SantaGulk wrote: » CapWW2 wrote: » CapWW2 wrote: » How about then instead of rank down tickets we get: Depending in rating: 400k+ rating 1 feature 6 star crystal 1 fearure 5 star crystal 1 random awekening gem 3 t4cc 3 t4b 300+ 1 fearure 5 star crystal 1 random awekening gem 2 t4cc 2 t4b Below 200k 1 feature 5 star crystal 1 t4cc 1 t4b 1 four star awakening gem crystal This is fair or gives us the 5 rank down tickets for 5 stars champs That's not a solution. Kabam is trying too hard to create a PAY TO WIN aw environment. It's not just about diversity. It's about how much you'll spend in the future aw.
CapWW2 wrote: » CapWW2 wrote: » How about then instead of rank down tickets we get: Depending in rating: 400k+ rating 1 feature 6 star crystal 1 fearure 5 star crystal 1 random awekening gem 3 t4cc 3 t4b 300+ 1 fearure 5 star crystal 1 random awekening gem 2 t4cc 2 t4b Below 200k 1 feature 5 star crystal 1 t4cc 1 t4b 1 four star awakening gem crystal This is fair or gives us the 5 rank down tickets for 5 stars champs
CapWW2 wrote: » How about then instead of rank down tickets we get: Depending in rating: 400k+ rating 1 feature 6 star crystal 1 fearure 5 star crystal 1 random awekening gem 3 t4cc 3 t4b 300+ 1 fearure 5 star crystal 1 random awekening gem 2 t4cc 2 t4b Below 200k 1 feature 5 star crystal 1 t4cc 1 t4b 1 four star awakening gem crystal
Riegel wrote: » Don’t remove diversity, don’t issue RDT’s and stop ruining MCOC...
CapWW2 wrote: » Riegel wrote: » Don’t remove diversity, don’t issue RDT’s and stop ruining MCOC... Your comment is very laughable
Aspare wrote: » We are asking for the wrong solution from Kabam I don't know about you guys but I would much rather keep Diversity around instead of getting rank down tickets. I would love to rank down some champions I ranked up just for defense but I would much rather not have to fight IWIM, Medusa, Domino, Dormamu, 10x each war.
SandeepS wrote: » Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players
The Challenger and Expert Maps are getting a significant boost in difficulty. At this time, Exploration and Battlegroup completion is still nearly always 100%, but should be the determining factors of which Alliance wins the War, and not the Attacker Bonus.
DNA3000 wrote: » SantaGulk wrote: » CapWW2 wrote: » CapWW2 wrote: » Kabam keeps calling defender diversity points "tie breakers" when they aren't tie breakers: defender diversity points just score points. Even though they are obviously not tie breakers Kabam keeps wondering why something that hands alliances points at the start of the war isn't working as a tie breaker. I'm GENUINELY BAFFLED by this. And now they are saying that alliances are winning too often on attack bonus, when attack bonus was actually added to AW to ensure the side that more skillfully defeats nodes wins. In other words, attack bonus is there to award the victory to the more skilled alliance, and Kabam doesn't like the fact that alliances are winning with it. Seriously, I can't make this up. Defender diversity points and attack bonus work together in AW. Diversity points encourage you to place different defenders regardless of defender strength. Attack bonus encourages you to place the strongest possible defenders. The two act to force the players to make a qualitative choice between two different options, and a range of overall placement strategies. Removing one and saying you don't even want the other one to decide wars either is nonsensical. He has it exactly right. I like how the diversity and the attack bonus make you figure out which defenders are best to use - is using a dupe worth it this time to get an attack kill we wouldn't get with another defender. There was actually strategy in the process. All of that is gone.
SantaGulk wrote: » CapWW2 wrote: » CapWW2 wrote: » Kabam keeps calling defender diversity points "tie breakers" when they aren't tie breakers: defender diversity points just score points. Even though they are obviously not tie breakers Kabam keeps wondering why something that hands alliances points at the start of the war isn't working as a tie breaker. I'm GENUINELY BAFFLED by this. And now they are saying that alliances are winning too often on attack bonus, when attack bonus was actually added to AW to ensure the side that more skillfully defeats nodes wins. In other words, attack bonus is there to award the victory to the more skilled alliance, and Kabam doesn't like the fact that alliances are winning with it. Seriously, I can't make this up. Defender diversity points and attack bonus work together in AW. Diversity points encourage you to place different defenders regardless of defender strength. Attack bonus encourages you to place the strongest possible defenders. The two act to force the players to make a qualitative choice between two different options, and a range of overall placement strategies. Removing one and saying you don't even want the other one to decide wars either is nonsensical. He has it exactly right. I like how the diversity and the attack bonus make you figure out which defenders are best to use - is using a dupe worth it this time to get an attack kill we wouldn't get with another defender. There was actually strategy in the process. All of that is gone.
CapWW2 wrote: » CapWW2 wrote: » Kabam keeps calling defender diversity points "tie breakers" when they aren't tie breakers: defender diversity points just score points. Even though they are obviously not tie breakers Kabam keeps wondering why something that hands alliances points at the start of the war isn't working as a tie breaker. I'm GENUINELY BAFFLED by this. And now they are saying that alliances are winning too often on attack bonus, when attack bonus was actually added to AW to ensure the side that more skillfully defeats nodes wins. In other words, attack bonus is there to award the victory to the more skilled alliance, and Kabam doesn't like the fact that alliances are winning with it. Seriously, I can't make this up. Defender diversity points and attack bonus work together in AW. Diversity points encourage you to place different defenders regardless of defender strength. Attack bonus encourages you to place the strongest possible defenders. The two act to force the players to make a qualitative choice between two different options, and a range of overall placement strategies. Removing one and saying you don't even want the other one to decide wars either is nonsensical. He has it exactly right. I like how the diversity and the attack bonus make you figure out which defenders are best to use - is using a dupe worth it this time to get an attack kill we wouldn't get with another defender. There was actually strategy in the process. All of that is gone.
CapWW2 wrote: » Kabam keeps calling defender diversity points "tie breakers" when they aren't tie breakers: defender diversity points just score points. Even though they are obviously not tie breakers Kabam keeps wondering why something that hands alliances points at the start of the war isn't working as a tie breaker. I'm GENUINELY BAFFLED by this. And now they are saying that alliances are winning too often on attack bonus, when attack bonus was actually added to AW to ensure the side that more skillfully defeats nodes wins. In other words, attack bonus is there to award the victory to the more skilled alliance, and Kabam doesn't like the fact that alliances are winning with it. Seriously, I can't make this up. Defender diversity points and attack bonus work together in AW. Diversity points encourage you to place different defenders regardless of defender strength. Attack bonus encourages you to place the strongest possible defenders. The two act to force the players to make a qualitative choice between two different options, and a range of overall placement strategies. Removing one and saying you don't even want the other one to decide wars either is nonsensical.
Hulksmasshh wrote: » Kabam Miike wrote: » Losspik wrote: » So just to clarify you guys have removed diversity points so we free to place as many duplicates of Champs with no penalty? This is correct, but keep in mind that the Meta of the Game has changed a lot since we introduced Defender Diversity, and players have become pretty accustomed to many of the "top defenders" and have counters at the ready! This also does not mean that Diversity won't return in a future season. That makes it real tough on rank up decisions especially with many people getting their 2nd and 3rd R5 5*s soon. This “diversity or no diversity” system can’t keep flip flopping around because that will screw a lot of people up. Also, diversity has been great for strategy in the past season. It was a thoughtful decision to decide whether or not to place for diversity, guessing how much diversity the opponent placed, etc. “Spreadsheet wars” as you guys called it was an integral part of planning and rewarded those who put in the most effort. Wars are decided by defender kills, not diversity. The tie-breaker effect it was having was working well. Just my thoughts on this change.
Kabam Miike wrote: » Losspik wrote: » So just to clarify you guys have removed diversity points so we free to place as many duplicates of Champs with no penalty? This is correct, but keep in mind that the Meta of the Game has changed a lot since we introduced Defender Diversity, and players have become pretty accustomed to many of the "top defenders" and have counters at the ready! This also does not mean that Diversity won't return in a future season.
Losspik wrote: » So just to clarify you guys have removed diversity points so we free to place as many duplicates of Champs with no penalty?
DNA3000 wrote: » SandeepS wrote: » Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this: The Challenger and Expert Maps are getting a significant boost in difficulty. At this time, Exploration and Battlegroup completion is still nearly always 100%, but should be the determining factors of which Alliance wins the War, and not the Attacker Bonus. (emphasis mine)
SandeepS wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » SandeepS wrote: » Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this: The Challenger and Expert Maps are getting a significant boost in difficulty. At this time, Exploration and Battlegroup completion is still nearly always 100%, but should be the determining factors of which Alliance wins the War, and not the Attacker Bonus. (emphasis mine) How about the more efficient team wins? Have items used and time it took to complete 100% into the equation?
DNA3000 wrote: » SandeepS wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » SandeepS wrote: » Another option could be to give more points for attack bonus. 1250 for first kill, 500 second, 200 third. (Dont do exactly half points for subsequent tries) . This rewards the skilled players That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this: The Challenger and Expert Maps are getting a significant boost in difficulty. At this time, Exploration and Battlegroup completion is still nearly always 100%, but should be the determining factors of which Alliance wins the War, and not the Attacker Bonus. (emphasis mine) How about the more efficient team wins? Have items used and time it took to complete 100% into the equation? Personally, I don't mind factoring in item use into the point score: I suggested something like that somewhere between 14.0 and 14.1. A lot of players will point out that it penalizes item use which Kabam would never do because it would cost revenue, but Kabam itself is silent on the idea. I'm not sure what you mean by time, but at one point I also suggested factoring in time remaining on the clock (out of the three minutes per fight) into scoring. I wouldn't count wall clock time against alliances because that would arbitrarily penalize more widely dispersed (as in time zone) alliances regardless of skill.
Brainimpacter wrote: » I know people want replies, but there is no point in them answering questions until they know what their bosses are going to do to fix the situation they would be just giving non answers making people even more mad
Purveyor wrote: » Brainimpacter wrote: » I know people want replies, but there is no point in them answering questions until they know what their bosses are going to do to fix the situation they would be just giving non answers making people even more mad My guess is they’re going to try to get this sorted one way or another before July 4th. That is one of their biggest revenue days of the year. Having no income that day would be crushing.