mighty/obliterating/almighty etc. melee attacks

Think about if Bejeweled Shortsword wasn't common. Those who got lucky enough to get it as epic/legendary would, according to common belief, have an advantage. It would be a shame to see a different thread about those who couldn't get that item being mad because they could "grind forever" or "constantly check Randimar's" and the randomness wouldn't allow them to compete with the lucky ones. I prefer it to be common. That way everyone can use it.

Granted I don't play PvP, but there aren't enough enemies to advocate using chop in MP, right? The chances the enemy are standing next to each other I'm sure is very small. Bash... I'm still not sure how useful bash is. I've tried using it in SP and it works, to a point, but I'd rather use impaling attacks or the big hit attacks. Impaling makes sense that it sees some use since it help bypass people's armor. In the end, what you're seeing is the game with options to handle battles for SP trying to fit into a MP world.

 

So? There's still other portions and how they interact with melee. In result Damage Warriors have 2-3 viable options. There's also possibility for support warrior, where you use your tokens for team moves, blocks and whatnot.

Chops aren't the best possible option for PvP, but there's plenty of SP maps where they clearly are. Same for bashes, except they also have some uses PvP.

As game is mostly about positioning, there should be some reward for actually outmanouvering opponent to such extend that you are next to a character without block.

And no, Chops don't need a boost. They are very very good in what they are intended, it just isn't 3v3 PvP. Same for bashes.

 

I have the same concerns as piotras, honestly. (also keep in mind my opinion deals with the MP game almost exclusively).

I can see how the problem could be mainly manifesting itself because of psychological reasons tough. The game is still relatively new (obviously beta people have way more experience), and it's still evolving. In all kind of games (especially competitive ones) you do see the same trends: people almost immediately opt for the seemingly most powerful option. Huge damage does look sexy, isn't it? Possibly, as the game gets analyzed more carefully and solid strategies emerge, we might actually see how the current situation could change.

[/mindfart]

I do agree Big Damage weapons are overshadowing all other options by a long stretch. Furthermore, it's not like attacks in other categories aren't suffering from the same drawbacks and limitations: you do need to get up close to use most penetrating/chop/bash attacks. Stabs and Steps are kind of in their own category and can be paired with other type of attacks to varying degrees of success, so I don't think these should be compared.

Things get significantly harder to balance when numbers go that high, so the current situation is understandable. This is especially true when you're dealing with slightly asymmetric factors which need to be taken into account.

Furthermore, the existence of All Out Attack significantly amplifies the phenomenon. While a hard to pull off combo, it surely is a deadly option. Maybe too good, to the point I'm questioning if that requires some revision.

I do feel like AoA should be used to boost attacks which are otherwise quite wimpy, putting them on par with more powerful options (at least from the dmg point of view), while the possibility of 1shotting people around does appear a bit over the edge (and I am certainly not talking squishy elf wizards here, as dwarven warriors can potentially be 1shotted too, or at least very close to it).

Most of the times, maps don't allow for enough maneuverability to reliably escape a 1shotter, and you're forced to get close to your anemy anyways (either to hold a VS or to, you know, kill him) so your survival usually revolves around having a parry in your hand or not. That's really because the AoA + high dmg weapon combo is so popular, it isn't that hard to land.

I'm not openly suggesting the nerf hammer should be swung all all around the place. And devs know most likely know it best if that's the case or not anyways. But it does give a few concerns (I guess the people using the combo as their every day stra are not lamenting as much ).

I really don't see much of a point with using other options other than the biggest hitters available to you, especially under the current meta-game. And yeah, even leaving every balance concern aside, it looks to me like it does make very high-end warrior builds kind of 1-dimensional (although I'll admit I'm not talking from direct experience, as I'm often the one being 1shotted rather than the one 1shotting).

While it's true penetrating attacks are nice for ignoring armor, meatier hits are usually better.

While being able to hit multiple targets with chops, that's way too situational, and anyways why would you opt to injury 2 people when you can simply kill (or almost kill) a single target. The option to more easily get rid of a character (even when a chop would inflict more dmg overall) is far more advantageous in most instances.

Bashes, I feel, it's the one exception. Being able to control your opponent's positioning as a warrior is a good option. Anyways, big dmg weapons usually are more popular than bashes anyways (kill your enemy in a couple hits, who needs to push him around?).

I also find the opinion that "big damage attacks are balanced by coming with low dmg ones associated to them" is a misconception. First, all other kind of attacks follow the same trend, no exception. Second, a lot of examples of weapons which feature almost exclusively high output-dmg attacks are there to be found on the wiki. And it's not like I'm talking rare+ weapons only.

Ultimately, it almost feels like BM didn't have the time to properly, carefully think/balance high dmg attacks vs other varieties. I know this probably isn't the case, but that's what comes through by giving a quick look at what's available. Or maybe they just think letting the game-space as unconstrained as possible is better (an idea I fully support, btw).

 

Sure they did, for SP. Perhaps not for MP, which makes sense, since it was added during Beta. This is sorta the issue with adding MP to a SP game. Balancing one against the other. I lived through that in WoW and while it may have been nice for the PvP players it really sucked the variety out of the PvE portion of that game. Not to say that the same will happen if CH gets some changes for MP, but the possibility exists and I am, in general, against changes that only benefit MP. And yeah, I only play SP.

 

Yeah, balancing stuff when you need to keep both SP and MP in mind definitely is a much greater challenge. And, in fact, I don't feel like you should even attempt to tackle such an impossible task. When things get too over the top tough, things deserve at least considering taking action. But again, no need for me to point out this. Devs don't need my opinion to take those kind of questions.

I do want to point out something tough:

Somebody (I can't remember who exactly) in another thread brought up this argument that MP came as an afterthought during beta.

That actually isn't true, as Jon did mention the PvP aspect of the game way back in 2011 when the project was still deep into the development stage.

Note: I'm not stating this cause I want to invalidate anybody's point. SP is a very critical part of the game and it deserves 100% of the developers attention. But, at the same time, I feel like too many SP-centric players think the competitive aspect of the game was conceived mainly to let players get more chests once they're done with the campaign, or otherwise just for the lulz of it. Which is as far from the truth as you can get.

 

When you say big damage attacks, are we still talking about the obliterating stuff, or just the "powerful" level of attacks that come on the common bejeweled shortsword that we seem to be collectively tossing around as an example? I can't tell anymore, and it's making it hard for me to decide if I agree with you. As much as I'd love Obliterating Bludgeon covering an entire weapon, I'm usually finding stuff like this Infused Greatclub, which loves to troll me with 4 damage attacks. I see O. Bludgeon come up in my card draw about once a map, and something always seems to happen to screw it up. I also have this weird knack for drawing 3 AoA at once with no other attack cards, which feels like the biggest waste ever.

One impression I've been getting, is that around level 18 we become exposed to the latest range of common-ish attacks, but for whatever reason, haven't gotten access to it's latest armor equivalent. I'm still trying to mitigate an average of 11 damage with Reliable Mail, which I got several levels ago when 4-6 damage strikes were the norm. For this reason, I can't help but feel like as this game is expanded, one of the very first things we'll come in contact with will be the next "tier" of armor-related cards that are meant to help some of these raw damage attacks make more sense, and make things like shredding strike feel more significant. I'd also guess that we might start seeing a bit more stuff that looks like grounding mail, or the stuff that monsters use against us that's proof against piercing attacks, or whatever. You know the old D&D tropes, platemail for piercing attacks, chain for slashing, etc. We'll probably find cards that give "+4 armor, +8 against slashing." Not total immunity, but a reason to consider using other stuff when we catch an opponent using it.

I can definitely confirm that the novelty for me right now is getting AoA and parries on my martial skills, and not something like 3x slicer. I can't help but feel this was to facilitate SP campaign, so that we could safely engage bosses with 60 health and expect a chance to win. The downside is now we have these things available for MP, and it sounds like they're the sort of weapon that would be restricted from PvP in similar games.

 

Ah, I was misinformed then. Thanks for the correction. So it is more likely MP was taken into account when creating the cards? That may make the case for the specific attacks being considered. I dunno.

Maybe Aldones is right and we haven't seen the next level of armor. That said, I feel like certain blocks were designed with this in mind. The ones that work for anyone within a certain range. Defender's Block and Cause Fumble come to mind. And yes, I know these affect others as well, but it allows a priest to block for that warrior who got caught out of position against the guy wielding a couple Infused Greatclub.

 

I'm talking Hacks and Bludgeons as a category rather than the Almighty Hack specifically.

But anyways, I don't want to give the impression I'm considering the whole array of those attacks to be imbalanced. Those were just assorted opinions of mine (most of which were likely exposed in a poor manner too sorry, not a native English speaker after all).

As a counter argument, I would say that, yes, we do have some really awesome assorted pieces of equipment capable of absorbing raw damage attacks fairly well.

I've been using this gear combo for a long time: General Jelom's Helm + Awlic's Armor. If you can get those 2xHenchanted Harnesses and 2xOfficer's Harnesses, you can absorb 6 damage (100% of the times), with adds up very quickly add up to a lot hps saved over several hits.

It's not like you can't do better. You can couple Henchanted Harnesses (or, alternatively, Chain Harnesses) with higher def armors like Thickened Mail, Crafted Mail or Enchanted Mail. These absorb more damage, but generally proc less often then most others. Which is where the +2 (+1) from the harnesses is going to help. Add a few Officers's Harnesses for good measure (likely with a good pair of boots) and you can likely sustain an 8+ dmg without even flinching. Let alone if you hold 2 armor cards in your hand and happen to draw more.

So yes, you can definitely opt to go for a quite effective tanky build capable of sustaining quite some serious punishment. And that's where penetrating hits (or, say, a shredding strike) would come in very handy.

That being said though. I still think (although I might be wrong) the advantage still is on the attacker's side, if slightly: mainly because such powerful combinations of items are very hard to set up (you need multiple epic+items) while strong hacks are not that hard to come by (Bejeweled anyone?). Furthermore, you'll likely need several turns to get to draw many of those juicy armor cards, while the attacker can just use her cards as soon as they pop up.

I'll elaborate on this more later, for now I need to prep dinner

 

Does PvP give you a lot of time for prep? Or do you just start out right in each other's faces, typically? The maps I've seen screenshots of don't look very big. I know the harness stacking definitely works tons better for me when I've got time to kill before enemy contact. This is why I find reliable mail + officer's harness to work so well, since I've managet to stack my decks with it in pretty good quantities. I usually don't bother with the harnesses even, since you have to have both at a time to really see benefits, and I really like to discard armor occasionally just to hang onto that little special something that's going to let me begin the next round with a bang.

 

It depends.

When I started off in MP people were just rushing at each other's throats (don't get me wrong, it was actually much more fun). The higher the elo the more people like to take their sweet sweet time. It's common to have a freezing sniper wiz overlooking the vicotory points/establishing zone control while some sort of warrior/priest combo is behind a wall/outside of range preping for those hacks/bludgeons and an early sprint/team run.

 

Sounds almost the opposite of an RTS. The first time I tried to play warcraft multiplayer, I was absolutely destroyed by my neighbor around the time I was considering what my second building would be. Usually it's the campaign that encourages building up, and MP that teaches you that nobody's got the patience of an AI. Now here it sounds like higher level play is the opposite and folks like to bide their time. I suppose that means that anyone with a first round lucky obliterating attack card could really spoil the mood in these sorts of matches... but it makes me wonder how many of you are letting yourselves get a little too caught up in a slightly turtlish mindset simply because you were hoping for something more like a chess match and less like a zerg rush. :/

 

As your rating grows and your game knowledge you start to understand more and more, thus the turns are longer

 

The two kind of games are actually very similar in how a match might progress. Keeping in mind the obvious differences on the underlying game-mechanics level, of course.

I.e. expert players of both CH and RTSs will decide what to do during the early game (very first few minutes in RTSs, 2-3 turns in CH) depending on a number of factors.

I certainly don't always rush, nor I always adopt a more cautious approach. Lots of factors to be considered, and those are not only limited by whatever hand of cards I have at my disposal. I.e. both the map and how my opponent plays her first few cards hugely impacts my early game strat.

I might very well decide to go in for the kill during almost instantly, say if my opponent positions one of his characters in a dangerous way, or if I'm smelling he doesn't have a very good hand, or whatever. Lots and lots of possibilities, it's not just "either rush or turtle".

And yeah, CH newbies do tend to be very impatient. That's only natural tough, they still need to learn the basics and explore the game's huge possibility space. Actually I'm not talkinf from an expert's point of view either lol, I'm still new to the game myself

 

In the campaign they can be quiet obnoxious when I am unable to move my characters properly due to the board situation or get the wrong cards to counter an opponent that can 2 or even 1 hit kill any character of mine.
On the other hand I enjoy the speed of such an encounter that when things are bad at least I am done in quickly.
So massive damage things are fine by me as long as I can beat my opponent eventually.

 

As far as I can see, people have overlooked at least one design drawback of warriors loading up on Hacks/Bludgeons/Stabs. These cards don't synergize with Warrior traits at all, which makes Martial Skills relatively uninteresting, if not useless. I assume people are putting Angry Attacker or Savvy Attacker in their decks, but it seems a little unfortunate that Bruiser, Slicer, and (to an extent) Impaler are essentially useless cyclers.

 

Entirely true! People either run blank martial skill (with 1 drawback [very weak attack card]) OR Savvy Attacker / Angry Attacker because martial skill, in my honest opinion, is overlooked on high-level warriors, as they don't synergize with anything, pretty much.

 

What people say. Balancing MP carries a huge risk of draining the life from SP. I don't think it was such a big deal in WoW, but certainly in the old CCG-a-like Astral Tournament it completely wrecked SP over time.

 

100% true. In my mind, this also goes to show how relevant the points brought up by pliers are, as players who have access to good Hack/Bludgeon weapons almost don't care much about those traits whatsoever (if not as an additional way to shrink their decks). the AoA and Team Move, on the other hand, are very juicy indeed.

I also wonder why warriors have this poor trait selection options. Both the wizard and priest can chose from more cards, impacting the way those classes are played in a significant way.

Just to make the picture a bit more nice than it could look I will also point out that, since the game puts a plethora of cards and available strategies at your disposal, nerfing/changing a card here and there is not going to entirely break the SP game for everybody. Yes, maybe if they change a card you based your entire strategy upon, you might have to change how you approach the game. But you still have a few hundred cards to use, you know?

The recent Altruism change is a good example. The game didn't explode after that, did it. In the long run, who knows? The framework Jon and the others put in place looks very solid and capable of sustaining unavoidable changes if need ever be, so I wouldn't be too worried for now.


Yes, it's an important design challenge. This doesn't mean it's not one worth being tackled. And, most of all, they need to keep the MP balanced, at least to some meaningful degree. I.e. they can't avoid changing a few cards around if they make the PvP experience inbalanced. The same goes the other way around. If they find out a card (or combination of cards) is trivializing the SP game to an unacceptable degree, they will as much act accordingly. You can change things around in ways which fix imbalance in a given game mode without completely ruining the other mode's experience. But, ultimately, if the situation really is that bad for taking action is unavoidable, somebody has to do the dirty work no matter the consequences.

Ultimately, the BM guys are extremely competent developers. Whatever they might opt to do with the game, I would trust their work.

Also, I think a lot of people underestimate (or simply don't care much about ) how important MP is to the long-term success of games like CH. Take any physical TCG in existence as an example. Sure, some people just love to collect cards, but would MTG have been so successful without its competitive aspect? The pure-collectors kind of customers (those who buy cards but never play a game) do benefit a lot from the competitive aspect of the game: no competition equals to no tournaments being played, significantly less customers over all, equaling to less income for WoTC, resulting in less content (expansions) being produced. Actually, chances are MTG simply wouldn't be sustainable as a product without the competitive aspect.

So, you get my drift. Even those who hate PvP shall indeed be very happy other players are interested in, are passionate about and play it. PvPers are supporting customers too and (most of the times) usually end up being the hugest chunk of the supporting (i.e. paying) playerbase for these kind of games.

This is only to say, if you see some MP-related balance change which impacts your SP experience to any degree, don't just be a fool ad go whine PvPers are ruining the game for you. Chances are you'll get tons of additional, high quality content for free thanks to all the people who loves competitive gaming and, as a result, help the game thrive even more.

 

As a SP gamer, agreed. And well said!

 

Seems an easy enough problem to fix, cards like Impenetrable Nimbus provide such ridiculous large attack immunity for single player that adding an amped up Desperate Block for multiplayer wouldn't affect the single-player much at all.