Sometimes I and several others on these boards, ask themselves exactly what I have put in the title. We all have seen posts made of pure frustrations on these boards. Some has been made from a build up, other threads is made after a lose in f.example Guild Wars. Some thread is taken serious, other is not. But in the end, there is not much room to breathe, there is just so much plain negativity, instead of helpful/constructive ideas of how to make the game better.
Most of the time the threads is about a specific troop, often the few troops the CPU needs to have to have a chance to beat human. But even so most of the times humans take down those teams. So to some of you? Is it not okay that CPU has troops which can help them beat Human inbetween too? Is it not okay to lose a few games? I get the part that, it is always the same troops, the reason for that is that there is not many troops generally that the CPU can beat humans with at the time being. But what I struggle to see is the constant threads about wanting a nerf, of these few troops that imho the CPU must have. We are winning like 90+% of the games, and also how would GW had been without CPU could have those troops? Midgame players and top players would never lose. Take me as an example, I am an endgame player, I have yet to lose more than 1 battle a week at the time being. And if you ask me, no this is no good, the win rate is far too high. It is supposed to be a war, right?
What I like to know is what the direction the Devs gonna take with this game. Are you planning on making the game harder? Are the CPU ever got the chance to start a battle? Is there coming a mass rework on troops soon, that also makes troops more viable for midgame, endgame players?
I know that a new CPU is coming with the Unity, and must admit I look greatly forward to it.
If the game got any easier it would be unplayable and as for nerfs i dont disagree with all nerfs but it seems to me that a lot of threads crying for nerfs are started within minutes of someone losing a battle…
Nerfing the world is a terrible idea especially since i see many of the same ppl calling for buffs to other troops… That doesnt sit well with me
Buffing troops and nerfing others is fine but do it for the right reasons not just to silence those who would throw a fit over a loss even if it is a GW loss
As you mentioned, there are tonnes of other threads on the forums that cover a lot of these topics that you’ve mentioned, so many of the responses (including mine) will sound familiar.
This is the core problem. I’m OK with losing, I’m not OK with always facing the same teams. I would rather have a 70-80% win rate against a dozen viable defensive teams, then a 90-95% win rate against the 2 or 3 we normally see.
From what I’ve read, it will get harder to win with the new AI, as the console is far less predictable. For mass rework, I think Groshnak is next on the list, and my (unsubstantiated) guess is they would do this for June 26 (when the next Groshnak troop is released).
As a currently endgame player:
I can only lose against a Famine team or Kerberos/FG team, max 1 lose out of 20 matches.
Imagine if they do nerf to those, it basically means I won’t
be able to lose.
In my opinion we need a mass rework on troops is the only solution,
the CPU basically need more troops they can use to beat Human.
But yeah, this is a lot easier to say, than to do something with…
Will the new CPU solve this and make some troops better? I believe maybe some troops, but I do not expect a lot after what the console players has told us. Looks like they often lose to the same teams/troops as we are doing on Mobile/PC.
PC players will be amazed at the 4&5 matches the AI refuses to take.
Reliably Skull baiting is over.
Your Losses will increase.
The AI is more effective at using abilities.
Just a thought on point 2: If the developers bump up the console AI making it take those 4&5 matches it might start a virtual riot when PC/Mobile moves to Unity.
Therein lies the problem. Yes there are troops the AI uses well, mostly but not exclusively because they require no smart target selection, no waiting for fortunate moments etc. best example is the Valk/Mab combo, a combo that does prove to be challenging to beat at times, without its troops being anywhere near objective overpowerdness, but most of their strong points happen regardless of how they are used.
But then there are other troops that the CPU uses really horribly and are still a challenge, even dominating the meta simply because these troops are too strong.
The CPU is absolutely horrible with using Famine. It always picks terrible targets and unfortune moments to fire it, It fires wildly, attacking low priority targets or targets it can’t oneshot while there are available targets with higher priority it could just kill. It fires regardless of how much mana is collected on the other side missing out on opportunities to completely control the enemy team and grinding it to a halt while picking them off one by one.
Please imagine this troop with a smarter AI, only targetting what it can kill, only firing when at least one enemy troop is at 50-75% mana controlling your manaprogression 100% etc. the game will be unbearable.
Now personally i welcome the smarter AI for what it will do for the more balanced troops that currently are weak because the AI uses them badly, but i also dread it for what it will enable overpowered troops to do, that currently dominate the meta even though the current AI is aweful at handling them.,
You need to play for a few weeks against the AI before encouraging the developers to rebalance the AI in favor of the computer. This programmed algorithm of missing 4&5 matches is on purpose.
I wouldn’t mind increasing difficulty up to like 60% winrate, down from the current 95%+.
The problem with modifying difficulty across the entire game is that a lot of people who play are looking for a more casual experience.
The issue at the moment is there is not much for people looking for an extremely difficult challenge. The closest thing to that atm is trying to get 100% winrate + perfect score in guild wars.
I totally agree, 60-70%. I also think that the rewards would needed to be better then. And most importantly, a coin flip before the match starts, so the CPU also has a chance to start. It also basically means no more Empowered troops. Now we are imho talking about a game in the right direction(s).
i just want to know when we are going to get a REAL PVP.
they could make a room that people can go into and battle each other, as human vs human. of course they would need some kind a time limit to keep people from just sitting afk aggravating others. but i do not think this should be a ranked thing, that way people would just fight their friends and let them win to earn rank. i would even be happy if it didnt give any payout other than what you earn in battle just to have some human interaction other than global chat
Edit: or to see how other people play and get ideas from it
I am glad someone made a thread like this. I dont want to see a bunch of troops nerfed. I want to see others made playable like you said. I dont know how many troops i have never played. Just level up, trait and forget i even have them. GW helped with this some. I have used troops i forgot about since it started. There are a lot that could use a boost. Giants are one of the most disappointing i think.
I’ll just repeat what I keep saying in every thread where people attack your precious Famine or Devour.
It’s not about losing, most of us don’t really care, the stakes are so low.
It’s about the game becoming frustrating and boring .
Some Troops, win OR lose, are just painful to play against. Those same Troops are sadly the most used.
My PvP menu is always the same, always. I get a choice of the same 3 teams, with little to no variation, I face the same 15 troops all day, in a game so rich with potential, so the only way to make the game more fun is for ME to provide variation by using different Troops, or just doing something else, like max lvl Explo with a silly team or Arena.
You keep wondering why people are sore losers…
Maybe because they are not, but like their game balanced, fun and varied?
My post sounded more snarky then I intended, and for this I apology .
As for your latest reply I don’t even get your point.
I really thought , making this thread , that you were referring to the numerous “nerf Famine” and “nerf Devour” subjects (there are indeed many of them), because in each one of them people end-up being accused of just wanting to win 100% t’of the time, which is generally not to goal.
I’ll leave this one to you, my apology if I ruined the discussion.
I just mute the QQ threads…all if them. It makes forum a lot quicker to browse. And I am certainly in the boat where I believe people don’t like losing. I’d love to see a coin toss and accurate rewards for increased challenge as well as removal of the penalties assigned towards the mana surge bonus. To me penalizing the players that have played the longest and hardest is plain stupid.
