Attacker Ban in AW?

So now we can't even use the champs that we want and like? If I enjoy playing with Ghost, I wanna play with Ghost. Same goes for Quake.
Until now I liked AW cause I could use the champs that I wanted to use, in some difficult or even tricky match-ups. Now if I can't use my favourite champ, what's the point? Like seriously, it feels like a slap in the face. So many recourses used on a champ and now I won't be able to use her?

You will say you can use her (Ghost/Quake) in AQ or in quests. I know that I still can use her (I don't know for how long though with this trend) in those areas but I certainly didn't ranked her up for AQ or even for quests. AW WAS and IS on of my biggest factors in deciding who to rank up next.

(Prediction: I'm pretty sure the 3 champs that are gonna be banned all the time will be Torch, Ghost, Quake. So practically they have no use to me right now)

And yeah, you can say that I'm dissapointed

(I re-posted it cause the previous thread somehow went into the 'Bugs and Known Issues')

Comments

BitterSteel

Better attacker bans stopping you use a few champions, than true focus stopping you use 20.

At least attacker bans are in the hands of the player

unknown

This content has been removed.

BitterSteel

Fair point, but I found I was not bringing champs on paths because I couldn’t use them on boss island.

Attacker bans may not be flawless, but they are better than true focus, and you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

unknown

This content has been removed.

BitterSteel

What i would like to see is maybe only being able to ban the same attackers a certain amount of times each season, maybe 4 times? That way each alliance can’t just ban ghost and quake each war nonstop

unknown

This content has been removed.

KnightZero

Doom/Ghost/Quake/HT. Definitely going to be the top banned champs.

BitterSteel

Sure, but you could also come up against no alliances that ban Quake or ghost.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

BitterSteel

If you say you could get unlucky and come up against every alliance who used one of their 4 bans on quake and ghost, then you can’t deny the possibility you could get lucky and the opposite would happen, especially when the opposite is twice as likely

You can’t have it both ways

Agent_X_zzz

This is such an excellent change, might come back to playing competitively because of this. One of the best AW changes they have ever made.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Raganator

Excellent. Just what we asked for…more time needed to plan war!

StevieManWonder

Nah man, this is awesome.
Depending how many ban options we get, I find it likely that Quake, Ghost, Kitty, and Prof X will be banned almost every war.
Why Prof X? Because he's the perfect counter to Mix Master Korg.

GroundedWisdom

There's going to be Pros and Cons with any solution.

Raganator

It’s not a solution. It’s a band aid. They are going to roll this out without a thought. They won’t change the map, and people may quickly find roadblock nodes. The post itself shows that kabam lacks foresight….what could possibly go wrong?

BitterSteel

You’re complaining that you could be unlucky and 12 of your 12 wars have ghost and quake banned, but say it’s unlikely for all of your 12 wars to not have them banned - Even though in our hypothetical we had 4 bans of quake and ghost available.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out the second is more likely than the other, over the season it’s more likely to run into a non-quake/ghost ban, but the one that doesn’t fit your agenda is the one that you say when will that ever happen? Even though it’s more likely.

If you think calling that out is trolling, then sure, but I think you’re just using it to avoid your hypocrisy.

BitterSteel

We won’t have attacker bans for another 2 seasons. Hardly without a thought.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

When they had a mechanic as broken as Kitty, they had to come up with something. It's actually not a bad idea. I also had a suggestion in Bitter's Thread that would work as well. This idea that we can play with whatever Champs we want at the highest Tiers is just not realistic. We can't go in with any old Champ, and that's never been the case anyway. People use what's most effective. Usually the same Champs over and over. Save for a few people who specialize in one or two particular Champs. You can't just walk into the highest Tiers of War and use any old Champ.

BitterSteel

Personal insults like calling me a troll?

If every alliance can ban ghost and quake 4 times out of 12, the odds you will face a random alliance and they have banned ghost will be 1/3. Because they only have 4 times in the season out of 12 to ban ghost. Same with quake.

Mobile_P0tat0

I really like this change, it allows officers in high tier alliances to shape the meta. It also allows for the diverse attackers that true focus was handicapping to see increased play.

unknown

This content has been removed.

thanks4playing

I personally don't agree with attacker bans, but I am actually looking forward to this change. Things have been stale and this is at least a more thoughtful solution than True Focus. Perhaps it's exactly AW needs or it is a step in the right direction. We won't know until we try it.

Having said that, I think attacker cool down would be a much more interesting solution. I guess we'll have to wait for the details on attacker bans, but I don't like the idea that an attacker might be completely precluded from war an entire season. This could complicate rank up decisions, etc. But if there's a coold own, then at least I'm guaranteed to be able to use the champs that I've recently hunted, painstakingly acquired, and ranked up while still not being able to rely upon them excessively.

GroundedWisdom

One person on YouTube who can dance in with whoever they want is not a testament to what generally takes place. It's just like television. Looks amazing on T.V., but not everyone is doing it.
Just because we love them doesn't mean we can always use them for everything.

unknown

This content has been removed.

BitterSteel

Plus, this isn’t some change Kabam have thought of and designed in the last two days

“We also suspect you have a ton of questions about Attacker Bans, and we’ll give you a little bit of a taste now, but we’re keeping a few of our cards close as we’re announcing this a little earlier than we’d intended”

This shows they’ve been designing it and thinking about it in the past, and the announcement has been brought forward by dropping true focus. This is confirmed by the below quote

“given that we’ve had to adjust our plans rapidly to account for the Kitty/True Focus interaction, we felt that the context that this feature is coming is important for you to know to help understand our decision to pull True Focus from Season 29 on short notice.”

Worknprogress

The only problem with attacker bans is you won't be able to ban enough champs I'm sure.

Treinin

I will reserve full judgement until we get closer to this being a reality, but I struggle to see how a company that makes oversight after oversight when it comes to champion/node interactions could possibly make this work and not be broken as heck.

I am 99% sure if they go forward with attacker bans they will then release some champion that only has 2-3 viable counters (these already kind of exist in Bishop / Peni parker /etc) that will result in people just banning all of the viable counters and then laughing as there is no way to take these defenders out reasonably. We will end up with an "optimal" ban list and it will just be stupidly broken and they will need to reverse that as well.

AW is band aid after band aid at this point. I swear I read they were going to rebuild this game mode from the ground up, but that sounds like it was hollow lip service now.

Attacker bans might be the straw that fully breaks the game mode.