Alliance War Season 19: Updates to Path Identities and New Nodes! [ June 30]

1303133353646

Comments

  • GamerGamer Posts: 7,794 ★★★★★
    It is agersiv furv in tier4 I’m believe
  • miguel1812miguel1812 Posts: 1
    The new war map seems much worse to me than the old one.
    I prefer to go back to the old map than to play on the new map, with all due respect, the map is orrible
  • ElovetteElovette Posts: 1
    If something isn’t done about these crazy nodes in AW, Kabam is going to lose a lot of players. My entire alliance is talking about quitting the game. Why play if it isn’t fun anymore???
  • hungryhungrybbqhungryhungrybbq Posts: 1,403 ★★★★
    edited June 2020
    For whatever it's worth, if anyone is interested, I found AA to be an effective counter to Domino on node 23. Give it a try if she's causing trouble. My AA is r5 and I had suicides on (if it matters).

    Opening move is a dash back. You can't allow her to strike your block twice. Maintain your distance throughout the fight to force her to close the gap with a parry-able attack. And do what AA does best, parry/heavy. If you get decent enough rng, you'll have a few neuros on her after a bit. It still can be difficult to execute depending on the AI behavior, and as with any fight can go sideways quickly, but it worked for me.
  • Sensei_MaatSensei_Maat Posts: 396 ★★★

    Unfortunately, this has been the method of operation regarding AW changes for a while now. This isn't new.

    Company releases notes for changes to the game mode. Players read notes, voice concerns and warn that certain node/champion/defense tactics combinations will be problematic in advance. Giving specific examples. Company releases content anyway. Players are then used to test it, on the main server, using real items and playing for real rewards. Players report back that in fact, the problematic interactions they warned about are happening. Company reviews data and announces changes to the nodes/tactics (for next season). More players lose interest in the game mode in the process. This has been the model for quite some time if you think about it.

    We are the customers, it's not our job to test the game, especially on the live servers. Unless, the whole thing is designed as part of a negotiation tactic. Or a test to locate exactly where the line in the sand is. What the players are or aren't willing to put up with. Frankly, It's really disheartening to see the same patterns repeat over and over. The Company's words express a desire to change. Their actions remain the same. At least as it relates to AW and the level of communication that goes into it's implimentation.

    Don't get me wrong, many of the ideas listed in the road map sound great! And I'm looking forward to them, but this whole repeating cycle of how AW changes are implimented is very disheartening.

    Side note: Were we really expected to believe that the "reward" for completing an intercept in Ebb and Flow was actually a reward? The purpose of the precision passive isn't to give us extra damage (even if it were, it's weak) it's a Ghost nerf.. straight up. First of all 6 seconds is nothing, especially knowing full well that we will all place defenders who have anti-intercept abilities and/or their own built in damage shields. Making it so that even if we manage to land an intercept on an opponent who was designed to resist them, we have to line up a window within a window... Just to do normal damage for one combo?
    "It's bananas." - Gwen Stefani



    while you are mostly right and i agree mostly,

    making content that Ghost cannot do is not Nerfing ghost.
    content will always be created to favor some champs while cutting others out.

    stubborn defense tactic more so shuts out quake and ghost.
    but once again is not a nerf.

    content will always be designed in any game to favor some champs and shut others out.

    the problem is that the champ selection options become too narrow.
    they are too narrow by node design.
    then narrowed even more by defender placement.

    AW nodes are a complete joke.

    but yes, if kabam do not change AW many many many allies will stop war, stop spending in war and or quit the game
  • hungryhungrybbqhungryhungrybbq Posts: 1,403 ★★★★

    Unfortunately, this has been the method of operation regarding AW changes for a while now. This isn't new.

    Company releases notes for changes to the game mode. Players read notes, voice concerns and warn that certain node/champion/defense tactics combinations will be problematic in advance. Giving specific examples. Company releases content anyway. Players are then used to test it, on the main server, using real items and playing for real rewards. Players report back that in fact, the problematic interactions they warned about are happening. Company reviews data and announces changes to the nodes/tactics (for next season). More players lose interest in the game mode in the process. This has been the model for quite some time if you think about it.

    We are the customers, it's not our job to test the game, especially on the live servers. Unless, the whole thing is designed as part of a negotiation tactic. Or a test to locate exactly where the line in the sand is. What the players are or aren't willing to put up with. Frankly, It's really disheartening to see the same patterns repeat over and over. The Company's words express a desire to change. Their actions remain the same. At least as it relates to AW and the level of communication that goes into it's implimentation.

    Don't get me wrong, many of the ideas listed in the road map sound great! And I'm looking forward to them, but this whole repeating cycle of how AW changes are implimented is very disheartening.

    Side note: Were we really expected to believe that the "reward" for completing an intercept in Ebb and Flow was actually a reward? The purpose of the precision passive isn't to give us extra damage (even if it were, it's weak) it's a Ghost nerf.. straight up. First of all 6 seconds is nothing, especially knowing full well that we will all place defenders who have anti-intercept abilities and/or their own built in damage shields. Making it so that even if we manage to land an intercept on an opponent who was designed to resist them, we have to line up a window within a window... Just to do normal damage for one combo?
    "It's bananas." - Gwen Stefani



    while you are mostly right and i agree mostly,

    making content that Ghost cannot do is not Nerfing ghost.
    content will always be created to favor some champs while cutting others out.

    stubborn defense tactic more so shuts out quake and ghost.
    but once again is not a nerf.

    content will always be designed in any game to favor some champs and shut others out.

    the problem is that the champ selection options become too narrow.
    they are too narrow by node design.
    then narrowed even more by defender placement.

    AW nodes are a complete joke.

    but yes, if kabam do not change AW many many many allies will stop war, stop spending in war and or quit the game
    The point of my comment regarding Ghost was more referring to the fact that the precision passive was presented to us as tool we are supposed to use to be successful in the fight. The truth is, that it's actually a very ineffective tool even if that is what it was truly meant to be. That's what I find offensive, not simply that Ghost was "nerfed" in this specific encounter (sure, I do understand the difference), but that it seems very underhanded to present it as something that's supposed to be a tool for us to use, when in reality it's a disadvantage and furthers narrows who you can use in the encounter. Why didn't they offer a fury like they did in the other? Surely you can see what they did here. If the disadvantage was separate from the actual tool they were supposed to be giving us, I wouldn't have made the comment to begin with. It's the fact that it was presented a disadvantage and called it an advantage that I take issue with.
  • hungryhungrybbqhungryhungrybbq Posts: 1,403 ★★★★

    Unfortunately, this has been the method of operation regarding AW changes for a while now. This isn't new.

    Company releases notes for changes to the game mode. Players read notes, voice concerns and warn that certain node/champion/defense tactics combinations will be problematic in advance. Giving specific examples. Company releases content anyway. Players are then used to test it, on the main server, using real items and playing for real rewards. Players report back that in fact, the problematic interactions they warned about are happening. Company reviews data and announces changes to the nodes/tactics (for next season). More players lose interest in the game mode in the process. This has been the model for quite some time if you think about it.

    We are the customers, it's not our job to test the game, especially on the live servers. Unless, the whole thing is designed as part of a negotiation tactic. Or a test to locate exactly where the line in the sand is. What the players are or aren't willing to put up with. Frankly, It's really disheartening to see the same patterns repeat over and over. The Company's words express a desire to change. Their actions remain the same. At least as it relates to AW and the level of communication that goes into it's implimentation.

    Don't get me wrong, many of the ideas listed in the road map sound great! And I'm looking forward to them, but this whole repeating cycle of how AW changes are implimented is very disheartening.

    Side note: Were we really expected to believe that the "reward" for completing an intercept in Ebb and Flow was actually a reward? The purpose of the precision passive isn't to give us extra damage (even if it were, it's weak) it's a Ghost nerf.. straight up. First of all 6 seconds is nothing, especially knowing full well that we will all place defenders who have anti-intercept abilities and/or their own built in damage shields. Making it so that even if we manage to land an intercept on an opponent who was designed to resist them, we have to line up a window within a window... Just to do normal damage for one combo?
    "It's bananas." - Gwen Stefani



    while you are mostly right and i agree mostly,

    making content that Ghost cannot do is not Nerfing ghost.
    content will always be created to favor some champs while cutting others out.

    stubborn defense tactic more so shuts out quake and ghost.
    but once again is not a nerf.

    content will always be designed in any game to favor some champs and shut others out.

    the problem is that the champ selection options become too narrow.
    they are too narrow by node design.
    then narrowed even more by defender placement.

    AW nodes are a complete joke.

    but yes, if kabam do not change AW many many many allies will stop war, stop spending in war and or quit the game
    Thanks for your positive response. I agree, using the word nerf wasn't entirely accurate. I just meant for that particular encounter. The main point for me in that statement was more about the fact that it was presented to us as a tool we could use to help us in the encounter. And not as a means to exclude certain attackers from successfully taking it on. It wasn't presented that way, but I believe that's what it is. Why wouldn't they just give you the same fury they give you in the other version of the node? Had they used a mechanic to discourage use of Ghost separately, and also gave a us a real tool we could use in the fight I wouldn't have been nearly as offense by it. Hope that clarifies my position a little.
  • slayer6slayer6 Posts: 320 ★★
    edited June 2020
    Well this aw node system is absolutely horrible and parrys are way off and certain nodes are putrid, money making shambles it is, and the big guys will get to smash alot of the smaller allies that aint even close to their lvl. Whales win and others lose but really only winner is old kabam odins wallet
  • Ebony_NawEbony_Naw Posts: 1,751 ★★★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    Hey everyone. I'm sorry for the lack of dev presence on this thread. It’s been a crazy few days for us and we have been working on finishing up our roadmap blog posts. I’ve tried to read through most of this thread but there was a LOT of information to digest. So here’s my attempt at a summary post, but I’m sorry if there were things that I’ve overlooked.

    This update doesn’t sit well with the roadmap we just released, what gives?
    Unfortunately, the work that has gone into the Season 19 update has been going on for months, while the roadmap was created more recently. Something we are going to do is make updates to AW such that it falls in line with our goals with MCOC moving forward. Expect to see more regular updates to AW in the coming weeks to address the issues we’ve outlined to the community.

    The new blue background is too bright!
    We’re changing the theme for the Challenger map.

    Hidden nodes on minis?
    Hidden nodes are gone. We don’t think the current implementation of hidden information makes the mode more interesting for players. We’re removing hidden nodes from this version of the map and will not add it back into AW until we come up with a design that we’re happy with.

    Map difficulty and tuning.
    Overall, we want to be a lot quicker with tuning on AW content. While we tend to tune Defense Tactics each Season, we don’t update the map as often. We want to do a better job of this moving forward.
    Map tuning includes the potency of specific Buffs and also Buff combinations on nodes
    For Defense Tactics, this is our first attempt at adding an Attacker Component, one thing that we want to do moving forward is to increase the potency of the Attack Buff and get this into a state where using the corresponding Attackers will feel like a net positive.


    Before we go into Season 19, we are committed to making updates to the new map in order to tune down some of the new buffs and challenges we’ve put out. While we may not be able to act on all of this feedback, we will be making faster, more regular adjustments between Seasons to ensure that maps remain challenging and interesting, but on a level of difficulty more fair and less stressful for players.

    Please post your concerns for specific nodes and buffs here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/205508/alliance-war-season-19-node-combination-feedback

    Thank you everyone for your comments thus far. We hear your frustrations with the map. Changes will come soon.

    Can the rewards get a buff for lower tiers? Also, please stop removing my comment.

    The one thing that has alreqdy been mentioned is the lack of a buff for p4 and lower (not that I play p4 anymore).

    But that said, there's a bigger issue with the overall theme of some node combinations where you intentionally make it limiting and painful to play AW. This is a terrible way to treat AW where we have to fight the design MORE than the other alliance.

    You say this was in the works well before the roadmap, but if the roadmap made you realize that AW needed to head in a whole new direction, would it not have made more sense to put this project on hold until you have a solid plan in place? I just can't understand why this map ever saw the light of day.

    So in short, I don't believe you were trying to make this less stressful, because every itteration is more stressful than the last. I'm sure this comment may get deleted, but that's ok. I'm not trying to rile up other players- this is intended as a message directly to you guys to do better to make AW fun again.
  • nelsonroanelsonroa Posts: 5
    edited June 2020
    Greetings developers, I think the war maps are fine! they must keep them that way. don't listen to so many people who want it all for free
  • Ebony_NawEbony_Naw Posts: 1,751 ★★★★★
    nelsonroa said:

    Greetings developers, I think the war maps are fine! they must keep them that way. don't listen to so many people who want it all for free


    What difficulty are you playing on, normal?
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 6,125 ★★★★★
    Mcord117 said:

    So is it fair to say people don’t like the new aw?

    Honestly everyone has to step back. This is where they see the game going, this is their design. The road map is just lip service, there is no details, I don’t see them deviating from their course.

    They tested this new war map. They knew how hard it was going to be. They still released it, during the time period where they are putting out road maps telling us they are listening.

    Anyone who knows this game read the first war announcement and said wtf, yet here we are. When the next roadmap comes out Monday, the one that was originally so bad the ccp told them not to so they took the weekend to rewrite it, remember the road map is not their direction. It’s lip service, focus on what they are doing not on what they say they may do

    Why do you even play the game man? You've got to be one of the most negative miserable people I've seen concerning a game that someone still inexplicably plays.
  • buffajrbuffajr Posts: 343 ★★
    Replay don’t find ebb and flow that fun at all. The protection % is definitely too high, and the precision should reset every time the action is completed.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 6,125 ★★★★★
    I think one of the easiest changes they could make for war that would make especially lower tier wars more tolerable with defensive tactics, is forced diversity.

    Plenty of people have mentioned that facing entire maps full of Dooms, Magiks, Mojos, etc... with siphon or flow make the lower tier wars much more painful and I completely agree. We probably face far more R3s and more new defenders in T1 but almost everyone runs full diversity so that definitely alleviates some of the pain.
  • Unawakened2Unawakened2 Posts: 12

    Forced diversity and only being able to use each tactic so many times a season or not being able to reuse one until you've used all others would shake things up a bit and not have things feel so static

    I’ve had the same idea and thought this would be an amazing solution to make wars more interesting. However, it would be a potential nightmare for both players and officers to manage. Having to identify several different defensive teams and then determine optimal nodes. That could be a full-time job. But again, this is the type of thinking and discussion that should be happening.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 6,125 ★★★★★

    Forced diversity and only being able to use each tactic so many times a season or not being able to reuse one until you've used all others would shake things up a bit and not have things feel so static

    I’ve had the same idea and thought this would be an amazing solution to make wars more interesting. However, it would be a potential nightmare for both players and officers to manage. Having to identify several different defensive teams and then determine optimal nodes. That could be a full-time job. But again, this is the type of thinking and discussion that should be happening.
    Oh yeah, far more work to keep up with. People just keep saying the same thing though, remove tactics. That's obviously not an avenue they're interested in so I think trying to come up with ways to make them more enjoyable or at a minimum more tolerable is time far better spent than just complaining and telling them to do something they're just not going to do.
  • Unawakened2Unawakened2 Posts: 12

    Forced diversity and only being able to use each tactic so many times a season or not being able to reuse one until you've used all others would shake things up a bit and not have things feel so static

    I’ve had the same idea and thought this would be an amazing solution to make wars more interesting. However, it would be a potential nightmare for both players and officers to manage. Having to identify several different defensive teams and then determine optimal nodes. That could be a full-time job. But again, this is the type of thinking and discussion that should be happening.
    Oh yeah, far more work to keep up with. People just keep saying the same thing though, remove tactics. That's obviously not an avenue they're interested in so I think trying to come up with ways to make them more enjoyable or at a minimum more tolerable is time far better spent than just complaining and telling them to do something they're just not going to do.
    I agree
  • Unawakened2Unawakened2 Posts: 12
    Now if Kabam could provide alliances with something like a defensive template that you could set up just once for each defense tactic and then click a button to auto place champs. Now that would be truly amazing.
  • Ebony_NawEbony_Naw Posts: 1,751 ★★★★★
    edited June 2020

    Forced diversity and only being able to use each tactic so many times a season or not being able to reuse one until you've used all others would shake things up a bit and not have things feel so static

    I’ve had the same idea and thought this would be an amazing solution to make wars more interesting. However, it would be a potential nightmare for both players and officers to manage. Having to identify several different defensive teams and then determine optimal nodes. That could be a full-time job. But again, this is the type of thinking and discussion that should be happening.
    Oh yeah, far more work to keep up with. People just keep saying the same thing though, remove tactics. That's obviously not an avenue they're interested in so I think trying to come up with ways to make them more enjoyable or at a minimum more tolerable is time far better spent than just complaining and telling them to do something they're just not going to do.

    The main problem is the solution always seems to make the problem worse. If there was a way to make tactics work without being overly punishing, I would be open to it. The issue is that tactics thus far have done the opposite of their mission statement (diversify wars by adding an extra element) and have destroyed AW for many including me.

    But if they were to turn to the playerbase and work out a solution together, and build on something like your idea, I think there's potential to make all sides happier.
Sign In or Register to comment.