We're not going up against 4, 5, or 6 of the same Champs in AQ.
Oh, we're not? Fighting a dozen symbiods and champs that repeat again in the next section along with the same 3 minbosses every week isn't repetition?
There is more to the game than AW, and a Champ's usefulness is not limited to AW alone.
Really? In what situation is Kamala useful over Magik?
The number one argument is people don't want to use "garbage" Champs.
The reason they consider them garbage is based on the application in the old system.
There is no "old system", a term that you just made up to justify these changes. The reason they're garbage is because they're flat out garbage. People are at a disadvantage when they take weaker than those that don't. You don't seem to realize what value is.
1. They are alternating Mini-Bosses. Symbioids are not the same. They vary in Class and Abilities.
2. That illustrates the problem I just outlined.
3. The old system refers to the way Wars were before said changes which are clearly the new system currently.
4. I'm not debating this. You don't like the changes. I get it. I have my own views.
So, after spending months in arenas grinding for the best champs, using every resources to upgrade them (why not, real money), now we have to sit there using our worst champs in order to win because you (and kabam) like to see diversity on the battleground? Don't you understand how stupid is it? It's a war against another ally, our best champs vs. their best champs.
And speaking about diversity, aren't you tired to see the same stupid champs in AQ day after day after day for a whole year? Why don't they change that?
We're not going up against 4, 5, or 6 of the same Champs in AQ. Even the argument for RTTL is one specific Quest with 3 sets of varying difficulties. It's not the same.
There is more to the game than AW, and a Champ's usefulness is not limited to AW alone. That may be the opinion that some have based on how they play. They still have the Champs they Grinded for and Ranked. It just means we will have to use others as well, instead of a BG full of the same Champs. The number one argument is people don't want to use "garbage" Champs. The reason they consider them garbage is based on the application in the old system. We saw a similar change with the "God Tier". Reason being, regardless of popular opinion, they didn't likely design the game with over 100 Champs, just so it can revolve around a few. Diversity is about evening the playing field in War so that it's not about who has the same few Champs, and people can use a range of them. Whether the populous considers them garbage or not, they're meant to be used.
Of course we can use every champ in other parts of the game if we want, that doesn't mean they are useful at all elsewhere. No one is stupid enough to spend catalysts to rank a 5s Rhino to R4 just to compete in monthly quests or daily AQ, NO ONE. And the list of garbage champs who we ranked up just for AW defence is very long...
I agree with most of this. Diversity is the new metric. The majority of Players against it have many Champs available. It's not difficult at all to shift focus. Whether by principle or not, it doesn't make sense to lose by not applying the existing paradigm. I'm not sure what further changes will be made, but I'm pretty sure Diversity will still be here. Personally, I'm all for it. I don't want to play a mode where it's fully elective, but the same few Champs are used everytime. That's not really elective at all. The real issue is it's change. People may have to use Champs they are not used to using. I understand that people are upset, but it's really not a bad thing. It's just different. Nothing can stay the same forever. Certainly not when issues arose from the old system. It's just change. The game is always changing, and it's been long-overdue for some change in Wars.
So, after spending months in arenas grinding for the best champs, using every resources to upgrade them (why not, real money), now we have to sit there using our worst champs in order to win because you (and kabam) like to see diversity on the battleground? Don't you understand how stupid is it? It's a war against another ally, our best champs vs. their best champs.
And speaking about diversity, aren't you tired to see the same stupid champs in AQ day after day after day for a whole year? Why don't they change that?
We're not going up against 4, 5, or 6 of the same Champs in AQ. Even the argument for RTTL is one specific Quest with 3 sets of varying difficulties. It's not the same.
There is more to the game than AW, and a Champ's usefulness is not limited to AW alone. That may be the opinion that some have based on how they play. They still have the Champs they Grinded for and Ranked. It just means we will have to use others as well, instead of a BG full of the same Champs. The number one argument is people don't want to use "garbage" Champs. The reason they consider them garbage is based on the application in the old system. We saw a similar change with the "God Tier". Reason being, regardless of popular opinion, they didn't likely design the game with over 100 Champs, just so it can revolve around a few. Diversity is about evening the playing field in War so that it's not about who has the same few Champs, and people can use a range of them. Whether the populous considers them garbage or not, they're meant to be used.
There are so many statements that dont make sense.
1) "We're not going up against 4, 5, or 6 of the same Champs in AQ "-- Yes we are going up against same set of ~10 champs every AQ. Its repetitive and boring, why not add diversity there.
2) "There is more to the game than AW, and a Champ's usefulness is not limited to AW alone" --> There is more to the game yes, but AW is the most fun/skilled mode in MCOC. And defensive champs that were ranked have no use anywhere except for arena fodder. Adding diversity + removing defender kills completely eliminated fun and skill from AW.
3)"The reason they consider them garbage is based on the application in the old system "-- Nope they were considered garbage coz they literally offer nothing in terms of defensive ability or even offense. Lets say if kabam were forced to add diversity just for sake of it in their team (people of various nationals or genders etc), will they hire if they dont have anything to offer ? No they wont right
4) and best one out of all "Whether the populous considers them garbage or not, they're meant to be used" --- So going by your statement, I haven't seen you advocating for same diversity in offense ? By your lame logic all champs should be used or atleast forced (under new setup). Lets have same diversity in offense across alliance too. Just adding defender diversity wont even out playing field
Offense 90 Diverse champs X 150pts = 13,500 : Defense 150 diverse champs (50/BG) X 90pts = 13,500 ---- This is what i would call even playing field.
So going up against 10 Mordo minibosses or 10 Rhinos or 10 Cables a week isn't repetitive in Map 5?
Symbioids are not the same. They vary in Class and Abilities.
They're identical except for their specials which barely makes a difference anyway. Class differences also doesn't make it any less boring.
Repetitive minibosses, repetitive Dormammu bosses, and dozen boring symbs and other repeating champs. You have no case.
And in what situation does Kamala have an advantage over Magik? Can you think of one?
3. The old system refers to the way Wars were before said changes which are clearly the new system currently.
There is no system on earth that promotes the use of less effective tools to get something done. It doesn't exist.
You can artificially manipulate a system to make things appear equal, but they will NEVER be equal. It goes against human nature and basic logic to use a weaker tool over a stronger one.
3 of my oldest friends in game have retired and altogether perhaps 5 have quit my alliance. More are considering it. This is a very big failure on the part of the game development team. I'm riding it out mostly out of habit at this point but I'm not sure at this point if things will be made fun again even if the scoring debacle is adjusted.
I'm just spitballing here, so some of these ideas are probably not fully fleshed out. I'm just gonna throw them out there and see what, if anything, sticks.
1. Bye Bye Flip/Flop map, Hello Warfield
Currently You play on your side of the fence, I play on mine. Sometimes I peek over to see what you are doing, but most of the time there is a literal partition between our two sides of the "War".
How about this, a map designed a little more like a Chinese Checkers board, or chess or something where there are You are on your side and I am on my side, and we are both trying to get to the middle, king-of-the-mountain style.
I can watch my team advance, as I already do, but I could also watch your team advance, in real time, without flipping between screens (which **never** breaks and makes you restart the app )
2. More Paths, Not Tiles (but maybe more tiles)
Let's go with my Warfield concept for a few minutes...
Suppose on a map with 2x teams of 10 people there were 30 routes to the top instead of 20. We would have to choose how we spend our moves. A unified Warfield would have at least 100 tiles just for mobs, and probably another 50 for blanks, portals and unused defense placement.
You could leave portals, but maybe 3/4 of the way through my branch I have the option to go to another branch entirely and start over. This would cost me moves, but maybe I could pick up more exploration tiles - now important since no one team can 100% the map. The rest of my team can make it to the boss fight, but I can scratch up some more tiles!
How about this - If I move over a tile that occupies My Alliance defender - No energy cost. If I move into an empty tile or an opposing tile, energy must be burned. Now I have to choose in Placement whether to allocate my resources to prohibit movement by the opposition or facilitate movement by my offense.
3. But now there's Two Bosses on the map?
So what? How about this - if My Alliance defeats Their Boss first, then we activate a buff, making their boss fight more difficult. Vice versa, if they beat our boss first, our fight gets harder. Ooh now I have to choose between getting to the boss fast (so maybe allocate additional defenders to facilitate movement, and forgo extra exploration) or anticipate a more difficult boss fight and hope that I can scrape together an exploration advantage and still maybe knock down the boss.
4. Dynamic Boost Activation
Okay that boosted boss thing is kind of interesting. Maybe as I move up the map dropping links for my buddies, perhaps I am also ACTIVATING boosts against my foes. Another incentive to move quickly, or choose strategic paths that the enemy didn't boost on their side?
5. Warfield Exploration ==> Capture Enemy Tiles
So, now we are on the same map, and my enemy beat my boss, but we have more guys downrange and lots of moves left. How about we roll over some of the tiles that the Enemy captured on the run to the Boss, and STEAL THEIR EXPLORATION TILES!
I'm sort of imagining almost a web of nodes, concentrating to the center where there would be the two boss fights going on, so close to each other that we could watch each other tackle our bosses at the same time.
I'm not engaging in the discussion any further. It's a never-ending argument. I'm for Diversity. Others aren't. That's just how it is. People can take digs at me all they want, but Diversity is here regardless. We will have to use more of our Roster if we want Points. That's just how the current meta is. I'm not getting into debates about who is garbage and who is not because that's all opinion-based, and those opinions are based on the old War System. The ones that get the most kills are good, and the rest are garbage. That system is no longer present. People can feel how they want about it. I'm not arguing that at all. We're just going to have to accept a difference of opinion and leave it at that because we all have our own opinions on it.
I'm not engaging in the discussion any further. It's a never-ending argument.
You never engage. When someone asks hard questions you go silent.
I'm for Diversity. Others aren't. That's just how it is.
You can you be for equality when champs aren't created equal?
How can you assign equal value to Kamala Khan and Magik when Magik is quantifiably superior 99% of the time?
There's nothing subject or opinion-based about this.
That's just how the current meta is. I'm not getting into debates about who is garbage and who is not because that's all opinion-based, and those opinions are based on the old War System. The ones that get the most kills are good, and the rest are garbage. That system is no longer present.
The new system is BEYOND BROKEN and Kabam needs to know why.
@JJW the Chinese checkers thing sounds like the way to go, my only advice is screen shot it, try to get a patent on it, something.
I would say Kabam should hire you, but I get the impression that could be a step down. And that's not a diss on Kabam.
Awesome stuff, thanks again for contributing.
I'm not engaging in the discussion any further. It's a never-ending argument.
You never engage. When someone asks hard questions you go silent.
I'm for Diversity. Others aren't. That's just how it is.
You can you be for equality when champs aren't created equal?
How can you assign equal value to Kamala Khan and Magik when Magik is quantifiably superior 99% of the time?
There's nothing subject or opinion-based about this.
That's just how the current meta is. I'm not getting into debates about who is garbage and who is not because that's all opinion-based, and those opinions are based on the old War System. The ones that get the most kills are good, and the rest are garbage. That system is no longer present.
The new system is BEYOND BROKEN and Kabam needs to know why.
There are many things I don't do, but I engage. I'm not debating this. You are challenging everything I say because you don't agree with Diversity. I can respect that you don't. I'm just not partaking in a cyclical argument. I don't share the same opinions as you. I don't consider Champs as Superior/Inferior. They're different. The statement that they're not created equal doesn't even register with me. A Champ is a Champ. They have different Abilities and attributes. I've said many times I'm not debating this with you. Please respect that and accept that we have different opinions.
One person here is stating facts that are provable with hard numbers and data. One person is throwing out opinions without any supporting information.and claiming things that just aren't true.
We should probably stick to facts. They're much more helpful in situations like this.
If Kabam wants to encourage item use in wars, the best way to do it is with rewards. Add bonus shards for each boss kill, more for full exploration, give bonus grandmaster shards for diversity. Make it worth our while to use items in a losing situation.
Everything we've seen up to now doesn't encourage that. You know when you are beat and you cut your losses and move on. There isn't any point in spending when you'll get the same rewards for not spending. People play wars to develop their rosters. They want the resources, and by increasing them across the board while adding in milestones of some sort would encourage this.
What we have in this iteration is too predictable. You place the max number of diverse defenders and crunch numbers to see which teams of unique champs each player can bring to give you your maximum defender rating. Then you go through war and wait to see who has the higher pi. There is no feeling of accomplishment or victory there, you can lose while having lost fewer champs than your opponent. It's just boring and skilled play isn't rewarded. There has to be another variable besides diversity and rating to determine the winner, and increased rewards for everyone.
One person here is stating facts that are provable with hard numbers and data. One person is throwing out opinions without any supporting information.and claiming things that just aren't true.
We should probably stick to facts. They're much more helpful in situations like this.
Fact: Those hard numbers and data are based on the effectiveness of Defender Kills in the old Map.
Fact: Maximizing the presence of those Champs based on said hard numbers and data led to the issue that brought about Diversity.
Fact: Those hard numbers and data are currently moot because Defender Kills and Nodes used no longer exist.
Fact: Using facts also involves considering present relevancy.
Fact: I'm over the conversation.
One person here is stating facts that are provable with hard numbers and data. One person is throwing out opinions without any supporting information.and claiming things that just aren't true.
We should probably stick to facts. They're much more helpful in situations like this.
Fact: Those hard numbers and data are based on the effectiveness of Defender Kills in the old Map.
Fact: Maximizing the presence of those Champs based on said hard numbers and data led to the issue that brought about Diversity.
Fact: Those hard numbers and data are currently moot because Defender Kills and Nodes used no longer exist.
Fact: Using facts also involves considering present relevancy.
Fact: I'm over the conversation.
I've already gone thru each of your "reasons" in another post. Let's not repeat ourselves here bc spamming is against the TOS of the forum.
Good Defenders are good defenders. It's called programming, abilities, and stats. No amount of foot stomping is going to change that. As far as present relevancy goes... Have you even seen who is placed on the mini boss and boss nodes (the only rly decent nodes)? Have you not been able to discern why those particular champs are there?
Fact: Those hard numbers and data are based on the effectiveness of Defender Kills
100% correct.
Fact: Maximizing the presence of those Champs based on said hard numbers and data led to the issue that brought about Diversity.
What issue? Did the effective defenders suddenly stop being effective? Did the game break? Are there too many effective defenders that you can't handle it? Did you want them to place easier ones for you? What is this issue you speak of?
As for me, I have no issue with smart people placing more effective defenders on defense.
Comments
Oh, we're not? Fighting a dozen symbiods and champs that repeat again in the next section along with the same 3 minbosses every week isn't repetition?
Really? In what situation is Kamala useful over Magik?
There is no "old system", a term that you just made up to justify these changes. The reason they're garbage is because they're flat out garbage. People are at a disadvantage when they take weaker than those that don't. You don't seem to realize what value is.
2. That illustrates the problem I just outlined.
3. The old system refers to the way Wars were before said changes which are clearly the new system currently.
4. I'm not debating this. You don't like the changes. I get it. I have my own views.
There are so many statements that dont make sense.
1) "We're not going up against 4, 5, or 6 of the same Champs in AQ "-- Yes we are going up against same set of ~10 champs every AQ. Its repetitive and boring, why not add diversity there.
2) "There is more to the game than AW, and a Champ's usefulness is not limited to AW alone" --> There is more to the game yes, but AW is the most fun/skilled mode in MCOC. And defensive champs that were ranked have no use anywhere except for arena fodder. Adding diversity + removing defender kills completely eliminated fun and skill from AW.
3)"The reason they consider them garbage is based on the application in the old system "-- Nope they were considered garbage coz they literally offer nothing in terms of defensive ability or even offense. Lets say if kabam were forced to add diversity just for sake of it in their team (people of various nationals or genders etc), will they hire if they dont have anything to offer ? No they wont right
4) and best one out of all "Whether the populous considers them garbage or not, they're meant to be used" --- So going by your statement, I haven't seen you advocating for same diversity in offense ? By your lame logic all champs should be used or atleast forced (under new setup). Lets have same diversity in offense across alliance too. Just adding defender diversity wont even out playing field
Offense 90 Diverse champs X 150pts = 13,500 : Defense 150 diverse champs (50/BG) X 90pts = 13,500 ---- This is what i would call even playing field.
So going up against 10 Mordo minibosses or 10 Rhinos or 10 Cables a week isn't repetitive in Map 5?
They're identical except for their specials which barely makes a difference anyway. Class differences also doesn't make it any less boring.
Repetitive minibosses, repetitive Dormammu bosses, and dozen boring symbs and other repeating champs. You have no case.
And in what situation does Kamala have an advantage over Magik? Can you think of one?
There is no system on earth that promotes the use of less effective tools to get something done. It doesn't exist.
You can artificially manipulate a system to make things appear equal, but they will NEVER be equal. It goes against human nature and basic logic to use a weaker tool over a stronger one.
I'll accept your view once you give me all my catalysts back for ranking up Nightcrawler, Hyperion, and Dormammu.
In what area of the game, if you analyzed their abilities and performances does Kamala Khan have an advantage over Magik?
Dont waste your time bud. His final reply is always " Well we have to agree to disagree".
1. Bye Bye Flip/Flop map, Hello Warfield
Currently You play on your side of the fence, I play on mine. Sometimes I peek over to see what you are doing, but most of the time there is a literal partition between our two sides of the "War".
How about this, a map designed a little more like a Chinese Checkers board, or chess or something where there are You are on your side and I am on my side, and we are both trying to get to the middle, king-of-the-mountain style.
I can watch my team advance, as I already do, but I could also watch your team advance, in real time, without flipping between screens (which **never** breaks and makes you restart the app
2. More Paths, Not Tiles (but maybe more tiles)
Let's go with my Warfield concept for a few minutes...
Suppose on a map with 2x teams of 10 people there were 30 routes to the top instead of 20. We would have to choose how we spend our moves. A unified Warfield would have at least 100 tiles just for mobs, and probably another 50 for blanks, portals and unused defense placement.
You could leave portals, but maybe 3/4 of the way through my branch I have the option to go to another branch entirely and start over. This would cost me moves, but maybe I could pick up more exploration tiles - now important since no one team can 100% the map. The rest of my team can make it to the boss fight, but I can scratch up some more tiles!
How about this - If I move over a tile that occupies My Alliance defender - No energy cost. If I move into an empty tile or an opposing tile, energy must be burned. Now I have to choose in Placement whether to allocate my resources to prohibit movement by the opposition or facilitate movement by my offense.
3. But now there's Two Bosses on the map?
So what? How about this - if My Alliance defeats Their Boss first, then we activate a buff, making their boss fight more difficult. Vice versa, if they beat our boss first, our fight gets harder. Ooh now I have to choose between getting to the boss fast (so maybe allocate additional defenders to facilitate movement, and forgo extra exploration) or anticipate a more difficult boss fight and hope that I can scrape together an exploration advantage and still maybe knock down the boss.
4. Dynamic Boost Activation
Okay that boosted boss thing is kind of interesting. Maybe as I move up the map dropping links for my buddies, perhaps I am also ACTIVATING boosts against my foes. Another incentive to move quickly, or choose strategic paths that the enemy didn't boost on their side?
5. Warfield Exploration ==> Capture Enemy Tiles
So, now we are on the same map, and my enemy beat my boss, but we have more guys downrange and lots of moves left. How about we roll over some of the tiles that the Enemy captured on the run to the Boss, and STEAL THEIR EXPLORATION TILES!
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I'm sort of imagining almost a web of nodes, concentrating to the center where there would be the two boss fights going on, so close to each other that we could watch each other tackle our bosses at the same time.
Tell me what you guys think.
JJW
You never engage. When someone asks hard questions you go silent.
You can you be for equality when champs aren't created equal?
How can you assign equal value to Kamala Khan and Magik when Magik is quantifiably superior 99% of the time?
There's nothing subject or opinion-based about this.
The new system is BEYOND BROKEN and Kabam needs to know why.
I would say Kabam should hire you, but I get the impression that could be a step down. And that's not a diss on Kabam.
Awesome stuff, thanks again for contributing.
There are many things I don't do, but I engage. I'm not debating this. You are challenging everything I say because you don't agree with Diversity. I can respect that you don't. I'm just not partaking in a cyclical argument. I don't share the same opinions as you. I don't consider Champs as Superior/Inferior. They're different. The statement that they're not created equal doesn't even register with me. A Champ is a Champ. They have different Abilities and attributes. I've said many times I'm not debating this with you. Please respect that and accept that we have different opinions.
If they're different....
...and have different abilities and attributes (ie. SOME ARE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN OTHERS)....
...then why are they assigned EQUAL worth in AW?
We should probably stick to facts. They're much more helpful in situations like this.
Everything we've seen up to now doesn't encourage that. You know when you are beat and you cut your losses and move on. There isn't any point in spending when you'll get the same rewards for not spending. People play wars to develop their rosters. They want the resources, and by increasing them across the board while adding in milestones of some sort would encourage this.
What we have in this iteration is too predictable. You place the max number of diverse defenders and crunch numbers to see which teams of unique champs each player can bring to give you your maximum defender rating. Then you go through war and wait to see who has the higher pi. There is no feeling of accomplishment or victory there, you can lose while having lost fewer champs than your opponent. It's just boring and skilled play isn't rewarded. There has to be another variable besides diversity and rating to determine the winner, and increased rewards for everyone.
Fact: Those hard numbers and data are based on the effectiveness of Defender Kills in the old Map.
Fact: Maximizing the presence of those Champs based on said hard numbers and data led to the issue that brought about Diversity.
Fact: Those hard numbers and data are currently moot because Defender Kills and Nodes used no longer exist.
Fact: Using facts also involves considering present relevancy.
Fact: I'm over the conversation.
I've already gone thru each of your "reasons" in another post. Let's not repeat ourselves here bc spamming is against the TOS of the forum.
Good Defenders are good defenders. It's called programming, abilities, and stats. No amount of foot stomping is going to change that. As far as present relevancy goes... Have you even seen who is placed on the mini boss and boss nodes (the only rly decent nodes)? Have you not been able to discern why those particular champs are there?
100% correct.
What issue? Did the effective defenders suddenly stop being effective? Did the game break? Are there too many effective defenders that you can't handle it? Did you want them to place easier ones for you? What is this issue you speak of?
As for me, I have no issue with smart people placing more effective defenders on defense.