|
Post by gobber on Aug 7, 2017 4:53:12 GMT
Arcane void is also on Ammok (legion's upcoming ogrun caster attachment) so they seem to like it :/
They definitely tried to tone it down and add counterplay, but I don't remember any statement much stronger than that...
Lines from relevant insiders: 5/11 Trolls: "While we removed Purification from all models outside the Protectorate, we have a soft spot for Doomshaper 1, so he regained an updated version of his Mk I Dissolution spell, which says, “Enemy upkeep spells in the spellcaster’s control range immediately expire. When an upkeep spell expires as a result of Dissolution, the model maintaining the spell suffers d3 damage points.” Well, we kept our word: no Purification outside the Protectorate." 5/12 Convergence (RE father lucant losing purification): "We made the change as part of our drive to remove some of the spells that trivially remove upkeep spells from play." 5/18 Protectorate "Despite a general trend in reducing the overall effectiveness of anti-magic abilities in the game, the Protectorate has maintained its edge. For example, the only models in the game that still have the Purification spell are High Exemplar Kreoss and the Harbinger of Menoth. (Of course, there are still some nasty surprises lurking among the other Factions. Doomshaper, I am looking at you.)" 5/31 Circle re bloodweavers: "The loss of Dispel somewhat reduces the Circle’s ability to remove upkeep spells from play, which is in tune with one of our initiatives in the new editions"
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Aug 7, 2017 5:38:24 GMT
I didn't comment on what you did or did not advocate for. I said that whatever happened with upkeep denial in the transition to Mk III doesn't prove PP thinks upkeep hate is bad. Upkeep hate was too effective and a number if casters were countered too hard by it, but upkeep hate in the game is fine as a concept. They just needed to improve the implementation, which they did. Some things in the game right now are still somewhat oppressive if you can't remove upkeeps at all. Giving every faction a tool for that is ok - even if I agree the tool in question is probably a bit too good. The fact that Garrity went from absurdly good to a little too much is due to complaining in CID, yes. But that's what CID is for: to indicate what is too good or not good enough, based on practical experience. It's not for complaining about how a model does something you don't want it to or can't do something you do want it to. It's for feedback on how effective a model is at what it does. I don't like the background justification for him working alongside everyone either, but that's not a CID subject. I'm ok with him having upkeep denial, but if he didn't CID would not be the place to complain about that either. It's performance testing, not a functionality brainstorm. On the "advocating" part I was talking to Ganso (and in fact quoted him ). That said, I agree with you that CID is mainly on testing the power of models and not the core concept, and I agree that in theory everything can be introduced in the game if balanced well enough (Even a "Win the game" ability would theorically be fine if the steps to activate it are hard enough. It would essentially just add a new win condition). That said, as gobber has carefully bringed back from old insiders, the devs themselves said in many occasions that easy access to upkeep removal was a thing they decided was bad for the game and purposely removed it in the past. Coming after just one year to propose exactly the opposite (an EASY source of upkeep removal) is contraddicting themselves, and of course people would be concerned. Maybe CID isn't the correct place to discuss about model designs, but sadly PP removed the proper place to discuss it (General discussion official forums), so if people want to discuss if they like the direction the game is taking or if they like the design intent of some pieces/features in a place where devs can see them, they haven't a place to do that anymore. That of course generates those topics in places not intended for them, but in my opinion that is more a PP fault for not providing a proper place for that kinds of discussions than from the users who just want to express their feedback and see if their feeling are shared by other players.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 7, 2017 6:37:29 GMT
I believe they said so themselves... Indeed. They were quite clear in the early insiders where they discussed upkeep removal that they wanted to tone it down significantly from the game. Specifically because upkeep focused casters were so hosed by it. And till this point, they had been consistent with that. Given the expansion of blessed and spell piercer access, I feel that isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Aug 7, 2017 6:48:49 GMT
Indeed. They were quite clear in the early insiders where they discussed upkeep removal that they wanted to tone it down significantly from the game. Specifically because upkeep focused casters were so hosed by it. And till this point, they had been consistent with that. Given the expansion of blessed and spell piercer access, I feel that isn't true. Upkeeps aren't just ARM upkeeps. Giving access to blessed =/= from giving access to mechanics to remove upkeeps (even the ones that don't boost DEF/ARM).
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 7, 2017 6:58:32 GMT
Given the expansion of blessed and spell piercer access, I feel that isn't true. Upkeeps aren't just ARM upkeeps. Giving access to blessed =/= from giving access to mechanics to remove upkeeps (even the ones that don't boost DEF/ARM). And yet they are easily the most complained about. Which Upkeeps are people really worried about? In general it isn't offensive upkeeps (because they hit the unit which then gets benefits). Its utility upkeeps (reasonably rare and often you can play around it) or Defensive Upkeeps.
|
|
|
Post by mydnight on Aug 7, 2017 7:06:47 GMT
And yet they are easily the most complained about. Which Upkeeps are people really worried about? In general it isn't offensive upkeeps (because they hit the unit which then gets benefits). Its utility upkeeps (reasonably rare and often you can play around it) or Defensive Upkeeps. Probably Admonition. Or multiple upkeep spells that ruin your casters' day when they get removed because your caster has to recast them on a turn where he needed to fuel his jacks or cast some offensive spells. Heck, non-targetted upkeep removal removes things like rock wall/razor wall that are upkeeps simply to prevent spamming them.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 7, 2017 7:15:15 GMT
I don't believe targetting the caster removes the wall.
Admonition is ok, but not the end of the world if you just learn how to proc is correctly (and/or shoot the model to death).
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Aug 7, 2017 12:22:55 GMT
Targetting the caster doesn't, which is why he said non-targetting.
|
|
Provengreil
Junior Strategist
Choir Kills: 12
Posts: 850
|
Post by Provengreil on Aug 9, 2017 19:14:25 GMT
I don't believe targetting the caster removes the wall. Admonition is ok, but not the end of the world if you just learn how to proc is correctly (and/or shoot the model to death). How about Karchev's Countercharge upkeep? or Vindictus' penitence when you were hoping to thresh right through that zealot crowd. Blessed won't help with those either. Nor will it affect offensive ones at all.
Point is, blessed is good. Straight up untargeted irresistible upkeep removel (say, Purification) is just better. Particularly when it doesn't actually cost a resource.
OHAI GARRITY.
|
|
|
Post by octaviusmaximus on Aug 9, 2017 21:11:52 GMT
I don't believe targetting the caster removes the wall. Admonition is ok, but not the end of the world if you just learn how to proc is correctly (and/or shoot the model to death). How about Karchev's Countercharge upkeep? or Vindictus' penitence when you were hoping to thresh right through that zealot crowd. Blessed won't help with those either. Nor will it affect offensive ones at all.
Point is, blessed is good. Straight up untargeted irresistible upkeep removel (say, Purification) is just better. Particularly when it doesn't actually cost a resource.
OHAI GARRITY.
Except points, points are a resource.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Aug 10, 2017 6:36:24 GMT
How about Karchev's Countercharge upkeep? or Vindictus' penitence when you were hoping to thresh right through that zealot crowd. Blessed won't help with those either. Nor will it affect offensive ones at all.
Point is, blessed is good. Straight up untargeted irresistible upkeep removel (say, Purification) is just better. Particularly when it doesn't actually cost a resource.
OHAI GARRITY.
Except points, points are a resource. Sure, but if with that points you also buy a strong support piece (Puppet master and Arcane Void) that can also pull out double-boosted magic nukes, the upkeep removal part is just a free (or a very cheap) plus.
|
|
|
Post by Cryptix on Aug 10, 2017 13:57:22 GMT
We have a thread for discussing Garrity. This is not it.
|
|