Trust me i would like to test more team but with this meta its nearly impossible since you are constantly drained over and over. So the solution is to keep the same team for this meta and it’s getting repetitive very quick
You are forced to use low mana troop because if you use big mana troop you won’t have the time to use them and famine will make a joy to one shot kill you
I tested a few Elemaugrim teams and Yasmine’s Chosen teams today, and it ended fatally. One must really love losing if we gonna experiment a lot with new teams in this game…
I guess I’m kind of tired of trying to think of new points and feel in agremeng with @Ivar’s post. My feelings are kind of like this:
, not to mention the rewards for giving away so much time aren’t compelling.Put simply, I don’t care. The game is fun with this degree of variance, and I like it when I get to unleash a Hell combo on my opponents. Sometimes the pendulum swings the other way. Since I’m rarely “competing” for anything, all this kind of loss does is slow me down a little, it’s not a punishment.
Maybe as I get more endgame I’ll be more frustrated. I feel like the problem is not that the teams in this game are too unfair, but that I have very few options for controlling what I fight.
What if, when I’m an endgame player with infinite resources, I get tired of grinding out wins vs. 9.7k+ power teams and want a change. Wouldn’t it be nice if I could go build a “pauper” team of all commons and face a lower-challenge PvP tier with difficulty based on “current team” rather than “overall PvP progress”? Maybe my pauper team’s got a power level of 7k or so, the game could throw me at people from 6-8k depending on how it’s winning.
That’d give hypothetical endgame me some new diversion to do when I find the meta boring. I think Arena is meant to sort of accomplish this, but the rewards and experience in Arena aren’t comparable to what I’m imagining.
But we can’t get that. The only PvP you get to play is competitive meta. “Casual” PvP only lowers the stakes, it doesn’t diversify the pool.
Still, I bet I’ll stick around for a while because of my point 2. GoW, even at its most tedious, scratches an itch for me. The lack of diversity means at some point I’ll probably jump ship to a newer, shinier game. Depending on revenue numbers that might not be a concern to the devs.
Players always act as if devs are one user-requested feature away from billions of dollars in in-game purchases. I have a feeling if we really studied cost-vs-benefit in other games, we’d find player-requested overhauls rarely break even. I have to be honest: the rate at which I spend money is slow and barely affected by changes to competitive PvP. I’m far more interested in, “Is the game playable and fun?”.
At the time i thought about something similar, as having another competitive mode with lower rarities, the game was still very young to accomplish this properly. Maybe it could be done in the near future as we should get more troop’s reworks.
In a similar way, as in having restriction to team building, a competitive mode like PVP, but with some sort of rotation or ban of troops, could just as well work to add extra variation to teams used on attack or defense. It’s an old idea i had:
Certain troops need to be nerfed there has gotten to be way to many troops that can one hit kill a troop. There should be zero troops that can kill a troop with one cast. It is especially a problem in gw.
Yeah the “pauper” idea was just one idea of many, I sort of fixated on it but meant the idea of, “Wouldn’t it be neat if I had a game mode that let me play with non-meta toys and still have fun?”
I don’t know. Something doesn’t sit right with me that the reward for sticking it out and reaching the endgame is the a frustrating grind with no real way to control diversity. But then I keep remembering, “It’s an F2P game” and that’s… sort of it. You’re not supposed to be able to reach the endgame.
I have to admit - I hate losing a match. And as others have said, it is so much worse when it appears the only reason for the loss is the ai getting cascade after cascade of 4/5’s of gems and skulls. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen for me but it does burn when it happens for them.
As far as experimenting goes - you have to lose to find the right team. In the end, if you can’t stand losing a match then you can’t properly experiment. You have to break a few eggs before you make an omelet.
All that being said . . . I’ve quit the game twice . . . and come back to it. I do really enjoy the game itself. Still don’t like losing but I’ve gotten better in that I don’t scream at the monitor or threaten to put my fist through it. 
I lost track of the diverse threads of this thread.
I’d add a few comments on my stance as another tryingnottobejaded veteran.
I’ve always supported nerfs where troops seem to me to be too far above the power curve or are being so commonly seen it makes the game tedious
I’d much rather see more older troops get buffed to be competitive again but this very very rarely happens
many players play only or partly to enrich their collections and win stuff, not for the strategy challenge or tension of winning and losing
for these players, the game in unity now can be very frustrating as there’s clearly higher variance and more unexpected losses, in particular those cascade- or loop-driven losses you couldn’t see coming or do anything about but watch
troops that excessively cause this, like current fizz bang goblins, without allowing the player to win reliably in the same way, should be toned down
all effects and tactics should have a range of counter tactics to employ, or immunity options - mana drain is long long overdue in having counters that the player can use
I like when things get nerfed because it paves the way for other metas to appear. Listen, if the game had the same metas forever, things would get boring. Nerfing and strengthening troops every couple of updates makes you have to rethink your strategy. I have had to change teams numerous times due to nerfs. For me, that is what keeps me coming back. Not winning or losing, but rather having things constantly change and having to find new ways to get better.
First of all, great post @Jainus!
One point really struck a chord with me, pardon the pun…
This really brings up the question in my mind as to what kind of game, GoW is at its core. Obviously it is a match 3 game, but is it a competitive match 3 battler, or is a really a collection game?
In my mind, it is a collection game at its heart, now, I am admittedly somebody who fits your description above to a “T”, but I believe that is why the GW saddle has not fit the game well. It was not originally designed to be a match-3 competitive battler. But as a casual collection match-3, it is easily the best F2P on the market in my book!
Just my two cents…
I think this question has caused a great deal of frustration in the game the last years. The game did start out as a low stress, casual collection game for the most part. Then, it seemed like the devs decided to move down a different path when they added the PVP leaderboard. To me, that’s when the game turned the corner to being more about competition. They doubled down on this path when they added Guild Wars.
So, right now, the game seems to have an identity crisis because it is still filled with people that just want a chill collection game. Yet, it also has a decent amount of people that want the opposite environment. So, you have a constant battle of wills between the casual collection-focused and the competition-focused people.
Only time will tell which direction the new modes will swing the pendulum.
It’s not only that, but in order for the collection-oriented players to get the rewards that they need to work on their collections, they are forced to play the competitive modes and join guilds that excel in those competitive modes.
I’m waiting for a spin-off version of the game where all you do is open chests, and the game rewards you with random numbers of random keys at random times.
Gems of War: Collector’s Edition
Stan, you win the cutest eyeroll ever award!
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~
Wow, uh, I guess all I have to say is
------------>8---- CUT THREAD HERE --------------->8------------
How is immunity better for the defense teams, when Humans have the option to see the defense teams and pick any teams they want to invade with before the match? In my logic sense the humans have a huge advantage because of this, and have the full opportunity at least in PvP to avoid picking a team based on attacks/status effects that the opponent team/troops is immune against. That was my whole point.
Edit: I must also add that I will survive how it is now. My point however were directed at there will come more immunity traits soon, which only will give Human more advantages. In my opinion Human does not need any more adventages over CPU, but the opposite. In a game where the win % for invades is sky high it is wrong to feed the human with more immunity traits, after all its humans that get the better out of it. Also in a game where the win % for invades is sky high there should not be immunity against nearly every statues effect or attacks, at last not in those games as GoW where Human gets 9/10 times the better of it.
A defense team with an immunity to the attacker’s main team forces either adaptation, which is a thing that I have not had to do since I hit level 400, or for them to pass on.
Is there a response to someone just passing up your team? Not really. And people will pretty much always swap teams to take the path of least resistance, regardless of what balance patches you make. That is, unless they were to limit the number of rerolls you get before you’re forced into a game to get more of them.
Not a bad idea. Thanks for inspiring it!
My whole point is that Human can adapt their team so it’s based to counter a given defense team and its immunity traits etc. Which ofc CPU can’t do, which gives sometimes Humans a great advantage already before a given match has started.