How about then instead of rank down tickets we get:
Depending in rating:
400k+ rating
1 feature 6 star crystal
1 fearure 5 star crystal
1 random awekening gem
3 t4cc
3 t4b
300+
1 fearure 5 star crystal
1 random awekening gem
2 t4cc
2 t4b
Below 200k
1 feature 5 star crystal
1 t4cc
1 t4b
1 four star awakening gem crystal
This is fair or gives us the 5 rank down tickets for 5 stars champs
That's not a solution. Kabam is trying too hard to create a PAY TO WIN aw environment. It's not just about diversity. It's about how much you'll spend in the future aw.
I think you're giving Kabam the wrong kind of credit. Engineering the game to make more money is a comprehensible motive, even if it might be unpalatable. I don't see that going on here. I see something far less comprehensible.
Kabam keeps calling defender diversity points "tie breakers" when they aren't tie breakers: defender diversity points just score points. Even though they are obviously not tie breakers Kabam keeps wondering why something that hands alliances points at the start of the war isn't working as a tie breaker. I'm GENUINELY BAFFLED by this.
And now they are saying that alliances are winning too often on attack bonus, when attack bonus was actually added to AW to ensure the side that more skillfully defeats nodes wins. In other words, attack bonus is there to award the victory to the more skilled alliance, and Kabam doesn't like the fact that alliances are winning with it. Seriously, I can't make this up.
Defender diversity points and attack bonus work together in AW. Diversity points encourage you to place different defenders regardless of defender strength. Attack bonus encourages you to place the strongest possible defenders. The two act to force the players to make a qualitative choice between two different options, and a range of overall placement strategies. Removing one and saying you don't even want the other one to decide wars either is nonsensical.
Someone religiously believes that map exploration should decide most wars. But if map exploration decides most wars, that means most wars will end with players unable to finish their paths. In effect, that means a player will have to quit in the middle of the war and essentially abandon the rest of the alliance to their fate. If you lose on attacker bonus, there's no way to know which of the players who died "lost" the war: its a team loss. But if you lose on exploration, someBODY lost the war: the guy who got stopped in their path, and then left links up, which made the other guy unable to finish his path, which meant the battlegroup couldn't defeat the bosses. It will be THAT GUYS FAULT. And no one wants to be that guy. So we will all continue to spend to not be that guy, and Kabam will keep making AW harder, until a breaking point is reached and Kabam literally breaks the playerbase into surrendering to the AW map difficulty.
That portrays the process as highly adversarial. I don't generally do that. But in this case, that's the honest portrayal. Someone or some group of developers at Kabam don't want alliances to win on style points, they don't want alliances to win on the margins. They want alliances to win because someone on the other side FAILED. Singularly and obviously failed.
I'm fortunate. I'm in a mid-tier alliance that is under less pressure to perform, and frankly I'm one of the best players in the alliance: it won't be me that breaks first. And I'm also a battlegroup leader, so I can insulate my players from at least some of this pressure. But if I was in a higher tier alliance, I'd be reconsidering whether the competition was worth it. Not because competition is unhealthy, I like competition. Rather, Kabam seems hell-bent on making the competition as unhealthy as possible.
I really don't understand this at all. Monetization alone cannot explain this. Players will keep spending as long as they think they are getting something from that spending. They will push to complete their paths no matter how hard it gets. But if Kabam succeeds in making it so hard that players cannot complete their paths no matter how much they spend, they'll stop spending. That should be obvious. It would be obvious, to anyone in the business of monetizing video games.
We are asking for the wrong solution from Kabam
I don't know about you guys but I would much rather keep Diversity around instead of getting rank down tickets. I would love to rank down some champions I ranked up just for defense but I would much rather not have to fight IWIM, Medusa, Domino, Dormamu, 10x each war.
Thing is, I don’t see them rolling this back. Just like they wouldn’t totally roll 12.0 back. But RDT are a very reasonable and quite frankly needed response.
Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players
Don’t remove diversity, don’t issue RDT’s and stop ruining MCOC...
Your comment is very laughable
you seem very attached to the idea of RDT's, but I ask you this, what is better about receiving RDT's over just NOT getting rid of diversity? The latter is most definitely a better long term solution, as receiving RDT's only compounds the problem as it is saying to kabam "as long as you give me stuff I will be ok with you fundamentally ruining the game". If you don't like diversity, fine, but getting rid of it with the blink of an eye and issuing RDT's does not fix was is ultimately wrong with AW.
Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players
That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this:
The Challenger and Expert Maps are getting a significant boost in difficulty. At this time, Exploration and Battlegroup completion is still nearly always 100%, but should be the determining factors of which Alliance wins the War, and not the Attacker Bonus.
Kabam keeps calling defender diversity points "tie breakers" when they aren't tie breakers: defender diversity points just score points. Even though they are obviously not tie breakers Kabam keeps wondering why something that hands alliances points at the start of the war isn't working as a tie breaker. I'm GENUINELY BAFFLED by this.
And now they are saying that alliances are winning too often on attack bonus, when attack bonus was actually added to AW to ensure the side that more skillfully defeats nodes wins. In other words, attack bonus is there to award the victory to the more skilled alliance, and Kabam doesn't like the fact that alliances are winning with it. Seriously, I can't make this up.
Defender diversity points and attack bonus work together in AW. Diversity points encourage you to place different defenders regardless of defender strength. Attack bonus encourages you to place the strongest possible defenders. The two act to force the players to make a qualitative choice between two different options, and a range of overall placement strategies. Removing one and saying you don't even want the other one to decide wars either is nonsensical.
He has it exactly right. I like how the diversity and the attack bonus make you figure out which defenders are best to use - is using a dupe worth it this time to get an attack kill we wouldn't get with another defender. There was actually strategy in the process. All of that is gone.
I expect to run into a path with IWIM, Domino, Dormammu, Killmonger and Iceman. I have two fun choices: 1) I can fail to clear my path, and let down my 29 alliance mates, or 2) I can drain my account of units and boosts, and eventually cash. If this is how alliance wars are going to work in the future, I pass.
To the extent that Alliance Wars are determined by Skill, you have a winning formula. To the extent that they are determined by item use, they are a scam. Please reconsider these changes, Kabam.
So just to clarify you guys have removed diversity points so we free to place as many duplicates of Champs with no penalty?
This is correct, but keep in mind that the Meta of the Game has changed a lot since we introduced Defender Diversity, and players have become pretty accustomed to many of the "top defenders" and have counters at the ready! This also does not mean that Diversity won't return in a future season.
That makes it real tough on rank up decisions especially with many people getting their 2nd and 3rd R5 5*s soon. This “diversity or no diversity” system can’t keep flip flopping around because that will screw a lot of people up. Also, diversity has been great for strategy in the past season. It was a thoughtful decision to decide whether or not to place for diversity, guessing how much diversity the opponent placed, etc. “Spreadsheet wars” as you guys called it was an integral part of planning and rewarded those who put in the most effort. Wars are decided by defender kills, not diversity. The tie-breaker effect it was having was working well. Just my thoughts on this change.
Communication. And no, not a message like "We're working on fixing your issues," we want a road map, what your plans exactly are for the future of MCoC, and actually hold true to those plans, so we can avoid issues where the community is blindsided by something like the removal of Diversity. We want to know your plans, something like "We are testing out the system of not having defender diversity in AW, and 3 months down the road, based off the community's feedback, we will decide if it will stay or go." Without this, we can and will make huge account decisions like ranking a not very strong 5 star to rank 4 or 5 for defender diversity, just to have it change and we basically waste our items. Without it, we can and will rank champs like wolverine or X-23 for AQ, just for them to become near useless with the addition of Sentinels. Without it, we can and will take notice of many people not following the ToS and not receiving any negative consequences and we want a response as to why they aren't being banned or punished. We just want to know what the hell is going on.
Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players
That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this:
The Challenger and Expert Maps are getting a significant boost in difficulty. At this time, Exploration and Battlegroup completion is still nearly always 100%, but should be the determining factors of which Alliance wins the War, and not the Attacker Bonus.
(emphasis mine)
How about the more efficient team wins? Have items used and time it took to complete 100% into the equation?
At the end AW is not just about skills. It is called alliance war for a reason. team work and strategy are also a huge part and what makes it fun. Diversity is part of that formula. Using defenders off your top champs visible on profile is part of that formula. Need to guess whether that 5* cosmic is a Hyperion or a Medusa is part of that formula. The ability to send weaker guys on an easier path is part of that formula. This is alliance war, not wallet war.
My Alliance and I have worked very hard and used rare top level Resources to Rank many of our champions for Diversity for a great Defensive Strategy to win wars obviously. It seems unfair to change everything up on people after so much time was spent gathering what was needed to so and/or using what we already had on lesser champions for max Diversity when in reality we should have been saving it for top level champions. I understand the game changes as it goes but a game like this requires Time for most of your players To gather what is needed to win. We as a community never know who to use it on because the game continues to be changed right when we are getting where we need to be. Please make this right for the hard working money spending Badass Community that MCOC has. Thx TDom #SOS
Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players
That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this:
The Challenger and Expert Maps are getting a significant boost in difficulty. At this time, Exploration and Battlegroup completion is still nearly always 100%, but should be the determining factors of which Alliance wins the War, and not the Attacker Bonus.
(emphasis mine)
How about the more efficient team wins? Have items used and time it took to complete 100% into the equation?
Personally, I don't mind factoring in item use into the point score: I suggested something like that somewhere between 14.0 and 14.1. A lot of players will point out that it penalizes item use which Kabam would never do because it would cost revenue, but Kabam itself is silent on the idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by time, but at one point I also suggested factoring in time remaining on the clock (out of the three minutes per fight) into scoring. I wouldn't count wall clock time against alliances because that would arbitrarily penalize more widely dispersed (as in time zone) alliances regardless of skill.
Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players
That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this:
The Challenger and Expert Maps are getting a significant boost in difficulty. At this time, Exploration and Battlegroup completion is still nearly always 100%, but should be the determining factors of which Alliance wins the War, and not the Attacker Bonus.
(emphasis mine)
How about the more efficient team wins? Have items used and time it took to complete 100% into the equation?
Personally, I don't mind factoring in item use into the point score: I suggested something like that somewhere between 14.0 and 14.1. A lot of players will point out that it penalizes item use which Kabam would never do because it would cost revenue, but Kabam itself is silent on the idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by time, but at one point I also suggested factoring in time remaining on the clock (out of the three minutes per fight) into scoring. I wouldn't count wall clock time against alliances because that would arbitrarily penalize more widely dispersed (as in time zone) alliances regardless of skill.
The wars are 24 hours. So I meant time on the clock at the point you got 100% so those finishing in 18 hours are rewarded more than those finishing in 23 hours.
No respons for over 3 huers aside of we take it to the team simpelt to much going one and AW sæsen. Gone be isanes alot of new champ going time out of the news node make it harder with remove devstiy then Buffs node and scale the rewards Down becasse short weak with is great but stil go one and informe US with usfull infomations or alest Tel US what ther working one and dont say we start the sæsen any ways it wuld be bad u for mcoc and from kabam as Company if u wont ore trust back from V12 then prov US it now the time to show it Els it goning be like berfor. Get out of the Dark. Sry for my ryl bad english but thah my last thing to say
We rank all these champs for diversity and now there useless. The game just increased in difficulty and made it more costly then ever to be competitive in aw we need rank down tickets to adjust defense and I would like to see items removed from aw all together if you want it to be skill based and not wallet based or a even playing field.
You are ignoring your players by doing this change with out rank downs. We've invested in characters solely for diversity. It's not right and you will experience our frustration @Kabam Miike when we initiate our right to protest.
I know people want replies, but there is no point in them answering questions until they know what their bosses are going to do to fix the situation
they would be just giving non answers making people even more mad
Absolute rubbish. We've been ranking up all kinds of random champs for diversity alone. This forceful changing of the meta of the game is just bad business. No rank down tickets? diversity may return? PaaahLease. There's community wide talk of item free wars, a July 4th no login day, and now a boycott. I think I'll be partaking on all these. Thanks for making something that was fun, into something that only the biggest of spenders have a chance of excelling at. This is just ridiculous
I know people want replies, but there is no point in them answering questions until they know what their bosses are going to do to fix the situation
they would be just giving non answers making people even more mad
My guess is they’re going to try to get this sorted one way or another before July 4th. That is one of their biggest revenue days of the year. Having no income that day would be crushing.
I know people want replies, but there is no point in them answering questions until they know what their bosses are going to do to fix the situation
they would be just giving non answers making people even more mad
Which bosses???? As far I know we the players that pay kabam’s game are the most important thing. Wihout us and our money the game cannot run.
I know people want replies, but there is no point in them answering questions until they know what their bosses are going to do to fix the situation
they would be just giving non answers making people even more mad
My guess is they’re going to try to get this sorted one way or another before July 4th. That is one of their biggest revenue days of the year. Having no income that day would be crushing.
No point in buying a 5* awakening gem in case the meta changes again. Even if rank down tickets are offered after that, you won't be able to use the awakening on a different champ.
All quiet on the Kabam front, surprise surprise! I for one am planning on partaking in the boycott as are many others I have talked in different chats. They keep saying things may change back, who knows? That’s fine, but with a finite ability to get the top resources to rank high level champs, it makes the “meta” of the game static, not fluid like they keep saying. The game play may change in kabam a favor, but at the expense of the community that puts time, effort and money into this game.
Current state of the game has become the opposite of both the players and developers actually want :
1. Gold,Potions and tiers should be proportional as the game moves forward like from 4 stars to 5 stars to 6 stars.
nowadays, if I get a god tier champ , it doesn't matter because I can't upgrade him anyways!
2. Regarding AW , this mode became the source of problems between players in every alliance , which made some players quit the game completely.
3. Kabam should help us to advance more in the game not push us back like this, you could make it easier to get every type of upgradables and crystals from all modes of the game . If we can get crystal shards , gold and tiers from different modes , it will decrease the tension in AQ and AW .
Comments
I think you're giving Kabam the wrong kind of credit. Engineering the game to make more money is a comprehensible motive, even if it might be unpalatable. I don't see that going on here. I see something far less comprehensible.
Kabam keeps calling defender diversity points "tie breakers" when they aren't tie breakers: defender diversity points just score points. Even though they are obviously not tie breakers Kabam keeps wondering why something that hands alliances points at the start of the war isn't working as a tie breaker. I'm GENUINELY BAFFLED by this.
And now they are saying that alliances are winning too often on attack bonus, when attack bonus was actually added to AW to ensure the side that more skillfully defeats nodes wins. In other words, attack bonus is there to award the victory to the more skilled alliance, and Kabam doesn't like the fact that alliances are winning with it. Seriously, I can't make this up.
Defender diversity points and attack bonus work together in AW. Diversity points encourage you to place different defenders regardless of defender strength. Attack bonus encourages you to place the strongest possible defenders. The two act to force the players to make a qualitative choice between two different options, and a range of overall placement strategies. Removing one and saying you don't even want the other one to decide wars either is nonsensical.
Someone religiously believes that map exploration should decide most wars. But if map exploration decides most wars, that means most wars will end with players unable to finish their paths. In effect, that means a player will have to quit in the middle of the war and essentially abandon the rest of the alliance to their fate. If you lose on attacker bonus, there's no way to know which of the players who died "lost" the war: its a team loss. But if you lose on exploration, someBODY lost the war: the guy who got stopped in their path, and then left links up, which made the other guy unable to finish his path, which meant the battlegroup couldn't defeat the bosses. It will be THAT GUYS FAULT. And no one wants to be that guy. So we will all continue to spend to not be that guy, and Kabam will keep making AW harder, until a breaking point is reached and Kabam literally breaks the playerbase into surrendering to the AW map difficulty.
That portrays the process as highly adversarial. I don't generally do that. But in this case, that's the honest portrayal. Someone or some group of developers at Kabam don't want alliances to win on style points, they don't want alliances to win on the margins. They want alliances to win because someone on the other side FAILED. Singularly and obviously failed.
I'm fortunate. I'm in a mid-tier alliance that is under less pressure to perform, and frankly I'm one of the best players in the alliance: it won't be me that breaks first. And I'm also a battlegroup leader, so I can insulate my players from at least some of this pressure. But if I was in a higher tier alliance, I'd be reconsidering whether the competition was worth it. Not because competition is unhealthy, I like competition. Rather, Kabam seems hell-bent on making the competition as unhealthy as possible.
I really don't understand this at all. Monetization alone cannot explain this. Players will keep spending as long as they think they are getting something from that spending. They will push to complete their paths no matter how hard it gets. But if Kabam succeeds in making it so hard that players cannot complete their paths no matter how much they spend, they'll stop spending. That should be obvious. It would be obvious, to anyone in the business of monetizing video games.
Your comment is very laughable
Calling the kettle black huh?
Thing is, I don’t see them rolling this back. Just like they wouldn’t totally roll 12.0 back. But RDT are a very reasonable and quite frankly needed response.
you seem very attached to the idea of RDT's, but I ask you this, what is better about receiving RDT's over just NOT getting rid of diversity? The latter is most definitely a better long term solution, as receiving RDT's only compounds the problem as it is saying to kabam "as long as you give me stuff I will be ok with you fundamentally ruining the game". If you don't like diversity, fine, but getting rid of it with the blink of an eye and issuing RDT's does not fix was is ultimately wrong with AW.
That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this:
(emphasis mine)
To the extent that Alliance Wars are determined by Skill, you have a winning formula. To the extent that they are determined by item use, they are a scam. Please reconsider these changes, Kabam.
very thoughtful and committed, my friend.
How about the more efficient team wins? Have items used and time it took to complete 100% into the equation?
Personally, I don't mind factoring in item use into the point score: I suggested something like that somewhere between 14.0 and 14.1. A lot of players will point out that it penalizes item use which Kabam would never do because it would cost revenue, but Kabam itself is silent on the idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by time, but at one point I also suggested factoring in time remaining on the clock (out of the three minutes per fight) into scoring. I wouldn't count wall clock time against alliances because that would arbitrarily penalize more widely dispersed (as in time zone) alliances regardless of skill.
The wars are 24 hours. So I meant time on the clock at the point you got 100% so those finishing in 18 hours are rewarded more than those finishing in 23 hours.
they would be just giving non answers making people even more mad
My guess is they’re going to try to get this sorted one way or another before July 4th. That is one of their biggest revenue days of the year. Having no income that day would be crushing.
Which bosses???? As far I know we the players that pay kabam’s game are the most important thing. Wihout us and our money the game cannot run.
No point in buying a 5* awakening gem in case the meta changes again. Even if rank down tickets are offered after that, you won't be able to use the awakening on a different champ.
Working as intended...
1. Gold,Potions and tiers should be proportional as the game moves forward like from 4 stars to 5 stars to 6 stars.
nowadays, if I get a god tier champ , it doesn't matter because I can't upgrade him anyways!
2. Regarding AW , this mode became the source of problems between players in every alliance , which made some players quit the game completely.
3. Kabam should help us to advance more in the game not push us back like this, you could make it easier to get every type of upgradables and crystals from all modes of the game . If we can get crystal shards , gold and tiers from different modes , it will decrease the tension in AQ and AW .