#remove mana frenzy and add a sudden death(health drain at a certain time marker)
71 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
remove mana frenzy and add a sudden death(health drain at a certain time marker)
Wouldn't that just turn into playing defensive decks and waiting for the sudden death to kill the enemy while healing up?
If they switch to more proper defensive tools than just bridge grab, why do you think a defensive team will necessarily take more damage? Especially in 2s where you can have the answers to everything (other than wildcards).
Of course I can't be sure of the exact situation, but I can imagine having clear skies/heal puff/Morellia and just waiting for the decay to drop them in beam range or something.
Couldn't the same 'they deserve to win' be said for the current xp/frenzy situation? I think it's condescending to allude that control decks don't have a 'purpose or strategy' or that they are boring/uninteresting. Playing control at high level, accounting for any of the major game threats/strategies is extremely interactive challenging and fun.
I definitely like the idea of changing mana frenzy though. Its an obvious problem in higher play from what I've seen. People can play strictly defensive low cost cards that have nothing to do with eachother just to play as an extremely annoying and uninteractive spam deck into bridges. they have absolutely no push and stall the game out while the opponent is helpless pushing or grabbing bridges for the next 8 minutes knowing they've lost before the game has even started. I've been on both sides of these decks. Doesn't feel good knowing you lost in the first minute and doesn't feel good knowing you're solely stalling the game out and spamming low cost defense bridge gap. I don't think it's fun at all even when you're the one abusing it... It is insanely overpowered... Only thing that's stopped me recently from doing it is how incredibly boring it is and long the games last LOL
What makes you so confidently say that it wasn't intended as a win condition? Did they ever specifically say that?
I dont understand the sudden, controll decks rq no skill argument. (and therefore shouldnt be viable).
What decks rq Skill? Milo Colossus?
It being an ongoing issue in no way means they specifically said it was never meant to be a legitimate win condition. Even their current playtest with a different version of xp generation doesn't remove that win condition, it just tweaks it to (as they claim it) allow them to do more things with low/high cost cards.
What I enjoy is variety of viable strategies. Reaching frenzy has never been an automatic win. You are still required to have a decent XP lead to capitalize on the mana advantage you get from frenzy, and you need to have cards that can close out the match in the end. If you lack either of the two, it's not uncommon to have nail-biting mana frenzy game on both sides.
If a certain playstyle seems too good, I'd rather see some numbers tweaked than to completely remove a legitimate mechanic that's been in the game since probably forever. I just realized it would also punish people for sacrificing HP for XP in order to reach perks 1-3 sooner if they ended up not being able to close the match before the sudden death. It could be seen as a risky strategy, but personally I feel like it would be unnecessarily punishing (a la city watch).
I dont want to be mean, but that topic sounds more and more like a missconception of the game mechanics, If you lead in xp and avoid critical damage you dont played worse, its not a free win If you outplay your opponent.
???
yeah you dont Spam and win.
If your opponent spams and win, it means that you dont summon your minions randomly but worse than randomly.
thats just Not the Case, cheap decks have worse general value than for example midrange stuff.
And thats the trade off, you could argue that the trade off is to small at the Moment, and that might be true, but it feels that we dont talk about balance right now.
Without knowing the amount of healing it could still be that you don't go above your enemy's HP. And if you restore HP with each tick after reaching perk 4, isn't that just stalling the game even more since you can still play the same bridge grab game and wait for the enemy's HP to decay?
Spamming is definitely not how you play at double frenzy against good players because you will lose the advantage, I agree with tjaenig on that one.
cheap units have also the disadvantage of being easier to remove and don't make a good push even when together
that works only if the defending player is able to counter the enemy push efficiently enough to have mana advantage and grab the bridge back. the attacker would have owned the bridge for all the time the push lasted. i don't think it's a problematic strategy
I disagree with tjae completely. The spam reaches mana frenzy first and you get swamped. As long as you play bridge gap doesnt matter about worse general value. you add 2 defensive units or spells that soak for your heros and the enemy doesnt have enough low cost units to constantly bridge grab. I agree with Jaymo, there is literally no "trade off" as all units are balanced and assigned a mana value for a reason. two 3 cost units can take a 6 cost unit down. it doesnt matter the costs what matters is being able to capture the bridges and low cost spam decks do that way better than any other deck.
i've been rank 1 for a while
dont see how rank is relevant but ok congrats
what im saying is that they can balance things out by buffing/nerfing/creating cards. i don't see the need for a change on the core game mechanic
if that was city watch's purpose, it failed hard. it was spammed by apeps
They're testing out something fdm made based on a side conversation. It's not like a vision oriented design change
imo the way is nerfing counter cards and increasing 2 mana units' cost by 1 while buffing their stats
im not defending the current state of the game. im saying it doesnt need a drastic change to chore mechanics
the reason im against your suggestion is that it wouldnt reward enough surviving against a direct damage deck for all that time
and the reason im against the flag thing is that it would drain too much attention from actually playing the game and would be a bit too unintuitive
maybe even just reducing the power of mana frenzy would be enough to not be auto win
but i aknowledge that just reducing its power would make games much longer, while its existence is to declare a winner to keep games short
Funny thing is that reducing the strength of bridges themselves would reduce the strength of mana frenzy. They could just do that (again).
The whole "Spam" narrative is wrong, Not a single high level player will win a game by spaming cards. Thats just phrasing to make it look like a specific playstyle involves no skill.
Two brief comments on the discussion:
-
There is a serious lack of differentiation between different types of control decks. I'd rather call decks that do nothing but defend and capture bridges 'defensive decks' to not confuse them with other control decks. These decks however require some proper game knowledge to be well executed but i also wouldn't call them the most skill expressive thing in the game (at least it's what i used to play when drunk, so can't be too hard
) -
The situation is very different in 1v1 and 2v2. While in 1v1 aggro is pretty strong and lots of games end relatively early, in 2v2 defensive decks are a lot stronger and a lot of games end in mana frenzy. One reason for that difference is that in 2v2 you have 2 masters defending instead of 1, which makes it a lot easier to defend. Therefore, suggestion: Masters should deal only half the damage in 2v2
tons of high level players including myself and it does involve no skill, still completely disagree with that. ive typed multiple responses explaining and you've still given me no reason as to why im wrong you just keep saying I am LOL
Decks that aim for mana frenzy often suffer from early aggro decks (and with how some of them play, I don't see how they are any harder to play than bridge grab spam).
Fortunately we don't have to convince eachother. The burden is on the suggester to convince the devs, gl hf
Does mana frenzy need a counter? Does your sudden death system have a counter?
Presumably you'd be happier with people building decks to take avatage of 'sudden death'? But people building for frenzy is not cool?
Divine warrior and wall in no way counter early aggro lol. How is that even unrelated information when you brought the argument to the table. Seems like you keep bringing more random arguments, realize the argument you are trying to present doesn't quite hold up, then try to derail the discussion into something else.
You don't think you can control the bridges and focus on health gain to win out as your opponent chokes to death in the sudden death condition? Not needing to deliver any damage yourself
Or you can just carry a beam and flawlessly defend the same way you do now (because apparently mana frenzy deck can't even die to aggro).
Such a condescending asshole
Any Colloween, Zen-chi/Voidborne Ravager that's been played in the last who knows how many months.
I think it puts more focus on defense than the variety of control methods. Sounds boring
Control is about using resources to your advantage. Very common to say 'health is a resource', but we can remove that, np
So what if they are solo decks? You're proposing a change that affects the entire game and you want people to ignore half of the game? Dafuq kinda argument is that. If for some reason you really want it to be only in the 2v2 mode, then that's also weird because it makes it different between the modes for no reason other than an attempt to make it "better".
And since when do games not last long enough for 4th perk to be meaningful?
I don't hold a grudge. You are actively a piece of shit, I judge as one every time I see your message ❤️
Mate you're smoking some good crack if you think solos don't get to meet 4th perk often
Nice flex. I hope you're in the next tourney
It's the best for game, according to you. And what's with the obsession to constantly bring ranks into the discussion?
im 20/20 games on not reaching 4th perk in solos XD
i dont think you've played the game much
oh wow how convenient its all bridge gap with a couple defense spells who could have seen this being placed #1 on the leaderboard!
Yeah... that must be it... 🤦♂️
definitely shows
Sure does, compared to your entire 20 matches 😄
Well, a bit harder than judging something based on 20 matches
Yet you're judging it based on the 20 you've played.
the past 20 lmfao
That makes it better somehow?
its still 20/20...?
im not gonna argue with someone who's pfp is a furry bro gl in life
And if I happen to see frenzy in the last 20/20 of my matches what would that make this argument?
It matters because not everyone agrees with your opinion on it not being a worse idea than the current one, yet you present the idea like it is objectively better.
I'm just giving my arguments why I think the current system is better (especially considering the top level gameplay where games are more drawn out and easier to reach frenzy), despite it being in the need of some tweaks. If the general consensus proves to be more favorable of your idea, then so be it. It's an interesting idea to discuss, and at the very least could be a mayhem mode if majority won't like it.
Should just start by making sudden death a mayhem, see how it his received. Health decay already exists in the game
i'm 20/20 games on actually reaching mana frenzy in solos. clearly this data means that there's a 50% chance you reach it each game
it's obviously very dependent on your own deck an play style
Gosh, that was a read. People's true colours really come out when people don't immediately support their ideas. A reminder that these are places to have respectful discussions about ideas relating to the game. Please remember that people have a right to challenge your ideas as you have a right to challenge them, but it should all be done respectfully and a lot of you failed that here.