It's time to vote with our wallets

While you’re not wrong Zeddicus, neither is igniteice.

We all want the best game we can have and a healthy game so we do need to always be thinking of improvements and community feedback is important.

How we fit improvements into the schedule and budget is another factor for the team to worry about, it’s not something the community can help us with, or something we will spitball with you all.

Sometimes that means some things will happen faster than others and honestly, sometimes it means some feedback won’t be used at all (not just because of time/budget but because we don’t always agree what’s best for the long term health of the game).

The ultimate goal is to have a fun game that lasts for years and years (5 years live, so far so good) :slight_smile:

We won’t all agree with how we achieve that all the time, but it’s ok to voice your opinion on what would make the game fun for you, it’s good to have a healthy, respectful discussion about the game and what changes people would like to see.


@Kafka For determining which troops should be considered for buffs, could you look at metrics to see which ones are underused?


Yep @Megaqwerty this is definitely something the design team does, however, I think there’s a difference between Troops that are rarely used vs. Troops the community WANT to love but just don’t right now due to maybe a couple of Traits or an underpowered spell etc etc.

It’s quantative vs qualitative data.

Great suggestions. I would like to see the dev team stop creating new content for a few months and just focus on the tons and tons of old stuff that needs updating/fixing.

1 Like

Unfortunately, due to the nature of live service games, this isn’t an option @Griswald. We have an update schedule that is worked on in conjunction with our publisher, and it’s a reality that if we stop releasing new content, we will see a resulting drop in revenue. On top of this, without regular updates and fresh content, people get bored, and we get featured less across app stores.

As much as we would like to focus purely on fixes for a few months, it isn’t possible due to our circumstances and the nature of live service games.


I am quite in the other end. I would not mind getting troop buffs regulary, no matter what. Something to look forward to as well as making older troop viable to play with, it’s a win for most.


Something I’ve been working on is a complete write up of all the underpowered Mythics out there that need desperate tweaks and how I’d like to see them tweaked. I’ve only completed writing about Abynissia, Death, and Draakulis so far. The others I’ll write about in time are Doomclaw, Fallen Valdis, Gargantaur, Gaard’s Avatar, Plague, Undine, War, and Wulfgarok.

That’s a lot, but there are just a couple tweaks to either abilities or traits that I think would greatly put a spotlight on them.

Here’s the thing: no one wants to get a mythic and have everyone in the guild say “Oh… you got that one.” And especially if it’s a new player and they ask “How can I build a team around this?” and there just isn’t a good answer.

If you really have the time Kafka, I’ve written several posts on class traits, boss chests in explore, treasure hunts, and shop revamp:


While your ideas might be good. Dont expect the Devs to copy them. I say this because there have been quite some ideas in the past on troop reworks and we maybe only a few times saw something similar as the ideas.

Why the Beta team is not getting any final words or input on potentially buffed troops or new troops before releases - will always be a mystery to me. Or maybe it’s as simple as the company wants it their way?

In theory I would agree.

BUT…4.7 update has increased our boredom significantly by compelling us to use cedric x 2, SK and ET in explore to compensate for gold nerfing by the update. New content? New troops hardly figure nowadays other than to boost a Kingdom or create yet another annoying empowered defence. Updates are stripping the game of variety, not providing more of it. Doom is good but it cannot compensate (in terms of new content) for factions which are obnoxiously bad. LT content has been practically obliterated for most of us and new pets just remind us that we may never see them again or progress them or their associated Kingdom because your updates have killed the only game mode where we can rescue them. The only variety that recent updates offer is whether to put cedric number 2 in 2nd or 4th slot.


one can only hope, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day so who knows maybe they’ll surprise us by giving us what we asked for I but I can guarantee it won’t be 100% in our favor but some is better than nothing I just hope they don’t lock ALL the good stuff behind high prices

Because that’s not our role as beta testers. We are there, upon request, to be a first point of public contact on new features to try to cut off some of the more glaring issues (i.e. visibly broken things, like graphics, bugged gameplay loops that result in hard crashes, etc.) of beta updates before they reach the production servers. Troop balancing doesn’t fall into this category, so we don’t ever see these changes when they occur on the beta versions of updates.

Besides, how could we objectively test troop balancing in an impartial manner? The vast majority of us are endgame players, so why wouldn’t we want to try to game the system to get an more overpowered troop than the devs intended pushed to the live servers? Especially if we have had first hand experience with using these troops that would give us a short-term advantage in using them?

Plus, we have no public information about how troops are actually internally balanced. If such methodologies were published publicly, how little time would it take for those methodologies to be applied by the community to all nearly 800 troops in the game? Then, the inevitable 20k word post would show up on the forums on how 50+% of the troops in-game don’t meet those criterion with immediate demands to fix those troops.

Yeah, that’s a Pandora’s Box that the devs would very likely never ever open.


Lyrian is mostly correct. It would still be nice to be able to test the things before release regardless, though, given the amount of nonsense bugs that we get anyway


Sorry, I misread.