I find the weak spot for AOE is summons, in particular things like Daemonic Pact or certain legendary traits. Having Rowanne in the mix would make that one much easier.
2 Likes
On the flipside, even weak AOE is handy for getting rid of a bunch of barriers. 
I guess what confuses me is his statement “unless they bring utility”. Isn’t that what every troop in this game is about? People want Swiss army knives even though we have a case full of different Exactos.
That’s exactly what single-target spells give - the ability to kill (or significantly damage) a single troop has a lot of utility.
2 Likes
The problem rather lies within many troops spells pitiful output themselves.
Yes in theory a single target spell has the “utility” of directly damaging and taking out key troops. But when many troops single target spells barely surpass the big AoE troops damage per target these singletarget damage troops are bound to be obsolete.
It is similar for many split damage troops. Yes with the stated “50 damage split” troops like Rowanne and some other scale-mechanic splitters do become stronger than the top AoE damage troops with less targets hit(technically Rowanne is stronger all the way, but i am not opening that can here), the majority of split damage troops that don’t have some very generous scale-mechanic still do less damage per target than the AoE heavy hitters with as little as two targets hit.
1 Like
Sure.
I’m not sure that’s a utility issue though but rather an inevitable consequence of power creep.
It’s not AOE damage that is the issue, nor is it the utility of split damage vs. AOE or whatever. Rowanne, like Bone Dragon, wasn’t super powerful when units had average armor values in the 30’s. Average armor values have simply doubled since those troops were released.
Combine that with the fact that every new troop they release further increases the power creep and you end up with threads like this.
In other words, Dimetraxia says “hi”.
Well Rowanne has been the strongest split damage troop for a while before she even got her x2 buff and then just became a league of her own even compared to other mechanic-scaling splitters. But that is beside the point.
Power creep might be an issue in the realm of AoE damage Dealers where the time of Behemoth being the golden Standard of AoE has long passed, but please show me some basic singletarget troops or split damage troops that have been released lately that pushed out the standards from the past, unless they also bring some kind of playworthy utility to add.
Edit: obviously not including any base mythics.
1 Like
@KrudlerTheHorse I do respect your opinion.
… But I’m afraid you haven’t supported your claim with anything but opinion, either.
So to prove my point further, I’ll give you an example why I think single target abilities are inferior to AoE (friendly abilities like giving armor and life count) anywhere around past level 150 (assuming you have all 5 magic kingdoms and troops at epic+).
Tell me one sheer reason why would I pick Jasmine Bow to Morthani’s Scythe. At my current level, the difference is as follows:
Jasmine Bow: Deals 20 damage, creates 6 green gems. 13 mana.
Morthani’s Scythe. Deals 19 damage AoE, creates 7 skulls if a troop dies. 15 mana.
That’s 380% damage difference if 4 troops are alive with 2 mana difference.
That’s no assumption. That’s math.
I mostly agree what others say. I am aware that lots of troops have become “weak” because of the progress of the game. And that’s exactly why I’m thinking of a way how to bring at least some of the former experience back through changes like this.
When it comes to utility reasons, I believe my former example was on-point. Both of those weapons bring utility. Almost every single AoE brings utility, as well. My reason why I said “unless they bring utility” is because troops like Siren are brought for Empowered and gem generation. Not damage at all.
Also, thank you all so much for your insight and feedback. I’m really glad there are more opinions on this. You see, the most ideal would be a complete rebalance of the game for mythic quality (lvl 20), but that is highly unlikely to happen. Ever. That’s why I went for an easy solution of an efficient band-aid, instead.
1 Like
that would render imps totally useless to exist in game.
dont you think more units (not ooonly imps) shouls be more balanced to use outside of arena?
it has been carefully tuned to its balance at that troop release. many were long ago disbalanced/weakened due to troops released after them, power slowely raises as the game goes on
rowanne already has 2x ratio, my request about increasing damage scale on slit damage unit was actually not including her (or bultauros)
the thing is, there is a lot to consider like card rarity, mana cost, traits, utility, board control, boost etc. that gonna take a lot resources to figure out the perfect balance of everything and somebody still gonna found fault again. i say, let bygone be bygone. focus on the future. more power creep 
1 Like
That is a fair point about how the game does change over time. You left out the point though that there are multiple troops added to the game recently that do severe single-target damage (Lady/Lord Ironbeard, Minogor… etc)
However, to my mind there is one quick path to realizing why increasing single-target damage across the entire game sounds good, but doesn’t hold up under the slightest scrutiny.
A few questions to ponder: Do you want more AI Troops in this game that will one-shot you before the fight has really started? Do you want to be able to one-shot more AI Troops? Do you foresee any imbalances that might arise from single-target troops suddenly receiving a huge boost? Would that be a good thing for the game as a whole, or would it just cause more problems? What troops which everybody loved suddenly become “useless” in people’s eyes because of the boost?
When you look at the big picture, does the initial suggestion still seem to make sense?
1 Like
There is huge room between many basic singletarget damage troops current output and “oneshotting”.
Yes troops with condition modifiers, especially those with x3 like you mentioned (Ironbeards,Minogor…)do significant damage when their condition is met, and i don’t think anyone is arguing that this condition-bound damage is too low. But even those troops tripled spell damage take about half of current endgame troops overall defense which is far from oneshotting anything and if their condition is not met their damage remains pitiful taking at least 4-5 or even more casts just to take out a single troop.
The issue is with the many base singletarget troops (or splitdamage troops for that matter)without these kinds of condition modifiers and their pitiful damage requiring them to be cast 4+ times just to take out one troop.
There is a lot that can be done to improve on those kind of troops and still stay far far away from oneshotting stuff.
1 Like
A single-target troop being cast that many times on one foe reveals the real underlying problem: bad strategy and bad team composition. Not something a boost to card stats is going to fix, just saying.
My point was entirely about the relative value of the troop. If you ask me, even using a basic single-target troop that does aweful damage is bad strategy, when your aoe troops do the same damage per target…
1 Like
If you establish the measure for “good strategy” as always doing the most damage per cast accross the entire AI team then yes. But any reasonably good player knows that is a wrong-headed approach and an over-simplified example.
But we are talking about damage-dealing only here, we are not talking about singletarget damage with added transformer capabilities or other boardmanipultation or any other added Features that soften the opportunity cost of giving up your turn for damage. And in that comparison most Basic single-target troops simply don’t justify using them and paying that opportuniy cost as long as they deal that pityful amount of damage that basically gets matched per target by hardhitting AoE troops.
And your concescending tone doesn’t change that fact.
I disagree.
I wasn’t condescending I went out of my way to share my thoughts in what I thought was a clear and non-confrontational way. This is the end of my conversation with you. I don’t do this kind of hurt-feelings stuff. No time, no patience.
No hurt feelings, but if you don’t want to sound condescending you might want to stop implying that whoever disagrees with your point of view is not to be considered a “reasonably good player” that applies “bad strategy and bad team compositions”, that would help a lot i guess.
1 Like
Your feelings are hurt or you wouldn’t be talking about condescension that doesn’t exist.
You used the example of “4 casts with one troop” to support your argument. You were the one that raised that point.
Well I’m not sorry to tell you that my opinion is that it is bad strategy and it is bad team composition. I wouldn’t have said it has bluntly if you didn’t come forward with your own opinions that you are stating as though they are facts
If you want to hear somebody repeat your opinions back to you, go talk to a mirror. Now I’m getting condescending.
Then please show me your brilliant teams that utilize spells of troops like Archon Statue, Dimetrexia, Glade warden and the likes, that do not get utterly blown out of the water by generic AoE or skull teams that have been dominating the game for a while…
I’m muting this thread, discussing anything with you is pointless.