Butcher's Circus weird rules

[Zibii]

So after a few matches I can say that this new system is really interesting and fun to play but there is one thing that can't get out of my mind.It's the rule that if you lose some heroes on your party, the opposing team gains more turns to play with.I think it kinda ruins the idea of "making a comeback" as it is harder to get up from losing a member of your team.I personally think that even with members on a team killed,the turn should still be one for each player.I know this game is supposed to be brutal but it kinda even feels like "cheating" when you're trying your best to make a big comeback with one or two remaining heroes,but you only get one turn while your opponent gets three.As I said,this DLC is a really nice,fresh experience that I really love,but in my opinion it would be even more amazing if it was a little bit more "fair" in that aspect.Tell me your thoughts on this and how do you like this new DLC overall :)

[Scorpiova]

I am enjoying it - I don't normally play pvp in any games, so it's a different experience for me.

Your concern is certainly valid - but might not be realistic in this game, considering the turn system is a core mechanic of it. And those who play this game regularly - and i mean played the single player campaign over the last X number of years, would probably be pretty upset if they changed that.

Rng is a big factor and comebacks can happen - I think. I saw one musketeer survive 10 deathblows. So in theory, with luck like that they could have potentially done a lot of damage.

[Kensei]

The thing is, losing the first hero is a big fk up. Why shouldn't opponent be rewarded for killing your guy first? Personally the only thing I have problem with is FIRST Player adventage. The puny 1st round buff for dodge is irrelevant, as having to go first each round is HUGE adventage.

[No One]

As long as you do lose a turn for losing a hero, then losing one hero will essentially be a loss condition. Unless your opponent is all on DD, you might as well GG out.

It's a valid design choice, but if it is chosen it should be done consciously.

[Kensei]

I mean it's much better lose condition, than leaving the rng comeback potential there, so someone who was winning whole game, loses because losing player, doesn't get punished for mistakes.

[Saxman]

i think the problem is, if you give extra turns to players down troops they essentially have 4 troops at all times, except they share health bars. if you were down 2 back troops and had 2 lepers in front, you would essentially have 4 lepers because of extra turns. i think it would work well if it capped at 3 for 2 characters, and 2 with 1 so you have a bit of a chance.

[Zibii]

Well I mean it was not my point to add more turns to a losing player but to keep them the same no matter the circumstances.I think losing a hero is enough to make your team be on a disadvantage,because when the winning team gets additional turns,it makes it almost impossible to get back on your knees.I think a better way would be to just add an extra debuff to the losing team or a buff to the opposite if one of your heroes dies.In my opinion additional turns are a bit too large of an advantage.

[Vertibird]

Yes , because of that I try to kill the weakest as fast as possible. Its big advantage.

[Saxman]

Originally posted by Zibii:

Well I mean it was not my point to add more turns to a losing player but to keep them the same no matter the circumstances.I think losing a hero is enough to make your team be on a disadvantage,because when the winning team gets additional turns,it makes it almost impossible to get back on your knees.I think a better way would be to just add an extra debuff to the losing team or a buff to the opposite if one of your heroes dies.In my opinion additional turns are a bit too large of an advantage.

maybe losing teams get dmg buffs so you could create some interesting strategies and level the field faster. only like 10 to 30% though

[Kaddahn]

i have 2 mayor concerns....
first: if the enemy is just called "opponent" is this a bot?
2nd: why are some spells limited to use 2 times a fight? why others of similar strenght, or even better, are not?

[Vertibird]

Originally posted by feral.Kaddahn:

i have 2 mayor concerns....
first: if the enemy is just called "opponent" is this a bot?
2nd: why are some spells limited to use 2 times a fight? why others of similar strenght, or even better, are not?

Yea, opponent means bot and I don't want to fight against bots, there is single player campaign for that.

[Kaddahn]

Originally posted by Vertibird:

Originally posted by feral.Kaddahn:

i have 2 mayor concerns....
first: if the enemy is just called "opponent" is this a bot?
2nd: why are some spells limited to use 2 times a fight? why others of similar strenght, or even better, are not?

Yea, opponent means bot and I don't want to fight against bots, there is single player campaign for that.

ye thought so when they always had the same teamcomb... rly gimme PvP i can take 1-2 mins waiting time....

[Banshee Bloke]

I found that jarring as well, just a downward spiral to an already losing situation. Overall I like the pvp, but it's quickly apparent it'll become stale pretty fast. Once you find a decent party combo there's not really much incentive to experiment and risk losing.

[Dalwin]

I have definitely been outnumbered and still come back to win. Don't underestimate lost or wasted turns from affliction. Stress kills.

[Dalwin]

Originally posted by Zibii:

Well I mean it was not my point to add more turns to a losing player but to keep them the same no matter the circumstances.I think losing a hero is enough to make your team be on a disadvantage,because when the winning team gets additional turns,it makes it almost impossible to get back on your knees.I think a better way would be to just add an extra debuff to the losing team or a buff to the opposite if one of your heroes dies.In my opinion additional turns are a bit too large of an advantage.

That would be terrible. The losing player would essentially be rewarded by getting extra turns on his guys. This is even stronger than it sounds. There is a good reason for not allowing two of the same class on a team. Some of those combos are outrageous and that is close to what you would get if the shorthanded guy were getting additional turns.

There are already balancing steps in place. When you get that first kill, the other team gets a massive heal raising all their guys to full health. Also when a team is down to just one guy he gets a substantial buff.

Most important, however, if there was not some sort of downward spiral once guys started to fall, the individual matches would have the potential to last a very long time. I already get matches that last 12 or more rounds.

[Zibii]

Originally posted by Dalwin:

Originally posted by Zibii:

Well I mean it was not my point to add more turns to a losing player but to keep them the same no matter the circumstances.I think losing a hero is enough to make your team be on a disadvantage,because when the winning team gets additional turns,it makes it almost impossible to get back on your knees.I think a better way would be to just add an extra debuff to the losing team or a buff to the opposite if one of your heroes dies.In my opinion additional turns are a bit too large of an advantage.

That would be terrible. The losing player would essentially be rewarded by getting extra turns on his guys. This is even stronger than it sounds. There is a good reason for not allowing two of the same class on a team. Some of those combos are outrageous and that is close to what you would get if the shorthanded guy were getting additional turns.

There are already balancing steps in place. When you get that first kill, the other team gets a massive heal raising all their guys to full health. Also when a team is down to just one guy he gets a substantial buff.

Most important, however, if there was not some sort of downward spiral once guys started to fall, the individual matches would have the potential to last a very long time. I already get matches that last 12 or more rounds.

Now after some more matches,with my longest going for around 15-16 turns,I'm starting to see why was it designed like that, if situation like this happens then it means that one side is just better than the other.But personally I'm more into long,challenging matches when neither side won't give up that easily and you really need to think your strategy through.I think this kind of matches are the most satisfying.