ThatRandomCeltic

Then play the fisherman away from the tower.

This! Fisherman at the river can yeet the Balloon away and apply a Slow effect with the hook. More unique counters to Air cards is something we have been looking at, because all-Air decks can be frustrating when they dominate the metagame.

kidneypal

Dunno if this has been suggested or not. Even in tournaments, most players are trying to NOT play first because either opponent will just go the other side for wait til unit gets to tower. With this it is more of an elixir advantage for the player who played second.

Why not give 1 elixir boost to the player who played first? Whether he plays a skeleton or a Golem, he gets one elixir.

:}

Anonymous_0110

Have you considered a rework for Zappies and Night Witch?

Hang tight! We have a lot of reworks in the mix, and Zappies is definitely in the discussion. I think its important the game has a variety of stun-attacking Troops available to players to minimize the swinginess of Inferno or Charging cards. The goals of a Zappies rework would be to make them better at splitting lanes and making the first attack not nearly so slow. But we want to do more than just a faster first hit :)

reswin5

When are you nerfing golem. Inferno tower and pekka got nerfs and golem is stronger than ever. When will you accept golem is not a balanced card, it's too strong and easy to use. When can we expect a golem nerf?

Golem has actually dropped in use/win rate since the update, as Bridge Spam has gotten more popular. You can't really drop an 8-elixir tank vs. Bridge Spam, so that's a bad matchup for the big boy. We may change the numbers of death damage vs. normal attacks on them though, I agree a lone Golem is probably too threatening. The strength of beatdown decks should come primarily from the support troops and not an unsupported tank.

1337NoobSlayer

about requested changes (more capped modes

Any particular reason why this request has to wait till the great clan war rework? It's such a small change that would solve so many complains about collection day.

The monthly Classic Deck updates and introducing modes like Wall Breaker Party to Clan Wars has been our attempt to keep Clan Wars fresh in the meantime without contributing too much development time. Every day spent on Clan Wars now takes away from the update we would like to do, so hopefully those little changes keep it entertaining in the meantime :)

Ajfakaba

All of them work for 2v2.

However quests prior to the update weren't changed. This means that if you got the quest before the update, it only works in 1v1.

If you got the quest after the update and it doesn't work in 2v2, contact support.

This is correct - just an unforeseen bug that old Quests did not update to the new conditions. Every new Quest should work in all competitive battle modes, but the old ones need to cycle out.

Puzomor

min_elixir is a variable in case a new whole number is discovered that is greater than 0 but less than 1, am I right?

Hey there! Here's how this happened:

While reworking Quests, we decided to re-write the lines into a simpler syntax. For example:

"Play cards that cost 6 Elixir or more 30 times" -> "Play 30 cards that cost 6 or more Elixir". The latter reads more naturally. When we got to "2 or less Elixir" string, we decided to rewrite it as "1 or 2 Elixir". In the Quests data, that's a simple change to make Min_Elixir = 1 (it was null before). Each Quest has its own min/max elixir setting, which is how we added the new Play 3-Cost, Play 4-Cost, etc Quests. Min and Max is just set to that number.

When the update goes live, the strings updated but the data of each Quest was saved from the moment you got the quest. So even though the conditions of new Quests were updated, any existing ones used their stored data. Since the Quests had null for min_elixir, the updated string didn't have a number to reference and that's why it displays as the variable name.

This is also why old Quests didn't work in ...

J1234511

It's really strange that their reason for this is because people didn't know why one card had more range than another. The range changes completely change loads of interactions and should be done for balance reasons not for any other reason

Why not both? This change aimed to solve two problems:

- There wasn't a clear hierarchy for which melee Troops would get the first hit as ranges were all over the place. You had to memorize individual reactions based on unique ranges + first hit timers. In general now, the longer melee range will get the first attack (there will be some exceptions with incredibly fast attackers). This rewards knowledge a bit better as players can research and think up more reasons to swap from (example) Lumberjack to Mini PEKKA, realizing they get something more than just DPS in the trade off.

- Once the ranges had been set, all the cards in the middle needed to be aligned to them. The changes made were made with balance in mind. Cards like Knight and Mini-P that could use a minor nerf gets a bit longer reach and cards like Prince can get a bit of a haircut without changing any surfaced stats.

I hope this update DOES change interactions and balance, by improving the lot of several weaker mele...

sapsucker123

RumHam stated in an interview with CWA that he doesn't want Zappies to be too powerful as it's a badly designed card that is inherently unfun to play with. If that's the case, why don't they bother giving it a rework? If they acknowledge that the card design is flawed, why not fix it? Really doesn't make much sense to me.

This round of balance changes is a huge disappointment. Not because of the changes themselves (although I doubt Ebarbs will change much after this), but the changes that could have been. If they really think the game is in a near-perfect state, boy are they wrong.

As we move to rework cards more often (instead of little stat nudges), Zappies are totally the sort of card that we would look at. Zappies, like Freeze, make the game way less fun when they are 'balanced'. Zappies had something like a 12% use rate and 57% win rate, the meta was verrrrry defensive and frustrating to attack into them. I think the game is in a better state overall with them at 1%/51%.

But what's even better is reworking them to be less frustrating, then the meta can tolerate them at a higher use rate! So yeah, in short, Zappies are likely the sort of card to get reworked eventually.

elchapo_02

u/Supercell_Daria*

Their usernames have underscores, not dashes.

Annoyingly, mine is a dash (not underscore) because someone grabbed the underscore name. So its dash for Seth, underscore for Drew or Daria

SwiperNoSwiping42

WALL BREAKER USERS REJOICE

Wall Breakers gain quite a few new skill-testing tricks with this buff! You can use Miner to distract the tower and whatever is played to defend the Miner can be caught in the WB blast. It's very fun to set up Traps for your opponent, adding a new dimension to a card that is very basic by design. Glad we could make all 7 Wall Breaker fans happy :)

SKLZ_Shark

Why was the witch not nerfed. 90% of the people i fight at 5400 have a witch......

In the 5000-5499 Trophy range, Witch has a 17% use rate. Buffing Princess and Bomber might help deal with her :)

iDetroy

No Rascal Nerf, No Prince nerf but instead buffing Goblin Barrel and Princess?

Great to see the next season will be filled with that disgusting Rascal / Prince Bait deck

Rascals almost made the cut :) They fluctuate a lot in win rate, sometimes over the line and sometimes just under. As their use rate rises and win rates stay high though, I would say they are a likely candidate for next month.

Mew_Pur_Pur

Honestly used to be very happy, felt like balances are going somewhere. Now I feel like they aren't. It's been two months of ignoring the lack of cheap spell diversity. You addressed goblin barrel in the short-term way, instead of addressing the larger problem (goblins being weak). Instead of taking a step back from the broken and assymetrical staggering, you are introducing it to even more cards. You even used the level 1 Bomber stats instead of tournament standard. You didn't mention the Clone change from earlier anywhere.

I feel like not enough backbone is put anymore. I'm more disappointed than ever.

I'm sorry you feel that way, I always respect your opinion and read your posts when I come across them.

Please give the balance team a chance here, I will happily come back and eat crow if we totally bork the meta. But every month we release a list of changes, the community spends a weekend saying that we have totally ruined everything, and yet this last month was one of the most diverse metas ever. If every month was really as bad as first impressions seem, we would not have reached this point as a community.

We use level one stats in the post because thats the number that changes, and ripples up to higher levels. Here is the Clone balance note I wrote (we didn't add it because it was a few weeks ago and seemed like old news):

CLONE Radius Reduced 4 -> 3

This change went live with the April update. We initially increased Clone’s radius to try and buff an underperforming card. The most recent buff, making the Clone animation vertical (instead of horizontal) was an appropriate bu...

TheCannibull311

baby dragon doesnt need a nerf, just because everyone uses a card doesnt mean it is unbalanced

This is basically our stance for now. Despite having very high use rates, Baby Dragon sits around 48-52% win rate every day, in both Classics/Grands, and doesn't budge much even when you look solely at 8-12 win games.

Baby Dragon is a jack-of-all-trades that can fit into basically any archetype, providing the meta with a solid presence to keep air and swarm decks in check. I think the meta is better off with Baby Dragon being very popular compared to when Royal Ghost, Bandit, Valkyrie etc filled that spot of "Most Popular Troop".

Its possible we would nerf Baby Dragon with a slight health reduction (to put it around 1000 HP) but this month I suspect Baby Drag + Tornado will be useful in regulating how strong 3M decks can be.

Calcium001

Seriously, how has a card sat at over 50% use AND win rate for MONTHS now.

Because it hasn't :) This is a good example of how websites can skew your perception of the meta. Here are the four small spells use/win rates in Challenges:

• Log - 30% / 48%
• Barb Barrel - 30% / 56%
• Zap - 27% / 49%
• Snowball - 18% / 58%

Snowball is a bit concerning, we have a nerf we want to apply but it requires a client update so it will have to wait. Barb Barrel has been slowly trending down, and given how many times we have buffed/nerfed it, we are letting it sit a bit longer because if it does get nerfed again it will likely be another Barbarians health nerf instead of Barrel-specific change. (Barbs are sitting at 55% WR, Battle Ram at 54%)

In general, Barb Barrel and Snowball are the higher skill cap Spells compared to Zap/Log. It stands to reason that better players would take advantage of them to generate marginally better results. This is why websites (which tend to self-select for hardcore players) are showing use rates of 50%+.

Thanks for your regular posts/contribution...

Teto-

Three Musketeers: Elixir 10 -> 9, Deploy Time increased to 3sec, Added 0.15sec Deploy Time between Musketeers

So now we can play the giant 3M easily, since adding deployment time will allow to prepare a bigger push on 2 lanes

Hey! During our testing we felt that the strongest use case of 3M was being a very quick defense. If you attacked and your opponent dropped 3M, they near-instantly generated a ton of damage. Even if you FB+Zapped them rather quickly, they often got ~3 Elixir worth of damage in, negating the Elixir trade. With a slower deploy time on defense, there are chances to damage or defeat them before they get a shot off. 3s Deploy time also greatly reduces the effectiveness of playing 3M in the pocket to take a 2nd tower.

Splitting behind the King Tower with a slower deployment does allow more saved Elixir, but the slower reaction time gives a bigger window for Bridgespam, Log Bait, or Miner decks to get in chip damage before they walk/shoot. In addition to changes to Barbarians, introduction of Earthquake, and buffing multiple splash Troops that match up well against 3M... I am optimistic the meta will find the tools to adapt.

I understand the feeling that this might be a buff, but every mo...

Hello r/ClashRoyale!For those who don't know me I'm Seth, Game Designer for Clash Royale.

We hope you are enjoying the new update!

The newest card to Clash Royale has been rumbling through Challenges and Trophy Road – EARTHQUAKE!

Today we wanted to take some time to talk about how and why we decided to bring this anti-Building spell from Clash of Clans into Clash Royale. If you would like to read past card design blogs here on reddit, check out:

• [Breaking Walls, Not Hearts]

• [Three Musketeers and Mortar]

---

SPELL DIVERSITY

One of the biggest design/balance concerns the team had when I joined the balance team is maintaining the diversity of Spells in the game. When the choice of Spells is very narrow then deck-building as a skill suffers. For example, if Zap and Poison are far and away the best Spells in the game and every deck runs both – which was the case in mid-2016 during the famous Giant-Poison summer – then you only have six cards to build a deck with. Two spots are ...

Kirksak

quick question, so Giant skeletons mass is now 15>18

does anyone know Golems mass? just wanna compare

Giant and Golem both have 18. This change will make all 3 consistent

LinkWink

Unrelated, but what happened with the Ebarb change? Did testing prove it to not be a good change after all?

Like the Royal Giant change, sometimes you get to the end of the month and it just doesnt make the list. The meta has been very diverse and constantly changing this month - we decided to focus on small QoL changes to underperforming cards along with a select few nerfs to let the meta keep evolving. Something big like an EBarb rework (if it was too good) would completely toss a wrench in that.