**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Defender diversity makes zero sense. If you want diversity, bring in attacker diversity.
DD2
Posts: 309 ★★★
This game is about skill, am I right?
When you put your champs on defense, YOU don't run the champs, the AI does. You never see what happens. You have no input into what happens to your defenders once you place them.
If Kabam wants to value "diversity", AKA value crummy champs over strong ones AKA nerf our rosters, why don't you do something that at least makes sense?
If you want to bring in diversity (and I'm still against this concept), why you don't you bring in ATTACKER DIVERSITY, where we can score more points when using weaker attackers than strong ones?
At least this makes a modicum of sense and brings skill into the equation unlike the garbage we have now.
If you win a fight with Kamala Khan, you get more points than when using Hyperion since Hype needs less skill than when using Kamala. Fair, right?
I'm still against this idea, because there will be a significant amount of screws ups when assigning them points.
How do you even rank the champs from weakest to strongest? Impossible. It can't be done accurately, so you might as well scrap the idea of attacker diversity altogether. And FOR SURE scrap defender diversity cause you're just coming up with an excuse to nerf our rosters all over again.
When you put your champs on defense, YOU don't run the champs, the AI does. You never see what happens. You have no input into what happens to your defenders once you place them.
If Kabam wants to value "diversity", AKA value crummy champs over strong ones AKA nerf our rosters, why don't you do something that at least makes sense?
If you want to bring in diversity (and I'm still against this concept), why you don't you bring in ATTACKER DIVERSITY, where we can score more points when using weaker attackers than strong ones?
At least this makes a modicum of sense and brings skill into the equation unlike the garbage we have now.
If you win a fight with Kamala Khan, you get more points than when using Hyperion since Hype needs less skill than when using Kamala. Fair, right?
I'm still against this idea, because there will be a significant amount of screws ups when assigning them points.
How do you even rank the champs from weakest to strongest? Impossible. It can't be done accurately, so you might as well scrap the idea of attacker diversity altogether. And FOR SURE scrap defender diversity cause you're just coming up with an excuse to nerf our rosters all over again.
1
Comments
: P
It's a good idea in theory compared to what we have now. It would reward good play but I'm not sure it would be possible to implement given that ranking champs from weakest to strongest would be difficult at best.
It's something to work with if Kabam is dead set on this diversity ****, but they need to be careful with it.
I suggest we revert EVERYTHING back to 1.0. It was fine. If they want to make any adjustments to the original 1.0, they have to find out if things need fixing in the first place. They gave 2.0 without even thinking what it would do to this game.