategy. I was the one deciding whether to put yellowjacket or spiderman on unblockable one. I was the one deciding whether to put Ultron on unstunnable or enhanced ability accuracy. I strategically ranked up my Hyperion to use on AWD. I gave advice to other members on what would be good rank ups for defense and what to enter on defense.
I'm also the attack coordinator for AW and AQ in my BG. I make decisions all the time on who should take which path. Which path is the critical path. Who would be best for thorns, who has the best ability to take the long paths, who should I use on the four interior paths, who can guarantee me a kill on the two outer minibosses. I should say I made those decisions, past tense, because those decisions don't exist in AW 15.0.
I was the one making strategic decisions in AWA and AWD in 14.0, and I'm the one that makes them in 15.0. I am saying as a matter of fact that the strategic aspect of alliance war is dramatically lower in 15.0. If anyone wants to assert otherwise, I would expect them to support that statement with AW management facts, not conjectures.
Win or lose, we always try. Win or lose, we always used strategy. Sometimes that strategy is not enough. That doesn't mean there's no strategy. Sometimes the other guy is better or stronger and we cannot overcome that strength. I can't believe anyone who claims to have managed a battlegroup would even make this assertion. I would vote to replace a BG officer that stated they were not using any strategy at all in AW.
Ok, I can't resist. One more comment and I'm done lol
But this is the part where he mentions again how he does all that as well. But we can't do a call out to point out how effective he is based on his war rating or size of alliance, but we are all aware.
I don't understand why Kabam is hell bent on keeping things in the game people don't want. Is it a pride thing?
Oh!!! He’s going to flag you!
This is why we hate the new system. This is not getting fixed with your changes. This war was bought and paid for by our opponent. I like the idea of diversity, but getting rid of defender kills entirely has made this a war of who is willing to spend the most. Yes, they had us on diversity. But if defender kills mattered, and just look at that disparity and tell me it shouldn’t, then diversity wouldn’t have been THE deciding factor. This is the scenario I see a exponentially more often than I EVER saw defender kills deciding the outcome. You’ve encouraged pay to win, intentionally or not. And frankly, I’m losing interest in this game more every day that this continues. And I know I’m not the only one.
Why u can't listen what your player want???
So many leave the game and more coming soon...
This is not a change, this is just a money grab....
We want AW that u can win with Skill and not with more diverstiy and defender Rating....
Change that defender Rating don't rated by Mastery....
AW will now so expensive....every time u need to change Mastery to Max PI Mastery and now use a lot of pots for 100%....and than u lose Because of defender rating
**** system
Stop posting losses where u don’t diversify so your good defenders are getting kills while you run over spider gwens and iron patriots. What sucks is when both sides 100% diversity and it comes down to only defender rating.
There is always a strategy. I don't need to assert my effectiveness. It's not about me. I can say I'm quite experiwnced at strategizing Wins in many scenarios and leave it at that because I'm not really here to brag. What I'm saying is regardless of the strategy used, it does not have to include Points for Defender Kills. The real argument is we can no longer place a Defense that KOs the opponent into a Loss. There are other forms of strategy involved. I've been running Wars since the new system has been implemented. Our last Win took some effort and planning. It's not as monotone as people are claiming. The Nodes were simplistic, yes. There is still strategy involved.
For example, the node 2 of expert map doesn' have
1. +125% Attack & Health
2. +75% Health
3. +50% Recovery
4. Adaptive
I CALLED IT!!! hahahahaha
You called what? That I commented?
This is so bad
If it's another reference to where I am at in the game, it's irrelevant. It was a close War. Which meant I had to rally for the last bit of Exploration because people have varying availabilities.
I know I want to leave this thread but you make it so hard sometimes.
War should have nothing thats easy. You should have to consider nodes for smart placement based on the champs brought in.
There is no strategy in the attack phase, its easy and you can see your opponents. Pick any path and you should clear it. Simple as that, no need to "consider what your opponent has placed"
As far as setting paths, you set paths once and they stay that way for every war. Typically deciding who's on what path by what paths hardest and who your most skilled players are.
How much exploration you need? Have you read the comments? You go for 100% like everyone else is.
Your concern about people lives interfering is a little matter in competitive active alliances. Your argument stands only in the type of alliance you are in, not the rest of us debating this new system.