I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold. Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist. Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with. Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more pointsYour complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work A good analogy for this would be football cups A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win Sure. Start out with the same system and that happens. Start Season 19 as-is, and it's unnecessary slaughter. Ruining the efforts of a large number, compared to the small number who will benefit from winning in this. As I said, it's appeasing the top Tier so they can watch people fall. Nothing fair about that at all, aside from the bitterness that Allies are smaller than them in the same Bracket. Systematic revenge. Systematic revenge? What are you on about Just be glad you got the benefit out of the horrible matchmaking it’s like complaining that Kabam is fixing a bug What benefit? I'm in Silver 1. I didn't benefit from it at all. I'm talking about fairness for the people who are on the other end of being forced to lose because the concept of a fair fight is too foreign for the people who think they're entitled to watch them fail. Revenge is exactly what it's about. If they can't get it by beating them through Matches, they'll threaten to start dummy Allies and beat them that way. I know exactly what I'm talking about and it's anything but a benefit for anyone. It's sacrificing peoples' Seasons just to keep the top happy. I'm done going on about it. Just watch the result when the Season starts. If anyone can call it justified or fair, they need to do some serious rethinking on those definitions. Grounded, my alliance, which is not a top alliance, fat cat alliance or whatever you want to call it..by any stretch, has essentially been cheated out of countless rewards both season and per war for months and months because of the prestige matching. If you haven't been on the other side of it you have no idea what you're talking about. Before prestige matching started we were t3-5 earning appropriate rewards for our level. We are now t5-7. Doesn't sound that bad? Consider this.. We've only gotten *stronger* since then and have gone *down* in tier when we should have gone up. Even if our strength remained static during this time, that's still a considerable loss of rewards. But factor in the fact that we should have progressed, but instead fell down in rank and it's very unfair.It's not just about the fact that lower prestige alliances were effectively taking rewards from people they never have to face in competition and skewing the ranks/tiers. That's only one part of it. The prestige matching system fundamentally changed the entire concept of how the game mode functioned. The concept of how war has always worked in this game is as follows... Win a war? Congrats, you will now face a slightly tougher oppenent. Win again.. next one will be harder still, etc. Until at a certain point, you meet your match and lose. You then receive a slightly less difficult match, etc.. until you level off at a certain point in the rankings. With prestige matching, this is no longer the case. In two separate and opposite ways. Lower prestige alliances have been able to perpetually move up in ranks and rewards without any meaningful increase in difficulty. I have real knowledge of this because I have friends in lower prestige alliances who have given me the information. I'm not just speculating. Meanwhile, higher prestige alliances can lose 10 wars in a row and the difficulty never decreases. In fact, in my own personal experience, I can tell you that we were almost always matched with someone 20-30% larger than us. All because the system reaches across many factors just to match prestige. Even during a losing streak. This is never how war worked in the history of the game. During season 17 in particular, we threw up our hands because with each loss the difficulty *increased* ..like significantly..each time. I think you've grossly underestimated how many mid to mid/high level alliances were negatively affected by this. It's not just the "fat cats" or "top dogs" or whatever you want to call them. Do I think that this correction to the rankings will be rough for a brief time for lower prestige alliances? Yes, I do.Do I think it's the travesty of justice you seem to be describing? Absolutely not. The loss of rewards my alliance and alliances in similar situations experienced over months and the extra rewards that lower prestige alliances have been given is far more impactful. To call it revenge is just plain ignorant and insulting. We've been working for years to grow our alliance. We've paid our dues. Newer players are progressing faster than ever. Along with a sense of entitlement. It takes hard work and dedication to grow your alliance. You have to pay your dues to earn higher ranks and rewards. They won't be handed to you.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold. Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist. Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with. Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more pointsYour complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work A good analogy for this would be football cups A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win Sure. Start out with the same system and that happens. Start Season 19 as-is, and it's unnecessary slaughter. Ruining the efforts of a large number, compared to the small number who will benefit from winning in this. As I said, it's appeasing the top Tier so they can watch people fall. Nothing fair about that at all, aside from the bitterness that Allies are smaller than them in the same Bracket. Systematic revenge. Systematic revenge? What are you on about Just be glad you got the benefit out of the horrible matchmaking it’s like complaining that Kabam is fixing a bug What benefit? I'm in Silver 1. I didn't benefit from it at all. I'm talking about fairness for the people who are on the other end of being forced to lose because the concept of a fair fight is too foreign for the people who think they're entitled to watch them fail. Revenge is exactly what it's about. If they can't get it by beating them through Matches, they'll threaten to start dummy Allies and beat them that way. I know exactly what I'm talking about and it's anything but a benefit for anyone. It's sacrificing peoples' Seasons just to keep the top happy. I'm done going on about it. Just watch the result when the Season starts. If anyone can call it justified or fair, they need to do some serious rethinking on those definitions.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold. Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist. Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with. Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more pointsYour complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work A good analogy for this would be football cups A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win Sure. Start out with the same system and that happens. Start Season 19 as-is, and it's unnecessary slaughter. Ruining the efforts of a large number, compared to the small number who will benefit from winning in this. As I said, it's appeasing the top Tier so they can watch people fall. Nothing fair about that at all, aside from the bitterness that Allies are smaller than them in the same Bracket. Systematic revenge. Systematic revenge? What are you on about Just be glad you got the benefit out of the horrible matchmaking it’s like complaining that Kabam is fixing a bug
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold. Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist. Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with. Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more pointsYour complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work A good analogy for this would be football cups A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win Sure. Start out with the same system and that happens. Start Season 19 as-is, and it's unnecessary slaughter. Ruining the efforts of a large number, compared to the small number who will benefit from winning in this. As I said, it's appeasing the top Tier so they can watch people fall. Nothing fair about that at all, aside from the bitterness that Allies are smaller than them in the same Bracket. Systematic revenge.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold. Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist. Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with. Then they have reached their upper limit and that would mean the system is working Also skill can 100% take you far in the game if your alliance has 0 deaths and full diversity you can’t lose, you can tie but you can’t lose I’m not by any means low prestige and your idea would likely boost my ally up further then where it is right now but I’d still agree it’s a horrible idea At the end of the day it’s a competition and prestige would completely ensure smaller allies get nowhere near to a rank they could have gotten With your system an ally with 10k prestige could lose against an ally with 8k prestige and still gain more pointsYour complaint about guaranteed loses is also just the way competitions work A good analogy for this would be football cups A team like Everton could get to the semi finals in the Europa cup and be against Real Madrid which many people consider the best team in the world they are very likely to lose but that’s just the nature of a competition the better team will usually win however there is the small chance the underdogs can still win
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold. Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist. Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points Small Alliances, no matter how well they play, cannot win after a certain variance. It's not possible based on the current Points layout. There is a point where the Matches are guaranteed Losses. Even with both sides doing their best, the much larger side will win. There is only so far skill can take you with the limits of what you're working with.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold. Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist. Genuinely the worst idea I’ve ever heard because it just completely screws the little guy or alliance in this case If a small alliance played well they could win wars against tougher alliances but with this in place it wouldn’t matter if they won they’d still get less points
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold. Which is why I gave an idea on how to prevent that. If you limit the number of Points an Ally can earn based on Prestige, that gets multiplied by the Multipliers, but the end result is even in Tier 1, they can never earn as many Points as a higher Prestige in Tier 1. Meaning, they won't Rank in Master. That problem won't exist.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige. Prestige is garbage for war matchmaking. I used to think it would be good. It just means lower alliances can advance well past where they could normally into the plat tiers while higher alliances just have to keep fighting similar groups even if they are way down in gold.
I'm not even an expert mathematician or a designer by any means, and that came pretty easily. You keep the Matchmaking as-is. You have Prestige intervals that have a maximum amount of Points an Ally can earn. That goes in combination with the Multipliers. For example, Alliance A with a Prestige of 8k can earn 2. Alliance B with a Prestige of 10k can earn 2x. There's a maximum amount of Points they can earn, and that goes up as they gain Wins and Losses with the Multipler. The Leaderboard is based on Points after all. With that system, you would have fair Matches that reflect what people are complaining about, using a mechanic that's already widely used in AQ. Alliances would earn more Rewards as they grow, and it would still be based on War skill because War Rating is still used in combination with Prestige.
I’ve explored 6.1 and done an initial pass through the rest and I personally don’t care if they compensate or not...I’m just looking forward to a more reasonable experience in act 6, just like I’m looking forward to being able to grow stronger as an alliance without the worry of growing too strong and getting worse rewards because of the prestige matchmaking.
Anyone stop to see what that 5 Mil is comprised of, or do you just form a base judgment of their Rating? Seems to me that people want a system that reflects Alliance Rating (only highest Rated get highest Rewards), but they don't want a system that places fair Matches using a metric that determines their strength using Rating (Prestige). How dat work doe?
4* Shards and T4B based on the fact that they're Rated 5 Mil? Are you playing in 2017?
And matchmaking based on war rating will result in fair matches eventually, prestige based matchmaking wasn’t fun or fair for anyone past a certain prestige point, my alliance crossed that point and paid the price massively, we aren’t a top dog alliance, there’s several that haven’t even finished exploring act 5, less than half have got past 6.1, and yet 80-90% of our opponents for 2 straight seasons were alliances in which everyone had beaten act 6. The adjustment period will, imo, be 2 weeks at most, maybe more for those that are at like plat 1 level when they shouldn’t be, but those losing at that level will earn more points from their loss than others did with their wins anyway.
And matchmaking based on war rating will result in fair matches eventually, prestige based matchmaking wasn’t fun or fair for anyone past a certain prestige point, my alliance crossed that point and paid the price massively, we aren’t a top dog alliance, there’s several that haven’t even finished exploring act 5, less than half have got past 6.1, and yet 80-90% of our opponents for 2 straight seasons were alliances in which everyone had beaten act 6. The adjustment period will, imo, be 2 weeks at most, maybe more for those that are at like plat 1 level when they shouldn’t be, but those losing at that level will earn more points from their loss than others did with their wins anyway. I don't think it will be only 2 weeks, may be a 1 or may be 2 at the maximum seasons since some of the alliances do have high war ratings. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not against a fair system. Just don't bulldoze the small guys for something that was not their fault at all. I don't think we can agree at this point. So, we will see how this plays out. Cheers and all the best for the season
So what’s the answer for nova on ebb flow intercept and darkhawk on ebb flow heavy? In 3 minutes?
So what’s the answer for nova on ebb flow intercept and darkhawk on ebb flow heavy? In 3 minutes? People need to try options before declaring it impossible. Honestly Claire could probably solo both. I’m more worried about some of the node combinations with either Flow or Siphon if they stay in any way near their current iterations.
So what’s the answer for nova on ebb flow intercept and darkhawk on ebb flow heavy? In 3 minutes? People need to try options before declaring it impossible. Honestly Claire could probably solo both. I’m more worried about some of the node combinations with either Flow or Siphon if they stay in any way near their current iterations. How does Claire solo darkhawk on ebb and flow knockdown with tenacity mini? Maybe I am missing something but she will time out and likely not manage 50% damage
Idk that sounds a bit optimistic but we will seeI mean I don’t have Claire but does her l3 hit for like 50k cause it would take 4 l3 at a higher tier if it does to not time out
