Going for crystal like a kick in the ...
Playing against someone and went for the "ignore their super, go for the crystal" tactic. Easily won with crystals at 95% and 0%. Log on the next day to recieve the chat message:
http://s14.postimage.org/ewmfjbbdb/Hero_A1.png
http://s7.postimage.org/5qxy7nm8p/Hero_A2.png
well it feels for me sometimes playing unfair going straight to the crystals, but actually its the main goal of the game, many people forget that. Its primary to crush the crystal and secondary win by tko.
Why do I have the feeling of unfair? Well when you go for the crystals straight, the opponent has in the last map updates much faster react and be prepared to stop the rush, the barbed crystal map is still after the upgrading the crystal, a map which gets very easily ck matches, the same goes for the air temple map.
In the end, he has to accept it, even he doesn't like it.
Had a similar thing, a random once trash talking me... beat them, then they challenged me again. My favorite tactic: block user. :)
Simple Advice for someone like that is:
If you treated your crystal like the most valuable unit of your team like it is, then maybe you could have forced me into attacking your units. In the meantime, polish up your defense skills. GG NO RE
If crystals were roughly 25% harder to kill, then there would be no complaints about crystal kills. Right now, crystal kills are 10x easier than team kills, and if one player goes first with a good hand and aggressively crystal kills, a defending player without a perfect hand can often lose with nothing they can realistically do about it. I have had this happen to me repeatedly by randoms that I then rematch and destroy, often watching them make stupid moves (like inferno on one unit on the deploy square, missing the crystal that could easily have been hit as well, etc) so I conclude that it wasn't superior play, but a failure of the game. Fragile crystals = short games = less time for strategy = increased influence of good hand, team and map, AKA pure luck at the expense of actual gameplay.
TL, DR version: crystal kills are fast and boring, unit interplay is what the game is built around, so why are "ignore the opponent and nuke crystal" strategies ever allowed to work?
I'm... surprised that you say that. In my experience, I haven't had a crystal kill win in ages! It's actually rather difficult to crystal rush against someone who's looking out for it. I use pressure on crystals more as a tool to force units to engage and come out of a turtle, rather than a going for the win (except in rare cases, when I'm coming from behind, and the opponent doesn't have sufficient offense to get me off the gem tile, or efficiently kill off my rushing units.
I don't tend to aim hard at a crystal kill, so I don't win that way often either. However, when I try, it's nearly always easier than a unit kill except against the most inept of opponents. Crystal kills due to aoe pressure are really easy against most teams, with nearly no teams having usable anti-AOE defensive tools (shamans and paladins are just about the only way to recover from AOE at all), so a little bit of luck in team matchup, map and opening hand can easily lead to a game that's a foregone conclusion, which is a possibility I think shouldn't exist in a strategy game.
but I don't get to make that call. :)
Oh, and short, crystal-zerging games are about the only way the council can win, which effectively masks how terrible the council actually is as a team. Knights are only useful as roadblocks, wizards are mediocre AOE, ninjas don't have enough damage to make up for their melee limitation and lack of meaningful survivability, clerics have extra healing which doesn't really make up for low healing range forcing them into being close to the front lines, no AOE heal (or self heal like paladins), no personal survivability, no offensive utility, etc. the only better-than-mediocre unit on the team is the archer, but an aggressive enough council attack against a poor enough opponent's hand can leave the player unable to respond, as every other team has slightly more setup-dependent offense.
Yeah, I still don't understand your hate for crystals and Council, Jwallyr. =)
I think the balance between crystal/TKO threat is fantastic on most maps (Shaolin map obviously needs work), and I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of CL. I think it must simply be a personal preference/style thing, because I've seen nothing in my own experience, nor in League numbers, to suggest that Council is somehow crippled in the long game. Not only is their ratio of CK to TKO wins comparable to Dwarves (who are notoriously slow starters) in League matches, but the average game length of CL wins is only 2 or 3 rounds shorter than DW.
I'm... surprised that you say that. In my experience, I haven't had a crystal kill win in ages! It's actually rather difficult to crystal rush against someone who's looking out for it. I use pressure on crystals more as a tool to force units to engage and come out of a turtle, rather than a going for the win (except in rare cases, when I'm coming from behind, and the opponent doesn't have sufficient offense to get me off the gem tile, or efficiently kill off my rushing units.
Bingo -- this is my experience as well. I don't hesitate to apply crystal pressure when the opportunity presents itself, but I find it far easier (and more consistent) to win via CK threat rather than an all-out CK blitz.
A good ck rush is a shock to your system the first time you encounter it. And the first time you feel it against dwarf players (yes it can happen) you try to defend and realise the futility as the short angry man throwing bomb at you lobs said bombs over your head onto your team
Only one way to teach mongrels a lesson. Accept their challenge again and beat them till they don't reply you.
...so a little bit of luck in team matchup, map and opening hand can easily lead to a game that's a foregone conclusion, which is a possibility I think shouldn't exist in a strategy game.
but I don't get to make that call. :)
Listen... Crystals force one to consider defense elements of Total Strategy.... and not just have gameplay always devolve into a slugfest, which would also be a foregone conclusion.
To have a truly BALANCED strategy game - you need equal parts Defense and Offense. Think about Chess – what would that game be if “checkmate” was eliminated and it was reduced to “last man standing”?
And that, my friend, is why you don’t like Council. Because by ignoring Defensive capabilities, you never realize the potential of that team. The best way to become a better competitor is to know yourself. When there's something about a team you don't like, then ask yourself "Why?"
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
-Art of War, Chapter 3
Total Strategy....
total... war? :)
Total Strategy....
total... war? :)
No, just Strategy.
Total Warfare must consider 4 components, Strategy is but one.
- Strategy
- Tactics
- Logistics
- Diplomacy
Sorting elements of HA into these buckets are:
- Strategy (Plan) - team independent, e.g. aim for CK or TKO? Rush (hyper-agro) or Turtle (hyper-dee)?
- Tactics (Execution) - team situational and based on matchup, but also claiming and keeping boost-tiles
- Logistics (Supply) - this is how you handle your deck and choose when to deploy what unit, scroll/meat or gear up.
- Diplomacy (Rules of Engagement) - in HA this is baked into the rules, but also e.g. starting AP, resiging, auto-losses, even deciding how long to wait between moves
Basically my point here is: if you insist on talking about balance, you must balance the entire equation for a solution. Just like RE tries to balance the game itself among casuals and hardcore - a point that Trip and ArtNJ constantly remind us when people toss out they-oughtta ideas.
Yeah, I still don't understand your hate for crystals and Council, Jwallyr. =)
I think the balance between crystal/TKO threat is fantastic on most maps (Shaolin map obviously needs work), and I disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of CL. I think it must simply be a personal preference/style thing, because I've seen nothing in my own experience, nor in League numbers, to suggest that Council is somehow crippled in the long game. Not only is their ratio of CK to TKO wins comparable to Dwarves (who are notoriously slow starters) in League matches, but the average game length of CL wins is only 2 or 3 rounds shorter than DW.
I hadn't seen this information regarding long matches, and while I am prepared to take your word for it, I can hardly understand how it's even possible. Dwarves have TONS better long-term survivability (Paladins are hardier healers that are more self-sufficient than Clerics and give their defensive aura to their teammates, Engineers add an extra layer of toughness) and long-term damage potential (best AOE team in the game means they can damage their direct target while doing tons of hard-to-deal-with incidental splash damage to wear down the opponent, etc.). In fact, I would say that the dwarves are better than the council in nearly every way, with the exception of being strongly dependent on having a paladin out on the board (as all the other units are pretty vulnerable with zero resistances and 800 or fewer HP). So basically a dwarf team takes longer to get going (unless you have everything you need in your opening hand- paladin, grenadier/gunner, engineer, sword) but has vastly better defenses and siege-breaking ability.
I could break down why I feel that every other team has if not a "better" setup, at least a set of easier-to-play strategies, but that is more time than I care to put into this post right now, and isn't directly related to the topic of crystal killing.
I understand the need for a secondary victory condition to prevent an opponent from stubbornly turtling instead of fighting, but I disagree with the idea that crystal kills are (or should be) the "primary" mode of winning, and it's my opinion that on most maps, crystals are some combination of too fragile or too exposed to allow for long enough games for strategy to matter over the luck factors I mentioned earlier in the discussion.
<snip for the relevant part I want to address>
And that, my friend, is why you don’t like Council. Because by ignoring Defensive capabilities, you never realize the potential of that team. The best way to become a better competitor is to know yourself. When there's something about a team you don't like, then ask yourself "Why?"
I'm not sure what makes you think I ignore the council's defensive capabilities... In fact, my early strategies as council often consisted of Knight + shield + helm with archer/wizard + sword behind to pop out and attack. The problem with this is that every non-council team has strong counters for this strategy, and cleric healing is too short-ranged to deal with lots of them. A cleric behind the offensive unit is in range for splash from grenadiers and wizards, necessitating another cleric close by (and clusters of clerics don't make the aoe go away, it just deals with the cleric's personal utter lack of defenses). Against any competent opponent who uses AOE of some sort, you spend too many moves healing chip damage (in which case the cleric's extra big heals don't really help, while a Shaman would effortlessly handle similar aoe damage and a paladin would at least heal herself WHILE healing nearby targets, saving a couple AP in the process) to be able to benefit from the step out, shoot a few times, step back in strategy.
If there's some extra defensive capability that council has, other than 1) HEAVY reliance on clerics having maybe one AP less time to heal from dead to full than most other healers and 2) Knights' initial toughness (which only somewhat makes up for their absolute ineptitude on offense), then I'd love to hear about it. In the meantime, I'd almost always rather have another healer than a cleric, and almost any other fighter (exception of Tribe's Warriors, although their Execute is handy) than a Knight.
Another response to Writch:
No, just Strategy.
Total Warfare must consider 4 components, Strategy is but one.
- Strategy
- Tactics
- Logistics
- Diplomacy
Sorting elements of HA into these buckets are:
- Strategy (Plan) - team independent, e.g. aim for CK or TKO? Rush (hyper-agro) or Turtle (hyper-dee)?
- Tactics (Execution) - team situational and based on matchup, but also claiming and keeping boost-tiles
- Logistics (Supply) - this is how you handle your deck and choose when to deploy what unit, scroll/meat or gear up.
- Diplomacy (Rules of Engagement) - in HA this is baked into the rules, but also e.g. starting AP, resiging, auto-losses, even deciding how long to wait between moves
Basically my point here is: if you insist on talking about balance, you must balance the entire equation for a solution. Just like RE tries to balance the game itself among casuals and hardcore - a point that Trip and ArtNJ constantly remind us when people toss out they-oughtta ideas.
To comment on your breakdown of the elements of total strategy as relevant to Hero Academy:
Because the logistics of the game begin with a randomized hand that may place you in a disadvantageous position, you may (through no fault of your own) have poor Logistics in the first place. Without the proper logistics in place, you may not have the tools to execute any tactics to counter your opponent's strategy, and therefore you may simply lose out of the gate due to the opponent's board position. The easier that crystal kills are to make, the more likely that this is the case, because the player in the poor position doesn't ever have the time to cycle through the deck (either by playing or exchanging items in hand) due to the pressure being placed by his opponent.
It is due to this that I feel that hardier crystals have a beneficial effect on the quality of the game. Obviously, crystals that are too tough could be regarded as practically unkillable, and that would cause a different set of problems, such as players using crystals as walls to help build an unbreakable turtle formation; that said, my impression is that the current problem is that crystals are killed too easily, making it even harder for someone with a bad start to ever recover and have a fair shot at winning.
I'm not sure what makes you think I ignore the council's defensive capabilities... In fact, my early strategies as council often consisted of Knight + shield + helm with archer/wizard + sword behind to pop out and attack. The problem with this is that every non-council team has strong counters for this strategy, and cleric healing is too short-ranged to deal with lots of them.
This might be the problem. Have you ever experimented with leaving your Knights unmodded, and putting your defensive equipment on your damage-dealers as well? I find that most top CL players tend to concentrate their mods on Archers and Wizards, only occasionally buffing a Knight when it's situationally advantageous. A fully kitted archer is an awesome thing, and reducing the number of high-value units that need healing can make a huge difference.
Nobody is arguing that "bad beats" (i.e. losing to a mindless rush, simply due to luck of the draw) don't happen -- they do. Going against a perfect draw, especially if they went first with 5 AP, will sometimes lead to impossible situations, especially on certain maps. But I think you are VASTLY overstating how often this happens, as well as Council's dependence on these fluke situations. I play pretty regularly, and I literally cannot remember the last time I lost to a mindless crystal rush... Last March, maybe? This is a game with elements of chance, and that means that there will always, always be the possibility of getting hosed by the random number generator. But if you are finding this happening to you quite frequently, then either a) you are playing much stronger opponents than I am, or b) there are aspects of your game that you could improve to drastically reduce the frequency of rushed crystal losses.
Logistics is a dynamic principle, not a static one. Just like tactics will switch midgame, just like strategy can switch midgame - logistics is assessing the flow of your luck and being fluid with your apportioning of that luck. You cannot be "good with Luck" or "bad with Luck" - but you can be good at handling bad luck.
So being good at Logistics means being able to master the hand you are dealt - not trying to stack the deck. There are so many IRL examples where you cannot "choose your deck" as most situations do not conform to a friendly MTG match or WH40K where two opponents pre-agree to point totals.
And by Defense, i don't mean protecting an archer with a knight (that's tactical). I meant protecting one's crystals with one's team.
Dixi.
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/logistics-quotes-t511.html
"That's my purse! I don't know you!" said the Annihilator to the crystal.
This might be the problem. Have you ever experimented with leaving your Knights unmodded, and putting your defensive equipment on your damage-dealers as well? I find that most top CL players tend to concentrate their mods on Archers and Wizards, only occasionally buffing a Knight when it's situationally advantageous. A fully kitted archer is an awesome thing, and reducing the number of high-value units that need healing can make a huge difference.
...
This is a game with elements of chance, and that means that there will always, always be the possibility of getting hosed by the random number generator. But if you are finding this happening to you quite frequently, then either a) you are playing much stronger opponents than I am, or b) there are aspects of your game that you could improve to drastically reduce the frequency of rushed crystal losses.
See the bold? That's logistical discussions. And notice Trip doesn't say "Have you ever tried the strategy of..." but rather "have you ever experimented with." Also "aspects of your game" vs. "your strategy"; he's acknowledging that your tactics are fine and strategy of TKO are fine, but tweak your logistics.
Trip knows logisitics: supplying your troops (proper equipping) to best carry out the tactics (squads) that the strategy (crystal rush) demands.
I'm just trying to differentiate the 4 components of the game to show where balance needs discussion. Calling everything "strategy" is no more useful than not differentiating between melee and ranged, or magical and physical. It may sound like splitting hairs, but to be constructive should be able to properly identify the area under discussion.
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…" - Sun Tzu
This concludes my tutoring sessions basic wargaming terms.
Total Strategy....
total... war? :)
No, just Strategy.
Total Warfare must consider 4 components, Strategy is but one.
- Strategy
- Tactics
- Logistics
- Diplomacy
Sorting elements of HA into these buckets are:
- Strategy (Plan) - team independent, e.g. aim for CK or TKO? Rush (hyper-agro) or Turtle (hyper-dee)?
- Tactics (Execution) - team situational and based on matchup, but also claiming and keeping boost-tiles
- Logistics (Supply) - this is how you handle your deck and choose when to deploy what unit, scroll/meat or gear up.
- Diplomacy (Rules of Engagement) - in HA this is baked into the rules, but also e.g. starting AP, resiging, auto-losses, even deciding how long to wait between moves
Basically my point here is: if you insist on talking about balance, you must balance the entire equation for a solution. Just like RE tries to balance the game itself among casuals and hardcore - a point that Trip and ArtNJ constantly remind us when people toss out they-oughtta ideas.
this made my day <3
"That's my purse! I don't know you!" said the Annihilator to the crystal.
Boy, Howdy, that there was a hoot I tell you what!
Oh man, definitely starting a match with this guy.
This might be the problem. Have you ever experimented with leaving your Knights unmodded, and putting your defensive equipment on your damage-dealers as well? I find that most top CL players tend to concentrate their mods on Archers and Wizards, only occasionally buffing a Knight when it's situationally advantageous. A fully kitted archer is an awesome thing, and reducing the number of high-value units that need healing can make a huge difference.
...
This is a game with elements of chance, and that means that there will always, always be the possibility of getting hosed by the random number generator. But if you are finding this happening to you quite frequently, then either a) you are playing much stronger opponents than I am, or b) there are aspects of your game that you could improve to drastically reduce the frequency of rushed crystal losses.
See the bold? That's logistical discussions. And notice Trip doesn't say "Have you ever tried the strategy of..." but rather "have you ever experimented with." Also "aspects of your game" vs. "your strategy"; he's acknowledging that your tactics are fine and strategy of TKO are fine, but tweak your logistics.
Trip knows logisitics: supplying your troops (proper equipping) to best carry out the tactics (squads) that the strategy (crystal rush) demands.
I'm just trying to differentiate the 4 components of the game to show where balance needs discussion. Calling everything "strategy" is no more useful than not differentiating between melee and ranged, or magical and physical. It may sound like splitting hairs, but to be constructive should be able to properly identify the area under discussion.
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…" - Sun Tzu
This concludes my tutoring sessions basic wargaming terms.
I feel like you have a good point (somewhat orthogonal to the original point of the thread) about the use of differentiated terms for the elements of play in a "strategy" game such as Hero Academy, and that is worthy of positive feedback.
I also feel a need to respond to the commentary regarding switching up my equipment deploy tendencies, and that is that I have long since adjusted my choice of equipment use, such that I nearly never spend equipment of any sort on knights, relying instead on their default survivability to be decent speedbumps, and allowing me to be more aggressive with kitted-out archers and wizards. While I have certainly been more successful when playing council after this shift in logistics, my experience continues to be mixed (at best) when playing as council vs. non-council opponents, for a variety of reasons.
In addition, nearly every other team has strong advantages in unit-on-unit combat that the council utterly lacks, so the question may be a combination of 1) crystals being only very slightly too squishy and 2) council having the worst unit-on-unit combat tools, forcing council players to lean harder on their decent crystal killing tools (knights standing on assault squares, archers' long range and high damage) 3) council having mediocre longevity, forcing aggressive play at all costs.
**edited for wall-o'-text**
In addition, nearly every other team has strong advantages in unit-on-unit combat that the council utterly lacks, so the question may be a combination of 1) crystals being only very slightly too squishy and 2) council having the worst unit-on-unit combat tools, forcing council players to lean harder on their decent crystal killing tools (knights standing on assault squares, archers' long range and high damage) 3) council having mediocre longevity, forcing aggressive play at all costs.
Crystals are now "very slightly" too squishy? Well, I suppose we are making progress! =)
In addition, nearly every other team has strong advantages in unit-on-unit combat that the council utterly lacks, so the question may be a combination of 1) crystals being only very slightly too squishy and 2) council having the worst unit-on-unit combat tools, forcing council players to lean harder on their decent crystal killing tools (knights standing on assault squares, archers' long range and high damage) 3) council having mediocre longevity, forcing aggressive play at all costs.
Crystals are now "very slightly" too squishy? Well, I suppose we are making progress! =)
Only from the position of presuming that I'm wrong. >_>
To clarify what I was actually saying, my experience with these mad dash to the crystal losses are that they USUALLY happen when I am playing as a non-council team, against a council player, and that therefore it MAY be a combination of the enumerated factors that causes these ridiculously non-strategic games to occur. If, for instance, the council team had better longevity, council players might not feel forced into an "aggression at all costs" strategy; if crystals were something like 15 or 20% tougher these full-out rushes would generally fail anyway; if council's unit-on-unit tactics were not very dependent on consumable items (inferno as the only ranged stomp they have, meaning after 2 snipe kills you have to get your hands dirty against units, etc.) then focusing on crystal kills would not be as necessary, etc.
Only from the position of presuming that I'm wrong. >_>
And that is indeed my position. :D
But seriously, I agree with much of your general observations -- I disagree primarily with your analysis and conclusions. Here is where I believe we agree:
1) "Defending against crystal kills is sometimes difficult or even impossible under certain conditions (depending on map, teams, draw, and FTAP)."
2) "Council tends to be better than other teams at attacking quickly and destroying crystals (thanks primarily to their high damage range units/spells and good tile holders), while they do not have some of the long-term advantages that other teams have (permanent ranged stomp option, multi-unit and/or high range healing, extra unit-buffing options)."
Where we differ, I believe is on your conclusions (please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your views here):
1) "Fast crystal kills are often easily achieved without requiring significant player skill and with no real counter possible for the defending player. This represents a serious issue with game design, and it could be improved by increasing crystal health across the board." Where is your evidence? You say that you have experienced these unbeatable rushes against otherwise poor players with some frequency, but you completely rule out the possibility that you are simply not good at defending rushes! Why assume that the fault lies in the game? I can easily counter your anecdotal evidence with my own: I simply do not lose to mindless crystal rushes. Other players will tell you the same. Feel free to mine the League data for evidence that weak players often get blitz wins over strong ones, but I do not think you will find it. In the absence of further evidence, I think the most likely conclusion to draw here is that you need to adjust your playing style against early aggression.
2) "Due to the strengths and weaknesses listed above, Council is a weak, imbalanced team dependent upon the game flaw described in #1 to get victories." I've already provided evidence that this is simply not the case based on League numbers. I've also agreed with you on the strengths and weaknesses themselves, but without hard evidence linking CL wins to the so-called flaw in #1, that's not a problem with the Council team -- it's simply a different playstyle. Your argument sounds a lot to me like "this team has some weaknesses, which forces them to rely on their strengths," to which I say fantastic! Sounds like an interesting, diverse game to me!
A quick PS:
Jwallyr, I just want to clarify that I am definitely not calling you a bad player overall when I suggest that you might not defend crystal rushes well. Once a player has gone "all in" with a committed crystal rush, the game changes significantly, and many of the typical truisms no longer apply. You may have found a winning formula against slow-paced, patient play, but this formula might need heavy revisions to succeed against an extremely aggressive player, regardless of their overall skill level. Again, I don't find this fact to be a weakness of HA, but rather a strength -- if the threat of an early blitz were removed or drastically reduced, I believe the strategic depth of the game would suffer for it.
Regardless, I want to add the disclaimer that, of course, I don't know you and I've never played against you, so my thoughts here are just conjecture. I just think that it's important not to ignore the possibility that perceived faults in the game are actually largely self-imposed.
I havent read this whole thread, but I think its massively significant that before they changed the crystal health on the most rush-favorable maps, player 1 had a 7 point rating advantage at 3ap with thousands of games played. Now, after the changes, and with almost 2000 games, it is player 2 that has the slight advantage at 3ap (exact rating advantage hasnt been calculated, but it looks to be on the order of +7 to 10ish points).
I think its pretty clear that the changes in crystal health are also one of the big reasons that Council has started to look over-matched. Council is the only team that is still doing better when going first for a reason -- they are not the greatest unit killing team, and they are much less scary without a good shot at winning on crystal.
There are still a few maps that are potentially too rush friendly, but its much, much less so overall, and it has actually changed the game pretty dramatically.
Its sort of like team balance -- its easily possible to go too far. I dont think we did go too far . . . although I can see where Council players might think so.
He won't call you gay if you did this with DE :D Crystal kill is part of this game anyway. It is not impossible to defend it when he says that you *could not* beat him in vs units.