All of this ****, starting from Mystic Wars, to Defender Diversity, back to Mystic Wars, then to Blade Wars, then back to Diversity, now to whatever nonsense this suggestion is could've been avoided if only Kabam fixed the root of the goddamn problem, i.e. MD and it's interaction with Dexterity. But it's too late now, so let's keep applying bandaid solutions on top of each other, that's gonna go well I'm sure!
This idea is horrible for a ton of reasons.
1-With the current state of alliance war this would be another present to the big spenders. Who cares if I die 30 times and I lost the attack bonus? I have the attacker diversity.
2- we would have to do re do all the rank up decisions.
3- we need specific champions for the alliance war in the current state, we can’t take care of certain nodes without those champions.
4- this alliance war seasons are a total mess in my opinion, if the majority of people use blade and other few champions is because of the bs we have to face in aw. Attacker diversity would not be a solution.
5- I have never thought I could say this but I think Dave is working for kabam at this point. This idea seems to treat us like a bunch of idiots. That’s why I unsubscribed him.
#5 is absolute GOLD my man. And you're absolutely right.. I work for them.. They pay me in kittens every third tuesday of the month.
Let's analyze shall we.. I mean since you unsubscribed for a foolish assumption anyway.. why not see it through.
Dave attempts to TALK and DISCUSS an option that will help people be more adept with their rosters and their champions abilities instead of relying on a set group of champions = Works for Kabam..
Rewarding people who step out of the norm and try something new in the game.. You know to keep things fresh and interesting = Works for Kabam..
on a whole continually educates you on how to finish content as efficiently as possible so you aren't using resources = Works for Kabam
I mean.. would you like some more examples or was this enough?
Now as for your actual reasons.. You realize this is just theoretical.. No details have been worked out so half of those reasons are you just working yourself up.. Who's to say the amount of points would even be enough for the big spenders?
2. Why would you have redo your rank ups? Are you going for full diversity? Have you thought about maybe changing 1 champ around? Do you only have 3 set champions ranked that you can use.. you have nothing else?
3. How sure about this are you? You know there are other champs in the meta that can also take some of the load. It's not always about the same champs over and over.
4. Seasons does need some work I agree there.. My hope was that people were noticing the changing meta.. IE WS, Luke Cage, Red Hulk, and see that they are tuning champs.. This is something good.. and can really bring this idea into fruition if enough of them have been worked.
5. See my above statement.. because this is ridiculous..
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.
All of this ****, starting from Mystic Wars, to Defender Diversity, back to Mystic Wars, then to Blade Wars, then back to Diversity, now to whatever nonsense this suggestion is could've been avoided if only Kabam fixed the root of the goddamn problem, i.e. MD and it's interaction with Dexterity. But it's too late now, so let's keep applying bandaid solutions on top of each other, that's gonna go well I'm sure!
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 had this idea months and months ago and my thread got laughed at. 😢😢
And rightly so. This is a terrible idea. I DO NOT want others to dictate what champs I rank up and use. Defender diversity was already bad but still kinda tolerable since it didn't adversely affect my gameplay experience but attacker diversity will.
Most people don't play this game to showcase their "skill" by taking an underpowered champ against an overpowered opponent placed on an overpowered node. Some people still do it but it's solely for novelty YT videos and for bragging to alliance mates. That is not the main focus of this game. People just want to win fights by using the most efficient champs. That's it. If you take a Joe Fixit and fight RoL WS, the majority of the responses would be "Y tho?" and not "OMG, you're so cool bro!"
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.
This idea is horrible for a ton of reasons.
1-With the current state of alliance war this would be another present to the big spenders. Who cares if I die 30 times and I lost the attack bonus? I have the attacker diversity.
2- we would have to do re do all the rank up decisions.
3- we need specific champions for the alliance war in the current state, we can’t take care of certain nodes without those champions.
4- this alliance war seasons are a total mess in my opinion, if the majority of people use blade and other few champions is because of the bs we have to face in aw. Attacker diversity would not be a solution.
5- I have never thought I could say this but I think Dave is working for kabam at this point. This idea seems to treat us like a bunch of idiots. That’s why I unsubscribed him.
#5 is absolute GOLD my man. And you're absolutely right.. I work for them.. They pay me in kittens every third tuesday of the month.
Let's analyze shall we.. I mean since you unsubscribed for a foolish assumption anyway.. why not see it through.
Dave attempts to TALK and DISCUSS an option that will help people be more adept with their rosters and their champions abilities instead of relying on a set group of champions = Works for Kabam..
Rewarding people who step out of the norm and try something new in the game.. You know to keep things fresh and interesting = Works for Kabam..
on a whole continually educates you on how to finish content as efficiently as possible so you aren't using resources = Works for Kabam
I mean.. would you like some more examples or was this enough?
Now as for your actual reasons.. You realize this is just theoretical.. No details have been worked out so half of those reasons are you just working yourself up.. Who's to say the amount of points would even be enough for the big spenders?
2. Why would you have redo your rank ups? Are you going for full diversity? Have you thought about maybe changing 1 champ around? Do you only have 3 set champions ranked that you can use.. you have nothing else?
3. How sure about this are you? You know there are other champs in the meta that can also take some of the load. It's not always about the same champs over and over.
4. Seasons does need some work I agree there.. My hope was that people were noticing the changing meta.. IE WS, Luke Cage, Red Hulk, and see that they are tuning champs.. This is something good.. and can really bring this idea into fruition if enough of them have been worked.
5. See my above statement.. because this is ridiculous..
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.
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..
I had this idea months and months ago and my thread got laughed at. 😢😢
Of course it did, well deserved. I assume it was satire? Everyone is laughing at this one too. Worst “Kabam what do you think about this” thread as if Kabam is a guy with a beard in the sky...
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.
I had this idea months and months ago and my thread got laughed at. 😢😢
Of course it did, well deserved. I assume it was satire? Everyone is laughing at this one too. Worst “Kabam what do you think about this” thread as if Kabam is a guy with a beard in the sky...
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
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
I like it too.. That's actually pretty interesting.
I actually like the idea of Attacker Diversity. Maybe you could get max diversity points with 15 diverse attackers. This way you could bring in 2 or 3 Bosskiller Teams, 3 Teams with strong attackers as Backup and 4 Teams that focus on diversity. It wouldnt hurt anybody, just another layer of strategy (as was said before).
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.
Since the discussion is getting a bit shady and my original few comments sounded a bit snappy, I thought I would clarify. My issue with the suggestion is not personal, or because I'm running Blade. I'm actually not, TBH. I have no issues with the OP. I have a bit of impatience with the iterations and the hyper-focus on Blade in general, but that's besides the point.
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.
So good if my roaster was as good as Dave a.k.a Dork lessons.. I don't want to rank up champs that sucks just because of alliance war.. Most alliance I played against don't even care about defence diversity, I'm damn sure they won't care about NIT using their best attackers, great thought Dave. I vote HELL to the NO
I had this idea months and months ago and my thread got laughed at. 😢😢
Of course it did, well deserved. I assume it was satire? Everyone is laughing at this one too. Worst “Kabam what do you think about this” thread as if Kabam is a guy with a beard in the sky...
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
I like it too.. That's actually pretty interesting.
So you had an idea and we’re just looking for some affirmation lol?
Pretty interesting how it won’t work or get implemented.
Never stopped me from coming up with ideas.. some work.. some don't.. simple.
So good if my roaster was as good as Dave a.k.a Dork lessons.. I don't want to rank up champs that sucks just because of alliance war.. Most alliance I played against don't even care about defence diversity, I'm damn sure they won't care about NIT using their best attackers, great thought Dave. I vote HELL to the NO
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.
I agree with that. I think it's very limiting that people only focus on the same few Champs, but I think that's common in Gaming in general. People are always going to focus on the "best". I tend to focus on all Champs individually.
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
I like the thinking behind the idea, I just don't see it as being manageable. It gets boring seeing almost everyone running the same attack team. If there was a way to implement this in another meta I would be all for it, where only one person per group could bring any certain champ. This would be pretty neat and show more individually amongst players.
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.
The other reason I bring it up is there are a lot of champs people glaze over because their main focus is just God Tier only.. They aren't fully looking at Utility and usefulness of champs because again.. they didn't make the God tier list.
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.
#5 is absolute GOLD my man. And you're absolutely right.. I work for them.. They pay me in kittens every third tuesday of the month.
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.
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
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.
Why all the hate for an idea? If you don’t like the idea then state logical reasons why you don’t agree with it. Maybe even state something you do like about it. Don’t just call it a stupid idea and have nothing to back it up. Don’t start calling people Kabam employees. That’s just childish
People want certain champs because they are much better options for this meta. There’s a problem with that since all champs are not equal. It takes to time to buff old champs and they can’t do them all at once. I see nothing wrong with bringing in champs that aren’t as good of an option as blade and getting extra points for doing so. In my last aw, the opponent was saying we won because we had more blades and that’s just stupid when we place a fully diverse to their 60 diversity and we have more defender kills with a worse defense. I don’t think this will bring back mystic wars. There’s plenty of different attacking options to counter this that isn’t blade. Very skilled teams would go for both diversity’s and showcase their skill by winning with a diverse offensive roster
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
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
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
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.
What does a person have to do wrong in an alliance to be forced to attack with Falcon, Carbage and Joe Fixit? Talk about ruining the gaming experience. Ally leader tells you to rank your 4* Carnage to R5 just for attack and he does nothing else useful for you in the game? Brilliant idea.
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.
5- I have never thought I could say this but I think Dave is working for kabam at this point. This idea seems to treat us like a bunch of idiots. That’s why I unsubscribed him.
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
I like it too.. That's actually pretty interesting.
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
Someone mentioned making attacker diversity associated with mvp, and then making mvp actually mean something. I’m all for adding a solo aspect to aw. This is a much better idea.
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.
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.
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.