We are currently experiencing an issue causing a delay in delivery of Summoner Advancement, the Alliance Quest event, and other 3-Day X-Men use event. We are working to resolve this, but it will likely take a few days. We will ensure that these rewards are delivered to affected Alliances. Please do not change Alliances until your rewards are delivered.

Dev Diary: Amping Up Alliances

1235

Comments

  • Rodomontade_BoiRodomontade_Boi Posts: 311
    Mayis said:

    Do we have a date for champions roadmap?

    You know the answer, don't you?
    Early june @Mayis?
  • Nixxxo89Nixxxo89 Posts: 7
    Are the AQ Timer change coming only for Map 6&7 or for all Maps in AQ?
  • GamerGamer Posts: 6,144 ★★★★★
    Nixxxo89 said:

    Are the AQ Timer change coming only for Map 6&7 or for all Maps in AQ?

    Read the very last of it all where it said it wil com to play regardless of what map u doing
  • Kabam you need to do better than this, especially concerning aq, these proposed changes are way too small considering all the negative feedback. Also aw needs to be taken out back and shot.
  • Kill_Grey4112Kill_Grey4112 Posts: 206
    Didn't see anything about the AI for map 5 and under. What's gonna happen to it?
  • ChampioncriticChampioncritic Posts: 3,131 ★★★★

    Kabam you need to do better than this, especially concerning aq, these proposed changes are way too small considering all the negative feedback. Also aw needs to be taken out back and shot.

    What's wrong with the AQ changes, increased energy cap and decreased energy refresh time is exactly what everyone asked for albeit its not cut in half but it's still a decrease, what else do you want about AQ?
  • MayisMayis Posts: 318 ★★

    Mayis said:

    Do we have a date for champions roadmap?

    You know the answer, don't you?
    Early june @Mayis?
    BINGO!
  • Nixxxo89Nixxxo89 Posts: 7
    Do anyone know, when they release part 3 of the roadmap?
  • Aayush19Aayush19 Posts: 94
    Kabam cant do one thing properly
  • SuperChronaSuperChrona Posts: 246
    I'm glad that this got some more work. This is how a roadmap should look like. Much better than the quest roadmap. Timeline on every short term item to fix. And also some good long term ideas on where the game is going. Looking forward to this.
  • SeraphionSeraphion Posts: 713 ★★★
    Half the glory-price for lvl 3 and lvl 4 heals or x2 the healing
  • Haji_SaabHaji_Saab Posts: 3,964 ★★★★★
    Seraphion said:




    Shouldnt we have an Continue button here as well?

    Yea, this is bothering me since yesterday ... :D
  • Mcord117Mcord117 Posts: 1,356 ★★★★

    I'm going to echo many of the same sentiments as some other players in that there is way too much fluff and not much stuff in these "Roadmap" post. In all honesty this looks like a assignment some high school kid completed at the last minute over the weekend. In all the fluff in this post the only items of substance is the node changes to pain points in AW, more energy at start of the map for AQ/AW and last but not least 45 min energy timers. While many people are saying thank goodness for the 45 min energy timers I'm not and I'll tell you why. For almost 5 years players have been pleading, begging and asking for 30 min energy timers. For the longest time mods claimed that it is not how the game mode is set up to be blah blah blah but when "emergency maintenance" takes place for a long period of time it is a simple flick of a switch and we get 30 min energy timers. My question is why on earth 45 min energy timer????? Really how hard would it be just to make them 30 min. It's almost like the Kabam team or their high school workers when discussing this idea said to one another the players have been asking for 30 min energy timers for years should we give it to them...... nah let's just give them the finger and make it 45 min.

    So far in these "Roadmap" updates there really hasn't been anything truly gamebreakinig in the post to make the game truly better as much has been things that we already knew was coming and a lot of "in development" with no timeframes when they would actually be released. If the next two "Roadmap" post are as bad and disappointing as the first two then I'm probably going to be quitting. No point in investing time into something if the development team consistently does the absolute minimum to improve the game.

    Here is the million dollar question on my mind and I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about this..... Could this "Roadmap" be a bridge just to get players to be content for a little while until after the 4th and until MROC is released???? After all I for one think there is a reason why we haven't seen any gameplay whatsoever from MROC as it could possible be close to or the exact same as MCOC. Not sure if it will but MROC was supposed to be released in June and still no gameplay to be seen.... just saying.

    Yes I feel like these road maps are attempts to stem player dissatisfaction with promises of a brighter future. There are some pretty positive nuggets you can pull out of them but there is much more vague to be determined later. I would like to point out here that this is not a response to something that just popped up. The temperature of the community has been going up for a long time and I guess it took the act 7 beta for an explosion. That was over a month ago. These road maps are the result of over a months worth of effort? IDK I would have thought there would actually be a decent amount more about now and a lot less about at a date to be determined later.

    The positives are there, so our in game lives are better today than they were before, outside of the dumpster fire of a new AW map but what can you do there it was a dying game mode prior. I guess in the end if you can say your in game life is better today than it was a month ago then it is a good thing, even if it is ultimately disappointing
  • Capn_DanteCapn_Dante Posts: 284
    The quests update had me pretty pumped... The alliance update (and I'm the leader of my gold 2 map 5 alliance) had me more "meh"... Its almost as if you guys aren't listening to what we don't like about aq and aw... Raid bosses will hopefully be cool but you completely missed the mark on AW and the fact that most summoner (even Brian Grant... Who is in a master alliance....) thinks it needs to be completely overhauled.

    AQ is ok... Its more like going to work.... You show up you do your path and you get solid rewards... But the fact it is so time consuming and so stressful on leaders and officers (making sure everyone does their job, heaven forbid someone try to go out to dinner with their significant other on a Friday night when their link is still up - hopefully the link changes will help but I'm waiting to see what is actually done there) takes away the enjoyment... The bare minimum was done with energy but still we are bejng forced to spend our resources we earn in the game to enter another part of the game (can't get my guys to spend gold to run map 6 when they are struggling to grind out enough gold to rank up champions they are waiting on)... There are enough things in game to keep us logging in (calendars, quest energy, arena grind refreshes) that I think you can relax the way AQ is run and make the players have a much more enjoyable experience
  • TaZ_4178TaZ_4178 Posts: 475 ★★
    Does anyone know when the next roadmap will drop?
  • King09712King09712 Posts: 14
    I don't find this fun, yesterday took a battle against war opp with a 6 star everything was going fine. Until I realized two things I was 4 MINUTES into a fight! and over 120+ hits! this is ridiculous on every level that any fight outside end game content where you would be in a almost 5 minute fight where 33% of the health of opp is remaining because of your nodes!.

    remove the tactics/replace them and redo the whole map. There is NO reason to start a season until you fix this massive screw up.
  • JfinchJfinch Posts: 3
    Well I wanted to post a pic of this AW currently I am in silver 2 and we have some wins and losses but right now both us and the other team r stuck at FIRST MINI boss which has never happened it's this Tunnel Vision now we got wrecked somewhat last war but this time all of us and our opponents are stuck at the same spot and we dont win everytime but this is rediculas
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,152 ★★★★
    RogerRabs said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?

    Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.

    Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.

    I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
    I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
    You can't do that because teams would tie on purpose.
  • Markjv81Markjv81 Posts: 676 ★★★

    RogerRabs said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?

    Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.

    Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.

    I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
    I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
    You can't do that because teams would tie on purpose.
    Why would people tie on purpose to get half the win points? Plus it’s not always possible to engineer a tie.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,152 ★★★★
    Markjv81 said:

    RogerRabs said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Way, way, way back when AW was being "adjusted" in the Issue 14-16 period, this came up. Back then I said something that I still don't know why it has never been acknowledged or implemented. It seems so incredibly obvious that either I'm an idiot, or the Kabam devs have a massive blindspot to it. If you're concerned about ties, then why, in *years* of AW development, have you never, ever, EVER attempted to implement a tie breaker for war?

    Kabam described defender diversity as a "tie breaker." It is not a tie breaker. It is a scoring option. Calling defender diversity a tie breaker is like calling field goals in the NFL a tie breaker. Diversity might decide a war, but it is not a tie breaker. A tie breaker is something that only comes into play in the event of a tie. The shoot out in soccer is a tie breaker. In the NFL, there are rules that determine who goes into the playoffs if multiple candidate teams have the same win/loss record. Those are tie breakers.

    Alliance war has never had a tie breaker. We let both sides fight the war, and if and only if there is a tie score we look at this thing, and which ever alliance has the better version of that thing wins. If it is still a tie, we look at a second tie breaker. But if the war is won or lost on the battlefield none of these things matter. That would be a tie breaker.

    I think tie breakers could have prevented a lot of misery.
    I've also never understood why a tie counts as a loss for both teams. If they didn't want to do tiebreakers, which I think is a superior option, they could also just split the Win bonus and be on their way.
    You can't do that because teams would tie on purpose.
    Why would people tie on purpose to get half the win points? Plus it’s not always possible to engineer a tie.
    I know you're probably in a low level alliance and have no clue how smart people are at this game if you think you can't engineer a tie.
    The issue is that he said the tie people shouldn't lose any points so it basically like a double win. Then teams would just buddy together especially towards the end of the season and make sure everyone wins.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 1,152 ★★★★
    So I have been pretty quiet when it comes to the road map and overall I like the changes so far. Especially because I don't care about AW so most of my gripes aren't the same as other players. Trust me AQ focused alliances are so much better. Easy for me to say because I'm in one but that option out there.

    I love the changes for AQ, the nodes they're removing or replacing the champions with will be a great help to officers from a recruiting and time commitment perspective. I wanted 30 min timers but more energy and 45 mins is good enough for sure.

    The only real issue I would like to address that is game breaking that hasn't been mentioned is the gold problem. You all will eventually have to address this issue directly whether you like to or not. 5 and 6 stars take far too much to rank in order to keep this up after awhile. So I suggest (just like I did with act 6 when I predicted you would have to nerf it) you cut the rank ups gold for 5 and 6 stars in half or you double and triple the iso for 5 and 6 star dups respectively.

    It is not a huge problem now but once rank 3 6 stars become common even the guys with 96 million gold will struggle so better to just fix it now.
  • Stark154667Stark154667 Posts: 72
    Not even one response to the criticism? @Kabam Miike
  • Snake_EyesSnake_Eyes Posts: 63

    Not even one response to the criticism? @Kabam Miike

    I would just like to know if the gameplay of MROC is going to be the same as MCOC?
  • AleorAleor Posts: 1,797 ★★★
    How about auto placing champs from top defenders on aw start? Or maybe at least highlight possible diversity duplicates?
Sign In or Register to comment.