**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
With the removal of diversity you are encouraging maps full of Medusa's, IMIW's, Domino's, Dorms, etc. AWD will just be all the same few champs on D. How is that enjoyable to play?
While you guys experiment with removing diversity or bringing it back, how are players supposed to make any informed decisions regarding rank ups? This basically puts us all on hold until you figure out which option you're gonna go with. The fact that you guys are willing to try different options is a good thing, the problem is that you are not accounting for how this will affect players in the meantime. To facilitate the kind of experimentation you are aiming for you need to give the players some way to adjust their rank ups once the final solution is determined. Maybe that comes in the form of rank down tickets or maybe it's something else - the point is that we need some way to be able to make decisions in the coming weeks without taking a massive risk by guessing if we will end up having diversity or not.
Here's an idea: don't allow you to see how the other team is doing on offense...then when the war is over we see where the deaths racked up.
You've conditioned us to 100%, and you know that you have. This is just simply a cash grab show now...so very few people have any faith that Kabam thinks otherwise.
We all know it is about the money. They don't care about the average player. But if they listened and made the game more enjoyable, maybe some of those average players would start to spend a little as well.
I do think if this is the way that your design team wants to take war design to, they should design the map to be short/long enough paths that have increased chances in getting more attack bonus. not more defenders per se, but increasing attack bonus or more layers of attack bonus for minis and bosses can work.
this is not simply making exploration and attack bonus equal in total percentage if both were at max points.
considerations should revolve around that completion with few-some exploration with 80-90% attack bonus achieved can beat 100% exploration with 20-40% attack bonus achieved. percentages for attack bonus are my personal opinion but really should reflect the hard node buffs while also considering that kabam has to earn profit. kabam should base their earnings though on war statistics after this iteration of wars.
simply, it should be possible to do completion w ftp skilled alliance. ftp skilled with few unit spending for revs and pots can beat ptw non skilled alliances.
It might be a good idea to also add a gateway miniboss. a miniboss that when beaten opens paths for extra exploration. something to consider for those alliances that feel they have put up low attack bonus compared to the other. the path though still will need skill and can have tricky but not mini boss level hard buffs.
any loopholes in my idea though...pls criticize.
I am 50/50 on diversity though.
Why does diversity have to go away completely? When did the community give you this sort of feedback? Horrible move. Why cant you find a middle ground, say make diversity based on entire alliance rather than based on battlegroups?
Separately, if 2* wars have been a concern, why not remove 1*2*3* as an option for AW defender placement? You already have arenas that have this function, or include some Defender PI mechanic into scoring. Why keep the door open to manipulation?
Plenty of sensible improvements are possible, without affecting your cashflow.
The suggestion comes up often, but eliminating Item Use is not a feasible solution. On the contrary, it exacerbates other issues like Piloting and only rewards a small number of Players. Items are necessary, not just for spending. Removing them would end in a much worse situation.