Danol

Ok, I know I am late to the party. But since I don't like Discord, have played nature decks a lot lately (mostly rPvE) and want to share some thoughts on them, I'll just do it here. Obligatory "Primeval Watcher should not require 3 nature orbs" complaint. This has really ruined some decks for me and I don't think it was neccessary in any way. Besides that, there are some cards that I think don't perform as well as they should as well as general issues. Timeshifter Spirit. I really like this guy, he is basically a mobile Mark of the Keeper who can also heal. But there are so f

As long as they manage to make those units fit into their factions theme, I don't really see a problem here. And I'm fairly confident about it: Every faction has a T1-Archer, many have a T2-Archer and they are still unique. As for the PvE difficulty: That's not quite true, If you, for example, add a card that is not worth using, nothing changes (as far as I am concerned, that's the point where Twilight Slayers are right now). That's also why I think that comparing it to Razorleaf + Root Network is a fair thing to do - when people are building their deck for a map, that's what they'll do.

Well, I'd phrase it the other way around: The design of future T3/T4 Archers should take into consideration all the problems Twilight Slayers have. My suggestion is to make them immune to being knocked off a wall and give them a bit more range. Or maybe a passive ability to slowly repair the wall they're on while not in combat, which would make them attractive because they'd take a tedious micromanaging task away ... but, on the other hand, that sounds more apropriate for a frost or nature T3 archer ...

If (and thats a big if) this one card is absolutely neccessary for rpve 10, then rpve 10 needs to be rebalanced. That applies even if SoW remains unchanged, because such a design is just a fail. Btw no I'm not "wrong but right", simply because I never made a claim about rpve 10 that I could even be wrong about.

I don't even see how this is relevant to the discussion? If a map is impossible to beat without one specific card, then thats a problem with the map. A card being mandatory would be a proof that it's op, because it explicitly shows that no other card has comparable power. So even if you're right you'd just proven yourself wrong about SoW.

Somehow I did not notice this comment before, so my response is a bit late. Whatever ... Just slightly reducing the return (without further changes to the buff) would not bring it in line with the others. Goind with the 15% refund per kill, you can still get 100% refund every 30s. Take a look at what would happen if all my suggestions were implemented and only one player with SoW is on the map (basically the worst case for SoW). Everyone still gets a 100% return of void power every 60s for the cost of 150 energy (you'd need 28 kills for that, which is doable in 30s, especially in a 4

Finding seldom used cards is not that hard (for the developers), but I doubt that these are such a good starting point. Card usage is determined by a bunch of factors, the power of the card is just one of them. For example most cards requiring 4 orbs of the same color will not be used as much as a card requiring only one orb of a specific color, because it can't be splashed (examples: Forest Elder or Dreadnought). Expensive cards might be used less, because many players don't have them, despite of their (often) obvious power. Mediocre cards that are dirt cheap and flexible, on the other hand,

The original game lasted for only 4 years, all the time in between then and now is meaningless. Btw. there was a SoW discussion back then but, as you might remember, there were a bunch of balancing issues that the original devs did not care about for ages. Wheel of Gift stacking, for example. Past ignorance is no excuse for current ignorance. Btw. yes, void power management was developed as a feature - not complete void power negation. That's why none of the other void power management tools is nearly as powerful as SoW.

Maybe, but trying to fix them all in one go is all but guaranteed to not find the best solution.

Yep, you're absolutely right. With 2 SoW in a game, the void power mechanic might as well not exist at all. The same applies if other void power shrines get buffed to the level of SoW. Void power was meant to impose a delay on power reusage, that is obviously not working if you can get your void power back nearly instantaneous. A simple comparison: Without any buffs, the void power regeneration is 1% per second, so to regenerate 99% of void power you need 459s. With Shrine of Memory constantly up it takes 152s. With SoW, it's 21 units killed. 5.25 kills per player on a 4 player map. How l

Well, my thoughts on the matter: In it's current state, the game needs more rpve content. Defensive mode, tower defense, pvpve ... new game modes. I'd love to play a MOBA-map, for example. more cards. Nature/Shadow or Frost/Fire - cards, for example. Those would add more options for deck-building and thus variety. balance enhancements. If cards are bad, players will ignore them and they thus add very little to the game. If cards are too good, players use them as much as possible, leading to repetitive gameplay. Both is counter-productive for the long-time motivat

There are some cards whose orb-restrictions should be eased, no doubt about that. On the other hand there are also cards whose restrictions are too lax or just right. So my suggestion is to discuss this on a card-by-card basis.

I don't think that this kind of micro-management is fun. Part of my reasons for suggesting the "once per player"-thing was actually that I'm a lazy ass who hopes balancing SoW goes hand in hand with getting rid of tedious, boring micromanagement. As for the "4 fire orbs" - suggestion: I don't think that's a good idea, because it vastly overshoots the mark. The goal is to balance SoW, not to totally exclude it from 99% of all decks. Pure fire-decks are a rare thing, so SoW would mostly get used with Enlightenment or Amii Monument, further increasing the power of these (already overpowered)

When playing RPvE in the last few months, I almost always saw someone using Shrine of War. When I build a deck with fire-cards at all, I include Shrine of War. The voidpower-refund it grants is just vastly superior to other means of voidpower management like Shrine of Memory. Voidpower is almost a non-issue when Shrine of War is active. I think that's a bit too good. My proposal is to make Shrine of War need two fire-orbs reduce it's voidpower-refund from 20% to 15% (u3) allow only one Shrine of War to be build per player (so you need two players with SoW to have

Yeah, but i don't always want to delete all my mail. Not even all my new mail. "Delete autogenerated mail" would be better - deletes all mails from achievements, daylies, auction house, but not other players mail. Your suggestion would make it very easy to delete some unopened mail from another player by accident. I don't think the 1 sec cooldown is an issue, I can't do anything else but wait during this time anyways ...