**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
Agree with all of this. The community was too distracted by the diversity issue that we have failed to fight against the bigger issue. Kabam views this as "we gave you what you wanted"!!! Doesn't fix the fundamental issue.
Node 27 is almost offensive considering the auto evade bug still exists. Dismay node is BS because everyone will put Domino there because she still has a block break issue....
I have NEVER seen a company try and suck every ounce of fun out of their game ever in my life. There are SOOOO many ways to make war fun and to put everyone on a “level” enough playing field. But greed is blinding and you’re losing players in droves....great job development team!!
I think players are a little too quick to blame greed for everything. It is easy, but it also makes it impossible to tackle the actual root cause of the problem. The problem isn't that Kabam is trying to get players to spend more money. Some things they do look like that, but others don't. And Kabam isn't a bunch of monetization geniuses playing a long game there. The real problem is that someone at Kabam has "vision sickness" and is trying to socially engineer wars to be fought in a very specific way, and that way is contrary to logical competition. So the players are never going to cooperate, and Kabam will keep trying to exert increasing pressure to force the players to conform.
Consider: why add defender diversity? It actually made alliances place weaker defenses than they could have, which reduced spending. The argument was that it did that but forced players to spend money to rank up diversity defenders, but really every change can be looked at that way. All changes cause the players to respond by changing themselves, which always can involve expense.
The key to understanding Kabam is to figure out what they mean when they say defender diversity points are "tie breakers." They aren't. But I believe what Kabam is actually thinking is that they were intended to be "tie-avoiders." Diversity points make it more difficult for a war to end in a tie. But I think Kabam believed players would use diversity points in a very specific way, and the players didn't cooperate. They thought players would understand that the goal was to stop the other side, and the way to do that was to place the strongest possible defenders, but placing the strongest possible defenders would cost diversity points, so the goal would then become to place the strongest *necessary* defense that would stop the other side, while keeping the most diversity points possible.
Of course no one will do that, because that's illogical. It is strategically unsound to try to make that calculation. Instead players first realized that diversity points were so high the correct strategy was to place the most diverse defense possible. And then when diversity points were lowered, nodes buffed, and attack bonus added, the correct strategy slowly shifted towards hybrid defenses which placed selected defenders for strength on critical nodes and a diverse defense elsewhere.
This is still not what they wanted, so they are continuing to muck with it. (Attempting to) Removing defender diversity while keeping attacker bonus made me realize that why I thought attacker bonus was added and why it was actually added were different. I thought it was to add a skill-path to winning wars. Top tier alliances could both complete the map 100%, but the one that did so the most skillfully through the best attacker bonus would win. But apparently Kabam doesn't like it when that happens, so that can't be why attacker bonus is there. In fact, that combined with their node increases tells me the actual reason why attack bonus was there was to restrain defender diversity. Again: it was to manipulate the players into playing the way Kabam wants us to play: place the strongest possible defense to stop the other side, but not more. They actually hinted at this in their latest changes thread where they said that because we "got good" at the hardest defenders, the need for diversity points wasn't as high. In other words, we got better on attack, so they now want to change the manipulation dials to allow alliances to place stronger defenders.
Why do all of this? I think it is because Kabam has this idea that we the players should be balancing AW for them. They want to manipulate the alliances into placing strong, but not too strong defenses, and then trying, but not always succeeding to defeat them. But this is never going to happen except by coincidence. Because you can't manipulate the players into fighting balanced wars: the goal of fighting a war is to win, by any means necessary. You don't want to just barely win: you want to gain as much advantage as possible and destroy the opponent if possible. You're never going to want to do anything less than the absolute maximum possible for your alliance's strength and tier.
I wish I knew how to fix this, because if I'm right, someone's mind needs to change and it has remained fixated on this one idea for a very long time and through a lot of AW changes that caused a lot of player uproar. They are clearly willing to push through any push back.
Stubborn. That is the word. And I don't understand it as a strategic business decision.
Last 2 seasons it was 8 weeks on, 2 weeks off and repeat , that's 10 weeks for a new season to start. NOW ? It will take 12 weeks to get to the same exact point.
4 seasons of AW in the "shorter" seasons will essentially net you a loss of a full seasons rewards...
May not seem like much but over the long run there wil be significant losses.
Was this intended?
@Kabam Miike
Others have mentioned it, but in my opinion it is not a nerf to rewards. You're getting the same rewards for the same effort. If you count this as a nerf to rewards, then when people were asking for a longer break between seasons that would also be a nerf to rewards. I'm pretty sure none of the people asking for a longer break were asking for a nerf to rewards.
Technically true for some alliances, but that statement was made in the context of the war season schedule, not the map difficulty.
But the reply was made in context of map difficulty. Which he had a valid point aswell.
ALSO Not everyone was asking for longer breaks . Majority of people are not in the top 50 alliances for AW and we dont really care if those players get burnt out and want longer breaks.
We want rewards to get better over time or atleast stay the same as a bare minimum.
Kabam cares about their bank account though so they listen to them.
I would bet real money most players are perfectly fine with the new schedule itself. I don't know how many of you are included in "we" but I'm pretty sure it is not the majority of players.
Buffet or Masochism at nodes with +450% total health? How can you make a dent at that? Not to mention the Buffet with +100% recovery combo.
These nodes are not mini-bosses, they are roadblock. Please consider toning them down a bit
Remove this changes and create another modification
Is totally pay to win on the top tiers
We‘ll see where we end up this time. Gold 1 in season 1 and 2. but it just isn‘t worth the invest and effort - specially with all the other „Features“ Kabam promotes to us for free... 🤮
I also feel the war victor crystal needs adjusting too; I’m not sure anyone likes using some epic boosts and potions to win and then receive a 3* arena boost from the crystal! Like seriously?
Just add 5* / 6* shards and then decent level 3/4 revived and potions in.
It looks like this thread got down voted so no ones even reading it anymore.
I think as Kabam alienates the playerbase with their lack of communication and ill-conceived changes to major game modes, there will be a power vacuum. Alliances are thinning or scaling back. Alliance war rewards are based on raw rankings. If only 1500 alliances compete, everyone makes Gold 1 or higher. By the same token, if many alliances opt for less aggressive spending strategies, they'll essentially voluntarily slide down to make room for others.
At the very top? Sure, that's a cutthroat, pay-to-win situation regardless. You'll always have that on the extremes.