Any chance to have a couple more tournament rules

I like it, especially if the power ups are prioritized for season 1 heroes.

The one risk I see is giving ursena or gravemaker or wocky powerups. That would just break the game…
no real need to ever make those heroes better.

2 Likes

Ha, yeah, that’s one thing that will be tricky to balance. If one is p/u then the other stronger heroes have to be a different week. And just how much havoc a p/u Ursena or GM can wreak would be interesting to see.

1 Like

I’m all for these ideas, but I want them applied to wars!

3 Likes

A dedicated hero for each tour, event, seasonal and/or war with a 20% power up would be cool. Maybe it should only apply on attack to leave it fair.

2 Likes

Ah yes, I forgot about war! On one hand it could be unfair, on the other hand it makes sense for the deeper rosters to have advantages. Personally, I think it would up our strategy games so it would be welcomed.

Tournament Idea - Unpopular Heroes Only

I am making this proposal on behalf of Dawa, Greymane, Prisca, Renfeld… and heroes who are like them.

These are the heroes that most of us will feed away without hesitation. But the world does not have to be so cruel to them. We need to show them kindness and love. Can we have a tournament where only the universally unpopular heroes are allowed? We could first have a vote to decide what these heroes are.

I know this is a very stretched idea. I am just trying to find a way to give every hero a chance to shine.

The trouble with an idea like this is how would you define unpopular. Every hero in the game has lovers and haters. I have faced all of the heroes you mentioned in Raid tourneys.

1 Like

they call this ‘rush attack’ and heroes like skittles and quintos become popular. :wink:

1 Like

Yer, rush attack really helps out the likes of Gil Ra, hi tao and skittles :grin:

I even used agwe twice today cos he’s pretty brutal on top of Wilbur

If Boss Wolf is owned by only 0.5% of players, does that make him unpopular?

I could see a slight revision to this, such as “players are only allowed to pick from their 20% least used heroes” etc. But beside the laughs, I already imagine the tornado of rage on the ofrum after something like this is organized.

But we do need more, more ways to use a variety of our heroes and not limit ourselves to just the handful we are most comfortable with. I keep repeating that every chance I have, as an owner of over a 100 maxed/3.70 heroes, disappointed by the fact that I get to play only about 30% of them to stay relevant and not intentionally lose fights by goofing around.

1 Like

This is exactly the idea: new ways of playing that kind of force us to use a wider variety of heroes, not just the handful that we use all the time.

To be fair I don’t think it is the tournament rules that are the problem but the frequency of the specific set of rules that a particular hero would be good in comes around versus the powering costs for that hero.

For instance Justice might be awesome in a no purple Rush Attack tournament but if that’s only going to roll around once every 50 tournaments I’m not gonna blow 6 Darts on Justice for it. Similarly if an unpopular heroes tourney comes round just as infrequently I’d just play unlevelled heroes than blow the mats.

Which raises an interesting question, what if the ascension and XP requirements for heroes varied by popularity? SGG could for instance use their current data to work out which currently released heroes were underused and give them cheaper ascensions and XP requirements to power up though it would mean newer heroes would have one levelling cost when released which could then change later on that could become both tricky and controversial. Perhaps an alternative way of doing it could be to tie ascension and XP costs to the hero’s mana speed as I think there’s a significant correlation between it and popularity. How would the picture change if Very Fast like Malosi required 6 Darts, Fast like Joon 5 darts, Average like Onatel 3 darts, Slows like Justice 2 darts and Very Slow like Guardian Owl needed just 1 dart? Would give more tactical options especially to newer players whether the power up more slower heroes or fewer faster ones. I mean I’m not a new player but I might spare a thought on someone like Atomos if he were 2 Tonics to ascend assuming my Tonic supply looked anything like my Tabard supply.

But anyway I digressed slightly. Whether or not ascension and XP requirements varied within the same rarity tier I reckon it would help more if certain rule combinations were more frequent by having parallel 3*, 4* and 5* tournaments running each week in a similar style that we have parallel 3*, 4* and 5* Challenge Events so that each rule combination comes 3 times more often.

1 Like

Thank you for such an insightful post! You gave a lot of interesting ideas. I especially like the idea of running multiple tournaments at the same time to give more frequent usage to some heroes. I hope SG can consider this.

1 Like

making slow heroes cheaper is a great idea. the delta in power on the specials for slow and fast was very big when the game launched but now there are fast and very fast heroes with more powerful specials than slow heroes! This was always the case with yellow- you could argue Drake has a substantially more powerful special than Justice and is fast- but now it’s also the case with every color.

Making slow heroes cheaper to max would compensate for the fact that they often suck these days.

That said, I would make most season 1 heroes cheaper (some like Lianna and Joon can remain as is) since it isn’t only the slow heroes but also a lot of the fast season 1 heroes who are weak. Some are so weak due to powercreep that unless you have the right exclusive heroes to pair them with them, you’d never use them. (e.g. Elk pretty much only has value if you also have Eve to pair with.)

2 Likes

Agreed, as I was writing the example of AMs to power that perhaps the Season 1 classics should be -1 4* AM (as the converse view is that perhaps there should be a slight increased cost for premium heroes/helps keep F2P in game more) but part of me was thinking I’d waffled on a bit too much and adding it would complicate the idea I was attempting to convey but if anything like this was anything close to a reality rather than my latest brain-fart I’d certainly endorse the slightly cheaper for costs again for the classics.

there are a lot of season 1 heroes I would bring to 3/70 or max if the AMs were cheaper. But 4 materials is still too much :rofl: I am thinking more like… 1 to 3/70 and 1 to 4/80. Otherwise, even at 4, why bother? No way do I touch Horghall ( even if I had his costume) at 4, not worth it.

Dunno where you’re getting 4 from as that wasn’t a value used in any of the examples I gave:

saw a 4? either way, I would limit the discounts to just the tc20 heroes and just the ones that are weak. but overall, I like your idea

Mixed heroes up to power xxx.

Would be fun to mix up (1, 2,) 3, 4 and 5 stars for a tournament.

Example: Allowed are all heroes up to overall power of 555.

That would be interesting. You could use 1/1 legendary heroes(you’d need to be allowed more than 555 power, but I’m guessing that was more of an example than a hard suggestion in power number). You could use 1 really strong hero and 4 weaker ones… it would have a lot of options. You could go really low on troop levels to buy yourself more room, etc…

3 Likes