Alliance War diversity: what about attack ?

MacrosTheDarkMacrosTheDark Member Posts: 18 ★
edited May 2018 in Suggestions and Requests
Hi, there is more and more teams in AW with almost 30 players bringing as attack team Blade/Spidey stark/Ghost. I will of course not blame them as it would make no sense not to take advantage of this strong team. But in another hand, I thought that Kabam wanted to reward diversity and the use of more champions in the game than only a few ones. What do you think about the idea to take in account the diversity of attackers, when calculating AW results ?

Comments

  • AhitlawAhitlaw Member Posts: 2,123 ★★★★
    Sounds very fair. We got defense diversity. Add attack diversity
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,619 ★★★★★
    There's no need for Attack Diversity.
  • JaffacakedJaffacaked Member Posts: 1,415 ★★★★
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    Hi, there is more and more teams in AW with almost 30 players bringing as attack team Blade/Spidey stark/Ghost. I will of course not blame them as it would make no sense not to take advantage of this strong team. But in another hand, I thought that Kabam wanted to reward diversity and the use of more champions in the game than only a few ones. What do you think about the idea to take in account the diversity of attackers, when calculating AW results ?
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    Hi, there is more and more teams in AW with almost 30 players bringing as attack team Blade/Spidey stark/Ghost. I will of course not blame them as it would make no sense not to take advantage of this strong team. But in another hand, I thought that Kabam wanted to reward diversity and the use of more champions in the game than only a few ones. What do you think about the idea to take in account the diversity of attackers, when calculating AW results ?

    It's been brought up many many times before. Not many people like the idea of that
  • MacrosTheDarkMacrosTheDark Member Posts: 18 ★
    @GroundedWisdom well, then there is no need for Defense diversity...
  • MacrosTheDarkMacrosTheDark Member Posts: 18 ★
    @Jaffacaked I didn't check if there was any post but I believe you. So the question is: why they don't like the idea ? Maybe just because they have the holy trinity
  • charaderdude2charaderdude2 Member Posts: 1,530 ★★★
    edited May 2018
    GroundedWisdom wrote: »
    There's no need for Attack Diversity.

    There was no need for everything.Yet it happened,Nothing wrong with attacker diversity.
  • charaderdude2charaderdude2 Member Posts: 1,530 ★★★
    Jaffacaked wrote: »
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    Hi, there is more and more teams in AW with almost 30 players bringing as attack team Blade/Spidey stark/Ghost. I will of course not blame them as it would make no sense not to take advantage of this strong team. But in another hand, I thought that Kabam wanted to reward diversity and the use of more champions in the game than only a few ones. What do you think about the idea to take in account the diversity of attackers, when calculating AW results ?
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    Hi, there is more and more teams in AW with almost 30 players bringing as attack team Blade/Spidey stark/Ghost. I will of course not blame them as it would make no sense not to take advantage of this strong team. But in another hand, I thought that Kabam wanted to reward diversity and the use of more champions in the game than only a few ones. What do you think about the idea to take in account the diversity of attackers, when calculating AW results ?

    It's been brought up many many times before. Not many people like the idea of that

    Even Dave brought it up!I guess people don't like it because they can't have their blade.
  • BornBorn Member Posts: 228 ★★
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    @GroundedWisdom well, then there is no need for Defense diversity...

    You don’t have to have a diverse defence. This is up to you and your alliance. There is a choice. Same with attack, everyone has a choice. You are attacking a defence designed to stop you, it wouldn’t be right to punish people for bringing their best team to fight. People work extremely hard and in some cases spend allot of money to rank their attackers, stopping them from using them in such a critical game mode is just plain wrong.

  • MacrosTheDarkMacrosTheDark Member Posts: 18 ★
    Born wrote: »
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    @GroundedWisdom well, then there is no need for Defense diversity...

    You don’t have to have a diverse defence. This is up to you and your alliance. There is a choice. Same with attack, everyone has a choice. You are attacking a defence designed to stop you, it wouldn’t be right to punish people for bringing their best team to fight. People work extremely hard and in some cases spend allot of money to rank their attackers, stopping them from using them in such a critical game mode is just plain wrong.

    Well, I could answer to you exactly the same, I worked hard to rank my defense and then came diversity... Is it right to punish me for bringing my best team in defense ? For attack it will be exactly like for Defense, you will still have the choice to bring the team that you want...
  • BornBorn Member Posts: 228 ★★
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    Born wrote: »
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    @GroundedWisdom well, then there is no need for Defense diversity...

    You don’t have to have a diverse defence. This is up to you and your alliance. There is a choice. Same with attack, everyone has a choice. You are attacking a defence designed to stop you, it wouldn’t be right to punish people for bringing their best team to fight. People work extremely hard and in some cases spend allot of money to rank their attackers, stopping them from using them in such a critical game mode is just plain wrong.

    Well, I could answer to you exactly the same, I worked hard to rank my defense and then came diversity... Is it right to punish me for bringing my best team in defense ? For attack it will be exactly like for Defense, you will still have the choice to bring the team that you want...

    No it isn’t right. They should remove diversity, not add it to attack.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,619 ★★★★★
    MacrosTheDark wrote: »
    @GroundedWisdom well, then there is no need for Defense diversity...

    Actually, there was. There's a difference. The entire Ally goes up against who people place for Defense. Attack is elective by design, and it really doesn't have the same effect. You're not locked into a Map against the Attackers of the opposite Ally. People use who they want for Attack based on their own judgment of who will carry them best, and there's only 3 you can bring. It just happens to be that there is an effective Team that's popular. That will probably change in the future when newer Champs are added. Diversity came about because people kept encountering the same Defensive Champs over and over. We don't encounter their Attack Team.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 36,619 ★★★★★
    Defense is a Map shared by the entire Ally collectively. Everyone has to encounter the same Champs. Attack Teams are individual. It's 30 individuals who are selecting what Team to go in with. It doesn't have to be diverse.
  • charaderdude2charaderdude2 Member Posts: 1,530 ★★★
    GroundedWisdom wrote: »
    Defense is a Map shared by the entire Ally collectively. Everyone has to encounter the same Champs. Attack Teams are individual. It's 30 individuals who are selecting what Team to go in with. It doesn't have to be diverse.

    Defense is also chosen by individuals,30 teams of 5.
Sign In or Register to comment.