War is easy now. Nodes are less powerful. 100% exploration is easy for most alliances. Whether you think that's a good or bad change is irrelevant; that's just how it is. War is easy. Most alliances can get the maximum possible points that they can on offense very consistently. That means that almost every alliance gets the same amount of offensive points.
If we all get the same number of offensive points, it comes down to defensive points. There's only two ways to get defensive points: Rating and Diversity. This means that the bigger alliance wins every time. Let me explain.
If a 5 million alliance that has awesome fighting skills faces a 7 million alliance with those same skills, the 7 million group will win every time. They'll both get the maximum offensive points, so it's down to Rating and Diversity. The 7 million alliance obviously has better rating. They also have more champs. If they have more champs, they also have more Diversity. The bigger alliance will always win if both alliances have the same skill level. That's not fair. The size of your account should never determine whether you're better than another alliance.
Now, let's say that the 5 million alliance faces another 5 million alliance. It'll still come down to Rating and Diversity. The Rating will be about the same, so that's out of the equation. It's all down to Diversity.
If the win is determined solely from Diversity, another problem is generated. Placing a duplicate champion could cost your team the win, right? Then what about the champs that ARE overused, and for good reason? Some champs are naturally better defenders. If they're better defenders, people will rank them up for defense. Duh. So if everyone who has Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Dormammu, Magik, and Spider-Man (Symbiote, Classic, and Stark), not all of them can even use them. Only one person per alliance can. Everyone else can't use the person they ranked up for a specific reason. They have to turn to other champions, who aren't ranked up, because they aren't good defenders. Which generates yet another problem!
People can't rank up everyone. They invest in good champs and leave the others to collect dust, and that's if they didn't sell them. If they can't use good champs, which I already explained is problematic, they have to turn to champs that are bad, and therefore left unranked and leveled. If everyone is placing their rank one level one four stars and three stars, then that's all people will be fighting against in Alliance Wars. No one can place their good champs, so everyone places bad champs. If everyone places bad champs, other alliances will face those bad champs. Think back to the reason Diversity was demanded to begin with: It's boring to face multiple versions of the same champs like Nightcrawler and Magik. Now I ask you, what's more boring, facing a Nightcrawler, or pummeling a 3 star in 10 hits? Now, some would say Nightcrawler, and others, including myself, would say facing 3 stars. I'd think that more would say 3 stars, but even if I'm wrong, and it's a 50-50 split, that's still awful. If 50% of your base doesn't like something, you probably shouldn't push it forward.
Now, there's one more point I'd like to make, because I've seen you say something so many times to people who complain about not being able to place who they want, and it makes me want to punch something.
"It's not like you can't use the champs outside of defense."
That is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. People want rank down tickets because their champs can't be used for what they ranked them up for. You're saying that, because you can still use them elsewhere, RDTs aren't justified. That's just moronic. RDTs were issued when champions were nerfed. Is that unjustified? You can still use the champs, even if not for the reason you ranked them up (they're good). Now, I don't like RDTs. I really don't. Rank ups are permanent, and I think that being able to reverse them isn't a good idea. But if Diversity stays, RDTs have to come in. We can't use who we want without being punished. That's a problem. You can agree or disagree, but the idea that RDTs shouldn't be issued because it's possible to use someone means that they shouldn't be justified when Nerfs are done, which isn't true in the slightest.
I read it. I'm not responding. Your tone is pointed.
War is easy now. Nodes are less powerful. 100% exploration is easy for most alliances. Whether you think that's a good or bad change is irrelevant; that's just how it is. War is easy. Most alliances can get the maximum possible points that they can on offense very consistently. That means that almost every alliance gets the same amount of offensive points.
If we all get the same number of offensive points, it comes down to defensive points. There's only two ways to get defensive points: Rating and Diversity. This means that the bigger alliance wins every time. Let me explain.
If a 5 million alliance that has awesome fighting skills faces a 7 million alliance with those same skills, the 7 million group will win every time. They'll both get the maximum offensive points, so it's down to Rating and Diversity. The 7 million alliance obviously has better rating. They also have more champs. If they have more champs, they also have more Diversity. The bigger alliance will always win if both alliances have the same skill level. That's not fair. The size of your account should never determine whether you're better than another alliance.
Now, let's say that the 5 million alliance faces another 5 million alliance. It'll still come down to Rating and Diversity. The Rating will be about the same, so that's out of the equation. It's all down to Diversity.
If the win is determined solely from Diversity, another problem is generated. Placing a duplicate champion could cost your team the win, right? Then what about the champs that ARE overused, and for good reason? Some champs are naturally better defenders. If they're better defenders, people will rank them up for defense. Duh. So if everyone who has Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Dormammu, Magik, and Spider-Man (Symbiote, Classic, and Stark), not all of them can even use them. Only one person per alliance can. Everyone else can't use the person they ranked up for a specific reason. They have to turn to other champions, who aren't ranked up, because they aren't good defenders. Which generates yet another problem!
People can't rank up everyone. They invest in good champs and leave the others to collect dust, and that's if they didn't sell them. If they can't use good champs, which I already explained is problematic, they have to turn to champs that are bad, and therefore left unranked and leveled. If everyone is placing their rank one level one four stars and three stars, then that's all people will be fighting against in Alliance Wars. No one can place their good champs, so everyone places bad champs. If everyone places bad champs, other alliances will face those bad champs. Think back to the reason Diversity was demanded to begin with: It's boring to face multiple versions of the same champs like Nightcrawler and Magik. Now I ask you, what's more boring, facing a Nightcrawler, or pummeling a 3 star in 10 hits? Now, some would say Nightcrawler, and others, including myself, would say facing 3 stars. I'd think that more would say 3 stars, but even if I'm wrong, and it's a 50-50 split, that's still awful. If 50% of your base doesn't like something, you probably shouldn't push it forward.
Now, there's one more point I'd like to make, because I've seen you say something so many times to people who complain about not being able to place who they want, and it makes me want to punch something.
"It's not like you can't use the champs outside of defense."
That is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. People want rank down tickets because their champs can't be used for what they ranked them up for. You're saying that, because you can still use them elsewhere, RDTs aren't justified. That's just moronic. RDTs were issued when champions were nerfed. Is that unjustified? You can still use the champs, even if not for the reason you ranked them up (they're good). Now, I don't like RDTs. I really don't. Rank ups are permanent, and I think that being able to reverse them isn't a good idea. But if Diversity stays, RDTs have to come in. We can't use who we want without being punished. That's a problem. You can agree or disagree, but the idea that RDTs shouldn't be issued because it's possible to use someone means that they shouldn't be justified when Nerfs are done, which isn't true in the slightest.
I read it. I'm not responding. Your tone is pointed.
You don't have a rebuttal?
No. You're verging on insulting and I'm not engaging in something that may become personal. I have thoughts on what your views are but I'm not debating it because the tone of the conversation is not positive and that will lead to an argument.
War is easy now. Nodes are less powerful. 100% exploration is easy for most alliances. Whether you think that's a good or bad change is irrelevant; that's just how it is. War is easy. Most alliances can get the maximum possible points that they can on offense very consistently. That means that almost every alliance gets the same amount of offensive points.
If we all get the same number of offensive points, it comes down to defensive points. There's only two ways to get defensive points: Rating and Diversity. This means that the bigger alliance wins every time. Let me explain.
If a 5 million alliance that has awesome fighting skills faces a 7 million alliance with those same skills, the 7 million group will win every time. They'll both get the maximum offensive points, so it's down to Rating and Diversity. The 7 million alliance obviously has better rating. They also have more champs. If they have more champs, they also have more Diversity. The bigger alliance will always win if both alliances have the same skill level. That's not fair. The size of your account should never determine whether you're better than another alliance.
Now, let's say that the 5 million alliance faces another 5 million alliance. It'll still come down to Rating and Diversity. The Rating will be about the same, so that's out of the equation. It's all down to Diversity.
If the win is determined solely from Diversity, another problem is generated. Placing a duplicate champion could cost your team the win, right? Then what about the champs that ARE overused, and for good reason? Some champs are naturally better defenders. If they're better defenders, people will rank them up for defense. Duh. So if everyone who has Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Dormammu, Magik, and Spider-Man (Symbiote, Classic, and Stark), not all of them can even use them. Only one person per alliance can. Everyone else can't use the person they ranked up for a specific reason. They have to turn to other champions, who aren't ranked up, because they aren't good defenders. Which generates yet another problem!
People can't rank up everyone. They invest in good champs and leave the others to collect dust, and that's if they didn't sell them. If they can't use good champs, which I already explained is problematic, they have to turn to champs that are bad, and therefore left unranked and leveled. If everyone is placing their rank one level one four stars and three stars, then that's all people will be fighting against in Alliance Wars. No one can place their good champs, so everyone places bad champs. If everyone places bad champs, other alliances will face those bad champs. Think back to the reason Diversity was demanded to begin with: It's boring to face multiple versions of the same champs like Nightcrawler and Magik. Now I ask you, what's more boring, facing a Nightcrawler, or pummeling a 3 star in 10 hits? Now, some would say Nightcrawler, and others, including myself, would say facing 3 stars. I'd think that more would say 3 stars, but even if I'm wrong, and it's a 50-50 split, that's still awful. If 50% of your base doesn't like something, you probably shouldn't push it forward.
Now, there's one more point I'd like to make, because I've seen you say something so many times to people who complain about not being able to place who they want, and it makes me want to punch something.
"It's not like you can't use the champs outside of defense."
That is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. People want rank down tickets because their champs can't be used for what they ranked them up for. You're saying that, because you can still use them elsewhere, RDTs aren't justified. That's just moronic. RDTs were issued when champions were nerfed. Is that unjustified? You can still use the champs, even if not for the reason you ranked them up (they're good). Now, I don't like RDTs. I really don't. Rank ups are permanent, and I think that being able to reverse them isn't a good idea. But if Diversity stays, RDTs have to come in. We can't use who we want without being punished. That's a problem. You can agree or disagree, but the idea that RDTs shouldn't be issued because it's possible to use someone means that they shouldn't be justified when Nerfs are done, which isn't true in the slightest.
I read it. I'm not responding. Your tone is pointed.
You don't have a rebuttal?
No. You're verging on insulting and I'm not engaging in something that may become personal. I have thoughts on what your views are but I'm not debating it because the tone of the conversation is not positive and that will lead to an argument.
It won't become personal. I'm not insulting you. The meanest thing I said is that I thought a point of yours was stupid.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Putting back in defender kill points is the only plausible solution. Lowering diversity will just make it a game on how much you want to play diversity vs kills then.
The problem is Defender Kills encourage the opposite of Diversity. People will still put the same Champs into BGs in spades.
But there is no other place besides defender rating that offers more points. As long as both sides clear all that is. So if you make diversity and kills about the same points then you gamble by being less diverse hoping for more kills. Otherwise highest rating wins. Period.
That doesn't solve what you're saying. Any competitive Ally would maximize both and then it would come down to Defender Rating either way.
That’s what I’m saying. Defender rating is the only thing that has a different number. If you max everything else it’s all the same number therefore the only difference in score is rating. Boom 1347 deaths later they still win because they have a higher rating. There at some point has to be a bonus for effective play and less deaths is it.
That bonus comes with a penalty.
The only penalty is making it a little easier on the attacker. But both sides clear All more and more often. Took on iso in a recent war both sides cleared all they had three million more alliance points. They had higher defender rating less diversity. If they had maxed diversity they win simply because they’re rated higher even if we had zero deaths. Their duping magik and nightcrawler others cost them. Alliances will Still clear their sides regardless of the duplicate characters. Just a little more easily. So the cost of diversity becomes nothing and instead the cost of not diversifying becomes instant loss.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Putting back in defender kill points is the only plausible solution. Lowering diversity will just make it a game on how much you want to play diversity vs kills then.
The problem is Defender Kills encourage the opposite of Diversity. People will still put the same Champs into BGs in spades.
But there is no other place besides defender rating that offers more points. As long as both sides clear all that is. So if you make diversity and kills about the same points then you gamble by being less diverse hoping for more kills. Otherwise highest rating wins. Period.
That doesn't solve what you're saying. Any competitive Ally would maximize both and then it would come down to Defender Rating either way.
That’s what I’m saying. Defender rating is the only thing that has a different number. If you max everything else it’s all the same number therefore the only difference in score is rating. Boom 1347 deaths later they still win because they have a higher rating. There at some point has to be a bonus for effective play and less deaths is it.
That bonus comes with a penalty.
The only penalty is making it a little easier on the attacker. But both sides clear All more and more often. Took on iso in a recent war both sides cleared all they had three million more alliance points. They had higher defender rating less diversity. If they had maxed diversity they win simply because they’re rated higher even if we had zero deaths. Their duping magik and nightcrawler others cost them. Alliances will Still clear their sides regardless of the duplicate characters. Just a little more easily. So the cost of diversity becomes nothing and instead the cost of not diversifying becomes instant loss.
As a matter of fact. Once you notice your opponent hasn’t diversified their defenders it is guaranteed you are going to win if you clear everything so it makes the risk of using items and losing nothing. So they are that much more likely to burn a few items to ensure a win.
War is easy now. Nodes are less powerful. 100% exploration is easy for most alliances. Whether you think that's a good or bad change is irrelevant; that's just how it is. War is easy. Most alliances can get the maximum possible points that they can on offense very consistently. That means that almost every alliance gets the same amount of offensive points.
If we all get the same number of offensive points, it comes down to defensive points. There's only two ways to get defensive points: Rating and Diversity. This means that the bigger alliance wins every time. Let me explain.
If a 5 million alliance that has awesome fighting skills faces a 7 million alliance with those same skills, the 7 million group will win every time. They'll both get the maximum offensive points, so it's down to Rating and Diversity. The 7 million alliance obviously has better rating. They also have more champs. If they have more champs, they also have more Diversity. The bigger alliance will always win if both alliances have the same skill level. That's not fair. The size of your account should never determine whether you're better than another alliance.
Now, let's say that the 5 million alliance faces another 5 million alliance. It'll still come down to Rating and Diversity. The Rating will be about the same, so that's out of the equation. It's all down to Diversity.
If the win is determined solely from Diversity, another problem is generated. Placing a duplicate champion could cost your team the win, right? Then what about the champs that ARE overused, and for good reason? Some champs are naturally better defenders. If they're better defenders, people will rank them up for defense. Duh. So if everyone who has Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Dormammu, Magik, and Spider-Man (Symbiote, Classic, and Stark), not all of them can even use them. Only one person per alliance can. Everyone else can't use the person they ranked up for a specific reason. They have to turn to other champions, who aren't ranked up, because they aren't good defenders. Which generates yet another problem!
People can't rank up everyone. They invest in good champs and leave the others to collect dust, and that's if they didn't sell them. If they can't use good champs, which I already explained is problematic, they have to turn to champs that are bad, and therefore left unranked and leveled. If everyone is placing their rank one level one four stars and three stars, then that's all people will be fighting against in Alliance Wars. No one can place their good champs, so everyone places bad champs. If everyone places bad champs, other alliances will face those bad champs. Think back to the reason Diversity was demanded to begin with: It's boring to face multiple versions of the same champs like Nightcrawler and Magik. Now I ask you, what's more boring, facing a Nightcrawler, or pummeling a 3 star in 10 hits? Now, some would say Nightcrawler, and others, including myself, would say facing 3 stars. I'd think that more would say 3 stars, but even if I'm wrong, and it's a 50-50 split, that's still awful. If 50% of your base doesn't like something, you probably shouldn't push it forward.
Now, there's one more point I'd like to make, because I've seen you say something so many times to people who complain about not being able to place who they want, and it makes me want to punch something.
"It's not like you can't use the champs outside of defense."
That is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. People want rank down tickets because their champs can't be used for what they ranked them up for. You're saying that, because you can still use them elsewhere, RDTs aren't justified. That's just moronic. RDTs were issued when champions were nerfed. Is that unjustified? You can still use the champs, even if not for the reason you ranked them up (they're good). Now, I don't like RDTs. I really don't. Rank ups are permanent, and I think that being able to reverse them isn't a good idea. But if Diversity stays, RDTs have to come in. We can't use who we want without being punished. That's a problem. You can agree or disagree, but the idea that RDTs shouldn't be issued because it's possible to use someone means that they shouldn't be justified when Nerfs are done, which isn't true in the slightest.
RDT's again, awesome lol. Were any champs specifically created for AW purposes? If yes, you win your argument for RDT's. Fact is, no champs were created specifically for AW which means we made our own choices on who to rank up. AW changes didn't alter the way any champ was designed for. I stay aware that in games there can always be changes that affect my past choices.
I also am aware that with diversity here to stay that I will need to rank up new champs for defense. And again, when I make my choices I will choose champs that also carry more value in other areas because AW can always change again.
War is easy now. Nodes are less powerful. 100% exploration is easy for most alliances. Whether you think that's a good or bad change is irrelevant; that's just how it is. War is easy. Most alliances can get the maximum possible points that they can on offense very consistently. That means that almost every alliance gets the same amount of offensive points.
If we all get the same number of offensive points, it comes down to defensive points. There's only two ways to get defensive points: Rating and Diversity. This means that the bigger alliance wins every time. Let me explain.
If a 5 million alliance that has awesome fighting skills faces a 7 million alliance with those same skills, the 7 million group will win every time. They'll both get the maximum offensive points, so it's down to Rating and Diversity. The 7 million alliance obviously has better rating. They also have more champs. If they have more champs, they also have more Diversity. The bigger alliance will always win if both alliances have the same skill level. That's not fair. The size of your account should never determine whether you're better than another alliance.
Now, let's say that the 5 million alliance faces another 5 million alliance. It'll still come down to Rating and Diversity. The Rating will be about the same, so that's out of the equation. It's all down to Diversity.
If the win is determined solely from Diversity, another problem is generated. Placing a duplicate champion could cost your team the win, right? Then what about the champs that ARE overused, and for good reason? Some champs are naturally better defenders. If they're better defenders, people will rank them up for defense. Duh. So if everyone who has Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Dormammu, Magik, and Spider-Man (Symbiote, Classic, and Stark), not all of them can even use them. Only one person per alliance can. Everyone else can't use the person they ranked up for a specific reason. They have to turn to other champions, who aren't ranked up, because they aren't good defenders. Which generates yet another problem!
People can't rank up everyone. They invest in good champs and leave the others to collect dust, and that's if they didn't sell them. If they can't use good champs, which I already explained is problematic, they have to turn to champs that are bad, and therefore left unranked and leveled. If everyone is placing their rank one level one four stars and three stars, then that's all people will be fighting against in Alliance Wars. No one can place their good champs, so everyone places bad champs. If everyone places bad champs, other alliances will face those bad champs. Think back to the reason Diversity was demanded to begin with: It's boring to face multiple versions of the same champs like Nightcrawler and Magik. Now I ask you, what's more boring, facing a Nightcrawler, or pummeling a 3 star in 10 hits? Now, some would say Nightcrawler, and others, including myself, would say facing 3 stars. I'd think that more would say 3 stars, but even if I'm wrong, and it's a 50-50 split, that's still awful. If 50% of your base doesn't like something, you probably shouldn't push it forward.
Now, there's one more point I'd like to make, because I've seen you say something so many times to people who complain about not being able to place who they want, and it makes me want to punch something.
"It's not like you can't use the champs outside of defense."
That is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. People want rank down tickets because their champs can't be used for what they ranked them up for. You're saying that, because you can still use them elsewhere, RDTs aren't justified. That's just moronic. RDTs were issued when champions were nerfed. Is that unjustified? You can still use the champs, even if not for the reason you ranked them up (they're good). Now, I don't like RDTs. I really don't. Rank ups are permanent, and I think that being able to reverse them isn't a good idea. But if Diversity stays, RDTs have to come in. We can't use who we want without being punished. That's a problem. You can agree or disagree, but the idea that RDTs shouldn't be issued because it's possible to use someone means that they shouldn't be justified when Nerfs are done, which isn't true in the slightest.
I read it. I'm not responding. Your tone is pointed.
You don't have a rebuttal?
No. You're verging on insulting and I'm not engaging in something that may become personal. I have thoughts on what your views are but I'm not debating it because the tone of the conversation is not positive and that will lead to an argument.
It won't become personal. I'm not insulting you. The meanest thing I said is that I thought a point of yours was stupid.
The idea is idiotic is what you said. I can tell when things are getting heated. That's already happened enough in the conversation so I am selective with what I engage with.
People can Rank whoever they want. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's a fact. The fact that those decisions are primarily based on popular opinion and War is irrelevant because that's a choice. If people choose to focus on War alone, that's entirely up to them. That doesn't mean a Champ is literally useless. You can use it anywhere in the game if you so choose. The problem is these opinions of good/bad are so deep that people can't accept using other Champs. I'm sorry, but you would be hard-pressed to convince me that further developing a Roster and using it is a bad thing. That's what the game is all about. Not just having the Top Tier Ranked an scrapping the rest. As I said, that may be how people choose to play, but that was not the intention of the overall design.
I am not debating Tickets. They've given their response and I support it. No changes to the Champs have been made. At all. Just the War Map people used them in. No Ranking is actually wasted in the game in general. People Ranked some Champs for War. They may have done it for that reason alone, but they have still made that decision for their own reasons and have been using those Champs at that Rank since.
There are other points I could make, but my views bring heated reactions, and I'm not likely to change them so I'm choosing what I engage with and what I don't.
War is easy now. Nodes are less powerful. 100% exploration is easy for most alliances. Whether you think that's a good or bad change is irrelevant; that's just how it is. War is easy. Most alliances can get the maximum possible points that they can on offense very consistently. That means that almost every alliance gets the same amount of offensive points.
If we all get the same number of offensive points, it comes down to defensive points. There's only two ways to get defensive points: Rating and Diversity. This means that the bigger alliance wins every time. Let me explain.
If a 5 million alliance that has awesome fighting skills faces a 7 million alliance with those same skills, the 7 million group will win every time. They'll both get the maximum offensive points, so it's down to Rating and Diversity. The 7 million alliance obviously has better rating. They also have more champs. If they have more champs, they also have more Diversity. The bigger alliance will always win if both alliances have the same skill level. That's not fair. The size of your account should never determine whether you're better than another alliance.
Now, let's say that the 5 million alliance faces another 5 million alliance. It'll still come down to Rating and Diversity. The Rating will be about the same, so that's out of the equation. It's all down to Diversity.
If the win is determined solely from Diversity, another problem is generated. Placing a duplicate champion could cost your team the win, right? Then what about the champs that ARE overused, and for good reason? Some champs are naturally better defenders. If they're better defenders, people will rank them up for defense. Duh. So if everyone who has Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Dormammu, Magik, and Spider-Man (Symbiote, Classic, and Stark), not all of them can even use them. Only one person per alliance can. Everyone else can't use the person they ranked up for a specific reason. They have to turn to other champions, who aren't ranked up, because they aren't good defenders. Which generates yet another problem!
People can't rank up everyone. They invest in good champs and leave the others to collect dust, and that's if they didn't sell them. If they can't use good champs, which I already explained is problematic, they have to turn to champs that are bad, and therefore left unranked and leveled. If everyone is placing their rank one level one four stars and three stars, then that's all people will be fighting against in Alliance Wars. No one can place their good champs, so everyone places bad champs. If everyone places bad champs, other alliances will face those bad champs. Think back to the reason Diversity was demanded to begin with: It's boring to face multiple versions of the same champs like Nightcrawler and Magik. Now I ask you, what's more boring, facing a Nightcrawler, or pummeling a 3 star in 10 hits? Now, some would say Nightcrawler, and others, including myself, would say facing 3 stars. I'd think that more would say 3 stars, but even if I'm wrong, and it's a 50-50 split, that's still awful. If 50% of your base doesn't like something, you probably shouldn't push it forward.
Now, there's one more point I'd like to make, because I've seen you say something so many times to people who complain about not being able to place who they want, and it makes me want to punch something.
"It's not like you can't use the champs outside of defense."
That is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. People want rank down tickets because their champs can't be used for what they ranked them up for. You're saying that, because you can still use them elsewhere, RDTs aren't justified. That's just moronic. RDTs were issued when champions were nerfed. Is that unjustified? You can still use the champs, even if not for the reason you ranked them up (they're good). Now, I don't like RDTs. I really don't. Rank ups are permanent, and I think that being able to reverse them isn't a good idea. But if Diversity stays, RDTs have to come in. We can't use who we want without being punished. That's a problem. You can agree or disagree, but the idea that RDTs shouldn't be issued because it's possible to use someone means that they shouldn't be justified when Nerfs are done, which isn't true in the slightest.
I read it. I'm not responding. Your tone is pointed.
You don't have a rebuttal?
No. You're verging on insulting and I'm not engaging in something that may become personal. I have thoughts on what your views are but I'm not debating it because the tone of the conversation is not positive and that will lead to an argument.
It won't become personal. I'm not insulting you. The meanest thing I said is that I thought a point of yours was stupid.
The idea is idiotic is what you said. I can tell when things are getting heated. That's already happened enough in the conversation so I am selective with what I engage with.
People can Rank whoever they want. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's a fact. The fact that those decisions are primarily based on popular opinion and War is irrelevant because that's a choice. If people choose to focus on War alone, that's entirely up to them. That doesn't mean a Champ is literally useless. You can use it anywhere in the game if you so choose. The problem is these opinions of good/bad are so deep that people can't accept using other Champs. I'm sorry, but you would be hard-pressed to convince me that further developing a Roster and using it is a bad thing. That's what the game is all about. Not just having the Top Tier Ranked an scrapping the rest. As I said, that may be how people choose to play, but that was not the intention of the overall design.
I am not debating Tickets. They've given their response and I support it. No changes to the Champs have been made. At all. Just the War Map people used them in. No Ranking is actually wasted in the game in general. People Ranked some Champs for War. They may have done it for that reason alone, but they have still made that decision for their own reasons and have been using those Champs at that Rank since.
There are other points I could make, but my views bring heated reactions, and I'm not likely to change them so I'm choosing what I engage with and what I don't.
Whether you think ranking a champ up for a certain game mode is a good or bad idea is irrelevant. The point is that people did it. Kabam made that choice a bad one. That's not fair to the users.
And you're only debating one of my point on why Diversity is bad. Facing 3 stars is still more boring than facing Nightcrawler.
War is easy now. Nodes are less powerful. 100% exploration is easy for most alliances. Whether you think that's a good or bad change is irrelevant; that's just how it is. War is easy. Most alliances can get the maximum possible points that they can on offense very consistently. That means that almost every alliance gets the same amount of offensive points.
If we all get the same number of offensive points, it comes down to defensive points. There's only two ways to get defensive points: Rating and Diversity. This means that the bigger alliance wins every time. Let me explain.
If a 5 million alliance that has awesome fighting skills faces a 7 million alliance with those same skills, the 7 million group will win every time. They'll both get the maximum offensive points, so it's down to Rating and Diversity. The 7 million alliance obviously has better rating. They also have more champs. If they have more champs, they also have more Diversity. The bigger alliance will always win if both alliances have the same skill level. That's not fair. The size of your account should never determine whether you're better than another alliance.
Now, let's say that the 5 million alliance faces another 5 million alliance. It'll still come down to Rating and Diversity. The Rating will be about the same, so that's out of the equation. It's all down to Diversity.
If the win is determined solely from Diversity, another problem is generated. Placing a duplicate champion could cost your team the win, right? Then what about the champs that ARE overused, and for good reason? Some champs are naturally better defenders. If they're better defenders, people will rank them up for defense. Duh. So if everyone who has Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Dormammu, Magik, and Spider-Man (Symbiote, Classic, and Stark), not all of them can even use them. Only one person per alliance can. Everyone else can't use the person they ranked up for a specific reason. They have to turn to other champions, who aren't ranked up, because they aren't good defenders. Which generates yet another problem!
People can't rank up everyone. They invest in good champs and leave the others to collect dust, and that's if they didn't sell them. If they can't use good champs, which I already explained is problematic, they have to turn to champs that are bad, and therefore left unranked and leveled. If everyone is placing their rank one level one four stars and three stars, then that's all people will be fighting against in Alliance Wars. No one can place their good champs, so everyone places bad champs. If everyone places bad champs, other alliances will face those bad champs. Think back to the reason Diversity was demanded to begin with: It's boring to face multiple versions of the same champs like Nightcrawler and Magik. Now I ask you, what's more boring, facing a Nightcrawler, or pummeling a 3 star in 10 hits? Now, some would say Nightcrawler, and others, including myself, would say facing 3 stars. I'd think that more would say 3 stars, but even if I'm wrong, and it's a 50-50 split, that's still awful. If 50% of your base doesn't like something, you probably shouldn't push it forward.
Now, there's one more point I'd like to make, because I've seen you say something so many times to people who complain about not being able to place who they want, and it makes me want to punch something.
"It's not like you can't use the champs outside of defense."
That is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. People want rank down tickets because their champs can't be used for what they ranked them up for. You're saying that, because you can still use them elsewhere, RDTs aren't justified. That's just moronic. RDTs were issued when champions were nerfed. Is that unjustified? You can still use the champs, even if not for the reason you ranked them up (they're good). Now, I don't like RDTs. I really don't. Rank ups are permanent, and I think that being able to reverse them isn't a good idea. But if Diversity stays, RDTs have to come in. We can't use who we want without being punished. That's a problem. You can agree or disagree, but the idea that RDTs shouldn't be issued because it's possible to use someone means that they shouldn't be justified when Nerfs are done, which isn't true in the slightest.
I read it. I'm not responding. Your tone is pointed.
You don't have a rebuttal?
No. You're verging on insulting and I'm not engaging in something that may become personal. I have thoughts on what your views are but I'm not debating it because the tone of the conversation is not positive and that will lead to an argument.
It won't become personal. I'm not insulting you. The meanest thing I said is that I thought a point of yours was stupid.
The idea is idiotic is what you said. I can tell when things are getting heated. That's already happened enough in the conversation so I am selective with what I engage with.
People can Rank whoever they want. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's a fact. The fact that those decisions are primarily based on popular opinion and War is irrelevant because that's a choice. If people choose to focus on War alone, that's entirely up to them. That doesn't mean a Champ is literally useless. You can use it anywhere in the game if you so choose. The problem is these opinions of good/bad are so deep that people can't accept using other Champs. I'm sorry, but you would be hard-pressed to convince me that further developing a Roster and using it is a bad thing. That's what the game is all about. Not just having the Top Tier Ranked an scrapping the rest. As I said, that may be how people choose to play, but that was not the intention of the overall design.
I am not debating Tickets. They've given their response and I support it. No changes to the Champs have been made. At all. Just the War Map people used them in. No Ranking is actually wasted in the game in general. People Ranked some Champs for War. They may have done it for that reason alone, but they have still made that decision for their own reasons and have been using those Champs at that Rank since.
There are other points I could make, but my views bring heated reactions, and I'm not likely to change them so I'm choosing what I engage with and what I don't.
Whether you think ranking a champ up for a certain game mode is a good or bad idea is irrelevant. The point is that people did it. Kabam made that choice a bad one. That's not fair to the users.
And you're only debating one of my point on why Diversity is bad. Facing 3 stars is still more boring than facing Nightcrawler.
That comment makes no sense. If he thinks its a bad idea than its irrelevant. But if he thinks its a good idea than its relevant? You claim its irrelevant because it's a disagreement to counter your thought. Makes little to no sense at all. Both are opinions, no matter how you try to turn it.
War is easy now. Nodes are less powerful. 100% exploration is easy for most alliances. Whether you think that's a good or bad change is irrelevant; that's just how it is. War is easy. Most alliances can get the maximum possible points that they can on offense very consistently. That means that almost every alliance gets the same amount of offensive points.
If we all get the same number of offensive points, it comes down to defensive points. There's only two ways to get defensive points: Rating and Diversity. This means that the bigger alliance wins every time. Let me explain.
If a 5 million alliance that has awesome fighting skills faces a 7 million alliance with those same skills, the 7 million group will win every time. They'll both get the maximum offensive points, so it's down to Rating and Diversity. The 7 million alliance obviously has better rating. They also have more champs. If they have more champs, they also have more Diversity. The bigger alliance will always win if both alliances have the same skill level. That's not fair. The size of your account should never determine whether you're better than another alliance.
Now, let's say that the 5 million alliance faces another 5 million alliance. It'll still come down to Rating and Diversity. The Rating will be about the same, so that's out of the equation. It's all down to Diversity.
If the win is determined solely from Diversity, another problem is generated. Placing a duplicate champion could cost your team the win, right? Then what about the champs that ARE overused, and for good reason? Some champs are naturally better defenders. If they're better defenders, people will rank them up for defense. Duh. So if everyone who has Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Dormammu, Magik, and Spider-Man (Symbiote, Classic, and Stark), not all of them can even use them. Only one person per alliance can. Everyone else can't use the person they ranked up for a specific reason. They have to turn to other champions, who aren't ranked up, because they aren't good defenders. Which generates yet another problem!
People can't rank up everyone. They invest in good champs and leave the others to collect dust, and that's if they didn't sell them. If they can't use good champs, which I already explained is problematic, they have to turn to champs that are bad, and therefore left unranked and leveled. If everyone is placing their rank one level one four stars and three stars, then that's all people will be fighting against in Alliance Wars. No one can place their good champs, so everyone places bad champs. If everyone places bad champs, other alliances will face those bad champs. Think back to the reason Diversity was demanded to begin with: It's boring to face multiple versions of the same champs like Nightcrawler and Magik. Now I ask you, what's more boring, facing a Nightcrawler, or pummeling a 3 star in 10 hits? Now, some would say Nightcrawler, and others, including myself, would say facing 3 stars. I'd think that more would say 3 stars, but even if I'm wrong, and it's a 50-50 split, that's still awful. If 50% of your base doesn't like something, you probably shouldn't push it forward.
Now, there's one more point I'd like to make, because I've seen you say something so many times to people who complain about not being able to place who they want, and it makes me want to punch something.
"It's not like you can't use the champs outside of defense."
That is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. I'm sorry, but it is. People want rank down tickets because their champs can't be used for what they ranked them up for. You're saying that, because you can still use them elsewhere, RDTs aren't justified. That's just moronic. RDTs were issued when champions were nerfed. Is that unjustified? You can still use the champs, even if not for the reason you ranked them up (they're good). Now, I don't like RDTs. I really don't. Rank ups are permanent, and I think that being able to reverse them isn't a good idea. But if Diversity stays, RDTs have to come in. We can't use who we want without being punished. That's a problem. You can agree or disagree, but the idea that RDTs shouldn't be issued because it's possible to use someone means that they shouldn't be justified when Nerfs are done, which isn't true in the slightest.
I read it. I'm not responding. Your tone is pointed.
You don't have a rebuttal?
No. You're verging on insulting and I'm not engaging in something that may become personal. I have thoughts on what your views are but I'm not debating it because the tone of the conversation is not positive and that will lead to an argument.
It won't become personal. I'm not insulting you. The meanest thing I said is that I thought a point of yours was stupid.
The idea is idiotic is what you said. I can tell when things are getting heated. That's already happened enough in the conversation so I am selective with what I engage with.
People can Rank whoever they want. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's a fact. The fact that those decisions are primarily based on popular opinion and War is irrelevant because that's a choice. If people choose to focus on War alone, that's entirely up to them. That doesn't mean a Champ is literally useless. You can use it anywhere in the game if you so choose. The problem is these opinions of good/bad are so deep that people can't accept using other Champs. I'm sorry, but you would be hard-pressed to convince me that further developing a Roster and using it is a bad thing. That's what the game is all about. Not just having the Top Tier Ranked an scrapping the rest. As I said, that may be how people choose to play, but that was not the intention of the overall design.
I am not debating Tickets. They've given their response and I support it. No changes to the Champs have been made. At all. Just the War Map people used them in. No Ranking is actually wasted in the game in general. People Ranked some Champs for War. They may have done it for that reason alone, but they have still made that decision for their own reasons and have been using those Champs at that Rank since.
There are other points I could make, but my views bring heated reactions, and I'm not likely to change them so I'm choosing what I engage with and what I don't.
Whether you think ranking a champ up for a certain game mode is a good or bad idea is irrelevant. The point is that people did it. Kabam made that choice a bad one. That's not fair to the users.
And you're only debating one of my point on why Diversity is bad. Facing 3 stars is still more boring than facing Nightcrawler.
That comment makes no sense. If he thinks its a bad idea than its irrelevant. But if he thinks its a good idea than its relevant? You claim its irrelevant because it's a disagreement to counter your thought. Makes little to no sense at all. Both are opinions, no matter how you try to turn it.
If he thinks ranking someone up for one reason, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is that people did it.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Of course it's easier. We have the Resources to Max 5*s on the horizon, as well as 6*s eventually. Put them on amped Nodes and the difficulty multiplies.
So you think that people are going to R5 that 5 stars and rank their 6 stars and put them on D when defender kills don't count? DO you honestly think that is a likely scenario?
Do you think that maybe people might just use those ranked up champs for offense making AW even more easy?
Sometimes I question your true grasp on this game.
No. The Map is easier because Max 5*s and 6*s are coming. In the old Map, they would be too challenging.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Putting back in defender kill points is the only plausible solution. Lowering diversity will just make it a game on how much you want to play diversity vs kills then.
The problem is Defender Kills encourage the opposite of Diversity. People will still put the same Champs into BGs in spades.
But there is no other place besides defender rating that offers more points. As long as both sides clear all that is. So if you make diversity and kills about the same points then you gamble by being less diverse hoping for more kills. Otherwise highest rating wins. Period.
That doesn't solve what you're saying. Any competitive Ally would maximize both and then it would come down to Defender Rating either way.
That’s what I’m saying. Defender rating is the only thing that has a different number. If you max everything else it’s all the same number therefore the only difference in score is rating. Boom 1347 deaths later they still win because they have a higher rating. There at some point has to be a bonus for effective play and less deaths is it.
I feel like this picture proves that point perfectly
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Of course it's easier. We have the Resources to Max 5*s on the horizon, as well as 6*s eventually. Put them on amped Nodes and the difficulty multiplies.
So you think that people are going to R5 that 5 stars and rank their 6 stars and put them on D when defender kills don't count? DO you honestly think that is a likely scenario?
Do you think that maybe people might just use those ranked up champs for offense making AW even more easy?
Sometimes I question your true grasp on this game.
No. The Map is easier because Max 5*s and 6*s are coming. In the old Map, they would be too challenging.
Not only are both of these probably still months away, but also the initial resources would be very limited, maybe 1 or 2 per person for a long while and mostly in higher tier alliances. This also means they’d be used mainly on mini-boss/boss nodes, which haven’t changed much from the previous season.
If this version of war was made because of this reason, then they’re kinda just letting war be broken/be boring and non-motivational for a long while, which is kinda dumb in my opinion.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Of course it's easier. We have the Resources to Max 5*s on the horizon, as well as 6*s eventually. Put them on amped Nodes and the difficulty multiplies.
So you think that people are going to R5 that 5 stars and rank their 6 stars and put them on D when defender kills don't count? DO you honestly think that is a likely scenario?
Do you think that maybe people might just use those ranked up champs for offense making AW even more easy?
Sometimes I question your true grasp on this game.
No. The Map is easier because Max 5*s and 6*s are coming. In the old Map, they would be too challenging.
Not only are both of these probably still months away, but also the initial resources would be very limited, maybe 1 or 2 per person for a long while and mostly in higher tier alliances. This also means they’d be used mainly on mini-boss/boss nodes, which haven’t changed much from the previous season.
If this version of war was made because of this reason, then they’re kinda just letting war be broken/be boring and non-motivational for a long while, which is kinda dumb in my opinion.
The last War System was around for nearly 2 years. The idea is to have a system that is accommodating to the future.
From Kabam #04454033
Exactly thanks to your address, and also addresses of others the player, we knew of a problem with addition of points for a Variety of Defenders in Wars of the Unions. The problem was that uniqueness of a variety was counted in each of Fighting Groups separately, but not in all Union in general. It caused small, but important anomalies in counting of points which were already eliminated.
Roman, Support service of Kabam
=========
And what we see at the next war?
According to information received from Roman (Kabam Russian tech), which is not true , we put the defend and lost because the variety of champs was counted in groups!
We consider that obviously false answer of tech support and incomplete informing led to defeat in war.
We demand: revision of result with return of rating and prizes. And also, as moral costs - additional prizes.
Beside this, no one list of changes did not report that mastery points influence total quantity of points in war of the unions. And this is nonsense, certainly.
As well as champions absolutely senseless now whom we raised to strengthen ours protection - according to new strategy all resources spent for them are spent for nothing therefore we ask to provide to all alliances decrease stones according to their rating.
From Kabam #04454033
Exactly thanks to your address, and also addresses of others the player, we knew of a problem with addition of points for a Variety of Defenders in Wars of the Unions. The problem was that uniqueness of a variety was counted in each of Fighting Groups separately, but not in all Union in general. It caused small, but important anomalies in counting of points which were already eliminated.
Roman, Support service of Kabam
=========
And what we see at the next war?
According to information received from Roman (Kabam Russian tech), which is not true , we put the defend and lost because the variety of champs was counted in groups!
We consider that obviously false answer of tech support and incomplete informing led to defeat in war.
We demand: revision of result with return of rating and prizes. And also, as moral costs - additional prizes.
Beside this, no one list of changes did not report that mastery points influence total quantity of points in war of the unions. And this is nonsense, certainly.
As well as champions absolutely senseless now whom we raised to strengthen ours protection - according to new strategy all resources spent for them are spent for nothing therefore we ask to provide to all alliances decrease stones according to their rating.
The idea of useful or not useful is based on how many Kills they got in the old system. Those Champs aren't actually useless. They're not the so-called "Top Tier", named so because of the Kills they amassed. That's part-and-parcel with the need for Diversity to begin with.
Stop saying that already. It is 100% not true. It's not a matter of opinion either. Certain Champs are better at attacking and certain champs are much harder to kill than others. This is a fact, and not debatable. There is a reason why people have trouble fighting Dormammu and not Kamala Khan, and why people bring Starlord to offense instead of Colossus. If it weren't true then people would just rank up Champs based on whether they liked the character or not. Or rank up at random. Every champ can be used in arena equally. What sets one apart from the other is their ability to be effective in other areas of the game. They are not all created equal, nor are the all equally useful.
The whole point of Alliance Wars is to prevent the opponent from killing your Boss in each battlegroup, and to kill the opposing alliance's Bosses. If this were not the case then they wouldn't award 20,000 points for a Boss kill (a great deal more than anything else in AW). Therefore, in AW, any champ that is harder to kill, and/or causes you to use more items, is MORE useful than a Champ who doesn't. And any champ who allows you to more easily defeat the opponents' defenders is MORE useful than a Champ that doesn't. A Champ that does neither is inherently LESS useful. The problem is rewarding people (via diversity points) for bringing poor, non-useful, defenders to AW. If you are going to do that then you've completely changed the mode and eliminated one of the two objectives. If you want to keep that, fine, but call it something else...it sure isn't Alliance WARS.
I think most players would agree that not all champs are equally useful for all tasks. GroundedWisdom is making the argument that we were judging "usefulness" based on number of kills and you seem to be at least nominally agreeing with him on that point: that the point of AW was to get kills so of course kills are what matters. GroundedWisdom is suggesting that players simply need to adjust to the new meta where kills aren't the point of AW.
I would argue that kills don't have to be the point of AW, and that isn't at the heart of most players' complaints. Suppose I were to change the scoring so that defenders got points not for kills but for damage dealt to the attackers. The more damage the defender inflicted the more points the defending alliance got. This is a different kind of meta and it changes things. For one thing, it actually changes the values of the attackers. Wolverine is not as good of an attacker in this new meta because even if he kills everything and even if he ends the fight at full health he could have given a ton of points to the enemy. Iceman becomes an even better defender now because even if he dies he deals a lot of damage right up front which guarantees him at least a few points.
This is a different AW than 14.0. Kills are no longer counted. But there is still the idea that players can engage with the game. We can think about attackers and choose what we think are the best attackers based on real choices we arrive at by looking at the capabilities of the champions. There is actual skill and strategy for picking and placing defenders. In this hypothetical the point of AW would no longer *necessarily* be about killing anything in particular, and some players would complain about the change, but I don't think people would be complaining to the extent they are now, or about the same things they are now.
That's what I meant when I said above points don't matter, at least not in this context. I think players are genuinely upset about basically being told your thoughts and your ideas and your choices don't matter anymore when it comes to defense placement. There is one correct way to place, and it has nothing to do with your opinion about how the champions work. I don't think AW is "supposed" to be about kills, but it is supposed to be about something. Something the players are supposed to be involved with. If the alliance leader is making a spreadsheet and telling everyone exactly what defenders to place, that can't be right. We took the play out of gameplay.
I'm not so much disagreeing with you as trying to make the point there's a deeper problem here that goes beyond what war used to be and what our opinions about what an alliance war should be focused on. I'm saying 15.0 isn't focused on the wrong thing, but on nothing.
What I'm saying is the extremity of such opinions left a whole host of Champs on the bench, so-to-speak. I'm aware of the concept of good Attackers/Defenders. To imply that the rest are useless and that Ranking depends solely on AW usefulness highlights the problem created. The point of Diversity is to encourage people to use a more diverse Roster. Now, it's not the concept of good/bad Defenders that I am pointing out. It's the result of taking that idea to the extreme. As in, to the point of BGs full of said Champs, and regarding the rest as useless. Now, they may have had diminished usefulness in the old system, but that more unilateral value is the point of making Diversity present. It's about creating a platform where we are using a more full Roster. I know what people mean by saying good/bad. What I'm saying is the changes are related to the hyperfocus on that. It's a more unilateral way of looking at Champs. I don't see that as a bad thing when the extremity has caused subsequent issues that inevitably happen when Players try to maximize Rewards and secure their position. Unfortunately, prolonged use of that system affects the paradigm as a whole.
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
The idea of useful or not useful is based on how many Kills they got in the old system. Those Champs aren't actually useless. They're not the so-called "Top Tier", named so because of the Kills they amassed. That's part-and-parcel with the need for Diversity to begin with.
Stop saying that already. It is 100% not true. It's not a matter of opinion either. Certain Champs are better at attacking and certain champs are much harder to kill than others. This is a fact, and not debatable. There is a reason why people have trouble fighting Dormammu and not Kamala Khan, and why people bring Starlord to offense instead of Colossus. If it weren't true then people would just rank up Champs based on whether they liked the character or not. Or rank up at random. Every champ can be used in arena equally. What sets one apart from the other is their ability to be effective in other areas of the game. They are not all created equal, nor are the all equally useful.
The whole point of Alliance Wars is to prevent the opponent from killing your Boss in each battlegroup, and to kill the opposing alliance's Bosses. If this were not the case then they wouldn't award 20,000 points for a Boss kill (a great deal more than anything else in AW). Therefore, in AW, any champ that is harder to kill, and/or causes you to use more items, is MORE useful than a Champ who doesn't. And any champ who allows you to more easily defeat the opponents' defenders is MORE useful than a Champ that doesn't. A Champ that does neither is inherently LESS useful. The problem is rewarding people (via diversity points) for bringing poor, non-useful, defenders to AW. If you are going to do that then you've completely changed the mode and eliminated one of the two objectives. If you want to keep that, fine, but call it something else...it sure isn't Alliance WARS.
I think most players would agree that not all champs are equally useful for all tasks. GroundedWisdom is making the argument that we were judging "usefulness" based on number of kills and you seem to be at least nominally agreeing with him on that point: that the point of AW was to get kills so of course kills are what matters. GroundedWisdom is suggesting that players simply need to adjust to the new meta where kills aren't the point of AW.
I would argue that kills don't have to be the point of AW, and that isn't at the heart of most players' complaints. Suppose I were to change the scoring so that defenders got points not for kills but for damage dealt to the attackers. The more damage the defender inflicted the more points the defending alliance got. This is a different kind of meta and it changes things. For one thing, it actually changes the values of the attackers. Wolverine is not as good of an attacker in this new meta because even if he kills everything and even if he ends the fight at full health he could have given a ton of points to the enemy. Iceman becomes an even better defender now because even if he dies he deals a lot of damage right up front which guarantees him at least a few points.
This is a different AW than 14.0. Kills are no longer counted. But there is still the idea that players can engage with the game. We can think about attackers and choose what we think are the best attackers based on real choices we arrive at by looking at the capabilities of the champions. There is actual skill and strategy for picking and placing defenders. In this hypothetical the point of AW would no longer *necessarily* be about killing anything in particular, and some players would complain about the change, but I don't think people would be complaining to the extent they are now, or about the same things they are now.
That's what I meant when I said above points don't matter, at least not in this context. I think players are genuinely upset about basically being told your thoughts and your ideas and your choices don't matter anymore when it comes to defense placement. There is one correct way to place, and it has nothing to do with your opinion about how the champions work. I don't think AW is "supposed" to be about kills, but it is supposed to be about something. Something the players are supposed to be involved with. If the alliance leader is making a spreadsheet and telling everyone exactly what defenders to place, that can't be right. We took the play out of gameplay.
I'm not so much disagreeing with you as trying to make the point there's a deeper problem here that goes beyond what war used to be and what our opinions about what an alliance war should be focused on. I'm saying 15.0 isn't focused on the wrong thing, but on nothing.
What I'm saying is the extremity of such opinions left a whole host of Champs on the bench, so-to-speak. I'm aware of the concept of good Attackers/Defenders. To imply that the rest are useless and that Ranking depends solely on AW usefulness highlights the problem created. The point of Diversity is to encourage people to use a more diverse Roster. Now, it's not the concept of good/bad Defenders that I am pointing out. It's the result of taking that idea to the extreme. As in, to the point of BGs full of said Champs, and regarding the rest as useless. Now, they may have had diminished usefulness in the old system, but that more unilateral value is the point of making Diversity present. It's about creating a platform where we are using a more full Roster. I know what people mean by saying good/bad. What I'm saying is the changes are related to the hyperfocus on that. It's a more unilateral way of looking at Champs. I don't see that as a bad thing when the extremity has caused subsequent issues that inevitably happen when Players try to maximize Rewards and secure their position. Unfortunately, prolonged use of that system affects the paradigm as a whole.
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Of course it's easier. We have the Resources to Max 5*s on the horizon, as well as 6*s eventually. Put them on amped Nodes and the difficulty multiplies.
So you think that people are going to R5 that 5 stars and rank their 6 stars and put them on D when defender kills don't count? DO you honestly think that is a likely scenario?
Do you think that maybe people might just use those ranked up champs for offense making AW even more easy?
Sometimes I question your true grasp on this game.
No. The Map is easier because Max 5*s and 6*s are coming. In the old Map, they would be too challenging.
I'm afraid @RagamugginGunner is correct here. He is trying to point out to you that when 6* champions arrive the net result will be for offense to get better faster than defense gets better, because players tend to rank up attackers first. That means weakening the nodes to prepare for the arrival of 6* champions is the exact opposite of what you should do, if anything. First, ranked up 6* champs will arrive on offense and those attackers will steamroll over the weaker defenders. Eventually, a long long time later players will start filling in 6* champs as defenders and defense will catch up to offense. Anyone who studies AW would know this, because this is how 5* champs basically worked. Even now, 5* champs on defense is still uncommon in most tiers. You'll see a few, but not many. They are simply too valuable to use on offense.
Which kind of brings up an important point. All this talk about "diversity" encouraging players to "use" a more diverse roster is ridiculous in my opinion, for two reasons. First, we don't "use" defenders. We place defenders. We PLAY attackers. If you want players to use a more diverse subset of your roster, you have to encourage them to play more champs on offense. Nobody is ever going to learn to like "using" Luke Cage if they keep placing him on defense, because you don't get to experience defenders. You never really "see" anything about a defender that would make you like it more (except for kills, except not any more).
Second, and this is almost too obvious to type, but when you place a champ as a defender you can't use him on attack. If you want me to place a champ on defense, fine, but by definition every champion you encourage me to place on defense is a champion that is removed from my options to actually play. That does nothing to increase the diversity of my attack roster. It probably even reduces it by a certain amount.
Compelling players to place less well liked champions on defense doesn't make them more well liked, and it doesn't encourage the players to play a more diverse roster. If anything it encourages players to focus even more attention on the best attackers, because the return on investment for focusing attention on defenders is so low in 15.0 compared to 14.0.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
This is why I have removed myself from the debate. I have my own opinions. People have theirs. I'm sorry, but I support the changes. I'm not about to change how I feel about it.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
The value is they need to be used to gain Points. Respectfully, I'm out. It's a never-ending argument.
The idea of useful or not useful is based on how many Kills they got in the old system. Those Champs aren't actually useless. They're not the so-called "Top Tier", named so because of the Kills they amassed. That's part-and-parcel with the need for Diversity to begin with.
Stop saying that already. It is 100% not true. It's not a matter of opinion either. Certain Champs are better at attacking and certain champs are much harder to kill than others. This is a fact, and not debatable. There is a reason why people have trouble fighting Dormammu and not Kamala Khan, and why people bring Starlord to offense instead of Colossus. If it weren't true then people would just rank up Champs based on whether they liked the character or not. Or rank up at random. Every champ can be used in arena equally. What sets one apart from the other is their ability to be effective in other areas of the game. They are not all created equal, nor are the all equally useful.
The whole point of Alliance Wars is to prevent the opponent from killing your Boss in each battlegroup, and to kill the opposing alliance's Bosses. If this were not the case then they wouldn't award 20,000 points for a Boss kill (a great deal more than anything else in AW). Therefore, in AW, any champ that is harder to kill, and/or causes you to use more items, is MORE useful than a Champ who doesn't. And any champ who allows you to more easily defeat the opponents' defenders is MORE useful than a Champ that doesn't. A Champ that does neither is inherently LESS useful. The problem is rewarding people (via diversity points) for bringing poor, non-useful, defenders to AW. If you are going to do that then you've completely changed the mode and eliminated one of the two objectives. If you want to keep that, fine, but call it something else...it sure isn't Alliance WARS.
I think most players would agree that not all champs are equally useful for all tasks. GroundedWisdom is making the argument that we were judging "usefulness" based on number of kills and you seem to be at least nominally agreeing with him on that point: that the point of AW was to get kills so of course kills are what matters. GroundedWisdom is suggesting that players simply need to adjust to the new meta where kills aren't the point of AW.
I would argue that kills don't have to be the point of AW, and that isn't at the heart of most players' complaints. Suppose I were to change the scoring so that defenders got points not for kills but for damage dealt to the attackers. The more damage the defender inflicted the more points the defending alliance got. This is a different kind of meta and it changes things. For one thing, it actually changes the values of the attackers. Wolverine is not as good of an attacker in this new meta because even if he kills everything and even if he ends the fight at full health he could have given a ton of points to the enemy. Iceman becomes an even better defender now because even if he dies he deals a lot of damage right up front which guarantees him at least a few points.
This is a different AW than 14.0. Kills are no longer counted. But there is still the idea that players can engage with the game. We can think about attackers and choose what we think are the best attackers based on real choices we arrive at by looking at the capabilities of the champions. There is actual skill and strategy for picking and placing defenders. In this hypothetical the point of AW would no longer *necessarily* be about killing anything in particular, and some players would complain about the change, but I don't think people would be complaining to the extent they are now, or about the same things they are now.
That's what I meant when I said above points don't matter, at least not in this context. I think players are genuinely upset about basically being told your thoughts and your ideas and your choices don't matter anymore when it comes to defense placement. There is one correct way to place, and it has nothing to do with your opinion about how the champions work. I don't think AW is "supposed" to be about kills, but it is supposed to be about something. Something the players are supposed to be involved with. If the alliance leader is making a spreadsheet and telling everyone exactly what defenders to place, that can't be right. We took the play out of gameplay.
I'm not so much disagreeing with you as trying to make the point there's a deeper problem here that goes beyond what war used to be and what our opinions about what an alliance war should be focused on. I'm saying 15.0 isn't focused on the wrong thing, but on nothing.
What I'm saying is the extremity of such opinions left a whole host of Champs on the bench, so-to-speak. I'm aware of the concept of good Attackers/Defenders. To imply that the rest are useless and that Ranking depends solely on AW usefulness highlights the problem created. The point of Diversity is to encourage people to use a more diverse Roster. Now, it's not the concept of good/bad Defenders that I am pointing out. It's the result of taking that idea to the extreme. As in, to the point of BGs full of said Champs, and regarding the rest as useless. Now, they may have had diminished usefulness in the old system, but that more unilateral value is the point of making Diversity present. It's about creating a platform where we are using a more full Roster. I know what people mean by saying good/bad. What I'm saying is the changes are related to the hyperfocus on that. It's a more unilateral way of looking at Champs. I don't see that as a bad thing when the extremity has caused subsequent issues that inevitably happen when Players try to maximize Rewards and secure their position. Unfortunately, prolonged use of that system affects the paradigm as a whole.
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
No, you have it correct. It's just a terrible argument.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Of course it's easier. We have the Resources to Max 5*s on the horizon, as well as 6*s eventually. Put them on amped Nodes and the difficulty multiplies.
So you think that people are going to R5 that 5 stars and rank their 6 stars and put them on D when defender kills don't count? DO you honestly think that is a likely scenario?
Do you think that maybe people might just use those ranked up champs for offense making AW even more easy?
Sometimes I question your true grasp on this game.
No. The Map is easier because Max 5*s and 6*s are coming. In the old Map, they would be too challenging.
I'm afraid @RagamugginGunner is correct here. He is trying to point out to you that when 6* champions arrive the net result will be for offense to get better faster than defense gets better, because players tend to rank up attackers first. That means weakening the nodes to prepare for the arrival of 6* champions is the exact opposite of what you should do, if anything. First, ranked up 6* champs will arrive on offense and those attackers will steamroll over the weaker defenders. Eventually, a long long time later players will start filling in 6* champs as defenders and defense will catch up to offense. Anyone who studies AW would know this, because this is how 5* champs basically worked. Even now, 5* champs on defense is still uncommon in most tiers. You'll see a few, but not many. They are simply too valuable to use on offense.
Which kind of brings up an important point. All this talk about "diversity" encouraging players to "use" a more diverse roster is ridiculous in my opinion, for two reasons. First, we don't "use" defenders. We place defenders. We PLAY attackers. If you want players to use a more diverse subset of your roster, you have to encourage them to play more champs on offense. Nobody is ever going to learn to like "using" Luke Cage if they keep placing him on defense, because you don't get to experience defenders. You never really "see" anything about a defender that would make you like it more (except for kills, except not any more).
Second, and this is almost too obvious to type, but when you place a champ as a defender you can't use him on attack. If you want me to place a champ on defense, fine, but by definition every champion you encourage me to place on defense is a champion that is removed from my options to actually play. That does nothing to increase the diversity of my attack roster. It probably even reduces it by a certain amount.
Compelling players to place less well liked champions on defense doesn't make them more well liked, and it doesn't encourage the players to play a more diverse roster. If anything it encourages players to focus even more attention on the best attackers, because the return on investment for focusing attention on defenders is so low in 15.0 compared to 14.0.
The more he posts about end game players or content the more he shows his hand of now knowing what the hell he's talking about.
Se a guerra de alianças vai continuar pela diverdidade de herois acho correto oferecerem Rdts aos jogadores sim, pois a maioria aprimorou seus herois, gastando cc4, cb4, e mesmo dinheiro no jogo para poder ter uma boa equipe de defesa na guerra, que neste momento e inutil. Passando horas seguidas a fazer evento de arena so para melhorar a defesa da guerra e tempo jogado no lixo. Quem realmente é contra os rdts é porque realmente teve a sorte dos cristais ao contrario de outros, e nao falo no meu caso nao, falo em geral de todos os jogadores. Então, se a diversidade esta trazendo grandes mudanças ao jogo prejudicando a maioria dos jogadores, espero que ofereçam os rdts sim para as boas alys continuarem o bom jogo e nao perderem as suas qualidades. Se nao resolverem isso, acredito sinceramente numa grande quebra de jogadores o que se torna um jogo sem paixão e sem vontade de ser jogado, pois deixa de haver competição.
If the alliance war is going to continue because of the diversity of heroes, I think it is right to offer Rdts to the players, since most of them have improved their heroes, spending cc4, cb4, and even money in the game to be able to have a good defense team in the war. it's useless. Spending hours straight to make arena event is just to improve the defense of the war and time thrown in the trash. Who really is against rdts is because they really had the luck of the crystals unlike others, and I do not speak in my case no, I speak in general of all the players. So, if diversity is bringing great changes to the game by hurting most players, I hope they will offer the good rts to the good guys and keep up the good game and not lose their qualities. If they do not solve this, I sincerely believe in a great loss of players which becomes a game without passion and without will to be played, because there is no competition.
Comments
You don't have a rebuttal?
No. You're verging on insulting and I'm not engaging in something that may become personal. I have thoughts on what your views are but I'm not debating it because the tone of the conversation is not positive and that will lead to an argument.
It won't become personal. I'm not insulting you. The meanest thing I said is that I thought a point of yours was stupid.
The only penalty is making it a little easier on the attacker. But both sides clear All more and more often. Took on iso in a recent war both sides cleared all they had three million more alliance points. They had higher defender rating less diversity. If they had maxed diversity they win simply because they’re rated higher even if we had zero deaths. Their duping magik and nightcrawler others cost them. Alliances will Still clear their sides regardless of the duplicate characters. Just a little more easily. So the cost of diversity becomes nothing and instead the cost of not diversifying becomes instant loss.
As a matter of fact. Once you notice your opponent hasn’t diversified their defenders it is guaranteed you are going to win if you clear everything so it makes the risk of using items and losing nothing. So they are that much more likely to burn a few items to ensure a win.
RDT's again, awesome lol. Were any champs specifically created for AW purposes? If yes, you win your argument for RDT's. Fact is, no champs were created specifically for AW which means we made our own choices on who to rank up. AW changes didn't alter the way any champ was designed for. I stay aware that in games there can always be changes that affect my past choices.
I also am aware that with diversity here to stay that I will need to rank up new champs for defense. And again, when I make my choices I will choose champs that also carry more value in other areas because AW can always change again.
The idea is idiotic is what you said. I can tell when things are getting heated. That's already happened enough in the conversation so I am selective with what I engage with.
People can Rank whoever they want. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's a fact. The fact that those decisions are primarily based on popular opinion and War is irrelevant because that's a choice. If people choose to focus on War alone, that's entirely up to them. That doesn't mean a Champ is literally useless. You can use it anywhere in the game if you so choose. The problem is these opinions of good/bad are so deep that people can't accept using other Champs. I'm sorry, but you would be hard-pressed to convince me that further developing a Roster and using it is a bad thing. That's what the game is all about. Not just having the Top Tier Ranked an scrapping the rest. As I said, that may be how people choose to play, but that was not the intention of the overall design.
I am not debating Tickets. They've given their response and I support it. No changes to the Champs have been made. At all. Just the War Map people used them in. No Ranking is actually wasted in the game in general. People Ranked some Champs for War. They may have done it for that reason alone, but they have still made that decision for their own reasons and have been using those Champs at that Rank since.
There are other points I could make, but my views bring heated reactions, and I'm not likely to change them so I'm choosing what I engage with and what I don't.
Whether you think ranking a champ up for a certain game mode is a good or bad idea is irrelevant. The point is that people did it. Kabam made that choice a bad one. That's not fair to the users.
And you're only debating one of my point on why Diversity is bad. Facing 3 stars is still more boring than facing Nightcrawler.
That comment makes no sense. If he thinks its a bad idea than its irrelevant. But if he thinks its a good idea than its relevant? You claim its irrelevant because it's a disagreement to counter your thought. Makes little to no sense at all. Both are opinions, no matter how you try to turn it.
If he thinks ranking someone up for one reason, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is that people did it.
Wrong.
I feel like this picture proves that point perfectly
Classic GW. Good talk.
If this version of war was made because of this reason, then they’re kinda just letting war be broken/be boring and non-motivational for a long while, which is kinda dumb in my opinion.
The last War System was around for nearly 2 years. The idea is to have a system that is accommodating to the future.
Exactly thanks to your address, and also addresses of others the player, we knew of a problem with addition of points for a Variety of Defenders in Wars of the Unions. The problem was that uniqueness of a variety was counted in each of Fighting Groups separately, but not in all Union in general. It caused small, but important anomalies in counting of points which were already eliminated.
Roman, Support service of Kabam
=========
And what we see at the next war?
According to information received from Roman (Kabam Russian tech), which is not true , we put the defend and lost because the variety of champs was counted in groups!
We consider that obviously false answer of tech support and incomplete informing led to defeat in war.
We demand: revision of result with return of rating and prizes. And also, as moral costs - additional prizes.
Beside this, no one list of changes did not report that mastery points influence total quantity of points in war of the unions. And this is nonsense, certainly.
As well as champions absolutely senseless now whom we raised to strengthen ours protection - according to new strategy all resources spent for them are spent for nothing therefore we ask to provide to all alliances decrease stones according to their rating.
HGTR alliance, yours faithfully
LimitX
Ya should’ve waited
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid @RagamugginGunner is correct here. He is trying to point out to you that when 6* champions arrive the net result will be for offense to get better faster than defense gets better, because players tend to rank up attackers first. That means weakening the nodes to prepare for the arrival of 6* champions is the exact opposite of what you should do, if anything. First, ranked up 6* champs will arrive on offense and those attackers will steamroll over the weaker defenders. Eventually, a long long time later players will start filling in 6* champs as defenders and defense will catch up to offense. Anyone who studies AW would know this, because this is how 5* champs basically worked. Even now, 5* champs on defense is still uncommon in most tiers. You'll see a few, but not many. They are simply too valuable to use on offense.
Which kind of brings up an important point. All this talk about "diversity" encouraging players to "use" a more diverse roster is ridiculous in my opinion, for two reasons. First, we don't "use" defenders. We place defenders. We PLAY attackers. If you want players to use a more diverse subset of your roster, you have to encourage them to play more champs on offense. Nobody is ever going to learn to like "using" Luke Cage if they keep placing him on defense, because you don't get to experience defenders. You never really "see" anything about a defender that would make you like it more (except for kills, except not any more).
Second, and this is almost too obvious to type, but when you place a champ as a defender you can't use him on attack. If you want me to place a champ on defense, fine, but by definition every champion you encourage me to place on defense is a champion that is removed from my options to actually play. That does nothing to increase the diversity of my attack roster. It probably even reduces it by a certain amount.
Compelling players to place less well liked champions on defense doesn't make them more well liked, and it doesn't encourage the players to play a more diverse roster. If anything it encourages players to focus even more attention on the best attackers, because the return on investment for focusing attention on defenders is so low in 15.0 compared to 14.0.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
The value is they need to be used to gain Points. Respectfully, I'm out. It's a never-ending argument.
No, you have it correct. It's just a terrible argument.
The more he posts about end game players or content the more he shows his hand of now knowing what the hell he's talking about.