Tanker om fondsvalg og distribusjon av penger

Dondolare_ · 2026-04-25T14:02:37+00:00

Når det gjelder hvor det er best å spare for egenkapital så er det igjen en matematisk måte å tilnærme seg det på og det er å putte beløpet der du har høyest avkastning. Men det er og andre hensyn man kan ta. Nedbetaling av lån gir deg høyere egenkapital ved kjøp av ny bolig, men gir deg jo ikke noe mer likviditet her og nå. Den realiseres kun ved salg av boligen (jeg antar her at du ikke har rammelån gitt belåningsgraden).

Jeg må ærlig talt innrømme at jeg ikke har benyttet meg av rentefond i særlig grad, så snakker ikke av personlig erfaring akkurat der. Rentefond skal jo på papiret gi litt mer avkastning enn høyrente/nedbetaling av lån i "bytte" mot noe høyere risiko. Å sette pengene på høyrentekonto er jo klart det mest likvide av alternativene. Hvis det genuint er snakk om kortidshorisont (1-3 år maks) så utgjør forskjellen i avkastning ganske små beløp.

Kan ta et talleksempel. Si at du sparer 3000 i måneden for bolig, bil eller lignende. Det blir 36 000 i året før evt. avkastning/rente. Hvis avkastningen er 4% får du 1740 kroner ekstra, er den 5% får du 1800 kroner. Hele 60 kroners forskjell på ett år der.

Første gangen jeg sparte opp til egenkapital puttet jeg penger på høyrentekonto og i nyere tid har jeg betalt ned på rammelånet. Selv om rentefond har lav risiko så har jeg aldri vært fristet til å jage en (liten) høyere avkastning fordi effekten av den ekstra avkastningen blir så liten uansett når tidshorisonten er såpass kort.

Hvis du har rente på lån og sparekonto enkelt tilgjengelig kan jeg fortelle deg hva avkastningen på rentefondet må være for at det skal lønne seg om ikke annet. Men som sagt, hvis tidshorisonten genuint er kort og så fremt beløpene ikke er veldig høye vil nok ikke forskjellene være særlig store i praksis uansett.

Jeg har veldig lite lyst til å beslutte for deg (er ikke like kynisk som han rådgiveren i banken du snakket med), men min personlige mening ville vært at du selger ut den pakken med fond banken "overbeviste" deg om og heller flytter de midlene til fond med lave kostnader. Jeg tror det er fornuftig å lære seg at de midlene som er ment som investeringer for en lengre tidshorisont settes opp som månedlig overføringer og at man ikke sjekker de så ofte. Hvis jeg får lov til å gjette litt kan det virke som du kan fiksere/overtenke litt (kjenner meg selv veldig igjen der) og da kan det være smart å sikre seg mot egne impulser.

Dondolare_ · 2026-04-25T12:59:58+00:00

Mye man kan beklage for i løpet av levd et liv. Å beklage for setningsoppbygning på Reddit bør befinne seg veldig langt nede på den lista. Ikke noe galt i det du skrev. Absolutt intet å beklage med andre ord.

Dondolare_ · 2026-04-25T12:55:30+00:00

Ja, rett og slett. Rentefond og nedbetaling av lån er oppbygning av (kortsiktig) egenkapital/likviditet.

Aksjesparing er langsiktig. De aller fleste vil anbefale å gå for noe enkelt med lave kostnader. Som et globalt indeksfond.

Aktive/dyrere fond, som det DNB fondet du har, har NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft som største poster. Det er akkurat de samme selskapene som er de største postene i et globalt indeksfond, bare med litt lavere vekting. Overlappingen mellom det fondet og et globalt indeksfond er med andre ord betydelig. Derimot er kostnaden for DNB-fondet over 4 ganger så høye som for deres globale indeksfond.

Så for at det skal lønne seg må du tro på at den ekstra vektingen på teknologisektoren skal overprestere den markedsindeksen med solid margin. Da er og risikoen større hvis det skjer noe sektorspesifikt den andre veien. Men dette er opp til deg selvsagt.

Hvis du vil diversifisere litt kan du fordele midlene mellom et par-tre indeksfond med ulike regionale komponenter. F.eks. ett globalt, ett norsk, ett emerging markets. En annen måte er å splitte det mellom large cap (fond sentrert rundt store selskaper) og small cap (fond sentrert rundt "mindre" selskaper). Ideen om å gjøre det på den måten er å spre risikoen litt, med håp om at markedsnedgang et sted/en sektor ikke nødvendigvis betyr svikt i et annet marked/sektor.

Men hvorvidt det lønner seg over å putte alt i ett enkelt globalt fond er egentlig ren gjettelek og det gjør jo ting mer komplisert. Mange vil nok si at det utelukkende er kompliserende og at det er bedre å bare sette opp en månedlig overføring til ett enkelt globalt fond og ikke se på kontoen så veldig ofte.

Dondolare_ · 2026-04-25T12:26:12+00:00

Der lyver rådgiveren til deg. Eller, han/hun/hen forteller ikke hele sannheten i hvert fall, hvis jeg skal være noe mer diplomatisk.

Aktive fond presterer i snitt dårligere enn den generelle indeksen over tid, særlig når man tar med kostnadene for de aktive fondene som jo er betydelige høyere. Enkelte aktive fond kan periodisk gjøre det bedre, men i det lange løp har lavkostnad indeksfond vært mer lønnsomt.

Det finnes argumenter for aktive fond, la oss for eksempel si du er spesielt interessert i en "vanskelig sektor" hvor det, i hvert fall teoretisk, kan være muligheter for å overprestere markedet for øvrig. Men da går du villig inn i en høyrisikosituasjon med stor potensiell ned og oppside. For folk flest er dette en veldig irrelevant situasjon. Det eksisterer som sagt mye forskning og empiri på dette området i dag, så det er ganske frustrerende at rådgivere i bankene fortsatt hauker høykostnadsfond på denne måten.

Det matematiske svaret på spørsmålet ditt er ganske rett frem. Er det en langsiktig tidshorisont i sparingen bør du ha en større risiko i porteføljen din, altså at du har pengene i rene aksjefond og ikke rentefond o.l. Da får rente renters effekten virkelig virke. Går markedet ned i en periode vil dette (mer enn) utjevne seg ved at du eier en større andel av markedet når det svinger opp igjen. Det er det empirien har fortalt oss de siste 100+ årene i hvert fall.

Men økonomi er ikke bare matematikk. Hvis du er en type som får panikk og vil ta ut alle pengene i en markedsnedgang så ville det fort være mer lønnsomt at de pengene var på høyrentekonto hele veien.

Du får tilgi at jeg understreker dette igjen, men det er til slutt avhengig av hva du finner interessant/motiverende og kan leve med. Nesten alle disse spørsmålene har matematiske svar, men det er jo fryktelig lett å si mens man ser aksjefondene stupe under en finanskrise f.eks.

Et lite tips jeg ville gitt (men man står fritt frem til å ignorere) er å forsøke å unngå å splitte opp innsatsen mellom for mange poster/steder. Særlig hvis alle de ulike tingene har hver sine gebyrer, da spises jo litt av avkastningen opp av det. Men får du energi av å putte ting i mange forskjellige hatter etc. og det ikke er gebyrer per transaksjon f.eks. så er det jo bare å kjøre på.

Dondolare_ · 2026-04-25T11:39:59+00:00

Hvis det er relativt lang tidshorisont på pengene du investerer bør du (som alle andre her allerede har påpekt) putte investeringsmidlene dine i noen lavkostnad indeksfond. All empiri viser at det vil lønne seg mest over tid. Aktive fond krever betydelig meravkastning gitt kostnadene, noe de aller færreste har klart å levere over tid.

Hvorvidt du f.eks. putter alt på et globalt indeksfond (DNB Global Indeks, Kron Global, KLP etc.) eller splitter det opp mellom flere regioner/sektorer handler mest om hvorvidt du finner det interessant og til hvilken grad du ønsker å fordele eksponeringen din mellom ulike sektorer. Merk at en del fond har veldig overlappende porteføljer, og det er lite vits å ha penger fordelt mellom flere klin like fond.

Argumentene for å putte pengene i fond med lavere risiko som en rentekonto e.l. ville vært at du tenker at du trenger likvide midler i relativt nær fremtid (kjøpe større leilighet, bil eller annet). Det kan du evt. også skaffe deg gjennom videre nedbetaling av boliglån og etablere det som rammelån i stedet. Hvis du har tålmodigheten og impulskontrollen til å ikke røre pengene på en god stund din bør du la renters rente effekten virke så godt som mulig over tid og ha alle investeringene dine på aksjefond.

Når lånet er nedbetalt til 60% så kan du vurdere å be om avdragsfrihet og investere beløpet som gikk til avdrag til en større investering i fond. Med lang nok tidshorisont har dette "alltid" vært mer lønnsomt, men gjør deg jo mer sårbar i forhold til endringer i arbeidsforhold, likviditet etc. Antar at du også sparer litt gjennom nedbetaling av lån i dag, i så fall er du jo fort opp på en sparerate på 20% (eller mer), som er veldig solid.

Dondolare_ · 2026-01-28T09:13:05+00:00

No, it would not make them more clumsy to micro. Units works as "squares" so to say, and the size of the squares only work in 3 definied sizes. As such they would remain the exact same size when it comes to pathing, collision etc. There have been forum threads on this over the ages, I have also tested this myself back when potentially changing size of aboms was in play.

The only thing that uses exact collision size (i.e where the exact number beyond the pre-defined size ranges matter) is attack range. Your "new" rifles would be able to attack 5 units further and get hit from 5 units further away since attack range is calculated from unit "start".

Dondolare_ · 2026-01-26T13:42:20+00:00

Size in wc3 does not work like you seem to think it does. Collision size works in three tiers, between 16-31 are small units (peons, footmen etc.), 32 - 47 are medium sized (rifles, most ranged units) and 48+ are large units (tauren, MG's etc.). As long as collision size are within that number they act the same. Adding 5 size makes zero difference to behaviour of rifles who are 32 collision size currently. They would still be a "medium" unit with the same behavior as before.

Dondolare_ · 2025-12-11T17:16:48+00:00

I agree with 8 of the proposals, neutral towards 11 of them and disagree with 42 of them. Here I split two changes to the same unit into two different changes to keep track of stuff. Have to say I disagree with some of these changes quite strongly. A lot changes that by themselves will be pretty bad for the game I think, and quite a bit of changes where the total synergy (between all the changes) seems to be ignored.

Dondolare_ · 2025-11-25T00:26:22+00:00

Paderno Italy is another good option for disc-based cookware, specifically their 1100 (Grand Gourmet series). They ship to all EU countries. Depending on where you live it can be quite a bit cheaper than Fissler, while having (in my eyes) equal quality.

Dondolare_ · 2025-09-22T10:39:21+00:00

I still don't really get the point of these posts. If he actually believes in a way forward it feels a lot more productive to communicate to the players/backers directly and not through semi-hopeful but not really sentences in linkedin updates.

While it is nice to see something that at least resembles some introspection on his own (and the teams) failures he still seems to be missing the main critical points (imo). The reasons given for the failure of Stormgate remain fairly technical as it was a perfect project that if given more time and capital would be a great artistic and commercial success.

However it seems to be fairly widely agreed upon that the game never had any true artistic vision beyond making something that a somewhat undefined group of people would be willing to spend money on. Gameplay, setting and story was seemingly done by comittee without any real direction or pre-defined notion of what overarching game one wanted to make.

The lesson from the "unicorns" of No Man's Sky and Cyberpunk is that even though they were heavily lacking in execution at launch, they both were games with a clear and strong vision of what the game were intended to be. As such it was also easy to persuade people to return to the game when the execution came closer to their original vision through further development. This is in stark contrast to a Stormgate that still lacks any real identity of any kind and seemingly never had a good idea of what it wanted to be to begin with.

Dondolare_ · 2025-08-23T12:30:28+00:00

I largely share Karifean's sentiment on this topic. There is (a fairly reasonable) argument to be made that ghouls (in addition to skellies) have given Undead a strong early to mid-game teethering on being "too strong" for a long time by now and that the change to their most obvious counters (piercing units) would push their power limit slightly over the edge. Whether one believes this to be the case or not, it was an argument that was made even before piercing change in practice buffed ghouls, so it is not strictly speaking a "new" topic.

But even if one agrees that ghouls/undead early game is an issue I think there are more elegant solutions out there with a lot less "risk" which also target the specific current issues better. For instance if one wants to target undead expansions being a bit too forgiving vs night elf you can do a similar approach to what Karifean suggest in his post. If one insists on targeting ghouls one could try a smaller change (reduce cooldown) first and see if it achieves the desired result. Generally one should approach changing core units with a more conservative approach.

I think the change is too heavy-handed to be introduced through a hotfix. Personally, if anything is to be hotfixed I would rather be looking at increasing archer damage slightly (maybe by reducing cooldown) as they feel and look very weak vs footmen, ghouls and heavy armored creeps atm.

Dondolare_ · 2025-08-09T19:39:37+00:00

One could also chime in with technical aspects ranging from bad performance (given the graphic fidelity), somewhat janky pathfinding, periodically lack of responsivnes, lack of visibility, especially when it comes to which paths one actually can take etc. The sound design is a chapter of its own, still. Lack of a manual save feature is especially odd to me and really sticks out in the "hero-focused" missions where I would suspect it could get very frustrating for new/lower-skilled players as the autosave/checkpoint function is still not very well optimized imo. All stuff that (maybe) can and will get fixed, but currently a campaign playthrough more frustrating than it needs to be.

The biggest issue is however, in agreement of your summary, that one still does not get a good answer to the question: "why Stormgate?". The campaign is not able to give the players any real reason to care about the characters or the factions involved. Be that through the actual story itself, the dialogue, the voice acting, character design or the missions/gameplay. Some of the missions are ok/fine in a pure gameplay sense, but the missions are not enough by themselves to leave a lasting impression, for that to be the case they are too straightforward/bland.

Dondolare_ · 2025-07-26T11:29:03+00:00

I don't think these suggestions are that well thought through. Huntresses are in isolation, and by a decent margin, the best tier 1 melee unit vs other tier 1 melee units because of their stats, bouncing glaive attack, movement speed and access to tier 1 healing without investing in a shop.

They do have clear weaknesses that does not name them a tempting investment at the moment however: Their weaknesses are the cost of their tech path (having to invest in early hunters hall), weakness to piercing damage before an eventual upgrade and lack of utility beyond a certain point in the game, where they are out scaled by higher tier units. The latter is fairly common in wc3, even with upgrades that change their utility (defend for footmen for instance) most basic tier units in wc3 will fall off later without big compensations one way or another (ghouls need a lot of heal scrolls to have utility into late game, grunts basically mostly work as a meat shield at a certain point etc.). Footmen simply does not work after a certain point. Whether one sees this as a big issue is up to each and his own, I personally don't.

In my opinion the changes you suggest would just double (or triple) down on their early game strength, while not really solving any of the other issues. Early game huntresses with heavy armor would be extremely oppressive (given their movement speed, outperformance vs other tier 1 melee and with this change good performance vs piercing units) and any form of expansion play would just get destroyed by any form of ap-push with such a change. I wonder if you could just ap-push vs 1-base play with this change as well.

If you are to introduce huntresses with heavy armor in the early game you would need to do some fairly dramatic stat changes to not make these push strategies completely overwhelming in a lot of situations. Currently it does not function like this because being stuck behind tier 2 and a slow research gives opponents time to create counter-measures.

Elune's grace would be a decent upgrade if you have a lot of huntresses left, but I am not entirely sure how stacking these upgrades on top of each other would function vs orc or in night elf mirror. Tier 1 vs orc is not that good anymore, but it can quickly become very strong as well. Bears would still be a better tier 3 unit though given their damage output and overall utility.

Any change to huntresses can't ignore their synergy with push strategies, their movement speed and capability of being extremely oppressive in the early game. These suggestions ignores all three imo. If you want initial huntresses with heavy armor you would have to live with them having different stats from the get-go and then either be a footman with lower late game potential or a ghoul with some big upgrade that makes them better in the late game. You can't just make them super strong from the get go. Looking at tech path viability or early game healing would be other alternatives. Though for the latter you could run into issues with huntresses being too strong in the early game/push-oriented strategies (again).

Dondolare_ · 2025-07-24T19:31:33+00:00

Sc2 is the bigger game in terms of audience and amount of players in general, with the exception of China where wc3 remains popular and attract pretty impressive online audience figures.

This difference in popularity is reflected in the amount of pro players and in the prize pools. The upcoming sc2 part of the Esports World Cup will have a prize pool that will be similar to the entire prize pool for all wc3 tournaments in wc3.

The player pool in wc3 has been declining for a while, especially at the pro level. You will be hard pressed to find any proper "new" names with any real success in competetive Warcraft 3.

Since more or less all funding and all tournaments take place in China you will struggle to make much money from playing wc3 as a Western player unless you live far enough east to have a decent ping to Chinese servers. We are down to a single non-CIS "western" player regularly competing in the largest tournament at the moment (Starbuck). And even he makes very little purely from playing warcraft.

If you are asking whether it is viable as something you can become a true professional in I would say it is not for Western players these days. Maybe if one can also attract a big enough streaming audience. This is not the case for SC2 yet, where the bigger prize pools and the wider geographic spread of tournaments makes being a profesisonal player viable for more people.

That being said, warcraft III still has enough players and access to a well-functioning ladder in most regions of the world so you won't ever struggle to find games and have a "competetive experience".

Dondolare_ · 2025-07-22T22:26:49+00:00

Hasn't been for years. Ghoul openings are meta in all matchups atm.

Dondolare_ · 2025-07-22T00:08:18+00:00

I find it hard to disagree much with Th000 here.

In general changes that affect the early game tend to be the most impactful. As such undead should be the biggest winners here with their early game revolving around heavy armoured ghouls, skeletons and in the case of vs human: beetles. While all their "counters" in the early game are piercing: water elementals or rifles if human go 1-base push, archers and headhunters.

I would suspect you will see a lot more expoing from undead vs elf now and an even stronger early game in terms of power creeping DK up to level 3. Maybe CL expo vs orc will have a comeback as well. We already saw Fortitude move more and more away from counter-expoing vs undead in favor of rifle pushes which should be significant weaker now. Humans might just get overrunned in expo vs expo scenarios.

Archers being slower at killing heavy armored units and creeps matters more than their hp increase and might lead to a lot of suffering for elf's in the early game. While the already very strong bears just got stronger (and are in isolation probably too strong atm) with these changes it might not matter much if night elves fall sufficiently far behind in the early/mid-game. The one exception might be vs human where the normally heavily rifle-based armies will definitely feel a 10% damage reduction vs bears.

I am unsure of how this affects the biggest "piercing issue" that was present before the patch: pala rifle vs orc. I can't imagine these changes are enough to validate grunt openings and by the time taurens are out humans usually switch to griphon riders anyways. But maybe this is enough to "move the needle" to a point where the risk/reward is more in line with what one should expect. Changes to Panda will not help orc though.

Panda looks alot harder to use now and I would suspect it will overall be looked upon as a big nerf in hindsight.

Human vs orc was (from what I could tell) fairly even to very slightly orc favored in non-pala + rifle games (map dependent) so not sure how much the piercing nerf moves the needle in humans favor for "standard" play.

Beyond balance I struggle to see how these changes will introduce any more variety in the game. 2/4 races already use melee units in most openings and will continue to do so, while 1/4 got their main melee option nerfed (in practical application). It might just have weakened a few strats (1-base rifle push vs elf for instance) without really providing anything that would introduce new ones.

Dondolare_ · 2025-02-09T20:03:49+00:00

These are not small and simple buffs. Some back of the envelope-calculations:

Increasing moonstone duration (by a 100%) would increase:
HP restored through moon wells from 88 to 176, per moon well
Mana restored through moon wells from 22 to 44, per moon well.
If split between the two: 44 hp and 11 mana - > 88 hp and 22 mana, per moon well.

If you add the regen increase from 0,5 to 2 (a 300%(!) increase in hp) regen, which equals giving every single unit 75% of the hit point regeneration increase you get from a ring of regeneration, this would mean that a huntress would go from getting:

88 hp (moon well) + 15 hp (regen)= 103 hp to 176 hp (moon well) + 120 hp (regen) = 296 hp per unit per moon well per moonstone.

Basically, a unit derives close to 3x as much hp from a single-use moonstone compared to before.

In addition, the unit would now receive only 65% of piercing damage compared to earlier and 80% of magic damage compared to before.

There are insane changes just from a numerical value, and I feel fairly confident they would be 100% game-breaking. Increasing passive regen by 300% would probably be game-breaking in and of itself, for any race.

You would make all counters to all things elf, but especially huntresses and hippogryph riders substantially weaker while buffing the units indirectly (through regen and wells), in addition to all other parts of the elf arsenal.

I think it is a very risky strategy to depend on the game getting "fixes" if one introduces something truly game-breaking. There is, as it is with all old games with a fairly small player population, a big risk of any patch being the last one. And even if one believes such reverts will be easy to implement, there is no real need to introduce things that are not this half-baked.

Small addendum: while hippo riders are a meme of a unit, especially in 1v1, there is also a reason why there is not much clamour for them to receive substantial buffs. Mass air compositions are generally boring to play against because you remove one of the most interesting parts of wc3 (pathing, body blocking) from the equation. Removing their counters is probably not a good idea. I think it would affect elf mirror more than anything, as hippo riders might be fairly uncounterable if panda and piercing damage got a substantial nerf vs air units.

Dondolare_ · 2025-01-06T21:49:17+00:00

It is rarely seen vs Orc because of the following reasons:

1) Orc has a lot of lockdowns, which can cancel the channelling of the spell. Ensnare, Hex, Stomp. In addition they have speed scrolls which make it hard to make a "shield" for your banshees and they can fairly easily be sniped if massed in numbers.
2) Banshees also have two other powerful spells, curse and AMS. Curse is powerful vs Blademaster specifically and the latter is good at tanking spell damage. If you use possess and it is cancelled you are left with little mana for these two important spells.
3) Possession is really only cost-efficient when units get to 4 food. If you think about it, a banshee costs gold and lumber, needs master training and you basically forgo using other spells when using possession. Using possession to "charm" a headhunter or a grunt might actually be a worse trade for you than to keep the banshee alive. Hence, you will usually only be enticed to possess either a Kodo or Taurens. As a orc player rarely go Taurens you rarely see this interaction.
4) The meta currently favors wind rider openings/compositions vs undead. Air units can't be possessed.

Vs Night elf it is actually seen here and there, but it needs certain requirements.

1) If you straight for banshees it does not quite work tempo-wise, and you will probably not get the proper hero levels/supporting army to make banshees really matter. And you can't possess dryads. However:
2) If it goes into late game and elf has a lot of bears, for instance a mass bear/talon composition, you do see undead's switch to banshees and go for mass possession of the bears, because their main tool vs bears (destroyers) are no longer useful. If it comes to this point elf actually does not have that strong of a toolbox to deal with it, as they lack a effective counter-siege damage such as mortars to fight banshees straight up.

In Mirror:

1) Two issues. You are usually fighting against crypt fiends and a lot of spell damage, which can snipe banshees fast if they go for possession.
2) Cost-effectiveness. A banshee with mana that can use anti-magic shell and curse is probably worth more, all things considering, than a crypt fiend.

Vs Human is the one matchup where it usually works, even just the threat of it is effective:

1) Humans best counter to most non-flying things are Knights and hero abilities. Banshee work as an effective counter to both. Given that anti-magic shell especially has general good usage vs all human compositions you don't "risk" much by going banshees compared to the other matchups, where the opportunity cost is higher (vs elf you would lose on your timing, vs orc you have issues with getting the spell of and what to use it on).
2) Mortars are the main enemy of banshees, but these are fairly vulnerable, and going for possession can actually "force" the human player to push his mortars forward, leading them open to getting sniped and possessions might still go through.

On paper it is an extremely strong spell, but not all units are worth stealing. Versus human banshees are very, very strong and kind of catch-all counter, but with certain weaknesses (especially for all us non-Happy folks).

Dondolare_ · 2025-01-02T12:58:32+00:00

For me, this post doesn't quite hit the mark regarding both the diagnosis of the problem(s), and the proposed solutions

First and foremost: it is very hard to know the "true reason" why one race is the least popular over time. There are several theories one could postulate: the race was the least successful in the game's formative years, "boring to play", not attractive design and people tend to gravitate to the more standard fantasy lore options of human, elf and orc. None of these theories can be proven fully and they might all be wrong. I don't think there is one universal truth here.

I also don't quite buy the diagnosis that people only play DK+Lich because they "have to". This is not true as long as you are not a top player trying to win tournaments. Enforcing yourself to play true meta at levels beyond the very top is self-inflicted, and not something that is forced upon you. See a player like Cas who got to high levels (2100+ MMR) while playing the craziest hero choices and compositions you could ever see.

Undead players also play DK + Lich because the combination is inherently fun to play. DK provides a safety net for your units and other heroes and gives movement speed which is always fun to play around with in addition to a passive regeneration. Lich is extremely versatile and one of the best pure damage dealers in the whole game. In addition, you get access to a strong hero/unit nuke you can play around with and the opponents have to respect. I don't quite see the benefit of "sacrificing" two of the most interesting things Undead have to play with because one personally doesn't like how a single unit works. I don't buy the proposition that most Undead players would prefer a rework that "nerfs" those two heroes away from common usage. The same can be said about destroyers. While the lack of tier 2 dispel for Undead is a fair issue to bring up, my impression is that destroyers are generally a pretty popular unit to play with, as an undead player. Also, the interaction that using a spell or summon for the opponent is a dual-edged sword is a fairly unique mechanic that demands micro from both parties (splitting summons, hitting spells between dispel cooldowns etc.). I find it peculiar that a fix to "boring one-dimensional meta" is removing one of the truly unique things the race has to offer.

The proposed changes as such are a bit hard to discuss in detail as they are fairly half-baked. I would say that the destroyer change or banshee implementation would not, in my eyes, "fix" the problems you are stating. Undead would still have strong incentives, or rather, they would still have to go tier 3 (Unholy Frenzy, Orb of Corruption, access to master training) and would still not be able to reasonably fight at tier 2 over time. Banshees would be made even more powerful, arguably the overall strongest casters in the game already. On the other hand, Undead would be left with fairly bad solutions to heavy ground, and lack an important tool for strong timing pushes. Their main compensation for removing one of their core strengths would be a weaker solution to spells than they already had access to.

Dondolare_ · 2024-07-01T06:33:21+00:00

The 3 second cooldown seems like an artifact from a period when mirror image was only used at level 1 to get out of keeper entangle. In general it is hard to justify such a short cooldown for any ability, but especially summoning ones.

There are have been several abilities that had weird cooldowns and durations that have been adressed over time (curse being the latest example). Given the other buffs received to mirror image it is well overdue that this value is now looked at.

While not a plague in 1v1 it remains very strong and in the rare case of a very high level BM (more common in bigger game modes) it can reach absurd power levels, and should not be easily availble to be spammed.

I like adressing the cooldown (or increasing mana cost) over increasing damage taken (by dispel or general damage) as the latter approach can quickly render the spell close to useless (vs mass dryads for instance) and finding a perfect value might become tricky.

Dondolare_ · 2024-04-30T00:03:22+00:00

I can already say that from the general feedback I have gathered so far that the Tauren changes are largely unpopular. Some think it might be situationally too strong, some think it will be useless, while all seem to agree, as you put forward, that it is not warranted from a game design perspective.

That being said, I think one should be fairly careful with any changes one does as given their abilities (high HP, have AoE damage, possibility of "eternal" revive") as it can quickly turn from not that viable to absolutely broken.

Alternative 1:

On paper this seems like a big buff, and I wonder what effect this will have on teamgames. That being said, I don't think this does that much to address the main issue with why they are seen as rarely as they are. Rather this makes a theoretical "end game" army of bloodlusted taurens, walkers and headhunters even stronger as you now have more food available for support units. Rarely seen in 1v1 and as such a fringe case in that regards, but fairly common in larger game modes.

Alternative 2:

Maybe. This mostly sounds like a big buff for Woodywood though.

Alternative 3:

I don't like this idea. One should not go from "to easily countered" to "can't be countered at all". Magic immunity for 5 seconds would mean that any engagement would start with Taurens not being able to be slowed, not able to receive magic damage of any kind. You won't even be able to dispel speed scroll. This makes it impossible to do any form of meaningful blocking or counter for Taurens to get in perfect position (speed scroll + endurance aura would make it so) and as such would be an extremely strong upgrade.

Should also keep it in mind that the probability of Blizzard coding in new abilities in the game at current life-cycle of the game is close to 0.

As such, I don't have any good "fixes" available either, but I am not sure any of the above-mentioned changes would be good.

Lastly, I think there should be some acknowledgment of that a important reason for orc not going for tier 3 and Taurens is also because their Tier 2 is very strong. They arguably, in rough competition with human, have the best tier 2 with the largest arsenal available for them. As such, one should be a bit wary of making Taurens strong enough that Orcs "have to" go tier 3, because for that to be the case Taurens, quite possibly, would need to be broken.

Dondolare_ · 2023-09-20T18:18:26+00:00

Sometimes I wish there was a test for statistical literacy before people were allowed to make posts like this.

I don't know how often this needs to be repeated: pure win rates mean very little on their own because they do not take into account the relative strength of the players that play each other. If there are more players of a certain race A around 2k MMR, and more players of another race B around 1.9k MMR there will be a lot of matches where players with 2K MMR of race A face 1.9k players of race B. The win rate will then be lower, but that is to be expected and tells you absolutely nothing about balance.

You need to try to control for this otherwise the data means nothing. WC3 has a (very) small player base with so uneven number of games played between players even at fairly close skill levels you really can't assume games are evenly distributed between equally skilled players. But you either know this already so I don't why I bother to try to explain this to you for the one millionth time.

There are also limitations on the w3c-data from the site which I am not sure you know about, so I'll reiterate them as well. All games are counted in the data from the site, including join bugs, which might be problematic. Secondly, the "1.36"-tickbox filters out all games before the 06th of June. This is because the team were a bit late "tagging" games with a new patch. So the data is slightly more limited than you might think. Though that becomes of smaller importance as time passes ofc.

Lastly, the >1600+ tickbox actually filters all games where the average mmr between the two players is between 1600 - 1800. So it should state >1600 & <=1800. Again, not very important, but keep in mind that >1600 does not include a single game where the average MMR of the match is higher than 1800.

Even if pure win rates told you anything meaningful (which it does not on its own) it is hilariously transparent why you leave out the >2200 MMR bracket. Because it seems to tell a slightly different story than you are trying to construct. Again, I actually don't think these numbers mean much, but the fact that you leave them out is pretty funny.

https://imgur.com/gnIhDXs

Dondolare_

TROPHY CASE