Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

How I know Alliance War Season 2 "gaming" has resumed

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How I know Alliance War Season 2 "gaming" has resumed

    Leading up to Alliance War Season 2, I had been attacking lot of 3 Skull Nightmare bases. This continued to make opponents harder for me getting to point where I couldn't really take my Chemist loadout against 3 Skull Nightmares and I needed to start using my Tactical Boot cards I had been stocking up and I would need some Attack Cards even for the 2 White Skull opponents.

    First day of Season 2, all of that was in effect. By next day however, my 2 White Skull are suddenly < 2k very easy bases with 12 Grunt HQ Squad and not much resistance. Even some of my 3 White Skull are easy enough that I don't need any cards at all.

    It clicked for me that some Alliances must be back to "gaming" the system and intentionally losing to these weaker bases to make their Alliance Battle opponents easier. The effect of intentionally losing to these weaker bases not only moves them to weaker opponents for their Alliance Battles, it also moves these weaker bases up into my 2-3 White Skull opponents.

    Knowing how some Alliances are "gaming" the system to boost their Alliances, I think the prestige of ranking in Alliances is pretty much tarnished.

    I felt Season 2 started back up too soon. I was hoping defense would be made part of it. I think the matchmaking flaw that some Alliances are "gaming" which at least I didn't learn about until after Season 1 concluded also needed to be addressed before Season 2 would got going.

    I read about how the For Honor community organized a boycott to get developers to take their concerns seriously. I wonder if something like that is needed for Guns Up to make developers realize how serious the matchmaking flaw is...

  • #2
    It's about GOLD, not about skills. I don't mind people paying gold for easy extra alliance battles but when they're exploiting the matchmaking system it just takes the fun out of it. I don't pay much attention to alliance battles since I just do my 3 free dailys but I still try to go for nightmares every now and then just for fun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the feedback. We are always making changes and tweaks to try to create a better experience for everyone and will continue to do so. Please keep the feedback coming and we will continue to take your info into consideration when making changes to GU!

      Comment


      • cusman
        cusman commented
        Editing a comment
        Pretty generic comment but it does tell me that you have at least read and hopefully understand what the matchmaking problem is.

        Since you haven't indicated any kind of agreement that it is a problem, now if nothing is done to address the issue in the near future, I will be left with the conclusion that "gaming" the matchmaking system is an expected and accepted way that players can choose to play the game.

      • Mr__Yuck__
        Mr__Yuck__ commented
        Editing a comment
        There has been plenty of feedback just not much mentioned about it. If you want me true and honest answered about what needs to be changed which many people have agreed with me on, then you and the developers need to seriously consider watching my Full Season 1 overview and Season 2 changes video on my yt channel. If you guys refuse to do so and the game remains the same....then so be it. You must unlearn, what you have learned. - Yoda

    • #4
      It's not a good sign when one of the top/strongest alliances (IMMORTALS) has most of its players create alternative accounts to benefit from this exploit just to try to keep up.

      Comment


      • #5
        I think smurfs (secondary account/s for veteran players) are just a reality in multiplayer gaming now and there isn't much to do about it. Attempts to restrict smurfs will also punish legitimate secondary accounts that share the same hardware (sons, roommates, etc.)

        The real problem in Guns Up! is the matchmaking and reward system. There are a multitude of posts describing the issues facing veteran players. Considering there is FAQ which basically dismisses their concerns, the proliferation of smurfs is not surprising.

        Sadly, there is currently little advantage to having a high dog tag account besides glory. I appreciate Guns Up! attempts to reward new players; you don't want to discourage new players with impossible bases. However, to be fair to veterans and legends, I think it would be best to give bases an absolute rank and reward alliance points relative to the absolute rank of the base. This would allow providing easy bases to new players, but the alliance battle reward should not be the same for an easy base as it is for the hardest bases in the game.

        Alliance battle rewards should be 1-100 alliance points depending on the absolute rank of the base. Harder bases deplete veterans, cards, and time; the reward should reflect that.

        As for a boycott, it might not be necessary as DOW3 releases at the end of the month. I hope the RTS competition will encourage devs to sharpen their vision for GU! before the bureaucrats completely take over the game.
        [URL="http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/7162/xeCzCI.jpg"]H TAN H EπI TAΣ[/URL]

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by kdesmo View Post
          I think smurfs (secondary account/s for veteran players) are just a reality in multiplayer gaming now and there isn't much to do about it. Attempts to restrict smurfs will also punish legitimate secondary accounts that share the same hardware (sons, roommates, etc.)

          The real problem in Guns Up! is the matchmaking and reward system. There are a multitude of posts describing the issues facing veteran players. Considering there is FAQ which basically dismisses their concerns, the proliferation of smurfs is not surprising.

          Sadly, there is currently little advantage to having a high dog tag account besides glory. I appreciate Guns Up! attempts to reward new players; you don't want to discourage new players with impossible bases. However, to be fair to veterans and legends, I think it would be best to give bases an absolute rank and reward alliance points relative to the absolute rank of the base. This would allow providing easy bases to new players, but the alliance battle reward should not be the same for an easy base as it is for the hardest bases in the game.

          Alliance battle rewards should be 1-100 alliance points depending on the absolute rank of the base. Harder bases deplete veterans, cards, and time; the reward should reflect that.

          As for a boycott, it might not be necessary as DOW3 releases at the end of the month. I hope the RTS competition will encourage devs to sharpen their vision for GU! before the bureaucrats completely take over the game.
          Similar what I said in early post. I agree.

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by mendoza0206 View Post
            It's not a good sign when one of the top/strongest alliances (IMMORTALS) has most of its players create alternative accounts to benefit from this exploit just to try to keep up.
            As I said a week ago, If nothing will be changed until season 2, I'm gonna play with my secondary account lvl 45.
            http://forums.gunsupgame.com/forum/m...674#post153674
            Alliance Battles are unfair and unbalanced for long time top rank players like you and me, mendoza.

            ...and as already we know it, we will never get back the 2 and 3 reds.
            http://forums.gunsupgame.com/forum/s...66-guns-up-faq

            I no longer have Red Skull opponents on my attack list in GUNS UP! Will I ever see Red Skull opponents again?
            • The matchmaking system for GU! is based on matching your Attack/Defend Score against the Attack/Defend Scores of other players to determine what level challenge they will present to you. The greater the challenge, the higher the Skull rating. (e.g. 1 White Skull = low level of challenge, 3 Red Skulls = Extremely High level of challenge). If you’ve lost your Red Skull opponents it simply means that your Attack/Defend Score is high enough that there are no current players that pose enough of a challenge to you to be considered Red Skull opponents. As other players continue to increase their Attack/Defend Scores or, conversely, if your Attack/Defend Score decreases you will begin to see Red Skull opponents on your Attack list again.
            http://twitter.com/odytsak
            http://www.youtube.com/odytsak

            Comment


            • #8
              Matchmaking is not making the match (non-Alliance member should be out of the AB), point system is not on point! 30 points is 30 points in both easy or hard base victory, a 2nd account make sense now. If the game needs fixing, definitely it's broken! So sad 'coz I really like this game and will still play and somehow "adapt". So sad . . .

              Comment


              • #9
                I agree, alliance battles should ONLY be between alliance members. Something needs to be fixed as far as NIGHTMARE opponents goes I don't understand why we loose 2 and 3 nightmares.

                Comment


                • #10
                  A possible fix for all those high level players that do not have any 3 Red scull opponents would be for the Devs to create "bot bases" that and can be attacked like normal player bases.

                  Base Defence is done automatically anyway, so that shouldn't be hard.

                  Comment


                  • cusman
                    cusman commented
                    Editing a comment
                    Interesting idea, but if they aren't procedurally generated (i.e. unknown until attacked) and actually as challenging as the top defense bases they would quickly become 0 white skulls (free) difficulty rated. I mean for the top attackers (everything is relative).
                Working...
                X