Xanatoss
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Xanatoss
-
-
Blessing in disguise is so clever for all parties involved, I love it!
This will hopefully be the last tournament I lose due Fire/Frost xD
Metagross31 likes this -
It's not just that but most of the MU descriptions have been updated and re-ranked (including an arrow indicator of how the change went)
Metagross31 likes this -
Has this guide been sneakily updated?
Metagross31 likes this -
Lyrish Knight has excellent stat efficiency as is. In fact there was a short time in mid 2021 where slightly increased dmg was tested but deemed to oppressive, as Lyrish would have become an all around counter.
It does see pvp play though in
- Stonekin (where it synergizes well with decks built around ice barrier, homesoil, burrower)
- Lost Souls (synergies with Nasty Surprise and Shadow Phoenix)
- Fire/Frost (Rallying Banner + Homesoil)
Its not a mainstay card but far from beeing useless.
Hirooo likes this -
Big thanks to @Metagross31 for organizing that tournament. Cant wait to watch the full Stream, as I wasnt able to participate.
Kapo and Metagross31 like this -
On 7/19/2022 at 9:03 AM, JiiPee said:
Veteran from 10 years ago when game was still EA game. Just started to play again like 2-3 weeks ago and BFP are quite limited still when there is so much other stuff you need
Have sent you a leftover SW from my personal stock. Have fun with the contest.
Metagross31 and Kapo like this -
Any chances that player protection gets pushed to ~110k Elo (around goldrank)? Asking for a friend.
16 hours ago, Toggy said:Oh my Jugg, this is HUGE! I am so happy with the pvp changes, so happy with the new card. This is...all we needed.
See you in the Forge,
Toggy
I am very proud how Burning spears turned out, as it was my first card as balance developer. Looking forward to implement more cards in the future ... hopefully one day for Fire/Frost as well 😉
23 hours ago, SpiritAlpha said:Oh I remember sketching those concepts during first days of war... Sirens and withering of hope. Yet never give up till you breathe and do what you must! And you can see how it progressed, together we all will win.✊
Artwork is awesome! Stay strong
-
Out of interest, I have tried to visualise this large amount of ordinal evaluations. Here are my results:
Each line contains the ratings of the guide, weighted by the categories "favourable / skill / difficult matchup" (see legend below right).
In each column, this results in the additional perspective "How does every other deck perceive the strength of this deck?"
From this, a total value can be aggregated column by column, which I then scaled, once against the deck with the highest value (Stonekin; line 13) and once against the theoretical maximum value (line 14).
Column L also describes the distance to the theoretical maximum value or "How much better would the deck have to be for each matchup to be favourable?".For comparison, I have also included the guide ratings for the overall decks and NPEs.
Loriens, Metagross31, Kapo and 1 other like this -
20 hours ago, RadicalX said:
@Xanatoss Thanks for your feedback. To add some clarification towards deck building options, we would like to add another section at some point, that specifically focusses on how to adjust the free PvP decks based on individual preferences as well as matchup performance. I will keep that comment in mind, when writing those.
Hope this will be helpful for all of you. Also big shoutouts to @Majora, who really supported us at making this guide look so much better compared to our previous wall of text xD
Maybe you could team up with @Eirias in that regard. His guide on Deckbuilding was really helpful too, as I rejoined Skylords :]
But my question stands: Almost all mentioned card-choices can be considered flavor/preference, except for Frost Mage. Is it even possible to play anything beyond 1 Well into T2 without that card vs Frost (except closewell iceguardian opportunities) and especially vs Nature T1?
-
The sheer amount of quality content is jaw-dropping. You guys are just beyond epic.
Dutchy, Metagross31 and Dallarian like this -
Can not belive I am the first to comment.
This is a hidden Gem of the anniversary content.
I think I (re)read the first guide for longer now than you guys have been writing it and am overjoyed to read this one too.
Unsurprisingly I started with the Fire/Frost part but was a bit irritated by some of the card choices, like
- Frost-T1 without Lightblade but Glyph _and_ Coldsnap, or
- Frost-T1 without Frostbite but Eruption (homesoiled Shielddrake + Frostbite may shred through a ravaged Windhunter even after patch and you have buffed units afterwards),
- Brannoc without Disenchant or Gladiatrix... while you have access to tremor,
- no Mountaineer (even though you mention him as contributor for the few "easier" matchups), and lastly
- Frost-T1 without Frost Mage (that one bugged me the most... isn't that card almost mandatory vs. T1 Nature & Frost?).
Therefore I would recommend something like this for FrostFire (or substituting FrostMage for LyrishKnight, following your logic):
In addition, to me the matchup against PureShadow appears way easier than against PureFrost, IF you add the mentioned Lightblade. But even without, a lot opponents crumble to simply Stormsinger-Spam + Lavafield-Support. While against PureFrost it feels more like against NatureT1 with FireT1, where you have to threaten them cross map to prevent their doom-push as long as possible.
Metagross31 and Dallarian like this -
14 minutes ago, Majora said:
We hope you enjoyed the stream! We are having some issues with the playback, for some reason me and Ladadoos audio input are not appearing in the playback. We hope we'll be able to fix this for those who missed the stream.
I was quite irritated by Zyna talking to herself ^^'
-
Late thanks to the tournament organizers and all participants. I had a great time and an interesting experience.
Looking forward to the next tournament of this kind.
Special congratulations to runner-up Dallarian, who showed an impressive development since his pvp inception a few months ago.
Metagross31, Minashigo Hiko and Majora like this -
On 8/18/2021 at 2:35 AM, WindHunter said:
There are a two reasons why I think the current system of making units like Sunderer and Harvester pay for their inherent knockback is better than just adding a point or two to their respective sizes for their tiers.
- Flying units do not inherently have knockback on their attacks. Any increase to complexity cost based on size would thus add to the complexity of flying units of that size inappropriately. You can see this with Skyfire and s-knockback in T2, which Skyfire does not possess.
- Right now all ground-based L and XL-units have knockback inherently but that does not mean they always will. For example, I personally want to remove walking knockback from all floating head type units such as Wrathgazer, Deepfang, Magma Fiend, Lost Horror, etc. The model of the floating units quite literally flies over most s-units and several M-units, so why are these units being knocked back? A future L-sized Magma Fiend in T2 (hypothetical) would thus not pay the S-knockback "tax" in the current system but would if we increased L-size complexity cost to compensate for not calculating the s-knockback cost.
In terms of things like flying in T1. These are very difficult to calculate. The only flying unit in T1 is Mana Wing which has an active advanced ability +3, but is rare. So where does the rest of the cost fit in? By making Flying in T1 cost +4, it means any future flying T1 unit, even the most simple kind like Skyfire, is automatically uncommon. If we were to add anything but a simple passive it would also be rare. Notably this means we cannot add anything more than an active advanced ability to any future flying T1 unit, because T1 UR cards do not exist and there are no plans to add them.
Sorry for my late reply. I became a second-time father and was therefore unable to participate for some time ^^`
Thanks again for your comprehensive explanation. The floating heads rationale is amusingly specific. I would avoid the hassle to implement that, by arguing that the units temporarily give up their hovering to smush these pesky bugs; like WH40k-antigrav-vehicles (like tau devilfish) could give up their hovering to ram other vehicles, crush infantry models or give cover to own units.
-
Finally my low winrate comes in handy 😆
Will try to participate, but may get a default loss by still commuting home from work.
-
17 hours ago, WindHunter said:
I'm glad you like it overall.
In terms of units like Sunderer and Harvester receiving "extra" points for their size's inherent knockback: One of the hardest parts of developing this system was putting aside what we wanted to be true and focusing entirely on what leads to the highest success rate in terms of explaining rarity. I did not want to commit the equivalent of double jeopardy for these units but the numbers required it. Our focus here was not "what we think rarity should be" but "what was rarity to the original devs" so that we could do the best job of explaining the existing system and providing ourselves a template which would result in design consistency moving forward.
I can understand this rationale completely. In particular, the tightrope walk between a supposedly elegant reverse engineering solution and its merciless empirical performance.
But because Sunderer and Harvester are currently unique in their size-to-tier-ratio wouldn't it be obvious to add one/two points to T1-Large and T2-XL in the complexity table and scratch the artificial S-Knockback from both unit-sheets? That way potentially future T1-L-Units would automatically be rare and T2-XL-Units automatically ultra-rare while still leaving some design space _while_ being more consistent to the other L/XL Units _and_ still being empirical robust overall.First I thought there was another restriction to this suggestion, like the cost-increase for lower tiers following some kind of Fibonacci sequence, but the T1-Flying (+4) and T1-XL-Knockback (+10) neither do fit such patterns. So what am I missing?
Btw: I find it interesting that there is a cost for T1-XL-Knockback in the first place, while there is none ("X") for T1-XL-Creatures, which indicates to me, that there is a future design space for the former but not the latter.WindHunter likes this -
Was able to read the Rarity-Document now. Once again I am very impressed by the structured approaches to so many considerations regarding SR and thus had a great pleasure reading.
Only thing which bugs me is the example of Sunderer "paying" twice for S-Knockback and beeing a L-Unit. Current Mountaineer would fit that kind of budget better instead.
Majora likes this -
Huge respect to the developer department which, despite all obstacles, keeps pushing the live release forward. You guys are the unsung heroes of SR.
Majora, Metagross31 and Dutchy like this -
That Fire/Frost tease becomes unbearable xD
I like the addition of bandit stalkers to Free-Bandits. Just yesterday I had a conversation with a pvp-rookie who did not like the free bandit decks because they contain so few bandit cards.
2 hours ago, RadicalX said:Frostmage did fulfill an important role as a main S counter in pure Frost in both T1 and T2. With the upcoming addition of more powerful S counters in T2 and recent Glyph buffs in T1 it is a completely viable choice to cut her out of pure Frost. You can still edit the deck to your needs if you are not comfortable playing without her.
When it comes down to the reasoning: We mostly just included buffed cards, that ended up performing very well in our tests and adjusted the decks around that to be more suitable in the current meta. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask them.
I bought that Mortar you cut out from free pvp-decks, now make it 15sec pls :<Timer likes this -
In my childhood there was this animated television series called "Gargoyles" . Highly recommend it; like Shakespeare for kids ^^ (nothing like the "3D-everyone-is-yelling-at-everyone-all-the-time"-BS kids get to watch these days). Xanatos was the main antagonist of the series. I really liked his complex character and his multilayered schemes (and of course he was rich and had an armored gargoyle suit... so basically he was Iron Man ^^)
Later on I played Baldurs Gate, where one of my party members was a recruitable character called "Xan", a highly intelligent but utterly pessimistic and dreadful elf; a hilarious but fitting combination.
During my studies I played Starcraft 2 as Protoss, short 'toss.
So my Nick is a culmination of these 3 identities and reads as Xan-a-toss or Xanatoss 😉
-
I disagree that the solution to pvp attraction is "obviously and simply" more rewards, because if that would be the case, devs would have amped it up already (and gladly i guess).
The main issue is, that pvp for many players is stressful, especially 1v1 because it puts you on the spot. Nobody to blame (except balance :>, though devs doing a great job of improving it) and your opponent preys on your errors unlike the AI in PvE. As I read though, there are PvP-Modes in development which are more like Arcade (like Deathmatch Arena) and therefore less stressful. I think that is a step in the right direction.
There was a chat-discussion recently where players interested in pvp argued that they would get roflstomped by veteran players if they would queue up. I responded that if at least two of those rookie players teamed up, they could play sparring games against each other instead of feeding their ladder points.
Following that thought, I started a format this evening called the "Rookie-Fightclub" (shameless copycat) and repeatedly invited players via chat to join my spectator 1v1-lobbys to either play, observe or discuss pvp-questions. Main issue so far was driving out the seasoned players who would "just watch"; but by doing so blocked the lobby and startled the rookies away.
Nevertheless my first attempt went promisingly and I am going to continue this format during the next weeks.
-
Balance Patch is almost there, so I am almost about to participate 😉
Looking forward to it anyways. Hype Hype!
-
Yay! Looking forward to Killbuster's games 😄
-
I like the idea of more diversity within the free pvp decks.
Especially 2v2 decks could be gateway for new pvp players, as it is considered to be less stressful than 1v1, like in most other rts-games (Starcraft is a good example for this). Additionally, each deck could come with a small description (Interface adjustment @MarcoMaar) what its main dynamics are, to guide player choice; as there is relatively few information available about 2v2 matchups and card-combos.
Furthermore I support the idea of "themed" decks, like the suggested rallying banner Fire/Frost or a Soul Splicer Shadow T1 etc, even (or especially) if these decks are not the strongest meta possible, as that does not matter on lower ranks anyways.
FYI: Within the current system, after one rotation I had Pure Shadow and Pure Fire locked in permanently, because they give me two decks with no overlap and some of the most expensive cards (Harvester, Nether Warp, Cultist Master, Firedancer, Disenchant, Sunderer, Juggernaut) and let me focus on collecting only nature and frost cards, which I prefered for PvE anyways (my first buy was Enlightenment, as during EA times).
qudekRa and Metagross31 like this
Patch #400042 - 19 May 2023
in Updates
Posted
I was really looking forward to this, but it does only account for keystrokes, not mouseclicks. Any chance to further it for the latter?