Knights being able to slash/stab/shield with bomb out leaves archers with no options

So what you want is builders going and fighting and taking flags and 1v10ing all the enemies? Sounds good.

 

Please, lets not get worked up here. Nobody is saying that. I think we're getting away from reasoned argument, and now you're setting up a straw man to attack (my favorite fallacy BTW ). Anyone that wants to participate in this discussion, please, lets carefully read each others' posts, and not make assumptions about what they are saying. Read what is written, and don't read anything that isn't written.

Whether you agree or not, the fact remains that the builder class is for building and destroying structures. Classic/alpha is a testament to this fact. In alpha, builders are the only ones that have any ability to hurt structures at all (with some minor exceptions, but my point remains). So, either you must accept that builder was meant to be the one that breaks the buildings since the beginning, or that buildings simply were not meant to be destroyed. I highly doubt that the latter is true.

The implementation of bombs damaging stone, bomb arrows, kegs, and bomb ballistae has totally taken this role and stolen it from the builder. Builder is now one of the SLOWEST at taking down a building, compared to these other methods. The fact that the kegs, bomb arrows, etc, are not free is irrelevant, because the fact remains that the items are still available, and at some point, someone's going to buy them.

Any place where two classes can fill the same role is, in my opinion, a balance mistake, an obstacle to teamwork, and a point against the existence of the class that was made redundant. As said above, the classes must have clearly defined roles, which are all critical to victory, and that do not significantly overlap. Until then, there is work to be done.

The reason we're picking on the knight class is because it is currently the most out of balance class. You should have seen some of the alpha builds; the archer class was totally cheap and too good, and everyone was clamoring to rebalance them. I'm trying to say that if you hear constant shouting that a class or a move is too good, then it almost certainly is. If you don't agree, perhaps you are wrong, but too complacent or set in your ways to see it for what it is. If you really hold your belief strongly, then you should have no problem coming up with a healthy list of SPECIFIC reasons WHY you are right, and SPECIFIC reasons WHY your opponent is wrong. If you can't, then you're just 'hooked on a feeling', and letting your gut control your brain, rather than the other way around. No amount of proof, reasoned argument, and good points are going to change the feeling you have in your gut.

People seldom go to the trouble of complaining for no reason, and especially not in great numbers about the same things. If enough people are complaining about the same thing, then their point of view should at least be considered. The old saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire," is quite apt here.

 

I just want structures to melt less, and tunneling to be harder.

 

I don't understand these balance threads.
Complaints about the Bomb, 25 coins: "It's not counterable!"
Answer: Water Arrow, 10 coins.
Shotgun with a Water Arrow?

---

"You know, in Classic .."
"It's not balanced compared to Classic .."

 

Indeed. The thing is, saying that is very easy, but coming up with how to make that happen in a way that is balanced is not necessarily easy, and certainly hard to get people to agree on. That's one of the many things we're talking about here. Thanks for chiming in, though; I totally agree with your sentiment.

 

How about more than one bomb, less than two to break a stone block, but it keeps its spalling power, though it kinda fucks anti-cocooning.

Bomb Ballista air burst, and sprays a bomb's damage max per block.
Hell, why not do that to bomb arrows too, and let them keep the same splash as they have, but diminished damage.

More or less everything takes at least two shots to crap everything up, mines, kegs, all of it.
Maybe everything spalls too.


Never agreed with the bomb prices though.
And maybe a return of the satchel at about 60c, sticky time-delayed lingering fire burst, mostly for area of denial to round out the knight.

 

builder only satchel or that idea just makes the knights stronger and the archers useless

 

Archer's aren't useless, let alone their fire arrows, they can spam effect arrows at range, and get 2 fire arrows per 30c, it's huge difference in usage.
The satchel should be primarily for deterrent, or blocking off choke points with fire. If it's that much of an issue make it crap at wicking buildings.
Timer on the time delay would probably have to start after contact to prevent usage easily as a room clearer.

Besides, keep it away from the builders since they could easily wick wooden buildings by themselves.

For TTH it'd probably fall under heavy explosives, or be paired with explosive arrows so as to make bomb arrows a more tantalising choice over heavy explosives.

 

This isn't classic/alpha.

Yes, that is your opinion. But it is not mine. Teamwork is a plus, but isolating one class to one distinct role is really boring because it means in order to get something done (a tower destroyed), you must learn a whole new class or have a team mate who is capable enough to do it in the correct class.

What is this paragraph even about? You have your points and views and I have mine. I should just sit down and stop arguing because some people are complaining? No, I defend my viewpoint. I want to continue to play KAG in an enjoyable state no matter which class I play.

 

It so is. Classic/alpha builds are earlier versions of the exact same game--not a prequel, but the very. Same. Game. Your point of view is the very equivalent of saying that patching a program makes it no longer the same software title. You're entitled to hold whatever opinions you like, but this is a fact, not an opinion. Just because they lost their way in some respects does not make it a different title.

Indeed. It is my opinion, which I have backed up with facts, game development best practices, and pointed to numerous un-addressed issues.

Look, man, I'm not picking a fight here. I understand that you have a strong opinion about your point, as do I. Unfortunately, though, I feel like you're getting mad at me personally, and that this no longer about the issues we're discussing, and about trying to defame me. Please, lets take a step back and try to look at these issues free from emotion.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn't catch my meaning. To rephrase, I mean that if enough people are complaining about something, then there is almost certainly something wrong with it. Disagreeing with those people does not change the reality that they perceive a problem that you don't. The fact that it is subjective is irrelevant; lots of their customers are complaining of an issue with their product.

 

Wow this is a heck of a debate.

 

Hey now your not suppose to use logic on the internet

That is what the builder class is in your opinion

 

I feel if an archer is rushing a knight aggressively, they should expect to get killed.
Not to mention a knight is using a bomb (a knight only item) so why doesn't one pull out an archer only item (water arrow) and stun that said knight and have them self destruct?
The truth is that archers have a counter to bombs and if they don't have that card up their sleeve then they shouldn't be rushing a knight period.

 

I think the problem is that knights have a lot easier time racking up money so while a knight goes back to base and has no problem buying 2-4 bombs, Archers can't always afford enough to hold the buttload of bombs that knights always have, but I do have to admit, seeing a knight blow up with a bomb is pretty great.

I think the blast zone needs to be re-assessed, sure... sometimes you'll take 1 1/2 hearts from a bomb, instead of flat out dying, if you're lucky. But most of the time, bomb near archer = certain death. It honestly just feels waaaaaay to easy for knights in that regard, It feels like they are being rewarded for very little skill.

Right now it feels like "hey ill just throw my bomb at their general direction" when it should be like "yo yo ima throw this deadly ass bomb off that wall which will bounce to where their archers are taking cover"

So if I'm on the outer part of the radius of the bomb, that should only do 1 heart, clearly not the case now . Then if you're in the inner blast zone, 2 hearts, dead, fine. That ridiculous radius on the bomb blast zone has got to be reduced, it covers so much area. If not, then adjust the blast zone so they are direct death if you manage to maneuver almost out of the way, or just so a knight can't just lob it without much thought and pick up a few kills.

Also, could anyone post some debug data of slash hit boxes and bomb hitboxes? That'd be shweet.

 

> Tons of walls of texts
> Someone please give me a summary!
>

 

Sure. I'll do my best to give an objective summary of the debate, but please understand that these are my words, not those of @Blue_Tiger. I'll try to accurately characterize his position, but he is free to correct me if I've said anything wrong.

I am in agreement with the OP that the knight bombs have too great a blast radius, and that knights are generally superior to archers in many respects, including, but not limited to, combat. I took his point further, to state that I believe that all of the classes have significant balance issues, as well as poorly defined and overlapping roles, with knights being the most severe. I went on to elaborate on many of the specifics of what I thought the balance should look like, speaking mostly of the fact that buildings were originally only able to be destroyed by builders, but can now be destroyed by everyone, with builders being the slowest at doing so. I also spoke of the knight being dramatically superior to both other classes with regard to the number of maneuvers they can do, and their overall effectiveness in game.

Blue_Tiger firmly disagrees with the OP and my points, and believes that the knight is quite well balanced presently. He thinks that meddling with the knight class stats and maneuvers would upset what is already a good balance vs. the other classes. He also believes that it was a superior design choice to eliminate the need for teamwork in the destruction of buildings, because it would be quite frustrating to have to change classes (to a class you might not be any good with) in order to get past it, or wait while team mates of other classes show up to assist.

I hope that's a fair assessment. Please though, if you can stomach all the reading, the original posts say it much more clearly. It's probably not TOO boring....probably.

 

No. Classic/alpha was a pre-build version of the game. The game in babby-form. It has grown up, changed, become something better, or worse, the meta has completely changed. If you love Classic so much that you want the released version to transform back into classic, then maybe you should just play classic instead, no?

I have nothing against you as a person, I just look at your arguments and see nothing but opinions stated as facts. Just because you back up opinions with vaguely connecting facts doesn't make your opinion any more correct.

From what I can tell, your argument is similar to this: Remember when knights could fly across the entire map? I know it was removed, but obviously the devs wanted it in because it was there at some point. I think they are going away from their original thoughts and they should bring back flying knights. I believe that knights should get jetpacks so that it is quicker to climb over a building. Thoughts?

And lots of customers don't complain. Lots of customers enjoy their product 100% and won't create thousands of threads saying "I love this game, please don't change it". Look at the poll, 2/3 people don't want the change, the majority don't want it. If the poll was spread the other way, I maybe would understand this argument, but this is not a valid argument now, so stop using it.

 

What determines an argument's validity is not its number of supporters. In fact, that is the very definition of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I also take exception to your accusation that I am passing of opinions as facts, and I challenge you to cite a single example where I've done so. Opinions are the starting point of any argument; its what you use to build your thesis, and then you go from there. Disagreeing with any premise of any of my arguments does not make them invalid arguments, and certainly doesn't make my opinions "passed off as facts".

If my opinions sound so factual that they are being mistaken for facts, maybe its just because they're so awesome!

Seriously, though, your posts are getting increasingly trollish and now wandering into ad hominem territory.

I know that I'm a pretty decent debater, and being good at debating doesn't mean that I am more correct than you. But now, I feel that you're feeling backed into a corner, and trying to kick dirt in my eyes instead of finishing a fair fight.

You can lose a debate without being wrong. If there were a definitive wrong or right answer, this would probably already be a solved problem. Hell, we could both be off base. Please, though, attacks directed at me, attempts to discredit me, or whatever that just was, don't help your argument.

 

Works both ways.

I'm not saying you are bad because I don't agree with you, no. I am saying that it is incredibly infuritating that you say something that not everyone agrees with, and then write 2-3 paragraphs about how you can "fix" it. In my eyes, and in others', it's not broken.

Now I'm gonna stop derailing this post because I really don't care about you being defensive over me calling you out on your debating style, let's get back on track and talk about how knights are gods or whatever.