Alliance Wars Discussion Thread
Kabam Miike
Moderator Moderator › Posts: 8,269
Hey Summoners!
We've just dropped some information on our next iteration of Alliance Wars, and this one includes some big changes to the Scoring method! Take a look at the announcement Thread and let us know if you have any questions or feedback!
http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/36645/alliance-wars-scoring-update-coming-december-13th
We've closed the last discussion thread, because it references older information that is no longer relevant. You can find that archived thread here: http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/31767/alliance-wars-discussion-2-0/
We've just dropped some information on our next iteration of Alliance Wars, and this one includes some big changes to the Scoring method! Take a look at the announcement Thread and let us know if you have any questions or feedback!
http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/36645/alliance-wars-scoring-update-coming-december-13th
We've closed the last discussion thread, because it references older information that is no longer relevant. You can find that archived thread here: http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/31767/alliance-wars-discussion-2-0/
6
Comments
Still expecting some more changes to diversity, as it'll still have some forced feel to it.
And another question, a bunch of us have ranked up....useless champs you could say, wondering if we'll be even compensated a bit for it?
Because it seems diversity is getting pushed away a bit, it'll mean more of the same champs again (which is awesome), but some of us have a r5 that's useless in the content out there besides arena.
It shouldn't have any effect on the gameplay itself, as it's a score that is tabulated outside the fight, and just like all of the other scoring mechanisms. If problems crop up for some reason we will of course work to resolve them!
We are still waiting for an update on rewards after the map was buffed 3x but rewards were buffed 0x.
and for attacker kills you write this:
what am i missing here?
I still believe that if defender diversity is intended to be a tie breaker it should function as a tie breaker, only being consulted if there is a tie. I see now what your reasoning has been: to reduce the "impact" of diversity points by reducing the total percentage of all possible points diversity accounts for. But I must point out that this isn't a good way to evaluate diversity points. In a match that is not close diversity won't change things because its fraction of total score is low. But in a closely fought match diversity will still be strong enough to swing the match. And Kabam needs to understand that it is *especially* in these very close hard fought for matches that players will be motivated to complain when diversity swings the victory.
To phrase simply: so long as diversity scores raw points it won't be a tie breaker, it will be the deciding factor in close enough wars. But it is those very wars where you will get the most complaints. Think about it: when the war is decided by a landslide the losing alliance knows they were whipped. They are less likely to complain about anything. But when the war is won or lost on a single player's actions, that's cause for celebration. Yay, Bob killed that last node and we won because of it. If in that situation diversity points snatches the victory from "Bob" that's when players will be the most angry.
They did that to stop the strategy of placing no defenders, in order to deny attack bonuses to your opponent.
This sounds a lot like a suggestion I made, so on the assumption that it is similar, I can explain what I think this all means.
Ignoring portals, there are two kinds of nodes: nodes that you cannot place a defender on, and nodes you can place a defender on. For nodes that you cannot place a defender on, you just get exploration for "capturing" it. But for nodes that you can place a defender on, there is an invisible bucket of 240 bonus points sitting on it. However, every time you die there the bucket loses 80 points. Once you "capture" the node, you get whatever is in the bucket.
So if the other guys don't place a defender there, you get all 240 points automatically the moment you step onto the node. You "capture" it, and all the points. But if there is a defender there, you have to kill it to capture the node and grab the points. Do so with no deaths, get 240. Die once, the bucket drops by 80. Capture the node, and you'll grab 160. Die again, the bucket drops by 80 again. And so on.
Mental model: every node that can hold a defender has a bag of 240 bonus points you can grab. But every time the node kills you the bag loses 80 points. After three deaths, the bonus bag is empty. But you can still get exploration points for eventually defeating the node and "capturing" it.
War sounds like it will be good again though
thanks
please, sir, have a like.
@Qwerty if they didn't award full points for empty nodes my guess is it would bring back the win wars by placing fewer defenders thing. You could potentially score more than the opponent by giving them fewer opportunities to score points.
thanks
I don't see that as a problem with the defenders remaining metric. That metric specifically matters in alliance wars that don't end in 100%, and there are still lots of those. Where both sides reach 100% kills and 100% explore, the war will most likely be decided by the attacker bonus points. If that is close, it could be decided on diversity points but I've already addressed that in my first post.
As to rewards, we should cross that bridge when AW reaches its final form. Until it settles down, I don't think adding rewards to the system is a good idea myself. The majority of the competitively oriented players need to believe the wars are basically fair before we start discussing how the winners (and losers) should be rewarded in my opinion.
That was the specific intent when I proposed this idea. It should be impossible for the defenders to deny the attackers the bonus for being good attackers by simply not giving them anything to attack.
On a more positive note, I do like the sound of the changes you're implementing.
Possibly for the way mvp is decided ?