Let me first say this is NOT an attack on devs (none of my threads ever are) but a clear and honest observation which i will thoroughly explain.
I have had a small private messaging session with Sirrian to little avail, both because our concerns seem to be different but also because the devs clearly made their choice.
Perhaps the following could make them see where theres error.
When i made threads about certain overpowered/overloaded troops it was in that specific zeitgeist on console that obviously wasnt the same as the pc-experience which probably created some conflict and misunderstanding. Right now i was even pro BD ⌠heck even pro Korvash in the new socalled meta that absolutely requires you to cheese to compete.
Now were a bit further in again (on pc state metadata) due to the new events patch and this is exactly where my critcism lies. I understand its mechanic (its underlying mechanic that is) but it is onrails of the very same developers choice i would elaborate as being 'âupward balancingâ (and have explained till it became tiresome so ill skip that for a change).
The thing with the event buff system is that it buffs otherwise perhaps inferior cards, decks or in some cases already optimal or even overloaded setups with the illusion of being something that creates more deckbuilding in place of sticking with what is familiar. In reality its nothing but a âthe wiz of OZâ calls out the color is green/red/goldâ for a dev forced metagame. The very thing i have also thoroughly explained prior is very hazardous to a healthy metagame turning the game even more away from strategy. Afterall it takes no thought process at all to just pluck out cards you know are already overloaded and now get another bonus to just dominate. If this mechanic EXCLUSIVELY worked for defense it would still be hazardous as defenses are by definition gimmick/cheese oriented (while the reward isnt even worth it but that aside).
So to be frank, the whole event buff system is a bit of a bag of plastic jewelry. It looks good untill you look close.
I personally still hope devs will completely revamp the defense system itself or perhaps even remove it (and no live pvp would never work, not technically as youd need as much servers as a mmo and definately not gameplaywise as youd have nothing but people leaving against cheeseteams and then devs need to install measures punishing people who dont want to play against cheeseteams in the process yadda yadda yadda) Bypass toxicity alltogether, create more stuff like the event systems actually rewarding troop farm (currently the mech farming with some proper rewards) and do away with the illusion of pvp that really has little to no place in a RNG based roflstomp slotmachine arena.
Yes i minded my wording this time and expect little to no flaming to go on in this thread because of it.
-wskill/Calamaistr.
I applaud the well-written post, and I think some of us here will agree with you. Itâs some stuff we have mentioned before. I wish the Devs would either take control of Defend teams, or like you said remove it. Some people around these forums especially want troops nerfed because they get used too much. No matter what they do, this is always going to pretty much be an issue.
If they were to take control of or remove defend, this wouldnât be an issue. If we did see the same troops a lot, the Devs control it so they can tweak it how they see fit. If all we had to worry about were our attack teams, then we could focus on creativity imo.
But to be fair, I donât mind if it changes or not. Iâm not one of these people that call for nerfs just for seeing the same troops. I do however think some changes could definitely help things.
[quote=âwskill, post:1, topic:20726, full:trueâ]
I have had a small private messaging session with Sirrian to little avail, both because our concerns seem to be different but also because the devs clearly made their choice.
Perhaps the following could make them see where theres error.[/quote]
Didnât read past this part. You talked privately with the devs and didnât get the resolution you wanted, so youâre calling them out publicly? This isnât politics, this is a private company and they have the right and artistic freedom to do what they want. Also, they have shown that they care what the community thinks and generally try to âdo the right thingâ. The last time a game company gave me a one-on-one with the devs was when I was working for them, so theyâre already ahead of the curve.
So whether you are right or not in this specific situation (I never read far enough to discover the issue, nor do I care based on this comment), trying to throw them under the bus and âedumacate themâ with your infinite wisdom is silly. Ultimately, if you donât like the direction GoW is going, then go build a better gameâŚ
What does âremove defendâ mean? Players no longer set their defenses and instead it randomly draws from your cards? Or the defend team has nothing to do with your cards? Sorry, but this is a real head scratcher to me.
It seems to me that every game has a meta and thereâs no getting around it. What it sounds like is that you arenât happy with the current meta and how slowly it changes. Why isnât the solution for the dev team to just nerf/buff things more regularly? (Which has its own problems since some people spend money in order to get a troop upgraded and would understandably be very upset if their troop is nerfed shortly thereafter).
One follow-up to the nerf/buff thing. What if they did something like League of Legends does with skins where they message ahead of time whatâs on the slate for nerfs? They could say what theyâre nerfing/buffing over the next two weeks or month or whatever and then that would reduce the downside of players being upset when they spend money to upgrade a troop that gets nerfed shortly after
You know what might help this, is maybe cards that are annoying to constantly face on defense get a DEFENSE only NERF⌠But the offense of usage of the card still remains. I really hated when I spent $50 on an orion pack long ago in 1.0.6 or 1.0.7 then trueshot got majorly nerfed. That rubbed me the wrong way.
So instead of nerfing the offensive side of a card, make it have different traits when used on defense, and remove all the annoying traits from defense.
I honestly donât know why anybody would object to getting rid of the defense mechanic altogether. Iâm not saying Iâm all for it but letâs face it, the defense mechanic with the current AI is completely useless.
Just let us invade random teams, like Explore mode. Problem solved.
Sure, but youâre also not running a business where upset customers can put you out of business. And not all (most?) players are so understanding. Also, if Iâm a newer player, I may no understand just how strong a troop is. Maybe I just think itâs fun, and can see itâs pretty strong, but I donât yet know just how OP it is (particularly since I donât have it upgraded).
As Sirrian said before thereâs no âone wayâ to fix this issue. If they just straight up nerf troops, then all youâre doing is replacing one problem with another problem. As where one powerful troop falls, another takes its place. Assuming of course this is a problem. They would need to nerf/buff frequently and in great volume. After all that time spent by the Devs, it still might not fix the problem.
The system is ever-changing and evolving, so itâs really hard to just apply one thing and hope it sticks. Especially when you have all these different spells with different amounts of lethality.
I really donât mind the defense system as is, and definitely think it provides more of a challenge than Explore. Players are better at building teams than a random team. I find the defense teams much more challenging than Explore, even on warlord 4.
The number of players upset with the current powercreep is more than the number of players upset about their favorite troop getting nerfed. I feel pretty confident in saying that. I also feel pretty confident that a large portion of the people upset about the powercreep are long-time players, firmly into the late game, and have spent a ton of money on this game.
With the current meta, PVP isnât challenging at all. Iâm coming off a 750-win streak and only lost because I was playing with a new troop combination using the event troop last week.
Explore on W4 is WAY more challenging than PVP. Although it ends up being a cakewalk too.
The only thing that might make W4 more challenging is the bonus stats, not the team composition. The reason people are upset with the current meta is b/c the teams are better than those in Explore. If the teams werenât better then people wouldnât complain. I have no doubt if they added the difficulty bonuses to the PvP teams then your win streak would be much worse on PvP vs Explore. Again, players are better at making teams than a randomizer.
And we really have no idea who is spending money where. We have no idea how many people get upset when they nerf a troop. It wouldnât surprise me if it disproportionately affected first-time spenders, which is extra bad as elder repeat spenders are more forgiving. Either way, itâs narrow-minded to think that they can just regularly piss off some portion of their customers.
I feel pretty safe in saying the Devs would never even entertain the idea of removing defense teams from player choice.
Weâre just sharing idea and opinions here. This is literally the one idea that you can âshout into the voidâ about. Itâs never going to happen. Thereâs too many bonuses that come from player choice vs. randomly generated. Pretty much the only downside is the rise in number of forum posts. Which to be honest is exactly the reason I want this to happen. Iâm tired of reading about this shizen too.
I agree and thatâs why Iâm trying to offer up alternatives for what seems like the underlying problem. I think more regular nerfs/buffs with announcements ahead of time seems like a good solution.
Of course players are better at making teams. And of course if they added difficulty levels to PVP it would be harder.
The point is that, with the current state of the game, players canât make teams that WIN with any reliability. So the next best option is to annoy your opponent in hopes of getting credited with a rage quit.
This game encourages so much anti-social behavior itâs sickening.
I think youâre oversimplifying the defense team strategy. Itâs not âannoying in the hopes of rage quittingâ. Itâs creating teams that are easy for the AI to use and have really cheesy spells. I donât disagree with you that it creates a really obnoxious meta though.
Either way, just deleting defense teams isnât the solution. That doesnât fix things. It just makes defense even less relevant. I would challenge the negative Nancyâs to come up with creative solutions to the problem rather than just complaining about it. I offered one. If you donât like it, do better. Should they just introduce difficulties back in? Should they create defense-only buffs or spells? Should they introduce some sort of random buff/nerf with every match?
I rather fight a meta defense team with enough synergy to make me have to pay some attention to the game than fight randomly generated teams that I can beat with my eyes closed. Thatâs what you get with Explore. I canât stand Explore.
In my opinion, it wouldnât be that hard to get more diverse defense teams if the devs incentivized people making better defense teams. The events were a perfect chance to encourage people to use different troops. The weekly buffs should correlate with the troops you need to kill for event points. Yet, they didnât do it that way. Iâm pretty mystified by it all.
Iâm tired of reading about this shizen too.