Valiant Force Forum

@hungshu

Being able to release your skill one turn early is an increment in your damage output over time.

Imagine Sven zerker at 3 turn CD. The difference would be drastic!

Anyway, fret not! We are constantly improving the heroes' concepts as we go along and will practise due diligence to Kiera Ele!

@brainlessgenius

That is a possibility, we have actually considered that before. However as you guys have mentioned, burning 3x3 grid is actually more OP than we think! (Tried and tested @.@)

I'll leave the final decisions to the pros who do the balancing! I'm just another nooby xD

{
Disclaimer:
For all readers who are not following the discussion between us, do not need to read this. It probably consists of many things you already know. It contains no suggestions to improve valiants, just a generic response and discussion of game at large. But if you are bored, or feel strongly for some view points previously discussed, please forgive the long message. I do believe there are some point of views worth pondering over. 
}
Hi Newnar,

Thank you for your reply. I am writing at length partly in respect of your passion and how you structure your arguments coherently, although unfortunately for me, your viewpoints are still not as comprehensive as you made them sound to be. 

Quote:”Now, nowhere in my writings have do I talk about new players catching up with older ones. I merely talked about the impact of bad-RNG hero rolls.”

Yes, you did not raise example of bad-rng rolls specific to new and old players, but I brought it up as that would be the main concern with regards to impact of different RNG rates on players.
If you use exceptions to substantiate your point, obviously, this discussion will not be heading anywhere fruitful.  How many people will be player A? How long can player A remain a player A? (one who have lucky rolls all the time) If you suggest that the advantage player A inherits from the start of the game will give him an insurmountable advantage overtime (without spending money), then you are implying the game is rigged for some players. Assuming both players plays for sufficiently long duration, both not spending any money, there is no guarantee that player A advantage can last him all the way and that player B can never catch up with A. Using the alternative heroes, player B can still make progress in game while building his character level and garrison. With time, unless player B is an exception (on the other end of spectrum) and continuously have poor luck, there will be periods that player B can close the gap with A especially since meta changes.  

Quote” If all the options available can at most keep them fixed at a point of perpetual disadvantage”

I am not feeling this. Are you sure you have been playing VF?  All options keep them at perpetual disadvantage? How are you playing VF now when you based your decisions on meaningful choice but all options keep u at perpetual disadvantage?  It be more meaningful if you can substantiate in what circumstance has this game not provided gamers with enough options. If you feel that you have elaborated on that earlier, then I get your perspective. You are just not acknowledging the choices available at present.  

Sure, some units have only max 4-star growth and some 5 star units are not as strong as other counter parts, but that does not mean they don’t serve a goal in the intermediate game phase. Just because a 5-star hero has lesser value than their OP counter part, does not mean it serve no purpose in a player journey in getting an OP counterpart (if its their end goal). If a player is dealt with a bad hand, served lemons, make lemonades. That’s the nature of gatcha games. Already this game developer has included options to reward players’ effort and time, make it possible and easier to get almost all available units with time (except valiant) how else do you think they should improve considering their resource constraints?

Quote:
“Non-mainstream? Well the reason it is not used cannot be that it is non-mainstream since the term "mainstream" means commonly-used. It's circular reasoning, just like saying that the moon is shaped like a sphere is because the moon is spherical...This is where I find your ideas of choice and diversity to be very wrong.”

If you choose to evaluate my statement as circular reasoning, you are missing my point and you are just counter arguing for the sake of counter arguing.  A team setup can be unpopular (or increasingly/remain unpopular) because of it not being used commonly (coupled by various other reasons), although the later reason does define the term itself, that does not mean it cannot hold as a supporting point. Such a phenomenon exists. One way to call it is herd mentality. One reason a healer dominant team is not a popular choice can be simply because not many high tier players build them, and seeing that, new or less resource players refrain from building them (regardless if they enquire about the extent of experiment conducted) and do not talk highly of them which results in a downward spiral of such a team popularity. Whether that same team is ineffective in truth, unfortunately can be made unimportant by popular rhetoric. It is sadly rampant in our society today where truth is backed by rhetoric rather than facts. 

This is even highlighted in the video you quoted where they raised the example of World of War Craft where players are deprived of a meaningful choice (in your definition) when they are told which builds are not viable. So, yea seems like my reason stands as it is supported by a video you quote to support your own definition of meaningful choice. In this instance, the idea of non-mainstream as a reason for people not using the team is validated by an example in accordance to your definition of meaningful choice as seen in the video you used to support your stance. 

If we continue our discussions by nitpicking individual words where there is more than one way to imply (or misunderstand) the underlying meaning, it will not lead to a productive end. But just to address an overarching theme of your argument, meaningful choice, I shall elaborate more on my view on it.

Quote:"This is where I find your ideas of choice and diversity to be very wrong. ....P.S. Go to 02:15 for the relevant part or you can just watch through the entire video "

I think you missed 2:50 part of the video where the commentator explained: The same choice can be meaningful and not meaningful to different players. By that statement itself, strictly speaking you cannot argue on the basis and definition of your meaningful choice, and since there is no right and wrong to begin with, it is not convincing to back up your argument with that. 

While meaningful choice (as defined from your video clip) can be a good applicable theory in some instances of life or other games with a clear end goal and objective, in this gatcha game where there is no true end game until the server closes (hopefully never), can we claim that any one unit is and will forever be a permanent advantage or end game unit?

Quote from earlier and current post:” Therefore, we want a good spectrum of heroes, some more specialized, some more flexible, but not overperforming in both nor underperforming in either.”

It is precisely this point/quote block that does not explain what you want clearly. For one is it too vague. What you are asking for, all the balance, is already existent from a big picture perspective. So, it is indeed perplexing why you are complaining its absence when you choose not to acknowledge its presence. There is no downright bad choice, every hero can be a step towards a better hero. Pack fillers is a part of this journey! Pack filler for a highly competitive player can be an ace unit for a budding player. It is all relative. If an earlier build hero has served its purpose and it has no further combat purpose (if deem so by you) send them for expeditions, use them to reroll faith of other heroes etc.
Your absolute harsh stance on how this game is unbalanced is unfounded. Perhaps a few units may seem OP, but even without those units, this game is enjoyable for a free player. (There is always so much to do) Perhaps less so for a competitive free player with mismanaged expectations.
 
Quote:” I cannot find myself to agree with making people spend money on purpose to get a specifically OP hero, especially if I put myself in the PoV of a dev or a system designer”
 
It all boils down to your expectation of the game from a F2P player perspective. But if any player wants to compete at the highest level which I feel is what you are basing your entire argument on, please be prepared to spend money. Out of respect for others at the top like Sojubeer who is spending and supporting, for the developers who also need to feed their families, for the fact that players reading this love this game and want to support developers’ efforts. How can one not expect to spend much and be on a similar competitive tier as those who splurged on the game? Adding on to Pat’s point, who will then want to spend on game? If no one spends, there is no game. Are you sure you put yourself sufficiently deep in the developer shoes?

Quote:” With each hero having different strengths of different degrees in different areas but equivalent weaknesses to balance these strengths out, I do not see how this must lead to a homogeneity among heroes”

In theory, it is so nice and easy to paint this utopia scenario, but isn’t this what developer want and are already and always have been striving for after factoring finance constraints? Hence, I do not understand what is your intent in bringing this point out since it is something if there exist no constraints, every player would want. If you do indeed feel that there is something about this game that need improvement, rather than increasing all players’ expectations (as you can present points clearly, your words may have some weight/ can be influential, should be responsible about the message you are spreading) without considering the constraints faced by the developers, why not provide them specific solutions.

In theory, it is easy for me or you to say it will not lead to homogeneity, but if there is no tier separation between heroes (which is already minimal in this game), as Pat mentioned, no one will spend to summon for heroes. You are hence asking for this gatcha game to be a non gatcha game. Or developers are left to make money by getting players to summon on equips, buy costumes etc. And then people will ask for all the equips to be the similar in terms of utility. This will never end. At the current stage, it is clear VF is a gatcha game, the “perfect game” you are seeking will need VF to take a completely different direction as a game from a big picture perspective. You claim to think in developers and players’ shoes, but are you really? You reckon such an opinion will be helpful for the developers?

F2P players must manage their expectation. If the game gives equal competitive advantage to any single player at any one point, expect to pay a fixed fee every month. That is probably one way this game can survive without giving prestige players or spenders sufficient advantage in game. No one will want to buy prestige if this game is made easy that way. It is easy to say all you want is more equal trade off in terms of strength and weakness within a hero while brushing off the potential implications (trade-offs incurred) that might bring to the game (including the developer’s survivability). Hence, I think it is more meaningful if you want to advocate that, suggests ways that can be done, also considering the financial constraints of the company.


Final word

On a side note, it is never my wish nor intent to pick emotional exchange with forum posters. As these thoughts are presented in words over the net, I want to make this clear in the event there is misunderstanding of intentions. I do however feel strongly, whenever I see comments that in my opinion are not as comprehensively thought out, though I never feel any bad feelings to any individual.

I appreciate you taking time to respond at length, and I do feel your passion and how you largely mean well for the game and various parties. It is quite clear that we hold contrasting view points, especially on how we each define a meaningful choice. We are all entitled to our own opinion and if we substantiate and define them responsibly, there is no right or wrong. But just a word of caution/ concern, you are a smart player, and I think quite a few players value your inputs, but if you continue to apply your definition of meaningful choice as such in this game, you will not find satisfaction in the game in the long run. If you decide to leave the game due to such reasons eventually, that would be most unfortunate. Some ideal scenarios just cannot be achieved due to company’s financial constraints at current point in time.

Like myself, I have qualms with how the game plot is delivered, but I understand there are always constraints, so am waiting patiently until they launch globally, where they have even greater access to capital.

As we may have deviated from the thread topic and how we should also spare the readers our tsunami of words, I think enough have been discussed on this topic. I welcome all your future responses, but I might not reply them going forward. Take care and hope you can or will continue to enjoy the game.
Cheers,
Frey
 
 

{
Disclaimer:
For all readers who are not following the discussion between us, do not need to read this. It probably consists of many things you already know. It contains no suggestions to improve valiants, just a generic response and discussion of game at large. But if you are bored, or feel strongly for some view points previously discussed, please forgive the long message. I do believe there are some point of views worth pondering over. 
}
Hi Newnar,

Thank you for your reply. I am writing at length partly in respect of your passion and how you structure your arguments coherently, although unfortunately for me, your viewpoints are still not as comprehensive as you made them sound to be. 

Quote:”Now, nowhere in my writings have do I talk about new players catching up with older ones. I merely talked about the impact of bad-RNG hero rolls.”

Yes, you did not raise example of bad-rng rolls specific to new and old players, but I brought it up as that would be the main concern with regards to impact of different RNG rates on players.
If you use exceptions to substantiate your point, obviously, this discussion will not be heading anywhere fruitful.  How many people will be player A? How long can player A remain a player A? (one who have lucky rolls all the time) If you suggest that the advantage player A inherits from the start of the game will give him an insurmountable advantage overtime (without spending money), then you are implying the game is rigged for some players. Assuming both players plays for sufficiently long duration, both not spending any money, there is no guarantee that player A advantage can last him all the way and that player B can never catch up with A. Using the alternative heroes, player B can still make progress in game while building his character level and garrison. With time, unless player B is an exception (on the other end of spectrum) and continuously have poor luck, there will be periods that player B can close the gap with A especially since meta changes.  

Quote” If all the options available can at most keep them fixed at a point of perpetual disadvantage”

I am not feeling this. Are you sure you have been playing VF?  All options keep them at perpetual disadvantage? How are you playing VF now when you based your decisions on meaningful choice but all options keep u at perpetual disadvantage?  It be more meaningful if you can substantiate in what circumstance has this game not provided gamers with enough options. If you feel that you have elaborated on that earlier, then I get your perspective. You are just not acknowledging the choices available at present.  

Sure, some units have only max 4-star growth and some 5 star units are not as strong as other counter parts, but that does not mean they don’t serve a goal in the intermediate game phase. Just because a 5-star hero has lesser value than their OP counter part, does not mean it serve no purpose in a player journey in getting an OP counterpart (if its their end goal). If a player is dealt with a bad hand, served lemons, make lemonades. That’s the nature of gatcha games. Already this game developer has included options to reward players’ effort and time, make it possible and easier to get almost all available units with time (except valiant) how else do you think they should improve considering their resource constraints?

Quote:
“Non-mainstream? Well the reason it is not used cannot be that it is non-mainstream since the term "mainstream" means commonly-used. It's circular reasoning, just like saying that the moon is shaped like a sphere is because the moon is spherical...This is where I find your ideas of choice and diversity to be very wrong.”

If you choose to evaluate my statement as circular reasoning, you are missing my point and you are just counter arguing for the sake of counter arguing.  A team setup can be unpopular (or increasingly/remain unpopular) because of it not being used commonly (coupled by various other reasons), although the later reason does define the term itself, that does not mean it cannot hold as a supporting point. Such a phenomenon exists. One way to call it is herd mentality. One reason a healer dominant team is not a popular choice can be simply because not many high tier players build them, and seeing that, new or less resource players refrain from building them (regardless if they enquire about the extent of experiment conducted) and do not talk highly of them which results in a downward spiral of such a team popularity. Whether that same team is ineffective in truth, unfortunately can be made unimportant by popular rhetoric. It is sadly rampant in our society today where truth is backed by rhetoric rather than facts. 

This is even highlighted in the video you quoted where they raised the example of World of War Craft where players are deprived of a meaningful choice (in your definition) when they are told which builds are not viable. So, yea seems like my reason stands as it is supported by a video you quote to support your own definition of meaningful choice. In this instance, the idea of non-mainstream as a reason for people not using the team is validated by an example in accordance to your definition of meaningful choice as seen in the video you used to support your stance. 

If we continue our discussions by nitpicking individual words where there is more than one way to imply (or misunderstand) the underlying meaning, it will not lead to a productive end. But just to address an overarching theme of your argument, meaningful choice, I shall elaborate more on my view on it.

Quote:"This is where I find your ideas of choice and diversity to be very wrong. ....P.S. Go to 02:15 for the relevant part or you can just watch through the entire video "

I think you missed 2:50 part of the video where the commentator explained: The same choice can be meaningful and not meaningful to different players. By that statement itself, strictly speaking you cannot argue on the basis and definition of your meaningful choice, and since there is no right and wrong to begin with, it is not convincing to back up your argument with that. 

While meaningful choice (as defined from your video clip) can be a good applicable theory in some instances of life or other games with a clear end goal and objective, in this gatcha game where there is no true end game until the server closes (hopefully never), can we claim that any one unit is and will forever be a permanent advantage or end game unit?

Quote from earlier and current post:” Therefore, we want a good spectrum of heroes, some more specialized, some more flexible, but not overperforming in both nor underperforming in either.”

It is precisely this point/quote block that does not explain what you want clearly. For one is it too vague. What you are asking for, all the balance, is already existent from a big picture perspective. So, it is indeed perplexing why you are complaining its absence when you choose not to acknowledge its presence. There is no downright bad choice, every hero can be a step towards a better hero. Pack fillers is a part of this journey! Pack filler for a highly competitive player can be an ace unit for a budding player. It is all relative. If an earlier build hero has served its purpose and it has no further combat purpose (if deem so by you) send them for expeditions, use them to reroll faith of other heroes etc.
Your absolute harsh stance on how this game is unbalanced is unfounded. Perhaps a few units may seem OP, but even without those units, this game is enjoyable for a free player. (There is always so much to do) Perhaps less so for a competitive free player with mismanaged expectations.
 
Quote:” I cannot find myself to agree with making people spend money on purpose to get a specifically OP hero, especially if I put myself in the PoV of a dev or a system designer”
 
It all boils down to your expectation of the game from a F2P player perspective. But if any player wants to compete at the highest level which I feel is what you are basing your entire argument on, please be prepared to spend money. Out of respect for others at the top like Sojubeer who is spending and supporting, for the developers who also need to feed their families, for the fact that players reading this love this game and want to support developers’ efforts. How can one not expect to spend much and be on a similar competitive tier as those who splurged on the game? Adding on to Pat’s point, who will then want to spend on game? If no one spends, there is no game. Are you sure you put yourself sufficiently deep in the developer shoes?

Quote:” With each hero having different strengths of different degrees in different areas but equivalent weaknesses to balance these strengths out, I do not see how this must lead to a homogeneity among heroes”

In theory, it is so nice and easy to paint this utopia scenario, but isn’t this what developer want and are already and always have been striving for after factoring finance constraints? Hence, I do not understand what is your intent in bringing this point out since it is something if there exist no constraints, every player would want. If you do indeed feel that there is something about this game that need improvement, rather than increasing all players’ expectations (as you can present points clearly, your words may have some weight/ can be influential, should be responsible about the message you are spreading) without considering the constraints faced by the developers, why not provide them specific solutions.

In theory, it is easy for me or you to say it will not lead to homogeneity, but if there is no tier separation between heroes (which is already minimal in this game), as Pat mentioned, no one will spend to summon for heroes. You are hence asking for this gatcha game to be a non gatcha game. Or developers are left to make money by getting players to summon on equips, buy costumes etc. And then people will ask for all the equips to be the similar in terms of utility. This will never end. At the current stage, it is clear VF is a gatcha game, the “perfect game” you are seeking will need VF to take a completely different direction as a game from a big picture perspective. You claim to think in developers and players’ shoes, but are you really? You reckon such an opinion will be helpful for the developers?

F2P players must manage their expectation. If the game gives equal competitive advantage to any single player at any one point, expect to pay a fixed fee every month. That is probably one way this game can survive without giving prestige players or spenders sufficient advantage in game. No one will want to buy prestige if this game is made easy that way. It is easy to say all you want is more equal trade off in terms of strength and weakness within a hero while brushing off the potential implications (trade-offs incurred) that might bring to the game (including the developer’s survivability). Hence, I think it is more meaningful if you want to advocate that, suggests ways that can be done, also considering the financial constraints of the company.


Final word

On a side note, it is never my wish nor intent to pick emotional exchange with forum posters. As these thoughts are presented in words over the net, I want to make this clear in the event there is misunderstanding of intentions. I do however feel strongly, whenever I see comments that in my opinion are not as comprehensively thought out, though I never feel any bad feelings to any individual.

I appreciate you taking time to respond at length, and I do feel your passion and how you largely mean well for the game and various parties. It is quite clear that we hold contrasting view points, especially on how we each define a meaningful choice. We are all entitled to our own opinion and if we substantiate and define them responsibly, there is no right or wrong. But just a word of caution/ concern, you are a smart player, and I think quite a few players value your inputs, but if you continue to apply your definition of meaningful choice as such in this game, you will not find satisfaction in the game in the long run. If you decide to leave the game due to such reasons eventually, that would be most unfortunate. Some ideal scenarios just cannot be achieved due to company’s financial constraints at current point in time.

Like myself, I have qualms with how the game plot is delivered, but I understand there are always constraints, so am waiting patiently until they launch globally, where they have even greater access to capital.

As we may have deviated from the thread topic and how we should also spare the readers our tsunami of words, I think enough have been discussed on this topic. I welcome all your future responses, but I might not reply them going forward. Take care and hope you can or will continue to enjoy the game.
Cheers,
Frey
 
 

Ok, I sincerely believed that there was at least some space for proper communication between us but something you said has shown this to be an entirely false assumption.

I am just downright baffled at how you could have interpret the Extra Credits video as "players are deprived of a meaningful choice (in your definition) when they are told which builds are not viable". The mainpoint is clearly articulated in the video as "if there is a definitive right answer that can be ascertained wholly through mathematics or straight logical reasoning that is performable by the player in the time allowed to make the choice, the choice is no longer meaningful". The forums only helped make what's coming come faster. The choice being not meaningful isn't because of the spreading of mainstream builds, but because the devs of the game who systemically allowed such builds to exist in the system. This interpretation here is surely beyond all forms of human understanding. I mean, unless you are assuming that the playerbase is filled with non-thinking or non-sentient entities, otherwise such a conclusion is just utterly mind-blowing. If you really believe that the video conveys that somehow the "telling" the players about meta builds is what causes the meaninglessness of choice, then I can only say that all meaning towards any form of discussion has been lost since language and logic itself has become a barrier.

1. Don't think a guardian that cannot taunt is a good guardian, i close my eyes on Faye treating her as a arena guardian.

2. Saw Shizu MB and Kiera Elementalist has their skill damage down due to their increase range and cooldown BUT freya dragoon get atk up, hit 8 tiles, stun 2 rounds and refresh herself? I can't really say this is fair unless there is data showing Freya Dragoon has too low damage
3. Can't really accept Shizu skill damage change to depends on ATK, it's like telling us the one who get to the goal the fastest earn more gold and suddenly change the rule and says ppl who kill the most enemies during the journey earn more gold. 

4 direction aura is a nice idea.

I might have different point of view on assassin than others. To me assassin is never a class to purely deal high damage to enemies. Her stun and poison is actually quite fits my image of assassin. If there are more status can be inflicted on enemies, i think damage multiplier of assassin towards enemies based on number of debuff on enemy makes her more assassin.

Personal opinion :

1. Darrion Holy Defender
Removing all Buff/Debuff from both Ally + Enemy is really decent, along with the choice to protect an ally instead of yourself like how the old HD Darrion works (which is to raise defence of a single Ally). However, I still feel it's extremely underpowered in almost all aspects. I'll make a direct comparison to get my point across. Let's take Faye for example, since she's among the closest to having a similar skill-set as the modified Darrion HD.

i) Even Faye HD has Taunt, and Darrion HD doesn't.

ii) Faye could remove Buffs from enemy units too, just like the modified Darrion.

iii) Removing whole party's debuff is freshly new and all, but when compared to having HP Shield, I'd rather take a decent 2-turn HP Shield (Yes, Faye shields for a really DECENT amount of HP) any day than having a skill debuff to my whole party for a turn. 
^ To support my claim for (iii), let's list the status effects that we commonly see these days : Poison / Sleep / Stun / Burn / Charm (Pve) / Delay / Silence / Atk Down / Def Down. [Blind is rare]

For status like Poison / Sleep / Stun / Atk Down / Def Down, Yes. It is indeed good to remove the debuffs on these. However, HP Shield could do just as much. It could protect the damage dealt from poison, it protects while you're sleeping / stunned / Def Down. Only in exceptional cases such as Attack Down, which is extremely rare, that Party Debuff outpowers HP Shield.

Let's take it further. Now, as for status effects such as Burn and Charm. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't recall Burn being a status effect, seeing that it's usually a ground-targeted skill that you could step away from, thus it's not able to be debuffed (Once again, correct me if i'm wrong here). As for Charm, It's more of a skill rather than a status effect which charms the unit to attack one another, in which the debuff would not be able to debuff as it is applied immediately when the skill is casted. However, having HP Shield actually shields the damage from both these status effects. There's so much situation that HP Shield just triumph over the 1 turn debuff. Also, HP Shield lasts for 2 turns as well.

iv) Full-party HP Shield for a decent amount, or increase defence of a single target at the same CD. I'd rather pick a Full-party HP Shield that has the same CD. Furthermore, if it's to protect a single target, I believe Lucille is able to do a better job with her invulnerability at this rate.

Also, as most people mentioned, I would agree too, that removing Taunt, especially for a class like Holy Defender that usually scales well in PvE, doesn't seem all that decent.

2. Darrion Chaos Knight
Swap remains, Increase in damage, additional effect to delay 2 turns at the cost of taunting. Still fulfilling his role perfectly since he's generally used in PvP. The delay - 2 CD could also be used for PvE such as for bosses that has deadly AoE skills in which most cases, taunt would not be able to protect (E.g. Balthor's almost 1-Hit-KO AoE skill in previous event), thus able to be used in both PvE and PvP situation, as long as it doesn't ''Resist'' delays. Overall improvement and able to fulfil the basic class's expectation requirement and benchmark. However still, it seems a little underwhelming for a Valiant, as he is still somewhat similar in every aspect when compared to Aden. Aden could do just as much, pretty much an equal-standing alternative form of Darrion CK which pulls instead of swapping. Everything else is similar.

3. Freya Dragoon
Improved drastically in all aspects, drastic to the point where Vincent dragoon feels like a 4* Hero. Improvement seems extremely decent (in fact, I rather say Overpowered) as there is an increase in the AoE, Damage, Huge Aoe Stun for 2 turns (0 on Vincent) and to top it off, free Refresh for her to snipe a unit(s) immediately after she jumps in the middle of everyone. Furthermore, the chance of her aura trigger is increased by an additional 5% (which makes it 10% off from Vincent), which also gives her a brand new additional 15% Attack buff for 2 turns if it were to trigger.
This makes the gap between Freya and Vincent totally incomparable. Also, it opens up tons of potential for mages and those alike with huge burst potentials with heavy CD (6CD+) to burst during the 2 turns stun. Similar to Magebane but, seemingly stronger.
Overall, I love the changes, but I personally feel it's a bit overpowered in PvP.

4. Freya Warlord
A beefed up version of the previous. Even added an additional effect which buffs the entire party's attack, befitting of a Warlord. I like.
However, my suggestion would be to increase the trigger rate by a slight amount, maybe up to ~ 50% to be fair. Not too high as well, as her skill buffs the Attack of the entire party which would throw off the balance of damage if the trigger rates were buffed to an extreme amount.
Reasoning why :
Stats-reliant Trigger Heroes, such as Critical Archer triggers has an overpowering 75% Critical cap to trigger at a staggering 95% rate to trigger for 75% damage + stun [GR Kane] , 70% damage + Knockback [GR Cybella] and 100% [GS Cybella] Damage Respectively. 

Take a sample of 100 attacks of 1,000 Damage dealt by triggering a Dummy beside, assuming if the chances of the probability triggering were the exact figure as shown. Take both Freya and GS Cybella for example, as they're both trigger for pure-damage. Assume a situation where it is a One-Sided Trigger, where Freya and Cybella triggers a single Dummy to attack for 100 times, and assuming Critical cap is achieved by all trigger archers.

- Freya would trigger the Dummy 40 times for 1,200 damage [120%]. That's an effective 48,000 Damage in total by trigger.

- Cybella would trigger the Dummy for approximately 71 times [75% chance to crit that triggers an attack at 95% chance = ~ 71.25% chance to trigger) for 1,000 damage [100%]. That's an effective 71,000 Damage in total by trigger.

Even GR Kane would trigger for approximately 71 times for 750 damage [75%] with an effective total damage of 53,250 with an additional Stun to the target.

This is all excluding the fact that the triggering effect works both ways (or more) if it were to be placed next to another trigger unit, which triggers one another [Cancer team] which works wonders with higher probabilities. The trigger-rate and damage potential, even after having buffed with attack buff on her modified version would bring her up to GS Cybella's standard at best. And to top it off, Cybella isn't even a valiant. Having ranged advantage is also a plus, but I wouldn't want to touch on it so much as melee units have their own advantages as well [Durable, Cleave, etc.]

5. Shizu Magebane
Overall seems OK, living up to the name of Magebane, debuff Magic by 40% which makes Mages deal less DPS and making everyone more vulnerable to skill damage at a bigger AoE with a shorter cooldown. Damage scales well as there is a decrease in the cooldown, and stun became 66% chance rather than 100% at the cost of a larger AoE + lower CD, I believe it's only fair to have such reductions. Overall seems more viable and flexible than the previous Magebane.
However, considering most mages have 6-CD, the debuff wouldn't be as useful if the mages were to cast their skills before Shizu does. Also, taking into consideration the changes with Freya Dragoon, to make a direct comparison, they both have 6 CD but Shizu only have a 66% Chance to stun while Freya Dragoon is certain.
The Refresh and Magic-Debuff could cancel out each other.
They both have similar stun-aura, one with trigger while the other one with attack buff and a higher stun-rate.
With Shizu having only 66% chance to stun, this is to show that one valiant is out-powering the other. Either Freya Dragoon needs a slight nerf or Shizu Magebane needs a slight buff.

Aura is just a beefed up version of the previous. Seems fair enough, as it's still an effect-trigger (Stun upon Trigger). At most, I would suggest the aura trigger rate to be increased to 40% chance to trigger to live up to GR Kane's standards (Crit-Based 75% > 95% + Stun upon Trigger). Reason > Same justification as Freya Warlord above. Everything else is fine.

6. Shizu Assassin
Decent changes. Having changed the skill's damage source from Critical to Attack increases her potential damage as the crit caps at a specific amount in percentage [75%], rendering any additional crit values to be in vain except for skill damage in the past. Stealth on previous Shizu wasn't all that useful as the targeted unit, usually a boss, is stunned for 2 turns, thus, already mitigating the damage taken (if any), unless the boss were to Resist the stun. However, having to Amplify the damage taken by the boss is a whole new buff that significantly improved the assassin, especially since it's used for bossing [Raid boss etc.] where the entire party focus-fire on that specific boss (or body part), increasing the overall damage dealt by the entire party. Passive is great enough as it is. Overall a great improvement.

7. Kane Gunslinger
Decent addition to the skill. Ability to silence aura could work in specific situations where even stun could not go againsts (e.g. Sven's pet trigger / Tanker's protection aura). Skill is good enough as it is.
Aura, however, I believe should be improved as well. Once again, the same explanation as Freya Warlord's post, having a fixed trigger rate at such a low proc-rate without any additional effect is rather underwhelming, especially for a valiant. GS Cybella is still the better choice since
1. She could still sleep an enemy for 2 turns, works similarly to stun (except waking up when taking damage).
2. Same skill Cooldown
3. Triggers for a much much much higher rate than GS Kane. Getting a 75% Crit cap is only a matter of time, and it's steadily increasing in attainability with the appearance of new equips which gives decent stats and effects (Guild raid set for example).
4. She even triggers for the same damage as Kane does, @ 100% Damage at a much higher proc rate.
5. For Cybella, rather than ''Alternative'' to GS Kane, I'd rather say GS Kane is the alternative to GS Cybella. I rather use GS Cybella than GS Kane in every situation even with the addition of the new aura-silence, since the trigger rate of Cybella totally out-triggers GS Kane hands down. I believe, in most situations in pvp, higher possibility to triggering a killer machine (Sven / Nadia) is better than the ability to silence a single enemy's aura that's stunned eitherway.
6. They're both Ranged units, so there's no class-based bonus such as having cleave or whatsoever unlike the comparison between Cybella and Freya. In this case, both are rangers and could be compared side by side, in which Cybella outpowers Kane.
7. The one and only advantage that GS Kane's Aura actually has over GS Cybella's Aura is having the ability to pump Attack instead of Critical to deal significant damage since the trigger is a flat-rate trigger, thus allowing the GS Kane to achieve higher damage than Cybella to trigger. Even so, Archers rely on heavy Crit to deal decent damage, thus making him less effective even with a full-attack build if he has extremely low crit rate. Furthermore, even at his own game, Nadia seems to be doing a much better job in terms of attack than GS Kane in most situations, easier to limit break and even triggers back for a higher damage at a much higher rate when an opponent goes down.

8. Kane Sharpshooter
SS Kane seems interesting enough. Fully buffed into attack and even added an additional 3 turns stealth. Definitely fulfil his role as a sharpshooter / sniper. An even stronger Nadia. Overall expectation of SS Kane : What I expect is what I get. A powerful selfish aura with selfish skill sniper. Extremely well done. Could potentially 1-Hit-KO most units which are not guardians, and that's excluding any triggers that may trigger him again to do so. Could potentially snipe summoners before they summon.

9. Lucille Archbishop
Cooldown reduction, everything that she'll ever need to compare to her other self, the overused but understandably why, Inquisitor. Extremely decent and also better than Holy Defender Darrion which was mentioned above in ''1. Darrion Holy Defender'' at a lower CD + Invulnerability + Heal + Debuff rather than a mere Defense Up.

10. Lucille Spirit Walker
She's definitely walking down a brand new spiritual path here (Pun intended). Decent AoE amplify with low CD, works as a set-up for a great damage dealer to burst and even gives Haste to a specific unit which would bring light to various teams and strategies from here on. Definitely a class that could change the way PvP works if used correctly. Time to make SW Lucille ~

1. Don't think a guardian that cannot taunt is a good guardian, i close my eyes on Faye treating her as a arena guardian.

2. Saw Shizu MB and Kiera Elementalist has their skill damage down due to their increase range and cooldown BUT freya dragoon get atk up, hit 8 tiles, stun 2 rounds and refresh herself? I can't really say this is fair unless there is data showing Freya Dragoon has too low damage
3. Can't really accept Shizu skill damage change to depends on ATK, it's like telling us the one who get to the goal the fastest earn more gold and suddenly change the rule and says ppl who kill the most enemies during the journey earn more gold. 

4 direction aura is a nice idea.

I might have different point of view on assassin than others. To me assassin is never a class to purely deal high damage to enemies. Her stun and poison is actually quite fits my image of assassin. If there are more status can be inflicted on enemies, i think damage multiplier of assassin towards enemies based on number of debuff on enemy makes her more assassin.

1. fair enough
2. agree 100%
3.why u upset with the change of modifier into attack?, 70% chance not that difficult, but if the modifier stay basis on crit, the damage build will be dilematic, & shizu basic damage will be smaller, & if however u making ur crit rating high the max chance will always 75%, if u max ur crit(or making her over rarting) ur basic damage will be even smaller, so in this case i disagree with you.
4. aura direction(idk what's this mean), but about assasin Shizu i will agree with u once again

Personal opinion :

1. Darrion Holy Defender
Removing all Buff/Debuff from both Ally + Enemy is really decent, along with the choice to protect an ally instead of yourself like how the old HD Darrion works (which is to raise defence of a single Ally). However, I still feel it's extremely underpowered in almost all aspects. I'll make a direct comparison to get my point across. Let's take Faye for example, since she's among the closest to having a similar skill-set as the modified Darrion HD.
---------------------------------Cut short for quoting purposes-------------------------------------------

The best depth analysis regarding Revamp Valiant, well done, pretty much hard for me to find something that i would disagree(maybe only small but not significant). nicely done