It depends: if a troop is too powerful, it can be nerfed the week after its release. On the other side, if it is not enough powerful, it will never get a boost…
It takes ages for devs to nerf one troop but it worst for them to boost one…
Speaking of buffs, @Tacet’s 3.0.5 preview video shows quite a few buffs to the orcs. And they are pretty cool now. Not meta shifting, but cool.
2 Likes
Zephyros why u no do true damage, u no make sense…so much for improved synergy for Lolnar…
Anyways Orcs look fun at first glance, looking forward to testing them. Already liked Drake Rider before, i will love him then. Gar’Nok looks solid now too without losing his identity(whether you liked it or not), all very interesting, can’t wait.
That’s because an underpowered troop doesn’t threaten the game’s balance the way an overpowered troop does. I also would like all troops to have their place in a perfect world, but much more pertinently, I don’t want to see two or three troops dominate the game.
2 Likes
Yes of course. That’s why it’s better that troops are released slighty overpowered so they could be nerfed quickly than underpowered as they will never be boosted.
Releasing an overpowered troop and nerfing it is also not desirable, because people spend resources (in some cases, real-world resources) obtaining the troop, only to have it nerfed on them, and then they complain about bait-and-switch. I don’t think a general practice of “release overpowered, tune down” is a great solution either.
3 Likes
I disagree, in a game there is no reason for me to expect things might not get changed at any point, so if i see something overpowered gets introduced and i double down on it by spending to ride that op wave, it is my own responsibility. When it gets changed it’s tough luck.
When devs nerf, you can refund your troops so I don’t see the issue.
I never saw anyone claiming what you’re saying (ie spending dollars on a nerfed troop). You already used this argument when we talked about unique troop feature but I don’t see the problem: at one time t, you buy something, if at t+1, the something lost value, in which world will get refunded. Of course, if it’s food and it get spoiled before the date written on the package, you can get refunded. But in this case, there is nothing saying that the troops will never get nerfed when you buy any pack.
Perhaps so, but if there’s a history of the cool new hotness constantly getting whacked by the nerf bat a week after it’s released, that’d be a pretty clear deterrent to investing money into obtaining it.
4 Likes
They may refund the traitstones, but they won’t refund all the event keys you spent on grabbing it in the first place. Worse by a large margin for Mythics.
3 Likes
Not USD or any other currency I’m aware of.
No, there is not. But if it happens to you once – a troop you really care about, and one you spend money on, gets nerfed – you won’t buy again. The game lives and dies by those players who are willing to actually invest coin.
1 Like
Absolutely, but i think GoW is safe from any accusations of ever nerfing any troop too fast 
2 Likes
So long as it doesn’t become a common practice, as has been proposed, yes, I agree with you. They’re fairly conservative in their nerfing, potentially to the detriment of the endgame in the meantime.
I am talking about fast nerf like what happens to Astral Spirit (not sure if it was this one) which was nerfed the week after her release.
Now if someone is enough fan to give 50$ for a Legendary troop, I think he can be enough fan to understand that the nerf was needed for the health of the game.
But yeah let’s nerf these troops before their relase juste in case of some hypothetic players could be disappointed by a possible nerf after their release… 
Even if you don’t use the troop, you need it for the power level. And I’m quite sure that if there is any proble like that, devs could even refund the keys…
Yes. That’s a possibility. Or there’s a risk he stops paying for the game. If I were the developer, I’d try my best to release all troops on the power curve if I could, to avoid disappointment in both directions. It’s a careful balancing act, and they don’t always get it right; but the alternatives (underpowered troops getting no love, or overpowered troops being either immediately nerfed or runaway meta-builders) are both undesirable.
That being said, I agree with you that I’d rather see a troop be too strong than too weak. Ideally they’d target for just barely ahead of the power curve, and then adjusted downward with either a small direct nerf or an indirect one, like Devour and Mana Burn immunity. Underpowered troops rarely get revisited.
This is presumptuous. You don’t run their business, and if you look around, there are voices on all sides of this spectrum. @Eika, for instance, is vocally opposed to nerfs, and is among those who you risk alienating.
1 Like
Dust Devil is the one I remember, as it was possible to do 60ish AoE damage without touching the board. Super easy exploring, super frustrating defense teams.
1 Like
If the troop doesn’t get nerfed it creates frustration to the player who could leave the game.
No I disagree with you about the possibility that one player will leave/stop paying because of one nerf.
Where is the voices that you claim? When player A said to other players to leave the game if they are not happy because of the GW, please told to this player A what you told me ;-).
He claimed a lot of time leaving the game because of one nerf but he never did it. And he’s one of these player A so not the best example.
Gotta side with Lyya on this even though we are not quite on the same page regarding necessary nerfs.
I know for a fact that nerfs can make players leave a game, in several games i played, players i knew did leave the game over all kinds of changes, including nerfs.
Also i think it is logical to assume that a player who invested in an item in a game and gets burned by a nerf of said item, might be more hesitant to spent on other items in the future because of it.
That being said, i also think that a player who invests in an item, and that item is mindboggling overpowered, trivializing the game for the player, that player might also be inclined to spend less or nothing in the future on other items cause he feels he doesn’t need anything else but the op item he already has, or the player might even stop playing the game altogether of boredom due to the content trivializing op item.
5 Likes
No mention of the cycling farce of late. Why invest real money in a game where your superpowered troop never gets a move?
And because of the sheer number of cycle teams I think the suggestion that players care about the game is very funny.
Top guilds jumped on cycling. Still peddling away…
There is nerf and nerf. I started my point about weekly troops who could be nerfed one week after their release and it seems the discussion want on the nerf of Famine or whatever troops released since a long time with a huge fanbase…
When a new troop is nerfed it is generally resumed to tweak numbers so a small adjustment. For example, Arthema could do 45x2 damage now, devs could check if it’s too much and reduce it like @Jainus said to 40x2…
About the nerf of troops released since a long time:
BD was nerfed and I think now he’s not reliable enough to be used as before (I was against the nerf of this troop). Will really players rage quit the game because of that? I think they just put KoS in their team and that’s all (what I did). Or find another OP team. Of course, devs removed somewhat some fun to the players: it was lovely to cast BD, see all these skulls and boom. Sadly it was a choice for the devs between the pleasure of some players versus the frustration of other ones.