The great feedback thread

The worg need a buff ( not a big one but still),he is just useless right now.
Taunt is no longer in "duel" description for Arinius.

Last patch introduced many improvements but the game still needs some tweaking, i.e. Orb Spawn!!!!! I'm tired of the game as it stands now. Three matches nearly in a row that the orbs spawn in the enemy reach for 4 times consecutively (and he also won the INI throw) and so decided games I was winning easily... I'm not a lucky person, so if now the game is only luck then I'm out (typical example of "rage quit" )

As example, In one of the last matches, I also killed his hero but I lost the INI anyway with my Golem thrice consecutively -> 3 free orbs for him "grab and run to the end of the map"... and don't think: "just use units with higher MOV so you can grab the elixirs before the enemy", if either you lost the INI throw or the elixirs spawn behind the enemy lines in the Acheron map, high MOV units are useless...

My conclusion:
Random orb spawn -> luck based game -> good luck in keeping players around.

PS: On a side note, "Black Hearth" is bugged - it killed 6 units but Kerberos regained less than 40 HP.

PPS: I report again here my suggestion to try to reduce the overall effect of luck on the games:

- Increase the number of elixir required to 10: in this way, much more luck is needed (i.e. it is much more difficult) to collect all the random-spawning elixirs if you are losing a game.

- Eliminate the random spawn and substitute it with a spawn where a unit has died (not voluntary destroyed, also not summoned units): this will solve many problems encountered in the current version and make the archers/running units compositions less dominant, since killing the enemy units in the opponent field will probably let the enemy get the elixir: you have the advantage of killing the enemy from a safe distance, but he gets the elixirs! (And it also make more sense that the elixirs are carried by the enemy units and do not pop around the map! And if the enemy unit auto-blows up, so its elixir is also destroyed)
Companies of fewer stronger units would not be directly encouraged by this change, since when you kill a unit, it will drop his elixir where it was -> his allies can take the elixir back. Moreover, if the enemy unit pursuits and takes the elixir, it can trigger auto-attacks if it was encircled and also if then it attacks and kills a second unit, the attacker can not pick up the second elixir (at least if it doesn't have Implacable, and this may be the needed buff for Kelrys!)

I was actually just about to post about Orb spawn from my week of testing.

The spawn on the Orbs is much better but you still have the issue of the Orbs spawning only in one half of the field. What I mean by this is only on the two rows closest to the opponents side of the map. There are also far too many that spawns along either the far left or right edge.

Also Discipline roll is still a huge factor here since as has been mentioned innumerable times whom ever wins it can just run a fast unit in and out to grab it safely. Means the elixir is uncontested.

My suggestions:
1. No scoring on first turn

2a. Elixirs indicates where it will spawn a turn before it spawns. This allows strategic planning.
or
2b. Picking up an Elixir ends your activation. Can add a "Consume Elixir" ability in game if you want a reason.
or
2c. It takes 2 turns to consume an Elixir.

I have more but I feel any of those changes will give us a good platform for further testing.

My suggestions:
1. No scoring on first turn

2a. Elixirs indicates where it will spawn a turn before it spawns. This allows strategic planning.
or
2b. Picking up an Elixir ends your activation. Can add a "Consume Elixir" ability in game if you want a reason.
or
2c. It takes 2 turns to consume an Elixir.

I have more but I feel any of those changes will give us a good platform for further testing.

I agree, all this suggestions are a good way to try to solve this issue with only minor modifications. Especially 2a "Elixirs indicates where it will spawn a turn before it spawns" and 2b "Picking up an Elixir ends your activation". However, the problem for 2a may be that if you position a high RES/DEF unit exactly where it is going to spawn, then you flee away as soon as your turn starts.
2c I don't think can solve the problem, since the unit can easily flee away for one more turn.

I'm however not sure if just a little tweaking (e.g. these suggestions) would be sufficient to fix this, I feel something more drastic is necessary (on the lines of what I was suggesting) but they could surely improve the game experience.

What you are suggesting has a fatal flaw. I'm drawing from my experience while playing in another system that used exactly this.

I only bring 6 units to the table compared to someones 9. My opponent can only ever get 6 elixirs and so I've handicapped him already. You end up in situations where in some games only 9 Elixirs can spawn total and others were you can get 18.

Also it doesn't create an incentive for combat since why would I risk units to give my opponent points.

This mode, which was used in another game system, actually encourages the all ranged turtle DM style play for armies that don't have high toughness/damage units because you just pick off one unit a turn and your opponent is forced to come to you.

You end up seeing so many draws because neither side end up having enough Elixirs to reach the win condition. And it is a turtle fest.

It is a workable solution but under the current mechanics would require a substantial rework.

I agree that it would require some rework (and much more testing), however you're not noticing the two main points of my idea:

1- You can get elixirs from the map domination that is sensitive ONLY to the number of units present, not their AP value (so if you start with less units you start in a disadvantageous position);

2- When a unit dies, it drops the elixir where it was -> you can collect elixirs from your own troops when they die (not obviously if you auto-kill them, e.g. necro healing or spark explosion).

A ranged turtle setup won't be encouraged by both these points: it is difficult to turtle in the middle of the map where the dominance zones are located and if you kill all the enemy units from far away he'll get both their elixir AND map dominance ones.
This method extremely incentives close combat, since is the only way to effectively get both the enemy elixirs AND the map dominance ones: ranged units will be only support units to weaken enemy units but careful not to kill them before you can get close enough to get their elixirs.

Moreover, in the example you proposed of 6 units against 9 (e.g. Wolfen against Lion), the player who starts with less units (usually Wolfen) can give to his opponent less elixirs but he will also have to face many more problems in numerically dominating the map. Also a unit killing two enemies in the same turn may give the enemy the opportunity to grab one elixir from the second unit (if you don't have Implacable), so you'll have to think more carefully about how to attack your enemy and if moving to pick up an elixir may be better or not respect for example to pursuit in another direction or avoid an attack of opportunity.

I'm not saying the solution I proposed is good and finished as I described it, but linking the elixirs to the troops will effectively eliminate the random spawn factor that is not strategic at all but based on pure luck.

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with point 1 but what I have describe all along is what you are talking about in point 2

The system I'm referring to implement your suggestion because on the face of it that is how it will work. The problem is the most efficient way to play is by denying your opponent points rather than gaining the points under that system. This wasn't a try once and change it effort this was shown out after a full years worth of tournaments.

So using the system where you have both the current KoTH and Elixirs drop from only killed enemy units in the location they died what they were ending up with was two melee armies turtling with minimum tank units so as to limit the number of Elixirs given out or

When a ranged army got involved. The game went in this sequence.

1. The melee army moves forward to contest the zone
2. The ranged army focuses down one unit.
3. Melee army exposes another unit to collect the Elixir.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for a few times.

5. When ranged army has number superiority or know they can deal with last few units they come out in force.
6. Contest till game or just kill remainder.

See it didn't matter that the elixirs dropped where they died since where the unit died it was exposed and the unit coming to collect the Elixir is also exposed. And the ranged turtle army can kill fast enough that you won't win before they come out to contest. It's already happening with our current builds. There are a couple of people already playing the all archer Lion army doing exactly this very successfully. Hell I've done it with a mage army as well. My record is 4 wolven in one turn my avg is 2.5.

I know exactly what you are saying I'm just retelling for you what happened when it was tried. As I said on the face of it, what you are describing is how it should work. What I'm retelling here is what ended up happening. As a follow up they tried a number of fixes that never worked so I can't really offer you a solution on how to make it work.

Moreover, in the example you proposed of 6 units against 9 (e.g. Wolfen against Lion), the player who starts with less units (usually Wolfen) can give to his opponent less elixirs but he will also have to face many more problems in numerically dominating the map. Also a unit killing two enemies in the same turn may give the enemy the opportunity to grab one elixir from the second unit (if you don't have Implacable), so you'll have to think more carefully about how to attack your enemy and if moving to pick up an elixir may be better or not respect for example to pursuit in another direction or avoid an attack of opportunity.

This is what I'm talking about with the numbers game. It is never a good idea to go into melee combat since you creating a situation where you will likely give your opponent elixirs or not get to use your follow ups making the mechanic mostly worthless and implacable a must.. This is why it ended up with High Def min unit turtling. To have field dominating numbers you need to take easily killed units. So it is more efficient to starve your opponent of those opportunities. Less units on the board leads to less opportunity to engage in combat. The common term for the type of army I'm describing is a "Brick".

----------------

The only real way to eliminate randomness entirely is to have 2-3 fixed spawn points along the middle of the map that activate in sequence. The first one should be randomized but should give a one turn warning before it spawns.

This can work but it can also be boring.

The question is how much randomness can we put up with. Because if you say some, then we can tweak the spawn formula by shrinking the number of hexes a Elixir can spawn in or so that it garuantees that is will always spawn in the opposite hemispheres of the previous one ie, NW then SE then SW then NE. Or the devs might even have something else in mind. It is a beta and no matter what we do testing will be required to make it work. Sadly it will never suit everybody.

I personally can live with a little randomness as long as it encourages strategy which I feel the current system doesn't.

Unfortunately I don't know the game you're referring to, so I can only see that "on paper" it should work (with some fixes). Moreover your point:

It's already happening with our current builds. There are a couple of people already playing the all archer Lion army doing exactly this very successfully. Hell I've done it with a mage army as well. My record is 4 wolven in one turn my avg is 2.5.

It is not against the fact of dropping elixirs where a unit dies, more the opposite! Since, as it stands now, an all-archer Lion army can easily turtle and kill your Wolfen completely for free, while in my case at least you'd get some elixirs out of it and you can win the game against a turtle army with just 2-3 turn of map dominance + the avg of 2.5 of your Wolfens dead per turn.

In the end, I agree with your final point: "can live (but I'd prefer not) twith a little randomness as long as it encourages strategy which I feel the current system doesn't"

i put the majority of my feedback on the steam forums thread, but here's the summary:

-i like the free champion rotation idea
-slower/less responsive than when i tried it in january
-did not enjoy picking up orbs, does not feel like part of battle
-army system is awesome
-not sure how many ppl are queued up, would just leave if i think no ones on

I'm a new player to this game, as of the most recent patch. I never got to play with 'leveling units' or 'skill trees' and I'm a tad disappointed about that for a few reasons:

I play mostly with a troop of three regular identical units, and a champion. (AP cost comes roughly to 500) This means that having the ability to strengthen the regular units either by actual stat increases over time through experience from missions or otherwise, or being able to add specific passives to each one would help me immensely and allow me to continue "Going down the road less traveled".
*I'll go on about how I think this should be implemented later.

I also think that the idea of a level up system for the units, whether it's to add a passive, etc... increases the replay value of the game. Giving players a feeling of progression and achievement is a proven way to keep players playing, and in some cases, continue doing business with a stable community of customers. You need to remember that this is based on the famous board game, and not actually the board game itself; the board game you'll pick up and play with friends for a short while and eventually come back to it with no progress saved or stats (beyond maybe bragging rights to the winner), while on this online version where stats are kept and progress IS saved, it's good to promote that idea of progression.

I like the feel of the game and the idea of a team that is out numbered to 'wait' instead of a direct buff to the units, so to win you'd need to be more strategic and use the full of your resources. I'd also like to have larger, dynamic maps that have more hazards than direct wall obstructions and 'heavy ground' that slows your movement. **I'll continue this idea as well.

That's really all the feedback I have so far on this game. Time for ideas!

* Passives/Levels/Bonuses: I feel as though to truly have this work, you'd need to have a second restricting point system similar to AP, that would allow you to select specific units or equip them with items from the so called "Armory" and not affect your AP score. These items would give the selected or equipped unit passive bonuses from your selection that are already on units. This would effectively let you focus around a more specific strategy or tackle situations effectively with it still being balanced.

Example: You equip your skeletal warrior with "The mask of horrors", this effectively increases the unit's Fear score by 10, but costs 20 EP (Equipment points for example) and you have a limit of 150 EP for this battle with 400-500 AP limits.
Other examples of items would from 5 to 100 points, increasing in individual value as units and AP do. They could be things like "Passively gives this unit one bonus attack every turn, but decreases this unit's accuracy by 2" and it would have a respective EP cost.

** Map Hazards: If there were more hazards on the field, you could use them to your advantage or be taken advantage of from them. They would vary from basic "Unit takes this much damage at the end of their turn if they stand here unless they roll to avoid it or have immunity to this effect", to effects like "If a unit moves to this location, teleport the unit to another location".
This would add diversity to the maps and make them feel more interesting.


Hope you guys like it,
~SulkingKING