Options
AW Attacker and Defender Tactics
J0eySn0w
Member Posts: 1,015 ★★★★
Just wanted to talk a little about this new AW tactics. I see it’s not on the mind of many. 2 main issues when compared to the previous tactics and how it adds to the state of the game.
- attackers don’t get any additional boost or advantage in the matchup. They just prevent damage loss from power detonation. Other tactics typical had some bonus that is sometimes useful even in non-tactics matchups. But that’s fine.
- main concern: It’s so impractical to use a non-tactics champion against a tactics defender. I know the point is to encourage the use of tactics attacker, but to make it a “race to who dies first” is restrictive and silly.
Why I think this should have been given further thoughts is we just came off from a trial and new format that many competitive players disliked. The reason for the new format was to increase AW engagement especially from lower-mid level players and also to make AW simple to plan. So, how does this encourage lower-mid tier players? I don’t see anything here that does that but quite the opposite.
We all know Kabam don’t test things extensively which is understandable sometimes. But we’re constantly getting champions designed to have specific rpg counters. Together with nodes, they present a challenge. So why add a tactic this restrictive? Is Kabam saying all tactic-attackers in the pool can address any challenge presented on the map by tactic-defenders? We always had a few pool of non-tactics attackers that were able to manage or help when tactics defenders when their attackers don’t work maybe due to placement or node interaction.
Or is this a way of saying screw you, you don’t like our new format?
Anyways, I want to use this opportunity to speak about the community as a whole. The state of the game with the predatory and aggressive monetization along with the increased with defensive champions that requires specific rpg counters is not all Kabam’s fault. Our lack of foresight and discernment is one of the reason why we find ourselves here. When a few noticed things way earlier, pointed it out the mass came up like “oh it’s just this and that. Now here we are. Anyways, let’s see how things turns out.
- attackers don’t get any additional boost or advantage in the matchup. They just prevent damage loss from power detonation. Other tactics typical had some bonus that is sometimes useful even in non-tactics matchups. But that’s fine.
- main concern: It’s so impractical to use a non-tactics champion against a tactics defender. I know the point is to encourage the use of tactics attacker, but to make it a “race to who dies first” is restrictive and silly.
Why I think this should have been given further thoughts is we just came off from a trial and new format that many competitive players disliked. The reason for the new format was to increase AW engagement especially from lower-mid level players and also to make AW simple to plan. So, how does this encourage lower-mid tier players? I don’t see anything here that does that but quite the opposite.
We all know Kabam don’t test things extensively which is understandable sometimes. But we’re constantly getting champions designed to have specific rpg counters. Together with nodes, they present a challenge. So why add a tactic this restrictive? Is Kabam saying all tactic-attackers in the pool can address any challenge presented on the map by tactic-defenders? We always had a few pool of non-tactics attackers that were able to manage or help when tactics defenders when their attackers don’t work maybe due to placement or node interaction.
Or is this a way of saying screw you, you don’t like our new format?
Anyways, I want to use this opportunity to speak about the community as a whole. The state of the game with the predatory and aggressive monetization along with the increased with defensive champions that requires specific rpg counters is not all Kabam’s fault. Our lack of foresight and discernment is one of the reason why we find ourselves here. When a few noticed things way earlier, pointed it out the mass came up like “oh it’s just this and that. Now here we are. Anyways, let’s see how things turns out.
0
