Your taking that out of context, the fact that it is both expensive and linear are huge factors.
Well burn should be put on the backburner by these changes. And the other tricks are valid ways to go about things, also only having “one” is not quite accurate its play as much as you can without being in a position to be crippled beyond come back by plasma. Remember it ate their whole turn.
@zerounderscoreou While I did ask for such a detailed response, I would like to add a few caveats. It still needs to follow my core fundamentals for the patch, now if you dissagree with my fundamentals feel free to discuss them, but that’s separate.
Uncounterable burn in excess/large burst needs to be largely eliminated. In general things should have counterplay and or positional components. RNG, as well as high variance and big highrolls should be largely eliminated.
And more importantly on spots I over did/under did things. Like with oblysks I completely changed it due to feedback going for colds suggestion, or with things I forgot about like Operant.
Like, how? By making an entirely different deck, which is not hard countered by it? Once again, I feel like you are contradicting yourself. You want every deck (every established deck, let’s call it that way) to be viable and not hardcountered, but at the same time you defend hard counters like Plasma (who cares that I spent my whole turn for it if your whole board is gone) or staples like Holy Immolation which basically clears any board your opponent might have up until this point. Those are exactly the cards that don’t respect the board and which promote playing burn.
The whole “this card is staple” is not a valid argument - card being played in every deck or existing since the core set doesn’t describe it as being balanced or “healthy”.
In fact, being a staple often means that card is too good, that the value it provides is too much to not play it irrespective of what deck it is. Which, in turn, suggests it’s OP and that it limits the deckbuilding space.
Holy and Flamewreath can both be countered with good positioning as well as both require a reasonable investment on the other players part and are archtype staples. When a faction/archtype has a strong staple you know its coming and you play around it. Factions should be shaped by these, as well as how you play against them.
As long as these things have reasonable counterplay this is fine, and the three examples in question do. As for plasma see the conversation with Phoenix above, it has many conditions that keep it in check.
And yea the deckbuilding phase is pretty dang important. I always stress building well rounded decks, rather then just trying to play the match up game. Having meta/faction knowledge should be a massive factor in both play/deck building. People playing greedy polarized decks that are not prepared to face most things are a big part of the problem. And if dedicated burn is not really an option, then the whole meta gets pushed into a more well rounded healthy direction.
I feel like I have to go with a specific example for further argument to be meaningful.
Let’s take swarm, Lilithe in particular. 1/1 Wraithlings. How exactly do you play around Plasma, Holy, Flamewreath in this example? Wraithcrown doesn’t help. Furiosa requires at least 3 procs. Backing off means you get cornered by around 5 mana and lose.
“Knowing the meta” & “building well rounded deck” effectively means you don’t play the archetype you want to play but instead play what works.
This is really a thought I have had multiple times when seeing your design ideas for the game and that is that you seem to want every faction to be Magmar but worse versions of it. And I think that is why it is hard to converse with you about these topics because we disagree on a fundamental level.
I don’t mean disrespect towards you when I say this, but this seems to be my personal conclusion anytime I see you talk about Duelyst game design.
Again positioning goes a long way for flamewreath. Like most effects of that caliber the diagonal placement goes a really long way. And with my proposed changes abyss has better positining, less hyperswarm, and songhai has to be more clever to abuse flamewreath.
As for versus magmar: Grimwar, dancer, not over extending, multiple buff stacking which has gotten way easier, plus artifacts in general being tough on magmar, or even playing things like sarlac. There are many options. I have long been an abyssian main with Lili being my all time favorite. As long as you don’t build a polarized hyperswarm list that is part of the problem that crushes things without aoe but folds to AOE, you can actually have a very favorable winrate versus full AOE magmar.
In fact I went so far as to push hyperswarm out and encourage a midrange approach with this balance patch, taking away from that speed and instead including yet another way to recover from board wipes. Unfortunately abyss has suffered from a lot of nerfs while other factions have gotten powercreep leaving them, lili in particular, struggling, and thus why I tried so hard to get them back on par.
This is a prime example of what I am trying to explain, and issues I am trying to address/fix.
@phoenixtoasches Hum, yea I guess I see that. Its not that I want factions to be magmar, its that I want people to build with non polarized/board focused decks that have counterplay. And Magmar happens to have some very good example of what that often looks like. I do firmly believe all factions can achieve that while both being on par and completely different from magmar.
But yea we likely disagree on fundamental levels, as no offense, and correct me if I am wrong, but you tend to favor stuff like spellhai and aggro and various other popular card game tactics, and in general are a fan of the CCG hybrid aspects, on top of disliking some of duelysts core design choices like power checked by power, while being ok with inoffensive RNG.
Where as I think midrange to control metas are way more healthy, although aggro certainly has its place, but dedicated burn and RNG do not, I have come to accept their answer or die, nothing is overpowered if everything is design choice (although I disliked it for a long time, but once I got behind it, it was sort of a fun wild ride), and I am staunchly against this being anything but a tactical boardgame with a deck of cards being pretty much the only CCG element.
Lately I have been playing a lot of spellhai and artifacthai but that is primarily because they tend to be the best decks to beat most meta stuff which even then is hard countered by healyonar at the moment. My favorite deck to play (which I don’t in the current meta) is midrange songhai and, if there was a viable form of it, controlhai that is minion based.
I am not sure what you mean by “power checked by power”, I assume you mean games that have powerful cards but are designed around those cards so they are not as powerful but still powerful such as Mankator Warbeast or pre nerf Saberspine Tiger? If so, I dislike that sort of design philosophy and have been a proponent of nerfing Warbeast.
The RNG elements I dislike and believe should be removed from the game exist in the following cards: Bloodsworn Gambler, Grimes, Grincher, Gold Vitriol, Glacial Elemental, Xho, Twilight Reiki and more I’m too tired to look for at the moment.
Some of these cards are inoffensive as you said, but the element exists. I believe a good way to tone these type of cards down could be to rather than remove the RNG is to severely limit the pool from these cards can draw from similar to Duskweaver or to be able to manipulate the targets similar to Armada. A card I think needs more RNG in order to be toned down is Alabaster Titan.
However, while I do favor midrange and control decks, I don’t think burn or aggro decks should be pushed out either. An ideal meta for me would be one in which most popular matchups had 60 to 40 odds resembling a rock paper scissors concept but not so severe as to feel like queuing up against Magmar with a minion based Songhai deck is 90% in your opponent’s favor.
Point I’m trying to make is that you can’t have both removal staples and a board game. You can’t play around removal when there are 3 different options each covering what is not covered by others. And if you go the way I personally support - adjusting stuff to be theme-specific and not efficient outside a theme - you are still nerfing it.
I wrote elaborate response on this yesterday and lost it when my PC went to update without the declaration of war (I fckn LOVE Windows). I’ll try to adress the main points I wrote there.
I love Songhai for the tactics you consider the most toxic, I play Artihai, 8g8s Hai and Arcanysts, but nevermind so I’m highly biased and tilted by every attack on these. In spite of this fact, I’m trying to compare existing alternatives logically and as objectively as I can.
In Faie vs BurnHai debate you lose one very important point. To play BurnHai you have to dedicate your whole deck to it. To play burn in Faie all you need to include is Crypto and Mentor - and play any other archetype alongside burn. You make this point look good for Faie, but in reality you are playing burn as long as you’re playing Faie, while having ADDITIONAL wincons.
As long as you play Faie you have the access to burn. If you play Hai you have to draw it. Yes, there’s abundance of versatile face/removal spells, but you actually losing your deck and hand space to include them.
And burn HAS counterplay. As always, just keep your board healthy and burn player has no chances. He will either run of steam or you will stomp it. Also heal. Also Magesworn.
That said, as I already mentioned, I like the positional aspect of some of your burn redesigns, but really, leave Geomancer alone. It is not even used in quicker combo oriented burn lists, it’s an inevitable wincon which Songhai lacks otherwise. Comparing it to Faie BBS you should:
Include it in your deck. How many would you include? Include 1 and you never draw it. Include 3 and every game you will draw it twice and that’s a pretty much dead hand.
Finding a moment to play it is a pain in the ass. It is a minion with no immediate impact. Decently stated - yes, but Hai have problems with tempo even without playing mediocre minions for 5 mana.
Oh, and you need to be lucky enough to draw it, of course! Unlike Faie BBS.
I can bear LFox rework, but not Geomancer. It allows existance of Control Hai, not Combo Burn.
Oh rly? Maybe so, celerity is one of dangerous keywords, but as you like counterplay, any artifact build has LOTS of counterplay options, both infaction (Hai, Vet, Abyss) and neutral. Never ever will artifact build be dangerous to the health of the game until these cards exist. You like teching and advocate teching - so tech it should be.
And what about Sajj? Both NoSE and dedicated combo variations are highrolly as hell and have ZERO counterplay, if you don’t count killing them ASAP as counterplay. Why don’t you touch that and even rebuff NoSE?
I want to clarify myself, I’m fine with both Sajj and Faie. What I’m not fine with is that your buffs/nerfs seem to be inconsistent with your own proposed arguments, reworking faction that you hate and not touching similar problems in factions that you like. That’s what pisses me off. And it does.
P.S. Hej, I’m being emotional here, but please do not be offended. I tend to lose myself when I start arguing, nothing personal. I respect you, still
P.P.S. Also I think Mantra should be tuned in a way when it’s useful as a sustain tool, but not as a finisher. Like lower cost, deal 1 dmg, heal 2 for each spell or smth. This is the real no counterplay thing here.
Tastefully random’ing Bloodsworn Gambler by giving it a stable ground and a lack of extreme highroll. Somewhat above-half chance to deal damage as expected or more, 1/3 chance to do the live damage value.
SImilarly agree. I’ve worked with Jay to refine multiple artifact and mantra decks and probably have the most wins after him and possibly Nik of any active player. Notable contributions are the proliferation of flicker + mos and refining the shell of the original burn mantra. Mantra and 8g8s are far more interactive than people who haven’t played the archetype give it credit (similarly, people who do not wander(er) are lost on the archetype’s balance). They definitely have their toxic elements, but I would have to see a nerfed ziran in action before I could truly nerf such things. No defense of bangle. That shit is toxic AF.
@deathsadvocate Having faced you on ladder multiple times, I cannot help but wonder if playing those archetypes would help you understand their limitations, as your playstyle really doesn’t deviate from removal spam until lategame swing turn OR if you do, you play a midrange deck with overstatted minions like tempo arg with big comeback mechanisms up top like claim/emp. Positioning is very good imo, but I think playing only those types of decks has forced your macro play to be far too reactive because of the strength of removal coupled with a sub-threshold concentration of optimal burn players. Indeed, sometimes a good defense is a strong offense.
One of my biggest weaknesses starting out as songhai was being spoiled for position due to having mds + jux carry my trades. Similarly, I cannot help but wonder if maining magmar (especially vaath) has prevented you from developing your ability to be proactive. Not attacking you personally, I’ve just noticed this similar trend with Vanar mains who started out during rotbb or AB or current vet mains who struggle when they explore outside of the faction because they lack the point-and-click removal they had in their old archetypes. Heck even Hsuku struggled with this issue until about roughly 6 months ago when TM called him out on it, and as good as a player as he was then, he is even stronger for it now.
tl;dr - you cannot accurately judge an archetype until you’ve played it because you simply haven’t memorized what they can do on a given amount of mana.
I’d be interested in your argumentation. For me it’s not more toxic than Aurora Tears if speaking of Artifact builds or Mantra if speaking of solo decks in general. What makes it so toxic in your eyes?
It has a higher ceiling than tears and is too strong an enabler of saberspine seal, mos, and cyclone mask – all on top of the usual burn suite. Don’t get me wrong, artifacts are probably one of the hardest archetypes to master in the game. That said, bangle polarizes matches which lack ping too hard (not unlike NOSE).
This is just my musings, but I feel like people call Mantra unintereactive because they don’t quite get to see the interaction, it’s like a black box. When it’s minions doing the damage trades both players can clearly see damage ahead of time and where it’s all going. To give a random example; when you have 8g8s Ghost Lightning cast vs you, you may just think “lame, they wiped my board and ran away, how uninteractive”, but you don’t see that the mantra player lost a good window to cast Abjudicator, blew their 8 gates for removal rather than damage because they were too pressured. There’s lots of interaction, but not all on the board, which if you don’t like that then that’s a fair opinion to hold.
Once you’ve played the deck yourself a bit you start thinking about how you can apply pressure to force that kind of thing and what kind of damage/healing you can expect over the next turn or two.
As for Bangle, I don’t think too many people would be sympathetic to the cries of Artihai players if they removed the ‘buff my general and hit you for 10-20 damage’ ability of it, even if it’s very fun to be the one doing it. I agree Sajj with Tears/Maelstrom is the same, but a less good deck overall, but that’s not really a reason to give preferential treatment.
I’d be interested if a version that kept the ability to move twice, (maybe contingent on your general attacking?) but lost the ability to attack twice would be playable (at a reduced mana cost). the deck would lose the ability to do its combo finishers and would have to play the control game for a bit longer, but that’s not automatically bad.
Overall, I mostly dislike DA’s suggested Songhai changes, but I won’t say that everything has to stay the same.
With moving twice you can walk in and backstab something then walk 2 back away again and the only spot where that unit can attack into you is again into the backstab damage. Though to be fair I wouldn’t mind some some buff or fusion onto Energy Amulet, which sees 0 play.
I would agree on it being left the same, but disallowing it to go face.
So whenever your general equips bangle, you can attack enemy general only with the first attack or not at all if you will. This way it’s still an awesome control tool, but without crazy finishing combos.
Increasing its mobility amp to 2 and shifting Bangle’s function to anything else should suffice to it, maybe?
Bangle going for +1 Attack and “Your General cannot be counterattacked”, as a way to keep the theme of ‘blinding strikes’?
Edit: Also, as we spoke a little on Mechs, i don’t feel Mechaz0r needs so severe buffs, mostly usability thingos, but further expanding on the theme i’d like to drop here on two of the most feast or famine cards of the archetype: Alter Rexx and Echo Deliverant.