**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Attacker Diversity for Alliance War?
DorkLessons
Posts: 88 Content Creator
This came to me during my stream yesterday as we were discussing Alliance War, and how there are all of a sudden a TON of Blades out there.
Of course Blade was made to counter a lot of the Mystic unavoidable damage type champs, but he's got a lot more utility than that for other champions as well.
Defender Diversity was brought about to counter placing Magik, NC, and Ultrons all over the place in every war.. and I think it's been pretty good in that regard. Those few points can really push you to the victory for having a diverse squad and use of proper strategy!
I would love to entertain the idea of Attacker Diversity. Something that offers a fair amount of points for Summoners willing to step out and use a Spider Gwen on their attack squad.. or an Iron Patriot, Carnage, Karnak, Miles Morales, King Groot etc. Champions we don't and won't normally use because they aren't "God Tier".
Now the beauty of it is.. You don't HAVE to use them.. Just like you don't have to place Defender Diversity.. you can load up your attack squad with the Trinity till you meet Neo on the other end.. But again for those willing to use other champs, or champs that diversify the BG's attack model, they are rewarded accordingly and could win through upset. :-)
Also I think this would be the Ultimate show of skill as to the Alliance that can with with ANYONE! :-)
What do you think? Do you have a counter idea? Something to add?
Of course Blade was made to counter a lot of the Mystic unavoidable damage type champs, but he's got a lot more utility than that for other champions as well.
Defender Diversity was brought about to counter placing Magik, NC, and Ultrons all over the place in every war.. and I think it's been pretty good in that regard. Those few points can really push you to the victory for having a diverse squad and use of proper strategy!
I would love to entertain the idea of Attacker Diversity. Something that offers a fair amount of points for Summoners willing to step out and use a Spider Gwen on their attack squad.. or an Iron Patriot, Carnage, Karnak, Miles Morales, King Groot etc. Champions we don't and won't normally use because they aren't "God Tier".
Now the beauty of it is.. You don't HAVE to use them.. Just like you don't have to place Defender Diversity.. you can load up your attack squad with the Trinity till you meet Neo on the other end.. But again for those willing to use other champs, or champs that diversify the BG's attack model, they are rewarded accordingly and could win through upset. :-)
Also I think this would be the Ultimate show of skill as to the Alliance that can with with ANYONE! :-)
What do you think? Do you have a counter idea? Something to add?
31
Comments
This would definitely make people get out of their comfort zones. I’ve been bringing AA into war for over a year straight now.
It's not a restriction, it's a bonus for your battlegroup. When we had the Thor solo event last week, nothing forced you to use the suggested finisher, but when you did, you got a little bonus.
I like the idea and I feel like it would also allow us to be more immersed in the game itself. Imagine 30 different champs running around on an AW map? I like it more than 10 Blades, 10 Starks and 10 Ghost Riders crushing the map.
It's not a restriction at all. Let's face it.. people paid big money for "easy" and that' exactly what they got. Doesn't mean you also paid for the right to win. Champ still does what you paid for. But now there's an alternate option to win. With that same mentality.. You can't ever come out with a counter to Blade.. like.. Sabertooth..
I think this is becoming less and less of an argument. Rank materials are ridiculously abundant right now. I rank champs for the sole purpose of not having my resources expire.. And yes.. I do save my crystals..
No one would force you to.. You can use exactly who you want. Just like some alliances place for Diversity.. and others place for Heavy Defense knowing they have a strong offense.. You don't HAVE to play diversity.. but if you do.. you might be able to edge out a win. This just adds a new layer to the game. Maybe you can win with staight up attacker point bonuses and a strong defense.. while the other team chose diversity and still lost. Attacker Diversity might mean you don't always get those Attacker bonus points.. so it might even out. But another level of strategy.
That's the question. I would think to award it slightly higher than defender diversity.. as it would reward true skill.
Doing Act 5 I learnt a lot about champions I had and wasn't using, so perhaps people will start using other champions not based on spreadsheets. I am ok with it if you do a series of tutorials for "know your champion" @DorkLessons
Like if you read the original post in Dave's voice.
I like that idea, but my concern then is that it has to somewhat balance out against attacker bonus too. Because obviously while Antman could work to beat a Mordo getting said enemy down on the first try is less likely.
We must be playing a different game lol. I let class cats expire all the time because it isn't worth the t1 alphas and t4 basics to rank just to use the cats.
When defender diversity was first introduced it was a nightmare. The game gave too much points to simply placing a defender that was otherwise worthless and no points at all for defeating that defender with any skill. Those changes to the war meta were bad enough, but there was another very important side effect. Because diversity was an important strategic element to the game, it became more important to coordinate defender placement. It was no longer just a matter of each player placing what they believed were their best defenders. They were now being encouraged, or sometimes straight up told, to place certain defenders. And that was very unpalatable to many players.
In my opinion, defender diversity is still problematic, but eventually Kabam iterated a version of war that made it tolerable and just enough inside the margins so that players could now feel like they collectively had some choice between full diversity and maximum defender strength, and different modes in between. Collectively they had control over the meta, but individually there is still at least some pressure on players to place certain defenders. It is just generally a much more manageable pressure.
Keeping in mind how hard it was to resolve these issues and recognizing that they weren't so much solved as dampened enough for players to generally care less about them, this whole thing becomes far more problematic when you apply it to attackers. After all, if you tell me to rank up and place Iron Patriot, that just costs me some rank up materials. And if I don't even rank him up, who really cares: its not like he's going to get any kills anyway. But when you tell me not to bring Blade and Stark Spiderman and Iceman and Magik and Star Lord and and and because you want more attacker diversity points, now you're messing with my attack team, the champions I *play* instead of the ones I just place somewhere and forget about. You are directly affecting my very gameplay.
Sure, the spirit of the idea is that it is just voluntary, but Alliance War 14.0 had "just voluntary" defender diversity as well. In practice, it will put the interests of the alliance at odds with the individual players' actual game play, which I don't think is a good idea. My enjoyment of the game is not dependent on who I place as a defender. But who I play as an attacker is everything.
Maybe this idea could have some merit on maps similar to the ones Kabam created after they weakened the nodes in 14.0 and before they buffed them again in 15.0. In that version of war, killing nodes was much easier, and there was thus more room to allow the players to introduce their own kind of difficulty for bonus points, since the baseline was low. But with the baseline now relatively high, putting players in a position where they can take attackers they don't want to use against hard content, or costing their alliance points, seems to be a bad idea to me.
Personally, I still think if we want more diverse defender placements and more diverse attack teams, we need to look at fundamentally changing how the war maps and mechanics work. The problem isn't with Blade or Mystic Dispersion or any of those other factors. The problem is that war is predictable, and that predictability naturally drives players to optimize. If war was less predictable, players couldn't optimize for the predictable, they would have to play to counter the unexpected. That would make the players allies in making AW more diverse. It would reward players doing the unexpected, and by definition the unexpected would keep changing over time.
Contrary to popular belief, Kabam lost money on mystic wars because alliances quit before starting, which is why they forced defender diversity on us in the first place. Now alliances explore everything even after they know they can’t win. And they buy boosts and potions on top of that.
It is what it is. Don’t die and place 150 until they make it harder.
I don't know that I like the idea as such but how does it have any bearing on the opposition? In this model if I use a Spider Gwen to take out a node I get more points than if I use the 5th Blade. The risk I take is dying and getting potentially fewer points. In neither case does this have any bearing on the opposition.
Which is why I keep suggesting changing the meta. But I think where both Kabam and the players err is that they think that changing the rules or the points in some fixed way will change the meta in a favorable way. It will change it, but it will do so by making some other team the new top dog.
There's always going to be a top dog, so long as you always fight more or less what you always expect to fight. There is one best team for the map. The map is a little different each time because players place different things, but not different enough. There are top dogs for defenders (often per node) so that gets placed the most often. There are top dogs for attackers given that defense placement, so those get used the most often. The two sides are locked together in a kind of equilibrium.
You can't easily directly change who people use to attack, because as I said that forces people to use something other than what they want to play. But you can change who people place on defense, because defense is non-interactive, without impacting them as much. The big problem is: how do you encourage players to place something different every time they fight a way? Answer: the map has to be different in some way. You're not going to change the actual paths in the map every war, but you can change the node buffs in theory.
I think that's the key to changing the meta, and I mentioned it in the alliance war thread. Give alliances some control over the kinds of node buffs are on the map. Let them shift them around, or let them add global buffs to the map or certain paths, something interesting that makes the map no longer predictable. And since the map can change, the best defenders can also theoretically change. And that means the attackers must be prepared with attack teams that can adjust to a map configuration they haven't seen and fought on before. Even a randomizer feature like MODOK's could be interesting: give both the attacker and the defender some element of randomized abilities.
I think there are lots of options here, but they all come down to this: give the defenders a way to upset the apple cart, then give attackers a way to counter that move, and then fight the war in a situation that the two sides have made substantially different than previous wars. Let me throw out a trivial example just to show what's possible (I'm not recommending it specifically, it is exaggerated to show potential). Suppose both alliances could apply a global node that would affect the opponent's champs on offense and defense and reduce power gain for all champs of one specific class to, say, one third normal. Do you choose mystic, and greatly reduce the problems of mystic dispersion? Or do you choose skill, and whack all those Blades you think the other side is going to use? That's the flavor of what I'm suggesting, if not the specifics (of course out of context that is too much of a sledgehammer).
Or... two alliances could compete while doing AQ