Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forming an Agenda
#41
(04-08-2017, 03:22 AM)Impronoucabl Wrote: C'mon guys, we can make much better, constructive arguments.

(04-07-2017, 02:01 AM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: All things being equal, large cost/benefit imbalances will consistently produce skewed results. That is a statistical fact.

All things being equal, any imbalance will consistently produce skewed results. E.g Rowa has an infinite attack to cost ratio, but you're clearly not going to complain about him.

As late-game draws closer, cost efficiency matters considerably less.

That is the weakness of lanir + gamble, in that there are several decks that can overpower even a successful gamble, but they just don't have the time to get to that point. That's the reason why increasing the cost of lanir to delay him by 2 turns (1 if you're super lucky), should be enough to balance him.

Given no attackers of scale Rowa would indeed rule the Highgrounds!  LOL

I honestly don't believe that delaying Lanir by just a round or two would be enough to balance him. Doubling Lanir's cost would make the lethal combo cost 30 gold. The best that any other 30-cost combo can reach is about 40 attack. The average Flip+Lanir attack produces 40 attack. So, Lanir's cost would have to be doubled at minimum if the typical Highgrounds cost/benefit ratio is to be maintained. And, given the randomness of 'gamble' and the way bonus city damage is awarded, it's still very wonky at best. I just don't see the point in defending the existence of this broken combination. Why not just have Lanir perform a different front row function and be done with it?

...and I'm speaking as someone who likes Lanir more than Flip. I use Lanir in several non-gamble decks, but I would give him up if it meant ending this 'gamble' OP issue.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#42
Using YOUR OWN EXAMPLE: You claim that 2 Casts, a 'spearhead' commander, and a Blight would be a reasonable strategy for beating Flip+Lanir. I won't even presume to guess which side would win in the end. But, let's just breakdown that cost shall we...

2 Flips, 1 Lanir = 19 gold

2 Casts, a 'spearhead' commander, and a Blight = 62 wood [And that's assuming the commander has NO additional stats.]

If you cannot see the cost/benefit imbalance in YOUR OWN EXAMPLE, then there is no need to continue debating the 'gamble' issue any further.

the thing is u sound like gamble will be activated all the time but the true is, it does not. when it is not activated, flip+lanir is just a mediocre combination, i could generate equal or more attack with lesser resources.

i think a unit is imbalance when u cant do anything to it.

And, that is indeed the bottom line in this debate. We disagree on the definition of 'imbalance'. Again, I respect your opinion, and I appreciate you contributing it to this discussion. However, I do not agree that all imbalances must produce an inescapable result 100% of the time.

Imbalance - A situation is imbalanced if it's not equitable or fair. Something that's imbalanced is off-kilter or out of whack. Things that are imbalanced are out of proportion — power itself is something that's frequently imbalanced.
Source: vocabulary.com

Imbalance - lack of balance :  the state of being out of equilibrium or out of proportion
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary

in my opinion, we have more advantage than gamble player. we can easily avoid matching same unit than gamble (if u decided to go that direction) trying to match our unit number. this is statistically proven. isnt this enough to balance the unit?
Reply
#43
(04-08-2017, 05:07 AM)shaymin Wrote: the thing is u sound like gamble will be activated all the time but the true is, it does not. when it is not activated, flip+lanir is just a mediocre combination, i could generate equal or more attack with lesser resources.

in my opinion, we have more advantage than gamble player. we can easily avoid matching same unit than gamble (if u decided to go that direction) trying to match our unit number. this is statistically proven. isnt this enough to balance the unit?

We have covered this already. I have acknowledged that 'gamble' often mismatches. Why won't you acknowledge that producing 16 attack for a cost of 19 gold does not constitute a penalty for losing a gamble?

As I stated earlier: Flip+Lanir = "Heads, I win. Tails, I don't lose."

Flip+Lanir is not really a gamble at all. A real gamble would be: half the time 'gamble' produces twice the normal benefit/cost ratio and half the time it produces no attack.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#44
(04-08-2017, 05:29 AM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote:
(04-08-2017, 05:07 AM)shaymin Wrote: the thing is u sound like gamble will be activated all the time but the true is, it does not. when it is not activated, flip+lanir is just a mediocre combination, i could generate equal or more attack with lesser resources.

in my opinion, we have more advantage than gamble player. we can easily avoid matching same unit than gamble (if u decided to go that direction) trying to match our unit number. this is statistically proven. isnt this enough to balance the unit?

We have covered this already. I have acknowledged that 'gamble' often mismatches. Why won't you acknowledge that producing 16 attack for a cost of 19 gold does not constitute a penalty for losing a gamble?

As I stated earlier: Flip+Lanir = "Heads, I win. Tails, I don't lose."

Flip+Lanir is not really a gamble at all. A real gamble would be: half the time 'gamble' produces twice the normal benefit/cost ratio and half the time it produces no attack.

what make u think that matching front unit will guarantee u a winning game? i have explain the reason in my previous post. further more, like i mentioned earlier, i can produce equal or more attack than 16 with less than 19 resources. let's not forget that defense can also reduce gamble damage.
i hope we r discussion about the game mechanism rather than how the name of the skill fit its mechanic.
Reply
#45
(04-08-2017, 05:00 AM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: Doubling Lanir's cost would make the lethal combo cost 30 gold. The best that any other 30-cost combo can reach is about 40 attack. The average Flip+Lanir attack produces 40 attack.

You're missing the point. This is not about cost efficiency. This is about tempo/pacing. For example, how do you factor traditional, non-combo rushes?

It doesn't matter that, at 30 gold, Lanir + flip is the most efficient combo, but that 30 gold should be enough to stop a OHKO & delay another turn for a 40 (or whatever) gold combo/army. And if that's not enough, it might be enough to get another turn to get an even bigger army to try again. Plus, keep in mind, that each turn you buy, requires another perfect gamble from your opponent.
Self proclaimed Highlord of Highgrounds

I dare you to say my name properly!
Reply
#46
(04-08-2017, 07:41 AM)Impronoucabl Wrote:
(04-08-2017, 05:00 AM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: Doubling Lanir's cost would make the lethal combo cost 30 gold. The best that any other 30-cost combo can reach is about 40 attack. The average Flip+Lanir attack produces 40 attack.

You're missing the point. This is not about cost efficiency. This is about tempo/pacing. For example, how do you factor traditional, non-combo rushes?

It doesn't matter that, at 30 gold, Lanir + flip is the most efficient combo, but that 30 gold should be enough to stop a OHKO & delay another turn for a 40 (or whatever) gold combo/army. And if that's not enough, it might be enough to get another turn to get an even bigger army to try again. Plus, keep in mind, that each turn you buy, requires another perfect gamble from your opponent.

I'm not so sure that "traditional, non-combo rushes" are much of a factor anymore. Does anyone still win with non-buffed knights? Have you noticed that Rucke doesn't come out to play much anymore? When was the last time you encountered a soldier army? I have a couple of non-combo rush decks, but they rely heavily on disruption to survive. I digress.

I agree that it doesn't matter which unit combinations are the most efficient at any given level of cost. What matters is the degree of that efficiency. Lanir+Flip are so efficient a combination that they create an exceedingly imbalanced result.

Whether the predominate factor is cost efficiency or tempo/pacing depends on the situation: relative army sizes, length of game, etc. As I stated earlier: "All things being equal, large cost/benefit imbalances will consistently produce skewed results."

Delaying the Lanir+Flip assembly process by a turn or two would give the opposing force a little more time to grow, but I am of the opinion that a delay of just 1 or 2 turns is not enough to balance the Flip+Lanir combination. A 3 turn delay would seem about right to me, so we're somewhat splitting hairs here. And, actually, doubling Lanir's cost would likely take no more than 2 additional turns anyway given the rapid accumulation of gold in the game, so aren't we advocating for the same thing if it comes down to a repricing solution?

(04-08-2017, 05:44 AM)shaymin Wrote: what make u think that matching front unit will guarantee u a winning game? i have explain the reason in my previous post. further more, like i mentioned earlier, i can produce equal or more attack than 16 with less than 19 resources. let's not forget that defense can also reduce gamble damage.
i hope we r discussion about the game mechanism rather than how the name of the skill fit its mechanic.

If 'gamble' produced twice the benefit/cost ratio approximately 50% of the time, and zero benefit approximately 50% of the time, then it would average out to be on par with the rest of the game. That's math. You can make as passionate an argument as you like. You can't argue with math.

I do not believe that 'gamble' guarantees a winning game. In fact, I pointed out that I beat 'gamble' decks from time to time.

You and I differ on our philosophy of what constitutes a serious game imbalance. I believe that an overpowered unit is one that disproportionately advantages a player. It does not need to guarantee victory in every game. By definition, an "overpowered" unit (or unit combination) is one that is significantly imbalanced to most other units (or unit combinations). Period. I do not believe that all overpowered units must produce positive results 100% of the time. This is where our philosophies differ. I am glad that we were able to drill down to the root of our differing viewpoints. That is likely the most resolve we will achieve on this topic. I suspect that a forum discussion is unlikely to move either of us on our respective OP philosophies. Thank you for sharing your stance on the 'gamble' issue. My worst fear when I started this thread was that I would be the only player who cared enough about fixing Highgrounds to participate in a wonky discussion about the game mechanics. I am thrilled that I am not alone in my passion for this great game! Are there any other balancing issues that you would like to discuss?
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#47
in my opinion, double the cost of lanir will drastically make gold faction less appearing. this is because almost all of production unit from gold faction have to be place at the back row which limiting gold production and extremely subceptible to disruption compared to other faction. lanir can help gold faction in this issue although it does not work all the time. i might be a bit bias here cause i LOVE playing slow deck. well, slow deck is not a suitable deck against gamble deck but when it manage to work out against other decks, the result just make me feel super duper satisficed and forget all the losing streak i got previously  Big Grin
(04-08-2017, 06:04 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote:
(04-08-2017, 07:41 AM)Impronoucabl Wrote:
(04-08-2017, 05:00 AM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: Doubling Lanir's cost would make the lethal combo cost 30 gold. The best that any other 30-cost combo can reach is about 40 attack. The average Flip+Lanir attack produces 40 attack.

You're missing the point. This is not about cost efficiency. This is about tempo/pacing. For example, how do you factor traditional, non-combo rushes?

It doesn't matter that, at 30 gold, Lanir + flip is the most efficient combo, but that 30 gold should be enough to stop a OHKO & delay another turn for a 40 (or whatever) gold combo/army. And if that's not enough, it might be enough to get another turn to get an even bigger army to try again. Plus, keep in mind, that each turn you buy, requires another perfect gamble from your opponent.

I'm not so sure that "traditional, non-combo rushes" are much of a factor anymore. Does anyone still win with non-buffed knights? Have you noticed that Rucke doesn't come out to play much anymore? When was the last time you encountered a soldier army? I have a couple of non-combo rush decks, but they rely heavily on disruption to survive. I digress.

I agree that it doesn't matter which unit combinations are the most efficient at any given level of cost. What matters is the degree of that efficiency. Lanir+Flip are so efficient a combination that they create an exceedingly imbalanced result.

Whether the predominate factor is cost efficiency or tempo/pacing depends on the situation: relative army sizes, length of game, etc. As I stated earlier: "All things being equal, large cost/benefit imbalances will consistently produce skewed results."

Delaying the Lanir+Flip assembly process by a turn or two would give the opposing force a little more time to grow, but I am of the opinion that a delay of just 1 or 2 turns is not enough to balance the Flip+Lanir combination. A 3 turn delay would seem about right to me, so we're somewhat splitting hairs here. And, actually, doubling Lanir's cost would likely take no more than 2 additional turns anyway given the rapid accumulation of gold in the game, so aren't we advocating for the same thing if it comes down to a repricing solution?

(04-08-2017, 05:44 AM)shaymin Wrote: what make u think that matching front unit will guarantee u a winning game? i have explain the reason in my previous post. further more, like i mentioned earlier, i can produce equal or more attack than 16 with less than 19 resources. let's not forget that defense can also reduce gamble damage.
i hope we r discussion about the game mechanism rather than how the name of the skill fit its mechanic.

If 'gamble' produced twice the benefit/cost ratio approximately 50% of the time, and zero benefit approximately 50% of the time, then it would average out to be on par with the rest of the game. That's math. You can make as passionate an argument as you like. You can't argue with math.

I do not believe that 'gamble' guarantees a winning game. In fact, I pointed out that I beat 'gamble' decks from time to time.

You and I differ on our philosophy of what constitutes a serious game imbalance. I believe that an overpowered unit is one that disproportionately advantages a player. It does not need to guarantee victory in every game. By definition, an "overpowered" unit (or unit combination) is one that is significantly imbalanced to most other units (or unit combinations). Period. I do not believe that all overpowered units must produce positive results 100% of the time. This is where our philosophies differ. I am glad that we were able to drill down to the root of our differing viewpoints. That is likely the most resolve we will achieve on this topic. I suspect that a forum discussion is unlikely to move either of us on our respective OP philosophies. Thank you for sharing your stance on the 'gamble' issue. My worst fear when I started this thread was that I would be the only player who cared enough about fixing Highgrounds to participate in a wonky discussion about the game mechanics. I am thrilled that I am not alone in my passion for this great game! Are there any other balancing issues that you would like to discuss?

let's agree to disagree on this matter. regarding other balancing issue... the first unit i can think of is eezic which i guess every highgrounds player agreed. but i love ur suggestion which is making it reanimate at back row instead of front row or make reanimated units wounded. this will at least give players a turn to react. i would like to suggest that we increase the cost of eezic to at least 15 crystals. besides, it seems like toxic is underutilised and a bit underwhelming. i would suggest that when toxic is activated, not only it generate attack but also auto heal itself when the turn ends. does my suggestion about toxic sound OP??
Reply
#48
I really don't think we need to be concerned about gold faction losing its appeal. It was the most played faction before Lanir even existed, and it would continue to be with a more expensive Lanir.

Thank you for supporting my recommendation for reworking 'Reanimate'! I do believe that is the best method of putting it on par with 'Matriarch'. I believe Eezic should cost 12-14 crystals, but I would not object to your suggestion of raising his cost to 15. Especially if 'Reanimate' continues to function as it does now.

I agree that 'toxic' is underutilized in the game. 'Protect' is as well. It is unusual to see either ability used much in the game. Several examples are: Noch, Goose, Ghast, and Elgi. These units are a waste to hire. No one EVER plays with them.

Noch just needs to do something more useful on the back row. Produce 2 wood instead of 2 defense, maybe? I'm less sure how to make Goose appealing. I think Uvil, Chal, and Trathor are fine, because they are useful in other ways in addition to their 'toxic' ability. Elgi should cost 2 wood -- that's honestly all he is worth to green faction. Ghast should be made into an 'Ultra-Rare' card: 8 'Protect', 4 'Rampage' for a hire cost of 6 crystals. So, he would be like a Stag without the 1 defense, and from time-to-time could drop back to protect the front row.

Your "auto-heal" suggestion is interesting. Though, it might be excessive to apply that to all toxic units. But, creating a Legendary card that had a form of self-healing as its secondary front row ability might be enticing.

I do think there should be a place for 'toxic' and 'protect', but right now they are not very cost effective abilities on their own.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#49
(04-08-2017, 06:04 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: I'm not so sure that "traditional, non-combo rushes" are much of a factor anymore. Does anyone still win with non-buffed knights? Have you noticed that Rucke doesn't come out to play much anymore? When was the last time you encountered a soldier army? I have a couple of non-combo rush decks, but they rely heavily on disruption to survive. I digress.

I agree that it doesn't matter which unit combinations are the most efficient at any given level of cost. What matters is the degree of that efficiency. Lanir+Flip are so efficient a combination that they create an exceedingly imbalanced result.

Whether the predominate factor is cost efficiency or tempo/pacing depends on the situation: relative army sizes, length of game, etc. As I stated earlier: "All things being equal, large cost/benefit imbalances will consistently produce skewed results."

Delaying the Lanir+Flip assembly process by a turn or two would give the opposing force a little more time to grow, but I am of the opinion that a delay of just 1 or 2 turns is not enough to balance the Flip+Lanir combination. A 3 turn delay would seem about right to me, so we're somewhat splitting hairs here. And, actually, doubling Lanir's cost would likely take no more than 2 additional turns anyway given the rapid accumulation of gold in the game, so aren't we advocating for the same thing if it comes down to a repricing solution?

The only reason traditional decks don't exist, is because of the combos. If you take them away, they'll become viable. Non-combo rush decks have always used disruption, since without which, they would be either too consistent & OP, or unreliable & weak.

As for your stance, I thought you wished to have lanir removed from the game in his entirety? Thus the price of lanir is irrelevant? Aside from that, I suppose we are splitting hairs.



EDIT: Your "all things equal" quote is very fallacious, as I pointed also out earlier.

If everything is equal except one thing, then obviously that thing will cause skewed results.

E.g1 If everything is equal except wounding, then wounding will consistently create skewed results. Therefore, wounding is OP.

E.g2 If everything is equal except for an Arthur, then Arthur will consistently create skewed results. Therefore Arthur is OP.

Repeat ad nauseam.
Self proclaimed Highlord of Highgrounds

I dare you to say my name properly!
Reply
#50
actually I think that toxic is a very good ability at the moment, the problem is: what other thing can that unit do?

So for example:
1# Vago: have a very special toxic ability, but other than that, at least it can produce gold, even if the enemy does not have a wounding unit.
2# Uvil: Can at least defense and produce 3 wood in the back! that is pretty good actually. So no only it give a solid wood income, but it can punish the late heavy base wounding decks.

So the problem comes with the units that have toxic and doesn't do more than that, like noch.
With this say, I think that this falls with the problem with protection, it need to have something next to it so it can be worth it. An example of this is the old unit Herold, that now it is basically obsolete with the new builds and units.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)