Jump to content

Chimaka( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Beta Tester
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chimaka( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • Birthday 05/20/1998

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Russia, Moscow

Recent Profile Visitors

3432 profile views

Chimaka( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)'s Achievements


Avenger (11/34)



  1. Finally... A fine read for hours. Thank you a lot for over analysing this whole topic and chewing it for the community. Will gladly take time to read it, even if i wouldn't use it particularly.
  2. Very sick patch. The Stronghold is now literally STRONG. Quick questions though...: Does this Stronghold buff affect the one in cPvE Guns of Lyr? Does Amii Phantom NPC also have Elusive?
  3. I'd rather call this a problem of "expectation management". People tend to think and create an image of a "perfect balance" to their own perception and liking, which obviously is not what devs can ever fathom. My answer is short for the balance dev-team: once you roll out the changes, always note that you do not expect things to be perfect and want people to give a feedback of "whether it is overshoot/undershoot or is very good and should be left as is for now?". It really is just to manage the expectations of 'the clients/consumers' to be a bit more humble and open for a) critique and feedback, b) acknowledgement of imperfection. I personally am not going to be harsh on dev-team in any game if they came out, said "hey, there, this is new balance patch, hope you like it, but do not expect everything to be perfectly balanced. We tested, it was ok. Here are some concerns from us [insert a short a,b,c list]. Tell us it is a bit of an overshoot or not" Done. Obviously would be harsh towards somewhat arrogant dev-team that rolled out a patch and said "We did this, this and that, we think it is how it should all be, because we think so and is based on our team opinion. We are content with these changes. Enjoy." Sense the difference? First is communicative, Second is ultimative. While yes, first one might appear in the eyes of some to be "unprofessional" or "unconfident", but those kind of people would probably be discontent with anything the devs did anyway - good or bad. Anyway. ----My personal post on this whole original topic: Changes are good. Additional Russian translators, who could be more available with more free time, would be definitely good I looked at the survey and wondered about the statistics on PvP and deck powers. PvP seems likes being locked out behind the Skill and Tutorial wall way more than Competitiveness. As apparently only about less than 25% of the whole game community that has gone through survey is not interested in it at all. Majority (50%) only seemingly has not played the game mode at all, but apparently they answered why (as stated above). This 50% correlates well with the free PvP decks questions btw. Thus in reality it all just goes down to the PvP environment being kinda skewed and very unfriendly for people in general other than lacking reward systems, the lack of playerbase or disbalance in faction and whatever else. People would have played if there were AIs to be particularly fair. And i think it is somewhat possible to make a tutorial kind of Map/scenario with a scripted enemy to play against for trial PvP. Or some sort of training grounds with PvP environment where some specific small encounters and scenarios unfold at the player's hands. But of course - this is a bit of a question "where to send the time and effort of the team", and right now it is on the long awaited cPvE and new rPvE presets. Regarding the power levels of different decks: This one is easily understandable by the huge margin of why Nature has the highest "Overperforming" percentage as well as lowest "Don't know". It is the only newbie-friendly Faction in the game and is the best PvE performer at that level. Second after it goes the Stonekins, because it is a splash of Nature. Pure Frost has some skewed underperformance while has the same level of "Don't know" answers. And most likely the people just didn't either rediscover the faction after all the changes or they still think it is all the same and do not try. Or mainly think it is too expensive. Shadow has probably the highest entry-level and skill required to make a good use of it, which is no surprise. Bandits on the other hand the same statistics. Which is good to see, yet we do not see them being discovered well by big margin of playerbase, because Bandit faction probably has Shadow in it and that makes people, who don't know how to play the deck, think of it being similar to Shadow. Also. The Fire has an interesting set of stats - it has nearly equal under-/overperforming (with lean towards underperformance), while being played just as often as Stonekins. This may be skewed by the fact that a) Fire is by default was one of the most glass cannon faction in the game; b) it has had no healing; c) Least suitable for cPvE due to sometimes requiring defensive options and them being locked behind Uncommon cards for Pure Fire. Lost Souls is highly skewed by LSS deck. But it also has about 3rd or 4th "don't know" answers, which means people either don't play it, or simply do not have any strong opinions on the faction as a whole and most likely use only its T2 and/or T4 cards. This is probably due to the faction being also unattractive to players for having nearly no unique own trait apart from the Remnants that die too soon or have no real value beyond spending too much Energy to proc it. And those who play the deck probably know it is overperforming, thus it is having the 2nd place in "underperforming" right after Nature, btw. Twilight by the most is probably hated faction for its stupidly uselessness. And this chart is also skewed by the fact that people who try it spread the word about its underperformance and others do not even try it. I am on the same boat tbh. While i did try the deck and know its superb T4, it is still not attractive to play at all. And probably stands as the least attractive due to the most lackluster Faction-ability - Transformation.
  4. BUT WAIT, THERE IS MORE: part 2 8. Banditos Unity ability needs an overhaul in russian. Text for Copy-Paste: 1. Blessed affinity Юнит будет наносить больше урона, если в радиусе 25 м от него находятся вражеские юниты. За каждые 3 вражеских наземных юнита, окружающие их, урон, наносимый данным юнитом, будет увеличиваться на 50%. Максимум до 9 юнитов в окружении. 1. Gifted affinity Юнит будет наносить больше урона, если в радиусе 25 м от него находятся дружественные юниты. За каждые 3 дружественных наземных юнита вокруг них, урон, наносимый данным юнитом, будет увеличиваться на 50%. Максимум до 9 юнитов вокруг. 9. Achievement "The Long Journey Home" The underlined needs to be changed. Text to Copy-Paste: карты мороза. 10. Achievement "Reborn in Fire" Change description. Text for Copy-Paste: Сделайте карты путём Перековки других. 11. Soulhunter The card name must be from capital letter. 12. The Red King After the 3rd word put a dot. The sentence makes sense to be finished, but it doesn't have the period for some reason.
  5. Minor mistakes and adjustments. Required corrections for cards descriptions in Russian: 0. Sunken Temple Replace the current translation with a different sentence: Text for Copy-Paste: Перестанет призывать, как только лимит юнитов будет превышен 150. 1. Pest Creeper Text for Copy-Paste: 1 - 6 м : add a spacebar between 2 - 4 секунды : add [ы] 3 - область : replace the [ауру] word. 2. Parasite Swarm Text for Copy-Paste: 1. подразделением -> юнитом : in the first sentence 2. Цель не должна превышать требования в 3 сферы и максимум в 150 енергии. : replace the whole red squared sentence with this. 3. созданияx -> юнитах : right in the next (3rd) sentence after the mentioned above. 3. Mine — wut? 4. Winter Witch Freezing Ray: parameter needs a fix -> % 35% секунд. 5. Bandit Lancer and Bandit Spearmen Bandit Lancer card name needs a change, because they are same. This topic has been brought up half a year ago and was agreed upon already, but the change was not applied. Text for Copy-Paste: Бандиты-всадники 5. Ironclad Delete the comma as it is not needed. 6. Card upgrade interface Word must start from the capital letter -> Купить 7. Burrowing Ritual Gifted Affinity needs a description correction. Text for Copy-Paste: 1. отрядов -> юнитов 2. отряд -> юнит 3. каждую секунду восстанавливать 2% от его максимума здоровья в течение. : replace only the red-underlined.
  6. New card! Hear my word - This is how affinities were supposed to be designed. From this point onward, we can state clearly that you guys, the whole team, have outperformed original creators now in everything.
  7. NAME: Vulcan, Rage Flames do not state that they cannot hit air in their descriptions. DESCRIPTION: Simple as is. Units do not attack air, and cannot hit it ever. The card descriptions do not have the "affects ground targets only" stated. REPRODUCIBILITY: Permanent. SCREENSHOT/VIDEO: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadge
  8. I knew about that bug-issue intuitively, but didn't know neither how to properly reverse engineer it and calculate it, nor how to track it down properly. Moreso didn't pay too much attention to the bug itself as I happened to be just lazy \:p Nonetheless - good work, both of You, on not only testing and figuring the issue out, but also finding a solution as well as testing the solution. The assumption & prediction work done as well, which shows how impactfull this is at least in first rough approximations. testing capacities... ...Analyzing seriously i can say: ...That would require the whole playerbase dedicated on play-testing... just by wild approximations; for a significant time... by which i mean at least a full month of just non-stop testing phase... with weekly surveys from at least 25% of the 'testers', 50% more of short replies and report-expressions, and the last 25% creating additional mass of playerbase even if inert.... This is only testing and reporting the results, which does NOT imply changes or analysis whatsoever. For such a huge data we'd have to create statistics-survey auto analyzers which would show certain coeffs. and % values on multitude of different things... This is a HUMONGOUS machine. Wonder what is the stance of the whole community would be. I do not care for asking player groups separately, but just a total survey. Thus leaving a question only to the Throne: execute the survey? Y/N. But we all know that the answer is - No. My personal opinion: hell yes. Why - look at other RTS and ask yourself how the hell do they work like that... They all have equal damage in AOE (unless it is a 'Gradient Zone' of Effect, which is not much of a different as it still has no cap or distribution, but is strict to gradient formulas). Majority of games also add some randomness factor to numbers in a straight form of random range like 95-105 dmg and also some different implications like "real" numbers with a floating point for damage reductions and such... Maybe 30+ years of game industry knows something??? Design-wise: I have barely any idea what was the implication behind the design of this damage cap. Perhaps they wanted to make damage resulting outputs more random instead of fixed and square as in.... well... card game du'h. Creating spreading of the damage across the border and multitude of things creating less rounded numerics, spiced up with different melee attack animations of units dealing different damage. But since ranged attacks deal fixed damage and you cannot tie it logically to shooting harder xD So they made this weird damage distribution to all of the targets in the AOE, but it caps out... Why it is not a gradient... who the F knows...
  9. I assume you may move this to the Resolved section as it is now fixed.
  10. Best QoL so far. This please. It was so unsatisfying to notice in the game.
  • 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