inherit
2562
0
Sept 2, 2023 16:06:59 GMT
659
Yuna
2,466
March 2016
yuna
|
Post by Yuna on Sept 13, 2017 11:43:48 GMT
Well I dont care much about Druidess or some crit giving a counter to Druidess but my vocabulary is increasing thnks to Yuna C:. I googled Non-sequitur(not before I looked again how it was implemented in the sentence) and shoehorn CX. And he apparently plays crosswords? O.o. Though At first, I cudnt believe it(fluent English with badass vocab.) coming from a seemingly Asian dude but hes Swed so I guess that makes sense. Born in Vietnam, have lived in Sweden for most of my life, have spoken fluent English since the age of 7 (started learning it at age 3), studied French and Spanish for 6 and 3 years respectively, Latin for 1 and know enough Danish and Norwegian to get by in both countries as long as I don't have to speak either language. My French, Spanish and Latin skills also allow me to decipher Portugese, Italian and Catalan OK-ish, but I would never volunteer as an interpreter for either.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 13, 2017 11:59:02 GMT
Well I dont care much about Druidess or some crit giving a counter to Druidess but my vocabulary is increasing thnks to Yuna C:. I googled Non-sequitur(not before I looked again how it was implemented in the sentence) and shoehorn CX. And he apparently plays crosswords? O.o. Though At first, I cudnt believe it(fluent English with badass vocab.) coming from a seemingly Asian dude but hes Swed so I guess that makes sense. Born in Vietnam, have lived in Sweden for most of my life, have spoken fluent English since the age of 7 (started learning it at age 3), studied French and Spanish for 6 and 3 years respectively, Latin for 1 and know enough Danish and Norwegian to get by in both countries as long as I don't have to speak either language. My French, Spanish and Latin skills also allow me to decipher Portugese, Italian and Catalan OK-ish, but I would never volunteer as an interpreter for either. Nice to get some background on you. And for the record, although it doesn't involve me, I feel like Zander's comments on the 3.0 Libra weren't meant to antagonise you, just an observation from him. Returning to the original argument, while Zander has a point and Libra is now better at countering Druidess for herself, I feel like 2.0 was better at managing wards for the rest of her team. By reacting to ward damage in that unique way, she could remove or at least greatly reduce the number of wards her team had to fight through, while generating rage for her hero, all the while generating no rage for the enemy hero. She could even do this during the enemy's round, negating the effect of Aquarius sometimes. Possibly the closest to a counter short of Warbringer. Thoughts?
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 13, 2017 13:05:58 GMT
Born in Vietnam, have lived in Sweden for most of my life, have spoken fluent English since the age of 7 (started learning it at age 3), studied French and Spanish for 6 and 3 years respectively, Latin for 1 and know enough Danish and Norwegian to get by in both countries as long as I don't have to speak either language. My French, Spanish and Latin skills also allow me to decipher Portugese, Italian and Catalan OK-ish, but I would never volunteer as an interpreter for either. Nice to get some background on you. And for the record, although it doesn't involve me, I feel like Zander's comments on the 3.0 Libra weren't meant to antagonise you, just an observation from him. Returning to the original argument, while Zander has a point and Libra is now better at countering Druidess for herself, I feel like 2.0 was better at managing wards for the rest of her team. By reacting to ward damage in that unique way, she could remove or at least greatly reduce the number of wards her team had to fight through, while generating rage for her hero, all the while generating no rage for the enemy hero. She could even do this during the enemy's round, negating the effect of Aquarius sometimes. Possibly the closest to a counter short of Warbringer. Thoughts? To add to the above, it occurs to me that if Libra is indeed reacting to ward damage as Zander describes (I haven't personally seen it), then that is probably not intended behaviour. The damage is from the hero, not the creature. Even assuming it works that way (which I doubt), the rest of her team will negate any self-preservation she managed in short order once they also hit warded creatures. Just an observation, my main arguments are still the points above.
|
|
#da2020
2361
0
339
ZanderX10
1,085
Jan 21, 2016 18:26:57 GMT
January 2016
zanderx10
|
Post by ZanderX10 on Sept 13, 2017 13:30:04 GMT
there is a discussion topic on libra in a more encompassing thread about the whole update and I wanted to ado in something specifically about libra. I quoted the closest message relevant to that. History or not, I havnt been hostile in a long time. If it doesn't make sense to you for me to have offered post patch observations about a patch discussion then I guess our brains work differently. If you can get it out of your head that I was trying to argue in some way or change your words then tou could see that I was just adding in information relevant to the subject even if NOT directly relevant to the exact posts already drafted. You used key words that implied you were trying to prove me wrong. Not every post you post has to quote someone else, especially if what you have to say isn't directly related to what they said but only nominally related. Me and another user were arguing about her V2 skill and why it was changed. You butted in with a reply about her V3 skill, a reply to a post where I said "No, V2 didn't counter Druidess" with a post that said "But V3 does, though". I didn't say you'd been hostile, I said you acted as if you were jumping into our debate and trying to prove me wrong. If you weren't, then you worded your post very clumsily. how was I trying to prove your wrong when I said "I agree with yuna"?
|
|
#8f0a7f
ApexNFS Guild
2488
0
1
795
NFS✪Grandfather
Madness, as you know, is a lot like gravity; all it takes is a little push.
1,742
Feb 15, 2016 19:07:07 GMT
February 2016
grandfather
NFS
gramps
|
Post by NFS✪Grandfather on Sept 13, 2017 14:06:52 GMT
|
|
inherit
2562
0
Sept 2, 2023 16:06:59 GMT
659
Yuna
2,466
March 2016
yuna
|
Post by Yuna on Sept 13, 2017 14:16:38 GMT
You used key words that implied you were trying to prove me wrong. Not every post you post has to quote someone else, especially if what you have to say isn't directly related to what they said but only nominally related. Me and another user were arguing about her V2 skill and why it was changed. You butted in with a reply about her V3 skill, a reply to a post where I said "No, V2 didn't counter Druidess" with a post that said "But V3 does, though". I didn't say you'd been hostile, I said you acted as if you were jumping into our debate and trying to prove me wrong. If you weren't, then you worded your post very clumsily. how was I trying to prove your wrong when I said "I agree with yuna"? No, you didn't. Not in that post. Please stop distorting the truth, whether accidentally or on purpose. This is what started our current tiff. I will quote the three posts in their entirety. japoon: "Libra become completely rubbish again. Before Update: 4.5 Stars, Deal a lots of damages and reduce a great number of Druidess Ward. After the Update: RUBBISH / How come?" Me: "It didn't really counter Druidess, though." You: "it actually kind of does counter druidess now even if only for herself. Ward dmg is low enough that libra can out heal it with balance now and the subsequent dmg ignores wards." Nothing about "I agree with Yuna" in there, that came later, after I called you out. This discussion can end here and I will let bygones be bygones. Just be more careful in what you say and how you say it to me in the future, please.
|
|
inherit
4430
0
5
theart
33
August 2017
theart
|
Post by theart on Sept 13, 2017 15:44:17 GMT
This is crazy. Probably going to love this forum lol
|
|
#da2020
2361
0
339
ZanderX10
1,085
Jan 21, 2016 18:26:57 GMT
January 2016
zanderx10
|
Post by ZanderX10 on Sept 13, 2017 15:50:39 GMT
how was I trying to prove your wrong when I said "I agree with yuna"? No, you didn't. Not in that post. Please stop distorting the truth, whether accidentally or on purpose. This is what started our current tiff. I will quote the three posts in their entirety. japoon: "Libra become completely rubbish again. Before Update: 4.5 Stars, Deal a lots of damages and reduce a great number of Druidess Ward. After the Update: RUBBISH / How come?" Me: "It didn't really counter Druidess, though." You: "it actually kind of does counter druidess now even if only for herself. Ward dmg is low enough that libra can out heal it with balance now and the subsequent dmg ignores wards." Nothing about "I agree with Yuna" in there, that came later, after I called you out. This discussion can end here and I will let bygones be bygones. Just be more careful in what you say and how you say it to me in the future, please. if that's what you need to let it go then that's fine. You "called me out" and I clarified that that's not what I meant and that I agreed with you. Technically you're right and it was a different post. Even if it was obviously me trying to white flag and be a bit more specific as to what I originally intended.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 13, 2017 18:16:46 GMT
how was I trying to prove your wrong when I said "I agree with yuna"? No, you didn't. Not in that post. Please stop distorting the truth, whether accidentally or on purpose. This is what started our current tiff. I will quote the three posts in their entirety. japoon: "Libra become completely rubbish again. Before Update: 4.5 Stars, Deal a lots of damages and reduce a great number of Druidess Ward. After the Update: RUBBISH / How come?" Me: "It didn't really counter Druidess, though." You: "it actually kind of does counter druidess now even if only for herself. Ward dmg is low enough that libra can out heal it with balance now and the subsequent dmg ignores wards." Nothing about "I agree with Yuna" in there, that came later, after I called you out. This discussion can end here and I will let bygones be bygones. Just be more careful in what you say and how you say it to me in the future, please.No No thoughts on the points I raised?
|
|
inherit
2562
0
Sept 2, 2023 16:06:59 GMT
659
Yuna
2,466
March 2016
yuna
|
Post by Yuna on Sept 13, 2017 18:33:36 GMT
Born in Vietnam, have lived in Sweden for most of my life, have spoken fluent English since the age of 7 (started learning it at age 3), studied French and Spanish for 6 and 3 years respectively, Latin for 1 and know enough Danish and Norwegian to get by in both countries as long as I don't have to speak either language. My French, Spanish and Latin skills also allow me to decipher Portugese, Italian and Catalan OK-ish, but I would never volunteer as an interpreter for either. Nice to get some background on you. And for the record, although it doesn't involve me, I feel like Zander's comments on the 3.0 Libra weren't meant to antagonise you, just an observation from him. Returning to the original argument, while Zander has a point and Libra is now better at countering Druidess for herself, I feel like 2.0 was better at managing wards for the rest of her team. By reacting to ward damage in that unique way, she could remove or at least greatly reduce the number of wards her team had to fight through, while generating rage for her hero, all the while generating no rage for the enemy hero. She could even do this during the enemy's round, negating the effect of Aquarius sometimes. Possibly the closest to a counter short of Warbringer. Thoughts? Depends, do you want Libra to oneshot your own deck? Because that's what Libra usually does when v 2.0 activated off Ward. Unless your crits are fully healed up and have high max HP, once Libra eats a Ward, she'll exhaust the enemy's Ward. And if the enemy still have creatures to take their turn, creatures with, say, AOE Direct Damage, well, whatever survived Libra's Balance might die to whatever's coming up. Unless your Aquarius still has Diamond Dust in reserve and activates it mid-Ward. v 2.0 Libra was certainly better than v 3.0 Libra, but she didn't really counter Druidess. She just had an... unique way of dealing with Druidess, that could both help and hinder her own team. Also, even if she helped build rage, you won't be activating your hero skill on the same turn, so you'll need to survive at least 1 turn after Libra exhausts the enemy's Ward, potential 2 if you trigger Balance on your own turn. v 2.0 Libra wasn't bad against Druidess, she just wasn't a counter to Druidess.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 13, 2017 20:53:58 GMT
Nice to get some background on you. And for the record, although it doesn't involve me, I feel like Zander's comments on the 3.0 Libra weren't meant to antagonise you, just an observation from him. Returning to the original argument, while Zander has a point and Libra is now better at countering Druidess for herself, I feel like 2.0 was better at managing wards for the rest of her team. By reacting to ward damage in that unique way, she could remove or at least greatly reduce the number of wards her team had to fight through, while generating rage for her hero, all the while generating no rage for the enemy hero. She could even do this during the enemy's round, negating the effect of Aquarius sometimes. Possibly the closest to a counter short of Warbringer. Thoughts? Depends, do you want Libra to oneshot your own deck? Because that's what Libra usually does when v 2.0 activated off Ward. Unless your crits are fully healed up and have high max HP, once Libra eats a Ward, she'll exhaust the enemy's Ward. And if the enemy still have creatures to take their turn, creatures with, say, AOE Direct Damage, well, whatever survived Libra's Balance might die to whatever's coming up. Unless your Aquarius still has Diamond Dust in reserve and activates it mid-Ward. v 2.0 Libra was certainly better than v 3.0 Libra, but she didn't really counter Druidess. She just had an... unique way of dealing with Druidess, that could both help and hinder her own team. Also, even if she helped build rage, you won't be activating your hero skill on the same turn, so you'll need to survive at least 1 turn after Libra exhausts the enemy's Ward, potential 2 if you trigger Balance on your own turn. v 2.0 Libra wasn't bad against Druidess, she just wasn't a counter to Druidess. I certainly preferred her killing whatever cards she would kill on her own team, to letting wards stay up, thereby having to take that damage anyway eventually and still having to survive enemy creatures' damage while I can't even damage them with the creatures that join the fight after her suicide run (if her team was not high hp at the time and survived) is done. If it was against, say, a level 5 Druidess, it often wouldn't even be a suicide run. And almost certainly my hero will be activating their skill if ward-balance interaction is triggered during enemy round (unless your Aquarius still has Diamond Dust in reserve and activates it mid-Balance) because often there will still be creatures waiting in the hand that were not affected by all this. If the hero is, say, Songstress, that activation may end up making all the difference. I honestly think just the fact that she did all this, and at the same time gave the Druidess no rage at all from it, has to be considered at least a soft counter to her.
|
|
inherit
2562
0
Sept 2, 2023 16:06:59 GMT
659
Yuna
2,466
March 2016
yuna
|
Post by Yuna on Sept 14, 2017 0:38:00 GMT
Depends, do you want Libra to oneshot your own deck? Because that's what Libra usually does when v 2.0 activated off Ward. Unless your crits are fully healed up and have high max HP, once Libra eats a Ward, she'll exhaust the enemy's Ward. And if the enemy still have creatures to take their turn, creatures with, say, AOE Direct Damage, well, whatever survived Libra's Balance might die to whatever's coming up. Unless your Aquarius still has Diamond Dust in reserve and activates it mid-Ward. v 2.0 Libra was certainly better than v 3.0 Libra, but she didn't really counter Druidess. She just had an... unique way of dealing with Druidess, that could both help and hinder her own team. Also, even if she helped build rage, you won't be activating your hero skill on the same turn, so you'll need to survive at least 1 turn after Libra exhausts the enemy's Ward, potential 2 if you trigger Balance on your own turn. v 2.0 Libra wasn't bad against Druidess, she just wasn't a counter to Druidess. I certainly preferred her killing whatever cards she would kill on her own team, to letting wards stay up, thereby having to take that damage anyway eventually and still having to survive enemy creatures' damage while I can't even damage them with the creatures that join the fight after her suicide run (if her team was not high hp at the time and survived) is done. If it was against, say, a level 5 Druidess, it often wouldn't even be a suicide run. And almost certainly my hero will be activating their skill if ward-balance interaction is triggered during enemy round (unless your Aquarius still has Diamond Dust in reserve and activates it mid-Balance) because often there will still be creatures waiting in the hand that were not affected by all this. If the hero is, say, Songstress, that activation may end up making all the difference. I honestly think just the fact that she did all this, and at the same time gave the Druidess no rage at all from it, has to be considered at least a soft counter to her. At level 10, Druidess' Storm Ward inflicts 450 damage and has 6 activations. If v 2.0 Libra is in play, that means 2250 Direct Damage per activation of Ward (450 x 5) since she'll activate all Warded creatures. Very few creatures can take that damage and potential Direct Damage and Basic Attacks fro the opponent and survive. Also, Libra will keep activating Ward. You'll likely get a team wipe. However, if you have few creatures that target more than 1 creature, you will probably not activate Ward 6 times in the same round. So you'll take less than 2700 damage, allowing you more time to heal up through a myriad of ways. Libra probably won't even kill a warded creature because Balance does not penetrate Storm Ward. And if Libra is played last or late, you're not losing just Libra, but everything else before (and after) her. So in return for removing Ward, you'll just lose 7 or so creatures. As such, it cannot be viewed as a Druidess counter. It's a double-edged sword. The only way for Libra to "soft counter" Druidess would be if Druidess has placed Ward and Libra is played 1st or among the 1st creatures to be played and only team wipes 3 creatures including herself in return for removing Ward. And unless you have a sacrifice!Libra, the amount of HP each enemy creature lost would've been miniscule in comparison to the amount of HP Libra's companions lost.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 14, 2017 5:57:41 GMT
I certainly preferred her killing whatever cards she would kill on her own team, to letting wards stay up, thereby having to take that damage anyway eventually and still having to survive enemy creatures' damage while I can't even damage them with the creatures that join the fight after her suicide run (if her team was not high hp at the time and survived) is done. If it was against, say, a level 5 Druidess, it often wouldn't even be a suicide run. And almost certainly my hero will be activating their skill if ward-balance interaction is triggered during enemy round (unless your Aquarius still has Diamond Dust in reserve and activates it mid-Balance) because often there will still be creatures waiting in the hand that were not affected by all this. If the hero is, say, Songstress, that activation may end up making all the difference. I honestly think just the fact that she did all this, and at the same time gave the Druidess no rage at all from it, has to be considered at least a soft counter to her. At level 10, Druidess' Storm Ward inflicts 450 damage and has 6 activations. If v 2.0 Libra is in play, that means 2250 Direct Damage per activation of Ward (450 x 5) since she'll activate all Warded creatures. Very few creatures can take that damage and potential Direct Damage and Basic Attacks fro the opponent and survive. Also, Libra will keep activating Ward. You'll likely get a team wipe. However, if you have few creatures that target more than 1 creature, you will probably not activate Ward 6 times in the same round. So you'll take less than 2700 damage, allowing you more time to heal up through a myriad of ways. Libra probably won't even kill a warded creature because Balance does not penetrate Storm Ward. And if Libra is played last or late, you're not losing just Libra, but everything else before (and after) her. So in return for removing Ward, you'll just lose 7 or so creatures. As such, it cannot be viewed as a Druidess counter. It's a double-edged sword. The only way for Libra to "soft counter" Druidess would be if Druidess has placed Ward and Libra is played 1st or among the 1st creatures to be played and only team wipes 3 creatures including herself in return for removing Ward. And unless you have a sacrifice!Libra, the amount of HP each enemy creature lost would've been miniscule in comparison to the amount of HP Libra's companions lost. Against a level 10 Druidess, Libra is a self-destruct button, that's true. And that's the level you operate at. But generally speaking, Druidess is considered already better than basically every hero at level 4, 5, 6 (wiki claims 3). That's when those who buy her start using her. So speaking for situations where Druidess is not very high-level (8+), the following is true. Once she activates her wards against a deck without 2.0 Libra, the battle is basically done. Anyone who can afford a Druidess and has levelled it up to make it competitive is definitely committed enough to the game to craft a deck without many instant-removal weaknesses (with immunity, stoneskin, hollow and so on). So any other deck will have to fight creatures that simply don't take damage, while wrecking yours. Enter Libra. Against a level 4-7 Druidess, suddenly it's different. Their wards deal around 300-ish damage to enemy creatures. Libra takes that damage and adds it to, say, 1900 atk (not sacrifice, not very impressive but that was mine so I'll work with it). The ward-balance interaction ends up with the enemy losing most or all wards, and unwarded creatures (if there were 6 or 7 creatures out, or less, not the full 10) will actually take more damage than individual creatures on her own team. Just by Druidess doing her job and warding her creatures. She doesn't gain rage from this at all, while the opponent with Libra does. This is a counter. Druidess has her protection on her creatures negated, a big part of her strength. Unwarded creatures end up severely weakened or dead. Libra's team has a chance again. Libra's hero will probably activate their skill immediately after, unless Aquarius. As I said, the damage from wards will have to come through at some point anyway. There is no scenario where the ward is cleansed before the creatures slowly chip away at it, except in the presence of 2.0 Libra. As for when Libra shows up to the fight... this is anecdotal evidence so take it with a pinch of salt. But on my deck, I noticed OP creatures like Taurus would often come out very late, while unimpressive creatures like my recycles (who I would prefer to come out late) and Libra would show up early a great majority of the time. Almost every time, by the time Druidess activates her wards, Libra was already in play. A double-edged, soft counter unlike Warbringer, but from a fairly common card that IGG gave out rather frequently compared to the likes of Taurus and Octa. Against a hero that can only be obtained by buying it. If I was the owner of a Druidess of a level less than 8, I would not be happy.
|
|
inherit
2562
0
Sept 2, 2023 16:06:59 GMT
659
Yuna
2,466
March 2016
yuna
|
Post by Yuna on Sept 14, 2017 12:40:54 GMT
I respectfully disagree and I'll leave it at that. I have 3 Libras, one of which is Sacrifice. I played her a lot during v 2.0. The hypotheticals you speak of do not fall in Libra's favour more often than it wipes her own board and loses her the game.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 14, 2017 14:37:10 GMT
I respectfully disagree and I'll leave it at that. I have 3 Libras, one of which is Sacrifice. I played her a lot during v 2.0. The hypotheticals you speak of do not fall in Libra's favour more often than it wipes her own board and loses her the game. I am not claiming my hypotheticals made Libra decks beat Druidess decks with any kind of reliability. I am claiming that the reason IGG nerfed Libra, in my opinion, is because her interactions with wards led to a situation where Druidesses, and especially lower-level ones, lost a little bit of their power and gave back a little bit of a chance to Libra teams. I am claiming that far from losing her team the game (except versus high-level Druidesses where the game was lost anyway, just in a slower and more boring and frustrating way), she actually reduced the impact that wards had on the meta. Maybe consider that at your level, where most if not all Druidesses you face are level 8 and above, is the only level where she was more a liability than a help. I specifically stated this in my prior messages. I was enjoying our discussion. Thank you for taking the time to allow me to challenge your claim that what I said in the original comment was untrue. You're a good sport for it.
|
|
inherit
4155
0
Sept 29, 2019 18:37:56 GMT
49
squirreleyez
205
April 2017
squirreleyez
|
Post by squirreleyez on Sept 14, 2017 20:04:43 GMT
I respectfully disagree and I'll leave it at that. I have 3 Libras, one of which is Sacrifice. I played her a lot during v 2.0. The hypotheticals you speak of do not fall in Libra's favour more often than it wipes her own board and loses her the game. I am not claiming my hypotheticals made Libra decks beat Druidess decks with any kind of reliability. I am claiming that the reason IGG nerfed Libra, in my opinion, is because her interactions with wards led to a situation where Druidesses, and especially lower-level ones, lost a little bit of their power and gave back a little bit of a chance to Libra teams. I am claiming that far from losing her team the game (except versus high-level Druidesses where the game was lost anyway, just in a slower and more boring and frustrating way), she actually reduced the impact that wards had on the meta. Maybe consider that at your level, where most if not all Druidesses you face are level 8 and above, is the only level where she was more a liability than a help. I specifically stated this in my prior messages. I was enjoying our discussion. Thank you for taking the time to allow me to challenge your claim that what I said in the original comment was untrue. You're a good sport for it. I actually don't think IGG would do this... since even they admitted looking at Druidess for rebalancing. My suspicion is that Sac Libra is just too strong for one card. If you theoretically had several copies of Sac Libra, would you ever lose? I think you'd kill the hero almost regardless of how much HP they had. I'm betting somewhere on other server this was happening or someone discovered it, and they had to fix it. I don't like the change, at all, but that's my guess.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 14, 2017 21:15:29 GMT
Your faith in IGG is commendable. Maybe. I'm about to go to bed and I'm too tired to think right now, but that's certainly an interesting theory and I'll run some hypothetical numbers tomorrow with that in mind.
|
|
inherit
4155
0
Sept 29, 2019 18:37:56 GMT
49
squirreleyez
205
April 2017
squirreleyez
|
Post by squirreleyez on Sept 14, 2017 21:37:53 GMT
Your faith in IGG is commendable. Maybe. I'm about to go to bed and I'm too tired to think right now, but that's certainly an interesting theory and I'll run some hypothetical numbers tomorrow with that in mind. Oh don't get me wrong... I think IGG's business policy is as corrupt as it gets. I just don't think they are making decisions to protect Druidess.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 15, 2017 5:59:37 GMT
Your faith in IGG is commendable. Maybe. I'm about to go to bed and I'm too tired to think right now, but that's certainly an interesting theory and I'll run some hypothetical numbers tomorrow with that in mind. Oh don't get me wrong... I think IGG's business policy is as corrupt as it gets. I just don't think they are making decisions to protect Druidess. I do. If her hero attack was the problem, I'm sure it would have been easier to scale it back to a percentage of the damage instead of removing her useful skill entirely. I'm willing to accept that I was wrong if they scale Druidess back this year. People have pointed out her insane damage for a while. As Yuna pointed out, level 10 Druidess applies 6 wards on 5 creatures each doing 450 damage to all enemy creatures. That's 13,500 damage on all enemy creatures before you remove the first application of her skill, assuming she doesn't cast it again before you're done. That's crazy. They've known this for a while. It took them, what, a few weeks to realise Libra is a problem, but Druidess has been out for how long?
|
|
inherit
4155
0
Sept 29, 2019 18:37:56 GMT
49
squirreleyez
205
April 2017
squirreleyez
|
Post by squirreleyez on Sept 15, 2017 6:24:49 GMT
Oh don't get me wrong... I think IGG's business policy is as corrupt as it gets. I just don't think they are making decisions to protect Druidess. I do. If her hero attack was the problem, I'm sure it would have been easier to scale it back to a percentage of the damage instead of removing her useful skill entirely. I'm willing to accept that I was wrong if they scale Druidess back this year. People have pointed out her insane damage for a while. As Yuna pointed out, level 10 Druidess applies 6 wards on 5 creatures each doing 450 damage to all enemy creatures. That's 13,500 damage on all enemy creatures before you remove the first application of her skill, assuming she doesn't cast it again before you're done. That's crazy. They've known this for a while. It took them, what, a few weeks to realise Libra is a problem, but Druidess has been out for how long? This is all assuming IGG makes smart decisions that make sense... haha. They have a history of poor balance decisions. Who knows really. Like Yuna also pointed out earlier, in the case of single copies of 2.0 Libra, I agree that triggering on Storm Ward is just apt to get you wiped. That plus the confirmation from them they were looking at rebalancing druidess, no, I don't think this decision was around protecting her at all. Did you number crunch at all on multiple sac8 libras going face? My money is still on that. Either way, who knows.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 15, 2017 6:25:38 GMT
I am not claiming my hypotheticals made Libra decks beat Druidess decks with any kind of reliability. I am claiming that the reason IGG nerfed Libra, in my opinion, is because her interactions with wards led to a situation where Druidesses, and especially lower-level ones, lost a little bit of their power and gave back a little bit of a chance to Libra teams. I am claiming that far from losing her team the game (except versus high-level Druidesses where the game was lost anyway, just in a slower and more boring and frustrating way), she actually reduced the impact that wards had on the meta. Maybe consider that at your level, where most if not all Druidesses you face are level 8 and above, is the only level where she was more a liability than a help. I specifically stated this in my prior messages. I was enjoying our discussion. Thank you for taking the time to allow me to challenge your claim that what I said in the original comment was untrue. You're a good sport for it. I actually don't think IGG would do this... since even they admitted looking at Druidess for rebalancing. My suspicion is that Sac Libra is just too strong for one card. If you theoretically had several copies of Sac Libra, would you ever lose? I think you'd kill the hero almost regardless of how much HP they had. I'm betting somewhere on other server this was happening or someone discovered it, and they had to fix it. I don't like the change, at all, but that's my guess. You're right, sac Libra could easily kill the hero unless she is instakilled. It wouldn't take much. Yes, I ran the numbers on multiple ones, and it would be much easier of course, but not even strictly necessary. A single one with, like, 5000 atk could do it if full hp and facing at least 20 wards, in one round. On top of that, level 5, 6 and 7 Druidesses would kill themselves with the first application of their wards when facing 2 or more. That's not fair at all. Wish they had scaled back hero damage, or even removed it entirely like in 1.0 Libra, though. This replacement skill was a bit of a slap in the face.
|
|
nuke
Nightraider
Posts: 91
inherit
4486
0
8
nuke
91
Aug 29, 2017 21:30:09 GMT
August 2017
nuke
|
Post by nuke on Sept 15, 2017 6:29:20 GMT
I do. If her hero attack was the problem, I'm sure it would have been easier to scale it back to a percentage of the damage instead of removing her useful skill entirely. I'm willing to accept that I was wrong if they scale Druidess back this year. People have pointed out her insane damage for a while. As Yuna pointed out, level 10 Druidess applies 6 wards on 5 creatures each doing 450 damage to all enemy creatures. That's 13,500 damage on all enemy creatures before you remove the first application of her skill, assuming she doesn't cast it again before you're done. That's crazy. They've known this for a while. It took them, what, a few weeks to realise Libra is a problem, but Druidess has been out for how long? This is all assuming IGG makes smart decisions that make sense... haha. They have a history of poor balance decisions. Who knows really. Like Yuna also pointed out earlier, in the case of single copies of 2.0 Libra, I agree that triggering on Storm Ward is just apt to get you wiped. That plus the confirmation from them they were looking at rebalancing druidess, no, I don't think this decision was around protecting her at all. They are slow with balancing decisions, and make bad ones often, but they always get around to it. Except for Druidess. Again, I hope to see a change to her this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Oh, and Libra only gets you wiped versus level 8+ Druidesses, which are not yet all that common below 200 in tourney.
|
|
inherit
4155
0
Sept 29, 2019 18:37:56 GMT
49
squirreleyez
205
April 2017
squirreleyez
|
Post by squirreleyez on Sept 15, 2017 6:35:51 GMT
This is all assuming IGG makes smart decisions that make sense... haha. They have a history of poor balance decisions. Who knows really. Like Yuna also pointed out earlier, in the case of single copies of 2.0 Libra, I agree that triggering on Storm Ward is just apt to get you wiped. That plus the confirmation from them they were looking at rebalancing druidess, no, I don't think this decision was around protecting her at all. They are slow with balancing decisions, and make bad ones often, but they always get around to it. Except for Druidess. Again, I hope to see a change to her this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Oh, and Libra only gets you wiped versus level 8+ Druidesses, which are not yet all that common below 200 in tourney. We need someone to hack into IGG and feed us info.
|
|