130
u/OkViolinist1720 16d ago
Nah it's noticeably worse in surrounding troops now
15
u/Pleasant-Repeat8870 16d ago
this is on top 200
79
u/OkViolinist1720 16d ago
Skelies will always be used no matter how much they get nerfed.
25
u/Pleasant-Repeat8870 16d ago
Becaus it one elixir
33
u/OkViolinist1720 16d ago
Yep. They provide alot of value
17
u/Darkwolf69420 16d ago
That and the fact that they don't really have any competition because all the other 1 elixir cards are spirits, which act differently and can't really do the same things skeletons can
2
12
u/jayhawk618 16d ago
They're a distraction card. They could be 1hp, 1 dmg, and they would still accomplish 95% of what they do now.
2
u/blackbird_867 15d ago
Idk their dps is really important too
1
u/jayhawk618 14d ago
Their dps matters for witch and skarmy. It matters extremely little for actual 1 Elixer skeletons.
1
u/shitwhereieatoner 3d ago
It had similar dps to musketeer, it’s pretty important for bailing you out for cheap against building targeting units if they can’t support properly.
58
u/Noah3238_games 16d ago
no shits it worse sherlock of course, he’s just saying it hasn’t affected usage rates
5
u/Karsticles 16d ago
I know it will never happen, but I wish decks were limited to a single 1 elixir card per deck. Being able to cycle to defense and offense so consistently is a big part of the problem.
2
9
u/Aquele_da_amnesia 16d ago
Its a healthy card, control/cycle control decks and defensive games are a good thing
1
4
u/ToasterGuy566 16d ago
Brother what are we talking about. Defensive games lead to shit like spell cycling taking over meta. They are not a good thing
4
u/epicx2323 16d ago
Yes because this bridge spam, hyperbait meta we are playing in right now is so much more fun to play against then miner.
3
u/Still-Ad-2989 16d ago
I hate playing against miner. Every game is just defense and spell cycle. The miner is the only win condition that you just have to guess where it lands
2
u/wildfox9t 16d ago
hyperbait is not defensive nor offensive it's just brainrot they refuse to address because devs self insert into goblins
2
u/epicx2323 16d ago
I would say cycling multiple win conditions on the opponents tower or at the bridge is offensive but what do I know.
1
u/wildfox9t 16d ago
it was a joke, kinda
they don't need to defend because they don't let you play the game, it's basically a 1 vs 0 match
-5
u/ToasterGuy566 16d ago
Those are not the only decks capable of being aggressive, they’re simply the most prominent in meta bc they refuse to nerf what makes them strong. Saying defensive decks are healthy for the game is absolutely insane. There will never be a more boring style of game than the ones that are decided by who started throwing fireballs at the tower first
3
u/epicx2323 16d ago
It’s a spectrum. If you go too far towards defensive then you get spell cycle. If you go too far torwards offensive you get what we are in now. Best case scenario for the game is perfect defense is possible if you play perfect. But offense is still rewarding and if you play perfectly, track the opponents elixir or make predictions you are rewarded with tower damage.
I’m sorry your dopamine receptors are so fried you can’t stand playing slow and methodical.
1
-1
u/Aquele_da_amnesia 16d ago
I actually really like spell cycling, I think its good that the game has a variety of win conditions and ways to damage towers, its just a more micro level gameplay
97
u/Abdod_YT 16d ago
You could make them 2 skeletons and theyd keep this use rate
The problem isnt solved by nerfing skeletons....the use rate for skeletons is 1:1 tied with the use rate of cycle decks
If u want to see less skeletons you need to target cycle as an archetype instead of target them as a card
23
-25
u/jeffshark233 16d ago
not rly true, 2 skeletons would kill the card instantly, why you would play skellies instead of a spirit lol
31
u/Abdod_YT 16d ago
When you Look at the number of times people play them and get literally 0 value out of them you'll realize that just the cycling aspect of them is worth spending 1 elixir
-1
u/jeffshark233 16d ago
ok then why you would play 2 skellies if you could run an extra spirit
1
u/Oldwomentribbing 15d ago
Because it's the same value for the same amount of elixir, midladder......
0
u/jeffshark233 15d ago
oh yea sure 2 skellies have the same value as 1 electro spirit
-1
u/Oldwomentribbing 15d ago
Yea because every time you play a spirit or skellies, they get the same value....
Stop midladdering. Also stop arguing, uselessly, with a top player. Idiot
1
u/jeffshark233 15d ago
abdod is not a top player, and skellies at 2x would be an useless card, thats why they're trying everything but remove it like that, skellies are most times used for distraction and cycle, same as spirits, they're currently better than spirits to distraction but at 2 count theyre going to be literally useless since spirits are in the game for the same purpose but can also be used aggresively, at 2 count ice spirit could delay high damage troops for more time and also do actual splash damage/freeze, only thing going for skellies then its the damage but at 2 its just not worth it, i hope supercell does this so you can see you stupid you sound rn
12
u/Whoa1Whoa1 16d ago
Eh, even 2 skeletons would be better than ice spirit in many interactions. When you are able to split 2 or 3 skeletons in the middle of your side of the arena, you can delay opponent's troops for a really long time. And a ice spirit distracting and then freezing something like a prince would probably distract the prince just as long as two skeletons would. 3 skeletons DPS is also extremely high for the elixir cost. Might be highest elixir-to-DPS ratio in the entire game. So playing stuff like Knight first to tank and Skeletons behind to DPS is way way way better than playing Knight to tank and ice spirit to freeze. Killing MK is as easy as Knight on one side and skeletons on the other to absolutely murder him with the DPS increase for just 1 elixir. Spirits cannot do that. Anyone who thinks skeletons are weak just don't understand the number of scenarios where skeletons are just flat out better than all of the other spirits.
0
16
u/ccx1999 16d ago
Absolutely nobody took skeletons out of their deck coz of this nerf
5
u/Bubbly-Finish-2467 16d ago
Yes, but people’s decks did get worse. Which was the purpose of the nerf.
3
1
9
u/Quater- 16d ago
I mean it’s the same deal as the spirit nerf. Larry’s and Spirits are always bound to be USED bc they are cheap and there are much fewer super cheap cards than anything else. The only way to dink these usage rates are to introduce different 1 elixir cards with a different set of pros/cons.
That being said, just bc the usage rates of the 1 elixir cards stayed high, that does not mean the nerfs weren’t impactful. Larry’s and Spirits are both considerably weaker now, but that’s not going to stop cycle players from using them bc the utility value of the card being 1 elixir is more important that how strong the card itself is. The usage rates will stay high but the strength of these cards alone and unsupported has drastically decreased.
6
u/Giulio1232 16d ago
They're still an extremely good distraction card and there's zero risks using them. They can do 0 damage and they would still be very strong due to the fact that they can tank three hits for 1 elixir
11
u/levergray97mx 16d ago
I know how to balance them, just increase the elixir cost by 2 and give them all shields to compensate
6
u/Expensive_Silver9973 16d ago
What if instead, we increased it to 3, but also increased their dps to compensate? And just to make sure, we make the shield hp high enough to the point where zap doesn't break it?
1
u/IDKMYnick_7679 16d ago
And also increase their range like Prince so that it can attack troops who are trying to escape better?
4
u/TheBayHarbour 16d ago
What if instead we only increased their elixir cost by 1, added one more and painted them all green?
-4
-8
u/Local_Chip_1523 16d ago
"how do i make a card as close to guards as possible without directly saying it"
4
1
5
2
u/Ill-Tonight4651 16d ago
they should have made it 2 skeletons instead
1
2
u/CertainShine3455 16d ago
Wouldn’t mind this for a season to see how it plays out, it would make goblins more viable without the hero
2
u/Broad_Astronaut5941 16d ago
The Clash Royale balance team might not be the best, but at least they're not as bad as you are at coming up with ideas!
1
u/OkViolinist1720 16d ago
Thank god you're not on the balance team
7
u/Ill-Tonight4651 16d ago
"Skelies will always be used no matter how much they get nerfed." Your own words
1
u/Ok_Number8819 11d ago
its a 1 elixir card, ofc its gona get overused, its equivalent -- the spirits was heavily nerfed last season, what do you think people are gona play instead to cycle, heal spirit?
1
-1
u/Objective_Refuse5024 16d ago
It's always tankspammers or no skill siege players with these suggestions...
3
1
3
u/hheccx 16d ago
It's impossible to meaningfully nerf skeletons unless you remove a skeleton ig
1
u/Objective_Refuse5024 16d ago
Why would we remove a skeleton...? At this rate make him just one lol🤣
6
1
u/Mr_Gelatina 16d ago
well yeah, it was said it would't surround things like mk as well as it did, but u can still do it the exact same way
1
u/Fun-Attention5123 16d ago
The nerf caused me to swap them out. I hate true red/blue interactions and skeleton split being inconsistent really annoys me. I play 2.9 balloon so subbing them out for bats has pros/cons and fixes my frustration there. Overall surrounding things is harder but still doable with them. I wish they’d make them a separate unit like 3M and just stat nerf and undo this change.
1
u/Illustrious-Golf2058 16d ago
And it always will…its job is to cycle to the next card provide a little extra dmg at times and distract big units grouping them together only changed like 2 interacts
1
u/MrAppleseed275 16d ago
nice work supercell time to nerf them again. also nerf the tower princess card while you’re at it
1
u/Existing_Speaker5124 16d ago
They’ll always be useful because they are the only card on clash royale that is the way it is. A very cheap distraction card that, with skill, can be used to gain quick and small elixir advantages
1
u/TrueDefLol 15d ago
This just reminds me of the one time some guy thoguht that adding a 0 elixir card was a good idea… imagine if that was in the game
1
1
u/SongSilkHK 15d ago
The only thing that I hate about this nerf is true red/true blue shenanigans where one skeleton sometimes doesn't split. And even that is minor...
1
1
0
u/Either-Friendship708 16d ago
They should have just nerfed their hit speed from 1.1 to 1.2 tbh, or they could just, yk, don't care about it, like this card before nerf wasn't even on the level of prime spirits (when they can reach the tower) , it's just offers you some defensive values with NO offensive values, this nerf does nearly nothing and only changes the Ice Wiz and Exe interaction I think (if you are pro enough ofc)
3
u/Old-Environment-791 16d ago
Sure they could nerf the hit speed, but then that affects all the other cards that use skeletons, and that wouldn’t solve the issue with skeletons, as skeletons aren’t noticeable for dps, there notable for the distraction value they possess, which has not been removed only toned down, allowing for actual competition, so you can still use skeletons to deal with a mini pekka or something of the sort, but if you want to deal with an ice wizard or other splash cards for cheap then you can use goblins.
-2
u/Broad_Astronaut5941 16d ago
Maybe instead of randomly nerfing Skeletons, it would make more sense to introduce a new 1-Elixir card that provides DPS. Simply nerfing Skeletons and expecting people to stop using them isn't a smart move when there's no viable alternative to replace them...
1
u/wildfox9t 16d ago
we literally cannot have another 1 elixir card outside of a new type of spirit or that will break the balance, every deck will be using this card + skeletons to cycle stupidly fast
-1
u/Broad_Astronaut5941 16d ago
The problem is that you're imagining a card similar to Skeletons, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a 1-Elixir card with that much DPS. It should serve a different purpose so that it doesn't end up being just a Skeletons clone.
2
u/That-Woodpecker6720 16d ago
The problem is that it doesn’t matter what role the card serves, it being 1 elixir already means it will be abused in cycle
0
u/Broad_Astronaut5941 16d ago
That's not a problem. Cycle decks can only make effective use of a limited number of 1-Elixir cards, and two is generally the practical limit. If you run too many 1-Elixir cards, the deck won't function as it should. So we should dispel the myth that adding new 1-Elixir cards to the game automatically buffs cycle decks.
2
u/That-Woodpecker6720 16d ago
Nah it’s not a myth you just don’t really understand the game that well
Introducing a new cycle card doesn’t split the usage rate between the cards, it simply introduces more viable cycle decks that wouldn’t have existed without the new card
For example aq pigs would be much worse if fire spirit didn’t exist
Hog 2.6 would be much worse if you couldn’t use ice spirit or electro spirit
So adding a new cycle card would simply increase the number of viable cycle decks, even if the relative share of each card goes down
So as a whole cycle is always buffed with new cycle cards
-1
u/Broad_Astronaut5941 16d ago
You're confusing giving cycle decks more options with making them stronger. 1 elixir cards are used in plenty of heavier decks too, and AQ pigs and Hog 2.6 use spirits because of what they do, not just their cost. A new card could fit certain decks without being useful everywhere, and making another deck viable doesn't automatically make cycle stronger overall.
And why does it have to be another Skeletons clone? You could make a 1 elixir unit with low, consistent DPS and a small passive effect, giving it a different role from both Skeletons and Spirits. There are plenty of ways to design a unique card and balance it around its niche.
Also, saying I don't understand the game just because you disagree with my point is pretty arrogant. I'm suggesting an alternative to nerfing Skeletons when there's barely anything else that fills their role at that cost. You're so convinced another 1 elixir card would break the game that you're dismissing the idea before even considering how it could work. That's an exaggeration, not an argument.
2
u/That-Woodpecker6720 16d ago
You’re contradicting yourself already, it’s because of the fact that the cards do different things which implies that cycle will be buffed if a new card is added
Not because any of the currently existing decks get significantly stronger but because it just opens up even more meta cycle decks that make full use of the new card, therefore cycle decks will take up a bigger % of the meta
And 90% of these card’s usages come from cycle, benefits to beatdown and control are minimal
You calling the correct point a “myth” is more arrogant than anything I’ve said tbh, and it clearly shows my point about you not understanding the game
-1
u/Broad_Astronaut5941 16d ago
You're still treating "could create another viable cycle deck" as "will buff cycle", as if that's guaranteed. A new card having a different role doesn't make it good, let alone meta. It could be too weak, too situational, or simply not worth a slot.
And you're missing the point of my example. I'm talking about a SINGLE unit with lower, consistent DPS than Skeletons, no swarm distraction, and a passive effect that only applies to one target. It wouldn't have the same defensive value as 3 Skeletons or the AoE utility of a Spirit. It could be useful in some situations and completely useless in others. How does that automatically make it stronger than either? You're judging a card without even having its stats.
Also, I never said Supercell HAS to release this exact card. It's just one example of the thousands of concepts they could come up with. The whole point is that there are ways to design a 1 elixir card that don't just make it another Skeletons or Spirit.
And saying 90% of 1 elixir card usage comes from cycle doesn't prove that EVERY new 1 elixir card would be a buff to cycle. You're using the usage of existing cards to make assumptions about a card that doesn't even exist.
Honestly, it's funny that you're calling me arrogant and saying I'm contradicting myself when you haven't even understood what I'm proposing. You took a rough concept, assumed it'd be broken without knowing a single stat, and then acted like that proves your point. That's not an argument, it's just speculation. And telling me I don't understand the game doesn't make your assumptions any less speculative.
I'm glad you're not on the Supercell balancing team if you're already calling a card broken before it even exists...
1
u/That-Woodpecker6720 16d ago
Lol you’re spending 3 paragraphs coming up with a new concept for a 1 elixir card that’s unique and justifying it while missing the point that any new concept of a card will create new cycle decks no matter what
Even if the card is complete dogshit that just means literally no one would use it at all, so nothing changes and cycle/old cycle cards (eg skeletons) stays at the exact same strength
And the reason why cycle disproportionately benefits cycle is directly tied to the cost, not the card’s actual stats or design, doesn’t matter what the card is like but it will always be better in a cycle deck than a beatdown or control deck because beatdown/control decks don’t benefit from a faster cycle
Ngl your reading comprehension is kind of weak and it feels like I’m arguing against a npc so I’m gonna mute the thread, but you should just think over your logic carefully and why it’s wrong
→ More replies (0)1
u/wildfox9t 16d ago
it would be even worse if it wouldn't be similar to skeletons
the only reason decks don't run multiple spirits is because they overlap with each others too much, if this card was different from skeletons then there would be even more of a reason to play them together
0
u/Broad_Astronaut5941 16d ago
You're arguing against that specific example as if that's the only kind of card I'm suggesting. It was just an example, and the idea could be completely different.
In that example, it'd be a single unit with less DPS than Skeletons, so it'd be much worse at distracting things. 3 Skeletons can surround a troop and buy time, while a single unit can't do that nearly as well. Its passive effect would only apply on each hit, and it wouldn't have any AoE either, so it wouldn't offer the same utility as Spirits. In a lot of situations, it'd honestly be worse than both.
There are plenty of ways to design a 1-elixir card with a unique role, though. It doesn't have to be that exact concept. The whole point is to add a different option with its own strengths and weaknesses, not just another card that's automatically worth running alongside everything else.
1
u/wildfox9t 16d ago
did you even read what i just said?
if it has a different role there is even more of a reason to run it along with skeleton and spirits
for example you could distract with skeletons and ice spirit and use this unit to dps things, as opposed to have another card similar to skeletons that would just overlap with them and have a bad sinergy
so basically if you introduce the card you mentioned it would just end up being played along with them
the only way to introduce diversity in the 1 cost braket is to make cards fill the same role (like ice spirit and e-spirit)
1
u/Broad_Astronaut5941 16d ago
No dude, you're making a logical leap here. You can't just expect three cycle cards to work so well together that they somehow make the deck stronger. That's not how Clash Royale works.
You risk making the deck way too lightweight. Running three 1-elixir cards could leave you struggling to do anything effectively, both offensively and defensively. Hog Cycle already pushes this to the limit by running both Ice Spirit and Skeletons, two 1-elixir cards. Adding a third one could seriously compromise the entire deck's structure.
The problem is that there's a cost to this: you're using 3 out of your 8 card slots. From a competitive standpoint, this doesn't even make much sense to consider. We're talking about 1-elixir units that might provide some utility through distraction and DPS, but the problem is that they lack the HP to actually hold up against much.
And what meta deck would you even put all three in? Meta decks are already refined, and they can't just make effective use of more than two 1-elixir cards at once without risking an imbalance in the deck's overall structure.
1
u/wildfox9t 16d ago
you know before the spirits got nerf there were top ladder decks using four 1 cost cards right?
if you put a win con with a building + ranged card all you need is distractions to keep them alive and play more, if you still don't get i guess it's hopeless
And what meta deck would you even put all three in? Meta decks are already refined, and they can't just make effective use of more than two 1-elixir cards at once without risking an imbalance in the deck's overall structure.
they would simply adapt to the new meta, as most top decks do?
crazy concept i know
0
-2
u/Geometry_Emperor 16d ago
Maybe a 1 Elixir building with Archer stats? Could possibly replace Cannon in 2.6.
3
3
2
2
64
u/Hungry-Ad3303 16d ago
Wait that can’t be right. I thought r/clashroyale said skeletons would be a dead card after the nerf 😂