RagamugginGunner wrote: » 100% wrong. There aren't enough t2a in the game for people outside the top ~20 in AQ to get that many r4 champs.
Brainimpacter wrote: » if we cant utilise bleed champs ill need rank down tickets otherwise i cant play with my team after putting all my T2A into them for war only for you to move the goalposts again.
Fixxx wrote: » People who are crying for RDTs because their 5/65 Archangels will be briefly nerfed by global Bleed-Immunity nodes are missing the point ANY champ can now be temporarily nerfed by whatever global node Kabam decides to trot out. They can decide on a global Poison-Immunity node in a futile bid to stop Doctor Voodoo for a season, or a global Rage node to remove the Corvus Glaives, or a global Evade node because people aren't using Iceman enough. They can bring out any global node to stop the most used attacker of the previous season or bring back the least used attacker and force a meta-shift Are you all fine with that?
Fixxx wrote: » Moreover, the temporal nature of the nerfs induced by global nodes in one aspect of the game--never mind that it's the most competitive and lucrative aspect right now--means any demands for RDTs will be shut down quickly. Because it's "just for a season, you guys" Again, are you all fine with that?
TheVyrus wrote: » I do not understand why the solution is always sticking to the players. I realize the end game to get more players to spend money & resources, or in a different manner than they do, but upsetting everyone is not the solution. I guess it is though since all of the top spenders will just spend more. So I am sure it will be for nothing, but just in case the developers want some true solutions. 1. You want more diversity? - Easy solution limit the number of times the same champion can be used on offense and defense. Maybe 2 of the same on offense and two of the same on defense. This would force more diversity and players to rethink which champions they upgrade. 2. You want more people participating? - Fix the matchmaking. Have your analysts pull some different data categories to use for matching alliances. Whatever is being done right now isn't working so try something new. This is a standard business practice among the biggest companies in the world, not reinventing the wheel. Just try it. 3. Cheaters? - Known cheater alliances get moved into their own bracket where they have to complete with each other only. The rewards are diminished and honest players are not penalized.
Rodstein wrote: » TheVyrus wrote: » I do not understand why the solution is always sticking to the players. I realize the end game to get more players to spend money & resources, or in a different manner than they do, but upsetting everyone is not the solution. I guess it is though since all of the top spenders will just spend more. So I am sure it will be for nothing, but just in case the developers want some true solutions. 1. You want more diversity? - Easy solution limit the number of times the same champion can be used on offense and defense. Maybe 2 of the same on offense and two of the same on defense. This would force more diversity and players to rethink which champions they upgrade. 2. You want more people participating? - Fix the matchmaking. Have your analysts pull some different data categories to use for matching alliances. Whatever is being done right now isn't working so try something new. This is a standard business practice among the biggest companies in the world, not reinventing the wheel. Just try it. 3. Cheaters? - Known cheater alliances get moved into their own bracket where they have to complete with each other only. The rewards are diminished and honest players are not penalized. While it may seem like a good idea point 1 would be bad unless resources were more attainable otherwise it would have a similar effect that the one caused by the amp up/blleed immune global nodeAll the others i like a lot
Kabam Miike wrote: » Issue 1: Meta Champions vs Diversity As we mentioned above, a lot of Alliance Wars have been won by utilizing the same top Champions on both Defense and Offense teams. While it’s great that we have different Champions that fill different roles, we want there to be more strong alternatives. Currently, Summoners who are lucky enough to collect certain Champions will have a large advantage over Summoners that haven’t. The most seasoned Summoners who have the largest rosters have no means to utilize the breadth of their roster effectively. This does not mesh with our goal to keep Alliance Wars dynamic. The strategic element in Alliance Wars is lacking. Having the right Champion, and being lucky in Crystal pulls, is much more important than we would like it to be. What we want to do is add more value to other Champions in Summoner Roster, Aligning this closer with our goals to keep Alliance Wars dynamic, and encourage counter-play through strategic decision making.
Dannyt90 wrote: » @Kabam Miike I think the value of these changes will really depend on how the player selection of the global nodes would be implemented. If alliances can pick the same global node every war, it will likely revert to the same selection every time. For example, bleed immunity as a counter to blade will likely be one of the favorites to use. In order to keep this from stagnating wars again, it could be implemented in a variety of ways: 1. Whichever global node your alliance selects, you get matched against an alliance that has selected the same global node. So for blade heavy alliances, they will be matched against other blade heavy alliances. 2. Over the course of the war season, an alliance will be limited on the number of times they can use a global node. For example, alliances will be given six global nodes to choose from over the course of the season. Each of these global nodes can only be used twice each. This will encourage more strategy on when to use certain global nodes and promote variety throughout the season. 3. Instead of global nodes, add a randomized buff to individual nodes in war as in Modok Labs. Each player would then be given a limited number of re-rolls to use each war in case they come up against a deadly buff combination. This would remove the ability of alliances to select buffs but would still create dynamic and constantly changing war experiences.
Brainimpacter wrote: » I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths.
Dexman1349 wrote: » If we are expected to be able to quickly adapt to the flavor of the month, Kabam will have to make rank up resources significantly more available. Either through more rewards or via RDTs (yes I know I said the banned word).
DNA3000 wrote: » Brainimpacter wrote: » I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths. I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King. I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3).
Dhruvgajjar wrote: » Dannyt90 wrote: » @Kabam Miike I think the value of these changes will really depend on how the player selection of the global nodes would be implemented. If alliances can pick the same global node every war, it will likely revert to the same selection every time. For example, bleed immunity as a counter to blade will likely be one of the favorites to use. In order to keep this from stagnating wars again, it could be implemented in a variety of ways: 1. Whichever global node your alliance selects, you get matched against an alliance that has selected the same global node. So for blade heavy alliances, they will be matched against other blade heavy alliances. 2. Over the course of the war season, an alliance will be limited on the number of times they can use a global node. For example, alliances will be given six global nodes to choose from over the course of the season. Each of these global nodes can only be used twice each. This will encourage more strategy on when to use certain global nodes and promote variety throughout the season. 3. Instead of global nodes, add a randomized buff to individual nodes in war as in Modok Labs. Each player would then be given a limited number of re-rolls to use each war in case they come up against a deadly buff combination. This would remove the ability of alliances to select buffs but would still create dynamic and constantly changing war experiences. Most sensible input I've seen. Without crying for rdts or complaining, this post has some smart and legit inputs that can actually make alliance wars more fun and interactive.
Brainimpacter wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Brainimpacter wrote: » I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths. I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King. I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3). last i knew tiers 1-3 were Expert and 4-5 challenger so a lot more alliances than you think, almost everyone from gold brackets up basically
DNA3000 wrote: » Brainimpacter wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Brainimpacter wrote: » I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths. I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King. I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3). last i knew tiers 1-3 were Expert and 4-5 challenger so a lot more alliances than you think, almost everyone from gold brackets up basically I'm probably misremembering this then. However, I think this is basically everyone from Platinum upward, and some of Gold 1, if they were fighting competitively. My alliance was right on the border of Gold 1/Gold 2 and was hovering in tier 7-8 for the most part.. I doubt there are many players even in tier 5 that would throw up their hands and give up due to bleed immunity.
arni2 wrote: » Sooo, let's try and break thing apart: Buff 1 - Amped Up: - Female Champions you bring to this fight receive increased Class Bonus effects. Half of the Attack bonus is always applied. Specific tuning values will be revealed soon - Amped up affects the Attacker, so bringing in Female Champions will give your Attack team an offensive Good Female attackers - Magik, Emma Frost and Domino (33% new champs), luck biased again Buff 2 - Bleed Immunity: - Bleed immunity affects Defenders - Bringing in Debuff heavy Champions will still be a viable option, but Champions that rely heavily on Bleed will not be as effective this Season. NO BLADE, Nice, But also new Symbiote Supreme will suffer from this node, interesting... Issue 2: Unfair Play in Alliance Wars This issue is integral to the mode. Alliance Wars is a highly competitive mode, and our goal is to make it the MOST competitive mode in the game, so fairness is paramount. No Alliance should feel that they can play their best, and fairest, but be let down when another Alliance does not play fair, and beats them, or 2 Alliances collude to manipulate the standings. All the solutions that proposed are generic and won't do much. In order to make alliance wars to be skill based, limit the amount of boost (attack, health) that player can use per war, otherwise the maxed boosted alliance usually win. (I know it probably won't happen because those boosts are one of the main income from war system, but you might surprise)
Buff 1 - Amped Up: - Female Champions you bring to this fight receive increased Class Bonus effects. Half of the Attack bonus is always applied. Specific tuning values will be revealed soon - Amped up affects the Attacker, so bringing in Female Champions will give your Attack team an offensive
Buff 2 - Bleed Immunity: - Bleed immunity affects Defenders - Bringing in Debuff heavy Champions will still be a viable option, but Champions that rely heavily on Bleed will not be as effective this Season.
Issue 2: Unfair Play in Alliance Wars This issue is integral to the mode. Alliance Wars is a highly competitive mode, and our goal is to make it the MOST competitive mode in the game, so fairness is paramount. No Alliance should feel that they can play their best, and fairest, but be let down when another Alliance does not play fair, and beats them, or 2 Alliances collude to manipulate the standings.
Werewrym wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Brainimpacter wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » Brainimpacter wrote: » I dont think Kabam realise how many people are going to be left without a strong enough attack team for their tier after most put resources into champs that will be useless next season, Ive seen endless people in Line talk about quitting or not playing the season because they are not going to be able to clear their paths. I would bet real money there aren't enough players in tiers 1 through 3 that would be unable to complete their war path due to bleed immunity to fill a medium-sized Burger King. I would also bet real money there are literally thousands of people complaining on Line about something they are not actually going to face, because they are not in at least a challenger tier alliance (tiers 2 and 3). last i knew tiers 1-3 were Expert and 4-5 challenger so a lot more alliances than you think, almost everyone from gold brackets up basically I'm probably misremembering this then. However, I think this is basically everyone from Platinum upward, and some of Gold 1, if they were fighting competitively. My alliance was right on the border of Gold 1/Gold 2 and was hovering in tier 7-8 for the most part.. I doubt there are many players even in tier 5 that would throw up their hands and give up due to bleed immunity. It’s about top 1000 in gold 1
Werewrym wrote: » It’s about top 1000 in gold 1