**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

12324262829

Comments

  • MattManMattMan Posts: 434 ★★★★
    But if my “crystal luck” hasn’t blessed me with a good female champ to use, my best option may still be a bleed champ (who is now AWnerf’d)....how is AW not more difficult for me?

    Kabam logic is from another dimension.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,237 ★★★★★
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    BrianGrant wrote: »
    Wow... that female buff is bigger than expected. Can we go back in time so I can get Emma Frost?

    This season we're going to see female champs do some crazy things. Should be fun.

    BG, I'm a big fan, but you look at this game so much differently than most. Love what you do but IMO you're inability to see things from other player's perspective (or care about it) is your biggest weakness as a content creator.

    I both see and care about other players perspectives for this and all changes to the game. I've already given Kabam a list of pros and cons to this idea, of which the list of cons was longer.

    But if I just automatically went with what everyone said and didn't give my own opinion, I'd just be lying to gain an audience. And the way I really feel is that although this system isn't perfect, and AW in total is far from perfect, I can't help but get excited for a 25-45% attack increase for female champions. Maybe you disagree, which is fine, I'm not trying to change your opinion, but can you at least see why such a massive attack boost for female champions would get me excited?

    And I'm probably not even going to be using a female champion this season. I'm just excited for other people and to see their fights.

    Well said.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    This might not be a popular idea, but why not place champion restrictions on the preseason beta for these global nodes. Only allow 4* champs or 5* r3 to be used. Then to combat tanking, remove or minimize rating points lost but allow teams trying to boost their rating to get full increase with wins.

    The theory behind this is players have larger rosters of 4*s to use, and can try out different teams without being at a bigger disadvantage as they would be against 6* and r4&5 5*s.

    Then players can use their top champs in story and eq while still running a competitive war and allow the developers to gather data that more closely resembles a season. A lot of top tier players have the same maxed 4* as they do do 5* and can use their AA and GP as well as blade, venom, Carnage, etc. to see how they are affected.

    Maybe even implement this into seasons and buff the nodes up a bit to make the 4*s stronger like in danger rooms, adding skill into the mix even more by capping everyone's champs at the same level because obviously a team with multiple maxed 5*s is going to have an easier time than a team with only r4 5s or lower on attack. It will put everyone on an equal level
    Some might not like this because they want to use their top champs, but this would give them an opportunity to showcase their true skill.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    To expand on this even more, since the rewards are so much better at higher tiers, the champ requirements could scale by war rating. Tier 1 and 2 could be unlimited, 3 and 4 could see r5 defenders or eqivellent, t5 and 6 could see 6* star r1 and equivalent, etc.

    There could be a global node that would allow the use of any champ on your roster but cap their stats at the cutoff point for your tier. You could still bring your favorite attacker, they would just be effectively deranked to put all champs at a max limit.

    This could even solve the mismatching that occuts when teams tank in the off season and then have fights where they are significantly stronger than their opponents by making both teams have a max limit on both attack and defensive strength.

    It's just a thought and could probably use some refinement, but I think this could really work well with what the developers are trying to do by introducing the global nodes and the champ requirements from danger rooms, and would allow more diversity that they seem to want so badly as well as keeping all rarities relevent. They could even make the requirements random, make some wars 3" only or 2* only. War would be much easier on the wallet healing up lower rarities as well.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    Kpatrix wrote: »
    This might not be a popular idea, but why not place champion restrictions on the preseason beta for these global nodes.

    As far as I'm aware, these aren't being implemented as buffs on individual nodes or as nodes granting linked buffs until they are killed, these are global buffs that affect all attackers and defenders in the war.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    Kpatrix wrote: »
    To expand on this even more, since the rewards are so much better at higher tiers, the champ requirements could scale by war rating. Tier 1 and 2 could be unlimited, 3 and 4 could see r5 defenders or eqivellent, t5 and 6 could see 6* star r1 and equivalent, etc.

    There could be a global node that would allow the use of any champ on your roster but cap their stats at the cutoff point for your tier. You could still bring your favorite attacker, they would just be effectively deranked to put all champs at a max limit.

    Ideas like this were discussed in the early access preview, and also mentioned in this thread. My understanding is that variations on this theme are something Kabam is looking at for future iterations of AW.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    DNA3000 wrote: »
    Kpatrix wrote: »
    This might not be a popular idea, but why not place champion restrictions on the preseason beta for these global nodes.

    As far as I'm aware, these aren't being implemented as buffs on individual nodes or as nodes granting linked buffs until they are killed, these are global buffs that affect all attackers and defenders in the war.

    Maybe I wasn't clear, I meant adding champion requirements in addition to the global nodes, while possibly beefing up the regular nodes to compensate for weaker defenders overall.
  • KpatrixKpatrix Posts: 1,055 ★★★
    I really think this could add a lot more strategy to war, as well as open up more choices for attack teams. We would be able to use s much wider range of maxed champs if we weren't fighting maxed 5*s with some attackers that we have as our top champs bring negated by a global node. Just dig deeper into out roster while still fighting the same relative difficulty. Danger rooms showed this was an effective way to use more of out rosters and the sentinel against the mutants was a challenging fight for most of the players. It's along the lines of bringing in max 4* into uncollected, much more challenging than using high ranked 5* or 6* champs, and really shows skill versus champion strength.
  • DTMelodicMetalDTMelodicMetal Posts: 2,785 ★★★★★
    @Kabam Miike Can we please get an update on Medusa's living strands bug being fixed before AW Season 5 starts? Kabam has a year's worth of clean data to compare the current bugged version of Medusa to, the community will be at an increased disadvantage if they have to fight stronger bugged versions of Medusa AW bosses.
  • Jobi_ManJobi_Man Posts: 16
    Although I can kind of understand where the developers are coming from with their seasonal tweaks of AW, I do not think they understand what a nightmare it is to organize AW placements and assignments. Officers are provided ridiculously limited ability to manage AW/AQ, and introducing anything that requires new assignments throughout the season is a stroke waiting to happen. I literally spend hours and even days planning things out via third party apps, excel, websites simply because Kabam offers so little useful resources or data themselves. And even after that is done, it is like herding cats to get everyone to follow instructions.

    Yeah, there are some defenders (IMIW, Modok, Korg, Medusa, etc.) and offenders (Blade, Void, CG, etc.) that everyone uses, but that's how you guys made it. And I feel that most officers have a set it and forget it approach, because after we spent all that time coming up with placements / assignments, the last thing we want to do is make more changes. Introducing things like rotating buffs / debuffs is just a band-aid IMO.

    Please give us more tools and data to manage AW if you really want to introduce dynamic changes. I'm still waiting for that Kabam employee to come back from vacation to give us prestige figures not that it really matters anymore.

    Do you have any suggestions on how we can do that? Like any tools in particular would be helpful in this kind of stuff?

    I do...
    1. let placement happen while on the map instead of selecting the team ahead of time.

    2. Let members put champs in a pool for officers to pull from. If a members can place up to 10 champs to put in the pool.

    3. Let the officers have the ability to Auotfill using previous war’s placement.
  • Edweezy_14Edweezy_14 Posts: 40
    If y’all want us to adjust and not use the same champs, how come you don’t give us temporary rank up material before each season to be able to keep up with the “meta” of the game.
  • Welll day 1 of the nerf is here in aw, it’s ok so far as I’ve not opted for a bleed attack, thought it would be nice to mention it on here for the very vocal member who has no idea what it’s like at this level :)
  • PaytoPlayPaytoPlay Posts: 762 ★★★
    PaytoPlay wrote: »
    Anyone knows if the global bleed immune node can be removed after all minis are down? Introducing this to war without fixing Medusa's bug is money grab .... Almost guarantee that's the default AW boss for my tier throughout the season

    Well got my answer. Global node is on the boss and not the mini boss.. and facing our first of many bleed immune r5 Medusa boss. Thanks for nothing kabam. Great job on champion diversity and encouraging using bugs to drive revenue.
  • PaytoPlayPaytoPlay Posts: 762 ★★★
    PaytoPlay wrote: »
    PaytoPlay wrote: »
    Anyone knows if the global bleed immune node can be removed after all minis are down? Introducing this to war without fixing Medusa's bug is money grab .... Almost guarantee that's the default AW boss for my tier throughout the season

    Well got my answer. Global node is on the boss and not the mini boss.. and facing our first of many bleed immune r5 Medusa boss. Thanks for nothing kabam. Great job on champion diversity and encouraging using bugs to drive revenue.

    Sorry kabam I make a mistake it's only outgoing. My bad.
  • mostlyharmlessnmostlyharmlessn Posts: 1,387 ★★★★
    **Cough** Reminder, this was not to make AW harder
  • PaytoPlayPaytoPlay Posts: 762 ★★★
    edited October 2018
    PaytoPlay wrote: »
    PaytoPlay wrote: »
    PaytoPlay wrote: »
    Anyone knows if the global bleed immune node can be removed after all minis are down? Introducing this to war without fixing Medusa's bug is money grab .... Almost guarantee that's the default AW boss for my tier throughout the season

    Well got my answer. Global node is on the boss and not the mini boss.. and facing our first of many bleed immune r5 Medusa boss. Thanks for nothing kabam. Great job on champion diversity and encouraging using bugs to drive revenue.

    Sorry kabam I make a mistake it's only outgoing. My bad.

    Or.... Did I make a mistake.... 🤔

    Just faced a global noded bleed immune r5 5* Medusa boss. *Smh*
  • Taiphoon_zeroTaiphoon_zero Posts: 110
    I like the changes , I think they should be permanent
  • TheVyrus wrote: »
    I just do not understand the purpose of this thread. It was presented as an opportunity for the community to DISCUSS possible changes to the AW format. Clearly after 26 pages of conversation the general consensus was this change was not cared for by the players. While some people just screamed about being nerfed and wanting a hand out of some sort, there were many mature responses providing alternative ideas to accomplish the goals Kabam wanted.

    So why invite the community to participate in this, if you were not going to listen and discuss with us? Clearly there were no intentions of listening, discussing, or changing the plans. I was really hoping, as this was discussed on the boards that Kabam would listen to their customers and at the very least delay their plans and look for an alternative. Instead we were once again ignored and made to waste our time and energy.

    It is really unfortunate that it went down like this. I love the idea of including the community, but to do that we need to heard and acknowledged.

    I would possibly add to the above and say it’s almost like they are portraying the idea that by making the thread they are listening to us but at the same time have no intention of doing this. The cheating war rating drop shows this as it’s been said in the last 3 wars on countless threads and only just been acted on now.
    It’s not about “ appearing to listen “ it’s about actually listening
This discussion has been closed.