Did someone say “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Kurokazna Whitehelm wgah’nagl fhtagn”?
'Cause @Ivar summoned me from the depths of the Whitehelm crypts. Lady Sapphira sends her regards, and it’s nice to see some familiar faces in this thread! Time to show you all how I earned this Gard-damned title.
Tl;dr for this reply is: “THE WIN RATE IS TOO DAMNED HIGH!”
Fair warning, I haven’t read this thread yet, aside from Ivar’s summoning tag, and am going to respond as I read down, addressing points as they come up. Keep in mind that what I’m typing will mostly not be influenced by things said later in the thread until I get there.
Long time no see, @Eika ! I see you’ve updated your profile picture. Updated your title, I see? Took you long enough, after Spirit Fox and a nerf rendered Manticore irrelevant. One of the last patches I was active for, actually…
Anyway, I want to focus on this quote right here, because that’s at the heart of why I stopped playing. I’ll get to how right @Ivar was about various things when I get there, but for now, lets deconstruct this WONDERFUL statement!
FROM THE TOP, NOW!
The main and only issue I have here is that you seem to think that the only nerfs that are ever proposed are to enemy troops! Nay, I have been advocating for a Justice nerf… Pretty much since it dropped. Maybe two months after, at latest. This was long, LONG before it ever got used in a defense team, and nobody… ever seemed to realize why I wanted it nerfed.
People only agree with it nowadays because it’s actually being used in defense. That’s not why I wanted it nerfed though. I’m going to say something here that is a topic I haven’t touched before that might put my “NERF JUSTICE!” train into perspective.
I am also 100% for the nerf of Kraken’s third trait.
Why is this? This is because it, like Justice, allows for a turn one victory with a 65% and higher success rate. Is it fast? To a degree. Is it reliable? Lets look at it this way.
65% is the success rate for winning without the AI getting a turn. 65% here being an arbitrary number without any research, just an estimation. It could be much higher.
We will look at the 35% chance that the AI gets to take a move.
25% of the time, you just looped… Four? Four times. The AI’s troops have all taken… Assume double Kraken, so 24 damage. This is a fairly modest situation. The AI’s troops are crippled and it takes its turn to get mana. Best case scenario for it, it gets a spell off that… Okay, Kerberos. It somehow Kerberoses, and devours your second Kraken. Whoop-dee-doo.
Turn two, 65% of that 25% rolled again for instant victory, right? Nah, you just set the board up, loop 12 times, and either leave the AI with one troop and win later, or just flat out win there.
Lets look at the other 10%. You get stalled for meh, three turns. Then you combo off and win.
The WORST case scenario for you is that your gem makers get nabbed, then you have to fight with two INCREDIBLY POWERFUL legendaries and a generator to fill them, with a devour chance and AoE damage popping off every few turns.
All loss is operator error. All in all, this is roughly 99% reliable and, if you play without error, you cannot lose. If you play WITH error, you will still PROBABLY win because you gain such massive advantages. And that’s not even taking into account the AI’s subpar gameplay.
ONWARD! The rest should be shorter because my main point is above here. Sorry for the textwall but… It’s in my title.
A’ight, here’s the thing. Immunity to everything also works on defense, and it’s BETTER on defense, because you can start planning against whatever the meta attack team is. Unless it’s rock worms. Nothing can save you from rock worms.
Nerf. Justice.
Nerf. Kraken.
Nerf. Everything. That gets OP.
Don’t be Blizzard. For the love of god, if you learn anything from Blizzard, let it be that Power Creep KILLS games. Don’t outdo previous cards and focus only on counters. Nerf as needed.
The point of immunity traits isn’t to make human players stronger, it is to throw roadblocks at the teams that are powering through defenses.
Or… Put it on a defensive troop that wouldn’t have a place in incredibly aggressive team comps. Don’t have it deal damage with its spell. Have it buff and focus on slowing down and dismantling offenses based on suppressing the AI’s mana.
IN EIKA’S DEFENSE! Arbitrary projections of estimated numbers are valuable tools when the specific number is not of importance, and the thing being represented is a concept of a number being “high” or “mid range”. This is the entire point of estimating, and I do this regularly. “95%” isn’t a number that specifically matters, so that’s kinda nitpicky.
Alright, this entire response is questionable. The specifics of “95%” aren’t important and this is just getting off track. I seriously hope this doesn’t derail the whole thread…
Now specifically onto that comment… No. No, why would anyone, from a Dev’s perspective, implement a tool that allows you to effectively narrow down your opponents to just ones that are beatable? The problem here is absurd winrate, and that feature would just get abused to hell and back to further inflate the problem. Just… No.
Moving on… Random AI drabble, things that can be argued against with the statement that confirmation bias exists, and how humans are more likely to remember negative occurances. GoW devs made a post about this YEARS ago. Someone dig it up and link it to Calv1n, please. I’m 1) too lazy and 2) too busy digging down an entire thread that someone decided I needed to be tagged for!
Quick reminder that tagging me is the rough equivalent to performing the Black Sacrament with the given thread as a target for… Well, whatever this is that I am doing now.
Reading further, link that post to Ricky as well.
Fun fact: The gem dropping algorithm IS biased, but not in the way you would think! It’s actually based in your favor, and just less so, the higher up you go in difficulty if I recall. Source: Mentioned post that I can’t be bothered to look up.
And this is the point at which I realized that Dragon Soul and Lady Anariel would be immune to mana drains. UHM. Please be very careful with these troops and perhaps think of giving them minor nerfs to counterbalance this change.
Oh thank Gard
I like you, @Mithran .
[Insert series of arrows pointing up here]
The fact that people keep pointing this out is giving me a migrane.
Eika, your present icon is very fitting. About half of what you say, I agree with. About half of what you say, I think is well intentioned, but can’t quite agree with. Half black, half white. This? This is totally a “YES THIS!”
Dismantled like I would have. Props to you~
This. Short, succinct, on topic, and to the point. We need more people like you, Sa-
Nevermind.
Thread derailed due to arguments based on luck and people being upset that the AI is too lucky. I might just have to go dig up that thread when I’m done typing this.
THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM AND YOU ARE ALL OFF TOPIC!
RESUMING THE THREAD AT @Ivar’s summoning comment.
This man reads my stuff and perfectly understands my reasons for things, and stated why I left in a more succinct manner than I could have, due to my long and rambly nature on forums like this.
This. And when every battle is effectively fighting four peasants, because enemy team comp doesn’t matter, as it doesn’t with certain teams (Green Seer/Giant Spider/Kraken/Kraken is an easy example of this), ya kinda get bored and burn out, ESPECIALLY after competing with fifty nine other Intrim players and Gard knows who else, for the top spot on the leaderboards during the first ever iWeek that helped push them to the #1 spot on the guild boards.
If a single one of you decides to debate against the statistics rather than the point demonstrated by arbitrary numbers that are being simply used to illustrate a point for this man as well, I will concede that I have lost all hope for the masses on these forums, and start dismissing any comment that isn’t made by someone with a name I recognize as unimportant.
And also the only way for some of the more reliable teams to lose. Therefore, we need a nerf to teams like the one stated above, and (Deathtouch troop)/Valk/Justice/Mab. As well as other teams that I haven’t tested because I don’t actually play the game any more. I just debate topics of concept, philosophy, and game design. Kinda like this.
iWeek 1 killed my will to play the game because these meta teams were boring to look at as I rolled over them. This. Exactly this.
This is a topic that I always wanted to touch on, but never knew how. People like Krudler berated me for my inability to explain why I felt compelled to use optimal teams.
FIVE STARS! RAVE REVIEWS! STANDING OVATION! THIS IS MY TAGLINE NOW!
You actually said something I agree with for once… Now you people see how things like invade teams that you’re forced into using, one way or another, is bad for longevity…
I’m only quoting the first sentence in an attempt to keep this post’s scroll length under a meter.
From your reply, I’m going to assume that you’re roughly midgame, probably early on in it. That’s where all of the fun is, and I miss my days of being there. The starting climb was rough, and the endgame transition was… sudden, but exciting for a while, until burnout hit.
Basically, an aside here to you, Slypenslyde, is a short message that you should never change. Keep playing for the fun of playing, don’t take anything more seriously than you already do, and keep enjoying yourself for as long as you can.
I will, however, more specifically address this:
I’m half and half with you on this. While no, it wouldn’t immediately cause the downfall of the game’s entire structure, players argue their desires so that the devs can better understand what they want, and direct a game down a path that is more likely to lead to 1) economic growth, and 2) player enjoyment and retention.
Something doesn’t have to singlehandedly tank a game entirely to make something less fun, and changes that lead to players having less fun will slowly wear a game down and slide it out of relevance.
Player feedback doesn’t just help the game stay economically relevant, but it also helps the game stay fun. And who in their right minds wouldn’t speak out against something that they enjoy becoming less fun?
A sort of “standard” rotation of troops and a mode for this specifically (Which would have to be added separately and have its own reward pool) would be, honestly, a huge boon. I support this idea.
Don’t worry, I’m not having much more luck…
I’m going to agree here, but with a footnote. I would like to see older troops buffed, but not to the point where newer troops are. I’d like some sort of happy medium, with both buffs AND nerfs.
A considerable amount of stress, frustration, and pages typed by a Deep One that instead decided to go to sleep beneath her hometown of Whiterun because answering this question is just way too difficult.
A game doesn’t have to be one or the other, and I do think it can find a happy medium. With an addendum. This happy medium will require hours and hours and days on end of constant struggle and internal debates, while trying to balance the game between the two factions. The idea presented earlier by… Ivar, I think? scroll wheel noises intensify Yes, Ivar.
The idea presented by Ivar would help seperate the two environments. One more competitive, anything goes mode, as PvP presently is, and one with a rotating list of maybe new troops, maybe old troops. Bans and restrictions on anything needing it with constant shifting and oversight with a list updated frequently (maybe monthly?).
That’s how MtG got all the Legacy players out of Modern. And Modern out of EDH and Standard. Translation: Hyper competitive [expletive-ridden insult] s were making the game toxic to its core audience, which was made of people that play for the fun of the game.
I hold some grudges against the Legacy playerbase in MtG. Another topic for another time. But the point remains, a seperate mode with a moderated list of cards that can and can’t be used would take a lot of oversight and management, but it could definitely help to satisfy both groups here.
AFTERWORD:
Thank you to all of those who did not completely gut Ivar for the usage of anecdotal statistics in his Peasant example.
On the contrary, for those of you GOING OFF TOPIC AND COMPLAINING ABOUT CHEATING AI
There. I linked it. Happy? I’m not.
Edit: Whoops, I think it might be almost a meter of scrolling anyway. So~rry~