**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
15.0 Alliance Wars Update Discussion Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You don't have a rebuttal?
No. You're verging on insulting and I'm not engaging in something that may become personal. I have thoughts on what your views are but I'm not debating it because the tone of the conversation is not positive and that will lead to an argument.
It won't become personal. I'm not insulting you. The meanest thing I said is that I thought a point of yours was stupid.
The only penalty is making it a little easier on the attacker. But both sides clear All more and more often. Took on iso in a recent war both sides cleared all they had three million more alliance points. They had higher defender rating less diversity. If they had maxed diversity they win simply because they’re rated higher even if we had zero deaths. Their duping magik and nightcrawler others cost them. Alliances will Still clear their sides regardless of the duplicate characters. Just a little more easily. So the cost of diversity becomes nothing and instead the cost of not diversifying becomes instant loss.
As a matter of fact. Once you notice your opponent hasn’t diversified their defenders it is guaranteed you are going to win if you clear everything so it makes the risk of using items and losing nothing. So they are that much more likely to burn a few items to ensure a win.
RDT's again, awesome lol. Were any champs specifically created for AW purposes? If yes, you win your argument for RDT's. Fact is, no champs were created specifically for AW which means we made our own choices on who to rank up. AW changes didn't alter the way any champ was designed for. I stay aware that in games there can always be changes that affect my past choices.
I also am aware that with diversity here to stay that I will need to rank up new champs for defense. And again, when I make my choices I will choose champs that also carry more value in other areas because AW can always change again.
The idea is idiotic is what you said. I can tell when things are getting heated. That's already happened enough in the conversation so I am selective with what I engage with.
People can Rank whoever they want. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's a fact. The fact that those decisions are primarily based on popular opinion and War is irrelevant because that's a choice. If people choose to focus on War alone, that's entirely up to them. That doesn't mean a Champ is literally useless. You can use it anywhere in the game if you so choose. The problem is these opinions of good/bad are so deep that people can't accept using other Champs. I'm sorry, but you would be hard-pressed to convince me that further developing a Roster and using it is a bad thing. That's what the game is all about. Not just having the Top Tier Ranked an scrapping the rest. As I said, that may be how people choose to play, but that was not the intention of the overall design.
I am not debating Tickets. They've given their response and I support it. No changes to the Champs have been made. At all. Just the War Map people used them in. No Ranking is actually wasted in the game in general. People Ranked some Champs for War. They may have done it for that reason alone, but they have still made that decision for their own reasons and have been using those Champs at that Rank since.
There are other points I could make, but my views bring heated reactions, and I'm not likely to change them so I'm choosing what I engage with and what I don't.
Whether you think ranking a champ up for a certain game mode is a good or bad idea is irrelevant. The point is that people did it. Kabam made that choice a bad one. That's not fair to the users.
And you're only debating one of my point on why Diversity is bad. Facing 3 stars is still more boring than facing Nightcrawler.
That comment makes no sense. If he thinks its a bad idea than its irrelevant. But if he thinks its a good idea than its relevant? You claim its irrelevant because it's a disagreement to counter your thought. Makes little to no sense at all. Both are opinions, no matter how you try to turn it.
If he thinks ranking someone up for one reason, it's irrelevant. What's relevant is that people did it.
Wrong.
I feel like this picture proves that point perfectly
Classic GW. Good talk.
If this version of war was made because of this reason, then they’re kinda just letting war be broken/be boring and non-motivational for a long while, which is kinda dumb in my opinion.
The last War System was around for nearly 2 years. The idea is to have a system that is accommodating to the future.
Exactly thanks to your address, and also addresses of others the player, we knew of a problem with addition of points for a Variety of Defenders in Wars of the Unions. The problem was that uniqueness of a variety was counted in each of Fighting Groups separately, but not in all Union in general. It caused small, but important anomalies in counting of points which were already eliminated.
Roman, Support service of Kabam
=========
And what we see at the next war?
According to information received from Roman (Kabam Russian tech), which is not true , we put the defend and lost because the variety of champs was counted in groups!
We consider that obviously false answer of tech support and incomplete informing led to defeat in war.
We demand: revision of result with return of rating and prizes. And also, as moral costs - additional prizes.
Beside this, no one list of changes did not report that mastery points influence total quantity of points in war of the unions. And this is nonsense, certainly.
As well as champions absolutely senseless now whom we raised to strengthen ours protection - according to new strategy all resources spent for them are spent for nothing therefore we ask to provide to all alliances decrease stones according to their rating.
HGTR alliance, yours faithfully
LimitX
Ya should’ve waited
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid @RagamugginGunner is correct here. He is trying to point out to you that when 6* champions arrive the net result will be for offense to get better faster than defense gets better, because players tend to rank up attackers first. That means weakening the nodes to prepare for the arrival of 6* champions is the exact opposite of what you should do, if anything. First, ranked up 6* champs will arrive on offense and those attackers will steamroll over the weaker defenders. Eventually, a long long time later players will start filling in 6* champs as defenders and defense will catch up to offense. Anyone who studies AW would know this, because this is how 5* champs basically worked. Even now, 5* champs on defense is still uncommon in most tiers. You'll see a few, but not many. They are simply too valuable to use on offense.
Which kind of brings up an important point. All this talk about "diversity" encouraging players to "use" a more diverse roster is ridiculous in my opinion, for two reasons. First, we don't "use" defenders. We place defenders. We PLAY attackers. If you want players to use a more diverse subset of your roster, you have to encourage them to play more champs on offense. Nobody is ever going to learn to like "using" Luke Cage if they keep placing him on defense, because you don't get to experience defenders. You never really "see" anything about a defender that would make you like it more (except for kills, except not any more).
Second, and this is almost too obvious to type, but when you place a champ as a defender you can't use him on attack. If you want me to place a champ on defense, fine, but by definition every champion you encourage me to place on defense is a champion that is removed from my options to actually play. That does nothing to increase the diversity of my attack roster. It probably even reduces it by a certain amount.
Compelling players to place less well liked champions on defense doesn't make them more well liked, and it doesn't encourage the players to play a more diverse roster. If anything it encourages players to focus even more attention on the best attackers, because the return on investment for focusing attention on defenders is so low in 15.0 compared to 14.0.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
The value is they need to be used to gain Points. Respectfully, I'm out. It's a never-ending argument.
No, you have it correct. It's just a terrible argument.
The more he posts about end game players or content the more he shows his hand of now knowing what the hell he's talking about.