• Breaking News

    Monday, February 24, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Clash Royale 2v2 Wallbreaker Mirror Clone

    Clash Royale 2v2 Wallbreaker Mirror Clone

    February 24, 2020

    Clash Royale 2v2 Wallbreaker Mirror Clone

    2v2 Wallbreaker Mirror Clone

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 12:32 PM PST

    The firecracker in clash royale everytime it shoots

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 12:25 PM PST

    My fisherman emote idea

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 03:52 PM PST

    [Effort] The Ultimate Balancing Theory: How to change cards the right amount

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 02:42 PM PST

    Balancing excites me and I've paid attention to the state of the meta for a long while. If you tell me any card, I could instantly say all of its stats, recent balances, and a summary of my opinion on its state. So I wanted to open a word about something that often goes wrong: the size of balances. If we exclude some reworks, then balancing is all about hitting the sweet spot, so this is probably the most crucial aspect.

    Let's start with some important caveats. I will not bring up anything other than theory at the start. A lot of the values and the balances are made-up or arbitrary and aim to explain a concept. The post is technical and my method isn't infallible or objective. It will fall short in some situations. But it has worked for me 100% of the time to predict when changes would fail or be successful.

    When it comes to balancing, this post is my magnum opus, so I hope you appreciate it.

    Working with the statistics

    To determine the power of a card is easily the hardest part. A lot of people like to only look at statistics or to only look at what the card does and how it compares. The truth lies in the middle and unfortunately, half of it is devoid of math. When people consider stats, there are often arguments about how "stats aren't everything", which is disappointing. Sure, numbers may not show the full picture, but they don't lie and are not biased. So let's just summarize.

    In order to change cards the right amount, you first need to know what the right amount is. In other words, you need to know how weak or strong a card is and what change would bring it to a good medium. It's complicated, but here are some trends.

    • Each stat has its own context and isn't definitive of balance. Use rate just indicates how often a card is used and low or high use rates are okay in a lot of contexts.
    • The place of each stat also has its own context. Grand Challenges are very competitive; ladder is not competitive and largely pushes win rate towards 50%.
    • Statistics change day by day; looking at one point in time is not always conclusive. Trends are more important than snapshots.
    • Stronger cards steal "market share" from weaker cards. Data for cards can be skewed when they are often used alongside OP cards.
    • Card releases and new things being viable can be a factor. Sometimes a card is weak just because it doesn't have its perfect partner yet. (i.e. Executioner would be weaker if Tornado didn't exist). Sometimes a card is weak because it doesn't have its niche yet. (i.e. Bomb Tower rising because of Elixir Golem, a win condition it can hard-counter)
    • Card usage and winrate depend on the meta to a huge extent. Powerful decks and cards box out what they counter out of the meta and bring their counters into the meta. However, some spells can't be countered.
    • For obscenely overpowered cards, showing up in the top ladder as level 12 (at the end of the season) is a sign that the nerf would need to be at least equal to the net nerf of damage by 10% and hitpoints by 10%.
    • etc.
    • It's kind of arbitrary, but the main point is that you are trying, for instance, to make it so a 58% win rate card loses 8% of its battles that would have otherwise been a win.
    • Mirror matches: If a data set doesn't account for the fact that cards with a high use rate meet a lot and balance out at 50% winrate, the way to derive the real winrate is the following: Take the difference from 50% and multiply it by 1 + [userate]. For example, if a card has 33% use and 56% win, its real winrate is 50 + 6x1.33 = 58%. I'll explain the math in a separate post.

    Nerfs are a little more effective than buffs because x% of a strong card is more stats than x% of a weak card. For example, if you nerf a card by 20%, you would need a 25% buff to bring it back to its old state. Ignoring this effect, here is what seems true after 4 years of balancing.

    • The "balanced zone" of cards is a 6-8% window. This window is usually the goal, and its middle is the best to hit.
    • <3% is too small unless significant interactions change. It's usually received for QoL or small fixes.
    • Small 3-5% changes are to nudge cards that are just barely out of their healthy zone.
    • Medium 5-8% changes are what has proven good for cards that are off the mark or warp the meta.
    • Big 8-12% changes alter cards an awful lot. I'm not fond of them, but they are necessary for very bad or very meta-warping cards.
    • >12% net changes are extreme. They are for either the absolute worst cards or for absolutely insane ones.
    • When you add up different changes as percentages, you need to MULTIPLY THEM, NOT ADD THEM UP.

    Let's move on to the good part. A roadmap is a list of cards that just mentions the net changes they require and possibly their management. I want my post to be more about changing cards right, not about judging them right.

    Damage and Hitpoints

    The most basic changes cards can receive.

    • Not only direct interactions matter. How come? The game has an endless net of mixed interactions, and based on what your deck is, interactions between two cards or the card and the tower can change pretty easily.

    Example: One year ago, Snowball was buffed from 127 to 139 damage. It changed no direct interactions. All it changed was spell cycling, so how was it a significant buff?

    Maybe you used skeletons, bats or spear goblins in your deck - with the help of Snowball, they would now destroy shields in only one attack. Maybe you used Knight - with Snowball, he would take one attack less to finish Barbarians. How about spells? With Poison, it now destroyed a Cannon Cart, and with Lightning, it now killed the Executioner. Or maybe even without direct interactions, in a tight situation, the extra 12 damage would prevent the Hog Rider from swinging at the tower with his last bits of HP.

    • High damage cards waste more of their damage. This is something that barely comes into effect when changing damage a little, but in reworks, it can come into play significantly. If Mini P.E.K.K.A.'s damage were buffed by x%, the actual change would be less than that because it would not be better against skeletons, goblins, archers, etc. but only against cards with more than its current damage. So the effect is not based on the percentage of the change, but how big the numbers are.
    • Low hitpoint cards are more likely to waste the damage of enemy troops. This is like the inverse of the above but less obvious. It's the reason nerfing Skeletons' hitpoints would hardly be a nerf. It is also what makes the hitpoints of troops with shields more than the sum of their parts.
    • Buildings erode faster if you increase their hitpoints. If you buff any building's hitpoints, the nerf would be smaller because its lifetime would make them erode faster. If Inferno Tower's hitpoints were buffed by x%, the real hitpoint buff in a given situation (not net one!) would be x multiplied by 1 minus the time they stay alive over their lifetime.
    • An individual change to a stat acts alone. In order to buff a card by a given percent, you need to buff only its hitpoints or its damage by so much, not both. Why is that so? Here is an extreme example to show you this: if you buff Musketeer to have double the damage and double the hitpoints, now it would not only deal 2x damage but also stay around for twice to deal that damage. This makes it more like a 4x buff than a 2x.
    • It's actually a little more complicated... Hitpoints and damage both bring utility to each and every card, but they do so to different extents. For Giant, nerfing hitpoints would hurt more than nerfing damage, while for Dart Goblin a damage nerf would hurt more. This is, for example, the reason a 27% buff to Bomber went by without breaking the card: Bomber was very weak and mostly damage-based.

    Think of it like this: If a unit has a 100% potential and this potential is distributed around its hitpoints and its damage, then whenever you touch each of these aspects, you only touch their "market share" of the whole card. And once again, the values below are super made-up, I'm just trying to give an idea.

    • Giant: ~70% hitpoints, ~30% damage. Nerfing hitpoints by 5% is something like a 5x0.7x2 = 7% nerf.
    • Bomber: ~50% hitpoints, ~50% damage. No need to think of things like this.

    Hit speed and First attack

    Ah, shit, here we go again. This is something no one ever gets right. People take the hit speed stat to heart way too much and forget how important the first attack is, which leads to mistakes. It doesn't help that it's a hidden stat in card info windows.

    Hit speed is a misnomer. It doesn't reflect how fast a card hits, but rather the time between attacks. But I will still call it "Hit speed" throughout the post.

    • Hit speed is a reciprocal card stat. Increasing its value is a nerf, so the actual percentage is considered from its final state. For example, nerfing a card from 1sec hit speed to 1.2sec hit speed is not a 20% nerf, but a 17% one.

    Explanation: In one minute, a card with 1sec hit speed gets to shoot 60 times. A card with 1.2sec hit speed gets to shoot 50 times. This makes its DPS lower by 17%.

    • Hit speed and First attack work together. They create something like a "hit map", by which I mean the timing of each attack after a unit locks on a target. For example, Flying Machine's first attack takes 0.5sec and its hit speed is 1.0sec. Its hit map is 0.5-->1.5-->2.5-->3.5-->4.5-->...
    • A true net change means not just reducing DPS, but scaling up/down the entire hit map. Let's say you want to nerf Flying Machine's DPS by 50%. In order to do that, every number in its hit map should be doubled (so each shot takes half the speed), making it look like 1.0-->3.0-->5.0-->7.0-->9.0-->... This means a 50% slower hit speed and a 50% slower first attack.

    This is why a hit speed buff isn't necessarily as much a DPS reduction as people make it out to be. Most troops often change their targets. This is part of what went wrong with the Witch rework in Season 4. Her hit speed was reduced from 1sec to 1.4sec and it was mentioned as "-40%", but it actually was a 29% nerf. Moreover, her first attack remained the same instead of scaling down. These things helped Witch to appear weaker on paper than she really was.

    • But what if both stats are changed to different extents? Then you need to consider the situations you want to reward or punish. The first attack only has a huge effect when the card is locked on a unit for a short time. The hit speed only has a huge effect when the card is locked on a unit for a long time.
    • What if only hit speed changes? Then you need to consider that changing hit speed by x% is smaller than a true x% change without scaling the first attack as well.

    The initial attack is a hidden stat that is crucial to determining the power of a card and not standardized in any way. So here is a list of the first attack stats of every card:

    First attack Units
    0sec X-Bow, Prince (charged), Dark Prince (charged), Ram Rider's ram (charged), Battle Ram (charged). Also after they charge but then get disrupted exactly once - probably a bug
    0.1sec Archer, Valkyrie, Skeleton Barrel
    0.2sec Goblin, Bomber, Balloon, Goblin Brawler, Wall Breaker, Fire Spirit, Ice Spirit
    0.25sec Royal Hog
    0.3sec Baby Dragon, Giant Skeleton, Fisherman, Healer
    0.35sec Dart Goblin, Battle Ram (uncharged)
    0.4sec Barbarian, Mega Minion, Wizard, Dark Prince (uncharged), Guards, Lumberjack, Rascal Boy, Bandit, Ram Rider's rider
    0.5sec Minion, Knight, Mini P.E.K.K.A., Musketeer, Giant, Prince (uncharged), Skeleton, Spear Goblin, P.E.K.K.A., Miner, Magic Archer, Flying Machine, Royal Recruit, Mega Knight, Princess, Bowler, Ice Wizard, Bomb Tower, Tesla, Sparky, King Tower, Princess Tower
    0.6sec Hog Rider, Bat, Cannon, Cannon Cart, Ram Rider's ram (uncharged), Electro Wizard, Royal Ghost
    0.7sec Hunter, Royal Giant, Elite Barbarian, Electro Dragon, Witch, Night Witch
    1.0sec Golem, Golemite, Lava Hound, Mortar, Ice Golem, Rascal Girl, Night Witch, Goblin Giant, Executioner, Elixir Golem, Elixir Golemite, Elixir Blob, Firecracker, Lava Pup, Zappy
    N/A Inferno Tower, Inferno Dragon

    ​

    Multi-stage mechanics

    I think that we can all agree that some cards are made of two or more parts. For example, Lumberjack is made of a troop and a rage bottle, and Barbarian Barrel is made of a barbarian and a barrel. This can go more abstruse too, for example by considering the Wizard as made of "musketeer" and splash. Here, I will only consider the clear ones.

    So, what is the worth of the lumberjack and what is the worth of his rage? There are a few main things that determine the answers (and even then they are volatile). The main ones are:

    • How powerful is the effect by itself?
    • How much control do you have over it? For example, Lumberjack's rage isn't as good as the regular Rage because you can't determine when and where exactly it will drop.
    • Do you need to compromise in order to get more out of it? For instance, sometimes it's better not to utilize Bomb Tower's death bomb or Electro Wizard's spawn Zap, and to instead play them at a safer distance. And sometimes getting a good barrel value from Barbarian Barrel means that the barbarian will not spawn where it would be the most useful.
    • To what extent can your opponent counterplay them? Giant Skeleton's death bomb is not so dangerous on offense, because the opponent can defend it in a way that not many things get caught in the explosion.
    • It can depend on the deck and on the match-up.

    From here, it is pretty self-explanatory. If we assume that Barbarian Barrel is "50% barbarian, 50% barrel", then giving the barrel an x % change would only be an x/2 % change to the whole card. And if we assume that Lumberjack is "75% troop, 25% spell", then an x % change to the troop would be a 3x/4 % change to the whole card.

    ​

    !!! Arbitrary values incoming !!!

    I discussed the cards with a few people to come up with a good distribution of their value. Here's a table of what we came up with.

    Balanced ratios (both parts bringing about the same value) Unbalanced ratios (the two parts contribute differently) Disproportionate
    Rascals: Boy 50%, Girls 50% Goblin Gang: Goblins 60%, Spear Goblins 40% Goblin Giant: Big guy 95%, Death spearies 5%
    Barbarian Barrel: Barrel 50%, Barbarian 50% Golem: Golem 70%, Golemites 30%
    Giant Skeleton: Bomb 50%, Troop 50% Goblin Cage: Troop 70%, Cage 30% Elixir Golem: %#!@%$!@&
    Lava Hound: Hound 50%, Pups 50% Lumberjack: Troop 75%, Rage 25%
    Night Witch: Troop 80%, Death bats 20%

    ​

    Elixir

    Elixir is one of the most unappreciated factors in balancing. It determines everything about a card's power and the impact it can have on the battlefield. So what do cost changes do?

    • They are a reciprocal stat. Increasing its value is a nerf, so the actual percentage is considered from its final state. It may seem counterintuitive, but this is actually similar to hit speed. Technically, cost changes alter the stats per elixir you get. For example, changing the cost of a card from 3 to 4 elixir is a 25% nerf, and changing it from 3 to 2 is a 50% buff.

    Explanation: A card has x stats. At 3 elixir, you get 0.33x stats per elixir. At 4 elixir, you get 0.25x stats per elixir, which is 25% less. At 2 elixir, you get 0.5x stats per elixir, which is 50% more.

    • Lower costs get further versatility. This cannot be measured, but really has to be considered. Lower cost means more situations you can get value off, and more available elixir to play other things. Higher cost has the opposite effects. This makes elixir changes bigger nerfs or buffs than they really are.
    • The above really amplifies with the cheapest cards, and this comes into effect even if the cost doesn't change. 1-elixir cards get some value not just from their stats, but from that they can be cycled. Because cycle abilities cannot change, nerfs and buffs to the stats of those cards are less significant. The effect also applies a little bit for 2-elixir cards, though much more minor. (pls don't cycle Heal alone tho)
    • Cost often determines how much a card is played in a match and how much it impacts it. How much an unbalanced card impacts the battlefield often determines how much it is outside of the 45-55% win rate range. For example, 1-elixir cards reflect less of the total elixir played in a battle, and so they need a bigger change for the same impact.

    Other

    There are a lot of other stats that could be considered somewhat systematically, as well as some that cannot. I'll run over some of them.

    • Spawn time and Initial spawn: Assign the spawning as part of a composite card (like with multi-stage mechanics) and evaluate the effect of changes as if they were Hit speed and First attack stats.
    • Healing: Sort of the same as damage.
    • Rage and Slowdown: Assign the effect as part of a composite card if possible, then evaluate how much weaker the new effect is compared to the old one.
    • Projectile speed: Changing it resembles changing the first attack of a ranged card because the projectile arrives sooner. However, the reduction in travel time is smaller when a target is closer, so it can be deceiving.
    • etc.
    • A lot of things are difficult to account for. Speed, Range, Knockback, Area of effect, Count, Duration, etc.

    Some examples: Let's see this in action!

    Let us run through some of the recent balances we can now evaluate, what went wrong and what went right. I will use the process from the post and what parts from it apply. Clash Royale cards are complicated and this doesn't always work, but when it does, it's an extremely useful framework that has very well worked for me to catch 100% of the simple changes gone wrong. So here are some examples, copied from u/Supercell_Drew's posts!

    Season 1: The Flood. Cannon rebalance (failed buff)

    • Damage: +32%
    • Hit Speed: -25% (0.8sec -> 1.0sec)

    I remember the exact stats, so I will consider the tournament standard. Cannon's damage was buffed from 127 to 167, which is a 31.5% damage buff. The hit speed was actually nerfed by 20%. By multiplying the percentages, this was a 5% buff. But Cannon arguably became even weaker, so what went wrong then?

    Two things went wrong. First, it was not mentioned that Cannon's first attack would now take 0.6sec instead of 0.4sec. This is 0.1sec slower than a real 20% net change of hit speed and first attack. Second, this was a significant change of damage and as such the effect of wasted damage applies. These two effects squished the 5% DPS buff the card got and maybe even made it weaker.

    This exact thing failed the Elite Barbarians buff from the month before too. Their first attack was slowed down too much without notice.

    Season 1: The Flood. Goblin Cage buff (overbuff)

    • Lifetime: +33% (15s -> 20s)
    • Goblin Brawler: Damage +25%

    Sorta self-explanatory. The lifetime change is hard to gauge as a buff or nerf, but the effect of wasted damage was not nearly major enough to combat what was effectively a 25% net buff. Goblin Cage was busted in the following month.

    Season 2: Shipwrecked. Magic Archer buff (overbuff)

    • Damage +16%
    • Hit Speed 1.0s -> 1.1s

    The damage buff was from 96 to 111, so 15.5%; the hit speed nerf was a 9% one. This nets to a 5% DPS buff.

    However, it was not mentioned that Magic Archer's first attack would now take 0.5sec instead of 0.6sec. If it scaled down with the reduced hit speed, it would be 0.17sec slower than it actually became. So the net buff was actually much more than 5%. As a result, Magic Archer turned from slightly weak to overpowered.

    Season 3: Abruptly ending the fisherman story in order to launch into fucking space and be legendary. Fisherman buff (overbuff)

    • Elixir Cost: 4 > 3
    • Damage: -11%
    • Later, he received an emergency 5% hitpoints nerf. (actually a 4.5% one)

    The Fisherman is more of a composite card. When targeting something, he can attack or pull. Let's arbitrarily assign each of them as making up 50% of his potential. Fisherman's nerf was from 190 damage to 170, so technically a 10.5% damage nerf. It made up half of his potential but reduced the wasted damage effect, so I'll consider it a 5% nerf. In much the same way, I'll consider the emergency hitpoints nerf to be a 2% one. The change of elixir was a 33% buff plus extra versatility. So the total change was a ~25% buff. Fisherman became the strongest card. Since then, his hook became the main source of his potential and the changes to his stats in the following months barely dented him.

    Season 4: Shocktober. Wall Breakers buff (overbuff)

    • Elixir cost: 3 > 2
    • Damage: -10%
    • Mass: +100%

    What was the balancing team thinking?! This is one of the only changes that I genuinely think Seth tried to push to be obscenely OP.

    Reducing their cost from 3 to 2 was a 50% buff plus further versatility. Their damage nerf was miscalculated and was actually 9% (440 to 400 damage). But their mass was increased, resulting in more connections. It balances at around a 60% net buff. They really were a very weak card and this made the buff less significant, but they did become obnoxious and it should have been clear.

    The nerf that was needed to bring them to their current state was a 25% net one (19% less damage, 25% less area). So, compared to their pre-buff state, the current Wall Breakers are around 21% stronger. And they are still pretty strong!

    Season 4: Shocktober. Elixir Golem nerf (too small)

    • Hitpoints: -10%
    • Affects all forms (Elixir Golem, Elixir Golemite, Elixir Blob)

    This is a multi-phase card. At the time, each part had a dramatically different emphasis on DPS and hit points (blobs had double the hitspeed of the golem), which makes evaluating the change difficult. Here is a clue, however: Top ladder had several level 12 Elixir Golems before the change. Those had not only 9% fewer hitpoints, but also 9% less damage. It should have been clear that a bigger nerf was needed.

    Season 6: Clashmas. Knight buff (success)

    • Hitpoints +5%

    The change was quite the perfect amount for a weak card that was consistently under a 40% win rate. Right now, Knight is in a very healthy position, although in the first meta he couldn't deal with the Elixir Golem in the way Valkyrie could.

    Season 8: Shooting into space again. Zappies rework (successful but not ideal?)

    • Damage: +20%
    • Hit Speed: 1.6s -> 2.0s (25% slower)
    • Faster 'First Attack' on target: 1.4sec -> 1sec
    • Staggered Deploy Time: 0.15sec

    The damage buff is exactly 20%. The hit speed decrease is 20% but the first attack doesn't scale down with it. So there's a play of buffs and effects here.

    • Systematic changes: Damage +20%, Hit map -20% (Total 4% nerf)
    • Effects: 40% faster first attack (buff), Less stun capability (nerf), Smaller likelihood for stuns to overlap (buff), More wasted damage (nerf), Staggered deployment (idk)

    It is pretty unclear whether the change was a buff or a nerf.

    Conclusion

    I just wanted to babble about something I found interesting, lol. Please appreciate my effort because this is probably my best and most unique contribution to the subreddit yet!

    - Mew Pur Pur

    submitted by /u/Mew_Pur_Pur
    [link] [comments]

    Supercell hints at a balance change. EQ might affect underground Tesla!!

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 03:55 AM PST

    Dark prince IQ99999

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 02:55 AM PST

    Someone explain this abomination of a push

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 01:46 PM PST

    New card concept: Tsunami

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 12:26 PM PST

    Triple elixir is one of my favorite modes...

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 05:01 PM PST

    Milanoil Zeiker on twitter

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 05:22 PM PST

    [idea] DONATING LEGENDARY CARDS ONCE A MONTH

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 04:28 PM PST

    I really like the token trading system but what about, just ONCE A MONTH, having the possibility of requesting/donating any legendary card you want?

    That would certainly motivate frequent players and newcomers.

    About this special legendary donating day, it could be the last day of the season so that everybody doesn't forget about it.

    Of course there should be some limits such as only being allowed to donate 3 legendary cards during that day.

    Let me know your opinions.

    submitted by /u/GodAtheism
    [link] [comments]

    Closest game I've probably ever had

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 05:44 AM PST

    EQ should cause Miner to surface early-- no reason, just think it's cool

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 09:06 PM PST

    we love to see it (satisfying)

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 08:20 PM PST

    Why making earthquake damage an underground tesla is a bad change and doesn't make sense

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 02:39 PM PST

    If you haven't seen, Supercell is planning on making tesla susceptible to earthquake when it is underground, despite it being immune to all other spells in the game. I have one question to ask: why?

    First of all, tesla has a 6% usage rate and a 44% winrate in GCs, and earthquake has a 9% usage rate and 56% winrate. Keep in mind that Supercell's healthy range for a card is 45-55% winrate. It doesn't make any sense that they would implement a change that directly hurts a weak card and helps a strong card.

    Secondly, earthquake already counters buildings - it is a rock-paper-scissors style card. This change would just make it counter tesla even harder for no good reason. Wouldn't this change make Clash Royale more like rock paper scissors? Royaleapi has a useful tool where you can look at matchup data for decks. 2.9 xbow (the most popular tesla deck) loses to royal hogs earthquake (the most popular earthquake deck) 77.4% of the time. Imagine going into a match where the statistics say you have a 4/5 chance of losing. That's not fun at all.

    Also, earthquake affecting tesla creates an inconsistency in the game. Earthquake would be the only card in the game that can damage an underground tesla. There is no other situation in the game where 1 card affects another card differently than it affects other cards. The only thing that comes close is the bowler's knockback effect knocking back certain troops and not others.

    For those of you who think this change should be added so that the interaction between an underground tesla and an earthquake would be more like real life, I can assure you that you're wrong. Underground structures are generally considered safer than above-ground structures in an earthquake.

    Edit: I guess people are downvoting this only because they dislike tesla and don't see why the rock-paper-scissors effect of earthquake is so detrimental to the game. So far no one has come up with a good point as to why this change is a good idea.

    submitted by /u/RedLegend5
    [link] [comments]

    The king as soon as I take out the princess tower

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 10:08 PM PST

    Mega minion buff?

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 09:06 PM PST

    I'm sure I'm not the only one getting pissed on the miner-WB magic archer meta. Its pretty annoying to deal with when they keep cycling to their miner and wall breakers and defend with MA.

    *WHY?*

    Since the mega minion's last rework/update, it has not found its place anywhere except golem decks in the meta.

    Many players want miner and wall breaker decks to be nerfed.

    *HOW?*

    Mega minion should receive a 7% damage buff. This will increase its damage : 258>276.

    To maintain its damage per second and prevent it from becoming OP, it may also receive a -0.1s hit speed decrease: 1.6>1.7

    *WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECTS?*

    Mega minion will now be able to 1 shot wall breakers (MM is a big fat minion, and they are just skeletons after all!).

    >There will be no change in other key interactions. It will still 2 shot magic archer, and 3 shot fireballies like musketeer.

    *PROS*

    The card will become more viable in the meta, because it can now counter wall breakers completely.

    *CONS*

    I can not see any bad consequences for this change! The damage per second and key interactions will still remain the same, so it will most likely not be a threat.

    Feel free to criticize, support or give your own views! Any other suggestions regarding this matter are welcome!

    submitted by /u/MadBadJK
    [link] [comments]

    Why is the Tesla getting hit when it is clearly underground?

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 01:15 PM PST

    Anyone else the same way?

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 07:50 PM PST

    LET US REPORT PEOPLE

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 06:53 PM PST

    This is my first post since 2018. I am so sick and tired of kids with zero brain cells joining 2v2s just to complete their challenges. I can not tell you how often I get people using decks with spells only or under 2 elixir decks and its so painfully obvious that they are not here to play but to just get their challenges over with.

    If you are one of those people:

    Please don't ruin my game and go into battles and ruin your opponents game not your teammates, your cups are less valuable than my time and passion in the game

    submitted by /u/bahramfzl
    [link] [comments]

    After popular demand, iv'e nerfed the skeleton dragon! (sorry for being an idiot)

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 04:22 AM PST

    Shoutout to this guy! It took me like 15 matches for me to finally win!

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 07:24 PM PST

    Totally my first try

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 01:54 PM PST

    Giant snowball my favorite card. Any buffs, nerfs or improvements you guys can suggest.

    Posted: 24 Feb 2020 07:00 PM PST
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Fashion

    Beauty

    Travel