I was just thinking this yesterday. Some teams are ultimately extremely annoying (the most egregious offender being in this thread), while others are playable (the Bombot teams). Most broken teams I already avoid (Death/Famine) because I don’t enjoy playing against them. Courage in particular is extremely broken, so I’ve scratched that off my list. For those who say it’s not, do you see any other guardians? For me, when I play against guardians, it’s about 95% Courage, 4% Justice, and 1% all others combined.
Most of us use powerful teams. That’s natural. However, just as there are odds in professional sports betting, rewards should scale with win probability. While it’s not bulletproof, we can know what defense teams are used and what their win rates are. They can start with a “base” expectation based on rarity, level, and such (similar to the existing power), and then modify that with actual results. The downside to this is the near-infinite variety of teams, but there are ALWAYS common configurations (the same four troops, with little to no variation in order). If these teams win 50% of the time, then you get significantly greater rewards for beating them (and they get less for using the team). If you want more of something, incentivize it, if you want less, disincentivize it. It’s that simple.
For me, the complete lack of variety is annoying and is slowly making me despise this game, especially because the developers seem to be half-assing it by continually adding new broken troops seemingly without thought while still leaving multiple bugs unfixed (let’s not pretend Infernal King is the only stun/spawn/resurrection bug out there).
Depp Borer is so good because he eliminates a row, before he spawns his gems. So the number of gems spawned is still similar to back in time when spawned gems scaled with magic. As a human player, I try to target a row with 0 brown, or target so that the most possible match 4s will exist with 1 gem spams. It’s cost is also very low.
That is part of the reason Deep Borer / Bone Dragon is so nuts.
I personally dislike the way massive skull spams are processed into damage. Even connected skulls often spam into many multiple full skull attack attacks. (Terrible sentence I know.) This is why Courage and skull spam are so overpowered. If the skull spammer troops only did Attack + X for the number of skulls past 3, and it counted as just the 1 attack, it would change things. Stoneskin troops wouldn’t be getting hit for things like 5 x attack, they’d be getting hit for attack + 20.
I accept this is the way the game works on skull spam troops. I just dislike how when the entire board is skulls you get Attack + 2 damage, yet if the board if half skulls you get much more damage.
The problem with this approach is that it could disqualify a large portion of the pool, leading to fighting the same couple of opponents, and thus the same couple of teams, which is half the original complaint. They might be less annoying teams, but it would still be stagnant. It also has no feedback mechanism to correct the problem, it just hides it while causing other problems. More variety requires more opponents in the pool, not fewer. Lengthening the duration people stay in the pool would probably help some, but increasing the variety is going to take more than that; more viable teams, more hard counters, incentives to use different teams.
perhaps but this mechanic at least would allow you to controll which ‘semi-meta’ enemies you gonna face so you can ‘toggle’ between few metas for you
doesnt remove meta entirely therefore doesnt remove boredoom too much but still removes a little boredoom as you shift meta the way you like + removes a lot of frustration
This is my motivation behind my defense teams, slow games for the attacker. Hell, a slow team that will almost always lose is the best option because players will “stick out” the fight, get the win but take 5 minutes to do it.
@TaliaParks thats precisely what i hate in defense team, and i think its wrong to use it unless you are precisely aiming the top ranks, being attacked less often serves u no good
That’s a wild assumption… If you cared to read my suggestion you could see some points about the rotativity of the cards banned to present a diferent poll every wee. Some compositions would lose one key element or another, but on the next week they would be back with the rotation.
For a better experience, and to not put new players at loss for not being able to use the few stronger cards they have, this restricted kind of pvp could be an extra event, while we have regular pvp with all cards available. (This is inside the link i posted as well.)
4 little ponies should have most offenses salivating, as they’ve never been a threat to anyone, ever. With apallingly low health and pathetically slow charge times, they are one of the easiest teams to beat.; 3-5 turns and it should be a snoozefest victory. I’ve never heard anyone on pc/mobile say the horsies were difficult in any way. It’s baffling that console players would struggle so mightily against such an incredibly weak team.
if u make a slow team that only difference between any other defense team is that ppl will want to attack it less likely therefore a small amount of ppl (in addition to normal amount of ppl who does it) will skip it
