@DNA3000, I just wanna summarize one of the points that you made that I loved.
Defender diversity was implemented because it's boring to fight the same people over and over again. How is it less boring to fight 3 Nightcrawlers than to fight 3 3 stars?
I don't understand what the big problem with AW is, it's working fine after fixing the kill points. Everyone is crying about diversity although ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERSON WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT ALL THE MYSTIC DEFENDERS EVERYWHERE. Kabam gives you what you asked for and makes it a penalty for placing all mystic and no ones happy still. I like it, its working fine. You want to win 100% and be diverse. Enough said.
I'll be fine with diversity, as I said before, once you give me my rank up materials back for my Nightcrawler, Hyperion, and Dormammu.
@DNA3000 wow. That's... That's very good. Top to bottom. On the surface, that sounds rly fun. Could have different debuffs per tier. If you wanted to expand it, you could even have alliance arena contests to win access to new debuffs. Possibilities are kinda endless.
You've just given them a few updates worth of possible game enhancements that wouldn't make the players feel like they've wasted countless hours of their time and would excite the player base more than any new champs or monthly quests. That's very much win-win. I'm impressed.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I think the idea is a bad idea. Not subjectively, but objectively. ....
Thank you for the post. I am really learning, not just the game, and something a little broader, how thoughts are brought across. If this is not constructive, I don't know what is.
I'm srsly excited to play THAT game mode. Strategizing it would be very fun. Trying to out-counter the enemy alli during placement and attack phase, never knowing for sure what you're going to run into. Dropping a "Hahaha guess you didn't expect us to throw in the blah blah blah debuff eh?" into war chat.
Gimme this, please. Give me something that can be new and fresh each round. Something that challenges me and my alliance..over and over again. Something that makes me look forward to both phases of war. I just entered attack phase and this is all I can think about as I bat aside weak defenders and just go thru the motions.
@DNA3000, I just wanna summarize one of the points that you made that I loved.
Defender diversity was implemented because it's boring to fight the same people over and over again. How is it less boring to fight 3 Nightcrawlers than to fight 3 3 stars?
I agree that diversity is really nice, but this cannot be the only thing that determine Who win or not.
People that like diversity either don't have the best defensive champs or can't beat them. This was the most challenging and fun part of the game. I'll speak for myself when I say that only rewards for top 100 needed to be fixed so there is more incentive to stay there.
@Draco2199 again, everyone complained about mystic champs because MD and Dexterity interaction is broke. Still is. But instead of giving what should be a pretty simple fix, we get an entirely new war design that nobody asked for.
@DNA3000
I respect your opinions, and I hear what you're saying, but the fundamental issue stems from the result of that competitive environment. The use of said "good Defenders" to the extremity that it has become is to the point where they have become the only valued Champs in the game, and the rest are regarded as "garbage". Essentially, it became "Magik/NC Wars", along with a few others. The game cannot house over 100 Champs and revolve around a select few. What was taking place was people were being Matched against certain death. Many call it skill. The reality is there was little skill involved. You get Matched according to War Rating against a Group full of these overly-challenging Champs, and you have three basic options. Try and fail from KOs, try and give up based on avoiding KOs and take a Loss regardless, or not try at all. It's the extremity of the competitive aspect that contributed to it. I won't entertain the argument that Players need to get more skilled in fighting the same few Champs. It became a popularity contest of Champs, not unlike what we've seen with the nerfs. The game can't revolve around certain few. Now, there is always desire generated by the newer Champs, but because of the competitive/covetous nature of the way it was, it literally took the focus away from 90 some Champs. Which for the majority was based on results in the War Offense/Defense Strategy.
Not to mention the idea that people see it as lacking in skill. Keep in mind, the new phase that is locked in will be present when 6*s finally do become playable. Which means in the old system, that makes the problem amplify. There is not much skill involved when it comes to trying yourself to death. There's little room to allow others to grow when it becomes a formula of relying on the RNG to roll the few Champs used most commonly. Thus, it becomes a formula that makes it not only repetitive, but very narrow in its focus, and very discouraging to those who literally have no chance of fighting within the first few hours of Attack Phase.
Is it a good solution? I think it's a solution. I still support the reasons the changes came about. We usually are in tandem with most things, but I'm for this one. There is room for adjustments, but the bottom line is, Defense being the make-or-break may be effective and desirable for those that have it under lock and are amassing Wins, but it means waiting 24 hours for a brick wall for others. The experience is somewhat lessened when you've waited that long and have no chance to fight other than to your detriment. It discourages people from playing in general. As for Diversity, I really see no issues with it. There is no actual hierarchy with Champs. We have them, we should be using them. Some are sought-after because they're rare. The rest is preference added by Players, and when it's this extreme, it becomes a game about the "Top Tier". I highly doubt that is the intention of the team. Evident by these changes, as well as 12.0. I could elaborate more, but I respect your feedback. I'm just going to bow out. I feel that the debate could go on forever. Lol. I'm for this one. The fact remains every War may have been different for some, but the majority were using the same Champs over and over and overpowering the opponents to the point of not having a desire to try, and that focus on certain Champs created an entire collective opinion that overshadowed every other Champ. That's not exactly what they're going for in creating that many Champs. I will take my leave and accept that we have different opinions. Now, could there have been another way to go about it? Perhaps. Perhaps not with the addition of 6*s. No disrespect. Just different feelings on it.
@GroundedWisdom I agree to a certain degree, and I would like to see other champs be more useful. But that isn't what was done here. Those champs that sucked still suck. They didn't do a single thing to balance the champions. Instead you get a reward for using those still-sucky champs. And everyone that spent tons of time and resources making the good defenders their top champs get penalized. Seems like a bad deal to me.
@DNA3000
I respect your opinions, and I hear what you're saying, but the fundamental issue stems from the result of that competitive environment. The use of said "good Defenders" to the extremity that it has become is to the point where they have become the only valued Champs in the game, and the rest are regarded as "garbage". Essentially, it became "Magik/NC Wars", along with a few others. The game cannot house over 100 Champs and revolve around a select few. What was taking place was people were being Matched against certain death. Many call it skill. The reality is there was little skill involved. You get Matched according to War Rating against a Group full of these overly-challenging Champs, and you have three basic options. Try and fail from KOs, try and give up based on avoiding KOs and take a Loss regardless, or not try at all. It's the extremity of the competitive aspect that contributed to it. I won't entertain the argument that Players need to get more skilled in fighting the same few Champs. It became a popularity contest of Champs, not unlike what we've seen with the nerfs. The game can't revolve around certain few. Now, there is always desire generated by the newer Champs, but because of the competitive/covetous nature of the way it was, it literally took the focus away from 90 some Champs. Which for the majority was based on results in the War Offense/Defense Strategy.
Not to mention the idea that people see it as lacking in skill. Keep in mind, the new phase that is locked in will be present when 6*s finally do become playable. Which means in the old system, that makes the problem amplify. There is not much skill involved when it comes to trying yourself to death. There's little room to allow others to grow when it becomes a formula of relying on the RNG to roll the few Champs used most commonly. Thus, it becomes a formula that makes it not only repetitive, but very narrow in its focus, and very discouraging to those who literally have no chance of fighting within the first few hours of Attack Phase.
Is it a good solution? I think it's a solution. I still support the reasons the changes came about. We usually are in tandem with most things, but I'm for this one. There is room for adjustments, but the bottom line is, Defense being the make-or-break may be effective and desirable for those that have it under lock and are amassing Wins, but it means waiting 24 hours for a brick wall for others. The experience is somewhat lessened when you've waited that long and have no chance to fight other than to your detriment. It discourages people from playing in general. As for Diversity, I really see no issues with it. There is no actual hierarchy with Champs. We have them, we should be using them. Some are sought-after because they're rare. The rest is preference added by Players, and when it's this extreme, it becomes a game about the "Top Tier". I highly doubt that is the intention of the team. Evident by these changes, as well as 12.0. I could elaborate more, but I respect your feedback. I'm just going to bow out. I feel that the debate could go on forever. Lol. I'm for this one. The fact remains every War may have been different for some, but the majority were using the same Champs over and over and overpowering the opponents to the point of not having a desire to try, and that focus on certain Champs created an entire collective opinion that overshadowed every other Champ. That's not exactly what they're going for in creating that many Champs. I will take my leave and accept that we have different opinions. Now, could there have been another way to go about it? Perhaps. Perhaps not with the addition of 6*s. No disrespect. Just different feelings on it.
Wrong. Get better at the game and you won't cry about MD or evade champs.
@GroundedWisdom I agree to a certain degree, and I would like to see other champs be more useful. But that isn't what was done here. Those champs that sucked still suck. They didn't do a single thing to balance the champions. Instead you get a reward for using those still-sucky champs. And everyone that spent tons of time and resources making the good defenders their top champs get penalized. Seems like a bad deal to me.
What is the basis for the opinion they suck? Based on their application in the old War System. That's what I am pointing out. I know there are a few examples floating around, Embiggen, SG, etc. There are literally over 100, and that's the general consensus about all but a few. It's not the same as other content where there may be specific Champs that are more effective. This one is elective. Anyway, I really am bowing out. I have views that just exacerbate the debte, and I have expressed them. Lol.
@DNA3000
I respect your opinions, and I hear what you're saying, but the fundamental issue stems from the result of that competitive environment. The use of said "good Defenders" to the extremity that it has become is to the point where they have become the only valued Champs in the game, and the rest are regarded as "garbage". Essentially, it became "Magik/NC Wars", along with a few others.
1. If you don't want the players actually competing on the defensive side, why have alliance wars? An alliance war where the object is for everyone to have a level playing field on the defensive side and everyone is encouraged to attack to the best extent possible and the only metric for comparison is the overall attacker success already exists: we call it "Alliance Quest." Why not just make all the AQ maps have one of every champion and have all alliances try to clear it? That would basically be what they are essentially driving AW towards now.
2. If you read my post, I included a specific solution to the problem of everyone using the same defenders in every defensive placement that does not devalue strong defenders nor takes defense placement judgment out of the players hands. In fact, I suggested two changes that simultaneously addresses the explicit issue that Kabam highlights regarding attacker discouragement and defender diversity. I note that you do not address either suggestion or what the specific problems you think there are with either.
3. I hate to break this to you, but the current AW format does not in any way address any of the issues you mention. For example, it does not in any way cause players to value any champion more as a defender. In fact, the opposite is true: players are so unconcerned about any of the nodes that isn't a miniboss or the boss - which are still drawing Magiks, Hyperions, Nightcrawlers, and Icemen - that they are often throwing 3* champs into war knowing they will be killed instantly just for the diversity points. No one is going "ooh, my 4* Luke Cage is worth a lot now." People are saying "well, might as well throw in a 3* spider gwen because no one else has yet."
Players are not placing diverse defenders because they care more. They are placing diverse defenders because I believe they no longer care at all, except for a few important nodes.
The only players that seem to be liking the new war are the ones happily running around mowing down defenders left and right, and I guess not realizing that they are getting 50 points per easy kill while their opponent is getting 175 points for letting them kill it.
@GroundedWisdom I agree to a certain degree, and I would like to see other champs be more useful. But that isn't what was done here. Those champs that sucked still suck. They didn't do a single thing to balance the champions. Instead you get a reward for using those still-sucky champs. And everyone that spent tons of time and resources making the good defenders their top champs get penalized. Seems like a bad deal to me.
What is the basis for the opinion they suck? Based on their application in the old War System. That's what I am pointing out. I know there are a few examples floating around, Embiggen, SG, etc. There are literally over 100, and that's the general consensus about all but a few. It's not the same as other content where there may be specific Champs that are more effective. This one is elective. Anyway, I really am bowing out. I have views that just exacerbate the debte, and I have expressed them. Lol.
@GroundedWisdom i have seen you make this ambiguous statement in multiple ways in multiple places, yet you have NEVER backed it up when people have asked for you clarification how some champs don't suck. So I'm going to give u a list and I would love your insight:
Spider Gwen: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label her as a hard champ to fight against?
Oml: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
She-hulk: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label her as a hard champ to fight against?
Iron patriot: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
Jane foster: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label her as a hard champ to fight against?
Black bolt: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
Luke cage: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
Daredevil Netflix: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
Kamala khan: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label her as a hard champ to fight against?
Carnage: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
You keep asking people what the basis is for claimin certain champs are garbage. I want to know YOUR thoughts on the above champs. My opinion is all of the champs are awful for any purpose and they are especially awful for defense (the only champ that should ever even be entertained on defense would be luke cage...and that's only in maybe tier 10)
And FYI: I NEVER complained about facing all mystics with max md or facing ncs/spideys. I only complained when the evade bug made nightcrawler crazy to try and beat
@GroundedWisdom I'm basing this on the entire point of an alliance war defense. Despite the new diversity function, the goal is still to stop the attackers from completing the map and killing your boss. That means KO'ing the attackers. Some champs are very much advantaged at doing this over others. When is the last time you had trouble winning against a Joe Fixit or Captain America controlled by the AI? They suck as defenders and this new format doesn't fix that, you just get a point bonus for using them anyways. They suck at their actual intended purpose of stopping attackers.
I said I'm out. I could debate endlessly. People don't want Diversity. People feel strongly about it. That's fine. I'm not getting into who is good or bad, or what may or may not be a better solution. I've listed problems that have existed in the old system. I'm for the objective. Didn't say I thought it was perfect. I actually said there may be room for improvement. I don't agree with going back to the old way, and I don't believe it will, unless I'm wrong. I'm really trying to be respectful here. That's just how I feel.
jesus christ does kabam even read all these posts in here. doesnt seem like it since we have not gotten a response in days. hurry up and answer us kabam we are all getting tired of your really boring game you have recently created and have nothing else to do in your game cause its boring us to death.
@Draco2199 again, everyone complained about mystic champs because MD and Dexterity interaction is broke. Still is. But instead of giving what should be a pretty simple fix, we get an entirely new war design that nobody asked for.
It's not broken at all though. There are ways to beat it but people want it easy for them and dont rely on skill. Everyone asked to stop the mystic wars from what I saw on forums.
Calling people shills and trolls is highly against the rules.
I have literally been debating the issue for days. I have no problems engaging in a debate where there is a free flow of information. This is a never-ending argument. I could just as easily debate every point made, and I have up to a certain point, but there comes a time when you realize the conversation will not get anywhere because of what people feel and want. Which I respect, and have said multiple times. If people want to campaign against the changes, that's entirely up to them. It's crossed into borderline-insulting quite a few times, and I'm not interested in that. As I said, the debate won't get much further because I'm for it and others are against it. I'd rather reserve my energy than go in cycles. I share thoughts to add different perspectives. I don't try to change the feelings of others.
TL:DR - I've been having the same conversation for days, and it's not going to yield any new discussion. Inevitably, there will be a rebuttal to any point I make because of my stance on the subject matter.
A user continues to make the same argument that has no basis in facts or the reality of the game. It's not helpful to the discussion at all and buries quality posts that do rely on facts. This user is just foot stomping and spamming the board. The argument is so far off base from the actual game that I have to question game experience.
On the one hand I hear that champs are equal. And then I hear the opposite sentiment wrapped in complete gibberish as the user tries not to admit that champs are not created equal. The user is bending over backwards attempting to make the argument sound like it makes sense but it's just getting sad.
That's the sort of thing that derails constructive conversations and it shouldn't be going on here. Differing points of view are fine. But if all someone is doing is repeating the same word garbage with exponentially longer posts, a line should be drawn.
I don't have an issue with diversity itself as it is currently implemented (i.e. per BG). There is still room for members to place the same champ in different BGs. I have an issue with the fact they took away defender kills as part of the equation as there is no way to mitigate the diversity score through skill (i.e. giving up less kills).
In relation to RDTs, I don't think per BG diversification warrants it. If they change it to per alliance they will make at least two members 5/50 defenders obsolete. Really that's what we are talking about... defenders that we've spent rare resources on T4CC and T4B.
Now think about this, there are some champs that don't need to be duped to be great, in fact look at NC. He is better unduped as a defender. At the moment, 3 members can place a 5/50 NC and not be punished for it. If they change it to per alliance, the moment someone pulls a 5* NC, ALL those 5/50s are now useless on defence. That's 3 x T4CC and 5 x T4B. You are better off placing a 2* OG Vision than that 5/50 NC.
I said I'm out. I could debate endlessly. People don't want Diversity. People feel strongly about it. That's fine. I'm not getting into who is good or bad, or what may or may not be a better solution. I've listed problems that have existed in the old system. I'm for the objective. Didn't say I thought it was perfect. I actually said there may be room for improvement. I don't agree with going back to the old way, and I don't believe it will, unless I'm wrong. I'm really trying to be respectful here. That's just how I feel.
I haven't seen anyone specifically argue against defender diversity. But I think a lot of people are in effect saying that the diversity currently being promoted is not an interesting kind of diversity. Isn't the point of defender diversity to showcase other champions besides the current strongest defenders? That goal isn't served by people placing 3* Luke Cage in their defensive maps because he is worth more points than a second 4* Spiderman. Those 3* defenders aren't living long enough for anyone to notice who they even are.
I would argue that the current system has actually reduced defense diversity in a meaningful way. In 14.0 there were many different potentially strong defense configurations. Sure, they tended to use the same champions in different rotations, but there wasn't a single universally optimal defense configuration.
There is now: place one of every single defender, with the strongest on the six boss nodes and the rest more or less where ever. There are more different champions being placed, but I would bet that there is less actual diversity in the way people are placing defenders today than in 14.0. To me, that's actually a step backward in gameplay diversity.
A user continues to make the same argument that has no basis in facts or the reality of the game. It's not helpful to the discussion at all and buries quality posts that do rely on facts. This user is just foot stomping and spamming the board. The argument is so far off base from the actual game that I have to question game experience.
On the one hand I hear that champs are equal. And then I hear the opposite sentiment wrapped in complete gibberish as the user tries not to admit that champs are not created equal. The user is bending over backwards attempting to make the argument sound like it makes sense but it's just getting sad.
That's the sort of thing that derails constructive conversations and it shouldn't be going on here. Differing points of view are fine. But if all someone is doing is repeating the same word garbage with exponentially longer posts, a line should be drawn.
Don't bother with such people. Ignore is a good feature. Unfortunately, the forum is set up so that even if you ignore someone, you'll still see their posts if someone quotes them.
@GroundedWisdom I agree to a certain degree, and I would like to see other champs be more useful. But that isn't what was done here. Those champs that sucked still suck. They didn't do a single thing to balance the champions. Instead you get a reward for using those still-sucky champs. And everyone that spent tons of time and resources making the good defenders their top champs get penalized. Seems like a bad deal to me.
What is the basis for the opinion they suck? Based on their application in the old War System. That's what I am pointing out.
There is an objective criteria for determining whether a champion is a good defender or "sucks" as a defender: is that champion easy to kill or not. If it is easy to kill, it sucks. If it is not easy to kill, it is a good defender. That has nothing to do with the alliance war points system, and in fact has nothing to do with alliance war itself. Most players would rather face a Spider Gwen or Luke Cage than a Nightcrawler or Hyperion. True in AW, true in AQ, true in duels, true in story quests.
Conversely, whether people are placing them in 15.0 AW or not, poor defenders are still poor defenders. They are just being rewarded for placing poor defenders. They are still really easy to kill.
This isn't a matter of semantics. Under 15.0 if the devs released a special Comicon 3* champion that had no attacks, no passives, and one point of health people would place him in defense because he is unique. Anyone attempting to suggest that this is because 15.0 makes that champion a good defender I would argue is insane.
Comments
Defender diversity was implemented because it's boring to fight the same people over and over again. How is it less boring to fight 3 Nightcrawlers than to fight 3 3 stars?
I'll be fine with diversity, as I said before, once you give me my rank up materials back for my Nightcrawler, Hyperion, and Dormammu.
You've just given them a few updates worth of possible game enhancements that wouldn't make the players feel like they've wasted countless hours of their time and would excite the player base more than any new champs or monthly quests. That's very much win-win. I'm impressed.
Thank you for the post. I am really learning, not just the game, and something a little broader, how thoughts are brought across. If this is not constructive, I don't know what is.
Gimme this, please. Give me something that can be new and fresh each round. Something that challenges me and my alliance..over and over again. Something that makes me look forward to both phases of war. I just entered attack phase and this is all I can think about as I bat aside weak defenders and just go thru the motions.
"Nice work, Kabam!"
I agree that diversity is really nice, but this cannot be the only thing that determine Who win or not.
I respect your opinions, and I hear what you're saying, but the fundamental issue stems from the result of that competitive environment. The use of said "good Defenders" to the extremity that it has become is to the point where they have become the only valued Champs in the game, and the rest are regarded as "garbage". Essentially, it became "Magik/NC Wars", along with a few others. The game cannot house over 100 Champs and revolve around a select few. What was taking place was people were being Matched against certain death. Many call it skill. The reality is there was little skill involved. You get Matched according to War Rating against a Group full of these overly-challenging Champs, and you have three basic options. Try and fail from KOs, try and give up based on avoiding KOs and take a Loss regardless, or not try at all. It's the extremity of the competitive aspect that contributed to it. I won't entertain the argument that Players need to get more skilled in fighting the same few Champs. It became a popularity contest of Champs, not unlike what we've seen with the nerfs. The game can't revolve around certain few. Now, there is always desire generated by the newer Champs, but because of the competitive/covetous nature of the way it was, it literally took the focus away from 90 some Champs. Which for the majority was based on results in the War Offense/Defense Strategy.
Not to mention the idea that people see it as lacking in skill. Keep in mind, the new phase that is locked in will be present when 6*s finally do become playable. Which means in the old system, that makes the problem amplify. There is not much skill involved when it comes to trying yourself to death. There's little room to allow others to grow when it becomes a formula of relying on the RNG to roll the few Champs used most commonly. Thus, it becomes a formula that makes it not only repetitive, but very narrow in its focus, and very discouraging to those who literally have no chance of fighting within the first few hours of Attack Phase.
Is it a good solution? I think it's a solution. I still support the reasons the changes came about. We usually are in tandem with most things, but I'm for this one. There is room for adjustments, but the bottom line is, Defense being the make-or-break may be effective and desirable for those that have it under lock and are amassing Wins, but it means waiting 24 hours for a brick wall for others. The experience is somewhat lessened when you've waited that long and have no chance to fight other than to your detriment. It discourages people from playing in general. As for Diversity, I really see no issues with it. There is no actual hierarchy with Champs. We have them, we should be using them. Some are sought-after because they're rare. The rest is preference added by Players, and when it's this extreme, it becomes a game about the "Top Tier". I highly doubt that is the intention of the team. Evident by these changes, as well as 12.0. I could elaborate more, but I respect your feedback. I'm just going to bow out. I feel that the debate could go on forever. Lol. I'm for this one. The fact remains every War may have been different for some, but the majority were using the same Champs over and over and overpowering the opponents to the point of not having a desire to try, and that focus on certain Champs created an entire collective opinion that overshadowed every other Champ. That's not exactly what they're going for in creating that many Champs. I will take my leave and accept that we have different opinions. Now, could there have been another way to go about it? Perhaps. Perhaps not with the addition of 6*s. No disrespect. Just different feelings on it.
Wrong. Get better at the game and you won't cry about MD or evade champs.
What is the basis for the opinion they suck? Based on their application in the old War System. That's what I am pointing out. I know there are a few examples floating around, Embiggen, SG, etc. There are literally over 100, and that's the general consensus about all but a few. It's not the same as other content where there may be specific Champs that are more effective. This one is elective. Anyway, I really am bowing out. I have views that just exacerbate the debte, and I have expressed them. Lol.
1. If you don't want the players actually competing on the defensive side, why have alliance wars? An alliance war where the object is for everyone to have a level playing field on the defensive side and everyone is encouraged to attack to the best extent possible and the only metric for comparison is the overall attacker success already exists: we call it "Alliance Quest." Why not just make all the AQ maps have one of every champion and have all alliances try to clear it? That would basically be what they are essentially driving AW towards now.
2. If you read my post, I included a specific solution to the problem of everyone using the same defenders in every defensive placement that does not devalue strong defenders nor takes defense placement judgment out of the players hands. In fact, I suggested two changes that simultaneously addresses the explicit issue that Kabam highlights regarding attacker discouragement and defender diversity. I note that you do not address either suggestion or what the specific problems you think there are with either.
3. I hate to break this to you, but the current AW format does not in any way address any of the issues you mention. For example, it does not in any way cause players to value any champion more as a defender. In fact, the opposite is true: players are so unconcerned about any of the nodes that isn't a miniboss or the boss - which are still drawing Magiks, Hyperions, Nightcrawlers, and Icemen - that they are often throwing 3* champs into war knowing they will be killed instantly just for the diversity points. No one is going "ooh, my 4* Luke Cage is worth a lot now." People are saying "well, might as well throw in a 3* spider gwen because no one else has yet."
Players are not placing diverse defenders because they care more. They are placing diverse defenders because I believe they no longer care at all, except for a few important nodes.
The only players that seem to be liking the new war are the ones happily running around mowing down defenders left and right, and I guess not realizing that they are getting 50 points per easy kill while their opponent is getting 175 points for letting them kill it.
Some are good, some are bad.
The best get chosen.
U mad, bro?
@GroundedWisdom i have seen you make this ambiguous statement in multiple ways in multiple places, yet you have NEVER backed it up when people have asked for you clarification how some champs don't suck. So I'm going to give u a list and I would love your insight:
Spider Gwen: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label her as a hard champ to fight against?
Oml: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
She-hulk: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label her as a hard champ to fight against?
Iron patriot: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
Jane foster: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label her as a hard champ to fight against?
Black bolt: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
Luke cage: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
Daredevil Netflix: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
Kamala khan: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label her as a hard champ to fight against?
Carnage: suck or good? Why and for what purpose? would you label him as a hard champ to fight against?
You keep asking people what the basis is for claimin certain champs are garbage. I want to know YOUR thoughts on the above champs. My opinion is all of the champs are awful for any purpose and they are especially awful for defense (the only champ that should ever even be entertained on defense would be luke cage...and that's only in maybe tier 10)
It's not broken at all though. There are ways to beat it but people want it easy for them and dont rely on skill. Everyone asked to stop the mystic wars from what I saw on forums.
I have literally been debating the issue for days. I have no problems engaging in a debate where there is a free flow of information. This is a never-ending argument. I could just as easily debate every point made, and I have up to a certain point, but there comes a time when you realize the conversation will not get anywhere because of what people feel and want. Which I respect, and have said multiple times. If people want to campaign against the changes, that's entirely up to them. It's crossed into borderline-insulting quite a few times, and I'm not interested in that. As I said, the debate won't get much further because I'm for it and others are against it. I'd rather reserve my energy than go in cycles. I share thoughts to add different perspectives. I don't try to change the feelings of others.
TL:DR - I've been having the same conversation for days, and it's not going to yield any new discussion. Inevitably, there will be a rebuttal to any point I make because of my stance on the subject matter.
On the one hand I hear that champs are equal. And then I hear the opposite sentiment wrapped in complete gibberish as the user tries not to admit that champs are not created equal. The user is bending over backwards attempting to make the argument sound like it makes sense but it's just getting sad.
That's the sort of thing that derails constructive conversations and it shouldn't be going on here. Differing points of view are fine. But if all someone is doing is repeating the same word garbage with exponentially longer posts, a line should be drawn.
In relation to RDTs, I don't think per BG diversification warrants it. If they change it to per alliance they will make at least two members 5/50 defenders obsolete. Really that's what we are talking about... defenders that we've spent rare resources on T4CC and T4B.
Now think about this, there are some champs that don't need to be duped to be great, in fact look at NC. He is better unduped as a defender. At the moment, 3 members can place a 5/50 NC and not be punished for it. If they change it to per alliance, the moment someone pulls a 5* NC, ALL those 5/50s are now useless on defence. That's 3 x T4CC and 5 x T4B. You are better off placing a 2* OG Vision than that 5/50 NC.
I haven't seen anyone specifically argue against defender diversity. But I think a lot of people are in effect saying that the diversity currently being promoted is not an interesting kind of diversity. Isn't the point of defender diversity to showcase other champions besides the current strongest defenders? That goal isn't served by people placing 3* Luke Cage in their defensive maps because he is worth more points than a second 4* Spiderman. Those 3* defenders aren't living long enough for anyone to notice who they even are.
I would argue that the current system has actually reduced defense diversity in a meaningful way. In 14.0 there were many different potentially strong defense configurations. Sure, they tended to use the same champions in different rotations, but there wasn't a single universally optimal defense configuration.
There is now: place one of every single defender, with the strongest on the six boss nodes and the rest more or less where ever. There are more different champions being placed, but I would bet that there is less actual diversity in the way people are placing defenders today than in 14.0. To me, that's actually a step backward in gameplay diversity.
Don't bother with such people. Ignore is a good feature. Unfortunately, the forum is set up so that even if you ignore someone, you'll still see their posts if someone quotes them.
There is an objective criteria for determining whether a champion is a good defender or "sucks" as a defender: is that champion easy to kill or not. If it is easy to kill, it sucks. If it is not easy to kill, it is a good defender. That has nothing to do with the alliance war points system, and in fact has nothing to do with alliance war itself. Most players would rather face a Spider Gwen or Luke Cage than a Nightcrawler or Hyperion. True in AW, true in AQ, true in duels, true in story quests.
Conversely, whether people are placing them in 15.0 AW or not, poor defenders are still poor defenders. They are just being rewarded for placing poor defenders. They are still really easy to kill.
This isn't a matter of semantics. Under 15.0 if the devs released a special Comicon 3* champion that had no attacks, no passives, and one point of health people would place him in defense because he is unique. Anyone attempting to suggest that this is because 15.0 makes that champion a good defender I would argue is insane.