PDA

View Full Version : I have a strong dislike for white randomness as it currently is.



hashinshin
04-13-2014, 08:24 PM
There are currently two white cards that can (wait should I call it diamond?) win the game nearly purely off draw: Princess Victoria and Angel of Dawn.

Princess Victoria being a 0 cost 1/2 that inspires lifedrain is very bad (for your opponent), but Angel being a 0 cost 4/4 flight/steadfast is kind of insane. I really don't feel the negatives outweight the positives on angel. If you draw it as your first card you give your opponent a 6 round game timer unless they can remove the angel, and being a 4/4 steadfast it can keep chain blocking over and over.

Not only does the Angel if drawn early give free wins over red burn (for obvious reasons) but also gives serious advantages against dwarves and shin'hare for starters, and green too if they don't draw Jadim (and even then they will likely just put the dragon in a box.)

Basically what I'm saying is that I've played through hearthstone and draws being more important than still irritated me out of that game, and here again I'm seeing white RNG being more important than actual skill in the game. I thought random chance was supposed to be red's thing, but here we see white is doing it far better and with far less repercussions due to the fact that inspire lifedrain is very powerful on its own, and a 5 cost 4/4 flying/steadfast is not even bad.

This reminds me of that last set in Innistrad when people were just using miracles like crazy, only that the card in Hex with miracle is stronger than any miracle card when miracle'd (since it's literally free) and far stronger than any miracle card when not miracle'd (since it's even possible that it'd see constructed play without the miracle bit.)

This card just really frustrates me that it's in the game.

ev1lb0b
04-13-2014, 08:41 PM
How about adding 'Skip your next Draw step' to the end of the current text...would this balance it out? I agree it's stupidly strong as it stands and splashable with a single threshold to boot....as others have said it seems to be the best card in the set.

BenRGamer
04-13-2014, 09:22 PM
This card just really frustrates me that it's in the game.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's unbalanced. The devs are pretty happy with the cards as they are, I don't see them changing.

That said, the Angel of Dawn's ability may be bugged as it doesn't go on the stack, and doesn't mention anything that would merit ignoring the stack.

Westane
04-13-2014, 09:27 PM
Having played extensively both with and against Angel of Dawn... she's not as good as everyone seems to think.l Sure, she can be cheated in as early as turn two, but without fast Diamond library manipulation, I'm talking like a Diamond Brainstorm, that's very unlikely. Factor in how often you end up with one in your opening hand, or worse, draw her as your first card when playing second! She's at her best in multicolor decks, which run the risk of not having a Diamond resource turn one. Even on her best days though, she's still JUST a Serra Angel. She's too easy a target for Time Ripple, Buccaneer, Murder, Solitary Exile, etc.

Victoria isn't great. She's a dead draw in multiples, is very not good when she isn't in your opening hand, and quite frankly, doesn't have a deck to go in. Even at her best she's just two Lifedrain creatures on turn one. At her worse, well, she's much worse.

Neither card is OP. At all.

DanTheMeek
04-13-2014, 09:28 PM
I'm okay with Victoria, but agree on Angel of Dawn. Its not that she's necessarily too good, though you could certainly make the argument, but that how good she is is so random. I've heard it said by MTG devs that its important that powerful random effects be included in the game as some people really like those cards... but also that they be made bad because those same random effects create a negative play experience for most spike players. It was in an article as to why bad cards had to exist, but it always stuck with me and its the reason I don't complain about cards like Tectonic Break being so over priced, cause its effect is so random if it was reasonably priced it'd be creating an annoying play experience in competitive games. I think its also part of why people have found cards like eye of creation and even ingenuity engine of all things so frustrating they felt the need to make threads to complain about them, both are cards that can win a player the game simply by getting lucky.

Card games will always have luck involved, games will be won cause one player drew the ideal hand and card every turn and games willl be lost because you mulled a 7 card hand with no shards into a 6 card hand with no shards into a 5 card hand with 1 shard and then drew only 1 shard the entire game in a deck with 28 shards out of 60 cards total (not that this specifically happened to me the other day or anything...). These things (the latter in particular) also create Negative Play Experiences, but I think are necessary evils for the sake of the variety card games offer. Effects like Angel of Dawn's, however, I don't feel are necessary at all.

Now, I'm not exceptionally passionate about this issue even in spite of the fact that, I think, all but 1 player I faced in 7 rounds of the challenge event yesterday were running 4 AoD in their deck, perhaps cause she's certainly not nearly as much of a win button as say, Eye, was, she's more like Cerulean Mirror Knight, featuring a low threshold requirement that makes them very splash-able, and an effect that makes them too good not to include in "nearly" any deck involving their respective shard. Still, while lucky AoD draws did win some games against me yesterday, it wasn't a guaranteed loss every time they got one out for free, just a big, luck based, advantage my opponent got, and while annoying, its something I can learn to live with if I have to, which I frankly expect to as CZE did state they want to try to stay away from anymore balance changes going forward.

(My lack of passion against AoD might also have to do with the fact that I'm still really happy with the buff concubunny got, though, so my opinion may have been compromised...)

hashinshin
04-13-2014, 09:29 PM
Angel of Dawn auto-beats too many decks if drawn early, in my opinion. The combination of free 4 damage per turn + a 4/4 blocker is too much for people to deal with. Red would have to burn 2 cards just to get past it and white is already a pretty hard deck for red due to their healing. Shin'hare and also dwarves struggle hard as hell to keep in the game, and for dwarves a 3 drop rocket ranger with 3 artifacts down is the best they can hope for to stay in the game, and rocket ranger is easy for white to just remove.

I'm sure most developers don't launch a game thinking "what an imbalanced piece of crap" so saying that the developers are petty happy with balance doesn't mean much. The time to change the angel before people start throwing $40 down to buy one is now. The alternative is we deal with MTG-esque power creep or worse yet bans.

Mejis
04-13-2014, 10:06 PM
The time to change the angel before people start throwing $40 down to buy one is now. The alternative is we deal with MTG-esque power creep or worse yet bans.

I can't see people dropping that much for any card in Set 1, even though this is likely the best legendary. There will just be too many packs flooding the market from Kickstarter rewards etc that I doubt prices will creep that high. Just speculation, but that's what I think.

I don't think this card is on CZE's watchlist either, or we would have seen a change in the last couple of patches.
This is the first time I've seen any serious discussion on it. It's good, and having some cards with RNG elements is healthy, but I don't agree that this is OP.

Axle
04-14-2014, 01:41 AM
The card is mostly fine. It's certainly strong but meh. The miracle effect of it generates tempo but not card advantage. The "best card" is just a tempo card? I'm fine with that. Certainly AoD is good but it doesn't impact what the best deck is as much as you think. It's a good reason to play diamond but not THE reason. If you want to play Diamond with Blood rather than Sapphire it would be more for their superior removal options, though there are other cards like Soul Marble in that consideration too. If it really has to be changed then a double threshold to stop it from stealing games in the early turns is enough I think and it punishes multi-color a little. With our current card pool it will generally be a staple in appropriately sharded decks but staples don't ruin card games.

Malakili
04-14-2014, 02:03 AM
Angel of Dawn auto-beats too many decks if drawn early, in my opinion. The combination of free 4 damage per turn + a 4/4 blocker is too much for people to deal with. Red would have to burn 2 cards just to get past it and white is already a pretty hard deck for red due to their healing. Shin'hare and also dwarves struggle hard as hell to keep in the game, and for dwarves a 3 drop rocket ranger with 3 artifacts down is the best they can hope for to stay in the game, and rocket ranger is easy for white to just remove.


Lots of decks have ways to get early, but inconsistent advantages or even wins. Sure, it'll win you some one off games in the proving grounds, whatever. The real question is whether or not it is too good a card in a best of 3 format with sideboarding. In that sense, AoD is clearly not breaking the format in any way.

Sure, some decks have a harder time with it than others, welcome to card games where not all decks are equally good in every matchup.

Kroan
04-14-2014, 02:32 AM
During the tournament from last weekend I played several Dimaond X decks and played one myself. There was literraly not a single game I didn't see Angel go into play for free. Several times before turn 5. Not only puts you that on an incredible disadvantage, it also just doesn't feel good for either player in my experience.

The problem with the card is that it's either a free win or a very solid 5 drop. There is no downside to playing her at all, which random effects always should have.

The card doesn't need huge changes though. Either increase the threshold for playing her for free to two diamond (making it worse to splash her in decks) or remove steadfast.

meetthefuture
04-14-2014, 02:49 AM
What I don't like about angel is there's no a single reason not to play them, and mostly as 4-of. 2-threshold would make it less splashable - and I feel fine with this

LLCoolDave
04-14-2014, 05:37 AM
Kroan: I've had a vastly different experience running Angel on Saturday. There was only one situation over all 7 rounds where getting it into play for free had a significant impact on the way the game played out, but there were 3 situations were being forced to play it for free was actually miserable for me. In fact, the miracle mechanic did more harm to me than it helped me. It's just anecdotal evidence, but there are real downsides to the ability. Being forced to play an Angle of Dawn into an Extinction is not exactly what I would call value.

The reason this card seems so good right now is that its base stats match up incredibly well against the field. 4/4 steadfast is just at a sweat spot when it comes to troops in set 1. It can attack into most boards with impunity and force bad attacks on defense. Almost anything that enters the redzone right now has 3 power and is just brickwalled by it without further help. This is not just true for early miracled Angels but at most states of the game. The card would probably see some play if it didn't have the miracle ability, it just matches up so well against almost all other playable troops in the set.

In the end, this is "just" another creature. If your deck is severely ill equipped to dealing with a single large creature, you might want to reevaluate your strategy. It's not like this thing comes at a surprise, Angel of Dawn is a known quantity so if your deck is completely dead to it then maybe you need to rework that deck a bit.

For whatever it's worth, if I got to play in the Saturday tournament again with a tweaked decklist, my diamond deck would not feature Angle of Dawn.

Kroan
04-14-2014, 06:04 AM
I think you're missing pretty much the entire point, Dave. Unfortunately I can't even think of a reply to "you need to rework that deck", "is 'just' another creature" and "my diamond deck would not feature Angel of Dawn", so we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)

meetthefuture
04-14-2014, 06:48 AM
For whatever it's worth, if I got to play in the Saturday tournament again with a tweaked decklist, my diamond deck would not feature Angle of Dawn.
The correct here would be "I'd tweak it to maximize angel's value"
Well, yeah, playing extinctions in the deck was the only reason for me to cut angels from 4 to 3 - but if you want to remove them from you blood-diamond deck - you are probably playing the wrong blood-diamond deck

Westane
04-14-2014, 07:15 AM
Let's also not forget that the deck that went on to win the weekend's tournament was running exactly zero angels.

LLCoolDave
04-14-2014, 08:02 AM
I think you're missing pretty much the entire point, Dave. Unfortunately I can't even think of a reply to "you need to rework that deck", "is 'just' another creature" and "my diamond deck would not feature Angel of Dawn", so we'll just have to agree to disagree ;)

So what if we nerf Angel? Then we have a next best creature/card most decks strive to play. Do we keep on complaining about that then? My point isn't "this card is not good", my point is "this card isn't so good that you can't reasonably beat it". Certain strategies are weak to certain other strategies and cards, that's the nature of a TCG. If a deck just doesn't match up well against what other people are doing then maybe it's not a good idea to play that deck. Things get concerning when one or two decks do something so oppressive that there is no reasonable way of interacting with it in the format (Affinity) or a deck becomes so fine tuned at dealing with ALL other possible decks that almost everyone has to play it because the other options just aren't really options at all (Caw Blade).

Nothing about the card Angel of Dawn suggests something like that to me. It does nothing that's inherently oppressive or unfair once it hits the board. It's just a very efficient creature that can sometimes be played for tempo advantage. There are plenty of ways in the set to deal with a creature or ignore it, in all of the shards. Again, I'd like to reiterate that the card isn't powerful because it can be free, it's powerful because its stats allow it to dominate the board even if cast on curve. The miracle mechanic is way too unreliable to build around. I've drawn plenty of Angels as my second card of a turn and, as said before, miracled it onto boards where I actively did not want to deploy another creature on.

If you look at the top 8 of Sunday, one thing you'll notice is that despite 16 copies of Angel of Dawn being played in it, none of the decks really cared too much about facing it. All of them were prepared to deal with it in various ways, to them it was, even if you might dislike that phrase Kroan, just another creature, even if it came down early. I don't even think the card is particularly good in the control mirrors, I'd much rather be playing more impactful threats and cards that match up better against what those decks are trying to do. The card is pretty good against "honest" beatdown decks because of its stats, but if the field is anything like the top 8 I'd rather be looking for other things if I can.

The reason the card is so popular right now is that there aren't many creatures that are significantly better than it, it has a reasonable cost to play for full price and the ability to get a strong discount on it is a nice bonus to have. This is something I expect to change, maybe not necessarily with the cards we are given currently but over the next two sets. The amount of creatures that are actually good enough to play for their cost is rather limited, and among those the Angel sticks out as having very favorable stats as a whole. The more options we are given, both for creatures to attack into an Angel and for creatures to play instead of it, the more I expect decks to gear towards more specialized troops to fill the slots. Just look at the mana curves of the decks currently being played. They are clunky and very imbalanced, because there's a lack of good powerful options to build around a proper curve and you can get away with it because everybody else is not being much more efficient either. Things will change with a larger card pool. Maybe Angel will still stand at the top once that happens, or what I consider to be more likely, it will just be another powerful creature option based on the metagame.

To whoever complained about the Miracles mechanic in MtG being dominant, stop telling yourself and everyone else a distorted version of history. Yes, Miracles won the Pro Tour, but the deck was specifically strong in that one particular tournament metagame. It ceased to do anything of note after that. It never made a splash in Standard, it didn't even have any strong results in Block Constructed afterwards. It was a one trick pony. The miracle cards everyone freaked out about when the set was spoiled, that 5 damage burn spell nobody remembers the name of and Temporal Mastery which for inexplicable reasons presold for $40+ never really did anything in any format. Temporal Mastery was occasionally played, but usually as a 7 mana time walk, not for its miracle ability, and even then mostly in some weird contortion that sprung out of Travis Woo's mind. The one miracle card that did have a lasting impact was Bonfire of the Damned, and that's a one sided board wipe that can also take out a Planeswalker, in a format that had very strong cards to support a midrange creature strategy. It is, again, a very powerful effect in the context it was played in. Never forget about the context.

Kroan
04-14-2014, 08:14 AM
Again, let's agree to disagree. I'm too lazy to reply to every single point you make (let alone read it, my heard already hurts after the first paragraph haha). I've stated my opinion. You stated yours. We disagree. It's up to CZE (if they bother to read this anyway :P ) whether they want to change it or not. There's no point in trying to convince me.

Btw; i'm not (strictly) begging for a nerf. Just stating that I disliked playing with the card or against it.

Gary3k
04-14-2014, 09:00 AM
Let's also not forget that the deck that went on to win the weekend's tournament was running exactly zero angels.

This.

Also its only good in the first couple turns in the game, after that it forces you to skip your draw to put a creature into play... not ideal when you're looking for a different answer or you know that they probably have an answer to it in their hand already and you dont have a way to save it.

Also Dave you're forgetting about Terminus (in MTG), which saw widespread use in esper control and a couple other control archtypes right up until it cycled out. I personally have had games get saved by topdecking terminus at the last possible second. I got a 6th place finish in a diamond event because of that one moment. But you're right about the other miracles... aside from bonfire, the rest all went the way of the dinosaurs shortly after R2R came out. Even then bonfire was pretty much done when gatecrash came out.

YourOpponent
04-14-2014, 09:55 AM
I really don't think Angel needs changed. Her strengths are also her weaknesses. Like some others have posted before you don't get a choice over whether or not you play her. I know in the tournament I was frustrated a few times with her going into play when I was pretty sure my opponent had an extinction, or was just going to lower her stats...and more often than not I was right on that.

Also Victoria is only useful really if you get her in your starting hand, because as a 3 cost she is pretty weak when compared to other 3 costs with inspire. Although the zero cost Victoria with Blessing the Fallen out is insanely powerful in the graveyard!

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 11:59 AM
Lets just get this out there - Angel is pretty much only good in turns 2-5. After that, it is decent, but saving resources isn't a priority for anything other than control at that point, so it would be only slightly better to get it for free than to hard cast it after turn 5.

After turn 5, unless you are running card draw (and really, you would be lowering your chances of proccing the Angel then) you probably will hate an Angel topdeck in most matchups. I have done a fair bit of testing with the Angel, and it is a beast with spellshield, but it is just another body without it.

It is a good card, but when we get more removal (especially removal in the earlier turns) it will basically just be a large target. In all honesty, I am often as or more worried about an early thunderbird than I am for an Angel.

Gwaer
04-14-2014, 12:36 PM
Angel is good anytime. It's a free body that let's you play whatever else you would that turn. It gives you board position while letting you keep mana up for removals of your own. That's strong anytime. Maybe less so when you're top decking, and late game when you have more mana than you know what to do with. But even in those situations it can be quite good.

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 01:19 PM
Angel is good anytime. It's a free body that let's you play whatever else you would that turn. It gives you board position while letting you keep mana up for removals of your own. That's strong anytime. Maybe less so when you're top decking, and late game when you have more mana than you know what to do with. But even in those situations it can be quite good.

I don't disagree - theres never really a time that angel will be bad unless it is stuck in your hand when you are resource screwed. But that can be said of many cards. It is just the advantage is significantly lower with each passing turn.

If you are topdecking, it will never be an advantage unless you have a resource siphon on the board (I gotta admit, Diamond flat out has the best options for this, hands down.) If you aren't topdecking, then it is usually an advantage, unless you couldn't play anything with the resources anyway. But the early turns really do hurt.

I can't say it really needs a nerf, but if it got one, the fair nerf would be to make it 2 Diamond threshold to activate the free play, and for hardcasting. Take away the splashability.

hex_colin
04-14-2014, 01:44 PM
I can't say it really needs a nerf, but if it got one, the fair nerf would be to make it 2 Diamond threshold to activate the free play, and for hardcasting. Take away the splashability.

I think it needs this exact nerf.

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 01:57 PM
Well, it would definitely restrict the card - you could still do the turn 2 Angel with infusion device, but that would restrict other plays. And the change would lower the chance in most games of the Angel being free before turn 4ish.

I don't see any complaints to the idea, since it was posted already before I mentioned it again, so I think this should be done.

primer
04-14-2014, 02:01 PM
The thing is, and I might be the only one who thinks this, but if they wilt the community pressure on all the cards that are deemed 'under/overpowered', then where does that leave us for set 2 and 3 and so on? These sets will have had little to no community interaction before their release and far less testing than this set has had (backer testing included).

So what happens when set 2's version of EoC, doppelgadget, Angel of Dawn and (insert nerfed/buffed card here) is released? These new cards I'm sure will be vetted as best as possible by CZE, but I'm also sure that because of the community input some of the cards in Set 1 that might of slipped through as under/overpowered have been picked up by CZE.

The point I'm trying to make is that they will either agree with the public outcry of 'I don't think this card works' or 'omg this card/combo is OP/UP' and we will see far more bans of cards or they put their foot down and say this is the card, if you like/don't like then do/don't play with it.

As was stated earlier, if they do cave in and nerf it, the second most powerful card will be next for the nerf bat. But once a set is released there's no nerfing. Where will it leave us?

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 02:15 PM
Well, lets ask ourselves quickly, what is the next most powerful card? Angel of dawn is the most borderline card I know of right now, and Eye was flat out broken. Other cards were nerfed because the interactions were dangerous.

If Angel is nerfed, I can't even imagine what would be next. And the nerf is really only going to make it less prevalent, it will still be a massive powerhouse in early turns.

hex_colin
04-14-2014, 02:19 PM
The thing is, and I might be the only one who thinks this, but if they wilt the community pressure on all the cards that are deemed 'under/overpowered', then where does that leave us for set 2 and 3 and so on? These sets will have had little to no community interaction before their release and far less testing than this set has had (backer testing included).

So what happens when set 2's version of EoC, doppelgadget, Angel of Dawn and (insert nerfed/buffed card here) is released? These new cards I'm sure will be vetted as best as possible by CZE, but I'm also sure that because of the community input some of the cards in Set 1 that might of slipped through as under/overpowered have been picked up by CZE.

The point I'm trying to make is that they will either agree with the public outcry of 'I don't think this card works' or 'omg this card/combo is OP/UP' and we will see far more bans of cards or they put their foot down and say this is the card, if you like/don't like then do/don't play with it.

As was stated earlier, if they do cave in and nerf it, the second most powerful card will be next for the nerf bat. But once a set is released there's no nerfing. Where will it leave us?

This is likely the only time we get significant input - we may as well try ;). Set 2 onward will be better because of the learnings from Set 1, but won't have anywhere close to the same level of community playtesting. Future OP cards will likely just get banned in certain formats.

The current problem with Angel is that there's a not insignificant chance that you're down to 16 or 12 or 8 before you can respond. That's a pretty big disadvantage, albeit not insurmountable. For those keeping score at home, this is just about the only card I've felt compelled to suggest needs a nerf. It's currently not a great deal of fun to play against, and it almost makes me feel like I have to build decks that include it to compete.

primer
04-14-2014, 02:21 PM
If this card wasn't on the watch list Cory mentioned in the interview (when he was asked about the mirror knight) but makes it on to that list because of people complaining about a cards power then Set 2,3 and so on will be terrible... because no such list will exist with those sets and so they cant be changed upon us seeing them for the first time at a pre-release event or launch.

hex_colin
04-14-2014, 02:28 PM
If this card wasn't on the watch list Cory mentioned in the interview (when he was asked about the mirror knight) but makes it on to that list because of people complaining about a cards power then Set 2,3 and so on will be terrible... because no such list will exist with those sets and so they cant be changed upon us seeing them for the first time at a pre-release event or launch.

Cory was unlikely to mention and/or remember every card they were looking at for balance issues. Also, we hadn't had a tournament between Angel going live and Cory's interview. CZE is always looking at what cards are being represented in decks and games. I'm sure Chris is looking at the data right now and going "hey, look at that, Angel is in X% of decks - I wonder why?".

The PVP watch list will definitely exist in future sets, however there will just be 2 possible fates - leave alone or ban in X format(s).

I played about 20 different people over the weekend. Saw Angel in 18 decks. Probably on the high side (and not statistically significant), but pretty remarkable nonetheless.

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 02:29 PM
Primer, don't forget that Cory wanted to set a baseline. (Well, the dev team obviously wants that too, but it came out of Cory's mouth.) Once they see what was OP in Alpha, and have a stable set 1, they can better gauge what will be OP in sets 2 and 3. And I think they may have gone a little overboard with set 1 because they want to make a huge impact - I expect the rest of the block to be great fun, but a little more conservative in power.

Once they have a whole block out, it will be rare indeed for a card to be so powerful that it requires a ban. And the ban it shall have if such a card exists.

Malakili
04-14-2014, 02:32 PM
This is a great example of why I think overthinking balance is a problem and why I'm glad they won't be nerfing cards once they are live. Unless the card literally breaks the format, then worrying about 1 diamond or 2 diamond miracle is kind of silly. Legendary cards can be really powerful when things go perfectly with them. We don't need to over think every damn thing that comes along and is good.

primer
04-14-2014, 02:37 PM
Primer, don't forget that Cory wanted to set a baseline. (Well, the dev team obviously wants that too, but it came out of Cory's mouth.) Once they see what was OP in Alpha, and have a stable set 1, they can better gauge what will be OP in sets 2 and 3. And I think they may have gone a little overboard with set 1 because they want to make a huge impact - I expect the rest of the block to be great fun, but a little more conservative in power.


Yeah makes sense. I just don't want the community having too much say is all. Because you cant please everyone all of the time and I think CZE is trying to do this. I worry that the community have too much swing when it comes to set one and CZE cant utilize us for future sets (save a lucky few).

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 02:40 PM
This is a great example of why I think overthinking balance is a problem and why I'm glad they won't be nerfing cards once they are live. Unless the card literally breaks the format, then worrying about 1 diamond or 2 diamond miracle is kind of silly. Legendary cards can be really powerful when things go perfectly with them. We don't need to over think every damn thing that comes along and is good.

Well, a lot of people (including myself) were worried about this card before Alpha even started. And it has proven itself to be very powerful.

A one threshold shift would leave it powerful, but heavily nerf it's capability to come into play before a person can respond with removal.

Tinfoil
04-14-2014, 03:49 PM
I still say extinction is more game-defining than AoD. If the angel is hard to deal with for Shin'hare or Dwarfs (or Humans or Orcs) what about extinction?

Okay, sometimes you will get the angel out on turn 2 and that will put you ahead - but its not dependable, you can't build around it. As a 5-drop she is okay, but not a game changer. How can a turn 3 Jadiim be okay, but a turn 2 AoD be OP?

She fits well into Blood-Diamond control because she mitigates some of Bloods inherent weaknesses and I expect thats why she is currently overplayed, but I think that has to do with Blood dominating the meta.

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 03:56 PM
Tinfoil, I disagree - I just lost a game to a turn 3 Angel. I rarely just 'lose' to an extinction. Granted, I was flooded, but the fact is Angel can almost finish a game before the opponent can start playing.

f5shooter
04-14-2014, 04:44 PM
How did you "lose" to a turn 3 angel?

Would the game have been different if they had cast a turn 3 Jadim?

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 04:47 PM
How did you "lose" to a turn 3 angel?

Would the game have been different if they had cast a turn 3 Jadim?

Nope, like I said, I was flooded. But I had a chance to make a comeback just near the end, and if not for the angel my opponent would have easily lost, regardless of the flooding. He had 2 resources for 10 turns, and I lost far too much life to make my comeback stick.

hex_colin
04-14-2014, 05:10 PM
How did you "lose" to a turn 3 angel?

Would the game have been different if they had cast a turn 3 Jadim?

A turn 3 Angel requires a Diamond resource and an Angel. A turn 3 Jadiim takes 3 Wild resources, a Howling Brave, and a Chlorophylia (or another HB) in addition to the dragon. There's a bit of a difference!

Rycajo
04-14-2014, 05:48 PM
A turn 3 Angel requires a Diamond resource and an Angel. A turn 3 Jadiim takes 3 Wild resources, a Howling Brave, and a Chlorophylia (or another HB) in addition to the dragon. There's a bit of a difference!

As well as actually spending the resources. A player could have an angel out on turn 2 or 3 with enough resources (and threshold) available to cast arcane shield or countermagic on turn 3.

hashinshin
04-14-2014, 06:21 PM
Well, lets ask ourselves quickly, what is the next most powerful card? Angel of dawn is the most borderline card I know of right now, and Eye was flat out broken. Other cards were nerfed because the interactions were dangerous.

If Angel is nerfed, I can't even imagine what would be next. And the nerf is really only going to make it less prevalent, it will still be a massive powerhouse in early turns.

That doesn't even make sense. Are you suggesting the developers are completely weak and have no discretion at all? The reason I brought this up is that the angel is SO powerful that in order to be the same or more powerful Set 2 cards are going to need to bring this same level of power. That same level of power is a 4/4 flying/steadfast that can free deploy at any time.

Nobody wants to see us get to MTG levels of powercreep where any 6 drop that doesn't autowin the game is considered weak. I like the game right now and how people actually play and use the board. If set 1 includes even one creature that completely circumvents troop strategy what will set 2 bring? And set 3, and set 4. Card games are supposed to last many years (even the less successful ones last 3+ years) and this isn't a sustainable practice.

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 06:39 PM
That doesn't even make sense. Are you suggesting the developers are completely weak and have no discretion at all? The reason I brought this up is that the angel is SO powerful that in order to be the same or more powerful Set 2 cards are going to need to bring this same level of power. That same level of power is a 4/4 flying/steadfast that can free deploy at any time.

Nobody wants to see us get to MTG levels of powercreep where any 6 drop that doesn't autowin the game is considered weak. I like the game right now and how people actually play and use the board. If set 1 includes even one creature that completely circumvents troop strategy what will set 2 bring? And set 3, and set 4. Card games are supposed to last many years (even the less successful ones last 3+ years) and this isn't a sustainable practice.

I think you completely misunderstand - I support changing the threshold for activation so it is more restrictive. I was literally asking "What is the next most powerful card? Does the next card need a nerf or is Angel it?"

That is all I was trying to say - just like Eye had to be nerfed, Angel seems to need it. I can't think of a single card after Angel that is seriously broken or OP - so if anyone has any ideas, feel free to say it.

chili
04-14-2014, 07:50 PM
Meh, all we need is good removal take into account we do not have a two mana kill something spell yet

IndigoShade
04-14-2014, 07:52 PM
Meh, all we need is good removal take into account we do not have a two mana kill something spell yet

:rolleyes: They scrapped Persecute because it was too OP for the set and it wouldn't have even killed the Angel for 2.

hashinshin
04-14-2014, 08:00 PM
that's a cop out.

"eh, dies to spot removal."

Everything dies to spot removal that doesn't spellshield right now.

Tinfoil
04-14-2014, 08:14 PM
Tinfoil, I disagree - I just lost a game to a turn 3 Angel. I rarely just 'lose' to an extinction. Granted, I was flooded, but the fact is Angel can almost finish a game before the opponent can start playing.

You never lost to an extinction? Really? Don't mean to sound sarcastic, but have you never had an extinction take away your wincon? Or had to play around an opponents extinction and ending up losing because of it? Or even worse, simply not played a particular deck because it was too vulnerable to a board-wipe? All three have certainly happened to me. When none of the race-specific decks are considered tier 1 decks (as far as I understand), I don't think its because of Angel of Dawn.

I agree the angel is good. I just managed to play a turn 2 and a turn 3 angel, but I still lost because I didn't get more than 2 ressources untill the last turn before my opponent finished me. So anectdotal counter I guess :)

But okay, I have said in other threads that we need to consider how a card interacts and when I look at it that way, I think the angel is fine and even needed in (primary) Diamond decks to apply pressure, but maybe it will boost the already strong B-D decks too much. But in any case, I agree that the miracle-mechanic can potentially cause a lot of grief.

Gwaer
04-14-2014, 08:23 PM
Are you intentionally misrepresenting what Xen is trying to say tinfoil or do you legitimately not understand?

No one can lose to just an extinction, you can lose to an extinction backed up with some other troop or spell, certainly. An extinction can wipe you out, and they have something to follow up with while you do not, it can be the MVP for that victory, but it by itself can't kill you.

Angel, for free, turn 2 if you have a slow start, or are shard screwed, or are playing any number of very slow decks can kill you by itself if not answered, angel turn three can be immediately followed up by a spell shield, it's an extremely strong card, it's an auto 4 of in pretty much any deck that's playing diamond. I've been against pretty much every nerf thread, but to be perfectly frank, all of the other major standout cards have been nerfed, this one should probably not be an exception. Making it two diamond threshold is probably fine, at least then you're forcing someone to play 2D before they have a chance to get it. on turn 3, and even then they would need 2 blue as well and couldn't get a spellshield off in addition until turn 4. Though that still might be a bit strong, it'll be a good bit closer to median.

Xenavire
04-14-2014, 08:27 PM
So Tinfoil - what is the problem with bumping up the threshold cost? Angel will start a turn later, but will be as consistent as it is now for mono diamond, but it will significantly slow it down when splashed.

And I would say it is easier to play around removal (even a board wipe) than it is to play around a beater in the early turns. Thunderbird is another example of a strong early play - that rage, evasion, and low cost all add up to a fairly brutal card. Besides, you need to look at it from both sides - the Angel deck gets a free beater and can play removal of its own, or even things like Eldritch Shield. The person facing the angel is isntantly on the defensive, and more than likely their whole gameplan goes out the window until the angel is dealt with.

An early angel can easily shut down decks because of the pressure it places on the defending player. Extinction at least is fairly even handed (it is rather tough to have superior board position even when you control the extinction.)

Tinfoil
04-15-2014, 05:31 AM
So Tinfoil - what is the problem with bumping up the threshold cost? Angel will start a turn later, but will be as consistent as it is now for mono diamond, but it will significantly slow it down when splashed.

And I would say it is easier to play around removal (even a board wipe) than it is to play around a beater in the early turns. Thunderbird is another example of a strong early play - that rage, evasion, and low cost all add up to a fairly brutal card. Besides, you need to look at it from both sides - the Angel deck gets a free beater and can play removal of its own, or even things like Eldritch Shield. The person facing the angel is isntantly on the defensive, and more than likely their whole gameplan goes out the window until the angel is dealt with.

An early angel can easily shut down decks because of the pressure it places on the defending player. Extinction at least is fairly even handed (it is rather tough to have superior board position even when you control the extinction.)

Now that I think about it, maybe you are right about the treshold - it will prevent the too easy splash and still make it useful for diamond. Yeah, that might be a good change. I still don't agree with you about the board wipe - its hard to play around with a deck that rely on troop synergy - but lets continue that discussion another time.

@Gwaer: [editet some things after rereading your post] Im not trying to misrepresent anybody, but things look a bit different from my perspective. Like I said, I think the angel is needed in Diamond decks, but I do see your points, that it can be problematic in dual-color decks.

Freebird_Falcon
04-15-2014, 09:40 AM
It's a legendary angel. I like that she's easily splashable. Maybe make the miracle require greater devotion (DD) while leaving the casting thresh still D. Bumping her up to DD for both makes her 2 rarities higher than a Serra with a more mono focused miracle and seems not so legendary. They could also opt to go the mtg route and make the miracle cost 1(D) instead of being free

Kroan
04-15-2014, 10:46 AM
Serra Angel was a rare in some sets (7th to 10th edition for example). It's also a different game, so rarity can't (and shouldn't be) compared

syphonhail
04-15-2014, 11:06 AM
Cory was unlikely to mention and/or remember every card they were looking at for balance issues. Also, we hadn't had a tournament between Angel going live and Cory's interview. CZE is always looking at what cards are being represented in decks and games. I'm sure Chris is looking at the data right now and going "hey, look at that, Angel is in X% of decks - I wonder why?".


That's not true at all. There were two decks using angel in the March Top 8.

hex_colin
04-15-2014, 11:19 AM
That's not true at all. There were two decks using angel in the March Top 8.

My bad, misremembered the date of the patch. My point still stands - you can't deny the prevalence of Angel in the current metagame and that that representation probably warrants a good look at the power level, whether or not any changes ultimately happen.

funktion
04-15-2014, 12:08 PM
While one has been briefly mentioned, the two problems which I think are the biggest offenders with this card are:

A) It doesn't lead to interesting play. If someone is shoutcasting the match, "Oh wow he topdecked that turn 2 Angel so well, he really knows what he's doing and is a cut above the rest of the competition." Doesn't really sound all that palpable. Likewise, a turn 2 angel is going to get in for a LOT of damage a majority of the time. That doesn't make for a very interesting game on either player's part, whether you're the one who lucked into it or the one on the receiving end.

B) It takes the gameplay completely out of the player's hands. The game actually plays itself when you topdeck the angel. You aren't given a choice of whether you want to keep it in your hand. This isn't a huge issue, but it is definitely awkward that the game turns into auto-pilot with this. On the flip side, maybe this is a good thing since there are very few cases where you wouldn't want to play the angel that they just save everyone the time / effort.


I really like the double threshold suggestion... what I haven't seen suggested yet though and I also like is this line of text:

-Angel of Dawn enters play exhausted.

For me it actually really fits thematically with the idea of dawn. You can see it coming, but it isn't quite here yet.

Gwaer
04-16-2014, 09:18 AM
Here's an excellent article written by wurtil on the subject that everybody should probably read.

http://hextcgpro.com/avatar-of-hope-more-like-avatar-of-statistically-likely/

Xenavire
04-16-2014, 09:34 AM
Now that was a great article.

Gary3k
04-16-2014, 11:28 AM
Here's an excellent article written by wurtil on the subject that everybody should probably read.

http://hextcgpro.com/avatar-of-hope-more-like-avatar-of-statistically-likely/

Sums it up excellently. I do think it is telling that the winning deck didn't use it, however.

ossuary
04-16-2014, 11:56 AM
I don't disagree that Angel is un-fun when its ability goes off. The problem is that all of the proposed solutions make it so much less likely that its ability will actually go off (like needing 2 diamond threshold - meaning you MUST draw it on turn 3 with 2 diamond shards already on the board, or it just plain doesn't go out early at all... you could ramp to 5 resources by turn 3/4 anyway), it might as well never happen anyway. The article is right that this card fails to capture the concept of the miracle mechanic, though... it's supposed to be a mid- to late-game game changer, not a start of game auto-winner. Changing the cost or threshold won't affect this either, it will just make it less likely to happen, but no less destructive and un-fun when it does happen.

In reality, the card just needs to be reworked to be fundamentally different. It is not a good card for the quality of the game experience, period. But that's probably not going to happen at this point, because the cards have already been sent off for localization. All we seem to be getting now are cost-based balance adjustments. So we'll just have to live with it as it is, and hope that the rarity and meta make it less common once we're live. In a few sets, there will be far more removal options, and it won't be such a big deal any more outside of the occasional, unexpected bomb.

dogmod
04-16-2014, 12:32 PM
I don't disagree that Angel is un-fun when its ability goes off. The problem is that all of the proposed solutions make it so much less likely that its ability will actually go off (like needing 2 diamond threshold - meaning you MUST draw it on turn 3 with 2 diamond shards already on the board, or it just plain doesn't go out early at all... you could ramp to 5 resources by turn 3/4 anyway), it might as well never happen anyway. The article is right that this card fails to capture the concept of the miracle mechanic, though... it's supposed to be a mid- to late-game game changer, not a start of game auto-winner. Changing the cost or threshold won't affect this either, it will just make it less likely to happen, but no less destructive and un-fun when it does happen.

In reality, the card just needs to be reworked to be fundamentally different. It is not a good card for the quality of the game experience, period. But that's probably not going to happen at this point, because the cards have already been sent off for localization. All we seem to be getting now are cost-based balance adjustments. So we'll just have to live with it as it is, and hope that the rarity and meta make it less common once we're live. In a few sets, there will be far more removal options, and it won't be such a big deal any more outside of the occasional, unexpected bomb.

I don't know where you jumped on this localization train... especially considering CZE is constantly working on new sets, PVE cards, PVE dialogue, etc etc. Why would they only have "one chance to send things off for localization"... seems silly

Xenavire
04-16-2014, 12:48 PM
They have actually said they are pretty much locked in when things are sent off for translation, because the translation is handled by a 3rd party.

However, I don't think symbols need to be translated. So adding a diamond threshold symbol would not make an impact for translation.

Rycajo
04-16-2014, 12:56 PM
While one has been briefly mentioned, the two problems which I think are the biggest offenders with this card are:

A) It doesn't lead to interesting play. If someone is shoutcasting the match, "Oh wow he topdecked that turn 2 Angel so well, he really knows what he's doing and is a cut above the rest of the competition." Doesn't really sound all that palpable. Likewise, a turn 2 angel is going to get in for a LOT of damage a majority of the time. That doesn't make for a very interesting game on either player's part, whether you're the one who lucked into it or the one on the receiving end.

B) It takes the gameplay completely out of the player's hands. The game actually plays itself when you topdeck the angel. You aren't given a choice of whether you want to keep it in your hand. This isn't a huge issue, but it is definitely awkward that the game turns into auto-pilot with this. On the flip side, maybe this is a good thing since there are very few cases where you wouldn't want to play the angel that they just save everyone the time / effort.


I really like the double threshold suggestion... what I haven't seen suggested yet though and I also like is this line of text:

-Angel of Dawn enters play exhausted.

For me it actually really fits thematically with the idea of dawn. You can see it coming, but it isn't quite here yet.

I also agree with the threshold change to require a little more diamond focus to get the benefit. I like the idea of making the miracle effect take a second diamond, but the casting threshold can stay one diamond.

I like the your suggestion to make the angel come into play exhausted. I guess that gives the free angel another downside (alongside autocasting into a board wipe).

Also, Wurtil's article is excellent.

BenRGamer
04-16-2014, 01:16 PM
Well, if they want to play up the mid-late game miracle mechanic, all they'd really have to do to change it is take out the drawing aspect entirely and bump up the threshold requirement, not even changing the other parts of the card itself, just '[D] [D] [D] [D]: You may play this card for free'

Granted, this opens it up to other problems, namely in combo with Lixil and Adaptable Infusion Device o get it out sooner than four turns in, but that would have to be a combo and not just a single draw.

ossuary
04-16-2014, 02:02 PM
I don't know where you jumped on this localization train... especially considering CZE is constantly working on new sets, PVE cards, PVE dialogue, etc etc. Why would they only have "one chance to send things off for localization"... seems silly

I didn't "jump on" any train. CZE explicitly stated that the cards were mostly locked because they were sent off for localization, and the subsequent balance patching they have done has been almost exclusively cost changes, or deleting text - no new wording or complete reworks.

dogmod
04-16-2014, 02:29 PM
I didn't "jump on" any train. CZE explicitly stated that the cards were mostly locked because they were sent off for localization, and the subsequent balance patching they have done has been almost exclusively cost changes, or deleting text - no new wording or complete reworks.

Chlorophylia now costs 2 and reads: “Play a random Wild Shard from your deck.”
Blood Cauldron Ritualist now reads: “Sacrifice another troop -> This troop becomes 5[ATK]/5[DEF] this turn.” We promise, this time.
Eye of Creation now reads: “Reveal the top X cards of your deck. Put each troop revealed this way into play. Shuffle the remaining cards into your deck.”
Jadiim now reads: “Flight. When you play a non-resource card, Jadiim gets +X[ATK]/+X[DEF] this turn, where X is that card’s cost.”

Xenavire
04-16-2014, 02:35 PM
Yeah, and those were all last minute changes. Those might have also been sent off weeks before the changes actually went live.

Just because some have changed, doesn't mean they can just go around changing everything whenever they want. Plus we are very, very close to Beta - things have to be set in stone or things will fall apart.

Most of the changes were only cost changes too, and I think we can assume that those were sent off to be translated already.

Oh, and changing numbers doesn't affect translation, so one of those examples doesn't count.

dogmod
04-16-2014, 02:43 PM
Yeah, and those were all last minute changes. Those might have also been sent off weeks before the changes actually went live.

Just because some have changed, doesn't mean they can just go around changing everything whenever they want. Plus we are very, very close to Beta - things have to be set in stone or things will fall apart.

Most of the changes were only cost changes too, and I think we can assume that those were sent off to be translated already.

Oh, and changing numbers doesn't affect translation, so one of those examples doesn't count.

They will be producing new sets at a rate of 3-4 per year.... They will be producing dungeons at an even larger rate. They are working on long story lines. They have already demonstrated the ability to change cards even after people have said "Oh they are localizing no more changes".

I just don't think it is a appropriate every time they don't change a card to the way a person wants for that person then to say "Well they would totally change it to the way I want because that way is better if not for their inability to send it off to localization again."

They can and will localize things whenever they need to. Beta is not out, we have not gotten cards we have paid for yet. They can relocalize one card very easily. If they think Angel needs changing they will do it. If they don't think it needs changing they won't. Now can they make wholesale text changes to every single card they have and expect to meet internal deadlines with localization? No probably not but neither you nor I have any direct knowledge of that.

Xenavire
04-16-2014, 02:52 PM
Do you know how the translation process works? No. Stop making assumptions. We have been told that the localisations are more or less set in stone/at the translators and will not be going through any more changes.

You might like to think a small change wouldn't hurt anything, but perhaps CZE has more intimate knowledge of the inner workings? And this is why I have been saying that the only changes they are likely to make are adding/removing symbols, changing costs, attack and defence ratings, and basically any other numeric amounts. Because they don't need to deal with making a new translation.

dogmod
04-16-2014, 03:04 PM
Do you know how the translation process works? No. Stop making assumptions. We have been told that the localisations are more or less set in stone/at the translators and will not be going through any more changes.

You might like to think a small change wouldn't hurt anything, but perhaps CZE has more intimate knowledge of the inner workings? And this is why I have been saying that the only changes they are likely to make are adding/removing symbols, changing costs, attack and defence ratings, and basically any other numeric amounts. Because they don't need to deal with making a new translation.

I have not seen that localization set in stone link please point me to it. And despite that even after I have heard everyone saying things are set in stone the changes I just pointed out have been made.

I don't have to make assumptions about the translation process. Cryptozoic will constantly be having translations done, this is a set in stone fact. So to say they can't possibly have something translated is what is crazy to me.

If they need to change something they will. If they don't need to change something they won't. It irks me when people insinuate that there way is better and the only reason it isn't being done that way is because of some "translation" issue.

Gwaer
04-16-2014, 03:21 PM
If I go find a link to where they said it will you apologize and drop it dogmod? If so I'll spend time on it. But I really doubt finding it will change your opinion on the topic, or really change the course of it in any way. But I read, or heard a CZE employee say it as well.

dogmod
04-16-2014, 03:26 PM
If I go find a link to where they said it will you apologize and drop it dogmod? If so I'll spend time on it. But I really doubt finding it will change your opinion on the topic, or really change the course of it in any way. But I read, or heard a CZE employee say it as well.

ossuary was making this argument before they changed eye of creation... and then they changed eye of creation.

In both instances he has insinuated the way he would change it was the "best" and only localization was holding it back.

After being proved wrong in the case of Eye he continues on.

Now I am sure that they have sent things off to localization and cannot make wholesale changes. That really doesn't and, keyword here, hasn't stopped them from making small changes.

I would like to see the link but if you are not invested in it you have no need or obligation to provide it for me.

Xenavire
04-16-2014, 03:28 PM
I think it was either in an article with changes, in the Cory/Infam0usNe0/HTPJtatta stream, but it was fairly recent. Within the last two months, guaranteed, and I am fairly sure it was within he last three weeks.

And dogmod, like I mentioned, those changes may have been created weeks ahead of the time they went live. They may have even been planned and drafted long before the thread in question was even created. So oss may have been correct - or CZE simply had the opportunity and took it. That window is infinitely more narrow now though, as with every update Beta seems to be closer.

Gwaer
04-16-2014, 03:31 PM
Wasn't the eye change just text deletion, which was specifically what they said they could do easily?

Xenavire
04-16-2014, 03:44 PM
Wasn't the eye change just text deletion, which was specifically what they said they could do easily?

A good point actually. I am really wiped out today, I think I need a break from the forums for the rest of the evening.

Turtlewing
04-16-2014, 05:03 PM
I don't have to make assumptions about the translation process. Cryptozoic will constantly be having translations done, this is a set in stone fact. So to say they can't possibly have something translated is what is crazy to me.



If you knew anything about project management you would know that expecting to need more text translated in the future and being able to make text changes at any time are two completely different things.

If CZE's translation process is anything like the process my company uses (we use contractors for translations on a per project basis), than you have to define the text to be translated up front and changes later require either a new project or a change request to the existing project. Both involve additional cost, and the later likely delays the entire project.

As such it's standard practice that once you send text out for translation you aren't allowed to change that text until the next budgeted translation project.

In the case of Hex that could mean they can't change any set 1 text until set 2 is ready for translation.

ossuary
04-17-2014, 04:33 AM
If you knew anything about project management you would know that expecting to need more text translated in the future and being able to make text changes at any time are two completely different things.

If CZE's translation process is anything like the process my company uses (we use contractors for translations on a per project basis), than you have to define the text to be translated up front and changes later require either a new project or a change request to the existing project. Both involve additional cost, and the later likely delays the entire project.

As such it's standard practice that once you send text out for translation you aren't allowed to change that text until the next budgeted translation project.

In the case of Hex that could mean they can't change any set 1 text until set 2 is ready for translation.

^ This.

Chlorophyllia was completely rewritten. That probably cost them money to have the translators change it, unless they had stipulations in their contract for a small number of last-minute adjustments (however, newish companies are often not very good / knowledgeable at the negotiations for localization and other international services, so can often get heavily dinged on this).

Blood Cauldron Ritualist was changed from +4/+4 to +5/+5 - that's a text only change that doesn't affect translation / localization in any way, so doesn't count.

Eye of Creation had a sentence deleted. The rest of the card text is the same as it used to be. This can be done by anyone and wouldn't require a new translation, so doesn't count.

Jadiim was changed from "permanent +X/+X" to "+X/+X this turn." That's a minor change, but it's still a change. Again, see Chlorophyllia... how much they paid to have it adjusted depends on their contracts.

So thats TWO cards, out of 350 (and out of 30+ balance changes they made in the last patch) that require retranslation. All of the rest were adjusted in ways that do not require any changes for localization (many of which in ways several people have pointed out are non-optimal, not just me).

Cory talked about this during his interview with the hextcgpro guys. Alan reiterated it at one point in, I believe, the crazy bug thread. So dogmod, feel free to reread that, or go watch the interview if you haven't already for some reason (it's really good). Also, you might try rereading my post that you quoted, wherein I say that they said the cards were "MOSTLY locked," not "locked forever with no possibility under any circumstances to adjust in any way ever." There's a slight difference there which, while small, is still rather significant. :)

LNQ
04-17-2014, 05:26 AM
...

Familiar nick.. Pox Nora Moga (among other) player?

dogmod
04-17-2014, 10:51 AM
I was overly harsh in my criticism. My apologies. You were less strict in your statements than when I initially read it.

As you said a card was changed and thus cards can be changed.

I also wonder why people are assuming that Crypto is handling all of this independently. Don't we think that Gameforge is handling localization through their end? Seems silly to have publishers for foreign markets and then find your own contractors and work out your own contracts. I would imagine they are using gameforge or gameforge contacts and are not as stringently bound as some are stating.

Either way lets get beta so we can discuss something.