Attacker diversity in wars

I suggest because alliance score reduced points for having duplicate champs in defence.

I see no reason why there is not attack diversity.

If this can’t be implemented then I believe defence diversity should be abolished.

Comments

Grimmbear

Dude stop giving them ideas

GroundedWisdom

Why would they have Diversity for Attack? Who we use for Attack has no effect on the system.

DNA3000

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Why would they have Diversity for Attack? Who we use for Attack has no effect on the system.

Who we used on defense had no effect on the system until they changed the system. Hypothetically speaking, giving out points for diverse attackers makes the same sense as giving out points for diverse defenders. As you keep saying, its up to Kabam to make up the rules and we just have to obey them.

GroundedWisdom

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Why would they have Diversity for Attack? Who we use for Attack has no effect on the system.

Who we used on defense had no effect on the system until they changed the system. Hypothetically speaking, giving out points for diverse attackers makes the same sense as giving out points for diverse defenders. As you keep saying, its up to Kabam to make up the rules and we just have to obey them.

Lightvayne

Jay_Ibero

I think all other things being equal, an alliance that clears a map using 30 different attackers deserves a win more than one where everyone uses the same handful of typical attackers....attacker diversity has merit.

NoNamesLeftJr

I'd rather just abolish diversity and go back to the old AW. AW just sucks now.

DNA3000

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Why would they have Diversity for Attack? Who we use for Attack has no effect on the system.

Who we used on defense had no effect on the system until they changed the system. Hypothetically speaking, giving out points for diverse attackers makes the same sense as giving out points for diverse defenders. As you keep saying, its up to Kabam to make up the rules and we just have to obey them.

Actually, it did have an effect on the system. This is where we disagree. Placing multiple Defenders in combination with Defender Kills affected Wars. Who people use for Attack has no effect on the opponent, save for the Damage they do completing the Map.

If you're going to keep changing the definition of words, I'm going to just make them up also.

Saying who we used on defense affected wars, but who we use on offense has no effect on the opponent except for the fact we use them to kill the opponent is not disagreeing with me, it is rolling your face across the keyboard until autocorrect takes effect.

unknown

This content has been removed.

DNA3000

ArmandStar wrote: »

I'd bet people who are against diversity are dying to go back to placing as many defender Nightcrawlers as they can without suffering any consequence. am i right?

Its hard to tell. The people who are dying to place as many Nightcrawlers as possible are currently placing as many Nightcrawlers as possible. The ones doing so are doing so because it is a winning strategy in their AW tier, so its hard to say if they are concerned about the consequences of doing so.

Connect

My point of the thread was to say how imbalanced the diversity is.

Reward players for having 90 different champs in defence but there is no restriction to the attack diversity which in theory has no player advantage.

War are ego boosters as it’s not hard to brute force the map regardless which champs are in defence n that can be done with the 10 members in all 3 groups using no items.

Sometimes they knock out the boss with 2-3 nodes on or get him to the bone before their 3 champs are dead.

GroundedWisdom

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Why would they have Diversity for Attack? Who we use for Attack has no effect on the system.

Who we used on defense had no effect on the system until they changed the system. Hypothetically speaking, giving out points for diverse attackers makes the same sense as giving out points for diverse defenders. As you keep saying, its up to Kabam to make up the rules and we just have to obey them.

Actually, it did have an effect on the system. This is where we disagree. Placing multiple Defenders in combination with Defender Kills affected Wars. Who people use for Attack has no effect on the opponent, save for the Damage they do completing the Map.

If you're going to keep changing the definition of words, I'm going to just make them up also.

Saying who we used on defense affected wars, but who we use on offense has no effect on the opponent except for the fact we use them to kill the opponent is not disagreeing with me, it is rolling your face across the keyboard until autocorrect takes effect.

Let me put it another way. Multiple, similar Attackers has never been an issue. The issue was with repeat Defenders. People can use entirely the same Attackers throughout the entire game and it won't have an effect on the opponent because the opponent is not placed in a Map against the Attackers. Who an Ally uses for Attack has no effect on the War schematic because they're not placed. The problem was caused by a combination of Defender Kills and multiple Defenders. We don't place Attackers on the Map, so the only way it affects the system is the Nodes those Attackers clear, which is no more changed than the Damage they do, regardless of who the Attackers are. Is that more acute for you?

Kpatrix

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Why would they have Diversity for Attack? Who we use for Attack has no effect on the system.

Who we used on defense had no effect on the system until they changed the system. Hypothetically speaking, giving out points for diverse attackers makes the same sense as giving out points for diverse defenders. As you keep saying, its up to Kabam to make up the rules and we just have to obey them.

Actually, it did have an effect on the system. This is where we disagree. Placing multiple Defenders in combination with Defender Kills affected Wars. Who people use for Attack has no effect on the opponent, save for the Damage they do completing the Map.

If you're going to keep changing the definition of words, I'm going to just make them up also.

Saying who we used on defense affected wars, but who we use on offense has no effect on the opponent except for the fact we use them to kill the opponent is not disagreeing with me, it is rolling your face across the keyboard until autocorrect takes effect.

Let me put it another way. Multiple, similar Attackers has never been an issue. The issue was with repeat Defenders. People can use entirely the same Attackers throughout the entire game and it won't have an effect on the opponent because the opponent is not placed in a Map against the Attackers. Who an Ally uses for Attack has no effect on the War schematic because they're not placed. The problem was caused by a combination of Defender Kills and multiple Defenders. We don't place Attackers on the Map, so the only way it affects the system is the Nodes those Attackers clear, which is no more changed than the Damage they do, regardless of who the Attackers are. Is that more acute for you?

What about the issue it causes when everyone is using the same OP attackers to crush our defense ? They even get to see what champs they will face on their paths and can avoid all that bleed and poison damage by bringing their immunes. That gives them easy attack kills and penalizes us for placing defenders. OMG, it's almost the same as being penalized by defender kills, which was so unfair !

Connect

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Actually, it did have an effect on the system. This is where we disagree. Placing multiple Defenders in combination with Defender Kills affected Wars. Who people use for Attack has no effect on the opponent, save for the Damage they do completing the Map. [/quote]

If you're going to keep changing the definition of words, I'm going to just make them up also.

Saying who we used on defense affected wars, but who we use on offense has no effect on the opponent except for the fact we use them to kill the opponent is not disagreeing with me, it is rolling your face across the keyboard until autocorrect takes effect.[/quote]

Let me put it another way. Multiple, similar Attackers has never been an issue. The issue was with repeat Defenders. People can use entirely the same Attackers throughout the entire game and it won't have an effect on the opponent because the opponent is not placed in a Map against the Attackers. Who an Ally uses for Attack has no effect on the War schematic because they're not placed. The problem was caused by a combination of Defender Kills and multiple Defenders. We don't place Attackers on the Map, so the only way it affects the system is the Nodes those Attackers clear, which is no more changed than the Damage they do, regardless of who the Attackers are. Is that more acute for you?[/quote]

Don’t make sense.

I’m just saying, Ive been warring since it began n max I’d seen was the opposition placing 3 nc which were 3 easy fights but for some can be daunting but it actually didn’t cause a stir as this was very uncommon.

Now to implement defender diversity it’s trying to highlight that within the game there was a major to significant issue with pple place similar defenders in war.

But the fact is diversity works in a combination, if the cause of diversity was having multiple of same champs in war then why resistric other groups having the same champ.

I’m saying the ruleof diversity should only count on each battle group n not altogether combination of all 3 groups.

150 different champs to organise in 3 groups isn’t worth the rewards simple answer.

Mattylo

yeah i would love to be the one that draws the short straw and my attack team is she-hulk, LC, and HB

thumbs down on this craziness. i would legit quit if they did this.

ClintBeastwood

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Why would they have Diversity for Attack? Who we use for Attack has no effect on the system.

Who we used on defense had no effect on the system until they changed the system. Hypothetically speaking, giving out points for diverse attackers makes the same sense as giving out points for diverse defenders. As you keep saying, its up to Kabam to make up the rules and we just have to obey them.

Actually, it did have an effect on the system. This is where we disagree. Placing multiple Defenders in combination with Defender Kills affected Wars. Who people use for Attack has no effect on the opponent, save for the Damage they do completing the Map.

If you're going to keep changing the definition of words, I'm going to just make them up also.

Saying who we used on defense affected wars, but who we use on offense has no effect on the opponent except for the fact we use them to kill the opponent is not disagreeing with me, it is rolling your face across the keyboard until autocorrect takes effect.

Let me put it another way. Multiple, similar Attackers has never been an issue. The issue was with repeat Defenders. People can use entirely the same Attackers throughout the entire game and it won't have an effect on the opponent because the opponent is not placed in a Map against the Attackers. Who an Ally uses for Attack has no effect on the War schematic because they're not placed. The problem was caused by a combination of Defender Kills and multiple Defenders. We don't place Attackers on the Map, so the only way it affects the system is the Nodes those Attackers clear, which is no more changed than the Damage they do, regardless of who the Attackers are. Is that more acute for you?

This entire statement is driven based off one concept - That duplicate specific defenders is the "issue" or "problem". These duplicate defenders who have clearly given you all types of problems in the past, never actually gave my alliance issues.

This can totally be spun the other way. Prior to 12.0 we placed just like everyone, typical defenders over and over again. But in the high tiers, it never actually mattered because every alliance we matched with would bring your standard attackers. By doing so, and combining with a bit of skill, our "unfair" defense would get rolled by duplicate offensive teams each week. By playing devils advocate I can totally pitch that OP has a point here, it really just matters where you see this.

TheOneAndOnly

@ClintBeastwood is correct. Under the old system in higher tiers the tiebreaker was defender kills and usually it was who could drop the boss in the least attempts.

Evdaddy

i would just quit