Intended politely (to you), but unfortunately, for every tiny little buff that comes down the pipes, we get twenty or twenty-five nerfs, ranging from mild to card-destroying. And we don’t actually get that many nerfs, relatively, which should tell you how often we get buffs. I can personally remember two ever. And one of those was to the diamond golem, who didn’t see any play even after being buffed.
Basically, Counterplay doesn’t make bad cards playable, and doesn’t unnerf things that get nerfed even if they’re toast afterward. I think it’s because their game design philosophy is more-or-less inherently opposed to doing so for fear of causing unexpected overpowered interactions and/or scrambling the meta’s eggs.
It’s a philosophy I’m opposed to, and it prevents them from taking full advantage of the ability to alter cards after printing them, which is something I’m sure Wizards of the Coast would love to be able to do whenever they make hilarious mistakes in Magic: the Gathering. But I’m not the one calling the shots. If I was, for some reason, I’d change so many things.
Keywords, basic elements of the game, a staggering number of individual cards. And I’d put out new balance patches on a regular basis. Buff this, nerf that. A probably-never-ending quest for perfect balance. Some people say perfect balance isn’t even something you should try to pursue, don’t ask me who but I’ve seen at least something like that said before, and I’m not sure how much harder I could disagree with that.
Seriously, Counterplay, remember when veteran silithars were 4/5’s and were good, and then you buffed eggs and were worried the veterans would be too strong, and nerfed them to 4/3’s, and everyone immediately disenchanted them, and now no one knows they exist? You’re afraid of accidentally unbalancing the game with buffs, right? Would buffing veteran silithars to 4/4’s break the game?
If you’re that worried you can counterbalance it by knocking lavaslashers down to 4/6’s, people will probably still play those even after that. And if they don’t, you can bump them back up to 4/7’s. All that’s just one example of what I’m talking about. Back and forth, constantly seeking to push everything you can into the middle ground between unplayable and mandatory.
…Wow, I did not mean to hammer out this massive post when I started. Sounds just like every other massive post I’ve written by accident. I think total writing-plus-editing time exceeded forty-five minutes, maybe quite a bit more than that, I have no idea.
Hey, @ThanatosNoa, could you, here or in another thread, possibly shed additional light on the design philosophy behind Duelyst? Even if I disagree with it, I’d like to hear it, and I think a lot of people here would as well. Is my assessment here off-base? Hoping to hear from you.