Going for crystal like a kick in the ...
Tue, 01/08/2013 - 20:58
#2
I largely agree with your assessment of items on which we agree. The bone of conention appears to be found in your statement of disagreement number one:
1) "Fast crystal kills are often easily achieved without requiring significant player skill and with no real counter possible for the defending player.
I would not describe this as being something that happens "often". In fact, I would describe my losses to all-out, utterly skill-less rushes as vanishingly rare. However, the fact that they are possible at all is itself (in my opinion) indicative of a problem, that problem being that skill is not weighted by the game as heavily as (once again, in my opinion) it should be.
To illustrate my opinion, let's imagine that one's likelihood to win or lose an individual game could be mathematically expressed as being based on the following equation:
Win Chance = (Skill * skill coefficient) + (Hand value * hand value coefficient) + (Turn order * turn order coefficient) + ....etc.
If we assume such an equation to be a valid model of the situation (and I'm not saying that it is, beyond being a useful analogy for describing my complaint) then suppose that the coefficients are set thusly:
skill coefficient = .7
hand value coefficient = .2
turn order coefficient = .1
A game in which the coefficients (as a descriptive measure) could be expressed this way would clearly have elements of luck and turn order, but would be dominated by the skill of the players. On the other hand, coefficients as follows would be the result of a game less based on luck than on extraneous factors:
skill coefficient = .5
hand value coefficient = .3
turn order coefficient = .2
Now I could sit and work out numbers such that a more skilled player would have a higher result than his opponent (and therefore win) while using the first set of coefficients, but would have alower result (and therefore lose) when using the second set. I am prepared to concede that game balance is more of an art than a science, meaning that perfect game balance is unlikely if not impossible. That said, it is my opinion that the ideal scenario for a head-to-head, competitive game like Hero Academy is to maximize the element of individual player skill in the determination of the winner.
Now, the elements that are not under player control are heavily front-loaded. By this, I mean that you find out the map, the team matchup, and your opening hand right at the very start of the game; everything else that happens over the course of the game is due to only 2 things: 1) Player actions and 2) the random trickling of items from the deck. As a result, the shorter the game, the more exaggerated the effect of these early luck factors on the outcome; by extension, the longer the game is able to go, the greater the relative impact of player skill on the game.
If one is willing to accept the premise that this game is predicated sufficiently on random factors (random team matchup, random map selection, random initial hand makeup) such that it's possible for even a vastly more skilled player to, on occaision, lose to a crystal rush with nothing he/she can do, then it easily follows that the team with stronger crystal-killing tools and poorer unit combat tools benefits from shorter games.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 00:58
#3
Again, I agree with everything you've said here -- except for your final conclusion. Yes, increasing crystal health would lengthen games, reduce the importance of initial draws, and cripple the Council. No, I do not think any of these effects would necessarily improve the overall quality of the game.
The crystal rush is not just the tool of the weak and desperate. It is a viable and interesting strategy that adds dimensionality and pressure to early game decisions. Without the possibility of a huge crystal rush being unleashed at any time, a great deal of the early game tension would disappear, to be replaced by immediate and consistent turtling until one team finally got their fully-deployed war machine in order. This isn't balance -- it's loss of depth. There would still be bad draws -- getting an unfavorable ratio of equipment to units or getting healers late would still be just as crippling as ever, and now there would be one less way of getting out of a jam, since enemy crystals would be too tough to threaten with diminished or non-ideal attackers. No thanks.
Of course the luck element isn't for everyone, and there are plenty of game-design decisions that could be made to reduce it. Deck draws could become standardized and fixed, for example. But that's not the game we have, and it's not the direction RE has said they want to go. And I, for one, agree with that decision. I accept the bad beats when they happen, because I appreciate the uncertainty and volatility that random draws and fragile crystals lend to the game.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 01:04
#4
AND, sometimes I don't really want to grind out all my matches. Sometimes I'm tempted to resign a game heavily skewed my way just to get it out of the way, rather than to sit on my advantage all the way until the bitter end.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 01:23
#5
The crystal rush is not just the tool of the weak and desperate. It is a viable and interesting strategy that adds dimensionality and pressure to early game decisions. Without the possibility of a huge crystal rush being unleashed at any time, a great deal of the early game tension would disappear, to be replaced by immediate and consistent turtling until one team finally got their fully-deployed war machine in order. This isn't balance -- it's loss of depth. There would still be bad draws -- getting an unfavorable ratio of equipment to units or getting healers late would still be just as crippling as ever, and now there would be one less way of getting out of a jam, since enemy crystals would be too tough to threaten with diminished or non-ideal attackers. No thanks.
+1
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:14
#6
Again, I agree with everything you've said here -- except for your final conclusion. Yes, increasing crystal health would lengthen games, reduce the importance of initial draws, and cripple the Council. No, I do not think any of these effects would necessarily improve the overall quality of the game.
And this is fundamentally where we disagree. Right now, my opinion is that the Council is the ONLY team that would be weakened by a slight elongation of games, and that is itself indicative of a balance problem between teams. Every other team has the option to be extremely aggressive OR to be defensive and build up a force; the Council MUST be extremely aggressive because they keel over and die against the superior tools of the other teams in a long game.
The crystal rush is not just the tool of the weak and desperate. It is a viable and interesting strategy that adds dimensionality and pressure to early game decisions. Without the possibility of a huge crystal rush being unleashed at any time, a great deal of the early game tension would disappear, to be replaced by immediate and consistent turtling until one team finally got their fully-deployed war machine in order. This isn't balance -- it's loss of depth. There would still be bad draws -- getting an unfavorable ratio of equipment to units or getting healers late would still be just as crippling as ever, and now there would be one less way of getting out of a jam, since enemy crystals would be too tough to threaten with diminished or non-ideal attackers. No thanks.
In my earlier posts, I advocate something like a 20% increase in crystal HP, which I feel to be a reasonable starting point for balance discussion. I could easily see a slightly lower number being more optimal, say 10 or 15%, but in any case I'm not suggesting that games be twice as long. Many of the (once again, uncommon) ridiculous zerg games that I have lost were by tiny amounts, meaning that a very slight upward bump in crystal HP would mean the difference between my losing to a brainless rush despite my extremely careful tactical use of all the tools at my command, and the opponent losing because he/she paid no attention at all to said tactics.
The reason I say the previous paragraph is because I recognize that a focus on crystals is not an inappropriate strategy, but that it IS inappropriate for a crystal-rush-at-all-costs, ignoring my units aside from moving around them to shoot crystals, blowing consumables solely on crystals to squeak out a win, to beat an equally aggressive defense, and right now that is the case. I have been known to go for a crystal kill myself, but rarely to the extent that I am ignoring my opponent's units, throwing mine away for small damage numbers, etc.
Of course the luck element isn't for everyone, and there are plenty of game-design decisions that could be made to reduce it. Deck draws could become standardized and fixed, for example. But that's not the game we have, and it's not the direction RE has said they want to go. And I, for one, agree with that decision. I accept the bad beats when they happen, because I appreciate the uncertainty and volatility that random draws and fragile crystals lend to the game.
I can understand the desire for the random element to a degree, and I agree that it adds variety to the game. That said, as I have previously stated, the shorter the game, the greater the influence of effects that are outside of the players' control, and I don't think that's fun or interesting at all. It's more like gambling on who gets the better setup (team matchup, initial hand, map), with the game itself playing out based on who can zerg crystals harder. If I wanted to play a game of chance, I'd download a poker game and play that instead, but I want to play a strategic combat game.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:32
#7
And this is fundamentally where we disagree. Right now, my opinion is that the Council is the ONLY team that would be weakened by a slight elongation of games, and that is itself indicative of a balance problem between teams. Every other team has the option to be extremely aggressive OR to be defensive and build up a force; the Council MUST be extremely aggressive because they keel over and die against the superior tools of the other teams in a long game.
What is your point here? Early aggression and crystal kills are specific strengths of the Council -- why in the world shouldn't they be able to use them? Again, you are implying that speed is not a viable or "respectable" team strength, but I see no reason to assume this value judgment. Just because they very occasionally benefit from lopsided early draws more than other teams doesn't mean that a key element of the game should be sacrificed just to eliminate these "vanishingly rare" occurences.
In my earlier posts, I advocate something like a 20% increase in crystal HP, which I feel to be a reasonable starting point for balance discussion. I could easily see a slightly lower number being more optimal, say 10 or 15%, but in any case I'm not suggesting that games be twice as long. Many of the (once again, uncommon) ridiculous zerg games that I have lost were by tiny amounts, meaning that a very slight upward bump in crystal HP would mean the difference between my losing to a brainless rush despite my extremely careful tactical use of all the tools at my command, and the opponent losing because he/she paid no attention at all to said tactics.
Close wins happen, and they would continue to happen WHATEVER the crystal health is pegged at. ANY player can say "if only crystals were X% tougher, I wouldn't have lost these games". Where does it stop? Why should YOUR close losses be the benchmark for crystal strength? How do you know, for a fact, that you made the right moves to stop those rushes?
The reason I say the previous paragraph is because I recognize that a focus on crystals is not an inappropriate strategy, but that it IS inappropriate for a crystal-rush-at-all-costs, ignoring my units aside from moving around them to shoot crystals, blowing consumables solely on crystals to squeak out a win, to beat an equally aggressive defense, and right now that is the case. I have been known to go for a crystal kill myself, but rarely to the extent that I am ignoring my opponent's units, throwing mine away for small damage numbers, etc.
Ignoring units and focusing on crystals is, in certain circumstances, ENTIRELY appropriate. I'm not sure where you got the idea that this was not the case, but you are only weakening your own game by discounting it as a viable strategy.
I can understand the desire for the random element to a degree, and I agree that it adds variety to the game. That said, as I have previously stated, the shorter the game, the greater the influence of effects that are outside of the players' control, and I don't think that's fun or interesting at all. It's more like gambling on who gets the better setup (team matchup, initial hand, map), with the game itself playing out based on who can zerg crystals harder. If I wanted to play a game of chance, I'd download a poker game and play that instead, but I want to play a strategic combat game.
It IS strategic. And it IS a game of chance. If you don't like the exact blend between the two that RE has chosen, that's a matter of personal preference -- it's hardly an objective flaw. If I wanted a more deterministic boardgame, I'd be playing chess or Outwitters (both fantastic games, btw). There are definite poker elements in HA, and many of us quite enjoy them.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 15:42
#8
I can understand the desire for the random element to a degree, and I agree that it adds variety to the game. That said, as I have previously stated, the shorter the game, the greater the influence of effects that are outside of the players' control, and I don't think that's fun or interesting at all. It's more like gambling on who gets the better setup (team matchup, initial hand, map), with the game itself playing out based on who can zerg crystals harder. If I wanted to play a game of chance, I'd download a poker game and play that instead, but I want to play a strategic combat game.
Then by all means, pay for and download a strategic combat game that was designed to minimize chance. Look into Relic's Warhammer: Dawn of War 2 series.
And leave the casual-oriented, chance-taker Hero Academy to its own organic evolution.
Please. I grow tired of the "If I win, it's all my developed skill. If I lose, it's all bad luck" discussion.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:01
#9
What is your point here? Early aggression and crystal kills are specific strengths of the Council -- why in the world shouldn't they be able to use them? Again, you are implying that speed is not a viable or "respectable" team strength, but I see no reason to assume this value judgment. Just because they very occasionally benefit from lopsided early draws more than other teams doesn't mean that a key element of the game should be sacrificed just to eliminate these "vanishingly rare" occurences.
It is my opinion that early aggression is the only strength of the Council, and that using that early aggression to kill crystals is merely a byproduct of crystals being too easy to kill. This allows for the possibility of crystal kill wins by players who I then easily trounce in rematches (typically due to poor trades or stupid tactical decisions on their part) when they have good hands and I don't, etc. I have had this happen every now and then, and after verifying (in my mind) that the initial loss was due to the deficiencies that I have come to believe exist, I stop looking for rematches (although I'll usually play a rematch if the other player initiates one).
If it is your honest opinion that early hyper-aggressive crystal rush wins, predominantly by Council players against slower teams or bad hands, is a good trade for the nearly inevitable losses in long games against non-council teams, then we will have to agree to disagree. It is my opinion that the Council team runs out of steam really early (compared to every other team), and as a result the games are foregone conclusions one way or the other, which is boring and unsatisfying whether I am on the winning side or not. But everybody knows what opinions are like...
You also seem to think that I am philosophically opposed to the idea of an aggressive, yet tactical assault on crystals themselves. While I prefer the give-and-take of unit-on-unit combat myself, I can see the value to having multiple win conditions for a variety of game experiences. I differentiate, however, between a deliberate and tactical assault on crystals and the kind of mindless rushes that I have lost against every now and then; you appear to think that the latter cannot be addressed without also eliminating the former. I disagree.
Close wins happen, and they would continue to happen WHATEVER the crystal health is pegged at. ANY player can say "if only crystals were X% tougher, I wouldn't have lost these games". Where does it stop? Why should YOUR close losses be the benchmark for crystal strength? How do you know, for a fact, that you made the right moves to stop those rushes?
I am not against close games. In fact, I find that the closer the game, the more likely I am to have enjoyed it! When I barely squeak out a win against an opponent who played well, took advantage of mistakes that I made and used their tools well, I consider it to have been a satisfying contest of tactics. When I lose 100% to 0% crystal health, feeling like there's nothing more I could have done to prevent the all-out zerg rush, I feel like that game was a waste of time.
Is it possible to know that I made the perfect moves, given the board and each player's respective deck orders? No. But I have been playing since around the time of the introduction of the Dwarf team, generally keeping my game list maxed out, and rematching against players who give me trouble to try different things. I have been frequenting the forum for a long time (mostly lurking), and have learned from observations made by other players. I have learned a lot about how the game plays, and generally feel like I have a decent handle on the game itself, and I can say with some confidence that the games that I describe went about as well as I could have made them go. Does this make me a bonified expert? Maybe not, but I am not merely frustrated by losing and venting to the forum instead of learning from my mistakes.
In other words, there's a middle ground between endorsing every aspect of the game as presented, and ragequitting at the slightest challenge to my preconcieved ideas of what the game should be, and that's where I like to think I sit.
Ignoring units and focusing on crystals is, in certain circumstances, ENTIRELY appropriate. I'm not sure where you got the idea that this was not the case, but you are only weakening your own game by discounting it as a viable strategy.
In certain circumstances, yes. For the entirety of a game, from the first turn and every turn thereafter? I'm skeptical. Now, you could define "appropriate" as being within the current balance setup, and such a definition would be internally consistent, but I feel that the defining characteristic of Hero Academy is the back-and-forth of each players' units, and that it cheapens the game itself for it to be possible for an all-out, unit-ignoring rush to beat a competent defense.
It IS strategic. And it IS a game of chance. If you don't like the exact blend between the two that RE has chosen, that's a matter of personal preference -- it's hardly an objective flaw. If I wanted a more deterministic boardgame, I'd be playing chess or Outwitters (both fantastic games, btw). There are definite poker elements in HA, and many of us quite enjoy them.
I understand what you're saying, and there is an element of bluffing, taking risks dependent on the likelihood that your opponent has the items in hand to counter your move, etc. that I appreciate. I'm not asking for the game to be made deterministic like Chess, but I think the game's richness of strategic interplay is lessened by these edge cases in which strategy takes a distinct back seat to elements of luck.
With respect to your commentary about personal preference, I refer you to my previous statement about middle ground and opinions. And if there were to be a place for constructive criticism about the game itself, would not this forum be it?
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:05
#10
I can understand the desire for the random element to a degree, and I agree that it adds variety to the game. That said, as I have previously stated, the shorter the game, the greater the influence of effects that are outside of the players' control, and I don't think that's fun or interesting at all. It's more like gambling on who gets the better setup (team matchup, initial hand, map), with the game itself playing out based on who can zerg crystals harder. If I wanted to play a game of chance, I'd download a poker game and play that instead, but I want to play a strategic combat game.
Then by all means, pay for and download a strategic combat game that was designed to minimize chance. Look into Relic's Warhammer: Dawn of War 2 series.
And leave the casual-oriented, chance-taker Hero Academy to its own organic evolution.
Please. I grow tired of the "If I win, it's all my developed skill. If I lose, it's all bad luck" discussion.
:\
I have won against players using aggressive Council crystal tactics about as frequently as I have lost to them. I just don't feel like it's fun either way, for either player. If you disagree, you're of course welcome to your own opinion, but to minimize my argument as being equivalent to the strawman you set up to knock down does nobody any good.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:23
#11
It is my opinion that early aggression is the only strength of the Council, and that using that early aggression to kill crystals is merely a byproduct of crystals being too easy to kill.
And it is my opinion that unit attacks are the only strength of the Dark Elves, and that their slow, turtley TKOs are merely byproducts of crystals being too difficult to kill. If crystals were just 25% weaker, I'd have far more wins against DE. ;)
But yeah, I think we've hashed this out as far as we can. I understand your opinion, and respectfully disagree. Handshake?
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:34
#12
I have won against players using aggressive Council crystal tactics about as frequently as I have lost to them. I just don't feel like it's fun either way, for either player. If you disagree, you're of course welcome to your own opinion, but to minimize my argument as being equivalent to the strawman you set up to knock down does nobody any good.
I am not trying to "minimize your argument."
I am trying to minimize your arguing.
You are less gutteral and more eloquent than "jookz" but you are no different than the original poster's opponent: you don't like suprise wins.
After all your lengthy and pedantic rhetoric here, you are basically arguing - in circles - in order to minimize Chance, a fundamental element of the game down to the point of triviality.
Chance is what makes it fun for the newbies; lesser players have a chance against greater players. If you take that out, you have chess.
And you constantly side-step Trip's and my suggestions about possibly finding a game that is better suited for your needs rather than changing a perfectly good and fun game that many other people enjoy as-is.
Find the straw in that, Dawg.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 16:44
#13
PLEASE NOTE: I am not trying to shut anyone up, nor discourage discussion that explores different points. But the same ponts are being made, remade and made yet again.
So all I am trying do here is to stop this dead horse from being beaten any further and give it a decent burial.
(Everyone here knows how much I respect horses).
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:08
#14
It is my opinion that early aggression is the only strength of the Council, and that using that early aggression to kill crystals is merely a byproduct of crystals being too easy to kill.
And it is my opinion that unit attacks are the only strength of the Dark Elves, and that their slow, turtley TKOs are merely byproducts of crystals being too difficult to kill. If crystals were just 25% weaker, I'd have far more wins against DE. ;)
But yeah, I think we've hashed this out as far as we can. I understand your opinion, and respectfully disagree. Handshake?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, because I have had Dark Elves get crystal wins, mostly through Void Monk AOE punching through a defensive line WHILE doing AOE damage to units, necessitating either healing or unit losses to attrition. But if you simply disagree with a key pillar of my position, then there's not really anything left to be said.
@Writch: I'm disappointed by your refusal to actually engage with my argument. Your initial commentary about elements of "Total Strategy" was interesting, but not directly applicable to my concerns, and calling them "lengthy and pedantic rhetoric" says more about your unwillingness to take part in the discussion than my reasoning. Not that I expect you to lose a lot of sleep at night over something some dude on the internet said, but whatever.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 18:33
#15
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, because I have had Dark Elves get crystal wins, mostly through Void Monk AOE punching through a defensive line WHILE doing AOE damage to units, necessitating either healing or unit losses to attrition. But if you simply disagree with a key pillar of my position, then there's not really anything left to be said.
And I have gotten my share of Council TKOs.
None of that changes the fact that, statistically, DE are one of the worst crystal-hunting teams in the game. (34% of their League wins reported as crystal kills since version 1.2 of the game vs. 55% for Council, 54% for Dwarves, 40% for Tribe, and 35% for TF2). You are arguing that CL is artificially propped up, so to speak, by Crystals being too weak -- I am merely pointing out that, from another perspective, weaker crystal hunting teams like the DE could be seen as being artificially propped up by crystals that are too strong.
Wed, 01/09/2013 - 19:26
#16
Man, you guys sure like to type O.o
Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:27
#17
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, because I have had Dark Elves get crystal wins, mostly through Void Monk AOE punching through a defensive line WHILE doing AOE damage to units, necessitating either healing or unit losses to attrition. But if you simply disagree with a key pillar of my position, then there's not really anything left to be said.
And I have gotten my share of Council TKOs.
None of that changes the fact that, statistically, DE are one of the worst crystal-hunting teams in the game. (34% of their League wins reported as crystal kills since version 1.2 of the game vs. 55% for Council, 54% for Dwarves, 40% for Tribe, and 35% for TF2). You are arguing that CL is artificially propped up, so to speak, by Crystals being too weak -- I am merely pointing out that, from another perspective, weaker crystal hunting teams like the DE could be seen as being artificially propped up by crystals that are too strong.
Honestly, you have a point, although I can't help but think that the statistics are skewed not because the Dark Elves are bad at crystal killing, but because their life-leech ability doesn't work on crystals. This means that a dark elf team is able to exert more pressure without spending time healing with a priestess if they focus on units, and if you can hit a couple of crystals with splash from a void monk while doing so, great. Whether this "unbalanced" as opposed to other teams is another matter entirely, which is why I don't feel that it is a good analogue for the discussion concerning Council and crystal killing.
Thu, 01/10/2013 - 15:47
#18
Honestly, you have a point, although I can't help but think that the statistics are skewed not because the Dark Elves are bad at crystal killing, but because their life-leech ability doesn't work on crystals. This means that a dark elf team is able to exert more pressure without spending time healing with a priestess if they focus on units, and if you can hit a couple of crystals with splash from a void monk while doing so, great. Whether this "unbalanced" as opposed to other teams is another matter entirely, which is why I don't feel that it is a good analogue for the discussion concerning Council and crystal killing.
Life leach is a strong ability. Based on current data, though, this strong advantage appears to be balanced by other team weaknesses -- after all, DE have never been considered a top-tier faction. Thus, it can be assumed that, without life-leach, the Dark Elves would be a really terrible team.
As you pointed out, attacking crystals largely negates life leach, since little damage is done to units in the process. If engaged in sustained crystal attacks, the team functions as if it had little to no life-leach power at all, drastically weakening their competitiveness. Therefore, they are not a great crystal-hunting team.
If crystals were weaker, it would tend to lead to far more attacks on them throughout the game. None of these attacks would allow the DE to make full use of their life leach. Therefore, DE are "artificially" boosted by getting tougher, less vulnerable crystals. This is actually EXACTLY like your argument that Council is "artificially" boosted by lower crystal health.
Fri, 01/11/2013 - 18:55
#19
Joakz declined my challenge twice :(((
Fri, 01/11/2013 - 19:10
#20
Joakz declined my challenge twice :(((
Who turns down a kick in the balls?!
Fri, 01/11/2013 - 19:12
#21
Joakz declined my challenge twice :(((
I thought it was jookz.
Mon, 01/14/2013 - 13:40
#22
Honestly, you have a point, although I can't help but think that the statistics are skewed not because the Dark Elves are bad at crystal killing, but because their life-leech ability doesn't work on crystals. This means that a dark elf team is able to exert more pressure without spending time healing with a priestess if they focus on units, and if you can hit a couple of crystals with splash from a void monk while doing so, great. Whether this "unbalanced" as opposed to other teams is another matter entirely, which is why I don't feel that it is a good analogue for the discussion concerning Council and crystal killing.
Life leach is a strong ability. Based on current data, though, this strong advantage appears to be balanced by other team weaknesses -- after all, DE have never been considered a top-tier faction. Thus, it can be assumed that, without life-leach, the Dark Elves would be a really terrible team.
As you pointed out, attacking crystals largely negates life leach, since little damage is done to units in the process. If engaged in sustained crystal attacks, the team functions as if it had little to no life-leach power at all, drastically weakening their competitiveness. Therefore, they are not a great crystal-hunting team.
If crystals were weaker, it would tend to lead to far more attacks on them throughout the game. None of these attacks would allow the DE to make full use of their life leach. Therefore, DE are "artificially" boosted by getting tougher, less vulnerable crystals. This is actually EXACTLY like your argument that Council is "artificially" boosted by lower crystal health.
I would be happy to consider ways to address the Dark Elf necessity of relying on unit attacks (make life leech apply to crystals, perhaps?) if this were part of a general effort to bring the Council more in line with the rest of the teams. What I'm not getting is how your argument that because 1 team is better against units, because of its team bonus, that this makes it okay for another team to have a timing scheme that is fundamentally out of line with all other teams. Council is (from what I'm hearing) unquestionably the fastest team at fielding an aggressive offense, and also has the weakest staying power of all teams, which causes the occasional unpreventable win (or loss, from the opponent perspective) if the Council goes first and/or has an aggressive starting hand and/or is against a slow team, or regular crushing slow defeats if these conditions are not present. This is undesirable, unless you like games that are foregone conclusions.
Just to comment, I have my concerns about the Dark Elf team as well, but they are not a big stakeholder in the discussion of crystal kills (being one of the teams least reliant on that mode of victory) so I haven't chosen to bring that up said concerns.
Mon, 01/14/2013 - 15:23
#23
I would be happy to consider ways to address the Dark Elf necessity of relying on unit attacks (make life leech apply to crystals, perhaps?) if this were part of a general effort to bring the Council more in line with the rest of the teams. What I'm not getting is how your argument that because 1 team is better against units, because of its team bonus, that this makes it okay for another team to have a timing scheme that is fundamentally out of line with all other teams. Council is (from what I'm hearing) unquestionably the fastest team at fielding an aggressive offense, and also has the weakest staying power of all teams, which causes the occasional unpreventable win (or loss, from the opponent perspective) if the Council goes first and/or has an aggressive starting hand and/or is against a slow team, or regular crushing slow defeats if these conditions are not present. This is undesirable, unless you like games that are foregone conclusions.
My point is simply that you cannot separate team balance from map/crystal changes. They are inextricably tied together. You continue to argue that CL is artificially inflated by (what you perceive as) low crystal health, but I believe this is a skewed perspective, ignoring the fact that EVERY team's relative strength is affected by changes to the crystals or other map features. Some teams will be better at the long game than others. Some teams will be quicker out of the gate than others. These kinds of team differences are common to many other assymetrical strategy games, and they are not inherently flawed. I'd be happy to provide other successful examples of this same kind of assymmetry, if you wish.
I think the (as you described them) vanishingly rare cases in which a blitzing CL cannot be stopped are a non-issue. Losses due to bad draws will always happen for one reason or another, and there's no reason that I can see to single out this one above all others.
More significant (if true) would be the idea that Council CANNOT win unless they get that "perfect storm" of good draw, good map, bad opponent draw. I think I've done an adequate job of showing that there is simply no evidence for this being true in League data, and you have not provided any further support beyond your own anecdotal experiences and analysis. I think your argument is at a dead end here, unless you can bring something new to the table.
Wed, 01/16/2013 - 14:05
#24
I would be happy to consider ways to address the Dark Elf necessity of relying on unit attacks (make life leech apply to crystals, perhaps?) if this were part of a general effort to bring the Council more in line with the rest of the teams. What I'm not getting is how your argument that because 1 team is better against units, because of its team bonus, that this makes it okay for another team to have a timing scheme that is fundamentally out of line with all other teams. Council is (from what I'm hearing) unquestionably the fastest team at fielding an aggressive offense, and also has the weakest staying power of all teams, which causes the occasional unpreventable win (or loss, from the opponent perspective) if the Council goes first and/or has an aggressive starting hand and/or is against a slow team, or regular crushing slow defeats if these conditions are not present. This is undesirable, unless you like games that are foregone conclusions.
My point is simply that you cannot separate team balance from map/crystal changes. They are inextricably tied together. You continue to argue that CL is artificially inflated by (what you perceive as) low crystal health, but I believe this is a skewed perspective, ignoring the fact that EVERY team's relative strength is affected by changes to the crystals or other map features. Some teams will be better at the long game than others. Some teams will be quicker out of the gate than others. These kinds of team differences are common to many other assymetrical strategy games, and they are not inherently flawed. I'd be happy to provide other successful examples of this same kind of assymmetry, if you wish.
I think the (as you described them) vanishingly rare cases in which a blitzing CL cannot be stopped are a non-issue. Losses due to bad draws will always happen for one reason or another, and there's no reason that I can see to single out this one above all others.
More significant (if true) would be the idea that Council CANNOT win unless they get that "perfect storm" of good draw, good map, bad opponent draw. I think I've done an adequate job of showing that there is simply no evidence for this being true in League data, and you have not provided any further support beyond your own anecdotal experiences and analysis. I think your argument is at a dead end here, unless you can bring something new to the table.
Not knowing where to find league data, I can't exactly critique it. It would be great to have numbers like "average turns to win" and "average turns to lose" in particular matchups, which I'm not sure exist. I guess I must just be the only person on the forums to consistently experience (from both points of view) fast, extremely lopsided council vs non-council wins when conditions are right and consistent, overwhelming, crushing losses when these conditions are not present.
Is it your experience that there is any successful late-game strategy as council against, say, dwarves? Not against poor players who overextend their offensive units, but against players who take advantage of engineer shields and paladin auras to keep well-equipped grenadiers alive against a council opponent who may be out of consumables (having had to use them earlier to prevent mid-game overwhelming, crushing losses)?
Wed, 01/16/2013 - 14:21
#25
Not knowing where to find league data, I can't exactly critique it. It would be great to have numbers like "average turns to win" and "average turns to lose" in particular matchups, which I'm not sure exist. I guess I must just be the only person on the forums to consistently experience (from both points of view) fast, extremely lopsided council vs non-council wins when conditions are right and consistent, overwhelming, crushing losses when these conditions are not present.
Get League data by signing up for the League! It's free and easy. Average turns for wins (separated by win condition, map, and matchup) are available for all factions.
Is it your experience that there is any successful late-game strategy as council against, say, dwarves? Not against poor players who overextend their offensive units, but against players who take advantage of engineer shields and paladin auras to keep well-equipped grenadiers alive against a council opponent who may be out of consumables (having had to use them earlier to prevent mid-game overwhelming, crushing losses)?
If you are not pressuring Dwarves early and often, you are going to have a bad day, regardless of your faction. However, against steady harassment, Dwarf players will have a hard time keeping shields up, bringing out new units, and healing, forcing them to make non-ideal sacrifices to stay afloat and keep their key units out of harm. This is how CL wins TKOs, in my experience -- by using early pressure to force their opponent to make bad trades, crippling their late-game strength. Interestingly enough, we actually just had a long TKO win by CL over DW in the ongoing Team of the Year Tournament. Of course, one data point means nothing, but it at least shows that it can be done. ;)
Thu, 01/17/2013 - 04:16
#26
Watch TAST(y) results. Flameshock is most likely to win as he is currently undefeated and I think at least a few of his wins are Tko.
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 would like to parrot all of Trip's sentiments here. Yet I already pre-paraphrased it back more than a dozen posts ago (#13, paragraph 3), so I'll parrot myself:
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?"
The implication, of course, is that you should not be rude to yourself and at least try to give yourself an answer. Talking to one's self is not always crazy - it just appears that way to those on the outside.
Writch
Equal parts cur, mud, and gin.
Never shaken, but often stirred.
Serving suggestion: Usually taken with a pinch of salt.