Options
Are we playing a beta transition?
Micklownick
Member Posts: 315 ★★
Typically I can make it 25-30 minutes before my phone gets so hot it shuts off. Today I made it 15 minutes, not ideal.
But that's for another post I suppose...
There is a lot being worked on right now, and a lot of issues with the game. I'm not here to pile on all the other issues but to ponder on the state of the new war setup.
War has always been one of my favorite, and my alliance's favorite parts of the contest. We are in the 1900-2100 prestige typically, so no push overs, but no monster top ranking squad either.
Wars were different degrees of challenging over the years, but the thing I always enjoyed the most was the team work and coordination aspect of attacking the map.
Certain lanes are always more challenging then others and you had to be careful to put your best fighters on those lanes. However in the past the closer you got to the boss, the more the lanes merged together to provide opportunities to get back up relief or tag team a mini or main boss. That was always the best part, fighting your way to the rest of your team and using team work and coordinated spending to get the job done and get the boss cleared.
The latest release of mini-mini super bosses (?) seems like a backwards way to structure a map, and curious if this is just a prolonged test while Kabam fixes all the other issues. Is it me or is it confusing to have a main 'boss' that is noded less then these mini-mini nodes?
Yesterday there was a 38k Modok, not a boss and not a sub boss, just sitting in the middle of the map.
From my experience war maps have always been structured in such a way that they got progressively harder and that was the challenge.... granted having super death nodes half way through the war are challenging, but they create a situation where all the item use is focused on the shoulders of a single player and not equally distributed.
The past two wars, I log in, and we have a player(s) KO on a single death node, and the rest of the team is noded and locked up. So we spend these type of wars doing.....well nothing....not enjoying war... not really playing... just watching our defense to see where they get locked up and dead-locked as well.
We can debate whether this is a money grab that increases spending, but that should be obvious, and frankly I'm okay with them wanting to create more revenue, but its puzzling why they don't incrementally increase the difficulty of the nodes so more players can progress further into the map and actually have the chance to use items, rather then just never having the opportunity because the whole team is noded and watches as one guy sinks 15 items...
I'm no math guru, but would seem like the newest 'test' of a war map was engineered to increase item use, but in fact reduces alliance wide item use because fewer and fewer players have the opportunity to actually run their full lanes.
But that's for another post I suppose...
There is a lot being worked on right now, and a lot of issues with the game. I'm not here to pile on all the other issues but to ponder on the state of the new war setup.
War has always been one of my favorite, and my alliance's favorite parts of the contest. We are in the 1900-2100 prestige typically, so no push overs, but no monster top ranking squad either.
Wars were different degrees of challenging over the years, but the thing I always enjoyed the most was the team work and coordination aspect of attacking the map.
Certain lanes are always more challenging then others and you had to be careful to put your best fighters on those lanes. However in the past the closer you got to the boss, the more the lanes merged together to provide opportunities to get back up relief or tag team a mini or main boss. That was always the best part, fighting your way to the rest of your team and using team work and coordinated spending to get the job done and get the boss cleared.
The latest release of mini-mini super bosses (?) seems like a backwards way to structure a map, and curious if this is just a prolonged test while Kabam fixes all the other issues. Is it me or is it confusing to have a main 'boss' that is noded less then these mini-mini nodes?
Yesterday there was a 38k Modok, not a boss and not a sub boss, just sitting in the middle of the map.
From my experience war maps have always been structured in such a way that they got progressively harder and that was the challenge.... granted having super death nodes half way through the war are challenging, but they create a situation where all the item use is focused on the shoulders of a single player and not equally distributed.
The past two wars, I log in, and we have a player(s) KO on a single death node, and the rest of the team is noded and locked up. So we spend these type of wars doing.....well nothing....not enjoying war... not really playing... just watching our defense to see where they get locked up and dead-locked as well.
We can debate whether this is a money grab that increases spending, but that should be obvious, and frankly I'm okay with them wanting to create more revenue, but its puzzling why they don't incrementally increase the difficulty of the nodes so more players can progress further into the map and actually have the chance to use items, rather then just never having the opportunity because the whole team is noded and watches as one guy sinks 15 items...
I'm no math guru, but would seem like the newest 'test' of a war map was engineered to increase item use, but in fact reduces alliance wide item use because fewer and fewer players have the opportunity to actually run their full lanes.
0
Comments
That’s about it? Interesting perspective that is exactly congruent with Kabam announcement. However, I’ve never seen Kabam announce they did anything to increase spending as the goal, I’m not sure that would be a welcomed announcement.
Again I don’t care if that is the goal or not, but I’m also not blind to the connections.
In war particular with seasons I can see how making a map harder to finish would increase spending.
So let’s not wander into semantics, whether it’s to increase spending or just make it harder to finish, despite those two are very much intertwined.
But yes I recognize your point that people still have the free will to spend or not to spend but that’s going down a rabbit hole I’m not making the main concern of the post.
Point, and perhaps I could have made it more clear, the further players progress in their line the more likely they will spend (or not spend) Now when players barely make it to the second tier of war and the entire team gets stalled because the map remains noded you get the unintended consequences of losing player activity, interest, participation, and thus spending.
So whether this is about spending or not spending, who cares, that’s a semantic argument.
However if we see a player loss of interest and participation and generally not getting the ‘fun rush’ of wars... then is that not something we should discuss and bring to the table?