Developers Thoughts: Improving Alliance Wars Discussion Thread

Dhruvgajjar · October 2018

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Essentially, it's the same as saying, "We're on top and we deserve the means to stay on top no matter what because it's your fault we don't have what we need.". Paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. It really doesn't matter what position you hold. There's something people have to wait on. Go to Mid Tier, they're tired of waiting for Cats to R5 and R4. Go to the Lower Tier, they're tired of waiting on Champs.
In pretty much any game that I can think of similar to this, it's the same. The higher you go, the more progression slows down. That's necessary for overall progression. It's not as simple as just adding more Resources in the mix. You need to do so gradually, and with the other areas in mind. When you rebalance one, you have to make sure it doesn't imbalance another. It's a constant process of checks and balances. As I said. They've made Resources more available and they will continue to do so. However, the argument doesn't hold just because people are Top Tier.

You're repeating 2-3 points that you can. You're talking with blind faith without substantial information that they're actually working on to fixing it. Problem is bigger in mid tier nd lower tier players because while it takes a few months for top tier players to max out a champ, it takes from six months to a year for them. When 99% of the community playing this game nd know it, when they oppose something they're not stupid. Take this thread for an example that over 90% feedback has been negative and while there has been some content creators on YouTube and many other members of the community took their time to come up with suggestions to implement the changes right way without being unfair to everyone on this thread, it's really makes me sad that no steps have been taken to help us deal with the fundamental problem we're going to face before slapping those changes on the community's face.

Whether 90% of the feedback wants something or not is not always a deciding factor as to whether it goes through or not. A great deal of the feedback is coming from people who aren't even in the Tiers affected.

Above sentence is totally wrong and immoral. First if 90% of the community is telling you it's bad it's an indication to take it sincerely. If community is divided in even 60-40 in opposition, you can say it's not a deciding factor. And how do you know how many of those players aren't in the tiers that are affected? I suppose you can't because you don't know for sure. That's the biggest problem with every argument that you've made so far on every post. They're far away from facts and in your attempt to tune in with everything on them, you blatantly make up points based on your own assumption rather than looking at facts nd things that are evident on this thread. And l would welcome every change with some kind of counter measures but locking champs out on their essential ability and not offer any solution in return is just as wrong and immoral. And I'm proud of the community here on speaking out against it even if it doesn't matter and they're going ahead with changes anyway without offering any kind of solution.

First of all, the Forum doesn't represent 90% of the community. It's a small percentile of the Player Base. Secondly, you have to filter that number down to the number of people actually being affected by the Nodes.
As for wrong and immoral, that's highly dramatic. It's also a shaky suggestion because it implies whatever you have enough complaints on doesn't pass. That means the Players are controlling the game, not the ones who create it. There's a fine line between feedback and demands. Especially when there's very little data to go on, and just reactions.

How much of a community it represents?? And how do you know other players who aren't active on forums are positive towards these changes? You can't. Again proving my point of making blatant assumptions ignoring facts and information that's available right here. It's not dramatic. Players who have given so much love to this game have a right to voice their opinions. It's up to the developers how to take it and eventually it will reflect in overall sales. It's because of people voicing their opposition that many of the drastic changes had to be walked back or resolved with counter measures. 12.0, AQ initial sentinel changes or dropping diversity last war to name a few. This change is going to be implemented without any countermeasures and it will reflect in overall feedback.

Without countermeasures? Disagree on that one. There are a number of Champs that can function without Bleed.
When talking about 12.0, those were major changes, not only to the Champs, but to the very system itself. They knew the magnitude of the changes, but they never anticipated it to have as much of a reaction as it did, or the fact that it was too much, too fast. We talked, they listened.
They're listening now. That doesn't mean any little change will have the same response. It's not even close to being on the same magnitude. It's a temporary Node that will affect the first 5 Tiers in War. When the Node shifts, it will change. Nowhere was it ever stated that Bleed Champs would dominate War for every Season. That's not a given. War is continually evolving. That means we will have to use different strategies from time to time. That also doesn't mean that our best Champs will always be suited for it.
We're going to have to disagree in general because it's getting nowhere. Not even close to 12.0, and not every new change will be cause to picket.

So you picked just one example I gave and formed an entire argument on that. But no word on changes like removing dexterity or initial sentinel changes that had to be walked back. That was all because of backlash and negative feedback from the community.
Fully agreed on that developers listen more often and it's truly appreciated. But this time they missed a mark and they'll realize that as the season kicks off.

GroundedWisdom · October 2018

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Essentially, it's the same as saying, "We're on top and we deserve the means to stay on top no matter what because it's your fault we don't have what we need.". Paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. It really doesn't matter what position you hold. There's something people have to wait on. Go to Mid Tier, they're tired of waiting for Cats to R5 and R4. Go to the Lower Tier, they're tired of waiting on Champs.
In pretty much any game that I can think of similar to this, it's the same. The higher you go, the more progression slows down. That's necessary for overall progression. It's not as simple as just adding more Resources in the mix. You need to do so gradually, and with the other areas in mind. When you rebalance one, you have to make sure it doesn't imbalance another. It's a constant process of checks and balances. As I said. They've made Resources more available and they will continue to do so. However, the argument doesn't hold just because people are Top Tier.

You're repeating 2-3 points that you can. You're talking with blind faith without substantial information that they're actually working on to fixing it. Problem is bigger in mid tier nd lower tier players because while it takes a few months for top tier players to max out a champ, it takes from six months to a year for them. When 99% of the community playing this game nd know it, when they oppose something they're not stupid. Take this thread for an example that over 90% feedback has been negative and while there has been some content creators on YouTube and many other members of the community took their time to come up with suggestions to implement the changes right way without being unfair to everyone on this thread, it's really makes me sad that no steps have been taken to help us deal with the fundamental problem we're going to face before slapping those changes on the community's face.

Whether 90% of the feedback wants something or not is not always a deciding factor as to whether it goes through or not. A great deal of the feedback is coming from people who aren't even in the Tiers affected.

Above sentence is totally wrong and immoral. First if 90% of the community is telling you it's bad it's an indication to take it sincerely. If community is divided in even 60-40 in opposition, you can say it's not a deciding factor. And how do you know how many of those players aren't in the tiers that are affected? I suppose you can't because you don't know for sure. That's the biggest problem with every argument that you've made so far on every post. They're far away from facts and in your attempt to tune in with everything on them, you blatantly make up points based on your own assumption rather than looking at facts nd things that are evident on this thread. And l would welcome every change with some kind of counter measures but locking champs out on their essential ability and not offer any solution in return is just as wrong and immoral. And I'm proud of the community here on speaking out against it even if it doesn't matter and they're going ahead with changes anyway without offering any kind of solution.

First of all, the Forum doesn't represent 90% of the community. It's a small percentile of the Player Base. Secondly, you have to filter that number down to the number of people actually being affected by the Nodes.
As for wrong and immoral, that's highly dramatic. It's also a shaky suggestion because it implies whatever you have enough complaints on doesn't pass. That means the Players are controlling the game, not the ones who create it. There's a fine line between feedback and demands. Especially when there's very little data to go on, and just reactions.

How much of a community it represents?? And how do you know other players who aren't active on forums are positive towards these changes? You can't. Again proving my point of making blatant assumptions ignoring facts and information that's available right here. It's not dramatic. Players who have given so much love to this game have a right to voice their opinions. It's up to the developers how to take it and eventually it will reflect in overall sales. It's because of people voicing their opposition that many of the drastic changes had to be walked back or resolved with counter measures. 12.0, AQ initial sentinel changes or dropping diversity last war to name a few. This change is going to be implemented without any countermeasures and it will reflect in overall feedback.

Without countermeasures? Disagree on that one. There are a number of Champs that can function without Bleed.
When talking about 12.0, those were major changes, not only to the Champs, but to the very system itself. They knew the magnitude of the changes, but they never anticipated it to have as much of a reaction as it did, or the fact that it was too much, too fast. We talked, they listened.
They're listening now. That doesn't mean any little change will have the same response. It's not even close to being on the same magnitude. It's a temporary Node that will affect the first 5 Tiers in War. When the Node shifts, it will change. Nowhere was it ever stated that Bleed Champs would dominate War for every Season. That's not a given. War is continually evolving. That means we will have to use different strategies from time to time. That also doesn't mean that our best Champs will always be suited for it.
We're going to have to disagree in general because it's getting nowhere. Not even close to 12.0, and not every new change will be cause to picket.

So you picked just one example I gave and formed an entire argument on that. But no word on changes like removing dexterity or initial sentinel changes that had to be walked back. That was all because of backlash and negative feedback from the community.
Fully agreed on that developers listen more often and it's truly appreciated. But this time they missed a mark and they'll realize that as the season kicks off.

Sentinel was adjusted, but he's still around. Dexterity wasn't removed. The relationship with MD was reworked, after much time. Seasons will kick off and people will deal with it, then the Nodes will rotate. I'm quite confident people in the Top 5% can deal with a Bleed Immune Node. Expecting them to kibosh a Node because people Ranked mostly Bleed Champs is not reasonable in my opinion.

Dhruvgajjar · October 2018

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Essentially, it's the same as saying, "We're on top and we deserve the means to stay on top no matter what because it's your fault we don't have what we need.". Paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. It really doesn't matter what position you hold. There's something people have to wait on. Go to Mid Tier, they're tired of waiting for Cats to R5 and R4. Go to the Lower Tier, they're tired of waiting on Champs.
In pretty much any game that I can think of similar to this, it's the same. The higher you go, the more progression slows down. That's necessary for overall progression. It's not as simple as just adding more Resources in the mix. You need to do so gradually, and with the other areas in mind. When you rebalance one, you have to make sure it doesn't imbalance another. It's a constant process of checks and balances. As I said. They've made Resources more available and they will continue to do so. However, the argument doesn't hold just because people are Top Tier.

You're repeating 2-3 points that you can. You're talking with blind faith without substantial information that they're actually working on to fixing it. Problem is bigger in mid tier nd lower tier players because while it takes a few months for top tier players to max out a champ, it takes from six months to a year for them. When 99% of the community playing this game nd know it, when they oppose something they're not stupid. Take this thread for an example that over 90% feedback has been negative and while there has been some content creators on YouTube and many other members of the community took their time to come up with suggestions to implement the changes right way without being unfair to everyone on this thread, it's really makes me sad that no steps have been taken to help us deal with the fundamental problem we're going to face before slapping those changes on the community's face.

Whether 90% of the feedback wants something or not is not always a deciding factor as to whether it goes through or not. A great deal of the feedback is coming from people who aren't even in the Tiers affected.

Above sentence is totally wrong and immoral. First if 90% of the community is telling you it's bad it's an indication to take it sincerely. If community is divided in even 60-40 in opposition, you can say it's not a deciding factor. And how do you know how many of those players aren't in the tiers that are affected? I suppose you can't because you don't know for sure. That's the biggest problem with every argument that you've made so far on every post. They're far away from facts and in your attempt to tune in with everything on them, you blatantly make up points based on your own assumption rather than looking at facts nd things that are evident on this thread. And l would welcome every change with some kind of counter measures but locking champs out on their essential ability and not offer any solution in return is just as wrong and immoral. And I'm proud of the community here on speaking out against it even if it doesn't matter and they're going ahead with changes anyway without offering any kind of solution.

First of all, the Forum doesn't represent 90% of the community. It's a small percentile of the Player Base. Secondly, you have to filter that number down to the number of people actually being affected by the Nodes.
As for wrong and immoral, that's highly dramatic. It's also a shaky suggestion because it implies whatever you have enough complaints on doesn't pass. That means the Players are controlling the game, not the ones who create it. There's a fine line between feedback and demands. Especially when there's very little data to go on, and just reactions.

How much of a community it represents?? And how do you know other players who aren't active on forums are positive towards these changes? You can't. Again proving my point of making blatant assumptions ignoring facts and information that's available right here. It's not dramatic. Players who have given so much love to this game have a right to voice their opinions. It's up to the developers how to take it and eventually it will reflect in overall sales. It's because of people voicing their opposition that many of the drastic changes had to be walked back or resolved with counter measures. 12.0, AQ initial sentinel changes or dropping diversity last war to name a few. This change is going to be implemented without any countermeasures and it will reflect in overall feedback.

Without countermeasures? Disagree on that one. There are a number of Champs that can function without Bleed.
When talking about 12.0, those were major changes, not only to the Champs, but to the very system itself. They knew the magnitude of the changes, but they never anticipated it to have as much of a reaction as it did, or the fact that it was too much, too fast. We talked, they listened.
They're listening now. That doesn't mean any little change will have the same response. It's not even close to being on the same magnitude. It's a temporary Node that will affect the first 5 Tiers in War. When the Node shifts, it will change. Nowhere was it ever stated that Bleed Champs would dominate War for every Season. That's not a given. War is continually evolving. That means we will have to use different strategies from time to time. That also doesn't mean that our best Champs will always be suited for it.
We're going to have to disagree in general because it's getting nowhere. Not even close to 12.0, and not every new change will be cause to picket.

So you picked just one example I gave and formed an entire argument on that. But no word on changes like removing dexterity or initial sentinel changes that had to be walked back. That was all because of backlash and negative feedback from the community.
Fully agreed on that developers listen more often and it's truly appreciated. But this time they missed a mark and they'll realize that as the season kicks off.

Sentinel was adjusted, but he's still around. Dexterity wasn't removed. The relationship with MD was reworked, after much time. Seasons will kick off and people will deal with it, then the Nodes will rotate. I'm quite confident people in the Top 5% can deal with a Bleed Immune Node. Expecting them to kibosh a Node because people Ranked mostly Bleed Champs is not reasonable in my opinion.

So you admit that community feedback was the sole reason why sentinel were nerfed and diversity wasn't removed. Also pardon my mistake I meant diversity in earlier post not dexterity.

GroundedWisdom · October 2018

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Essentially, it's the same as saying, "We're on top and we deserve the means to stay on top no matter what because it's your fault we don't have what we need.". Paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. It really doesn't matter what position you hold. There's something people have to wait on. Go to Mid Tier, they're tired of waiting for Cats to R5 and R4. Go to the Lower Tier, they're tired of waiting on Champs.
In pretty much any game that I can think of similar to this, it's the same. The higher you go, the more progression slows down. That's necessary for overall progression. It's not as simple as just adding more Resources in the mix. You need to do so gradually, and with the other areas in mind. When you rebalance one, you have to make sure it doesn't imbalance another. It's a constant process of checks and balances. As I said. They've made Resources more available and they will continue to do so. However, the argument doesn't hold just because people are Top Tier.

You're repeating 2-3 points that you can. You're talking with blind faith without substantial information that they're actually working on to fixing it. Problem is bigger in mid tier nd lower tier players because while it takes a few months for top tier players to max out a champ, it takes from six months to a year for them. When 99% of the community playing this game nd know it, when they oppose something they're not stupid. Take this thread for an example that over 90% feedback has been negative and while there has been some content creators on YouTube and many other members of the community took their time to come up with suggestions to implement the changes right way without being unfair to everyone on this thread, it's really makes me sad that no steps have been taken to help us deal with the fundamental problem we're going to face before slapping those changes on the community's face.

Whether 90% of the feedback wants something or not is not always a deciding factor as to whether it goes through or not. A great deal of the feedback is coming from people who aren't even in the Tiers affected.

Above sentence is totally wrong and immoral. First if 90% of the community is telling you it's bad it's an indication to take it sincerely. If community is divided in even 60-40 in opposition, you can say it's not a deciding factor. And how do you know how many of those players aren't in the tiers that are affected? I suppose you can't because you don't know for sure. That's the biggest problem with every argument that you've made so far on every post. They're far away from facts and in your attempt to tune in with everything on them, you blatantly make up points based on your own assumption rather than looking at facts nd things that are evident on this thread. And l would welcome every change with some kind of counter measures but locking champs out on their essential ability and not offer any solution in return is just as wrong and immoral. And I'm proud of the community here on speaking out against it even if it doesn't matter and they're going ahead with changes anyway without offering any kind of solution.

First of all, the Forum doesn't represent 90% of the community. It's a small percentile of the Player Base. Secondly, you have to filter that number down to the number of people actually being affected by the Nodes.
As for wrong and immoral, that's highly dramatic. It's also a shaky suggestion because it implies whatever you have enough complaints on doesn't pass. That means the Players are controlling the game, not the ones who create it. There's a fine line between feedback and demands. Especially when there's very little data to go on, and just reactions.

How much of a community it represents?? And how do you know other players who aren't active on forums are positive towards these changes? You can't. Again proving my point of making blatant assumptions ignoring facts and information that's available right here. It's not dramatic. Players who have given so much love to this game have a right to voice their opinions. It's up to the developers how to take it and eventually it will reflect in overall sales. It's because of people voicing their opposition that many of the drastic changes had to be walked back or resolved with counter measures. 12.0, AQ initial sentinel changes or dropping diversity last war to name a few. This change is going to be implemented without any countermeasures and it will reflect in overall feedback.

Without countermeasures? Disagree on that one. There are a number of Champs that can function without Bleed.
When talking about 12.0, those were major changes, not only to the Champs, but to the very system itself. They knew the magnitude of the changes, but they never anticipated it to have as much of a reaction as it did, or the fact that it was too much, too fast. We talked, they listened.
They're listening now. That doesn't mean any little change will have the same response. It's not even close to being on the same magnitude. It's a temporary Node that will affect the first 5 Tiers in War. When the Node shifts, it will change. Nowhere was it ever stated that Bleed Champs would dominate War for every Season. That's not a given. War is continually evolving. That means we will have to use different strategies from time to time. That also doesn't mean that our best Champs will always be suited for it.
We're going to have to disagree in general because it's getting nowhere. Not even close to 12.0, and not every new change will be cause to picket.

So you picked just one example I gave and formed an entire argument on that. But no word on changes like removing dexterity or initial sentinel changes that had to be walked back. That was all because of backlash and negative feedback from the community.
Fully agreed on that developers listen more often and it's truly appreciated. But this time they missed a mark and they'll realize that as the season kicks off.

Sentinel was adjusted, but he's still around. Dexterity wasn't removed. The relationship with MD was reworked, after much time. Seasons will kick off and people will deal with it, then the Nodes will rotate. I'm quite confident people in the Top 5% can deal with a Bleed Immune Node. Expecting them to kibosh a Node because people Ranked mostly Bleed Champs is not reasonable in my opinion.

So you admit that community feedback was the sole reason why sentinel were nerfed and diversity wasn't removed. Also pardon my mistake I meant diversity in earlier post not dexterity.

Diversity has had several iterations. That wasn't simply because people didn't want it. People also wanted Defender Kills returned, but we have Attack Bonus now. The changes were because the result wasn't close to what they had envisioned for Diversity, and none of it was prematurely, just because people didn't want it. Feedback is important, but so is the data. They take in feedback, but that doesn't translate to us telling them how to design the game. It's a matter of listening to the feedback, examining the data, and applying it to what their vision is. It's more of a finding mutual ground situation than anything. Certainly not, "They don't like it on paper, better not do it.".

Dhruvgajjar · October 2018

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Essentially, it's the same as saying, "We're on top and we deserve the means to stay on top no matter what because it's your fault we don't have what we need.". Paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. It really doesn't matter what position you hold. There's something people have to wait on. Go to Mid Tier, they're tired of waiting for Cats to R5 and R4. Go to the Lower Tier, they're tired of waiting on Champs.
In pretty much any game that I can think of similar to this, it's the same. The higher you go, the more progression slows down. That's necessary for overall progression. It's not as simple as just adding more Resources in the mix. You need to do so gradually, and with the other areas in mind. When you rebalance one, you have to make sure it doesn't imbalance another. It's a constant process of checks and balances. As I said. They've made Resources more available and they will continue to do so. However, the argument doesn't hold just because people are Top Tier.

You're repeating 2-3 points that you can. You're talking with blind faith without substantial information that they're actually working on to fixing it. Problem is bigger in mid tier nd lower tier players because while it takes a few months for top tier players to max out a champ, it takes from six months to a year for them. When 99% of the community playing this game nd know it, when they oppose something they're not stupid. Take this thread for an example that over 90% feedback has been negative and while there has been some content creators on YouTube and many other members of the community took their time to come up with suggestions to implement the changes right way without being unfair to everyone on this thread, it's really makes me sad that no steps have been taken to help us deal with the fundamental problem we're going to face before slapping those changes on the community's face.

Whether 90% of the feedback wants something or not is not always a deciding factor as to whether it goes through or not. A great deal of the feedback is coming from people who aren't even in the Tiers affected.

Above sentence is totally wrong and immoral. First if 90% of the community is telling you it's bad it's an indication to take it sincerely. If community is divided in even 60-40 in opposition, you can say it's not a deciding factor. And how do you know how many of those players aren't in the tiers that are affected? I suppose you can't because you don't know for sure. That's the biggest problem with every argument that you've made so far on every post. They're far away from facts and in your attempt to tune in with everything on them, you blatantly make up points based on your own assumption rather than looking at facts nd things that are evident on this thread. And l would welcome every change with some kind of counter measures but locking champs out on their essential ability and not offer any solution in return is just as wrong and immoral. And I'm proud of the community here on speaking out against it even if it doesn't matter and they're going ahead with changes anyway without offering any kind of solution.

First of all, the Forum doesn't represent 90% of the community. It's a small percentile of the Player Base. Secondly, you have to filter that number down to the number of people actually being affected by the Nodes.
As for wrong and immoral, that's highly dramatic. It's also a shaky suggestion because it implies whatever you have enough complaints on doesn't pass. That means the Players are controlling the game, not the ones who create it. There's a fine line between feedback and demands. Especially when there's very little data to go on, and just reactions.

How much of a community it represents?? And how do you know other players who aren't active on forums are positive towards these changes? You can't. Again proving my point of making blatant assumptions ignoring facts and information that's available right here. It's not dramatic. Players who have given so much love to this game have a right to voice their opinions. It's up to the developers how to take it and eventually it will reflect in overall sales. It's because of people voicing their opposition that many of the drastic changes had to be walked back or resolved with counter measures. 12.0, AQ initial sentinel changes or dropping diversity last war to name a few. This change is going to be implemented without any countermeasures and it will reflect in overall feedback.

Without countermeasures? Disagree on that one. There are a number of Champs that can function without Bleed.
When talking about 12.0, those were major changes, not only to the Champs, but to the very system itself. They knew the magnitude of the changes, but they never anticipated it to have as much of a reaction as it did, or the fact that it was too much, too fast. We talked, they listened.
They're listening now. That doesn't mean any little change will have the same response. It's not even close to being on the same magnitude. It's a temporary Node that will affect the first 5 Tiers in War. When the Node shifts, it will change. Nowhere was it ever stated that Bleed Champs would dominate War for every Season. That's not a given. War is continually evolving. That means we will have to use different strategies from time to time. That also doesn't mean that our best Champs will always be suited for it.
We're going to have to disagree in general because it's getting nowhere. Not even close to 12.0, and not every new change will be cause to picket.

So you picked just one example I gave and formed an entire argument on that. But no word on changes like removing dexterity or initial sentinel changes that had to be walked back. That was all because of backlash and negative feedback from the community.
Fully agreed on that developers listen more often and it's truly appreciated. But this time they missed a mark and they'll realize that as the season kicks off.

Sentinel was adjusted, but he's still around. Dexterity wasn't removed. The relationship with MD was reworked, after much time. Seasons will kick off and people will deal with it, then the Nodes will rotate. I'm quite confident people in the Top 5% can deal with a Bleed Immune Node. Expecting them to kibosh a Node because people Ranked mostly Bleed Champs is not reasonable in my opinion.

So you admit that community feedback was the sole reason why sentinel were nerfed and diversity wasn't removed. Also pardon my mistake I meant diversity in earlier post not dexterity.

Diversity has had several iterations. That wasn't simply because people didn't want it. People also wanted Defender Kills returned, but we have Attack Bonus now. The changes were because the result wasn't close to what they had envisioned for Diversity, and none of it was prematurely, just because people didn't want it. Feedback is important, but so is the data. They take in feedback, but that doesn't translate to us telling them how to design the game. It's a matter of listening to the feedback, examining the data, and applying it to what their vision is. It's more of a finding mutual ground situation than anything. Certainly not, "They don't like it on paper, better not do it.".

Again. Pure assumptions on what they did, why they did and how they did. You can't support anything you said above with hard evidence. Admittedly you're not present in their decision making process so I would advise you to stop making arguments based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence because that's not gonna work. Not with me at least.

Krish121 · October 2018

Why don’t you add a timer who ever clears bg 100 percent first gets extra 5000 points that’s 25000 instead of 20000

GroundedWisdom · October 2018

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Dhruvgajjar wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Essentially, it's the same as saying, "We're on top and we deserve the means to stay on top no matter what because it's your fault we don't have what we need.". Paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it. It really doesn't matter what position you hold. There's something people have to wait on. Go to Mid Tier, they're tired of waiting for Cats to R5 and R4. Go to the Lower Tier, they're tired of waiting on Champs.
In pretty much any game that I can think of similar to this, it's the same. The higher you go, the more progression slows down. That's necessary for overall progression. It's not as simple as just adding more Resources in the mix. You need to do so gradually, and with the other areas in mind. When you rebalance one, you have to make sure it doesn't imbalance another. It's a constant process of checks and balances. As I said. They've made Resources more available and they will continue to do so. However, the argument doesn't hold just because people are Top Tier.

You're repeating 2-3 points that you can. You're talking with blind faith without substantial information that they're actually working on to fixing it. Problem is bigger in mid tier nd lower tier players because while it takes a few months for top tier players to max out a champ, it takes from six months to a year for them. When 99% of the community playing this game nd know it, when they oppose something they're not stupid. Take this thread for an example that over 90% feedback has been negative and while there has been some content creators on YouTube and many other members of the community took their time to come up with suggestions to implement the changes right way without being unfair to everyone on this thread, it's really makes me sad that no steps have been taken to help us deal with the fundamental problem we're going to face before slapping those changes on the community's face.

Whether 90% of the feedback wants something or not is not always a deciding factor as to whether it goes through or not. A great deal of the feedback is coming from people who aren't even in the Tiers affected.

Above sentence is totally wrong and immoral. First if 90% of the community is telling you it's bad it's an indication to take it sincerely. If community is divided in even 60-40 in opposition, you can say it's not a deciding factor. And how do you know how many of those players aren't in the tiers that are affected? I suppose you can't because you don't know for sure. That's the biggest problem with every argument that you've made so far on every post. They're far away from facts and in your attempt to tune in with everything on them, you blatantly make up points based on your own assumption rather than looking at facts nd things that are evident on this thread. And l would welcome every change with some kind of counter measures but locking champs out on their essential ability and not offer any solution in return is just as wrong and immoral. And I'm proud of the community here on speaking out against it even if it doesn't matter and they're going ahead with changes anyway without offering any kind of solution.

First of all, the Forum doesn't represent 90% of the community. It's a small percentile of the Player Base. Secondly, you have to filter that number down to the number of people actually being affected by the Nodes.
As for wrong and immoral, that's highly dramatic. It's also a shaky suggestion because it implies whatever you have enough complaints on doesn't pass. That means the Players are controlling the game, not the ones who create it. There's a fine line between feedback and demands. Especially when there's very little data to go on, and just reactions.

How much of a community it represents?? And how do you know other players who aren't active on forums are positive towards these changes? You can't. Again proving my point of making blatant assumptions ignoring facts and information that's available right here. It's not dramatic. Players who have given so much love to this game have a right to voice their opinions. It's up to the developers how to take it and eventually it will reflect in overall sales. It's because of people voicing their opposition that many of the drastic changes had to be walked back or resolved with counter measures. 12.0, AQ initial sentinel changes or dropping diversity last war to name a few. This change is going to be implemented without any countermeasures and it will reflect in overall feedback.

Without countermeasures? Disagree on that one. There are a number of Champs that can function without Bleed.
When talking about 12.0, those were major changes, not only to the Champs, but to the very system itself. They knew the magnitude of the changes, but they never anticipated it to have as much of a reaction as it did, or the fact that it was too much, too fast. We talked, they listened.
They're listening now. That doesn't mean any little change will have the same response. It's not even close to being on the same magnitude. It's a temporary Node that will affect the first 5 Tiers in War. When the Node shifts, it will change. Nowhere was it ever stated that Bleed Champs would dominate War for every Season. That's not a given. War is continually evolving. That means we will have to use different strategies from time to time. That also doesn't mean that our best Champs will always be suited for it.
We're going to have to disagree in general because it's getting nowhere. Not even close to 12.0, and not every new change will be cause to picket.

So you picked just one example I gave and formed an entire argument on that. But no word on changes like removing dexterity or initial sentinel changes that had to be walked back. That was all because of backlash and negative feedback from the community.
Fully agreed on that developers listen more often and it's truly appreciated. But this time they missed a mark and they'll realize that as the season kicks off.

Sentinel was adjusted, but he's still around. Dexterity wasn't removed. The relationship with MD was reworked, after much time. Seasons will kick off and people will deal with it, then the Nodes will rotate. I'm quite confident people in the Top 5% can deal with a Bleed Immune Node. Expecting them to kibosh a Node because people Ranked mostly Bleed Champs is not reasonable in my opinion.

So you admit that community feedback was the sole reason why sentinel were nerfed and diversity wasn't removed. Also pardon my mistake I meant diversity in earlier post not dexterity.

Diversity has had several iterations. That wasn't simply because people didn't want it. People also wanted Defender Kills returned, but we have Attack Bonus now. The changes were because the result wasn't close to what they had envisioned for Diversity, and none of it was prematurely, just because people didn't want it. Feedback is important, but so is the data. They take in feedback, but that doesn't translate to us telling them how to design the game. It's a matter of listening to the feedback, examining the data, and applying it to what their vision is. It's more of a finding mutual ground situation than anything. Certainly not, "They don't like it on paper, better not do it.".

Again. Pure assumptions on what they did, why they did and how they did. You can't support anything you said above with hard evidence. Admittedly you're not present in their decision making process so I would advise you to stop making arguments based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence because that's not gonna work. Not with me at least.

Okay. If you're going to take that route, we can conclude our discussion. It's obvious this is an argument for the sake of arguing anyway. Best wishes.

mydnight · October 2018

Fixxx wrote: »

People who are crying for RDTs because their 5/65 Archangels will be briefly nerfed by global Bleed-Immunity nodes are missing the point

ANY champ can now be temporarily nerfed by whatever global node Kabam decides to trot out. They can decide on a global Poison-Immunity node in a futile bid to stop Doctor Voodoo for a season, or a global Rage node to remove the Corvus Glaives, or a global Evade node because people aren't using Iceman enough. They can bring out any global node to stop the most used attacker of the previous season or bring back the least used attacker and force a meta-shift

Are you all fine with that?

Not really fine with that, no. Why should we be penalized for ranking the champs that we were lucky enough to even pull in the first place? I don't know about the rest of u, but my roster isn't stellar and I don't drop thousands on this game to get the latest and greatest champs. This is after all, just a game, not a car or house payment; it's not school tuition.

I pulled Blade during the last week of featured Blade 5*....helped me a lot...awakened him after finishing act 5. It was hard work to get him to where I have him today. To open all the masteries. To get better fighting with him.

A month long nerf shouldn't be my reward for that hard work. I'll keep opening basics to hope to get spark or corvus.......

Meta change should mean rdt. End of story.

DTMelodicMetal · October 2018

https://youtu.be/-TfcCtnCJ1o

Loving the Amped Up global boost. It'd be great if Medusa was fixed before Season 5 started. Grateful I have Proxima Midnight at 5/65 if that doesn't happen.

GroundedWisdom · October 2018

mydnight wrote: »

Fixxx wrote: »

People who are crying for RDTs because their 5/65 Archangels will be briefly nerfed by global Bleed-Immunity nodes are missing the point

ANY champ can now be temporarily nerfed by whatever global node Kabam decides to trot out. They can decide on a global Poison-Immunity node in a futile bid to stop Doctor Voodoo for a season, or a global Rage node to remove the Corvus Glaives, or a global Evade node because people aren't using Iceman enough. They can bring out any global node to stop the most used attacker of the previous season or bring back the least used attacker and force a meta-shift

Are you all fine with that?

Not really fine with that, no. Why should we be penalized for ranking the champs that we were lucky enough to even pull in the first place? I don't know about the rest of u, but my roster isn't stellar and I don't drop thousands on this game to get the latest and greatest champs. This is after all, just a game, not a car or house payment; it's not school tuition.

I pulled Blade during the last week of featured Blade 5*....helped me a lot...awakened him after finishing act 5. It was hard work to get him to where I have him today. To open all the masteries. To get better fighting with him.

A month long nerf shouldn't be my reward for that hard work. I'll keep opening basics to hope to get spark or corvus.......

Meta change should mean rdt. End of story.

The meta change isn't a change to the Champs themselves. The meta is constantly changing. If it didn't, the game wouldn't have nearly as much longevity. All we've heard about since 12.0 is Tickets. Before they came, if something changed, we adapted. We don't Rank with a redo in mind, if the meta changes. In this specific instance, it's not even a constant piece of content. War has continually changed since its inception. There will be no Ranking for War that will carry us through everything. The point of changing content is to add layers to what we're already working with. That's how we grow. Somewhere along the lines, people got the impression that if any content changes, they're entitled to free Ranking. Which is essentially the same as doing the work of adjusting for us.

Werewrym · October 2018

DTMelodicMetal wrote: »

https://youtu.be/-TfcCtnCJ1o

Loving the Amped Up global boost. It'd be great if Medusa was fixed before Season 5 started. Grateful I have Proxima Midnight at 5/65 if that doesn't happen.

Nice fight! Are you in a platinum alliance?

DTMelodicMetal · October 2018

Werewrym wrote: »

Nice fight! Are you in a platinum alliance?

Haven't played for a platinum alliance since season 2. We'll have a chance to finish platinum this season.

Bodhizen · October 2018

Wow... Dead horses and beatings...

The meta of the game constantly changes. Wow. What a profound statement. It's a total cop-out. The game should be internally consistent, and it's not. The changes are not additive; they supplant existing features. 12.0 had some changes to the game that completely angered the community, and that's why we got rank-down tickets. Once rank-down tickets were introduced into the game, they automatically changed the meta of the game because they now exist, so players call for them. I'm not saying that people are right or wrong in calling for them, but it's a completely irrational cop-out to claim that we can't undo Champion advancement because the game changes. Kabam established the notion that we can (when they decide that we can).

These global nodes are not additive to Alliance Wars; global nodes were introduced into Story Mode and Monthly Quests a long time ago. It's just another coat of paint on the Alliance War game mode. Sure, it could be considered another layer of "challenge", because anything that causes you to adapt to it can be considered a "challenge". As a "challenge", it's pretty pathetic, because all you need to do to "overcome" this "challenge" is to use different Champions, and Kabam stated that it was not intended to make Alliance Wars more challenging. So, if it's a "challenge", it expressly violates what Kabam set out to do. If it's not a "challenge", it's a kludge. It doesn't "encourage" players to use a more diversified roster of Champions; it only discourages players from using certain Champions. It fails to accomplish in both spirit and effect what Kabam set out to accomplish, and it irritates players who were expecting something that would actively encourage champion diversity.

I totally understand the notion that you ranked certain Champions based upon pre-existing game metaphysics, and that you're irritated that you cannot use them as effectively now after having invested in them. It's not entirely dissimilar to alterations to Masteries (whether temporarily or permanently) and Kabam offering Mastery points back along with rewards for your investment because you might not like the changes. It's the way that Kabam operates on many levels. If your best Champion is Corvus Glaive, and Kabam makes a change that makes him less effective for six weeks, you don't suddenly get the resources to rank up a different Champion to use in his stead. Maybe you have the resources to make Ghost Rider your next best Champion, and then the next round of changes make him less effective. Sure, you can go back to Corvus Glaive, and that's awesome, but you just used resources to make Ghost Rider your second best Champion and you don't get to use him as effectively now either. Now that this "meta" has changed, you don't know when your best Champions are going to suffer in effectiveness for six weeks, or how often they're going to suffer. I guess it's just the new "challenge" that Kabam said was not supposed to be more challenging. But, I guess it's okay because the meta constantly changes, so... move on. There's nothing to see here.

Man, I wish we had eye-roll emojis on this forum.

phillgreen · October 2018

Jaffacaked · October 2018

A lot of people that are uncollected or just forget that lots of us have no content left to do an haven't had for a long time. The only truly challenging thing is high tier aw an that's what we base rank ups on. We can't base rank up his future content that we have no idea when or if it it's actually coming.

GroundedWisdom · October 2018

Bodhizen wrote: »

Wow... Dead horses and beatings...

The meta of the game constantly changes. Wow. What a profound statement. It's a total cop-out. The game should be internally consistent, and it's not. The changes are not additive; they supplant existing features. 12.0 had some changes to the game that completely angered the community, and that's why we got rank-down tickets. Once rank-down tickets were introduced into the game, they automatically changed the meta of the game because they now exist, so players call for them. I'm not saying that people are right or wrong in calling for them, but it's a completely irrational cop-out to claim that we can't undo Champion advancement because the game changes. Kabam established the notion that we can (when they decide that we can).

These global nodes are not additive to Alliance Wars; global nodes were introduced into Story Mode and Monthly Quests a long time ago. It's just another coat of paint on the Alliance War game mode. Sure, it could be considered another layer of "challenge", because anything that causes you to adapt to it can be considered a "challenge". As a "challenge", it's pretty pathetic, because all you need to do to "overcome" this "challenge" is to use different Champions, and Kabam stated that it was not intended to make Alliance Wars more challenging. So, if it's a "challenge", it expressly violates what Kabam set out to do. If it's not a "challenge", it's a kludge. It doesn't "encourage" players to use a more diversified roster of Champions; it only discourages players from using certain Champions. It fails to accomplish in both spirit and effect what Kabam set out to accomplish, and it irritates players who were expecting something that would actively encourage champion diversity.

I totally understand the notion that you ranked certain Champions based upon pre-existing game metaphysics, and that you're irritated that you cannot use them as effectively now after having invested in them. It's not entirely dissimilar to alterations to Masteries (whether temporarily or permanently) and Kabam offering Mastery points back along with rewards for your investment because you might not like the changes. It's the way that Kabam operates on many levels. If your best Champion is Corvus Glaive, and Kabam makes a change that makes him less effective for six weeks, you don't suddenly get the resources to rank up a different Champion to use in his stead. Maybe you have the resources to make Ghost Rider your next best Champion, and then the next round of changes make him less effective. Sure, you can go back to Corvus Glaive, and that's awesome, but you just used resources to make Ghost Rider your second best Champion and you don't get to use him as effectively now either. Now that this "meta" has changed, you don't know when your best Champions are going to suffer in effectiveness for six weeks, or how often they're going to suffer. I guess it's just the new "challenge" that Kabam said was not supposed to be more challenging. But, I guess it's okay because the meta constantly changes, so... move on. There's nothing to see here.

Man, I wish we had eye-roll emojis on this forum.

When the effectiveness of those Champs is dependent on one particular aspect in one particular game mode, that creates a problem in and of itself. However, the effectiveness of those Champs isn't affected at all. Their War applications are affected. There are popular choices because they are the most successful in that mode, under a specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances can change.

GroundedWisdom · October 2018

This is becoming wordy, to the point of nauseating me, so I'm going to use my blunt words. Stop relying on one Champ, one Debuff. Use others. The Node will not stay. This is what happens when so much hype occurs with Champs. Everyone Ranks them, they become the most popular, and the expectation develops that nothing will stop them. Sooner or later, things will change.

Jaffacaked · October 2018

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

This is becoming wordy, to the point of nauseating me, so I'm going to use my blunt words. Stop relying on one Champ, one Debuff. Use others. The Node will not stay. This is what happens when so much hype occurs with Champs. Everyone Ranks them, they become the most popular, and the expectation develops that nothing will stop them. Sooner or later, things will change.

I'll be blunt too. Stop giving your opinion on top 5 tier wars when you in a 1 BG silver 3 alliance. You clearly have no experience in it so your just spouting nonsense which had filled up yet another thread.

Vetermio · October 2018

Kabam does great by introducing these global buffs to wars. People should learn how to play using different champs, different strategies and not to rely on a particular champ all the time.

Probably, in the future BGs will be able to choose their own global nodes for a particular war during a placement. That would make a war more challenging.

xNig · October 2018

I think people are overreacting.

Let’s be rational here.

Kabam has already stated that the global bleed immunity and amped up nodes are a “trial phase”, where they can introduce attacker diversity into AW to make it more interesting.

As with most things in their first iterations, companies tend to miss their mark because it has not been done before and as some time passes, future versions will get better.

Extrapolating from the Announcement, it seems that we will be able to choose what global node affects our defenders in future after the dev team plays around and tunes the nodes.

So everyone, let’s just chill and adapt while changes are underway. I understand change can be scary but it is essential.

(Btw danger sense bypasses the bleed immunity at times for Blade. Just saying

)

RagamugginGunner · October 2018

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

Bodhizen wrote: »

Wow... Dead horses and beatings...

The meta of the game constantly changes. Wow. What a profound statement. It's a total cop-out. The game should be internally consistent, and it's not. The changes are not additive; they supplant existing features. 12.0 had some changes to the game that completely angered the community, and that's why we got rank-down tickets. Once rank-down tickets were introduced into the game, they automatically changed the meta of the game because they now exist, so players call for them. I'm not saying that people are right or wrong in calling for them, but it's a completely irrational cop-out to claim that we can't undo Champion advancement because the game changes. Kabam established the notion that we can (when they decide that we can).

These global nodes are not additive to Alliance Wars; global nodes were introduced into Story Mode and Monthly Quests a long time ago. It's just another coat of paint on the Alliance War game mode. Sure, it could be considered another layer of "challenge", because anything that causes you to adapt to it can be considered a "challenge". As a "challenge", it's pretty pathetic, because all you need to do to "overcome" this "challenge" is to use different Champions, and Kabam stated that it was not intended to make Alliance Wars more challenging. So, if it's a "challenge", it expressly violates what Kabam set out to do. If it's not a "challenge", it's a kludge. It doesn't "encourage" players to use a more diversified roster of Champions; it only discourages players from using certain Champions. It fails to accomplish in both spirit and effect what Kabam set out to accomplish, and it irritates players who were expecting something that would actively encourage champion diversity.

I totally understand the notion that you ranked certain Champions based upon pre-existing game metaphysics, and that you're irritated that you cannot use them as effectively now after having invested in them. It's not entirely dissimilar to alterations to Masteries (whether temporarily or permanently) and Kabam offering Mastery points back along with rewards for your investment because you might not like the changes. It's the way that Kabam operates on many levels. If your best Champion is Corvus Glaive, and Kabam makes a change that makes him less effective for six weeks, you don't suddenly get the resources to rank up a different Champion to use in his stead. Maybe you have the resources to make Ghost Rider your next best Champion, and then the next round of changes make him less effective. Sure, you can go back to Corvus Glaive, and that's awesome, but you just used resources to make Ghost Rider your second best Champion and you don't get to use him as effectively now either. Now that this "meta" has changed, you don't know when your best Champions are going to suffer in effectiveness for six weeks, or how often they're going to suffer. I guess it's just the new "challenge" that Kabam said was not supposed to be more challenging. But, I guess it's okay because the meta constantly changes, so... move on. There's nothing to see here.

Man, I wish we had eye-roll emojis on this forum.

When the effectiveness of those Champs is dependent on one particular aspect in one particular game mode, that creates a problem in and of itself. However, the effectiveness of those Champs isn't affected at all. Their War applications are affected. There are popular choices because they are the most successful in that mode, under a specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances can change.

You just don't understand. There is nothing left for me, and other end game players, to do that isn't mind numbingly boring and easy other than AW. Act 5 was done in December. LOL was finished in January. Uncollected is finished in a day or two each month. Map 5 and 6 can I can sleep walk through. Boss rush and celebrity challenges are done in 10 min or an hour. Dungeons are tedious and boring and only take 20 min if you actually do them. Arena is arena. The monthly challenges range from great to a slog depending on the month.

I get it, for those who still aren't uncollected, AW is just a piece of all the challenging and interesting content there is in the game. If you can't use your top chanmo in AW that's fine because you still have Act 5 to use them in or maybe you can try out map 5 a few times a week or that scarey Master mode. But endgamers only have AW. It's all there is for us so any change to AW is drastically different to those who aren't endgamers.

Kabam created the problem by putting all the rewards in one part of the game, while also not giving us hard content to keep us engaged. Their solution has been been to keep adding harder and harder nodes (while not saying it's harder so they don't have to increase rewards), which is just lazy and will never achieve what they say they want it to achieve. Until there are enough resources in the game to maxout 10+ champs, everyone will continue to use their top 3-5 champs in every game mode.

It's silly to think that with all the time and money I've put into this game I only have 3 maxed champs, when I've casually played another Marvel game and for 3 months and already have 7 tier 2 maxed champs and a number of tier 1 maxed champs. In that game there are certain modes that ban specific classes or tags on a rotating schedule and it's actually fun because you have maxed champs for every scenario. In the few months I've played there has been 3 or 4 tier 2 rank up gems in long in calendars and a few more in monthly event stores (like the valor event but didn't force you to play continuously for a month).

I know Kabam will never be that generous with their materials, but until people have big roster of maxed champs, it just doesn't make sense to use anyone other than those few champs in AW.

mydnight · October 2018

You guys..... IT'S NOT ABOUT PLAYING WITH THE SAME CHAMPS OVER AND OVER. It's about basically having ranked the "must haves" and then suddenly a large portion of those champs either rendered useless or reduced to almost useless.

The only part of the game that many care about now is AW because it has the best rewards, and this thread is about AW. Saying we can use our killed champs in other parts of the game is stupid and moot.

Example: I use AA for r4/5 5* Spidey on stun immune s1 enhanced.... it's what i have and what i pulled. My other option now is KM.... he'll time out.

AW higher tiers is about having the right champs for the nodes in ur path. Nothing else.

RagamugginGunner · October 2018

xNig wrote: »

I think people are overreacting.

Let’s be rational here.

Kabam has already stated that the global bleed immunity and amped up nodes are a “trial phase”, where they can introduce attacker diversity into AW to make it more interesting.

As with most things in their first iterations, companies tend to miss their mark because it has not been done before and as some time passes, future versions will get better.

Extrapolating from the Announcement, it seems that we will be able to choose what global node affects our defenders in future after the dev team plays around and tunes the nodes.

So everyone, let’s just chill and adapt while changes are underway. I understand change can be scary but it is essential.

(Btw danger sense bypasses the bleed immunity at times for Blade. Just saying )

With how they've treated the community for the past year and a half I have no trust that they'll do the right thing for the community. We're their live beta and have to pay the price for it (in many cases we have to literally pay for their mistakes and modes). From the announcement we're months and months away from having a system where we can choose the nodes, which means many more seasons with nerfed champs that we just have to "adapt" to. And even once we hypothetically get to that point, everyone is just going to pick the hardest node every war so it's not going to be fun or interactive.

All they've succeed in doing is creating a toxic community that is either quitting because of the stress or kicking 5+ members every off season. Recruiting is a nightmare. Everyone wants to be in a top alliance so requirements are high and people lie about what they have or what they can do to get in only to get kicked after it's clear they can't handle a plat ally. No one trusts each other and there is no loyalty to anyone. Jump in one ally for a few days until a better spot opens up or until they find a better roster and you're kicked. It's just terrible and is killing this game more and more each season.

PaytoPlay · October 2018

Just reduce the season rewards to a point that neither alliance feels the need to 100% the map (what kabam want anyways) but competitive enough that the more war you win the more rewards/ battle you get. Competitiveness should not be limited to tier 1 to 3. The diversity of season rewards between tier is insane, and that's driving bad behavior as well as recruitment issues.

RagamugginGunner · October 2018

PaytoPlay wrote: »

Just reduce the season rewards to a point that neither alliance feels the need to 100% the map (what kabam want anyways) but competitive enough that the more war you win the more rewards/ battle you get. Competitiveness should not be limited to tier 1 to 3.

Just scrap AW seasons. Put 1/12 of each tier's season rewards into the win rewards and go back to the way things were.

PaytoPlay · October 2018

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

PaytoPlay wrote: »

Just reduce the season rewards to a point that neither alliance feels the need to 100% the map (what kabam want anyways) but competitive enough that the more war you win the more rewards/ battle you get. Competitiveness should not be limited to tier 1 to 3.

Just scrap AW seasons. Put 1/12 of each tier's season rewards into the win rewards and go back to the way things were.

I do generally agree with this, but some form of season rewards for recognition is still a good idea.... just not almost a full t5b, 2 t2a ... maybe a 6* crystal. Something that a top alliance still desire but not a resource race.

Kabam Miike · October 2018

Alright, we've gone quite a ways passed discussing what this thread was initially about

We're going to close this thread down now. Thank you all for your thoughts though, we're taking them into account as we plan future iterations of Alliance Wars Seasons.

Developers Thoughts: Improving Alliance Wars Discussion Thread

Comments