Why I'm being such a jerk =(

General GTG General Discussion
1

This might be a long post.. =p.

 

I took a step back for a moment today,   I probobly came down a bit hard on lollocrox,  and some others in recent threads.   So first; an apology to anyone I might have annoyed/offended or provoked over the past week or so,   but especially to lollocrox,  the stuff I wrote wasn't the kind of thing to say to welcome a new player.   But kudos to you for being such a champ and making me think twice.

 

So as most of you probably know,  I have my opionions about certain characters.   I feel Fixer, Bunker, and Expatreitte specifically, are quite weak compared to the other heroes.   Up until recently I would include Absolute Zero in that list, but I feel that Elemental Wrath Zero fixes that nicely.     Engine Of War Bunker, while interesting and a step in the right direction, doesn't make Bunker a lot more viable in my opionion, so he remains on the list.    That's probably not going to change anytime soon.

 

But that's not really important to this post.   What's important is that I've been a bit too agressive in asserting my opinion.   I do it because in whatever game I play I see an issue.   Why didn't they do it this way?  Why didn't they do it that way?  Even my favorite games tend to have some little thing that annoys me.   I hate house-ruling things,  I only do it when I feel its absolutely necessary to maintain the fun of the game.  I feelt it was necessary to include the previous line because it preempts responses such as "well why dont you just play it the way you want to?".   That's why.    On occasion I will try something, but I prefer to play a game the way the creators intended.   

 

So why is Sentinels different than the rest of the games where I dislike one thing or another?    Well, because I have an opportunity to make a difference.   I'm a playtester, but even if I wasn't,  I know the designers read the forums and at least consider what is said there.  I've even had a few of my ideas make it onto cards in some way shape or form.   That's not what I'm used to,   I mean that is just awesome.  Not just me, of course,   I mean it's awesome that the designers are really listening to the community in a way that I think is pretty unique to SoTM.   For all my hundreds of Arkham Games, despite posting on the FFG forums at least as much as I do on this one in the past, and having met Kevin Wilson (the designer) in person,  I'm not going to influence the next Arkham Horror expansion.... but I just might do that for SotM.

 

So you can see where this is going,  if I see a problem -or what I percieve to be a problem-  and I feel like I *can* fix it,  then I feel like I should try.  I was not a playtester for Rook City,  and I wish I had been.   I wish I'd have had a chance to give my input on Expatriette and Fixer.   Maybe if I had, I wouldn't have the problems I have with them now.   I was a playtester for IR, but I didn't playtest too extensively.   For ST, I've not done too much with the villains or environments, but I've playtested the hell out of the new heroes, and I'm happy to say that both of them are amazing.

Hm... getting a little off-track here...   To fold things back in with the title, I come down pretty hard on people sometimes for defending Bunker/Expatriette/Fixer, especially if I can't see a good reason for them to do so other than that they like the character.  I'm trying to approach things from an objective standpoint, so the coolness of the character does not factor in, and it worries me that others do not see the inherent flaws that I do.   It worries me because I want the game to grow and improve, and I want each expansion to be better than the one before it.  What I don't want is a huge disparity between heroes to the point where some heroes are left in the box and forgotten.  And I feel the same about villains.  

 

Villian digression:     I'm not a huge fan of the RC villians.    Matriarch is a bit too random for me,  in my experience if she draws Huginn and Muninn quickly (on advanced) it's gg, no re.   There's practically no way to stop her at that point.  Chairman is a remarkable case of making the villian HARDER but not more challenging.  This is why I don't like to play him.   He's very difficult, which is something that appeals to me,   but he's only difficult because of insane amount of damage that comes out of his minions.   Between that and Prison Break, it's very difficult to tactically eliminate threats as a player.   Experienced players and n00bs have a pretty equal chance against him, which is to say, not much.   He's just striaght up hard, and there's not a lot of strategy or clever play that can save you.     Plague Rat I love and I feel he is RC's saving grace.   Spite's effective invlunerability until flipside makes him  a little dull to play against and falls into the same trap as Chairman:   there's not much strategy will do for you here.   You either have the ability to hit hard enough when he flips, or you don't.       By contrast, most of the IR villians are great.   Gloomweaver is the worst villain in the game by far (he's just awful) but Ennead, Apostate, and Akash-Bhuta are all really fun to play against.

 

The point is, I get worried because I would like more heroes to be strong, solid heroes.  When people say Exp. is fine, or Fixer is good,  that makes me cringe because I see problems in those characters,  problems I would not like repeated.  The problems/mistakes of Rook City;  the expansion to make the game harder (but not with more depth).   It also bugs me when somebody comes to the forum and complains that Fixer or Exp. or Zero is weak (it's always one of those three) and they are imidiately rebuffed and it's suggested that with the right play these heroes are as good as any other, where I feel that even with the right play they are still weak compared to another hero controlled by a player of equal skill.  So that's why I've been  a little... direct, when talking about certain heroes.     So again, lollocrox, lynkfox, SoundofTrees,  sorry for dismissing your opinons of off-handedly.   It came from a good place (out of enthusiasm for the game) but it was still very petty. 

2

I really appreciate this post, awp. I thought you were being a jerk and if it had continued, I would have stepped in. 

For the record, I agree with you about Mr. Fixer. My sense (not backed up by any particular data or reasoning) is that Mr. Fixer generally accomplishes less (i.e. is weaker) than the other heroes. I'm not sure I agree on Expatriette or Bunker.

I think of Ra and Expatriette as both being primarily damage dealers and I think Expatriette gives Ra a run for his money. Not only do I often see Expatriette get out either the Tacticle Shotgun (4 damage to 1) or the Assault Rifle (3 damage to 2), but I've seen RPG Launcher and Hairtrigger Reflexes save the day enough times that I think Expatriette definitely pulls her weight.

Bunker is a slow build character. Still, I've seen him save the day enough times that I think he pulls his weight, too. External Combustion is a rare instance of massive AoE. The Foam Grenade has made a tremendous difference. The Omnicannon does a fine job of providing the BIG HIT. The trio of Flak Cannon, Grenade Launcher, and Turret Mode is a powerhouse. As often as not, though, it's simply Heavy Plating, Gatling Gun and Recharge Mode that does it. I used to think that Bunker was weaker than the rest. The change was when I recognized that I should rarely be trying for more than one of these three methods in the same game (FC, GL, and Turret; Omnicannon; Gatling, HP, and Recharge).

Mr. Fixer's saving grace is supposed to be that he can be the one hero that can do exactly what is needed when it is needed. Two problems with that: First, sometimes there isn't something that's needed that somebody else can't do. Second, Mr. Fixer too often can't do that one thing that's needed because he doesn't have the right cards, even though they are somewhere else in his deck. Yes, I've seen Salvage Yard save the day, Jack Handle save the day, Grease Gun save the day, and doing irreducible damage save the day. But, like I said, my general sense is that it's just not often enough to make his otherwise general low power worth it. He is low power _AND_ slow build.

On the opposite side of the spectrum I think of The Wraith, Tempest, and NightMist as being stronger than the others.

Plus, in a five player game if you don't have Legacy, you're shooting yourself in the foot, whereas in a three player game, Legacy can be a drag. Legacy makes each other hero stronger, so the more heroes there are, the more Legacy is valuable.

About Rook City, I agree that it like it less than the rest of SotM. I agree with one of the points you made (Chairman is more hard than challenging), and have other issues (Matriarch: More challenging than I enjoy; Spite: Hard to keep track of things; Plague Rat: Not fun to keep hitting ourselves; Rook City env: Too hard). On top of that I don't generally like the gritty feel behind everything. There's lots of bits and pieces about them that I like, but overall I enjoy the Rook City decks both collectively and individually less than EE, IR, or ST. 

I've said a bunch of stuff here that I haven't bothered to say in other threads because I didn't think I had anything to add to a particular discussion or was just plain busy when I read them. 

The reality is that the community of people who post regularly is still pretty small. Not only can a few people happening to agree on something seem like it's more representative than it is, but how those of us who are interested enough to be on the forums think about these things may well be very different from the majority of the people who play.

3

With Mr Fixer, Expat, and the others, there are two different thing to consider. The first is if they are on par with other heroes in play. The second is if they are as easy to understand and feel asfun as the others to all players.

That's why we have so many discussions about them. They are not "underpowered" (in my opinion). If you look at the results they obtain in game, Mr Fixer, Expatriette, Bunker, Absolute Zero and so on are as good as the others. Come on, Fixer is the only hero who can consistently do irreducible damage, or make all damage to a target irreducible - and seeing how many Villains have damage reduction, it's not something "weak" !

BUT many players have a problem with them. They are less accessible. They feel more limited in what they can do. Their cards, taken individually, look bland when compared to some of other heroes. And so on.

All these threads about " hero X is underowered", for me, miss the point. They try to "correct" them by making them more powerful - not by making them easier to understand, or more fun to play.

I think many players are unimpressed by these heroes because they play in a way they don't find "fun", not because they are weak.

I'll agree on the fact that they may look unimpressive at first. It took me time to understand AZ, who is now for me the more powerful hero of the game. Mr Fixer at first felt weak, until I grasped the way to use him.

It's, in a way, true of all heroes. One of my fellow player finds Tachyon weak and uninteresting, and he can prove his points : most of her card do one damage, and she can oly damage when she has a card, her best cards only works if she discards a lot, without even using her abiities - and when she finally uses Lightseep Barrage, the high damage doesn't even equals the cumuled damage other heroes did... It's true AND false, but it is how he feels.

My fear is that players, and testers, would evaluate poorly what is really making a hero feel sub-par, and try to enforce changes that would make all heroes overpowered versions of the Wraith.

If Fixer, for instance, feels a little dull because you have many "dead" cards in your hand, that you don't want to use, or because he doesn't have one or two cards like Impromptu Invention to make you feel awesome in your deck management, it is one thing. It doesn't mean he is underpowered, just under-impressive. Expatriette is a great damage dealer, and very effective - what seems to be the problem is that many players feel theya re doing the same thing each round, while with some other characers they can hope/work for combos.

That's why I said somewhere else that it was important to say exactly which parameter some one uses to evaluate a hero - to be precise on the real reasons the hero doesn't for for him/her. Because "underpowered" or "lacking" is awfully vague and subjective, and can lead to bad solutions - like giving them more damage, making them overpowered, but not more fun to play.

If someone says : "I feel a little let down when playing Mr Fixer. It's like I just need two cards, and then have nothing interesting to play or use for the rest of the game, and it is even worse if I can't find the two cards I need!", I can understand - and I'll find this an important point to take into consideration for future hero design ( namely : people want to have multiple powers to chose from, people want to have many different cards to use and put on the table)

If some says "Fixer is underpowered !", those of us who don't think so, because we know his deck and what tactics make him incredibly effective and useful, can just try to explain how to use him in an effective way - EVEN if we would agree on the "feel bland, less awesome ffelling than the others" part.

I am convinced all the critics about these heroes come from the fact that they feel slow, limited, passive in some way - not from their supposed lack of power, but from a lack of "feels awesome to play them".

Wraith feels awesome, and is seen as "overpowered" - when in fact, she is as often as the others victim of a bad hand, or a bad card from the villain. But she as many different cards, many combos, many little things that always give you the feeling that you can do something. Exapt as more instances of each of her cards, less ways to search her deck, and often won't play a card at all - even if she often beats Wraith at damage, she feels un-awesome, because you do less things on your turn than Wraith would...

Tachyon is in many ways weak, BUT she gives you a goal to work for, and have you play card upon card upon card.

This is already too long, and I am repeating myself, like the old man I am.

 

The point is : I can't agree on the "this hero is underpowered" idea, because for me, all the heroes have their advantages, their own awesomeness, and are equally sueful on the field. But I CAN agree on the "this hero feels less awesome than others, and we should avoid this in the future" part. Or on the "this hero is too hard to grasp" idea. And, as you can see, I am ready to help correct it by analysing why they feel this way. However, If the conversation is only about proving that the heroe doesn't work at all, I can't agree - and would better shut up than risk an escalating "war of proofs".

Oversimplified Summary : the problem with those heroes is not their power level, but the fact that they don't give the player what they would expect from a hero. And this needs to be taken into account when designing new heroes.

 

Edit : by the way - I applaude you for your post. And did not think you were a jerk (or any one else was) just that the debate had become completely sterile - and I began fearing to be jerk myself :) .

4

Thanks for the post, awp.  I'm glad you express the opinions you do (other than the possibly-slightly-jerky ones), as I know your comments come from playing this game a hell of a lot, and really enjoying it most of the time.

For the general debate, I think it's a little foolhardy to insist that the power level of all heroes is exactly the same, for the simple fact that they were designed by humans, not algorithms.  (Unless Christopher has been hiding something from us?)  I've played the game many times, many ways, trying many different playstyles, and some things just come up more useful, time and time again.  Yeah, everybody has their uses, but that does not translate to perfect balance.

 

5

@AWP.

I think this is a very honest post, and it takes a strong man to apologize. Just try to remember that when people feel like they've been put on the defensive they will not be as open to your opinion and will become more focused on winning the argument rather than having a dialogue. Humans have a built in urge to win things that can be made worse by the internet. We're all in this together, and even if I disagree about some characters being weak or weaker than other ones, that doesn't mean that I don't think they can be improved or made better.

6

@awp832

Thank you for posting this, I happily accept the apology. I am sure that a constructive criticism is always better than straightforward endorsement, and your posts, even if a bit aggressive, made me double and triple-check mine, to see if I sounded arrogant or if I had been dishonest in my assertions, so they've been useful to me in some way. I hope we can have other, more light-hearted discussions in the future!

And, by the way, I agree that Expatriette and Mr. Fixer could have been done better and aren't as solid as the other heroes. Maybe they will receive some sort of special treatment in future prints of RC, who knows!

7

Hey man, we all make mistakes. Then we get better. Don't worry, AWP, we still want you here. It takes guts to apologize, so kudos on that.

 

8

Ok, this post made me worried  a little.  I am really worried if i get what i think i thought i will get with a shattered timelines heroes. To the point if i did'nt pledge for it i would wait for extensive review and then decide if i will bought them or not. It`s about you liking new heroes after being a part of playtests awp832. I don`t want to insult you but i am really afraid that they would be too dull for me. This post will be long but i really hope you will read it anyway. 

Here is the deal - i will try to think about the game from designer standpoint i will try to tell you why these decks are looking how they looking , what they represent and deduct why you don`t like them.

In the most basic form - the player turn of the sentinels of multiverse looks like this.

You choose one of two things - you either choose to affect game directly or increase your number of options for later time.(play phase)

Then you choose one of your available options and affect the game with it.(power phase)

Then you restore your number of choices for later turns (draw phase)

It`s really the basic engine of the game - if i would create a base game i got to make sure that this basic engine works and it`s used in the most interesting way possible. Thats simple, but then the expansions cannot be that simple. I got to either change something in this basic engine or i got to adress the results of things that this engine creates. Basically i need to look at it and think - it would be cool if i could do X and make it happen. Then after this basic idea i need to create a whole deck around it with a little empty spots that i can fill with something for balancing later or adress the problems that my implementation of idea creates. This leads to interesting conclusion some of implementation will change game in such way that experienced player can have a problems. Because the gameflow will be changed in such way that it will be unfamiliar for that kind of player and his old ways will fail him. That leads to frustration that i think you awp are experiencing - but to prove my thinking i am going to analyze two of the decks that you have problems with.

 

Let`s start with expat. Ok here is a girl that do damage from various guns , have some ammo to boost it - normal dealing damage character. I already played ra or haka so i think i will play it as them - this is how will experienced player think. But analyze it further - let`s look on base power of expat - it's a "play a card". On haka and ra it`s "deal damage". It's really easy to see the difference - someone may thinks it`s a design flaw or when they're smart to not make unload obsolete. But if we think about it further - does we really need to sacrifice something as important as base power for making work couple of cards in big deck? So we can draw conclusion, it`s not normal dealing damage character - and this power got to be there for a reason. And to find what reason it is ,we got to compare expat turn to normal other hero turns. We choose up to two cards - each of it could let us to either affect game directly , to give us more options, or to modify existing already option. Wait - what did i just said? We can modify our options for later game? That`s new - so i can prepare for things that is coming later and then use it? So my choice when to deal damage and when to prepare for later is most crucial for gameplay for expat? If it's so - play a card is invaulable power. Wait i am a girl with no powers i only have equipment and my wits - so not shooting blindly is really themathic. I have my bag with things prepared for all things that is coming. See? It`s not only themathic but also very clever and different experience if instead of dealing damage all the time you got choose when to deal damage and when not to. When you see the deck of voss is coming low and there were no projectile immune guys yet - instead of shooting other minions expat will take assault rifle load it with fire ammo and just wait. Conclusion - completely different experience.

 

Ok mr fixer time. This one is even more interesting. His base power is deal one damage. Ok let`s see - the all damage based heroes got a deal damage 2 or more. So basing it on what we came up with expat we can draw a conclusion that he either isn`t base damage dealer character - kinda. Well he can do one damage... that`s not a lot. Let`s compare base turns we can use one of our card to either affect gameplay directly or to change how our only one option works. Ok so again we can change our option. That`s like an expat but kind of worse because we not only have only one option and it`s weak ,we can have only two modifiers of it - one of each kind. In expat we can use two the same modifiers on our multiple options. So what`s wrong with this weird kung fu guy then? He cannot be really that weak. So it`s not a gameflow - that`s the conclusion. What else we have? Our hand. Maybe it`s something with hand - let`s see. We play normally card from a hand it give us more choices for later or affect the game directly. Then we can use a one of options that are given by of one card already played before, or use base power. But wait - as a fixer i can have only base option and i cannot have many cards in front of me. But i do have a couple of cards in my hand already because if i a play a one of modifiers i got older one back in my hand. So my options aren`t really in front of table but in my hand. Ok here is conclusion we swapped importance of cards in the hand to the cards on the table. But that`s it? That is not cool especially that i have to skip my play phase to do that. Let`s see what options i do have... any kind of damage , damage all , destroy if two hp, reduce damage... That`s things seems really weak - but if other hero could have it... like legacy when these two cohorts came... Or when the voss flipped back and hided behind his minions. This could really help at that times. So there are moments when fixer could really fix our problems with his weird mechanics? So it`s like waiting game i am trying to have a right tool for a job and wait for a job to came? I am a sitting duck then? Wait! I do have a power that deals one damage! It`s not much but i am not a sitting duck i am more of a duck that is dealing lowe to moderate damage all the time and on the some moments i fix the problems of the others that no one either does. So i am like a guy who keeps hitting others and when situation arises i can just out of nowhere get out a tool that saves a day. That`s really different. Conclusion completely different experience.

 

Awp - i really appreciated that you said that you're sorry - but i really love fixer and expat. I could also analyze bunker or AZ and find something different in them too - something really cool - but that`s not the point. The point is that is game is big - and there would be drastic changes to basic engine in form of hero decks - and some of them need a change of viewpoint how we see the game and it`s mechanics to work correctly. It may be hard for the older player used to game but it could make us feel different when we play them if i we're forced to reevaulate everything we learned to this moment to really have fun with them. But it could make game more fresh and interesting - than easy to access heroes that everyone can play. You want streamlining and see flawed mechanics - i see other viewpoint - and i wish i could see more of this. More of heroes that you actually need to look at their decks and wrap your hand around them before you play them. It makes them new - and that what expansion should do - make game fresh. Also if we go to easily streamlined and easy access decks many of interesting more complicated mechanics will never see light of day - mechanics that could make our mind blown with their awesomness if we try to learn to understand them.

 

9

In awp's defense, I keep seeing posts from people who seem to be telling him that he should like Fixer, Expatriette, or Bunker, but awp has already said that he likes them -- he just thinks they are less effective. 

The point about defining what strong, weak, and effective are is well taken. I don't have a good way to define it. The closest I come is 'How often does the hero seem to make a big difference in a game'.

10

Well, Soul, it takes learning to be effective with Chrono-Ranger and Omnitron-X, in my opinion.  They have some innovative mechanics, and they can be straightforwardly strong, but I think there's a lot of room for improvement in how you play them, and a lot of different ways to implement their power.  There are a lot of questions surrounding the current version of the Scholar.  I think you'll be very pleased with whatever we come up with for him.

11

Sadly I haven't had a chance to playtest recently, but yes, The Scholar is definitely very complicated (or at least, complicated to master). I have a friend who plays Chrono-Ranger a lot, and he's a bit complex for a level 2 hero (at least I think so) because there's a lot of different options you have to constantly keep in mind while playing him. But I still love him, and so does my friend.

With the Scholar, it's a lot about working out numbers.

Oh, and since Soul mentioned making an argument in favor of AZ: don't worry about it. AZ can be REALLY good, and often is. Again, it comes down to knowing how to play him. I've got another friend who is a master with AZ, and he shines every game.

12

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why Expatriette is the only hero in the game that has no "draw a/X card(s)" and Fixer can't search for his Tools other than if they're in the trash (which, if you aren't drawing any, you're screwed).  I like these heroes, but Fixer wants Tools and Styles to be cool and Expat wants more Guns and Ammo to be cool.  I'll accept that they are decent heroes with some unique contributions to the team.  But, of all the heroes, these are the two that feel like they have little to no means of getting what they need to be fun.  I'm not talking about "dealing the most damage" or "being the best" or whatever.  I'm talking about playing characters that feel like a martial artist mechanic or a supertech all-of-the-guns-toting Punisher-esque danger woman.  I'll admit that people can take it to the extreme and say "Mister Fixer/Expatriette suck butts and are not good at all," but these "You just can't appreciate the subtle nuances of these characters" or "You really can't judge one character to others because they're so different" are pretentious, insubstantial arguments.

I like Fixer and Expat.  I don't like the fact that they cannot reliably obtain the things they need to be thematically appropriate and mechanically balanced.  It's disappointing.  I still play them, and if I get an ideal draw (and the deck is arranged so I can actually do what I want to do with the characters), it's a rewarding experience.  If I don't...well...I guess I just didn't appreciate them hard enough.  Again, great characters, but I will be so happy if Expatriette gets a Promo that allows for drawing cards.  Fixer is another story.  I don't really know what's to be done with him to help get more Tools out of his deck short of a wordy power or house ruling some of his cards (which I don't want to do because I'm not a game designer).

Anyway, bully for you with the apology, awp.  I know too well what loving a game too hard can do to a person on a forum.

Edit: Evan, I totally agree.  Abs has proven himself time and again at our table.  I'll admit that his glass jaw can sometimes be a drag, but at least he can search for the toys he needs to set up for a game.

13

I really wish my friend wasn't a playtester because I have so much to say but nowhere to say it. =P.

14

@ Reckless : Legacy is also a hero who does not have ways to search his deck. He as many interesting abilities, but depends very much on the luck of the draw to have the good tool at the right time. I think it is less visible than with Ex and Fixy (I am tired of typing the full names  :wink: ) because he has many different cards, and can always play one, even if it is not an useful one right now. The diversity of his deck compensates for the lack of control over it in the mind of the player, I think - and it may be one of the sources of the complaints Ex and Fixy are subjected to.

15

But Legacy always has Galvanize.  He isn't a setup character, and he has multiple cards that allow him to draw more cards.  Fixer needs his Style and Tool, and Expatriette needs Guns.  Legacy doesn't need his One-Shots or Ongoings to be awesome.  They just make him better.  They aren't a necessary part of his character for him to function.

16

Hey Awp, I want to say that your decision to apologize makes you probably a greater man than most denizens on this great internet of ours. It really says good things about the closeness and decency of the SotM Community where people want to apologize about things they might have said. Good job, sir.

 

One thing I've noticed about people in general is that when somebody voices thier opinion, I think a lot of people tend to overreact. I don't really understand why we all cannot have a decent coversation, though it seems like this community is the kind of community can do that. Just keep in mind just because somebody doesn't like a certain hero doesn't mean your input, experiences, or opinion is invalid. 

 

I don't really want to come off as patronizing, but I think that's a good thing to retierate, because I feel like this sort of flame conversation runs rampant over the internet, and it would be very tragic it started happening here. But I don't think so.

 

As for my opnions about the Villians, I don't think Gloomweaver is all that terrible; he's got a cool zombie fighting mechanic, and his voodoo pins do some cool stuff, but I do feel he is a bit swingy. Sometimes I can just gank his artifacts as soon as they come out (very easy with Argent Adept). I also agree that the Chariman is more challenging than hard, but he's there if people want a challenge. Rook city just screws with you, though. 

 

I also love playing as Expat and Mr. Fixer. I have an inkling that Mr. Fixer's ability to deal irriducable damage might be more useful when more villians have damage reduction, which they might (not a playtester, but it makes sense). Expat does need card draw, but that's why the game is cooperative: friends can fix you up with that, like Visionary, Alt. Tachyon, ect. 

 

This seems a bit rambling, but this is a good thread. Good, civilized conversation. If only the rest of the Interwebs were more like this.

17

 soul:   yikes,  I really hope my saying that I like the ST heroes doesn't make you think that you won't…  I like to think that I'm a fan of nuanced heroes, like you seem to be.  Granted I enjoy a game from Ra's perspective every now and again, but who doesn't?  I really enjoy Visionary though, and I realize everything isn't about damage.   Of the 3 new heroes,  1 of them has a damaging base power, the other two do not.  I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with Omnitron-X's ability to either do things now or set up for the mid/late game, and Crono-Ranger does have a bit of that too.  Haven't done a lot of extensive tests with Scholar, so can't say about him, but I hear good things.   I guess I can't say for sure whether you'll like them or not,  but I hope you will,  and I think there is a lot there to like, if that makes sense.

 

Zalrus;  I was careless in my speech again.   Thematically Gloomweaver is plenty cool,  he's just bad,  as in weak,  as in, not a challenge to the heroes.  I've never lost to him even on his advanced side,  I've never even come close (and yes, I've lost plenty of games to Baron Blade, by contrast =p ). You'd have to have some seriously bad luck for this guy to give you a hard time.   I tried him with the weakest teams I could think of (in my opinion of course, although these were generally teams focused around dealing melee/projectile damage which GW is immune to) on the hardest environments I could think of (including Rook City) and still had no trouble.  I keep looking over his character card to see if there's something I missed but… there just isn't.   Anyway, if a villain isn't a challenge, then he's not fun, thats my complaint with Gloomweaver.

 

also thanks to everyone for your kind and forgiving comments.

 

-awp

18

I generally have a good time fighting Gloomweaver, but I completely agree that he's easy. There's nothing wrong with having an easy villain, but he's supposed to be the dark lord of the abyss and thematically the biggest villain in the IR set. I don't mind him being easy, but I don't think he lives up thematically to what he's supposed to be.

19

Oh, boy. Well, for those of you not keeping track at home, I LOVE Mister Fixer. Not a huge fan of Bunker (although I'm warming to him a bit) and Expat (not because of her power, I just don't like her that much) but Fixer is one of my favorite heroes, right after Nightmist and Argent Adept. I don't really get why people keep saying he's such a weak hero. He may not be able to do a whole bunch of damage, but he has versatility. Grease Gun is pretty powerful, and have you tried Alternating Tiger + Jack handle + harmony against Apostate? Also, being able to negate damage reduction, kill things early (tire iron), reduce damage (hoist chain, pipe wrench), bring out lots of equipments from the trash (the ONLY hero who can do that, might I add, AND it gives him an extra power), deal any type of damage, and redirect damage.

 

Granted, he can't do all of them at once, but his tools cycle back to his hand, and meditation helps take the styles out of the trash. He can do just about everything, save for ongoing destruction, and can deal a decent amount of damage while he's at it.

20

It takes a big man to apologize, awp832. Good for you.

I completely agree with you that Fixer, Expat, AZ, and Bunker are the least powerful heroes. As a designer for other games I have no problem with using house rules to make games more fun. I think balanced games are more fun and I wish these heroes were a little more balanced.

HOWEVER

I recently listened to a podcast Chris did about Rook City that got me thinking. In movies and comics when a villain shows up on the scene the heroes don't ask themselves, "Who is best equipped to deal with this villain?" or "I'm not strong compared to other heroes so I'll sit out." No, they fight in the name of justice no matter how unbalanced a situation they find themselves in.

EVEN SO

The best movie or comic battles happen between characters that are well matched. This is a game. Players want to feel that they've contributed to the team and it's supposed to be fun. I may be using them wrong (I was in the case of Bunker), but I feel unsatisfied when I use these heroes.