Was Excited, Now I am terrified: Game Update Gripes


#1

Edit: Prefacing these complaints with how much I like the latest patch and the new expansion, so much awesome! Diamond changes are great, cards are great, clean ups are great, everything is great right now, just nervous about the year to come and some unaddressed issues.


This is basically everything I had feared, everything I stood against appears to be happening, and none of the things I really had hoped would be addressed will be.


image

So yea…this is pretty final and pretty disastrous.

Card Changes

Bloodrage Mask - Agree, but gates/mantra are the biggest problems in the game, and to a lesser extent Zendo.

Spectral Revenant - Phantasm was the problem not Rev, and it did get hit, this would have been fine if all the factions staple powerhouses also got hit, but without hitting the others this is not ok.

Chromatic Cold and Frosburn- STOP THAT Vanar is supposed to be the control faction, deal with the actual problems like luminous charge and flawless. Fox aspect doesn’t even see much play anymore thanks to shimzar/thunder. Vanar has problems, their control kit is not the issue. Going after their staples weakens their more fun approaches without making the problematic ones healthier.

Saberspine Tiger - Probably for the best.

Mechs: Probably for the best.

I love my magmar, but Ragnora is feeling a bit strong already, and is only going to get better with the xpac. Also no RNG adressing, cough gambler cough.


Edit: You want to make rotations unranked for new players? That’s fine. Just don’t mess with our main ladder. In fact that would be a great way to implement a casual mode, as vets would prefer the eternal, and cant use the casual mode as a stomping ground to test their eternal decks. Or at the very least make sure we have a ranked eternal format that receives balance patches alongside the rotating format.


Clean up is good, but rotations counteract any good this may have done.

We were so close to a perfectly balanced and diverse meta, but looks like they are just going to give up on it and go for rotations, on top of attacking faction staples instead of problematic archetypes. Although let me preface my complaint with the fact that CPGs rotation model is the best that I have seen.

Set rotations: Now we are going to get crippled archetypes, a stale meta, and entire investments will become a giant waste of money, and then your forced to buy the new things to compete...."

No! God no, please no. Rotating formats are the worst, and a huge money grubbing scam.

Power creep is also not a good method, and it does not necessarily have to happen, especially with a digital game where they can adjust both old and new things at their leisure. Releasing new cards, balancing over turned things, buffing older cards, and supporting various archetypes prevents things from getting stale.
Not to mention it divides the player base between formats. Gauntlet is enough of an alternate game mode, although it really ought to be free, but harder to get rewards out of.

A rotated format is not any friendlier to a new player, the costs are usually the same to make a compeitive deck, they have to do just as much learning, and the meta Is super stale for a couple months due to the tiny card pool. And then guess what, time to throw away all your old stuff and buy everything new! To prepare for yet another boring stale couple months, and then it repeats again.
Has anyone ever actually been scared away by a large card pool? I see big pool and think lots of customization, I can do what I want and not be all cookie cutter, and am thrilled with the constant discovery. Most of the learning is mechanics and basic tactics which have little to do with the card pool. I see people say “oh it is friendly to new players” but never have I actualy seen a new player complain.
There is a reason why Modern and EDH in MTG are quickly becoming more popular than standard, despite that Wizards goes out of their way promote Standard. And unlike Legacy/vintage because edh/modern gets the balancing attention they need, they have been very successful, and that balancing is much easier for a digital game to.

Than there is another issue, it took several expansions for all of the various archetypes to get proper support, and even then many don’t (hence the new generals). With so many generals and archetypes out there, unless they release cards that flesh out the holes in the archetypes then they will be crippled. For example, if Vet ever loses Blood of Air they are going to be in for a bad time.

I liked the small sets, but I can understand why people disliked them. Seems extreme, I wish you could craft the cards, but not disenchant them, but still have the ability to buy the cost efficient route. But this is ultimately fine.


Edit: New expansion is pretty cool, some factions certainly made off better then others. But dear god not only did mantra/gates not get addressed they added a lot of support to it.


I will probably add more as it comes to me, currently in shock and panicking. I hate to be that guy, I love the game, and have absolutely loved most of their latest directions and changes.


Thoughts on the rotation changes
Upcoming news on Duelyst?
#2

Not me, definitely. The arguments presented by Thanny are very weak, IMAO.

Even if there will be a “nonrotated” game mode, I believe it will soon become another gauntlet - unbalanced as hell. Cause, you know, it’s not the “main” game mode.

A shame. I’m totally upset.

EDIT. At least CPG has notified us in advance. At least something is changing for the better.


#3

Rotating sets are needed for a card game’s longevity. It helps open up design space into the future, because it’s expected that a card won’t stay around forever, meaning that abusable interactions will be avoided.

This also allows full-sized sets with a huge buffer against power creep, as cards that come out can be similar to cards that have been rotated out without one or the other being obsolete in ranked play.

In addition, this keeps the metagame fresh, as players are forced to adapt to gained/lost cards.

There are negatives to this. People get attached to their decks or cards, and losing them is never fun. But this is alleviated a bit by the addition of game modes that allow all cards.

I’d say give it a chance before you denounce it so hard.


#4

Non-Argument. Spoke about it in my own post. This is how you keep everything fucked up, and deflect actual changes to what you like.

Chromatic Cold and Frosburn- STOP THAT Vanar is supposed to be the control faction, deal with the actual problems like luminous charge and flawless. Fox aspect doesn’t even see much play anymore thanks to shimzar. Vanar has problems, their control kit is not the issue. Going afternoon their staples weakens their more fun approaches without making the problematic ones healthier.

You’re smoking dude. There’s control, and there’s “You’re not allowed to play unfun control” and Vanar long veered into the latter.

everything I stood against with all my might appears to be happening

This is hilarious. I have to say.


#5

I have given it a chance in games like MTG, and it’s why I have such a strong aversion to it. Are there upsides to rotation? Sure, but imo the downsides outweigh the upsides by a landslide.


#6

I’m no expert on set rotations, but I can see why they’re necessary. I’ll quote Alexicon1 over at reddit, who says it far better than I could:

Having a constantly growing list of cards you need to balance around is simply not sustainable. Moreover, having huge lists of old cards makes it hard to really expand into “new” areas as certain effects are de-facto prohibited due to potentially causing broken interactions. You also have to make unique new cards, which is hard when you get to a catalog of say, 2,000+ cards. Looking at it from a game design perspective, set rotations are one of the best ways to solve these issues.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate to lose access to your cards over time (in “standard” format), but I’d have to say it’s a necessary evil. If anything, set rotations will reinvigorate the meta considering how many absolute archetype-crushers have been printed in expacs (see: Lavaslasher eating tempo decks alive or Mana Deathgrip murdering all 1 HP minions). If CPG proceeds carefully, they can continue to support keystone archetypes (e.g. Obelysks) while phasing out the more toxic decks.


#7

I understand why rotations get implemented, I just dissagree with it. And cite all of MTGs eternal formats as an example of how you can indeed both maintain balance and constantly create new things.

And I still don’t understand how anyone can think less=more diverse. You can shake things up with just a tiny balance patch if something gets to out of hand.


#8

This does make sense in terms of viability. For examples less Thunderhorns would mean more diverse decks in terms of battle pet usage. Certain cards limit what can be played and what would be played. Like seriously what Magmar deck are you going to find not sporting x3 Lavaslasher x3 Makantor. If these cards were to be removed it would diversify the meta and diversify magmar decks.


#9

Factions are defined by their powerful staples. Removing them just means the next best thing goes in their slot.

And less doesent change the gateing of archetypes, usually struggles can be fixed with support, less cards means less counters sure but more importantly it means less support. If an Individual card Is to popular, to strong, and shuts down an archetype to hard it may be an issue that needs to be addressed, but that has nothing to do with cardpool. Also battlepets are poor design, that’s not thunderhorns fault.


#10

That’s an opinion, however though I never said battle pets were considered good before thunderhorn but his existence limits design in terms of deck building. (I actually like thunderhorn as a card in case anyone was wondering BTW)

The diversity in talking about also is not that you would see a different deck every match but as to you would not be seeing the same card from 3 years ago in every match. Another example would be Dr. Boom, he was in EVERY minion based deck and would still be had he not rotated. His removal diversified the meta so we wouldn’t see the same cards from 4 years ago.


#11

I’m going to answer all your points I feel need an answer.

Bloodrage Mask - Agree, but gates/mantra are the biggest problems, followed by Zendo.

Zendo could use some slight tweaking maybe, but I honestly think he’s fine. There aren’t any changes to him I could see doing anything other than killing the card. Eight Gates is so much worse without BRM (the nerf of which doubles its cost, something often missed when a mana cost is increased from 1 to 2). Mantra may still be an issue, but it’s fun, interesting, and different than anything else. The main reason it’s played is because the meta atm is so anti-creature.

Chromatic Cold and Frosburn- STOP THAT Vanar is supposed to be the control faction, deal with the actual problems like luminous charge and flawless. Fox aspect doesn’t even see much play anymore thanks to shimzar. Vanar has problems, their control kit is not the issue.

The CC nerf is better than I expected. If Vanar is to be the control faction (as you say) then they shouldn’t have a card so good at both removing minions and burning the opponent. This change keeps the control aspect while limiting the burn aspect. It may not have been a problem card, but its about as bad (imo) as Thumping Wave was.

Frostburn should never have been printed. Vanar has too much very strong single target to also have a powerful AoE removal. If they were going to keep this in core it had to be changed (personally adding this to core is the one thing I have the biggest issue with in the patch).

Rotating formats … are a huge money grubbing scam.

Wait, you wouldn’t pay for the new content anyways? The only “money grabbing scam” here is that rotation allows for more large sets and less small ones (due to having to check against a large card pool), but I am 100% on board with more cards!

I’m not going to try to change what seems to be a deeply rooted fear and hatred towards rotations. Instead I’m going to give my best advice to you: try it out before judging it. CPG may just do right by you too. Who knows, maybe tournament play will keep all the cards legal, maybe they won’t. Just keep an open mind. What follows is information for anyone else reading this thread.

A rotated format is not any friendlier to a new player

It is for any newer wanting to play at a competitive level with a reasonable amount of investment (time or money). Sure they can play their fun lists, but grinding up cards when there are 600 or so is easier than 2000+. Without rotation, any player joining a CCG has to grind all the previous content (which is a lot) and any new content. With rotation, the previous content they have to obtain is a lot less.

Modern and EDH in MTG are quickly becoming more popular than standard.

Adding to this, Standard is more popular with newer MtG players (2 years or less) by a GIGANTIC margin. Why? Because the lower card format is easier to get into. EDH is a more casual format and thus has more content, which is why its so large. (Sorry for the gobblegook for those of you who are not MtG players, though this may not be entirely alien language to you).

Unless they release cards that flesh out the holes in the archetypes, then they will be crippled.

The trend with Duelyst expansions has been to force out new archetypes with each one. If it stays the same, there will be new archetypes entirely to replace the old, or maybe new takes on things like Creep. I’m excited for that one for sure, since it seems to be the most affected by whatever the next set will be. Obliterate and Azalea leaving may lead way to cards that spawn tons of creep. That kind of design is why we have rotations. It’s not to take away your favorite cards, its to introduce you to new ones. It’s not to make a stale meta but spice things up.

While I do admit there are other tools available to CPG, none of them fix the issues as well as rotation and none of them are easy to accomplish without massive resource investment (more time than anything).


#12

While I can understand that sentiment for neutral cards. Being able to both rely on your staple, and as the opponent to know it’s coming and know you need to play around it, I think is a very good thing.

But you make a fair point. I just think a large card pool and balance patches lead to much more diversity, and I like the reliability of an eternal format. I still stand by new cards making new decks without invalidating or erasing old ones.


#13

Magmar was supposed to be the control faction they even have healing to survive. Vanar was single target removal specialist but for some reason they gave them frost burn which made them get rid their big weakness to swarm. They literally nerf this Magmar in beta for being oppressive it had chromatic cold which was call mana burn, 4 mana plasma storm and 5 mana metamorphosis.Looks familiar right chromatic cold, frostburn and enfeeble why would they make that again?

Removing Skorn from core and nerf frostburn is right step in correcting identity issue. Nerfing the Vanar removal tools is one step close to duelyst getting a better handle on cheap removal. I am happy with the changes i don’t have to go into expansion worrying about how Vanar will screw up the game anymore they fix the core issue with Vanar.


#14

What I think would be a good idea for card games would be instead of rotating entire sets they kept certain cards so that they wouldn’t entirely scrap certain archetypes. I’m just imagining how sad I’ll feel when Onyx jaguar, Corpse Combustion, Lurking Fear, Obliterate, Moloki Huntress and Winters Wake are gone.
Also yeah without staples certain factions will die. I’m actually pretty terrified for Vanar without their removal packages. Do you agree?


#15

Yes and No. I, as a casual player, love massive card pools and the creative power it gives me in building decks. But I also recognize that in a competitive format, large card pools create a balance nightmare and are not healthy for the meta.

As far as I’m concerned, whether or not this is a good change hinges on if they add a new casual game mode that allows all cards. They’ve stated there will be news about game modes in the future. If they do not add a casual mode, however, this will be very bad.

I wholeheartedly agree, and enjoy seeing multiple deck archetypes getting played. But it should be noted that the meta always wants to adapt to itself. As you’ve put it, some staple cards will always see play for being the go-to powerful card. Playing around these staples isn’t just in-game interaction, however. It’s also about tweaking your deck to beat these staples.

The problem, however, is that with a large card pool you being to see a vortex of decks repeating themselves. One powerful deck type will result in another being created to counter it, thus becoming the new powerful deck. That new deck will in turn do the same thing to itself. If the card pool is big enough, it will come full circle. Depending on the size of this circle, matchmaking can be a chaotic mess, where your opponent’s deck can completely invalidate yours from before you draw your opening hand. Don’t get me wrong, I know this already happens, but it will become far worse in the future with a large card pool.

Also, here’s this:


#16

I edited my post to mention that Zendo is much less of an issue. And I have to agree, while I hate it, it supports the best parts of Songhai, and less so spellhai. I will try to refrain from ranting about spellhai here as I have done a lot of that.

Cc was a properly done nerf for sure, but I feel they are supposed to dedicated control, so I wish they would hit problem cards instead of control package.

You make some good points about CPG and rotation. It’s already the best rotation model I have ever seen with keeping its core set, and only once a year, so I will try to have an open mind. I still don’t like it and would certainly prefer it not to happen. And I still maintain that creating a compeitive deck from a smaller pool costs the same if not more then a large one, and that the learning curve has little to do with card pool.

Overall great reply, thanks, while I am not happy, and still dissagree with parts, you have at least helped to quell the panick.


#17

If anything, a smaller card pools make balancing easier. If you keep adding more and more cards you limit your own abilities to create original cards because you need to make sure that everything is balanced. This get exponentially worse with an increasing number of cards.

Why in the world would set rotations cripple archetypes? You just get new ones. And the meta changes just as quickly, i.e. with every new expansion. And you had to buy the new cards to stay competitive anyways.

God forbid CPG want to make money with their work.

Only in a perfect world where you have all the time and the resources in the world to keep going over the same cards again and again.

It is, because you need to familiarise yourself with less cards. It also cheaper because on average stronger cards are higher up in rarity and by that the average cost of a tier 1 deck is likely to increase over time.

Yes. Me. From playing any factions but my main factions. There are so many staple/useful cards in these factions that the entry barrier is way too high for me. But a smaller card pool allows me to easier dip my toes into foreign waters by not having to craft as much and not having to focus my crafting efforts only onto a single/a few archetypes because all the different archetypes require different cards.

You seem to be familiar with MTG. Ask yourself: do you want the power level of Vintage in all of your regular Duelyst games? Where matches are decided during the first one or two turns because the card pool is so vast and unbalanced that nothing but the most unfair decks prevail?


#18

Vintage no, modern yes. And eternal formats can and do still make plenty of money for games, especially in a game without trading.

Rest we may just have to agree to dissagree on.


#19

Modern sucks tho…

(gauntlet thrown, come at me) (discord)


#20

:rage:

15 characters.