This depends on what you want to achieve with the banlist. If the goal is to completely change the meta with multiple bans then i agree with you.
But if we just want to nerf the top 3-4 decks its a different story. Everyone know that wanderer, the fault-kha combo, the ripper-hatch-gf combo and the burst ability of ziran are the current meta problems. If the banlist just hit those factors the meta would definately be more balanced.
Except it would just change the meta, arguably it would be more unbalanced as Wall Vanar will just dominate the meta with having little decks to beat it.
By removing the fault-kha combo and nerfing ragnora, vaath should become more popular and that would keep wall vanar in check. Not to mention that that deck is auto win for any good aggro and midrange.
Lol you drunk? Walls push Vaath’s dick in. He has no answer for luminous charge or most embla rolls.
Only when they are run by the masses, the committee would be formed by folks that have more experience with the game then any CPG employee has had that I know of. And I disagree with:
“The only people who truly know how to balance Duelyst are CPG”
The only advantage they have is having data of what players use. But A. the majority of players are more casual players and skew this data, B. We can/have gathered data with top 50 lists and tournaments. I would go so far to say that CPG is less qualified then the most seasoned veterans. Now it would be even better if said season veteran was with CPG, but I can not even remember the last time one of them was a top player.
And yes all but the the most experienced people will likely pick poor choices and be based on flawed emotion, and yes even the most experienced folks are prone to bias. But that is why this should not/could not be done by one person. Having a group of the most seasoned players to vote on the changes, while taking the general communities thoughts into account, would largely solve the bias/emotion issues.
So again we know what the problems are, anything is better then the current stale meta, we desperatly need to shake up the meta for better or for worse. Also Wall Vanar is super easy to counter and would not be an issue, dispel, aggro, and aoe make it a non issue. Let me quote my self:
This is false. CPG’s advantage is that they have developed ideals on how to balance the game through constant trial and error over a long period of time. When the draw mechanics where changed the game’s balance was thrown astray because all of the know how from piror experience was removed due to a core mechanic change.
CPG also printed a lot of cards that was clearly op since they showcase them off in the spoilers (4/9 slasher, 4/5 thunderhorn, 9/9 emp, …and so on) and creates some very unfun metas. So if very experienced players probalbly dont know how to balance the game, CPG also demostrated that they didnt care too much about having a perfect balanced game
*frustration is fun
I think vaath needs a bit more consideration
-he is so easy to play that even a 5years old can easyly hit the skill-cap(low skill high reward is never a good thing)
-he autowins vs aggrodecks and tons of midrange stuff too…
-yet outside of fault vet and arguably wallnar he has no awful matchup .(lets not forget that he can also tech in EMP if wallnar ever becomes too popular. It hurts him too but not that much. Also unless its a very aggresive version of wallnar he won,t care that much about using plasma vs discharge given the insane amount of healing he usualy has)
Thats why i would hit fault or rae insted of kha.vaath should be bullied as much as possible in my opinion.
OP cards are fine, there is actually a need for an imbalance in the metagame. Decks also need OP cards to win and OP cards will always exists as there will always be better cards.
Thunderhorn was fine on it’s own and EMP was fine for awhile. I will give you one for Slasher but at the same time I wouldn’t find it too difficult for them to playtest it and think it is fine. Players are really good at figuring out what decks are broken but bad at finding the problem, developers are the opposite.
I don,t see how anyone could playtest original LS and think its fine.
Its understandable if broken decks occur through strange combos that the devs didn,t consider(deci vore)
But LS didn,t realy combo with anything unorthodox-it was just a super strong card all by itself
It’s hard to see from a player perspective and that is the problem, we are not seeing it from the perspective of a developer.
CPG’s disadvantage is that they have failed to developed ideals on how to balance the game through constant error and have abandoned the game over a long period of time. When the draw mechanics where changed the game’s balance was thrown astray.
It’s hard for a dev to see from a player perspective and that is the problem, the devs are not seeing it from the perspective of an experienced player.
Players are really good at figuring out what decks are broken but bad at finding the problem, developers are the opposite, and only the most experienced players, which you would hope are devs but are not in this case, can usually zero in on the problem of high level competitive play.
Being a good experienced player doesn’t make one good at game design.
Well, it actually does, imo. Being a good player means understanding lots of connections between certain aspects of game, which helps.
The problem is there’s no one perfect solution in game design. For example: destroying flash, making Wanderer weaker in stats or reworking its buff are all viable choices to tone down its power. Which of these options is better is up to personal preference, and I can come up with arguments supporting each of these solutions.
Since we have plenty of pro players (and even more veteran players like me) with different opinions of their own it’s almost impossible to reach consensus on almost any card/faction/mechanic. For example, I will fight any attempt to ban or nerf cards from Hai or Abyss for whatever reasons (excluding Xor). It will go nowhere, someone will always be unsatisfied. And if the ban list is not forced onto the community with the coding of the game, nobody will follow, imo.
Your post convey my thoughts exactly on this thread.
Honestly, I don’t understand why all the arguments.
Ban 3 cards for a month.
All voluntary participants give themselves a fun challenge climbing to Diamond against mostly non-participants (this already happens)
All non-participants enjoy the extra wins and suffer a few embarrassing defeats (this already happens)
All voluntary participants have fun trying to break the new meta in Diamond and S-Rank (where most of the initial participants live)
Theorycrafting is rampant. Math is hard. Debates ensue. At the end of the month everyone agrees that banning that card was ridiculous because of course it was going to affect this other card which would mean that this Faction is waaaaay to strong now and that’s why I lost and we just broke the internet and I can’t even…
Ok, so not everyone agrees. (Because there is no way that guy should have beaten me. Ever. Something else must be going on. Probably involving aliens. And mind control. And maybe anal probes.)
Anyway… to prove the matter one way or another, 3 different cards are voted on for the following month. Maybe there are a few more participants. Maybe the balance is a little better…
Or maybe it isn’t! (but who cares, it’s fresh - and only for 30 days. And if you don’t like it you don’t have to take part.)
That’s it. That’s all this is about. Maybe it will catch on, maybe it won’t. It is unlikely there will ever be unanimous agreement concerning balance, but that’s ok because there never is unanimous agreement about balance. Meanwhile some people will have had a lot of fun they otherwise wouldn’t have had and everyone else will be unaffected.
What is the argument about, really?
That is the primary idea, it just keeps getting lost in the debates. Given it is fun/important to debate stuff that should be on the ban list, but that is the secondary purpose here. And disagreements are going to be a given, that’s why there will be a large committee.
I have added everything people wanted put up, (Number of banned cards can be figured out later), now I just need to get a committee put together for the voting. Sadly I can not seem to get anyone on board.
I think the point @alplod and me were trying to make was:
I don’t think most will mind this voluntary ban list, it’s just considered an idea that will not hold with the only reasonable action following a similar spirit would be an involuntary banlist. And from there stems the conflict.
Let me ask you guys a question though. You realize, and have actually stated this yourself, that realistically, only top players are really going to be the ones to participate in this. So why suggest and heavily insist on the validity of this idea on the forums when almost all if not all the top players are on DO? I can’t help but feel like there is a hidden agenda.