If so, then I hereby apologize to @RiverSong. That was not my intention at all. Probably lost in translation as you said (English is not my native language, in case that wasn’t obvious already).
Apology not necessary, but gratefully accepted. And no, it is not obvious that English is not your native language, at least not to me.
1 Like
Just regarding the Big/Huge/Immense Idea for immunity to Devour… that was actually what we tried first. Thematically it’s a good fit, I agree. Here the pro’s an cons of doing it that way. We decided against it because the pro’s of using Impervious just seemed better to us.
IMMUNITY ON BIG/HUGE/IMMENSE
Pros:
- Thematically a good fit
- Will shake up the meta even MORE than using Impervious
Cons:
- Affects more troops & more Legendaries (so it counters Maw harder)
- Would start too many people requesting X,Y,Z be Big/Huge/Immense
IMMUNITY ON IMPERVIOUS
Pros:
- Control: Easy to manage since only a single trait (ie much easier to control the addition of Impervious troops than Big/Huge/Immense)
- Elegance: Also solves Mana Burn needing a counter - all in one neat package
Cons:
- Thematically not ideal (but kind of works, for me at least)
6 Likes
Then don’t include Big, just Huge and Immense. That would also leave you with only a single trait to manage (since Immense is unique, it doesn’t need to be “managed”)
How is that different than people requesting X,Y,Z be Impervious/Indigestible?
That’s only if you could justify Mana Burn being included, but it just doesn’t fit there, as noted below.
While you can somehow claim that about Devour, There is just no way for Mana Burn to work there, not even ‘kind of’, especially with all the other spells which do things that are very similar from every angle but are not included.
If Big were excluded, then only base legendary troops would have immunity from Devour – Huge and Immense only occur on base legendary troops. This isn’t meant in support or opposition to your point, just an observation.
I am glad to hear that the devs kicked around the idea of size-based resistance to Devour. I disagree with their final evaluation, but I certainly can’t complain that they’re ignoring the forums community.
3 Likes
The problem is not with mana burn… The problem is with free turns that Mab have.
If you remove the free turns then the Mab will be basically the same as Crimson Bat… You plan to use the biggest nerf bat for the Mab but you also hurt all other troops that use mana burn, making them useless basically…
Bigger sizes preventing devour, that makes sense…
Impervious preventing all status changing such as poison and so on does make sense… But it doesnt make sense with mana burn as its a spell…
Devs should just remove the free turns for Mab and then the mana burn will be just another spell… Then later on, you can add a trait that prevent only mana burn, same as big sizes prevent devours.
Personally I don’t see how it’s an overreaction to say that Mab is completely 100% useless against the new impervious… Which is what I said.
She cannot even use her skill… Let alone her frozen trait. So if the new norm in defense is to make mostly impervious teams (something with plague), that makes her useless because you won’t even be able to use her anymore. If impervious troops do not become the norm in defense, then there will be battles I can either skip or adjust to (problem is that I don’t have hardly any fully trained troops so that makes it so much harder)… But if almost every team has even 2 impervious troops… She’s hardly worth the struggle.
I just don’t want to see her wiped off the map because everyone uses impervious.
I’ve also said that Mab is my favorite troop. So if your favorite troop becomes useless… It tends to distress people.
I wouldn’t even be complaining if Mab’s skill did flat damage, then mana burn boosted by magic (half magic perhaps?) however they want to balance it to where anti mana burn does not 100% negate her. I still very much want to play her because her art is really pretty and I love the nature of her skills/how she acts.
Plus I will admit that I hate long drawn out battles in a game that’s about being fast to get optimal rewards, so her being fast is a perk.
My only point is that it’s ridiculous that she is getting that hard of a counter that renders her useless against impervious. She should be nerfed a little bit, and add a REASONABLE counter, rather than completely negated. Note: I hope you do not remove her extra turn. I’d honestly rather lose arcane over that.
Mana burn needed a counter? I think it was more that one of the two troops in the game that actually used it was an arcane traited troop with a full magic scaling AoE damage spell that usually granted an extra turn and could not be frozen. Luckily, the only thing hit in the crossfire here was Jackelope, which I don’t think anybody honestly cares. Point is, the mana burn was never actually the problem here. In fact, if mana burn were completely removed from Mab’s spell next patch, it would actually be a buff to her, since her spell would still be able to at least deal damage to everything.
Non-Hunger Devour always had a few soft counters already in that they were spells and therefore could be therefore could be silenced, drained (or in the case of the AI, skull baited) to prevent them. It still makes sense for there to finally be a way to avoid the random devours, though. I’m glad you didn’t go with the size traits, because I feel this would have lead to them being less prevalent in new troops, and these are some of my favorite traits.
Again, my main concern here is the absolute on it blocking mana burn damage. Not just for the sake of this one troop, for for the sake of any future troops that are deemed “overpowered” being solved by just making something or a subset of somethings completely immune to their spell damage, especially months later. Partial resistance probably has coding restrictions and I’m sure the backlash from straight nerfing her probably would have gone just as badly (or worse) than this, but really, mana burn immunity is a bad out, and I know you can do better.
2 Likes
BAH. Devs should have worked on the guild stuff that was promised like a year ago and keeps being pushed back and back and back repeatedly.
Instead they keep messing up the meta by a cycle of OPing and then overnerfing stuff. Current example with impervious so blatantly shows how little sense it makes – only picked as a device to patch some imagined pain spots.
The too uniform defense problem could have been addressed by a much simpler way, just either banning troops from being on defense or attaching debuffs that work only on defense. Low dev cost and can be aimed at anything that looks overused at the moment and allowing it back through just server or data patches.
While some REAL design can be applied for root problems.
Still think this method isn’t healthy… Maw / Mab blow over everything that isn’t Impervious, but get shut down hard by anything that is Impervious. No middle ground.
That’s problem #1 - problem #2 is that it just makes Impervious waaaay too strong.
Sort of sad that I’m reiterating the same points I made 100-150 posts up but whatever.
5 Likes
It’s very different… as soon as we make “thematic” the priority in our design, everyone will ask for Dragons to be Huge, then large beasts will be requested to be big, etc… Currently we don’t get those requests (often), because I think there’s a consistency that traits are just “extra flavor” not a “physical description”.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree, Yonizaf, I’m afraid. To myself, and the rest of the dev team, Impervious makes perfect sense as s blanket immunity to a bunch of stuff, because the word “impervious” is just a generic term for some kind of immunity. We’ve changed the wording to make it clear in-game too, so I’m not sure I can add any more to this conversation.
5 Likes
Next nerf is definitely true damage because that’s what’s left … If you want to mass invade without looking at the defense your just going to bring Crimson Bat with either a slot 1 impervious or another way to stop Maw (spirit fox, Famine, etc)
Which means that if True Damage ever gets perceived as OP and needs a counter, you should not hesitate to add it under the same umbrella, for the exact same reasons. Yet you declared earlier that you’ll never do it, why is that?
True damage has existed on Crimson Bat since day 1 in the game (20 months now). There was a slight nerf to the bat after release, due to a bug, but there has never really been a problem with True Damage in spells… in fact we’ve recently buffed Bat to get more folks using him. True damage is fine.
I’m a little concerned that this thread is about to head into a bunch of conjecture about stuff that will likely never happen, so sadly I’ll be closing it down now.
I think everybody has spoken their piece… and all feedback has been taken into due account.
I’ll leave you with a parting observation.
We’ve been playing with the new Impervious for a few weeks now and we like it.
- Mab is still awesome.
- Maw is still awesome.
- I DO now need to look what I’m fighting if I want to optimize my team
- If you’re good at the game, as we mostly are here I think, then you’ll of course be able to create a team that wins 95% of battles without looking at your enemy, but it feels nice (and a lot less stale) to me that I can change up a few teams for different situations and optimize my victories. THAT is what we’ve been hearing as feedback here for the last 6 weeks after all!
- And as far as the meta goes, I don’t like to do predictions, but my best guess is that we won’t see an explosion of ALL-IMPERVIOUS teams… they’re kinda weak. I think we may see teams that include ONE Impervious troop up front, which will mean a bit of team-shuffling for attackers to bring in a nuke, like War or Dwarven Slayer to join Mab or Maw .
18 Likes