**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.
**KNOWN BUG - SPRING OF SORROW ANNIHILUS**
Currently, Annihilus has their Signature ability erroneously set to 1 - it should be 0.

The team will be fixing this issue ASAP.

Thank you for your patience.
Options

Disappointed with Diversity

HavanaknightHavanaknight Posts: 472 ★★★
in General Discussion
I’m disappointed by Kabam’s decision to keep diversity scoring at 270 per point. At this point, if an alliance doesn’t have perfect diversity, they are either a) not competitive, b) lost a team member or c) clerical error. Might as well force us to all use different champs and remove the scoring aspect.

I understand at the tier 1/2 wars there are only a handful of deaths so perfect diversity is essential. But in other tiers, there is the potential for additional strategy if diversity was worth, say 210 points. At that number, the alliance is down 30 points if it gets 2 kills from an extra defender but is ahead 30 points if that defender gets 3 kills. So do you play it safe or take the risky placement? Hopefully Kabam will consider this and implement for season 51.

Comments

  • Options
    Soumemiakas1926Soumemiakas1926 Posts: 327 ★★★
    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    Why creating serpent and bullseye in the first place then?
  • Options
    DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 21,431 ★★★★★
    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
  • Options
    Phantomfire500Phantomfire500 Posts: 232 ★★
    Demonzfyre said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
    Korg, Scorpion and Fantaman are all annoying defenders. None of them are so disproportionately "annoying" that it's competitively viable to forgo a diversity bonus to bring multiple to the point the game's been changed over it.

    If they didn't break the game then why has the game been changed to accommodate them?
  • Options
    FrydayFryday Posts: 801 ★★★★
    But if Kabam have to change the Diversity Point calculation to fix the problem.

    Then would it not be fair to say the these Defenders have broken the game (or at least a game mode, AW)

    Why fix something if it not broken? 🤣

    Don't get me wrong, the are still plenty of broken things in the game are are not fixed.
  • Options
    MordMord Posts: 120 ★★
    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    That's not what he said, he just said they're very strong defenders. They don't break any design, they're just really powerful defenders which the game absolutely needed desperately. Defenders like Korg and Domino were starting to become a bit outdated with all the attackers in the game, it was bound to happen.
    They did break the intended aw game mode design since the team needed to massively (and unprecedently) crank up diversity points to avoid maps full of them. Agree to disagree.
  • Options
    Matty_IceMatty_Ice Posts: 575 ★★★
    Havanaknight said:

    b) lost a team member

    This is my only issue with diversity scoring. If you have to replace an alliance member, the only time you can do it is during the day break. The game won’t let you add somebody mid week and have them place their defenders for next war. If they can fix that issue, would fix the pain point with diversity scoring difference.
  • Options
    Phantomfire500Phantomfire500 Posts: 232 ★★
    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
    Korg, Scorpion and Fantaman are all annoying defenders. None of them are so disproportionately "annoying" that it's competitively viable to forgo a diversity bonus to bring multiple to the point the game's been changed over it.

    If they didn't break the game then why has the game been changed to accommodate them?
    They are harder defenders than the ones you mentioned, but they're not game breaking.
    Diversity has always mattered a lot, I don't know where this idea that diversity didn't matter before but it does now therefore defenders are broken came from. Diversity has always mattered, it matters more now because we have way more hard defenders in the game but neither of them are broken.
    But that's the issue. They were so good that the diversity hit you took for taking dupes *didn't* matter, because they are so disproportionately overpowered.
  • Options
    Ayden_noah1Ayden_noah1 Posts: 1,393 ★★★★
    Not sure what's going on here, if you alliance doesn't want diversity point, doesn't mean the rest who does should suffer. What about if one BG can't defeat the final boss, you lose 20k points. Now that's a huge amount of points in my books. Is that fair if an alliance can't take down the final boss and loses the war? Why does an alliance that has 30 players who win 50% of the time can move up faster than an alliance that runs only 1 Big and win 100% of the time. Points scoring should be based on winning and losing. Not how many bigs are being used. Kabam is making the game for the vast majoirty of the player based so this is the best system according to all their tweaks from the beginning. Is it perfect for everyone, no, it will never be perfect for everyone. We all know that no matter what Kabam does, it will never get 100% agreement. So they have to make sure that the majority are happy with it to keep the game going.
  • Options
    ItsClobberinTimeItsClobberinTime Posts: 3,976 ★★★★★
    Phantomfire500 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
    Korg, Scorpion and Fantaman are all annoying defenders. None of them are so disproportionately "annoying" that it's competitively viable to forgo a diversity bonus to bring multiple to the point the game's been changed over it.

    If they didn't break the game then why has the game been changed to accommodate them?
    They are harder defenders than the ones you mentioned, but they're not game breaking.
    Diversity has always mattered a lot, I don't know where this idea that diversity didn't matter before but it does now therefore defenders are broken came from. Diversity has always mattered, it matters more now because we have way more hard defenders in the game but neither of them are broken.
    But that's the issue. They were so good that the diversity hit you took for taking dupes *didn't* matter, because they are so disproportionately overpowered.
    They're not "disproportionately overpowered", they just require a very high skill ceiling and a few mistakes will get you killed. I think your idea of broken is a little bit warped, they are not overpowered. They are very strong yes but they all have counters and there are ways to play around their mechanics, however due to them being the hardest people were spamming 10 of those non stop and it was making war extremely boring, it wasn't breaking the game design of war it was simply making it boring. Fighting the same defender ten times on the map is boring, nobody can deny that.
  • Options
    BringPopcornBringPopcorn Posts: 3,453 ★★★★★
    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
    Korg, Scorpion and Fantaman are all annoying defenders. None of them are so disproportionately "annoying" that it's competitively viable to forgo a diversity bonus to bring multiple to the point the game's been changed over it.

    If they didn't break the game then why has the game been changed to accommodate them?
    They are harder defenders than the ones you mentioned, but they're not game breaking.
    Diversity has always mattered a lot, I don't know where this idea that diversity didn't matter before but it does now therefore defenders are broken came from. Diversity has always mattered, it matters more now because we have way more hard defenders in the game but neither of them are broken.
    But that's the issue. They were so good that the diversity hit you took for taking dupes *didn't* matter, because they are so disproportionately overpowered.
    They're not "disproportionately overpowered", they just require a very high skill ceiling and a few mistakes will get you killed. I think your idea of broken is a little bit warped, they are not overpowered. They are very strong yes but they all have counters and there are ways to play around their mechanics, however due to them being the hardest people were spamming 10 of those non stop and it was making war extremely boring, it wasn't breaking the game design of war it was simply making it boring. Fighting the same defender ten times on the map is boring, nobody can deny that.
    Eh... I think it was more of the design of some of this unavoidable damage champs + the tactic that people were extremely unhappy with.
  • Options
    ItsClobberinTimeItsClobberinTime Posts: 3,976 ★★★★★
    BringPopcorn said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
    Korg, Scorpion and Fantaman are all annoying defenders. None of them are so disproportionately "annoying" that it's competitively viable to forgo a diversity bonus to bring multiple to the point the game's been changed over it.

    If they didn't break the game then why has the game been changed to accommodate them?
    They are harder defenders than the ones you mentioned, but they're not game breaking.
    Diversity has always mattered a lot, I don't know where this idea that diversity didn't matter before but it does now therefore defenders are broken came from. Diversity has always mattered, it matters more now because we have way more hard defenders in the game but neither of them are broken.
    But that's the issue. They were so good that the diversity hit you took for taking dupes *didn't* matter, because they are so disproportionately overpowered.
    They're not "disproportionately overpowered", they just require a very high skill ceiling and a few mistakes will get you killed. I think your idea of broken is a little bit warped, they are not overpowered. They are very strong yes but they all have counters and there are ways to play around their mechanics, however due to them being the hardest people were spamming 10 of those non stop and it was making war extremely boring, it wasn't breaking the game design of war it was simply making it boring. Fighting the same defender ten times on the map is boring, nobody can deny that.
    Eh... I think it was more of the design of some of this unavoidable damage champs + the tactic that people were extremely unhappy with.
    I did mention on a different thread that this last tactic was just stupid, hence I didn't bother with war myself but again not a defender issue. It was just the tactic making Bullseye stupidly overpowered because the tactic shut down most of the counters.
  • Options
    Phantomfire500Phantomfire500 Posts: 232 ★★
    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
    Korg, Scorpion and Fantaman are all annoying defenders. None of them are so disproportionately "annoying" that it's competitively viable to forgo a diversity bonus to bring multiple to the point the game's been changed over it.

    If they didn't break the game then why has the game been changed to accommodate them?
    They are harder defenders than the ones you mentioned, but they're not game breaking.
    Diversity has always mattered a lot, I don't know where this idea that diversity didn't matter before but it does now therefore defenders are broken came from. Diversity has always mattered, it matters more now because we have way more hard defenders in the game but neither of them are broken.
    But that's the issue. They were so good that the diversity hit you took for taking dupes *didn't* matter, because they are so disproportionately overpowered.
    They're not "disproportionately overpowered", they just require a very high skill ceiling and a few mistakes will get you killed. I think your idea of broken is a little bit warped, they are not overpowered. They are very strong yes but they all have counters and there are ways to play around their mechanics, however due to them being the hardest people were spamming 10 of those non stop and it was making war extremely boring, it wasn't breaking the game design of war it was simply making it boring. Fighting the same defender ten times on the map is boring, nobody can deny that.
    If they aren't disproportionately overpowered, and don't overperform so drastically compared to other defenders that they get enough kills to offset the diversity loss, then why run 10 of them?
  • Options
    BlueSmirnBlueSmirn Posts: 10 ★
    Non placement of a defender ( ie when a player is missing) should not count as dupe and not lose points.
    Makes sense since there is no dupe.
    This would appease both sides of the argument.
  • Options
    LokxLokx Posts: 622 ★★★
    AW Has gone woke 😔
  • Options
    ItsClobberinTimeItsClobberinTime Posts: 3,976 ★★★★★
    Phantomfire500 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
    Korg, Scorpion and Fantaman are all annoying defenders. None of them are so disproportionately "annoying" that it's competitively viable to forgo a diversity bonus to bring multiple to the point the game's been changed over it.

    If they didn't break the game then why has the game been changed to accommodate them?
    They are harder defenders than the ones you mentioned, but they're not game breaking.
    Diversity has always mattered a lot, I don't know where this idea that diversity didn't matter before but it does now therefore defenders are broken came from. Diversity has always mattered, it matters more now because we have way more hard defenders in the game but neither of them are broken.
    But that's the issue. They were so good that the diversity hit you took for taking dupes *didn't* matter, because they are so disproportionately overpowered.
    They're not "disproportionately overpowered", they just require a very high skill ceiling and a few mistakes will get you killed. I think your idea of broken is a little bit warped, they are not overpowered. They are very strong yes but they all have counters and there are ways to play around their mechanics, however due to them being the hardest people were spamming 10 of those non stop and it was making war extremely boring, it wasn't breaking the game design of war it was simply making it boring. Fighting the same defender ten times on the map is boring, nobody can deny that.
    If they aren't disproportionately overpowered, and don't overperform so drastically compared to other defenders that they get enough kills to offset the diversity loss, then why run 10 of them?
    Because the last war tactic was absolutely broken, but the defenders themselves weren't the issue.
  • Options
    winterthurwinterthur Posts: 7,966 ★★★★★
    Because the game design goal is both champ acquisition and ranking them up.

  • Options
    Rayven5220Rayven5220 Posts: 1,934 ★★★★★
    Phantomfire500 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    ItsClobberinTime said:

    Phantomfire500 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Mord said:

    Pikolu said:

    The main reason for diversity is to stop people from placing 10 serpents and bullseyes in each battlegroup.

    So you are saying, they are game breaking?
    Like, by definition, since they broke the intended aw design and its point system needed to be greatly modified, causing lots of other issues...
    Game breaking? No. Just annoying defenders.
    Korg, Scorpion and Fantaman are all annoying defenders. None of them are so disproportionately "annoying" that it's competitively viable to forgo a diversity bonus to bring multiple to the point the game's been changed over it.

    If they didn't break the game then why has the game been changed to accommodate them?
    They are harder defenders than the ones you mentioned, but they're not game breaking.
    Diversity has always mattered a lot, I don't know where this idea that diversity didn't matter before but it does now therefore defenders are broken came from. Diversity has always mattered, it matters more now because we have way more hard defenders in the game but neither of them are broken.
    But that's the issue. They were so good that the diversity hit you took for taking dupes *didn't* matter, because they are so disproportionately overpowered.
    They're not "disproportionately overpowered", they just require a very high skill ceiling and a few mistakes will get you killed. I think your idea of broken is a little bit warped, they are not overpowered. They are very strong yes but they all have counters and there are ways to play around their mechanics, however due to them being the hardest people were spamming 10 of those non stop and it was making war extremely boring, it wasn't breaking the game design of war it was simply making it boring. Fighting the same defender ten times on the map is boring, nobody can deny that.
    If they aren't disproportionately overpowered, and don't overperform so drastically compared to other defenders that they get enough kills to offset the diversity loss, then why run 10 of them?
    Because bullseye, serpent, zemo are better defenders than drax, groot and cap Sam Wilson.

    The tactic made them much better than they actually are.

    Go into practice mode against them, you'll get what I mean.
  • Options
    spidyjedi84spidyjedi84 Posts: 281 ★★
    ahmynuts said:

    Happy this post isn't about what I thought it was about based on the title

    Give it another day or two...
  • Options
    ShrodinbergShrodinberg Posts: 14 ★
    At this point, just don't allow the possibility tu put twice the same defender on the Map,
    It would be easier for everyone
  • Options
    Abspain101Abspain101 Posts: 144 ★
    Ayden_noah1 said:

    Not sure what's going on here, if you alliance doesn't want diversity point, doesn't mean the rest who does should suffer. What about if one BG can't defeat the final boss, you lose 20k points. Now that's a huge amount of points in my books. Is that fair if an alliance can't take down the final boss and loses the war? Why does an alliance that has 30 players who win 50% of the time can move up faster than an alliance that runs only 1 Big and win 100% of the time. Points scoring should be based on winning and losing. Not how many bigs are being used. Kabam is making the game for the vast majoirty of the player based so this is the best system according to all their tweaks from the beginning. Is it perfect for everyone, no, it will never be perfect for everyone. We all know that no matter what Kabam does, it will never get 100% agreement. So they have to make sure that the majority are happy with it to keep the game going.

    Wait so you are saying you feel an alliance who only runs 1 bg of war and wins every war should be higher than an alliance who runs 3 bgs of war and only wins 50% of the time first of all aw is not really intended for only 1 bg to run war it is intended for all 3 bgs to run war which is why the 3bg alliance is going to score more points war has just got to the point where not as many ppl want to play it so you have alliances that have to sacrifice with less run bgs than intended
Sign In or Register to comment.