The idea of useful or not useful is based on how many Kills they got in the old system. Those Champs aren't actually useless. They're not the so-called "Top Tier", named so because of the Kills they amassed. That's part-and-parcel with the need for Diversity to begin with.
Stop saying that already. It is 100% not true. It's not a matter of opinion either. Certain Champs are better at attacking and certain champs are much harder to kill than others. This is a fact, and not debatable. There is a reason why people have trouble fighting Dormammu and not Kamala Khan, and why people bring Starlord to offense instead of Colossus. If it weren't true then people would just rank up Champs based on whether they liked the character or not. Or rank up at random. Every champ can be used in arena equally. What sets one apart from the other is their ability to be effective in other areas of the game. They are not all created equal, nor are the all equally useful.
The whole point of Alliance Wars is to prevent the opponent from killing your Boss in each battlegroup, and to kill the opposing alliance's Bosses. If this were not the case then they wouldn't award 20,000 points for a Boss kill (a great deal more than anything else in AW). Therefore, in AW, any champ that is harder to kill, and/or causes you to use more items, is MORE useful than a Champ who doesn't. And any champ who allows you to more easily defeat the opponents' defenders is MORE useful than a Champ that doesn't. A Champ that does neither is inherently LESS useful. The problem is rewarding people (via diversity points) for bringing poor, non-useful, defenders to AW. If you are going to do that then you've completely changed the mode and eliminated one of the two objectives. If you want to keep that, fine, but call it something else...it sure isn't Alliance WARS.
I think most players would agree that not all champs are equally useful for all tasks. GroundedWisdom is making the argument that we were judging "usefulness" based on number of kills and you seem to be at least nominally agreeing with him on that point: that the point of AW was to get kills so of course kills are what matters. GroundedWisdom is suggesting that players simply need to adjust to the new meta where kills aren't the point of AW.
I would argue that kills don't have to be the point of AW, and that isn't at the heart of most players' complaints. Suppose I were to change the scoring so that defenders got points not for kills but for damage dealt to the attackers. The more damage the defender inflicted the more points the defending alliance got. This is a different kind of meta and it changes things. For one thing, it actually changes the values of the attackers. Wolverine is not as good of an attacker in this new meta because even if he kills everything and even if he ends the fight at full health he could have given a ton of points to the enemy. Iceman becomes an even better defender now because even if he dies he deals a lot of damage right up front which guarantees him at least a few points.
This is a different AW than 14.0. Kills are no longer counted. But there is still the idea that players can engage with the game. We can think about attackers and choose what we think are the best attackers based on real choices we arrive at by looking at the capabilities of the champions. There is actual skill and strategy for picking and placing defenders. In this hypothetical the point of AW would no longer *necessarily* be about killing anything in particular, and some players would complain about the change, but I don't think people would be complaining to the extent they are now, or about the same things they are now.
That's what I meant when I said above points don't matter, at least not in this context. I think players are genuinely upset about basically being told your thoughts and your ideas and your choices don't matter anymore when it comes to defense placement. There is one correct way to place, and it has nothing to do with your opinion about how the champions work. I don't think AW is "supposed" to be about kills, but it is supposed to be about something. Something the players are supposed to be involved with. If the alliance leader is making a spreadsheet and telling everyone exactly what defenders to place, that can't be right. We took the play out of gameplay.
I'm not so much disagreeing with you as trying to make the point there's a deeper problem here that goes beyond what war used to be and what our opinions about what an alliance war should be focused on. I'm saying 15.0 isn't focused on the wrong thing, but on nothing.
What I'm saying is the extremity of such opinions left a whole host of Champs on the bench, so-to-speak. I'm aware of the concept of good Attackers/Defenders. To imply that the rest are useless and that Ranking depends solely on AW usefulness highlights the problem created. The point of Diversity is to encourage people to use a more diverse Roster. Now, it's not the concept of good/bad Defenders that I am pointing out. It's the result of taking that idea to the extreme. As in, to the point of BGs full of said Champs, and regarding the rest as useless. Now, they may have had diminished usefulness in the old system, but that more unilateral value is the point of making Diversity present. It's about creating a platform where we are using a more full Roster. I know what people mean by saying good/bad. What I'm saying is the changes are related to the hyperfocus on that. It's a more unilateral way of looking at Champs. I don't see that as a bad thing when the extremity has caused subsequent issues that inevitably happen when Players try to maximize Rewards and secure their position. Unfortunately, prolonged use of that system affects the paradigm as a whole.
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
The idea of useful or not useful is based on how many Kills they got in the old system. Those Champs aren't actually useless. They're not the so-called "Top Tier", named so because of the Kills they amassed. That's part-and-parcel with the need for Diversity to begin with.
Stop saying that already. It is 100% not true. It's not a matter of opinion either. Certain Champs are better at attacking and certain champs are much harder to kill than others. This is a fact, and not debatable. There is a reason why people have trouble fighting Dormammu and not Kamala Khan, and why people bring Starlord to offense instead of Colossus. If it weren't true then people would just rank up Champs based on whether they liked the character or not. Or rank up at random. Every champ can be used in arena equally. What sets one apart from the other is their ability to be effective in other areas of the game. They are not all created equal, nor are the all equally useful.
The whole point of Alliance Wars is to prevent the opponent from killing your Boss in each battlegroup, and to kill the opposing alliance's Bosses. If this were not the case then they wouldn't award 20,000 points for a Boss kill (a great deal more than anything else in AW). Therefore, in AW, any champ that is harder to kill, and/or causes you to use more items, is MORE useful than a Champ who doesn't. And any champ who allows you to more easily defeat the opponents' defenders is MORE useful than a Champ that doesn't. A Champ that does neither is inherently LESS useful. The problem is rewarding people (via diversity points) for bringing poor, non-useful, defenders to AW. If you are going to do that then you've completely changed the mode and eliminated one of the two objectives. If you want to keep that, fine, but call it something else...it sure isn't Alliance WARS.
I think most players would agree that not all champs are equally useful for all tasks. GroundedWisdom is making the argument that we were judging "usefulness" based on number of kills and you seem to be at least nominally agreeing with him on that point: that the point of AW was to get kills so of course kills are what matters. GroundedWisdom is suggesting that players simply need to adjust to the new meta where kills aren't the point of AW.
I would argue that kills don't have to be the point of AW, and that isn't at the heart of most players' complaints. Suppose I were to change the scoring so that defenders got points not for kills but for damage dealt to the attackers. The more damage the defender inflicted the more points the defending alliance got. This is a different kind of meta and it changes things. For one thing, it actually changes the values of the attackers. Wolverine is not as good of an attacker in this new meta because even if he kills everything and even if he ends the fight at full health he could have given a ton of points to the enemy. Iceman becomes an even better defender now because even if he dies he deals a lot of damage right up front which guarantees him at least a few points.
This is a different AW than 14.0. Kills are no longer counted. But there is still the idea that players can engage with the game. We can think about attackers and choose what we think are the best attackers based on real choices we arrive at by looking at the capabilities of the champions. There is actual skill and strategy for picking and placing defenders. In this hypothetical the point of AW would no longer *necessarily* be about killing anything in particular, and some players would complain about the change, but I don't think people would be complaining to the extent they are now, or about the same things they are now.
That's what I meant when I said above points don't matter, at least not in this context. I think players are genuinely upset about basically being told your thoughts and your ideas and your choices don't matter anymore when it comes to defense placement. There is one correct way to place, and it has nothing to do with your opinion about how the champions work. I don't think AW is "supposed" to be about kills, but it is supposed to be about something. Something the players are supposed to be involved with. If the alliance leader is making a spreadsheet and telling everyone exactly what defenders to place, that can't be right. We took the play out of gameplay.
I'm not so much disagreeing with you as trying to make the point there's a deeper problem here that goes beyond what war used to be and what our opinions about what an alliance war should be focused on. I'm saying 15.0 isn't focused on the wrong thing, but on nothing.
What I'm saying is the extremity of such opinions left a whole host of Champs on the bench, so-to-speak. I'm aware of the concept of good Attackers/Defenders. To imply that the rest are useless and that Ranking depends solely on AW usefulness highlights the problem created. The point of Diversity is to encourage people to use a more diverse Roster. Now, it's not the concept of good/bad Defenders that I am pointing out. It's the result of taking that idea to the extreme. As in, to the point of BGs full of said Champs, and regarding the rest as useless. Now, they may have had diminished usefulness in the old system, but that more unilateral value is the point of making Diversity present. It's about creating a platform where we are using a more full Roster. I know what people mean by saying good/bad. What I'm saying is the changes are related to the hyperfocus on that. It's a more unilateral way of looking at Champs. I don't see that as a bad thing when the extremity has caused subsequent issues that inevitably happen when Players try to maximize Rewards and secure their position. Unfortunately, prolonged use of that system affects the paradigm as a whole.
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Of course it's easier. We have the Resources to Max 5*s on the horizon, as well as 6*s eventually. Put them on amped Nodes and the difficulty multiplies.
So you think that people are going to R5 that 5 stars and rank their 6 stars and put them on D when defender kills don't count? DO you honestly think that is a likely scenario?
Do you think that maybe people might just use those ranked up champs for offense making AW even more easy?
Sometimes I question your true grasp on this game.
No. The Map is easier because Max 5*s and 6*s are coming. In the old Map, they would be too challenging.
I'm afraid @RagamugginGunner is correct here. He is trying to point out to you that when 6* champions arrive the net result will be for offense to get better faster than defense gets better, because players tend to rank up attackers first. That means weakening the nodes to prepare for the arrival of 6* champions is the exact opposite of what you should do, if anything. First, ranked up 6* champs will arrive on offense and those attackers will steamroll over the weaker defenders. Eventually, a long long time later players will start filling in 6* champs as defenders and defense will catch up to offense. Anyone who studies AW would know this, because this is how 5* champs basically worked. Even now, 5* champs on defense is still uncommon in most tiers. You'll see a few, but not many. They are simply too valuable to use on offense.
Which kind of brings up an important point. All this talk about "diversity" encouraging players to "use" a more diverse roster is ridiculous in my opinion, for two reasons. First, we don't "use" defenders. We place defenders. We PLAY attackers. If you want players to use a more diverse subset of your roster, you have to encourage them to play more champs on offense. Nobody is ever going to learn to like "using" Luke Cage if they keep placing him on defense, because you don't get to experience defenders. You never really "see" anything about a defender that would make you like it more (except for kills, except not any more).
Second, and this is almost too obvious to type, but when you place a champ as a defender you can't use him on attack. If you want me to place a champ on defense, fine, but by definition every champion you encourage me to place on defense is a champion that is removed from my options to actually play. That does nothing to increase the diversity of my attack roster. It probably even reduces it by a certain amount.
Compelling players to place less well liked champions on defense doesn't make them more well liked, and it doesn't encourage the players to play a more diverse roster. If anything it encourages players to focus even more attention on the best attackers, because the return on investment for focusing attention on defenders is so low in 15.0 compared to 14.0.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
This is why I have removed myself from the debate. I have my own opinions. People have theirs. I'm sorry, but I support the changes. I'm not about to change how I feel about it.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
The value is they need to be used to gain Points. Respectfully, I'm out. It's a never-ending argument.
The idea of useful or not useful is based on how many Kills they got in the old system. Those Champs aren't actually useless. They're not the so-called "Top Tier", named so because of the Kills they amassed. That's part-and-parcel with the need for Diversity to begin with.
Stop saying that already. It is 100% not true. It's not a matter of opinion either. Certain Champs are better at attacking and certain champs are much harder to kill than others. This is a fact, and not debatable. There is a reason why people have trouble fighting Dormammu and not Kamala Khan, and why people bring Starlord to offense instead of Colossus. If it weren't true then people would just rank up Champs based on whether they liked the character or not. Or rank up at random. Every champ can be used in arena equally. What sets one apart from the other is their ability to be effective in other areas of the game. They are not all created equal, nor are the all equally useful.
The whole point of Alliance Wars is to prevent the opponent from killing your Boss in each battlegroup, and to kill the opposing alliance's Bosses. If this were not the case then they wouldn't award 20,000 points for a Boss kill (a great deal more than anything else in AW). Therefore, in AW, any champ that is harder to kill, and/or causes you to use more items, is MORE useful than a Champ who doesn't. And any champ who allows you to more easily defeat the opponents' defenders is MORE useful than a Champ that doesn't. A Champ that does neither is inherently LESS useful. The problem is rewarding people (via diversity points) for bringing poor, non-useful, defenders to AW. If you are going to do that then you've completely changed the mode and eliminated one of the two objectives. If you want to keep that, fine, but call it something else...it sure isn't Alliance WARS.
I think most players would agree that not all champs are equally useful for all tasks. GroundedWisdom is making the argument that we were judging "usefulness" based on number of kills and you seem to be at least nominally agreeing with him on that point: that the point of AW was to get kills so of course kills are what matters. GroundedWisdom is suggesting that players simply need to adjust to the new meta where kills aren't the point of AW.
I would argue that kills don't have to be the point of AW, and that isn't at the heart of most players' complaints. Suppose I were to change the scoring so that defenders got points not for kills but for damage dealt to the attackers. The more damage the defender inflicted the more points the defending alliance got. This is a different kind of meta and it changes things. For one thing, it actually changes the values of the attackers. Wolverine is not as good of an attacker in this new meta because even if he kills everything and even if he ends the fight at full health he could have given a ton of points to the enemy. Iceman becomes an even better defender now because even if he dies he deals a lot of damage right up front which guarantees him at least a few points.
This is a different AW than 14.0. Kills are no longer counted. But there is still the idea that players can engage with the game. We can think about attackers and choose what we think are the best attackers based on real choices we arrive at by looking at the capabilities of the champions. There is actual skill and strategy for picking and placing defenders. In this hypothetical the point of AW would no longer *necessarily* be about killing anything in particular, and some players would complain about the change, but I don't think people would be complaining to the extent they are now, or about the same things they are now.
That's what I meant when I said above points don't matter, at least not in this context. I think players are genuinely upset about basically being told your thoughts and your ideas and your choices don't matter anymore when it comes to defense placement. There is one correct way to place, and it has nothing to do with your opinion about how the champions work. I don't think AW is "supposed" to be about kills, but it is supposed to be about something. Something the players are supposed to be involved with. If the alliance leader is making a spreadsheet and telling everyone exactly what defenders to place, that can't be right. We took the play out of gameplay.
I'm not so much disagreeing with you as trying to make the point there's a deeper problem here that goes beyond what war used to be and what our opinions about what an alliance war should be focused on. I'm saying 15.0 isn't focused on the wrong thing, but on nothing.
What I'm saying is the extremity of such opinions left a whole host of Champs on the bench, so-to-speak. I'm aware of the concept of good Attackers/Defenders. To imply that the rest are useless and that Ranking depends solely on AW usefulness highlights the problem created. The point of Diversity is to encourage people to use a more diverse Roster. Now, it's not the concept of good/bad Defenders that I am pointing out. It's the result of taking that idea to the extreme. As in, to the point of BGs full of said Champs, and regarding the rest as useless. Now, they may have had diminished usefulness in the old system, but that more unilateral value is the point of making Diversity present. It's about creating a platform where we are using a more full Roster. I know what people mean by saying good/bad. What I'm saying is the changes are related to the hyperfocus on that. It's a more unilateral way of looking at Champs. I don't see that as a bad thing when the extremity has caused subsequent issues that inevitably happen when Players try to maximize Rewards and secure their position. Unfortunately, prolonged use of that system affects the paradigm as a whole.
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
No, you have it correct. It's just a terrible argument.
There are many ways to help your alliance, some people were encouraged to rank up champs for AQ or AWA to make sure they can do better in those parts of the game. I know who to rank and when, didn't need to ask. I rank the best champs that I can, when I get the resources needed to do so.
Nightcrawler could be a great choice to attack with, has his own version of Dexterity, and if you mess up he can auto-evade.
Diversity is only an issue if the other alliance gets as much or more exploration than your alliance. When they release the final version of the AW, diversity probably won't matter. So all the RDT threads could finally stop popping up.
lmao i dont know what wars u are playing but in tier 2 the last 8 wars have been 100% exploration on both sides
I know it's easy now than before, but Kabam isn't done tweaking the AW. When they do, diversity might not matter as much as it does now. Maybe even Tier 1 alliances will be unable to get 100% exploration. It happened before when Kabam introduced more difficult nodes a few months after the final version of the first AW came out. How people didn't have enough items or champs to take down or even fight the main bosses.
Of course it's easier. We have the Resources to Max 5*s on the horizon, as well as 6*s eventually. Put them on amped Nodes and the difficulty multiplies.
So you think that people are going to R5 that 5 stars and rank their 6 stars and put them on D when defender kills don't count? DO you honestly think that is a likely scenario?
Do you think that maybe people might just use those ranked up champs for offense making AW even more easy?
Sometimes I question your true grasp on this game.
No. The Map is easier because Max 5*s and 6*s are coming. In the old Map, they would be too challenging.
I'm afraid @RagamugginGunner is correct here. He is trying to point out to you that when 6* champions arrive the net result will be for offense to get better faster than defense gets better, because players tend to rank up attackers first. That means weakening the nodes to prepare for the arrival of 6* champions is the exact opposite of what you should do, if anything. First, ranked up 6* champs will arrive on offense and those attackers will steamroll over the weaker defenders. Eventually, a long long time later players will start filling in 6* champs as defenders and defense will catch up to offense. Anyone who studies AW would know this, because this is how 5* champs basically worked. Even now, 5* champs on defense is still uncommon in most tiers. You'll see a few, but not many. They are simply too valuable to use on offense.
Which kind of brings up an important point. All this talk about "diversity" encouraging players to "use" a more diverse roster is ridiculous in my opinion, for two reasons. First, we don't "use" defenders. We place defenders. We PLAY attackers. If you want players to use a more diverse subset of your roster, you have to encourage them to play more champs on offense. Nobody is ever going to learn to like "using" Luke Cage if they keep placing him on defense, because you don't get to experience defenders. You never really "see" anything about a defender that would make you like it more (except for kills, except not any more).
Second, and this is almost too obvious to type, but when you place a champ as a defender you can't use him on attack. If you want me to place a champ on defense, fine, but by definition every champion you encourage me to place on defense is a champion that is removed from my options to actually play. That does nothing to increase the diversity of my attack roster. It probably even reduces it by a certain amount.
Compelling players to place less well liked champions on defense doesn't make them more well liked, and it doesn't encourage the players to play a more diverse roster. If anything it encourages players to focus even more attention on the best attackers, because the return on investment for focusing attention on defenders is so low in 15.0 compared to 14.0.
The more he posts about end game players or content the more he shows his hand of now knowing what the hell he's talking about.
Se a guerra de alianças vai continuar pela diverdidade de herois acho correto oferecerem Rdts aos jogadores sim, pois a maioria aprimorou seus herois, gastando cc4, cb4, e mesmo dinheiro no jogo para poder ter uma boa equipe de defesa na guerra, que neste momento e inutil. Passando horas seguidas a fazer evento de arena so para melhorar a defesa da guerra e tempo jogado no lixo. Quem realmente é contra os rdts é porque realmente teve a sorte dos cristais ao contrario de outros, e nao falo no meu caso nao, falo em geral de todos os jogadores. Então, se a diversidade esta trazendo grandes mudanças ao jogo prejudicando a maioria dos jogadores, espero que ofereçam os rdts sim para as boas alys continuarem o bom jogo e nao perderem as suas qualidades. Se nao resolverem isso, acredito sinceramente numa grande quebra de jogadores o que se torna um jogo sem paixão e sem vontade de ser jogado, pois deixa de haver competição.
If the alliance war is going to continue because of the diversity of heroes, I think it is right to offer Rdts to the players, since most of them have improved their heroes, spending cc4, cb4, and even money in the game to be able to have a good defense team in the war. it's useless. Spending hours straight to make arena event is just to improve the defense of the war and time thrown in the trash. Who really is against rdts is because they really had the luck of the crystals unlike others, and I do not speak in my case no, I speak in general of all the players. So, if diversity is bringing great changes to the game by hurting most players, I hope they will offer the good rts to the good guys and keep up the good game and not lose their qualities. If they do not solve this, I sincerely believe in a great loss of players which becomes a game without passion and without will to be played, because there is no competition.
If the alliance war is going to continue because of the diversity of heroes, I think it is right to offer Rdts to the players, since most of them have improved their heroes, spending cc4, cb4, and even money in the game to be able to have a good defense team in the war. it's useless. Spending hours straight to make arena event is just to improve the defense of the war and time thrown in the trash. Who really is against rdts is because they really had the luck of the crystals unlike others, and I do not speak in my case no, I speak in general of all the players. So, if diversity is bringing great changes to the game by hurting most players, I hope they will offer the good rts to the good guys and keep up the good game and not lose their qualities. If they do not solve this, I sincerely believe in a great loss of players which becomes a game without passion and without will to be played, because there is no competition.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
The value is they need to be used to gain Points. Respectfully, I'm out. It's a never-ending argument.
Arguments end when someone loses. A forfeit is a loss.
This is why I have removed myself from the debate. I have my own opinions. People have theirs. I'm sorry, but I support the changes. I'm not about to change how I feel about it.
I don't particularly care how you or anyone else feels about the changes. If someone prefers 15.0 AW over 14.0 AW just because they find it more enjoyable to them, it is not my place to try to convince them otherwise. People like and dislike different things.
But you have been trying to justify the devs actions on an objective level, and those justifications themselves are subject to scrutiny. If you do not want an argument to be subjected to counter-argument, don't assert it in the first place. Honestly, you aren't doing the devs any favors.
You need to be able to simply state "I happen to like it" and leave it at that. Attempting to construct an objective justification for why you ought to like it is not your strong suit and it is unnecessary. Fact is, I don't know why you like it, because it does not do any of the things you claim it does. But I suspect that has less to do with what the AW changes are, and more to do with you trying to express your preferences in a technical manner beyond your expressive capabilities.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
The value is they need to be used to gain Points. Respectfully, I'm out. It's a never-ending argument.
Devs: here's my argument. I assert that the absolute best thing anyone can say about defense placement is "well, we gotta place them for points" and pretty much nothing else. One each, and the only focus is on points. Not the champion. Points.
I present exhibit A. This individual likes 15.0 AW. He has no reason to portray it in a negative light. He represents the target audience of the changes. His answer to the question "how would you evaluate your roster to place defenders against someone placing a maximal diversity placement" is: "place for points."
Place for points is what the players most favorable to your changes are thinking. Place for points is what everyone else is thinking. Some players like it. Some players hate it. But all of them seem to agree, whether they will admit it or not, that you've obliterated the defensive value of champions across an extremely wide swath of the playerbase.
If that is true, small tweaks will not address the problem. The people who already like the system don't need small tweaks, and the people who don't like the system have issues that small tweaks aren't able to address. You need to consider strong structural changes, or admit to the part of the playerbase that doesn't like AW that AW isn't targeted for them anymore.
It's an endless debate. I have my own views. Others have theirs. It has nothing to do with winning or losing an argument. I'm not debating it ad nauseum. The old system was changed for reasons that I agree with. Whether the system set in place was complete or successful or not, is a different subject. I support Diversity being used. I support the removal of Defender Kills. The main concepts of what they are trying to achieve, I am for because I see subsequent issues from the old system. I'm not delving into all of those or presenting any case, simply because people will inherently disagree based on their feelings towards the way it was. That's it. The discussion has gone on for weeks now, and whenever I add a thought, it is refuted. I could easily go into it more and in more specific detail, buy everytime I make points, things get fueled and refuted. It never ends. For reasons I have and have not outlined, I'm for the premise of the changes because I can see several problems caused by the old way, and I can see several that would be caused if it were to continue in the future. I didn't say it's perfect. They're still working on it. I said I'm for the concepts. I've already stated some of my thoughts and it just leads to further scrutiny so I will pass on elaborating. Thanks.
I don't know why people ranked up champs that are only good for defense. I ranked my champs for attack or questing and those who can be used on attack and defense. Magik is a great example of a champ that can do both, Agent Venom, Red Hulk (I use him for AWD to help with synergy, does get kills, and I use him for questing). I don't want RDTs, I wouldn't rank down anyone I have.
name me 5 champions that are equally TOP choices for both offense & defense.
Not any "maybe" or "canbe" used. They have to be TOP choices for both the scenarios.
Magik, Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Hulk, Mordo, Iceman. I gave you 6, you can use them to attack or defend.
read again I said no "can or may" they have to be the go to option. Give me a scenario where nc is better than wolv, x23, arch, rogue, storm, psylocke for attack. Same mordo, where is he better than voodoo, witch, gr, hood, guilly in offense?
Hulk as a defender? Really? Unless u mess up like crazy amount of time, hulk's gonna do nothing to u in defense!
There are only 4 atm (I asked u to give 5, bcz i know there are 4) - hyp, magik, ice, dorm(he is the go to option for power control matches, if u know how to play with him, bit less damage for sure)
It's an endless debate. I have my own views. Others have theirs. It has nothing to do with winning or losing an argument. I'm not debating it ad nauseum. The old system was changed for reasons that I agree with. Whether the system set in place was complete or successful or not, is a different subject. I support Diversity being used. I support the removal of Defender Kills. The main concepts of what they are trying to achieve, I am for because I see subsequent issues from the old system. I'm not delving into all of those or presenting any case, simply because people will inherently disagree based on their feelings towards the way it was. That's it. The discussion has gone on for weeks now, and whenever I add a thought, it is refuted. I could easily go into it more and in more specific detail, buy everytime I make points, things get fueled and refuted. It never ends. For reasons I have and have not outlined, I'm for the premise of the changes because I can see several problems caused by the old way, and I can see several that would be caused if it were to continue in the future. I didn't say it's perfect. They're still working on it. I said I'm for the concepts. I've already stated some of my thoughts and it just leads to further scrutiny so I will pass on elaborating. Thanks.
Stop it. It’s an “Endless debate”, because you keep coming back to it.
If you’ve said you’re done, like the past 3 times, then stop. You keep on coming back later after more people respond, fueling the “debate” again.
If you truely want the argument to stop, then actually stop posting in the thread about it, like you said you were going to. Learn to ignore it.
New AW is the 2nd worst thing you have done to the game. I spend more time planing and in spreadsheets than I do playing each war. I would much rather play based on skill for 20 mins than herd my alliance members for hours and hours. If something doesn't change with the update in a few days I will be leaving my 1 star review. I'm trying to be constructive, bring back Defender Kills.
It's an endless debate. I have my own views. Others have theirs. It has nothing to do with winning or losing an argument. I'm not debating it ad nauseum. The old system was changed for reasons that I agree with. Whether the system set in place was complete or successful or not, is a different subject. I support Diversity being used. I support the removal of Defender Kills. The main concepts of what they are trying to achieve, I am for because I see subsequent issues from the old system. I'm not delving into all of those or presenting any case, simply because people will inherently disagree based on their feelings towards the way it was. That's it. The discussion has gone on for weeks now, and whenever I add a thought, it is refuted. I could easily go into it more and in more specific detail, buy everytime I make points, things get fueled and refuted. It never ends. For reasons I have and have not outlined, I'm for the premise of the changes because I can see several problems caused by the old way, and I can see several that would be caused if it were to continue in the future. I didn't say it's perfect. They're still working on it. I said I'm for the concepts. I've already stated some of my thoughts and it just leads to further scrutiny so I will pass on elaborating. Thanks.
Stop it. It’s an “Endless debate”, because you keep coming back to it.
If you’ve said you’re done, like the past 3 times, then stop. You keep on coming back later after more people respond, fueling the “debate” again.
If you truely want the argument to stop, then actually stop posting in the thread about it, like you said you were going to. Learn to ignore it.
You do this stuff way to often.
It's an endless debate period. Not because I keep coming back to it. I'm not the only one participating in it. I said I was making an effort not to contribute to the negativity and cyclical discussion. I never said I was solely responsible for it. I have thoughts and I can share them if I choose. I also have the choice not to debate them, if I see it necessary.
It's an endless debate. I have my own views. Others have theirs. It has nothing to do with winning or losing an argument. I'm not debating it ad nauseum. The old system was changed for reasons that I agree with. Whether the system set in place was complete or successful or not, is a different subject. I support Diversity being used. I support the removal of Defender Kills. The main concepts of what they are trying to achieve, I am for because I see subsequent issues from the old system. I'm not delving into all of those or presenting any case, simply because people will inherently disagree based on their feelings towards the way it was. That's it. The discussion has gone on for weeks now, and whenever I add a thought, it is refuted. I could easily go into it more and in more specific detail, buy everytime I make points, things get fueled and refuted. It never ends. For reasons I have and have not outlined, I'm for the premise of the changes because I can see several problems caused by the old way, and I can see several that would be caused if it were to continue in the future. I didn't say it's perfect. They're still working on it. I said I'm for the concepts. I've already stated some of my thoughts and it just leads to further scrutiny so I will pass on elaborating. Thanks.
Stop it. It’s an “Endless debate”, because you keep coming back to it.
If you’ve said you’re done, like the past 3 times, then stop. You keep on coming back later after more people respond, fueling the “debate” again.
If you truely want the argument to stop, then actually stop posting in the thread about it, like you said you were going to. Learn to ignore it.
You do this stuff way to often.
It's an endless debate period. Not because I keep coming back to it. I'm not the only one participating in it. I said I was making an effort not to contribute to the negativity and cyclical discussion. I never said I was solely responsible for it. I have thoughts and I can share them if I choose. I also have the choice not to debate them, if I see it necessary.
It is because you keep coming back to it, you keep giving out ammo and re-heating the debate, get out of your denial and just watch it die down for a bit.
Go visit other threads or play the game, it’ll be gone within the day if you stay away from the thread.
It's an endless debate. I have my own views. Others have theirs. It has nothing to do with winning or losing an argument. I'm not debating it ad nauseum. The old system was changed for reasons that I agree with. Whether the system set in place was complete or successful or not, is a different subject. I support Diversity being used. I support the removal of Defender Kills. The main concepts of what they are trying to achieve, I am for because I see subsequent issues from the old system. I'm not delving into all of those or presenting any case, simply because people will inherently disagree based on their feelings towards the way it was. That's it. The discussion has gone on for weeks now, and whenever I add a thought, it is refuted. I could easily go into it more and in more specific detail, buy everytime I make points, things get fueled and refuted. It never ends. For reasons I have and have not outlined, I'm for the premise of the changes because I can see several problems caused by the old way, and I can see several that would be caused if it were to continue in the future. I didn't say it's perfect. They're still working on it. I said I'm for the concepts. I've already stated some of my thoughts and it just leads to further scrutiny so I will pass on elaborating. Thanks.
Stop it. It’s an “Endless debate”, because you keep coming back to it.
If you’ve said you’re done, like the past 3 times, then stop. You keep on coming back later after more people respond, fueling the “debate” again.
If you truely want the argument to stop, then actually stop posting in the thread about it, like you said you were going to. Learn to ignore it.
You do this stuff way to often.
It's an endless debate period. Not because I keep coming back to it. I'm not the only one participating in it. I said I was making an effort not to contribute to the negativity and cyclical discussion. I never said I was solely responsible for it. I have thoughts and I can share them if I choose. I also have the choice not to debate them, if I see it necessary.
It is because you keep coming back to it, you keep giving out ammo and re-heating the debate, get out of your denial and just watch it die down for a bit.
Go visit other threads or play the game, it’ll be gone within the day if you stay away from the thread.
I'm not going to leave a Thread entirely because people disagree with my thoughts. You misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm just not elaborating or delving deeper into my views.
I don't know why people ranked up champs that are only good for defense. I ranked my champs for attack or questing and those who can be used on attack and defense. Magik is a great example of a champ that can do both, Agent Venom, Red Hulk (I use him for AWD to help with synergy, does get kills, and I use him for questing). I don't want RDTs, I wouldn't rank down anyone I have.
name me 5 champions that are equally TOP choices for both offense & defense.
Not any "maybe" or "canbe" used. They have to be TOP choices for both the scenarios.
Magik, Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Hulk, Mordo, Iceman. I gave you 6, you can use them to attack or defend.
read again I said no "can or may" they have to be the go to option. Give me a scenario where nc is better than wolv, x23, arch, rogue, storm, psylocke for attack. Same mordo, where is he better than voodoo, witch, gr, hood, guilly in offense?
Hulk as a defender? Really? Unless u mess up like crazy amount of time, hulk's gonna do nothing to u in defense!
There are only 4 atm (I asked u to give 5, bcz i know there are 4) - hyp, magik, ice, dorm(he is the go to option for power control matches, if u know how to play with him, bit less damage for sure)
First of all, you told me to list champs that are equally top defenders and attackers, so I gave you my opinion. Really if you mess up with most champs, you'll get ko'd or lose a lot of health. I don't care who you are or what device you play on, either human error, or game bugs or glitches can and will cost you.
Second, Nightcrawler has his own dexterity, plus if you have the dexterity mastery that gives you a larger chance to avoid a hit, he has auto-evade and has strong special attacks, not as strong as Storms specials attacks but when does evading incoming attacks not come in handy?
Third, none of the champs that you listed in comparison to Nightcrawler or Mordo are very good defenders. So I don't know why you mentioned them. The discussion is about if you can't use 1 champ for defense anymore, they can still be used for AQ, AWA or questing. So the people who want to Rank Down, Magik or Nightcrawler shouldn't feel that way cause they can slide over to the attack instead.
Fourth, the point I was making was, if you ranked Nightcrawler or Magik (the 2 names that pop up most from people who want RDTs) and don't want to use them in the AW, then use them in questing. They can lead a really solid B-Team if you already don't have them as part of your main questing team. It's better than those who ranked up Ant-Man, cause now they're stuck and they know it.
Fifth, you say that there are only 4 champs who are equally top defenders and attackers, that is your opinion, I gave you mine. If you don't like it, that's fine. Not everyone has the champs you compared to Nightcrawler or Mordo as 4* or 5* and not everyone has the top "got to" champs that can do both defense and attack. I have Dr. Voodoo, Guillotine, Wolverine and Storm. I don't have Mordo, but I do have Nightcralwer.
Anyways, I wasn't saying I'm better than those who ranked champs just for defense such as Ant-Man. I was just sharing how I rank up my champs. i don't need or want rank down tickets, I ranked the best champs I had available at the time. That's what people should do. If a day comes they can't be used as defenders anymore, try and find a use for them elsewhere in the game. Also, rank 5 4* and rank 4 5* are great to have for arena grinding, right? There is one use out of 3 or 4 that some strong defender champs have in this game. The other uses could be AQ/AWA or Questing.
I'm sorry if my earlier comment came off the wrong way. I'm just really tired of seeing so many threads on rank down tickets, when we haven't even received the final version of the new AW.
I don't know why people ranked up champs that are only good for defense. I ranked my champs for attack or questing and those who can be used on attack and defense. Magik is a great example of a champ that can do both, Agent Venom, Red Hulk (I use him for AWD to help with synergy, does get kills, and I use him for questing). I don't want RDTs, I wouldn't rank down anyone I have.
name me 5 champions that are equally TOP choices for both offense & defense.
Not any "maybe" or "canbe" used. They have to be TOP choices for both the scenarios.
Magik, Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Hulk, Mordo, Iceman. I gave you 6, you can use them to attack or defend.
read again I said no "can or may" they have to be the go to option. Give me a scenario where nc is better than wolv, x23, arch, rogue, storm, psylocke for attack. Same mordo, where is he better than voodoo, witch, gr, hood, guilly in offense?
Hulk as a defender? Really? Unless u mess up like crazy amount of time, hulk's gonna do nothing to u in defense!
There are only 4 atm (I asked u to give 5, bcz i know there are 4) - hyp, magik, ice, dorm(he is the go to option for power control matches, if u know how to play with him, bit less damage for sure)
First of all, you told me to list champs that are equally top defenders and attackers, so I gave you my opinion. Really if you mess up with most champs, you'll get ko'd or lose a lot of health. I don't care who you are or what device you play on, either human error, or game bugs or glitches can and will cost you.
Second, Nightcrawler has his own dexterity, plus if you have the dexterity mastery that gives you a larger chance to avoid a hit, he has auto-evade and has strong special attacks, not as strong as Storms specials attacks but when does evading incoming attacks not come in handy?
Third, none of the champs that you listed in comparison to Nightcrawler or Mordo are very good defenders. So I don't know why you mentioned them. The discussion is about if you can't use 1 champ for defense anymore, they can still be used for AQ, AWA or questing. So the people who want to Rank Down, Magik or Nightcrawler shouldn't feel that way cause they can slide over to the attack instead.
Fourth, the point I was making was, if you ranked Nightcrawler or Magik (the 2 names that pop up most from people who want RDTs) and don't want to use them in the AW, then use them in questing. They can lead a really solid B-Team if you already don't have them as part of your main questing team. It's better than those who ranked up Ant-Man, cause now they're stuck and they know it.
Fifth, you say that there are only 4 champs who are equally top defenders and attackers, that is your opinion, I gave you mine. If you don't like it, that's fine. Not everyone has the champs you compared to Nightcrawler or Mordo as 4* or 5* and not everyone has the top "got to" champs that can do both defense and attack. I have Dr. Voodoo, Guillotine, Wolverine and Storm. I don't have Mordo, but I do have Nightcralwer.
Anyways, I wasn't saying I'm better than those who ranked champs just for defense such as Ant-Man. I was just sharing how I rank up my champs. i don't need or want rank down tickets, I ranked the best champs I had available at the time. That's what people should do. If a day comes they can't be used as defenders anymore, try and find a use for them elsewhere in the game. Also, rank 5 4* and rank 4 5* are great to have for arena grinding, right? There is one use out of 3 or 4 that some strong defender champs have in this game. The other uses could be AQ/AWA or Questing.
I'm sorry if my earlier comment came off the wrong way. I'm just really tired of seeing so many threads on rank down tickets, when we haven't even received the final version of the new AW.
This last point is the point I've been trying to make about the RDT issue. We use them in other areas of the game and Rank others if we need to. People have healthy Rosters, and in some cases they have spades of Resources expiring because they won't Rank certain Champs. It's their choice, but it makes no sense to me at all. Ranking is how we grow our Accounts. The game does not center around Wars, and if Champs are Ranked, they're still useful. Having more Champs Ranked is never a bad thing. That's my opinion. Everything from the Leaderboard to Ally Rating is determined by Rating. Champs are useful in Quests and the Arena. A while back, people were upset because they missed the Awakening Gem. Partly because people view Rating as insignificant. In terms of War, it may mean coordinating with others to see what Champs need Ranked for War. There is a whole game outside of that, and Ranking is not actually wasted.
@GroundedWisdom@Etaki_Lirakoi These are my thoughts without elaborating more in detail of my personal views.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.
Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.
@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.
when does evading incoming attacks not come in handy?.
Ever. Its never handy.
It's why no one uses Spider-Man in attack despite his strong damage output. Auto evade is the worst thing that can happen when attacking. It screws up parries and intercepts and you end up evading yourself into a corner. I turn it off asap when I'm using nightcrawler.
I don't know why people ranked up champs that are only good for defense. I ranked my champs for attack or questing and those who can be used on attack and defense. Magik is a great example of a champ that can do both, Agent Venom, Red Hulk (I use him for AWD to help with synergy, does get kills, and I use him for questing). I don't want RDTs, I wouldn't rank down anyone I have.
name me 5 champions that are equally TOP choices for both offense & defense.
Not any "maybe" or "canbe" used. They have to be TOP choices for both the scenarios.
Magik, Nightcrawler, Hyperion, Hulk, Mordo, Iceman. I gave you 6, you can use them to attack or defend.
read again I said no "can or may" they have to be the go to option. Give me a scenario where nc is better than wolv, x23, arch, rogue, storm, psylocke for attack. Same mordo, where is he better than voodoo, witch, gr, hood, guilly in offense?
Hulk as a defender? Really? Unless u mess up like crazy amount of time, hulk's gonna do nothing to u in defense!
There are only 4 atm (I asked u to give 5, bcz i know there are 4) - hyp, magik, ice, dorm(he is the go to option for power control matches, if u know how to play with him, bit less damage for sure)
First of all, you told me to list champs that are equally top defenders and attackers, so I gave you my opinion. Really if you mess up with most champs, you'll get ko'd or lose a lot of health. I don't care who you are or what device you play on, either human error, or game bugs or glitches can and will cost you.
Second, Nightcrawler has his own dexterity, plus if you have the dexterity mastery that gives you a larger chance to avoid a hit, he has auto-evade and has strong special attacks, not as strong as Storms specials attacks but when does evading incoming attacks not come in handy?
Third, none of the champs that you listed in comparison to Nightcrawler or Mordo are very good defenders. So I don't know why you mentioned them. The discussion is about if you can't use 1 champ for defense anymore, they can still be used for AQ, AWA or questing. So the people who want to Rank Down, Magik or Nightcrawler shouldn't feel that way cause they can slide over to the attack instead.
Fourth, the point I was making was, if you ranked Nightcrawler or Magik (the 2 names that pop up most from people who want RDTs) and don't want to use them in the AW, then use them in questing. They can lead a really solid B-Team if you already don't have them as part of your main questing team. It's better than those who ranked up Ant-Man, cause now they're stuck and they know it.
Fifth, you say that there are only 4 champs who are equally top defenders and attackers, that is your opinion, I gave you mine. If you don't like it, that's fine. Not everyone has the champs you compared to Nightcrawler or Mordo as 4* or 5* and not everyone has the top "got to" champs that can do both defense and attack. I have Dr. Voodoo, Guillotine, Wolverine and Storm. I don't have Mordo, but I do have Nightcralwer.
Anyways, I wasn't saying I'm better than those who ranked champs just for defense such as Ant-Man. I was just sharing how I rank up my champs. i don't need or want rank down tickets, I ranked the best champs I had available at the time. That's what people should do. If a day comes they can't be used as defenders anymore, try and find a use for them elsewhere in the game. Also, rank 5 4* and rank 4 5* are great to have for arena grinding, right? There is one use out of 3 or 4 that some strong defender champs have in this game. The other uses could be AQ/AWA or Questing.
I'm sorry if my earlier comment came off the wrong way. I'm just really tired of seeing so many threads on rank down tickets, when we haven't even received the final version of the new AW.
This last point is the point I've been trying to make about the RDT issue. We use them in other areas of the game and Rank others if we need to. People have healthy Rosters, and in some cases they have spades of Resources expiring because they won't Rank certain Champs. It's their choice, but it makes no sense to me at all. Ranking is how we grow our Accounts. The game does not center around Wars, and if Champs are Ranked, they're still useful. Having more Champs Ranked is never a bad thing. That's my opinion. Everything from the Leaderboard to Ally Rating is determined by Rating. Champs are useful in Quests and the Arena. A while back, people were upset because they missed the Awakening Gem. Partly because people view Rating as insignificant. In terms of War, it may mean coordinating with others to see what Champs need Ranked for War. There is a whole game outside of that, and Ranking is not actually wasted.
We haven't received the final version of the AW. There could be a new game mode coming soon after, if 6* won't be in the next Event Quest, they could be in a new permanent game mode. Or maybe they'll come out with new masteries, new synergies or buff some champs. Anything could happen in the 16.0 update. That Ant-Man might not be as useless as some think if and when any of the new stuff i mentioned comes out.
when does evading incoming attacks not come in handy?.
Ever. Its never handy.
It's why no one uses Spider-Man in attack despite his strong damage output. Auto evade is the worst thing that can happen when attacking. It screws up parries and intercepts and you end up evading yourself into a corner. I turn it off asap when I'm using nightcrawler.
He has a passive controlled evade. "While Dodging back, Nightcrawler cannot be struck by attacks. Additionally, whenever he successfully dodges an attack this way, he gains X Critical Damage rating until his next Critical Hit"
You can turn off his auto-evade and still have 2 versions of dexterity left.
Comments
Honestly, this post confuses me. First because I'm having to guess what some of the words are intended to mean (I'm guessing you mean "equitable" when you say "unilateral") and second because when I parse the sentences I get meanings that I am having trouble believing I got right. It sounds like you are saying that a major problem with 14.0 alliance war was that players were focusing too much on placing the champions that would get them the most points, and 15.0 is designed to fix that problem.
That is so absurd of a thing to say that I can only conclude I am reading it wrong, or currently experiencing a stroke.
I wouldn't say I believe it's the sole reason. I believe it's one of the side-effects of 14.0 Wars. The use of multiple Champs led to the need for Diversity. As a result, everything outside of those Champs was regarded as useless. The point of Diversity is to use more Champs not currently used. The after-effect is that people refuse to use the other Champs because they consider them as garbage. What I'm saying is whether people see it as skill, or good/bad Defenders, or playing smart, it led to problems, and now people are resistant to use Champs because they're so set in the way they were playing before.
I'm afraid @RagamugginGunner is correct here. He is trying to point out to you that when 6* champions arrive the net result will be for offense to get better faster than defense gets better, because players tend to rank up attackers first. That means weakening the nodes to prepare for the arrival of 6* champions is the exact opposite of what you should do, if anything. First, ranked up 6* champs will arrive on offense and those attackers will steamroll over the weaker defenders. Eventually, a long long time later players will start filling in 6* champs as defenders and defense will catch up to offense. Anyone who studies AW would know this, because this is how 5* champs basically worked. Even now, 5* champs on defense is still uncommon in most tiers. You'll see a few, but not many. They are simply too valuable to use on offense.
Which kind of brings up an important point. All this talk about "diversity" encouraging players to "use" a more diverse roster is ridiculous in my opinion, for two reasons. First, we don't "use" defenders. We place defenders. We PLAY attackers. If you want players to use a more diverse subset of your roster, you have to encourage them to play more champs on offense. Nobody is ever going to learn to like "using" Luke Cage if they keep placing him on defense, because you don't get to experience defenders. You never really "see" anything about a defender that would make you like it more (except for kills, except not any more).
Second, and this is almost too obvious to type, but when you place a champ as a defender you can't use him on attack. If you want me to place a champ on defense, fine, but by definition every champion you encourage me to place on defense is a champion that is removed from my options to actually play. That does nothing to increase the diversity of my attack roster. It probably even reduces it by a certain amount.
Compelling players to place less well liked champions on defense doesn't make them more well liked, and it doesn't encourage the players to play a more diverse roster. If anything it encourages players to focus even more attention on the best attackers, because the return on investment for focusing attention on defenders is so low in 15.0 compared to 14.0.
I'm afraid this is just false. No one is "resistant" to using champs just because of their prior value. Whenever champions have changed in significant ways, players immediately adapted, dropping some champs and adding others to their defensive rosters based on their actual effectiveness on defense. When 12.0 removed scaling healing, players grumbled about the nerfs but they immediately adjusted to the new paradigm. Ultron went from being a good defender to a lesser defender. You don't see too many Wolverine's anymore on defense. Players don't like change, but when the effectiveness of champions change, the players have changed tactics to accommodate. The problem with 15.0 is that effectiveness itself has been largely taken out of the equation.
And I really believe I deserve a direct response to that assertion. You've danced around it, but you keep asserting that 15.0 presents some new paragidm that revalues champions when I keep asserting it does no such thing: it eliminates the ability to value champions defensively all together because diversity points and lowered attacker points swamps any value the champions can have on defense (outside of boss nodes). You keep saying 15.0 presents a new way to value champions. You have an obligation to say what that actually is.
I assert 15.0 values defensive champions as basically empty shell node occupants, and the correct way to place defenders (again, always outside of the boss nodes) is to completely ignore what the champion is or does, and just place the maximally diverse set of champions. Prove me wrong. Give me a way to place defenders that doesn't do that, that has any chance of being a good idea. I put you in charge of hypothetical alliance A. I'm running alliance B. I'm going to place the maximal diverse defense. What are you going to do? This is not a discussion about theory. You have to do something specific. Tell me what that is.
The value is they need to be used to gain Points. Respectfully, I'm out. It's a never-ending argument.
No, you have it correct. It's just a terrible argument.
The more he posts about end game players or content the more he shows his hand of now knowing what the hell he's talking about.
#nomoreRDTposts
Arguments end when someone loses. A forfeit is a loss.
I don't particularly care how you or anyone else feels about the changes. If someone prefers 15.0 AW over 14.0 AW just because they find it more enjoyable to them, it is not my place to try to convince them otherwise. People like and dislike different things.
But you have been trying to justify the devs actions on an objective level, and those justifications themselves are subject to scrutiny. If you do not want an argument to be subjected to counter-argument, don't assert it in the first place. Honestly, you aren't doing the devs any favors.
You need to be able to simply state "I happen to like it" and leave it at that. Attempting to construct an objective justification for why you ought to like it is not your strong suit and it is unnecessary. Fact is, I don't know why you like it, because it does not do any of the things you claim it does. But I suspect that has less to do with what the AW changes are, and more to do with you trying to express your preferences in a technical manner beyond your expressive capabilities.
Devs: here's my argument. I assert that the absolute best thing anyone can say about defense placement is "well, we gotta place them for points" and pretty much nothing else. One each, and the only focus is on points. Not the champion. Points.
I present exhibit A. This individual likes 15.0 AW. He has no reason to portray it in a negative light. He represents the target audience of the changes. His answer to the question "how would you evaluate your roster to place defenders against someone placing a maximal diversity placement" is: "place for points."
Place for points is what the players most favorable to your changes are thinking. Place for points is what everyone else is thinking. Some players like it. Some players hate it. But all of them seem to agree, whether they will admit it or not, that you've obliterated the defensive value of champions across an extremely wide swath of the playerbase.
If that is true, small tweaks will not address the problem. The people who already like the system don't need small tweaks, and the people who don't like the system have issues that small tweaks aren't able to address. You need to consider strong structural changes, or admit to the part of the playerbase that doesn't like AW that AW isn't targeted for them anymore.
I rest my case.
read again I said no "can or may" they have to be the go to option. Give me a scenario where nc is better than wolv, x23, arch, rogue, storm, psylocke for attack. Same mordo, where is he better than voodoo, witch, gr, hood, guilly in offense?
Hulk as a defender? Really? Unless u mess up like crazy amount of time, hulk's gonna do nothing to u in defense!
There are only 4 atm (I asked u to give 5, bcz i know there are 4) - hyp, magik, ice, dorm(he is the go to option for power control matches, if u know how to play with him, bit less damage for sure)
And paragraphs.
If you’ve said you’re done, like the past 3 times, then stop. You keep on coming back later after more people respond, fueling the “debate” again.
If you truely want the argument to stop, then actually stop posting in the thread about it, like you said you were going to. Learn to ignore it.
You do this stuff way to often.
It's an endless debate period. Not because I keep coming back to it. I'm not the only one participating in it. I said I was making an effort not to contribute to the negativity and cyclical discussion. I never said I was solely responsible for it. I have thoughts and I can share them if I choose. I also have the choice not to debate them, if I see it necessary.
Go visit other threads or play the game, it’ll be gone within the day if you stay away from the thread.
First of all, you told me to list champs that are equally top defenders and attackers, so I gave you my opinion. Really if you mess up with most champs, you'll get ko'd or lose a lot of health. I don't care who you are or what device you play on, either human error, or game bugs or glitches can and will cost you.
Second, Nightcrawler has his own dexterity, plus if you have the dexterity mastery that gives you a larger chance to avoid a hit, he has auto-evade and has strong special attacks, not as strong as Storms specials attacks but when does evading incoming attacks not come in handy?
Third, none of the champs that you listed in comparison to Nightcrawler or Mordo are very good defenders. So I don't know why you mentioned them. The discussion is about if you can't use 1 champ for defense anymore, they can still be used for AQ, AWA or questing. So the people who want to Rank Down, Magik or Nightcrawler shouldn't feel that way cause they can slide over to the attack instead.
Fourth, the point I was making was, if you ranked Nightcrawler or Magik (the 2 names that pop up most from people who want RDTs) and don't want to use them in the AW, then use them in questing. They can lead a really solid B-Team if you already don't have them as part of your main questing team. It's better than those who ranked up Ant-Man, cause now they're stuck and they know it.
Fifth, you say that there are only 4 champs who are equally top defenders and attackers, that is your opinion, I gave you mine. If you don't like it, that's fine. Not everyone has the champs you compared to Nightcrawler or Mordo as 4* or 5* and not everyone has the top "got to" champs that can do both defense and attack. I have Dr. Voodoo, Guillotine, Wolverine and Storm. I don't have Mordo, but I do have Nightcralwer.
Anyways, I wasn't saying I'm better than those who ranked champs just for defense such as Ant-Man. I was just sharing how I rank up my champs. i don't need or want rank down tickets, I ranked the best champs I had available at the time. That's what people should do. If a day comes they can't be used as defenders anymore, try and find a use for them elsewhere in the game. Also, rank 5 4* and rank 4 5* are great to have for arena grinding, right? There is one use out of 3 or 4 that some strong defender champs have in this game. The other uses could be AQ/AWA or Questing.
I'm sorry if my earlier comment came off the wrong way. I'm just really tired of seeing so many threads on rank down tickets, when we haven't even received the final version of the new AW.
This last point is the point I've been trying to make about the RDT issue. We use them in other areas of the game and Rank others if we need to. People have healthy Rosters, and in some cases they have spades of Resources expiring because they won't Rank certain Champs. It's their choice, but it makes no sense to me at all. Ranking is how we grow our Accounts. The game does not center around Wars, and if Champs are Ranked, they're still useful. Having more Champs Ranked is never a bad thing. That's my opinion. Everything from the Leaderboard to Ally Rating is determined by Rating. Champs are useful in Quests and the Arena. A while back, people were upset because they missed the Awakening Gem. Partly because people view Rating as insignificant. In terms of War, it may mean coordinating with others to see what Champs need Ranked for War. There is a whole game outside of that, and Ranking is not actually wasted.
The previous AW as voiced by the majority of players here in the forums, was far from perfect but good enough for us to enjoy and be excited about week after week.
The current AW as again voiced by the majority of players here is even further away from perfect and does not engage the players in any positive aspect. It has also been PROVEN through simple calculations that it is badly flawed.
I personally agree with both, and so far, all I've read is the same rebuttal worded differently to appear as if they are new insights addressing the many arguments.
May I suggest we all move this discussion in the direction of highlighting more of what could be done to fix AW's current woes rather than argue what has already been done?
IMO, many good suggestions have been give already, such as node changes, points adjustments, map adjustments, match making adjustments, just to list a few.
Far as I can understand from the threads I've read regarding AW, only a handful have steadfastly demanded it to be reverted back to the previous version. The rest have been trying to be as positive as is possible for them to express their concerns and while also offering possible changes that could benefit the game.
@GroundedWisdom , Im sorry but all I've gotten out of your comments is the same argument basically justifying that serious changes are not necessary with no solid evidence to support such views.
It's why no one uses Spider-Man in attack despite his strong damage output. Auto evade is the worst thing that can happen when attacking. It screws up parries and intercepts and you end up evading yourself into a corner. I turn it off asap when I'm using nightcrawler.
We haven't received the final version of the AW. There could be a new game mode coming soon after, if 6* won't be in the next Event Quest, they could be in a new permanent game mode. Or maybe they'll come out with new masteries, new synergies or buff some champs. Anything could happen in the 16.0 update. That Ant-Man might not be as useless as some think if and when any of the new stuff i mentioned comes out.
He has a passive controlled evade. "While Dodging back, Nightcrawler cannot be struck by attacks. Additionally, whenever he successfully dodges an attack this way, he gains X Critical Damage rating until his next Critical Hit"
You can turn off his auto-evade and still have 2 versions of dexterity left.