Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forming an Agenda
#21
(03-22-2017, 12:18 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: Let's compare the gamble issue to a comparable wood scenario. I choose wood because the devs made clear in the tutorial that the very reason why the wood faction exists is to give players the option of implementing a style of play that quickly produces large, powerful armies but at the expense of safety. So, gold and crystal decks should not grow as quickly as wood because they have the advantage of being far more resilient than wood. This is the clear intent of the developers.

Wood grows fast because it has a lot of small efficient producers. Wood cost shouldn't translate the same as gold cost.

(03-22-2017, 12:18 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: A pair of Flips (cost 4) and a pair of Covars (cost 8) would produce 56 attack points when triggered. Plus, the Covars would produce 4 additional gold every turn!
A pair of Fengs (cost 3) and a pair of Elteriges (cost 8) would produce 32 attack points. And could be wiped out by a single strike from a multi-wounder.

If triggered, not when triggered. Also, with Snipe and against a full army, you only have two safe spots to put your Squire'd Gamble. Knowing that, the opponent can put a Defense unit to greatly reduce the damage (though Gold is in the best position to have a big Defense unit).

I agree that packs could use some buffs against Wound.
Reply
#22
Again, gamble is not the problem here, the problem here is LANIR!!!

Before H.G V.2 came out, I have maybe lost to a gamble deck like 2 or 3 times, max, and I have already play it H.G for like 2 years by that time! Now when Lanir came out.... well I'm always losing to the same thing: Commander with Rampage + attack, plus Lanir, plus two Flips.... yup that is the bane of my matches T___T

I really never did care for gamble until LANIR came in... haven't make my point clear? no? ok :l
Reply
#23
A tad late to the party.

I've skimmed most of the discussion, and I don't think there's really much point in fixating on the gamble issue. I'd much rather a full reboot of HG V2.0, than continued support of the current game as is. If a HG V2 ever came up, then balancing/etc would be done there (with lessons from here) but no specific suggested changes would/could be implemented.

------

That being said, here is my opinion:

Gamble is perfectly fine.

I say this as probably the only player who thoroughly used it to full advantage before Lanir. My rush deck would consistently bring an opponent down to 2-4 hp, by which time my opponent usually would've just stabilised the board. E.g with Rune+Grom. The only way for my deck to win, was to gamble successfully next turn, and sometimes the turn after as well.

What Lanir did, was change a rush deck into a combo deck. Except this combo was considerably easier to assemble than say...revenge burnout. Lanir, by himself, isn't too OP (I'm undecided on his whether tax value is too high). It is only the combination of the two that needs to be changed.

------

I have seen some potentially overpowered Eezic decks abusing skeleton commanders. It wasn't completely uncountable, but strong enough that you'd need a specific, unviable (read:"loses to everything else") deck to do so reliably. I'm a bit surprised to see little discussion of that, but....meh.

------

Back to the thread's original purpose: Fixing exploits.

Only snipe bug + cheaters are the real exploit atm. Most of everything else said is just a game balance issue & not an actual exploit.
Self proclaimed Highlord of Highgrounds

I dare you to say my name properly!
Reply
#24
Thank you for joining the discussion, Impronoucabl! The more, the merrier!

When we started this thread we were under the impression that Highgrounds had simply fallen to a low priority within the company. We had hoped to raise the importance of making fixes to Highgrounds. We were even willing to raise some funds to pay the developer for his time. However, since starting this thread we have been informed that technical restraints are the bigger obstacle to fixing Highgrounds in its current form. So, this discussion is now primarily for the purposes of reflection and isolating specific issues that should be avoided in Highgrounds v2.

You are catching the tail end of a discussion on 'Gamble'. In an effort to isolate the issue, I posed the question: does the problem reside completely with Lanir or does gamble need to be reworked. The consensus seems to be that gamble does not need reworking. Lanir is the only contributor to this problem.

We are all in agreement that Eezic needs adjusting and the sniper function needs to be fixed.

We have not spent much time discussing Eezic or sniper bug, because there are already threads dedicated to those particular topics. There have been several different solutions proposed for fixing Eezic. We could discuss those if you like. My favorite solution is making 'Reanimate' a back row ability that only affects the unit directly in front of him, and would take effect during the normal back row turn phase (similar to Matriarch). That should sufficiently slow down the ability. Also, that would make for a cool visual of Eezic reanimating the fallen warrior resting in front of him. Even so, Eezic should probably have his cost boosted a bit.

What do you guys think of the 'Matriarch' ability? It seems to me to be priced too low. Either the transition should be limited to a shorter leap (perhaps 10 instead of 15) or the cost should be raised significantly.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#25
(03-29-2017, 01:52 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: We have not spent much time discussing Eezic or sniper bug, because there are already threads dedicated to those particular topics. There have been several different solutions proposed for fixing Eezic. We could discuss those if you like. My favorite solution is making 'Reanimate' a back row ability that only affects the unit directly in front of him, and would take effect during the normal back row turn phase (similar to Matriarch). That should sufficiently slow down the ability. Also, that would make for a cool visual of Eezic reanimating the fallen warrior resting in front of him. Even so, Eezic should probably have his cost boosted a bit.

This is actually a very good suggestion!!!

What do you guys think of the 'Matriarch' ability? It seems to me to be priced too low. Either the transition should be limited to a shorter leap (perhaps 10 instead of 15) or the cost should be raised significantly.

i think matriarch is alright cause matriarch deck generally very slow so in my opinion, it deserve that leap.
Reply
#26
Matriarch is base on a heavy deck to say the true and it is not that over fast either, it require a lot of luck and specific unit draw for it to work.
Reply
#27
Big Grin 
Matriarch is fine. It promotes deck diversity, and, like most other decks, has good and bad match ups.
Reply
#28
1) Fix the 'Sniper' bug
2) Change Lanir into something that won't boost 'Gamble'
3) Change how 'Reanimate' works (slow down the process)

Are there any other balancing issues that you all feel should be fixed in a patch or future release of Highgrounds?
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#29
Lanir does not boots on commander with double attack, should work like squire attack
Reply
#30
I'd just increase the cost for Lanir and Eezic.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)