I really dislike the new AW.. the fight are just annoying and in my alliance with inactive summoners.. even though there are 28 to 30 (some are new people) so in reality probably less than 19 but only 7 are semi active..
One defender and two attacker seem good on paper but the nodes make some of these champion SUPER ANNOYING.
I use 7* rank3 Gentle vs 6* rank5 sig200 ascend Bullseye and still had to use multiple revives.. the 'over' tuned up AI makes fights more difficult: intercept but get countered, back draft intercepted and comboed into oblivion.. it makes fights a chore.. not everyone has rank4 sig200 7* champions nor multiple rank4 7* champions..
my other alliance mates just quit fighting if their attackers are defeated.. in order to clear map, I sometimes go over all open paths (if i brought attackers that could take the defenders).
Only positive is the generic 7* rank 1to2
I can't wait for the survey..
Hey…so if they were inactive to begin with they probably weren’t gonna be active now so why would a change in war format have any bearing on that. Hope this helps
players in my alliance have shared that in the current war they were able to only go to the end after 1 fight, has anyone else experienced this in the current war?
players in my alliance have shared that in the current war they were able to only go to the end after 1 fight, has anyone else experienced this in the current war?
Yes, in tier 5+ you do one fight and go to the end. In lower tiers you can portal between all islands.
I love how half of the community wants this mode forever and the other half wants this mode to never return forever.
If they could make the defenders persistent, my preference would be 2 weeks of old war, 2 weeks of new war each season...then everyone can be equally (un)happy. Would keep it a bit fresher.
Here's a whacky thought that would bring some semblance of calculated risk/reward/high stakes.
Take away the one fight per member thing and allow people take multiple fights BUT with this little caveat ... if you do take multiple fights your attack bonus adjusts.
For instance: Player 1 takes first fight A - 10 possible bonuses Player 1 has also been assigned fight B - 5 possible bonuses Player 1 gets greedy and also takes fight C because reasons - 3 possible bonuses.
I haven't thought it all the way through but it would lead to some interesting plans across alliances. If you know there's a fight that some person on your alliance can't take and they'll for sure lose all 10 bonuses ... you can opt to salvage at least 5 of those bonuses by assigning multiple fights.
If someone brings the wrong team ... instead of losing out on all bonuses, send someone there to take the fight BUT that person who brought the wrong team (in what would be their second fight (or move) would only be able to gain 5 bonuses. The more moves you make, the adjustment to how many bonuses you can obtain. Move once to fight and then to exit ... that's 10 possible. Move to another island for another fight, your bonuses are adjusted.
Is it worth it to at least salvage 5 or 3 bonuses in hopes that your opponent will risk the same? The gamble is yours ... the risk/reward of war strategy enhanced.
Here's a whacky thought that would bring some semblance of calculated risk/reward/high stakes.
Take away the one fight per member thing and allow people take multiple fights BUT with this little caveat ... if you do take multiple fights your attack bonus adjusts.
For instance: Player 1 takes first fight A - 10 possible bonuses Player 1 has also been assigned fight B - 5 possible bonuses Player 1 gets greedy and also takes fight C because reasons - 3 possible bonuses.
I haven't thought it all the way through but it would lead to some interesting plans across alliances. If you know there's a fight that some person on your alliance can't take and they'll for sure lose all 10 bonuses ... you can opt to salvage at least 5 of those bonuses by assigning multiple fights.
If someone brings the wrong team ... instead of losing out on all bonuses, send someone there to take the fight BUT that person who brought the wrong team (in what would be their second fight (or move) would only be able to gain 5 bonuses. The more moves you make, the adjustment to how many bonuses you can obtain. Move once to fight and then to exit ... that's 10 possible. Move to another island for another fight, your bonuses are adjusted.
Is it worth it to at least salvage 5 or 3 bonuses in hopes that your opponent will risk the same? The gamble is yours ... the risk/reward of war strategy enhanced.
That feature could have its place in higher tier wars (5+), but they already allow people to take multiple fights without that sacrifice. In the majority of competitive alliances (tier 1-3), nobody is getting roadblocked on fights, and in tier 1 specifically, people are barely dying at all. So I don't think that feature would do much. I'd much prefer a boss instead that can be taken by anyone and 9 paths instead of 10. This would bring a challenge that affects all tiers.
Just gonna chime in here. After playing a season of this format here are my thoughts on no specific order.
-Pro: Everyone has to contribute equally. 10 fights means the workload is about as fair as it can possibly be made. No more leeching, or putting the burden on 2-3 guys to do 90% of the shared work
-Con: Staleness… 10 fights means AW felt more like AQ than a strategic game mode
-Con: Been said many times, but this shouldn’t have replaced AW. It felt like an a different game mode as the strategic elements had been stripped away
-Pro: Officer QoL improvement. Probably one of the most pro-officer moves made in while. The current war format requires so much energy from officers, an amount that is unsustainable unless you are a masochist.
-Con: Not enough fights and no bosses. If everyone is a boss, nobody is a boss. The lack of an end boss made AW feel less consequential. It also made it feel like less of team based mode consequentially. There really needs to be at least more set of lines and fights, and at least one Shared Mega-boss.
Things I’d like to see changed:
Really it’s that last con I’d like to see addressed most as it would make the mode feel more team based. It’d also add I. Just a little bit more strategy and it’d give each AW a nice closing moment/fight.
Closing Thought:
All in all, I think the staleness concerns me the most with this approach. But I think the general intent here is a really good one. Make AW more fair to all contributors, and reduce the burden of managing it on officers. There’s a middle ground between both AW’s that should be considered here though that will probably net just as many complaints but ultimately I think would strike an appropriate balance.
My 2 cents: while I haven’t had any difficulty with this new war format and in fact have found it easier than standard war, I’m a little confused by how this is supposed to be simplifying war for new players. The new format obviously takes a lot of inspiration from raids and Kabam has said as much, but raids is an endgame player mode; why are we looking there for how to make war easier for the newbies? I bring this up because the format brings just as much of the bad from the raids experience as the good, and the biggest bad part is the experience of being roadblocked. If you don’t bring the right champion for the job, you’re up a creek with no paddle and you’re stuck feeling like a miserable dead weight. You know who has the experience to figure out who to bring? The pros. You know who is gonna get stuck because more than two sentences of text makes their head spin and they don’t quite grasp the importance of playing into the challenge nodes? The beginners. In standard war it at least felt like you could brute force your way through problems if you didn’t bring the right counters using free revives, but against 8 million healthpools I feel like asking beginners to punch through is too daunting an ask.
All in all I actually kinda liked the new format, at least as a momentary break from the standard rather than the new normal, but I’m sorta questioning if it’s really achieving what it set out to do. I feel great about war when I get to watch my champs melt Necropolis-tier healthpools in a minute thanks to smart champ selection and play, but it’s hard to argue my alliance mates feel the same when they die 20 times to a defender and only deal 10% damage because they missed some minor interaction and simply have no way to deal with the fight at hand. At least in raids they could’ve had the opportunity to swap champs if they realized they picked poorly, in war they’re out of luck. If beginner accessibility was really a major focus behind this change, I think this format could use some revisions.
Comments
Take away the one fight per member thing and allow people take multiple fights BUT with this little caveat ... if you do take multiple fights your attack bonus adjusts.
For instance:
Player 1 takes first fight A - 10 possible bonuses
Player 1 has also been assigned fight B - 5 possible bonuses
Player 1 gets greedy and also takes fight C because reasons - 3 possible bonuses.
I haven't thought it all the way through but it would lead to some interesting plans across alliances. If you know there's a fight that some person on your alliance can't take and they'll for sure lose all 10 bonuses ... you can opt to salvage at least 5 of those bonuses by assigning multiple fights.
If someone brings the wrong team ... instead of losing out on all bonuses, send someone there to take the fight BUT that person who brought the wrong team (in what would be their second fight (or move) would only be able to gain 5 bonuses. The more moves you make, the adjustment to how many bonuses you can obtain. Move once to fight and then to exit ... that's 10 possible. Move to another island for another fight, your bonuses are adjusted.
Is it worth it to at least salvage 5 or 3 bonuses in hopes that your opponent will risk the same? The gamble is yours ... the risk/reward of war strategy enhanced.
Please make this permanent.
-Pro: Everyone has to contribute equally. 10 fights means the workload is about as fair as it can possibly be made. No more leeching, or putting the burden on 2-3 guys to do 90% of the shared work
-Con: Staleness… 10 fights means AW felt more like AQ than a strategic game mode
-Con: Been said many times, but this shouldn’t have replaced AW. It felt like an a different game mode as the strategic elements had been stripped away
-Pro: Officer QoL improvement. Probably one of the most pro-officer moves made in while. The current war format requires so much energy from officers, an amount that is unsustainable unless you are a masochist.
-Con: Not enough fights and no bosses. If everyone is a boss, nobody is a boss. The lack of an end boss made AW feel less consequential. It also made it feel like less of team based mode consequentially. There really needs to be at least more set of lines and fights, and at least one Shared Mega-boss.
Things I’d like to see changed:
Really it’s that last con I’d like to see addressed most as it would make the mode feel more team based. It’d also add I. Just a little bit more strategy and it’d give each AW a nice closing moment/fight.
Closing Thought:
All in all, I think the staleness concerns me the most with this approach. But I think the general intent here is a really good one. Make AW more fair to all contributors, and reduce the burden of managing it on officers. There’s a middle ground between both AW’s that should be considered here though that will probably net just as many complaints but ultimately I think would strike an appropriate balance.
All in all I actually kinda liked the new format, at least as a momentary break from the standard rather than the new normal, but I’m sorta questioning if it’s really achieving what it set out to do. I feel great about war when I get to watch my champs melt Necropolis-tier healthpools in a minute thanks to smart champ selection and play, but it’s hard to argue my alliance mates feel the same when they die 20 times to a defender and only deal 10% damage because they missed some minor interaction and simply have no way to deal with the fight at hand. At least in raids they could’ve had the opportunity to swap champs if they realized they picked poorly, in war they’re out of luck. If beginner accessibility was really a major focus behind this change, I think this format could use some revisions.