Why some troops should be nerfed?


#1

Take all the troops and give them a score according to their traits/spell/stats and the score is between 0 and 100 with:

  • 0 totally useless troop (should be buffed)
  • 50 “standard”
  • 100 totally OP troop (should be nerfed)

Obviously, players will play only with high score troops and considered useless the “standard” troops.

So yeah one solution is to buff all the “not OP” troops but it’s unlikely that devs will buff 300+ troops… Remaining solution nerfing OP troops.


Dead Thread (15 characters)
#2

Yeah cuz lets ignore the fact that there are all levels of players. Not everyone is endgame @turintuor and the different cards power scales well otherwise we would only need 4 troops not 300+

And as for what you said in my thread my asnwer is this:

You dont nerf everything to the same level of uselessness just to say now you can use your goblin teams… That is ridiculous

Now i am done with you and notice how i did not derail your thread pimpin


#3

As usual you don’t have any arguments and use an aggresive tune…

I’m not as much dedicated to this game to start again a new account to see what is going when you’re low level.
So you’re saying to there are low level players, yes and what?
Do these OP troops are not OP for the low level players? I don’t know sure.
What I know is one of them is claiming that he cannot win anymore against endgame players or dungeon boss becuase Fizz was nerfed. What I called an easy button.

Only one troop was required: Fizzbang.

Why?
It depends of your distribution: if you have only 5 OP troops it’s quite easier to nerf it than buffing 300+ troops…


#4

There are no useless troops. They all do something. It is up to the player to figure out how to use it at its best.

However, there are indeed overpowered troops. Which might be nerfed. Not too many and perception of overpoweredness is subjective. Most of those cards that seem overpowered are actually relatively easy to counter except when you don’t get a turn to move. Then, anything becomes overpowered.


#5

“Useless”, “standard” and “OP” are all relative notions. One criteria could be what devs used in the past the popularity of the troops. But we don’t have this data so

I think “useless” troops are the ones that has a power-up version of themself (War Sphinx with Wisp for example) or has a small impact spell (Peasant).
Dwarven Miner is a good example of ex-useless troop: he get buff now he’s quite okay.

You can give 10 turns to Peasant, I’m sure you will survive :stuck_out_tongue: .


#6

Maybe, maybe not. :rofl:


#7

Im not a big fan of nerfs, but sometimes balance is thrown way out and breaks the game. I agree something had to be done about either fizzbang or grapplepot. The only other troop I feel needs nerfing is Famine - draining everything and dealing massive damage is too OP, especially since it doesn’t mana clash with Psion. Plus being an old mythic the chances of finding it are becoming rarer and rarer as the mythic pool grows.


#8

War Sphinx is far from useless, I certainly would rate that much higher than Princess Nerfbang.

Besides this, just because a troop is rated at zero or 100/100, doesn’t mean that either have to be buffed or nerfed. Take note here people


#9

Players that are you, no doubt. I can even guess what you use by what nerves you carefully don’t advocate.

Anyway no, a lot of middle level and flawed cards are still used, but perhaps not at end-game, where all defenses being the same old, same old they require the same old, same old attack teams.

I understand that a new powerful card, one available even to low-level plebes, is distasteful to you.

Of course, no ‘unbeatable’ troop can win all alone. The other cards are there for a reason, unless you think the ideal team is Faminex4. Many do, and that is a nerf that’s sorely needed. One Mythic per team, would you agree?

So: do you think that old overpowered cards such as Famine and Mab and FG should be nerfed specifically in order to not form unbeatable teams?

Or if Fizzbang should be nerfed because OMG too explodey, then Ragnarok should go first?

And why do you think a leveled playfield where all card are more or less the same would be more enjoyable?


#10

i do not understand this thread. is it a question why some troops should be nerfed? or is it explanation to said question? or a suggestion how and what to nerf? or calling people to list troops for nerf?


#11

I am just gonna say this flat out… If famine gets nerfed again i will quit GoW and never look back

You are right

Yes exactly! Thank you for seeing this as well!

Exactly!


#12

Because that’s considered a Good Idea™ in game design?

One thing to note though, it’s not about all cards being more or less the same, it’s about them being more or less the same value. That’s usually done by assigning value points to things like stats, traits, spell components and synergies, then checking whatever you cook up adds up to about the same, possibly fine tuning the result. Add some leeway for rarity, to make commons less valuable than mythics, otherwise there would be no incentive to own them.

I believe turintor rather finds it distasteful for a card to be very much more powerful than all other cards on a similar (rarity) level.


#13

Then why isnt he calling for a nerf to ragna?

I think @Courtaud is right on this


#14

Because Ragnagord still feels within value limits? He just explodes a color, no extra turn, no stat buff, no survivability traits. Fast is definitely strong, it’s single use though.

Which part of Ragnagord would you consider nerfing? He’s a pretty rare pick for me, based on what I’m facing I find Herdmaster much more useful.


#15

I dont want ragna nerfed or anything else for that matter… My point was, if it even matters, (which it clearly does not) that rags is also an extremely powerful card when used properly and all the people who want nerfs seem to overlook cards they use (especially in GW)


#16

Miss Fizzbang’s fan club I think would happily let stat-altering and Stealth be cut off and have back her exploding glory.

As for Ragnarok, it’s nastier because it can explicitly aim a color to favor an ally and/or chose a color for maximum explodage, also it’s rather unusual nowaday that after all that exploding it doesn’t get a second turn via cascading.

…I meet Ragnarok a lot, Herdmaster I think never since Centaur Week. We don’t move in the same circles :slight_smile: But looking at it I notice that Herdmaster explodes it’s own color, the Princess doesn’t. Nerf?


#17

Yes! This exactly!
Troop_K11_11


#18

Not quite the answer I was looking for. Allow me rephrase the question, what part of Ragnagord makes you consider him an extremely powerful card?


#19

Um…

Have you used rags?


#20

Not necessarily true. If everything feels ‘the same’, or ‘exchangeable’, why bother getting the rest? Every card based game has better or lesser cards. Why bother crafting, playing and buying, if you don’t have that carrot on a stick to work for?

It’s the restrictions, game modes and ruleset that define how balance is achieved, not by making all cards equal.

For instance:

  • Limit decks to 1 base mythic.
  • Increase the bonus for pairing matching cards, hence making other combinations potentially as powerful as mythics.
  • Introduce game modes where different rules apply (no mythics, no color X, no… etc etc).

Or do it like popular games like MtG and Hearthstone, with standard / legacy / vintage / modern, cardsets.