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”.
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?
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?
The only reason I can think of is that switching masteries helps a lot in war. Anything that helps in war reduces potion/revive usage. Reducing anything that units would be spent on. Anything else doesn't make sense.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The goals of this is to help Kabam and guide them in their decision making as our input as a community is symbiotic. I’m going to first break down what was announced, followed by what wasnt announced. We need to offer fair solutions. That being said, of course it needs to be fair to Kabam Inc and summoners as this great game is progressing. Lets pull no punches but be articulate, fair and progress this game. Lets leave the word FREE out of our conversation. Most rewards and/or compensation is earned with time, effort and dollars.
*The suggestions I’ll provide are from a place of quality of life within the game. Giving us more time to advance content and freedom to spend our time playing where we find the most joy. Also, many if not most of my ideas are taken from everyone's posts and comments. Thank you all for your time dropping this on the forums.
Most important questions we should ask ourselves.
What group of players do these changes affect? Will this change achieve the goal? Does this change increase quality of life for players and the longevity of the game?
What was announced:
1) Alliance Quest Changes:The AQ changes, aside from map 5, primarily effect advanced to endgame players. Their goal was to eliminate the use of “mules” or shell accounts padding treasuries.
A) Map 5 is now free.
This is a fantastic. We need to ask ourselves why isnt map 6 or even 7 free? It doesnt act as a pay wall, it just requires more time in arena to gather donations.
With the ability to commit fraud in one’s alliance treasury, that should have artificially inflated the costs and i suspect you foresaw that. If you remove that ability, the costs should come down. Instead they’ve gone up.
Kabam, You mentioned other pain points but did not refer to them. We have no idea if you are on the same page as us in regards to the monotony and deteriorating quality of life in this area of the game. Here are some areas to consider.
Why are nodes linked in AQ? Is your goal to inspire teamwork? It doesnt achieve that goal. If i’m waiting for my ally mate to get off work to take down my link, that link simply makes me log in more often during the day and there is no “team work” achieved. The structure in Incursions or dungeons had some degree of teamwork. Why not just remove links, until you finish restructuring AQ?
Donations -> Tickets
Simply refunding the treasury as Tickets is a bit absurd for the following reasons:
What if we change alliances to a smaller treasury or gets kicked?
Some alliances have been building up their treasury and have no intention of going to map 6
Some alliance mates cant optimally do Map 6 based on their roster, which is why their in the BG for map 5 and now cant even contribute if they wanted too.
Some alliance mates cant optimally do Map 6 based on their roster, which is why their in the BG for map 5 and now cant even contribute if they wanted too.
SOLUTION: 1- easiest solution is to get rid of this outdated donation system. 2- At a MINIMUM, once you’ve dispensed all those tickets based on the treasury size, allow us ALL to trade those tickets back in for the materials we’d want. Gold BC or Loyalty. That seems at a minimum what would be fair.
Rewards - Over all in AQ the rewards deserve a buff. Even if doing map 6, we deserve some amount of T5CC. Why have the potions in the glory store not been buffed? Even if you limit the quantity we can purchase. Why not include more gold? More rankup materials deserve more gold.
SUMMARY: Nothing addressed our quality of life changes. Effectively map 6 got more expensive. The goal was to stop alliances from freely padding their treasury and although it stops this to a degree it is treating the symptom and not the cause. The cause for the exploit being used, is the high cost of Map 6/7. If this cost was reduced, it would create more quality of life and make donations easier to achieve.
2) Abyss Changes: This obviously only effects endgame players. Positive quality of life change… if you’ve watched any openings after AOL completion… it’s obvious that more guaranteed rewards are needed.
TBH, we know so little about what their plans are it’s hard to even propose ideas. Obviously nexus crystals or cat selectors will help. Most people dont want 2-3 of the same catalyst.
3) Alliance Leadership tools: great quality of life change. …. BRAVO …
This was a pleasant surprise. Anything to save time with AW defense placement, AQ lane assignments is a huge improvement. Additionally, it would be great to get more statistics on players, knowing how often they died and where would help with lane assignments. It looks like their willing to make HUGE changes here. Any additional ideas for Kabam may be able to be implemented.
4) Alliance Wars: Huge quality of life improvement if changes are comprehensive and well thought out. Still vague on what the end goal is other than making the defense tactics more interactive.
Defense Tactics:
If defense tactics like flow are over powered, why not change them mid season. It would greatly help and give summoners some peace of mind if ⅓ of the way through the season you were tracking metrics and if for example flow is wreaking havok on the community, it was adjusted even if slightly. Then being proactive with compensation, even if nothing crazy would go so far… we wouldnt find ourselves in this current climate.
Attacker bonuses have been talked about repeatedly by YouTubers, community members and Moderators with great optimism. They’ve been enjoyed greatly in incursions. Can we learn from this? Can we truly investigate this as it may greatly increase over all satisfaction in the game and increase diversity in champions we play with and rank.
5) Delayed Book 2 aka Act 7: Thank God. It was horrifically painful just to beta test. Optimistic about the quality of life change going forward.
As with Defense tactics, many are hoping there will be bonuses with certain champs or classes. It’s truly the solution to avoiding class gates, simply offer benefits for classes or types of champions. In 6.3, the boosts offered encouraged us to rank up champs to more easily clear lanes and utilize boosts. What was left out:
1) Champion acquisition: If you know that Abyss rewards werent successful in their goal, for many summoners the current pool of champions is not successful in growing their account and offering ways to advance. We cant even honestly spend $$ on content if we dont have the 1-3 champs it would take to feasibly complete lanes or maps. We need more narrow ways to acquire champs. .01% out of a cavalier does not realistically provide that opportunity.
Incursion/Dungeon Crystals are fantastic. Now no one expects to be able purchase many of a similar crystal with a smaller pool every month. But even if they were class based, so for a skill crystal a 1/25(ish) chance of pulling aegon we could still end up opening 100 5* crystals before getting him and then duping him. For most players, 70% of the champion pool isnt truly going to help them progress.
Rank up material is at it’s highest availability. T2A and T5B are offered for sale at the lowest prices in history yet if we dont have the champs, we sit with full catalysts and no one to rank.
2) Arena
Death Matches - Why? This is the most monotonous aspect of MCOC. It’s great that we can get units to use in all areas of the game and gold but we should only be facing opponents ranked up to the highest currently allowed in the game. It makes no sense to not be able to utilize 3/30 4*s when we are able to bring them into the arena. If they arent intended for that arena, either change the maximum opponent or remove 4*s. The labor involved on Kabam’s side is minimal and the quality of life change for summoners is incredible.
“Uncollected” Crystals arent different than the original crystals, the payout is the same per BC.. Our champion costs are DRAMATICALLY higher than they were previously. Why can there not be if even a 15% increase in the payout of uncollected or cavalier arena crystals?
Masteries:
What function is served to charge for mastery changes? As game modes and difficulty has increased, why not allow us to change them for free? It’s brutal to have to change them for AW defense, plus change them if you want to work through contest and arena. It can happen all in the same few days.
3)Champion buffs:
There are so many champions in the future and with how many months it takes per champion rework, it makes zero sense for anyone to expect you to get caught up. By the time you do, the meta will have already shifted ahead. Gamora is a great example, she felt far stronger when she was released than she does now. She’s also a great example of a buff making her usable and not OP.
If they have Armor break, increase it. If they have fury, increase it. Crit buff.. Increase it. 10-20% increase wont be game breaking, mess with synergies or really any area, yet we can actually more effectively use them in Arena or maybe even AQ. This would give you more to work with when giving champion bonuses for AW attack or Book 2.
4) Act 6
This content doesnt match the progression in anyway to Act 5. It doesnt need to be 1:1. As can be seen, even one nexus crystal doesnt progress players and if Abyss rewards deserve a buff, its hard to see how Act 6 doesnt. It requires FAR more of a roster, FAR more rank ups and time.
Acid wash Mysterio, Do you bleed Rogue. SO many narrow paths, these should be broadened. IMO there should be no path that cant be done by 5-6 champions even if a couple are less effective.
Where are the 6* sig stones and additional shards? The rank up material rewards are clearly geared more towards 6*s and yet those two items either dont exist or arent overly effective in our acquiring of new champions.
Data points to MASSIVE difficulty increase from Act 5-6. The rewards and/or champion buffs and benefits dont reflect that.
It seems like less was addressed, than was left unaddressed. Please offer any suggestions for how our game’s longevity can be increased and we can in a way, fall back in love with this game. It’s unique among mobile games and deserves longevity, financial support and praise.
Kabam, thank you for responding to our criticism and comments. Please do not stop communicating and offering middle ground for us all to take and enjoy.
Thank you all for reading this.
Agree with most of this:
- Great changes coming to AQ, though not all changes mentioned are great - Interesting changes coming to AW - Act 6.2-6.4 difficulty is a bit much - Love incursions - Would love to see mastery changes be free, not optimistic that will happen. Allowing us to have preset masteries at a discounted units cost would be a good alternative. - Alliance potions in the glory store need an overhaul. It's ridiculous the glory store charges nearly the same for a single level 4 alliance potion (260) and a full T4CC (280).
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.
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....".
Another QoL change that i would like to see that i believe can be implemented the fastest is the ability to sell items directly from overflow instead of having to claim from overflow to inventory then sell from inventory. Often times i would have T5 Class ISO in my inventory waiting for a specific class advancement event, but then i have basic ISO expiring. I am then forced to sell away my precious T5 ISO just to claim and sell the basic ISO. It would be much easier to sell directly from overflow. @Kabam Miike if you are listening still haha.
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.
You're in a gold 3 alliance, I don't even think you're cavalier yet. How do you have so many opinions about thing you don't even do?
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....".
While I applaud Kabam at listening to your player base it is evident that you have been out of touch with the players Please take this opportunity to make the game fun again I am an end game player and have completed all content - I also spend a fair bit on this game However I have lost all enjoyment - all the rewards I got from end game content I cant use I have 3 T5CC I can't use, I have awakening gems I can't use I have 59 six star champs - Corvus, Domino and Longshot are my only God tier champs - out of my last 45 sixstars I have pulled only 1 six star I use regularly and that is Longshot The RNG has killed the game for me - what is the point of finishing content to only continually keep getting **** I can't use or pull champions I cant use. I have stopped spending and I am going to stop playing while the short term changes you mention are good they don't go far enough. Please look at increasing act 6 rewards also as 6.2-6.4 were BS to 100% - rewards are not justified for the amount of effort you put in.
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.
The way you started the post reminded me of a certain president.lol. But i digress. The reason for the highest attack champs in attack is because the defence is too stacked with 5/65 and rank 2 or rank 3 6 star champs. Add physical resistance nodes, crit resist nodes and inbuilt abilities like Protection means if you don't want to time out, you need to bring high attack champs and boost them. Many have explained about flow tactics and very little options and I don't want to go into that again. I run path 9 in war and i face aegis heavy and confusion in first two section. Kingpin is bad choice to use in aegis heavy, with that logic Man thing is a good option because his heavy has unstoppable too. But the main reason Kingpin is a bad champ because his damage is very low, if you run into a korg or Mordo, I am sure you can get him down eventually, But the cost is too high in terms of potions. I don't know many people who would bring a regen champ to aw attack. Because we want fights to end quickly. Unlike aq, timeout costs my alliance a bonus. the champs i bring to attack team are Omega red, Caiw, Venom, Ghost, Wasp, Doom, Blade. There you go, six champs that i can bring to counter depending on my path. All are heavy hitters, I love playing with sentinel, but to ramp him up every fight and risk timeout is not something I am going to do
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.
The way you started the post reminded me of a certain president.lol. But i digress. The reason for the highest attack champs in attack is because the defence is too stacked with 5/65 and rank 2 or rank 3 6 star champs. Add physical resistance nodes, crit resist nodes and inbuilt abilities like Protection means if you don't want to time out, you need to bring high attack champs and boost them. Many have explained about flow tactics and very little options and I don't want to go into that again. I run path 9 in war and i face aegis heavy and confusion in first two section. Kingpin is bad choice to use in aegis heavy, with that logic Man thing is a good option because his heavy has unstoppable too. But the main reason Kingpin is a bad champ because his damage is very low, if you run into a korg or Mordo, I am sure you can get him down eventually, But the cost is too high in terms of potions. I don't know many people who would bring a regen champ to aw attack. Because we want fights to end quickly. Unlike aq, timeout costs my alliance a bonus. the champs i bring to attack team are Omega red, Caiw, Venom, Ghost, Wasp, Doom, Blade. There you go, six champs that i can bring to counter depending on my path. All are heavy hitters, I love playing with sentinel, but to ramp him up every fight and risk timeout is not something I am going to do
I have Sentinel over 100 Sig. Ramps up pretty nicely. As for Kingpin, I use him because I don't have Man-Thing as a 5*. He works. I can get 2 Heavies off and start taking down Damage easier than fighting with the AI which pretty much automatically Blocks most Heavies unless they follow a Parry or Stun. To me, that's more valuable than hitting the hardest. In combination with the DoT from the L1 and hits, they go down. Mordo isn't a problem. My point with that was there are other options but people are set in their ways with Champs. Always the same ones everyone else recommends.
Comments
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”.
Anything else doesn't make sense.
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.
- Great changes coming to AQ, though not all changes mentioned are great
- Interesting changes coming to AW
- Act 6.2-6.4 difficulty is a bit much
- Love incursions
- Would love to see mastery changes be free, not optimistic that will happen. Allowing us to have preset masteries at a discounted units cost would be a good alternative.
- Alliance potions in the glory store need an overhaul. It's ridiculous the glory store charges nearly the same for a single level 4 alliance potion (260) and a full T4CC (280).
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.
Please take this opportunity to make the game fun again
I am an end game player and have completed all content - I also spend a fair bit on this game
However I have lost all enjoyment - all the rewards I got from end game content I cant use I have 3 T5CC I can't use, I have awakening gems I can't use
I have 59 six star champs - Corvus, Domino and Longshot are my only God tier champs - out of my last 45 sixstars I have pulled only 1 six star I use regularly and that is Longshot
The RNG has killed the game for me - what is the point of finishing content to only continually keep getting **** I can't use or pull champions I cant use.
I have stopped spending and I am going to stop playing while the short term changes you mention are good they don't go far enough.
Please look at increasing act 6 rewards also as 6.2-6.4 were BS to 100% - rewards are not justified for the amount of effort you put in.
Please make the game great again!