Jump to content

Global Warming Rework


Recommended Posts

A mistake in several games that has a card not only dependent on what the enemy does, but dependent on a rare circumstance. This makes the card powerful for its intended use and completely a waste of space for every other situation. I believe an example of this shortsighted execution is global warming. Not only does global warming only affect shields, I believe shields to be too rare in both pve and pvp to warrant such a hard counter that is beyond worthless in every other circumstance. 

My suggestion is the following: Add slight damage against all units and reduce shield reduction ability by the same amount. In times that shields are present it does the exact same result as before rework. In other times it will at least be an inefficient way to add more damage in a time of great need. 

As with all of my other balance suggestions, due to this being a slight buff, I would love to see it paired with some other minor tweaks in pure fire to increase variety instead of always seeing the same skyfire, firedancer, enforcer, and wildfire every match. 

I have the same issue with both Protector seals and wallbreaker but not to as big an extent as global warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying by making Global Warming an Eruption v2 is "balancing" it? That's hardly logical giving a card that has such a hard counter in the first place a so called buff.

There's always more to consider than one change if you're changing anything in a game like BattleForge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='SZTB' pid='7842' dateline='1437334080']
So you're saying by making Global Warming an Eruption v2 is "balancing" it? That's hardly logical giving a card that has such a hard counter in the first place a so called buff.

There's always more to consider than one change if you're changing anything in a game like BattleForge.
[/quote]
Again, I said the amount of damage done would have to be inefficient for the powercost. I also considered a debuff mechanic for unshielded units but I have difficulty of thinking of debuffs that fit the fire theme. Maybe slight damage amplification debuff but only if damage suggestion is hated by all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='ndclub' pid='7846' dateline='1437334550']
[quote='SZTB' pid='7842' dateline='1437334080']
So you're saying by making Global Warming an Eruption v2 is "balancing" it? That's hardly logical giving a card that has such a hard counter in the first place a so called buff.

There's always more to consider than one change if you're changing anything in a game like BattleForge.
[/quote]
Again, I said the amount of damage done would have to be inefficient for the powercost. I also considered a debuff mechanic for unshielded units but I have difficulty of thinking of debuffs that fit the fire theme. Maybe slight damage amplification debuff but only if damage suggestion is hated by all.
[/quote]

fire is aggressive --> let units take x% more damage, thats just a random thought of a pve player so.. yeah never used global warming cant really judge.
just thought it would fit the theme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='ndclub' pid='7846' dateline='1437334550']
[quote='SZTB' pid='7842' dateline='1437334080']
So you're saying by making Global Warming an Eruption v2 is "balancing" it? That's hardly logical giving a card that has such a hard counter in the first place a so called buff.

There's always more to consider than one change if you're changing anything in a game like BattleForge.
[/quote]
Again, I said the amount of damage done would have to be inefficient for the powercost. I also considered a debuff mechanic for unshielded units but I have difficulty of thinking of debuffs that fit the fire theme. Maybe slight damage amplification debuff but only if damage suggestion is hated by all.
[/quote]

Only thing that needs to be changed is the power cost of the spell. It has such a hard counter to shields in the first place, giving it anything else would make it borderline op. IMO

Edit: Then again you stated rework, so idk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I don't think you understand me correctly. Currently red warming U0 causes 600 shield damage and 0 effect to anything else. My suggestion would be something in the neighborhood of 400 shield damage and 200 damage. Therefore against shields it causes the exact same 600 damage(efficient) and against non shields 200 damage(not efficient, less than eruption).

Numbers can easily change but hopefully you understand the suggestion better now, to not make it a wasted slot in 90% of situations, game should be more than rock paper scissors and guessing games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='ndclub' pid='7867' dateline='1437338205']
Again, I don't think you understand me correctly. Currently red warming U0 causes 600 shield damage and 0 effect to anything else. My suggestion would be something in the neighborhood of 400 shield damage and 200 damage. Therefore against shields it causes the exact same 600 damage(efficient) and against non shields 200 damage(not efficient, less than eruption).

Numbers can easily change but hopefully you understand the suggestion better now, to not make it a wasted slot in 90% of situations, game should be more than rock paper scissors and guessing games.
[/quote]

It would still be useless without shields then, because why would I global warm for 200 damage when I can erupt for 300?

I like that global warming in generally a wasted slot. It nerfs fire against decks that fire is good vs (by wasting a deck slot) while buffing fire vs decks it loses to (pure frost).

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='ndclub' pid='7867' dateline='1437338205']
Again, I don't think you understand me correctly. Currently red warming U0 causes 600 shield damage and 0 effect to anything else. My suggestion would be something in the neighborhood of 400 shield damage and 200 damage. Therefore against shields it causes the exact same 600 damage(efficient) and against non shields 200 damage(not efficient, less than eruption).

Numbers can easily change but hopefully you understand the suggestion better now, to not make it a wasted slot in 90% of situations, game should be more than rock paper scissors and guessing games.
[/quote]

I fully understand your point, but this isn't a "rework" this is just a buff, which does nothing different but deal 200 damage. 

Now reworking it could disable a shield/s in an A.O.E or just one creature, it could work like disenchant does. That would possibly be too strong though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='Eirias' pid='7870' dateline='1437338785']
It would still be useless without shields then, because why would I global warm for 200 damage when I can erupt for 300?
[/quote]

Remember that not only can the numbers be anything, I just threw one out, but it is a 25m aoe compared to 10m. I also said if we don't like damage it can always be a debuff. We also cant have one player calling it borderline OP and the other one calling it useless, its one or the other.

[quote='Eirias' pid='7870' dateline='1437338785']
I like that global warming in generally a wasted slot. It nerfs fire against decks that fire is good vs (by wasting a deck slot) while buffing fire vs decks it loses to (pure frost).
[/quote]

It is difficult for me to see how this is a good thing. In a previous post I said we should do away with the rock paper scissors faction mentality (example pure fire-rock pure frost-paper pure nature-almost scissors). Pure fire lacking a good counter for war eagle is the main issue not shields, something that can be solved with a small-L counter squad that would have uses beyond fighting war eagles. This would be paired by bringing some of pure fire's heavy hitters down just a hair to open the door for variety. Not to make a player regret the side they chose and instead leave it up to skill. Don't get me wrong, this will take a LOT of work but it will be worth it. The path to this is not leaving pure fire with dead deckslots against most of its opposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't play pure fire but I would think global warming helps? Or maybe not so much?

What if global warming changed to deal damage to a unit equal to its ice shield? That would basically make frost ice shields useless ONLY against fire. (I was under the impression that fire couldn't deal with war eagle + ice shield).

I think this would make it LESS of a rock-paper-scissors.
BTW, I think an L counter squad archer would be fairly broken. At best, perhaps there could be a spell that only does damage to air units? Which would of course make fire much stronger against fire splashes, so it's prob not a great idea.

The thing is that fire only needs help vs frost--it doesn't need something that will buff it against another faction.

What if there was a slow anti-air damage spell? Something that would be slow enough that something like a fire drake could escape with good micro, but a war eagle could not (they're slow, right?). This might perhaps be a better address of the problem than global warming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='Eirias' pid='7932' dateline='1437348753']
Yeah, I don't play pure fire but I would think global warming helps? Or maybe not so much?

What if global warming changed to deal damage to a unit equal to its ice shield? That would basically make frost ice shields useless ONLY against fire. (I was under the impression that fire couldn't deal with war eagle + ice shield).
[/quote]

If it was changed to do damage = to shield it would be stronger vs shields and just as weak against everything else, something that is the opposite of what I am trying to do.

Pure fire is not helpless against war eagles and shields, its just the deck is stacked against them. (key is to have air superiority through drakes but that cant always happen)

[quote='Eirias' pid='7932' dateline='1437348753']
BTW, I think an L counter squad archer would be fairly broken. At best, perhaps there could be a spell that only does damage to air units? Which would of course make fire much stronger against fire splashes, so it's prob not a great idea.

The thing is that fire only needs help vs frost--it doesn't need something that will buff it against another faction.

What if there was a slow anti-air damage spell? Something that would be slow enough that something like a fire drake could escape with good micro, but a war eagle could not (they're slow, right?). This might perhaps be a better address of the problem than global warming?

[/quote]
With concern about an S/L pure fire unit making them too strong against other factions again I say you are looking at balance too narrowly. (for example there are several lost soul units I want to buff among other strong factions) I would not put in such a unit without other pure fire tweaks but even without that it would help them against deep one and lost reaver which they currently have issues with.

Compared to my other balance suggestions, giving pure fire a not very efficient spell against non shields is hardly the thing that will throw balance for a loop. Balance has to come in waves, not one unit at a time and if things go wrong they can always revert. Lets not hamstring what could be a better game out of fear of changing our comfort zone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, but there is another problem with balancing if things get too diverse.Then it DOES become a game of rock paper scissors. For instance, I've found a particular problem in my deck dealing with stonekin or ashbone rushes, so I added mauler as a hard counter to them. For a while I had 3 t2 L counters in my deck, but gladiatrix was the one I used as an L counter.

Mauler isn't a hard counter to ashbone or stonekin by any means, but the variety means that sometimes I'll have a random advantage or disadvantage. If someone goes shad-frost-frost with tremors instead of ashbone, for instance, I'll be at a disadvantage compared with that card replaced by ashbone.

An example would be if fire-nat got a different (but equally good, as you want) M/S counter instead of scythe fiends. Currently (or post-currently, I guess) twilight has a very hard time against stone shards because of the beast buff. If we had, for sake of argument, another affinity of scythe fiends that counted as demons instead of beasts then it would make a twilight vs stonekin matchup have a factor of luck. If we have matching shards/fiends than he has a random advantage, if we don't then I have a random advantage.

Personally, I like the balance the way it is. The fact that every deck is mostly predictable is what prevents random nonsense.

For a while, actually, I used to win against quite good players with a firestalker+rogan+heal+cc combo. Because nobody was expecting it. They just didn't know what to do against a weak firedancer that can heal. Obviously I wouldn't win against anything with frost, but roots and firestalker was not something most decks were prepared for.

If firestalker got a buff so that it was actually a sensible thing to do, then all the decks would have to prepare for it at the expense of preparing for something like a vileblood or burrower spam. So some people would have all the right counters to my deck and make my game miserable, while others wouldn't so it would make my game too easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for taking the time to list out reasoning for your standpoint. This is one of the few times on the forum I have seen anyone do this and allows for me to see where you are coming from.

Please allow me to expand on my rock paper scissors statement: I aim to remove the faction specific counter system, there will always remain a slight card to card counter system.

Current example: I can think of no pure fire loadout that has an advantage over a pure frost loadout. Pure frost while they can lose, had a statistically significant advantage in this matchup.

Suggested example: Some pure fire loadouts will be at a disadvantage vs other pure frost loadouts but other loadouts the opposite could hold true. Overall pure fire=pure frost.

Decks being predicable causes pvp players to burnout and the metagame to grow stale. Higher amounts of viable variety allows players to act more on skill instead of "netdecking", this can only be a good thing overall. I will admit, no game in history has yet achieved what I suggest but it doesn't mean it is impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='ndclub' pid='8273' dateline='1437420778']
Thank you for taking the time to list out reasoning for your standpoint. This is one of the few times on the forum I have seen anyone do this and allows for me to see where you are coming from.

Please allow me to expand on my rock paper scissors statement: I aim to remove the faction specific counter system, there will always remain a slight card to card counter system.

Current example: I can think of no pure fire loadout that has an advantage over a pure frost loadout. Pure frost while they can lose, had a statistically significant advantage in this matchup.

Suggested example: Some pure fire loadouts will be at a disadvantage vs other pure frost loadouts but other loadouts the opposite could hold true. Overall pure fire=pure frost.

Decks being predicable causes pvp players to burnout and the metagame to grow stale. Higher amounts of viable variety allows players to act more on skill instead of "netdecking", this can only be a good thing overall. I will admit, no game in history has yet achieved what I suggest but it doesn't mean it is impossible.
[/quote]
Thank you for you kind words. I'm not sure what exactly sets this post apart from the rest of mine, but I always do my best to provide reasoning for my suggestions.

I don't think BF's metagame is stale by any means. The reason I liked it so much is because it had just the right level of consistency that you would never be at a serious random disadvantage (except for maps, but I'm talking about cards), but enough variety that every matchup is different.

I play a lot of chess and I've found BF to be the game most similar. In chess, both players have the exact same pieces. Both player have certain openings memorized that they play by rote. Yet every game is unique--even games between two of the same players often bear little resemblance to each other. Similarly, I've had back-to-back games in BF where we had a massive t1 rush that settled the game, and in the next we had minimal t2 engagement and settled it in t3.

While it's true that pure decks often have little variety because they don't have a ton of card options, that's a pure deck player's choice. Personally I preferred having a bunch of pretty good options rather than one really good option, which is why I played the cards I did.

So yeah, a pure fire player vs a pure frost player will probably go down the same way every time, but every game I played with pure fire went a little differently. Obviously most of the same concepts are there (just like in chess--certain positional concepts are almost always relevant), but tactically it could go differently each time.

I've never played a splash deck and been satisfied with the cards I was able to bring. But at the same time, I WAS able to adequately prepare for everything. There was not a time where I'd be like "HA I can counter your ashbone pyro.... wait, Lost Vigil?? gg"

All this said, I agree that one type of deck should not have a serious advantage over another. Actually, I think global warming gives an excellent example of what I mean.

Say a fire player has 19 cards chosen and he's picking between scorched earth (to give a slight advantage over all decks) and global warming (to give a large advantage over one deck). He has the choice of variety about which way he wants to go. Obviously a fire-nature player would want him to use global warming, but it doesn't make a huge difference. I really like that level of variety.

Also, I know that a fire-nature player will not have scorched earth. That's because he can't afford the room. If he's playing scorched earth, then he's missing something else important, like hurricane or something. So if I have t3 building and a pure fire player comes at my orb, I'm going to intercept and cc his units just to make sure there are no surprise scorched earths. I won't do that for a fire-nat player because I can reliably predict that scorched earth isn't worth it to be in his deck. But if scorched earth were a viable option, then it would sort of be blind luck whether he had it or not and whether I wasted the cc on him or not.

Here's another example: I was playing a tome match once against a frost player on haladur. We I grabbed a well and he took one right next to mine. That would probably be a good idea in ranked, but this was tome. I happened to have a makeshift tower and he happened to not have ice guardians. In tome you're prepared for weird nonsense like that (which is why I'd never had done what he did), but how much would it rankle you to do that in a real PvP match (where it is a good idea) and have someone pull out a makeshift tower because it was viable to use makeshift instead of, say, hurricane.

The more options available, the more lucky things like that could happen. If I were a betting man, I would bet that's the reason so few people played tome: because they didn't want a lucky win/loss because of an unexpected card.

A way around this could be to have more options and make your deck always visible to your opponent, but I think that creates more problems than it improves the game. (Or you could help make tome more popular. I like that idea the best).



So, in my opinion, here is the best way to address what you see are the issues:
1.Give pure decks hard counters to each other so the matches are never one-sided. Yes this nerfs them slightly against splash decks, but pure decks were more popular than splash decks in general anyway. Rather than fire vs frost be a sometimes advantage/sometimes disadvantage depending on the particular cards used, the important cards should all be requisite and it should be roughly even every time. (Note: the reason pure decks often had an advantage over splash is because pure decks could carry much larger t1s and often win the game before t2 was even reached. Forcing each deck to take a t2 against other pure decks solves the issue from both ends).
2.The metagame in ranked PvP stays "stale," (as you say) or "predictable" (as I say) and as competitive as possible.
3. Encourage tomes! This gets rid of staleness for those that are bored with the same 'ol, same 'ol while leaving structure for those who want it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Global warming was sadly enough not even very good at removing shields.
To increase diversity you should first make the core-function of the card viable.
Increase the damage to shielded minions by another 100 dmg and lets see if its useful vs p frost or mountaineer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='Silverdragon' pid='8586' dateline='1437499029']
and it seems like u can also not judge about pvp at all. you would destroy the complete balancing by letting fire units take more dmg. at least when u dont raise the HP of the units by the same amount and then they would just be better with live weaving. so ur suggestion is just bullshit. if u dont have an idea from pvp and balancing then u shouldnt try to suggest things for pvp and balancing.
[/quote]

I think he means that Global Warming makes ENEMIES take x% more damage. You could try to make a more constructive comment as well, you sound extremely offensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='MarbSlonk' pid='8592' dateline='1437499429']
[quote='Silverdragon' pid='8586' dateline='1437499029']
and it seems like u can also not judge about pvp at all. you would destroy the complete balancing by letting fire units take more dmg. at least when u dont raise the HP of the units by the same amount and then they would just be better with live weaving. so ur suggestion is just bullshit. if u dont have an idea from pvp and balancing then u shouldnt try to suggest things for pvp and balancing.
[/quote]

I think he means that Global Warming makes ENEMIES take x% more damage. You could try to make a more constructive comment as well, you sound extremely offensive.
[/quote]

yeah, it seems like he means that but he didnt said it this way. and if he means, that global warming only should deal more dmg against fire units or that global warming should deal more dmg just because its fire and it should make more dmg because its fire then its also a bad idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='Silverdragon' pid='8597' dateline='1437499926']
[quote='MarbSlonk' pid='8592' dateline='1437499429']
[quote='Silverdragon' pid='8586' dateline='1437499029']
and it seems like u can also not judge about pvp at all. you would destroy the complete balancing by letting fire units take more dmg. at least when u dont raise the HP of the units by the same amount and then they would just be better with live weaving. so ur suggestion is just bullshit. if u dont have an idea from pvp and balancing then u shouldnt try to suggest things for pvp and balancing.
[/quote]

I think he means that Global Warming makes ENEMIES take x% more damage. You could try to make a more constructive comment as well, you sound extremely offensive.
[/quote]

yeah, it seems like he means that but he didnt said it this way. and if he means, that global warming only should deal more dmg against fire units or that global warming should deal more dmg just because its fire and it should make more dmg because its fire then its also a bad idea.
[/quote]

Okay to make it understandable for you:
i mean that enemy units within the range of gloabl warming get X% more damage from allied units( thats your own units).
That would fit the aggressive playstyle of fire but also brings some kind of risk with it as the damage isnt guaranteed and is really dependent. if your own units gets cc'ed that would be doing pretty much nothing, but if you can fight a lot with those units youll get some nice extra damage.
high risk high reward?
got it now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='Treim' pid='8600' dateline='1437500213']

Okay to make it understandable for you:
i mean that enemy units within the range of gloabl warming get X% more damage from allied units( thats your own units).
That would fit the aggressive playstyle of fire but also brings some kind of risk with it as the damage isnt guaranteed and is really dependent. if your own units gets cc'ed that would be doing pretty much nothing, but if you can fight a lot with those units youll get some nice extra damage.
high risk high reward?
got it now?
[/quote]

was it that hard to express urself, so everybody can understand what u mean? i sended ur message to 3 people (hirooo/cy/takeoshan) and nobody could understand that u would mean this by ur message. it also could have meant what i wrote. just learn to express yourself. ty

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='Silverdragon' pid='8609' dateline='1437500808']
[quote='Treim' pid='8600' dateline='1437500213']

Okay to make it understandable for you:
i mean that enemy units within the range of gloabl warming get X% more damage from allied units( thats your own units).
That would fit the aggressive playstyle of fire but also brings some kind of risk with it as the damage isnt guaranteed and is really dependent. if your own units gets cc'ed that would be doing pretty much nothing, but if you can fight a lot with those units youll get some nice extra damage.
high risk high reward?
got it now?
[/quote]

was it that hard to express urself, so everybody can understand what u mean? i sended ur message to 3 people (hirooo/cy/takeoshan) and nobody could understand that u would mean this by ur message. it also could have meant what i wrote. just learn to express yourself. ty
[/quote]
wrote that on phone and didnt had anymore time.
well as i need to learn how to express myself you should try to learn to give constructive critics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='Hirooo' pid='8480' dateline='1437479267']
Global warming was sadly enough not even very good at removing shields.
To increase diversity you should first make the core-function of the card viable.
Increase the damage to shielded minions by another 100 dmg and lets see if its useful vs p frost or mountaineer.
[/quote]

I will admit that GW was not that much of a shield hard counter considering the cost - 70 power to counter 80 power and in some instances high HP shields could endure it. However, I still think this is taking GW in the wrong direction, we need multiple soft counters, no hard counters. Fire
To those who think my suggestion will make pure fire stronger vs non pure frost matchups, I find this true for only times when pure fire would have included GW without change which does not happen every time. If my suggested damage change causes pure fire to include it in more decks I actually see it as a slight nerf because it means they are going into non pure frost matches with one option less replaced by a meh damage spell.
[hr]
[quote='Anonymos' pid='8669' dateline='1437508411']
i dont see a reason to give fire a miliz.
[/quote]

What is a miliz?

@Silverdragon and @Treim I understand that disagreements arise but there is no reason to escalate matters and be outright abrasive. If you have personal arguments to make please settle them in private chat and do not take over a discussion thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote='ndclu' pid='8671' dateline='1437509103']

[quote='Anonymos' pid='8669' dateline='1437508411']
i dont see a reason to give fire a miliz.
[/quote]

What is a miliz?

[/quote]

miliz is the german name for the card home soil

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