**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.
Options

No intended bump in difficulty

2

Comments

  • Options
    @Dexman1349 Maybe. I guess we shall see. Definitely right there with you on wanting to hear what Kabam has to say though.
  • Options
    MicklownickMicklownick Posts: 315 ★★
    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.

  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,246 ★★★★★
    edited June 2019

    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.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,246 ★★★★★
    The entire game advancement process is based on analyzing data and feedback. You run things, assess, adjust, etc.
  • Options
    Shin0638Shin0638 Posts: 36
    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.
  • Options
    MicklownickMicklownick Posts: 315 ★★
    edited June 2019
    @GroundedWisdom

    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
  • Options
    CheddarBobCheddarBob Posts: 64
    edited June 2019
    Don't know why we are surprised, they run this game like a corrupt government. Namelesses, no need to comment, you know who you two are
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,246 ★★★★★

    @GroundedWisdom

    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.
  • Options
    MicklownickMicklownick Posts: 315 ★★
    @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
  • Options
    ThednessThedness Posts: 27
    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.
  • Options
    SirmacoolSirmacool Posts: 389 ★★
    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.
  • Options
    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.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,246 ★★★★★

    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.
  • Options

    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.
  • Options
    MicklownickMicklownick Posts: 315 ★★
    @GroundedWisdom thanks for clarifying again tag me when despite your unbiased view it is supporting the player base rather then Kabam. Thank you
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,246 ★★★★★

    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.
  • Options

    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.
  • Options
    MicklownickMicklownick Posts: 315 ★★
    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.
  • Options
    Dexman1349Dexman1349 Posts: 3,060 ★★★★★
    edited June 2019


    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.
  • Options
    klobberintymeklobberintyme Posts: 1,426 ★★★★

    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.
  • Options
    PizzabeatPizzabeat Posts: 239 ★★
    The whole ganging up on GW thing is so played out now
Sign In or Register to comment.