fine, I’ll just pray i get 12 wins and get him the next orb. -_-
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.
So you know more then us? All I know is:
I don’t which is why I wait until the changes actually take place instead of worrying about stuff that might never even happen.
That was beautiful . I wish your design philosophy were the standard for digital CCGs.
And I prefer to communicate my concerns before something happens. Seems more logical to me.
I complete agree Black Locust is core set and the way cpg balances it will be gutter trash forever.
So with limited knowledge you make strong pessimistic assumptions to… what exact benefit? Because CPG never could’ve thought of the possibility that some people might not like it if they remove half of the existing card pool from ranked without providing anything in return?
Sometimes when I read these forums I feel like there’s only two kinds of people in the world: those who actually do things and those who stand by saying “Yeah, but, this might not work because of this… or that… maybe also this… or maybe a trillion other reasons that may or may not happen. I don’t think this is a good idea. Better keep everything as it is.”
Maybe I’m just old.
Go ahead CPG, do what you think is best for the game. If it doesn’t work out as planned, change it. But don’t listen to the people who only see mistakes rather than possibilities.
I see your point, but it’s obvious they kill Egg- and Growmar (Moloki) with the first rotation from all what we know. (And how rotation will work is communicated very clearly.) And @ThanatosNoa said:
So I do. “Normally” I learned to just shut up.
For me it’s obvious that they’ll rework grow and egg archetypes completely. And creep Cass also. I believe CPG noticed that already.
Not that I like this rework. But I think there’s no reason to assume that whole archetypes will be killed.
hey, on the upside we can disenchant the ancient bonds legends we don’t want
I still hate the rotation part tho
I’m a collector. I’m not shure if I’m able to do something like that…
I actually like CPG’s approach to patching, as a Johnny player. The only time a card should be changed is if it’s warping the meta. Otherwise, the players will be able to figure out counters on their own.
Right, whole… 3 major sets? So many, very much.
No campaign, no casual, no mobile, no new starting decks yet, but already an announcement saying that players need to spend even more money on the game. I’d need significant patience to wait to see what comes along with rotations before officially calling for last milking attempts from
On a “bright” side, they need something to rotate in to also rotate out, so you can expect to buy new stuff for at least the following year.
On a really bright side, Duelyst shouldn’t be that hard to, erm, fork when they’re done.
In your what opinion?
good news is you get a free legend for gold rank
oh yeah! forgot about that. at least I’ll get that. Also core set will have better content now. At least I have that to look forward too.
I’ve gotta politely disagree here. My core belief here is that overpowered and underpowered cards are inherently bad, without exception, and should always be buffed and nerfed as appropriate. Everyone agrees that overpowered cards, if overpowered to a far-enough degree, are bad. But some people think that some too-strong cards are okay, or even a good thing because they define factions, and some people think weak cards are okay, or even a good thing because they serve as teaching tools for newer players.
I say too-strong cards are inherently unbalancing, giving too much favor to whoever can use their best cards first or in greater number, and weak cards are inherently disappointing, both in general and specifically for players who like the flavor/idea of the card, but eventually have to decide between giving the card up or staying on the losing end of things.
Things a card shouldn’t be: disappointing, boring, too-strong or insanely powerful. You can’t play with disappointing cards no matter how much you want to (wind shrike, second sun, borean bear, wolfraven, gore horn, scarlet viper, just off the top of my head). You don’t want to play with boring cards (a lot of the vanillas) but sometimes you have to, or sometimes an interesting card becomes boring because you have to (insert overused good card you’re tired of seeing here, everyone reading this now has their own example in mind). That leads into the fact that you have to play with too-good cards or you’ll be at a disadvantage, stripping away the uniqueness of your deck and the decks you go up against. And insanely powerful cards are just destructive to the game outright.
So I say, buff the weak, nerf the too-strong, and redesign the boring cards, from the ground up if you have to (I’m looking at you, non-token vanilla minions). There’s room for error, because you can always try again, and it’ll make the players into true believers who’ll say “Yes, these card designers really care about their creations deeply and passionately.” The effort put in will make the desire to have the best card game possible shine through. There’s no point in wasting the opportunity makers of physical cards don’t have: the chance to fix their mistakes and improve their product quickly, easily, and often.
Thanks for your (very complete) answer. It’s indeed regrettable that they never dare to buff any cards.