What will become of the balance?

[ImaginaryNumb3r]

[quote='Obesity' pid='2885' dateline='1435965521']
In my opinion the game was already pretty well balanced. It was possible to reach first place with every colour combination.
[/quote]

From a high-rank perspective I think it's true and thankfully we don't have unbeatable killer combos anymore. But the stupidly high difference in level of difficulty between colours is unreasonable nonetheless.

I don't want that the core mechanics of the game are touched but there are a lot of units which are bad for no reason or have been bugged since release but never got a fix, even-though it would be easy.

I think the game would be much more interesting and would offer a lot more variety if we could buff some of the weaker cards to a reasonable level. Now that we have full control of the game why should we not be constantly trying to improve it?

However, as I've mentioned before I am against blindly buffing cards and some factions have priority when it comes to balancing.

[MarbSlonk]

[quote='Mental Omega' pid='3004' dateline='1436035383']
[quote='Obesity' pid='2885' dateline='1435965521']
In my opinion the game was already pretty well balanced. It was possible to reach first place with every colour combination.
[/quote]

From a high-rank perspective I think it's true and thankfully we don't have unbeatable killer combos anymore. But the stupidly high difference in level of difficulty between colours is unreasonable nonetheless.

I don't want that the core mechanics of the game are touched but there are a lot of units which are bad for no reason or have been bugged since release but never got a fix, even-though it would be easy.

I think the game would be much more interesting and would offer a lot more variety if we could buff some of the weaker cards to a reasonable level. Now that we have full control of the game why should we not be constantly trying to improve it?

However, as I've mentioned before I am against blindly buffing cards and some factions have priority when it comes to balancing.
[/quote]

I am pretty curious which factions you had in mind ;-)

And I agree completely with this post and Obesity's one. The game was fairly balanced, but lots of cards were unused in PvP (same for PvE, but balancing is mainly for PvP). The game could be waaay better and more diversed if you buff some of these as Mental poitned out.

I don't quite get what is wrong with some "blindly buffing" when it is done to the right cards. Sunken Temple, Northguards, Rippers and Warlock are all examples of cards for which a stat tweak in power cost, damage, health, or ability power/cost could do wonders. Most of these cards are also generaly known as extremely weak if not useless.

And of course: since we/the devs have complete control of the game, a buff that turned out to be a bad choice can be redone in a week or less.

[SunWu]

Eventhough i would love to see 500 viable cards in PVP, i would still be very careful about buffing.
This is especially important for cards that tend to scale dramatically like ,,X-times void = damage'' or anything that doesnt bind power in combination with powermanipulation.
When useless backlash became buffed, it was OP all of a sudden and there was no way around it if you were an ELO-greedy skylord.
Sunken temple is really strong wit SoM, it's just that out of the 3 pure nature players nobody tested it or found a slot for it. It's also the last card needed in a faction with already UP early T2 and OP late T2.
Cards like rippers and northguards are cards that aren't too weak in my opinion, they simply have not the right concept to fit in the deck they're supposed to belong. Northguards for example have amazing stats, but unfortunately MAs and frostmages outshine them, buffing them might leave them OP in some scenarios and still useless most of the time. Same goes for rippers: DAs > any S-counter in a shadowsplash. I read earlier that shadow insects were useless !? With support from fallen skyelfs ability they could almost instantly kill a Juggernaut !
I think there might be 50 - 100 cards that had the lable ,,useless'' but were infact relatively strong, just outshined by ,,easier to use'' or even stronger cards. I would be really carefull about buffing one of those. Also with such a low highrank population there wasn't enough testing going on.
Even if there's the chance to balance weekly or monthly i would still be very cautious and take a approach like:,,how to balance this faction?'' instead of:,,how to make this card see more PVP?''
I find the thought of having a new ,,freak of the weak'' after every buffing quite unpleasant.

[LagOps]

[quote='SunWu II.' pid='3092' dateline='1436113036']
Eventhough i would love to see 500 viable cards in PVP, i would still be very careful about buffing.
This is especially important for cards that tend to scale dramatically like ,,X-times void = damage'' or anything that doesnt bind power in combination with powermanipulation.
When useless backlash became buffed, it was OP all of a sudden and there was no way around it if you were an ELO-greedy skylord.
Sunken temple is really strong wit SoM, it's just that out of the 3 pure nature players nobody tested it or found a slot for it. It's also the last card needed in a faction with already UP early T2 and OP late T2.
Cards like rippers and northguards are cards that aren't too weak in my opinion, they simply have not the right concept to fit in the deck they're supposed to belong. Northguards for example have amazing stats, but unfortunately MAs and frostmages outshine them, buffing them might leave them OP in some scenarios and still useless most of the time. Same goes for rippers: DAs > any S-counter in a shadowsplash. I read earlier that shadow insects were useless !? With support from fallen skyelfs ability they could almost instantly kill a Juggernaut !
I think there might be 50 - 100 cards that had the lable ,,useless'' but were infact relatively strong, just outshined by ,,easier to use'' or even stronger cards. I would be really carefull about buffing one of those. Also with such a low highrank population there wasn't enough testing going on.
Even if there's the chance to balance weekly or monthly i would still be very cautious and take a approach like:,,how to balance this faction?'' instead of:,,how to make this card see more PVP?''
I find the thought of having a new ,,freak of the weak'' after every buffing quite unpleasant.
[/quote]

I agree with you in genreal, but we should also allways ask if a card is simply toxic with litle to no counterplay. there are cards in this game which make the gameplay experience worse and we should definately not buff them until they actually are usable. shadow insect is a good example there. it is up on it's own right now, but any buff could turn this card into an "i win" button. this means we should better not touch it at all for the sake of fun and interesting gameplay.

There are also super situational cards (global warming etc.) which counter 1 thing super hard. they usually don't get played due to deckslot reasons and buffing them would not make them see more play, but just more abuse. "I have card x so your card is entirely usless" is not really fun to play, as long as we are talking about 1 click counters.

In my opinion it should [b]never [/b]be the goal of balancing to make as many cards as possible "viable". we should only make those cards viable, which would improve the gameplay or at least don't make it worse. if cards have crappy designs (wich a major part of cards do have!), we can't change that.

[MarbSlonk]

I agree with you LagOps, but I still think there are a lot of cards that can be both viable and fun to play with while not hardcountering or shutting down tactics from your opponent.

Take Sunken Temple and SunWu's criticism: the card is bad (and trust me, I did test it). It is slow, the critters are weak in late T2 because they are a S/S squad and you bind 100 power. Combining the card with SoM makes it more expensive than a Harvester, while being a lot weaker and allowing the opponent to go T3 before the first critters are summoned.
Just straight buffing it might turn it into a win-more card: if you're behind it won't do anything, if you're ahead you will outright win the game. So, in order to compensate Nature's weak early T2 (taking SunWu's point of view, which I mostly share) you might make the critters free. Or make the building cheaper and keep the cost. Giving the creatures a M-attack might also help, or making them immune to knockback. All solutions might need to critters to be weaker (stats).

This way you
1. Aid a faction by strenghtening certain weak spots;
2. Make a card viable yet fun;
3. Keep the card balanced and non-situational.

Keep in mind that Sunken Temple is an example and that all proposed changed are examples as well: it is the idea that matters, not the specific card!

[ImaginaryNumb3r]

[quote='MarbSlonk' pid='3080' dateline='1436108123']
[quote='Mental Omega' pid='3004' dateline='1436035383']
[quote='Obesity' pid='2885' dateline='1435965521']
...
[/quote]

...
[/quote]

I am pretty curious which factions you had in mind ;-)

And I agree completely with this post and Obesity's one. The game was fairly balanced, but lots of cards were unused in PvP (same for PvE, but balancing is mainly for PvP). The game could be waaay better and more diversed if you buff some of these as Mental poitned out.

I don't quite get what is wrong with some "blindly buffing" when it is done to the right cards. Sunken Temple, Northguards, Rippers and Warlock are all examples of cards for which a stat tweak in power cost, damage, health, or ability power/cost could do wonders. Most of these cards are also generaly known as extremely weak if not useless.

And of course: since we/the devs have complete control of the game, a buff that turned out to be a bad choice can be redone in a week or less.
[/quote]

Basically what Sun Wu already said. The problem of rippers and Northguards are Master Archers and Darkelf Assassins. Imo, those units are slightly too strong. MA have the highest stats among all shooters and counter S on top of it. On a per-point basis they even deal more damage than dual-shot Windweavers who don't have a counter at all -.-'. Sadly, MA spam is a thing.

And the ability of DA was broken as well. It was a free "give me more DPS" that outshines the drawback when analyzed numerically.


I just think that we should take us time with balancing and not change too many cards at once. I think updates should be made faster than those of Phenomic but you have to see how a buff/nerf changes the meta. And Northguards are already the strongest T1 card on a per-point basis, making it even higher will leave you possibly with an uncounterable unit.

And the issue with Rippers were that they don't heal fast enough to be useful as tanks... great job making the tank deal more damage Phenomic.


What I meant with blind buffing is that we should not take this topic too light hearted (as already explained). Yes, there are a lot of weak units, but you can achieve so much more by focusing on weak/strong key cards rather than trying to make everything reasonable, that will never happen anyway.

And the factions I've always been referring too are always the same: Twilight, Bandits, Lost.

@Lagops but we could change the design of cards with crappy design :P