**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.

Developers Thoughts: Improving Alliance Wars Discussion Thread

1181921232429

Comments

  • Gonna post one of the ideas I threw at kabam bc I liked it lol. And we're allowed to share our feedback.

    Counterplay is one pillar and I really like that focus, tho I question how well global nodes achieve that. The following idea kinda takes the notion of counterplay and smushes it together w their node idea.

    Placement day- each alliance selects one single buff or debuff from a pool (options chosen by kabam, can be changed daily/weekly/per season)
    If a buff is selected, it would be applied to that team's defenders. If debuff, it is applied to the enemy attackers. Normal defender placements happens during this time as well.

    Attack day- each alliance is shown the buff/debuff selected by the enemy. They are allowed to select one more buff/debuff from the pool. In this case, if a buff is selected.. It would be applied to their attackers while a debuff would be applied to enemy defenders. Then each team can scout paths and choose attackers as normal.

    With this, you still have a traditional war... But you also have direct counterplay both in buff/debuff selections and in attacker choice. You also have higher strategies of matching your defenders to your selected phase 1 buff/debuff. It seemed like a fun twist to me.

    Admittedly, I haven't played it out far beyond the nugget of the idea as far as which buffs/debuffs should go into the pool and how they would interact/cancel each other out, etc. Seems doable without too many issues tho.
  • What about the issue with cheating alliances getting dropped to lower tiers and roflstomping alliances they have no business playing?

    So this is something we haven't really commented on yet, but I can say that we are aware of how this affects other Alliances, and is something we are looking at solutions to. We're not 100% sure on exactly what we're going to do at this time, but are looking to have something in place for Season 5.

    @Kabam Miike I know that the Team is currently working on how to approach this issue, and I'm sure there's tons of suggested ideas out there in order to address how to best punish an alliance caught "piloting" in order to achieve their wins. I just wanted to list some ideas I've heard out there, in hopes that this may allow the best way to address the problem to be implemented:

    I think the pillar idea is to NOT drop the alliance's war rating, but still dock their total seasons points. This tremendously hurts any alliance that Top Alliances match up with. I've seen a lot of "potentially Platinum 3" alliances end up facing someone who was punished and dropped down to their war rating, only to get demolished cause they're facing more Rank 4, Level 55, 5 Star champions against people with more expansive rosters, which then ultimately affect the alliances in the lower tiers and further affecting the final season placements.

    - Someone suggested locking them out from matchmaking entirely for the remainder of the season, and wherever their deducted season points lands them, that's what they end up receiving. - I think this is somewhat useful, however this may result in a lot of alliances disbanding and going to a "shell" alliance or another "sister" alliance in order to preserve their season rewards depending on how many wars are left in the season.

    - Someone suggested allowing them to remain at their war rating (and respective Alliance War Tier) and continue to matchmake, however any member deemed guilty of "piloting" would not be able to participate, in both defensive placements of their champions, and attacking, either for the remainder of the season or X number of wars. This punishment would remain on the player for the remainder of the season or X number of wars, regardless of what alliance they went to, to indicate the severity of their wrongdoing. In order to allow other alliances to know of this players inability to participate in war, potentially add a value indicator on their profile (maybe at the top right/left of the champion portrait) indicating a number of how many wars they are not allowed to participate in. This would allow the alliance leadership who may be unaware of the "piloting" or other wrongdoings done by a specific player and take appropriate action in rectifying the situation, rather than the alliance as a whole being deducted season points, war rating and being unable to determine the source of the issue. This would still ultimately punish the alliance as they would have to face the enemy short handed and with a limited defense, (if they choose to keep the offenders). Or have to recruit the replacements in a very short period of time and replan all the attacking/defensive plans in order to rectify the problem.

    I recognize that potentially none of these solutions may be implemented, but just wanted to share some thoughts that I had heard others discussing.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    People keep calling it a nerf, but that's not at all what it is. It's a rotating Node. Nothing is changing about the Champs themselves. As for buffs, they've done a few and no doubt there's room for more. However, I think the list that people consider useless/less effective is much higher than can reasonably be reworked. There's a tendency to discard anything not God Tier. Buffs have to be calculated and done carefully, and within balance of other progress. It's not a matter of just sweeping all the old Champs.

    When the game only allows you to max out 3-5 total champs after playing for 3+ years then the players HAVE to discard non god tier champs. It's a self inflicted problem, that they have total control over.

    Kabam, and many of their blind supporters on this forum, don't seem to understand that in a game like this any change, even a small one, has a huge impact on everyone. Of course people who are in tiers that won't change can speculate on how those changes will impact players, but they won't actually know.
    Yes, the impact is you can't rely in Bleed for a Season. Given your example, if all 3-5 rely on Bleed, that's more of a tactical issue than Resources. Personally, I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket, but that's how I Rank.
    In any case, there are many other options besides Bleed. No doubt 6*s have been acquired as well. I doubt they're all Bleed. Nor do you need to use a Max Champ. Point is, there are choices.
    The whole reaction is as if this is some type of permanent change. It's the first rotation. It's going to swap out. That's what I'm saying. The response is as if they've irreparably damaged Champs. It's a Node. One that won't stay indefinitely, and doesn't change the Champs at all. Still just as useful.
    For the record, there are quite a few other Debuffs. I don't care what Tier I'm in. I wouldn't rely on one alone. There's Incinerate, Shock, Armor Break, Degen, etc. That brings me back to my original point. People will survive. They'll just have to do something different. That's the real argument in my opinion. The same tactic can't be used indefinitely if the game mode wants to be challenging.

    Who are your 3-5 r5 5* champs again?

    How many times will you keep responding that way before you realize it's just old. If you want to have a serious discussion, try doing it on topic and without calling people out on what they have and don't have. Unless you can point out how my Roster pertains to a Global Node.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    People keep calling it a nerf, but that's not at all what it is. It's a rotating Node. Nothing is changing about the Champs themselves. As for buffs, they've done a few and no doubt there's room for more. However, I think the list that people consider useless/less effective is much higher than can reasonably be reworked. There's a tendency to discard anything not God Tier. Buffs have to be calculated and done carefully, and within balance of other progress. It's not a matter of just sweeping all the old Champs.

    When the game only allows you to max out 3-5 total champs after playing for 3+ years then the players HAVE to discard non god tier champs. It's a self inflicted problem, that they have total control over.

    Kabam, and many of their blind supporters on this forum, don't seem to understand that in a game like this any change, even a small one, has a huge impact on everyone. Of course people who are in tiers that won't change can speculate on how those changes will impact players, but they won't actually know.
    Yes, the impact is you can't rely in Bleed for a Season. Given your example, if all 3-5 rely on Bleed, that's more of a tactical issue than Resources. Personally, I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket, but that's how I Rank.
    In any case, there are many other options besides Bleed. No doubt 6*s have been acquired as well. I doubt they're all Bleed. Nor do you need to use a Max Champ. Point is, there are choices.
    The whole reaction is as if this is some type of permanent change. It's the first rotation. It's going to swap out. That's what I'm saying. The response is as if they've irreparably damaged Champs. It's a Node. One that won't stay indefinitely, and doesn't change the Champs at all. Still just as useful.
    For the record, there are quite a few other Debuffs. I don't care what Tier I'm in. I wouldn't rely on one alone. There's Incinerate, Shock, Armor Break, Degen, etc. That brings me back to my original point. People will survive. They'll just have to do something different. That's the real argument in my opinion. The same tactic can't be used indefinitely if the game mode wants to be challenging.

    The point is you once again don’t know what you’re talking about. Most nodes already have 5 or 6 debuffs on them already so they’re already limited by what champs are effective. Now they’ve slapped on another to make it even worse. I love the fact that low level players think that just because some people are playing at a higher level means they just go to their bag of champs and pull out the next counter and rank 5 him real quick and just keep going. For as much as you claim to know that’s not how it works. I’m a mid level player and have good champs and will probably get by fine but that’s not the point. The point is they’re setting a terrible precedent going forward and once again making it harder without touching the rewards. I’ve never played a game where it seems like it gets continuously harder and more is added but the rewards stay the same for a year. So far war has been very one sided. Every off season they change it and make it harder and we’re expected to keep paying for the same exact thing.

    Playing at that level consistently means they will have more options. That's just a fact.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    OKAYGang wrote: »
    What Kabam has done with Red Hulk, Luke Cage, Venom and Carnage is nothing short of awesome. People are ranking and using those champs now, when previously they were just the butt of many MCOC jokes. Great job Kabam you've figured out to encourage diversity! That formula works. This "Developer's Thoughts" one just discourages most players including myself.

    When you buff old champs I want to grind and pay for more rank up materials so I can rank up more champs. When you nerf, I think why bother, they'll just nerf the good ones anyway making my efforts and money spent a waste.

    Why the sudden 180 here? You were going in the right direction, then out of nowhere this.

    They explain their position in the announcement. Although introducing new champs (and revisiting old ones) can change the strategic balance of the game, it does so extremely slowly, and not consistently either. They are attempting to change the way alliance war plays out strategically, so players perceive more strategic avenues.

    Part of the problem is that buffing old champions or introducing new champions tends to only displace previous options by superceding them, they don't add new options as often. It doesn't add counterplay if the best AW attacker gets replaced with a different best AW attacker. That's not the change that the developers are interested in. What they want is more of a rock/paper/scissors gameplay where there game encourages players to place defenses that are better against the most common attackers than just placing the strongest defense period, and force attackers to then respond to that by reconsidering who they bring on offense to respond to the actions of the players.

    Introducing new champions and buffing old ones does encourage players to either hunt for them or rank them up if they had them on the bench. But that's not the problem specified as the problem they are trying to attack with their Dev Diary. It isn't a 180 turn from their point of view.

    That is simply not possible in this game. With 3-5 maximum r5 chams and 85% of all champs being garbage on defense or offense, no one can or will actually adjust their teams to anything.

    They already do: they adjust to new champions being introduced. If they didn't, then @OKAYGang's notion of new and buff champs actually improving anything would be false. The problem is that the speed at which this can be done is very slow, which is a problem Kabam is aware of and considering ways to address.

  • DTMelodicMetalDTMelodicMetal Posts: 2,785 ★★★★★
    chunkyb wrote: »
    Gonna post one of the ideas I threw at kabam bc I liked it lol. And we're allowed to share our feedback.

    Counterplay is one pillar and I really like that focus, tho I question how well global nodes achieve that. The following idea kinda takes the notion of counterplay and smushes it together w their node idea.

    Placement day- each alliance selects one single buff or debuff from a pool (options chosen by kabam, can be changed daily/weekly/per season)
    If a buff is selected, it would be applied to that team's defenders. If debuff, it is applied to the enemy attackers. Normal defender placements happens during this time as well.

    Attack day- each alliance is shown the buff/debuff selected by the enemy. They are allowed to select one more buff/debuff from the pool. In this case, if a buff is selected.. It would be applied to their attackers while a debuff would be applied to enemy defenders. Then each team can scout paths and choose attackers as normal.

    With this, you still have a traditional war... But you also have direct counterplay both in buff/debuff selections and in attacker choice. You also have higher strategies of matching your defenders to your selected phase 1 buff/debuff. It seemed like a fun twist to me.

    Admittedly, I haven't played it out far beyond the nugget of the idea as far as which buffs/debuffs should go into the pool and how they would interact/cancel each other out, etc. Seems doable without too many issues tho.

    @chunkyb Dead on. Allowing alliances to select a single buff or debuff from options selected by Kabam would be exhilarating.
  • hatchetkillahatchetkilla Posts: 23
    Acanthus wrote: »
    The murdering of Blade continues
    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.

    Can you please expand on this. A R5 killmonger on node 29 will now be impposible to beat unless you have a corvius. People would use blade because that was the only other counter. Node 29 is a problem and you are not hellping this out at all, just making it a lot more difficult

    I take it you haven't heard of Magik.

    What about Archangel

    @hatchetkilla There will be a Bleed Immune Global Node... so Archangel will awful for Season 5 of AW in general... as will champs like Gwenpool, X-23 & Domino.

    The alliance I'm in won't go past the 1 an 2 on aw,, I need get into a new one because their holding me up
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    edited October 2018
    borntohula wrote: »
    Playing at that level consistently means they will have more options. That's just a fact.

    Sigh. At times it seems you're not simply missing the gist of an argument, but purposefully avoiding it. Truth is, there aren't an infinite (or even a large) number of counters to specific alliance war nodes in higher tiers. Let alone to entire paths. And no, not everyone that is affected by this euphemism for 'we want you to spend more to clear your line' has a whole team of 5/5 champs on the bench.

    Me, I'm in a consistently Gold 1 alliance (yes, we're affected). Out of our 30 members, only three (!) have two (!) maxed out five stars. None of us has a rank 2 six star. And roughly half (I'd have to check) of the players make do with 5/4 and/or lower ranked champs. The 15 or so members who do have one or two maxed five stars, all ranked for the most difficult and potentially most profitable game-mode, AW. None of us ranked up champs specifically for other content. Mostly, because none of us really struggle in other content.

    Given that Blade and other bleeders (KM and AA, for instance) were among the best (few) AW offensive options, it stands to reason that most maxed those champs. So, to reiterate, for alliances at our level - not crazy high up there, just 'solid' Gold 1 - this little experiment doesn't hamper 'a few' of our top champs, but - in many cases - all of them. We hardly have any to begin with!

    And given that the number of counters to specific (successions of) nodes/champs on specific lines, is insanely limited, the only way for most of us to (maybe) still make it through, is by spending a ton of items. Would we like to use different champs? Sure, we would! But only if those stood a chance to succeed. Also, if you could lead the way to the pot of rank up materials at the end of your argumentative rainbow, that would be a great help.

    In short; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't think you care either.

    I know exactly what I'm talking about. The issue is people don't like hearing it. I specifically said that it would pose a problem for some. That's the point of the Node. To challenge people to rely on more than just Bleed. I didn't say everyone has everything they need to R5 a Roster immediately. Especially those at the bottom end of the demographic we are discussing. I said people have options. If all people depend on is Bleed throughout, that's a problem in and of itself. Considering that's only one Debuff. That's a byproduct of a majority only Ranking the same Champs. Yes, Resources are scarce. That's a different issue. The main point I'm making is it will take adjusting. At least for a Season. There's somehow an expectation that whatever change comes should entail little to no difference in how people play, and that's just not in touch with reality. Simply put, you have to do things differently to adjust to something different. I'm not even entertaining the idea that people have absolutely no options outside of Bleed. If so, that's because they expected to Rank one Team that would remain untouched no matter what they throw at people, and that's equally as unrealistic. The bottom line is, it's a rotating Node that some will have to put more effort into adjusting to than others, and that makes it no different than any other change that comes.
    I've been pretty respectful in that, considering the pointed implication that I don't know what I'm talking about. I could have just as easily said to be the best, you have to be able to adjust to anything. However, I try to operate with a tad more mindfulness than that.
  • GreywardenGreywarden Posts: 843 ★★★★
    I don't understand how this fixes the haves versus have not issue. Seems like this change makes it worse. If one of my top champs isn't a female or someone that doesn't rely on bleed I can't be expected to just r4/r5 one of those at the snap of a finger.

    It takes Master groups months to get enough materials to get a r5, imagine the rest of the community. My roster is pretty well developed but I have had good luck and have a lot of God tier champs ranked up to 4 or 5 but I know everyone doesn't have that same luck.

    Some people only have that GP, Drax, OG BP or AA which are now drastically less effective, AA and OG BP moreso. The intent to change things up is admirable but using the offseason as a beta test is a bad idea, that's why beta environments exist.

    Someone mentioned a list of debuffs and buffs to select in defense and attack stage which I thought was a pretty cool idea. That seems more aligned with what Kabam is trying to pull off than a global node that gimps some attackers.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 20,997 ★★★★★
    Kpatrix wrote: »
    borntohula wrote: »
    Playing at that level consistently means they will have more options. That's just a fact.

    Sigh. At times it seems you're not simply missing the gist of an argument, but purposefully avoiding it. Truth is, there aren't an infinite (or even a large) number of counters to specific alliance war nodes in higher tiers. Let alone to entire paths. And no, not everyone that is affected by this euphemism for 'we want you to spend more to clear your line' has a whole team of 5/5 champs on the bench.

    Me, I'm in a consistently Gold 1 alliance (yes, we're affected). Out of our 30 members, only three (!) have two (!) maxed out five stars. None of us has a rank 2 six star. And roughly half (I'd have to check) of the players make do with 5/4 and/or lower ranked champs. The 15 or so members who do have one or two maxed five stars, all ranked for the most difficult and potentially most profitable game-mode, AW. None of us ranked up champs specifically for other content. Mostly, because none of us really struggle in other content.

    Given that Blade and other bleeders (KM and AA, for instance) were among the best (few) AW offensive options, it stands to reason that most maxed those champs. So, to reiterate, for alliances at our level - not crazy high up there, just 'solid' Gold 1 - this little experiment doesn't hamper 'a few' of our top champs, but - in many cases - all of them. We hardly have any to begin with!

    And given that the number of counters to specific (successions of) nodes/champs on specific lines, is insanely limited, the only way for most of us to (maybe) still make it through, is by spending a ton of items. Would we like to use different champs? Sure, we would! But only if those stood a chance to succeed. Also, if you could lead the way to the pot of rank up materials at the end of your argumentative rainbow, that would be a great help.

    In short; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't think you care either.

    I know exactly what I'm talking about. The issue is people don't like hearing it. I specifically said that it would pose a problem for some. That's the point of the Node. To challenge people to rely on more than just Bleed. I didn't say everyone has everything they need to R5 a Roster immediately. Especially those at the bottom end of the demographic we are discussing. I said people have options. If all people depend on is Bleed throughout, that's a problem in and of itself. Considering that's only one Debuff. That's a byproduct of a majority only Ranking the same Champs. Yes, Resources are scarce. That's a different issue. The main point I'm making is it will take adjusting. At least for a Season. There's somehow an expectation that whatever change comes should entail little to no difference in how people play, and that's just not in touch with reality. Simply put, you have to do things differently to adjust to something different. I'm not even entertaining the idea that people have absolutely no options outside of Bleed. If so, that's because they expected to Rank one Team that would remain untouched no matter what they throw at people, and that's equally as unrealistic. The bottom line is, it's a rotating Node that some will have to put more effort into adjusting to than others, and that makes it no different than any other change that comes.
    I've been pretty respectful in that, considering the pointed implication that I don't know what I'm talking about. I could have just as easily said to be the best, you have to be able to adjust to anything. However, I try to operate with a tad more mindfulness than that.

    I would like to invite you to my alliance so you can experience first hand what we experience. We are gold one, tier 4-5 and the nodes get ridiculous against stronger teams. Hit me up in game if you really want to know the facts.

    Gold 1 isn't that difficult. I'm in Gold 1/plat 3 ally. Tier 3 wars are significantly harder war.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    Greywarden wrote: »
    Someone mentioned a list of debuffs and buffs to select in defense and attack stage which I thought was a pretty cool idea. That seems more aligned with what Kabam is trying to pull off than a global node that gimps some attackers.

    To get there, we need to go through here. I'm not particularly crazy about the notion, but it is what it is. Think about how Alliance War was changed in 14.0, and think about how what we eventually got in 16.1 had almost nothing to do with how it was changed in 14.0 in net terms. The individual pieces were there in some form in 14.0, but in a completely non-functional way. This is how iteration generally works.

    Several people in the early access specifically suggested alternatives that were similar to, or analogous to, what's being described here. My own personal suggestion was to allow each individual player to choose a buff that synergized with their placed defenders as a kind of "sixth slot" when choosing defenders, or alternatively to create a mastery tree-like buff/debuff option that would only work on alliance war maps that players could slot and reslot. I also suggested defensive rank up tokens that would rank up a defender when placed in alliance war, limited by tier (the higher the war tier, the higher the rank up token would push a defender to, so tier 10 alliances were not pseudo-ranking defenders to 5/65 and making war too hard).

    The problem is that Kabam can't get there, or anywhere else that's an interesting solution, in one jump. It is problematic that the first hop forward doesn't look like it accomplishes the goal, but Kabam's goal isn't to solve the problem. The goal is to plant the seeds to grow tools to eventually solve the problem.
  • DNA3000 wrote: »
    Greywarden wrote: »
    Someone mentioned a list of debuffs and buffs to select in defense and attack stage which I thought was a pretty cool idea. That seems more aligned with what Kabam is trying to pull off than a global node that gimps some attackers.

    To get there, we need to go through here. I'm not particularly crazy about the notion, but it is what it is. Think about how Alliance War was changed in 14.0, and think about how what we eventually got in 16.1 had almost nothing to do with how it was changed in 14.0 in net terms. The individual pieces were there in some form in 14.0, but in a completely non-functional way. This is how iteration generally works.

    Several people in the early access specifically suggested alternatives that were similar to, or analogous to, what's being described here. My own personal suggestion was to allow each individual player to choose a buff that synergized with their placed defenders as a kind of "sixth slot" when choosing defenders, or alternatively to create a mastery tree-like buff/debuff option that would only work on alliance war maps that players could slot and reslot. I also suggested defensive rank up tokens that would rank up a defender when placed in alliance war, limited by tier (the higher the war tier, the higher the rank up token would push a defender to, so tier 10 alliances were not pseudo-ranking defenders to 5/65 and making war too hard).

    The problem is that Kabam can't get there, or anywhere else that's an interesting solution, in one jump. It is problematic that the first hop forward doesn't look like it accomplishes the goal, but Kabam's goal isn't to solve the problem. The goal is to plant the seeds to grow tools to eventually solve the problem.

    Agreed fully and that's why I like the main idea. It's better than nothing and it's what we have. There seems to be an aversion to sweeping change for whatever reason. Think of all the iterations we went thru once diversity was introduced. It dragged on endlessly (and is still kinda going tbh). But, if we get closer to something cool, fine. I'm just of the mindset of dealing w stuff in hopes of getting to the fun. Very similar to crystals, I just hope the outcome is better than my 6*s
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    Demonzfyre wrote: »
    Kpatrix wrote: »
    borntohula wrote: »
    Playing at that level consistently means they will have more options. That's just a fact.

    Sigh. At times it seems you're not simply missing the gist of an argument, but purposefully avoiding it. Truth is, there aren't an infinite (or even a large) number of counters to specific alliance war nodes in higher tiers. Let alone to entire paths. And no, not everyone that is affected by this euphemism for 'we want you to spend more to clear your line' has a whole team of 5/5 champs on the bench.

    Me, I'm in a consistently Gold 1 alliance (yes, we're affected). Out of our 30 members, only three (!) have two (!) maxed out five stars. None of us has a rank 2 six star. And roughly half (I'd have to check) of the players make do with 5/4 and/or lower ranked champs. The 15 or so members who do have one or two maxed five stars, all ranked for the most difficult and potentially most profitable game-mode, AW. None of us ranked up champs specifically for other content. Mostly, because none of us really struggle in other content.

    Given that Blade and other bleeders (KM and AA, for instance) were among the best (few) AW offensive options, it stands to reason that most maxed those champs. So, to reiterate, for alliances at our level - not crazy high up there, just 'solid' Gold 1 - this little experiment doesn't hamper 'a few' of our top champs, but - in many cases - all of them. We hardly have any to begin with!

    And given that the number of counters to specific (successions of) nodes/champs on specific lines, is insanely limited, the only way for most of us to (maybe) still make it through, is by spending a ton of items. Would we like to use different champs? Sure, we would! But only if those stood a chance to succeed. Also, if you could lead the way to the pot of rank up materials at the end of your argumentative rainbow, that would be a great help.

    In short; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't think you care either.

    I know exactly what I'm talking about. The issue is people don't like hearing it. I specifically said that it would pose a problem for some. That's the point of the Node. To challenge people to rely on more than just Bleed. I didn't say everyone has everything they need to R5 a Roster immediately. Especially those at the bottom end of the demographic we are discussing. I said people have options. If all people depend on is Bleed throughout, that's a problem in and of itself. Considering that's only one Debuff. That's a byproduct of a majority only Ranking the same Champs. Yes, Resources are scarce. That's a different issue. The main point I'm making is it will take adjusting. At least for a Season. There's somehow an expectation that whatever change comes should entail little to no difference in how people play, and that's just not in touch with reality. Simply put, you have to do things differently to adjust to something different. I'm not even entertaining the idea that people have absolutely no options outside of Bleed. If so, that's because they expected to Rank one Team that would remain untouched no matter what they throw at people, and that's equally as unrealistic. The bottom line is, it's a rotating Node that some will have to put more effort into adjusting to than others, and that makes it no different than any other change that comes.
    I've been pretty respectful in that, considering the pointed implication that I don't know what I'm talking about. I could have just as easily said to be the best, you have to be able to adjust to anything. However, I try to operate with a tad more mindfulness than that.

    I would like to invite you to my alliance so you can experience first hand what we experience. We are gold one, tier 4-5 and the nodes get ridiculous against stronger teams. Hit me up in game if you really want to know the facts.

    Gold 1 isn't that difficult. I'm in Gold 1/plat 3 ally. Tier 3 wars are significantly harder war.

    I totally agree, just wanted to show someone what it's like in higher tiers that will see the changes. I don't bring any bleed champs right now anyway, 1 t2a away from r4 corvus, x23, or gp. But a lot of my alliance mates have bleed champs as counters for their paths and they will be disadvantaged now affecting the rest of us.

    It's just frustrating when a guy jumps in a fight he doesn't have a dog in. It's like a shrink telling you a bulging disc. Is because you're mom have you too much love as a kid.
  • RagamugginGunnerRagamugginGunner Posts: 2,210 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    OKAYGang wrote: »
    What Kabam has done with Red Hulk, Luke Cage, Venom and Carnage is nothing short of awesome. People are ranking and using those champs now, when previously they were just the butt of many MCOC jokes. Great job Kabam you've figured out to encourage diversity! That formula works. This "Developer's Thoughts" one just discourages most players including myself.

    When you buff old champs I want to grind and pay for more rank up materials so I can rank up more champs. When you nerf, I think why bother, they'll just nerf the good ones anyway making my efforts and money spent a waste.

    Why the sudden 180 here? You were going in the right direction, then out of nowhere this.

    They explain their position in the announcement. Although introducing new champs (and revisiting old ones) can change the strategic balance of the game, it does so extremely slowly, and not consistently either. They are attempting to change the way alliance war plays out strategically, so players perceive more strategic avenues.

    Part of the problem is that buffing old champions or introducing new champions tends to only displace previous options by superceding them, they don't add new options as often. It doesn't add counterplay if the best AW attacker gets replaced with a different best AW attacker. That's not the change that the developers are interested in. What they want is more of a rock/paper/scissors gameplay where there game encourages players to place defenses that are better against the most common attackers than just placing the strongest defense period, and force attackers to then respond to that by reconsidering who they bring on offense to respond to the actions of the players.

    Introducing new champions and buffing old ones does encourage players to either hunt for them or rank them up if they had them on the bench. But that's not the problem specified as the problem they are trying to attack with their Dev Diary. It isn't a 180 turn from their point of view.

    That is simply not possible in this game. With 3-5 maximum r5 chams and 85% of all champs being garbage on defense or offense, no one can or will actually adjust their teams to anything.

    They already do: they adjust to new champions being introduced. If they didn't, then @OKAYGang's notion of new and buff champs actually improving anything would be false. The problem is that the speed at which this can be done is very slow, which is a problem Kabam is aware of and considering ways to address.

    Of course people can eventually adjust to changed. I was obviously talking about a 3 week head's up for something that'll only be in the game for a month.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    OKAYGang wrote: »
    What Kabam has done with Red Hulk, Luke Cage, Venom and Carnage is nothing short of awesome. People are ranking and using those champs now, when previously they were just the butt of many MCOC jokes. Great job Kabam you've figured out to encourage diversity! That formula works. This "Developer's Thoughts" one just discourages most players including myself.

    When you buff old champs I want to grind and pay for more rank up materials so I can rank up more champs. When you nerf, I think why bother, they'll just nerf the good ones anyway making my efforts and money spent a waste.

    Why the sudden 180 here? You were going in the right direction, then out of nowhere this.

    They explain their position in the announcement. Although introducing new champs (and revisiting old ones) can change the strategic balance of the game, it does so extremely slowly, and not consistently either. They are attempting to change the way alliance war plays out strategically, so players perceive more strategic avenues.

    Part of the problem is that buffing old champions or introducing new champions tends to only displace previous options by superceding them, they don't add new options as often. It doesn't add counterplay if the best AW attacker gets replaced with a different best AW attacker. That's not the change that the developers are interested in. What they want is more of a rock/paper/scissors gameplay where there game encourages players to place defenses that are better against the most common attackers than just placing the strongest defense period, and force attackers to then respond to that by reconsidering who they bring on offense to respond to the actions of the players.

    Introducing new champions and buffing old ones does encourage players to either hunt for them or rank them up if they had them on the bench. But that's not the problem specified as the problem they are trying to attack with their Dev Diary. It isn't a 180 turn from their point of view.

    That is simply not possible in this game. With 3-5 maximum r5 chams and 85% of all champs being garbage on defense or offense, no one can or will actually adjust their teams to anything.

    They already do: they adjust to new champions being introduced. If they didn't, then @OKAYGang's notion of new and buff champs actually improving anything would be false. The problem is that the speed at which this can be done is very slow, which is a problem Kabam is aware of and considering ways to address.

    Of course people can eventually adjust to changed. I was obviously talking about a 3 week head's up for something that'll only be in the game for a month.

    If you were intending to be obviously talking about the three week heads up for the current announced global buffs, why did you quote me and explicitly highlight the part where I talk about what the long term goal was, not what the current situation was?
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    People keep calling it a nerf, but that's not at all what it is. It's a rotating Node. Nothing is changing about the Champs themselves. As for buffs, they've done a few and no doubt there's room for more. However, I think the list that people consider useless/less effective is much higher than can reasonably be reworked. There's a tendency to discard anything not God Tier. Buffs have to be calculated and done carefully, and within balance of other progress. It's not a matter of just sweeping all the old Champs.

    When the game only allows you to max out 3-5 total champs after playing for 3+ years then the players HAVE to discard non god tier champs. It's a self inflicted problem, that they have total control over.

    Kabam, and many of their blind supporters on this forum, don't seem to understand that in a game like this any change, even a small one, has a huge impact on everyone. Of course people who are in tiers that won't change can speculate on how those changes will impact players, but they won't actually know.
    Yes, the impact is you can't rely in Bleed for a Season. Given your example, if all 3-5 rely on Bleed, that's more of a tactical issue than Resources. Personally, I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket, but that's how I Rank.
    In any case, there are many other options besides Bleed. No doubt 6*s have been acquired as well. I doubt they're all Bleed. Nor do you need to use a Max Champ. Point is, there are choices.
    The whole reaction is as if this is some type of permanent change. It's the first rotation. It's going to swap out. That's what I'm saying. The response is as if they've irreparably damaged Champs. It's a Node. One that won't stay indefinitely, and doesn't change the Champs at all. Still just as useful.
    For the record, there are quite a few other Debuffs. I don't care what Tier I'm in. I wouldn't rely on one alone. There's Incinerate, Shock, Armor Break, Degen, etc. That brings me back to my original point. People will survive. They'll just have to do something different. That's the real argument in my opinion. The same tactic can't be used indefinitely if the game mode wants to be challenging.

    Who are your 3-5 r5 5* champs again?

    How many times will you keep responding that way before you realize it's just old. If you want to have a serious discussion, try doing it on topic and without calling people out on what they have and don't have. Unless you can point out how my Roster pertains to a Global Node.

    If you stop making definitive statements on end game content I'll stop asking about you experience with end game content.

    Calling someone out about where they're at in the game doesn't give you more of a right to have an opinion on the subject, and it's not a very constructive way to have a debate. If you think your Roster and position in the game automatically makes you right and me wrong, prove it with points that pertain to my own. All that equates to in a discussion is an act of desperation.
  • We seem to have a 3 way split on what’s happening some totally against some ok with it and 1 who just argues with everything ( you can all figure that one out)
    So forget what’s been said and let’s look at the direction this is going, after this season coming bleed champs will be back in and maybe heavy hitters or power control champs are penalized, so we will be back to the same issue but even worse as we’ve spent remorse’s on female champs, to keep moving the goal posts at such short intervals will never give us time to rank up the champs we need so the only way will be use what we have and if your unlucky to have a nerfed champ that series then you will have to use items and pay to play.
    With dd being stopped they had to come up with something else to make us spend and continue to want offers, so even if this was stopped they will come up with another way to raise their revenue
This discussion has been closed.