Jump to content

Inferno charges  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Inferno charges

    • Leave 4 as it is.
      0
    • Make 8.
      8
    • Make 16.
      0
    • Make unlimited and power cost 10.
      3
  2. 2. Make cluster explosion blow up airplanes.

    • Yes.
      6
    • You want too much.
      5


Recommended Posts

Inferno it's only fire spell (except fire sphere which is quite useless atm) with some damage that can target flying units and there are just 4 charges of it when fully upgraded..

Unfortunately Cluster Explosion cannot be used for airplanes...

What do You think about more charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing the charges for Inferno is already in discussion at the discord balance channel as far as i am informed.

I support the idea to increase the charges for Inferno from 4 to 8.

Cluster Explosion should not be able to attack air units - would be to strong in combination with Inferno and some other spells.

RadicalX likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Pritstift said:

Increasing the charges for Inferno is already in discussion at the discord balance channel as far as i am informed.

Didn't know that. I was on that server for like 1h but I quit it after my idea got stolen by someone else. Forum is just safer :]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would no mind if someone will go to closed channel and write it as "there is an idea" but I DO mind if he take it to closed channel and write "My idea to change".

Do I care if I'm mentioned as creator? No I don't. 

Do I care if someone claims my invention as his own? Yes. I do have a problem with it and I hope he will get diarea ( ͡° ʖ̯ ͡°)

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is obviously referring to me for the above and making this duplicated post with the Inferno here - wouldnt that be the same then?

Secondly, you proposed this in the Warlock case:

Quote
  • 1orb instead of 2,
  • 50 cost instead of 65
  • Dryad aura instead of 1 unit buff

and I proposed this:

  •  Reduce cost from 65 to 60
  •  Increase duration of the buff from 15 to 20 seconds
  •  Change frequency of being able to cast from 5 to 4 seconds
  •  Allow him to cast also on himself (Small QoL), still prioritize others first (if possible)

I believe this is different enough to not call it stealing your idea. And even if it was not, it is not like one is obliged to give credit for balancing suggestions especially as plain as a cost reduction.

Besides you cannot really steal something that might get applied as a balancing change for everyone ...no offense was intended... we are all for change!

On Inferno, result here is the same as in discord ✓ 

Edited by LEBOVIN
DarcReaver likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

About the Warlock: A Pure Fire deck lacks the slots for additional "fun" cards, esp. in PvP. To include the Warlock into the typical pure Fire deck it needs to replace one of these units:

- Enforcer
- Gladiatrix
- Skyfire Drake
- Ravage (a heal can be seen to be sort of similar to a damage mod that the Warlock Spell provides)

From my point of view the only cards that POSSIBLY could be replaced are the Gladiatrix and Ravage. And both come at a hefty tradeoff (no gladi = less reliable counter to air units with Spear + Eruption, no Ravage means much more problems at keeping Skyfire Drakes and Scythe Fiends alive).

Overall, I doubt it would be played at all, even if you'd buff it with cheaper cost and QoL changes. The fire player has to sacrifice at least one major or even core card in his T2 to field a Warlock instead. Alternatively the fire player can choose to pick the Warlock over T3 Cards i.e. Giant Slayers or other shenanigans which nobody will do in a serious environment.

This leaves the Warlock card to be used in non-serious games and "for fun" PvE decks. Which is where a minor change like -5 power cost or +5% ability damage boost won't change much, since it's not played for its efficiency but because the player likes the card.

That's why I propose to remove it as a pure only card to a 1 Fire 1 Neutral orb. The damage boost/damage reduction is an interesting game mechanic that a lot of splash decks could make use of. It would become much more popular card since it would be waaaaaaay more useful in a lot of decks.

Edited by DarcReaver
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair the other factions kind of have their buffs already with Motivate and Homesoil being percentage wise way higher and affect many at the same time and are cheaper. And nature true, only on the side of defense but there again with an aoe effecting dryad. Really only pure fire does not have this kind of damage booster.

Regarding the slot problems, looking at the pure fire deck example radicalx has given in the forum, I would say most likely you swap him in for the virtuoso. Whilst the red affinity might be less interesting for pvp (with increased total number of targets that is more of pve option) the frost affinity dmg reduction sounds most promising to me in pvp. Especially cast on a skyfire dragon with ravage, the usual counter measures would not take him down anymore! As this has to be carefully explored I suggested subtle changes at first, to be strengthend if necessary. Increasing the frequency he can cast the buff even further is also an option to almost only buff him for pve viability as with the here proposed 5 simultaneous targets, anything beyond that is basically irrelevant for pvp.

Edited by LEBOVIN
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • 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