PDA

View Full Version : Player Poll



Tyranth
05-12-2013, 02:05 PM
There has been lots of discussions about sets rotating out or not. There are pros and cons for both sides of the argument. This post is to help the devs with that answer. Just simply answer the questions yes or no. The questions would have the most impact on PvP.

1) Do you want sets to rotate out of print?
2) Do you want cards to be reprintable in later sets?
3) Do you want to have a restricted list? (this would include making a card unique)
4) Do you want to have a banned list?

My answers:
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) no

Thank you all ahead of time for responding.

Grand King Supporter

houjix
05-12-2013, 02:07 PM
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Not if they can help it
4) Again, not if they can help it. However, I'd rather have a ban than errata to fix major things.

Dralon
05-12-2013, 02:11 PM
1) yes
2) yes
3) no, with the digital format, I think small changes can be made to cards on rare occassions, if something is found to be overpowered. Things such as increasing the card's threshold cost, making cards "unique" that weren't previously, forbidding cards from being used in the same deck together
4) No, They will have to be careful, but with this digital format, an errata is much more manageable than in a printed card game, and so that can be done instead of banning cards..

Daer
05-12-2013, 02:12 PM
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. If needed.
4. If needed. Rather have bans than errata

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 02:12 PM
1) No
2) No
3) No
4) No, update cards or nerf them for balancing issues

Rieper
05-12-2013, 02:12 PM
1) Yes
2) Fine with me. But would be fine either way
3) If need sure, but try to avoid it.
4) If need sure, but try to avoid it.

Still hope they read bigger thread though. Sometimes jsut listening to the major opion is not good in long run.

Blare731
05-12-2013, 02:14 PM
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes, but if needed
4) Over changing cards, Yes

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 02:20 PM
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. If needed.
4. If needed. Rather have erratas than bans

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 02:20 PM
1) Do you want sets to rotate out?
2) Do you want cards to be reprintable in later sets?
3) Do you want to have a restricted list?
4) Do you want to have a banned list?

1) I assume you mean out of print, in which case MAYBE. I want them to try something new, but if it won't work, by all means rotate out.
2) If it ends up with rotating sets, then yes.
3) If possible, no. This was awful in Yugioh - I would rather they ban a card outright.
4) If possible, no. Digitally it makes more sense that they errata something as the most drastic measure. And with a block style cycle, cards will cycle out often enough to prevent abuse (hopefully.) This is really a last resort.

Vengus
05-12-2013, 02:28 PM
I used to play Yugioh, I've seen what happens when sets aren't rotated out. It results in a never ending powercreep to the point games are over in the first turn.

I support your first point.

I support reprints as long as they only reprint the balanced cards of older sets.

Regarding the restricted list the issue I have with it is that restricted cards are restricted for a reason, it is because they are more powerful than the unrestricted cards, which means they aren't balanced. On top of that because you can only have 1 copy of it in your deck the chances of drawing it becomes smaller and more random, and because the restricted card is stronger than an unrestricted card as explained above, it means the match could boil down to whoever draws his restricted cards first wins the match. In Yugioh that became very apparent with cards like Dark Hole and Heavy Storm, which are both powerful field wipers that are restricted and could easily win the match if the player drew them together with whatever win combo the player had in mind. So to question 3, no I wouldn't support it. Another negative side effect is that such cards turn into so called "staples", and it is not fun when 1/4 of your deck is already decided by these staples.

Regarding the banlist, if they balance the cards correctly a banlist wouldn't be needed. Also with sets rotating out those overpowered cards would leave the game eventually. The question then becomes, if a card does become overpowered due to for example some combo the devs didn't think about, should it be emergency banned or should we put up with it untill the set it comes from is rotated out? Emergency banning would ensure that the game stays balanced, I don't think many people would be interesting in playing against broken "tier 0" decks for a half year to a year or so. On the other hand, banning them would deal a huge blow to people who spent a lot of real money on buying said card, or who build a whole deck around it and suddenly have nothing to play with. For this reason, I believe Cryptozoic should make a judgement on a case by case basis. If it is somewhat overpowered the card can stay, but if it completely breaks the game it needs to go asap.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 02:33 PM
Vengus - I mentioned this about errata before, but the digital format could let them be inventive - 'This card cannot be targeted by X card' could stop certian broken combo's short. As for cards that are by themselves too powerful by a large margin (like MTG and the power of nine) then they might need bans - it would be a shame, but like I said, last resort.

The health of the metagame is vital to the health of the game, and they have to monitor it carefully, just in case.

On the plus side, PvE would still be able to use the cards, so they would not drop that sharply in value - meaning your investment should be safe. Ish.

mauvebutterfly
05-12-2013, 02:52 PM
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No
4) Yes

Vengus
05-12-2013, 03:10 PM
Vengus - I mentioned this about errata before, but the digital format could let them be inventive - 'This card cannot be targeted by X card' could stop certian broken combo's short. As for cards that are by themselves too powerful by a large margin (like MTG and the power of nine) then they might need bans - it would be a shame, but like I said, last resort.

The health of the metagame is vital to the health of the game, and they have to monitor it carefully, just in case.

On the plus side, PvE would still be able to use the cards, so they would not drop that sharply in value - meaning your investment should be safe. Ish.
Erratas are another good solution, but it is something Cryptozoic has to be careful with otherwise they end up with weekly patch notes for erratas.

lordkilljoy
05-12-2013, 03:35 PM
1) Do you want sets to rotate out?
2) Do you want cards to be reprintable in later sets?
3) Do you want to have a restricted list?
4) Do you want to have a banned list?

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) & 4) I think both of these should be handled on the cards themselves digitally. If a card that if you could normally play 4 of could become a unique (1 per deck) and if a card would be otherwise banner can have its text or cost updated instead for balance. CZE will just have to be very transparent if/when this happens and give us reasons why it is happening.

d00dz
05-12-2013, 03:42 PM
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No
4) No, they can always issue errata and tweak cards when absolutely necessary. Shouldn't be a problem in digital formats.

Rapkannibale
05-12-2013, 03:47 PM
1) Yes, however different tournament formats should be supported so that rotated cards are still valid in certain formats (see Modern or Vintage for MtG)
2) Yes
3) Yes, if needed.
4) No, I'd rather they errata the card so I can still use it at least.

SriSyadasti
05-12-2013, 03:56 PM
1: No, all cards should remain on sale for the life of the game to make it easier for newer players to build legacy and PvE decks
2: Yes
3: Yes
4: Yes (but only where the effect is too fundamentally broken to just errata)

Nobody designs a card to be broken, if things need to be banned and errated to keep a format healthy that's all there is to it. As far as whether it's better to ban or errata an OP card, seems the digital medium might allow CZE to be a bit more elegant. Maybe a banned card could be automatically transformed to its errated self when put into a format deck that it would otherwise be illegal for, or could be swapped back and forth between its versions via a crafting recipe. I reckon there could easily be a solution that would have both sides of the ban/errata debate happy

Arrow
05-12-2013, 04:13 PM
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No - This is a digital TCG, so it makes much more sense to tweak imbalanced cards as needed.

Devaux
05-12-2013, 04:16 PM
1) Meh (I have mixed feelings.)
2) yes
3) no
4) Nobody "wants" a ban list but I prefer a ban list as a solution over errata (so yes?).

djlowballer
05-12-2013, 04:31 PM
1) Do you want sets to rotate out?
I think there should be a format which only allows a certain number of recent sets but there should always be room for legacy/older set formats.
2) Do you want cards to be reprintable in later sets?
So long as its balanced.
3) Do you want to have a restricted list?
This won't be needed because cards can be edited on the back end.
4) Do you want to have a banned list?
No need. Just errata the card digitally

Ebynfel
05-12-2013, 04:32 PM
1) Depends. I believe that cards should always be economically available. I am not against specific cards starting to shoot to super high prices be reprinted to keep the powerful cards of an eternal format available.
2) Yes. As stated above, having economical access to powerful, earlier generation cards will allow for a healthy playerbase in older/eternal formats, and lower the barrier of entry for those who get into the game much later.
3) I think if a card is restricted, it should be built into the card as a mechanic, so no restricted list, per se. That isn't to say I dislike the idea of seeing cards with limited deck space as designed. If a card pops up and is to say"May only have 1 in a deck" to counter balance it's power or add flavor, then I'm for this.
4) Just change the card to work in such a fashion as intended. Let everyone know, be transparent about it, show the community why this is happening. In a completely digital arena bans should not be necessary, though card changes may be.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 04:49 PM
Not to derail the thread, but this poll is much more constructive than previous discussions - I think this was a great idea.

At least people are free to speak their mind free or possible useless or disruptive rebuttals. It's very effective so far.

Raykefire
05-12-2013, 05:03 PM
1) Do you want sets to rotate out?
I would want to see a rotation of cards to not only keep things fresh, but add a bit of an age to the game.
2) Do you want cards to be re-printable in later sets?
I would like to see things reprinted in later sets to maintain the continuity of cards and flavor.
3) Do you want to have a restricted list?
I would think that some type of one per deck or unique mechanic would take care of this.
4) Do you want to have a banned list?
I am on the side of a errata automatically changing cards as a fair way to deal with problematic cards. Now the line that a card would have to cross to be so broken is another consideration, but the ultimate ability to "fix" a format by changing the nature of a card should be used to ensure healthy competitive play.

Sajo
05-12-2013, 05:07 PM
1) No, I believe even 5 years from now a new player should be able to get access to the very first set if they desire. Part of the joys of a TCG I believe stem from collecting at least one of every card, I know I suffer from that affliction. If tournaments are designed with I guess MtG formats in mind (Standard, Modern, Legacy, etc) I feel as if it would be a good course of action.
2) Yes, if sets end up being removed then I see no reason why fan favorites or good cards shouldn't be reprinted with new/updated art and what not.
3) No, not if it can be helped. Like many have said though, errata or hot fixes or what-have-you should suffice.
4) No, same as above.

Ebynfel
05-12-2013, 05:22 PM
Not to derail the thread, but this poll is much more constructive than previous discussions - I think this was a great idea.

At least people are free to speak their mind free or possible useless or disruptive rebuttals. It's very effective so far.

So far during the kickstarter, for the most part, conversation about the game seems genuinely healthy and constructive. It's a fresh change, especially considering other game communities. Just one more reason to back this project imo, add it to the multitudes of others that have had me foaming at the mouth throwing my paycheck at my monitor since day 1 of the Kickstarter.

stiii
05-12-2013, 05:31 PM
I notice lots of people are answering if needed to number 3, what exactly do people mean by this?

I don't see any situation where a card needs to be restricted, if it is too powered then either ban it or errata it. Limiting things to 1/2/3 just says this card is too good but we wussed out of banning it. So now it will ruin less of your games!

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 05:38 PM
Most people would rather a limited use, but still have a use on a card. 1 copy is less powerful than 4, and it least it isnt banned, so they would prefer it over a ban. My experience has made me personally dislike restrictions and would prefer bans, but not everyone has had bad experiences with them.

Aisriyth
05-12-2013, 05:46 PM
1) I feel the core format should block phase. However just because it phases doesn't mean it should stop the ability to purchase older sets.
2) Yes.
3) If needed.
4) If needed.

WWKnight
05-12-2013, 05:54 PM
1) Yes, sets should rotate out. Yes, packs should be discontinued for sale. But I feel there should be other means (other than secondary market) to obtain discontinued cards. I do not mean these means should be easy or mindless.
2)Reprints of core cards, absolutely.
3) I dont really care.
4) I also dont care about this.

Jugan
05-12-2013, 08:25 PM
1. yes
2. yes
3. sure, if it makes the format interesting
4. no, there's erratas for that

robertson1988
05-12-2013, 08:37 PM
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) yes (banning a specific card from specific formats is better for the investors to uphold values of cards vs. having them nerfed/altered)

Dragkin
05-12-2013, 08:41 PM
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) For this I don't terribly care, banning I would like more than errata, but its pretty much all the same to me.

Mesquite
05-12-2013, 08:46 PM
1. No
2. No
3+4. No, patch the cards to fix any glaring imbalances.

ShaolinRaven
05-12-2013, 08:50 PM
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) I would not mind a few cards, especially commons/uncommons being cycled into the base set eventually once an expansion set has been rotated out for a while. They could even do alternate art for the card so you can tell which was the original and which was the recycled.
4) Not in general, but I wouldn't mind having some constructed tourney types being restricted to only base set + current expansions as long as they also had non-restricted constructed tourney types as well.
5) I don't think a banned/restricted list is needed for the digital format. If a card or combo becomes problematic they can always alter (nerf) the card by making it cost more, reducing its power/usefulness, or both if it is really out of whack.

Daer
05-12-2013, 09:17 PM
Once a card is out in the 'wild' so to speak I don't think it should be altered. In Magic some of the most valuable cards are the OP ones that end up being banned. If you just change the cards for balance it kind of messes with collectors. I'd rather they just banned (or restrict) the card instead of altering a card I already have.

ShaolinRaven
05-12-2013, 09:22 PM
But banning/restricting is the way it is in Magic because it is a physical game and this is a digital game, meaning cards can't be fixed in Magic but can in Hex and in Magic they often create more costly or lower powered versions of those older OP cards when they wish to bring them back in a more balanced version, which is the physical card game way of nerfing something. "Oh this card is OP, we'll we'll ban it and once the set is phased out we'll just bring out a "fixed" version with a new name", which we don't have to go through in Hex.

Kurasa
05-12-2013, 09:24 PM
1) Do you want sets to rotate out of print?
2) Do you want cards to be reprintable in later sets?
3) Do you want to have a restricted list? (this would include making a card unique)
4) Do you want to have a banned list?

1. Yes. I'm open to the idea of having alternate means available in game to obtain cards no longer for sale, but it strikes me as something that would have to be implemented carefully.
2. Yes
3. I don't think so, but I don't really have a strong opinion on this issue. I like Ebynfel's suggestion of baking restrictions into the cards themselves as a mechanic, although I suppose they could included that as a mechanic whether or not they have restricted list.
4. As little as possible, but my initial response was that I'd rather see bans than errata for everything. I'd say limit errata to minor tweaks only and bans for the rest. On the other hand I like SriSyadasti's idea of being able to switch between original and errata'd versions of a card depending on the format. Xenavire's suggestion of using errata prevent specific combos also sounds interesting. It seems that the digital format gives CZE a lot more room to maneuver here. Maybe they can come up with a system that keeps everyone happy.

Daer
05-12-2013, 09:25 PM
Yes I am aware of that. I'm just saying I'd rather go through the banning and having a fixed version released later rather then a card I already have in my possession just being changed.

Travis
05-12-2013, 09:42 PM
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. NO - balance the card
4.No - If all cards are balanced this should be moot.
If cards need to be restricted they should only be from packs that are out of print if you go that route with sets. All cards available for purchase should be usable in all formats.

DanTheMeek
05-12-2013, 09:56 PM
1) No, if they want to have a special block format where only the newest sets are legal that's fine but the cards themselves should always be available. Heck, if anything I'd rather they reduce the price to increase sales on older sets whose sales have gone down, I'd rather make the game more accessible to a wider audience then create unnecessary scarcity just to drive up the value of my cards for being an early adopter.
2) No, I don't mind alternate art cards of existing cards coming out, but not as part of core sets, that's the sort of thing you give out as promotions or through pve or what have you, but if there's a card from set 1 that I never got 3 sets later, I should either trade/buy it off the auction house, or buy more of set 1.
3) No no no, this is an online game, cards are editable, if something turns out to be stupid, correct it so its not stupid. Restricted lists make no sense in online card games, and with a handful of exceptions, limiting the amount of a card you can use is just bad balance. The vast majority of the time, if a cards too good at 4 copies, its to good at 1 as well, the real answer is to make the card not be too good so we can use all 4 of them. If you're clearly nerfing a card, maybe give something to people who own copies of it to make up for the fact the value of their card is likely about to plummet, but don't restrict it.
4) No, for the same reason as 3. These cards are digital, which means if something is clearly ruining the game for one reason or another, the card itself can simply be corrected to be reasonable via patch. Unlike with errata in physical card games, there's no issue of constantly growing errata lists to memorize, the card itself will change to accommodate, dramatically reducing confusion.

Ravallian
05-12-2013, 10:11 PM
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No

JBento
05-13-2013, 06:16 AM
1. No
2. No need if sets don't go out of print. If they do, then yes.
3. Yes.
4. I favor a ban list over card changes.

Aisriyth
05-13-2013, 09:12 AM
Tweaking my vote.

1. Rather they didn't rotate the set out of purchase ever but i think PvE parts of the set should stay in permanently.
2. Yes.
3. As needed.
4. As needed.

Tinuvas
05-13-2013, 09:25 AM
1. Absolutely. Rotating sets is key to maintaining future newness and freshness in the game. Allow 'Legacy' and 'Vintage', but PLEASE rotate sets.
2. Yes. Another key element to TCG's is keeping all those old killer cards just in case they get reprinted someday. Without some element along those lines, why keep your old cards? For 'Legacy' events and casual play I suppose, but that's not much for some.
3. I suppose. Case by case basis. I am glad that CzE is putting effort into making balance a big deal, but your a bit naive if you think that there WON'T be some freakin genius that breaks the game someday with a killer combo. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but it will happen someday. I would rather see adjustments to the cards themselves (oh the simple beauty of digital cards) than a restricted/banned list, but the developers will be better positioned to know how to kick things back into balance if needed. We just have to trust the company. Reading that last sentence makes me want to run screaming from the room.
4. Same as 3. Case by case basis and all that.

BlackRoger
05-13-2013, 12:03 PM
1) no
2) no
3) no
4) no
Seriously, why would you want something to go out of print? so you can sell your old cards overpriced?
Magic has alot of ailments, and we sure don't need to copy those from them.

dasn00b
05-14-2013, 03:34 AM
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes, but it should be used sparingly
4) no

riotsrfun2005
05-14-2013, 03:46 AM
1) Yes (Allows for new combos and strategies to be developed)
2) Yes. Much like MtG reprinting the "X Edition" sets. Staple cards or cards with excellent balance should be reprinted.
3) Perhaps. If there is one deck that is completely facerolling or is unbalanced I think there should be said list
4) Nah. I would rather see errata than complete bans.

Tyranth
05-15-2013, 03:26 AM
This needed a bump for the new people joining in the forums. Please try not to fill it with arguments thats for other posts.

funktion
05-15-2013, 03:31 AM
1) Yes or at the very least, have soft rotations where the packs are still purchaseable but not draftable except for in short limitted time frames
2) I'd rather see a greater influx of completely new cards, but seeing some of your favorite cards return to a new meta environment can be quite fun
3 & 4) Yes! Banned and restricted lists are what define formats, without them there would only be one huge format

additional question you left off
Should they be able to errata a card?
me: I'd rather see a card banned in most formats than errata'd

Kroan
05-15-2013, 03:44 AM
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) No, if card needs to be banned, time to nerf it. Value-wise for collection it doesn't change, since banning a card will diminish it's value.

Creepshow
05-15-2013, 04:20 AM
1)yes
2)yes
3)no
4)no

Patrigan
05-15-2013, 07:01 AM
How can this thread even be taken seriously? Half the people are giving an answer on an unrelated question.

There's a difference between rotating out and rotating out of print.

1) Sets should not rotate out of print. Demand will lower anyway when the cards aren't in the current format anymore and thus they will have low value (look at WoWTCG Classic Cards).
2) I want CZE to release "subsets" of cards that are made back available, but not in an actual new booster.
3) No
4) No, just update the card

This thread in general is stupÓd, because the questions asked are clearly biased to certain answers. But meh...

Bloodthunder
05-15-2013, 07:33 AM
1) Yes
2) Yes/No Not all Cards!
3) Yes
4) No