She has done what she can to answer your questions Versheenah, just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean effort and thought wasn’t put into them.
You will rarely see game developers commit to a specific suggestion because it would put them in a bind if something comes along later that makes it impossible to implement. So the best you’ll be able to get is that the state of the game will be constantly monitored and that actions will be taken accordingly if problems arise. Also the devs have implemented ideas that have popped up on the forums before, whether they took the idea from the forums or came up with them on their own we’ll never know (mostly due to legal reasons). But they DO read all the suggestions and consider them.
if thats the case then my cascade preference is to have that cascade breaker turned on all the time, even if it means it blocks cascades for player as well
the base concept of this game to me was a casual relaxing match 3 game, having wild cascades execute 3 out of 4 units in one turn doesnt fall in such cathegory to me
therefore @Versheenah i disagree with you about keeping rng completely random without interference ,
some interference is needed, as Saltypatra said, for players enjoyment
And generators. I’m still waiting for the ability to use my generators without giftwrapping a bunch of 4-matches for the AI.
I have noticed the very rare occurrence where the AI will take a 3-match that leaves me a 4-match, so if this is a tweak it has been noticeable, but it’s still way off from being remotely “even”.
The option I want is not on the list: Random gem spammers, but with 4 gem mana surges removed from the game. I believe this was the situation before Unity, and it worked well.
I wonder if gem spawners would work out better if they always created gems in a pattern guaranteed to not match for extra turns. Meaning that your turn would be over, because you wouldn’t get a match. And your opponent also wouldn’t get the opportunity for an extra turn 4/5-match, because none of the created gems align. Barring, of course, corner cases where the board is satiated to a point a match has to be granted.
It would change the role of gem spawners, they would improve the availability of a gem color instead of feeling like a Hail Mary move. A safe way to support troops requiring that color, without any gamble involved. Combined with transformers, minor loops would still be possible, excessively long loops would be gone though, for both sides. I think I could get used to that approach, requires more skill instead of luck.
This would make gem spawners safe, it would also make them basically null net value unless you play an unbalanced team only using certain colours or play against an unbalanced opponent team not using the ones you spawn.
Not saying that would be useless, it would just be very situational for an ability type that is on almost 100 troops and also even weaker than now compared to transformer type troops.
I’m not convinced they would be much weaker. They prepare the board for your next move. If you are good at spotting cascades, you might actually benefit a lot, even without another troop to follow up. Of course, it also depends on how well the AI would be able to utilize the move in between.
Given that gem spawning is currently more a liability than a benefit, it might actually make those almost 100 troops see more play again. Like the new Totem, the Barrier effect is great on its own, the gem spawning component ruins it. Wish we had some kind of test realm, this feels like it would be interesting to play around with.
Anyone else see the contradiction in these statements? How can they know that their AI and RNG is more enjoyable to new players if they have no way to ask them? Sorry @Saltypatra I’ll stop, but i just couldn’t not ask as these statements were like a knot in my mind that had to be untied.
@Mithran, Sorry for necroing this thread as I just found it (these forums are such a mess to find stuff) but I’d like some clarification on the ‘semi viable’ you use in the poll. You used ‘semi-reliable’ in one of the different options, is your use of ‘semi-viable’ just an error and meant to be ‘semi-reliable’ instead?
I’d also like to clarify my own opinion on the matter as your poll doesn’t have an option for how I think gem spawns should work.
I feel like random spawns should not be random, but clustered toward like color generating reliable matches, like we had the first week of Unity, but toned down some.
I totally agree with you that spawners like Wight shouldn’t be making reliable 4+ matches for extra turns. I do feel like they should be reliably making matches and spawners that put significantly more gems on the board should be making reliable extra turns.
The Devs were onto something with the combo breaker inversion bug, and rather than totally reversing it, I feel like they should have just turned the clumping down from where it was to something a lot less heavy handed.
It’s pretty common knowledge that when a player is new to a game they have to learn how the system works and understand a new set of rules. While players are learning new rules it’s not an enjoyable experience to be challenged the way a player that has already understood the system is. Therefore, we make it a little easier at lower levels, so the player has enough time to acquaint themselves with the game mechanics before making the game more difficult.