**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
I
A little touchy Dave?
You decided that my assumption was foolish, this shows me your true colors but I will stay out of this stuff for the love of respect.
It was my assumption and it is motivaded by my own reasons, one of them is this whole attacker diversity posted on the official forum, I consider you a clever guy and I know that you know perfectly that this attack diversity thing is terrible at the moment.
You did educate me?? Don't think so my man.
Oh I'm on that attack path.. I have huge problems with Dex + MD.. don't worry.. video for that is on the way! :-)
I honestly think it would encourage Kabam to rethink and update more of the older characters faster. I mean Carnage is one of my favorite characters. I would like a reason to r5 mine. Same with characters like Joe Fix It and Kamala Khan. Both who are very cool looking characters. Would love to r5 them if there was a reason too. They're just a waste of space in the game.
True colors?! dude.. just stop.. and think about what you say when you say it..
And absolutely touchy indeed.. When your channel focuses on helping people through this game efficiently, and constantly being accused of working for Kabam in return.. yeah.. it gets old.. even I have a limit. And yes.. The assumption is foolish and based on absolutely nothing concrete.. What would you call that? Educated? Informed? Well rounded?
Anyway.. Nothing wrong with the suggesting an idea.. No one said it should be implemented immediately. It was to discuss pros and cons and how it could possibly work or not work.. The discussion came up because people mentioned a lot of blades were in war.. Many people flock to a single solution rather than think outside the box.. But if there were an incentive to think outside the box.. then it could be a viable mechanic. And who knows.. maybe they implement in a test environment and decide.. nah.. this is a no go..
As for things that matter.. how is my employment status at all part of the equation? Because I posted in a forum?? Seriously.. I'm done..
Actually I've been through this whole thread and looks to be about 50/50. Are you even aware of how many Blades were given out? 100% of the top 100 summoners have a Blade. Most in their profiles or as their top champs. Just saying.
You can “just say” something all you want, doesn’t mean it’ll make sense. People have and use blades bc he’s awesome and they like using him. If you don’t like using the same champ as everyone else or want to “think outside the box” then feel free to do so
People shouldn’t have to worry about losing a war bc they used the champ they want to use in it. You shouldn’t have to fight with a champ you don’t want to fight with bc it could end up costing your team mates the war. No matter how you look at it it’s not a good idea. Way too many cons than pros
I like it too.. That's actually pretty interesting.
Alternativly the AW map could have restricted paths like in act 4,where you would need a cosmic Champ for example or a villain champ to be able to take certain path. I guess something like that would work as well. (Even now you have something like Poison nodes that require certain Champs).
Would be interessting to see how it would change strategies.
For me, it's about the focus of Attack. Who we use for Attack has never been a significant issue. In fact, it needs to be completely free to elect because that's the strategy with it. Part of it is that we need the skill, but we also need the correct Champs in some cases, and because Diversity is also elective, we still have people using multiples. I'm actually of the same school of thought as DNA because it would create a similar issue, and with the current iteration placing focus on Attack, that would be a conflict. Limiting Attack needs to rest with Defense rather than scoring based on who we use for Attack. I understand that people could still use who they want, but it creates a situation where people will have to sacrifice Points to do so, and that's not a reasonable thing to do for Attack IMO. It's an idea though. Just not one I can support.
Never stopped me from coming up with ideas.. some work.. some don't.. simple.
All good. Thanks for chiming in. I just like the idea of using different champs.. There's so much good stuff in a lot of the champs that most don't even know exist. Hopefully no one would be forced to rank against their will.. That's not the point of it.. and if it does come to that.. it's not a great user experience.
Don’t let the hater trolls get to you, this is a good idea and should be explored in the way @DNA3000 responded.
I have friends in Alliances who tanked a war or two because the opponent had BGs filled with the Trinity and they didn’t. Some Alliances made decisions to not spend resources because of they felt they didn’t have a chance. This is not good for the overall health of the game.
Some people lack the necessary maturity and intelligence to understand that you didn’t use the words forced attacker diversity but instead offered an idea to reward skill. If a person doesn’t want the reward or lacks the skill to get the reward they can continue to play the game on god mode.
I’d like to see a title for players who can use diverse Attack teams over a period of time (not just one war) Throw in some cats, shards and gold and it would be cool
For the record I suck at this game but I do enjoy playing parts of it. Unfortunately AW is not one of those parts
One guy could bring his guardians, another his xmen, another his avengers or villians, and make it like a battle royale, similar to what @DNA3000 has said. It just needs to be a new meta that uses it.
Wouldn't this be better served by somehow reengineering alliance war so those utility abilities were sufficiently useful so the players themselves *wanted* to use those champs, rather than more pushing players to use those champs against their opinions by using bonus points to twist their arms?
Consider your "namesake" monthly event, Dave's. The Dave Bautista event very heavily promoted the use of power control. And in my opinion, it was that event that actually accelerated the shift in public opinion for Magik. Prior to that event, Magik was considered a very strong defender but only a second class attacker. Power control wasn't considered very valuable. Today, power control is considered an extremely powerful utility effect. In fact, it was after Daves that even Hawkeye started to get reevaluated in terms of value.
The game didn't start giving bonuses for using power control. It demonstrated the usefulness of power control by making content for which power control was very valuable. Many players valued power control from the beginning, but an event that showcased the value of power control in a high difficulty event made players change their own minds, rather than being told what to do.
If you want players to appreciate the value in undervalued champions, I think it is much better to create content that emphasizes that value and then let the players make up their own minds, rather than compel them to use those champions without changing their minds. Absolutely no one changed their minds about which defenders were useful or not useful when Kabam added defender diversity. Instead, all Kabam did was add the phrase "diversity placement" to our lexicon, to mean "someone clearly didn't give a damn what they put on that node, so they put Him there."
Do you want people to look at the AW screen and say to themselves "oh look, this guy was clearly chosen to be the diversity attacker?" Probably not. The goal is probably not to force people to use champions as attackers "just for the points" like they currently do with diversity placements. You want players to want to use diverse champions on attack because it gives them an advantage as an attacker. But who the best attacker is depends on what is placed on defense. So ironically, if you want to solve the diverse attacker problem the place to look is Defense. Make defense more interesting and more challenging to the attackers in ways different from what you can achieve now, and you automatically reward attackers that think outside of the box also.
You want to slow down all the Blades without simply penalizing players that use them? Hand the defense a node buff called "Bleed Reflection" that causes the defender to reflect all stacks of bleed back to the attacker. And then let the defending alliance place that buff on a node of their choice, and it doesn't show up in the node preview until it is attacked for the first time. You don't want to "fix" attackers yourself has the game developer with the Hand of God changing the laws of physics. You want to do it by handing an arsenal to the defending players and let the players sort it out for themselves.
The content creator program has more perks than I thought.
I don't particularly like the idea itself, and in fact it is giving me flashbacks of fighting to overturn defender diversity for months, but accusing someone who is pointing out a perceived deficiency in the game and suggesting a change to address it a shill for the company is pretty absurd on several levels. When your conspiracy theory requires everyone involved doing things that seem like they are executing a script written by someone who forgot which conspiracy they were supposed to be scripting, it is time to reevaluate your position.
Besides, everyone knows Kabam pays Dave to send us subliminal messages in his songs. If you play the Iceman song backwards and at 0.5x normal speed, it says "save for Blade, save for Blade" over and over again. Also, I keep getting this urge to buy a terrier to help me open my crystals, but that could be a coincidence.
Pick your best defenders and best attackers and be done with it. No bs, no spreadsheets, nothing. Select the best and go with it.
And BTW, it's still spreadsheet wars at the highest tiers. Diversity is easily 140+ now in each war.
Now you guys wants to add attack diversity?
How about we stop controlling what champs people bring in and just fight? Get rid of all diversity and call it a night.
I don't want to see individual rewards for alliance performance ever. I'd probably fight any implementation of that idea right to the bitter end. As it stands, your alliance war performance is heavily influenced by the paths you take and the defenders you place and where they are placed. I don't care who you are or how good you play: whether you win MVP or not in my alliance will depend primarily on whether I, as the BG officer, allow you to be the MVP. So long as it doesn't matter who is MVP, nobody cares. The moment everybody cares because there's some reward attached to it, I will never stop calling the Kabam developers absolutely insane.
The entire point of alliance events is to work together toward a common goal. Everyone wins or everyone loses based on the performance of everyone, and no one can help themselves over their alliance mates. It is in everyone's best interests for everyone to help everyone. The moment you add solo rewards of any kind into the mix, you destroy that dynamic: everyone now has a reason to help themselves over the alliance as a whole. I see no good coming out of creating that sort of incentivized dynamic. Being an alliance officer is already like herding cats. But if I wanted to play a game where everyone in my alliance was a potential adversary, I'd be playing Eve Online instead.
You’re over thinking it. It doesn’t have to be some extreme reward. Just something stupid and small like 10k gold or whatever. Just something to change things up and add to the mix. Something thats enough to want to try for it, but not enough that you would bring spider Gwen to a buffet node and risk losing a kill.
And not for nothing, if you’ve got people who would put their goals ahead of the ally’s in a war for ANY reward, then you should get rid of them anyway.
Relax man. It’s just a discussion. No need to fight to the end for anything
If it is not worth it for me to oppose it, it is not worth it for you to suggest it. Also, any idea worth doing at all is also worth opposing if you don't like what it is doing. A game change cannot simultaneously be valuable enough to do, but minuscule enough to tell everyone else not to worry about it.
Relax man, I'm just speculating. No need to get worked up over a discussion.
This is a good question @DorkLessons care to touch on this? And can’t gloss over it with “buff old champions” because you, and a few others are brought it up with current state of champs. Meaning unless a drastic overhaul happens prior to something like this happening there WILL be summoners forced to rank garbage tier just to even out diversity.
OMG how do I get this type of pay?
That was me *wave*
Woohoo
I do have to say people getting personal and making attacks is childish. As @Kabam Miike said when taking about speaker boxes “we are all adults here” well at least should act more mature than insinuating monetary gain from “the company”. Let’s all keep it civil. Because, while I don’t like the idea, because of the CURRENT state of the game and tiers of champs, this type of conversation can show we are able to openly discuss changes like adults
I was the one who suggested that, br I should have been more in-depth about it. Was I was saying is this.
We all know MVP is based on paths/defenders. But what I am suggesting is that would be scrapped and it’s 100% based on how many nodes you kill. Who you kill them with (a diverse champ vs a non diverse champ), and What tour ending attack bonus is. Not make MVP give rewards so everyone chases it.