You might not be being confrontational, I am 
But look we have an expansion like 20 days away. I fail to see why CP should spend time balance testing proposed buffs to already existing cards when they can focus that energy on a new set instead.
Changing a card, costs almost as much developer time as making a new one. So, to once again reiterate my previous point; if these cards are not a problem, why make the effort of changing them?
I feel making Gnasher a 2/3 would be better, so its effect does not become easier to trigger
“Without bad card you can’t have good card” - myself
it’s what is called as the bad card relativity. That’s why atomic bomb exist :b
Do you think maybe they both should be 2/3? That could maybe work. What I like about a 3/2 Gnasher is you have to keep your distance or deal directly with it…but again that might be too strong, and it gives people time to respond and move on the board.
Also maybe Naga should damage itself for 2 like Skorn does for 1. So a 2/3 that becomes a 2/1 after dealing that damage can be pinged for 1 in response, rather than being a huge threat.
I want these cards to be useful, not “The New Skorn” in terms of broken, so I appreciate the input man.
*(EDITED for better reasoning)
I wouldn’t say that slightly adjusting a card as per their normal tweaking is more expensive than the time they spend on a whole new set. Nor would I call it nearly as time consuming.
If anything these things don’t intersect that much, as one is a batch of new cards which need to be played in real games to be stress tested, so they can see if more revisions need be made, Vs old hat cards which are easy to adjust in turn since they already exist and people know how they work in relation to others.
Again, these three cards are in competition for the same spot, all of them do similar things, and there is an illusion of choice as to which people will pick. It’s not simply just a case of some cards being “bad” or generally thought of as weaker. These changes would result in a wider variety of decks and play styles.
If Naga needs to be toned down it’s proc to 1 damage, and Gnasher needs to be toned down to 2 that might even be OK (though honsetly, the scaling damage is cool to me, in terms of risk Vs reward for setup, as Skorn can be played literally anywhere on the board, and both Skorn and Naga are Opening Gambit abilities)…but the topic is more how to make all three cards useful instead of creating situations where illusions of choice make for a less interesting and varied game.
His concern is more with how much improving bad cards actually increases the playability of the game. IE, is this even worth the dev’s time?
I would tend to agree with him in that respect for this specific post. But I do feel like many faction cards are so under the bar that they deserve reworks (mostly Vet and Magmar.) But honestly, more CC minions are likely in Duelyst’s future, so it may be kind of moot to want to improve the ones we already have.
Well, i’ll give you an example, in Gnasher’s case…I think there’s a lot of synergy with Consuming Rebirth, Lurking fear, and Darkfire Sacrifice.
But he’s clunky at 4 mana, so Dying Wish as a central theme is once again harder to pull off again when compared to Creep or Swarm for the faction (I’ve been analyzing why that is a lot lately).
So Gnasher alone would help make Abyssian more varied on a competitive level. I do think there would be an impact there.
Also I hate illusions of choice, it only promotes people pulling lists rather than seeking to make new ones.
I do realize new cards are coming, but I still think balanced changes in this direction, (in response to Skorn’s changes) promotes greater variety of play styles, and therefore a better experience.
Maybe it would help if you actually list some facts. Claiming that someone is ‘factually wrong’ over and over again and then not providing anything at all to back it up is kinda moot.
Love this suggestion. Gnasher at 3 mana would be great for the dying wish Abyssian deck.
I feel a lot of faction cards could be tweaked a bit too, but I also think that most of those should get review after the new set is released.
My reasoning is that if the new cards are similar, but obviously superior, than redesigns for older cards will easier to figure out through player consensus. So you’re again looking for different cards that work for a wider variety of archetypes, etc.
@moot, @eternamemoria, @dewize, @paralykeet, @Smash_the_Hamster, @thematsjo
Updated at the top after consideration, and detailed here!
Gnasher has changed (See below), and I’ve changed Frostbone Naga, so that it also deals the 2 Damage to itself (alla Skorn), since Naga was changed to a 2/3 as well, that would leave a 2/1 creature on the board, after the damage is done (nothing too strong, in fact it’s similar to Nightsorrow Assasin, which also leaves a 2/1 body on the board.
I like these changes overall, though it tempts me to think that Nightsorrow needs to be a 2/3 to be fair in comparison as well (haha, I’m down the rabbit hole), however, I still think this is all fair, and like where things are at. Thoughts?
Also, for those celebrating, happy Thanksgiving!
FROSTBONE NAGA
COST: 3 Mana,
STATS:2/3,
OPENING GAMBIT: Deals 2 Damage to all adjacent Minions Generals, Including itselt
(Changed to be similar to Blistering Skorn, in that now you aren’t left with a powerful 3/3 after it procs.)
GNASHER
COST: 3 Mana,
STATS:2/3,
DYING WISH: Deals 3 Damage to all adjacent Enemies.
(@eternamemoria made mention o changing Gnasher to a 2/3. While I initially liked the idea of Gnasher being a glass cannon. At 2/3, Inner Focus can’t lead to an immediate 6 face damage to the opponent’s General on the 1st or 2nd turn (on top of also possibly killing minions in the process). The opponent can respond by trading minions to eliminate him quickly while maneuvering out of his way after he’s played. And any spells that can sacrifice him to proc his ability (IE: Darkfire Sacrifice, and Consuming Rebirth for example) destroy him outright either way.)
NIGHTSORROW ASSASSIN
COST: 3 Mana,
STATS:2/3,
OPENING GAMBIT: Destroy a nearby Enemy Minion with 2 or less Attack.
(EDITED: Nightsorrow is now included in this thread, in order to really run the gamut of these types of creatures in balance with each other. I have her Buffed to 2/3, to make it balanced against Frostbone Naga and Gnasher. Since it only destroys one reletively weak creature, at least it leaves a toughish body on the field. Whereas, Naga is now weakened to 2/1 after being played, and Gnasher of course still has to die to proc. The more I thought this out, the more I realized all four should really be in balance.
I’d say gnasher should be a 3/2 for 3 with the same dying wish and the same stats for Nightsorrow, 3/2 for 3, same opening gambit.
The title… its… evolving…
I don’t like changes for changes sake. The three of them are different to each other laterally. Each fulfills a different role in any given deck. Of course, skorn is the most flexible and ‘standard’ choice, but each has it’s own value.
Skorn: Friendly Fire and unlimited range;
Naga: Friendly Fire and limited range;
Gnasher: Death wish, higher damage, limited range;
I’m running Naga over skorn because I need a board clear that leaves a body but I don’t want to hurt my backline value generators.
Hi guys, how about leaving balancing the cards to ACTUAL game designers? No? Ok.
No. Actual game designers have yet to realise that a 5 mana 6/6 Motorboat Wiggleboss is healthy for Duelyst, because any competitive game is fuelled by salt and tears with a side of cancer.
Naga is a pretty reasonable choice in gauntlet. Even gnasher is situationally good there.
What minion is that?
Makantor Jesus. Who rose from the Lazarus Pit via a Keeper proc.
I agree that night sorrow should be buffed stat wise or make it 3 attack or less