I think a good change will be to get rid of defender placement all together. Kabam can make a way to generate the nodes and champs for each map and 2 alliances compete against each other while fighting the same map. Hide all champs and classes on nodes. Maybe even hide the node abilities until you are at that node. It wouldn’t really be a war so it could be introduced as a new gameplay mode but yubwould he able to get more “wars” in this way since there won’t be a defender placement period
That basically turns AW into AQ. The point of AW is to fight against a human generated map rather than a computer generated one. That's part of what makes it a head to head competition rather than an indirect competition where all of the alliances compete indirectly via scoreboard (AQ) against the computer. As you say, this wouldn't be alliance war anymore.
As long as we are speculating about entirely new gameplay modes, one idea I've been toying with at least on a conceptual level is to remove the distinction between defenders and attackers. Suppose that there was no disinction: champions are used as both attackers *and* defenders. What then? What sort of gameplay could do that.
Here's one rudimentary idea. King of the hill. Alliance A places ten champions on the map, one per player in the battle group. Alliance B then has each player enter and take down one of those nodes. Every time there's a fight, both sides get points depending on the result. If the defender survives the attacking player can attack again, but must use a different attacker (there's a cooldown). If the attacker wins, the attacking champion replaces the defender. Then Alliance A has a chance to defeat the new champion. Back and forth the nodes get exchanged as one side "captures" the node then the other side recaptures. Most points wins. The idea is that you can use a really strong attacker to take control of the node, but if that really strong attacker is not a great defender the other side will just immediately recapture easily. So the more skill you have, the more you can use champions that are weaker attackers but stronger defenders to not just capture the node but make it hard to recapture.
It is just a sketch of an idea, there would have to be all sorts of rules wrapped around exactly how the gameplay would work, how "turns" would work, etc. But it is a way to potentially bring way more champions into the mix. Some champions would still be duds both ways. But many champions you wouldn't place as a defender you might use as an attacker anyway, and many champions you ordinarily wouldn't use as an attacker you would try to use so they could become the next defender. There are potentially more diverse options for gameplay.
I can't agree with this one, simply because the reasons for Diversity in Defense were much different than this. Who people use for Attack should have no bearing on the opposition. I think this is just a response to one particularly efficient Attack Champ. We place Defense on a Map against the other Ally. We don't place Attackers, they're elective.
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.
Actually it does. This suggestion limits who people use for Attack based on Points. The idea comes from the fact that Blade is efficient for Attack. I can't support changing the system just because people are using an efficient Champ for Attack. Diversity was the result of Allies coming up against the same Defense. You don't come up against who people use for Attack. You place your Defense and hope to stop up the opponent. We can't change the system everytime we have a Defense Strategy that is losing effectiveness.
I can't agree with this one, simply because the reasons for Diversity in Defense were much different than this. Who people use for Attack should have no bearing on the opposition. I think this is just a response to one particularly efficient Attack Champ. We place Defense on a Map against the other Ally. We don't place Attackers, they're elective.
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.
Actually it does. This suggestion limits who people use for Attack based on Points. The idea comes from the fact that Blade is efficient for Attack. I can't support changing the system just because people are using an efficient Champ for Attack. Diversity was the result of Allies coming up against the same Defense. You don't come up against who people use for Attack. You place your Defense and hope to stop up the opponent. We can't change the system everytime we have a Defense Strategy that is losing effectiveness.
It doesn't limit anything. It gives you the option of trying to score more points at a potential cost of scoring less by losing attacker bonus.
I can't agree with this one, simply because the reasons for Diversity in Defense were much different than this. Who people use for Attack should have no bearing on the opposition. I think this is just a response to one particularly efficient Attack Champ. We place Defense on a Map against the other Ally. We don't place Attackers, they're elective.
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.
Actually it does. This suggestion limits who people use for Attack based on Points. The idea comes from the fact that Blade is efficient for Attack. I can't support changing the system just because people are using an efficient Champ for Attack. Diversity was the result of Allies coming up against the same Defense. You don't come up against who people use for Attack. You place your Defense and hope to stop up the opponent. We can't change the system everytime we have a Defense Strategy that is losing effectiveness.
It doesn't limit anything. It gives you the option of trying to score more points at a potential cost of scoring less by losing attacker bonus.
Scoring less is a limit. The TL:DR of this is: "Everyone has Blade and our Defense isn't stopping people like it used to. Penalize people for using Blade so much.".
To be fair, I'm actually for DNA's idea, which would add a spectrum. However, I'm about done with iterating the War schematic. We have one that works. People need to live with the fact that the Mystic Barrier is no longer the be-all-end-all, and it wasn't going to last forever. I'm sure there will be a Blade counter eventually. That's my position. Who people use for Attack should never be altered.
I think this would be a really interesting change. It would force people to develop skills with "underpowered" champs and require a bit of planning on the part of a battle group. I think you could base the diversity points around the average number of fights an attacker faces (4-5) vs. what a defender faces (1-2); so, it seems like attacker diversity should be 2-5 times as much as defender diversity. The only problem I see is the BS kinds of unavoidable damage (coldsnap, limbo, degen) that certain attackers are "required" to overcome. I think that kind of unavoidable damage would have to be eliminated to make this a fair, viable option.
I agree to this idea. Another way could be that this is player specific.
So for example, if I use Blade, spark and GR in one war, I lose point for bringing them next war. The system resets every week, so after 3 wars. This way I don’t need to dictate attackers to my team but have to just manage my own roster
If this was ever implemented, alliances would immediately go back to their mystic nonsense with some Medusa and Modok sprinkled in, sacrificing diversity. Attackers would immediately say screw this and use the same attackers they currently do, sacrificing diversity.
And in the end it’ll still come down to whoever dies less.
Nothing will change except kabam will make even more money off your potions and boosts than they already do since implementing the new war system.
Time to let it go. War is what it is. Adapt or leave.
One of my friends told me pass this message to the OP. Shut the .... up 😂 won’t say the actual word cause I hate the kabam jail! Also, I too do not have a blade lol
If this was ever implemented, alliances would immediately go back to their mystic nonsense with some Medusa and Modok sprinkled in, sacrificing diversity. Attackers would immediately say screw this and use the same attackers they currently do, sacrificing diversity.
And in the end it’ll still come down to whoever dies less.
Nothing will change except kabam will make even more money off your potions and boosts than they already do since implementing the new war system.
Time to let it go. War is what it is. Adapt or leave.
Pretty much agree with this. And now I know why dogs chase after their tails.
Interesting in theory but I don't want to have to rank champs for attacker diversity.
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..
@DorkLessons most people are out of gold. So no, rank materials are not ridiculously abundant right now except for maybe the few. But this exception would only prove the rule.
If this was ever implemented, alliances would immediately go back to their mystic nonsense with some Medusa and Modok sprinkled in, sacrificing diversity. Attackers would immediately say screw this and use the same attackers they currently do, sacrificing diversity.
And in the end it’ll still come down to whoever dies less.
Nothing will change except kabam will make even more money off your potions and boosts than they already do since implementing the new war system.
Time to let it go. War is what it is. Adapt or leave.
Adapt or Leave? Nah no thanks bro.. That kind of thinking would never have brought war to it's current state. It's constantly trying to re-invent the wheel and make things better.
Why would it bring back the same attackers? Why would people say screw this?
Doesn't the current system pit Strong Defense at the cost of diversity points vs High diversity at the cost of Defense?
How would this be any different? It's another layer of strategy.
Strong attack at the cost of Diversity points vs Diversity at the cost of Weaker attack..
The only excuse I'm hearing thus far as to why we shouldn't do this is that people spent a lot trying to get God Tier champs and this would be a slap in the face lol.. Which.. frankly.. isn't an argument at all.
One of my friends told me pass this message to the OP. Shut the .... up 😂 won’t say the actual word cause I hate the kabam jail! Also, I too do not have a blade lol
That's okay.. Typical tho.. but it's okay. Let the adults finish talking ;-)
Just make nodes that counter blade or his synergies.
The good guy node. Any champ placed here is classed as a hero and reverses healing
Power up node. All power gained on this node by the attacker is halved and the other half goes to the opponent
Reversal node. All debuffs and buffs placed by the attacker are reversed.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head
Doesn't the current system pit Strong Defense at the cost of diversity points vs High diversity at the cost of Defense?
How would this be any different? It's another layer of strategy.
That's a very simplified way of describing the current situation. The original 14.0 iteration of AW also could be described in this way. But it is also so good of a textbook example of game breaking system design that I'd actually literally use it in a textbook on game system design.
I don't think defender diversity points are a good model to base additional AW changes upon. Besides all of the other reasons I list for why attacker diversity would be a bad idea specifically, there's the general point that AW currently works in spite of defender diversity, not because of it. People don't care as much about defender placement as they do about who they choose to play, so defender diversity's problems could be spackled over (and frankly people were so overjoyed Kabam implemented attacker bonus that they were willing to ignore defender diversity problems and call it a day). You're not likely going to get that kind of pass with attacker diversity points.
@DorkLessons usually you have good ideas, like your recent Ui video, but I have to say I think this is a terrible idea. Everybody in my alliance also agreed.
Managing defender diversity is already extremely taxing on leaders, officers, players as there is nothing in the game to help with this. Having to resort to external tools such as spreadsheets, etc makes for an awful User Experience. So adding another layer of this? No thanks.
If we are talking about skill, then defender diversity should be removed from the game entirely. All Dorm, Magik, NC in your path? Show us your true skill.
If this was ever implemented, alliances would immediately go back to their mystic nonsense with some Medusa and Modok sprinkled in, sacrificing diversity. Attackers would immediately say screw this and use the same attackers they currently do, sacrificing diversity.
And in the end it’ll still come down to whoever dies less.
Nothing will change except kabam will make even more money off your potions and boosts than they already do since implementing the new war system.
Time to let it go. War is what it is. Adapt or leave.
Adapt or Leave? Nah no thanks bro.. That kind of thinking would never have brought war to it's current state. It's constantly trying to re-invent the wheel and make things better.
Why would it bring back the same attackers? Why would people say screw this?
Doesn't the current system pit Strong Defense at the cost of diversity points vs High diversity at the cost of Defense?
How would this be any different? It's another layer of strategy.
Strong attack at the cost of Diversity points vs Diversity at the cost of Weaker attack..
The only excuse I'm hearing thus far as to why we shouldn't do this is that people spent a lot trying to get God Tier champs and this would be a slap in the face lol.. Which.. frankly.. isn't an argument at all.
The defense that everyone is longing to return to (after years of complaining about it) is best countered by the attackers that everyone is now complaining about.
So low defender diversity in hopes of stopping the opposing attackers, all of whom will still be used to mow them down. Essentially cancelling each other out. No alliance is going to say hey let’s attack that MD5, immune modok Medusa minefield with Ironman and Iron fist so we can win on the attacker diversity points, because if they do, they’re going to lose on attack bonus. It’s gonna be Blade, spark, ghulk, AA, magik, GR, Voodoo, Iceman on every team.
Resulting in low diversity on both offense and defense for both sides... and attack bonus will still decide the winner, only it will cost more for everyone.
Doesn't the current system pit Strong Defense at the cost of diversity points vs High diversity at the cost of Defense?
How would this be any different? It's another layer of strategy.
That's a very simplified way of describing the current situation. The original 14.0 iteration of AW also could be described in this way. But it is also so good of a textbook example of game breaking system design that I'd actually literally use it in a textbook on game system design.
I don't think defender diversity points are a good model to base additional AW changes upon. Besides all of the other reasons I list for why attacker diversity would be a bad idea specifically, there's the general point that AW currently works in spite of defender diversity, not because of it. People don't care as much about defender placement as they do about who they choose to play, so defender diversity's problems could be spackled over (and frankly people were so overjoyed Kabam implemented attacker bonus that they were willing to ignore defender diversity problems and call it a day). You're not likely going to get that kind of pass with attacker diversity points.
Fair point.. But do you think that Attacker Diversity would really make that much of an impact at higher levels of gameplay? Would people really risk a loss to diversify Attack? It could play as a trump card dynamic. Interested to hear more of your thoughts on it.
I think this would be a really interesting change. It would force people to develop skills with "underpowered" champs and require a bit of planning on the part of a battle group. I think you could base the diversity points around the average number of fights an attacker faces (4-5) vs. what a defender faces (1-2); so, it seems like attacker diversity should be 2-5 times as much as defender diversity. The only problem I see is the BS kinds of unavoidable damage (coldsnap, limbo, degen) that certain attackers are "required" to overcome. I think that kind of unavoidable damage would have to be eliminated to make this a fair, viable option.
How people play with champs should not actually be of your concern
If you want to learn to use other champs no one is stopping you
You can take sg or ip to aw attack and that's still up to you and no one else
This idea just seeks to penalize people for using blade and to bring back mystic wars.
Rather those that support this idea are losing wars because of people using blade and you're getting pained. I don't have a blade but I also don't want any thing that forces me to change my preferred attackers. Ask kabam for counters to blade and not this.
Nice dude.. that was a long time ago too. Probably making a separate post with that title might have gotten more traction. Glad I'm not the only one to think of it.
Why do you guys that don’t like this idea think it forces you to use blade? That’s like saying you are forced to place diversity. You would have the option to risk a higher percentage of dying with a worse champ for a few more points. It would be a counter to blade. It’s not a champ but it could be a counter. Most alliances lose and win 50% of their wars. My alliance plays alliances that have more blades then us and less blades than us. The amount of blades doesn’t determine who wins like defender rating did. You still have to have enough skill to not die but that’s made a lot easier by having a blade. Exactly why this isn’t a terrible idea like you think. People in my alliance that have blade think he’s too powerful with the trinity synergies.
Doesn't the current system pit Strong Defense at the cost of diversity points vs High diversity at the cost of Defense?
How would this be any different? It's another layer of strategy.
That's a very simplified way of describing the current situation. The original 14.0 iteration of AW also could be described in this way. But it is also so good of a textbook example of game breaking system design that I'd actually literally use it in a textbook on game system design.
I don't think defender diversity points are a good model to base additional AW changes upon. Besides all of the other reasons I list for why attacker diversity would be a bad idea specifically, there's the general point that AW currently works in spite of defender diversity, not because of it. People don't care as much about defender placement as they do about who they choose to play, so defender diversity's problems could be spackled over (and frankly people were so overjoyed Kabam implemented attacker bonus that they were willing to ignore defender diversity problems and call it a day). You're not likely going to get that kind of pass with attacker diversity points.
Fair point.. But do you think that Attacker Diversity would really make that much of an impact at higher levels of gameplay? Would people really risk a loss to diversify Attack? It could play as a trump card dynamic. Interested to hear more of your thoughts on it.
There's a lot to say, but I'm worried I'll fill the thread with a wall of text. I'll note briefly that in many ways defender diversity points were and are a failure. They started off too high and a lot of people hated them. They currently are low enough to be mostly ignorable: people do place diverse but they focus on winning (or losing) with attacker bonus points. That psychological focus makes defender diversity points more palatable in my opinion, but I still think the majority opinion is few people are happy to win or lose on diversity. And I will say that when defender diversity points actually mattered a lot, they did dramatically alter how high tier alliances fought wars. If attacker diversity points do anything at all, they will make an impact. But not necessarily a favorable one, cf: Defender diversity points.
But a big question is whether attacker diversity points would make AW any more enjoyable. It adds a potentially new element to game play. But it comes with a lot of costs. For example, it doesn't get rid of all the Blades necessarily. The optimal strategy seems to be to allocate who goes in with the trinity team, who brings just blade for the mystics, and everyone else goes diverse. That requires more spreadsheet wars just like those required to track defender diversity. But it adds to it the new element of many players will not be playing the attackers they want. It is bad enough to bench a champion you think will be a strong defender. To be compelled to bench the attacker you want to play is going to make war less fun for a lot of players. And every time you die, you'll blame your alliance officers and Kabam and probably you, in roughly that order.
I don't think the improvements you are likely to get are worth that kind of friction, especially because what I think you are trying to do should be better addressed by better balancing attack and defense in war. I don't think most people *really* care about attacker diversity. You get some benefit from alliance placing diverse defenders, because you have to kill those. Some variety can be fun. But there's no fun to be had if your opponent uses diverse attackers. It is really that using the same attackers is an indication they have a huge advantage over most defenders, making strong intelligent defense placement less interesting. I think what most people really want is a way to counter any attack team with the right defense team, or have a way to change the attacker meta by having more options for throwing more different challenges at the attackers. I would prefer to attack the heart of the problem by creating those options.
1) team Abc goes full attack diversity but because the points aren’t weighted correctly and team Cba does 10 Holy Trinity wins
2) team Abc goes full attack diversity and wins from that and the holy trinity alliance cries about it because now “attack diversity wins wars” and they can’t play and with other champions.
3) full diversity lets the other team win because sub par champs are being used on attack feeding defender kills/attacker bonus.
4) the worst player logs in first attacks with trinity and forces the best player to use SG/IP/Antman
There would have to be some deep and I mean DEEP beta testing with this. That includes every content creator and each of their alliances, along with 30 other alliances in each bracket, and not just top alliances.
This could potentially kill the game. Do we lose because we went full attack diversity and gave them too many kills? Do we go full trinity and loose because another alliance went half and half?
Telling someone that they can’t play with who they are most comfortable with for the sake of a few points, that could potentially win the war, is micro management to me. And that’s just what this is. If attack bonus is the swing that wins that means everyone will do it. It the point accumulation is too minimal then why even bother?
If anything this should be how MVP is weighted. And make MVP more worthwhile.
Nice dude.. that was a long time ago too. Probably making a separate post with that title might have gotten more traction. Glad I'm not the only one to think of it.
Dave, if diversity is so fun, how come it is such an awful User Experience to organize and optimize with a group of 30 people?
Think of how much thought you put into organizing your own roster, now times that by 30, are we having fun yet?
My alliance uses a spreadsheet and one of the more spreadsheet savvy guys made a formula that calculates the diversity, definitely helps, but where is anything to help us with this in the game itself?
With rosters continuously changing because of rank ups, it can be a very tedious task to optimize and it is an even worse experience when you outplay the other team by over 2:1 in defender kills and still lose to diversity.
I am not sure how your alliance does it, maybe you have a simple solution, but frankly if this is to be a factor at all, it should be built into the game. Same as you proposed for just simply displaying the prestige in the game rather than using an external tool.
If you really think diversity is a fun concept, then as you have demonstrated you are well capable of doing, I challenge you to design a streamlined Ui adding onto the existing game that helps Alliances with optimizing tough defenders and diversity.
Comments
That basically turns AW into AQ. The point of AW is to fight against a human generated map rather than a computer generated one. That's part of what makes it a head to head competition rather than an indirect competition where all of the alliances compete indirectly via scoreboard (AQ) against the computer. As you say, this wouldn't be alliance war anymore.
As long as we are speculating about entirely new gameplay modes, one idea I've been toying with at least on a conceptual level is to remove the distinction between defenders and attackers. Suppose that there was no disinction: champions are used as both attackers *and* defenders. What then? What sort of gameplay could do that.
Here's one rudimentary idea. King of the hill. Alliance A places ten champions on the map, one per player in the battle group. Alliance B then has each player enter and take down one of those nodes. Every time there's a fight, both sides get points depending on the result. If the defender survives the attacking player can attack again, but must use a different attacker (there's a cooldown). If the attacker wins, the attacking champion replaces the defender. Then Alliance A has a chance to defeat the new champion. Back and forth the nodes get exchanged as one side "captures" the node then the other side recaptures. Most points wins. The idea is that you can use a really strong attacker to take control of the node, but if that really strong attacker is not a great defender the other side will just immediately recapture easily. So the more skill you have, the more you can use champions that are weaker attackers but stronger defenders to not just capture the node but make it hard to recapture.
It is just a sketch of an idea, there would have to be all sorts of rules wrapped around exactly how the gameplay would work, how "turns" would work, etc. But it is a way to potentially bring way more champions into the mix. Some champions would still be duds both ways. But many champions you wouldn't place as a defender you might use as an attacker anyway, and many champions you ordinarily wouldn't use as an attacker you would try to use so they could become the next defender. There are potentially more diverse options for gameplay.
Actually it does. This suggestion limits who people use for Attack based on Points. The idea comes from the fact that Blade is efficient for Attack. I can't support changing the system just because people are using an efficient Champ for Attack. Diversity was the result of Allies coming up against the same Defense. You don't come up against who people use for Attack. You place your Defense and hope to stop up the opponent. We can't change the system everytime we have a Defense Strategy that is losing effectiveness.
It doesn't limit anything. It gives you the option of trying to score more points at a potential cost of scoring less by losing attacker bonus.
Scoring less is a limit. The TL:DR of this is: "Everyone has Blade and our Defense isn't stopping people like it used to. Penalize people for using Blade so much.".
To be fair, I'm actually for DNA's idea, which would add a spectrum. However, I'm about done with iterating the War schematic. We have one that works. People need to live with the fact that the Mystic Barrier is no longer the be-all-end-all, and it wasn't going to last forever. I'm sure there will be a Blade counter eventually. That's my position. Who people use for Attack should never be altered.
So for example, if I use Blade, spark and GR in one war, I lose point for bringing them next war. The system resets every week, so after 3 wars. This way I don’t need to dictate attackers to my team but have to just manage my own roster
And in the end it’ll still come down to whoever dies less.
Nothing will change except kabam will make even more money off your potions and boosts than they already do since implementing the new war system.
Time to let it go. War is what it is. Adapt or leave.
Pretty much agree with this. And now I know why dogs chase after their tails.
@DorkLessons most people are out of gold. So no, rank materials are not ridiculously abundant right now except for maybe the few. But this exception would only prove the rule.
Adapt or Leave? Nah no thanks bro.. That kind of thinking would never have brought war to it's current state. It's constantly trying to re-invent the wheel and make things better.
Why would it bring back the same attackers? Why would people say screw this?
Doesn't the current system pit Strong Defense at the cost of diversity points vs High diversity at the cost of Defense?
How would this be any different? It's another layer of strategy.
Strong attack at the cost of Diversity points vs Diversity at the cost of Weaker attack..
The only excuse I'm hearing thus far as to why we shouldn't do this is that people spent a lot trying to get God Tier champs and this would be a slap in the face lol.. Which.. frankly.. isn't an argument at all.
That's okay.. Typical tho.. but it's okay. Let the adults finish talking ;-)
The good guy node. Any champ placed here is classed as a hero and reverses healing
Power up node. All power gained on this node by the attacker is halved and the other half goes to the opponent
Reversal node. All debuffs and buffs placed by the attacker are reversed.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head
That's a very simplified way of describing the current situation. The original 14.0 iteration of AW also could be described in this way. But it is also so good of a textbook example of game breaking system design that I'd actually literally use it in a textbook on game system design.
I don't think defender diversity points are a good model to base additional AW changes upon. Besides all of the other reasons I list for why attacker diversity would be a bad idea specifically, there's the general point that AW currently works in spite of defender diversity, not because of it. People don't care as much about defender placement as they do about who they choose to play, so defender diversity's problems could be spackled over (and frankly people were so overjoyed Kabam implemented attacker bonus that they were willing to ignore defender diversity problems and call it a day). You're not likely going to get that kind of pass with attacker diversity points.
Managing defender diversity is already extremely taxing on leaders, officers, players as there is nothing in the game to help with this. Having to resort to external tools such as spreadsheets, etc makes for an awful User Experience. So adding another layer of this? No thanks.
If we are talking about skill, then defender diversity should be removed from the game entirely. All Dorm, Magik, NC in your path? Show us your true skill.
The defense that everyone is longing to return to (after years of complaining about it) is best countered by the attackers that everyone is now complaining about.
So low defender diversity in hopes of stopping the opposing attackers, all of whom will still be used to mow them down. Essentially cancelling each other out. No alliance is going to say hey let’s attack that MD5, immune modok Medusa minefield with Ironman and Iron fist so we can win on the attacker diversity points, because if they do, they’re going to lose on attack bonus. It’s gonna be Blade, spark, ghulk, AA, magik, GR, Voodoo, Iceman on every team.
Resulting in low diversity on both offense and defense for both sides... and attack bonus will still decide the winner, only it will cost more for everyone.
Fair point.. But do you think that Attacker Diversity would really make that much of an impact at higher levels of gameplay? Would people really risk a loss to diversify Attack? It could play as a trump card dynamic. Interested to hear more of your thoughts on it.
How people play with champs should not actually be of your concern
If you want to learn to use other champs no one is stopping you
You can take sg or ip to aw attack and that's still up to you and no one else
This idea just seeks to penalize people for using blade and to bring back mystic wars.
Rather those that support this idea are losing wars because of people using blade and you're getting pained. I don't have a blade but I also don't want any thing that forces me to change my preferred attackers. Ask kabam for counters to blade and not this.
Nice dude.. that was a long time ago too. Probably making a separate post with that title might have gotten more traction. Glad I'm not the only one to think of it.
There's a lot to say, but I'm worried I'll fill the thread with a wall of text. I'll note briefly that in many ways defender diversity points were and are a failure. They started off too high and a lot of people hated them. They currently are low enough to be mostly ignorable: people do place diverse but they focus on winning (or losing) with attacker bonus points. That psychological focus makes defender diversity points more palatable in my opinion, but I still think the majority opinion is few people are happy to win or lose on diversity. And I will say that when defender diversity points actually mattered a lot, they did dramatically alter how high tier alliances fought wars. If attacker diversity points do anything at all, they will make an impact. But not necessarily a favorable one, cf: Defender diversity points.
But a big question is whether attacker diversity points would make AW any more enjoyable. It adds a potentially new element to game play. But it comes with a lot of costs. For example, it doesn't get rid of all the Blades necessarily. The optimal strategy seems to be to allocate who goes in with the trinity team, who brings just blade for the mystics, and everyone else goes diverse. That requires more spreadsheet wars just like those required to track defender diversity. But it adds to it the new element of many players will not be playing the attackers they want. It is bad enough to bench a champion you think will be a strong defender. To be compelled to bench the attacker you want to play is going to make war less fun for a lot of players. And every time you die, you'll blame your alliance officers and Kabam and probably you, in roughly that order.
I don't think the improvements you are likely to get are worth that kind of friction, especially because what I think you are trying to do should be better addressed by better balancing attack and defense in war. I don't think most people *really* care about attacker diversity. You get some benefit from alliance placing diverse defenders, because you have to kill those. Some variety can be fun. But there's no fun to be had if your opponent uses diverse attackers. It is really that using the same attackers is an indication they have a huge advantage over most defenders, making strong intelligent defense placement less interesting. I think what most people really want is a way to counter any attack team with the right defense team, or have a way to change the attacker meta by having more options for throwing more different challenges at the attackers. I would prefer to attack the heart of the problem by creating those options.
1) team Abc goes full attack diversity but because the points aren’t weighted correctly and team Cba does 10 Holy Trinity wins
2) team Abc goes full attack diversity and wins from that and the holy trinity alliance cries about it because now “attack diversity wins wars” and they can’t play and with other champions.
3) full diversity lets the other team win because sub par champs are being used on attack feeding defender kills/attacker bonus.
4) the worst player logs in first attacks with trinity and forces the best player to use SG/IP/Antman
There would have to be some deep and I mean DEEP beta testing with this. That includes every content creator and each of their alliances, along with 30 other alliances in each bracket, and not just top alliances.
This could potentially kill the game. Do we lose because we went full attack diversity and gave them too many kills? Do we go full trinity and loose because another alliance went half and half?
Telling someone that they can’t play with who they are most comfortable with for the sake of a few points, that could potentially win the war, is micro management to me. And that’s just what this is. If attack bonus is the swing that wins that means everyone will do it. It the point accumulation is too minimal then why even bother?
If anything this should be how MVP is weighted. And make MVP more worthwhile.
Dave, if diversity is so fun, how come it is such an awful User Experience to organize and optimize with a group of 30 people?
Think of how much thought you put into organizing your own roster, now times that by 30, are we having fun yet?
My alliance uses a spreadsheet and one of the more spreadsheet savvy guys made a formula that calculates the diversity, definitely helps, but where is anything to help us with this in the game itself?
With rosters continuously changing because of rank ups, it can be a very tedious task to optimize and it is an even worse experience when you outplay the other team by over 2:1 in defender kills and still lose to diversity.
I am not sure how your alliance does it, maybe you have a simple solution, but frankly if this is to be a factor at all, it should be built into the game. Same as you proposed for just simply displaying the prestige in the game rather than using an external tool.
If you really think diversity is a fun concept, then as you have demonstrated you are well capable of doing, I challenge you to design a streamlined Ui adding onto the existing game that helps Alliances with optimizing tough defenders and diversity.