GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
Kabam Miike wrote: » Username72647 wrote: » 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.
Username72647 wrote: » What about the issue with cheating alliances getting dropped to lower tiers and roflstomping alliances they have no business playing?
RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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?
Jamiefyffe16 wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
RagamugginGunner 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.
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.
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.
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.
RandomizerRuns_4 wrote: » hatchetkilla wrote: » Acanthus wrote: » The murdering of Blade continues Nightwing2380 wrote: » 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.
hatchetkilla wrote: » Acanthus wrote: » The murdering of Blade continues Nightwing2380 wrote: » 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
Acanthus wrote: » The murdering of Blade continues Nightwing2380 wrote: » 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.
Nightwing2380 wrote: » 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
GroundedWisdom wrote: » Playing at that level consistently means they will have more options. That's just a fact.
borntohula wrote: » GroundedWisdom 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.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » borntohula wrote: » GroundedWisdom 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.
Kpatrix wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » borntohula wrote: » GroundedWisdom 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.
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.
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.
Demonzfyre wrote: » Kpatrix wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » borntohula wrote: » GroundedWisdom 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.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
DNA3000 wrote: » RagamugginGunner 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.
RagamugginGunner wrote: » DNA3000 wrote: » RagamugginGunner 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.
RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.
GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » GroundedWisdom wrote: » 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.