Jump to content

What will become of the balance?


WatcherOfSky

Recommended Posts

[quote='WatcherOfSky' pid='2028' dateline='1435242833']
[quote='Titan' pid='2025' dateline='1435242629']
And I'm not restricting this to mortar tower either, it's just a good example, heck, the 95% damage reduction aura that my avatar has is pretty much the definition of OP.
[/quote]

I know you're not, I just got the feeling that Sun was saying Mortar didn't need the nerf.
[/quote]

my argument was more like:
PVE-player thinks future nerfs might destroy cards for PVE --> i think there's no need to bother because future nerfs will/should be only fine-tuning.
Mortar tower was just an example. Even a card like this, wich is steadily critizised by nature and frost players is now ALMOST balanced and won't need harsh nerfs like it did in the first patches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote='SunWu II.' pid='2031' dateline='1435245380']
[quote='WatcherOfSky' pid='2028' dateline='1435242833']
[quote='Titan' pid='2025' dateline='1435242629']
And I'm not restricting this to mortar tower either, it's just a good example, heck, the 95% damage reduction aura that my avatar has is pretty much the definition of OP.
[/quote]

I know you're not, I just got the feeling that Sun was saying Mortar didn't need the nerf.
[/quote]

my argument was more like:
PVE-player thinks future nerfs might destroy cards for PVE --> i think there's no need to bother because future nerfs will/should be only fine-tuning.
Mortar tower was just an example. Even a card like this, wich is steadily critizised by nature and frost players is now ALMOST balanced and won't need harsh nerfs like it did in the first patches.
[/quote]

Well, I think just generally cards might need to be buffed for pve but stay the same for pvp, just to give decks more diversity in pve. And even then, I think that some possible nerfs for pvp cards may affect the cards pve use. So I think that these kinds of changes are still very relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='WatcherOfSky' pid='2032' dateline='1435248147']
[quote='SunWu II.' pid='2031' dateline='1435245380']
[quote='WatcherOfSky' pid='2028' dateline='1435242833']
[...]
[/quote]

[/quote]

Well, I think just generally cards might need to be buffed for pve but stay the same for pvp, just to give decks more diversity in pve. And even then, I think that some possible nerfs for pvp cards may affect the cards pve use. So I think that these kinds of changes are still very relevant.
[/quote]

+ 1 for buffing PVE cards for more diversity
+ 1 for seperate PVE/PVP card-changes, if that's possible
 still i don't really see how future PVP-balancing (i.e. nerfing energy parasites, buffing parasite swarm, buffing bandit stalker) could ruin someones PVE-experience. But well, if there can be different stats for cards in PVE and PVP as suggested, it wont be an issue anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='SunWu II.' pid='2035' dateline='1435249345']
+ 1 for buffing PVE cards for more diversity
+ 1 for seperate PVE/PVP card-changes, if that's possible
 still i don't really see how future PVP-balancing (i.e. nerfing energy parasites, buffing parasite swarm, buffing bandit stalker) could ruin someones PVE-experience. But well, if there can be different stats for cards in PVE and PVP as suggested, it wont be an issue anyway.
[/quote]

There doesn't need to be a diversion between pvp and pve effects for every card. Just for ones where it seems necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='WatcherOfSky' pid='2036' dateline='1435249539']
There doesn't need to be a diversion between pvp and pve effects for every card. Just for ones where it seems necessary.
[/quote]

I find it hard to believe separating pvp and pve strength of cards is necessary in any instance. Even in instances that a change will make a common strategy have less impact in PVE, is that really enough of a reason to bother?

Who is the target audience exactly? The map will still be beatable, is it just to stay true to exact formula of how it was beaten before? If anything I see it adding to diversity. There is a youtube of every single expert map being beaten by the free deck, anything else just makes it easier. I think it is an instance in which we have been so used to a certain formula lowering difficulty where anything else seems excessive.

If the goal is to speed up the time that it takes to run these missions I think it misses the point of a mode having fun. My prior suggestion about removing upgrades from the game no longer forces us to replay maps as quickly and as many times as possible just to pick up upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that target audience are both PvP and PvE players. For some players it is actually fun to beat a map as fast as possible. If you don't care about PvE players and nerf cards because they are too strong in PvP, PvE players will actually leave the game and will never try PvP. This system will impact less amount of players, what may result shutting down the server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='Aazrl' pid='2060' dateline='1435258954']
I guess that target audience are both PvP and PvE players. For some players it is actually fun to beat a map as fast as possible. If you don't care about PvE players and nerf cards because they are too strong in PvP, PvE players will actually leave the game and will never try PvP. This system will impact less amount of players, what may result shutting down the server.
[/quote]

You think adding 5 minutes (an extreme example) to a map run will cause PVE players to quit? I think this hypothetical person would have quickly found another reason to quit if their needs are so specific. They can still have fun beating the map as fast as possible. Unless a massive change happens to cause a mission to take a ridiculous amount of time, (which wont happen) I still need more convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if there's no upgrade system, why play PvE at all? Honestly, it's a good part of the game that I really don't think should be removed, in fact why remove any part of the game when you can improve or add onto it?

I'm not going to quote myself because well, it would be silly, but like I said, some cards just have entirely different functions in PvP and PvE despite being the same exact card, and while it's OP in PvP, that card might already not worth using often in PvE and any nerf would throw it out the window as a choice, as well as there's alot of cards you can use in PvE that are just unfeasible due to time and ability to be placed in PvP. Separating the stats between the two modes would just allow both types of players to be able to use a larger array of cards.

Not having the same, boring decks that every player is using is what separation would help achieve. Staleness is what was killing the playerbase in the first place anyway.

I'm just thinking, if we CAN have this feature, why shouldn't we have it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a PVE/speedrun guy, I think balance should just focus on PvP. PvP is where balance only matters. PvE and speedruns will always be fun, it would just mean people need to figure out new tactics. Even if a nerf means a speedrun tactic wont be possible anymore, it will just bring a new challenge for speedrunners to be even more creative and figure out a new best tactic (which is fun).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='ndclub' pid='2063' dateline='1435259380']
[quote='Aazrl' pid='2060' dateline='1435258954']
I guess that target audience are both PvP and PvE players. For some players it is actually fun to beat a map as fast as possible. If you don't care about PvE players and nerf cards because they are too strong in PvP, PvE players will actually leave the game and will never try PvP. This system will impact less amount of players, what may result shutting down the server.
[/quote]

You think adding 5 minutes (an extreme example) to a map run will cause PVE players to quit? I think this hypothetical person would have quickly found another reason to quit if their needs are so specific. They can still have fun beating the map as fast as possible. Unless a massive change happens to cause a mission to take a ridiculous amount of time, (which wont happen) I still need more convincing.
[/quote]

No, I mean that ignoring PvE players in balance thread will cause them to leave the game. Noone likes to be ignored. Sure, I understand that some cards might be really strong in PvP, but if anyone wants to nerf them, he should ask both PvP and PvE community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='MephistoRoss' pid='2066' dateline='1435259628']
As a PVE/speedrun guy, I think balance should just focus on PvP. PvP is where balance only matters. PvE and speedruns will always be fun, it would just mean people need to figure out new tactics. Even if a nerf means a speedrun tactic wont be possible anymore, it will just bring a new challenge for speedrunners to be even more creative and figure out a new best tactic (which is fun).
[/quote]

You have my +1 sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='Titan' pid='2064' dateline='1435259480']
But if there's no upgrade system, why play PvE at all?
[/quote]

My complete suggestion is to have a preset card reward for each map difficulty along with BFP for each completion. Previously the rewards for PVP were almost negligible but us PVP players liked it so much that it didn't matter, we still had loads of fun. If PVE is not fun enough on its own it should raise a red flag. (not suggesting removal of rewards for it or of PVE)

[quote='Titan' pid='2064' dateline='1435259480']
I'm just thinking, if we CAN have this feature, why shouldn't we have it?
[/quote]

If the feature you speak of is PVE no one is suggesting its removal. If the feature is upgrades then in my mind its existence makes the game experience worse. If I can prove that it would be better without its inclusion than it should not be included. I will probably make a separate thread to discuss this specifically because it is being talked about in multiple threads now and not everyone currently agrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get it from the PvE perspective. Everyone you are "competing" against/with use the same cards, if one card gets nerfed its the same for everyone and everyone have to adjust. If i was playing PvE id want people to regularly nerf the strongest cards so i could have the opportunity to find a new way to beat X map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it will come to a moment, where main pvp cards will be nerfed, because they were the strongest cards on PvE. Would you like to play fire and get nerfed few important fire cards because they were quite strong in PvE? Or would you rather have a possibility to say that it will not be cool for PvP players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='ndclub' pid='2074' dateline='1435260678']
If the feature you speak of is PVE no one is suggesting its removal. If the feature is upgrades then in my mind its existence makes the game experience worse. If I can prove that it would be better without its inclusion than it should not be included. I will probably make a separate thread to discuss this specifically because it is being talked about in multiple threads now and not everyone currently agrees.
[/quote]

The feature I'm speaking of is the separation of PvE and PvP changes to cards.

And as far as competing with people using the same cards in PvE, that's the kind of thing that we could change without harming PvP because you CAN nerf a card if it's too strong in PvE without making it useless in PvP, if you can see what I'm saying. But on the other hand, I also believe PvE's not entirely about "speedruns" only, and many people PvE just to have fun, and it's just not fun if a card is over-nerfed because of it's abilities in PvP. That and "speedruns" are all skill and micro IMHO.

EDIT: Pretty much said the same thing as Aazrl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='Aazrl' pid='2076' dateline='1435260907']
And it will come to a moment, where main pvp cards will be nerfed, because they were the strongest cards on PvE. Would you like to play fire and get nerfed few important fire cards because they were quite strong in PvE? Or would you rather have a possibility to say that it will not be cool for PvP players?
[/quote]


I think you misunderstand me, PvP balance should always trump PvE balance since it has a far greater impact on other peoples enjoyment of the game.

My point was that if a card happens to becomes less viable in PvE due to a nerf aimed at a PvP problem why is that really a problem for PvE players ?  It just gives you the opportunity to beat the game all over again without that specific card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='Titan' pid='2078' dateline='1435261128']
I'm just thinking, if we CAN have this feature, why shouldn't we have it?
[/quote]
[quote='Titan' pid='2078' dateline='1435261128']
The feature I'm speaking of is the separation of PvE and PvP changes to cards.
[/quote]

Ah, I see. My reason for not having it just because we can separate card strength in each is that it adds complexity to the game with only hypothetical and marginal benefits.

Other than mortar I cant think of another card that changes have been suggested for that would visibly affect PVE. Mortar has already undergone the most of those changes, anything else would not change mechanically. So is it worth splitting everything else up, displaying 2 different versions of many cards so that PVE wont change at all?

Imagine if mortar did not need ground presence in PVE but needed in PVP. This would completely baffle any new mortar user and for what benefit? They would not be the ones demanding a non ground presence mortar in PVE because they have never witnessed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='beijingguy' pid='2080' dateline='1435262089']
[quote='Aazrl' pid='2076' dateline='1435260907']
And it will come to a moment, where main pvp cards will be nerfed, because they were the strongest cards on PvE. Would you like to play fire and get nerfed few important fire cards because they were quite strong in PvE? Or would you rather have a possibility to say that it will not be cool for PvP players?
[/quote]


I think you misunderstand me, PvP balance should always trump PvE balance since it has a far greater impact on other peoples enjoyment of the game.

My point was that if a card happens to becomes less viable in PvE due to a nerf aimed at a PvP problem why is that really a problem for PvE players ?  It just gives you the opportunity to beat the game all over again without that specific card.
[/quote]

But why limit the player to not be ABLE to beat the game with that specific card when they can choose not to use it in the first place? You can do a map with only 2 cards if you so choose. I just don't understand why PvE should suffer when we could make PvP and PvE able to use ALL the cards that exist instead of a chosen few.
As far as baffling a player because it needed ground presence, it would say so on the card. All cards could have 2 'sides' and have a filter when making a deck to show a card's PvE or PvP side and see it's abilities, then you would have no issues with players being unable to understand their cards. Not to mention, when you're using a card for the first time, who knows exactly its strengths or weaknesses aside from what's described? You don't know it's attack speed, selection size, etc. just from the description alone, it takes using it at least once to understand everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, perhaps this rule could apply to cards such as Energy Parasite, which holds absolutely no purpose in PvE.

Also not everyone has every card in the game. Some people may have certain cards, which would currently lack use in certain scenarios in the pve realm. I know this is an improbable occurance, but I still think it could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='WatcherOfSky' pid='2089' dateline='1435268449']
Well, perhaps this rule could apply to cards such as Energy Parasite, which hold absolutely no purpose in PvE.

Also not everyone has every card in the game. Some people may have certain cards, which would currently lack use in certain scenarios in the pve realm. I know this is an improbable occurance, but I still think it could happen.
[/quote]

Energy Parasite would be a great example of its usages and this is all what I'm trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote='Titan' pid='2088' dateline='1435268373']
But why limit the player to not be ABLE to beat the game with that specific card when they can choose not to use it in the first place? You can do a map with only 2 cards if you so choose. I just don't understand why PvE should suffer when we could make PvP and PvE able to use ALL the cards that exist instead of a chosen few.
[/quote]
PVE wont suffer (a bit too strong of a word) if they are under the influence of PVP nerfs. In just about every nerf circumstance PVE map efficiency will be unchanged and if efficiency drops it will be incredibly minor. The main argument seems to be not wanted it changed at all, not that the changes would be harmful.

You would think that the bigger threat to PVE is the lack of variety you see caused by lost ships and wheel of gifts being so prevalent for so long.

[quote='Titan' pid='2088' dateline='1435268373']
As far as baffling a player because it needed ground presence, it would say so on the card. All cards could have 2 'sides' and have a filter when making a deck to show a card's PvE or PvP side and see it's abilities, then you would have no issues with players being unable to understand their cards. Not to mention, when you're using a card for the first time, who knows exactly its strengths or weaknesses aside from what's described? You don't know it's attack speed, selection size, etc. just from the description alone, it takes using it at least once to understand everything.
[/quote]

That doesn't sound clean in the least. Sounds incredibly unnecessary considering that energy parasite, voidstorm, and mortar would be about the only cards that come to mind to could "benefit" from this. You can still use EP as weak air units and mortar is still plenty strong. Can't exactly use juice tank in PVP but its not even worth the time spent thinking about making a different version for PVP and added complexity.

In summary I think separating PVP and PVE balance, though possible, causes more problems than it solves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PvP and PvE was pretty good. And using different cards in different modes is good thing imo. I wouldn't like to use same decks in all maps or have PvE deck that is playable in PvP and vice versa. It would be better to do something with underused or useless cards like Void Maw, Twilight Thugs or Shadow Insect. Only change in balance i would make is to delete Amii Monument from the game. This card is funkiller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot and would not be able to use the same decks in PVP and PVE effectively with or without separate balance for PVE and PVP. So don't worry about that going away. Most of the members on the forum are supportive of buffing the cards you listed as well. (though I can think of several far worse cards)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Northguards? Rly who played these guys when u had Master Archers not to mention most amii common cards was useless (twilight hag, bandit spearmen) or banditos (another northguards but t2 yay!) also lost shades were a bit overnerfed (but still they had place in my ls deck) and tortugun was almost useless too (it would be better to make him unsteable deamon like).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use