This is a terrible idea. t2a are definitely NOT available enough to make up for diversity, like @DorkLessons said. So now you have to force people (and if you want to compete in AW seasons this will 100% happen) to bring in 4* r5 or 5* r3 champs instead of their r5 and r4 champs they've invested resources and in many cases hundreds of dollars in.
Anyone who is for this awful idea should take a look at their #25-30 available attackers and ask themselves if they're willing to bring three of those champs vs r4 Magiks and Dorms with 5/5 MD on boss nodes.
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.
If there are no rewards for MVP in this scenario, I don't have a specific objection to altering how it is computed, but there is an obvious problem to me when it comes to factoring in diverse attackers. When we compute points for diverse defenders, those points aren't credited to anyone in particular. It doesn't matter, and we don't decide who placed the "unique" defender and who placed the "duplicate" defender. The entire alliance gains and loses points.
If I use Blade and you use Blade, who gets credit for the diverse attacker and who gets credit for the non-diverse attacker. Do you give credit to the person that enters first? What if I enter first to grab the credit but you are the first to actually kill a node with Blade? Should you get the diverse credit instead of me? Or because you entered with Blade after I entered with Blade, does that mean we *both* lose credit for using unique attackers? This is a somewhat arbitrary problem you don't have to solve with diverse defenders, but you would have to arbitrate when giving credit to specific players for using diverse attackers.
This problem doesn't affect the original idea presented by Dave, because we can give the attacker diversity bonus globally without having to decide who was the original and who was the copy. But if you were to do this in conjunction with Dave's idea, it would be weird if for the purposes of the entire alliance we were to combine to get one diverse attacker credit, but for the purposes of MVP neither of us got credit for a diverse attacker. You'd probably have to figure out who to give it to, and it sounds like there's a lot of arguments to be had over what would be "fair" under all situations.
@DNA3000 That makes a lot of sense. I didn’t really think that much on it. I was just sorta shooting from the hip. I just kind of want a better way to calculate MVP instead of it being based on path and top defenders.
@DNA3000 That makes a lot of sense. I didn’t really think that much on it. I was just sorta shooting from the hip. I just kind of want a better way to calculate MVP instead of it being based on path and top defenders.
To be candid, the MVP for my battlegroup in my alliance is the person that does what they are supposed to do in the most efficient way possible. I don't think there's a way for the game to readily compute who that is.
For example, someone in my battlegroup has a problem or an emergency and they can't progress. So they can't reach a link that is blocking another player. That player decides to force past and dies once, but completes his path and allows everyone else to continue on without being held up. That's a valuable player. Someone else reaches a link and without waiting for it to be cleared just tries to blast through it, dying once. That person costs us points for no reason, and is not a particularly valuable player. How does the computer know that?
If everyone had the same task in war, and no one could interfere with any other, then there would be a way to measure everyone's performance against everyone elses to find the player that contributed the most to the alliance war. You'd be comparing apples to apples. But Kabam specifically and deliberately made war maps in such a way that no two players have the same work load or relative difficulty. Some paths are not even remotely close. But every one of those paths must be done by someone, so everyone starts off with different amounts of work to judge. And player #10 is sometimes the most important one: he's the backup in case a path gets stuck. What he does might be very important, but what he mostly does is wait to see where he should go. How do you evaluate his contribution to the alliance war? Is he doomed to never have a shot at MVP forever? Sometimes, he or she is the most important player in terms of whether the alliance wins or loses. But it is really hard to tell just by what they do on the map.
First of all, I agree that there are too many Trinity teams in AW. This is because they are extremely effective, especially against the current defense meta. A small Attacker Diversity stat might encourage using more diverse teams while also having a small enough bonus to be mitigatable through actual skill. BUT! The team you go into AW with is entirely up to your decision, and I think that this choice must be maintained.
Also, to those of you repeatedly saying that AW Attackers will be replaced by Carnage and Sentry etc.; completely false statement. I'm all for a statistic that encourages using different teams that you may not have considered because Trinity was so effective. For instance, Crossbones might be just as effective at combating Mystics and MODOK, with his Ability Accuracy Reduction. In fact, it can be argued just about ANY Ability Accuracy Reduction champion could be great for AW in place of Blade. In place of Stark Spider-Man, any heavy hitter may do. A Hulk could be effective; he even brings Poison Immunity to the table, something that none of the Trinity inherently have. And so on and so forth. More diverse teams such as these can be possible, and could make skill more of a deciding factor in AW. This could even have a positive effect on Defender Diversity; if the game takes a step away from Trinity, then people might start putting defenders that counter the newer, more diverse attackers.
Yes, I'm famous for my optimism.
Anyways, the point is; Too large an Attacker Diversity may ruin the experience and choice of the players in this matter. However, a large enough bonus may encourage players to explore new, perhaps nearly as effective teams in Alliance War. So there's a fine line between too much and too little. And that, my friends, is what we should shoot for.
Also, someone mentioned beta testing for this. I'M UP FOR IT! With the ramifications that this stat may have for AW, it definitely needs a lot of fine tuning before finding that "fine line". So, in short, I support, but I think it needs a lot of player input.
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
First of all, I agree that there are too many Trinity teams in AW. This is because they are extremely effective, especially against the current defense meta. A small Attacker Diversity stat might encourage using more diverse teams while also having a small enough bonus to be mitigatable through actual skill. BUT! The team you go into AW with is entirely up to your decision, and I think that this choice must be maintained.
Also, to those of you repeatedly saying that AW Attackers will be replaced by Carnage and Sentry etc.; completely false statement. I'm all for a statistic that encourages using different teams that you may not have considered because Trinity was so effective. For instance, Crossbones might be just as effective at combating Mystics and MODOK, with his Ability Accuracy Reduction. In fact, it can be argued just about ANY Ability Accuracy Reduction champion could be great for AW in place of Blade. In place of Stark Spider-Man, any heavy hitter may do. A Hulk could be effective; he even brings Poison Immunity to the table, something that none of the Trinity inherently have. And so on and so forth. More diverse teams such as these can be possible, and could make skill more of a deciding factor in AW. This could even have a positive effect on Defender Diversity; if the game takes a step away from Trinity, then people might start putting defenders that counter the newer, more diverse attackers.
Yes, I'm famous for my optimism.
Anyways, the point is; Too large an Attacker Diversity may ruin the experience and choice of the players in this matter. However, a large enough bonus may encourage players to explore new, perhaps nearly as effective teams in Alliance War. So there's a fine line between too much and too little. And that, my friends, is what we should shoot for.
Also, someone mentioned beta testing for this. I'M UP FOR IT! With the ramifications that this stat may have for AW, it definitely needs a lot of fine tuning before finding that "fine line". So, in short, I support, but I think it needs a lot of player input.
First of all, I agree that there are too many Trinity teams in AW. This is because they are extremely effective, especially against the current defense meta. A small Attacker Diversity stat might encourage using more diverse teams while also having a small enough bonus to be mitigatable through actual skill. BUT! The team you go into AW with is entirely up to your decision, and I think that this choice must be maintained.
Also, to those of you repeatedly saying that AW Attackers will be replaced by Carnage and Sentry etc.; completely false statement. I'm all for a statistic that encourages using different teams that you may not have considered because Trinity was so effective. For instance, Crossbones might be just as effective at combating Mystics and MODOK, with his Ability Accuracy Reduction. In fact, it can be argued just about ANY Ability Accuracy Reduction champion could be great for AW in place of Blade. In place of Stark Spider-Man, any heavy hitter may do. A Hulk could be effective; he even brings Poison Immunity to the table, something that none of the Trinity inherently have. And so on and so forth. More diverse teams such as these can be possible, and could make skill more of a deciding factor in AW. This could even have a positive effect on Defender Diversity; if the game takes a step away from Trinity, then people might start putting defenders that counter the newer, more diverse attackers.
Yes, I'm famous for my optimism.
Anyways, the point is; Too large an Attacker Diversity may ruin the experience and choice of the players in this matter. However, a large enough bonus may encourage players to explore new, perhaps nearly as effective teams in Alliance War. So there's a fine line between too much and too little. And that, my friends, is what we should shoot for.
Also, someone mentioned beta testing for this. I'M UP FOR IT! With the ramifications that this stat may have for AW, it definitely needs a lot of fine tuning before finding that "fine line". So, in short, I support, but I think it needs a lot of player input.
Anyways, the point is; Too large an Attacker Diversity may ruin the experience and choice of the players in this matter. However, a large enough bonus may encourage players to explore new, perhaps nearly as effective teams in Alliance War. So there's a fine line between too much and too little. And that, my friends, is what we should shoot for.
I don't think there is a fine line between too much and too little. I think there's a subtle problem in that thought, which is that "too much" is too much for something, and "too little" is too little for the same something. But that's not true. Here, too much is too much because the advantage is so high it would basically force players to use the feature or simply start losing too much to alliances that did. Too little is too little points to compensate someone for the cost of not using what they want. It is entirely possible that by the time you raise the bonus to be high enough to be enough compensation - no longer too little - it becomes too much of a strategic advantage to avoid compelling competitive alliances from forcing their members to use it - it becomes too much. These constraints don't overlap: there's a gap in between them, so no number satisfies both.
If you are only looking at solving one problem, you can sometimes find the solution to the problem of not too high and not too low. But when you are trying to solve two problems at once, very often that problem has no solution.
Maybe kabam could just buff the 80% useless pool of champs and then diversity would be organic. The trinity give or take an iceman covers just about everything.
@DorkLessons I have a question. Why don’t you (or other MCOC influencers/YouTubers) make a nice video with all the gameplay glitches (I believe you also experiencing during AW and other game fields) in order to “push” for solving those and improve the game experience? I think it would be a great contribution in the “enjoy the game” direction.
They need to fix the piloting issue in AW first before they move on to anything else
I agree. Sort out the cheating before anymore changes are made. AW is a joke now. Piloting has taken all the fun out of it. And AW is the only fun aspect of the game for most, apart from ranking champs.
If Kabam can’t figure out how to stop piloting then for allot of people who are affected by it, this AW season will be their last. Including myself. I hate to say that as I love this game. But this new season and piloting has made the game so bad. I don’t even feel like logging in anymore.
This is turning into a whining thread
Only reason people support this idea is because of the blade trio
Last thing I need is someone dictating who I should use to fight
As Kabam starts releasing new champs to counter Blade and Stark Spidey the trinity will get balanced out.
People like myself agree with the concept of attacker diversity Because it gives people a reason to use different champs but nothing is to be forced on to players.
People quitting the game because they didn’t get xyz champ is not good for community as a whole.
They need to fix the piloting issue in AW first before they move on to anything else
People complaining about piloting without talking about people who built strong accounts quitting the game and alliances not wanting to lose the account so they just use it for AQ and AW.
People quitting the game is not good for the community overall something needs to be done about that and the piloting will become a non factor.
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.
This really isn't how that works.. No one is forced to use anyone but who they want. The idea is to get people to better know their champs. There's a good majority of people that know nothing about their champs other than the god tier ones they don't have.. or maybe do have. But for someone who's skilled and versed in the game.. Someone that knows how to properly leverage a Karnak for instance.. Can edge out a win by using someone different.
THAT's the idea.. It's strategy.. planning and knowledge. I think that's great! Especially as the losing team looks on and goes.. man.. dude brought in a Karnak and got the win.. That person didn't die.. but like I said.. leveraged a champions ability and utility where most others wouldn't.
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.
This really isn't how that works.. No one is forced to use anyone but who they want. The idea is to get people to better know their champs. There's a good majority of people that know nothing about their champs other than the god tier ones they don't have.. or maybe do have. But for someone who's skilled and versed in the game.. Someone that knows how to properly leverage a Karnak for instance.. Can edge out a win by using someone different.
THAT's the idea.. It's strategy.. planning and knowledge. I think that's great! Especially as the losing team looks on and goes.. man.. dude brought in a Karnak and got the win.. That person didn't die.. but like I said.. leveraged a champions ability and utility where most others wouldn't.
That may be how you hope attacker diversity would work, but that isn't the reality of the competitive nature of this game. If it will gain a team more points in AW then it will lead to people being either forced to rank bad champs, just like how people have ranked garbage defenders now we have defender diversity.
He does raise a good point, though. It makes for a very limited and monotonous experience when the same Champs are used all the time. Some people don't even have much experience with a good number of Champs because popularity takes the lead. I get where he's coming from. It's a more full experience if people spend time getting to know other Champs. I'm just not for using Attacker Diversity to get there.
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.
This really isn't how that works.. No one is forced to use anyone but who they want. The idea is to get people to better know their champs. There's a good majority of people that know nothing about their champs other than the god tier ones they don't have.. or maybe do have. But for someone who's skilled and versed in the game.. Someone that knows how to properly leverage a Karnak for instance.. Can edge out a win by using someone different.
THAT's the idea.. It's strategy.. planning and knowledge. I think that's great! Especially as the losing team looks on and goes.. man.. dude brought in a Karnak and got the win.. That person didn't die.. but like I said.. leveraged a champions ability and utility where most others wouldn't.
That isn't the intent of your idea, but that doesn't mean that isn't how it will ultimately work. Keep in mind people said the same thing about defender diversity, but it is a matter of undisputed fact that people were arm twisted to rank and place defenders they did not really want to place, officers were forced to make tracking spreadsheets and coordinate defender diversity basically dictating who placed what, and even players who were not forced to place diverse still felt pressure to do so to help their alliance. You haven't explained how to avoid this problem, when we know it already happened once before in circumstances less sensitive to player preferences.
There's another thing to consider. You pick your attackers at the start of war, when you first enter. But the decision point on whether to try to do something to "edge out" a win typically happens in the middle or end of the war. You have to bring diverse attackers before you know if you need the points. So while you might see this as "edging out a win" that's not what happens with this idea. You get the bonus points *first* and then you actually have to play in such a way to *not lose*. The psychology is very different. If we are falling behind in a war and there was a way for us to decide at that moment to take the risk and use a diverse attacker to get more points to catch up, the psychology would be about using diversity to win when we needed to. But we don't get that option in war.
There's another weird problem that just occurred to me that sits at the root of the notion that diverse attackers are always weaker. When you're *forced* to use diverse attackers they have to be, on the premise that players always want to use their best attackers. But what if it isn't forced?
Imagine this rule existed when Blade was first added to the game. The very first players that got him and ranked him up would have been the first players to use him in AW. And this rule would have given them bonus points for using him. The first is unique. So there's a perverse issue that every time Kabam adds a really great AW attacker to the game, the alliances who get them first will benefit from having them, and also being given an attack bonus for using that very strong attacker.
I also can't shake the connection between this idea and players who say that they should get more rewards for completing content with their 4/40 roster than players with 5/50 or 4/55 rosters, because they are demonstrating "more skill." The game doesn't generally work that way: we don't penalize players for building strong rosters, and giving less points to players that use stronger rosters is a penalty for doing what the game intends players to do: build up large strong rosters.
The game should reward skill. But this game also rewards building roster, and I feel uncomfortable about making a rule that says if a player earns a strong champion they have to decide whether to use it and get less rewards or bench it and get better rewards in any part of the game. It feels like the attacker diversity bonus score is an attempt to handicap the attackers. Blade is a 100. Karnak is a 60, so we will hand out 40 bonus points so they are now worth the same. Something like that. That feels unpalatable to me.
The thing with using lower ranked champs for an extra bonus or rewards is that we accept that resources in the game are scarce by design, but if a player can accomplish something outside of the design of the game the reward should also be proportional. It’s not about penalizing anyone for having RNG luck but right now players who don’t have that luck are being penalized, so basically what you lose in luck has a way to be made up for in skill. If we are just talking about shards, cats and a title what’s the big deal?
But back to the topic of Diverse AW attackers. What you were saying about changing the meta for AW is probably the right way to think about approaching changing it.
Just to go outside the box for a second,
1. Have a seasonal AW boss for each BG, mini bosses continue to be placed by alliance.
2. Change the nodes with each season so that the game can highlight different strengths and weaknesses of different champs, but give players time to rank up or obtain the needed champs. For example a season may work best (not solely) for champs that can shock the opponent. Conversely bringing champs who regen may suffer adversely
3. Have small challenges inside the war like vanquishing blows, time trials or something similar.
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.
This really isn't how that works.. No one is forced to use anyone but who they want. The idea is to get people to better know their champs. There's a good majority of people that know nothing about their champs other than the god tier ones they don't have.. or maybe do have. But for someone who's skilled and versed in the game.. Someone that knows how to properly leverage a Karnak for instance.. Can edge out a win by using someone different.
THAT's the idea.. It's strategy.. planning and knowledge. I think that's great! Especially as the losing team looks on and goes.. man.. dude brought in a Karnak and got the win.. That person didn't die.. but like I said.. leveraged a champions ability and utility where most others wouldn't.
That isn't the intent of your idea, but that doesn't mean that isn't how it will ultimately work. Keep in mind people said the same thing about defender diversity, but it is a matter of undisputed fact that people were arm twisted to rank and place defenders they did not really want to place, officers were forced to make tracking spreadsheets and coordinate defender diversity basically dictating who placed what, and even players who were not forced to place diverse still felt pressure to do so to help their alliance. You haven't explained how to avoid this problem, when we know it already happened once before in circumstances less sensitive to player preferences.
There's another thing to consider. You pick your attackers at the start of war, when you first enter. But the decision point on whether to try to do something to "edge out" a win typically happens in the middle or end of the war. You have to bring diverse attackers before you know if you need the points. So while you might see this as "edging out a win" that's not what happens with this idea. You get the bonus points *first* and then you actually have to play in such a way to *not lose*. The psychology is very different. If we are falling behind in a war and there was a way for us to decide at that moment to take the risk and use a diverse attacker to get more points to catch up, the psychology would be about using diversity to win when we needed to. But we don't get that option in war.
I mean.. first.. the intent of my idea is my intent wouldn't you agree.. :-)
In war.. not everyone is tied up immediately.. theres some scouting involved.. seeing how they do before we send out a second wave.. etc.. This is where bringing in some diversity might make the difference. but it's all up to individual play styles. Sometimes people have sweepers who come in and finish the job of those that couldn't clean up their lanes.. there's a lot of variables beyond a set standard.
But keep this up DNA.. I like the banter and the educated responses.. I'm having a blast :-)
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.
This really isn't how that works.. No one is forced to use anyone but who they want. The idea is to get people to better know their champs. There's a good majority of people that know nothing about their champs other than the god tier ones they don't have.. or maybe do have. But for someone who's skilled and versed in the game.. Someone that knows how to properly leverage a Karnak for instance.. Can edge out a win by using someone different.
THAT's the idea.. It's strategy.. planning and knowledge. I think that's great! Especially as the losing team looks on and goes.. man.. dude brought in a Karnak and got the win.. That person didn't die.. but like I said.. leveraged a champions ability and utility where most others wouldn't.
That may be how you hope attacker diversity would work, but that isn't the reality of the competitive nature of this game. If it will gain a team more points in AW then it will lead to people being either forced to rank bad champs, just like how people have ranked garbage defenders now we have defender diversity.
Naturally that will work itself out. Bad leadership will force summoners to do things that are unnecessary. Again.. another show of strategy and skill.. the better team will win in this case.. Hard truths.. but yeah there are people that aren't good at strategy.. and that will be apparent.. but because this is all just theoretical.. no one should be offended lol. At least I hope not.
I don't agree with attacker diversity, I'm one of the lucky ones that has the holy trinity and I'd hate to think we'd lose points in AW cause other people want to bring their blade, ghostrider, stark enhanced spidey or the holy trinity aswell. If you want points based on skill how about getting extra points for not taking a hit or losing points for taking a hit on top of the already attacker bonus points in place. Defender diversity hurt AW when it first came out and attacker diversity would have the same negative impact
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
I don’t like the idea. I personally think it would bring back mystic wars in full force. I know right now we are doing pretty well in war and we completely ignore diversity. I have not seen a fully diversified defense in a while so I don’t think this idea would help at all. Also I have blade but he is not always on my aw attack team. I look at my path first and the mini and main boss then decide which team I will bring. The answer to blade is stop playing a ton of mystic defenders. Which we have started seeing less mystic defenders.
All I know since I got my Blade and a 4star at that, I'm using less units and running through content without challenge. Contest of Champions is terribly out of balance when you have everyone going after the exact same champ. I would rather have more options for attack in all aspects of the game. You have to admit that 70% of Champions are not that impressive.
Comments
Anyone who is for this awful idea should take a look at their #25-30 available attackers and ask themselves if they're willing to bring three of those champs vs r4 Magiks and Dorms with 5/5 MD on boss nodes.
This makes no sense. Wouldn't giving everyone the same attack team really show who has the most skill?
If there are no rewards for MVP in this scenario, I don't have a specific objection to altering how it is computed, but there is an obvious problem to me when it comes to factoring in diverse attackers. When we compute points for diverse defenders, those points aren't credited to anyone in particular. It doesn't matter, and we don't decide who placed the "unique" defender and who placed the "duplicate" defender. The entire alliance gains and loses points.
If I use Blade and you use Blade, who gets credit for the diverse attacker and who gets credit for the non-diverse attacker. Do you give credit to the person that enters first? What if I enter first to grab the credit but you are the first to actually kill a node with Blade? Should you get the diverse credit instead of me? Or because you entered with Blade after I entered with Blade, does that mean we *both* lose credit for using unique attackers? This is a somewhat arbitrary problem you don't have to solve with diverse defenders, but you would have to arbitrate when giving credit to specific players for using diverse attackers.
This problem doesn't affect the original idea presented by Dave, because we can give the attacker diversity bonus globally without having to decide who was the original and who was the copy. But if you were to do this in conjunction with Dave's idea, it would be weird if for the purposes of the entire alliance we were to combine to get one diverse attacker credit, but for the purposes of MVP neither of us got credit for a diverse attacker. You'd probably have to figure out who to give it to, and it sounds like there's a lot of arguments to be had over what would be "fair" under all situations.
To be candid, the MVP for my battlegroup in my alliance is the person that does what they are supposed to do in the most efficient way possible. I don't think there's a way for the game to readily compute who that is.
For example, someone in my battlegroup has a problem or an emergency and they can't progress. So they can't reach a link that is blocking another player. That player decides to force past and dies once, but completes his path and allows everyone else to continue on without being held up. That's a valuable player. Someone else reaches a link and without waiting for it to be cleared just tries to blast through it, dying once. That person costs us points for no reason, and is not a particularly valuable player. How does the computer know that?
If everyone had the same task in war, and no one could interfere with any other, then there would be a way to measure everyone's performance against everyone elses to find the player that contributed the most to the alliance war. You'd be comparing apples to apples. But Kabam specifically and deliberately made war maps in such a way that no two players have the same work load or relative difficulty. Some paths are not even remotely close. But every one of those paths must be done by someone, so everyone starts off with different amounts of work to judge. And player #10 is sometimes the most important one: he's the backup in case a path gets stuck. What he does might be very important, but what he mostly does is wait to see where he should go. How do you evaluate his contribution to the alliance war? Is he doomed to never have a shot at MVP forever? Sometimes, he or she is the most important player in terms of whether the alliance wins or loses. But it is really hard to tell just by what they do on the map.
First of all, I agree that there are too many Trinity teams in AW. This is because they are extremely effective, especially against the current defense meta. A small Attacker Diversity stat might encourage using more diverse teams while also having a small enough bonus to be mitigatable through actual skill. BUT! The team you go into AW with is entirely up to your decision, and I think that this choice must be maintained.
Also, to those of you repeatedly saying that AW Attackers will be replaced by Carnage and Sentry etc.; completely false statement. I'm all for a statistic that encourages using different teams that you may not have considered because Trinity was so effective. For instance, Crossbones might be just as effective at combating Mystics and MODOK, with his Ability Accuracy Reduction. In fact, it can be argued just about ANY Ability Accuracy Reduction champion could be great for AW in place of Blade. In place of Stark Spider-Man, any heavy hitter may do. A Hulk could be effective; he even brings Poison Immunity to the table, something that none of the Trinity inherently have. And so on and so forth. More diverse teams such as these can be possible, and could make skill more of a deciding factor in AW. This could even have a positive effect on Defender Diversity; if the game takes a step away from Trinity, then people might start putting defenders that counter the newer, more diverse attackers.
Yes, I'm famous for my optimism.
Anyways, the point is; Too large an Attacker Diversity may ruin the experience and choice of the players in this matter. However, a large enough bonus may encourage players to explore new, perhaps nearly as effective teams in Alliance War. So there's a fine line between too much and too little. And that, my friends, is what we should shoot for.
Also, someone mentioned beta testing for this. I'M UP FOR IT! With the ramifications that this stat may have for AW, it definitely needs a lot of fine tuning before finding that "fine line". So, in short, I support, but I think it needs a lot of player input.
Nicely done my friend!
I don't think there is a fine line between too much and too little. I think there's a subtle problem in that thought, which is that "too much" is too much for something, and "too little" is too little for the same something. But that's not true. Here, too much is too much because the advantage is so high it would basically force players to use the feature or simply start losing too much to alliances that did. Too little is too little points to compensate someone for the cost of not using what they want. It is entirely possible that by the time you raise the bonus to be high enough to be enough compensation - no longer too little - it becomes too much of a strategic advantage to avoid compelling competitive alliances from forcing their members to use it - it becomes too much. These constraints don't overlap: there's a gap in between them, so no number satisfies both.
If you are only looking at solving one problem, you can sometimes find the solution to the problem of not too high and not too low. But when you are trying to solve two problems at once, very often that problem has no solution.
I agree. Sort out the cheating before anymore changes are made. AW is a joke now. Piloting has taken all the fun out of it. And AW is the only fun aspect of the game for most, apart from ranking champs.
If Kabam can’t figure out how to stop piloting then for allot of people who are affected by it, this AW season will be their last. Including myself. I hate to say that as I love this game. But this new season and piloting has made the game so bad. I don’t even feel like logging in anymore.
Only reason people support this idea is because of the blade trio
Last thing I need is someone dictating who I should use to fight
As Kabam starts releasing new champs to counter Blade and Stark Spidey the trinity will get balanced out.
People like myself agree with the concept of attacker diversity Because it gives people a reason to use different champs but nothing is to be forced on to players.
People quitting the game because they didn’t get xyz champ is not good for community as a whole.
People complaining about piloting without talking about people who built strong accounts quitting the game and alliances not wanting to lose the account so they just use it for AQ and AW.
People quitting the game is not good for the community overall something needs to be done about that and the piloting will become a non factor.
That may be how you hope attacker diversity would work, but that isn't the reality of the competitive nature of this game. If it will gain a team more points in AW then it will lead to people being either forced to rank bad champs, just like how people have ranked garbage defenders now we have defender diversity.
That isn't the intent of your idea, but that doesn't mean that isn't how it will ultimately work. Keep in mind people said the same thing about defender diversity, but it is a matter of undisputed fact that people were arm twisted to rank and place defenders they did not really want to place, officers were forced to make tracking spreadsheets and coordinate defender diversity basically dictating who placed what, and even players who were not forced to place diverse still felt pressure to do so to help their alliance. You haven't explained how to avoid this problem, when we know it already happened once before in circumstances less sensitive to player preferences.
There's another thing to consider. You pick your attackers at the start of war, when you first enter. But the decision point on whether to try to do something to "edge out" a win typically happens in the middle or end of the war. You have to bring diverse attackers before you know if you need the points. So while you might see this as "edging out a win" that's not what happens with this idea. You get the bonus points *first* and then you actually have to play in such a way to *not lose*. The psychology is very different. If we are falling behind in a war and there was a way for us to decide at that moment to take the risk and use a diverse attacker to get more points to catch up, the psychology would be about using diversity to win when we needed to. But we don't get that option in war.
Imagine this rule existed when Blade was first added to the game. The very first players that got him and ranked him up would have been the first players to use him in AW. And this rule would have given them bonus points for using him. The first is unique. So there's a perverse issue that every time Kabam adds a really great AW attacker to the game, the alliances who get them first will benefit from having them, and also being given an attack bonus for using that very strong attacker.
I also can't shake the connection between this idea and players who say that they should get more rewards for completing content with their 4/40 roster than players with 5/50 or 4/55 rosters, because they are demonstrating "more skill." The game doesn't generally work that way: we don't penalize players for building strong rosters, and giving less points to players that use stronger rosters is a penalty for doing what the game intends players to do: build up large strong rosters.
The game should reward skill. But this game also rewards building roster, and I feel uncomfortable about making a rule that says if a player earns a strong champion they have to decide whether to use it and get less rewards or bench it and get better rewards in any part of the game. It feels like the attacker diversity bonus score is an attempt to handicap the attackers. Blade is a 100. Karnak is a 60, so we will hand out 40 bonus points so they are now worth the same. Something like that. That feels unpalatable to me.
The thing with using lower ranked champs for an extra bonus or rewards is that we accept that resources in the game are scarce by design, but if a player can accomplish something outside of the design of the game the reward should also be proportional. It’s not about penalizing anyone for having RNG luck but right now players who don’t have that luck are being penalized, so basically what you lose in luck has a way to be made up for in skill. If we are just talking about shards, cats and a title what’s the big deal?
But back to the topic of Diverse AW attackers. What you were saying about changing the meta for AW is probably the right way to think about approaching changing it.
Just to go outside the box for a second,
1. Have a seasonal AW boss for each BG, mini bosses continue to be placed by alliance.
2. Change the nodes with each season so that the game can highlight different strengths and weaknesses of different champs, but give players time to rank up or obtain the needed champs. For example a season may work best (not solely) for champs that can shock the opponent. Conversely bringing champs who regen may suffer adversely
3. Have small challenges inside the war like vanquishing blows, time trials or something similar.
I mean.. first.. the intent of my idea is my intent wouldn't you agree.. :-)
In war.. not everyone is tied up immediately.. theres some scouting involved.. seeing how they do before we send out a second wave.. etc.. This is where bringing in some diversity might make the difference. but it's all up to individual play styles. Sometimes people have sweepers who come in and finish the job of those that couldn't clean up their lanes.. there's a lot of variables beyond a set standard.
But keep this up DNA.. I like the banter and the educated responses.. I'm having a blast :-)
Naturally that will work itself out. Bad leadership will force summoners to do things that are unnecessary. Again.. another show of strategy and skill.. the better team will win in this case.. Hard truths.. but yeah there are people that aren't good at strategy.. and that will be apparent.. but because this is all just theoretical.. no one should be offended lol. At least I hope not.
I don’t like the idea. I personally think it would bring back mystic wars in full force. I know right now we are doing pretty well in war and we completely ignore diversity. I have not seen a fully diversified defense in a while so I don’t think this idea would help at all. Also I have blade but he is not always on my aw attack team. I look at my path first and the mini and main boss then decide which team I will bring. The answer to blade is stop playing a ton of mystic defenders. Which we have started seeing less mystic defenders.
I