PDA

View Full Version : Can cards get nerfed when they are already released?



NULL_VALUE
09-16-2013, 12:48 PM
So I already used the search function but didn't find a thread that answered that specific question.
If a set of cards is released and the devs somehow think that there are cards that are too OP or too UP, will they change the effects of these cards, even if they have been sold already or will they just stop selling these cards and provide something like an alternative instead?
(I personally hope for the first)

Niedar
09-16-2013, 12:49 PM
I dunno about PVE cards but in PVP they will never be nerfed. If I card is too powerful it will just be banned from use in constructed tournaments.

NULL_VALUE
09-16-2013, 12:51 PM
I dunno about PVE cards but in PVP they will never be nerfed. If I card is too powerful it will just be banned from use in constructed tournaments.

That would be bad imo because as all cards are digital the devs would have the possibilities to just adjust these cards imo, but thanks for the answer ;)

Niedar
09-16-2013, 12:53 PM
The decision isn't made based off the possibilities but what effect changing cards has. Note, there might be tournament formats with no banned cards.

I don't personally care either way because both banning and changing cards is a negative imo but one you can't always control because stuff just turns out to be too powerful that you don't see beforehand.

NULL_VALUE
09-16-2013, 12:56 PM
Just out of curiosity: is this an official statement or are you just talking out of experience (maybe with other tcgs)?
(No offense meant btw)

Niedar
09-16-2013, 12:56 PM
It is official that cards will be banned instead of being nerfed.

Shadowelf
09-16-2013, 12:57 PM
They seem to prefer bans over nerfs;

[...] So, in that spirit, I want to say that unlike cards where there will be no modifying, only banning in tournament formats[...]
(http://hextcg.com/exclusives-treasure-and-mercenaries/)

http://www.thehexvault.com/blog/2013/08/31/dragoncon-2013-hextcg-pvp-design-panel/ check 0:39:05

Ben Stoll on nerfing/banning

Question: This is clearly a question for the future, but wondering what will happen when a card becomes too powerful and something needs to be done for the sake of tournament play. As far as I can see, there are two solutions, each having their own merits and drawbacks. These are bannings or restrictions and power level errata. Errata was never the preferred option for physical card games, because then the original card text wouldn’t match up with errata. With a digital card game, this could easily be fixed in a patch, where all the card text is updated with whatever the new design is. Given that this option is a reality, how does the Hex team intent to deal with the situation?

Answer: First off, with any luck, this situation will never come up. The Hex team really doesn’t want to have these problems in the first place. Should something arise though, the solution would really come down to what is best for the game. Both options can make players angry. Ben seemed to really believe in player *ownership* of the cards rather than the modern video game stance of licensing agreements (though I’m sure that when the game is released, you will find you actually own nothing in a standard EULA.) But Ben wants to at least treat the players as owners of their cards, which I appreciate. As owners, we don’t want to be told we can’t play with the goods we bought. But, and Ben uses an analogy here, no one wants to find that one night someone snuck into their house with a sharpie and changed the wording on their cards, either, it violates our sense of ownership (misplaced though it might be). What is the right solution? It may come down to player feedback and what the players are most willing to handle.

Ben did seem intrigued with my suggestion of a restricted list, at least for the largest format, rather than outright bannings. Being able to play with one of a card is a lot more satisfying than none at all. He did have a legitimate worry though, that having only one of a very powerful card could make games too swingy and draw dependent, with players winning or losing simply because they drew their one-of restricted card.

I mentioned that this usually isn’t a problem, many very powerful cards are only broken because you can draw them consistently, something broken as a 4-of might be nearly unplayed as a 1-of, or at least far less powerful. Even if it IS still very powerful, in large formats people do powerful things and it usually isn’t a problem, no card is going to be printed that so obviously swings a game when played, it wouldn’t have made it out of development. It will probably be part of some combo, in which case making it hard to draw solves the problem because they need to weaken their deck to add ways to search for it, or it’s part of a combo engine, in which case restriction basically solves the problem entirely. Regardless, with any luck, they will have plenty of time to figure out the best solution. Especially with digital beta testing, I expect the first set to be quite balanced, and Hex is being designed by people who can look at TCG history and see what has been too powerful in the past. I don’t expect any design or development mistakes for at least a couple of years. (http://hexmusings.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/designer-interview-part-2/)

NULL_VALUE
09-16-2013, 01:03 PM
ok tyvm for that official, so what i read out of it is that they don't want this problem to occur in the first place, but if it does, the players get to decide
pleases me very much though and after all i trust the devs more than myself to design a good and well balanced TCG, have fun and see you in the game ^^

PS: Thanks to Niedar, too, for his answers btw

Glognar
09-16-2013, 01:24 PM
Hopefully it never comes up, but if it did I would prefer nerfing over banning, at least the card can still be used even if it less powerful.

This is a digital game and as such doesn't need to conform to physical rules (which seems to be one selling point of the game in that it is digital) so not sure why the official answer seems to contradict this.

Shadowelf
09-16-2013, 01:28 PM
Hopefully it never comes up, but if it did I would prefer nerfing over banning, at least the card can still be used even if it less powerful.

This is a digital game and as such doesn't need to conform to physical rules (which seems to be one selling point of the game in that it is digital) so not sure why the official answer seems to contradict this.

The reason is listed at the part of the article i posted above

[...]But, and Ben uses an analogy here, no one wants to find that one night someone snuck into their house with a sharpie and changed the wording on their cards, either, it violates our sense of ownership (misplaced though it might be). [...]

Gwaer
09-16-2013, 01:41 PM
Cory has been pretty firm on not nerfing anything that a player has paid CZE to acquire. Nothing that comes out of a booster for example. Mercs, PVE cards/equipment on the other hand might be a different story.

Mercs will definitely be nerfed if there's a problem. PVE cards as well out likely if they are trivializing content. Unless it is a problem with the specific content in which case that content might be buffed instead.

*edit: Stupid ipad autocorrects.

Niedar
09-16-2013, 01:54 PM
Banning also doesn't mean being banned from ever being played, it just means its banned from use in certain tournament formats.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-16-2013, 02:10 PM
I'd rather see nerfs/buffs. They have the ability to fine tune and adjust cards to be better balanced, why not patch in changes? Let's apply this logic to other games:

League of Legends - patches nearly every week. They don't outright ban champions. They fix them and make them more balanced.
World of Tanks - patches around every three-four weeks. They don't outright ban tanks. They fix them and make them more balanced.
Planetside 2 - patches around every three-four weeks. They don't outright ban tanks, aircraft, or weapons. They fix them and make them more balanced.

IN all of the above, you can buy champions, items, vehicles, weapons, etc with real world money. Yet in every single case listed above, those items can be chanegd to be better balanced for the sake of the game and everyone's enjoyment. I think too many forum users are thinking as collectors with a CCG or TCG past and not as a modern gamer.

Turtlewing
09-16-2013, 02:23 PM
I'd rather see nerfs/buffs. They have the ability to fine tune and adjust cards to be better balanced, why not patch in changes? Let's apply this logic to other games:

League of Legends - patches nearly every week. They don't outright ban champions. They fix them and make them more balanced.
World of Tanks - patches around every three-four weeks. They don't outright ban tanks. They fix them and make them more balanced.
Planetside 2 - patches around every three-four weeks. They don't outright ban tanks, aircraft, or weapons. They fix them and make them more balanced.

IN all of the above, you can buy champions, items, vehicles, weapons, etc with real world money. Yet in every single case listed above, those items can be chanegd to be better balanced for the sake of the game and everyone's enjoyment. I think too many forum users are thinking as collectors with a CCG or TCG past and not as a modern gamer.

On the other hand I think too many people are thinking with too much of a "MMO" mindset and forgetting that bans are done to nerf broken decks not broken cards. This distinction is important, because you need to understand that bans happen within the context of a specific format, and are designed to interrupt overpowered combos, to understand why changing a card is the "nuclear" option while banning the card is the "surgical strike".

Say there is a card that is alright in "Standard" or "Block" constructed and in Drafts, but in "Extended" combos with something from further back and decks using that combo make up 60% of high end tournament decks in Extended but are impossible to build in the other listed formats.

If you change the card you anger everyone who likes using it in all the listed formats. If you ban it from extended, you only annoy people who play it in extended.

NULL_VALUE
09-16-2013, 02:26 PM
League of Legends - patches nearly every week. They don't outright ban champions. They fix them and make them more balanced.

As I already said, I also would prefer nerfs/buffs over banning, but i don't want weekly changes to the game. The reason is that we have much more cards than f.e. champions in league of legends. So every week you would have to closely read the patch notes in order to know what was changed and then maybe build completely new decks because the whole game has changed.
They officially stated that they don't think such a situation will occure anytime soon, but if it does i personally would prefer to have the card nerfed. But nevertheless they should really be careful that it won't be necessary. In my opinion one card that needs to be nerfed should only occure once in a set, so no more than one card out of around 350 if possible.
Anyway, if something like that has to be done they will probably make something like a poll to see what the community prefers and then decide accordingly.

What is the right solution? It may come down to player feedback and what the players are most willing to handle.

But as I said, it would be a pain in the a** if there was bunch of cards with problems, no matter if banned or nerfed. So i am pretty happy that they see to that such a situation doesn't occure in the first place.

Glognar
09-16-2013, 02:30 PM
The reason is listed at the part of the article i posted above

[...]But, and Ben uses an analogy here, no one wants to find that one night someone snuck into their house with a sharpie and changed the wording on their cards, either, it violates our sense of ownership (misplaced though it might be). [...]


yes I read the reason hence why I said it contradicts one of their main selling points, that this game is digital not physical card game, hence they can do things you can't do in a physical game.

This reason goes against that, as it is digital there shouldn't be any problem with rewording cards, rather than banning them outright.

What is worse for a player? they paid for a card that gets changed slightly, or they paid for a card they can no longer use in tourneys at all?

Anyway hopefully the situation never arises, so they don't have to nerf or ban at all.

zadies
09-16-2013, 02:33 PM
It comes down to being a card game first when it comes to banning vs nerfs. MTG and other card games that followed go the ban route which is more familiar to tcg players. They expect most of their initial profits to come from tcg players so that is the player base they are appealing to.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-16-2013, 03:06 PM
This reason goes against that, as it is digital there shouldn't be any problem with rewording cards, rather than banning them outright.


On that same note, I do sincerely hope that if a card is worded poorly where is caused much confusion on how to be used by players, that they will be able to update the text to be more clear. This wouldn't change the card mechanics at all, just make things easier to understand. Example: how they changed the Attack and Defense symbols on the cards.

Niedar
09-16-2013, 03:08 PM
Yeah I don't see any reason why they would not do that, its not changing how the card is supposed to be played but making it more clear.

mudkip
09-16-2013, 03:18 PM
I'd rather see nerfs/buffs. They have the ability to fine tune and adjust cards to be better balanced, why not patch in changes? Let's apply this logic to other games:

League of Legends - patches nearly every week. They don't outright ban champions. They fix them and make them more balanced.
World of Tanks - patches around every three-four weeks. They don't outright ban tanks. They fix them and make them more balanced.
Planetside 2 - patches around every three-four weeks. They don't outright ban tanks, aircraft, or weapons. They fix them and make them more balanced.

IN all of the above, you can buy champions, items, vehicles, weapons, etc with real world money. Yet in every single case listed above, those items can be chanegd to be better balanced for the sake of the game and everyone's enjoyment. I think too many forum users are thinking as collectors with a CCG or TCG past and not as a modern gamer.

The problem with this analogy, is using LoL, they don't release another 300 champions every 3 months.

Gwaer
09-16-2013, 03:20 PM
Also, they do have bans in league. If I could ban cards from my opponents decks that were op that weeks nerf cycle....

OutlandishMatt
09-16-2013, 03:22 PM
Cory has stated they are still on the fence about nerfing PvE cards. When we talked with him at Gen Con this was a big concern for me. I'm fine with nerfing over banning to a degree. If it makes it completely worthless, just ban it. If it makes it still playable but not over powered, nerf. A ban can be worse than a nerf as it removes the card completely from competitive use.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-16-2013, 03:23 PM
The problem with this analogy, is using LoL, they don't release another 300 champions every 3 months.

The fatal flaw of my entire post! I suggest you re-read it to see the overarching point I'm trying to make and not pick out one non-comparable and try to use it to your argument... which is what again?

Rycajo
09-16-2013, 03:25 PM
I'm not sure how those games work for collectible and secondary market purposes, but I imagine that is also a contributor to CZE's decision.

Niedar
09-16-2013, 03:26 PM
There is no secondary market in any of those games.

mudkip
09-16-2013, 03:30 PM
The fatal flaw of my entire post!
No problem - thanks for your contribution anyway.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-16-2013, 03:32 PM
I'm not sure how those games work for collectible and secondary market purposes, but I imagine that is also a contributor to CZE's decision.

Thank you Rycajo. Good point. I am simply stating that too many forums users are thinking in terms of CCGs and TCGs regarding balancing cards. The point I made that so many failed to see was that LoL, WoT, PS2, and Hex all have at least this one similarity - you can buy items/cards/champs/tanks/weapons with real money. Those items are able to be adjusted to better balance the game is needed. There is no difference in "collecting" or not. It's just a term. You paid for them. You own them. The Devs can change them for the greater good of the game.


edit: I don't care about secondary markets, bans, champ selection, whatever. I'm simply pointing out that general items (champs, tanks, cards, guns), can and should be able to be modified by the devs.

edit 2: Modified means balancing cards that are OP, underpowered, or not working as originally intended. It also means updating text to be more clear, art work to be snazzier, or flavor text to be more flavory.

Gwaer
09-16-2013, 03:39 PM
None of those examples are really valid. In a game with no resale of items you buy, the value is 0 after purchase. When you can resell your champions tanks and whatnot on a secondary market a nerf would erode confidence of any of those things being valuable long term. There is a huge difference in the net effect of a nerf in those two environments.

NULL_VALUE
09-16-2013, 03:41 PM
None of those examples are really valid. In a game with no resale of items you buy, the value is 0 after purchase. When you can resell your champions tanks and whatnot on a secondary market a nerf would erode confidence of any of those things being valuable long term. There is a huge difference in the net effect of a nerf in those two environments.

But you have to admit that the cards lose value when they are banned, too.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-16-2013, 03:44 PM
I fail to see how having a secondary market applies to me owning a card, a champion, a tank, a gun. I paid for them. They are mine, but if they are not working as intended, they should be able to be fixed.

I am much more concerned over a game that refuses to balance itself. I also think we are arguing over sticks. If they use a mixture of bans (from certain tournaments where a card might not work as intended but works great elsewhere) and balances (adding higher cost, lowering defense, w/e), I'm thrilled. Read that again before you comment, any of you. I'm thrilled if they do both.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-16-2013, 03:46 PM
But you have to admit that the cards lose value when they are banned, too.

Exactly. The secondary market should never affect the primary responsibility of the devs to make sure a game is well balanced. Someone in an earlier post made a very good point about when a ban might be a good idea (certain formats). In that regard, I agree. My only hesitancy is fast forward to Set 3, and now everyone needs to remember the two dozen cards they can't use in a format. It adds an unnecessary layer on complexity. Not sure how they would solve this.

sukebe
09-16-2013, 03:52 PM
On the other hand I think too many people are thinking with too much of a "MMO" mindset and forgetting that bans are done to nerf broken decks not broken cards. This distinction is important, because you need to understand that bans happen within the context of a specific format, and are designed to interrupt overpowered combos, to understand why changing a card is the "nuclear" option while banning the card is the "surgical strike".

Say there is a card that is alright in "Standard" or "Block" constructed and in Drafts, but in "Extended" combos with something from further back and decks using that combo make up 60% of high end tournament decks in Extended but are impossible to build in the other listed formats.

If you change the card you anger everyone who likes using it in all the listed formats. If you ban it from extended, you only annoy people who play it in extended.

I was going to post something similar to this but you hit the nail on the head :-)

Eventually, there will be more than one format. Bannings are perfect for the multi-format system. Cards are rarely overpowering on their own, their power comes from the other cards it can interact with. Each format will have its own metagame and will need to be handled on an individual level.

While it is fully within their power to change the text of cards depending on what format you are playing, it would be far more confusing than simply saying (and having listed on the double back of the card perhaps) what formats it is banned in.

Edit: Forgot to mention something related to this. I do think they should update the wording of cards to make them more clear or to add things to them that where missed when they where first made. MTG does this with the Oracle (essentially a database that updates the wording of cards and occasionally does things like add new creature types to old cards that should have them but did not)

This being a digital game means that the cards can simply be changed to be made more clear without having to resort to an outside database.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-16-2013, 03:59 PM
While it is fully within their power to change the text of cards depending on what format you are playing, it would be far more confusing than simply saying (and having listed on the double back of the card perhaps) what formats it is banned in.


I just thought of one way they could ban cards for certain formats without being confusing or having to google them in a database. Hear me out on this one, I think it's a winner and it works b/c the devs are allowing players to use their cards in multiple decks.

1.) Pick a format you want to play in
2.) Build said deck for that format.
3.) Any cards that are banned for that format are greyed out.
4.) Finish building deck with available cards, play said format.

Thoughts?

mudkip
09-16-2013, 04:05 PM
Exactly. The secondary market should never affect the primary responsibility of the devs to make sure a game is well balanced.

You've made very good points and I especially agree with this one, but you're arguing over a design choice which has been made. Your idea here sums up your stance quite well:

I think too many forum users are thinking as collectors with a CCG or TCG past and not as a modern gamer.

Hex is a TCG/MMO, so sometimes the design choices are between making it more of a TCG or more of an MMO. In this case, they believe that most users will enjoy the "tangibility" of TCGs by promising not to alter a card. I'm happy with this.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that replacing cards is basically the same as modifying them. If a card is too powerful then ban it and release another which is slightly weaker.

sukebe
09-16-2013, 04:35 PM
I just thought of one way they could ban cards for certain formats without being confusing or having to google them in a database. Hear me out on this one, I think it's a winner and it works b/c the devs are allowing players to use their cards in multiple decks.

1.) Pick a format you want to play in
2.) Build said deck for that format.
3.) Any cards that are banned for that format are greyed out.
4.) Finish building deck with available cards, play said format.

Thoughts?

That would work, but I think it would be better for any card that is banned in any format to have a little symbol somewhere on the card that when you hover over will tell you what formats it is banned from. This seems the easiest way to make it clear what is legal and what is not.

Of course, I have a feeling that we won't have to worry about this until at least set 2 and likely set 3+. Alpha and beta will let us test the cards out like crazy. I at least will be trying my best to find broken combinations so they can be fixed before the official launch. Personally I hope they eventually open up a test server that they invite high ranked players to so they can find problems with cards ahead of time. That of course would best be discussed in a whole other thread.

jetah
09-16-2013, 05:04 PM
I look at it like this.

Bans
Banning a card in PvP will only affect PvP types of gameplay. ie certain tournaments, draft, etc (I really don't know all the types that exist).

Balance
Balance will change the card for PvE AND PvP.


Bans only change half the of the meta-game (say PvP) whereas Balancing changes it for everyone (that uses that card).

Miwa
09-16-2013, 05:19 PM
But you have to admit that the cards lose value when they are banned, too.

Yeah, that's why the Power 7 are worthless...

"Banned" means not available in this format. Cards are banned for all sorts of reasons, such as not being in the current block, etc. For TCG, banning is on a per-tournament basis.

Aradon
09-16-2013, 05:35 PM
Yeah, that's why the Power 7 are worthless...

"Banned" means not available in this format. Cards are banned for all sorts of reasons, such as not being in the current block, etc. For TCG, banning is on a per-tournament basis.

It's why Strip Mine is so cheap, when Wasteland is so expensive. Competitive formats drive the prices of many valuable cards.

That being said, I'm in favor of banning. Both nerfs and bans change the product you've invested money in to acquire, but bans at least leave the item in tact for casual play.

Shadowelf
09-16-2013, 05:44 PM
It's why Strip Mine is so cheap, when Wasteland is so expensive. Competitive formats drive the prices of many valuable cards.

That being said, I'm in favor of banning. Both nerfs and bans change the product you've invested money in to acquire, but bans at least leave the item in tact for casual play.

Agreed; it also leaves the card intact to be used in other formats as well. For example let's say that they deem spectral lotus too powerful for wild west format, wouldn't be better if it was banned from that format instead of nerfing it and ruining everybody's pve experience ? WotC for example has a ban list for each format separately...

Dropbear
09-16-2013, 05:50 PM
All Cards (when/if it appears after Set 3 with standard rotating stuff) may see bans, but obviously bans in standard just don't happen most of the time. No one card can dominate the meta. We haven't seen a card that is a "must-play".

This is a "In 2 Years Time" thing, which we shouldn't worry about.

jetah
09-16-2013, 05:51 PM
So would it be possible to balance pve card(s) if they are deemed too powerful (for certain raids/dungeons/etc)?

I'd hate to create a deck for a raid only to see that 1 or more cards are banned.



Now it might be possible that items are balanced.




* i dont like to use nerf because that implies that I loose something. balance is better because it other cards could be buffed instead!

Gwaer
09-16-2013, 06:15 PM
I very much doubt anything will be banned in PVE.
Some things might be banned in individual PVE encounters possibly. But I doubt that, too. PVE is the place everything should work. All PVE cards are already banned from all PVP formats except one, and I still expect PVE cards to have value. But I suppose I could be wrong. Only time will tell.

Dropbear
09-16-2013, 06:42 PM
LONG STORY SHORT THERE WILL BE NO "NERF" ONLY BANS AND YOU WON'T WORRY ABOUT IT FOR AT LEAST 2-3 YEARS. Done.

Glognar
09-16-2013, 10:42 PM
Still think we need to get away from banning, this just makes a card worthless.

I can understand why things need to be banned in a physical game as you cant change a card once its released.

This game is digital and it being digital is one of the big selling points of the game. Just because a card is rebalanced it doesn't make it worthless anymore.

too mamy people are going in with a physical magic mindset

Gwaer
09-16-2013, 11:06 PM
Banning from a single format does not make a card worthless. Rebalancing cards has the potential to swing the meta in every single format even the ones working well. While banning only effects the formats the ban happens in.

sukebe
09-16-2013, 11:25 PM
Still think we need to get away from banning, this just makes a card worthless.

I can understand why things need to be banned in a physical game as you cant change a card once its released.

This game is digital and it being digital is one of the big selling points of the game. Just because a card is rebalanced it doesn't make it worthless anymore.

too mamy people are going in with a physical magic mindset

It has nothing to do with a "physical" mindset and everything to do with a LOGICAL mindset. Many good points have been made in this thread about why actually changing a card is not nearly as effective as banning the card in any format it is deemed to be damaging to. here are the ones that i remember being mentioned in this thread (without even going over the thread again):

1: A card almost never needs to be banned in more than one format. To start with there will really only be one constructed format (2 if you count wild west). Later on though, in another 5-6 sets we will have our first block rotation. If a card from set 7 is perfectly fine in standard format but is "broken" when including the cards of the first 2 blocks. Why would you change the card in this situation? The majority of the tournaments will be standard and the card is fine in that format. If you ban the card in extended then you will upset those who prefer the extended format. If you change the card then you upset people who like either format (even the one it was not broken in).

2: If you ban a card in ANY pvp format it is still just fine for use in the pve portion of the game. Changing the card in question will also alter its use in pve.

These are 2 great reasons to Ban cards instead of change them. If you can come up with good reasons to change them (besides "this game is digital, so they can change them") then post them, I would love to hear them as I am never fond of a card being banned. I simply do not see a better way of handling the cards that are damaging to the game.

Avedecus
09-16-2013, 11:54 PM
I tried arguing this a long time ago, and a lot of familiar names showed up then to defend the time-honored tradition of banning versus nerfing/buffing. I've simply come to accept that it will be a reality in Hex. It's the inferior approach, sure, but it works well enough as a band-aid to the really bad situations that there's no point getting too worked up about it.

yingzhu1
09-17-2013, 12:14 AM
Ban the card in the pvp format. Create a nerfed/balanced version. Give up to 4 copies to people who have copies of the banned version.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 12:15 AM
But you have to admit that the cards lose value when they are banned, too.

I would also like to point out that there's an MtG card banned in all formats except casual play that still goes for between $40 and $100

ossuary
09-17-2013, 02:41 AM
This topic has been hashed over in at least four 200+ post threads so far. There are a lot of strong opinions on both sides. CZE's stance is extremely logical, and their opinion on the matter is a done deal - they have already decided which side of the coin they fall on, and they're not going to switch it.

Now I, personally, am totally fine with rebalancing. But I understand why they are going the way they are, and saying they will only ban a card from a PVP format if a change is required. Aside from some of the very good points on the matter in this particular thread, the main reason that I see banning over nerfing as the correct course of action is the psychological effect. People are already going to have a tenuous connection to their collection due to the very nature of a digital-only medium. If the functionality of those cards can be altered at any time, it even further undermines the perceived value of everything.

In order for the TCG side of the game to match as closely as possible to the collectibility, value, and perceived worth of a physical game, in certain aspects it has to be TREATED like a physical game. You cannot devalue a person's collection out from underneath them by nerfing the power level without seriously devaluing your product in their mindset, and reducing their trust level in you as a company. Of the two options (both being bad), banning the card from a single format, but leaving it completely intact in all other formats and the players' collections is a FAR better one than altering it in all instances.

Naturally, it would be best if CZE just built the cards properly in the first place, and that is of course their goal. The TCG industry has had 10 years of experience to get better at this than WotC originally was, so hopefully CZE has learned the lessons they need to.

It's important to remember that just because you CAN do something digitally that can't be accomplished on physical cards, doesn't automatically mean it's better or that you should. You still have to weigh the consequences against the expectations. Even still, there ARE things CZE can do after the ban has happened that wouldn't be as easy to accomplish physically, like inserting a "fixed" version of the banned card in the very next set with a new name but a more balanced power level or the overpowered combo it was enabling neutralized (usually in MtG land, the next set and maybe even the one after that are already locked at any given moment in time).

OliveiraDev
09-17-2013, 04:20 AM
"Yu gi oh" rules are always changing so are magic the gathering, since this is Virtual it will probably be nerfed to balance the game or not i seriously don't know its the first real MMOTCG so we aren't sure about what's going down or not :D

Glognar
09-17-2013, 04:37 AM
It has nothing to do with a "physical" mindset and everything to do with a LOGICAL mindset. Many good points have been made in this thread about why actually changing a card is not nearly as effective as banning the card in any format it is deemed to be damaging to. here are the ones that i remember being mentioned in this thread (without even going over the thread again):

1: A card almost never needs to be banned in more than one format. To start with there will really only be one constructed format (2 if you count wild west). Later on though, in another 5-6 sets we will have our first block rotation. If a card from set 7 is perfectly fine in standard format but is "broken" when including the cards of the first 2 blocks. Why would you change the card in this situation? The majority of the tournaments will be standard and the card is fine in that format. If you ban the card in extended then you will upset those who prefer the extended format. If you change the card then you upset people who like either format (even the one it was not broken in).

2: If you ban a card in ANY pvp format it is still just fine for use in the pve portion of the game. Changing the card in question will also alter its use in pve.

These are 2 great reasons to Ban cards instead of change them. If you can come up with good reasons to change them (besides "this game is digital, so they can change them") then post them, I would love to hear them as I am never fond of a card being banned. I simply do not see a better way of handling the cards that are damaging to the game.

Firstly I'm not talking about banning it in just one format, it could end up being banned in lots of formats who knows.

Besides if a card can be re-balanced so that it works in all formats, why not do that? Why just because ii works fine in 5 out of 6 formats, ban it in the one format, when it could be re-balanced to be fine in all 6 formats?

As for the people are attached to their collection argument, again I don't get that, its a digital picture on a computer screen, how can you get attached to it? and even if you do get attached to it, how does re-wording it or changing the numbers on it alter your attachment? unless it makes no longer use able? though surely banning it guarantees its no longer use able.

Kami
09-17-2013, 04:55 AM
Besides if a card can be re-balanced so that it works in all formats, why not do that? Why just because ii works fine in 5 out of 6 formats, ban it in the one format, when it could be re-balanced to be fine in all 6 formats?

The reason why ban is preferable to nerf is that with nerfing you have a snowball effect and it's very risky in terms of balance.

1. Changing a card instead of banning it from specific formats means that it affects the game globally. The modified card could potentially break another card or set of cards (hence the snowball effect).

2. It will be extremely difficult to balance a card when the current plan is a two-block standard (i.e. six sets are legal simultaneously; guesstimating at least two thousand cards worth, including PvE). You'd have to predict every possibility with that one card. This is different than a traditional MMORPG where they have far less variables even when you take into account number of skills, equipment, etc.

3. When you have multiple cards that need modifying, the snowball problem and need to predict the best balance method difficulty increases exponentially.

4. When a card is banned, they have stated they will create another card to replace it. An all-new card!

5. When a card is banned, you can still use it in other formats where it is not banned in. Banning a card does not mean it is no longer usable necessarily.

Banning would be a better option than modifying a card. Even still, CZE has stated that banning a card would only be done as a last resort.

nrflorencio
09-17-2013, 05:06 AM
If they would decide to nerf cards it would be the worse idea ever.

I can already see it in the forums... The nerf crys left and right.

Ban is the way to go if needed.

vickrpg
09-17-2013, 06:35 AM
I think all of these people vehemently opposing bans are thinking too much in the MMO scope. they are thinking that a "ban" means the card can never be used, and the ability will be removed from the server. If a character or ability is banned in an MMO, it is effectively removed and unusable.

What ban means in the context is a lot closer to the word "restrict."
NOBODY is saying that ANY card will EVER be removed from the server, or removed from all PVP content. They are saying that if a Set 1 combos with a set 8 card, the set 1 card will not be allowed in tournaments that also allow set 8, but will be allowed in all other tournaments. Banning something in draft format, for example, is almost unheard of.
When a card is "banned" this way, it will still be usable in any other PVP format. You can still play it, as is, against your friends in casual. you can still use it, as is, in guild tournaments. You can still use it in ANY format (of which there will be many) other than the format it is banned in.

On the other hand, I think people are taking the word "nerf" too seriously as well. No nerfing does not mean that they will never re-word a card so it more explicitly states what it actually does. Clarification re-wordings are completely okay, even with heir no nerf policy.

I honestly think it's an irrelevant, moot point. This is one of the areas where I think player feedback will hurt more than help.

Malakili
09-17-2013, 07:12 AM
People are also forgetting the importance of the economy in a TCG. The idea that any card could be patched/changed/nerfed/buffed at any point in time would create enormous volatility in the game's economy.

Turtlewing
09-17-2013, 07:15 AM
Besides if a card can be re-balanced so that it works in all formats, why not do that? Why just because ii works fine in 5 out of 6 formats, ban it in the one format, when it could be re-balanced to be fine in all 6 formats?


Given that CZE is not trying to make unbalanced cards, and that TCG sets are usually developed a year or two prior to release to allow for proper testing, what precisely makes you think that a re-design that's pushed out in a month (or less) in response to an unexpected balance issue can achieve what the original design tested for a full year couldn't (being balanced in all formats)?

One nontrivial issue with card balance is that because the problems are usually due to synergies that the design team didn't foresee, there is never any guarantee that the next iteration will not cause another potentially worse balance issue (especially when considering across all formats).

Glognar
09-17-2013, 08:15 AM
What makes you think that rebalancing a card to work in all formats because of something the devs didn't see can't happen?

Anyway my original argument was over the official answer to the problem. In that they use a physical card game argument for banning when one of their main selling points of the game is they can do things in a digital environment you could never do in a physical game.

This official answer seems to go against their own design policies.

noragar
09-17-2013, 08:22 AM
one of their main selling points of the game is they can do things in a digital environment you could never do in a physical game.


In a digital environment, they could randomly change the cost/attack/defense/... of every card in your library every time you log in, which they could never do in a physical game. That doesn't make it a good idea to do so.

Niedar
09-17-2013, 08:26 AM
Except it is not true that it is only a physical game answer.

Turtlewing
09-17-2013, 09:34 AM
What makes you think that rebalancing a card to work in all formats because of something the devs didn't see can't happen?

"Problems can rarely be solved by the level of thinking that created them in the first place" -some quote database somewhere

More secificly:
1. problems are rarely a matter of "tweaking the numbers". TCGs are balanced based on power curves and reasonably simple mathematics. The cards that really break things tend to do something special not just be "too cost effective". This makes changing the card without creating a whole new card difficult (and the new card would need testing)

2. changing the numeric values of a card so that it no longer sees play is equivalent in practice to a ban. Except that card changes should be global whereas bans can be specific to a format.



Anyway my original argument was over the official answer to the problem. In that they use a physical card game argument for banning when one of their main selling points of the game is they can do things in a digital environment you could never do in a physical game.

This official answer seems to go against their own design policies.

No it doesn't.

1. They are planning a hybrid solution:
the offending card is banned from the affected formats, and a new card is created to take it's pace in new packs (the specifics are a little more complex).

2. There is a pretty significant difference between "we can do X because it's digital" and "doing X will be a good idea". HEX being a digital TCG still needs to design towards being a good TCG, and nerfing cards would work against that design goal.

Knightwyvern
09-17-2013, 09:59 AM
Hmm.. Given that this is a digital TCG, why not do something like.. whenever there is a card that needs to be dealt with, give each player that owns that card another, altered version of that card. This way the original card would still exist and could be banned in the appropriate formats, while the reworked card would be completely usable.

This would add that cool "collect-ability" feeling where people could have bragging rights, keep the original card intact for other format types, and correct the issue with the card in the formats it otherwise would need to be banned in.

sukebe
09-17-2013, 12:46 PM
Smart stuff

Well spoken, I agree wholeheartedly :-)

Edit:
to vickrpg: I definitely agree with your 3rd paragraph. I mentioned that in my first post on this thread. I am not against modifying card text to clarify the cards effects. In fact, I would be very dissapointed if they did not do this. Even MTG has its Oracle text database that does exactly this and it would be very strange if they did not take advantage of their digital medium to make their cards clearer.

Miwa
09-17-2013, 12:46 PM
People seem to forget that the way nerfs happen in TCGs is to ban the offender, then release a nerfed version of it as a new card later. :P

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 01:08 PM
In physical TCGs, when cards are shown to be too strong, they are banned. This tends to irritate people who shelled out money for those cards, which are now worthless.

In a digital TCG, we actually have the ability to immediately adjust every single copy (past, present, and future) of a card that has been shown to be too strong. This ability is not present in physical TCGs.

In theory, modifying a good card instead of just banning it leaves people better off. instead of suffering a complete loss of value, they suffer a more moderate loss of value.

As this is billed as an MMO, which has incessant after the fact balance changes, I feel this method of addressing problem cards should be neither unexpected nor unwelcome.

However, they may still simply decide to stick with the traditional system that everyone is used too.

--edit: I see a lot of people saying that card adjustments would have to be GLOBAL but bans could be format specific. This is nonsense. They can obviously make cards function with different levels of power based on what format you are in. They already do this with some MMO's. Guild Wars 2, for example, has skills that work one way in PvE and another way in PvP.

Miwa
09-17-2013, 01:10 PM
In physical TCGs, when cards are shown to be too strong, they are banned. This tends to irritate people who shelled out money for those cards, which are now worthless.
Once something gets nerfed, it'll probably be worth less than if it was banned.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 01:13 PM
Once something gets nerfed, it'll probably be worth less than if it was banned.

How?

If a card is banned in all formats, it's value is zero.
If a card is nerfed in all formats, its value is smaller, but still non zero.

If a card is banned in a specific format, it's value drops a certain amount.
If a card is nerfed for a specific format, it's value drops a certain (lesser) amount.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 01:20 PM
How?

If a card is banned in all formats, it's value is zero.
If a card is nerfed in all formats, its value is smaller, but still non zero.

If a card is banned in a specific format, it's value drops a certain amount.
If a card is nerfed for a specific format, it's value drops a certain (lesser) amount.

When a card is banned, it is usually only banned in certain formats, and therefor still playable in the others.

As people before have stated, if you bothered to read, to nerf a card they would have to completely change how it works(make a new card), which could very well make the card not worth using in any format, and therefor worth less than the card that can still be used in some formats.

I've had decks, in MtG, YGO, and Magi-nation that had the entire design of the deck banned from a certain format(either the primary card banned, a ruling contradicting previous ruling to say I couldn't do something anymore, or the entire deck being banned) so that I had to dish out money for a completely new deck. This is something that happens in TCG to preserve balance. And I would still prefer having cards banned than having them replaced by "new" cards.


Hell, look at MtG, Jace the Mind Sculptor has been banned from standard(when it was in it), extended, and modern, and still sells for $150+. Yep, worthless.

Aradon
09-17-2013, 01:26 PM
As a GW player, I'll chip in that I *hate* the way they split balance on skills between formats. Having a skill do two (occasionally completely distinct) things makes no sense and is a lot of baggage to carry around. I don't want my Lightning Bolt to do 3 damage in legacy, but 2 damage in standard because 3 would be format-warping.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 01:33 PM
As people before have stated, if you bothered to read, to nerf a card they would have to completely change how it works(make a new card), which could very well make the card not worth using in any format, and therefor worth less than the card that can still be used in some formats.

If you had bothered to read, you would see I have addressed this point already.

It is completely not true. The idea that cards must function the same way in all formats is already demonstrably false, given that cards already function differently in pve and pvp.

That doesn't mean selectively modifying cards for specific formats is a great idea. Just that it is possible. It could well prove to be too much for players to remember.

However it does show that you can't argue banning a card reduces the value less than modifying it, unless you are trying to compare banning from ONE format compared to modifying for ALL formats.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 01:36 PM
However it does show that you can't argue banning a card reduces the value less than modifying it, unless you are trying to compare banning from ONE format compared to modifying for ALL formats.

Shahrazad. Banned in all formats in MtG. the price has not declined in the least, fluctuating up and down between $40 and $100 through the entire time period the card has been available, depending on how many people have wanted to buy it at the time. the price usually rests around $60.


Also you can argue that creating a new Jace to replace The Mind Sculptor is "modifying" it because it's still creating a new card. I don't see any copiesof Jace that sell for more than TMS.

they even said if they ban cards they will create a new card to replace them. same thing. I would rather they ban cards and replace them with a new card, so you have both, than to just replace the card.

ossuary
09-17-2013, 01:41 PM
It is completely not true. The idea that cards must function the same way in all formats is already demonstrably false, given that cards already function differently in pve and pvp.

Incorrect. Cards that can be used in both formats function identically in both.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 01:43 PM
Incorrect. Cards that can be used in both formats function identically in both.

Incorrect.

See: equipment.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 01:48 PM
Incorrect.

See: equipment.

Equipment is not part of the card. They are additional items that themselves provide effects when you play certain cards. the cards themselves still work the same in both formats, equipment is just banned from PVP

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 01:55 PM
Shahrazad. Banned in all formats in MtG. the price has not declined in the least, fluctuating up and down between $40 and $100 through the entire time period the card has been available, depending on how many people have wanted to buy it at the time. the price usually rests around $60.


Also you can argue that creating a new Jace to replace The Mind Sculptor is "modifying" it because it's still creating a new card. I don't see any copiesof Jace that sell for more than TMS.

they even said if they ban cards they will create a new card to replace them. same thing. I would rather they ban cards and replace them with a new card, so you have both, than to just replace the card.

Here you are confusing digital TCG's with physical TCG's.

Certain physical objects will be valuable simply because they are rare. Digital TCG's are not going to have the problems of unusually small print runs or errant distributions or wear and tear removing cards from circulation, etc. As such, I don't think you can easily compare prices between physical and all digital tcg's very easily.

Also, Shahrazad was not banned because it was too strong, but because it was a joke card that was "used almost exclusively to troll other players" People will pay money just for gags to troll other people. It's not related to card power.

Also, saying "they should ban the card and then replace it with a new card" is functionally identical to modifying the card. Essentially you'd have one copy of the card, for each different format for which it was different. Remember, it's a digital TCG. They can easily spawn as many new copies of a card as they need for any format differences required.

So in practice, arguing "ban or nerf" is quite pointless as it sounds like they will be doing both.

They'll be leaving you your old too powerful card, which can no longer be used in any of the formats it was too strong for.
And it sounds like they'll be adding to your inventory a new card to replace the old one in the formats in which the old one was banned.

This solution can only be done in digital TCGs, and captures the best of both worlds.

None of your old cards are touched, you are never left completely without recourse because your card was suddenly banned and now you have nothing to show for it.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 01:59 PM
Equipment is not part of the card.

I disagree.

But the fact remains, I can play a card in PVE and it will have a very different effect than in PVP.

The same card will function very differently in the two formats, based on which of that cards associated equipment I have chosen.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 02:01 PM
Also, saying "they should ban the card and then replace it with a new card" is functionally identical to modifying the card. Essentially you'd have one copy of the card, for each different format for which it was different. Remember, it's a digital TCG. They can easily spawn as many new copies of a card as they need for any format differences required.

So in practice, arguing "ban or nerf" is quite pointless as it sounds like they will be doing both.



The primary difference is, if you nerf it, the old card is 100% gone. if you ban it and make a new card, the old card is available for formats where it is not banned, as well as casual. therefor, while you still get a new card in both situations, banning the card is the most profitable solution for everyone involved.


edit:: And aren't control decks used almost exclusively to troll other players? I dunno about you, but I've had people rage quit and storm out of tournaments after playing against my turbofog deck, more than have gotten upset over Shahrazad being played into an Eye of the Storm for casual play. Saying a card is banned for being used to trll players(even if that's wizard's own reason) is kind of fail given that's kind of what pure control decks do.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 02:04 PM
The primary difference is, if you nerf it, the old card is 100% gone.

There is no technical reason why that would be the case.

Have you seen them suggest this is what they would do?

Hatts
09-17-2013, 02:08 PM
In the PAX digital TCG panel they discussed a 3rd option, releasing one or more cards to help counter whatever the OP card is. Since the game is digital they can turn around the new cards quickly without necessarily having to wait for the next set.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 02:10 PM
edit:: And aren't control decks used almost exclusively to troll other players?

No, not at all.

It's a certain deck archetype that appeals to certain players. It's no more inherently about trolling your opponent than is a red rush deck or green big monster deck.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 02:11 PM
There is no technical reason why that would be the case.

Have you seen them suggest this is what they would do?

to nerf a card means to change it. to change a card means to create a functionally different card, therefor the card, in it's original design, does not exist.



As for the "have you seen them suggest this is what they would do", they have said they aren't going to nerf cards, so obviously not. they will ban and make a replacement card.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 02:13 PM
to nerf a card means to change it. to change a card means to create a functionally different card, therefor the card, in it's original design, does not exist.

it's sad that you're so stupid that had to be explained.

Your understanding is completely wrong (and you obviously know it, due to your resorting to personal attacks) and fails to realize the digital nature of the game.

I'll repeat my question: do you have any evidence whatseover to back up your assertion that this is the method that CZE will use? Nerfing cards with no recourse?

If not...why are you bringing it up?

Gwaer
09-17-2013, 02:19 PM
Yes. Listen to the PVE discussion audio from dragoncon. Cory says precisely that they will not nerf PVP cards and will ban them.

I didn't see them saying they're going to replace the cards banned with a new copy in future packs. That was originally a forum suggestion.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 02:20 PM
Your understanding is completely wrong (and you obviously know it, due to your resorting to personal attacks) and fails to realize the digital nature of the game.

I'll repeat my question: do you have any evidence whatseover to back up your assertion that this is the method that CZE will use?

the fact that they said they will not nerf cards and instead ban them and create a new card? where in any of my posts did I say they would nerf cards and make a new one? all I said that is if they did resort to nerfing, it would have to create a functionally different card to make it not do what was causing it to unbalance the game in the first place. Common sense.


And just because I pointed out the obvious fact that you fail to realize obvious facts without them being explained to you doesn't mean my understanding is wrong. it means that I absolutely hate having to explain the obvious.




Ive not see them saying they're going to replace the cards banned with a new copy in future packs. That was originally a forum suggestion.

the part about replacing them being a forum suggestion I did not know, but it doesn't change the fact that they said they wouldn't nerf cards.

Miwa
09-17-2013, 02:20 PM
How?

If a card is banned in all formats, it's value is zero.
If a card is nerfed in all formats, its value is smaller, but still non zero.
Nothing gets banned in all formats.


If a card is banned in a specific format, it's value drops a certain amount.
If a card is nerfed for a specific format, it's value drops a certain (lesser) amount.
If a card gets nerfed, it becomes very likely that people will want to use something else in it's place, and it will no longer be useful in any format. Card value is based on being better than other options. The cards worth the most are the ones that are out of print, and have no available substitutes, because they were so broken. Compare true dual lands to just about anything else since...

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 02:20 PM
I'm amused that you think they can create a replacement card in a 'ban' situation but not in a 'nerf' situation.

My main point is that in a digital TCG, these two concepts are really the same, as any company worth its salt is going to leave you with your old card unchanged and a new card that can be used in the formats the old card was too strong for.

This takes both the concepts of 'ban' and 'nerf' from physical games and incorporates them into a single concept that really only works well in a digital space. It's neither truly a ban (because you've got a changed card) nor a nerf (because you've still got your original card).

Should work out well, and please both 'ban' and 'nerf' advocates.

Miwa
09-17-2013, 02:23 PM
I didn't see them saying they're going to replace the cards banned with a new copy in future packs. That was originally a forum suggestion.
It's not really a forum suggestion, it's the way the world works. Dual lands too strong? Replace with tap lands, fetch lands, etc. Stuff that's too good gets replicated with a drawback in later editions.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 02:24 PM
I'm amused that you think they can create a replacement card in a 'ban' situation but not in a 'nerf' situation.



Uh, I never once said they wouldn't create a replacement in a nerf situation. I said that's ALL they would do, and the original version wouldn't be available for play period.


And you don't truly have the original card either.

Lets use Demonic Tutor and Diabolic Tutor as an example. They function the same, you get any card from your deck.

Lets sasy CZE created a card that functions exactly like Demonic Tutor. Later, they realize the card is too powerful, so they have two options. They ban the card from the formats it is too strong in, and create the higher resource cost version of the card as option one. Or, option 2, they just increase the cost of the original card. In option 2, Demonic Tutor no longer exists, all you have is diabolic tutor at this point. In option 1, demonic tutor is still there, it just can't be used in all formats.


The point of nerfing a card is, while the card is still the same name, the things that made it good have been changed so that it is functionally different. Therefor, the original card does not exist as it was designed, and is not available for the formats it wasn't overly powerful in, or for casual play.

Miwa
09-17-2013, 02:25 PM
My main point is that in a digital TCG, these two concepts are really the same, as any company worth its salt is going to leave you with your old card unchanged and a new card that can be used in the formats the old card was too strong for.
This is what happens functionally. Old card banned, new card created, and they sell you the new card. No free cookie.

Note this happens even with non-broken cards. Old cards from old sets get recycled (or changed slightly), and you get to buy it again to use in current formats.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 02:27 PM
Nothing gets banned in all formats.


Shahrazad. Banned in all formats in MtG.

Sounds like you two need to have a talk.


If a card gets nerfed, it becomes very likely that people will want to use something else in it's place, and it will no longer be useful in any format.

Why? That makes no more sense than saying if a card is banned for one format it can't be used in any format.

If a card is changed in one format, there's no technical reason it has to be changed for other formats.


Uh, I never once said they wouldn't create a replacement in a nerf situation. I said that's ALL they would do, and the original version wouldn't be available for play period.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

There's certainly no technical reason they couldn't create a modified/nerfed replacement card and leave the original unchanged. I've certainly not seen them say that's how they would handle card adjustments.

I think you're arguing against a position that no one here, including CZE, is proposing.

Gwaer
09-17-2013, 02:27 PM
The problem with your argument vorpal is the work that goes into making a new card. Numbers are very rarely the reason for a ban. If a card needed to be nerfed it would be for an interaction with another card. That interaction is not some simple tweak of defense or resource cost. It's going to be an entirely different card after its over. That means that healthy decks in other formats all lose that card. Unless you only nerf per format. Doing that creates incredible complications for players. Just like the guild wars system where different abilities do very different things in different places. It's a very unpleasant experience in my opinion, luckily for me CZE agrees and will be just banning cards per format. It makes the most sense. Digital or no.

Kalius
09-17-2013, 02:30 PM
The problem with your argument vorpal is the work that goes into making a new card. Numbers are very rarely the reason for a ban. If a card needed to be nerfed it would be for an interaction with another card. That interaction is not some simple tweak of defense or resource cost. It's going to be an entirely different card after its over. That means that healthy decks in other formats all lose that card. Unless you only nerf per format. Doing that creates incredible complications for players. Just like the guild wars system where different abilities do very different things in different places. It's a very unpleasant experience in my opinion, luckily for me CZE agrees and will be just banning cards per format. It makes the most sense. Digital or no.

I still doubt he'll understand it.

Miwa
09-17-2013, 02:30 PM
You can play Shahrazad with your buddies, unchanged. I have a couple (that I got from packs when AN came out even). Though we'd probably beat up someone for trying, for the same reason that it's banned... it makes the game take forever. :P

Nerfing new cards and leaving the old ones the same, and having them all have the same name is insanity. Having a card function differently in different formats is equal insanity. Leaving the option of changing all of them, or none of them. People would prefer to not have their cards changed.

sukebe
09-17-2013, 02:31 PM
If you had bothered to read, you would see I have addressed this point already.

It is completely not true. The idea that cards must function the same way in all formats is already demonstrably false, given that cards already function differently in pve and pvp.

That doesn't mean selectively modifying cards for specific formats is a great idea. Just that it is possible. It could well prove to be too much for players to remember.

However it does show that you can't argue banning a card reduces the value less than modifying it, unless you are trying to compare banning from ONE format compared to modifying for ALL formats.

I would have to agree with others that have responded to your post. changing a card so it functions differently is incredibly inelegant and puts far to much onus on players (especially new players) to know what the card does in each format. I addressed this in my first post in this topic I believe, perhaps you missed it (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=27550&p=294186&viewfull=1#post294186).

Doing things the way you suggested would cause all kinds of problems for those who "hardcore" players of this game. A newer player to the game (or even a specific format) would be far to likely to choose cards they remember seeing played or playing with in the format they had previously played (perhaps even basing their deck around it). In your system, they would have a terribly surprise waiting for them when they tried to play that card in the new format and have it work differently than they are used to.

Banning cards may have originated in physical TCGs but it is still the most elegant way to deal with cards that are damaging to a format. If you are worried about prices of the banned cards, do not worry anymore. Just take a look at MTGs history and you will see that just because a card is banned in 1 or more formats does not mean it looses much of its price.

Changing (or nerfing) cards in this game is a case of "just because you can do something does not mean that you should".

Kalius
09-17-2013, 02:34 PM
I would have to agree with others that have responded to your post. changing a card so it functions differently is incredibly inelegant and puts far to much onus on players (especially new players) to know what the card does in each format. I addressed this in my first post in this topic I believe, perhaps you missed it (http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=27550&p=294186&viewfull=1#post294186).

Doing things the way you suggested would cause all kinds of problems for those who "hardcore" players of this game. A newer player to the game (or even a specific format) would be far to likely to choose cards they remember seeing played or playing with in the format they had previously played (perhaps even basing their deck around it). In your system, they would have a terribly surprise waiting for them when they tried to play that card in the new format and have it work differently than they are used to.

Banning cards may have originated in physical TCGs but it is still the most elegant way to deal with cards that are damaging to a format. If you are worried about prices of the banned cards, do not worry anymore. Just take a look at MTGs history and you will see that just because a card is banned in 1 or more formats does not mean it looses much of its price.

Changing (or nerfing) cards in this game is a case of "just because you can do something does not mean that you should".

after his last post I realized vorpal is trying to claim that anyone trying to explain why they won't nerf cards is an idiot.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 02:35 PM
Unless you only nerf per format. Doing that creates incredible complications for players. Just like the guild wars system where different abilities do very different things in different places. It's a very unpleasant experience in my opinion

Yes, I'm talking only about nerfing per format. I don't see much point in comparing global nerfing to format banning or vice versa. Apples to apples and all that. My argument is that if CZE gives you a replacement card and leaves the old card alone(as some here are saying they would, not sure of its veracity) then there is no functional difference between a 'nerf' approach and a 'ban' approach at all.

I actually like the way they've handled the skills in Guild Wars. However, there are way more cards and card interactions in Hex than there are skills and skill interactions in Guild Wars, so doing it that way could well be too confusing for players of Hex even though I think it works out well for players of Guild Wars.

As I've said, I think they'll probably go with what people are used too and feel is more intuitive.

There's certainly no technical reason they couldn't do a 'nerf per format', and while I'd kind of like to see them try it simply as a means of fully realizing the potential of the digital formats, just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do it.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 02:50 PM
having a card function differently in different formats is equal insanity.

It's not insanity. We are already doing it. You can play a card in PVE that functions completely differently than it does PVP, because of equipment.

I'm already dreading the inevitable brain farts where I make this killer PVP deck...and then it falls apart because I forgot half of my card's powers were from my PVE equipment.

Additionally, I've pointed out the example of Guild Wars, a well regarded and highly respected MMO, that has some of its skills do different things based on which format you are in.

So, I think calling it insanity is hyperbole.

It's entirely possible that it could lead to an overly complex situation. I think that's the reason they ban equipment from PvP. Hex has way more cards and way more interactions than guild was has skills and skill interactions. So what works in guild wars pvp, or in pve, where only one person has equipment, may not be suitable in a pvp environment in hex.

Additionally Gwaer made a good point that in most cases, a simple tweak of the numbers of the card is not sufficient and it's usually a specific card interaction that makes a card too strong. The 'replacement' idea that Kalius brought up and to which I am responding, may well not work in all overpowered card cases.

Of course, they wouldn't necessarily have to make the replacement card similar to the banned card, if they were doing this purely from a 'compensating the player' standpoint. They could instead say "Ok, your ultra legend is too strong in these formats, so we're banning it. yes, yes, I know you paid 10 packs each for those cards. Here, have a different ultra legend as compensation!"

However, I think most people are used to their cards getting banned as a concept and aren't going to be too upset. OTOH I think Hex has a good chance of bringing in a broader playerbase that might not have been as exposed to the typical TCG experience and there might be that to consider. I've certainly been trying to bring in as many TCG newbies as I can get my hands on :D

sukebe
09-17-2013, 03:20 PM
Vorpal, you not really giving us reasons why changing cards is a better way to go than banning them. You are only repeating the same 2 statements in different ways.

You keep saying that the main reason we believe banning is better is because we are used to it from other TCGs. We have given you many reasons why this is not the case and that there are good reasons to ban cards even in digital games.

You also keep saying that changing things works in other MMOs. Hex is not like other MMOs. I know it has the same 3 letters in its description but it goes about in a totally different way. While it has aspects of MMOs the entirety of its gameplay (or at least the majority, they did say there would be puzzles and riddles in dungeons as well as card games) is TCG based. As you said, it is best to compare apples to apples. I think it is time you stopped saying that what works for a Mango can work for the apple.

If you do not start debating this topic using information and facts then it is hardly worth the effort of typing responses.

Niedar
09-17-2013, 03:24 PM
Yes, I'm talking only about nerfing per format. I don't see much point in comparing global nerfing to format banning or vice versa. Apples to apples and all that. My argument is that if CZE gives you a replacement card and leaves the old card alone(as some here are saying they would, not sure of its veracity) then there is no functional difference between a 'nerf' approach and a 'ban' approach at all.

I actually like the way they've handled the skills in Guild Wars. However, there are way more cards and card interactions in Hex than there are skills and skill interactions in Guild Wars, so doing it that way could well be too confusing for players of Hex even though I think it works out well for players of Guild Wars.

As I've said, I think they'll probably go with what people are used too and feel is more intuitive.

There's certainly no technical reason they couldn't do a 'nerf per format', and while I'd kind of like to see them try it simply as a means of fully realizing the potential of the digital formats, just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do it.

I get what you have been arguing that it is possible to nerf on a by format basis and it being similar to banning a card and introducing a new card but I think it is just plain impractical. There will be many different formats unlike two as in PvE and PvP as an example for Guild Wars and there will end up being thousands of different cards. To have cards of the same name function differently depending on the format you are playing it in seems like the worst solution for a complicated problem. Banning the card and introducing a new card with a different name is still not a great solution but at least it is a little better in the fact there is no confusion between functionality and name but you still have to remember which cards are banned in which format.

As far as the PVE functionality vs PVP functionality, I agree that it will also be confusion sometimes but one key fact is that the separation between PVP formats and PVE formats will be much larger than between the sub formats within them. This added with the fact the cards do in fact play the same unless you specifically add another "card" or piece of equipment to them helps in decreasing the confusion but like you said I am sure some confusion will take place because of this.

Vorpal
09-17-2013, 03:29 PM
I'm not saying changing cards is better than banning them.

I'm saying changing cards is much easier in a digital format (in fact, it's not really possible in a physical form at all), and that IF a replacement card is involved, there is no difference between 'changing' and 'banning' schools of thought.

I'm also saying that claiming changing cards would have to be done globally while banning could be by format, is simply not correct. Obviously the technology exists to do either. It may well not be advisable to do the changing method, for a variety of reasons, but it's silly to try to claim it's simply impossible.

I'm also pointing out this is really a new discussion in terms of TCGs, as we haven't really had the capability to 'change' cards in physical TCGs. So we are covering uncharted ground.

And I pointed out that while many Hex players may be hard core TCG fans and view it primarily through a TCG lens, hopefully Hex will appeal to a much broader playerbase, dragging in new people who hear 'dungeons! Treasure chests! MMO!" and will not have all the TCG experience to guide their expectations, and that it is worth considering how to best appeal to both these groups.

Miwa
09-17-2013, 03:30 PM
It's not insanity. We are already doing it. You can play a card in PVE that functions completely differently than it does PVP, because of equipment.
Equipment works like any other permanent card, it doesn't change every copy of every card in existence. It's not any different than starting the game with 6 enchantments in play. The base card stays the same, there are just other cards modifying what it does, just like many other card combos.

Kami
09-17-2013, 03:59 PM
I'm saying changing cards is much easier in a digital format (in fact, it's not really possible in a physical form at all), and that IF a replacement card is involved, there is no difference between 'changing' and 'banning' schools of thought.

I disagree. The only part that's 'easier' about it is distribution. The hard part has not changed and that is to balance across potentially thousands of cards.

Many of you are also making the assumption that only a single card will be broken at any given time. What if it were two or three? How do you make sure that three different cards, modified three different ways, won't affect another set of two to three cards out of a thousand more?

Again, this is the snowball effect. It is far simpler and more clear to ban than to modify. There is far less risk of complications occurring.

Consider this as well, a banned card may not always stay banned as well.

For instance, in a two block format, you can have something like Set 1-3, and Set 4-6 in use. Then when set 7 rolls around you suddenly lose Set 1-3 from legal play. A card that was broken in Set 5 may suddenly be okay without Set 1-3 and may be legal again for Set 4-6, Set 7-9 and can be unbanned for legal play again in formats it was banned from.

sukebe
09-17-2013, 05:15 PM
I'm not saying changing cards is better than banning them.

I'm saying changing cards is much easier in a digital format (in fact, it's not really possible in a physical form at all), and that IF a replacement card is involved, there is no difference between 'changing' and 'banning' schools of thought.

I'm also saying that claiming changing cards would have to be done globally while banning could be by format, is simply not correct. Obviously the technology exists to do either. It may well not be advisable to do the changing method, for a variety of reasons, but it's silly to try to claim it's simply impossible.

I'm also pointing out this is really a new discussion in terms of TCGs, as we haven't really had the capability to 'change' cards in physical TCGs. So we are covering uncharted ground.

And I pointed out that while many Hex players may be hard core TCG fans and view it primarily through a TCG lens, hopefully Hex will appeal to a much broader playerbase, dragging in new people who hear 'dungeons! Treasure chests! MMO!" and will not have all the TCG experience to guide their expectations, and that it is worth considering how to best appeal to both these groups.

I do not believe anyone has said CZE "couldn't" change the cards to do different things in different formats. If someone did I must have missed it. What I and others HAVE said is that it is an inelegant, inefficient, and un-intuitive way of solving a problem that has already been solved by countless TCGs before. Once again (I and others have said this many, many times but it seems it must be said again) just because something is possible to do. or even easier to do. in a digital medium does not mean that it should be done.

Also, there is a difference between "changing" a card and banning a card then adding a replacement card at a later date. Changing a card essentially takes something away from the game entirely and replaces it with something different. It would also needlessly complicate things if you changed cards in individual formats and not in others. The second method is far superior. Sure, they may ban a card in 1 or (rarely) even 2 formats. But those formats will get a new card to replace it. For those formats the card is not banned in they have gained that new card in addition to the one still available to them!

Reading over my previous posts and replies to you in this thread it seems we are going in circles. I keep trying to address your concerns/points but you keep ignoring or misunderstanding everything I say. For this reason, this will be my final response to you unless you bring up new points, provide new evidence, or open up new avenues of discussion.

sukebe
09-17-2013, 05:18 PM
I disagree. The only part that's 'easier' about it is distribution. The hard part has not changed and that is to balance across potentially thousands of cards.

Many of you are also making the assumption that only a single card will be broken at any given time. What if it were two or three? How do you make sure that three different cards, modified three different ways, won't affect another set of two to three cards out of a thousand more?

Again, this is the snowball effect. It is far simpler and more clear to ban than to modify. There is far less risk of complications occurring.

Consider this as well, a banned card may not always stay banned as well.

For instance, in a two block format, you can have something like Set 1-3, and Set 4-6 in use. Then when set 7 rolls around you suddenly lose Set 1-3 from legal play. A card that was broken in Set 5 may suddenly be okay without Set 1-3 and may be legal again for Set 4-6, Set 7-9 and can be unbanned for legal play again in formats it was banned from.

Well said, and it brought up aspects of the discussion I had not really thought on. The snowball effect you mention is yet another reason that banning is a far cleaner and more precise way to affect change in a format that needs it.

Vorpal
09-18-2013, 08:43 AM
I do not believe anyone has said CZE "couldn't" change the cards to do different things in different formats

Kalius has been arguing just that.


Once again (I and others have said this many, many times but it seems it must be said again) just because something is possible to do. or even easier to do. in a digital medium does not mean that it should be done.

I know. I've said the same thing myself. Weren't you just complaining that I was ignoring things you said? Looks like you are doing the same thing.


There's certainly no technical reason they couldn't do a 'nerf per format', and while I'd kind of like to see them try it simply as a means of fully realizing the potential of the digital formats, just because they can do something doesn't mean they should do it.


Also, there is a difference between "changing" a card and banning a card then adding a replacement card at a later date. Changing a card essentially takes something away from the game entirely and replaces it with something different. It would also needlessly complicate things if you changed cards in individual formats and not in others. The second method is far superior. Sure, they may ban a card in 1 or (rarely) even 2 formats. But those formats will get a new card to replace it. For those formats the card is not banned in they have gained that new card in addition to the one still available to them!

That is quite true. However I was discussing the plan Kalius mentioned where a new modified replacement card would be issued immediately. In that case, you have essentially both 'banned' the card and 'changed' the card. It's the best of both worlds. Granted it may not always work as a solution to all card problems, as Gwaer and others have pointed out.

Additionally, there is absolutely no reason to assume the original card would have to disappear. The old one could still exist, and simply be banned. Once you start talking about 'replacement cards' the lines between changing and banning essentially disappear. The 'too many different replacement cards can make the game too complicated' is an argument I have acknowledged repeatedly. Do you have anything new to add to that argument?


Reading over my previous posts and replies to you in this thread it seems we are going in circles. I keep trying to address your concerns/points but you keep ignoring or misundersttanding everything I say. For this reason, this will be my final response to you unless you bring up new points, provide new evidence, or open up new avenues of discussion.

I don't have any concerns. I have points, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to 'address' them. Are you simply attempting to refute everything I say? If you are trying to address them, I raised four points in my last post and you only addressed one.

For example, you say that changing overpowered stuff instead of just banning it is more un-intuitive. Only to traditional TCG players. For people from an MMO background, overpowered stuff is changed, not banned, so therefore that would be the more intuitive approach. Hex is obviously trying to appeal to these types of players (and I personally am trying to recruit a lot of people who no real TCG experience to give Hex a try).

I don't particularly care which method they pick. They have showed good sense and judgment so far and I'm quite content to let them choose whichever method they think will best serve the community. I have no inherent objections to banning or changing, as I have a strong background in both TCGs and in MMOs. Either way is fine with me and is not going to diminish my enjoyment of the game in the slightest.

I think the technology exists, for the first time, for changing to actually be a potential competitor to banning as a method of fixing problem cards. For physical TCGs, it really does not. I think the fact this is an 'MMO' TCG makes it more likely that changing would work. That doesn't mean I think changing is better than banning. As I've said before, while part of me would like to see it implemented just as a means of fully exploring the digital medium, it's possible to go too far too fast, and just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. I think they could quite plausibly get either changing/banning to work. If they are issuing replacement cards, as some have said, then there isn't any difference between the two anyway.

While I am completely ambivalent about which one CZE chooses, a lot of people seem vehemently adamant that CZE absolutely MUST choose the ban method and anything else would be impossible or unintituive or overly complex. I regard some of these objections as valid, and some as not. Some people seem to think that if I don't believe CZE has to use ban over change, therefore I must believe CZE has to use change over ban. That is not the case. As far as I'm concerned they can use either. And if they are issuing replacement cards, there is very little difference between the two anyway.

Shadowelf
09-18-2013, 08:52 AM
A bit more reasoning by Kyle behind bans over nerfs;


1. Changing the text on a card is the last thing we would want to do via errata, but it is an option on the table. Players will be chasing, purchasing, and will become attached to certain cards. Changing those cards is a terrible option. However, the overall health of the game for everyone is priority #1. Banning is also something on the table, but again, not something we would ever want to do. These would be on a case-by-case basis. Our priority is to make sure the balance of the game is tested a TON so we don't have to do either of these things and you have a sweet gameplay experience.

Turtlewing
09-18-2013, 10:04 AM
I'm saying changing cards is much easier in a digital format (in fact, it's not really possible in a physical form at all), and that IF a replacement card is involved, there is no difference between 'changing' and 'banning' schools of thought.


Except that it isn't. The comparatively easy problem of distributing the errata is made trivial, but the more complex issue of designing and testing the change remains unaffected.



I'm also saying that claiming changing cards would have to be done globally while banning could be by format, is simply not correct. Obviously the technology exists to do either. It may well not be advisable to do the changing method, for a variety of reasons, but it's silly to try to claim it's simply impossible.


That may not be true.

You could design a TCG that had card behavior determined by the game format, but there's no indication that Hex was designed that way. In order for per-format card behaviors to be possible there needs to exist the mechanism to define per format card behavior. By all appearance Hex cards are designed to behave consistently across all formats and so that mechanism probably doesn't exist.

There's also the logistical issue of presenting the correct card text to the user during deck-building. To do this correctly decks would need to be associated with a format(s) that they were designed for use in, and you'd have to figure out what you do when a change to a card makes a deck behave differently in two formats when it previously behaved consistently (how you you notify the user and what card text do you show when they edit the deck?)

It would definitely be difficult, and frustrating to deal with a dozen formats all with their own special card behaviors. And it may even be impossible without a nontrivial modification to the game code.

Vorpal
09-18-2013, 10:27 AM
There's also the logistical issue of presenting the correct card text to the user during deck-building. To do this correctly decks would need to be associated with a format(s)

Well, by necessity, aren't they already? Your PvE Decks can include pve cards, your PVP decks can't include PvE cards. Likewise, mercenaries and player champions and the champion cards are all handled differently based on what format you are in. I would assume every deck is associated with a certain format.

You would have to do this as soon as you banned any cards from specific formats. You can't have just a generic deck including cards that are banned in some formats. You wouldn't know if your deck was valid or not. You'd have to have decks for specific formats so the system could check to see if any cards that were banned in that format were in the deck. This could well get fiddly, based on how many banned cards / formats you have, but I think it's unavoidable. And if you can define per format card being banned or not, then you would also be able to modify a card based on the format (or rather, specify which variant of a card is used for the format).

But I agree completely that CZE may decide it is too complex and too fiddly to try modifying cards per format. This would be an entirely reasonable decision and one that will not disappoint me in the least.

zadies
09-18-2013, 10:37 AM
Given they only ever needed to ban 7 cards for the entire life of the wowtcg and after they ended up comboing with things produced much later I don't see this as being much of an issue.

Needing anything leads to continuous cycles of homogenization see wow.

Turtlewing
09-18-2013, 10:48 AM
Well, by necessity, aren't they already? Your PvE Decks can include pve cards, your PVP decks can't include PvE cards. Likewise, mercenaries and player champions and the champion cards are all handled differently based on what format you are in. I would assume every deck is associated with a certain format.

You would have to do this as soon as you banned any cards from specific formats. You can't have just a generic deck including cards that are banned in some formats. You wouldn't know if your deck was valid or not. You'd have to have decks for specific formats so the system could check to see if any cards that were banned in that format were in the deck. This could well get fiddly, based on how many banned cards / formats you have, but I think it's unavoidable. And if you can define per format card being banned or not, then you would also be able to modify a card based on the format (or rather, specify which variant of a card is used for the format).

But I agree completely that CZE may decide it is too complex and too fiddly to try modifying cards per format. This would be an entirely reasonable decision and one that will not disappoint me in the least.

No the system just needs to check if a deck is legal before letting you into the game. The user can build decks without planning what format to use them in and nothing breaks (at worst they end up with a lot of decks that are only usable in "anything goes"). it is also easy to filter card/deck lists based on format legality (as banned/legal is a boolean state).

Users will want to build decks with some concept of the meta for the format in which the deck is planned to be used. But they do not have to as they can build whatever deck they want and after the fact determine what formats will allow it (and be assured that the deck functions as designed in any format that lets it in).

When cards can behave differently it becomes impossible to show the card text unless you know the format it will be used in. This means you can't build a deck "in a vacuum" as you won't know what your cards do, and you can easily find yourself using a deck that while legal does not work as intended, because your key cards have different text in this format.

sukebe
09-18-2013, 01:39 PM
Kalius has been arguing just that.



I know. I've said the same thing myself. Weren't you just complaining that I was ignoring things you said? Looks like you are doing the same thing.





That is quite true. However I was discussing the plan Kalius mentioned where a new modified replacement card would be issued immediately. In that case, you have essentially both 'banned' the card and 'changed' the card. It's the best of both worlds. Granted it may not always work as a solution to all card problems, as Gwaer and others have pointed out.

Additionally, there is absolutely no reason to assume the original card would have to disappear. The old one could still exist, and simply be banned. Once you start talking about 'replacement cards' the lines between changing and banning essentially disappear. The 'too many different replacement cards can make the game too complicated' is an argument I have acknowledged repeatedly. Do you have anything new to add to that argument?



I don't have any concerns. I have points, but I'm not sure why you feel the need to 'address' them. Are you simply attempting to refute everything I say? If you are trying to address them, I raised four points in my last post and you only addressed one.

For example, you say that changing overpowered stuff instead of just banning it is more un-intuitive. Only to traditional TCG players. For people from an MMO background, overpowered stuff is changed, not banned, so therefore that would be the more intuitive approach. Hex is obviously trying to appeal to these types of players (and I personally am trying to recruit a lot of people who no real TCG experience to give Hex a try).

I don't particularly care which method they pick. They have showed good sense and judgment so far and I'm quite content to let them choose whichever method they think will best serve the community. I have no inherent objections to banning or changing, as I have a strong background in both TCGs and in MMOs. Either way is fine with me and is not going to diminish my enjoyment of the game in the slightest.

I think the technology exists, for the first time, for changing to actually be a potential competitor to banning as a method of fixing problem cards. For physical TCGs, it really does not. I think the fact this is an 'MMO' TCG makes it more likely that changing would work. That doesn't mean I think changing is better than banning. As I've said before, while part of me would like to see it implemented just as a means of fully exploring the digital medium, it's possible to go too far too fast, and just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. I think they could quite plausibly get either changing/banning to work. If they are issuing replacement cards, as some have said, then there isn't any difference between the two anyway.

While I am completely ambivalent about which one CZE chooses, a lot of people seem vehemently adamant that CZE absolutely MUST choose the ban method and anything else would be impossible or unintituive or overly complex. I regard some of these objections as valid, and some as not. Some people seem to think that if I don't believe CZE has to use ban over change, therefore I must believe CZE has to use change over ban. That is not the case. As far as I'm concerned they can use either. And if they are issuing replacement cards, there is very little difference between the two anyway.

It seems most of my last post was done poorly and for that I apologize. I had somehow missed Kalius making that argument. I also realize that you have been mentioning the "can doesn't mean you should" thing but it just never stuck in my mind very well as you posts seem (to me at least) very pro changing and anti-banning. I can see how I could be wrong in this though.

As for the Un-intuitive part I mentioned: I strongly believe that having a card work differently just because you changed format is indeed very un-intuitive. With a banned card its use is very clear: it does what is printed or it cannot be played at all. I am a big MMO player as well as a big TCG player so both ways of fixing problems are very familiar to me. However, normal MMO gear and Hex cards are very different things and should be treated differently.

As for replacement cards; I have not actually heard anything about them issuing replacement cards myself so I cannot say anything as to how it would be done. If they do issue replacement cards I hope it is simply added on to the next set to come out. This would give them more time to better think through any changes made to the original cards design.

Personally, one of the things that I am most excited about for the digital medium of Hex is that minor changes can be made to cards that make them more clear. I play a lot of Tribal and Commander in MTG and it is a real pain to have to go to the Oracle and see what creatures from old sets have had creature types changed or added. There are also many card from older sets that do the same thing as cards from newer sets do but have a very complex way of describing the effect. As they got more experience with designing the game they got better at wording abilities :-) For Hex, neither of these problems will need to be worried about as they can be fixed without most people even noticing or caring as they have no (in the case of clarifying) or little (in the case of adding creature types, which is unlikely in Hex anyway) effect on the actual game.

Again, I apologize for my last post. I was tired and not feeling well and it seems I let that leak into my typing. (insert bowing smiley guy)