@Dexman1349 I'm almost certain that they abandoned that mentality shortly thereafter. It has been brought up by others, but hasn't been mentioned again (by Kabam) since. So if that is indeed the case, would be wise for them to say they're shooting for such again. We probably won't hear back about any of this until Tuesday. After attack phase has ended, and they've analyzed the data from the 1st 2 wars. Sure, we have loads of vocal opinions here, but I would wager they're waiting to see the numbers before saying anything.
Fair point, but I don't believe they ever abandoned their goal. They may have gone quiet since then while they worked out how they were going to change things.
Regardless, I would be curious to see Kabam's statement on whether they abandoned their goal of eliminating 100% exploration or if this was a failed attempt at "no intended change in difficulty".
They didn't say they wanted to eliminate it. They said it should be rare. Meaning the difficulty should be present. Probably also worth pointing out that Tiers 1-3 should be difficult. It's the top. However, seeing the reactions, I'm inclined to think there may be some adjustments needed. If this is the intended goal, then it feels like soemthing is missing. Is it a Meta people are meant to grow into, or is it an overshoot? I have questions for sure.
I may also remind everyone this map was originally intended for tier 1-3 and yet we all play it now, again I feel like this is a mass beta considering how poor the original beta was for this map. I was included in the beta and with 30 minute wars (perhaps I am wrong on that but it wasn’t more then an hour long)
It was a terrible way to test the map and so now we are being spoon fed it without clear communication that we are now guinea pigs as a player base.
I may also remind everyone this map was originally intended for tier 1-3 and yet we all play it now, again I feel like this is a mass beta considering how poor the original beta was for this map. I was included in the beta and with 30 minute wars (perhaps I am wrong on that but it wasn’t more then an hour long)
It was a terrible way to test the map and so now we are being spoon fed it without clear communication that we are now guinea pigs as a player base.
I doubt that Guinea Pigs is an adequate term. What they're doing, I'm not sure of. What I do know is there is no more accurate way to get feedback from the Player Base than to run something and gain it that way. We are the ones who will play it, after all. Beta Testing is useful, but only a small sample size of a range of Players. FWIW, I don't see testing by going live as a Lab Rat scenario.
See, the thing here is something we all knew was happening. All these little changes are to encourage spending. It wasn't to downplay the constant use of certain champs. But by counteracting these champs with more difficult nodes that they know are op but ppl will still bring anyway, you increase the chance of someone, even if only one person, of buying that one potion for the final hit the need to pass that node. They exploit the player base's competitive nature. And it's no different than any other business. Gas prices go up during holidays because the companies know a lot of ppl will be travelling. They have a R&D department for a reason.
So they are testing it on a broad spectrum, but guinea pigs isn’t accurate, lab rats is what you would prefer? Thanks for the input very valid addition in my mice opinion. Or you could run a beta that is not an hour (half hour long) that gives you zero data because you structure it so poorly and besides seeing the nodes and the community mostly agreeing that it is a complete disaster ignore the input and put out the content anyway on every tier.
So they are testing it on a broad spectrum, but guinea pigs isn’t accurate, lab rats is what you would prefer? Thanks for the input very valid addition in my mice opinion. Or you could run a beta that is not an hour (half hour long) that gives you zero data because you structure it so poorly and besides seeing the nodes and the community mostly agreeing that it is a complete disaster ignore the input and put out the content anyway on every tier.
I always appreciate your opinion
What I'm saying is running things is exactly how they get the data to improve on the game. The entire game operates that way. If you wanted to look at that as Lab Rats, we've been Lab Rats since picking the game up.
@GroundedWisdom so you want to address how poorly the beta was done and why they have a lack of the data they need to realize this map is a disaster? I understand you are always on kabams side but again, I’m addressing their inability to run an effective beta of a map that was supposed to be for tier 1-3 and rolling it out to everyone to use us as guinea pigs to get a real idea on how we feel. Point being is if they ran a beta that wasn’t flawed from day 1 (setting timers to 1 hour when the war only lasted an hour and then just the fact of coordinating defense and attack with a group of strangers to get war done in an hour)
I totally get, and so does everyone else, you are all about Kabam and defending everything they do, please tag me when you have something to say that is defending the player base instead of Kabam. I think that would make you a very constructive voice in the sand box
I think a viable fix for this issue is to create 200 to 300 different types of nodes that rotate every war/quest. Some of them feature abilities lesser used champs have and amplify them.
For example: Magnetism Node where Magneto's magnetism mechanic works on 100% of opponents and increases attack by 22% and crit by 11% and the defender has metallic armor equipped increasing armor by 10000%, but is removed when magnetized.
Another example is: Darkness Node where both champs are blinded and receive a 99% chance to miss. Champs that don't use sight (or have scanners) are unaffected.
That will force people to diversify their attack and defensive rosters, will utilize the entire champion gallery and will make collecting champs way more fun than it is.
@GroundedWisdom so you want to address how poorly the beta was done and why they have a lack of the data they need to realize this map is a disaster? I understand you are always on kabams side but again, I’m addressing their inability to run an effective beta of a map that was supposed to be for tier 1-3 and rolling it out to everyone to use us as guinea pigs to get a real idea on how we feel. Point being is if they ran a beta that wasn’t flawed from day 1 (setting timers to 1 hour when the war only lasted an hour and then just the fact of coordinating defense and attack with a group of strangers to get war done in an hour)
I totally get, and so does everyone else, you are all about Kabam and defending everything they do, please tag me when you have something to say that is defending the player base instead of Kabam. I think that would make you a very constructive voice in the sand box
I don't take any sides. It's not my responsibility to defend them, nor the Player Base. I speak for myself, just like we all speak for ourselves. I can't say what took place in the Beta. I wasn't in it, and I don't know what was decided on their side. Having feedback in a Beta is not a guarantee they will listen to everything. It entirely depends on what their goals are. Feedback is not a Guinea Pig scenario. That's what I'm talking about. The process of running things live and taking feedback and data from that. That's the whole process of what takes place all the time in the game. The alternative is no one has any say, and they just roll out whatever they want blindly. That's a recipe for disaster. That's not what takes place here. In fact, I would say this company listens to people more than the majority I can think of. Stop and consider other companies and how much they take in and tailor their product. Most say "Thank you for your feedback.", and never listen. The whole point I'm making is running things is how they get said data. That's a true representation. Betas can be hit or miss, and are not always sufficient, or a guarantee they will do what is being told to them.
Jack up difficulty. Then when you see people still breeze through it. Ya caught yourself a possible cheat. One way to catch cheaters. That’s about the only reason I see to up difficulty beyond reasonable levels.
The data may help our cause if many Alliances are seen to be struggling after a few wars. We likely won't get a response on any possible changes until everything has been analyzed.
The data may help our cause if many Alliances are seen to be struggling after a few wars. We likely won't get a response on any possible changes until everything has been analyzed.
I'm willing to venture they're looking at it before Seasons start.
The data may help our cause if many Alliances are seen to be struggling after a few wars. We likely won't get a response on any possible changes until everything has been analyzed.
I'm willing to venture they're looking at it before Seasons start.
Oh for sure. Just a matter of how many wars before we hear anything being the real question now. We shall see.
Pretty sure I just clarified that I don't take sides. There is no war between us and them. No one is the appointed representative of the Players. I don't take sides. If you would like to continue with that narrative, I don't have much to add to that. That's not my line of thinking, sorry.
The data may help our cause if many Alliances are seen to be struggling after a few wars. We likely won't get a response on any possible changes until everything has been analyzed.
I'm willing to venture they're looking at it before Seasons start.
Oh for sure. Just a matter of how many wars before we hear anything being the real question now. We shall see.
I'm assuming they'll run the Off-Season and make a conclusion by the time Season 10 comes, speculation of course. I have no idea.
The data may help our cause if many Alliances are seen to be struggling after a few wars. We likely won't get a response on any possible changes until everything has been analyzed.
I'm willing to venture they're looking at it before Seasons start.
Oh for sure. Just a matter of how many wars before we hear anything being the real question now. We shall see.
I'm assuming they'll run the Off-Season and make a conclusion by the time Season 10 comes, speculation of course. I have no idea.
That's about all we can do at this point is speculate. If they're gonna wait that long, it might come with a longer off season. If they wish to remain on course for the current Season 10 kick off date, one would wager a guess that these concerns be addressed sooner than later. Just the same, yeah, no idea for sure of what's to happen.
No worries @GroundedWisdom I’m sure in your next 17,000+ posts you may find yourself having an opinion that isn’t agreeing with Kabam, having been here for the first 17,000 I’m curious to see that opinion and would like to see that conversation when it finally comes along. Tag me when it happens, thank you in advance.
The newest issue to pop up is you can’t hide 2-3 sub par players per BG. Previously you could still compete at a high level and hide your unskilled players. Now you need all 10 performing. This will force some alliances to dump loyal teammates because they can’t hang. Still the board is set up to allow your better players more fights which I like.
And this is a direct contradiction to the intent Kabam has insisted we could do. We could be in alliances with our friends, despite our different sizes and growth rates. If we all have to be at the same level to be competitive, then we have to join alliances based on skill/size/availability and then hope we get along in the process.
I have made some good friends along the way in this game, and unfortunately I'm not in an alliance with most of them. We have enough to build our own ally, but we all have reasons we can't be together anymore (size, goals, skills, availability, etc). Because of this, any one of us can quit the game entirely (and a couple have) and simply remain in the Line group to chat.
Not to fully defend Kabam here, but one statement they made months ago (about the time diversity was added and the points system changed) was that they never intended on both alliances 100% exploring every war. As it sits now, wars in Tiers 9 and up are decided almost exclusively by attack bonus. Both sides have full diversity and explore 100% every time.
Sure they want us to spend resources to get as far as we can, but that does not mean everyone should be able to 100% every time.
This is a direct conflict to the desires of the player base. We want to 100% because no one wants to be "that guy" who doesn't finish their path and ruin chances for their whole ally. By ramping up the difficulty, Kabam has effectively made it possible for multiple people being "that guy" and potentially making it ok since it would be more common.
I wholly believe that Kabam knew full well what they did and the ramifications for doing it. I think allies need to take this into consideration and determine as a group what they want to do about it. If the intention is to 100% every war at all costs, then the players in that ally need to agree to those terms.
I run the equivalent of a retirement/laid back alliance. We waver between low gold and high silver over 9 seasons doing 1-2 bgs. There are 2,000 alliances in our "middle class" of the game. My guys after 1 sampling are not keen on doing this 3x a week for 4 weeks for gold 2 (at best) rewards. I'll wager we're not alone. Doesn't matter if i think the new map is easier or not, if 8 out of 10 per bg say Nay, that's not good math for the non-elite war participants.
No worries @GroundedWisdom I’m sure in your next 17,000+ posts you may find yourself having an opinion that isn’t agreeing with Kabam, having been here for the first 17,000 I’m curious to see that opinion and would like to see that conversation when it finally comes along. Tag me when it happens, thank you in advance.
Comments
It was a terrible way to test the map and so now we are being spoon fed it without clear communication that we are now guinea pigs as a player base.
So they are testing it on a broad spectrum, but guinea pigs isn’t accurate, lab rats is what you would prefer? Thanks for the input very valid addition in my mice opinion. Or you could run a beta that is not an hour (half hour long) that gives you zero data because you structure it so poorly and besides seeing the nodes and the community mostly agreeing that it is a complete disaster ignore the input and put out the content anyway on every tier.
I always appreciate your opinion
I totally get, and so does everyone else, you are all about Kabam and defending everything they do, please tag me when you have something to say that is defending the player base instead of Kabam. I think that would make you a very constructive voice in the sand box
For example: Magnetism Node where Magneto's magnetism mechanic works on 100% of opponents and increases attack by 22% and crit by 11% and the defender has metallic armor equipped increasing armor by 10000%, but is removed when magnetized.
Another example is: Darkness Node where both champs are blinded and receive a 99% chance to miss. Champs that don't use sight (or have scanners) are unaffected.
That will force people to diversify their attack and defensive rosters, will utilize the entire champion gallery and will make collecting champs way more fun than it is.
I can't say what took place in the Beta. I wasn't in it, and I don't know what was decided on their side. Having feedback in a Beta is not a guarantee they will listen to everything. It entirely depends on what their goals are.
Feedback is not a Guinea Pig scenario. That's what I'm talking about. The process of running things live and taking feedback and data from that. That's the whole process of what takes place all the time in the game. The alternative is no one has any say, and they just roll out whatever they want blindly. That's a recipe for disaster. That's not what takes place here. In fact, I would say this company listens to people more than the majority I can think of. Stop and consider other companies and how much they take in and tailor their product. Most say "Thank you for your feedback.", and never listen. The whole point I'm making is running things is how they get said data. That's a true representation. Betas can be hit or miss, and are not always sufficient, or a guarantee they will do what is being told to them.
I have made some good friends along the way in this game, and unfortunately I'm not in an alliance with most of them. We have enough to build our own ally, but we all have reasons we can't be together anymore (size, goals, skills, availability, etc). Because of this, any one of us can quit the game entirely (and a couple have) and simply remain in the Line group to chat.