PDA

View Full Version : Make sure to do extensive playtesting.



TheWrathofShane
08-10-2013, 07:50 PM
MTG has a poor history of releasing broken monstrosities such as skullclamp and umezawa's jittie without even realizing they are broken until the packs hit the stores.

I am hoping you guys wont let me down.

Kami
08-10-2013, 08:01 PM
Unfortunately, there's no easy way to predict which cards would be broken all the time. It's a more likely possibility that something would be missed just due to human nature. It's not intentional and you can tell just from what they've shown us how much playtesting they do already.

The problem is when you end up with six sets in a two-block rotation (each block consists of three sets). That's potentially a few thousand cards PvE and PvP combined that you'd have to test in tandem. Not only that, once Legacy play kicks in and you can access beyond six sets, there's almost a guarantee something will be broken. Considering the average deck is sixty cards, how would you play test that many combinations easily?

I do hope that it is mathematically feasible to analyze all cards somehow but if there is a card or few that are broken, that's just how it works. I don't see it as a huge issue and I expect it to happen at some point. It's just part of the TCG genre. :)

Myst
08-10-2013, 09:03 PM
This is a digital game. They can easily adjust any cards, unlike MTG which has a physical copy.

Zomnivore
08-10-2013, 09:24 PM
They don't want to edit cards...so they'd just ban stuff.

keldrin
08-10-2013, 09:24 PM
They have taken a stance of trying to avoid nerfing/changing cards. And going more towards the banning in formats where it is causing a problem.
So, if it is broken bad enough, maybe they will change it. If it's only broken in specific formats, then they will likely go with banning from those formats.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-10-2013, 11:13 PM
Fortunately, at least at this point no cards look broken from a PvP angle.

TheWrathofShane
08-10-2013, 11:21 PM
Hey I understand human error, but not really an excuse for some of magics "goofs" like Jace the Mind Sculptor.

Shadowelf
08-11-2013, 03:48 AM
Hey I understand human error, but not really an excuse for some of magics "goofs" like Jace the Mind Sculptor.

Still believe that Jace TMS was an intended mistake to create yet another iconic card for the game and boost the sales of a rather 'weak' set. I mean the card radiates power, how could it slip from their attention? It enables a free brainstorm each turn, a card that is bordeline broken in eternal formats, among its other awesome powers

As for cze, i think that the fact that some cards will turn out to be too powerful is inevitable; no matter how hard they will playtest, it is hard to predict everything and especially later on,just as Kami said, when lots of cards/sets will enter the playtesting field. But i think they are doing a fine job at the moment, they have already toned down some cards, and they seem to test and receive feedback, just as they should. And if something goes wrong, they can always ban it (as they said). So i wouldn't worry beforehand

blakegrandon
08-11-2013, 06:48 AM
Fortunately, at least at this point no cards look broken from a PvP angle.

What looks innocent during pre-alpha/alpha/beta can quickly get out of control once release occurs. The problem with testing during development is that they can't possibly take into consideration every combination, once it's in the hands of hundreds of thousands/millions of players that's when the real testing occurs.

I'm a little confused why they aren't going to "nerf"/"buff" cards, yes you'll get people whining about how their cards were "nerfed" but these are the same people that would whine if they get banned.

Gamers are a fickle creature and regardless of what they do, there will always be someone unsatisfied just for the sake of being unsatisfied. You can't please them all no matter how hard they try, so in my opinion it's better to have a game where you can still use cards rather than ban them outright.

But hey, I'm just one side of the coin and the other side is everyone that would rather have their cards as is and usable in certain formats rather than have the cards usable during the majority of play...

I feel bad for game creators, no matter how much they do or how far they push the envelope it'll never be enough.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-11-2013, 07:07 AM
What looks innocent during pre-alpha/alpha/beta can quickly get out of control once release occurs. The problem with testing during development is that they can't possibly take into consideration every combination, once it's in the hands of hundreds of thousands/millions of players that's when the real testing occurs.
I'm pretty sure there are no broken PvP interactions between cards that have currently been spoiled. While it's possible I've missed something I'm pretty sure I haven't (meaning that none are broken), and if I haven't then that wouldn't change if a million other players tested with them during alpha/beta/live (because, y'know, none are broken :-P).

Because we have seen the currently spoiled cards, and we have some handle on the rules (a few interactions will need explanation or the game to be out to see how Hex handles them, but for the most part we know what's going on) you could say that we're already testing with these cards. And through those tests, we've seen some very strong cards in PvP, but nothing near the level of broken (Jace, Skullclamp, Voice of Resurgence etc).

As for PvE? There's already crazy, potentially broken stuff - they actually want their to be some absurdity in PvE, but we don't know what level of absurdity they want.

TheWrathofShane
08-11-2013, 07:33 AM
What looks innocent during pre-alpha/alpha/beta can quickly get out of control once release occurs. The problem with testing during development is that they can't possibly take into consideration every combination, once it's in the hands of hundreds of thousands/millions of players that's when the real testing occurs.

I'm a little confused why they aren't going to "nerf"/"buff" cards, yes you'll get people whining about how their cards were "nerfed" but these are the same people that would whine if they get banned.

Gamers are a fickle creature and regardless of what they do, there will always be someone unsatisfied just for the sake of being unsatisfied. You can't please them all no matter how hard they try, so in my opinion it's better to have a game where you can still use cards rather than ban them outright.

But hey, I'm just one side of the coin and the other side is everyone that would rather have their cards as is and usable in certain formats rather than have the cards usable during the majority of play...

I feel bad for game creators, no matter how much they do or how far they push the envelope it'll never be enough.


Nerfing cards opens a door that lowers the value of our card game as a whole. All of a sudden anything that is deemed to powerful will be up for a "nerf". Its a collectors game, and I would be against nerfs/buffs to actual cards.

And if they have to ban something, you can still play with the same banned card in casual formats and PvE. I just dont want to see a stupid broken card like skullclamp or JTMS or something, and have there excuse be "woops, our bad guys! We had no idea until after printing".

Punk
08-11-2013, 08:11 AM
I think nerfing cards is just absurd. If they print a card and it proves to be too powerful and it ruins the integrity of a format, then remove it from that format. Every card game I have played has a banned restricted list and I expect Hex to be no different. Just because it is a digital environment, I really feel they would be taking away from TCG's by drastically changing cards to "fix what they broke." In MTG, they add cards to banned/restricted lists to fix the error in their ways, but they seem to only errata cards to improve upon wording/verbiage/card interactions.

If I go to the AH and buy four copies of some very powerful card to use, I should have the peace of mind that I can use this card as I bought it and not have to worry about Cryptozoic nerfing the cards I just bought the following week. If these cards get banned/restricted in certain formats, then I will have to live with that.. but I will still have the same cards that I bought. I can continue using these cards in other PvP formats and in PvE.

blakegrandon
08-11-2013, 08:16 AM
I think nerfing cards is just absurd. If they print a card and it proves to be too powerful and it ruins the integrity of a format, then remove it from that format. Every card game I have played has a banned restricted list and I expect Hex to be no different. Just because it is a digital environment, I really feel they would be taking away from TCG's by drastically changing cards to "fix what they broke." In MTG, they add cards to banned/restricted lists to fix the error in their ways, but they seem to only errata cards to improve upon wording/verbiage/card interactions.

If I go to the AH and buy four copies of some very powerful card to use, I should have the peace of mind that I can use this card as I bought it and not have to worry about Cryptozoic nerfing the cards I just bought the following week. If these cards get banned/restricted in certain formats, then I will have to live with that.. but I will still have the same cards that I bought. I can continue using these cards in other PvP formats and in PvE.

You guys do realize that banning the cards devalues your cards just as much as nerfing them does... Right?

I believe someone floated a suggestion at one point that they nerf cards for organized play and leave them as is for certain formats. It certainly beats banning a card and destroying the value of it because it's no longer usable.

The whole point of Hex is to get AWAY from printed restrictions, one of which is the ability to balance the game after the "printing" is done.

Shrugs, playtesters NEVER catch everything, and people will cry when their card gets banned and blame Cryptozoic for not catching it in playtesting.

Anyone that's ever built, tested, or compiled software knows that this is a battle they can't possibly win.

TheWrathofShane
08-11-2013, 08:26 AM
You guys do realize that banning the cards devalues your cards just as much as nerfing them does... Right?

I believe someone floated a suggestion at one point that they nerf cards for organized play and leave them as is for certain formats. It certainly beats banning a card and destroying the value of it because it's no longer usable.

The whole point of Hex is to get AWAY from printed restrictions, one of which is the ability to balance the game after the "printing" is done.

Shrugs, playtesters NEVER catch everything, and people will cry when their card gets banned and blame Cryptozoic for not catching it in playtesting.

Anyone that's ever built, tested, or compiled software knows that this is a battle they can't possibly win.

I think psychologically it is a big difference from "This warrior card I paid a lot of money for just had its mana cost increased by 2!!! WTF"

Verse, "Yeah this warrior I paid for was so good it got banned from the format, lol"

Nerfing cards ruins the integrity of a collectible trading card game. Ban list is never desired but when it occurs it is needed to fix mistakes.


Also your idea of nerfing/buffing a card in one format and not others is just downright confusing.

Ebynfel
08-11-2013, 08:32 AM
You guys do realize that banning the cards devalues your cards just as much as nerfing them does... Right?

I believe someone floated a suggestion at one point that they nerf cards for organized play and leave them as is for certain formats. It certainly beats banning a card and destroying the value of it because it's no longer usable.

The whole point of Hex is to get AWAY from printed restrictions, one of which is the ability to balance the game after the "printing" is done.

Shrugs, playtesters NEVER catch everything, and people will cry when their card gets banned and blame Cryptozoic for not catching it in playtesting.

Anyone that's ever built, tested, or compiled software knows that this is a battle they can't possibly win.


But, by issuing their stance on this before an alpha even comes. Hell, during Kickstarter, they have already gone and piloted the direction that they will go when such interactions slip through testing that break formats, thus getting fixing cards after release isn't necessary as long as they stick to what's been said. We know that once we have the real, release, live version of the card, it's effects will not change. Wording I could see, verbage, etc, but the card will still be the card you pulled/purchased and not just an adjusted representation of it. By taking this stance, we already know going in what it is they plan to do if this situation occurs, no big surprises in the future.

And as for printed restrictions/ card values/ etc. Banning a card reduces the value of said banned card. Running the game with fear of balance changes and hotfixes could devalue, in a sense, entire collections.

zadies
08-11-2013, 09:21 AM
Plus it's much easier to justify a small nerf of increasing the cost by one then an outright ban... I prefer the idea that there is a level of integrity there. Also they have to think about their judgement regarding power levels when designing cards knowing they can't just come back and fix them a week later. Bwing able to reelease something that you know can be fixed typically lessons the QA process... which is why pc games typically have more bugs then console games.

Punk
08-11-2013, 09:47 AM
You guys do realize that banning the cards devalues your cards just as much as nerfing them does... Right?

You are aware that the banned/restricted list in MTG is a cornerstone for the most valuable cards in the game, right?

It really sounds like you're telling me that if they took a card like Mox Ruby and added a casting cost of 2 colorless mana to it to nerf it, but made it legal for play at the same time, the value on this card would remain the same.


I believe someone floated a suggestion at one point that they nerf cards for organized play and leave them as is for certain formats. It certainly beats banning a card and destroying the value of it because it's no longer usable.

Very powerful, out of print cards will continue to hold value regardless if they are tournament legal or not. They will be extremely sought after by collectors and people who want to use them in PvE or Type 0 play.


The whole point of Hex is to get AWAY from printed restrictions, one of which is the ability to balance the game after the "printing" is done.

Such as pushing erratas/verbiage updates to cards without having to refer to an errata list.


Shrugs, playtesters NEVER catch everything, and people will cry when their card gets banned and blame Cryptozoic for not catching it in playtesting.

Anyone that's ever built, tested, or compiled software knows that this is a battle they can't possibly win.

Truth.

blakegrandon
08-11-2013, 10:12 AM
You are aware that the banned/restricted list in MTG is a cornerstone for the most valuable cards in the game, right?

Rarity is also a huge part of that cornerstone. If they had printed millions of them there would have been no value to the cards.




It really sounds like you're telling me that if they took a card like Mox Ruby and added a casting cost of 2 colorless mana to it to nerf it, but made it legal for play at the same time, the value on this card would remain the same.


I believe that they could use a system similar to wow where they have a test server and then regular servers. Except instead of the test server being patched it would be an unpatched version of the cards while the regular servers would have tweaks to make it less game breaking.

If they use the ban only system then it's essentially the same thing except that there is no way to use the cards on a "regular server".

It can't possibly devalue the card more by making it usable but tweaked on the "ladder" server, if the only other solution is to ban the card. The recommendation was on a thread and was put a lot more eloquently but boiled down to the fact that people would still get to use the card "as is" while allowing it to remain in play for anyone that wants to use it.

Banning a card won't increase value, Power 9 isn't exactly a good comparison because the mint conditioned cards out there are limited by nature and the cards physically deteriorate over time.


Very powerful, out of print cards will continue to hold value regardless if they are tournament legal or not. They will be extremely sought after by collectors and people who want to use them in PvE or Type 0 play.


The caviet being that there is a long-term player base that will pay for said value. Remember even the titans of industry have fallen. Do I have faith that Cryptozoic knows what they're doing? Absolutely, that doesn't mean I ignore the reality of the world we live in.

Value is in the eye of the beholder but I believe that the Power 9 would be incredibly more valuable if they were "tournament legal", banning it just makes the investment less useful.




Truth.

We can agree on this at least, which makes me slightly worried if we have an all or nothing approach to banning/using cards.

I'd rather see a minor tweak rather than banning an awesome card just because it had unintended consequences that their playtesting didn't catch.

Punk
08-11-2013, 10:14 AM
Plus it's much easier to justify a small nerf of increasing the cost by one then an outright ban... I prefer the idea that there is a level of integrity there.

I am assuming that you are using integrity as a form of consistency and not regarding ethics. I think it is more ethical for Cryptozoic to keep their product in the same state as when it is sold to the consumer. PvP tournament limitations are a completely different story.

Here is a metaphor for a ban/restricted list:

Cryptozoic is my teacher. As I enter the classroom, Cryptozoic pulls out a bag of suckers and lets each student choose the one that they want. I choose a Strawberry sucker. Cryptozoic then announces that there is no food in their class and you will have to wait until class is over to eat your sucker. After class, I eat my candy.

Here is a metaphor for a nerfing cards:

Cryptozoic is my teacher. As I enter the classroom, Cryptozoic pulls out a bag of suckers and lets each student choose the one that they want. I, again, choose a Strawberry sucker. Cryptozoic announces that we can eat our suckers at any time, but that Strawberry ones are much too tasty, so they come by and swap out all Strawberry suckers for Grape ones. Well, I hate grape and have no use for this sucker anymore.

Punk
08-11-2013, 10:35 AM
Rarity is also a huge part of that cornerstone. If they had printed millions of them there would have been no value to the cards.

Rarity does have a huge part to do with those older cards. I posted about Jace TMS below as a new example to use as it would be much more relevant.


I believe that they could use a system similar to wow where they have a test server and then regular servers. Except instead of the test server being patched it would be an unpatched version of the cards while the regular servers would have tweaks to make it less game breaking.

This would only prove that the card is functioning the way that they programmed it to and nothing more. The issue at hand is regarding balance. Unless this test server was constantly running very competitive constructed tournaments for Cryptozoic to evaluate upon, this would not really help.


If they use the ban only system then it's essentially the same thing except that there is no way to use the cards on a "regular server".

Why not? Remember, just because a card is added to a ban/restricted list, doesn't mean it is banned everywhere. There are banned lists for Type 2, Extended, Block, etc. When I see a card banned these days, it is banned in only the environments that they were detrimental to.

Take Jace TMS for example: It was banned in Block and Type 2 (from what I recall), but it was not banned in Extended. Three months after this ban happened, the card went from $60 to $75 because it was still very popular in Extended.

I use old Magic terms, I apologize.


It can't possibly devalue the card more by making it usable but tweaked on the "ladder" server, if the only other solution is to ban the card. The recommendation was on a thread and was put a lot more eloquently but boiled down to the fact that people would still get to use the card "as is" while allowing it to remain in play for anyone that wants to use it.

Banning a card won't increase value, Power 9 isn't exactly a good comparison because the mint conditioned cards out there are limited by nature and the cards physically deteriorate over time.

There are plenty of non-valuable cards that are on the banned/restricted list that we can use instead. Take Dark Ritual for example: If they nerfed this card to cost 2 black mana instead, it would not be banned/restricted and it would not see play. This did not destroy the value of the card, but this destroyed the integrity of the card. The power level of this card would drop so much that it would, comparatively, never see play.

Note: Dark Ritual costs about $0.10, depending on printing.

stiii
08-11-2013, 10:39 AM
There are plenty of non-valuable cards that are on the banned/restricted list that we can use instead. Take Dark Ritual for example: If they nerfed this card to cost 2 black mana instead, it would not be banned/restricted and it would not see play. This did not destroy the value of the card, but this destroyed the integrity of the card. The power level of this card would drop so much that it would, comparatively, never see play.

Note: Dark Ritual costs about $0.10, depending on printing.


So cabal ritual then? Which does see play in legacy.

TheWrathofShane
08-11-2013, 10:49 AM
The problem with nerfing cards is that these cards cost real money. Obviously only format warping cards would be on the "nerf block". And these cards people would pay top dollar for. Then you release a nerf patch to make it "balanced", but the thing is tournaments only use the best of the best, so balancing something will essentially make it unplayable. You are essentially giving the middle finger to the pro scene by doing this, basically saying thanks for paying 300 dollars on this play-set of cards but were going to make it worth 1 dollar now.

You would literally destroy the entire economy of a TCG if you did nerf patches, where as banning the economy would still flow and cards would retain value. And there is always "vintage" where everything is legal, and only a restricted list which I doubt hex will need.

blakegrandon
08-11-2013, 10:53 AM
There are plenty of non-valuable cards that are on the banned/restricted list that we can use instead. Take Dark Ritual for example: If they nerfed this card to cost 2 black mana instead, it would not be banned/restricted and it would not see play. This did not destroy the value of the card, but this destroyed the integrity of the card. The power level of this card would drop so much that it would, comparatively, never see play.
Note: Dark Ritual costs about $0.10, depending on printing.

So a balanced card wouldn't see play while a banned card would see play?

Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Why ban something for Type 2 instead of "adjusting it?

If "adjusted" no one is playing it then it's no different than banning it, we're not saying to "adjust" it or nerf it for extended play.

More options are always better than fewer options, especially when it comes to software that WILL have cards that get "broken" when used with other cards in ways the designers didn't interpret.

Using a tactical nuke(banning) on cards that need a slight alteration doesn't make sense to me.

But I guess since Crpytozoic already stated they wouldn't do something, they're not allowed to adjust their decision making process even if it is better for the game as a whole.

I'm more worried about the idea that Cryptozoic isn't "allowed" to do what's best for the game based on stuff they say PRE-ALPHA, even if later on down the road a nerf would make more sense than a ban.

TheWrathofShane
08-11-2013, 10:55 AM
So a balanced card wouldn't see play while a banned card would see play?

Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Why ban something for Type 2 instead of "adjusting it?

If "adjusted" no one is playing it then it's no different than banning it, we're not saying to "adjust" it or nerf it for extended play.

More options are always better than fewer options, especially when it comes to software that WILL have cards that get "broken" when used with other cards in ways the designers didn't interpret.

Using a tactical nuke(banning) on cards that need a slight alteration doesn't make sense to me.

But I guess since Crpytozoic already stated they wouldn't do something, they're not allowed to adjust their decision making process even if it is better for the game as a whole.

I'm more worried about the idea that Cryptozoic isn't "allowed" to do what's best for the game based on stuff they say PRE-ALPHA, even if later on down the road a nerf would make more sense than a ban.


Banned cards wouldnt see play in the format they were banned in obviously. But they would still retain value and see play in "vintage formats" where nothing will be banned. Only "ante" cards are banned for MTG vintage, but I doubt hex will have that issue.

So banned cards do still retain value, nerfing cards would literally destroy the entire economy.

blakegrandon
08-11-2013, 10:58 AM
Banned cards wouldnt see play in the format they were banned in obviously. But they would still retain value and see play in "vintage formats" where nothing will be banned. Only "ante" cards are banned for MTG vintage, but I doubt hex will have that issue.

So banned cards do still retain value, nerfing cards would literally destroy the entire economy.

Did you even read what I wrote or are you just copying and pasting that?

How would nerfing cards destroy the entire economy while removing them from "legal play" keep the economy intact?

You can't ban a card and then say it will retain value, a card that can be played is always going to be more valuable than a card that can't be played...

Aradon
08-11-2013, 11:01 AM
Nerfing cards means that your card value (and effect) are unstable. When I trade for a card in paper MtG, I know that it will 1) always do what it says it does, and 2) always be legal in casual. If you nerf a card in Hex, then you have no certainty that cards will do what you want them to, making trading a treacherous prospect. The idea of nerfing cards hurts the economy by introducing uncertainty in the commodities.

TheWrathofShane
08-11-2013, 11:01 AM
Did you even read what I wrote or are you just copying and pasting that?

How would nerfing cards destroy the entire economy while removing them from "legal play" keep the economy intact?

You can't ban a card and then say it will retain value, a card that can be played is always going to be more valuable than a card that can't be played...

Ban lists are undesired, they would prefer to get it right the first time.

Let me give you an example.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of an overpowered card.
~Next week they give a nerf patch, making the card cost 2 more.
~The card value drops to 1 dollar and I never buy cards again and probably quit the game.

Verses.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of cards.
~They ban it from standard, the value degrades, but not that dramtically.
~I switch to vintage.
~The value ends up going up over time because its still a powerhouse in vintage.

blakegrandon
08-11-2013, 11:12 AM
Ban lists are undesired, they would prefer to get it right the first time.

Let me give you an example.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of an overpowered card.
~Next week they give a nerf patch, making the card cost 2 more.
~The card value drops to 1 dollar and I never buy cards again and probably quit the game.

Verses.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of cards.
~They ban it from standard, the value degrades, but not that dramtically.
~I switch to vintage.
~The value ends up going up over time because its still a powerhouse in vintage.

How about an example of what others and myself were advocating for.

Let me give you an example.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of an overpowered card.
~Next week they give a nerf patch for STANDARD, making the card cost 2 more.
~The card value drops for standard because of the nerf but it's still a powerhouse in vintage.

Verses.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of cards.
~They ban it from standard, the value degrades, but not that dramtically.
~I switch to vintage.
~The value ends up going up over time because its still a powerhouse in vintage.

Would you be alright with them nerfing it in standard but keeping it as is for vintage? If not, why not?
Banning it outright won't increase a card's value, when they stop producing a card is when the value will increase due to rarity.

Outright banning a card will only devalue a card. I'm all for nerfing a card but allowing it to be used as is during vintage or non-standard matches.

It won't destroy the economy, if anything rarity will be the deciding factor of whether the economy will thrive or will tank.

TheWrathofShane
08-11-2013, 11:16 AM
How about an example of what others and myself were advocating for.

Let me give you an example.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of an overpowered card.
~Next week they give a nerf patch for STANDARD, making the card cost 2 more.
~The card value drops for standard because of the nerf but it's still a powerhouse in vintage.

Verses.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of cards.
~They ban it from standard, the value degrades, but not that dramtically.
~I switch to vintage.
~The value ends up going up over time because its still a powerhouse in vintage.

Would you be alright with them nerfing it in standard but keeping it as is for vintage? If not, why not?
Banning it outright won't increase a card's value, when they stop producing a card is when the value will increase due to rarity.

Outright banning a card will only devalue a card. I'm all for nerfing a card but allowing it to be used as is during vintage or non-standard matches.

It won't destroy the economy, if anything rarity will be the deciding factor of whether the economy will thrive or will tank.


Okay first of all, in constructed tournaments only the best of the best are used. Any kind of significant nerfs will most likely make the card unplayable anyways, unless they did an unthinkable goof on printing.

What your suggesting though adds a layer of confusion, and still brings uncertainty to the trade market. Its better to avoid the whole mess and just ban as a last resort when certain deck types are beyond dominating a format.

Punk
08-11-2013, 12:03 PM
So cabal ritual then? Which does see play in legacy.

Yes, it does see play.. for its threshold ability. Do you think Cabal Ritual would be played nearly as much in Legacy for 1 mana acceleration at the cost of 1 card? Seething song does this a lot better.





So a balanced card wouldn't see play while a banned card would see play?


The power level of this card would drop so much that it would, comparatively, never see play.

Keyword: Comparatively.





Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Why ban something for Type 2 instead of "adjusting it?

If "adjusted" no one is playing it then it's no different than banning it, we're not saying to "adjust" it or nerf it for extended play.

More options are always better than fewer options, especially when it comes to software that WILL have cards that get "broken" when used with other cards in ways the designers didn't interpret.

Using a tactical nuke(banning) on cards that need a slight alteration doesn't make sense to me.

Having multiple variations of the same card isn't very friendly to players or developers.

Not all cards will be allowed in all formats.. that is why there is different formats in the first place. If they want to add specific cards that will be powerful in a Legacy format, they will have to be printed and be legal in a Type 2 format at some point. If these cards end up not working well (balance wise) within a block environment, then it gets banned. This block environment will only be an active meta format for a short time compared to other formats life spans.

I want to emphasize that cards only get banned if they are really, really unbalanced in that specific format.


But I guess since Crpytozoic already stated they wouldn't do something, they're not allowed to adjust their decision making process even if it is better for the game as a whole.

Personal opinion.

Unhurtable
08-11-2013, 01:55 PM
The problem with nerfing cards is that these cards cost real money. Obviously only format warping cards would be on the "nerf block". And these cards people would pay top dollar for. Then you release a nerf patch to make it "balanced", but the thing is tournaments only use the best of the best, so balancing something will essentially make it unplayable. You are essentially giving the middle finger to the pro scene by doing this, basically saying thanks for paying 300 dollars on this play-set of cards but were going to make it worth 1 dollar now.

You would literally destroy the entire economy of a TCG if you did nerf patches, where as banning the economy would still flow and cards would retain value. And there is always "vintage" where everything is legal, and only a restricted list which I doubt hex will need.

Yes, because nerfing Skullclamp from draw 4 cards to 2 would totally make it unplayable. Just because something is nerfed does not mean its unplayable.

I agree that nerfing cards would destroy the economy more than banning them would, but I think the pro scene that focuses on Standard would prefer a nerf solution unless they intend to trade the cards away when the next set comes.


Ban lists are undesired, they would prefer to get it right the first time.

Let me give you an example.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of an overpowered card.
~Next week they give a nerf patch, making the card cost 2 more.
~The card value drops to 1 dollar and I never buy cards again and probably quit the game.

Verses.
~I spend 300 dollars on a playset of cards.
~They ban it from standard, the value degrades, but not that dramtically.
~I switch to vintage.
~The value ends up going up over time because its still a powerhouse in vintage.

These examples are not biased at all. Its like "If I buy a gun, my house will remain safe. If I don't buy a gun, twelve arian brotherhood members are going to raid my house."

If they nerf the playset down to 1 dollar value, you should take a serious look at the developer. Even in TCGs nerfs that still allow the card to be perfectly playable are possible.

Lastly, something I've been wondering about. Why shouldn't people who try to exploit overpowered cards be punished? I know that they already are if the card turns out to be banned, but in your examples those would be penalized even further if a nerfing ideology was adopted.

TheWrathofShane
08-11-2013, 02:06 PM
Yes, because nerfing Skullclamp from draw 4 cards to 2 would totally make it unplayable.


Skullclamp was never draw 4....



I agree that nerfing cards would destroy the economy more than banning them would, but I think the pro scene that focuses on Standard would prefer a nerf solution unless they intend to trade the cards away when the next set comes.

I think your premise was pulled strait from your ass. I personally would never play standard if the cards I buy could get massively altered at any given time. To say that the entire professional base would support nerfing is incredibly absurd.



These examples are not biased at all. Its like "If I buy a gun, my house will remain safe. If I don't buy a gun, twelve arian brotherhood members are going to raid my house."

I think this proves that you are anti gun, which is the exact same thing as anti self defense.



Why shouldn't people who try to exploit overpowered cards be punished?

Are you serious? You just basically said anyone who plays in the competitive environment should be punished.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-11-2013, 02:21 PM
I think your premise was pulled strait from your ass. I personally would never play standard if the cards I buy could get massively altered at any given time. To say that the entire professional base would support nerfing is incredibly absurd.
To be fair, a nerf to 'competitively unviable' and a straight up ban have the same effect for the format/s that the card is banned in. If they nerf Voice of Resurgence to be unviable in the current standard environment (ie. they remove the token making part of it and turn it into a vanilla 2/2), the card doesn't get played in standard. Likewise, if they ban it in standard, the card doesn't get played in standard. However, if they nerf it slightly so that it's still playable but don't ban it entirely (say, they make it cost 3 mana instead of 2), it might still see play in standard.

While I'll leave the final decision up to CZE, I can see an upside to nerfing, as long as all formats are taken into account. Sometimes banning from a single format is better; sometimes nerfing the card itself is better, as long as they're careful with their alteration.


I think this proves that you are anti gun, which is the exact same thing as anti self defense.
That doesn't prove anything. I don't know Unhurtable's stance on guns, but I know I'm pretty anti-gun myself, but I think people should be able to defend themselves. Guns, however, IMO, are far too lethal for how easy they are to use. One moment of panic and a person dies, when it's possible that some other form of less lethal defense could have meant everyone left the encounter alive. Of course, lethal force is warranted in some cases - but you can't exactly tone down a gun for the cases where it isn't.




In any case, I've been avoiding commenting in this thread as I'm fine with whatever CZE decide to do. I've lived with bannings in Magic, and for the most part they're not too bad. However, I do believe that careful nerfing could lead to a more positive result. As I mentioned in my first comment in this post, nerfing a card to unplayable and banning a card from a format have the same end result for that format. However, the only way that you can 'ban/nerf' a card in a format and still have a chance of seeing it played is if you nerf it, but do so carefully enough that it's still playable.

As an example, Time Walk was far too strong when they printed it. However, Time Warp, the 'nerfed' version of Time Walk, is quite balanced. At 5 mana, it was still able to see play in some permutations of Ux control decks. At 4 mana it would have been very strong, probably not overpowered, and could have seen play in more Ux control decks. Balanced nerfs to still allow cards to be playable are possible.

But again, this is not an issue I have great concern with. I trust that CZE will exercise good judgment in regards to accidentally overpowered cards.

Punk
08-11-2013, 02:26 PM
Are you serious? You just basically said anyone who plays in the competitive environment should be punished.

I know whenever I am at a Magic tournament and my opponent is playing with the most powerful cards in the environment, I will call a judge over and try to get him a game loss every time.

Punk
08-11-2013, 02:55 PM
To be fair, a nerf to 'competitively unviable' and a straight up ban have the same effect for the format/s that the card is banned in. If they nerf Voice of Resurgence to be unviable in the current standard environment (ie. they remove the token making part of it and turn it into a vanilla 2/2), the card doesn't get played in standard. Likewise, if they ban it in standard, the card doesn't get played in standard. However, if they nerf it slightly so that it's still playable but don't ban it entirely (say, they make it cost 3 mana instead of 2), it might still see play in standard.

While I'll leave the final decision up to CZE, I can see an upside to nerfing, as long as all formats are taken into account. Sometimes banning from a single format is better; sometimes nerfing the card itself is better, as long as they're careful with their alteration.

My disagreement with this is that whenever they let a card slip by that is a little too powerful, and they nerf it like in the example you provided, all it does is inconvenience the player and it is not very user friendly to newer players.

If the card is that much of a problem, it should be banned/restricted from that format. If the fix is just adding 1 more to the casting cost, then it really just sounds like the card wasn't that damaging and they should just evaluate future sets closer.

I really think a lot of people are under the impression that if a card is really strong, then it should be nerfed back down to be balanced. This is not the case at all. If one card or deck is severely dominating a format, then that card/deck needs to be evaluated and possibly removed from the format. In the case of an entire deck severely dominating a format, then sometimes a card or two that isn't an issue by itself may need to be removed due to its interaction within the deck that is an issue. The deck would still be viable, but not as strong as it once was.

Example: Lin Sivvi being banned in Masks block. This card was very good, but in conjunction with certain rebel cards (not all of them), this card was very dominant. It was pointless to play any other deck to play in Masks block due to Rebel decks being so dominant. Once they banned Lin Sivvi, Rebel decks were still viable, but now other decks had a chance.

Another example that I gave in a previous post, was Jace TMS. This card was dominating block constructed formats. If you were not playing blue, then you would end up splashing blue for this card. If you did not play this card at all, then you were already at a huge disadvantage going into any match that you were playing against this card. At the time, the only real counter to this card, was to play Jace TMS yourself, so when you play your copy, it would blow up their copy. Even though this card was removed, control decks were still viable.


...but you can't exactly tone down a gun for the cases where it isn't.

A nerfed gun would be a Airsoft gun, right? =]

Kami
08-11-2013, 04:16 PM
Guys, try to keep it civil please.

http://www.cryptozoic.com/coc#National - Everyone has their own views, try to respect each other even if you don't agree. Keep the thread on topic.

Jormungandr
08-11-2013, 06:01 PM
So, there have been many threads on banning vs nerfing in the past. Interested parties should take a look.

From what I can tell, one of the major differences between banning and nerfing is the frequency that it would occur. Banning in any system in which it's implemented today is reserved for the outliers. Some cards are too powerful on their own (mox, etc.), make a particular type of deck too powerful (artifact lands), etc. This is a tiny percentage of the overall card pool. The rest of the cards include overpowered and underpowered cards that R&D would likely do differently if they had the chance to do it over again, but they aren't warping the format. This causes the card pool for any given format to be pretty stable, which means buying a powerful card will almost always be worth it, as it will retain its value pretty well, only changing in value at pretty predictable times.

For example, when a new set is released, cards will usually fluctuate in value immediately afterwards. If a format rotates, cards being rotated out usually drop in value quite a bit when that happens. If a card is included in the new set that is "strictly better" than a previous card at a given role, that usually causes the old card to drop in value. If a card is included in the new set that has a combo or strong interaction with an old card, that old card will often rise in value. If a card is included in the new set that is a build-around for an archetype that wasn't previously viable, but is now, the older cards that support that archetype will rise in value. This is a somewhat simplistic summary, but the takeaway is that card value is grounded in the agreement that what you see is what you get, and that you can use that as a basis for purchasing decisions. You know 98% of the market forces that are going to be acting on the price. The small % left are the banned cards, which is a small enough % of the overall that it doesn't affect most of the market.

If you introduce the ability to nerf cards, the only reason to do that instead of banning is so that you can have more fine-grained control over the balance of the format. You can make small adjustments to cards to bring them closer to the power level that you intended rather than a ham-fisted all or nothing approach. If a powerful/broken interaction occurs you can nerf one or both of the cards to make that interaction less powerful or not work at all. This, done well, could make a much more balanced PvP environment where multiple decks were viable, and there'd be less chance of people all feeling forced to play from the same pool of powerful decks because of powerful cards / interactions.

Nerfing cards, though, has an insidious effect on the economy. If powerful cards can be nerfed without warning, there is much less stability in the market. Instead of relatively consistent periods of time where cards retain their value, any card you'd want (powerful cards) runs the risk of being neutered by a nerf. The balance of the cards, ultimately, may be better but the power level of the cards will be less varied, and the prices of the cards will be less varied, making it tougher to make money from powerful cards. Also, while the competitive environment will be better balanced, it might suffer from too little variety in deck building since there will be less powerful interactions to build decks around.

stiii
08-11-2013, 07:19 PM
Yes, it does see play.. for its threshold ability. Do you think Cabal Ritual would be played nearly as much in Legacy for 1 mana acceleration at the cost of 1 card? Seething song does this a lot better.



No it doesn't. Black mana is a lot more useful than red and 3 is harder to generate than 2. Getting 7 card in your GY by t3 is pretty hard when you need it before you generate your mana.

People also play spirit guides in legacy which already generate one mana for one card.

Chiany
08-11-2013, 09:16 PM
No it doesn't. Black mana is a lot more useful than red and 3 is harder to generate than 2. Getting 7 card in your GY by t3 is pretty hard when you need it before you generate your mana.

People also play spirit guides in legacy which already generate one mana for one card.

Is this a Hex forum or a Magic forum?

Can we all get back on topic, or please Mod's close this.

stiii
08-11-2013, 09:58 PM
Is this a Hex forum or a Magic forum?

Can we all get back on topic, or please Mod's close this.

Ok on topic. People are terrible at working out which cards are broken/good/terrible.

It is really easy to look back and pretend that it was obvious how powerful different cards were.

Unhurtable
08-12-2013, 02:58 AM
Skullclamp was never draw 4....

But that's my point. If Skullclamp was draw 4, and was nerfed post-release to 2, it would still be pretty overpowered (and therefore playable).


I think your premise was pulled strait from your ass. I personally would never play standard if the cards I buy could get massively altered at any given time. To say that the entire professional base would support nerfing is incredibly absurd.

You would personally prefer to play standard if you cards where 100% nerfed compared to say 20% nerfed?


I think this proves that you are anti gun, which is the exact same thing as anti self defense.

And this proves that you do not understand how examples work.
Hint : I'm not anti-gun.


Are you serious? You just basically said anyone who plays in the competitive environment should be punished.
Did I? I don't recall that. Lets look back a bit.


Why shouldn't people who try to exploit overpowered cards be punished?

The key word here is exploit. Exploits in competitive environments usually result in bans or disqualifications.
Lets say a card is bugged when its released, and is highly exploitable. If we fix the bug, we are essentially nerfing it. If we don't fix the bug, we have to change the cards function, which is going to make everyone who didn't know about the bug to be frustrated since their card is now changed and they were unable to correctly weigh the power of the card.

I never said everyone in the competitive environment should be punished. I simply implied that theoretically a nerf to cards would be a punishment for those who seek to exploit overpowered cards.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-12-2013, 03:07 AM
To be fair, competitive players should exploit anything they find, given that it's legal within the framework of the game. For example, say that a couple cards come out that are both decent on their own, but form a two card infinite combo that's so good and easy to set up that playing said combo will greatly increase your chances of winning any match. To be fair though, using the term 'exploit' in this sense isn't really apt, as in video games these days an exploit tends to refer to an unintended bug or error in a game, not a synergy of multiple items that the developers may not have seen.

A truly competitive player will take advantage of these oversights of the card developers - they'll use those cards and that combo for as long as it remains legal to do so.

If there's an unintended bug in the software though (like if you play card X followed by card Y, the opponent immediately loses half their life), that would truly be an exploit as it would be unintended by the devs, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have something in their ToS about engaging in actions which are against the spirit of the game (which exploits would come under).

In any case, banning or nerfing an overpowered card doesn't really 'punish' anyone specifically (from a potential decklist PoV); the whole community takes the hit when it comes to making decklists. It does hurt anyone and everyone who has copies of the affected cards though, whether they're using them or not.

In the end, whatever way they end up going (and at this point it's for banning rather than nerfing) they have to do everything they can to avoid it, which basically just means extensive testing and common sense plus a level head when trying to make powerful cards.

Kamino72
08-12-2013, 03:45 AM
I have absolutely no problem with nerfing, as far Crypto use it with parsimony.

From an economic point of view, if everybody knows a card could be nerfed because it is broken, then its value won't skyrocket and the economic damage will be low.

Anyway, it's about the whole gameplay's heath versus a few people's wealth. It's about general interest.

Fact : in Western Europe, we have no guns (for historic reasons, we are of course not smarter); in comparison with the United States, we have only one-tenth of people killed by firearms.

K.

ossuary
08-12-2013, 04:13 AM
Wait, you're saying there's a connection between having a gun and shooting someone, and NOT having a gun and NOT shooting someone? You're talking crazy! ;)

zadies
08-12-2013, 07:56 AM
Reading through this it sounds like the individuals who are advocating nerfing want to bring all cards down so that they are equal in power. Having cards with very little power difference is a bad thing in a tcg. Cards should NOT be balanced so that all cards are as playable as all others. If a 1 cost nerf is thought to be warranted vs an outright ban because the card is broken, really all your trying to do is place your own views of card balance on the situation.
Nerfing is bad because in the end your going to get a bunch of people talking what needs to be nerfed on the forums and if CZE follows through on it then that will lead to card homogenization.

Kamino72
08-12-2013, 09:14 AM
Reading through this it sounds like the individuals who are advocating nerfing want to bring all cards down so that they are equal in power.
I've written broken, not unbalanced.


Having cards with very little power difference is a bad thing in a tcg. Cards should NOT be balanced so that all cards are as playable as all others.
I don't understand. Could you be more explicit of what would happen to the gameplay if all cards were equally playable ?

Xtopher
08-12-2013, 09:39 AM
If all cards were equally playable it makes drafting kind of pointless, as every pick would be as good as another. Also, the idea of creating a game where a 1 casting cost card is every bit as playable as an 8 casting cost seems unworkable to me.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-12-2013, 09:46 AM
Well, for one thing, if all cards were equally playable then the value of cards would be solely dependent on their rarity, rather than on a combination of their rarity and playability.

In any case, when I talk about the potential for nerfs, I'm not talking about balancing all cards to be even. I'm talking about taking a card that is overpowered/broken in at least one format, and reducing its power level just enough to make it powerful without being broken.

Punk
08-12-2013, 10:08 AM
People also play spirit guides in legacy which already generate one mana for one card.

Usually to add to a storm count or to accelerate into a early turn combo. If the card had a casting cost of 1 colorless and 1 green to add three mana to your mana pool, it is not nearly as useful.

I only see Cabal Ritual used in Legacy Storm decks, like I thought. You should be able to cantrip your way to 6-7 cards in your graveyard before you need to cast more than one Cabal Ritual, if any at all.

http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=5384&d=231092

Anyway, I am happy to see Dark Ritual unbanned. This was a card that was very, very powerful back in the day and it got banned. Due to the constant shift in power level of cards in different formats, it became unbanned later on. For balancing purposes, this will need to happen at some point with some cards. Maybe not right away, but I am sure we will see it.

LargoLaGrande
08-12-2013, 11:28 AM
Spirit guides don't add to the storm count. They are definitely better than Pyretic Ritual however.

I'm ok with nerfs as long as they're done similarly to how WotC does bannings: on predetermined dates and very sparingly. My main concern is that they would fall closer to the nerfs Riot is known for, heavy handed and kneejerky. They've gotten better recently, but I'm still hurting from when Megazero carried some tournament games with Olaf (a champion with a sub 50% win rate already) and Riot immediately hits every skill, and three of his core items.

Punk
08-12-2013, 01:56 PM
Spirit guides don't add to the storm count. They are definitely better than Pyretic Ritual however.

Ah, yeah, sorry. I meant Threshold and Early Combo. Too many thoughts at once.


I'm ok with nerfs as long as they're done similarly to how WotC does bannings: on predetermined dates and very sparingly. My main concern is that they would fall closer to the nerfs Riot is known for, heavy handed and kneejerky. They've gotten better recently, but I'm still hurting from when Megazero carried some tournament games with Olaf (a champion with a sub 50% win rate already) and Riot immediately hits every skill, and three of his core items.

I really like how WotC does their bannings. They always seem minimal, fair and justified.

The only TCG that I saw from the start of its lifespan was the WoW TCG. This game didn't have any banned or restricted cards for the first few years of the game and it always seemed balanced. There was never one deck that won multiple major tournaments in a row for the most part and the field was always composed of many different archetypes.

Hopefully, with a little bit of caution, Hex will have the same outcome as the first few years of the WoW TCG and have a very diverse, very balanced meta game without many (if any) bannings.

Kamino72
08-12-2013, 02:17 PM
If all cards were equally playable it makes drafting kind of pointless, as every pick would be as good as another.
I think it would be exactly the opposite.

As cards would have equal power, your deck's power would depend only on the synergy you create. It's all about skill.

When there is an broken card to pick, it's a no brainer. Where is the fun ? Where is the skill ?



Also, the idea of creating a game where a 1 casting cost card is every bit as playable as an 8 casting cost seems unworkable to me.
Those cards just can't be compared.


Anyway, "equal power" for all cards is impossible to reach as it depends on the other cards and vary with the format, and will change when new cards will get out. I just want "well balanced" cards to have an amazing choice when building my decks.

A useless cards is... useless. One less card to choose from. Bad.

Broken cards are mandatory (black lotus is good in any deck). 1-4 less card(s) to choose. Very very bad.
- if you nerf the card, you still can play with it,
- if you ban the card, you can't.

A great card for me is not a very powerful one, a great card creates new ways to play the game, like the Tradewind Rider (http://magiccards.info/tp/en/98.html).

K.

Xtopher
08-12-2013, 03:57 PM
Those cards just can't be compared.
Then when you say "equally playable" you don't actually mean that. Maybe you mean each card should have a unique positive value for some type of deck or combo?

stiii
08-12-2013, 05:07 PM
Usually to add to a storm count or to accelerate into a early turn combo. If the card had a casting cost of 1 colorless and 1 green to add three mana to your mana pool, it is not nearly as useful.

I only see Cabal Ritual used in Legacy Storm decks, like I thought. You should be able to cantrip your way to 6-7 cards in your graveyard before you need to cast more than one Cabal Ritual, if any at all.

http://www.mtgtop8.com/event?e=5384&d=231092

Anyway, I am happy to see Dark Ritual unbanned. This was a card that was very, very powerful back in the day and it got banned. Due to the constant shift in power level of cards in different formats, it became unbanned later on. For balancing purposes, this will need to happen at some point with some cards. Maybe not right away, but I am sure we will see it.

You seem to have slid off your first point and started defending something I never disagreed with. People in legacy do play decks with spirit guides and cabal rituals that can't ever really have threshold.

You said if it cost 1B to make BBB it would never see play and that is just not true.

zadies
08-12-2013, 07:35 PM
Well, for one thing, if all cards were equally playable then the value of cards would be solely dependent on their rarity, rather than on a combination of their rarity and playability.

In any case, when I talk about the potential for nerfs, I'm not talking about balancing all cards to be even. I'm talking about taking a card that is overpowered/broken in at least one format, and reducing its power level just enough to make it powerful without being broken.
What you want and what happens when you open up the forums to beg CZE for nerfs are two completely different things. It's rather hard to ignore a vocal forum community asking for nerfs once you say nerfs are ok... I'm sure WoW didn't intend to homogenize all the classes when it started with it's class balancing idea.

Punk
08-12-2013, 10:28 PM
You seem to have slid off your first point and started defending something I never disagreed with. People in legacy do play decks with spirit guides and cabal rituals that can't ever really have threshold.

You said if it cost 1B to make BBB it would never see play and that is just not true.

You used Spirit Guide as a mana producing comparison, and it wasn't a very good one. Spirit Guide is used in a wide variety of combo decks. Cabal Ritual is used in one variation of the combo archetype: Storm. Not even all storm decks, just Tendrils Storm. I skimmed through top deck lists for the last few months of major tournaments on MTGO and found Cabal Ritual in Storm decks that accelerates cards into their graveyard off of cantrip spells to do two things: filter through their deck and to get threshold. If Cabal Ritual did not have its Threshold ability, it would not have a place in the one deck it is played in, especially that it has Dark Ritual now.

If you're having trouble guaging the power level of this card on paper, go build any Meta competitive deck that still uses Cabal Ritual and play with it as there was no Threshold printed on the card.

LargoLaGrande
08-12-2013, 10:50 PM
I actually did that on Sunday, because I was very sure stiii was wrong. I went to tappedout.net and goldfished a list of ANT (https://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/cabal-tendrils/) very similar to the one that made 2nd in SCG Minneapolis last weekend. I did like 10 games, and the threshold mattered 1 game out of the 4 that I cast cabal ritual (and that was only because I ended up with a lot of cantrips, and had to cast Ad Nauseum off a single cabal ritual on turn 3). The other three games there were enough other mana sources that it didn't matter that Cabal rit was a +1 instead of a +3. It was generally hard to get threshold before casting Infernal Tutor and cracking an LED in most games. Super large sample size I know, but it was enough to make me believe that should ANT survive the loss of Cabal Rituals producing BBBBB the card would still be played (and lets be honest here, what is going to replace it anyway?).

stiii
08-13-2013, 08:50 AM
If you're having trouble guaging the power level of this card on paper, go build any Meta competitive deck that still uses Cabal Ritual and play with it as there was no Threshold printed on the card.

This applies to you too. Why are you assuming you know better than me about how this deck works?

Punk
08-13-2013, 10:24 AM
I actually did that on Sunday, because I was very sure stiii was wrong. I went to tappedout.net and goldfished a list of ANT (https://tappedout.net/mtg-decks/cabal-tendrils/) very similar to the one that made 2nd in SCG Minneapolis last weekend. I did like 10 games, and the threshold mattered 1 game out of the 4 that I cast cabal ritual (and that was only because I ended up with a lot of cantrips, and had to cast Ad Nauseum off a single cabal ritual on turn 3). The other three games there were enough other mana sources that it didn't matter that Cabal rit was a +1 instead of a +3. It was generally hard to get threshold before casting Infernal Tutor and cracking an LED in most games. Super large sample size I know, but it was enough to make me believe that should ANT survive the loss of Cabal Rituals producing BBBBB the card would still be played (and lets be honest here, what is going to replace it anyway?).

That is a very small sample size, unfortunately. Regardless, thanks for the feedback. The deck does not rely on Cabal Ritual, but it is part of the engine to help it run.

If the Threshold was not relevant, the card would not be played because there are just better cards in the environment. Cabal Ritual with no Threshold ability is an absolutely horrible Lotus Petal.


http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=30564&type=card http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=194975&type=card

The examples I was giving has become a discussion of it's on. It may be a separate tangent, but it is still a very relative tangent. Due to the fact that it may be taking away from the purpose of the thread at this depth of conversation, I would be more than happy to extract our conversation from this thread and continue through PM's.

GreyGriffin
08-13-2013, 10:54 AM
I think the conversation here about specific mechanics breaking and economy avoid a single somewhat worrying point: People who prefer ban lists are more worried about the monetary value of their game breaking cards than the integrity of the game.

Frankly, if the card is worth $0.15, you got your money's worth out of your pack. Cards inflating in value to hundreds of dollars is unfriendly to the game's more esoteric formats, making them unplayable for casual players, especially with a randomized matchmaker, when many players are going to be introduced to the game well after these broken cards are out of circulation.

Early cards are more likely to be in the ban pile, just because game mechanics aren't developed yet, metagames haven't emerged, and the game's balance is in its infancy. Better to carefully prune cards than just uproot them and throw them in a pile where they just get to troll the noobs in the format that new players are most likely to play.

Gwaer
08-13-2013, 11:30 AM
Having very valuable cards is something that would be very beneficial to the game. Especially if those cards aren't necessary to be competitive. If we end up with a small format like vintage and some valuable cards that are banned elsewhere that'd be ideal. Just like being able to point at expensive magic cards or blitzing pets give weight to the idea that they're paying for an investment. That they could land a super valuable card and one day cash out their account for more than they spent playing. That's a pretty big driving force. It's not necessary they go that route. And it's not certain they can get cards worth that much. But it seems like the best path to me to guarantee longevity.

zadies
08-13-2013, 03:45 PM
Cyclical nerfing will destroy entire playsets. Nerfing a card will impact every other card in the set due to the powers of the cards being set up to be relative. Once you nerf once you are basically setting up a domino affect where you don't know where it ends because one card may be a little over powered but it was that way to offset a different card. Broken mechanics should just be banned and not fixed because altering the basic mechanics of the card is basically creating a new card out of it. Changing the power cost of one card ends up calling into question the power costs of all other cards that are balanced to be relatively in line with that cards powers and starts a nerf cycle.

Unhurtable
08-14-2013, 06:12 AM
Cyclical nerfing will destroy entire playsets. Nerfing a card will impact every other card in the set due to the powers of the cards being set up to be relative. Once you nerf once you are basically setting up a domino affect where you don't know where it ends because one card may be a little over powered but it was that way to offset a different card. Broken mechanics should just be banned and not fixed because altering the basic mechanics of the card is basically creating a new card out of it. Changing the power cost of one card ends up calling into question the power costs of all other cards that are balanced to be relatively in line with that cards powers and starts a nerf cycle.

Banning does the exact same thing. A ban is essentially a 100% nerf in standard.

Would it work if nerfs where only active while the set is active? The nerfs would essentially be removed once the set becomes out of rotation, causing the card to retain value after its been rotated out.

zadies
08-14-2013, 07:45 AM
No they don't because they would be much less likely to be called for by a vocal forum community trying to balance out all cards of realitive power otherwise you end up with a band set as opposed to a needed one. Given cze's history with bans and balance in the wowtcg there is no reason to call their decision into question.

Punk
08-14-2013, 09:27 AM
Would it work if nerfs where only active while the set is active? The nerfs would essentially be removed once the set becomes out of rotation, causing the card to retain value after its been rotated out.

What would constitute the set being active exactly? When the set is released (when applicable as this is not relevant right away with a new game), it is active in block, standard and legacy. A year after the set is released, it is no longer active in block, but it is for standard and legacy. That set will rotate out of standard after roughly 2 years and out of legacy after.. 6 or so years? Even then, there is formats such as vintage where the card will always be active.