**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
I think you're giving Kabam the wrong kind of credit. Engineering the game to make more money is a comprehensible motive, even if it might be unpalatable. I don't see that going on here. I see something far less comprehensible.
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.
Someone religiously believes that map exploration should decide most wars. But if map exploration decides most wars, that means most wars will end with players unable to finish their paths. In effect, that means a player will have to quit in the middle of the war and essentially abandon the rest of the alliance to their fate. If you lose on attacker bonus, there's no way to know which of the players who died "lost" the war: its a team loss. But if you lose on exploration, someBODY lost the war: the guy who got stopped in their path, and then left links up, which made the other guy unable to finish his path, which meant the battlegroup couldn't defeat the bosses. It will be THAT GUYS FAULT. And no one wants to be that guy. So we will all continue to spend to not be that guy, and Kabam will keep making AW harder, until a breaking point is reached and Kabam literally breaks the playerbase into surrendering to the AW map difficulty.
That portrays the process as highly adversarial. I don't generally do that. But in this case, that's the honest portrayal. Someone or some group of developers at Kabam don't want alliances to win on style points, they don't want alliances to win on the margins. They want alliances to win because someone on the other side FAILED. Singularly and obviously failed.
I'm fortunate. I'm in a mid-tier alliance that is under less pressure to perform, and frankly I'm one of the best players in the alliance: it won't be me that breaks first. And I'm also a battlegroup leader, so I can insulate my players from at least some of this pressure. But if I was in a higher tier alliance, I'd be reconsidering whether the competition was worth it. Not because competition is unhealthy, I like competition. Rather, Kabam seems hell-bent on making the competition as unhealthy as possible.
I really don't understand this at all. Monetization alone cannot explain this. Players will keep spending as long as they think they are getting something from that spending. They will push to complete their paths no matter how hard it gets. But if Kabam succeeds in making it so hard that players cannot complete their paths no matter how much they spend, they'll stop spending. That should be obvious. It would be obvious, to anyone in the business of monetizing video games.
Your comment is very laughable
Calling the kettle black huh?
Thing is, I don’t see them rolling this back. Just like they wouldn’t totally roll 12.0 back. But RDT are a very reasonable and quite frankly needed response.
you seem very attached to the idea of RDT's, but I ask you this, what is better about receiving RDT's over just NOT getting rid of diversity? The latter is most definitely a better long term solution, as receiving RDT's only compounds the problem as it is saying to kabam "as long as you give me stuff I will be ok with you fundamentally ruining the game". If you don't like diversity, fine, but getting rid of it with the blink of an eye and issuing RDT's does not fix was is ultimately wrong with AW.
That isn't an option, unless Kabam first changes their mind about this:
(emphasis mine)
To the extent that Alliance Wars are determined by Skill, you have a winning formula. To the extent that they are determined by item use, they are a scam. Please reconsider these changes, Kabam.
very thoughtful and committed, my friend.
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.
The wars are 24 hours. So I meant time on the clock at the point you got 100% so those finishing in 18 hours are rewarded more than those finishing in 23 hours.
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.
Which bosses???? As far I know we the players that pay kabam’s game are the most important thing. Wihout us and our money the game cannot run.
No point in buying a 5* awakening gem in case the meta changes again. Even if rank down tickets are offered after that, you won't be able to use the awakening on a different champ.
Working as intended...
1. Gold,Potions and tiers should be proportional as the game moves forward like from 4 stars to 5 stars to 6 stars.
nowadays, if I get a god tier champ , it doesn't matter because I can't upgrade him anyways!
2. Regarding AW , this mode became the source of problems between players in every alliance , which made some players quit the game completely.
3. Kabam should help us to advance more in the game not push us back like this, you could make it easier to get every type of upgradables and crystals from all modes of the game . If we can get crystal shards , gold and tiers from different modes , it will decrease the tension in AQ and AW .