[Feedback] Upcoming Balance Change MEGATHREAD

So far wizards seem to be very strong on the test server.

 

I think by nature yes priests are support characters... but they still can be used in all priest builds which work to the shock and awe of all of the priest haters... The game leans towards wiz and war simply because it is less common to use a 16+ attack build on to a priest, where it is almost inevitable for the other two. Most divine weapons have less than 6 attacks many as few as 3, there are divine items with 3 attacks, but they tend to be the draining attacks which can be quite efficient, a little more so as as buffed, but preists have the hardest time killing. They have the buffs which many builds depend on (especially Mass Frenzy, Imp. Nimbus and Martyre;s Blessing to name the strongest so less often there are attack heavy priests (but 2 Glinting Eye Hammers can add some dangerous support).

 

Oh wow, I just thought, dodge just got way better. Definitely more tempted to use it in builds now.

One more comment, I love acrobatic flip, and would really like to see it playable. Unfortunately knocking someone around because you just flipped over their crossbow bolt halfway across the room really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I think it needs a new theme, or a different kind of buff.

 

Agreed, the only real attempt at an attack priest would be vampire priests. They're fun but they're sort of held back by the lack of higher level items that support their builds. Armor also really shuts down vampire priests, but unlike the other classes they can't do much about it.

 

This is the last time I bother answering you, and I also see that a lot of posts are in response to Ector's, I suggest everyone to discuss the new changes instead, but that's just my opinion. Ok, how can you say that everything you've said is valid when your opinions are completely the opposite of what happened in the test server? Sacrponi built a 3 wizard team that won against almost anything. Last night we did a rematch and I won, but it was in a map I chose and it was still very close, which shouldn't be when you build a specific counter deck. My point is that everyone that played in the test server agreed in that wizards were absolutely OP. So open your eyes, would you?

Yes, when of my concerns is about these sparks, as I've been saying, they don't have any real counter except having Resistant Hide (which means that you have to include a wizard) or Grounding Plates (difficult to get and only one per deck available, so not a reliable counter) or rolling a 5 with any 3+ block. That, along with Electroporter Novice still there, makes sparks very op imo.



What I'm seeing is that wizards are turning from control to direct damage, which isn't bad imo. They still have the control, just that encumbrance and slide cards aren't so strong as before (maybe we'll see more of Force Cannon now), but the op things about wizards are now direct damage: penetrating sparks and Punishing Bolt. A wizards vs warriors will be more of a damage race instead of wizards just controlling and shutting down warriors. The question will be how fast the warriors can close the gap before they get killed by wizard's direct damage, which makes it a nice choice between races: do I choose elves, that can close that gap much faster but have less hp? Or do I choose dwarves, that walk slower but can resist more damage? There's no much use for humans now, that's the bad thing. The new encumbrance rule makes their Run much less valuable, and their racials tend to be poor in comparison with dwarves and elves.

Finally, I have to say that I went over the new changes, and I still like all of them in theory, except one: that one is the NS change. This would mean 2 things:
1) A VP owner would never have to worry about any type of difficult terrain, making their builds much more consistent than the rest of non VP owners.
2) I also find it very op in a melee vs melee fight: a VP owner will be able to continuously hit his enemies in the back unless that enemy is behind a wall of 3 squares, but victory points (the place where the battle takes place) don't have that amount of cover. This would make positioning irrelevant, and it would be very bad for elves, that won't be able to block, don't have Toughness and have little hp. I know that it's "only" a 4 damage attack now, but that's easily buffed with MF and Blind Rage (especially now that dwarves are going to be more viable).

 

Answer to that problem is.... Cause Fumble. Or Defender's Block
(Or just being happy that you didn't waste your block for that 4 damage attack )

 

Only if he manages to do that more or less consistently. One game proves nothing.

 

Or armor for that matter. You either bait out blocks without getting behind them, or you risk your sundering strikes getting blocked. Seems to me that there are sufficient counters with corresponding counterplay to make it fairly balanced.

 

Humans might end up in more support roles... Keep in mind that with the nerf to pushes, the human command items got better. Interested to see how it plays out

 

Yeah, both things true. The thing is that the NS nerf was because step 4 was too much. But now, a 2 step with fly can be even more useful than a step 4 in a lot of maps, because it allows you to fly through walls, rivers and difficult terrain. I think it's problematic that a particular step attck stands out so so much over the rest. The previous NS was a better solution imo: still better than Dancing Cut but nothing so spectacular as now. It may not be a good attack due to it's low damage now, but the movility it allows (which was the main reason why it got nerfed in the first place) with fly is insane in some maps with lots of walls or rivers.

 

Pardon, but you mean the situation before the last change, don't you? And I've never said that the control wizards weren't powerful at that time. I've just said that they weren't OP as somebody could say, but they surely shouldn't get that new Water Wall that probably made them too strong. Do I need to quote myself to prove that? I guess not, especially considering your tone.
Everything I've said today was said about the new changes that weren't tested yet, but look, I'm not the only person who thinks that the control wizards are unplayable now! (see blackhand's post above)
So, believe me or not, my eyes are open. And even if you won't "bother answering me", my arguments are still valid.

 

Even by switching to damaging attacks such as Punishing Bolt and Deadly Spark, wizards can't go toe-to-toe with warriors. With all the changes to wizards, there's not really much they can do against warrior teams once distance has been closed. I just had a 2 Warrior / 1 Priest team play a Sprint Team in the opening rounds and even with three wizards loaded with damaging attacks, the game was quickly over. Short Perplexing Ray can no longer reliably provide card advantage, encumbrance still allows for movement with any movement card, and the enemy displacement cards don't move enemies far enough away to put them out of reach.

If I had played Flash Floods, which I didn't draw, those are now easily countered with Cleansing Rays. I think wizards can still be effective, but as a rear-echelon unit as they were probably meant to be. I don't think we'll be seeing much of 3DC anymore if these changes go through.

 

If somebody has the authority on the subject, his opinion weights more, of course. But that doesn't mean that other people's arguments weight nothing! If you accept only the "authorized" arguments, then you miss most of the new ideas. In Cardhunter that means: right, it would be great if I defeat everybody and then speak with the champion's authority, but, you know, the game designers are rarely the best players themselves

 

Fly ignores zone of control, impassible (water), and difficult terrain. It does not allow you to move through squares of blocking terrain (nor if I remember correctly does it allow you to move through a square that has an opposing character).

 

Oh, my bad there then. I guess that makes the difference between fly and teleport, right?

 

Yes.

 

Fly 2 isn't all that impressive to me. Especially considering how the different levels use terrain.

Teleport 2 works fine because you can essentially jump through a wall, which is useful in various situations. Fly 2 can really only fly you over a puddle (a single square of terrain) and land you on the other side, otherwise it just leaves you stuck in the middle of a pond where you can't use your other movement.

It works better in multiples, but this is not a card you're easily going to have in multiples on any given turn. Not to mention that at damage 4 a warrior has to be very careful how many attack cards are dedicated to this. And I also don't think you can ignore the amount of power token it takes to get nimble strike as well.

 

This, 100%. That's exactly what I was thinking. I expect it to be worth it only on very heavy buff builds where base damage is not as important as getting in quick, and where you may not have as much team move. Or on very specific maps with particular terrain. I can certainly think of one map it would be worth it on... *cough*koi*cough* (although I think it's been changed since I last played it, thankfully)

I think vicious thrust may be almost as good, especially against wizards. It's unaffected by encumber, still gives a bit of mobility, but doesn't sacrifice damage.

For example, I think in general I might run rageblood daggers instead of VP. More damage, inferior but not insignificant mobility, and only 2 minors instead of majors.

 

Hehe, with new WWs and flight cards and NS this river map, whatever its full name was, where BM initially wanted to have 2 1x1 islands in the river would be... neat?

 

The fact that someone said this makes me pretty happy. Hopefully Vibrant Pain will still be a cool item—especially useful on maps like Wicked Waterways—but not the single dominant choice.