I always thought a fire troop getting burned could not take damage, or gain life. Also an ice troop could take double damage from burning. 6 instead of 3
1 Like
I like the idea as well but i fear the community outcry of grief would be deafening
1 Like
I just think it is a different game. GOW wasnât designed to be a color-based rock-paper-scissors game, so trying to shoehorn that functionality backwards onto 400+ troops isnât going to work. There are some limited ways that troop types function this way (like Knights are inherently vulnerable to Bunnies, Undead are inherently vulnerable to Gardâs Avatar and Avina, etc.), and I think that is about as far as it should go. I like the specialist troops that are situationally overpowered.
3 Likes
Yeah, I think the community would go berserk if they made a sweeping change like that, but I think thereâs definitely an opportunity to do more rock-paper-scissors designs.
2 Likes
Let me just say that I love that this phrase has entered the mindshare. It makes me giggle every time I see it.
3 Likes
Yes, exactly. I would love for battles to be influenced more by strategy than RNG. Although, I agree that it isnât likely that the devs will make such a broad change, which is unfortunate.
3 Likes
My dog thinks I am situationally overpowered when Iâm holding the leash.
âLooks like heâs about to put it downâŚwait for itâŚwaaaaitâŚGOGOGOGOGO!!!â
Totally kidding, I donât even have a dog. I just liked the mental picture.
2 Likes
I wouldnât mind negative traits, but they would be really hard to balance.
It is a lot easier to add a negative effect on to the cast of an ability since the troop always has this effect. Doing it to a trait would mean a person is at some point spending resources to make a troop worse before they can make it better.
I think it is better to give a troop a less effective ability with good traits, or a good ability with less effective traits. Like the mythic that was just added today⌠
; less effective ability with good traits.
The thing is that it is not for every troop⌠not all fire will be weak to water. Thatâs why it should be a trait and it would cost less then normal by like 50% is what I am thinking. It also shouldnât decrease kingdom power because in real life the negative traits we have are not weakening us completely, but it does not raise the kingdom as much as normal.
All of the negative traits are the same.
Ex: If a mech. Shortage: Take 2 damage from frozen. or Hack: Get stunned and in tangled if hit by a Mech.
Also this dose not need to be for all troops. I was thinking more for the more powerful troops so when you enter a battle you can feel like you have a wining chance against them.
I believe you are being overly generous⌠We have Ultra-rares better than this Mythic.
2 Likes
Iâm strictly against it.
⌠I havenât seen a single game where this worked.
Plus, itâs counter-intuitive and doesnât work anywhere after the cool idea part. This context is purely theoretical. The state in which this game is has no place for RPS thematic. The âIf done rightâ choice in this pole is too fictional.
Sure, the idea sounds cool - but the cost is too great.
This is where I completely disagree. This can go a lot farther then only a cool idea. If/When this could be added to the game it will bring more tactics, strategy, and fun to the game.
Allowing weaker players a fighting chance and a more formidable enemies. Not to mention the level of greatness you will feel when you make a team with the negative trait and it works better then most.
Also said before this is not for all troops. There is no thought of making it a RPS theme. This can be new obstetrical or advantage for the game.
If even weaker players are allowed a fighting chance ⌠Iâm not sure what this means.
Thereâs no way players would put troops with disadvantages against the enemy team. Why should they, when there already are defense teams that have a chance of winning in turn 2? That doesnât make any sense.
If you want this for a limited amount of troops - those troops need to be really worth the weakness - and at that point, you technically broke the game. Because there already are very strong troops that have no reason to step down from the defense tab.
As far as my opinion is concerned - the thing you are asking for is already there. Troop types, which are a subject for 2x Skull Damage or 50% chance for devour. Thatâs exactly what you are talking about.
If you want to make new troops - thatâs a waste of time. No oneâs gonna use them, or everyoneâs gonna use them, depending on how strong the balance is made - but one thing you can be sure.
⌠Everyone will come back to forums and whine about how strong it is, while the other side will whine the very same way about how weak it is.
From every single angle - this idea does not represent a positive change.
Thatâs a very narrowed view for things, but well, thatâs your opinion so you can keep it.
1 Like
This is where you are misreading. None of this in the game. The things you say are put on abilities and for the traits these help the troop not hold back the troop from its full power. I want the game to have more strategy and deepth. Making every thing more enjoyable for most everyone because know every idea has two sides.
1 Like
Not only that, even bad ideas can lead people into having good ideas. Itâs part of brainstorming processes for groups and teams in many areas around the world.
Also we can see the concept of having âdouble-edgedâ spells such as Leshy (from Urskaya) entangling everyone and destroying all green gems.
Sure, Leshy is not as good as Mab, but maybe the problem started nearly the point where she was introduced⌠When the powercurve evolved into a powercreep with Mab, Maw, Manticore, Bone Dragon, âsome-other-things-i-probably-forgotâ and recently Wisp, Kraken, TrollsâŚ
But back to the point: Perharps if you, @DracoDraconis, could edit your first post to clear things for anyone checking the thread as i assume some will probably skip a good portion of the previous posts.
2 Likes
Thank you for the note. It has been changed and if you think more needs to be cleared up please tell me and I will change the post.
A drawback or cost needs to be bundled directly with the advantages which itâs meant to offset. Weâve already seen this in active spells like Silent One, Princess Elspeth, Black Beast, Sacrificial Priest, Bombot, and Leshy.
The traits âLeaderâ and âGeneralâ are both +3 to all stats if in a specific position, which in a way can instead be seen as -3 to all stats if not in the specific position (even if the trait isnât unlocked). I could also see a trait which blocks all status effects from enemies and allies; no stun, burn, or poison, and no barrier, enrage, or enchant.
Spells and traits which scale based on ally types/colors/kingdoms, or which provide a benefit to allies if they are of a specific type/color/kingdom, also have an opportunity cost. Queen Grapplepot and King Highforge are much less effective in a mixed-type team than if theyâre alongside three goblins or dwarves respectively.
6 Likes
Purely detrimental abilities would be a big no for me. As others have mentioned, having to invest resources to make your card worse is a feel bad moment. A suggested âsolutionâ for this was to make the trait cost less, but a) you still have to invest resources to make your card worse, b) youâre still making your card worse, how is that ever supposed to make me feel good about "up"grading my card?, and c) it breaks the uniform trait cost, increasing complexity for the game for no tangible gain (is how I feel about it).
Besides, as Anchovies pointed out, we already have double edged traits. Traits like Leader and General are perfect examples of mechanic that are pure upside, and thus worth investing resources into, but not always easy / desirable to make use of. Iâld much rather see more traits of that kind and hope to never see a pure downside trait.
Magic the Gathering has been polling players for years, and downside mechanics like Echo are consistently unpopular, so much so that Echo is used as an example in his explanation of the infamous Storm Scale (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/storm-scale-khans-tarkir-block-2016-02-29) of a mechanic that is very unlikely to return. There are always players who like the mental challenge of using these mechanics and cards in a clever way, but itâs important to realize that you, if youâre that kind of player, are in the minority. Downside mechanics are a major turnoff for a majority of the players.
In conclusion, itâs better to reimagine downside traits as conditional upside traits, and design the occasional card with an ability thatâs part downside to throw a bone to the part of the player base that loves the challenge of breaking bad cards. Good examples of those are the Leader trait and the card Leshy.
2 Likes
I wouldnât mind if I was damaged more as lava troop by water based spells but did extra damage with my ability to other troops if my âboost traitâ was âaccelerantâ. Increased fire damage but takes more damage from blue troops/water based spells. Or something like this.
Thatâs not game-breaking but you could choose what team you would fight and it would probably include more strategic thinking.
This does have good potential.
2 Likes