Nothing to try, look at the very first example, making it abundantly clear that 4-matches of any frozen colour do not generate extra turns regardless of what troop is frozen.
It got also explained at length in the annnouncethread back then, and while you may find it unintuitive (arguably a valid point to discuss, which also did happen at length in that announce thread), it is absolutely not unintended in any way, but exactely how it was intended at its inception.
1 Like
The first example is a general statement. It does not say “if you have ANY blue troop frozen” you won’t get any turns. It’s non-specific.
The statement of description is VERY specific, in fact it capitalizes the word “troop”.
So if you’re going to hold up the first example as being intended behavior then again we have a problem because that means there’s a contradiction in the graphic itself.
I’m also not talking about the situation presented by the OP. The only time I have an issue with frozen is when the mana fills troops ABOVE the frozen troop. In the OP case, mana had to pass through the frozen troop, even though it was charged, blocking the extra turn. I have no problem with that.
Like i said, if you’d argue that revised frozen is unintuitive, that would be a valid point for discussion, but it’s a discussion that did happen at day one of its introduction, resulting in the Devs explaining the effect at length and in detail making it absolutely clear that any frozen troops manacolours would count as frozen generally.
So is it arbitrary/complicated? Sure, but the way it works is simply 100% not unintended.
1 Like
I guess it was intended…
try again
4 Likes
Damn you didn’t have to do him like that Ricky…
i agree with you that the current frozen mechanic is working as intended and is unintuitive
but i dont agree that it should be kept the way it is.
i know changing it to more intuitive (the way @htismaqe explained) would mean freeze getting a nerf, however i believe making this effect more intuitive and to seem to make much more sense would actually benefit for the game. just count how many forum users who speak against the nerf actually speak against any game mechanic complications that would couse confusion? freeze IS cousing confusion. making it right would not be a bad step even considering the nerf consequences.
2 Likes
This.
I’m not interested in re sparking the debate. I already made my point and it wasn’t well-accepted, so be it.
Like @Annaerith, I believe the Devs could do themselves a big favor, and cut down on these kinds of complaints, if they’d just do a little cleanup once in a while. In this case, it appears just re-iterating the information @Rickygervais posted would be extremely helpful since it was posted before I started coming here (and I’ve been here a while). I would still argue it should be changed but that’s a different argument at this point.
2 Likes
i don’t think frozen “fix” will work in my favor (or anyone else). Imagine dealing with the usual ek, valk, justice, mab team. Imagine how they can make the match lengthy even more just because you failed to freeze Justice.
1 Like
It will work in your favor when you play against such a team, plus it would be more fair.
imo, it should be changed because it’s confusing.
The description should also be updated to include the skull matches, because I don’t think it mentions this now either.
1 Like
I think Frozen is fine in terms of effectiveness, but poorly communicated. It’s an effect that applies to an entire class of gems, but it’s presented to the player as applying to an individual unit. All it really needs is some kind of UI element that presents the concept of “this unit has the Frozen effect on them, so these gem types don’t give extra turns”. As it stands now, requiring new players to figure that out is extremely esoteric.
1 Like
maybe by changing graphic of the gems on board into “frozen” for all gems of frozen color
would still feel weird as the gem graphic would shift between frozen and not-frozen every time the turn passes to the other player/ai
or have the effect freeze them as well.
The problem with Freeze is really with Mab. Freezing an enemy on a 4 or 5 gem match is crazy powerful and should be limited to some extent. In fact, that probably goes for most match on 4-or-5 skills.
I propose two potential solutions:
-
Remove RNG from debuffs. Change Freeze from a singular status effect into levels of status. IE: Freeze 1 applies for a single turn. Non-stacking. Freeze 2 applies for 2 turns, etc. Immediately change Mab’s freeze trait to a Freeze 1 trait. This has the side benefit of letting the player know when the status effect will go away.
-
Limit debuff based traits: LIMIT 1 PER TURN. That is, it doesn’t matter if you get 100 4-matches or just a single 4-match, only one enemy is debuffed from your skill per turn. This prevents the utter bullshit of having your entire team stunned and frozen after a single defenders turn.
IMO the traits are the real issue. Debuffs are fine for troop skills but far too powerful for traits without some limit.
In the long run I think option 1 is better because this same idea could be applied to current and future troops such that there is a bit of differentiation between a Legendary troop that casts a level 4 freeze spell and a Common troop that freezes all enemies but only for a 1 or 2 rounds.
Borealis has a powerful freeze all units attack and deal dmg to a random unit.
The way freeze is set up right now, I feel it takes away/diminishes the power of Borealis’ attack because if an opposing team has 3 troops with a shared mana color, then you simply need to freeze one of them.
1 Like
Thread unfrozen!
(Nerdy programmer joke, replace “unfrozen” with “necro” if you don’t get it)
2 Likes