Duelyst Forums

Small Sets Are Not Trustworthy Anymore

#25

And neither does CPG. Again, what do you suggest they do? What discussion are you trying to have here? I get that you’re annoyed, and it sucks to see a card you like get nerfed without seeing some kind of personal trade-off. But should CPG just not nerf these cards then? Or was this expansion type a mistake? There’s certainly room for discussion here and you’re touching on a real issue, but this approach isn’t constructive.

That was só uncalled for. I know it’s all the rage online to make fun of people who have the gall to stand up for someone against the mob mentality but sniping at someone calling for reasonable engagement over ‘lol kys’ makes you the unconstructive party.

7 Likes
#26

Like, I get it and agree that you need to nerf unexpectedly strong cards, but… can you say Entropic Gaze was unexpectedly strong? Can you say Enfeeble was? I dont see much alternative here, either some of these cards are not being playtested rightfully or the nerfs are planned beforehand.

Also, new expansion model is absolutely not new player friendly, because obtaining cards from a set in random order, even if 3x of, impedes quick enough deckbuilding. If a new player has a list of cards he wants out of the new expansion model, he faces a way higher paywall than would be a normal, core style orb set. Which is not exiting, and in turn, such a player gets more frustrated by playing, which in turn, may make them play less and less.

#27

So someone asking for the more experienced forum users to behave in a manner that is welcoming to newer users is them being a white knight?

Funny thing is though, your only contribution to the “topic at hand” was saying “you shouldnt expect anything in return from CPG for not correctly testing the cards you purchased… because it was cheap”

So how about you stop trying to be edgy and take bublub’s advice.

1 Like
#28

On the offchance that i do not stumble into the Strawman you’re attempting to build I responded to OP with a serious question on why he feels he should be reimbursed to which he not only has yet to respond, his lack of response in general leads me to believe he never intended to respond or contribute in any meaningful way at all.

Now that aside, posting a 100+ word and counting piece while not attempting to contribute to the topic at all is simply spam, so maybe stop hounding other “experienced players” actually trying to engage on the topic, futily so since judging by OP’s previous thread he clearly doesn’t want to engage either.

So how about I call out hypocrisy where I see it and try to steer conversations towards the content they’re actually about instead of taking advice from a forum keyboard warrior.

#29

To be fair, the card changes were obviously good for the game. Enfeeble was broken beyond belief. Meltdown was too good and felt unfair to play against a sudden 10 damage face from faie when you have minions on board. Nosh Rak I don’t get, but it is a strong card, now it means you have one more turn before being faced to death.

I still believe they were extreme with their nerf, Meltdown looks unviable. I would have prefered him to be a 5/7 for 8 and deal 5, but well.

I think that CPG does no middle grounds, and that’s sad. I want to see buffs rather than nerf. Why is Aphotic Drain 2 mana and not 1 ? Why is Dark Seed 4 instead of 2 ? Why is Firestarter a 3/5 for 5 when Blue Conjurer is a 4/6 for 5 ? Why is Solarius not 5 Mana when Trinity Oath is much better for one less ? Veteran Silithar doesn’t work as a 4/5 or a 4/3. Why not put him at 4/4 so he’s viable ? And why is Releaser 3 and not 2 ?

That’s what isn’t trustworthy. I hope they rebalance some cards that have too low power level when compared to other cards that cost less, and are better in every ways. The value is off sometimes, and they need to realize it.

2 Likes
#30

naa, I didnt answer becouse im yet to see a person to answer. Why? Everybody here are either plain trolls like [quote]Stop it 15characters[/quote] or hardcore vets like [quote]Last month, I played some 800-900 games[/quote]; vets are not realy reasonable to answer to since “who are u here beginner to bark at beloved CPG shhhh” (as seen above) OR, when more kind then “since we play in SRank only it realy sux to see broken enfeeble every game”. Both understandable, but understand me too: I dont remember last time I seen enfeeble in my elo probly 3-4 weeks ago, once, so cant relie; or you think that playerbase consists of SRank players only? nonetheless I wanted to hear new and middle players opinions instead, I meet alot of new players in game who say ‘‘im not gonna buy small set why?’’. What can I answer them now? ''To get 8mana 6/6 ofcorse thats why." Or, “some good tribal cards, which you wont be able to use anyway, becouse to build a tribal deck u need alot of high rarity cards from big sets aswell.” No?

on a side note though, I see ppl actively using words like f**k and c****r on the forums, and they dont get any punishment for that, was this privilege a part of kickstarter backers benefits? Just interesting, bcos I tried to use simple irony without any bad words and got obturated instantly :expressionless:

#31

Now you are overgeneralizing. There is A LOT more in the replies than people saying “Shut up”, and there are valid points to answer, like the question of why it would be healthy to make each card set stronger than the last and didn’t comment on the idea of alternate refund methods.

Plus, there is nothing wrong with players first expanding there Core Set and Shim’zar collections before buying cards from expansions focused on some archetype or gimmick.

And the small expansion model isnt exactly newbie friendly unless they spend money, and isn’t f2p friendly for “casual” players, as while it allows you to obtain the full expansion much faster the inability to create the specific cards you need makes updating decks slower. So I don’t see why the model should be held as a boon to new players, as it has its own advantages and disadvantages to them.

2 Likes
#32

If the conversation continues to be non-constructive and has personal attacks I will close the thread.
The forums are not a place to insult each other.

13 Likes
#33

It really depends on what you play, there are a lot of useful cards in those expansions.

Can i ask you your main faction?
Or the faction of the new player/s who asked you those questions?

I mainly need these info to understand your point of view,
i am a main vet and the two expansions released good cards for my faction like nosh rak, blood of air, thunderclap and zephir.

can you post your decklist?
Or at least theorycraft the one you wish to make on bagoum and post it?

This too can be useful for people here to give opinions or understand your argument.

(Btw don’t use irony on text, everyone reads it as he wants, never as he should :wink:)

#34

lol actually, while I played around 800-900 games that month, I hadn’t really played too much before that, so when I started that month, I had no cards from either expansion. (talkin about bloodborne/bonds) and bonds hit like halfway through that month.

The reason I still get the 300g packs instead of the 100 per5s are because you get the consistent packs of 3 instead of just a bunch of randoms making you have to disenchant a ton of crap for reduced value.

If you want to reach high ranks with worse cards, I suggest watching some zero to hero streams :slight_smile: those are helpful.

#35

You are gonna need to get over the last post in other for us to progress into discussing this new one.
I would love to discuss this topic because it seems like an interesting one and like it or not Ryv will have to lock this one as well if we begin to stray from the topic.

Nerfs are never made only based on the opinions of the S-Rank community, actually they are mostly made on the experiences of the lower rankings such as Gold, Silver and Bronze. Since this is the area where newer player’s are usually, new players tend to complain more than the experienced ones. (Nothing is wrong with complaining if something is making the game stressful for you) Like for Variaxx, the majority of S-Rank and Diamond players rarely ever saw Variaxx because no one played her competitively there but she was ruining the experience for newer players.

You can tell them to focus on the core set and encourage them to stay away from the small sets, although the way in which CPG designs these small sets, they contain cards which work alongside eachother. But if your goal is a highly competitive deck then stick to core cards.

1 Like
#36

When you say 8 mana 6/6, are you talking about death knell? Because he’s one of the strongest most viable late drops right now

#37

A 8 mana card with zero immediate impact the turn it’s played other than triggering Nightshroud (which isn’t run) in a faction that has access to Revenant, in a faction that just had one of it’s longest standing competitive crutches nerfed into obscurity is one of the most powerful late game minions atm?

TM has a good Arcanyst Abyssian list, I’ll give him that, and he was well prepared and played exceptionally well to spike the event he did, but by no means or metric is this list or Knell for that matter a factor on ladder atm.

I’d be very happy to be proven otherwise though.

#38

The only reason people don’t play it is because it got banned every set in the event he won by the point the games were being streamed so nobody saw it, and I’d assume they just thought he was good and won with something offbeat at the melee he won the next week.

It’s very good because it triggers, ideally, an owl proc on 4-5 minions (which is unbeatable except for circle and enfeeble) and can potentially give you back trinity wing spells as well for more stuff to do and survive with.

1 Like
#39

You conveniently ignored the part where I mentioned it’s ladder obscurity.

#40

I won’t dispute the quality of the card or the deck one way or another, but I will say that creative deck-building in general is stifled immensely by the ready availability of tier 0 power from Ancient Bonds for Vanar and Magmar.

There’s really no incentive to try other things other than for personal experience, and that tends not to translate into ladder-optimised decks. Nearly everything is ladder obscure at the moment if it doesn’t use Circulus or Lavaslasher etc

2 Likes
#41

This very much tho. I feel like, while we are certainly moving in the right direction, there is still a LOT of cards that limit what is essentially viable. Sure, you can build a Sarlac meme deck, but don’t expect to win. If you want to be viable at a top level, there’s usually only one to two archetypes available to every general/faction, and that’s just a pity, because in theory there’s many different options available, but most of them fall flat in certain ways. Additionally, certain auto-includes reduce the creative aspect even further. Yeah, you can play without Rev/Makantor/Holy Frustration, but why even bother?

#42

I think op was referring to Meltdown V2

#43

So uh, Meltdown and Enfeeble actually destroyed the meta. I outright stopped playing waiting for a patch that made Faie have to play somewhat fair. Simply put, on every observable level, Meltdown is a card that read bad, and fundamentally was bad- but emphasized playing exceedingly greedy decks. Duelyst’s cardpool is not at a point where something so obnoxiously battlecruiser can be given to a faction with disproportionate amounts of cheap removal.

As a whole, Bonds is the best set made so far- and a mark of progress when compared to Shim’Zar’s silliness (and Shim’Zar even introduced many of my favorite cards!.)

Also, I called a march//april balance patch to fix AB. While I’m glad that the devs took their time, and made drastic decisions, there really needs to be more forward consideration concerning the power level of neutrals, and the cost of spells altogether. Is there any really good reason that Circle has to cost 8 instead of 6? The game is invariably marked by a series of disparities created with the intention of building flavor, but instead just outright translating to power.

2 Likes
#44

I like balance changes but seriously, if you need to nerf a card by making it 2 mana more expensive, you are doing a poor job at designing it in the first place. Sure, sometimes the true value of a card is hard to calculate, especially if it has a crazy or yet unexplored effect, but bumping the mana cost from 3 to 5 means that the original design had no proper value evaluation behind it. If it had been properly evaluated, the original card would cost 4 with nerf to 5 due to mistake, or cost 3 with nerf to 4. Same goes for Chrysalis burst, bumping it up 2 mana means that not much thought had been put in the original design.

I love balance changes, but only when they are small, such as with Meltdown or Variax, because the Value of a card can oftentimes be hard to evaluate right of the bet, and thousanda of games are needed to see it’s true strength. When CPG changes cards slightly, it just means that they made a small error calculating the value of a card, but when they make major changes, it just shows that their design philosophy is flawed.

Anyway, IMHO, CPG should take another look at their design philosophy and update it, as it is clearly flawed. Im saying this not to bash or hate on cpg, but to hopefully help them create better decisions right of the bat in the future.

2 Likes