Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Overall my impression is that the big meta choice in Underlords is:
A: Commit overwhelmingly to getting a perfect set of Alliances and/or hero combinations, even if it means no 3 star heroes or even having to field 1 star heroes to round out the comp.
B: Commit overwhelmingly to getting 3 star heroes, even if it means sacrificing synergy, coherence, and planning.
C: Go for something inbetween. Get a 3 star hero or two, then build a comp around it rather than trying to endlessly max out your stars.
The reason why a lot of people are getting frustrated is that they commit to A then get frustrated when they can't get the benefits of B as well. Underlords has a lot in common with deckbuilders and roguelikes, you can't 'force' a build or go for everything unless you are super lucky, you have to make the most of what you get, and accept that sometimes even that isn't enough.
But it says a lot that I got the most 3 stars in my lowest ranking match; in practice I've usually gotten in the top 4, which is unlikely if its pure luck and rng.
You mention only one match.
https://i.imgur.com/Dib3sjv.png
Here I achieved two 3*s, and defeated an opponent that had 4*s, despite him somehow managing to get them to all have a shared alliance. It just turns out that 6 Warrior plus 3 Ranger beats 9 Warrior.
https://i.imgur.com/g5yNsWl.png
Only had one 3*, though technically with Druids it was two. The other guy had three 3* heroes. He lost despite that, because he only had 8 in the field, which completely offset that advantage.
Overall I understand the frustration. Pursuing 3* heroes usually comes at the expense of team synergy or size, you have essentially no control over which heroes you have climb up to 3*, and I'm not sure why they even bother to include stats for 3* heroes of Tier 4 and 5 because that's never gonna happen.
I wouldn't mind if they added features to make pursuing 3* heroes less frustrating, like having it so that recruitment market indicates remaining hero count, or reducing pool size. Having mechanics that are technically balanced and fair but extremely frustrating to everyone but the pros is not good.