Jump to content

Kaliber84

Alpha & Beta Tester
  • Posts

    565
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kaliber84

  1. Ok I agree with that one. Never though of combining it with an XL unit yourself. The question that arises from this is: What do we do with the card then?
  2. That is simply ridiculous. Due to the power cost it's not worth to use it on anything that costs less than 110 power (at U2) then. It is already quite useless against Shadow (because of Motivate) and loses even more efficiency with that. I'd strongly suggest to implement a "unit can't be killed by owner" additionally to my earlier suggestions. I'm also surprised by this. Don't have time for testing right now sadly, but that makes the spell even weaker and overpriced. If the power cost is drastically reduced (to ~80 at U3) it would be ok. In that case it would probably even be a decent spell but in turn I wouldn't buff the green affinity (purple one still needs some love).
  3. First of all a note: At U2 the power cost is reduced by 10 to 110. U1 and U3 decrease the cooldown by 5 seconds each. I don't know about the design and if it is worth a slot. While you can prevent spam of one kind of unit, the unit you used it on needs to be alive for the effect to last. Now if the unit you used it on goes into a fight and dies, the spell will be canceled and you don't want it to die that fast. But you can't let the unit roam either as it probably destroys a well or something then. Especially the best targets for the spell (spammable, with a power cost of 100 or above) are really dangerous if kept alive. Keeping it CC'ed isn't worth the cost after already using the spell. IMO that makes it a spell that doesn't give a lasting advantage as one would hope to gain. The only scenarios I can think of where it is of good use is are either when the enemy hasn't attacked yet and wants to gather units (like a root deck maybe). You can use the spell then to stop that but you need to be fast enough to do so. The second scenario is when there's a dangerous unit you wan't to get down (Mountaineer, AoF, Juggernaut or Grigori) and you simply use the spell (green) for the constant damage (it deals 1000 over 20 seconds which is nice). But even then it's probably better to play something else as you are probably not even in risk of getting spammed. I think the current affinities aren't good for their purpose. As you need to keep the debuffed unit alive for a while, the green affinity is simply countering the spell itself (even thought the damage is nice). And the purple affinity isn't worth the power I'd say as it does less than the green affinity. IMO I'd buff both green and purple affinity, with the green one receiving slightly increased damage (e.g. 70 per second at U3) and the purple one applying a dmg debuff (25% at U3). The dmg debuff actually helps the spell. In exchange I wouldn't decrease the cooldown with the upgrades. So then the upgrades would be: Green U1: 10 more damage per second U2: -10 power cost U3: 10 more damage per second Purple U1: 15% dmg debuff U2: -10 power cost U3: additional 10% dmg debuff
  4. Damn. I always start to reply to a thread and before I know it I end up with another wall of text... :rolleyes:

    1. ikke2902

      ikke2902

      Is that the reason why you have wall breaker gun as pic? :rolleyes:

    2. anonyme0273

      anonyme0273

      And think of us... we gotta read all that :o

       

    3. Ladadoos

      Ladadoos

      Torture I tell ya, torture!

  5. We'll just have to deal with a slight change in the meta when there is a change, that's how it is. I don't mind as long as the changes are small or really necessary (looking at you Amii Monument ). It is absolutely impossible to do the rebalancing now, simply because we got no access to the playable game. Usually this rebalancing is done in the beta (beneath the bug-catching) but the devs definitely won't have time for it until after release. I wouldn't worry about it as much. That is already a lot. IMO this card should never be balanced for PvP as it would completely change the gameplay (and meta ) if it was viable in PvP. That is exactly what happened to PvE when the card was released and I never liked it because of that. Well we know that it needs a change but what change is a topic for future discussions. I'd also like a more representative system for balancing discussions. As @Mental Omega said in the other thread we'll need something better than the old watchlist. Keep in mind however, that the community isn't always right and that the devs need to consider (or at least publish) the statistics that are relevant to the card. It's hard to make a system that is democratic while still valuing the votes differently. But that's a topic for another thread.
  6. @anonyme0273 Well I think there are a few (not many) cards in need of a rework but that's my opinion. What I see as important is to tone down OP cards. I too don't like how LoL handles it with the constantly changing meta but I'd like to see the devs making more cards viable for a faction. If you got an UP card you can simply buff it a little so that it is worth to spend power on. The problem with an OP card is that you give yourself a disadvantage simply by not choosing it, which is a no-no IMHO. For example: Amii Monument may not be OP in PvP but in PvE it definitely is. If you want to get the most out of your T3/T4 there is no way around taking either AM or Enlightenment and the latter restricts you in many ways (starting with the orb requirement). Can you tell me an alternative to AM that achieves the same results? Enlightenment is the closest I'd say but it is used for different decks and situations. I consider AM OP, because building a strong T3 can't ever get the same kind of results as skipping it altogether for (almost) the same cost as an orb. Many other cards won't need a complete rework of course and rebalancing with buffs and nerfs is always risky, but IMO it is better to give it a try than to keep the balance as it is. I'd suggest to keep the changes small to fine-tune cards until they are decent and then stop there. The problem you describe with the changing meta is something I have seen in many games (not only LoL). I think that it is mostly because the buffs or nerfs are too massive, so the card/champion/whatever will forever be changing between OP and UP. By doing small changes and repeat them as necessary this problem becomes smaller and we won't shoot past our aim and create the other extreme. My pleasure. Nah, my suggestion was to simply make a list of the card names and note the "votes" for UP,OP, balanced. Without a summary as you suggested.
  7. I thought we'd go back to the cards that are in serious need of a rework/balancing starting with the OP ones (like Amii Monument). @Loptous If we want separate threads I wouldn't do them for every single card but rather the ones that seriously need to be balanced and those that are interesting. Should be separated into OP/UP cards. Because an UP card will simply not be played which is a bit sad, but an OP card is used excessively and destroys the balance in some kind of way so I'd deem the latter more important. Maybe we should do a thread with a list where every of the cards is mentioned with the general opinion being either OP, UP or balanced.
  8. Concerning PvP I can just say that I saw a few videos where the opponent got wrecked by the dmg output. But yeah, it's probably way harder to play the better the ELO. In PvE I quite liked him and would always pick him over other root units. Never liked Thornbark at all and wasn't a big fan of Treespirit. He really shines with the heals and CC from pure Nature. And there were also quite some funny strategies to max his dmg output (like going Frost T3 just for Home Soil). Absolutely great for taking out groups but only good vs XL units if you let another unit tank or kite. The biggest weakness are air units as Spikeroot can't attack them but that's totally ok. Without that he'd be OP as f*ck.
  9. @Mental Omega First of all thx for pointing me towards the 2 sentences I switched unintentionally. What follows will be a wall of text addressing the rest of what you said. That is true. But my whole point is that the better efficiency of the dmg reduction isn't better than the burst damage in general. If I want damage reduction then I'll take something else with me like Dryad, Ward of the North, Crystal Fiend, Unity (whoever uses that) or Twilight Warfare (purple) which adds Lifesteal. There are tons of options for dmg reduction and Lifesteal and almost all of them are better than the Twilight Creeper because they can affect many more units (with TC at U3 that might be debatable). In the end I think it's a matter of time. If you want faster clear speed then you should go for the attack buff. I agree that the efficiency is better with dmg reduction abilities in general but 30% more damage is an incredible buff to the clear speed. And let's not forget that over time camps spawn additional units which worsens the efficiency of dmg reduction quite a bit. The times that I struggled most in rPvE was when I lacked the burst damage to destroy the enemy camps or get through to them. Then I was forced back and the fight came to a standstill where both parties continued to spawn units without anything changing except my declining void pool. As I said it's dependent on the map for PvE but I'd say the dmg buff is way better for rPvE. @Treim want to comment on the abilities for rPvE please? Correct me if I'm wrong. I agree with that. But how many times do you pick a fight with a single unit? Some speedrunners might kill you for those words. Sure, Nature and Frost aren't oriented towards burst damage but then again you need to play a Fire splash for TC. I personally wouldn't play with TC because while it's not only less efficient, you give up many good units that require or . If you take the dmg buff you'd also want to play a deck with good DPS in T3. The dmg reduction surely would synergize well with Stonekin or maybe even Bandit's. As I said it's more about ideology rather than general advantages. I don't know where the 1700 come from. I guess it's a typo. From what I guess, what you want to show is a way to measure a units utility-to-power ratio. For this example it's a correct way to go about it but I don't see the difference to what I calculated earlier. I did the formulas for damage taken (in case 1 of a fight won) and damage given (in case 2 of a fight lost). The dmg reduction is more efficient in both cases, so it's a matter of burst damage/clear speed vs. efficiency/survivability. I still think burst damage is better because of the utility but just choose for yourselves. Case 1: Damage taken when taking dmg buff is more than when taking dmg reduction debuff. The difference is: difference dmg taken = enemy HP / (1.3 * your damage) * enemy damage - enemy HP / (your damage) * 0.7 * enemy damage = (9 / 130) * enemy HP * (enemy damage / your damage) Case 2: Damage given when taking dmg buff is less than when taking dmg reduction debuff. The difference is: difference dmg given = your HP / (0.7 *enemy damage) * your damage - your HP / (enemy damage) * 1.3 * your damage = (9 / 70) * your HP * (your damage / enemy damage)
  10. @Mental Omega Ok yeah that changes my opinion. The one time I don't review the card ingame. XD I don't agree with your point of taking the damage reduction one. With Nature you already got heals to keep your units alive and the Fire part of your deck will greatly benefit from the damage amplification. In the end it's simply a question if you look for prolonged fights or burst damage and for many maps and especially for rPvE the latter one is more important. For everyone who doesn't care about that and who doesn't know that your units will be healthier with the damage reduction ability I'll quickly do the math. Just think about it this way: For example you own a Twilight Creeper that fights a unit with the same stats (and no abilities) and the buff/debuff of your TC is enabled for the whole fight. We'll ignore the attack type for now as the relative results will be the same. Either your unit deals 30% more damage. The damage you deal is a_1=1.3*1500dmg=1950dmg and the damage you take is b_1=1*1500dmg=1500dmg. Both of you have 1500HP. The time it takes you to kill the enemy is t_1=1500HP/(1950dmg/20s)=15.38s So the damage you take in that time is d_1=1500dmg*(15.38s/20s)=1153.5dmg Or your unit receives 30% less damage. The damage you deal is a_2=1*1500dmg=1500dmg and the damage you take is b_2=0.7*1500dmg=1050dmg. The time it takes you to kill the enemy is t_2=1500HP/(1500dmg/20s)=20s So the damage you take in that time is d_2=1050dmg*(20s/20s)=1050dmg You see that with the dmg reduction ability you will take D=1050dmg/1153.5dmg=91% of the damage you'd take with the attack buff ability. Burst damage still got the advantage if you want to clear camps for example or to take down a building that gets repaired over time, etc. Any advantage for the enemy that gets stronger over time is countered by burst damage. A prolonged fight also got advantages. If you got power problems you will get back more void power in a prolonged fight and if you got support yourself (Shaman, SoM, Kobold Trick) or are waiting for a card to recharge it buys time that becomes an advantage for you. This all is only a generalised model though and always needs to be seen in perspective for PvP, PvE and rPvE. You should see burst damage vs prolonged fights more in terms of ideology for a deck than immediate advantages. Also an update to my earlier post: IMO abilities shouldn't be changed in any way, base stats could be fine tuned, but I only played this card rarely when I played a Fire splash for a change, so I don't know what's needed there. Probably'd need statistics to know what changes shold be made. I still think on paper it doesn't look quite as good as other units as it is comparable to Magma Hurler but lacks the constant long range and knockback. The swift ability could be pretty interesting for the unit if the base stats are balanced accordingly but I wouldn't change anything else.
  11. Haven't looked at it in detail so I don't know about the upgrades but I think it should get a buff to the abilities by upgrading (dmg reduction or amplification goes from 30% => 40% at U3). Maybe a little buff to it's base stats. I'd only buff health rather than dmg if the abilities get buffed. If the abilities don't get buffed I'd buff the attack damage so that the ability is more useful. Maybe a Swift ability would fit if it needs buffing apart from it's base stats and affinities. There aren't many T3 swift units so that would be a nice variation. Though every pure element got a swift unit at T3, none of the hybrid ones have. There's only Razorshard and Bandit Stalker at T2 and only one of those is a useful card as we know. Twilight getting a swift unit at T3 would be good I think but correct me if I'm wrong. Aside from all that it's a decent card that I wouldn't change too much if possible.
  12. Never saw this being played. Neither in PvE nor rPvE nor PvP. Dmg buff looks good on paper but pure Fire destroyed even the slightest intention to play him. Orb requirements should be decreased to making it available for splash decks and the power cost should be reduced (to ~50). The abilities/attacks need rework too IMO. The dmg buff is a nice thing in theory but as LagOps mentioned it could quickly break the game in a fire deck if the card is buffed in any way. My suggestion would be to change the buffs so that they only apply to either melee or ranged units and get increased in return. That would then be something like "Melee units deal 40% more damage for 5 seconds" and "Ranged units can't get knocked back and receive 25% less damage for 5 seconds). He should lose his normal attack then though. But that would change the card into either a defensive support or a single unit Home Soil (that keeps on binding power).
  13. I agree. Though I'm not exactly a PvP expert I am an avid watcher of PvP replays and I have never seen Spirit Hunters (purple), Fallen Skyelf or other specific counters used against AoF. He isn't even played that often (that might have something to do with it ). The best commonly played counter is probably Juggernaut. Simply rips an Avatar apart, while being cheaper and a better basenuke. It's probably not even efficient to start a CC battle because of Disenchant. Life Weaving is actually another counter. Don't know if Bandit Stalker is commonly played in PvP but that would be another counter. So yeah there is counterplay but vs Nature, Frost and Fire-splashes without Shadow he should be a good card. Of course there's a ton of people playing Shadow, so that's that. Ehm...sorry to shatter your illusion but damage reduction isn't applied to shields. Otherwise you'd have a gamebreaking combo with Ward of the North. I think AoF is great the way he currently is. He is quite good in PvE if upgraded and usable in PvP. There are no special abilities that are in need of tweaking here (don't know about fine-tuning though) and the stats are good. He is one of the most ideal cards IMO. Simple and good but neither OP nor UP.
  14. I played mainly Stonekin back in the day with a bit of pure Nature and pure Frost from time to time. This card never made it into my deck for various reasons (some of them already mentioned). When I played Stonekin I usually started with a differing T4 for different decks, simply because there are so many amazing cards that require 2 orbs. Most importantly SoM and WoG in my case. What I expect from an expensive XL unit is either a great basenuke, a DPS monster, a massive tank or something for utility/mobility (flying units for example). This card doesn't deliver any of that but is rather an all-rounder. It got decent dmg, decent effective health and a decent ability but doesn't excel at any of that and lacks damage vs buildings for it's cost. IMO it's too expensive to take as an L counter when Silverwind Lancers or Drones can take care of almost any L unit for less than half the price. The waveclear is good when using the ability (green) but then I could just as well take Razorleaf which doesn't require me to sacrifice a unit (or critter) and gets even stronger when bringing more onto the battlefield (as well as that godly range). The red ability isn't bad for a bit of burst damage. But then again I only really need burst damage to nuke bases and Core Dredge, Deepcoil Worm, Brannoc or Tremor do a much better job at that. So all in all it is a card without any real specialty (aside from being an overkill L-counter) in a game of rock-paper-scissors. Also I don't like the necessary micro to deal with the critters and to keep them alive long enough to be sacrificed. My suggestion would be to change the dmg buff of the red affinity to one that either affects all allied units (making it a dmg support) and buff the damage from the green affinity (making it great for waveclear). In turn the power cost or attack dmg could be adjusted accordingly. Another possibility is to add a weakened Siege ability (~30%) making it decent in all roles and thus making it a viable option to save on deck slots. Of course it's always possible to simply buff the stats or decrease the power cost a bit. But that's just boring and doesn't make the card more fun to play.
  15. Increasing the range would make it synergize really well with support spells (Home Soil for example) as single target buffs (e.g. Unholy Hero) aren't worth using on a 100 power card. I can definitely see them being used then for those who don't like to spam LSS. What I definitely wouldn't advise is to do all the suggestions together (increased range, 2500dmg, changing orbs to ). Two of the three changes would be enough to make the card playable but all of them would make it OP for the current power cost. Of course the power cost could be adjusted then (to 130?) but I like the idea of this card still being a relatively small combatant on it's own compared to XL units who get those massive stats. It should be a damage support IMO.
  16. It's the most cost-efficient XL counter for a shadow deck with no fire splash (except for Jorne) I guess but that's about it. One fire orb is enough to exchange it for Boom Brothers who do a much better job at countering XL units as their base damage is around 50% higher (and ~25% more HP). Bloodhorn is also a better option I'd say. Void Maw is probably the way to go if you want a XL unit killed instantly in turn for higher power costs but that's the only reason I can think of. Without a fire splash one might also want to take them as a cheap XL counter. Main problem for rPvE is that the ability doesn't work on bosses but they might still be viable. I'm sure Treim will address that. I think they should get more focussed strength because as they are now I think the ability is better for XL countering than their normal XL attack on higher difficulty maps. But even though the area damage and knockback of small and medium units makes them good vs those they lack the dmg compared to other S and M counters at T4 to be played efficiently vs those. Even Unstable Demon at T3 gets slightly more dmg (not area dmg though) and is a M counter too. Fathom Lord does a better job at countering XL units at T3 too. I think the best way to deal with this card is to change the attack type to Splash and increase the dmg by ~25%. The card will be good to deal with the small fry then and the ability will still make it useful vs XL units. I don't know if the orb costs need to be changed.
  17. Cyrian? After a bit of consideration I think increasing the power cost for both the building and the orb ability is the way to go for now (if we don't do a complete rework). In turn for skipping T3/getting T4 the user should have considerably less power in his power pool at the time he gets the orb from AM. That disadvantage should naturally lessen over time with the overall increase of power levels but it would be a considerable downside (especially for Speedruns). I like Treim's numbers. 400 power for the building is binding quite a bit more power and one needs to gather it first too which creates a disadvantage while waiting. IMO building an orb should require another 50 power (which goes back into the void). That way if someone builds Amii Monument they get considerably decreased power levels in turn for T4. The power levels could be balanced a bit (like 380 building & 70 orb or 420 building & 30 orb, etc...) depending on the performance then. It will probably then become necessary to play it with SoW or SoM, but it's enough if one player on the team got those, so I'm okay with that.
  18. I agree with @Mental Omega on the most part. The card itself is a poor design choice that let's you negate any kind of challenge after your designated T3 which is basically a T4 with this card. The power spike of going from T2->T4 is just way too massive IMO and it absolutely breaks the difficulty of most expert PvE and rPvE maps. I'm crying inside when I'm playing a carefully crafted campaign map on expert and some dipsh*t brings his Amii Monument and stomps right through whatever lies ahead. I'm just happy that it's not viable in PvP or it'd be OP in every game mode. There were several suggestions back in the day and even now how to deal with this card. The suggestions I remember (probably some of them my own): Increased power cost Increased build time Less HP Increased cooldown (for switching orbs) Deactivating the option to switch orbs Global debuffs for allied units as long as it's active While all of those might help a bit it doesn't change the massive power spike but will either only weaken it or make the card unusable altogether. IMO when they made this card it was a balancing disaster waiting to happen, so I guess they just left it as is. Right now it is way overpowered in PvE and the only singular pay-2-win card so to say. I'd prefer it would be removed or completely reworked and not just nerfed. Or make it into a promo so that nobody can afford them anymore.
  19. Wish granted, But somebody eats them all
  20. Wish granted. But there aren't any good moments left. I wish my wish wouldn't get granted
  21. Why would you? Usually MT is too far away from the main battlefield for the red affinity to be useful. And the blue affinity isn't worth it as you're binding an additional 50 power to a building that costs 60. It would probably be better to just build a second MT. BTT: Never played Bandits so I can't speak from experience, but on paper she looks pretty useless. Even in a Frost or Nature deck where you got a great range of useful buildings the buff isn't worth it. Most of the time a building is used for ranged support and something else will tank, so a defensive buff isn't that good to begin with. If the power refund for the Sorceress is sent back to void (and the Sorceress dies) it might be ok to play on some maps. rPvE is completely out of the question for this card I think and as the others already said it needs tweaking for PvP. My suggestion would be for the affinity buffs to be exchanged. The red affinity should give an atk buff to a building (20% more dmg for example) and the blue affinity should buff the defense of units (or buildings?) close to it. That might be the first option for a defensive card in a Bandit deck then. I'm not really satisfied with my suggestion for the blue affinity but can't think of anything better for now. Maybe a bonus to Lifesteal would be better suited.
  22. Just did some testing. The dmg vs trampling of the red affinity might not be needed that often, but it absolutely DESTROYS any mounted unit. For example Lyrish U3 is dead before making it through a squad. Dmg reduction applies multiplically (see below) Testing with Mountain Rowdy (U0, 860HP) for damage reduction. I let a Mounty (U0) attack 3 times and then looked at the damage taken. No dmg reduction: 860 - 350 = 510 dmg taken Only Wintertide (U3): 860 - 554 = 306 dmg taken => 306/510 * 100 = 60% of the dmg without reduction Wintertide and Ability: 860 - 753 = 107 dmg taken => 107/306 * 100 = 35% of the dmg with only Wintertide => 107/510 * 100 = 21% of the dmg without reduction So now we know that the dmg reduction is applied multiplically. This could lead to good combos with other dmg reducing abilities (e.g. Dryad, Defenders, Icefang Raptor) but I think Wintertide also has good synergy with cards that deal good dmg over time vs buildings but are vulnerable while attacking (e.g. Mounty, Burrowers). Wintertide has great synergy with Rageclaws (and I guess any other rage unit too). I let one squad attack a wall and let Scythe fiends attack them. Without Wintertide they dealt 273 dmg. With WT they dealt 825dmg. The biggest problem is probably that it isn't power efficient anymore if the Rageclaws get CC'ed. All in all the card seems useful but there is too much counterplay making it lack efficiency.
  23. I think it isn't useful for defending at all. I mean come on, you can't move anymore and in a free fight it's the same. So as SilenceKill99 said it would only be really good to focus a well/orb. The damage reduction allows the units to focus the well longer and helps vs Eruption, Nasty or the like. If the card also included flying units it would probably really good (maybe even OP). The card is better for melee units (who don't need to move once at a well) I think but still good with ranged units. What I really like is that the card is useful at any tier. When I look at it I wonder why Grigori players don't use it in their decks. IMO the blue one looks better. The dmg vs trampling on the red one is nice (especially in T1) but there aren't many units doing that in T1 (Only Dreadcharger & Sunderer afaik). In T2 one tends to use more units that are M+ and they won't get trampled (except for Harvy?). So the blue one is a Shadow counter for Frost T1 and slightly better vs Fire but that's it. The additional dmg reduction from the blue one will be useful regardless of being tier and might be even better at T1 depending on the match. I think the red one is inferior to the blue one atm and needs to be buffed or reworked. A possibility would be to change it so it applies to enemies and lengthen the duration. That would make it the Frost equivalent of Ensnaring Roots that is a better CC but not as good for killing the target (and more expensive).
  24. Tested and it doesn't work. Power cost is too high. I think it's ridiculous as Harvester is the only T2 card that costs more than 150 power (Mounty can be cursed) but I guess it could shut down pure shadow pretty hard in some cases.
  25. Allcards got a wrong cover for the card. It is not a T3 card but T2. I checked that ingame. Additional info for the card: It transforms any card up to T2 into a Twilight Bug (1000M/900M) which makes it a little bit superior to a Nightcrawler (815M/745M). The power cost is reduced to 110->100 at U2. U1 reduces cooldown to 30s->20s and U3 to 20s->15s. IMO if used on a friendly unit the Twilight Bug (red) is inferior to Scythe Fiend after the buff wears off (100 power + unit cost for the spell) as it will only deal slightly more dmg vs M units (1500 compared to 1400 by U3 SF) and lacks the S counter. In theory one could save a unit (the Twilight Bug spawns with full life) but that just makes it an inferior heal. The red Twilight Curse definitely needs to be buffed in some way. The purple Twilight Curse might be a little underpowered but it can be useful at T2 I guess.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use