Why Whirlwind is bad for the game.

So here we are playing interesting and sometimes even thrilling games.... and then someone has to go and ruin all that by deciding the game's outcome by casting a whirlwind.

Once again though, the problem isn't the card itself, it's the fact that whirlwinds are common and very accessible.

 

I am not a big fan of using Whirlwind, although I do use Whirlwind Enemies a lot. The problem with whirlwind is that the caster is always a wizard. So he can land in very bad spot himself. And often does unless he is already surrounded by warriors.

One way to change it a bit, would be to whirlwind team mates only. So it would be similar to Team Sprint, but will allow a wizard to escape in nervous situations. It would also be a bit similar to Teleport effect, as you would ignore obstacles while moving. This will also benefit 3 wizard party fighting against incoming warriors, while now it would be rather risky to use that in such scenario. But possible. On the other hand 2 war + wiz party using Whirlwind, would have the advantage to move everyone to enemy with cheaper cost than with rare Team Sprint card.
Whirlwind enemies is a bit worse, because it acts almost like Winds of War but does not require line of sight. And it moves three not two enemies.

You can change Whirlwind a bit by adding Halt debuff on yourself. So caster would be very vulnerable unless you are sure about enemy's hand.

You could also change it that way, that it would have Burst 3 field of effect, but you cannot control original placement. So the randomness of the whirlwind tornado could throw your team away, your enemies away, only one character or noone at all. This would probably be the easiest change and would reflect card's availability and cost. And would be still interesting, random and sometimes funny. Would work better on small maps, and would be more similar to the current implementation. This is my favorite idea so far.

 

The best way to 'prove' something is overpowered broken or cheap is to make a build that highlights the usage of the ability or items and to proceed to thrash people successfully. At that point, post it here for duplication. I've done it before and fully intend to do so either today or tomorrow with an inclusion of a team move // wwe // ww build (amongst others).

 

I would like to add one point why things like WW and WWE need to exist in the current setup of cards. Imagine three wizards team. Stuffed with Wall Of Stone cards. They would also have Winds Of War of course. Now they use walls to separate you from reaching victory point, then move to it and build walls around it in every other turn. What is your idea of beating such strategy if you don't have line of sight to them? On some maps it is entirely possible. You would just sit and watch walls to crumble... or not. And hit Pass, Pass, Pass, Pass...

 

I made a 3 dwarf wizard build a few weeks ago that does this.

I call it "Dwarf fortress".

Funnily enough, it only seems to work against other dwarves. Any race with mobility wrecks it.

 

Yes, because you have chosen dwarves wizards instead of elfs!

 

I think that Card Hunter would be a better game if we didn't have these luck based cards like WW and WWE. Crazy items like that belong to SP but not MP.

Sure there is a bit of strategy involved when using it, but that doesn't change the fact that the effect itself is 100% luck based.

 

Except the core of the argument has nothing to do with whether or not it's overpowered. I think I made that pretty explicit.

 

You've said it in-game and on here, and that's fine, I don't agree with you. WWE/WW do increase your chances of winning if used well, there are elements of control that you can add to the equation that can make them serve functionally as overpowered abilities. If you disagree, I'd refer you to Turin's post which I agree with more than yours.

 

This seems like a straw man argument. I never said WWE was balanced. WWE may well be overpowered *too.* It's certainly one of the better cards in the game (if it wasn't, it wouldn't get spammed in high rank play). However, that's not even the worst thing it does to the game. The worst thing it does is undermine the core strategic elements of the game and make the game too swingy based upon the results of a single card and luck, leaving players rightfully frustrated and dissatisfied whether it's working for them or against them.

 

Using 'strawman' as a retort is something I see in my job everyday when people either miss the point, or think its an effective debating technique. Its usually not.

Anyway, again, I believe the card is overpowered when used correctly. It can be countered, yes (as Turin has mentioned earlier), but having to build your deck around this forces you into using team move (which isn't fun, requires tokens, and completely alters your playstyle, all due to 2 cards).

I agree with you in that it alters the core strategic elements of the game. We've talked in chat (we being the players I've met over the 4 months I've played this game), and a lot of people like the idea of a LOS necessary "mass maze all" ability or a "mass maze enemies" ability with a range requirement, LOS and a fixed amount of items that a character can be moved.

So to clarify, so you get what I'm saying if you don't, and whether you agree or not, I believe that the cards are:

1) Overpowered/undervalued
2) Detrimental to strategy, team compositions, and tactics
3) A hard fix without altering stone wall (due to firestorm turtling or people being able to keep you from maps that don't factor in wall building)
4) Possible to counter with team moves, counter spells, shield abilities, boot abilities, etc.

 

Main difference I see here is between two types of people. Some prefer a lot of strategic thinking. But others prefer quick fights based on some dose of luck. Issues arise when one type of player meets the other one. One is slow, other is fast. One plays slowly, carefully weights every move, other one is prepared to loose some games and to win some, but in more active fashion. Run, run, hit, hit, miss, or success and lets play next enemy. This also helps against boredom a bit. Now... I think a good game should allow both types of playstyle, but coin flip strategies should work a little less often than tactic. And it seems to me that is exactly the case with Whirlwind although not with WWE, which seems more like a counter against walls and control wizards.

 

There are definitely different kinds of players who want different things out of the game. However, I do not think these groups need to exist at cross-purposes to one another on this issue, and I think that both types of players can be satisfied by an improved mechanic. I also question whether the second kind of person you propose actually is benefiting from Whirlwind's problem elements. Are they really going to be less bored when they get whirlwinded into a corner and taken out of the fight for 2-3 rounds? And then get hit by another WWE when they close in again? Sure, sometimes whirlwind makes the action come faster by forcing an engagement, which is a satisfying experience for the Type 2 player. Other times, it undoes all the progress done towards creating an engagement and separates everyone out for the next few rounds, which I suspect would be frustrating for the Type 2 player as well as the Type 1 player.

I'm sorry, what? ...Do you think that that sentence, right there, is an "effective debating technique?" Just declaring that mentioning the name of an informal logical fallacy is bad, for no stated reason, and mentioning people at your job who aren't involved in this discussion? That is a rather shoddy attempt at poisoning the well and guilt by association. Nothing in there actually addresses anything I've said. *Facepalm*

I said that your argument seems to be a straw man argument (e.g. an argument which commits an informal logical fallacy where one is arguing with a fabricated position, rather than the position the other person actually advocates) because you said that you disagree with me (you didn't clarify what you disagreed with in that sentence), then followed that up with arguing that you felt WWE was overpowered as if this was contrary to the position I hold. This seems peculiar since I don't think that WWE is balanced. That position does not disagree with mine, so I'm not sure what you actually think you're disagreeing with me on. Therefore, I suspect you are misreading something.

Here's the quote again.

I don't know what you're actually disagreeing with me on here. I already believe that WWE / WW increase your chances of winning if used well. I also think that a "mass maze" of sorts would generally represent an improvement over the current mechanic (though it's not necessarily the way I would alter things if I were doing the game design). What exactly are you disagreeing with me on?

 

The second type of player would *use* WW himself. So would like to use it in the same round or maybe the following, but I don't see a reason why to be angry at the strategy you use yourself.

 

(Note, I edited my last response to elaborate, apparently while you were still replying. You might want to check back)

This goes back to the point about counterplay, though. An ability should not only be interesting for the person using it, but also for the person it is being used against.

As for being angry at a strategy you use yourself, I have met some players who do feel this way, because they feel they "have" to use certain tactics they don't find fun in order to be optimally competitive. To put this another way, consider the popularity of the "Peasant Mode" suggestion. Of course, even if a person finds Peasant more fun, they will usually not use their Peasant deck when going into a ranked match, because they want to be competitive.

 

I think this is the best summary of the situation right here. Although I would add a third type: fast, strategic, consistent players who understands and appreciates the RNG nature of this game and can enjoy a chuckle once in a while.

The issue with WW(E) is not that there is no counters as OP asserts. Movements and immovable are counters. Im not sure what the OP's stance is on the powerfulness of WW(E), since on one hand OP and others admits they had free victories when the user of WW put themselves into an unrecoverable position. On the other hands OP claims that its too powerful because it can repeatedly shove your team into corners.

I think the real problem of WW(E) is, if I can borrow this term, the "anti-fun" nature of it. It can lead to frustration and annoyance regardless of whether or not the card is actually effective. In certain situations, WW(E) makes the opponent feels powerless because his carefully positioned team was ruined and his advantage reversed. Even if WW(E) caused the user to lose the game, it still caused grief by robbing the opponent a chance at a fair game. I think this is a fair argument. Although RNG lies at the heart of any card game, excessive random elements out of players control is detrimental to the strategic depth the game offers. I think the best course of action is to reduce the random nature of WW(E) and make its effects more predictable. That is probably the best course of action that will satisfy the most players.

 

I'll make it simple - please present a solution which would be able to deal with Stone Wall deck without WW/WWE. Or with consistent effects you would be able to accept.
Lets say I build 3 elf wizards deck with Elvish Mobility, as many WoWs and Wall Of Stone as possible. Maybe some freezes too. And Flanking Move to make sure I will start the turn and build new walls. What is your strategy to fight such team - even here on forums? My plan is simple - get to victory point in turn 1. Build walls around it. Get out of sight, so you could not target any of my wizards. Use WoW and additional walls to block sight.

EDIT: Of course there are some maps with multiple victory points where this would not really work, but you could block them too maybe at least for two turns. Additional Vulcano cast when enemy is on their VP could make it much more difficult to beat.

 

I said there's comparatively little counterplay (which is a distinct concept), and no hard counters. I examined the usefulness of movement and immovable in the OP. However, this just a part of the main point, which you come to in your own post:

This is my main point.

I agree with all of this. This is the core of the problem that I hope to get across. Whirlwind, beyond any issues of its efficacy, is a card that is bad for the competitive and fun nature of the game. It severely undermines core strategic elements of the game and makes for more swingy, luck-based, and "unfair" feeling games... regardless of whether the guy using whirlwind is the one winning or losing. It is, in my mind, simply poor game design.

 

This of course exposes that when WW is tweaked, a change to wall of stone should happen also, either in more limited duration or the ability to overwrite a wall of stone with a different type of wall.

 

Wall of Stone has always needed one obvious tweak: It needs to be able to be targeted by terrain-removal cards like Cleansing Ray. As is, the mechanics are just misleading, such that many suspect this is an outright glitch.