**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Options
Comments
2. Remove energy cost. Champ cooldown is fine and enough. And keep it the same for 5* and 6*, say 7hours.
3. Increase fight timer by 30 seconds, or even a minute, nodes dependent.
4. Increase selection timers by 5-10 seconds.
5. Offer 1 free re-roll. Fine if next one costs units
6. Get the scoring right. Players stalling and not caring about fight duration in favor of willpower healing is not right. At the same time, getting full points for HP remaining when you didnt win the fight is not right.
7. Make the rewards worthwhile.
8. Get better servers that can handle the increased load
- The whole issue with masteries swap. This will just be a burden to whoever is not willing to pay their way in the game mode. We don't need this to be P2W.
- Remove entry cost. Rather, make it a system similar to incursions, where you only need to play X ammount of times per week/month (don't make it daily). It's fine to play as much as you want, but past the limit will not count points towards the rewards milestones.
- Remove unit usage for recharges, re-rolls or whatever. Again, we don't need to make this P2W.
- Adjust the timers to select(choose champions.
- If you make unique rewards to this mode, don't sell them in the future.
Having the cool-downs challenges the summoners roster and skills. But that energy cost is just crazy .
1. As I think everyone has said, the energy cost for this mode needs to be changed. It either needs it's own energy, or just no energy cost at all to enter. If it's own energy, you should be able to play at least 5-10 matches in a row without needing to pay to refresh.
2. Timers within the mode need to be extended, both in selecting champs as well as the fight timer. Not by a lot, but 50-100% longer than current.
3. One thing I don't think I've seen anyone mention is having different brackets based on star level. Depending on your progression, you might be able to have a full deck of ranked up 6*, but someone who has only been playing a month or even a year, won't. And what if I as an endgame player just like the fact that I have every 3* in the game so I can build a better deck than I can with my 6*. This would just need to have different rewards for each level, but seems like it would provide the best experience for everyone.
4. Champ refreshes - I actually like the fact that you can only use a champ a certain number of times before you need to swap them out. The caveat here is that you shouldn't just be able to pay to refresh them. Make is so that you HAVE to play with other champs if you want to keep playing. Everyone ranks up and plays with roughly the same champs. I want a game mode that not only rewards us for the depth of our roster, but helps people learn how to play all of the different champs.
5. Which leads me to my last point, scoring and leaderboard. I understand and agree with the rating system where you gain points for winning and drop points for losing, this helps match people of roughly equal skill level. The leaderboard, however, should reflect total points scored in a match and you should never lose season points for playing a match. Much like alliance war, as long as you keep competing, you'll keep adding to your score, even if you would earn more points from winning. This will result in a leaderboard that both shows not only who has the highest win percentage, but who plays the game mode a lot as well. As it's structured now, if you have a really high rating, you have very little incentive to keep playing as you might lose and drop rating. It also kind of forces you to only use your top champions.
I don't think the idea of setting bracket by deck rather than roster works either, because if you decide, as an endgame player, to make a deck of nothing but 3* champs looking for competition against other players using 3* decks, the rewards in that bracket would have to be scaled to the players who *only* have 3* rosters, not end gamers that just happen to be using 3* champs. No one is going to want to do that, and even if some do, they'd be facing more weaker players with 3* decks than end gamers with 3* decks just by random chance, and destroying them constantly in competition.
The last possibility, segregate players by *both* progression *and* deck composition almost certainly doesn't work because there's not enough players to dice them up that thinly. If the match system has to look for matches among all end game players that happen to be using 4* decks, its going to start taking too long to find a match.
This has shades of the arguments against the match system in alliance war. The complaint is that alliances are matched against "stronger" alliances. But if you segregate alliances by rating or prestige, then lower alliances who only match against lower alliances no matter how often they win cannot get the highest AW season rewards. They would instead have to fight in a lower bracket that has lower rewards. Most of those alliances complaining about matching against higher rated alliances would probably have easier fights in a segregated system but also get significantly lower rewards than they do now. They wouldn't be allowed to fight lower competition but still be in the running for the same rewards in the same reward structure. Being exposed to *everyone* is what allows them to have any shot at all at those rewards.
TL;DR: Asking for segregated competition is asking for the highest skilled players to receive lower rewards than they would otherwise,, unless they happen to also have the strongest rosters (and use them).
I don't necessarily see an issue with some getting the same amount of positive progress towards their rating for winning 15 out of 20 matches as someone who wins 30 out 50. It's an opportunity for people who may have a slightly weaker skill set or roster to achieve the same level of success through perseverance. For comparison, that is exactly how Arena works so the precedent already exists within this game.
They also can have the option of only using rating for matchmaking and still have a separate scoring system for rewards - exactly like how War works. There also will obviously be an option upon final release to have unranked matches which will not affect your rating. We basically know this because they were referred to as "ranked matches" instead of just matches.
**Edit: also just read a post from Kabam Miike that confirmed a friendly mode will exist at some point down the road.
Separate from that, a points system would be problematic, because unlike with alliance war everyone isn't doing the same number of fights. If you win by scoring points, win or lose, someone could just spend their way to the top by spending on recharges over and over, win or lose. The points system in alliance war seasons works in large part because everyone is limited to the same twelve wars (or less). In AWS, points represent both quality of the wars and victory. You cannot do more wars than everyone else to earn more points.
You could limit the number of battleground matches to make a points system work, but then the limit would have to be low enough, because all legitimate competitors would have to fight them all. You miss a few, or even one, and you could knock yourself out of the running. This is much easier to do with alliance war, because wars are two day events. Battleground matches are ten minute affairs, and hard caps on the number of matches to make points-based scoring work would probably straitjacket the mode. Right now the biggest complaint about the mode is probably the quest energy cost, which applies an extremely strong limit on the number of matches someone can practically participate in. A low hard cap would probably not go over very well. A high hard cap would probably also not go over very well.
So a full ratings reset simultaneously hurts the weakest players by handing them overwhelmingly overpowered opponents, and the strongest players by making it impossible for them to distinguish themselves from the rest of the moderate competition.
And being a competitive mode has another curious advantage for casual players. Incursions is a cooperative mode. If you don't know what you're doing, you're screwing with your partner. You can't disguise the fact that you don't know what you're doing because you have to coordinate with them. If you mess up, you hurt them. This can be a barrier to casual players trying out the mode. They don't want to embarrass themselves in front of their friends, they don't want to expose themselves to the problems of pairing with randoms. But with battlegrounds, there's no problem. It is a competition, so no one cares if you're a noob. If you don't know what you're doing, you just lose. No big deal. No one is going to complain if you're slow. No one is going to complain if you suck. No one is going to complain if you just give up and quit. You aren't hurting anyone if you are an easy mark. So why not jump in and give it a try? All you can do is lose, and no one will be unhappy if you hand them some easy wins.
I went something like two and thirteen against some of the strongest players in the game, and I had a blast doing it, and I received no rewards for any of it. I'm not saying everyone is going to flood a game mode with mediocre rewards and spend all their time at it, but I do think Battlegrounds has *a chance* to succeed much more strongly than Incursions did, because I believe Battlegrounds will be more widely appealing to the casual hit and run player. *IF* the developers address the cost issues and *IF* the developers put in a reasonable reward system (it doesn't have to be fantastic, just reasonable), then I think BGs have a lot of potential to attract a wider player participation chunk than Dungeons/Incursions did, and for that matter become competitive with other game modes such as alliance quest, alliance war, and arena.
they are refuse to fix or even admit any mistakes starting
with the single worst idea they've ever had and yes I'm
talking about the rebalencing/nerf our champions idea