[Suggestion] Different victory square configurations

I was going to say "no apology necessary," actually. I can totally see your point. And as to the match:

Jon references "turtling," and you of course are concerned about a related sort of turtling--or perhaps "camping"--on the Victory Squares. I'm not sure that commenting on the very last match you mentioned is as important as the general concept is, because you've mentioned a number of matches, right?

But your point was that two Elf Warriors, with Elf HP, can't do anything against two Dwarf Warriors, with Dwarf HP, who are sitting on the Victory Squares. Right? So is it more a question of Elf Racial Skills versus Dwarf Racial Skills, then? Dwarves having quick access to Toughness, say, with Elves having Elvish Mobility that does nothing for them against two camped Dwarves.

Well, not as much: many would still argue that increased mobility means you shouldn't be getting into this situation in the first place. And you haven't specified whether your opponents were using Armor and/or Blocks to defeat your counter-strategies: Elvish Mobility also means that two Elves can get behind two Dwarves and bypass the Blocks from one of them. Then there's the nasty combination of Elvish Insight and Devastating Blow, which decreases the HP advantage.

I can see you arguing that this is not enough. So how much of your concern would be alleviated with better Elf Skills?

 

Right. And I see his, and others', point. So, what about keeping the victory squares, but spreading them out across the map? Do you think that would be a better, more fair option? I know I'd personally rather play a map with 3 squares spread out rather than 4 squares bunched together in the middle.

Actually, it was my elf warrior and elf priest against his dwarf warrior and dwarf priest.

Correct. Because what you're talking about is all conditional. It would depend on if you have those cards in your deck, if you get those cards in your hand, if you get them at the time you actually need them, if your opponent doesn't have a counter., etc., etc....

You mean, if I had better elf skills or if the devs implemented better elf skills? Because I already have decent elf skills. I have access to those cards you mentioned, and I use them.

 

I feel like I have to build my party to counter tanks/campers now. I see your point, though.

The more maps available in ranked matches the better. Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but you only get chests from ranked matches, right?

Please do. I would enjoy maps with separated victory squares much more. And I'm sure other players would, too.

 

If it's possible to build against Dwarf campers, using Elves, and your problem is against Dwarf campers, why don't you build against them and kill them using their own strategy? After all, they're warriors -- if they're more than a couple of squares away, they're not hurting you.

Whirlwind + Cold spells.
Lava + Hover.
Bash.

Am I wrong?

 

Probably not. It's most likely possible to just build against dwarf campers, but why should I? Why should I specifically base my builds only around combating dwarf campers? That's limiting. But, I do have quite a few cards in my decks, primarily on my wizard, which help against dwarf campers. However, they're not always enough. I talk more about this in my earlier posts.

 

I don't know, I could complain the same about kiting composition which I have to build specifically to counter and having a no victory point will make it almost impossible to beat if I keep my dwarf warrior.
not to mention priests elfs would be able to just run away and full health without you being able to do anything about it on such maps unless of course you have a ice mage.
though of all the maps I see the trouble you mean the most on the one victory point map, that one I don't like myself, I lost a game before because of a immovable+nimbus combo on the victory point there
I generally don't like the idea of no victory point map, I'm having enough trouble trying to force the bloody elfs to stand up and fight me as it is, but to sum it up, everything you say about a camping composition I can spin around and say about a kiting composition, both of them have counters of their own and are extremely difficult to deal with unless you are built directly to deal with them, but that's part of the game, you build to counter the builds that you have the most trouble with.
like I built to counter elf mages builds
and no, dwarfs don't have enough mobility for a no victory point map,

 

Without victory squares you can build a deck thats sole purpose is to run opponent out of time. Moves and heals. Maybe some opposition position/movement manipulation.

Might be interesting, but probably very annoying in the long run.

 

Yes. I see these points. That's why I've suggested that instead of removing victory squares, how about they be spread out across the map instead? I think the main issue is that the squares are all bunched together, promoting dwarves/warriors to bunch up in groups, which is sometimes very difficult to deal with. If the squares were separated, I think it would most fair because it still allows dwarves/warriors to camp a bit, but not so much that it's impossible to stop them....and it makes it so that slower characters don't have to chase down elves just to win.

What to you guys say? Keep victory squares but spread them out across the map instead of bunching them in the middle?

 

I will rename it.

Cool. I'd obviously be very much in favor of that, as well. I hope the devs do it. I know I'm not alone in my thinking, and I'm sure only more people will see what I'm talking about and complain.

 

I present to you:

"DYNAMIC VICTORY SQUARES"

Maps with victory squares that move to a random position every 3 turns. The experience of playing a map will never be the same. And turtles will be a thing of the past.

 

Awesome idea. Now we're talking strategy.

 

Worth fooling around since this is beta. Some potential pitfalls, but interesting anyway. And pitfalls are only potential, hard to say how bad they would actually be. And since draw scenarios are somewhat meta dependant, we'll just have to see.

Dynamic squares sounds like a good idea. But if and only if elves happen to be underpowered.

 

Good points. I definitely think something needs to change. Keeping the squares as they are now is a game-breaker for me. They're just too in favor of dwarfs/warriors. I'd really like to see something more balanced.

 

It's not limiting at all. You can, and do build whatever you want. You are limiting yourself to something you feel should win, and isn't. Your problem is that you aren't building something that will work so you are asking for a change so the build and tactics you like will work.

Why can't I build a deck with all whirlwinds and win? Because that doesn't work.

Coming from someone who plays 3 elf wizards who have very little direct damage and still manage to win (even without having a lot of cards I'd like for the deck) I can say, there other options.

 

It's not my build, dude. My wizard is balanced with damage, terrain, movement, a little block/armor, etc.. My priest is balanced with buffs/heals, attacks, movement, etc.. My warrior is mostly damage based, but has some other stuff in there, too. My build is fine. It's that the victory squares shouldn't be all bunched together in the middle of the board. It's clear that this is an issue. I don't know how else to explain it.

 

The idea of spacing out the victory squares (or having them randomly move from time to time) has both some benefits and problems that go with them.

Keep in mind that there is a long history of game design where games have implemented victory squares, in various incarnations, which have evolved over time to combat the gameplay problems that arise. Victory conditions were a solution a solution to a problem in and of itself. They weren't just included randomly by the dev team. They had some knowledge of what they were doing, and likely a lot more knowledge of the design behind it than you simply suggesting that you can't beat a given team on it so it must be an issue.

Here are a few downsides of not having victory conditions:

• Kiting: Highly mobile, long ranged battles that Dwarf and warrior characters are very challenged to compete in.
• Turtling: Each team getting in a position where the first character to come into view will take a lot of damage which ends up with both teams passing until they feel like they can protect the character jumping out there. You'd see a lot of Impenetrable Nimbus being run on high mobility warriors in these cases. The favored action will be passing.

Some downsides of moving victory conditions (often seen in action games): -- These are highly dependent on the size of the map and location of possible victory squares.

• Can favor highly mobile teams: The ability to get from one location to the other quickly is important.
• Favors memorization of where the victory squares can appear: Camping 1-2 of the possible victory locations while zoning out opponent from others can become the dominate strategy.

Some downsides of separating victory squares:

• Team dilution: Holding a victory condition with one character leaves you 2 characters to try to assault a team of 3 defending the other. This can be somewhat mitigated by having a priest with untargeted team heals or long range heals.
• Stale mates: Can get into a position where there is one character left on each team and neither want to leave the victory square and give the game to the other team.

These are just a few of the primary issues with the formats. Some can be worked around with clever level design, but may open up other issues as well.