Developers Thoughts: Improving Alliance Wars Discussion Thread

1121315171829

Comments

  • OnmixOnmix Posts: 508 ★★★
    I don’t mind the changes and think they could bring good things.

    Just 1 issue.

    For months now we’ve been told there is no gold issue, and many people in the forums often say “make intelligent rank up decisions”

    Now some may need to re-evaluate if their previous decisions were intelligent or not based on the new nodes of the new season of the most competitive and better rewarded mode in the game.

    What happens to those than need new r4 5* champs (because attacking with anything less than that at least times out, lets not talk about dying from block damage, unavoidable damage, etc)

    This nodes are aimed at the top tier alliances who already have the necessary champs but without resources they won’t be of any use.
    Can we see more gold (at least) and maybe more rank up materials to further diversify our strongest attackers?
    If for some of us arena isn’t cutting it now, imagine how much more gameplay time would we need to rank other champs for specific global nodes on specific seasons.

    Now I know this could break the game but if we’re gonna be challenged with this types of nodes every season we need resources to face them accordingly.
    We need to rank up more champs to use them because every time out with a low attack champ costs some of those best rewards at the end of the season.


    Or what solution is there to someone that has bleed champs for their top attackers?
    Those champs without bleed could time out, as well as any lower rank attackers.
    Is this something that was talked about?
  • Run477 wrote: »
    I feel like half the population of blade lovers forget the fact that he still deals some of the highest damage in the game even without bleed...

    With that said I'm looking forward to no longer seeing the trinity on 9 out of 10 attack teams per bg.

    They're specifically wanting us to use other Champs on attack - so yes - your favorite vampire hunter might not be the best choice anymore...adapt! Put him on defense, use him in AQ, use him in story mode....Break out that cyclops! 😂

    Who are your r5 champs? You can laugh all you want. But when you spend t5bs and t2as on a champ, only to then have kabam continuously nerf the champ, it’s not funny. Sorry you are blade jealous bc you don’t have him.

    Also, I rarely see trinity anymore. No clue what war tier you are in. But most people don’t bring trinity in wars I am in.

    It's funny cause I have Blade at R4 (but I love how everyone assumes someone who defends a blade stifle automatically means they don't have him).

    I don't have an R5 but I do have an R2 KM that I use exclusively in war attack, so I know all about using the top resources in the game on a champ that's now affected by this bleed immune buff.

    Doesn't change anything I said. 😉
  • edited October 2018
    boss6390 wrote: »
    Problem with countering blade is that it counters half of all skill champs ... bleed immunity destroys GP and KM more than Blade


    It doesnt affect killmonger more. Lol. He has to ramp up a good bit before his bleeds are really effective. No war fights last that long most of the time. GP yes. AA yes. Wolverine yes. Many others

    What in the heck are you talking about lol...

    KM causes pretty devastating bleed on every crit. It's not just his L3.
  • DJSergyDJSergy Posts: 170 ★★
    zeezee57 wrote: »
    All-in-all, I have no issues with the changes coming so far. The rotating Buffs aren't Attacker Diversity perse, at least in the sense we've come to know it. It just means more Champs will be utilized. Let's face it. It's been dominated by one Champ, and I don't feel that it's a good direction for the game to go in to have one Champ always dominate any game mode.
    I'm also glad they're looking at Matchmaking manipulation. It's been one of my larger concerns. Between Collusion, Tanking, and Penalization, the Matchmaking system has been all over the place, and that's caused a detriment to many.
    Glad to know these things are being considered.

    Which one champ are you talking about? Corvus? Sparky? Blade? I don't know if I can agree that one champ has been dominating any game mode let alone AW. Based on the wars I've been in and countless AW vids I've watched from various Youtubers and their Alliance Mates from different tiers, I haven't seen more than 3 people use the same team in each BG. And they certainly haven't been using only one champ to clear their path.

    Apparently you must not have seen the Leaderboard. Should I say the Bladerboard.

    I hope you're not basing your opinion based on the Leaderboard. Back when Blade was first released, Mystic Wars were still happening especially in the higher tiers. A little while after he was released so was Act 5.4 which rewarded, anyone who fully explored it, the option to to r5 1 5* champion. It just so happened that Blade was a great counter to Mystics and had high prestige so of course the higher ups were going to choose him as their first r5 and pump every signature stone they have into him.

    Fast forward to today and now we see Mystic Wars are dead and the new Auto-Block era has arrived. By now, the higher ups has at least already got their Blades to sig level 200 and their hands on a shiny new Corvus. Now since Corvus hasn't been around for as long as Blade has and introduced during the first time T5B has came out it should make sense why you'd still see more Blades than any other champ on the leaderboard, albeit a lot less.

    In this current meta, Blade just isn't that useful anymore in AW at least since Kabam killed off Mystic Wars (not complaining btw). I'll be so bold to say if Kabam issued RDT's right now you'd probably see more IMIWs, Corvus Glaives, KM, or Thor Ragnaroks in place of Blade.

    So yeah, I've seen the Leaderboards. But I also pay attention to when the meta shifts.

    Changing MD has literally just happened, and these changes have no doubt been in the works some time. They're also ongoing, so this is just the first introduction we will likely see. I think it's a good idea overall. It's a given that the norm is to find a popular Champ for Attack, the majority use the same Champ or two, and then it becomes just the same dance with little challenge. They're adding more moving parts.

    Mystic Wars were dead long before the changes to MD. The fact that it was recently nerfed just makes it a "little more dead". Also, I'm not against them trying to diversify Attack teams more. All I'm trying to say is that I disagree with what you said that currently one champ is dominating this one game mode when there's a good amount of evidence on the forums alone proving otherwise. Right now you might be thinking I'm replying just to argue but I just don't want Kabam to get the wrong idea that Blade is still the current meta.

    Edit: Also, what's wrong with using the same champ as long as everyone isn't using it? I'm more comfortable using Venom/Stark Spidey than MS/AA and I tend to bring them along more because of the path I take in war.
    I'm inclined to disagree that a large number weren't using Blade for War. Perhaps some were exploring other options, but the data must have shown a strong reliance on Bleed Champs, otherwise there wouldn't be the Global Node. Blade is just one example. As for the same Champ, I'm not talking bringing the same Champ ourselves. I'm talking about a majority relying on the same Champ. I'm sorry, but some people relying on alternatives doesn't change the majority reliance.

    Ok so I currently have two R4 5* champs and rely on 5/50s and R3 champs aside from those two. I'm in a G2 ally and face many allys with full attack teams and even many defenders at 4/55. One of my two R4 champs is X-23 who is now effectively not an option for AW anymore. This isn't hurting the players atop the leaderboard with Blade at R5 because 1) they have plenty of other high ranked champs and 2) their high placement in AW/AQ affords them the rewards to rank alternatives at a significantly faster rate. T2A is a very rare resources and now 1/2 of the champs ive used that rare resource on will be unusable in the most important game mode.

    There's a couple issues I see there. First of all, if you're punching past your capabilities, that's a separate story. I don't mean to pass judgment or imply you're not a good enough Player. I'm just pointing out that if you're struggling against other Allies with much more capable Rosters, then you're going to hit a wall eventually regardless, until you grow more.
    Secondly, the one thing I have ALWAYS maintained is when it comes to Ranking, there are no guarantees in War because it's always changing. This is something I've said many times, as the issue comes up constantly. "I Ranked A Champ for B use in War and now they're useless.". War is always changing. There's no guarantee the Champs we rely on now will be just as useful in that mode because inevitably, it will shift after a while.
    Side note, X-23 is still quite useful. She might be double-hit from the Female Node, and I get what you're saying, but I'm sure there are other options. At the very least, she Crits with Bleed Immune and Regens. Still very useful other places as well.

    Yes AW was always changing but the changes were slow paced and permanet, allowing the players to get and rank up new champs to keep up with AW evolving.

    But now is going to change very fast and unpredictable and not on permanent bases. The frustration of ranking a champ just to see the effectiveness go down for a whole season will be there, and will not be fun at all, and will make wars more expensive.

    Regardless of what you say, 90+% of the players make rank up decisions based on AW effectiveness because its the most competitive game mode. The rate we get new effective champs and rank up material is way less that the rate AW will be changing. This is the main issue with the proposed changes, and it has huge impact in future of the game if left as is and not give tools to the players to adjust as quick as war is changing
  • BigPoppaCBONEBigPoppaCBONE Posts: 1,660 ★★★★
    If I only had 1 or 2 strong options due to limited resources, I’d be pretty upset if they became significantly (<- keyword) less effective whether it was for a week, a season, or whatever. There has to be some option to make older champs viable if Kabam really wants diversity for whatever reason. Personally, I say who cares if everyone wants to use the same guy. Pat yourselves on the back for doing something right. Here’s an idea. Sprinkle the same magic unicorn tears that made that character so good on some older champs and put out some resources so people can use them, then people will use them.
  • Why doesn’t the Alliance War only allow each Champion to play only once for the whole season?
  • BodhizenBodhizen Posts: 302 ★★
    Why doesn’t the Alliance War only allow each Champion to play only once for the whole season?
    You'd need 56 viable attackers and defenders to run your season with. Wars would be won by who had the luck of the draw to fight an Alliance who had weaker defenders left over.
  • Lt_Magnum_1Lt_Magnum_1 Posts: 637 ★★
    I have another idea for a Global buff. Why not a buff that gives attacking champs increased attack based on armor. This idea could make Hulkbuster or OG Ironman very useful.
  • BigPoppaCBONEBigPoppaCBONE Posts: 1,660 ★★★★
    I have another idea for a Global buff. Why not a buff that gives attacking champs increased attack based on armor. This idea could make Hulkbuster or OG Ironman very useful.
    They could also make Hulkbuster and OG Ironman better. Then there’s no need bother with global buffs although I like the idea of buffs favoring certain groups of champs. Lifting champs up instead of bringing them down is preferable to me. You can bring Blade or Corvus if you want, they just won’t get the hefty benefits of the global attack buff.
  • RO53TT1RO53TT1 Posts: 305
    I mean if kabam doesn't want everyone using blade and a few other certain characters, buff those characters that'll do it quick but don't make such a massive move with the bleed immune nodes, it's to much to fast.
  • If the aim is to make each aw series different so some champs will be less effective and other champs more effective then who in there right mind would rank a champion up for aw only to have them rendered useless for ever possibly, to create this kind of game a package of some sort would have to be given before each season to male it viable from a players perspective.
    Although I welcome Change as a whole and realise the game must continue to evolve, you need to remember that these changes effect us and not you.
    Also your number 1 priority should be the cheating alliances and tanking but you’ve kind of steered away from any totally direct action on this, the amount of posts on this and ideas should make this very easy to address
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 16,173 ★★★★★
    edited October 2018
    Red_barron wrote: »
    Demonzfyre wrote: »
    Red_barron wrote: »
    Demonzfyre wrote: »
    Red_barron wrote: »
    Demonzfyre wrote: »
    Red_barron wrote: »
    They're not nerfs. They're obstacles to certain Abilities. The game is full of counters, either Nodes or Champs. There isn't an End-Game Champ. There won't be one that we Rank who is unchallenged no matter what. If that happens, the game will likely end.

    Please look up the word “nerf” it means to weaken the effectiveness of something or a change that effects a certain thing, it’s a nerf. Directly or indirectly.
    People are just trying to make comments and not wanting you to jump on everything please.

    Its not a nerf. If thats what you think a nerf is then that would mean the existing bleed immune nodes and paths in all game modes plus bleed immune champs are nerfs to any bleed champ. Its a counter if anything to bleed champs. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Google it

    In gaming terms it means to change the fundamental functions of a champ. Blade is unchanged. Not a nerf.

    w0j18pytbuo1.jpeg

    Blade is still effective and still desirable. Not a nerf.

    I’d give up while your behind if I was you :)

    Maybe take your own advice. You know how many people used Blade to take down Act 5 Ultron? Hes double immune and people still used Blade. Couldn't bleed him but still beat him. R5/65 Blades can still do plenty of damage against bleed immune champs. Time to move on.

    ***Also it' "you're" not "your". Google that.
  • CicadasxCicadasx Posts: 5
    This is not a bad idea actually. Its a terrible idea.

    It seems like you guys didnt even realise the state of your game and come up with half baked ideas. Global Nodes seems like a good idea and the Amped Up node seems fair. Others suggestion, you can do it like the Event thing, use a Guardian, Xmen, Villain hero etc for attack to gain certain buff. That will increase diversity.

    But to make a Bleed Immune global node is poor decision. This will only hurt your "not top tier" player who might have been relying on AA, GP, or even Hawkeye for example. Top tier player have a larger roster and as always, will always get away with it. They are using Corvus now anyway.

    Baf idea as usual from Kabam, making the gap wider and wider between the top alliance and the rest of us.
  • ChampioncriticChampioncritic Posts: 3,347 ★★★★
    They are not even putting global nodes in every tier yet, don't see why there are so many complaints
  • Xthea9Xthea9 Posts: 829 ★★
    😂😂😂😂😂 funny thing is everyone is fighting with each other’s thoughts and views. If kabam decides to implement something that’s said and done. Why are you guys even fighting for such a small change. Those effected with this change has plenty of options in their rosters. Giving a choice of selections for buff nodes .... definitely gives a kick to the current war structure and it’s kinda cool. Have fun guys weekend almost over .... damn that’s a big issue ... I wish we have a choice to add one more day in weekend 😂😂😂
  • DTMelodicMetalDTMelodicMetal Posts: 2,785 ★★★★★
    Cicadasx wrote: »
    This is not a bad idea actually. Its a terrible idea.

    It seems like you guys didnt even realise the state of your game and come up with half baked ideas. Global Nodes seems like a good idea and the Amped Up node seems fair. Others suggestion, you can do it like the Event thing, use a Guardian, Xmen, Villain hero etc for attack to gain certain buff. That will increase diversity.

    But to make a Bleed Immune global node is poor decision. This will only hurt your "not top tier" player who might have been relying on AA, GP, or even Hawkeye for example. Top tier player have a larger roster and as always, will always get away with it. They are using Corvus now anyway.

    Baf idea as usual from Kabam, making the gap wider and wider between the top alliance and the rest of us.

    @Cicadasx Agreed. This seems like another AW situation where unintended side effects or collateral damage will be high. The other situation I'm referring to is how alliances who've cheated during AW Seasons have been penalized and then faced multiple easy matchups with the same or one tier lower war multiplier. Top 30 AQ alliances have been earning 10K+ T2AC shards per AQ cycle on top of additional T2AC shards and sometimes full T2ACs from Map 6 crystals. Master tier for AW Seasons is top 20, so it's not a stretch to say all master and some platinum 1 alliance players have large rosters of 4/55 attackers ready to use for AW attack. "Can't use 5/65 Blade or Killmonger or Gwenpool? Guess I'll dust off my 4/55 Doctor Voodoo, Rogue, Angela, Star Lord, Captain Marvel, and Luke Cage."

    There are more effective ways for Kabam to diversify which AW attackers players use, many which have been suggested by other players in this thread. Implementing a global bleed node for AW defenders next season will have a minimal effect on top AW tier players, which will be more boosts and more item usage. The collateral damage will be low to middle AW tier players who don't have endless T4CC/T2AC champions to use for AW attack. These players may end up being more frustrated than ever with MCOC's biggest in-game resources game mode. If the direction of MCOC as outlined in AW Season 5's changes is what we can expect long-term the best thing players can do is rankup champions who aren't on the nerf discussion radar.

    Releasing new content that rewards players resources like full T5BCs and T2ACs would discredit players' complaints about these kinds of instant-meta changes. Additionally, enforcing TOS violations for account sharing outside of Alliance War would legitimize Kabam releasing such new content, since players would no longer be able to arrange for others to earn such rare in-game rewards for them. I know I'm not the only one who is hopeful that those are things Kabam is working towards.
  • DJSergyDJSergy Posts: 170 ★★
    But the issue at hand is not nerfing blade. Thats just short term. The issue is changing the meta of AW. This change is way more impactful than a simple blade nerf
  • DukeZmanDukeZman Posts: 604 ★★★
    ACMegatron wrote: »
    Kabam already told us they don't want everyone to 100% the map 100% of the time.

    So stop completing the map already! or Languor is going to be the next global buff.

    It's a lofty goal by kabam, but one that will never be realized in top alliances. They will spend whatever necessary to be the alliance that 100%'s. But since both alliances will do so, the deciding factor will, as always, be attacker bonus or possibly diversity. Season make every point count and some of those top alliances are so close not 100%ing is not even an option.
This discussion has been closed.