WindHunter

Keep your eye out in the future as we are getting fairly close to doing an official release for dPvE.

Sadly, we do not own the rights to the game so we cannot put it on one of the standard distribution platforms.

Speed runs do not take precedence when we are designing or balancing any part of the game. At the same time, yes we generally avoid major changes to campaign maps which would make the existing records impossible, though obviously this would be us making a map harder, not easier. Irrespective of speedrunning, we have maintained a pretty hands-off approach to existing campaign maps, and when we did change things we wanted the changes to be mostly unnoticed. We fixed some major problems, like wave trapping on Guns of Lyr, and also did minor things like moving the T2 wells/orbs slightly on Sunbridge slightly south to prevent accidentally pulling the T3 camp. We did some more substantial changes to maps with long durations and high failure rates (Behind Enemy Lines, Nightmare Shard, Nightmare's End, Convoy). In each case the changes were careful and targeted, and in the case of Nightmare's End we were able to reduce average map time by 20+ minutes while significantly increasing the win rate. As another example, before our changes to Convoy, expert difficulty had a 15-20% win rate, and it is at least double that now. Yet, unless you read the patch notes or obsessively played a map, you likely would not have noticed these changes because they were so subtle. Maybe we will change our approach in the future, but for now we mostly want to reduce pain points in maps without changing their overall feel. This is also because making new maps just seems more worthwhile to us than going back and overhauling existing maps. An exception to this is when we feel like a map could really benefit from a substantial overhaul, to the point where it will feel like a new map, and we will soon be announcing a few of these reworks, including potentially one in our next major patch.

Windhunter and Skyfire are balanced based on PvP. There are different considerations here compared to defense towers which see very little play in PvP, and if they do, charges are not a balancing consideration. One of the benefits of Offering is cooldown refreshing. It is also limited to one faction. This is an advanced mechanic anyway. Heart of Trouble and The Shifting Temple have nearly identical scaling mechanics, though of course balanced very differently. They use an objective + timed wave scaling mechanic where a wave scales up when the player reaches a specific point (typically building an orb) and the once more 5-6 minutes later. The wave then does not scale any further until the next objective is reached, regardless of how much time has passed.

Card charges should be handled directly, not via affinities. A pretty good example of this is Necroblaster. Why does this tower only have 8 charges when all comparable T3 units, meaning those with a similar power cost, have 12-16 charges? Right now the affinities are papering off the fact that the base card is not properly balanced as regards charges. As for spells, the ability to bypass the spell cooldown is actually one of the biggest balancing problems we have faced with affinities. Frenetic Assault, to give a prominent example, has a longer cooldown than it would if the card did not have affinities, and this is because the card is so strong we generally expect players to bring both copies. Additionally, because T3 void return is so strong that it nearly instantly returns void power, charges and cooldown are the only 2 real balancing levers we have for spells.

We fixed up and released Random Wall Defense in about 3 weeks. As such we could not make any real structural changes. At the same time, later walls have more health than earlier walls, and we did not want players to be able to just sprint to the better walls and build them right away, so we put fairly weak enemies there to discourage that. These enemies should all be killable by units you would bring for defending anyway.

If/when we add a new affinity, it will likely be by keeping the existing card nearly the same and that becoming one affinity. There is not a randomization of which one you get, everyone will get the same affinity while the other affinity will start to drop from boosters. Having the player choose each affinity they want is a good idea, but it is likely to be too much work, and we don't really have the UI to support it.

Affinity System Changes Affinities have been part of the game since the Renegade edition. In some cases, they provide a great design tool where by making a minor modification to a card we can open up new playstyles and support multiple deck archetypes. In other cases, they are needless additions which not only hurt game balance, but also dilute faction identity. A big problem we have is that nearly every card added to the game since the game's initial launch has an affinity effect, and many of these affinities are very similar, with the same 5-10 effects used over and over again across all factions. This has lead to a steady homogenization of faction identities as we have rebalanced more and more cards, making it increasingly hard for us to keep each faction feeling unique. Many cards simply do not need multiple affinities (while some Twilight edition cards would benefit from having them), and this is particularly true with many spell cards where we have needed to nerf individual affinities to account for players being able to include both in their deck (and thereby bypassing the spell's designed cooldown). While we have modified effects and swapped between affinities, we have to date not added any new affinities to cards which did not release with them, nor removed affinities from cards which once had them. This is largely because we view ourselves as stewards of the game and are therefore generally very conservative with our changes to the game's existing systems. At the same time, we feel like our choice to not directly add or remove affinities from cards has begun to hurt the game's balance and also damage faction identity. As such, we intend to begin adding new affinities or removing existing affinities from some cards moving forward as part of balance changes. To help explain our decision, we have included some examples of good and bad examples of the affinity system, as well as some clarifying questions. Good and Bad Examples of Affinities [ Good Examples ] Batariel - Batariel has a fire affinity and a shadow affinity. The fire affinity is designed to work as a solo-unit, while the shadow affinity is designed to enable other units to deal more damage. This makes the fire affinity good in Enlightenment decks and the shadow affinity good in Pure Fire decks, meaning that one card can enable or even create two different deck archetypes. Soul Splicer - The core function of Soul Splicer is to turn corpses into a buff effect. The nature affinity's healing has always been good, and with the release of Random Wall Defense we see that the fire affinity's damage buff has a good niche in empowering archers from behind walls. Nether Warp - While Nether Warp likely does not need affinities in an absolute sense, the two affinities it does have both bring something unique to the table. The nature affinity's healing is better in PvE, while the frost affinity's slow buffs the spell's defensive capacities in PvP. Equilibrium - Equilibrium is a healing spell with a built-in scaling effect based on the amount of nearby life points. The frost affinity scales with enemy health and the nature affinity scales with friendly health. This means that one affinity is reliable when used with a friendly army, while the other affinity can scale even with single unit compositions so long as the player carefully places it around enemies. This allows each affinity to work with different decks and find its own niche. [ Bad Examples ] Sylvan Gate - Sylvan Gate's central identity is to bridge long distances between root network groups. Yet, because it started with an affinity, we had to give it mostly random affinity effects even after reworking it. Both effects buff units in a 25m radius around the Gate itself, but since the fitting affinity effects were already taken by Root Nexus we ended up adding two affinity effects which root network decks do not need or which are unbalanced. For example, the shield piercing on the shadow affinity is mostly insubstantial when used in campaign and random PvE maps, but it causes balance problems in defensive PvE and therefore needs to be removed. But what other shadow-like effect does the root network need and which would be fitting for a root connector card to convey? Additionally, Sylvan Gate and the root network are already very strong and do not need anymore buffs when used defensively. Therefore, it would simply be better to not have any affinity effects on the card rather than slapping on another random effect which would ultimately need to be so weak that it is ignored. Skydefender - Skydefender is a T2 Bandit anti-air tower and because it was released as a Renegade edition card it was given two affinities. If a player were to chose which one to use, it would always be the shadow affinity which can bypass shields. If the card would benefit from shield piercing, it could be incorporated into the base card design, and not added onto one affinity while the other affinity does little to nothing in comparison (The nature affinity effect would only be useful in PvP, but dedicated anti-air towers are not viable in PvP). Attempting to find a 2nd affinity which is comparable in strength to shield piercing and which also fits a Bandits T2 anti-air tower might be possible, but it is a lot of creative energy which is better used elsewhere. And in any case, simplicity in design is often better. Cluster Explosion - The primary purpose of Cluster Explosion is to do a lot of damage. Therefore, whatever affinity does more damage is the affinity which players are going to use, unless both affinities do so much damage that the affinity effect simply does not matter. Additionally, Cluster Explosion is purposefully designed with only 4 total charges as a way to balance the card. If we were to make the second affinity even somewhat comparable in damage, it would be slotted into decks as a way to bypass the card's inherent charge and cooldown limitations. We therefore are required to keep the shadow affinity purposefully weak, which is hardly a good design practice with an ultra-rare card. Lost Dancer - Lost Dancer recently received some changes that moved her into a good spot, but as part of the balancing we also reduced the affinity effects to a mere +30% more damage to humans for the shadow affinity and a mere +30% siege for the fire affinity. The unit also has its own counter, so these additional counters are entirely superfluous to the card's central design. We only left them because the card has two affinities, but we had to make them so weak they are largely afterthoughts in the deckbuilding process. Affinities are at their best when they enable new play styles and directly enhance the card's core function. They are at their worst when they detract from the core function, add unneeded complexity, or are randomly tacked on effects. Clarifications Question 1 - Does this mean you are removing the affinity system? Answer 1 - No, we will not be removing the affinity system. We think it has its place in the game and where it fits we will leave it or even expand it. Question 2 - Will you be changing all cards? Answer 2 - No, we will only be changing some cards, and we will do so slowly overtime and with community input, just like our present balance process. Question 3 - What happens when you remove affinities from a card? What if I own one or both versions of this card? Answer 3 - If a card has its affinities removed, any player who owns a copy of either affinity will have any copies they own swapped out for the new affinity-less version of that card. In this way, you will not lose any cards you own. For example, if we removed the affinities from Forest's Vim and you had 4 copies of the nature affinity and 7 copies of the shadow affinity, you would be given 11 copies of the affinity-less version after the balance change. Additionally, all upgrades the cards had will be removed and their gold refunded (in case you had both affinities upgraded). Question 4 - What happens when you add a new affinity to a card? What happens to any currently affinity-less copies I own? Answer 4 - If a card has a new affinity added, all of the existing affinity-less versions will be transformed into one of the affinities. The other affinity will then begin to drop from boosters like normal.

Patch #400056 - The Shifting Temple Welcome to our newest patch. This update contains our 4th original Campaign Map, our 22nd balance patch, a new featured survival community map, balance changes to Unexpected Visitors and Heart of Trouble, and more. Patch Preview A brand-new campaign map! The Shifting Temple is our third 2-player campaign map and our fourth new campaign map overall, accompanied by two seasonal challenges. New Defensive PvE Map. Random Wall Defense is a featured survival map where you defend against one of randomized three factions in hopes of surviving to the end. Balance changes for Unexpected Visitors and Heart of Trouble. The lower difficulties of these maps have proven a bit too strong, so we are adjusting them accordingly. Several card balance changes, mostly to Stonekin and Frost cards. New Campaign Map The Shifting Temple, 2-player campaign map In The Shifting Temple, a pair of Skylords battle against both Twilight and Shadow forces in an attempt to unearth the secrets of the mysterious Shifting Temple. Upon entering the temple, one of four paths is unlocked, giving the map a unique labyrinthian feel. And what would any labyrinth be without its Minotaur? The Shifting Temple can be found on the world map after The Insane God: Storybook pages can be found at: Plot ➜ Twilight ➜ The Twilight Taint ➜ Page 17+ New Featured Survival Map (Beta Release) Random Wall Defense, 4-player defensive random PvE map Random Wall Defense is a featured community survival map. This means that players earn gold based on how long they survive, not whether they win the map. This map is a rework of our original attempt at what has been called dPvE or defensive PvE, first announced approximately 5 years ago. We recently dusted it off the shelf and gave it a full overhaul. Players can enjoy fighting against randomly chosen enemies from 3 factions with up to 3 other players. Comes with standard, advanced, and expert difficulties. Map Changes Unexpected Visitors (advanced difficulty): 1. Removed one unit from all incoming attack waves. 2. Increased the time before the Amii city siege automatically begins from 5 minutes ➜ 7 minutes. 3. Rebalanced several Lost Souls camps in front of the Amii city and the northern Power Shrine. 4. Removed the patrolling Mountaineer at the player's T2 location. Overall, these changes ought to make Unexpected Visitor's advanced difficulty more comparable to other official campaign maps and make it easier for players to overcome common failure points. Heart of Trouble (standard and advanced difficulty): Standard difficulty: 1. Removed the mine traps from the northern camps and the hurricane traps from the southern camps. 2. Reduced the life points of the Black and Yellow crystals from 2500 ➜ 1500 life points. 3. Increased the respawn time of all camp defenders and patrols by 10 seconds. 4. Increased the delay between cannon barrages by 10 seconds. Advanced difficulty: 1. Increased the delay between cannon barrages by 5 seconds. Heart of Trouble was our first attempt at making a standard difficulty map and it proved a bit too difficult for our new players. Game Balance Changes [ Player Card Changes ] Battleship: 1. Barrage: A. Damage: 800, up to 2400 in total ➜ 1400, up to 3500 in total B. Now affects air units. Battleship is still lagging behind other T4 options, so we are giving its ability a buff-up to reward using it wisely. Upcoming changes to Architect's Call will indirectly buff Battleship by making it easier to keep it moving swiftly. Defense Tower: 1. Frost Bolt attack speed: 2.86 seconds (683 dp20) ➜ 2.5 seconds (780 dp20) 2. Life points: 1500 ➜ 1400 Defense Tower has a wrong damage value due to a wrong attack speed. While we are not going to give it the 300 extra damage it claims to have, we will be adding another 100 damage in exchange for removing 100 life points, shifting the tower's power budget towards offense. Earthen Gift: 1. Blessed Earth (b): A. Life points per second: 10% of its maximum life points ➜ 6% of its maximum life points B. Healing cap: 4000 in total per structure ➜ 6000 in total per structure 2. Gifted Earth (g): A. Life points per second: 5% of its maximum life points ➜ 3.5% of its maximum life points B. Healing cap: 4000 in total per unit (Unchanged) Adjusting the healing thresholds and percentages of the two affinities. The building affinity will heal less per second but more overall, this should make it a better compliment for Tectonic Shift strategies. The unit version is too strong right now, so we are moderately cutting down its healing per second while leaving the overall cap intact. Grinder: 1. Damage: 5000 ➜ 5500 2. Life points: 4500 ➜ 5000 3. Add XL-counter These changes should help Grinder to tank better and focus down extra-large threats that Stonekin can sometimes struggle against, including bosses. Makeshift Tower: 1. Grenade Launcher: A. Damage: 45 up to 65 in total (367 dp20) ➜ 54 up to 81 (450 dp20) Makeshift Tower never had a correct damage value, so we are correcting that. Even so, it will remain the weakest tower in the game. Primal Defender: 1. Power cost: 60p ➜ 70p 2. Earthstrike damage: 130 up to 195 in total (975 dp20) ➜ 155 up to 233 in total (1175 dp20) A. Fix attack speed description to say every 3.3 seconds. 3. Cloudstrike damage: 250, up to 375 in total (2030 dp20) ➜ 290, up to 435 in total (2355 dp20) 4. Life points: 1300 ➜ 1515 Primal Defender takes up more space than other comparable T1 towers, meaning that when placed behind a wall Nature T1 can fit less defensive towers than other factions. While a lower cost is often a benefit, when placed behind walls a wider but low cost tower is a hindrance because it has less stat density, which results in Nature T1 fitting less stats behind the wall overall. This is exasperated by most towers sight blocking each other, so you cannot simply place more towers in the back to make up for this. As such, we are increasing Primal Defender's cost and increasing its damage and health stats proportionally. These changes will allow the tower to be more stat dense and therefore better when placed in locations with limited space, while being power neutral in other situations. Shatter Ice: 1. Power cost: 100p ➜ 70p Tectonic Shift: 1. Ability range: 100m ➜ 150m 2. Ability cooldown: 20 seconds ➜ 30 seconds We are increasing both the teleport distance and ability cooldown of Tectonic Shift by 50%. This should hopefully allow Stonekin lovers to better keep up with their fellow players in random PvE. [ NPC Changes ] Moloch (NPC): 1. Hardened Skin damage reduction: 90% ➜ 80% less damage from ranged and magical attacks With the introduction of Random Wall Defense, Moloch's current damage reduction level is excessive and makes it nearly unkillable for many archetypes. General Fixes Fixed worm movement causing desyncs. Movement might feel slightly different from before. Skydancer should no longer be classified as an elf unit. Added tooltip "Presets completed" to challenges 2.4, 2.8, and 6.4 to help players better keep track of their progress in challenges requiring MotS presets. Fixed several grammar and typographical errors in the English lore book. Introduced various new Shadow units & buildings with the release of the Shifting Temple.

Did you happen to use Shadow Worms? If so, I would recommend you refrain from doing so until we can fix them, as they are chasing desyncs.

You are not required to repair all your buildings, you can still click on buildings individually to repair them, and the existing hotkey, I believe bound to "B" is still functional which opens the repair tool. This is an additional functionality on top of the existing options and it has been requested by players over the years.

For fun, here is an already existing animation for Moloch's back volcano made by the original developers. Haste_Mode_Activated.mp4

Fundus, We will be releasing this functionality, but only after the map modifiers feature leaves its beta-phase. We have finished the design for the v1.0 release but there is no timeline yet on when it will be released. Selectable modifiers will likely follow soon afterwards.

It is true that a more poison like effect might better communicate what is happening than the present explosion which could be confused with a damage effect.

The changes to Dark Maiden (see the hotfix notes below the main post) are intended to make the card more generally usable. Let us know what you think.