Replace Mechanic - The Necessary Evil?


#21

On Buffing and Nerfing and how it doesn’t fix the replace problem:
idk Mr.Dark, even if you point at Trinity Oath and say that it can’t be fixed by nerfs(which i disagree), you have to concede that a simple nerf to certain combos like ragnora CAN be fixed. buffs and nerfs aren’t the -ONE ALL BE ALL- solution, but it’s practically fixing half the problem, probably even more.
image
like see? it’s just one frikken word and it’s ok now.

On your Trinity Oath argument:

I don’t know about you, but i find this scenario too problematic.
First of all, decks that run trinity oath are decks that have low mana cost cards but always have long games (healyonar, strategos). they’re bound to run into trinity oath when the deck is so thin, and there are plenty of deck thinners like sun wisp and lifestream. replace or no replace, the chances of pulling trinity oath is inherently high.
Second, it’s hard to accept your claim that lyonar gets to replace into trin-oath too perfectly. I dont know about you, but I don’t watch replays of my games too often. MUCH less, adding my opponents as friends, then ACTUALLY accepting, watch their replay, and then confirm that they topdecked that trinity oath or makantor. I mean, you have to concede that any decent lyonar player would

  1. actually make their hand so very small only if they know they can replenish it.
  2. wouldn’t use trinity oath until it’s necessary (meaning they would replace their non-trinity oath card first, see if his hand has such a powerful swing that can turn things around, and if it it is not, use Trinity).
    You have to reconsider that this is actually what’s been happening with you this whole time

see, it’s actually pretty easy to fix this for you:
“Draw 3 irreplaceable cards” Boom. The card risks bricking. And it’s what you wanted. Anti-replace cards. It’s something duelyst has to consider digging into and not limit the draw-design to Shidai’s spellsword.

I’m telling you darklord, it’s not that hard to tweak something. What’s hard though, is to convince the the community and the devs that this trinity oath nerf is even necessary in the first place.


#22

Yeah that would be a major issue if all of sudden I made a post to nerf trinity oath, calligrapher, etc. that provide similar card advantage. No one would take me seriously and that be it. That’s why I like mentioning about indirect interactions that would make cards a lot better than it should be. Maybe the problem is the fact that there is no restriction besides mana cost. If you play yugioh, pot of greed is banned and pot of desires has a big price to banish 10 from your deck face down (meaning most of the time, cards banish this way can’t be used or be interacted) in order to draw 2 cards and also cannot activate another one for the rest of the turn. Pot of greed was banned due to no restriction. Now I have to ask whether if mana cost for example trinity oath is enough of a restriction? Most likely not since there is tons of value with that card. Sidenote: If you play shadowverse and the replace mechanic was implemented, all they done is making forest craft infinitely better which that be an issue and it’s not like it be easy to rework the whole archetype. Replacing fairies for better things is crazy.


#23

Of course Shadowverse is going to be so fucked if you put in replace, because the cards weren’t designed to take in the replace mechanic. But see, duelyst IS designed with the replace mechanic in mind. That’s why replace is okay. The curve is tight, the maximum hand-size is thin, the games are few in turns, the draw and replace minions have the most jank-ass stats, and the deck size is so thin that you’re giving up so many strong cards for draw.

And no, It wouldn’t be a major issue at all if you discussed why draw cards have such a huge value swing and that we should rethink draw cards, just like the example i gave you. In fact, a lot of people agree with you that pot of greed is too good (like pls we have tons of yugioh players in the community). You just have to make a good case for it AND refute the counterarguments against it.

for example: Grincher was one of the main voices for changing mechazor because it was DUMB AF. people said he was cray cause mecha wasn’t even that good. He countered that playing vs decks that just try to pull an untargetable exodia is such a terrible experience compared to what duelyst has to offer. And people were like “hey maybe he’s right!”. And duelyst changed mechs and mechazor! tho i guess someone in dev team created nightmare operant just to fuck with him lmao. Heck, this formula is even how the crates were changed. (“crates are bad” “they’re actually just meh, don’t buy it if you don’t like it” “no see the existence of its marketing is making the game look bad, and we’re actually losing out on newcomers. Duelyst is generous AF with orbs, but with marketing like these, the newbies will still think cpg is greedy!” "oh wow if you put it that way, maybe the boxes are a bad"the actual discussion was a bit more complicated than that but that was the gist of it)

And I’ll be honest with you, this is starting to feel frustrating man. you can’t just strawman your way into convincing us. One moment you’re telling us it’s those topdeck replace moments that’s the real problem, and the next post you say it’s actually the “pot of greed” cards that’s the real problem(and just when you said a few posts ago that trinity oath isn’t even that bad). And heck you have some good arguments going around here, but it’s just so muddled with stuff that either weren’t expounded on, conflicting with your other statements or goes in a different direction from what you’re saying.

like look at this. if you knew it was such a weak argument just get rid of it man.

It would actually be nice if you edited your main post to have a more focused problem definition and proposed solution. What’s the real problem here? Is draw the problem? Is topdecking the problem? Is it the hyperswingy cards? Is the problem that the game is too consistent? Is replace too enabling? (I’m honestly suggesting you just discuss draw. It’s what you’ve been arguing for most of the posts here.)

just give us a clear statement of the problem my dude. Otherwise we’ll all be stuck in a cycle of us providing arguments, and then you replying that we’re missing the point.

I’ll hold off on furthering this discussion until you do so. cheers.


#24

Wasn’t trying to do a “strawman” argument. Not saying it should get rid, but just only couple of changes be alright. Just refer back to some key points I made. I don’t feel it’s frustrating at all to talk about. It’s funny it seems like we are almost at some sort of comprimse, but of course a few small details is going to relinquish that. We can discuss small details as much as we like, just hopefully you get the main idea. That’s all.


#25

This topic was automatically closed 5 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.