PDA

View Full Version : Isn't Banning of overpowered cards a strictly worse solution than nerfing them?



a-V-e-n
04-07-2014, 03:28 AM
I know players don't like their stuff changed and that was the official reason stated, but really, working hard or paying a lot for a playset of cards and have them straight BANNED is much much worse! Who wouldn't rather have a slightly nerfed card than a completely unusable pile?

I can't think of any good argument on what makes banning cards better than bringing them to a better balanced state. Please enlighten me.

Kroan
04-07-2014, 03:32 AM
Banning can be done for each format separately. Just because it's too strong in standard, doesn't mean it's too strong in limited. Just because you can't play with it during a legacy tournament, doesn't mean you can't include it in your PvE deck. (and so on, and so on)

So no, nerfing is far worse.

a-V-e-n
04-07-2014, 03:43 AM
Well, it depends on having lots of completely different constructed formats. Limited doesn't really count because if a card is overpowered in constructed then it's either:
-even more overpowered in limited and would only benefit from the nerf, or
-unplayable in limited so the nerf wouldn't change anything.

Kroan
04-07-2014, 03:46 AM
Well, it depends on having lots of completely different constructed formats. Limited doesn't really count because if a card is overpowered in constructed then it's either:
-even more overpowered in limited and would only benefit from the nerf, or
-unplayable in limited so the nerf wouldn't change anything.

1) There will be different formats. It's confirmed. We will at least have an eternal format, a standard format and a PvE-allowed format. There was also talk about a pauper/peasant format
2) You don't need different constructed formats. More than one is all is needed. See #1.
3) Just because Stoneforge Mystic was too strong for standard (and therefor banned in Standard and Modern) doesn't mean the card was too strong or unplayable in limited. Not even close.

Zer0
04-07-2014, 03:57 AM
I personally think its more fun to have cards that are more powerful and right on the edge of being ban-worthy, than have all the strong cards nerfed until nothing stands out. Plus what was previously said about other formats.

Malakili
04-07-2014, 03:59 AM
No.

Gee, that was an easy question, we need more like this.

ossuary
04-07-2014, 04:44 AM
Yeah, let's not do this again. It doesn't even matter whether or not banning is worse than nerfing (it isn't, nerfing is the worst). CZE has already said they won't nerf PVP cards once they're out, so they won't. I would FAR rather have my card not playable in a standard or legacy tournament but still awesome and fun in the other format and also PVE and casual games with my friends than to have it taken away entirely by nerfing it into something entirely different and worthless.

This is one of the very few places where using digital tools is NOT better than the rules governing paper TCGs. Just because you COULD change them doesn't mean you SHOULD. Leave my fucking cards alone.

Patrigan
04-07-2014, 05:24 AM
I actually disagree with everyone shouting "bans are not worse than nerfs". Nerfing is better.

To be more precise: Nerfing + Banning.

Ban the card in the format and immediately introduce a nerfed version of it (not with the next set or something like that). Give everyone who has the banned card a copy of the nerfed card. Thanks to the digital era, this can even be the exact same physical card (preventing trading from half of the card). Ban the nerfed version in all formats where the banned card is not overpowered. Leave the weaker version susceptible to further nerfs for a short period of time.

Conclusion:
Everyone STILL has their banned card in the other formats, but the format where it got banned now has a more balanced version.
Total conclusion:
The card will retain more of its value: no loss of value due to having a weaker version in other formats, yet less loss of value thanks to the card actually still be playable in the format where it's banned.

This is actually the correct way of making use of the digital tools. It offers the best of both worlds.

Major downside: Might create some confusion, but that's something a good visual cue can fix.

jimmywolf
04-07-2014, 05:26 AM
I know players don't like their stuff changed and that was the official reason stated, but really, working hard or paying a lot for a playset of cards and have them straight BANNED is much much worse! Who wouldn't rather have a slightly nerfed card than a completely unusable pile?

I can't think of any good argument on what makes banning cards better than bringing them to a better balanced state. Please enlighten me.

well they said when trying balance a card, it force them too adjust other cards too streamline all cards, which in turn force them too readjust the first cards because their OP again, thus the cycle repeats.

example

A 2 cost 5/5 card that last one turn with speed, seem broken but fun to play maybe it is too good an OP but people loved the card, so it just got ban from tournaments, an kept in play for pve or more open tournaments.


versus making it a 3 cost 4/4 card that last one turn with speed, still good maybe still OP but not as fun. so it have a chance of been nerf again... which will just keep upsetting both side in till the card become worthless an no one talk about it anymore.

now repeat the process every 2-3 months a new card is made an it get old fast knowing your awesome card may be crap tomorrow.



TLDR

they stated it easier to ban one card, then trying balance all cards around Nerf's which just upset players

Malakili
04-07-2014, 06:49 AM
This is actually the correct way of making use of the digital tools. It offers the best of both worlds.


Is it actually better? What if the nerfed card turns out to be still too powerful? Do we go for another round of ban/nerfs? What if the "nerfed" card has been significantly reworked instead of just a cost adjustment or something and it introduces something unintended to one of the formats?

What about new packs? Does the unnerfed card appear in packs bought of that set? Unless you want the value of that card to be potentially really messsed up, you'd want to keep "printing" it at least until that set goes out of "print." So does the size of the set just get bumped up by 1 all of a sudden an both appear in packs? What if the changes also warrant a change in the card's rarity?


There is no reason this needs to be done. The system they have in place is well tested and doesn't need to change just because it can change.

Kroan
04-07-2014, 06:53 AM
I actually disagree with everyone shouting "bans are not worse than nerfs". Nerfing is better.

To be more precise: Nerfing + Banning.

Ban the card in the format and immediately introduce a nerfed version of it (not with the next set or something like that). Give everyone who has the banned card a copy of the nerfed card. Thanks to the digital era, this can even be the exact same physical card (preventing trading from half of the card). Ban the nerfed version in all formats where the banned card is not overpowered. Leave the weaker version susceptible to further nerfs for a short period of time.

Conclusion:
Everyone STILL has their banned card in the other formats, but the format where it got banned now has a more balanced version.
Total conclusion:
The card will retain more of its value: no loss of value due to having a weaker version in other formats, yet less loss of value thanks to the card actually still be playable in the format where it's banned.

This is actually the correct way of making use of the digital tools. It offers the best of both worlds.

Major downside: Might create some confusion, but that's something a good visual cue can fix. Yes, because multiple versions of the same card is something we would want :P Only reading your post confused me already. Imagine how that's going to be with a tens of thousands of cards. "Hey, card X is really sweet!" "Do you mean version a or b?" "Well actually, they just released version c, but I like b most".

DanTheMeek
04-07-2014, 06:55 AM
I actually disagree with everyone shouting "bans are not worse than nerfs". Nerfing is better.

To be more precise: Nerfing + Banning.

Ban the card in the format and immediately introduce a nerfed version of it (not with the next set or something like that). Give everyone who has the banned card a copy of the nerfed card. Thanks to the digital era, this can even be the exact same physical card (preventing trading from half of the card). Ban the nerfed version in all formats where the banned card is not overpowered. Leave the weaker version susceptible to further nerfs for a short period of time.

Conclusion:
Everyone STILL has their banned card in the other formats, but the format where it got banned now has a more balanced version.
Total conclusion:
The card will retain more of its value: no loss of value due to having a weaker version in other formats, yet less loss of value thanks to the card actually still be playable in the format where it's banned.

This is actually the correct way of making use of the digital tools. It offers the best of both worlds.

Major downside: Might create some confusion, but that's something a good visual cue can fix.

This is more or less what I suggested in the original ban vs nerf thread forever ago and still the option I feel is the best, only I wouldn't make the new card the same card banned, but a brand new card (perhaps with a name or image inspired by the original) to avoid ocnfusion. Still, the concept remains the same, ban the card out of PvP, but then make a replacement (preferably similar but if the very nature of the card itself makes it un-balancable then just something in the same shard), give a number of copies of the replacement equal to the number of said banned card every player owns out (I had 3 of the card that got banned so I get 3 of its replacement), and replace the banned card with the new card in its respective PvP pack going forward. Takes a little bit of the frustration off for players who only plan to play PvP, while still keeping the original card playable in PvE or wild west tournaments for those who don't wan it nerfed. Also removes the problem of having a PvE only card appearing in PvP packs going forward (or the shard balance of the set being thrown off if they just removed it from the pack).

While ideally no card ever gets banned, there needs to be a good plan in place for how to do deal with it if it happens, and I feel like simply banning it and taking no further action creates a number of issues that this would, if not fix, at least help reduce.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 07:21 AM
I don't like the ban+nerf idea, because ramming the new card down our throats is a pain, and its confusing, and limits the appeal of any cards released in the future with a similar effect.

Look at MtG: they did it right. They didn't go reprint black lotus as a weaker card in the same set, they instead waited a few sets and started introducing very similar cards, appropriately nerfed. Lotus petal, gilded lotus, etc. But what if they had released one or more of those in the same set, in the place of black lotus? (Lets ignore the logistics of the printing process.)

Future versions and reprints would have been a lot less impactful. We want to keep this game collectible. I think this idea would discourage people.

Thrawn
04-07-2014, 07:23 AM
No, and this has been discussed to death and did not need a new post.

Jinxies
04-07-2014, 08:57 AM
I'm all for card nerfs, it works great in Game of Thrones and that's a physical card game. That said I have nothing against bans.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 09:00 AM
I'm all for card nerfs, it works great in Game of Thrones and that's a physical card game. That said I have nothing against bans.

Game of Thrones is a CCG or LCG right? I know it isn't the typical TCG. I think thats a big factor in why it works - in a TCG you need to be able to trade etc, and value is required for that. Nerfs destroy the value, where in a CCG/LCG it is not as large of an impact - it is simply balance tweaks.

Jinxies
04-07-2014, 09:06 AM
Correct, I guess I'm more concerned about the integrity of the game than the value of my collection. Some people are more into trading which is fine :P

To be completely honest I care the most about CZE sticking to their word when it comes to stuff like this, so I hope they stick with bans. I'm probably making no sense, just spent 3 hrs in a really boring lecture xD

a-V-e-n
04-07-2014, 09:06 AM
This is a digital game so it doesn't have to follow what a physical game does. And even some physical TCGs introduce balancing erratas to cards, but this is not an elegant solution.

The problem is not in releasing new worse versions of an overpowered card in later sets. The problem is totally killing the value of cards by outright banning them. This can outright destroy entire decks instead of bringing them to a fair level, and it's decks that we'll spend money on.

Just look at the new balance patch notes. For example the card Eye of Creation is found to be too powerful. It received a fair balance update. If the game was live and players spent a lot of money to build their Eye of Creation decks they would totally hate seeing the card banned - the entire deck goes bye bye. But if instead the card was just rebalanced as we see it now the deck would remain playable, but would just not dominate the metagame as much.

There has to be a better solution. Use the power that comes from the fact the game is 100% digital!

How about balancing changes (nerfs) that affect just specific formats but not the others? A simple switch in the deck builder would change the display of your cards to chosen format. A small {!} icon could indicate that a card has different versions and clicking it or a filter option could switch the display to versions for a selected format.
Or perhaps use the crafting system if the interface work is too complicated - for example let us take a card that got banned in Standard, add a common crafting material to transform it to a nerfed version legal in standard, and let us change it back the same way. Economy and other formats wouldn't suffer.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 09:24 AM
Correct, I guess I'm more concerned about the integrity of the game than the value of my collection. Some people are more into trading which is fine :P

To be completely honest I care the most about CZE sticking to their word when it comes to stuff like this, so I hope they stick with bans. I'm probably making no sense, just spent 3 hrs in a really boring lecture xD

Well, trading is part of the integrity - you can have an amazing and fun format with bans, but people will quit the game if their cards are worthless. So nerfs can really hurt, especially since they would be far more widespread than bans.





This is a digital game so it doesn't have to follow what a physical game does. And even some physical TCGs introduce balancing erratas to cards, but this is not an elegant solution.

The problem is not in releasing new worse versions of an overpowered card in later sets. The problem is totally killing the value of cards by outright banning them. This can outright destroy entire decks instead of bringing them to a fair level, and it's decks that we'll spend money on.

Just look at the new balance patch notes. For example the card Eye of Creation is found to be too powerful. It received a fair balance update. If the game was live and players spent a lot of money to build their Eye of Creation decks they would totally hate seeing the card banned - the entire deck goes bye bye. But if instead the card was just rebalanced as we see it now the deck would remain playable, but would just not dominate the metagame as much.

There has to be a better solution. Use the power that comes from the fact the game is 100% digital!

How about balancing changes (nerfs) that affect just specific formats but not the others? A simple switch in the deck builder would change the display of your cards to chosen format. A small {!} icon could indicate that a card has different versions and clicking it or a filter option could switch the display to versions for a selected format.
Or perhaps use the crafting system if the interface work is too complicated - for example let us take a card that got banned in Standard, add a common crafting material to transform it to a nerfed version legal in standard, and let us change it back the same way. Economy and other formats wouldn't suffer.

You are not thinking about this the right way. Say we have the Eye of creation - it didn't get the upcoming nerf, and made it live as-is. Then after its live, they overreact, and say 'Let's nerf it!' and bring it down way too much, to the point that even the deck that used it doesn't want it anymore. They then have to buff it - all the people that hated the Eye will now be upset. It will see-saw all over the place.

Plus, who wants to get the overpowered cards if you know they are going to be nerfed? Almost every above curve card will end up being nerfed, so no-one will bother to get them in the first place, lowering the price... It will completely destroy value of EVERY card that is not perfectly tuned, and not just the single card that would have been banned.

And the balance changes all through alpha - some decks got completely destroyed, which is what you are complaining about bans doing anyway. You cannot please everyone, and nerfs will hurt more than bans - if Eye got banned, I could still use it in PvE. If it got nerfed, I wouldn't even bother. That simple.

BossHoss
04-07-2014, 09:47 AM
So I just got a new Ferrari and took it to the track this weekend. I was accidentally entered in the 4 cylinder division but told it was too fast to race in the Ford Pinto class. I could pull out the engine and replace it with a 4 cylinder engine and race if I wanted or I could retain the value of the car and go race in a different division....

Hmmm, I'll stick to banning thanks

Zer0
04-07-2014, 10:50 AM
Its not just the fun of the card or power of the card being banned... just remember, people are going to be paying real money for cards. The value of cards will take a nosedive if their effects can be changed on a whim. I dont think people will stick around this game for long if they have to pay real money for cards that become worthless 2 weeks later.

ossuary
04-07-2014, 11:09 AM
People who call for cards to be nerfed rather than banned quite simply do not understand economics. Nerfing destroys the value of all cards with perceived power. Banning CAN harm value somewhat of specific cards, but is far less damaging than nerfing, both to individual cards and all cards in general.

RDarkfire
04-07-2014, 11:27 AM
I think this entire thread proves that there needs to be a similar "beta" phase before the release of each set to "get it right". *THAT* is how you can take advantage of the digital space in this game.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 11:41 AM
I think this entire thread proves that there needs to be a similar "beta" phase before the release of each set to "get it right". *THAT* is how you can take advantage of the digital space in this game.

Well, CZE is using this time to set a baseline to work off. When they have a baseline, they will be able to assess power of new designs by comparing it to existing cards. The actual balance wont be in such a dire need for testing - bugs however, might be worth testing, so I can't disagree with a testing phase. Although the QA team is apparently getting better at finding bugs - we have seen in the Alan thread that they are often a few steps ahead of us, or isolate the problems we don't understand in a single afternoon.

I think CZE will only get better with time though, and the need for any external testing may evaporate.

Gwaer
04-07-2014, 11:55 AM
I wish they released eye as it was and then banned it if it were a problem. I'd rather have old eye even if I could only use it in PVE.

Zomnivore
04-07-2014, 12:10 PM
I think nerfing creates a larger amount of fiddle room compared to banning. Banning might still be fiddly but I think it leads to less actions taken to counteract cards. Taking one card out of the equation is better then fiddling with stats forever and ever for however many cards and the entire web of interactions.

Why is it strictly better? Costs.

In a perfect world balancing would be better...but in my mind banning is probably the cleanest cut for making things easy on everyone.

Lord knows how I hated pinning ON AND ON AND ON about how my favorite champion in x f2p game was getting adjusted this week and the next (strictly apples to oranges but the color temperature of the problem is like... a warm tone problem and oranges and apples are warm tones...you get the badly stated idea right?)

YourOpponent
04-07-2014, 12:15 PM
I actually disagree with everyone shouting "bans are not worse than nerfs". Nerfing is better.

To be more precise: Nerfing + Banning.

Ban the card in the format and immediately introduce a nerfed version of it (not with the next set or something like that). Give everyone who has the banned card a copy of the nerfed card. Thanks to the digital era, this can even be the exact same physical card (preventing trading from half of the card). Ban the nerfed version in all formats where the banned card is not overpowered. Leave the weaker version susceptible to further nerfs for a short period of time.

Conclusion:
Everyone STILL has their banned card in the other formats, but the format where it got banned now has a more balanced version.
Total conclusion:
The card will retain more of its value: no loss of value due to having a weaker version in other formats, yet less loss of value thanks to the card actually still be playable in the format where it's banned.

This is actually the correct way of making use of the digital tools. It offers the best of both worlds.

Major downside: Might create some confusion, but that's something a good visual cue can fix.


I do like your idea, but see how it could be confusing for some people. I am guessing that whenever you open a pack of cards it would be like opening the banned card, but it acts like whatever it should depending on whatever format you are doing at the time.

ossuary
04-07-2014, 12:32 PM
I wish they released eye as it was and then banned it if it were a problem. I'd rather have old eye even if I could only use it in PVE.

For once I agree with you completely. Especially since this thrice-nerfed version is such a piece of shit compared to the one spoiled in the Kickstarter campaign. Eye of Creation is, like, half the reason I initially decided to back the game. "These guys get it," I said. Oh well. :p

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 12:36 PM
For once I agree with you completely. Especially since this thrice-nerfed version is such a piece of shit compared to the one spoiled in the Kickstarter campaign. Eye of Creation is, like, half the reason I initially decided to back the game. "These guys get it," I said. Oh well. :p

I would not be surprised if the original effect surfaces as a legendary PvE card under a different name in the future. :p

DanTheMeek
04-07-2014, 12:39 PM
There's a couple of what I would consider, if not fallacies, at least bad assumptions, being made in this thread.

First, and foremost, nerfing a card does NOT mean its bad. If you nerf a card well, the card is still powerful and desirable, just not *insert the reason it needed a nerf*. The biggest argument I keep seeing against nerfs is that nerfing the card will make it useless and worthless, but this is only true if CZE doesn't know how to balance cards and thus over nerfs it. If they nerf it right, maybe it will no longer be a negative play experience to go against, or maybe it will no longer be so good that whoever draws it first wins every game, or whatever the reason it needed the nerf, but it will still be a really good card people would want to have. Banning a card IS nerfing the card, only you're nerfing it as far into the ground as you possibly can be adding the text "You may not include this card in any deck or reference it with any card that references cards not in your deck". A ban isn't better then nerfing, because it is nerfing, its the ULTIMATE nerf. The idea as to WHY you would nerf a card in this way (commonly referred to banning) instead of just altering it or nerfing it more slightly so that its still powerful but not creating a negative play experience is because there are other format(s) it can be used in where it doesn't create a NPE (such as vs cpu who don't care how unfair your card is cause they have no feelings).

The problem with this is that it makes another bad assumption, and thats that people who have already gotten these banned (aka ultimate nerfed) cards will want to use them in this other format(s). There may be some people who only ever plan to PvP, so a now PvE only card that they spent bucko bucks to get has exactly zero value to them, pure loss. They may be able to re-sell it, but almost certainly at a huge loss. All they get out of it is lost money due to CZE's mistake.

ON top of all that still, you have the other issue with bans that I feel like most of the pro-ban only people are ignoring, which is, what becomes of the banned cards in the packs they come in? What if I draft and I get this banned card in a pack, do we just ignore it unless I'm drafting for greed and it does still have some value? If they remove the card entirely from the pack, now the pack balance is thrown off, thats one less card in the set, 1 less card of a shard type, if it was common or uncommon its loss can have HUGE ramifications on the balance of draft in particular.

This is why I feel the ban + replacement card is the ideal situation. That slot gets replaced by a new card that may or may not even work like the old one, but is intended to be a powerful and desirable card, just not the NPE the old one was. PvP only players who already had the card now get the replacement instead of just having nothing but lost investment, and if they still don't want the new card either, well they can sell both the new card and the PvE'd only old card and maybe through selling both, if not get back their investment, at least come a lot closer.

Another option that is less elegant is that upon banning CZE gives everyone who has the banned card a stippend of plat based on how many of said card they had, but that gets a bit more complicated as to how much to give, and we're back at our previous problem of do we remove the banned card from the packs it come in, and regardless, how will this effect draft balance, so I still prefer the ban + replacement option.

Okay my lunch break is almost over, rant over.

Thrawn
04-07-2014, 12:49 PM
There's a couple of what I would consider, if not fallacies, at least bad assumptions, being made in this thread.

First, and foremost, nerfing a card does NOT mean its bad. If you nerf a card well, the card is still powerful and desirable, just not *insert the reason it needed a nerf*. The biggest argument I keep seeing against nerfs is that nerfing the card will make it useless and worthless, but this is only true if CZE doesn't know how to balance cards and thus over nerfs it.

The argument is not that they will make it useless and worthless, the argument is that it makes the secondary market untrustworthy. You won't want to pay $100 for four copies of that amazing, automatic four of in every deck running that shard card if you start to hear rumors that it's going to be nerfed. It could be balanced well, still be a good card, but still have it's value cut in half and you just lost half your money because they decided the card was too good.

If CZE knows how to balance cards bans will be so rare it won't be much of an issue anyways.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 12:50 PM
Dan, the problem isn't whether a card is nerfed into oblivion or not, it is that any nerf will lower the value. Dropping a card from the most desired card to the second most desired card is going to negatively impact the value of the card, even if it is a powerful card.

And with nerfs on the table, nobody will ever be happy, period. "Oh no, Eye can play an EG, and EG is immune to my murder, NERF!" and "Ozawa is a 20/20 if my opponent doesn't take damage, NERF!" - this is all you will hear from dissatisfied players, because with nerfs on the table, they will expect every card to be within a certain range of power. There could never be any outliers. There could never be this awesome niche card that can be an instant gamewinner. And on the flip side, any underpowered card will have people screaming for buffs - if you want some evidence, just look at the forums over the last few months. Calls for buffs and nerfs, almost weekly.

A flat ban is the most time efficient, cost efficient, and player friendly option around. CZE could avoid the balance problems with good design and the rare ban, rather than having to tweak most of a set and lose out on tons of useful dev time.

Patrigan
04-07-2014, 01:00 PM
Yes, because multiple versions of the same card is something we would want :P Only reading your post confused me already. Imagine how that's going to be with a tens of thousands of cards. "Hey, card X is really sweet!" "Do you mean version a or b?" "Well actually, they just released version c, but I like b most".

You seem to not have understood what I said, versions would be limited to a format. So you wouldn't discuss it in terms of version a b or c, but in terms of the format. Much like people discuss cards now "that card is great in constructed, but sucks in limited".

It's a lot like how they work in League of Legends. Some champions have been slightly nerfed in some of the formats, yet they remain the same in all other formats.

Also keep in mind, knowing how well CZE balances, the need for this will likely not happen often. However, having the tech in the system can allow them to create a dungeon where select cards could be nerfed (because they would trivialize the content).


People who call for cards to be nerfed rather than banned quite simply do not understand economics. Nerfing destroys the value of all cards with perceived power. Banning CAN harm value somewhat of specific cards, but is far less damaging than nerfing, both to individual cards and all cards in general.

Ossuary. My proposal does not harm the card's value, in fact it has a better mileage than banning. Let's say there was only constructed format. Banning the card there would basically make the total value of the card equal to 0. Nerfing the card, however, makes it still have some value. Less than before, I admit, but still some. Now let's say there was only Legacy, where the card shouldn't be banned. Because nothing changes there, he retains the value he has there.

"Summing" both values would clearly give it a higher value when the card is nerfed only for select formats and remains the same for other formats.

I feel that people barely think outside the box. The digital era allows for so much more than the simplistic approaches of just nerfing and just banning. The middle route is the way to go.

Malakili
04-07-2014, 01:01 PM
Seriously Dan, just look at the Magic market to see that pretty much all of your points are wrong.

Patrigan
04-07-2014, 01:07 PM
Seriously Dan, just look at the Magic market to see that pretty much all of your points are wrong.

how does that prove nerfing is worse? Last I looked there are no nerfs in Magic...

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 01:08 PM
I feel that people barely think outside the box. The digital era allows for so much more than the simplistic approaches of just nerfing and just banning. The middle route is the way to go.


It isn't about thinking outside the box - we have considered those ideas, and I feel a little insulted that you assume we haven't. The point is it is not realistic to leave nerfs on the table, even with the middle ground. People will cry for nerfs. People will cry for buffs. Buffing/nerfing in separate formats will just upset people.

Also, how would deckbuilding work? Do you have multiple copies in your collection? Or does it automatically change? Do you have a chance to preview the changes? Etc etc. So much extra work for something that is going to be the smallest benefit when compared to a ban.

EDIT: spelling, thanks Patrigan.

Patrigan
04-07-2014, 01:13 PM
It isn't about thinking outside the box - we have considered those ideas, and I feel a little insulted that you assume we haven't. The point is it is not realistic to leave nerfs on the table, even with the middle ground. People will cry for nerfs. People will cry for buffs. Buffing/nerfing in separate formats will just upset people.

Also, how would deckbuilding work? Do you have multiple copies in your collection? Or does it automatically change? Do you have a change to preview the changes? Etc etc. So much extra work for something that is going to be the smallest benefit when compared to a ban.

Sorry, I did not mean to insult. People were just glancing over that part.

People will always cry so that point is really not a point. If they're not crying for a nerf, they'll cry for a ban. Potayto, Potato.

The tech is very useful in PvE as well, so they wouldn't really lose out on implementing it.

As for those questions in the end:
-Filter (with a player settable default), or a default set by the format in which he's currently building.
-One "physical card", to make sure that people don't suddenly trade half of their "card" away.

I honestly don't understand the "change to preview the changes"? Did you mean chance? In that case, an errata list would work nicely, I think.

Malakili
04-07-2014, 01:16 PM
how does that prove nerfing is worse? Last I looked there are no nerfs in Magic...

First of all, most of his claims were about the economy.

We have an example of a functional, working card economy and he was making claims that were objectively wrong about what would happen when something is banned from a format.

ossuary
04-07-2014, 01:19 PM
Ossuary. My proposal does not harm the card's value, in fact it has a better mileage than banning. Let's say there was only constructed format. Banning the card there would basically make the total value of the card equal to 0. Nerfing the card, however, makes it still have some value. Less than before, I admit, but still some. Now let's say there was only Legacy, where the card shouldn't be banned. Because nothing changes there, he retains the value he has there.

"Summing" both values would clearly give it a higher value when the card is nerfed only for select formats and remains the same for other formats.

I feel that people barely think outside the box. The digital era allows for so much more than the simplistic approaches of just nerfing and just banning. The middle route is the way to go.

Like I said... you don't understand economics. I am talking about the intrinsic and perceived value of ALL cards, not just the single card affected by one specific nerf. If nerfs are on the table, the confidence in the value of all cards will be on the shakiest of ground, and potentially many members of a significant source of TCG income (the whales) won't even bother. CZE will lose out on lots of money, we will have fewer people to play with, and our collections will not be worth the pixels they're printed on.

It is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea to treat TCG cards as modifiable digital items, even in a purely digital game. It's bad for business, plain and simple.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 01:28 PM
I am going to put it in simple terms, going off what Oss said: the threat of a nerf would lower the price people would be willing to pay for cards. Period. Any good card could be hit with the nerfbat at any time. All power levels would be questionable. It could happen once in 10 sets, but that threat would still lower the value inherently.

Patrigan
04-07-2014, 01:30 PM
Like I said... you don't understand economics. I am talking about the intrinsic and perceived value of ALL cards, not just the single card affected by one specific nerf. If nerfs are on the table, the confidence in the value of all cards will be on the shakiest of ground, and potentially many members of a significant source of TCG income (the whales) won't even bother. CZE will lose out on lots of money, we will have fewer people to play with, and our collections will not be worth the pixels they're printed on.

This is bullshit and you know it. Nerfs are just equally possible as bans. Nowhere do I claim they have to be swifter with nerfing, the less they touch the cards after release, the better, no matter if it's bans or nerfs.

So if you "fear" the nerfs, you should equally fear the bans. And if you're afraid that nerfs will scare off the whales, sorry, but then you're already too late. CZE has done barely nothing but nerfing and banning. Yes we, the ones who often visit the forums, know that these nerfs were only temporary. All the whales who visited and hadn't backed don't.

In fact, I even have a friend who was very happy seeing how swift CZE was to buff and nerf where needed. I can say that he is a whole lot less happy after I told them wat CZE's current plans are.

Lastly, the whales are usually the smallest part of the community, so don't fear for the number of players. You are right in considering CZE's income, but I doubt that at the current point in time it makes any difference anymore. However, if the PvE is as powerful as it looks and attracts as many plankton as we hope, the whales will come in, regardless of their "fear" for nerfs.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 01:36 PM
Speaking of PvE Pat, Cory said he reserves the right to nerf there, because no money changes hands and it lets him truly push the boundaries. He doesn't want to interfere with the secondary market if he can help it, but he wants to deal with the occasional problem card in PvP with bans. He doesn't feel that nerfs are the right way to go, if that helps any in the discussion.

Gwaer
04-07-2014, 01:37 PM
That's incorrect based solely on how nerfing has been used in the past. That is what the market will think about. The fact that lol nerfs champs every week, it changes up its meta with nerfs constantly. This game need not ever treat them like that, but the vast public will. While bans already are very infrequent in pretty much any card game, so that is the expected perception of them.

LLCoolDave
04-07-2014, 01:37 PM
In other words, bannings are such drastic measures that everyone involved has a mutual understanding that they only happen as a last ditch effort if a format shows itself to be incapable of dealing with the issue on its own. Power level adjustments of individual cards are a much smaller incision to a format so there's a stronger perceived threat of cards being treated with this, even if CZE would only do these adjustments in situations where a card would otherwise be banned. When card nerfs are on the table instead of bannings, the perceived level of format stability is lower and will be reflected in the market and player expectations.

I also feel that having format specific versions of a card would be rather confusing to players. The same card doing something different depending on if you play it in block constructed or an eternal format seems rather strange to me personally.

Patrigan
04-07-2014, 01:42 PM
That's incorrect based solely on how nerfing has been used in the past. That is what the market will think about. The fact that lol nerfs champs every week, it changes up its meta with nerfs constantly. This game need not ever treat them like that, but the vast public will. While bans already are very infrequent in pretty much any card game, so that is the expected perception of them.

That's an image that is swiftly enough changed. LoL wasn't the biggest MOBA in history during their first year and if CZE can prove barely (if at all) touching the cards for a whole year, this perception will dissipate quickly enough. If CZE has to touch 3-4 cards (which they would otherwise have banned as well), I think we have a different problem altogether.

Xenavire, how will he nerf a problematic PvP card in PvE? There's no reason why it shouldn't be possible.


Also, to be clear, I am not 100% in the nerfing over banning camp. I fully agree with the point made that a card in PvP should not suddenly change in PvE (or Legacy) because it's too powerful in PvP. It's why I propsed the other solution which essentially offers some of the best of both worlds.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 01:42 PM
Also, just a quick point - limited formats are going to give the card play-value even if it is banned, even if the secondary market value is next to nothing after a ban. I don't know of any cards off the top of my head that were ever banned in draft or sealed, so making changes to cards could impact those formats more than it would constructed.

We need to consider every aspect before we try to make a change or condemn a new idea after all.


Pat: I meant that he will only ever nerf PvE cards. PvP cards are unlikely to ever impact PvE unless they are so broken in PvP that they get banned anyway.


EDIT: I also had a thought - some cards are only broken when used together, and usually come from separate sets. So one or both the cards get banned until that set rotates out - then both cards are perfectly legal again. A nerf would completely destroy one or both cards simply because those cards ended up in the same format for a few months.

Patrigan
04-07-2014, 01:54 PM
Also, just a quick point - limited formats are going to give the card play-value even if it is banned, even if the secondary market value is next to nothing after a ban. I don't know of any cards off the top of my head that were ever banned in draft or sealed, so making changes to cards could impact those formats more than it would constructed.

We need to consider every aspect before we try to make a change or condemn a new idea after all.


Pat: I meant that he will only ever nerf PvE cards. PvP cards are unlikely to ever impact PvE unless they are so broken in PvP that they get banned anyway.

I think limited formats are a special case. A card with no play value in the format makes no difference if it gets banned in another format. But let's say they ever make a card "pay 5 draw 7", it would have play value in both formats, so you should consider banning it in limited as well. But banning it there will upset the balance of the number of rares / cards for each color. Even if only slightly, it will have a long term effect of seeing more of a wanted bomb rare. But to be honest, it would suck to get a banned card in a booster pack, even if it is during a limited event.

PvP cards will equally impact PvE though. I can't remember when, but they somewhere stated that PvE and PvP cards will be equal in balance, it's the equipment/dungeon rules that will make PvE crazy. PvE will also be somewhat of a testbed for crazy powers, I think that we'll often see a card that first made an appearance in PvE make an appearance in a later set (not necessarily the same card, but something similar).

In that sense, I also don't really fear that there will be need for many nerfs / bans. Many "crazy" powers can and should be tested first in PvE. Perhaps not in the same form, but they'll learn a lot from PvE. This is also the main reason why I'm not squarely against pure bans, but it just feels like a lost chance to improve upon a rather conservative standard from physical cardgames.

(also another apology if I insulted earlier. I felt like people were just ignoring my post, damned intarwebs, off to bed now, so no more responses).

MDRockstar
04-07-2014, 01:58 PM
No.

Gee, that was an easy question, we need more like this.

So much this!

the_artic_one
04-07-2014, 02:06 PM
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, neither is strictly better. CZE has decided that they value the advantages of banning more so that's what they went with.

DanTheMeek
04-07-2014, 06:06 PM
Here's an interesting fact that occurred to me. A banned PvP card becomes a PvE only card, correct? And Corey said he's willing to nerf PvE only cards, correct? So its not impossible that a card could be banned... AND nerfed. Now you've got the worst of both worlds, your card is LITERALLY unplayable in PvP, and its nerfed in PvE anyway too!

There's been a lot of good thoughts shared in this thread, but not one has convinced me that pure banning or pure nerfing is better then banning and replacing. If a company says they won't ban a card unless they have to and another says they won't nerf unless they have to, I don't personally feel the latter is more likely to occur more then the former, if anything its the opposite since rebalancing is hard, banning is easy, but everyone has a different mindset so I can understand how some would feel differently. Still, just so we're clear, I'm not calling for nerfing, I'd prefer nerfing over banning if those were my only two options having played enough games that did one or the other, but CZE doesn't have to, they CAN do something I've never seen done before and ban and replace instead.

In fact, I think I also like banning and replacing more then pure banning because while, again, just banning is easy, CZE can probably just turn a 0 to a 1 some where in their code and the card is now PvE only, if they have to replace it too they then have to go and make a brand new card and make it balanced in a set that's already well into its life cycle, which would not be the easiest thing, nor would it be with out meaningful costs to CZE, so it gives players much more confidence that CZE is never going to ban and replace a card lightly.

Banning might be easy, but if you have to develop a replacement, you're not going to do it unless the card really REALLY proves to be a problem. Now I don't want to push it too far toward making them hesitant to ever ban and replace, cause I do think the willingness to ban when its needed is essential for the health of the game (I really don't think MTG would still be around if not their own ban list), but Corey has given me every indication that while he plans to do his darndest to make absolutely sure no card releases in a state where banning might be needed, he will drop the ban hammer if he must for the good of the game. Banning and replacing would just take the sting off the ban for a lot of players (at least in my opinion) AND give players more confidence that they're cards probably aren't going to be touched just cause they're a little on the strong side.

To me its still the best of both worlds, so the adversity to it in this thread is a bit of a noodle scratch-er for me, but its nice to see at least one person in the thread who seems to be thinking along the same lines I am.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 06:14 PM
Dan - it isnt the same. A PvE card is not legal in any PvP format. A banned card can still be used in limited, and almost always in legacy. A banned PvP card isn't the same as a PvE card - I had considered the idea actually, but decided it wouldn't be different from just nerfing it, except you banned it for no reason.

Plus a PvP card is typically going to be weaker in PvE. I think it is unlikely that a banned PvP card woukd need a nerf in PvE.

I can respect that you haven't seen an argument that convinced you yet. I do have one thing to mention, I doubt it will sway you, but worth a shot: it is easier to unban than it is to un-nerf, and when people are used to nerfs, they wont accept bans. So we should start with bans, and then progress to nerfs if bans aren't working, because it is the easier of the two to fix.

Werlix
04-07-2014, 06:15 PM
I am going to put it in simple terms, going off what Oss said: the threat of a nerf would lower the price people would be willing to pay for cards. Period. Any good card could be hit with the nerfbat at any time. All power levels would be questionable. It could happen once in 10 sets, but that threat would still lower the value inherently.

I'm not sure which I prefer to be honest but I think the "ban is better" people need to realise that the "nerf is better" people are simply saying to replace bans with nerfs. Not to introduce a whole truckload of extra nerfs.

It's literally replacing "Hmmm X is too good, let's ban it" with "Hmmm X is too good, let's nerf it" - which should only happen very rarely.

If there would be 2 cards banned in set 1 (after release), then there would be 2 cards nerfed in set 1 instead.

Once again not throwing my hat in either ring but we should be clear on the argument.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 06:31 PM
I'm not sure which I prefer to be honest but I think the "ban is better" people need to realise that the "nerf is better" people are simply saying to replace bans with nerfs. Not to introduce a whole truckload of extra nerfs.

It's literally replacing "Hmmm X is too good, let's ban it" with "Hmmm X is too good, let's nerf it" - which should only happen very rarely.

If there would be 2 cards banned in set 1 (after release), then there would be 2 cards nerfed in set 1 instead.

Once again not throwing my hat in either ring but we should be clear on the argument.

We do understand, but because nerfs are less extreme, they are more acceptable, and get used more and more often... It snowballs. Even if they start at 2 nerfs in the first year, it could easily become 5 the next year, 9 the year after... And because they can nerf, the devs may (I doubt it, but it could happen) end up complacent and end up making slightly more powerful cards, just because they know they can fix them later.

Banning is just extreme enough that we would avoid all of that. Well, at least we hope so. But like I said, a ban is easier to reverse than a nerf. I dont know of any errata that was reverted, for example, but I have seen banned cards become legal again.

DanTheMeek
04-07-2014, 06:51 PM
Dan - it isnt the same. A PvE card is not legal in any PvP format. A banned card can still be used in limited, and almost always in legacy. A banned PvP card isn't the same as a PvE card - I had considered the idea actually, but decided it wouldn't be different from just nerfing it, except you banned it for no reason.

Plus a PvP card is typically going to be weaker in PvE. I think it is unlikely that a banned PvP card woukd need a nerf in PvE.

I can respect that you haven't seen an argument that convinced you yet. I do have one thing to mention, I doubt it will sway you, but worth a shot: it is easier to unban than it is to un-nerf, and when people are used to nerfs, they wont accept bans. So we should start with bans, and then progress to nerfs if bans aren't working, because it is the easier of the two to fix.

Your statement is certainly true, but the point I'm a little unclear on, is that I"m not calling for nerfs, I'm calling for bans and replacements. That's different. The replacement COULD be effectively a nerfed version of the original card, and if you then wanted to un-ban the original card that would obviously be a little awkward (but not unprecedented as MTG has plenty of cards which are strictly better or strictly worse versions of existing cards), but the replacement doesn't have to be just a nerfed version of the original, it could be something completley new, maybe a tweak on the idea that causes it to play a lot different, maybe another bomb card they had planned for the next set they feel could work in this set to, whatever. In that case, if the card does get unbanned latter, we as the players are even more the winner as we got back the original card, plus still get to keep the useful replacement as well.

Honestly, the more I think about the issue the more I feel like what I really want is just some assurance that if we do get our cards banned, there will be some compensation to the player. The replacement card is just what I feel would be an elegant way to do that, allowing CZE to avoid the confusion of having cards legal in some pvp formats of the current block, but not all, while other cards are legal in all formats, and others still are only legal in pve.

I do admit though that I was close sighted on the fact that a banned card doesn't HAVE to be made pve only if its not creating an NPE in limited, for example, it could stay there, but I'd still feel horribly slighted every time I pulled one from a pack or picked one in a draft knowing I couldn't actually use it in any legal constructed format. I also want to take a moment to note that I do appreciate your respectful responses and just want to be clear, despite our often contrary opinions on things that seem to constantly have us in arguments on the forums, I have a lot of respect for you and find you one of the wiser and more well spoken members of the hex forum, so I hope you never get the impression that I think poorly of you during our debates.

Xenavire
04-07-2014, 07:17 PM
I just want to ask something. Why do you want compensation? You aren't losing the card. It hasn't been changed. It could be unbanned later. It is legal in other places. Etc.

I mean if you think about it, when a set rotates, all of those cards are effectively banned. And the reprinted cards are just them being unbanned. Should players be given compensation when a set rotates?

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me really, so your input interests me.

Gwaer
04-07-2014, 09:01 PM
That is actually a point that was made in the last thread like this that I don't think has been made here...

The reason banning is more appropriate in a true TCG is because the eventual fate of ALL cards is to be banned. occasionally one is playing havoc with a set in a certain format and has to be banned a little early, but the reprint is the "nerf" if it needs one in the new block. But honestly something that is OP in one block is not necessarily OP in another, so occasionally you can reprint a previously -early banned- card exactly the same and it isn't a problem in that set.

DanTheMeek
04-07-2014, 10:31 PM
I just want to ask something. Why do you want compensation? You aren't losing the card. It hasn't been changed. It could be unbanned later. It is legal in other places. Etc.

I mean if you think about it, when a set rotates, all of those cards are effectively banned. And the reprinted cards are just them being unbanned. Should players be given compensation when a set rotates?

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me really, so your input interests me.

Cause having a card rendered unplayable in the format I specifically payed real money to be able to play it in is frustrating. That'd be like if I bought a car to get me to and from work and I was driving for a couple years and then one day they manufacturer comes to me and says there's a recall on their car, you can't drive it on the road anymore, its too dangerous. You can still drive it in our bumper car arena or in any sort of demoltion derby, but no, we're not fixing it for you or refunding your money in anyway, just taking away your right to drive the car in the very place you paid good money to drive it. Oh and you probably still need to get to work, so you're probably going to have to spend money you don't have to buy another car now. When you bought your car you knew it wasn't going to last forever, eventually it was going to break down, but you expected it to last a normal car's life, not be made undrivable for the purpose you bought it 2 years in.

Thats whats happening with a ban of a card, sure I can still use it in pve, but I paid possibly top dollar to be able to use it to compete in PvP, now I may have to pay top dollar again to build another deck. Sure I knew the block would cycle eventually, but the end of the block was still a long way off. In the end, the manufacturer (in this case CZE instead of the car manufacturer) screwed up, yet I'm the one paying for their mistake.

That's not to say I'm against bans, not at all, I was actually tickled pink when a ban list was first implemented in yugioh even though I had playsets of nearly everything on the ban list, because I knew the cards going onto the list were hurting the game. I understand that if used well, ban lists help everyone, even those whose cards are banned, because they make the game more enjoyable for all involved and increase player retention. If my choices were bannings with out compensation, or no interaction by CZE at all, I'd always choose bannings. But it would breed infinitely more good will for me if a company like CZE did something classy like put into place some sort of policy that compensated owners of cards they had to ban, whether via replacements or some other method. CZE is run by humans, they're not perfect, they will mess up, just as I'm not perfect at my job either, so at some point a ban will be necessary and when that time comes, I think it would do tremendous good for the morale of the community if they made sure those effected were compensated.

Corey has said that he doesn't just want to be another DTCG, he wants to be THE DTCG, that he wants to do all the things all the other companies should be doing and always finding new ways to be better so that no other game can ever catch up. I think this would be the sort of policy that would be a step in that direction. I don't know of any game that has such a policy, but I'd love CZE even more if they were the first.

Gwaer
04-07-2014, 11:31 PM
We shouldn't be compensated for bans. If cards that are banned are becoming worthless, we have a fundamental problem that needs to be solved, not patched over with some sort of compensation. Cards losing and gaining value is just part of the nature of the beast. The chance is part of the thrill of being a collector. I'm much more interested in CZE making money, and there being a healthy secondary market than some imagined slight from a constructed tournament banned card. There will still be plenty of people playing casual games of all stripes with various banned or restricted cards.

Patrigan
04-08-2014, 12:28 AM
We shouldn't be compensated for bans. If cards that are banned are becoming worthless, we have a fundamental problem that needs to be solved, not patched over with some sort of compensation. Cards losing and gaining value is just part of the nature of the beast. The chance is part of the thrill of being a collector. I'm much more interested in CZE making money, and there being a healthy secondary market than some imagined slight from a constructed tournament banned card. There will still be plenty of people playing casual games of all stripes with various banned or restricted cards.

Agreed with Gwaer. Compensation is a wrong reason to want nerfs.

The primary reason why I'm an advocate for nerfs (but only in the affected format) is that I would hate to see an archetype fall out of favour completely. With a nerf, the archetype might not work as it did, but it still would.

DanTheMeek
04-08-2014, 07:12 AM
GG hex community, seems, as it always the case on these forums, I am wrong about everything. I can only assume that in my old age my brain has ceased firing with any meaningful card related neurons. As such it would be a waste of both my time, and that of those who read and respond to my posts, for me to continue posting (outside of bug reports and non-opinion things of course) so I'm going to try to refrain from posting on the forum again in the future, if not forever, at least in most situations where I would be tempted to. If I feel the urge, being the opinionated person that I am, to post, I'll just have to pull out my old weird "Al" Yankovich CD and listen to a round of "Everything you know is wrong" to remind myself why I decided not to post again. So yeah, GG WP, see you space cowboys.

LLCoolDave
04-08-2014, 07:18 AM
The primary reason why I'm an advocate for nerfs (but only in the affected format) is that I would hate to see an archetype fall out of favour completely. With a nerf, the archetype might not work as it did, but it still would.

I disagree. If an archetype or deck has become so dominant over a long period of time that tournament participation drops significantly (the major reason for bans in TCGs), simply nerfing it to become and average deck isn't going to do you much good. People will still have a strong negative image associated with the deck, even if that isn't strictly warranted anymore post nerfs. The best way to get people to join tournaments again is to give them good confidence that they won't have to face something resembling the thing that made them quit in the first place. If a deck has become loathed and despised enough over a long period of time that it warrants an interception by the developers, effectively removing the archetype as a whole from the tournament scene is probably a healthier approach for the game overall. You don't mask a dead rat with deodorant, you throw out the entire rat to make the room attractive again.

Xenavire
04-08-2014, 09:26 AM
GG hex community, seems, as it always the case on these forums, I am wrong about everything. I can only assume that in my old age my brain has ceased firing with any meaningful card related neurons. As such it would be a waste of both my time, and that of those who read and respond to my posts, for me to continue posting (outside of bug reports and non-opinion things of course) so I'm going to try to refrain from posting on the forum again in the future, if not forever, at least in most situations where I would be tempted to. If I feel the urge, being the opinionated person that I am, to post, I'll just have to pull out my old weird "Al" Yankovich CD and listen to a round of "Everything you know is wrong" to remind myself why I decided not to post again. So yeah, GG WP, see you space cowboys.

Hey, whoa there - we don't want you gone, and your ideas aren't bad or even wrong. There are just lots of things to consider, and you are on the side that has less support right now. That doesn't mean that nerfs wont be the best option in the future, none of us are fortune tellers, we just have reason to believe bans are better for now, and for the foreseeable future. The same logic expands to compensation, and every other idea so far - we feel that one way is better right now, and probably will remain the best way. But that may not be the ultimate truth.

I would rather have your input than no discussion at all, really.

DanTheMeek
04-08-2014, 12:58 PM
I don't plan to be gone, I love Hex and have no intention of leaving the game, and I don't plan to become purely a lurker on the forum either, just plan to try to avoid making any posts in the future that would require I express my opinion since the forum has made it clear my opinion is always the wrong one on anything and everything Hex related.

But yeah, I'll still be around and playing in game. I appreciate your kind words in the matter, and as other game forums I've frequented will attest, I've got no problem with being A dissenter from the popular opinion, but Hex is the first forum where it seems I am always THE dissenter, and usually if your the only one in a huge community of people with a certain opinion, that's a pretty good sign you're the one whose wrong and should be ignored.

In any case, I apologize for hijacking the thread here, and my lunch break is over so, TTFN, but no forever.

Xenavire
04-08-2014, 01:09 PM
I don't plan to be gone, I love Hex and have no intention of leaving the game, and I don't plan to become purely a lurker on the forum either, just plan to try to avoid making any posts in the future that would require I express my opinion since the forum has made it clear my opinion is always the wrong one on anything and everything Hex related.

But yeah, I'll still be around and playing in game. I appreciate your kind words in the matter, and as other game forums I've frequented will attest, I've got no problem with being A dissenter from the popular opinion, but Hex is the first forum where it seems I am always THE dissenter, and usually if your the only one in a huge community of people with a certain opinion, that's a pretty good sign you're the one whose wrong and should be ignored.

In any case, I apologize for hijacking the thread here, and my lunch break is over so, TTFN, but no forever.

Don't worry, I think thats the curse of the alpha - we all bought into Cory's vision, hook line and sinker, barely any questions asked.

Come full launch, there will be more dissenters than you could want, I am sure of it. :p

Yoss
04-08-2014, 01:09 PM
Hey, you got the Concubunny change you wanted. Life isn't all bad. :)

Xenavire
04-08-2014, 01:13 PM
Hey, you got the Concubunny change you wanted. Life isn't all bad. :)

Well, he wasn't really the only dissenter there, nor was he sounding disagreeable - it all made perfect sense, even though arguments could be made not to change, there wasn't much benefit to keeping it the same. He chose the perfect card, the perfect argument, and the perfect way to go about requesting it. :p

I still think Uzume is better than he thinks though haha.

Werlix
04-08-2014, 01:21 PM
GG hex community, seems, as it always the case on these forums, I am wrong about everything. I can only assume that in my old age my brain has ceased firing with any meaningful card related neurons. As such it would be a waste of both my time, and that of those who read and respond to my posts, for me to continue posting (outside of bug reports and non-opinion things of course) so I'm going to try to refrain from posting on the forum again in the future, if not forever, at least in most situations where I would be tempted to. If I feel the urge, being the opinionated person that I am, to post, I'll just have to pull out my old weird "Al" Yankovich CD and listen to a round of "Everything you know is wrong" to remind myself why I decided not to post again. So yeah, GG WP, see you space cowboys.

Hey man I actually think your posts made the most sense out of all the posts in this thread. I completely understand what you're saying and think you have some great ideas. I too dislike the idea of paying loads of cash for a card then having it rendered (effectively) useless. Just because that's the way it works in MtG doesn't mean it has to work like that here.

I think this discussion has gotten to the point where it's basically personal preference. You've argued very well why your solution makes sense and others have (eventually) argued why bans make sense. No one is wrong.

Turtlewing
04-08-2014, 03:40 PM
I think that in general the ban+replace concept is better than nerfing cards, but it's still less ideal than a simple ban.

My main concern is that if the devs let an overpowered card slip though the lengthy pre-release testing process why exactly should we expect the replacement which is likely to see less testing before its release to be better balanced?

Further the main formats where the replacement card would be beneficial would be draft/sealed, which are usually the formats least likely to see a ban (both due to it being harder to abuse overpowered combos, and those formats being easier to test).

Erionn
04-09-2014, 09:37 PM
I think the way Hearthstone handles changing cards is the best by far, but I'm not 100% sure how it could translate to Hex. For those who haven't played Hearthstone, cards can't be traded, but they can be disenchanted for materials and used to craft other cards.

Whenever a card is changed, either positively or negatively, you are able to disenchant it to receive 100% of the card's cost. A Rare for example disenchants for 20 dust and costs 100 to craft, however if a rare was changed recently you can disenchant it for 100 dust and craft any other rare you want.

It's something Blizzard can easily do, considering there is no trading. They don't have to worry about you being able to easily get whatever card you want. I'm not too sure how well it'd work out when cards are able to be traded and have value, though.

DanTheMeek
04-09-2014, 10:05 PM
I think the way Hearthstone handles changing cards is the best by far, but I'm not 100% sure how it could translate to Hex. For those who haven't played Hearthstone, cards can't be traded, but they can be disenchanted for materials and used to craft other cards.

Whenever a card is changed, either positively or negatively, you are able to disenchant it to receive 100% of the card's cost. A Rare for example disenchants for 20 dust and costs 100 to craft, however if a rare was changed recently you can disenchant it for 100 dust and craft any other rare you want.

It's something Blizzard can easily do, considering there is no trading. They don't have to worry about you being able to easily get whatever card you want. I'm not too sure how well it'd work out when cards are able to be traded and have value, though.

This is something I hadn't really even thought of but actually could be a pretty interesting take on it, taking advantage of Hex's own crafting system to make any banned card offer like 5 times the normal disenchant (or whatever is deemed reasonable, just throwing out a number to match Erionns example from hearthstone), this way if you don't want to use it in PvE or non-block formats, you can still salvage/break down/disenchant the card down to crafting materials and potentially make something useful out of it, or, depending on how Hex's craft system works, if thats not appealing, maybe having the extra salvage-ability would at least help maintain some of the cards value on the auction house.

Again, as Erionn stated, not sure if it would really work in Hex, but only because we have so few concrete details on Hex's crafting system, not because it can't be feasible. At the very least it seems like another avenue CZE should consider and good food for thought.

funktion
04-10-2014, 12:00 AM
I think that system works amazingly well for Hearthstone, but when you involve trading and you take away the ability to turn mats into any pvp card it changes things entirely.

Just because a card is banned in one format doesn't mean that it is banned in all formats, with nerfing that is not the case. All the creating a second playable nerfed version ideas just seem like they add further clutter to the game / system. Banning is simple, it can easily be undone. When a ban is truly warranted it is probably because the card was oppressive on the meta, removing it enitirely is more interesting to me than replacing it with a weaker version only to find out that the meta hasn't shifted at all or any of the other various possibilities.

OT: We're going to consume/churn through sets a lot faster than our non-digital counterparts I would say, that does slightly factor into this discussion as well.

Thrawn
04-10-2014, 10:17 AM
Since Hearthstone has been brought up a couple of times now, could someone explain to me how the Hearthstone secondary market and auction house work? I seemed to have missed those features when I tried it out and without those features it's comparing apples to oranges.

ossuary
04-10-2014, 10:21 AM
It's more like comparing apples to a picture of an orange that's glued to your hand and you can't take it off.

Xenavire
04-10-2014, 10:27 AM
Wait, Hearthstone has an auction house? This is news to me.

ossuary
04-10-2014, 10:28 AM
Wait, Hearthstone has an auction house? This is news to me.

That was Thrawn's point, sweetie. *pats head*

It was tongue in cheek. ;)

Xenavire
04-10-2014, 10:33 AM
Right, I was pretty confused. Especially since my girlfriend was just playing it a week ago for the Hearthsteed.

This is what sleep deprivation does to a person, children. It isn't pretty.