• Breaking News

    Sunday, December 13, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Clash Royale [Effort Post][Discussion] Everything that was wrong Xbow and the recent rework

    Clash Royale [Effort Post][Discussion] Everything that was wrong Xbow and the recent rework

    December 13, 2020

    Clash Royale [Effort Post][Discussion] Everything that was wrong Xbow and the recent rework

    [Effort Post][Discussion] Everything that was wrong Xbow and the recent rework

    Posted: 11 Dec 2020 09:02 AM PST

    This post here is to help facilitate discussion about the Xbow; Past, Present, and Future. Whether or not you like the Xbow and the rework, and whether or not you agree with my opinions, please do voice your opinions on the topic, as all discussion on the topic is information that can help the Supercell balancing team understand the situation and figure out the best thing to do going forwards.

    I started writing this post when the change was first announced, but couldn't finish it in time for the update, so some of the wording might seen weird from a post-update perspective

    Also, This post ended up exceeding the post character limit, so I had to break it up and put the rest in as comments, I'll include links to the other parts down the bottom of the post.

    TLDR:

    Although not overpowered the Xbow is/was in dire need of change for the sake of the long-term health of the game. However the recent rework won't solve the deep rooted problems it was meant to solve, but instead make the problem worse and kill the Siege archetype, and this is bad for everyone. The reason for this is that Xbow/Siege needs to be adjusted so that it:

    • Loses the ability to rely on spell stalling (focusing all resources on defense to minimize risk, while using spells to guarantee the tie-breaker, to create a situation where your opponent must over commit with extreme high-risk low-reward moves or automatically lose)

    and

    • Loses the need to rely on spell stalling to beat hard-counters

    But instead the change does the opposite by destroying Xbow's main offensive options while leaving the things that enable defensive play untouched, and making it even worse at dealing with hard-counters (Which makes the deck more reliant on defensive play ironically). Xbow will be destroyed by the rework; It ignores the reason why Xbow players are hyper defensive, and doesn't change what makes Xbow decks defensive.

    Despite these things u/Supercell_Drew and the u/ClashRoyale team shouldn't cancel the "balance" change due to pre-release feedback (and they never should for any balance change), but instead they should release the changes so we can all see if it worked out the way we thought it would, and then revert it soon after if it's terrible (which it almost definitely will be is). Either in a mid-season patch, or in the next season update. Then they should try and find a proper solution to the problems to trial in a future season, as a long term fix is important but not urgent.

    Intro

    I thought I'd preface this post by saying a bit about myself and why I'm making this post; I have been playing the game regularly since release and have been playing Xbow almost exclusively the entire time. For me Clash Royale was, and still is; a game about experimenting, refining, and adapting my deck, while developing new techniques and improving my skills to perform as well as I can in a competitive/semi-competitive setting. Now, I am by no means the most skilled or knowledgeable Xbow player out there, but I'm not terrible either; I have reached Grand Champions league (6.3k+) over many seasons with my 4.1 GSXbow deck (Heavy Siege archetype), and I hope to one day push further with it. Heavy Siege (High cost Xbow and Mortar decks) is a lot of fun to play, has better matchups against beatdown and other heavy decks (when compared to Cyclic Siege decks like Xbow 2.9), and is also a lot more aggressive than other Xbow decks. Despite this, this archetype is almost never seen in high level competitive play, and for good reason; It has no way to play around certain counters if your opponent knows what they're doing (Cycle decks can out-cycle these counters or spell cycle to win tie-breakers). For the past few years I've been secretly hoping that u/ClashRoyale would fix this with a balance change, so that a wider range of Xbow decks (such as my own) would be competitively viable, while keeping currently existing Xbow decks balanced. I haven't said much on the topic in the past because the balancing team is generally pretty good (despite what reddit usually says) and I hoped they'd make this happen eventually. However Supercell completely shat the bed with this update and killed the Xbow, both for my deck and the meta ones. To me, Clash Royale without the Xbow is dead, However I still have hope that things can improve. And so; I made this post in the hope that it would spark discussion that could help u/Supercell_Drew and the team understand the situation better, revive Xbow, and fix the problems associated with it. (Although, I'll admit that I'd be perfectly fine with Icebow disappearing)

    Solving these issues will make Xbow more fun to play with and against as a wider range of decks will be usable, and Xbow players will no longer need or be able to rely on defensive play and spell cycling to win games

    As such, although this is basically just a shameless 'Please buff my deck' post, I believe that doing so will improve the game for everyone. And so, in this post I intend to explain what I think the problem was with Xbow, why the rework will only makes things worse, and what I think should be done about it in the future. However, Fixing Xbow is something that is easier said than done as even just the problem itself is complex enough to require a massive post to explain it. As such, so that I can explain things the best I can, I first want to define some terminology (some of which I've already been using. Sorry) and introduce some concepts before I start talking about the problem and solution. First I'll talk about offensive and defensive play, The 'Stall' archetype, and then give a general overview of the Siege archetype as I understand it (which I was originally intending to post as part of a strategy guide once Xbow was in a better position). Sorry for the wall of text.

    Offense over Defense

    As many of us know, one of the design principles which Clash royale has been built around is "Offense over Defense" and this is something that couldn't be more relevant to the current discussion, as the main criticism of Xbow decks is that they're too defensive and hence should either be removed from the game or be reworked to favor a more offensive playstyle. There aren't many people out there who would completely disagree with that statement, but the thing that no one can agree on is what the correct response to this should be. I think that part of the reason that there is such division over this topic is because there is confusion relating to what makes a deck defensive or offensive, and what makes defensive play bad, or if its even bad at all. So, I figured that I'd put my thoughts on the topic out there so we have a conceptual starting point for discussion.

    With any deck, there's times you need to defend, and there's times you need to attack, "Offense over Defense" is not talking about this, in the sense that it's not saying that you should always choose to attack instead of defend, but rather it's talking about your general strategy and game plan. "Offense over Defense" is more about saying that if one player has an offensive playstyle, and is equally matched against a player with a defensive playstyle, the offensive player should have the advantage. This is good for many reasons, as it encourages gameplay that is fun to watch and play, is faster pace, and less likely to go stale. This is generally enforced in the game's design in that if you don't attack you can't win. In saying that, What is it that makes a playstyle offensive? Is a strategy that focuses on frequent low-risk attacks more or less offensive than one that focuses on infrequent high-risk high-reward attacks? Or are both just different ways for a deck to be offensive? Well, there's no objective way to answer these questions. But, in both cases, the player is required to proactively take risks in order to make their strategy work. As such, I would define offensive play as a playstyle that requires the player to proactively take risks in order to win the game, and on the contrary, defensive play would therefore be a playstyle centered around minimizing risk.

    When it comes to evaluating risk, there are 3 things which need to be considered, I'll call it the 3Rs:

    • Risk: How exploitable a move is, and how severe the consequence for failure is
    • Reward: How much value you can get from success
    • Reliability: How easy is it to succeed

    I think that these terms provide a helpful framework for talking about cards, decks, and strategies/archetypes; Particularly from a balancing perspective (It of course shouldn't be the only thing looked at though). For any balanced strategy, reward and reliability is proportional to risk; In the sense that an unreliable high-risk low-reward strategy would be underpowered, while a reliable low-risk high-reward strategy would be overpowered. Whenever risk is not proportional to reward and reliability, balance changes should be done to fix this, In saying that, this is not the only reason why balance changes should be done, as cards can be balanced (i.e. have balanced win/use rates) and still be problematic.

    One of the things the 3Rs can be used for is talking about whether a strategy is offensive or defensive. In saying that, these metrics don't tell use directly how offensive a strategy is, but rather, tell us how frequently a deck needs to attack to be offensive. A low-reward attack would need to be done frequently for the player to get enough damage to win, however as low reward attacks tend to be low risk, it is easy to do; The player is essentially choosing to take lots of small risks, and the cumulative effect is that they're taking a lot of risk. A high-reward strategy on the other hand might only need one or two successful attacks to win a game, however because of the high risk that usually comes with each attack, they can't afford to attack as frequently, and instead need to choose their battles more wisely. High risk high reward strategies also take lots of risk, they just put more emphasis on individual plays. So, when assessing whether a deck is offensive or defensive, we should not compare attack frequency to other decks, but instead compare it to the risk and reliability of its offensive strategies.

    If there exists a strategy that allows a player to have an advantage solely by minimizing risk, that is a problem, even if the win and use rates are balanced

    And so, the question with Xbow is: Does being defensive give the player an advantage? And if so, Why? Understanding the why of the problem is key to finding the way to fix the problem. So, when it comes to talking about Xbow, we should talk about the different strategies that involve it, ask these questions, and figure out how we can fix problematic strategies without breaking anything else.

    In saying that, there are multiple strategies that involve Xbow, and so things aren't going to be black and white. Typically, people would call any deck that uses Xbow or Mortar a Siege deck, but I am a bit strict in what I consider siege, and would argue that there are actually two archetypes which can use the Xbow; Siege and Stall. So, we're going to have to assess Xbow in the context of each archetype separately if we want an accurate understanding of the problem.

    The Stall Archetype

    The Stall archetype is a extremely defensive strategy which is built around creating a stalemate to cause a tie-breaker while using reliable low risk plays to guarantee you win the tie-breaker. The way this is typically done is by focusing almost all resources into defense, as to minimize risk, and then use reliable low risk cards (such as cheap spells) for chip damage at times when the opponent can't exploit it so that you can maintain a tower damage lead, and then cycle reliable high-reward cards (such as rocket) right before the tie-breaker when there isn't enough time to be punished for it. This creates a situation where the opponent must break through the stacked defense or lose the tie-breaker, which will in most cases pressure the opponent into overcommitting, which can be promptly punished by the stall player with a secondary win-condition. I haven't seen any strategy posts that talk about this strategy as a distinct archetype, but although many would just classify it as a very defensive form of control, I think its worth identifying it as a distinct archetype, as this type of gameplay is generally considered problematic, but Xbow generally isn't considered control (and it's never used in actual control decks), and we generally wouldn't say that the control archetype is an issue outside of these decks. The main distinction between stall and control is that stall decks try to minimize risk and rely on defensive play and the tie-breaker to pressure opponents into making mistakes, while control decks are offensive (despite being defensive when compared to other archetypes), and proactively attack their opponent with low risk attacks to get chip damage and pressure their opponent into making mistakes which create opportunities to use successfully use unreliable high-reward attacks. Control players 'control' the flow of the game with offensive pressure, Stall players create a stalemate and use defensive pressure to put the opponent into a bad position.

    Although it's not the only kind, the most common form of Stall is Spell Stall; A Stall deck which focuses on spell cycling to maintain their damage lead and get a final burst of damage in the last minute. These decks are commonly referred to as Spell Cycle decks. In this post I am renaming it Spell Stall and making the distinction between spell cycling and spell stalling because there are situations where spell cycling is appropriate, and can be done for many reasons while playing offensively. For example, Spell cycling can be done to finish off a tower after you've gotten most of the tower down from an attack, It can also be done to secure a tie-breaker when you're reaching the end of an intense battle with an opponent. But stall isn't those things, it's more specific, it's your general game plan; It is a strategy which should not be part of the game. It's not against the rules of the game in any way, so if you're a competitive player who's playing to win then you should by all means stall if doing so is what will win you the game. However, Stall is bad for the game at every level, it makes the game frustrating and boring for the people playing it, the people watching it, and most of all the people playing against it, It also causes the game to degenerate into a battle of who can spell cycle fastest, and so it is also bad for the competitive scene as well. For these reasons it is important that Supercell prevent Stall from becoming a viable archetype, and nerf it to the point where it is no longer viable whenever it does appear, Stall shouldn't be a viable plan A, plan B, plan C, or... stalling should be a last resort; an ineffective and unreliable strategy that should only be used when all other options are exhausted.

    In saying that, What else isn't stall? Playing defensively after destroying a tower is not stall, because it requires you to play offensively (with a different archetype) to gain the tower first before doing so. Spending a lot of time defending because your opponent has the advantage isn't stall, that's just called losing. Spending a small amount of time attacking because you're using a high-risk high-reward deck isn't stall, because you'll need to eventually take risks and attack if you want to win.

    In saying these things, the question is, what role does Xbow play in stall decks? Is Xbow a necessary card for stall? Why is stall necessary for Xbow? I'll answer these questions later on in the post, but before then I'll talk about the Siege archetype; the main strategy for Xbow.

    What is Siege?

    Note: If any skilled & experienced siege players want to correct me or add anything, please do say so in the comments

    Siege is rather unique and unusual strategy. It is a high-risk high-reward archetype built around sustaining an unending offense; It is one of the most powerful offensive strategies, as it can often win games with a single attack, but it's also very unforgiving. It has a lot of counters and choosing to attack at the wrong time will usually cause you to lose the game. Due to its distinctiveness and unforgiving nature, Siege is hard to learn, and is often considered a "High Skill" strategy (personally I don't believe decks can be considered high or low skill), some would even argue that this strategy has the highest skill floor (hardest to pick up and learn the basics of) in the game. One of the main defining features of Siege is that once you start attacking, you can continuously attack your opponent with an unending siege until your opponent forces you to stop or your opponent's tower is dead. Although stretching things out as long as possible usually isn't the best idea as over-committing will usually result in you losing a tower, one of the main differences between a skilled siege player and an inexperienced one is knowing when to stop attacking. Siege players generally don't try to push through their opponents defense and burst down towers like in beatdown, or try get quick hits in to exploit openings like in control, but instead use a wide range of strategies to initiate depending on the match-up so that they can set up a siege to exhaust their opponent's resources while surviving their defense, and then slowly start wearing down their opponents health after their resources are depleted. Sometimes siege players can get a lock and start damaging opponents before exhausting their resources, this doesn't happen much at high skill play though.

    Siege win conditions are typically long range buildings (Xbow or mortar) that can attack crown towers from outside their range. In saying that, A card having long range doesn't necessarily mean it is a siege win condition, for it to be one, you need to be able to sustain an unending offense with it; So a princess realistically can't be used as a siege unit because it's too fragile and impossible to reliably protect, and a Royal Giant isn't a siege unit because it lacks the survivability to stay on the battlefield long enough to play like a siege win condition (and its dps is way too high so it would be OP if it could be played as a siege win con), and even if you cycle them you need to push through your opponents defense again, and so it would play more like a beatdown win condition in this instance. Mortar can be used as a siege win condition, however mortar siege hasn't seen much use in recent years unfortunately, these days it's more common as a support/defense tower for bait decks. As such, at the moment the main siege decks you see in the meta at the moment are Xbow decks. (And not all Xbow decks are pure siege either)

    There are two main offensive strategies for sustaining sieges:

    • Siege by Replacement: continuing a siege by replacing the siege unit before the opponent is able to recover from the previous one.

    • Siege by Reinforcement: preemptively making investments to allow you to have additional support throughout a siege so that your siege can survive hard counters, or drain the resources of a defensive player faster.

    Any viable siege deck should be able to utilize both of these strategies, I'd go as far to say that for a deck to be considered a siege deck it needs to have a few ways to implement both of these strategies. However, while all siege decks need both strategies, different sub-archetypes of siege put different amounts of emphasis on the different strategies. Cyclic siege decks focus more on replacement (Faster cycle speeds make it easier to replace the siege unit), but still have tools to use reinforcement. Heavy siege decks have more ways to reinforce a siege, and hence have better match-ups against heavy decks and beatdown, but struggle with replacement, especially in single elixir (although before the nerf even my 4.1 Xbow deck could use replacement in single elixir if I made no mistakes). Both of these strategies become more effective during double elixir. Replacement gets stronger as more elixir means faster cycles, which means faster replacements, and even though your opponent is also cycling faster, and hence not getting out-cycled anymore than in single elixir, faster replacements means your opponent needs to shut down your siege unit faster to end the siege. Reinforcement gets stronger in double elixir because more elixir means bigger investments. For these reasons, siege decks are stronger in double elixir than in single elixir. However siege decks aren't the only decks that are boosted in double elixir. Beatdown decks, and heavy decks also get boosted, most beatdown decks are heavy, so most beatdown decks get a 'double boost' in double elixir. So, since most siege decks are cyclic, most beatdown decks get a bigger boost in double elixir, which makes the matchup difficult as beatdown typically has the advantage already.

    At the moment it kinda sounds like I'm saying siege is some crazy offensive strategy in which you're always attacking your opponent, it's not. Anyone who's played it, or played against it would know that its far from the case, as siege players are known for being very 'defensive'. This actually makes a lot of sense given what I've said earlier in the post, as although siege is a very powerful offensively, it is also very high risk (I'd argue it's the most extreme high-risk high-reward strategy in the game), and because of that high risk, siege players can't just attack whenever they feel like it, but instead must choose their battles wisely. As such, most of the game for a siege player is about scouting out your opponent's deck, and then searching for, or creating opportunities to attack. The methods used for doing this varies a lot depending on the matchup, and this is why stories of what its like to play against a siege player varies a lot. I won't talk much about the specific matchups in this post aside from ones relevant to this discussion, I'll mostly stick to vague descriptions of the general gameplay. This is because this post was not focused on any specific deck, and is not meant to be a guide for how to play siege (although if things are fixed I might make one later).

    So, when a Siege player is attacking, they're making an unreliable high-risk high-reward attack, and this kind of play would be considered very offensive. But, how would we describe Siege for the rest of the game? They're not attacking, so we wouldn't consider it offensive play, but aside from when the opponent is directly attacking them, are they being defensive? Is the mindset of a Siege player to minimize all risk until it's time to risk everything in an all-out attack? No. Because with Siege, in most matchups against decent players opportunities to attack don't just randomly appear, you often have to go out of your way to create situations where you can overcome the disadvantage that comes with initiating. And to do this you will often need to take risks, the reward for these risks aren't that you get tower damage, but rather that the board is put in an advantageous state in which you can initiate successfuly. I would describe the playstyle of a Siege player who isn't attacking or defending as passive; In that they aren't attacking their opponent yet, but they aren't trying to minimize risk either. They're either progressing the state of the game by making non-committal plays (Such as splitting archers up the back) so that they aren't leaking elixir and becoming disadvantaged, or so that they can scout out their opponent's deck; Or they're making investments to set up a siege (Reinforcement). It is important we make the distinction between defensive and passive play, because passive play is required for aggressive high-risk high-reward playstyles, but to an inexperienced eye it looks the same as defensive play.

    What are the struggles of Siege, and what makes Siege so high risk?

    First up, Siege decks are completely reliant on their siege unit for attacking, the siege unit is responsible for ensuring the attack is successful, and is also responsible for dealing all the damage. Aside from spells they have no back up options or alternate means for getting damage, so if the siege unit is dead, then the siege will end shortly after if it isn't replaced since the Siege player has no other way to apply offensive pressure. Not only this, sieges are highly exploitable as siege units are terrible at protecting themselves, and so a poorly protected siege will often result in your opponent setting up a massive counter attack and then taking a crown tower or three with it because you have no elixir. Because of this Siege decks need to built entirely around the siege unit, and due to the archetype being completely different to others; the supporting cards and deck structure for Siege generally don't work well with other win conditions. So, when building a Siege deck it's all or nothing, you either commit entirely to making a Siege deck, or you give up one of your card slots for what is essentially a forfeit button.

    Siege units are not like 3 musketeers or goblin barrel which if countered can be complemented with other win conditions with the same counter, and its not like sparky which is paired with other win conditions that can be used if the sparky is countered. Siege decks require the deck to be centered entirely around the siege unit, this means there's no room for back up win conditions or bait, so if the siege unit can be consistently countered, the entire deck is countered and can no longer attack. In an 'Offense over Defense' game where attacking is a requirement for winning, matchups where attacking is impossible translate directly into matchups that can't be won (unless you find a way to break the game's design).

    The thing is, siege units, particularly Xbow, are expensive fragile low-dps units which must be played at the bridge where it is outside the protection of both crown towers, As such, when a Siege player initiates, they start a battle on the bridge; a neutral area on the map where neither player has an advantage. However, to initiate the Siege player has to spend most of their elixir on a card that can't protect itself, while they're fighting from a significant elixir disadvantage. To overcome this disadvantage, Siege players get to choose when they attack, the idea is that the Siege player decides to initiate when they believe they have enough of a situational advantage to overcome the resource disadvantage that comes with initiating a siege.

    The thing that makes Xbow so risky is that despite being a 6 elixir card, it only had 104 dps. By comparison; spear goblins, a low dps 2 elixir card does 118 dps. Further more, Xbow had 1383 heath and passively lost 33.25 health each second, now this might seem like a lot as this amount is comparable to a mini tank (2e ice golem has 994, and 3e knight has 1452), but once you take the passive health decay into consideration its clear that the Xbow is rather fragile for a 6 elixir standalone win condition. Miner, which would be considered underpowered for a 3 elixir troop if it weren't for its ability to be placed anywhere (and even still is in need of a buff) has 1000hp and 133 dps giving it better survivability and dps than the Xbow. Now, I'm not comparing Xbow to these troops to say that Xbow is underpowered or overpowered, because the Xbow's strength doesn't come from those stats, but rather I made these comparisons to help give a feel for where its stats were before the nerf ("rework"). The thing with Xbow is that it's expensive, weak, fragile, and requires full commitment, both in terms of deck composition and resources, But due to its long lifetime, can be very powerful if protected well.

    Now we all know that Siege struggles against big heavy tanks like golem and pekka, as they provide enough power to shut down a siege single handedly, but any decent siege player should know how to play around those counters. But there are counters which are much harder to play around, for this reason I wouldn't even consider heavy tanks to be in the top 10 hard counters for Xbow. I would argue that Xbow's biggest hard counters are spells, followed by mini tanks, I'll speak more about why later, but first I'll introduce an exhaustive list of strategies used to outplay them.

    1. Outcycle the counter: This one is fairly straight forward, if you can outcycle your opponent, then you can attack when the counter is out of hand. Then it doesn't matter how effective the counter is as they'll have to rely on something else.

    2. Pray your opponent has a mental disability or disconnects mid-game. If your opponent doesn't know how to use their counters (or play the game at all) then you might be able to beat them, even then it's unlikely. This isn't a real strategy, but if you're playing Heavy Siege it's the best you've got.

    3. Give up... On playing Siege. Siege users can't bait out hard counters as they have no way to threaten their opponent and pressure them into wasting their counters (unless strategy #2 works out). After all, Siege isn't Control/Bait. And although it's possible to kill a golem before it crosses the bridge, you can't kill a rocket; So no support cards can save you. And since Xbow is a building which only has a few places it can be played, you can't adjust your placement to work around hard counters either. So if your opponent has an unbeatable hard counter, don't bother attacking with your Xbow, you're better off closing the app mid game, reopening it, and trying a different strategy entirely (most players skip the 'close the app' step). In saying that, most win conditions are incompatible with Siege, so your best/only backup is Stall.

    And this is why there are only 2 viable Xbow decks at any time, one for each strategy.

    What meta Siege decks are there?

    As I said earlier, there are only two viable Xbow decks at a time, one for each counter-strategy. You might find variants of these decks floating around, but they aren't meaningfully different, and are essentially just the same deck but modified for preference/the meta. Here they are:

    • Xbow Cycle (Xbow 2.9, 3.0, etc.) This is a Cyclic Siege deck, it has the optimal cycle and so it is best suited to outcycling counters, At a high level competitive context there's no point using any other Siege deck if you plan on playing pure Siege since it doesn't matter how strong your deck is if you can't play around your counters.

    • Icebow This deck is a Siege-Stall hybrid, it is designed to optimize defensive play and spell cycling. As such, it can be played as a Siege deck, but it's generally weaker than pure Siege decks like Xbow 3.0, the advantage of Icebow is that you can play Spell Stall the moment things get too scary (which is pretty much always for most players), and then return to Siege when your opponent rage quits or is forced to overcommit.

    Even though I'm nearly at the post character limit, I still feel like I've brushed over many of the topics and that there's so much more that could be said. In saying that, I haven't even started talking about the problem, and most people probably haven't bothered reading this far into this giant wall of text, and fair enough. But for those who did bother to to read it all and try understand it, Thanks. I'll include the rest of the post in the comments, and after you read them, whether you agree with me or not, please discuss below what you think about what was talked about in this post, and what you think the solution should be.

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

    Merry Logmas!

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 08:37 AM PST

    [idea] The Log had to be like this:

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 01:30 AM PST

    Imagine being this defensive, as a CM.

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 01:02 PM PST

    [CONCEPT, CONTAINS GAMEPLAY!!] The Corruptor (Read comments for more info!)

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 01:42 PM PST

    An actual true story

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 05:23 AM PST

    Troops that jump the river, still get hit by Earthquake. To stay consistent with Ground only spells, this should be fixed.

    Posted: 12 Dec 2020 11:17 PM PST

    yoink*ed

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 07:00 PM PST

    Season 18 Level Dependence - What card upgrades make the most difference

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 06:51 PM PST

    What happened to the competitive spirit of the players

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 07:18 PM PST

    [For Real] The update has definitely improved our situation as a casual clan! Lowering limits and adding "overtime" rewards really helped us out and gained our first victory after clan wars 2!

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 03:28 AM PST

    My little BM princess. Was going to post the screen recording but my god, you lot will be screaming at your phones.

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 07:23 AM PST

    One of the best feelings in Clash Royale

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 05:18 AM PST

    Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: The Indecisive Magic Archer

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 05:26 AM PST

    The party game mode isn’t even fun because nearly all my opponents have level 13 star power decks and I’m just crying with my level 11’s.

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 10:03 AM PST

    I would probably find it fun if I had every card in the game max level but I don't. It really should be a level 9 cap.

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

    Had almost 6 firecrackers on the map at one time lol

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 05:49 PM PST

    Mother witch+mirror+clone=OP!!!

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 09:06 AM PST

    Add sorting for emotes. Rarity, type (e.g. shop, Challange, etc), use.

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 10:51 AM PST

    Sorry for the last title mods. I was feeling kinda frustrated at the world in general. Nothing against you. I know I got the username wrong too.

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 07:57 PM PST

    Outplayed

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 03:48 PM PST

    card idea

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 07:24 PM PST

    Great deck for Lumberjack challenge! 0 losses and 9 wins!!!

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 04:23 PM PST

    When a Royal Giant drinks one too many rage spells

    Posted: 12 Dec 2020 10:10 PM PST

    Match making

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 04:00 PM PST

    I'm fairly new to the game and have a question about how the match making works, does it pick opponents at random based on your tower lever only or does it also include what type of deck your using? I ask cause I notice when I use different decks I tend to come across certain other types of deck much more often as opposed to others, such as when I use royal giants I see lots of golem decks or I use hog rider and see lots of mega knight decks. Also I know I can't win every game but if I win so games I notice I see more types of decks that mine tends to be weak against and get knocked down more trophies then I gained every time. I'm just wondering if this is by design or if it's just me?

    submitted by /u/NastyNate7577
    [link] [comments]

    why???

    Posted: 13 Dec 2020 04:32 AM PST
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Fashion

    Beauty

    Travel