AW Bans have of an issue at the moment
Omniform
Member Posts: 60 ★
As the title says I think AW bans have an issue that probably needs resolving. The whole point why they were implemented were to diversify attacker picks especially when it comes to Mystic and Tech Champ Defense. The only champ I know that’s 100% banned is Human Torch and definitely for good reason. He deals with Mystics way to easily. I definitely think we needed bans but some champions like Human Torch are almost 100% banned because they are just that efficient at dealing with troublesome Defense like Mystics and particularly Tech which Magneto deals with extremely easily. The biggest problem with trying to fix it is, you can’t rebalance either of the Champs without backlash. There needs to be another way of fixing the issue that won’t change how the champions currently play and how they deal with certain classes. I think that one way of dealing with this issue maybe put a cap on how many times a champ can be banned a season. It’s definitely not foolproof but this way the Defense would need to think more about Defense strategies even if Mags and HT are in play. It would make it more of a pain for allies to deal with but AW is all about strategy is it not? What do you all think? Are 100% banned champs an issue to you? Or do you think it’s fine as it is? It’s a delicate issue that needs to be thought about before changing anything for sure.
Post edited by Kabam Zanzibar on
5
Comments
Mags and doom are getting more banned often
If an ally is placing less mystic or energy champs, there's no point for them to ban HT. Even in our own BG we have less mystic champs. Real play comes if boss island have mystic champ or not.
TBH for me this ban system is perfect. My alliance mates are coming up with good alternatives and plus creative ways to deal the things. We don't see civil warrior in Aw everyday
On the flip side, if they track your alliance's cycle for which attackers were banned, that alliance you're playing could be put in a position where they can never ban him, because he was banned in the previous war you competed in. Same for the next war that alliance competes in.
Basically this approach carries far too much risk of being unfair to someone. Sounds good in theory, but wouldn't work well in practice.
I realize that would create even more work for alliance planners, and I am certainly open to other suggestions (having war attackers have to rest 2 wars before they could attack again for example).
But again, that's just 2 alliances out of like 16 wars. Not a huge sample size.