New aw changes and how it affects the players

PFunkPFunk Member Posts: 111
in General Discussion
I have been thinking about this over the last few days and it’s still not sitting well. @Kabam Miike if Kabam doesn’t want us to fully explore aw, then remove the lock on our champs from eq and story quest. The reason people try to get through as fast as possible is so that they can use their champs again to work on all the content that’s released. No one wants to just sit there in aw and wait for the timer to run out so they can use their top champs again. This seems to be why so many don’t agree that you shouldn’t be 100%’ing aw. So my suggestion is if you don’t want us to fully explore aw, then take the lock off from those champs in the eq and story mode.

Comments

  • TitoBandito187TitoBandito187 Member Posts: 2,072 ★★★★
    PFunk wrote: »
    I have been thinking about this over the last few days and it’s still not sitting well. @Kabam Miike if Kabam doesn’t want us to fully explore aw, then remove the lock on our champs from eq and story quest. The reason people try to get through as fast as possible is so that they can use their champs again to work on all the content that’s released. No one wants to just sit there in aw and wait for the timer to run out so they can use their top champs again. This seems to be why so many don’t agree that you shouldn’t be 100%’ing aw. So my suggestion is if you don’t want us to fully explore aw, then take the lock off from those champs in the eq and story mode.

    Kudos! Exactly this.

  • SligSlig Member Posts: 396 ★★★
    That’s actually a very good point.
  • RixobRixob Member Posts: 505 ★★
    That and remove some linked nodes. It looks like you still have to go down every path to even get the mini boss nodes down
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Member Posts: 8,675 ★★★★★
    Kabam needs to reevaluate the premise that AW shouldn't be 100% completed. No one wants War to be about which side is willing to use the most items and no one wants a map which is designed for the winner to be which side failed less. Starting with a false premise is a bad way to reach a reasonable conclusion.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • ezmoneyezmoney Member Posts: 208
    they just need to remove the items for both teams. make it a high end who is better event. difficulty level is irrelevant. If they take away items then you'll actually have a skill based leaderboard. There's plenty of other ways for them to make money.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Member Posts: 8,675 ★★★★★
    Dropfaith wrote: »
    LeNoirFaineant wrote: »
    Kabam needs to reevaluate the premise that AW shouldn't be 100% completed. No one wants War to be about which side is willing to use the most items and no one wants a map which is designed for the winner to be which side failed less. Starting with a false premise is a bad way to reach a reasonable conclusion.

    The side that failed less should win..... not who has the most diversity..

    I agree that the side which failed less should win. But do you want a war where both sides do actually fail? That's not the way most competitions are run and it isn't very satisfying. It also means the winner probably won through item use. If both sides 100% the map but the winning side had fewer deaths along the way it's a better war imo
  • R4GER4GE Member Posts: 1,530 ★★★★
    Its a crazy notion to think AW won't be 100% completed and even crazier to want to make incompletion the goal. That does nothing but discourage players. Who would really have interest in playing anything intended to be unbeatable?

    Everything should always be beatable and both alliances hitting 100%. Victory going to who performed the best to reach that goal, with a good mix of smart placement and skill on the attack end.
  • MattyloMattylo Member Posts: 234 ★
    edited July 2018
    LeNoirFaineant wrote: »
    Kabam needs to reevaluate the premise that AW shouldn't be 100% completed. No one wants War to be about which side is willing to use the most items and no one wants a map which is designed for the winner to be which side failed less. Starting with a false premise is a bad way to reach a reasonable conclusion.

    Remember the whole premise of why defender kills were eliminated was so that people didnt feel "discouraged" lmao Now they do this which is a complete contradiction to their whole original premise for changing AW scoring system. But not surprised.

    Now they want us to be okay with failing. Which everyone is gonna feel like if they make these maps unable to be 100%.

  • Jkw634Jkw634 Member Posts: 296 ★★
    If they don’t want maps 100 percent add where a defense gets bonus points for any kills over 3. Teams will have to decide whether or not to finish and a team gets penalized for just reviving and healing over and over.
  • MC1111111MC1111111 Member Posts: 88 ★
    I'm on the other side of the fence with this. I love that it's harder to 100%. I do think they should remove the champion lock though, as well as removing item use completely.
  • Jkw634Jkw634 Member Posts: 296 ★★
    Clarify only the map boss.
  • Hort4Hort4 Member Posts: 507 ★★★
    MC1111111 wrote: »
    I'm on the other side of the fence with this. I love that it's harder to 100%. I do think they should remove the champion lock though, as well as removing item use completely.

    Someone must have an awful good champ for use on IMIW :smile:
  • MocinhoMocinho Member Posts: 10
    Does anyone have a picture of this new map? AW
Sign In or Register to comment.