General Game Feedback [Merged Threads]

1686971737483

Comments

  • Hera1d_of_Ga1actusHera1d_of_Ga1actus Posts: 163

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    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.
  • Bugmat78Bugmat78 Posts: 289 ★★
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    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.
  • LunaeLunae Posts: 135
    How different are flow wars from the mystic wars of the past?

    I don’t see that war has changed that much outside an obvious superficial level. Blade pretty much singlehandedly killed mystic wars and that was just one counter for that one bottle neck. Neither type of wars is fun, but war has always functioned with a handful of defenders and counters. This has always been the format, op defenders released, op counter released and around and around it goes.

    Its was regen, evade, mystics, autoblock, miss, unstoppable, flow wars, etc, etc. Kabam has an idea for war that they’re clearly not interested in changing, but the complaints are always the same. The only difference I can see now is that it’s harder for the averages players to hit and stay in gold 1, where before it was plat 4.

    Point being players have always taken war too seriously. The top alliances are going to spend because thats what they want and what they’re interested in chasing, but nothing has changed for the average player and more then likely nothing ever will. I dont get why average players want to chase war so badly or get so worked up. Is it to be up there with the top dogs? Good luck with that paywall because its a wall that will always be there in some form and the average players will always be left saying “I don’t like war because I don’t like using items on ridiculous fights, aqs better anyway”.
  • _ASDF__ASDF_ Posts: 1,617 ★★★★
    @Kabam Miike put a lot of work in that post just to have it stuffed into a larger thread which has no direction. Rather unfortunate. 😔
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 22,516 ★★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    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.
    No. It's just plain calling out. I made the point that people have a tendency to gravitate towards the use of the same Attackers in this game. That turned into calling me out for not being in Tier 5 and up. The OP then contradicted themselves by saying people in Tier 6, which I'm in, use a variety of Attackers, and I couldn't possibly know what I'm talking about because they're stuck using the same Attackers with Flow in 1-5. One contradiction after another. The only purpose of that is to divert what I'm saying by using where I'm at in the game. That's not at all a healthy way to discuss points. Not at all. I'm not going to put Jeffree Star Velour on a pig.
  • LunaeLunae Posts: 135

    I’m still baffled that they charge us to change our masteries. It’s seems really penny pinching. I mean, realistically, how much revenue does that generate for them? What’s the purpose of not being able to change them for free?

    It would be interesting to see where all their profits come from. I have to imagine it’s from new players, players who exist outside any online community, whether forums or YouTube and whales. If they did change things for the benefit of the average player as opposed to whales I also wonder what their number would look like. For all the “cash grab” accusations, it might actually be out of necessity.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 22,516 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    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 would like to challenge what you said about attackers. What specific observations about the attackers players bring into war lead you to this assertion. Since the topic of discussion was how changes to Defense Tactics would affect attacker-side diversity choices, please take me through your thought process, step by step, so I can see what the foundation of that conjecture is.
    I've been playing the game long enough to know what takes place. I've already broken down what happens. The highest on the Attack end, or the Champs that have the best Regen capabilities, are used. Besides my own observations on who Players gravitate towards using, which is visible in War, I've also participated in many discussions over the years which people have suggested and asked for Attack Diversity because it's the same Attackers being used that make Defense monotonous. In fact, I've always made the point that Attack Diversity was never an issue because people could use whoever they chose. Although they didn't. It was whoever people told them was the best to use. In fact, I just made a point this week that Kingpin was an option for Aegis because of Unstoppable Heavy. To which people adamantly shot down because that's "not who you use for that". Do some use whoever they want? Sure. The majority use the same Champs that are used, and I'd conjecture that they have the data on that themselves. Which is why they're introducing ways to mix it up. To be honest, for the most part, people don't just use different choices. They either use the most popular heavy hitters, or the counter that they're told to use. Now that Attack Diversity seems to be a thing, I feel it's pertinent to point out that those opposing it aren't acknowledging the fact that people use the same Champs regardless. Difference is, it's based on popularity and not necessity.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 22,516 ★★★★★

    DNA3000 said:

    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 would like to challenge what you said about attackers. What specific observations about the attackers players bring into war lead you to this assertion. Since the topic of discussion was how changes to Defense Tactics would affect attacker-side diversity choices, please take me through your thought process, step by step, so I can see what the foundation of that conjecture is.
    I've been playing the game long enough to know what takes place. I've already broken down what happens. The highest on the Attack end, or the Champs that have the best Regen capabilities, are used. Besides my own observations on who Players gravitate towards using, which is visible in War, I've also participated in many discussions over the years which people have suggested and asked for Attack Diversity because it's the same Attackers being used that make Defense monotonous. In fact, I've always made the point that Attack Diversity was never an issue because people could use whoever they chose. Although they didn't. It was whoever people told them was the best to use. In fact, I just made a point this week that Kingpin was an option for Aegis because of Unstoppable Heavy. To which people adamantly shot down because that's "not who you use for that". Do some use whoever they want? Sure. The majority use the same Champs that are used, and I'd conjecture that they have the data on that themselves. Which is why they're introducing ways to mix it up. To be honest, for the most part, people don't just use different choices. They either use the most popular heavy hitters, or the counter that they're told to use. Now that Attack Diversity seems to be a thing, I feel it's pertinent to point out that those opposing it aren't acknowledging the fact that people use the same Champs regardless. Difference is, it's based on popularity and not necessity.
    You really have no idea. Last season was the worst I placed in any in the past 10 or so and that was plat 2 rank 1. Besides that for most of the past year the alliance I've been in has placed either Master or Plat 1 every season without fail. I've played t1/t2 war throughout that time frame as well. I have taken every single path in war and done so successfully. This is just for my own credibility.

    Let me explain where you're just wrong.

    1. There are some paths that you can use different champions on, yes, but that's at most for 2-3 fights before your next path which may require something else. For instance, one of my alliance mates takes path 9 in section 2. He brings champions that make inverted controls easier to manage. Those champions aren't exactly viable for most paths in upper tier wars.
    2. Most champions brought have minor regen at best. I'm generally on path 7 in both sections and because it is hidden, I bring Namor, Warlock, and Void. Once in a blue moon I get to break out Torch too. Every war is the same three champions.
    3. Kingpin for Aegis heavy? Sure, if you want to time out maybe and have an absolutely useless champion for the rest of war.
    4. A lot of people use the same champs because of how restrictive certain paths are. People in upper tier wars bring the same champs to their paths because they are best suited for that path. Yes, you can bring others, but there is a massive difference in wins and losses in the upper tiers than in lower tiers. There are only 30 places for the rewards I hope to get at the end of the season. Bringing sub-optimal champs means a greater risk of death, loss of war, and getting kicked for poor performance. And that was before defensive tactics. Now you need either a champion like Ghost who can tank special 3s(with the Hood synergy) or mitigate the power gain to do well.

    Look, you can voice your opinion but your opinion is based on conjecture and not actual experience. I can have an opinion in neuroscience, but if a neuroscientist tells me I'm wrong and explains why I'm not taking that as an attack. It's them correcting my factually incorrect opinions. I can't speak on maps 1-6 anymore with their changes because I haven't done them with any of the changes in the past year. I can say what I think the challenges might be, but I couldn't tell someone else what's happening who's playing the map five days a week.
    You might think I'm wrong but you're not even addressing points that I made. People seem to do that while redundantly telling me I'm not above Tier 5.
    Let's go over what I actually did say.
    I said the game has a history of people using the same Attackers. There have been some ways they've heard the feedback on that and allowed more room for choice up until Flow was introduced. However, when someone makes it a point to say that Attacker Diversity is threatened, that's a bit repetitive. Diversity in Attack is a fairly new thing, and they've already stated that the goal wasn't to create redundancy. That feedback is exactly what we're discussing.
    I said that I am open-minded to the inclusion of Points for who you use on Attack because it has potential to encourage different choices. We don't even know what it's going to look like yet. I said I have hope. People are looking at Flow and assuming it's just going to be the same Attackers and Points for that, and none of that is certain. I said I'm open-minded to it.
    What I didn't say was that I think Flow was good in its current state. I didn't say I thought Flow was encouraging Diversity. I didn't say it was fine as it is based on my own experience, and I certainly didn't say I know from experience what fighting it was like. All of that is just ignorant to what I actually said. If people want to debate things I didn't actually say just to argue agaisnt Flow as a whole, that's an incredible waste of time. Fact is, War Attack has had a history of gravitating towards using the same Attackers. Disputing that is just spiraling as far as I'm concerned. We all know how the game works. People Rank the God Tiers and go in with those.
  • KnationKnation Posts: 155 ★★
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    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 I haven’t done abyss 100% , I could say it’s easy to do but without actually doing it myself how can I actually say that it’s an invalid opinion

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 22,516 ★★★★★
    Once again, the subject is side tracked by someone calling someone out, and it turns into a whole other discussion about whether people qualify to participate or not. People aren't required to provide a Resume in order to discuss their views on a Game Forum. Happens everytime. It can be described in as many articulate words as people like, but it's just resorting to calling people out, and it takes conversations off-track. It doesn't even stop at Players. People call out the devs. "I'd like to see them beat X......they don't play their own game."
    If you're so sure of your own viewpoints based on your own experience, put it into the conversation instead of resorting to whipping parts out.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 22,516 ★★★★★
    It's inappropriate and not constructive to call people out no matter how you justify it. It's how conversations go south. If you think you're more right based on your own experiences which are superior to someone else's, use "I statements". There's a difference between saying, "I disagree based on my experience doing....", and "Your opinion is invalid because you don't do/didn't do....".
Sign In or Register to comment.