Their current system discourages players from attacking more then defender kills ever did.
Once we find out what the other alliances defender rating is, we make our decision to push or quit as does the opposing team.
If our opponents have a higher rating then we don't push forward. So far we've had honest opponents in match ups. The photo I posted above was an alliance that didn't give us their rsting so we had to push. We won because our rating was higher and that alone decided the war. Most wars are started out by exchanging that information because we know both of us will 100% complete the aw map if need be and diversity is always maxed out. The only factor we never know is rating, which again, is they ONLY war winning deciding factor in our tier of game play. The proof is in the pic. Had there been defender kills we would have lost as we should have but the push would still have been there.
Their current system discourages players from attacking more then defender kills ever did.
Once we find out what the other alliances defender rating is, we make our decision to push or quit as does the opposing team.
If our opponents have a higher rating then we don't push forward. So far we've had honest opponents in match ups. The photo I posted above was an alliance that didn't give us their rsting so we had to push. We won because our rating was higher and that alone decided the war. Most wars are started out by exchanging that information because we know both of us will 100% complete the aw map if need be and diversity is always maxed out. The only factor we never know is rating, which again, is they ONLY war winning deciding factor in our tier of game play. The proof is in the pic. Had there been defender kills we would have lost as we should have but the push would still have been there.
#BringBackDefenderKillPoints
(if AW does not add in a way to score attacker effiency, I know of many many top tier alliance players that'll be quitting at the end of the year)
That arrangement doesn't really make sense to me for a few reasons. First of all, never trust your opponent to determine whether you want to make a try for it or not. That was a mess with 2* Agreements back in the day. Secondly, anything can happen in a War so that's premature. You have to operate under the assumption that both teams will 100% the Map. If that is being done everytime, then that is a separate issue. However, no matter what Map is put forward, some Allies will 100% it everytime. That's inevitable. Some number has to determine a Win. The scenario you're describing is quitting based on an assumption. The cases we've seen shared where a few Points make the difference are actually closer to the goal because Defender Rating and Diversity are literally tie breakers. There are more iterations to come, as was mentioned in another Thread. I'm still not supporting Defender Kills. I've outlined the problems with them, and I still don't agree that they are absolutely essential for "skill". What the real seems to be is they aren't getting Wins anymore. I haven't seen anyone complain that they've won with more KOs.
The scenario you're describing is quitting based on an assumption.
The scenario the devs decided to tackle that started this entire mess was quitting based on an assumption. And strategically speaking, the scenario the devs decided to tackle was a significantly worse assumption, because it was essentially potentially giving up the entire war by surrendering an entire path in a war.
You actually said something I agree with.
"A winner has to be determined somehow"
Glad we agree because there's nothing in our current scoring system that does that effectively in a manor of determining who the better alliance actually is. Right now all we have are winners and loser. But nothing that truly determines a winner or loser.
And yes, always assume that the opponents will 100% because is goes both ways. Also I'd like to add that there still hasn't been ONE war I've been in that either side hasn't 100% the map. Which btw turns that from an assumption to a gaurentee. Leaving yet again a war decided by defender rating. Then again "a war has to decided somehow" ... right?
The only time we don't 100% is when we know the opposing team has a higher Defender rating. Also, to answer your question. Everyone has been very honest when giving their rating.
I would like to add that all of your statements have more flaws in them than all the bugs kabam has released in their combined updates.
Full of contradictions. At least speak for the people. I'm still not sure what crowd your speaking towards. I mean nobody here agrees with anything you say. I think you entered the wrong room and forgot where the door was
People are going to lose. No matter what system is in place, that is inevitable.
Water is wet, sky is blue, and old Satan Claus is out there, getting stronger, and looking to put defender kills in people's stockings.
When we're talking about not participating for speculation of losing, it's worth pointing out that losing is inevitable.
LOL
Everyone participates regardless of the speculation of losing. When the war starts everyone plays. This whole argument is not about participation, its about spending items after you are KO’d.
However, when the probability of wining is low, because of defender kills (previous AW system) or now because of defender rating (current system), people will not spend items because nobody wants to waste resources. Its going to happen regardless of the system. Kabam wants to create a system to encourage players to use items regardless of the win probability. So they try to hide the win probability behind defender rating and defender diversity.
The end result: boring AW, player base disappointed, spreadsheet AW, etc. etc.
Knowing/estimating when an AW is close and when it is worth using items, and pushing your alliance to complete the map, was an extremely fun part of AW. It is extremely disappointing to push your team to finish only to lose by defender rating.
Kabam needs to bring the old AW system, fix MD, and lets pretend this AW nonesense didn’t happen.
People are going to lose. No matter what system is in place, that is inevitable.
Water is wet, sky is blue, and old Satan Claus is out there, getting stronger, and looking to put defender kills in people's stockings.
When we're talking about not participating for speculation of losing, it's worth pointing out that losing is inevitable.
That depends. Are we talking about alliances deciding to not participate and surrender the war based on the calculation they won't be able to win on points, or are we talking about players deciding to stop attacking and surrender the node and path based on the calculation they won't be able to defeat the node and can cost their alliance the war? Because it seems you only find this worth pointing out for one of those two situations.
People are going to lose. No matter what system is in place, that is inevitable.
But we as community don't want our losses predetermined based on factors that cannot be controlled, regardless of how good you play.
Losing because you made a mistake in a few battles...losing because they had a boss that kicked you teams behinds. Those are great ways to lose... They don't demoralise you as a player.
But losing before you play... On the basis that other team has a higher defender rating.
Why play? Are u going to hope that the other team makes a mistake and doesn't 100% the map?
As for the quitting on the assumptions.
Team A- contacts team B.
They chat on Line, whatsapp, fb etc.
Exchange screen shots.
I doubt anyone is gona take the time to alter screens hots just to win a war.
As for the different iterations. Let's go back to the old system with defender kills...
If you died a lot u were punished. And that feeling on not wanting to try was the message people were ignoring.
Message was... Get better!!!
I bet half of this thread is of him arguing with someone. Not sure why the Mods let it go on. It just makes things so much harder an more frustrating when coming to the forum looking for info an answers
I bet half of this thread is of him arguing with someone. Not sure why the Mods let it go on. It just makes things so much harder an more frustrating when coming to the forum looking for info an answers
He is the only one that seems to like defender diversity and the new system, so Kabam going to let him be LOL 😂
The problem is that he takes this discussion out of context because his arguments for why diversity works and defender kills doesn’t are just not accurate and goes off topic.
Kabam should at least warn him or boot him from this thread so we can continue to have some positive feedback over here... not that kabam listen to it anyways 😂
People are going to lose. No matter what system is in place, that is inevitable.
But we as community don't want our losses predetermined based on factors that cannot be controlled, regardless of how good you play.
Losing because you made a mistake in a few battles...losing because they had a boss that kicked you teams behinds. Those are great ways to lose... They don't demoralise you as a player.
But losing before you play... On the basis that other team has a higher defender rating.
Why play? Are u going to hope that the other team makes a mistake and doesn't 100% the map?
Ultimately, I think someone might make the case that everything is predetermined: our skill, their skill, our defense, their defense, ultimately determines the war result most of the time from the beginning.
But I don't think that is convincing to most competitors because of how most competitive players view competition. I think most competitive players view a strong attacker as a champion that obviously defeats other champions when used as an attacker better than others. We think of strong defenders as champions that are hard to kill when we attack them. The game puts us in this frame of mind to want to generalize AW competition in those terms. A good defensive placement should be the sum total of many different good defensive placement decisions. In other words, a good defensive map is a set of individually good defensive nodes, with each node judged individually based on how hard it is to kill, and collectively based on how hard the path it on collectively is.
I don't think players hate the point system directly, I think they hate the fact that it diverts from the logical way players want to compete: as a collection of individual fights each decided based on how strong the defender is and how good the attacker is. The war as a whole is the sum of those individual parts. To the extent that the current war deviates from that, it creates friction.
The harder nodes do seem to be altering the defensive placement strategies and the war results to some extent. But they seem to be doing something that seems counter-productive, at least to me. To the extent that it is now encouraging alliances from straying from maximallly diverse defenses, it is only doing so by introducing the new super-buff nodes which are in effect replacing mystic dispersion as a central opponent-stopping effect. Some nodes are just really good at stopping an opponent cold when the right defender is placed on them, and as I suggested earlier that could cause alliances to eventually break from absolute diversity but only by reintroducing the problem I thought the devs wanted to address: superstrong nodes that could generate a disproportionate number of kills taking over defenses.
I should point out that the 15.x optimal defense strategy is still the same, it just doesn't superficially look the same. I stated that whether the players realized it or not, they were not following a "100% diverse" strategy blindly. Look at miniboss placements: those were not random. The strategy was two-fold: if a champ had a good chance of stopping the opposing alliance on a particular node, place that there; otherwise place a diverse defender of any reasonable kind with maximal rating points if possible. The same strategy is still being used, it is just that instead of the miniboss nodes being the primary source of "path-stopping" options, now there are a few more such nodes.
The devs originally stated they wanted the map to be easier, they wanted players to be encouraged to attack hard nodes, and they wanted more diversity in defense placements. At the moment, the map is harder, the special nodes are discouraging players from throwing themselves at certain defenders, alliances are conspiring to forfeit to save money when they will likely lose on points, and the current meta rules are still encouraging a single placement strategy, it is just that alliances are still experimenting to find the most difficult champion to place on the newly modified nodes.
In exchange for eliminating defense kills, which at this point is a religious tenant not a game design decision, they seem to have created a war that is superficially better on metrics but worse in almost every way for most alliances. After all, how many alliances wished for defensive kills to disappear but also asked for Spite to be added to the AW map? Most of the alliances that might have liked 15.0 can't possibly be liking 16.0. So I'm left asking who these changes are for? Wouldn't the players that disliked defensive kills prefer an easier map, not a harder one? Wouldn't the players that want a harder trickier map also want a better way to judge good defenders with kill points as a non-binary way to judge the quality of a defender? Who wants no kills, harder map, and rating points comparable to exploration differences in close matches?
Or is this an attempt at the perverse definition of a compromise, where no one is happy?
When we say wars aren't challenging we aren't just talking about the fights we are talking about the champs being placed and lack of defenders that are ment for defense. The answer they gave us was node increases. It's like making a wish to aw genie. Unless your very specific they grant you something way off base. Kabam is flat out being hard headed here. They are letting their pride get the best of them and as we all know ends up making you look like aw fool if it's not put in check. There's nothing wrong with admitting you're in the wrong kabam. This is a war. Please start treating it as such. Don't try and passively control what champs we can and cannot place. Defender kills need to return.
I bet half of this thread is of him arguing with someone. Not sure why the Mods let it go on. It just makes things so much harder an more frustrating when coming to the forum looking for info an answers
Aw new map big mistake
1. Diversity is good thing but when u guys decided to change the map and implement this new thing u should have offer the people to change their champs as well with at least 5 rank down tickets because we work to improve and wasted resources on some specific champs. The biggest problem with diversity is that it made the map easy to play and be completed cause the nodes are pretty decent in all the map
2. Rating I know it doesn’t give u much points but it counts very much when a 7 mil ally face a 10 mil alliance. Right from the start I can guess that the 7 mil alliance has a lower rating then a 10 mil so if the diversity is 150 for each u realize is a big probability to lose.
3. Defensive kills points should have not been take out cause that could have changed the game a lot. It would have make u still fight even if U are a lower alliance facing a big one.
4. Making a map easy to explore and with no kills count made people spend less and with the addition of glory points and now valour the spend even less
5. Revealed pi class health and attack from the start made again the map easier as people know who they will face on their paths and bring specific champs in so they can pass it easier
in my opinion the map should be a total surprise that will make a war harder
6. Possibility for people to grow is going to minimum. As an alliance we usually recruit by prestige and then skill. Now we have to recruit by prestige how many rank 5 divers champs each one have and then maybe skill.
jn the way I see things war should be all about strategy, planning, struggle , push and element of surprise. By the things that have been changed that is no longer a part of a war.
Thank you and hope you understand my concerns about the new changes.have a nice day
When we say wars aren't challenging we aren't just talking about the fights we are talking about the champs being placed and lack of defenders that are ment for defense. The answer they gave us was node increases. It's like making a wish to aw genie. Unless your very specific they grant you something way off base. Kabam is flat out being hard headed here. They are letting their pride get the best of them and as we all know ends up making you look like aw fool if it's not put in check. There's nothing wrong with admitting you're in the wrong kabam. This is a war. Please start treating it as such. Don't try and passively control what champs we can and cannot place. Defender kills need to return.
I actually believe diversity points are perfectly fine if defender kill points exist because they work together reasonably well. When I consider from the position of a defense placer, I have a choice: put a diverse champ on the node and get a guaranteed amount of points for that, win or lose, or place a defender I think will get kills on that node and get some variable amount of points based on how well I chose the defender and how strong the opposing alliance is. That potentially puts all nodes in play: there is a more interesting set of choices for the defender, and that means there is also the potential for more surprises when you are the attacker.
Defender kills by itself, which is the 14.0 version of AW, did have its flaws. We did see alliances gravitate towards a smaller set of optimal choices for placement. And the current system with no kill points and diversity points has obvious problems: we only see non-diverse defenders when they are OP on a specific node, and Kabam helpfully handed us some OP nodes.
Kabam could dial back the nodes and give us both diversity points and defender kills and let us decide on a node by node basis whether it is better to place a strong defender there or a diverse and weaker defender. And they could datamine AW to see which nodes are seeing the most interesting placement choices and which ones are boring or static, and alter the boring ones. If 90% of alliances place the same defender on a node, that node is boring: it needs to be buffed or nerfed to make the choices more interesting. If everyone is placing random nobodies on the node, that node is also boring: it likely needs to be buffed to be more interesting.
The tug of war between diversity points and defender kills would allow us to know whether a node is balanced for AW or not. If everyone always places diverse nobodies on the node, it is too weak. If everyone places the same strong defender on the node, it is too strong. If different alliances place different champions on that node because the choice is pretty close and so different people start choosing different strategies because they have a difference of opinion, then that node is right on the money.
On top of that, you put defender rating aside and ignore it during the war. If there is a winner, you throw rating away. If the war just happens to end in a literal tie on points, THEN you look at rating, and the higher rating wins. But ONLY if there is a tie: if there is no tie, rating is not scored or even looked at. That makes rating a true tie breaker.
What should the balance be between defender diversity points and defender kills? I think about half an attacker. In other words, the break even point should be that the amount of points for 1.5 kills (half of the three attackers a player has) should be equal to the bonus for diversity. So if the diversity bonus is 90 points, a defender kill should be worth 60 points. That's somewhat arbitrary, but I think it makes sense from a competitive standpoint. Right now, the only "good" defenders are ones that can stop an attacker-path completely, which is essentially getting three kills (ignoring the use of potions for now). To make things less binary, it makes a kind of sense if defender kill points were worth the middle between nothing (what they are worth now) and everything (which is sort of what they are worth now: only by stopping a path do kills translate into points, by causing an attacker to forfeit a node and/or path).
And as always, to eliminate the complaint about defender kills scaring away attackers, we can always translate them into attacker point penalties, reducing the value of the node appropriately. We make the value of a kill 200 points, minus 60 points for every attacker that dies on that node. There is now no penalty for attacking because if you fail to attack you will get zero points anyway - giving up is the highest possible penalty. And after the fourth death, the value of the node becomes zero and there is now no more penalty for just zerging the node with your entire bank account if you wish - but the defender at least gets credit for placing a strong defender.
This design eliminates defender kills and the disincentive to attack, it preserves defender diversity points, it gives credit to alliances that place strong defenders, it creates new tactical options on defense, it creates the opportunity to surprise attackers, and it creates an objective metric for deciding if a node needs to be buffed or nerfed. We end up with a war that is more interesting (because defenses will evolve to be dynamic and not static) and more competitive (because ultimately the ability to defeat strong nodes decides the war).
I dont know why I didnt consider and suggest an almost universally known tie breaker to replace the current D rating which leaves no firsthand involvement of the players in deciding a war.
I have no clue if it would even be possible to integrate it in AW, much less if anyone would actually agree its an idea that could work but here it is.
What if D rating were not a primary scoring metric and stay ? until the very end with everything else remaining the same, and in the event of a tie we play a "sudden death" or overtime battle of some sort(nothing too time consuming since we already invest enough as it is). Hundreds if not thousands of variations and scoring method could essentially be made to work, and I feel it will at least give back to the players the ability to showcase their "heart" and play a more direct role in their victory/loss.
Just one eample off the top of my head could be.
1. Each team can choose 3 champs per BG to be ommitted from the finale.
2. Once all 18 champs have been picked, the AI randomly chooses 1champ from each BG to face off in 1 fight each.
3. This time around, there is the usual time clock, but scoring a faster KO generates more points. If no KO is acheived in the 3mins, points are awarded based on remaining HP for each.
Fairly simple enough, but a new "phase" and unpredictability in what is scored could prove interesting IMO.
In the event of an absolute tie somehow after that, then the higher D rating can just become the extra point for victory akin to a coin toss. If scoring for the "sudden death match" is designed properly, I think it could make for ties to become much less frequent.
Either that or just redesign the current scoring properly which would accomplish the same result without anymore fuss! LOL
The time has come for us to share with you the next iteration of difficulty adjustments on the Hard, Challenger, and Expert Maps of Alliance Wars!
As we’ve been working towards our previously stated goals of making Alliance Wars a more diverse and engaging mode, we’ve done a few iterations of difficulty adjustments on these three maps, and each time have gotten closer to making the Defender Rating and Diversity the tie breaking mechanisms that we had always wanted them to be.
We feel that we are now very close to the intended level of difficulty for these maps, and have moved a lot of emphasis back to effective Defender choice and Placement. We are now ready to make smaller refinements to nodes and overall difficulty to get the difficulty level exactly where we want it to be.
These changes will come into effect when matchmaking resumes on November 8th.
While these refinements will bring us even closer to where we want the mode to be, we aren’t done yet. We realize that there are still some aspects of Alliance Wars that you all feel are missing, and are continuing to work on further iterations of Alliance Wars that will address those concerns. We will also continue to monitor these difficulty adjustments, and will continue to iterate as necessary.
The time has come for us to share with you the next iteration of difficulty adjustments on the Hard, Challenger, and Expert Maps of Alliance Wars!
As we’ve been working towards our previously stated goals of making Alliance Wars a more diverse and engaging mode, we’ve done a few iterations of difficulty adjustments on these three maps, and each time have gotten closer to making the Defender Rating and Diversity the tie breaking mechanisms that we had always wanted them to be.
We feel that we are now very close to the intended level of difficulty for these maps, and have moved a lot of emphasis back to effective Defender choice and Placement. We are now ready to make smaller refinements to nodes and overall difficulty to get the difficulty level exactly where we want it to be.
These changes will come into effect when matchmaking resumes on November 8th.
While these refinements will bring us even closer to where we want the mode to be, we aren’t done yet. We realize that there are still some aspects of Alliance Wars that you all feel are missing, and are continuing to work on further iterations of Alliance Wars that will address those concerns. We will also continue to monitor these difficulty adjustments, and will continue to iterate as necessary.
So is node 24 working correctly cause i dont see anything being changed for that?
The time has come for us to share with you the next iteration of difficulty adjustments on the Hard, Challenger, and Expert Maps of Alliance Wars!
As we’ve been working towards our previously stated goals of making Alliance Wars a more diverse and engaging mode, we’ve done a few iterations of difficulty adjustments on these three maps, and each time have gotten closer to making the Defender Rating and Diversity the tie breaking mechanisms that we had always wanted them to be.
We feel that we are now very close to the intended level of difficulty for these maps, and have moved a lot of emphasis back to effective Defender choice and Placement. We are now ready to make smaller refinements to nodes and overall difficulty to get the difficulty level exactly where we want it to be.
These changes will come into effect when matchmaking resumes on November 8th.
While these refinements will bring us even closer to where we want the mode to be, we aren’t done yet. We realize that there are still some aspects of Alliance Wars that you all feel are missing, and are continuing to work on further iterations of Alliance Wars that will address those concerns. We will also continue to monitor these difficulty adjustments, and will continue to iterate as necessary.
So is node 24 working correctly cause i dont see anything being changed for that?
Node 24 is working correctly, but definitely requires planning ahead! It's a hard node for sure, but it is beatable.
The time has come for us to share with you the next iteration of difficulty adjustments on the Hard, Challenger, and Expert Maps of Alliance Wars!
As we’ve been working towards our previously stated goals of making Alliance Wars a more diverse and engaging mode, we’ve done a few iterations of difficulty adjustments on these three maps, and each time have gotten closer to making the Defender Rating and Diversity the tie breaking mechanisms that we had always wanted them to be.
We feel that we are now very close to the intended level of difficulty for these maps, and have moved a lot of emphasis back to effective Defender choice and Placement. We are now ready to make smaller refinements to nodes and overall difficulty to get the difficulty level exactly where we want it to be.
These changes will come into effect when matchmaking resumes on November 8th.
While these refinements will bring us even closer to where we want the mode to be, we aren’t done yet. We realize that there are still some aspects of Alliance Wars that you all feel are missing, and are continuing to work on further iterations of Alliance Wars that will address those concerns. We will also continue to monitor these difficulty adjustments, and will continue to iterate as necessary.
So is node 24 working correctly cause i dont see anything being changed for that?
Node 24 is working correctly, but definitely requires planning ahead! It's a hard node for sure, but it is beatable.
I thought regen was supposed to be based on basic health only, why do these nodes (Buffet + Arc Overload) regen modified health then?
Comments
Their current system discourages players from attacking more then defender kills ever did.
Once we find out what the other alliances defender rating is, we make our decision to push or quit as does the opposing team.
If our opponents have a higher rating then we don't push forward. So far we've had honest opponents in match ups. The photo I posted above was an alliance that didn't give us their rsting so we had to push. We won because our rating was higher and that alone decided the war. Most wars are started out by exchanging that information because we know both of us will 100% complete the aw map if need be and diversity is always maxed out. The only factor we never know is rating, which again, is they ONLY war winning deciding factor in our tier of game play. The proof is in the pic. Had there been defender kills we would have lost as we should have but the push would still have been there.
#BringBackDefenderKillPoints
(if AW does not add in a way to score attacker effiency, I know of many many top tier alliance players that'll be quitting at the end of the year)
The scenario the devs decided to tackle that started this entire mess was quitting based on an assumption. And strategically speaking, the scenario the devs decided to tackle was a significantly worse assumption, because it was essentially potentially giving up the entire war by surrendering an entire path in a war.
You actually said something I agree with.
"A winner has to be determined somehow"
Glad we agree because there's nothing in our current scoring system that does that effectively in a manor of determining who the better alliance actually is. Right now all we have are winners and loser. But nothing that truly determines a winner or loser.
And yes, always assume that the opponents will 100% because is goes both ways. Also I'd like to add that there still hasn't been ONE war I've been in that either side hasn't 100% the map. Which btw turns that from an assumption to a gaurentee. Leaving yet again a war decided by defender rating. Then again "a war has to decided somehow" ... right?
The only time we don't 100% is when we know the opposing team has a higher Defender rating. Also, to answer your question. Everyone has been very honest when giving their rating.
I would like to add that all of your statements have more flaws in them than all the bugs kabam has released in their combined updates.
Full of contradictions. At least speak for the people. I'm still not sure what crowd your speaking towards. I mean nobody here agrees with anything you say. I think you entered the wrong room and forgot where the door was
Water is wet, sky is blue, and old Satan Claus is out there, getting stronger, and looking to put defender kills in people's stockings.
When we're talking about not participating for speculation of losing, it's worth pointing out that losing is inevitable.
LOL
Everyone participates regardless of the speculation of losing. When the war starts everyone plays. This whole argument is not about participation, its about spending items after you are KO’d.
However, when the probability of wining is low, because of defender kills (previous AW system) or now because of defender rating (current system), people will not spend items because nobody wants to waste resources. Its going to happen regardless of the system. Kabam wants to create a system to encourage players to use items regardless of the win probability. So they try to hide the win probability behind defender rating and defender diversity.
The end result: boring AW, player base disappointed, spreadsheet AW, etc. etc.
Knowing/estimating when an AW is close and when it is worth using items, and pushing your alliance to complete the map, was an extremely fun part of AW. It is extremely disappointing to push your team to finish only to lose by defender rating.
Kabam needs to bring the old AW system, fix MD, and lets pretend this AW nonesense didn’t happen.
LOL
That's odd. Is that only happening with MCOC?
That depends. Are we talking about alliances deciding to not participate and surrender the war based on the calculation they won't be able to win on points, or are we talking about players deciding to stop attacking and surrender the node and path based on the calculation they won't be able to defeat the node and can cost their alliance the war? Because it seems you only find this worth pointing out for one of those two situations.
But we as community don't want our losses predetermined based on factors that cannot be controlled, regardless of how good you play.
Losing because you made a mistake in a few battles...losing because they had a boss that kicked you teams behinds. Those are great ways to lose... They don't demoralise you as a player.
But losing before you play... On the basis that other team has a higher defender rating.
Why play? Are u going to hope that the other team makes a mistake and doesn't 100% the map?
As for the quitting on the assumptions.
Team A- contacts team B.
They chat on Line, whatsapp, fb etc.
Exchange screen shots.
I doubt anyone is gona take the time to alter screens hots just to win a war.
As for the different iterations. Let's go back to the old system with defender kills...
If you died a lot u were punished. And that feeling on not wanting to try was the message people were ignoring.
Message was... Get better!!!
I bet half of this thread is of him arguing with someone. Not sure why the Mods let it go on. It just makes things so much harder an more frustrating when coming to the forum looking for info an answers
He is the only one that seems to like defender diversity and the new system, so Kabam going to let him be LOL 😂
The problem is that he takes this discussion out of context because his arguments for why diversity works and defender kills doesn’t are just not accurate and goes off topic.
Kabam should at least warn him or boot him from this thread so we can continue to have some positive feedback over here... not that kabam listen to it anyways 😂
Ultimately, I think someone might make the case that everything is predetermined: our skill, their skill, our defense, their defense, ultimately determines the war result most of the time from the beginning.
But I don't think that is convincing to most competitors because of how most competitive players view competition. I think most competitive players view a strong attacker as a champion that obviously defeats other champions when used as an attacker better than others. We think of strong defenders as champions that are hard to kill when we attack them. The game puts us in this frame of mind to want to generalize AW competition in those terms. A good defensive placement should be the sum total of many different good defensive placement decisions. In other words, a good defensive map is a set of individually good defensive nodes, with each node judged individually based on how hard it is to kill, and collectively based on how hard the path it on collectively is.
I don't think players hate the point system directly, I think they hate the fact that it diverts from the logical way players want to compete: as a collection of individual fights each decided based on how strong the defender is and how good the attacker is. The war as a whole is the sum of those individual parts. To the extent that the current war deviates from that, it creates friction.
The harder nodes do seem to be altering the defensive placement strategies and the war results to some extent. But they seem to be doing something that seems counter-productive, at least to me. To the extent that it is now encouraging alliances from straying from maximallly diverse defenses, it is only doing so by introducing the new super-buff nodes which are in effect replacing mystic dispersion as a central opponent-stopping effect. Some nodes are just really good at stopping an opponent cold when the right defender is placed on them, and as I suggested earlier that could cause alliances to eventually break from absolute diversity but only by reintroducing the problem I thought the devs wanted to address: superstrong nodes that could generate a disproportionate number of kills taking over defenses.
I should point out that the 15.x optimal defense strategy is still the same, it just doesn't superficially look the same. I stated that whether the players realized it or not, they were not following a "100% diverse" strategy blindly. Look at miniboss placements: those were not random. The strategy was two-fold: if a champ had a good chance of stopping the opposing alliance on a particular node, place that there; otherwise place a diverse defender of any reasonable kind with maximal rating points if possible. The same strategy is still being used, it is just that instead of the miniboss nodes being the primary source of "path-stopping" options, now there are a few more such nodes.
The devs originally stated they wanted the map to be easier, they wanted players to be encouraged to attack hard nodes, and they wanted more diversity in defense placements. At the moment, the map is harder, the special nodes are discouraging players from throwing themselves at certain defenders, alliances are conspiring to forfeit to save money when they will likely lose on points, and the current meta rules are still encouraging a single placement strategy, it is just that alliances are still experimenting to find the most difficult champion to place on the newly modified nodes.
In exchange for eliminating defense kills, which at this point is a religious tenant not a game design decision, they seem to have created a war that is superficially better on metrics but worse in almost every way for most alliances. After all, how many alliances wished for defensive kills to disappear but also asked for Spite to be added to the AW map? Most of the alliances that might have liked 15.0 can't possibly be liking 16.0. So I'm left asking who these changes are for? Wouldn't the players that disliked defensive kills prefer an easier map, not a harder one? Wouldn't the players that want a harder trickier map also want a better way to judge good defenders with kill points as a non-binary way to judge the quality of a defender? Who wants no kills, harder map, and rating points comparable to exploration differences in close matches?
Or is this an attempt at the perverse definition of a compromise, where no one is happy?
1. Scratch diveristy
2. Bring back defender kills
3. Fix dexterity buff influencing MD
There's a reason for it imho
1. Diversity is good thing but when u guys decided to change the map and implement this new thing u should have offer the people to change their champs as well with at least 5 rank down tickets because we work to improve and wasted resources on some specific champs. The biggest problem with diversity is that it made the map easy to play and be completed cause the nodes are pretty decent in all the map
2. Rating I know it doesn’t give u much points but it counts very much when a 7 mil ally face a 10 mil alliance. Right from the start I can guess that the 7 mil alliance has a lower rating then a 10 mil so if the diversity is 150 for each u realize is a big probability to lose.
3. Defensive kills points should have not been take out cause that could have changed the game a lot. It would have make u still fight even if U are a lower alliance facing a big one.
4. Making a map easy to explore and with no kills count made people spend less and with the addition of glory points and now valour the spend even less
5. Revealed pi class health and attack from the start made again the map easier as people know who they will face on their paths and bring specific champs in so they can pass it easier
in my opinion the map should be a total surprise that will make a war harder
6. Possibility for people to grow is going to minimum. As an alliance we usually recruit by prestige and then skill. Now we have to recruit by prestige how many rank 5 divers champs each one have and then maybe skill.
jn the way I see things war should be all about strategy, planning, struggle , push and element of surprise. By the things that have been changed that is no longer a part of a war.
Thank you and hope you understand my concerns about the new changes.have a nice day
I actually believe diversity points are perfectly fine if defender kill points exist because they work together reasonably well. When I consider from the position of a defense placer, I have a choice: put a diverse champ on the node and get a guaranteed amount of points for that, win or lose, or place a defender I think will get kills on that node and get some variable amount of points based on how well I chose the defender and how strong the opposing alliance is. That potentially puts all nodes in play: there is a more interesting set of choices for the defender, and that means there is also the potential for more surprises when you are the attacker.
Defender kills by itself, which is the 14.0 version of AW, did have its flaws. We did see alliances gravitate towards a smaller set of optimal choices for placement. And the current system with no kill points and diversity points has obvious problems: we only see non-diverse defenders when they are OP on a specific node, and Kabam helpfully handed us some OP nodes.
Kabam could dial back the nodes and give us both diversity points and defender kills and let us decide on a node by node basis whether it is better to place a strong defender there or a diverse and weaker defender. And they could datamine AW to see which nodes are seeing the most interesting placement choices and which ones are boring or static, and alter the boring ones. If 90% of alliances place the same defender on a node, that node is boring: it needs to be buffed or nerfed to make the choices more interesting. If everyone is placing random nobodies on the node, that node is also boring: it likely needs to be buffed to be more interesting.
The tug of war between diversity points and defender kills would allow us to know whether a node is balanced for AW or not. If everyone always places diverse nobodies on the node, it is too weak. If everyone places the same strong defender on the node, it is too strong. If different alliances place different champions on that node because the choice is pretty close and so different people start choosing different strategies because they have a difference of opinion, then that node is right on the money.
On top of that, you put defender rating aside and ignore it during the war. If there is a winner, you throw rating away. If the war just happens to end in a literal tie on points, THEN you look at rating, and the higher rating wins. But ONLY if there is a tie: if there is no tie, rating is not scored or even looked at. That makes rating a true tie breaker.
What should the balance be between defender diversity points and defender kills? I think about half an attacker. In other words, the break even point should be that the amount of points for 1.5 kills (half of the three attackers a player has) should be equal to the bonus for diversity. So if the diversity bonus is 90 points, a defender kill should be worth 60 points. That's somewhat arbitrary, but I think it makes sense from a competitive standpoint. Right now, the only "good" defenders are ones that can stop an attacker-path completely, which is essentially getting three kills (ignoring the use of potions for now). To make things less binary, it makes a kind of sense if defender kill points were worth the middle between nothing (what they are worth now) and everything (which is sort of what they are worth now: only by stopping a path do kills translate into points, by causing an attacker to forfeit a node and/or path).
And as always, to eliminate the complaint about defender kills scaring away attackers, we can always translate them into attacker point penalties, reducing the value of the node appropriately. We make the value of a kill 200 points, minus 60 points for every attacker that dies on that node. There is now no penalty for attacking because if you fail to attack you will get zero points anyway - giving up is the highest possible penalty. And after the fourth death, the value of the node becomes zero and there is now no more penalty for just zerging the node with your entire bank account if you wish - but the defender at least gets credit for placing a strong defender.
This design eliminates defender kills and the disincentive to attack, it preserves defender diversity points, it gives credit to alliances that place strong defenders, it creates new tactical options on defense, it creates the opportunity to surprise attackers, and it creates an objective metric for deciding if a node needs to be buffed or nerfed. We end up with a war that is more interesting (because defenses will evolve to be dynamic and not static) and more competitive (because ultimately the ability to defeat strong nodes decides the war).
I have no clue if it would even be possible to integrate it in AW, much less if anyone would actually agree its an idea that could work but here it is.
What if D rating were not a primary scoring metric and stay ? until the very end with everything else remaining the same, and in the event of a tie we play a "sudden death" or overtime battle of some sort(nothing too time consuming since we already invest enough as it is). Hundreds if not thousands of variations and scoring method could essentially be made to work, and I feel it will at least give back to the players the ability to showcase their "heart" and play a more direct role in their victory/loss.
Just one eample off the top of my head could be.
1. Each team can choose 3 champs per BG to be ommitted from the finale.
2. Once all 18 champs have been picked, the AI randomly chooses 1champ from each BG to face off in 1 fight each.
3. This time around, there is the usual time clock, but scoring a faster KO generates more points. If no KO is acheived in the 3mins, points are awarded based on remaining HP for each.
Fairly simple enough, but a new "phase" and unpredictability in what is scored could prove interesting IMO.
In the event of an absolute tie somehow after that, then the higher D rating can just become the extra point for victory akin to a coin toss. If scoring for the "sudden death match" is designed properly, I think it could make for ties to become much less frequent.
Either that or just redesign the current scoring properly which would accomplish the same result without anymore fuss! LOL
The time has come for us to share with you the next iteration of difficulty adjustments on the Hard, Challenger, and Expert Maps of Alliance Wars!
As we’ve been working towards our previously stated goals of making Alliance Wars a more diverse and engaging mode, we’ve done a few iterations of difficulty adjustments on these three maps, and each time have gotten closer to making the Defender Rating and Diversity the tie breaking mechanisms that we had always wanted them to be.
We feel that we are now very close to the intended level of difficulty for these maps, and have moved a lot of emphasis back to effective Defender choice and Placement. We are now ready to make smaller refinements to nodes and overall difficulty to get the difficulty level exactly where we want it to be.
These changes will come into effect when matchmaking resumes on November 8th.
While these refinements will bring us even closer to where we want the mode to be, we aren’t done yet. We realize that there are still some aspects of Alliance Wars that you all feel are missing, and are continuing to work on further iterations of Alliance Wars that will address those concerns. We will also continue to monitor these difficulty adjustments, and will continue to iterate as necessary.
So is node 24 working correctly cause i dont see anything being changed for that?
Node 24 is working correctly, but definitely requires planning ahead! It's a hard node for sure, but it is beatable.
I thought regen was supposed to be based on basic health only, why do these nodes (Buffet + Arc Overload) regen modified health then?