Fair enough. Not Tactics perse, but I would see it as the same thing. Essentially you're getting more Points for successful Defense Tactics. Two sides of the same coin.
Let me correct you:
Essentially you're getting more points for having ghost/guillotine2099/warlock/claire. That's literally what this will be unless they make major changes to flow.
And in that case it will be exactly the same issue, but with another tactic.
There are 36 flow defenders currently. As the post states, all of those as attackers would gain a bonus against flow defenders.
Out of those 36 flow defenders probably 7-8 are already great offensive champs and some of them on top of that great flow counters.
Let me put it this way:
If possible the only logical move for any alliance would be to use only flow, put up the best flow defense they can and then all use ghost, hood and someone else in attack.
This will in no way encourage diversity. But you'll see that soon enough. Good luck.
NO, what I'm saying is with the current Defense Tactics, you only get more Points if you get successful Kills (minus Attack Bonus). What I'm calling Offense Tactics is getting Points for successful Attackers (using the right counters).
Let's be honest. It hasn't been that long since every Attack Team was the Trinity. Only recently have Tactics caused people to shift what they're using. The most common practice is the "best" Attackers come out, and everyone uses them.
"The trinity"...? Which one? Do you even play this game? Be honest.
The Blade Trinity. Are you trying to follow?
If by “It hasn’t been that long since,” you mean two years ago, you’d be correct. Somewhat.
Defense tactics are supposed to encourage diversity is honestly the funniest sh*t I've heard today.
But it gets even better, because in the near future even offensive champs will benefit from them, meaning our offensive options will also become less diversity encouraging.
What kind of a joke even is that? Diversity literally becomes a complete non-factor in tier 5+. Not having defense tactics is what encourages diversity.
By the way we tanked our first war this season. And surprisingly enough, our opponent also only places a half-a**ed defense and only went for the bosses.
I couldn't help myself and still placed my 5/65 mojo as a boss in bg1 amongst mostly 1-2* champs. He still got 26 kills.
When has diversity ever been an issue for Offense? People use the same Champs regardless, overall. If anything, it will encourage more diversity. Unless I'm playing another game where Corvus isn't in every Attack Team.
Offensive diversity has already been heavily impacted by defense tactics. However, you need to have at least some tier 5 experience to comprehend that.
Now with additional bonuses in an already broken and horribly balanced system it is to be expected that there will also be an objectively best defense tactic in consideration of both defense and offense. Just as flow is objectively the best tactic to use, as in placing a diverse tactic or even somewhat decent non-flow defenders is to be frank stupid, considering what even 5/50 defenders can do on flow.
But, yeah. Again, you'd need to have a picture of tier 5+ wars to understand that. The difference between tier 6- and tier 5+ is absurd.
Rubbish there only 4-5 reliable counters to flow wars how is that heavily impacting diversity on offense. Outside of tier 5 and above players do use the same 5-10 champs every war 5-10 out of 170+ does not equal diversity
First of all, yes that's exactly what I said. Defense tactics heavily impacted offensive diversity, negatively that is.
And as to the rest, that is neither my experience nor is it correct. Tier 6- allows for a lot of offensive diversity in comparison.
Tier 6 may allow for more offensive diversity but players rarely if ever take advantage of it. Players always default to their most used or best champs due to the competitive nature of AW. Just look at the attack teams your alliances use no matter what tier you’re on you won’t find more than 10 different champs being used every war among the 30 people in your alliance. With champs getting an offensive boost depending on the defense tactics there’s more incentive to bring in a different champ than what you would normally use of course that will depend on how good the boost is but the potential is there.
Look at it this way say for example Gamora is your favorite champ you would love to take her into war but the way the current set up is you wouldn’t do because you know she is not on the level of a ghost or quake and you know if she dies your alliance mates will hound you about bringing her into war. Now if kabam adds a boost that benefits her to the point where she’s on par with better champs you’re free to use her without worry. I’m not saying that will be the case but again the potential is there
The champs getting a boost are from the same class. Not a large number being affected with the way flow is still going strong.
There are 36 champs in the game with the #control tag. That’s a About a fifth of the total champs available not really a small number comparatively speaking, but it’s not just that we don’t know what new tactics are coming or if they will be rotated to keep alliances from using the same 1 or 2 every war. Again there is potential there for a better aw experience we’ll have to see what kabam has in store.
I personally would set it up so that battle groups would have to use every tactic once before using a tactic twice in a season. That would add a new element of strategy to wars.
Out of those 36, not many are good on offense. Boosting them vs control defenders still makes them useless vs other defenders. Rather have them boosted vs all defenders that way if you're doing that. Also, setting it so that BG have switch tactics constantly makes it a pain for officers who need to make either a generalised defense which makes DT somewhat useless, or keep switching which makes it like homework.
Ghost +hood, guillotine 2099, claire, magik. Some of the best flow counters are actually #control champs fyi.
That's what I had said in my first post which is below. Just forgot to write Ghost in. Offense tactics for flow atleast will just reward the existing best flow counters. Which is kinda pointless. Was just replying that 36 champs doesn't mean anything when you have majority of them being no good at attack. Doubt the bonus is going to make Diablo or Loki worthwhile.
Offense tactics for the same class doesn't change much for Flow at the very least. The best counters to Flow are control champs. Just giving the same champs(Magik/G99/Claire/Doc) a benefit. Would rather see offense tactics that helped benefit other champs vs a defense tactic.
Also, when you face the same champs your team won't change. Ever since flow became a thing, I basically see the same champs in war being used with rarely a change maybe due to the placement of maybe a Nick Fury/Void or someone who requires a specific counter. Otherwise, you'll just see G99/Quake/HT/Magik/Void/Warlock/Doom/ Ghost. Have barely seen any other champ being used. Or someone who has been lucky to spend on a Vision will run him solo or with CapIW. Don't see any diversity in offense. Atleast Siphon meant you would see a larger number of champs being used.
Ok reading this post again, this isn't a reaction post to what we've been up in arms about for years. This is simply a post letting the community know what they plan for the next three months. They have already been working on these items for months before we all exploded a couple weeks ago with the Seatin vid. I think they should have stated that blatantly in the opening of the post that this wasn't a reaction post. Hopefully the NEXT post will address our immediate concerns. So props Kabam for giving a road map. If you did a road map like this every three months, it would give the playerbase immense joy on what we could look forward to. So don't go crazy yet guys, the NEXT post is what you should be looking forward to.
Let's be honest. It hasn't been that long since every Attack Team was the Trinity. Only recently have Tactics caused people to shift what they're using. The most common practice is the "best" Attackers come out, and everyone uses them.
"The trinity"...? Which one? Do you even play this game? Be honest.
The Blade Trinity. Are you trying to follow?
If by “It hasn’t been that long since,” you mean two years ago, you’d be correct. Somewhat.
When you're my age, time goes by fast. Lol. It's still a valid point. There isn't a great deal of diversity in Attack. The same few OP Champs come out, and the majority use them. Usually with high Damage, or Regen, and aside from a few specific counters people need, it's scores of the same Champs. Nor has it ever been an issue. Diversity in Attack was never a thing until now. At least as far as "Offense Tactics" goes. I'm looking at the idea of it because we haven't seen anything yet. We don't even know what Flow will look like if they adjust it after this Season. The one thing I do know is there's a contradiction because people don't like having to use specific Champs to counter, but they tend to use the same anyway.
Defense tactics are supposed to encourage diversity is honestly the funniest sh*t I've heard today.
But it gets even better, because in the near future even offensive champs will benefit from them, meaning our offensive options will also become less diversity encouraging.
What kind of a joke even is that? Diversity literally becomes a complete non-factor in tier 5+. Not having defense tactics is what encourages diversity.
By the way we tanked our first war this season. And surprisingly enough, our opponent also only places a half-a**ed defense and only went for the bosses.
I couldn't help myself and still placed my 5/65 mojo as a boss in bg1 amongst mostly 1-2* champs. He still got 26 kills.
When has diversity ever been an issue for Offense? People use the same Champs regardless, overall. If anything, it will encourage more diversity. Unless I'm playing another game where Corvus isn't in every Attack Team.
Offensive diversity has already been heavily impacted by defense tactics. However, you need to have at least some tier 5 experience to comprehend that.
Now with additional bonuses in an already broken and horribly balanced system it is to be expected that there will also be an objectively best defense tactic in consideration of both defense and offense. Just as flow is objectively the best tactic to use, as in placing a diverse tactic or even somewhat decent non-flow defenders is to be frank stupid, considering what even 5/50 defenders can do on flow.
But, yeah. Again, you'd need to have a picture of tier 5+ wars to understand that. The difference between tier 6- and tier 5+ is absurd.
Rubbish there only 4-5 reliable counters to flow wars how is that heavily impacting diversity on offense. Outside of tier 5 and above players do use the same 5-10 champs every war 5-10 out of 170+ does not equal diversity
First of all, yes that's exactly what I said. Defense tactics heavily impacted offensive diversity, negatively that is.
And as to the rest, that is neither my experience nor is it correct. Tier 6- allows for a lot of offensive diversity in comparison.
Tier 6 may allow for more offensive diversity but players rarely if ever take advantage of it. Players always default to their most used or best champs due to the competitive nature of AW. Just look at the attack teams your alliances use no matter what tier you’re on you won’t find more than 10 different champs being used every war among the 30 people in your alliance. With champs getting an offensive boost depending on the defense tactics there’s more incentive to bring in a different champ than what you would normally use of course that will depend on how good the boost is but the potential is there.
Look at it this way say for example Gamora is your favorite champ you would love to take her into war but the way the current set up is you wouldn’t do because you know she is not on the level of a ghost or quake and you know if she dies your alliance mates will hound you about bringing her into war. Now if kabam adds a boost that benefits her to the point where she’s on par with better champs you’re free to use her without worry. I’m not saying that will be the case but again the potential is there
The champs getting a boost are from the same class. Not a large number being affected with the way flow is still going strong.
There are 36 champs in the game with the #control tag. That’s a About a fifth of the total champs available not really a small number comparatively speaking, but it’s not just that we don’t know what new tactics are coming or if they will be rotated to keep alliances from using the same 1 or 2 every war. Again there is potential there for a better aw experience we’ll have to see what kabam has in store.
I personally would set it up so that battle groups would have to use every tactic once before using a tactic twice in a season. That would add a new element of strategy to wars.
Out of those 36, not many are good on offense. Boosting them vs control defenders still makes them useless vs other defenders. Rather have them boosted vs all defenders that way if you're doing that. Also, setting it so that BG have switch tactics constantly makes it a pain for officers who need to make either a generalised defense which makes DT somewhat useless, or keep switching which makes it like homework.
Ghost +hood, guillotine 2099, claire, magik. Some of the best flow counters are actually #control champs fyi.
That's what I had said in my first post which is below. Offense tactics for flow atleast will just reward the existing best flow counters. Which is kinda pointless. Was just replying that 36 champs doesn't mean anything when you have majority of them being no good at attack. Doubt the bonus is going to make Diablo or Loki worthwhile.
Offense tactics for the same class doesn't change much for Flow at the very least. The best counters to Flow are control champs. Just giving the same champs(Magik/G99/Claire/Doc) a benefit. Would rather see offense tactics that helped benefit other champs vs a defense tactic.
Also, when you face the same champs your team won't change. Ever since flow became a thing, I basically see the same champs in war being used with rarely a change maybe due to the placement of maybe a Nick Fury/Void or someone who requires a specific counter. Otherwise, you'll just see G99/Quake/HT/Magik/Void/Warlock/Doom/ Ghost. Have barely seen any other champ being used. Or someone who has been lucky to spend on a Vision will run him solo or with CapIW. Don't see any diversity in offense. Atleast Siphon meant you would see a larger number of champs being used.
Apologies, I misunderstood your point. Thanks for clarifying!
I definitely agree with what you were saying above. Just going to make Flow even stronger. Or Siphon even stronger. Because some of the top attacker+defenders can lie in the same tactic class. Run Siphon? KM/Void/Doom/Ghost/Venom/Omega etc enhanced on both offense and defense. Run Flow? Ghost+Hood/Claire/Magik/Doc Ock/G99/Sym/Warlock/Vision. Enhanced on both attack and defense. What about the rest? Have offense tactics that help other types of champs if you want to increase diversity in offense that is. Otherwise you're still promoting the same champs for offense and defense and renewing their utility.
I'm not going to continue to argue semantics. I didn't say every Alliance. I said in general. If someone is going to ignore the fact that we don't already know that the same Attackers are chosen, then that's just being contradictory.
I'm not going to continue to argue semantics. I didn't say every Alliance. I said in general. If someone is going to ignore the fact that we don't already know that the same Attackers are chosen, then that's just being contradictory.
If you say that the same attackers are currently being used, defensive tactics has just enhanced that. Can't say otherwise. Just makes it such that sometimes you don't even try to bring counters to champs, you bring counters to the global instead in the case of Flow. Siphon allows more champs to be used, but still promotes high damage so that you can reduce block damage taken.
I feel that at this point some big changes need to happen. I’ve lost interest in playing and I’m definitely not alone. The whole community is in outrage, and currently the process of fixing the game is too slow. I have a few ideas that might help during this time.
None of this is meant to be an attack at Kabam, but more of a call to action. These are just some suggestions based on my experience playing this game.
1. Aq- This mode just sucks. It’s the same boring fights over and over that take up 5 days a week. When I first started playing I thought that aq would be like story quests that you could do with friends. I hope that it becomes a single quest a week that has unique challenges and involves more teamwork.
2. Aw- I personally don’t hate war too much. However, seasons are very unrewarding. I put in a ton of effort for just a 6* groot, and with the buff to the glory store, I don’t care about the non-shard rewards for seasons. I already saw the post about the changes to aw, so I’m fairly excited to see them next season.
3. Solo and alliance events- these are extremely outdated. Why would I care about completing them if the rewards are phc shards and 3* sig stones?
4. Monthly event quests- The rewards are not great for uncollected, and we need a new difficulty for cavalier. Additionally, after completing the monthly eq, there’s no content to do. Adding more unique challenges like the boss rushes every month would help fill the void.
5. Arenas- I don’t even want to think about their existence. It’s just a boring and unrewarding waste of time.
6. Variants- I like where variants are heading, each one has been better than the last. Giving purpose to champions that are outdated and kinda trash is great. However, they need to be released more frequently. December to August is a huge gap.
The community has made it crystal clear that variants are some of their favorite pieces of content in this game. LOUDLY made that clear, since the second one came out.
This message confirms that the existing plan was to do a 9 month break in between 4 and 5.
Why?
All this shows me is that the problem of the developers being out of touch with the community is deeper and more problematic than I thought. They spent 9 months doing incursions and waited almost as long for another variant? Seriously guys? You’re NOT listening. You haven’t been. Maybe this all woke you up, but there really is zero excuse for making these mistakes. What was the purpose of sitting on content people want? Who does that help? I can’t believe it the more I think about it.
I'm not going to continue to argue semantics. I didn't say every Alliance. I said in general. If someone is going to ignore the fact that we don't already know that the same Attackers are chosen, then that's just being contradictory.
If you say that the same attackers are currently being used, defensive tactics has just enhanced that. Can't say otherwise. Just makes it such that sometimes you don't even try to bring counters to champs, you bring counters to the global instead in the case of Flow. Siphon allows more champs to be used, but still promotes high damage so that you can reduce block damage taken.
I said it happens regardless. The original post was implying somehow that Offensive Diversity was somehow being slighted.
Also, for everyone who is confused about what they're even trying to talk about:
There won't be offense tactics. There will be an offensive component to defense tactics. As it is now, nothing will change other than #control champs probably becoming the new aw offense meta in a few seasons.
With flow staying mostly as it is it will remain the objectively best defense tactic to choose. With a big enough boost through the offensive component #control champs will probably be the only champs used in future aw's.
Looks like some of my act 6 100% resources are going to finally R5 Magik after having her at R4 for 2/3 years... everyone is going to be running her in S19 if it shapes up this way. Bonuses and power control? OP
I'm not going to continue to argue semantics. I didn't say every Alliance. I said in general. If someone is going to ignore the fact that we don't already know that the same Attackers are chosen, then that's just being contradictory.
If you say that the same attackers are currently being used, defensive tactics has just enhanced that. Can't say otherwise. Just makes it such that sometimes you don't even try to bring counters to champs, you bring counters to the global instead in the case of Flow. Siphon allows more champs to be used, but still promotes high damage so that you can reduce block damage taken.
I said it happens regardless. The original post was implying somehow that Offensive Diversity was somehow being slighted.
It objectively is (flow counters > generally good aw champs) and it objectively will even further (#control flow counters > flow counters).
But you'll understand all of that soon enough, maybe you guys can even win a war or two to stick around in tier 5 for a while. There's a lot of tanking going on right now, so you might even get a few free wins.
We don't know what it's going to look like. It's not even here yet. All you're focusing on is Flow, and not the potential overall. Since you can't respond to me without making a dig, I'm not discussing it with you anymore.
I'm not going to continue to argue semantics. I didn't say every Alliance. I said in general. If someone is going to ignore the fact that we don't already know that the same Attackers are chosen, then that's just being contradictory.
If you say that the same attackers are currently being used, defensive tactics has just enhanced that. Can't say otherwise. Just makes it such that sometimes you don't even try to bring counters to champs, you bring counters to the global instead in the case of Flow. Siphon allows more champs to be used, but still promotes high damage so that you can reduce block damage taken.
I said it happens regardless. The original post was implying somehow that Offensive Diversity was somehow being slighted.
It objectively is (flow counters > generally good aw champs) and it objectively will even further (#control flow counters > flow counters).
But you'll understand all of that soon enough, maybe you guys can even win a war or two to stick around in tier 5 for a while. There's a lot of tanking going on right now, so you might even get a few free wins.
We don't know what it's going to look like. It's not even here yet. All you're focusing on is Flow, and not the potential overall. Since you can't respond to me without making a dig, I'm not discussing it with you anymore.
Defense tactics are supposed to encourage diversity is honestly the funniest sh*t I've heard today.
But it gets even better, because in the near future even offensive champs will benefit from them, meaning our offensive options will also become less diversity encouraging.
What kind of a joke even is that? Diversity literally becomes a complete non-factor in tier 5+. Not having defense tactics is what encourages diversity.
By the way we tanked our first war this season. And surprisingly enough, our opponent also only places a half-a**ed defense and only went for the bosses.
I couldn't help myself and still placed my 5/65 mojo as a boss in bg1 amongst mostly 1-2* champs. He still got 26 kills.
When has diversity ever been an issue for Offense? People use the same Champs regardless, overall. If anything, it will encourage more diversity. Unless I'm playing another game where Corvus isn't in every Attack Team.
This would be a case where I am compelled to say it before anyone else does: if you aren't playing the game at a level where defense tactics is in play, or higher tier AW in general, you really cannot have any idea how the DT changes will affect the attacker and defender meta. *I* haven't been in tier 5/6 in a long enough period of time that I can only hazard a guess myself.
Also, Corvus is path-specific in war, even in intermediate tiers. If you're on a path where you aren't going to get any charges, he's not always going to be the best choice. Or sometimes even a good choice. Can anyone tell me if Corvus is a good choice for a map full of Dooms? Because I don't know how to do a path with multiple Dooms without Void or CapIW, honestly.
I may respect your output, but I have the same response I do to anyone else that says it. Calling people out for where they're at in the game is not a reasonable rebuttal to points made. It's a low-hat response that just ignores what someone says. Of all the points you've made, I still don't understand why you support that behavior.
Because there's a difference between preference and judgment. If someone has a general point of view for which specific game experience is unnecessary, pointing out their game experience is unjustifiably prejudicial. But when someone is making a judgment that requires knowledge or experience or both, it is reasonable to question if that person has the requisite experience for their judgment to be credible.
Everyone has the right to express any opinion, however random, about any game topic they want. But that doesn't mean every opinion is equally credible. There's a huge difference between, say, commenting on the difficulty of the Champion fight based on watching a video of someone fighting him and actually fighting him. And when someone expresses an opinion about something, I generally want to know why they formulated that opinion, what its foundation is. I expect the same when anyone else reads my opinions. Without foundation, I shouldn't expect anyone else to give any of my opinions a second thought, and I assess other people's opinions the same way. There has to be a reason to respect the opinion, be it knowledge, careful analysis, direct experience, or all three.
It is no more calling out someone for their game progress to ask if they have any experience with the content they claim to be able to judge than it is calling out someone who claims to be able judge how difficult brain surgery is by asking them if they actually have any surgical experience whatsoever. Whenever I speak on any issue, I fully disclose my direct experience, if any, with that issue. And I'm suspicious about anyone who isn't willing to do likewise.
So one area I'm confused is how Kabam KNOWS that defense tactics are working opposite to how they were intended. They were meant to increase diversity, not create a new static meta. But it was already made abundantly clear that with Flow, it is absolutely a new static meta, more than ever before. They are literally flow wars. However, knowing this, they still chose to start season 18 this way. I don't understand that at all.
Defense tactics are supposed to encourage diversity is honestly the funniest sh*t I've heard today.
But it gets even better, because in the near future even offensive champs will benefit from them, meaning our offensive options will also become less diversity encouraging.
What kind of a joke even is that? Diversity literally becomes a complete non-factor in tier 5+. Not having defense tactics is what encourages diversity.
By the way we tanked our first war this season. And surprisingly enough, our opponent also only places a half-a**ed defense and only went for the bosses.
I couldn't help myself and still placed my 5/65 mojo as a boss in bg1 amongst mostly 1-2* champs. He still got 26 kills.
When has diversity ever been an issue for Offense? People use the same Champs regardless, overall. If anything, it will encourage more diversity. Unless I'm playing another game where Corvus isn't in every Attack Team.
This would be a case where I am compelled to say it before anyone else does: if you aren't playing the game at a level where defense tactics is in play, or higher tier AW in general, you really cannot have any idea how the DT changes will affect the attacker and defender meta. *I* haven't been in tier 5/6 in a long enough period of time that I can only hazard a guess myself.
Also, Corvus is path-specific in war, even in intermediate tiers. If you're on a path where you aren't going to get any charges, he's not always going to be the best choice. Or sometimes even a good choice. Can anyone tell me if Corvus is a good choice for a map full of Dooms? Because I don't know how to do a path with multiple Dooms without Void or CapIW, honestly.
I may respect your output, but I have the same response I do to anyone else that says it. Calling people out for where they're at in the game is not a reasonable rebuttal to points made. It's a low-hat response that just ignores what someone says. Of all the points you've made, I still don't understand why you support that behavior.
Because there's a difference between preference and judgment. If someone has a general point of view for which specific game experience is unnecessary, pointing out their game experience is unjustifiably prejudicial. But when someone is making a judgment that requires knowledge or experience or both, it is reasonable to question if that person has the requisite experience for their judgment to be credible.
Everyone has the right to express any opinion, however random, about any game topic they want. But that doesn't mean every opinion is equally credible. There's a huge difference between, say, commenting on the difficulty of the Champion fight based on watching a video of someone fighting him and actually fighting him. And when someone expresses an opinion about something, I generally want to know why they formulated that opinion, what its foundation is. I expect the same when anyone else reads my opinions. Without foundation, I shouldn't expect anyone else to give any of my opinions a second thought, and I assess other people's opinions the same way. There has to be a reason to respect the opinion, be it knowledge, careful analysis, direct experience, or all three.
It is no more calling out someone for their game progress to ask if they have any experience with the content they claim to be able to judge than it is calling out someone who claims to be able judge how difficult brain surgery is by asking them if they actually have any surgical experience whatsoever. Whenever I speak on any issue, I fully disclose my direct experience, if any, with that issue. And I'm suspicious about anyone who isn't willing to do likewise.
I wish more people listened to this and took the advice. I certainly don’t comment on things I don’t personally experience or deal with because I have nothing to compare it to and have no logical basis for forming an argument. When I see someone doing this, it immediately tells me they are trying to push an agenda rather than genuinely have a good faith discussion. Thank you for putting it eloquently into words here.
I still would really love an answer on why the game team decided that a nine month break between the most popular content in the game was a good idea. My mind is boggled still thinking about it.
Defense tactics are supposed to encourage diversity is honestly the funniest sh*t I've heard today.
But it gets even better, because in the near future even offensive champs will benefit from them, meaning our offensive options will also become less diversity encouraging.
What kind of a joke even is that? Diversity literally becomes a complete non-factor in tier 5+. Not having defense tactics is what encourages diversity.
By the way we tanked our first war this season. And surprisingly enough, our opponent also only places a half-a**ed defense and only went for the bosses.
I couldn't help myself and still placed my 5/65 mojo as a boss in bg1 amongst mostly 1-2* champs. He still got 26 kills.
When has diversity ever been an issue for Offense? People use the same Champs regardless, overall. If anything, it will encourage more diversity. Unless I'm playing another game where Corvus isn't in every Attack Team.
This would be a case where I am compelled to say it before anyone else does: if you aren't playing the game at a level where defense tactics is in play, or higher tier AW in general, you really cannot have any idea how the DT changes will affect the attacker and defender meta. *I* haven't been in tier 5/6 in a long enough period of time that I can only hazard a guess myself.
Also, Corvus is path-specific in war, even in intermediate tiers. If you're on a path where you aren't going to get any charges, he's not always going to be the best choice. Or sometimes even a good choice. Can anyone tell me if Corvus is a good choice for a map full of Dooms? Because I don't know how to do a path with multiple Dooms without Void or CapIW, honestly.
I may respect your output, but I have the same response I do to anyone else that says it. Calling people out for where they're at in the game is not a reasonable rebuttal to points made. It's a low-hat response that just ignores what someone says. Of all the points you've made, I still don't understand why you support that behavior.
Because there's a difference between preference and judgment. If someone has a general point of view for which specific game experience is unnecessary, pointing out their game experience is unjustifiably prejudicial. But when someone is making a judgment that requires knowledge or experience or both, it is reasonable to question if that person has the requisite experience for their judgment to be credible.
Everyone has the right to express any opinion, however random, about any game topic they want. But that doesn't mean every opinion is equally credible. There's a huge difference between, say, commenting on the difficulty of the Champion fight based on watching a video of someone fighting him and actually fighting him. And when someone expresses an opinion about something, I generally want to know why they formulated that opinion, what its foundation is. I expect the same when anyone else reads my opinions. Without foundation, I shouldn't expect anyone else to give any of my opinions a second thought, and I assess other people's opinions the same way. There has to be a reason to respect the opinion, be it knowledge, careful analysis, direct experience, or all three.
It is no more calling out someone for their game progress to ask if they have any experience with the content they claim to be able to judge than it is calling out someone who claims to be able judge how difficult brain surgery is by asking them if they actually have any surgical experience whatsoever. Whenever I speak on any issue, I fully disclose my direct experience, if any, with that issue. And I'm suspicious about anyone who isn't willing to do likewise.
Offering it is a choice. Calling people out on it is not a respectful way to communicate. Especially when it's done with the absence of acknowledging the points they've made. If someone wants to challenge what I've said, by all means. If they want to ignore the points I made based on where I'm at in the game, that is for lack of a better term, ignorant.
This is all fine, BUT not encouraging at all. I'm being as constructive as possible.
AW: With the "nerf" to Flow for this season (18) after last season (17) just a few weeks ago shows you don't actually care to fix AW. Flow was in all off-season wars and our first S18 war. You admit D-tactics aren't working, so why not take them off for S18 while you fix it? This just shows you are pro-PR, not pro-player. I don't think it's too far-fetched to assume Flow doubles item use in AW, why put us through that for another season? This is the stuff burning out players.
AQ: Not impressed with this either. Having the raising scale for donations is just dumb, let people donate what with what they prefer without the punishment. You are increasing donations for people low in either Loyalty, BCs and GOLD! There was an existing solution for this with trading donations with Ally mates (not donation drops). You are punishing players for having a shortage in a single area, which is not fair. I play 6 x 5, so I've never had to do donation drops, I'm glad it is being dealt with, but it also shows that you are trying to fix Kabam's pain-points (loosing $ to dono drops) and not the player's pain-points (donations too high, no way to get more Loyalty). This is also proven by the "Corvus nerf" that you are trying to fix YOUR pain-points, not ours.
AQ/AW fix the players need/want: Make ALL potions for sale in the Glory Store (yes, the big ones), lower the cost of all potions in the Glory Store. Add AW boosts to Glory store. No Unit paywall should exist in these modes to make it a better experience. Make fight timers 15 mins, 30 mins on boss and mini-bosses. In AQ make items 30 per player. Add T2CC 2% Crystals to the Glory Store, even if for an ungodly amount like 5k Glory. This fixes the frustration of using all your Units on Ally content and then not being able to progress in the insanely difficult endgame content.
Variant: I am actually shocked that Blood and Venom was planned to come in Sept. Variants are easily the most popular, rewarding mode in the game by a landslide. Why you would take a 9 month break from them when all the others have been 3-4 months apart is beyond me. This is not the "speed and cadence" we want to see and shows why the community feels the game team is out of touch.
Defense tactics are supposed to encourage diversity is honestly the funniest sh*t I've heard today.
But it gets even better, because in the near future even offensive champs will benefit from them, meaning our offensive options will also become less diversity encouraging.
What kind of a joke even is that? Diversity literally becomes a complete non-factor in tier 5+. Not having defense tactics is what encourages diversity.
By the way we tanked our first war this season. And surprisingly enough, our opponent also only places a half-a**ed defense and only went for the bosses.
I couldn't help myself and still placed my 5/65 mojo as a boss in bg1 amongst mostly 1-2* champs. He still got 26 kills.
When has diversity ever been an issue for Offense? People use the same Champs regardless, overall. If anything, it will encourage more diversity. Unless I'm playing another game where Corvus isn't in every Attack Team.
This would be a case where I am compelled to say it before anyone else does: if you aren't playing the game at a level where defense tactics is in play, or higher tier AW in general, you really cannot have any idea how the DT changes will affect the attacker and defender meta. *I* haven't been in tier 5/6 in a long enough period of time that I can only hazard a guess myself.
Also, Corvus is path-specific in war, even in intermediate tiers. If you're on a path where you aren't going to get any charges, he's not always going to be the best choice. Or sometimes even a good choice. Can anyone tell me if Corvus is a good choice for a map full of Dooms? Because I don't know how to do a path with multiple Dooms without Void or CapIW, honestly.
I may respect your output, but I have the same response I do to anyone else that says it. Calling people out for where they're at in the game is not a reasonable rebuttal to points made. It's a low-hat response that just ignores what someone says. Of all the points you've made, I still don't understand why you support that behavior.
Because there's a difference between preference and judgment. If someone has a general point of view for which specific game experience is unnecessary, pointing out their game experience is unjustifiably prejudicial. But when someone is making a judgment that requires knowledge or experience or both, it is reasonable to question if that person has the requisite experience for their judgment to be credible.
Everyone has the right to express any opinion, however random, about any game topic they want. But that doesn't mean every opinion is equally credible. There's a huge difference between, say, commenting on the difficulty of the Champion fight based on watching a video of someone fighting him and actually fighting him. And when someone expresses an opinion about something, I generally want to know why they formulated that opinion, what its foundation is. I expect the same when anyone else reads my opinions. Without foundation, I shouldn't expect anyone else to give any of my opinions a second thought, and I assess other people's opinions the same way. There has to be a reason to respect the opinion, be it knowledge, careful analysis, direct experience, or all three.
It is no more calling out someone for their game progress to ask if they have any experience with the content they claim to be able to judge than it is calling out someone who claims to be able judge how difficult brain surgery is by asking them if they actually have any surgical experience whatsoever. Whenever I speak on any issue, I fully disclose my direct experience, if any, with that issue. And I'm suspicious about anyone who isn't willing to do likewise.
Offering it is a choice. Calling people out on it is not a respectful way to communicate. Especially when it's done with the absence of acknowledging the points they've made. If someone wants to challenge what I've said, by all means. If they want to ignore the points I made based on where I'm at in the game, that is for lack of a better term, ignorant.
I feel that if done in the proper way, this understanding of 1. What a person is talking about 2. How they are affected by it 3. What it’s like for others can be good for analyzation when people like Kabam (and even members of the community) are looking for solutions to issues that are based of the communities’ general experience. (Ex. I one-shotted the Champion boss on my 5th run with my boosted 4/55 Sym Supreme.) I’m not saying that this puts me above another player or that I’ll disregard the opinions of others who needed more attempts, but instead, that my experience with that subject is specific and different from others. I’ve witnessed many complain about the Champion fight but I am in a position where I can give an opinion, use my experience to speak with others, and find out with what they’re struggling with and possibly help with improving the situation. (This is how I helped a friend who only had 1/5 MD when fighting the Champion and didn’t know that he needed a higher rank to effectively use his Sym Supreme in the fight.) While others may be rude about a players progression location in the game, if done correctly, the use of a players current stage in the game can significantly impact the credibility of what they’re discussing and help to create a better understanding of any issues that may be happening within the overall community.
Defense tactics are supposed to encourage diversity is honestly the funniest sh*t I've heard today.
But it gets even better, because in the near future even offensive champs will benefit from them, meaning our offensive options will also become less diversity encouraging.
What kind of a joke even is that? Diversity literally becomes a complete non-factor in tier 5+. Not having defense tactics is what encourages diversity.
By the way we tanked our first war this season. And surprisingly enough, our opponent also only places a half-a**ed defense and only went for the bosses.
I couldn't help myself and still placed my 5/65 mojo as a boss in bg1 amongst mostly 1-2* champs. He still got 26 kills.
When has diversity ever been an issue for Offense? People use the same Champs regardless, overall. If anything, it will encourage more diversity. Unless I'm playing another game where Corvus isn't in every Attack Team.
This would be a case where I am compelled to say it before anyone else does: if you aren't playing the game at a level where defense tactics is in play, or higher tier AW in general, you really cannot have any idea how the DT changes will affect the attacker and defender meta. *I* haven't been in tier 5/6 in a long enough period of time that I can only hazard a guess myself.
Also, Corvus is path-specific in war, even in intermediate tiers. If you're on a path where you aren't going to get any charges, he's not always going to be the best choice. Or sometimes even a good choice. Can anyone tell me if Corvus is a good choice for a map full of Dooms? Because I don't know how to do a path with multiple Dooms without Void or CapIW, honestly.
I may respect your output, but I have the same response I do to anyone else that says it. Calling people out for where they're at in the game is not a reasonable rebuttal to points made. It's a low-hat response that just ignores what someone says. Of all the points you've made, I still don't understand why you support that behavior.
Because there's a difference between preference and judgment. If someone has a general point of view for which specific game experience is unnecessary, pointing out their game experience is unjustifiably prejudicial. But when someone is making a judgment that requires knowledge or experience or both, it is reasonable to question if that person has the requisite experience for their judgment to be credible.
Everyone has the right to express any opinion, however random, about any game topic they want. But that doesn't mean every opinion is equally credible. There's a huge difference between, say, commenting on the difficulty of the Champion fight based on watching a video of someone fighting him and actually fighting him. And when someone expresses an opinion about something, I generally want to know why they formulated that opinion, what its foundation is. I expect the same when anyone else reads my opinions. Without foundation, I shouldn't expect anyone else to give any of my opinions a second thought, and I assess other people's opinions the same way. There has to be a reason to respect the opinion, be it knowledge, careful analysis, direct experience, or all three.
It is no more calling out someone for their game progress to ask if they have any experience with the content they claim to be able to judge than it is calling out someone who claims to be able judge how difficult brain surgery is by asking them if they actually have any surgical experience whatsoever. Whenever I speak on any issue, I fully disclose my direct experience, if any, with that issue. And I'm suspicious about anyone who isn't willing to do likewise.
Offering it is a choice. Calling people out on it is not a respectful way to communicate. Especially when it's done with the absence of acknowledging the points they've made. If someone wants to challenge what I've said, by all means. If they want to ignore the points I made based on where I'm at in the game, that is for lack of a better term, ignorant.
Except in this scenario, people aren’t ignoring the points you’ve made based on your progression - they’re simply questioning the credibility of your opinions, and your capacity to fully weigh in on the issues at hand, due to the fact that you have yet to experience as much of the game as many here. Their suspicions are valid - even if you choose to see it as ignorance and adopt a victim’s mentality.
Defense tactics are supposed to encourage diversity is honestly the funniest sh*t I've heard today.
But it gets even better, because in the near future even offensive champs will benefit from them, meaning our offensive options will also become less diversity encouraging.
What kind of a joke even is that? Diversity literally becomes a complete non-factor in tier 5+. Not having defense tactics is what encourages diversity.
By the way we tanked our first war this season. And surprisingly enough, our opponent also only places a half-a**ed defense and only went for the bosses.
I couldn't help myself and still placed my 5/65 mojo as a boss in bg1 amongst mostly 1-2* champs. He still got 26 kills.
When has diversity ever been an issue for Offense? People use the same Champs regardless, overall. If anything, it will encourage more diversity. Unless I'm playing another game where Corvus isn't in every Attack Team.
This would be a case where I am compelled to say it before anyone else does: if you aren't playing the game at a level where defense tactics is in play, or higher tier AW in general, you really cannot have any idea how the DT changes will affect the attacker and defender meta. *I* haven't been in tier 5/6 in a long enough period of time that I can only hazard a guess myself.
Also, Corvus is path-specific in war, even in intermediate tiers. If you're on a path where you aren't going to get any charges, he's not always going to be the best choice. Or sometimes even a good choice. Can anyone tell me if Corvus is a good choice for a map full of Dooms? Because I don't know how to do a path with multiple Dooms without Void or CapIW, honestly.
I may respect your output, but I have the same response I do to anyone else that says it. Calling people out for where they're at in the game is not a reasonable rebuttal to points made. It's a low-hat response that just ignores what someone says. Of all the points you've made, I still don't understand why you support that behavior.
Because there's a difference between preference and judgment. If someone has a general point of view for which specific game experience is unnecessary, pointing out their game experience is unjustifiably prejudicial. But when someone is making a judgment that requires knowledge or experience or both, it is reasonable to question if that person has the requisite experience for their judgment to be credible.
Everyone has the right to express any opinion, however random, about any game topic they want. But that doesn't mean every opinion is equally credible. There's a huge difference between, say, commenting on the difficulty of the Champion fight based on watching a video of someone fighting him and actually fighting him. And when someone expresses an opinion about something, I generally want to know why they formulated that opinion, what its foundation is. I expect the same when anyone else reads my opinions. Without foundation, I shouldn't expect anyone else to give any of my opinions a second thought, and I assess other people's opinions the same way. There has to be a reason to respect the opinion, be it knowledge, careful analysis, direct experience, or all three.
It is no more calling out someone for their game progress to ask if they have any experience with the content they claim to be able to judge than it is calling out someone who claims to be able judge how difficult brain surgery is by asking them if they actually have any surgical experience whatsoever. Whenever I speak on any issue, I fully disclose my direct experience, if any, with that issue. And I'm suspicious about anyone who isn't willing to do likewise.
Fully agree here - some things cannot be judged credibly from the outside.
Comments
Was just replying that 36 champs doesn't mean anything when you have majority of them being no good at attack. Doubt the bonus is going to make Diablo or Loki worthwhile.
It's still a valid point. There isn't a great deal of diversity in Attack. The same few OP Champs come out, and the majority use them. Usually with high Damage, or Regen, and aside from a few specific counters people need, it's scores of the same Champs. Nor has it ever been an issue. Diversity in Attack was never a thing until now. At least as far as "Offense Tactics" goes. I'm looking at the idea of it because we haven't seen anything yet. We don't even know what Flow will look like if they adjust it after this Season. The one thing I do know is there's a contradiction because people don't like having to use specific Champs to counter, but they tend to use the same anyway.
Run Flow? Ghost+Hood/Claire/Magik/Doc Ock/G99/Sym/Warlock/Vision. Enhanced on both attack and defense.
What about the rest? Have offense tactics that help other types of champs if you want to increase diversity in offense that is. Otherwise you're still promoting the same champs for offense and defense and renewing their utility.
None of this is meant to be an attack at Kabam, but more of a call to action. These are just some suggestions based on my experience playing this game.
1. Aq- This mode just sucks. It’s the same boring fights over and over that take up 5 days a week. When I first started playing I thought that aq would be like story quests that you could do with friends. I hope that it becomes a single quest a week that has unique challenges and involves more teamwork.
2. Aw- I personally don’t hate war too much. However, seasons are very unrewarding. I put in a ton of effort for just a 6* groot, and with the buff to the glory store, I don’t care about the non-shard rewards for seasons. I already saw the post about the changes to aw, so I’m fairly excited to see them next season.
3. Solo and alliance events- these are extremely outdated. Why would I care about completing them if the rewards are phc shards and 3* sig stones?
4. Monthly event quests- The rewards are not great for uncollected, and we need a new difficulty for cavalier. Additionally, after completing the monthly eq, there’s no content to do. Adding more unique challenges like the boss rushes every month would help fill the void.
5. Arenas- I don’t even want to think about their existence. It’s just a boring and unrewarding waste of time.
6. Variants- I like where variants are heading, each one has been better than the last. Giving purpose to champions that are outdated and kinda trash is great. However, they need to be released more frequently. December to August is a huge gap.
This message confirms that the existing plan was to do a 9 month break in between 4 and 5.
Why?
All this shows me is that the problem of the developers being out of touch with the community is deeper and more problematic than I thought. They spent 9 months doing incursions and waited almost as long for another variant? Seriously guys? You’re NOT listening. You haven’t been. Maybe this all woke you up, but there really is zero excuse for making these mistakes. What was the purpose of sitting on content people want? Who does that help? I can’t believe it the more I think about it.
You guys gotta do better. A lot better.
Was anything in the post a response to any of the feedback in this thread?
Since you can't respond to me without making a dig, I'm not discussing it with you anymore.
Everyone has the right to express any opinion, however random, about any game topic they want. But that doesn't mean every opinion is equally credible. There's a huge difference between, say, commenting on the difficulty of the Champion fight based on watching a video of someone fighting him and actually fighting him. And when someone expresses an opinion about something, I generally want to know why they formulated that opinion, what its foundation is. I expect the same when anyone else reads my opinions. Without foundation, I shouldn't expect anyone else to give any of my opinions a second thought, and I assess other people's opinions the same way. There has to be a reason to respect the opinion, be it knowledge, careful analysis, direct experience, or all three.
It is no more calling out someone for their game progress to ask if they have any experience with the content they claim to be able to judge than it is calling out someone who claims to be able judge how difficult brain surgery is by asking them if they actually have any surgical experience whatsoever. Whenever I speak on any issue, I fully disclose my direct experience, if any, with that issue. And I'm suspicious about anyone who isn't willing to do likewise.
I still would really love an answer on why the game team decided that a nine month break between the most popular content in the game was a good idea. My mind is boggled still thinking about it.
This is all fine, BUT not encouraging at all. I'm being as constructive as possible.
AW: With the "nerf" to Flow for this season (18) after last season (17) just a few weeks ago shows you don't actually care to fix AW. Flow was in all off-season wars and our first S18 war. You admit D-tactics aren't working, so why not take them off for S18 while you fix it? This just shows you are pro-PR, not pro-player. I don't think it's too far-fetched to assume Flow doubles item use in AW, why put us through that for another season? This is the stuff burning out players.
AQ: Not impressed with this either. Having the raising scale for donations is just dumb, let people donate what with what they prefer without the punishment. You are increasing donations for people low in either Loyalty, BCs and GOLD! There was an existing solution for this with trading donations with Ally mates (not donation drops). You are punishing players for having a shortage in a single area, which is not fair. I play 6 x 5, so I've never had to do donation drops, I'm glad it is being dealt with, but it also shows that you are trying to fix Kabam's pain-points (loosing $ to dono drops) and not the player's pain-points (donations too high, no way to get more Loyalty). This is also proven by the "Corvus nerf" that you are trying to fix YOUR pain-points, not ours.
AQ/AW fix the players need/want: Make ALL potions for sale in the Glory Store (yes, the big ones), lower the cost of all potions in the Glory Store. Add AW boosts to Glory store. No Unit paywall should exist in these modes to make it a better experience. Make fight timers 15 mins, 30 mins on boss and mini-bosses. In AQ make items 30 per player. Add T2CC 2% Crystals to the Glory Store, even if for an ungodly amount like 5k Glory. This fixes the frustration of using all your Units on Ally content and then not being able to progress in the insanely difficult endgame content.
Variant: I am actually shocked that Blood and Venom was planned to come in Sept. Variants are easily the most popular, rewarding mode in the game by a landslide. Why you would take a 9 month break from them when all the others have been 3-4 months apart is beyond me. This is not the "speed and cadence" we want to see and shows why the community feels the game team is out of touch.
1. What a person is talking about
2. How they are affected by it
3. What it’s like for others
can be good for analyzation when people like Kabam (and even members of the community) are looking for solutions to issues that are based of the communities’ general experience. (Ex. I one-shotted the Champion boss on my 5th run with my boosted 4/55 Sym Supreme.) I’m not saying that this puts me above another player or that I’ll disregard the opinions of others who needed more attempts, but instead, that my experience with that subject is specific and different from others. I’ve witnessed many complain about the Champion fight but I am in a position where I can give an opinion, use my experience to speak with others, and find out with what they’re struggling with and possibly help with improving the situation. (This is how I helped a friend who only had 1/5 MD when fighting the Champion and didn’t know that he needed a higher rank to effectively use his Sym Supreme in the fight.) While others may be rude about a players progression location in the game, if done correctly, the use of a players current stage in the game can significantly impact the credibility of what they’re discussing and help to create a better understanding of any issues that may be happening within the overall community.