Suggested Changes


#1

Here some suggested changes for future patches:

  1. Reduce Devour chances further (for AI only?): Kraken 25%, Kerberos 35%, other Devours minus 5%.
  2. Wisp costs 2 mana more.
  3. Emperor Khorvash does normal damage, not true damage.
  4. Filter allows ‘Order’ ‘Mana cost’.
  5. Defender’s Gem Priority with raster and detailed description. Additional sliders for Spell cast 1 to 4.

If you would apply these suggestions I would be very happy and others too, I guess.


#2

I only agree with #4 and #5.
I’ll add: make gem priorities work in GW to #5


#3

Suggestions 1 to 3 are not there because you can’t find attack teams that defeat those. It is there because it gives back a greater strategy aspect (less luck). Also it supports team variety, since there will be more effective teams available that can compare. Many quit playing since they always face the same overpowered defenses. If there is no nerf I will keep my Forest Troll, Kraken, Kraken, Queen Mab defense, since it has the highest defeat rate. Why should I consider taking alternatives if things stay as they are?


#4

Not saying some of the nerfs are wrong… But in general, if you nerf meta, new meta is created… It is a vicious circle you cannot easily break.


#5

Joking here, but RIP Kruarg the Dread…


#6

Maybe some ranked battle rule changes.
either make it where certain cards can not be placed together or every week have certain cards unplayable for rank matches that would make more people think about what they play and less cookie cutters games. Maybe no double creature decks.


#7

Could the devs please put the kingdom’s sign back on the bottom right of the cards? @Saltypatra what was the reasoning for taking that off anyway? It doesn’t take any more room than the troop level on the bottom left of the card. And can be helpful as well.


#8

I like #4
The filters need an overhaul anyway because spam-clicking through them to find desired option (worst with traits) is no long time solution. But that’s been complained about enough.
I’d also like to filter for a second color, not only one. And a second card type (like Dragon +Undead).
I’d also like to be able to sort by Kingdom (not filter; sort-by) with the results having a secondary sort option like your mentioned mana costs (or color).

I’d like to see my banner (or colors in some way) in the attack screen. I tend to forget my own colors 2 seconds after I entered the battle xD (unless I use one of my often used teams).
I don’t like the idea that others see my set color priorities or other adjusted defense information. Banner is already too much info for my taste.

I don’t like spell cast sliders for pvp (ranked or casual). I don’t see why a defender is so eager to win much in defense anyway since the game should appeal to the playing player (which is the attacker). The defending AI doesn’t get frustrated. And there’s already enough luck factor.
But I could imagine it for GW. Although the attacker is already restricted to a certain color of the day (if going for max points), don’t know whether I’d fancy even higher loss chances; the defender can already set up whatever he likes.

For casual/ranked pvp I’d like an option to prioritize spell cast in general.
I noticed some things since the defense system got set up: Spirit Fox now casts its spell on the first opponent turn, when before the AI worked more strategically and waited until it “paid off” to cast it. First turn is a wasted opportunity. I don’t use Spirit Fox myself but yet don’t like how it changed for the worse. Who knows what else changed for the worse what I even may use.
On the other hand some troops don’t cast when charged. Oo
The AI rather does a 3 match which makes no sense when the cast would be way more effective. That misbehavior saved my butt quite some times when battling much stronger opponents. I see it as a flaw nonetheless.


#9

Strategic Meta is ok, but not this luck-based Meta. To list out good strategic teams I enjoy very much, but the same is a waste of time if your creation is devoured the first turns and cannot act at all.


#10

Kruarg got a victim of Famine :wink:


#11

It wouldn’t matter if they lowered the percentage on devour the ai gets way better success with it than the player it is supposed to be 40% but the ai rate is closer to 80-90% devour rate.


#12

Really? I fought kraken all day as im sure everyone did and i think i got devoured only once… I only lost once too and that was to a psion/famine team guess im just lucky😎


#13

Reducing devour rates is the last thing we want. No matter how small the chance, if you let the AI cast with them and they can target something that is devourable, you will eventually get devoured, and this will be the stand out event. If you use them on offense, you need to cast more on average to get them to work. In short, you will “feel” the nerf more when using the troops on offense than on defense, so in the end, you didn’t really address anything - you can only make them “not meta” if you trash them beyond redemption, and you still have super polarizing luck based events in the game. For example, Kerberos was not properly addressed at the nerf he was given when his devour chance from 50% to 40% and summon chance from 100% to 50%. He was properly addressed when dwarves were given Fortitude, and some initiative was shown in putting more than one troop with Indigestible in the game.


#14

Ok, then there needs to be an adjustment in the AI. I expected that the AI has the same devour chance than the attacker. In the case it has a higher chance then of course the first step would be to nerf the AI only.


#15

They do have a same chance. But defense teams and offense teams have different burdens. Having any percent chance to devour and defense teams heavily skewed toward this mechanic means that someone is getting hit by it by a troop on defense and losing the battle because of it. The only way you get them off meta is either by offering something better, or if they are nerfed so hard they become so “bad” that they stop winning, and until then, it doesn’t matter how low the chance is, someone will come complaining with the impression the AI has higher chance because they experienced x out of y events. For example, if Kruarg was “meta” and at the head of every defense team (and maybe just a touch less fragile), even with his 5% skull devour, we’d see a ton of complaints of how “broken” he is on defense, even though the trait is objectively bad and completely out of place with the rest of his design (and pretty easily counterable now as well). Yet everyone looking at him objectively to use on an offense team would, over time, experience the 1 in 20 he is stated to have and stop using him. I’ve personally had him devour with three consecutive single skull hits, which is a streak with a cumulative probability of 1 in 8000. When I was using him, not the AI. The potential magnitude of RNG events (their impact on a given game) matters far more than their stated chance.

That being said, we have more devour counters now than we have ever had in the history of the game, and some of them are actually on troops that are viable in their own right for once. Cascades and blob matches are far bigger issues right now than devour as far as game defeating RNG events go.


#16

I can summarize my wish in one sentence: Less Luck, more Strategy. There are different ways to accomplish this. No matter how, the important thing is that the suggested method works. If every battle is like throwing dice then it gets boring. Ok, if ‘impervious’ is fixed, it will be better somehow, but there are unfortunately no real ‘attack’-cards designed specific against devouring cards yet (or what cards would that be?). For now I take ‘devours’ down with Pharos-Ra <> Dragon Soul combos or with Krystenax spam. However; success is so luck-based that it’s almost impossible to win 100+ battles in sequence. This was not the case earlier, when it was easy to do hundreds of won battles in sequence.