I’m flat out sick of Kerb and Krak going 2 for 2 on devours in my games. Those are the only games I lose. As title says, does anyone think that limiting devour to once per troop would help? Give kerb or krak “full tummy” status after a succesful devour, so they can still cast spell, but no more instant death RNG super buff devour BS to put you in the hole further than you already are.
The issue with that is that the % is supposed to be far less on the proc then on the fail. So if you see equal amounts then you are backing up the notion that the math in this game is stupidly wrong in favor of devours.
I really wish the Devs would do something about this, the problem with 10-15% procs occurring around 50% of the time has been reported over and over forever without a comment or anything being done about it.
Edit: Yeah, Kerb and Kraken have higher than 10-15% proc rates and they should be closer to even amounts when devouring, my main point is with the archer and assassin classes and the frequency of kills via death mark on the first turn.
I’d rather like to see devour not working at all against troops that still have armor left. First crack the shell, then you get the treats. Would make armor gain related traits/spells a lot more popular, they are pretty mediocre right now.
Kerb does have a 50% rate and Kraken a 40%, and I can understand the argument that those might be too high. But I haven’t seen any legitimate reports with significant sample sizes indicating they are firing at the wrong frequency, or that 10-15% procs are occuring at 50% rates. There have been plenty of comments making those claims based on either memory or a bad run of a few battles, but nothing statistically significant. If there is a thread somewhere with that data though, I missed it, and would appreciate a link to it. If enough of us argue subjectively that “50% is too high” they might listen and respond. But if you make an objective statement that “10% = 50%” without proof, you are going to cause the devs to ignore you (and possibly also ignore other legitimate comments in the same thread).
As for the OP, I don’t really want to see devour limited like Maw. I think it’s neat how you can fire it off repeatedly. Some balancing is required, but don’t remove all it’s teeth…
Limiting to one devour seems hardly doing anything to its teeth. One devour usually puts me in a position where the fight will be hard/uphill.
My issue with allowing (kerb especially) multi-devour is how it can snowball so easily on just one devour. Your team has lost the ability to make use of that dead troop’s mana (and whatever mana you had stockpiled,) AND the enemy troop now has super boosted stats.
Add kerb’s spawn meatbag trait (and that meatbag ALSO HAS a spawn meatbag on death trait) and you have a ridiculous situation in just one devour. If kerb gets a second devour in a row, there’s just no chance for a comeback, I haven’t even come close.
Limiting it to one devour obviously dulls it’s teeth, or you wouldn’t be suggesting it as a response to “a ridiculous situation in just one devour”. If the proposed change has no effect there’s no point in making a change…
As for the situation you describe, and the devouring troop being super powerful, that is a legit issue. However, I think that makes for interesting strategy/dynamics to play around. If I attack that sort of troop with my normal dragon AoE team, it will take forever and I run the risk of getting destroyed. But if I re-devour, now I’ve got a huge advantage. Or if I use a troop that takes into account the size of my enemy (like Shadow-Hunter), I can take it down a lot quicker. But I also need to be careful to deny it mana and prevent an additional devour while I prep my attack.
So personally, I like the unique situations that multi-devour present. I just think it needs to be an occasional and unique event, rather than facing it constantly like we are now due to the current meta/balance. That’s just my opinion, and I can understand that not everybody likes the challenge. For common ground, I think we agree that the current situation sucks, we just have different ideas on how to solve that. Good thread/discussion though!
I won’t comment on hard=fun except that for most games I’d agree, but GoW feels harder to define when so much RNG involved.
I don’t mind ONE devour, that’s the point I’d like to make. ONE devour is where it should stop. Two devours is gg every time that it has happened in my games, whether attacking or defending.
I’ve NEVER used RNG BS attack teams in GoW until this week, and it’s not fun to play slot machine with who eats who in the least amount of spell shots. I feel like the game is out of my control and I may as well flip a coin instead of playing GoW.
I can’t help but look at smogon singles in pokemon: they literally ban the use of 30% chance 1-hit KO moves (along with evasion increasing buffs which also turn moves into coin tosses.) Simple reasoning: It’s meta centralizing, and control is out of the players’ hands, it requires little thought or strategy to use these.
Maybe the solution is even simpler than we might be thinking.
Remember when MAW was the only devour in the game?
Remember the huge uproar from MAW being able to devour multiple times?
How about We limit each team to 1 Devour maximum (not per card, but per game).
On the same premise we could limit Deathmark the same way. Limit it once per game.
Once there is a devour, there will be a 0% success chance to devour an additional troop.
Once there is a deathmark kill, deathmark will instantly be removed from all other troops and deathmark will no longer be able to be applied as a status.
I can agree with this about devour. There is one setback for one poor troop: Black Beast. I do think that one devour per troop (and maybe even team) is a good idea barring this guy. This is the only card that really deserves multiple devours (and I still think he sucks buttcheeks anyway.)
Deathmark is not part of my original discussion, and I’m personally somewhat satisfied that the devs are giving it a one turn grace period in an upcoming patch (that is coming soon, right?) I think DM would be terribly nerfed if it could only kill one troop per game, but I def think DM is OP in its current state.
I played a lot of poker, so I think that colours my judgement a little, since I’m used to trying to analyze slivers of skill in a luck-heavy game . And “too hard” can be an issue regardless of RnG as well (like me playing FPS’s now ).
This might be part of the issue. I have lost some of these, but I’ve won plenty of times when the enemy got off multiple devours. I can see why you’d want it nerfed if you can’t beat these.
I didn’t play Pokemon, but this seems like a good analogy, although my conclusion from it is different. What you’re describing is the banning of a broken mechanic, and I can agree with that. However, what you’re describing in this thread is limiting a mechanic, and maybe that’s where I take issue. If the mechanic is broken, remove it from the game (similar to your Pokemon example). But why would you allow a broken mechanic to be used even once? That doesn’t make sense to me. Fix it and allow people to use it, or just remove it from the game, but don’t pick this one spell in the game to be a single-use mechanic.