SoD и Necromancy.

Any changes must be well-thought-out, not pulled out of thin air.

Changing the percentage of the Necromancy skill is the only adequate way to balance Necromancers (and this change needs to be very carefully thought out and calculated) — and by no means should we completely neuter them, as was proposed by restarting individual heroes or, even worse, by leveling them similarly to Isra and Vidomina. In fact, reducing the Necromancy percentage would allow Isra and Vidomina to be rehabilitated (again, by reducing their percentage gain per level to, roughly, exactly half — to 2.5% instead of 5%). Because otherwise — in the case of the leveling-based scheme proposed by the thread starter applicable to all Necromancers — we would end up with a total of 16 heroes that would be a priori impossible to level properly.

Another thing I’d like to note is that Tant’s value is clearly overestimated and is not supported by objective statistical data (except for Tant as a starting Necromancer hero). In other words. Al Feyn, who beats his chest about the reasoning of his position, didn’t even bother to look at game statistics. And if he did, for some undisclosed reasons he didn’t provide them, yet still set out to try and reform something.
Why was it necessary to create such a poll, which, by his own words, no longer directly relates to the "Pets" tournament? Got nothing better to do? Why are there so "few" answer options in the poll? Where are the options that simultaneously reduce Necromancers — and simultaneous solutions for Conflux, which would become stronger after such a Necromancer nerf, even though it’s already a top-tier town? Where is the nerf for Luna (burn the witch!!!) — an undeniably top hero who, without any army, breaks not just guards but GO-level guards in the first week, regardless of starting town? All questions are rhetorical...

If the thread starter’s goal was to establish the truth, i.e., an objective picture and the opinion of the majority of the community on this issue, then the initial poll should have consisted of only three options:
1. I think Necromancers need to be nerfed.
2. I think Necromancers don’t need to be nerfed.
3. I don’t care, I’m ready to play both ways.

And only after this gathering of public opinion, if the overwhelming majority (at least 75-80%) speaks in favor of such a need in general, then we could jointly look for a solution that would satisfy the majority of players. :smile23:

But the thread starter went a different route (because the goals are different) — discussed with someone in private messages and, based on a small and unrepresentative selection of subjective opinions (and the current poll results already confirm this, indicating a trend line), essentially presented something of his own as a widely overdue and pressing issue. Although, after analyzing the game statistics of the same Al Feyn, this pressing issue bursts like a soap bubble, because, I repeat, with left Tant, out of 190 games, he essentially won, by his own words, only once (and considers this an indicator of the need for change) — actually he won twice and lost twice, but still that’s less than one percent of wins — or maybe even zero (depending on how you count), and against him, left Tant wasn’t played at all: now we’re supposed to make global changes for less than one percent.
All of Al Feyn’s argumentation about Tant boiled down to one game against GUNAR.

Without Tant, the game wasn’t salvageable at all. Shakti came almost straight to me through the Griffin Conservatory and would have killed me. Probably the only hero in the entire game that saved the match — Tant. He pulled out the first final by a hair. And this case certainly stuck in my memory very strongly, and I remembered it first and foremost when I wrote my message.

In other words. We have a conditionally one-shot lineup in favor of the opponent. We get an antidote to this one-shot lineup in the form of a strong Necromancer. The only antidote, according to Al Feyn. And we’re not happy with this very antidote — we urgently ban Tant, down with him, let one-shot lineups not be salvageable at all anymore... Did I translate that correctly into Russian? :smile22:

Again — well, you have a small sample size, so take a dataset from someone like FireToSky. And see if your position holds up or not. But no... (because there’s no such goal...) :smile06:

Thanks to Nodl for the statistics from previous Pets tournaments. Here we can actually discuss based on data. It’s obvious that Necromancers are decisive. In the finals — even more so (and finals are already a level of serious play).
korovka1987, 20% in the playoffs is quite a lot — because from the data set, as you yourself noted, you can remove Jebus Cross, and that 20% could turn into something significantly larger, and here you also need to consider that there are lineups where the player simply didn’t get a Necromancer in the tavern/prison in the first week of the game.
In other words, the imbalanced nature of Necromancy itself becomes obvious. And this imbalance is extreme. And the extremity of this imbalance can be calculated, although to do that you’d have to stop blathering and work with a large data set. And based on objective data, propose specific mathematically grounded solutions. :smile14:

Actually, based on Al Feyn’s posts, I increasingly get the impression that he has a huge amount of free time and simply has no one to talk to, but he still wants to be "socially significant" in his own eyes. As one autistic boy in our rehabilitation program used to say several times a day: "I wish people would love and respect me..." :smile15:

I consider the poll in the form proposed by the thread starter to be completely absurd, so I didn’t click on it. :smile16: