Listen👂🏽Kabam… Attacker diversity in war!

MarcusUnread

Title says it all.

You want to make war more interesting? In addition to whatever else you guys have planned you all should implement diversity for war attackers too. So many of the same attackers in war *cough* Quake *cough* which is fun but we all have so many champs that are a lot of fun and also really good, why not grant bonuses to alliances/battle groups/players who diversify their attackers?

It would really mix things up in war, but in a good way!

BuggyDClown

Nah, it will burden many players.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

TitoBandito187

Nope. You need counters for the nodes and defenders on them. If that means 10 quakes, then so be it. If you make a node/defender combo that is limited to certain counters, then any attacker should be game to counter it.

Sorry mixmaster Korg node 29, I'm using Quake every time. Sure Doom, or Omega and a few others work well too, but not taking the extra risk if I don't have too. They put him there to be hard... He is, but not with the right counter. War isn't just brute force, it takes some planning too.

Mobile_P0tat0

That's even more planning that would be on an officer's plate, there's already too much officer stress from war if they are doing mini/path assignments each war

MarcusUnread

I like the feedback but I disagree. Literally my BG officer who plans everything essentially solo is the one who is really on board with attacker diversity, he’s the one who mentioned it! And we’re t1 master tier every season.

Would drastically reduce all the Quakes and other common attackers and incentivize players/alliances to branch out with their attackers. There’s 180+ champs in the game and counting, yet 12-20 at most are used on war attack. Plus alliances leaving nodes up is completely unfair and needs to be addressed, part of that process could be implementing attacker diversity.

Demonzfyre

Absolutely not. It would be the same backlash when Kabam planned on removing defender diversity. You have people ranking champs for attack. Many of the lanes require the same counters as well. If your goal is to make AW even worse, then sure, you're on the right track.

MarcusUnread

Man I didn’t expect this much resistance tbh. I think it’s a great idea. The breadth of end game players’ rosters is vast this would “spice” things up for war attack.

You guys really enjoy seeing 7-10 Quakes on attack every war?

MarcusUnread

I mean it wouldn’t necessarily need to be an ”only 1 unique attacker per BG” situation like it is with defender diversity. Kabam could implement maybe 2-3 of any 1 unique attacker before you start losing points to lack of diversity.

Demonzfyre

MarcusUnread said:

Man I didn’t expect this much resistance tbh. I think it’s a great idea. The breadth of end game players’ rosters is vast this would “spice” things up for war attack.

You guys really enjoy seeing 7-10 Quakes on attack every war?

I don't see 7-10 quakes on attack ever and we float between p1/2.

I'll let Kabam do it for the masters alliances only.

GroundedWisdom

That's a "No thanks." on my end.

GroundedWisdom

MarcusUnread said:

I mean it wouldn’t necessarily need to be an ”only 1 unique attacker per BG” situation like it is with defender diversity. Kabam could implement maybe 2-3 of any 1 unique attacker before you start losing points to lack of diversity.

Attacker Diversity has never been an issue. The one thing about War is you can use and plan anyone you need for Attack, and try to accommodate as much as you need within 3 Champs for whatever comes along. If your Defense is not working, then switch it up.

Rasilover

Imagine getting punished for using more than 2 falcons and white magnetos

KDoggg2017

The vast majority of alliances would not have the rosters to be able to do this without burdening half their players.
My guess? AW participation drops 50% worldwide after 1 season of this.

Jaded

To which ever mod deleted my comment, can you also unsubscribe me from threads afterwards. I don’t need 20 notifications to a thread that I’m not in anymore as well.

Ercarret

I don't like the idea for AW, but it could be an interesting modification for AQ. "Complete the Quest with only Avengers", for example. You don't have to choose that particular mod, but you could if you wanted the challenge.

Could work. Would work better than a mandatory implementation in AW. I don't really see how it would work without becoming an incredible burden for officers.

Plus, AW already eats up 5 of your best champions for defense. If you can't then fully use your remaining roster for attack, it's going to hurt a lot for players with a limited roster. It's also going to hurt the whole alliance if people have to go back to use their 4*s because their 5*s are "taken" by other players.

Moreover, I've never been bothered by the attackers either team has chosen. It can lead to boring Wars if everyone just places the same five defenders so I understand why Kabam would want to incentivize diversity there, but what's the point of limiting the champs people use on attack?

MarcusUnread

Because in t1 AW every ally has a full r3 6* diverse defense or close to it. Wars are almost all decided by 1-2 deaths and are sub 7 deaths to win now. We’ve had some new globals but basically a meta with each new set. Stubborn now protect, no one uses the others. Everyone is diverse.

Commonality here is that the attackers are generally the same handful throughout all alliances. I remember when Kabam had the global boost for all female attackers years ago. Imo that was awesome, you incentivized using a bunch of champs that maybe weren’t as commonly used. The globals have encouraged and in some cases necessitated using different champions, which I feel is great.

So I’m suggesting Kabam incentivize using more diverse attackers to add more depth to war.