PDA

View Full Version : Addressing Titania's Majesty



Phenteo
09-09-2015, 10:06 AM
HEXers,

Dan Clark takes a moment to discuss Titania's Majesty and HEX.

Read more: https://www.hextcg.com/addressing-titanias-majesty/

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 10:10 AM
Thank you. This should help stabilize the constructed format a bit, and reward players again for a bit of skill mixed in with the RNG, not RNG alone.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 10:22 AM
HEXers,

Dan Clark takes a moment to discuss Titania's Majesty and HEX.

Read more: https://www.hextcg.com/addressing-titanias-majesty/

Only asking to sate my curiosity, but what's that situation like on a human level in the office when the forums are burning but you don't have the data or time to review it yet? Also was the stress test completely scheduled prior to TM complaints and solely about actual stress testing or was some percentage of the decision of when it was held to acquire the final data points to come to a conclusion?

Zophie
09-09-2015, 10:24 AM
http://i.imgur.com/3aEV9B5.gif

wolzarg
09-09-2015, 10:27 AM
I think you did the right thing in the end and i expect to lose more while having a lot more fun going forward!

gruntwork
09-09-2015, 10:27 AM
I think this is the best decision for the health of the game. I'm sure it was a difficult decision but I'm glad to see it happened.

Phenteo
09-09-2015, 10:29 AM
Only asking to sate my curiosity, but what's that situation like on a human level in the office when the forums are burning but you don't have the data or time to review it yet? Also was the stress test completely scheduled prior to TM complaints and solely about actual stress testing or was some percentage of the decision of when it was held to acquire the final data points to come to a conclusion?

The dev team reads the forums regularly and, when concerns or praises arise, I report back to my team and in the leadership meetings we have. When something becomes a point of contention we reach out to engineer to get data on something. When it comes to banning a card, we have to take this extremely seriously. We wanted to ensure we collected enough information and data. Also, our designers spend a good portion of a work week playing with and against the deck as well. Several meetings and conversations happened over the course of a three week period. The large-scale tournament was already in the works before TM was a much larger issue and the ban for TM was already being discussed before the launch of the tournament. (Though we're able to look at data from the tournament as well.)

CarePackageTV
09-09-2015, 10:29 AM
Im glad its banned, but the main issue for me is the players that have recently brought the titani deck are now massively out of pocket.

lets face it atm titani + walking calam are both dropping in price as players are reading the latest news.

so my question is, is there anything planned to comp the players? as some would of also spent real money on the cards to be able to play in the same league as others.


just my 10 cents

SquallTiofae
09-09-2015, 10:30 AM
Man, this is great news and The League referenced already!

N3rd4Christ
09-09-2015, 10:32 AM
Im glad its banned, but the main issue for me is the players that have recently brought the titani deck are now massively out of pocket.

lets face it atm titani + walking calam are both dropping in price as players are reading the latest news.

so my question is, is there anything planned to comp the players? as some would of also spent real money on the cards to be able to play in the same league as others.


just my 10 cents

No compensation. Should they reimburse for old cards every time a set is released?
Cmon peeps. Get out of that entitled mentality!


I've owned the deck since week one. I don't care about compensation

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 10:32 AM
Im glad its banned, but the main issue for me is the players that have recently brought the titani deck are now massively out of pocket.

lets face it atm titani + walking calam are both dropping in price as players are reading the latest news.

so my question is, is there anything planned to comp the players? as some would of also spent real money on the cards to be able to play in the same league as others.


just my 10 cents
I fail to see the reasoning for players to be compensated who have been "abusing" the deck to profit.. Someone just won 150 packs with it. I think the dividends for those players have already been payed. Fiveshards regulars could be found almost around the clock playing the deck in constructed gauntlet farming EV++ packs.

Ratticus
09-09-2015, 10:33 AM
How do you want to handle folks who are mid-gauntlet?

It feels kinda bad to finish the gauntlet playing with a banned card but obviously changing the banned list mid-tourney is not trivial for those already in gauntlet. Honestly I'm not even sure I have a sideboard to replace majesty with something else.

Zophie
09-09-2015, 10:34 AM
How do you want to handle folks who are mid-gauntlet?

It feels kinda bad to finish the gauntlet playing with a banned card but obviously changing the banned list mid-tourney is not trivial for those already in gauntlet. Honestly I'm not even sure I have a sideboard to replace majesty with something else.

Enjoy your time in the sun, when it's over it's over

Phenteo
09-09-2015, 10:35 AM
How do you want to handle folks who are mid-gauntlet?

It feels kinda bad to finish the gauntlet playing with a banned card but obviously changing the banned list mid-tourney is not trivial for those already in gauntlet. Honestly I'm not even sure I have a sideboard to replace majesty with something else.

That would have to play out as set before the ban. Any constructed tournaments going forward will prohibit the use of TM.

henip
09-09-2015, 10:35 AM
Thank you.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 10:36 AM
The dev team reads the forums regularly and, when concerns or praises arise, I report back to my team and in the leadership meetings we have. When something becomes a point of contention we reach out to engineer to get data on something. When it comes to banning a card, we have to take this extremely seriously. We wanted to ensure we collected enough information and data. Also, our designers spend a good portion of a work week playing with and against the deck as well. Several meetings and conversations happened over the course of a three week period. The large-scale tournament was already in the works before TM was a much larger issue and the ban for TM was already being discussed before the launch of the tournament. (Though we're able to look at data from the tournament as well.)

Curiosity sated. Thanks for the reply.

Phenteo
09-09-2015, 10:37 AM
Curiosity sated. Thanks for the reply.

You're very welcome!

Kami
09-09-2015, 10:40 AM
Im glad its banned, but the main issue for me is the players that have recently brought the titani deck are now massively out of pocket.

lets face it atm titani + walking calam are both dropping in price as players are reading the latest news.

so my question is, is there anything planned to comp the players? as some would of also spent real money on the cards to be able to play in the same league as others.


just my 10 cents

Only drop in price temporarily. There will be other formats still in the future.

McCloud68
09-09-2015, 10:43 AM
Done.

bootlace
09-09-2015, 10:44 AM
Two questions I'd appreciate answers to but would understand if you decided not to answer:

-Was Titania's Majesty changed from the current version - if so when in its latest change and why?

-How many players in the stress tournament played R/W Titania's Majesty deck?

Otherwise thanks for taking action - the meta is very exciting again!

elfstone
09-09-2015, 10:44 AM
Meh I had to buy 2 Calamities for the stress test then I won 15 packs, that pretty much payed itself off, sounds good to me :p

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 10:58 AM
And this ban does not effect Gauntlet I think, so you will keep seeing it.
It effects Constructed Gauntlet.

McCloud68
09-09-2015, 11:02 AM
I just tried to enter a Head to Head constructed with a Majesty deck and it let me. That needs to be addressed i would think.

Thrawn
09-09-2015, 11:03 AM
That would have to play out as set before the ban. Any constructed tournaments going forward will prohibit the use of TM.

Are better indicators of the ban going to be added in client? Right now if I try to join a Gauntlet with a TM deck, it does fail with a generic "Failed to join tournament" error, but I get absolutely no indication at any point that the card is banned in deck building or in trying to join. Certainly going to create some very confused people who don't read the website.

Mokog
09-09-2015, 11:05 AM
Well at least the AI can not feel the pain of a turn 3 loss because I am going to use Majesty to break living ice sculptures all day long. Hogarth ain't got nothing on the queen of the elves.

BaijoGosum
09-09-2015, 11:07 AM
The article specified PVP Constructed ban list,

Does this mean TM will still be part of the limited card pool?

Saeijou
09-09-2015, 11:08 AM
The article specified PVP Constructed ban list,

Does this mean TM will still be part of the limited card pool?

yes, they wont take it out of the packs

hex_colin
09-09-2015, 11:08 AM
The article specified PVP Constructed ban list,

Does this mean TM will still be part of the limited card pool?

Yes, and still be in packs. You just can't enter a constructed tournament in the client with it.

Metronomy
09-09-2015, 11:08 AM
The only two cards that longterm will see a decrease in value are TM (pretty much worthless until unbanned) and Rootfather...(maybe calamity goes down a bit and puck as well)

Longterm prices will not move that heavily. Ramp is still a deck. It is good. It just more in line with other decks now.
If you want to know more about the concerns and reasons for and against a ban there are 50 pages waiting for you to explore.

Having written a countless number of posts in this thread myself all I can say is that I am pleased with the decision and I am extra pleased because I have a real feeling that the developer listened to our concerns and actively followed our discussions in this thread.

ossuary
09-09-2015, 11:10 AM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

hammer
09-09-2015, 11:14 AM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

+1

Thrawn
09-09-2015, 11:16 AM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

So devs are wrong and cave to whining, the game is worse now and you're calling the entire community lazy?

Nice post.

Metronomy
09-09-2015, 11:16 AM
I disagree strongly. But on the same hand I applaude you cause you are brave enough to state your oppinion knowing there probably will be quite some backlash. Since I addressed why I was/am pro ban in the other thread I am not going to repeat myself here. The points are numerous and in my oppinion all valid.

The only point you address is basically that the deck wasnt as strong as people thought it was since it could have been easily be countered if people werent too lazy to atually try to find the answer. This is a bit insulting to all deck-builders we have imo. Furthermore you gave no further arguments to stress your point. So yeah...in the end..."its the developers decision..they know best"

malloc31
09-09-2015, 11:17 AM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

Or maybe, just maybe YOU WERE WRONG.

You disagree with every one, now you are going to say even the devs aren't right? Let it go.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 11:19 AM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

I didn't want to mention it at the time for this very reason because I didn't want to encourage feeding the flames. But that blood diamond deck that got 2nd really evoked memories of mono red with main deck pyroblast jackal pup and shatters during the days of Academy from combo winter in mtg

plaguedealer
09-09-2015, 11:20 AM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

I disagree with alot of this. People complained, but it seems that the complaints are legitimate opinions. Alot of the people who were pro ban seem to be highly competitive players. I dont think summing up the complaints to sloth and whining is legitimate.

gruntwork
09-09-2015, 11:20 AM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

Your superpowers are awesome. You know how much effort people put into things based on how much effort they put into posting on a forum? Impressive stuff man.

You argued we couldn't make a claim to ban TM without Hex's data. Now they make a decision based on their data and you don't like it. Well, tough luck man. Live by the data, die by the data.

You act like there was a silver bullet out there for TM that we didn't find. Please provide some reason for anyone to think that it was "sloth" or "throwing their hands up" and not that such a thing didn't exist. The burden of proof lies entirely in your court. You can believe whatever you want but when you start calling people out without any semblance of a logical argument you lose a lot of credibility.

hex_colin
09-09-2015, 11:29 AM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

I was at the office when they made the final decision (after weeks of discussion). That's certainly not how it went down in any way, shape or form. Of course they were aware of people's strong opinions (on both sides), but they looked at the data, and played a ton more games against all of their expected Tier 1 decks, and came away with the conclusions that Dan outlined. The reality is that it's not unbeatable, and that there are strong counters, but there are just some games that it's an insta-win in an unfun way for both people playing.

They're clearly not going to do it every time people complain otherwise there would be 10 cards banned by now. :P

As I've said before, a card getting banned at some point was going to happen. It happened. We move on. The Sapphire Cup should be very, very interesting! :)

HaemishM
09-09-2015, 11:35 AM
Very good decision and couldn't come soon enough. And I say this as someone who's been playing a Majesty deck. It's just not a fun card to play with or against. You should still see some good, powerful ramp decks that are almost the same only without Majesty.

ossuary
09-09-2015, 11:36 AM
Based on some conversation we've been having on twitch, I'd just like to say that I apologize if I offended anyone with my previous comments. I did not mean to imply that everyone who had a complaint was lazy or complacent. That was a hyperbolic statement, and I was out of line for making it. Reality is much more nuanced than that, and there are various shades of grey in between extremes. Again, I apologize for causing offense.

I still believe the rest of what I said fervently, and I would be happy to continue discussing the overall merits, but I promise to make a better effort not to be insulting or dismissive. I assure you, I mean no disrespect to any of you.

darkwonders
09-09-2015, 11:37 AM
Based on some conversation we've been having on twitch, I'd just like to say that I apologize if I offended anyone with my previous comments. I did not mean to imply that everyone who had a complaint was lazy or complacent. That was a hyperbolic statement, and I was out of line for making it. Reality is much more nuanced than that, and there are various shades of grey in between extremes. Again, I apologize for causing offense.

I still believe the rest of what I said fervently, and I would be happy to continue discussing the overall merits, but I promise to make a better effort not to be insulting or dismissive. I assure you, I mean to disrespect to any of you.

You should use my sig :)

AswanJaguar
09-09-2015, 11:40 AM
If you're not banning cards in your tcg, you're not pushing the design far enough. I'm sure the designers would love a full year to test new cards and fully explore their power level and effect on the game (how fun they are to play with/against) but the sad fact is that is not an option. Cards will get banned, we'll deal with it and the game will be better for it. Thanks for the detailed reasoning, HXE.

JohnDruitt
09-09-2015, 11:40 AM
I didn't expect the ban to hit before Sapphire Cup but it did. I'd like to thank the dev team for taking our "bitching" seriously. The metagame should now shift into something amazing!

hex_colin
09-09-2015, 11:43 AM
The metagame should now shift into something amazing!

Not completely convinced of that. ;) I'm looking at you Winter Moon and Coyotle Control! :P There's always going to be a deck that lots of folks hate.

gruntwork
09-09-2015, 11:44 AM
Based on some conversation we've been having on twitch, I'd just like to say that I apologize if I offended anyone with my previous comments. I did not mean to imply that everyone who had a complaint was lazy or complacent. That was a hyperbolic statement, and I was out of line for making it. Reality is much more nuanced than that, and there are various shades of grey in between extremes. Again, I apologize for causing offense.

I still believe the rest of what I said fervently, and I would be happy to continue discussing the overall merits, but I promise to make a better effort not to be insulting or dismissive. I assure you, I mean no disrespect to any of you.

Fine, to the main issues then. There are two.

Firstly, there were plenty of decks that tried to compete with TM, there were plenty of attempts to increase the odds of a win against TM. None of them resulted in a satisfactory change in the dominance of TM.

You think that there just wasn't enough work done. Fine. The burden of proof still lies with you. If you want anyone to believe that there was something that could have been done against TM you have to prove it. Just claiming that iterating on deck lists would have produced a resulting TM counterdeck is not good enough. You have NO reason to believe that to be the case. There is absolutely no reason to think that a solid TM counterdeck was an inevitability.


The second issue you will not be easier for you. The deck is not fun to play. The deck is not fun to play against. This is something that is subjective, granted, but that doesn't change that it is the overwhelming view of not just the community but now the developers as well. The point of the game is to have fun. If people want to compete, in the absence of the counterdeck you claim could exist, then they must play an unfun deck. This breaks the game at a fundamental level. There is no way they couldn't do something about it. Are you claiming that TM was fun to play or fun to play against? What is the basis of your disagreement with Hex banning the card based on it not being fun?

Boreaquis
09-09-2015, 11:45 AM
Not completely convinced of that. ;) I'm looking at you Winter Moon and Coyotle Control! :P There's always going to be a deck that lots of folks hate.

There might be another dominant deck that people will hate, but it's fairly certain to be much slower than Titania's was, so I'm guessing there'll be more room to experiment at least.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 11:47 AM
Based on some conversation we've been having on twitch, I'd just like to say that I apologize if I offended anyone with my previous comments. I did not mean to imply that everyone who had a complaint was lazy or complacent. That was a hyperbolic statement, and I was out of line for making it. Reality is much more nuanced than that, and there are various shades of grey in between extremes. Again, I apologize for causing offense.

I still believe the rest of what I said fervently, and I would be happy to continue discussing the overall merits, but I promise to make a better effort not to be insulting or dismissive. I assure you, I mean no disrespect to any of you.

Making a public apology is always difficult, but I find that credibility is increased when you know the other person is human and willing to change, maybe not their opinion but at least their behavior.....
At least you didn't make a post about how you are going to quit until it's unbanned and then continue to make multiple posts a day regarding the topic after you "quit" Fwiw.
+1 on being able to apologize.

hex_colin
09-09-2015, 11:48 AM
There might be another dominant deck that people will hate, but it's fairly certain to be much slower than Titania's was, so I'm guessing there'll be more room to experiment at least.

"much slower" is exactly the problem! ;)

JohnDruitt
09-09-2015, 11:50 AM
Not completely convinced of that. ;) I'm looking at you Winter Moon and Coyotle Control! :P There's always going to be a deck that lots of folks hate.

Well I don't enjoy playing vs hard counter/control decks but they are "fair". They dont win out of the blue and games last more than 3 rounds. We have 3 days before Sapphire Cup for theorycrafting. I am certain that some groups already prepared some decks in case TM got banned but on the other hand they probably didnt expect it to hit before Sapphire Cup so they may not be well tuned. There is a lot to be discovered. Will the metagame be enjoyed by every player? No. Will there be a hated deck? Yes. Yet I believe future will be better for us.

Biz
09-09-2015, 11:52 AM
nice
constructed has the potential to be interesting again

however, if I didn't have a large collection and if I bought the cards for this deck much more recently, I would be upset if they suddenly lost value.

chromus
09-09-2015, 11:55 AM
There's no doubt in my mind this is the correct decision moving forward. I commend HXE on using tournament data to back up their decision (this is not about a few players "whining"). Thank you.

However, I really do hope HXE have taken the right lessons from this whole situation so that it can be avoided(or mitigated to the max) in the future. Dan Clark states:
"With Armies of Myth, we wanted to add a new twist to socketing, cards that socket previously unsocketable cards. This greatly expands the creativity with sockets while being a developer’s nightmare. For context, developers test the game to ensure that the game is fun and the power level of cards are balanced and in the right place. For socketing cards we have to look at the card and make sure it lands correctly with every possible socket it can have, when any troop can have a socket, it becomes very difficult to perceive all potential outcomes."

So:

- When designing cards with abilities that are "uncharted territory"(such as socketed actions), be even more careful with the power levels. It's always going to be better to release a lower-power version of the card. Once the card's overall power in the meta is clear, you can have a better idea about the next iteration of that specific ability and design another card of higher power with a similar effect if you wish.
- Additional testing is a must as more and more testing will be required with each Set released - the possible card interactions increase significantly. Test team expansion seem crucial, especially with the pressure of release deadlines.
- Wanting to add a "combo" deck to the meta (through a powerful combo card) is fine as they also exist in other TCGs/CCGs. However, if that deck happens to dominate the meta, its non-interactive nature WILL turn off a good portion of your playerbase from playing at all. Extra extra care is needed for this type of cards (the somewhat comparable dominance of Gore Feast or Mono-Sapphire did not had this effect).

Killer.Mutant
09-09-2015, 12:02 PM
Is this the first banned PvP card?

There should really be a banned card list posted somewhere, even just a sticky. (Google can't find one if there is). Even though it's a short list it's very important information.

Banned List

Constructed
- Titania's Majesty
- PVE Cards
- Equipment (All equipment is PVE only)

Draft
- N/A

Sealed
- N/A

PVE (Frost Arena)
- Subtle Striker
- Curse of Oblivion

Loregoyle
09-09-2015, 12:10 PM
I have spoken with Titania herself.

While she understands the decision and why it was made, she is most displeased that people have been speaking ill of a card that bears her name.

Suffice it to say, she will inflict her grievous wrath on all of you come PVE time.

Have a lovely day! :)

McCloud68
09-09-2015, 12:14 PM
Done.

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 12:20 PM
My fear going forward is that we are actually going backwards. In the constructed competitive scene, will we now see more mono ruby aggro decks or more dwarf/robot decks like what used to rule the Meta? Will mono blood just totally take over now? These are a few of my concerns when you ban a very loved and at the same time hated card. Vampire King and Reese are on the top of my "Hate to play against" List but I have never voiced that they should be nerfed or banned. Extinction will surely rise to power again as a tournament staple. Will this banning cause people to become a little more creative when it comes to deck building? Possibly, probably even. Yes it opens the meta to more options now, but I am certain we will indeed see something as evil and mean as TM decks were take its place.
I really doubt this. Wild/Ruby ramp is still a viable competitive option. Wild still has great threats vs. Aggro.
New set 3 cards were already introduced that deal with the two old threats you mentioned, quite well. I think the ban really will allow for more creative deck-building sans the fear of losing to turn 3 or turn 4 coin-flips consistently, or turn X no-boardstate insta-wins.

hex_colin
09-09-2015, 12:21 PM
I have spoken with Titania herself.

While she understands the decision and why it was made, she is most displeased that people have been speaking ill of a card that bears her name.

Suffice it to say, she will inflict her grievous wrath on all of you come PVE time.

Have a lovely day! :)

Turn 1 TM > Towering Calamity (Walking Calamity's big brother) confirmed in PVE. You just can't beat her. It's a lesson in humility... ;)

zadies
09-09-2015, 12:22 PM
Fine, to the main issues then. There are two.

Firstly, there were plenty of decks that tried to compete with TM, there were plenty of attempts to increase the odds of a win against TM. None of them resulted in a satisfactory change in the dominance of TM.

You think that there just wasn't enough work done. Fine. The burden of proof still lies with you. If you want anyone to believe that there was something that could have been done against TM you have to prove it. Just claiming that iterating on deck lists would have produced a resulting TM counterdeck is not good enough. You have NO reason to believe that to be the case. There is absolutely no reason to think that a solid TM counterdeck was an inevitability.


The second issue you will not be easier for you. The deck is not fun to play. The deck is not fun to play against. This is something that is subjective, granted, but that doesn't change that it is the overwhelming view of not just the community but now the developers as well. The point of the game is to have fun. If people want to compete, in the absence of the counterdeck you claim could exist, then they must play an unfun deck. This breaks the game at a fundamental level. There is no way they couldn't do something about it. Are you claiming that TM was fun to play or fun to play against? What is the basis of your disagreement with Hex banning the card based on it not being fun?

Second place in the stress test was a non-titiana deck.. It also made it to the finals in the ESL cup. The focus of everyone's attention was ton titiana so it was easy to miss.

McCloud68
09-09-2015, 12:28 PM
Done.

gruntwork
09-09-2015, 12:29 PM
Second place in the stress test was a non-titiana deck.. It also made it to the finals in the ESL cup. The focus of everyone's attention was ton titiana so it was easy to miss.

And the other 7 decks were TM. Which of these says more? Variance happens. 7/8 is not just variance. 1/8 is not proof that there was a suitable counterdeck to TM.

McCloud68
09-09-2015, 12:39 PM
Done

Obliviate
09-09-2015, 12:40 PM
Wish they timed it better. They waited way too long and so many people spent a ton of cash on decks which are now pretty useless. I wish they either banned it sooner, or not at all.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 12:41 PM
I have spoken with Titania herself.

While she understands the decision and why it was made, she is most displeased that people have been speaking ill of a card that bears her name.

Suffice it to say, she will inflict her grievous wrath on all of you come PVE time.

Have a lovely day! :)

Oh man I really hope titania replaces xarlox with full majesty deck +equipment for the full troll on ppl complaining about xarlox.

Gwaer
09-09-2015, 12:42 PM
And the other 7 decks were TM. Which of these says more? Variance happens. 7/8 is not just variance. 1/8 is not proof that there was a suitable counterdeck to TM.

It really depends on how many TM, how many of the non TM deck, and what their matches looked like. I admit I hoped for a ban after the Sapphire cup, so we could have one 'real' tournament. However, I couldn't play in the Sapphire cup anyway. In any event. It's over now. Any other discussion can only ever really be speculation. All of the data we're ever likely to have we have now.

Elwinz
09-09-2015, 12:46 PM
I dont think mono blod is going to be dominant. Blood/x decks are always favored, also saphire/diamond, mono diamond ..

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 12:52 PM
Will Crocosaur be the next card on the ban list due to how powerful or effective it is? Where do you draw the line is I guess my main concern moving forward. If enough people complain about a cards power, will this cause HXE to step in and do something in the future? I know OssuaryHex has similar concerns. It is a door that prior to being opened, needs to be thoroughly looked at from all sides. Now that the Ban door has been opened, and so early in this games young life, I fear for it's competitive tournament future. I am praying to Kismet and everything else I hold dear, that this move will not simply just nerf the constructed meta as we knew it but will indeed be the beginning of more healthy game play for all.

Perhaps you need to re-read the article you are discussing? There are a lot of reasons as to why this is happening, but they did a great job summarizing, and also placating the fear that this is setting a tone for future bans.

Metronomy
09-09-2015, 12:52 PM
to the point of the ban door being opened...someone said if you never have to ban a card you are not pushing the design space border far enough (I tend to agree)..bans happened in basically all ccgs/tcgs (nothing to be afraid of)

Well..the best part about this whole thing for me personaly is that I have the feeling the devs actually followed the 50 page long thread. So my countless back and forths about why the cards needs to be banned werent completely pointless after all^^.

Hieronymous
09-09-2015, 01:03 PM
Wish they timed it better. They waited way too long and so many people spent a ton of cash on decks which are now pretty useless. I wish they either banned it sooner, or not at all.

If they'd moved sooner people would have complained they were moving too fast.

I expect that there will be counters added in the next set and this card may get un-banned in future.

gonzo007
09-09-2015, 01:04 PM
Thank you. This should help stabilize the constructed format a bit, and reward players again for a bit of skill mixed in with the RNG, not RNG alone.

sorry, but :blood::diamond: or Reese\VK\Monsun decks require not that much bigger skill, and opposed to TM it require like zero luck

gonzo007
09-09-2015, 01:06 PM
yea yea.. all :blood::diamond:\:sapphire:+ decks rejoice, TM deck is no more... that was quick.. so now instead of top8 made mostly of TM decks, there will be old (even more costed) :blood::diamond: and :sapphire:+, great..

If you're not banning cards in your tcg, you're not pushing the design far enough. I'm sure the designers would love a full year to test new cards and fully explore their power level and effect on the game (how fun they are to play with/against) but the sad fact is that is not an option. Cards will get banned, we'll deal with it and the game will be better for it. Thanks for the detailed reasoning, HXE.
say this to UFC tcg when it was under Sabertooth rule, when they banned and errated cards almost on weekly basis

BigDog
09-09-2015, 01:09 PM
to the point of the ban door being opened...someone said if you never have to ban a card you are not pushing the design space border far enough (I tend to agree)..bans happened in basically all ccgs/tcgs (nothing to be afraid of)

Well..the best part about this whole thing for me personaly is that I have the feeling the devs actually followed the 50 page long thread. So my countless back and forths about why the cards needs to be banned werent completely pointless after all^^.

Not to single you out Metronomy. But more than anything else this thought process is what worries me. By your own admission, your victory here in the outcome you championed made you feel like your effort was worth it. You were right this time. Next time you will be incentivized to follow your previous successful strategy in arguing your point of view. You will be motivated by past success to be overly prolific in your pursuit of your goal. The people like ossuary will need to be even more hardline in their defense to show why it's different than majesty. They will try even harder to argue their point and stop the topic from snowballing our of control like this one did
There are a ton of hidden costs associated with the decision to ban and the radicalization of future forum behavior on the next controversial situation is certainly among them.

Metronomy
09-09-2015, 01:14 PM
it comes down to arguments..not whining but argueing...like in discussing reasons for and against and such stuff...the arguments pro ban were valid and warranted a ban..HXE came to the same conclusion..they probably would have ended up there even without the thread but maybe it backed them up in their decision...I didnt advocate for any bans before and next time I will is when I see enough valid points (probably wont be anytime soon)

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 01:15 PM
Not to single you out Metronomy. But more than anything else this thought process is what worries me. By your own admission, your victory here in the outcome you championed made you feel like your effort was worth it. You were right this time. Next time you will be incentivized to follow your previous successful strategy in arguing your point of view. The people like ossuary will need to be even more hardline in their defense to show why it's different than majesty.
There are a ton of hidden coat associated with the decision to ban and the radicalization of future forum behavior on the next controversial situation is certainly among them.
I'd almost go as far to say the individuals in defense of TM were much more radicalized in their defense, than rational. If HXE doesn't want feedback on their TCG, they will stop reading the forums, etc. The costs associated with the decision (and I think you meant cost, not coat(unless you are referring to the hidden storm coats hardly anyone received)) are far more weighted on them, then it is on a playerbase that is vocal when they aren't having fun, and attempt to offer constructive feedback.

AswanJaguar
09-09-2015, 01:17 PM
yea yea.. all :blood::diamond:\:sapphire:+ decks rejoice, TM deck is no more... that was quick.. so now instead of top8 made mostly of TM decks, there will be old (even more costed) :blood::diamond: and :sapphire:+, great..

say this to UFC tcg when it was under Sabertooth rule, when they banned and errated cards almost on weekly basis

Frequent bannings are obviously undesirable and a sign of poor design. Infrequent bannings are not necessarily a bad thing in the grand scheme of things.

swigmonkey
09-09-2015, 01:22 PM
Not completely convinced of that. ;) I'm looking at you Winter Moon and Coyotle Control! :P There's always going to be a deck that lots of folks hate.

I see Winter Moon as the new meta. Frost Wizard just got a price increase.

Onto the main topic I am extremely happy it got a ban.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 01:27 PM
I'd almost go as far to say the individuals in defense of TM were much more radicalized in their defense, than rational. If HXE doesn't want feedback on their TCG, they will stop reading the forums, etc. The costs associated with the decision (and I think you meant cost, not coat(unless you are referring to the hidden storm coats hardly anyone received)) are far more weighted on them, then it is on a playerbase that is vocal when they aren't having fun, and attempt to offer constructive feedback.

To be fair I don't have any idea as to where the line in the sand is because it's all pretty subjective. And if people are enjoying their forum posting they should do that. But were the myriad of new threads when we had the previous one necessary? On what page in the previous thread were you fully aware of how the most prolific posters felt on the issue.
I think im trying to illustrate a difference between constructive feedback and noise. You clearly need some amount of people agreeing and commenting for issues like this in the future. But likewise at some point we are just making noise and diluting the info we wanted to convey. I wish I had a different way to put this.... But it kind of feels like "I know it when I see it"

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 01:33 PM
People that read and post on forums tend to do that kind of thing. I think we may need more MODs eventually, but Kami and Stoked do a pretty good job of merging relevant threads. Ideas get regurgitated, and people that want to be heard try to post the same idea in a different way, but it's the same idea...

bizznach
09-09-2015, 01:40 PM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

i 100% agree mostly...coming up with new ways to beat said decks while keeping other decks in mind was really fun.

i don't think on a whole the game itself will be poorer but the human side(thinking, reasoning, challenge, and i guess communicating for answers deff took a hit) RIP the challenge

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 01:42 PM
i 100% agree mostly...coming up with new ways to beat said decks while keeping other decks in mind was really fun.

i don't think on a whole the game itself will be poorer but the human side(thinking, reasoning, challenge, and i guess communicating for answers deff took a hit) RIP the challenge
Yeah, because it's super challenging to hold up less than 10 fingers, and to put 1 finger down for each counter to TM you aren't playing, when considering your deck building limitations.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 01:44 PM
i 100% agree mostly...coming up with new ways to beat said decks while keeping other decks in mind was really fun.

i don't think on a whole the game itself will be poorer but the human side(thinking, reasoning, challenge, and i guess communicating for answers deff took a hit) RIP the challenge

I am with you on this part to some extent. I was looking forward to tweaking my sunsoul Phoenix build but with TM gone and very little time b4 the sapphire cup I think Urgnock aggro will be a default choice for a lot of people and I don't think the Phoenix deck can survive the splash hate.

gonzo007
09-09-2015, 01:48 PM
oh yeah, dear CZE will you remove TM from booster packs? because its dead thingie that take rare\legendary card spot, and don't say "you can play it in pve" - its you in first place who said pve cards are for pve, and pvp for pvp, so i don't want now to open pack and see card that do nothing, in slot that is most valued in pack. (so now i lost 4 opportunities to get something that is better or at least usable in pvp?)

plaguedealer
09-09-2015, 01:55 PM
Regarding the meta, I bet there are some dwarf robot decks with some set 3 cards that could be excellent.

fitzle
09-09-2015, 01:59 PM
Even for folks who are against this card being banned, is anyone really going to miss this card in a competitive format? I'd think, after everyone has a chance to cool down over the banning and we see what comes from the next tourney, the answer is going to be a big no.

bizznach
09-09-2015, 02:03 PM
Yeah, because it's super challenging to hold up less than 10 fingers, and to put 1 finger down for each counter to TM you aren't playing, when considering your deck building limitations.

i said trying a new million decks was fun.
i was sure a lethal bunny deck with battles was the way to go, then the ton of eyes of lixils i tried to fit into a ton of decks, the 100 different coyotle decks and the gambit deck i was trying to wrap my head around...all reasons i loved TM...still love TM because i still have those deck ideas(stupid bunnies)

Selanius
09-09-2015, 02:07 PM
I'm really happy with this decisions, I want to thank HEXENT for making another tough call despite some very vocal objectors. I can't wait to see what the new meta looks like and look forward to playing Constructed very soon.

bootlace
09-09-2015, 02:29 PM
oh yeah, dear CZE will you remove TM from booster packs? because its dead thingie that take rare\legendary card spot, and don't say "you can play it in pve" - its you in first place who said pve cards are for pve, and pvp for pvp, so i don't want now to open pack and see card that do nothing, in slot that is most valued in pack. (so now i lost 4 opportunities to get something that is better or at least usable in pvp?)

TM will still be one of the most expensive rares in a set 3 pack - you'd be silly wanting it to be removed since the price of an average rare will definitely be below even a banned Titania's Majesty.

darkwonders
09-09-2015, 02:35 PM
TM will still be one of the most expensive rares in a set 3 pack - you'd be silly wanting it to be removed since the price of an average rare will definitely be below even a banned Titania's Majesty.

Also Titania is fun in Limited if you can get some big minions.

benczi
09-09-2015, 02:44 PM
Not completely convinced of that. ;) I'm looking at you Winter Moon and Coyotle Control! :P There's always going to be a deck that lots of folks hate.

Oh yes, I have a feeling that people will get to know this deck really well over the next few weeks.

Malakili
09-09-2015, 02:44 PM
My other thought is why even ban the card? Why not errata it / change it to what it was back in testing or modify it into something else all together? This is a digital game. Changing the text on a card and how a card works is easier than dealing with all the back lash that Hex is now getting from opening the Ban List door. I hope they consider just changing the card in the future so we do not have cards in boosters that we can not deck build with anymore.

Changing cards would be a disaster for the reasons explained 100 times on this forum. A ban is much better. Titania's is not fundamentally busted. It is busted in the current card pool/standard/whatever we are calling the format that is currently constructed PvP in Hex.

Titania's will be back when we get rotations and an eternal format of some kind.

HaemishM
09-09-2015, 02:45 PM
"much slower" is exactly the problem! ;)

This game's meta could do with "A LOT SLOWER" frankly. I've said it before - the turn 3-5 kill decks are really annoying no matter the variety. They invalidate a good 25% of the entire card set if not more. Majesty was so bad because it was a 3-5 turn kill that had no reliable, consistent counter. Hoping your opponent has an unlucky draw is not an acceptable counter.

That being said, control decks ARE really irritating.

KingxOfxThexVoid
09-09-2015, 02:47 PM
Very disappointed it went this way. Now the whining will be 10x louder than ever, since it looks like bitching enough will get what you want. If the people who were complaining had spent 5% of their energy actually theorycrafting, instead of just throwing their hands up, complaining, or netdecking the same TM deck themselves, things would have gone differently. Instead, we've just created an environment where sloth and whining will continue to be encouraged. The game as a whole is poorer for this decision.

Won 6 out of 7 games with mono blood using some simple cards to stop titania and even use opponents cards went to sleep after that since test was 10 rounds at least
Titania was definitly possible to beat with blood and sapphire cards so hope titania will be enabled again in the future if ruby diamond wild gets interrupt cards as well

Werlix
09-09-2015, 02:48 PM
I think the most interesting take away from this going forward is that if a pvp card is deemed by a section of the community to be on the OP side and it doesn't get banned, we can be pretty sure the data Hex has available to them shows that it's not too big of a problem.

Happy to see Hex make this tough decision.

Malakili
09-09-2015, 02:54 PM
This game's meta could do with "A LOT SLOWER" frankly. I've said it before - the turn 3-5 kill decks are really annoying no matter the variety. They invalidate a good 25% of the entire card set if not more. Majesty was so bad because it was a 3-5 turn kill that had no reliable, consistent counter. Hoping your opponent has an unlucky draw is not an acceptable counter.

That being said, control decks ARE really irritating.

Turn 5 is WAY different than Turn 3 when it comes to kills. Turn 5 kills are not especially quick.

KingxOfxThexVoid
09-09-2015, 02:57 PM
My other thought is why even ban the card? Why not errata it / change it to what it was back in testing or modify it into something else all together? This is a digital game. Changing the text on a card and how a card works is easier than dealing with all the back lash that Hex is now getting from opening the Ban List door. I hope they consider just changing the card in the future so we do not have cards in boosters that we can not deck build with anymore.

Would be a nice idea as well removing some of the power of the card could be nice increasing treshold or cost or limit the card drawn to must have treshold for the troop you want to play or max cost of 5 or 6

BigDog
09-09-2015, 03:06 PM
Would be a nice idea as well removing some of the power of the card could be nice increasing treshold or cost or limit the card drawn to must have treshold for the troop you want to play or max cost of 5 or 6

The answer to your question is here:
Https://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=45853

zadies
09-09-2015, 03:15 PM
And the other 7 decks were TM. Which of these says more? Variance happens. 7/8 is not just variance. 1/8 is not proof that there was a suitable counterdeck to TM.
Twice piloted by the same player is not variance. It really just shows how bad netdecking is in this game that people choose to willfully ignore other possibilites.

Mahes
09-09-2015, 03:29 PM
I just want somebody who just started a constructed gauntlet TM match to hold it for about 4 weeks. Maybe hold it for a couple of months. I want to see the potential uproar that comes from a player playing a TM deck in a constructed format 2 months from now.

:cool:

BigDog
09-09-2015, 03:30 PM
I just want somebody who just started a constructed gauntlet TM match to hold it for about 4 weeks. Maybe hold it for a couple of months. I want to see the potential uproar that comes from a player playing a TM deck in a constructed format 2 months from now.

:cool:

Well..... This is nothing short of brilliant. Post battle chat after this done

ossuary
09-09-2015, 03:40 PM
Apologies in advance for the impending wall(s) of text, going to try to get all of this into one post.


Firstly, there were plenty of decks that tried to compete with TM, there were plenty of attempts to increase the odds of a win against TM. None of them resulted in a satisfactory change in the dominance of TM.

You think that there just wasn't enough work done. Fine. The burden of proof still lies with you. If you want anyone to believe that there was something that could have been done against TM you have to prove it. Just claiming that iterating on deck lists would have produced a resulting TM counterdeck is not good enough. You have NO reason to believe that to be the case. There is absolutely no reason to think that a solid TM counterdeck was an inevitability.

It took approximately 4 months for people to "break" Gore Feast from the time it first became popular towards the end of set 1 until midway through set 2. During that time, an extremely large percentage of decks in the tournaments we had decklists for (VIP) were GF decks, most of them nearly identical. Sound familiar? Even after counter decks started showing up, Gore Feast remained vastly more popular than a lot of the other decks, because it was 1) known, 2) easy to play, and 3) relatively cheap to make work (you could go way more expensive by tricking it out with clouds and vortexes and whatnot, but even without that it was still very viable).

And that four months was with multiple decklist-available tournaments. This time around, we had ONE tournament with top 8 only decklists available - the last VIP. Fiveshards didn't count because it was set 3 only, and therefore not the "standard" constructed meta. ESL didn't count because none of them had full or even top decklists available. The reason these don't count is very important - without having the decklists available to everyone, only the people who actually ran the deck can iterate on the deck.

Gwaer, among others, has talked about this at length - how one person iterating on their own design can miss crucial design flaws because they are already stuck down a line of thinking. Having a full community bashing on a deck to make improvements to it is exponentially more powerful than a single user or small group of users iterating on the same deck. This is why I say that running a tournament without decklists is less effective than running it with them. This is why I say there was not sufficient time or effort put into iteration and counter-seeking. I never said it wasn't being done at all, merely that not enough people were doing it and those who were doing it were partially hamstrung by the lack of complete visibility.

It is impossible for me to prove a lack of something, but this is the reasoning for my statements. We have some supporting evidence that progress was being made - the 2nd place deck in the stress test went 7-1 vs majesty (this is not PROOF, but it is a factor to consider). There are a number of coyotle control decks that have shown very strongly, and the VIP decklists showed us some truly surprising decks that were just beginning to be honed (Kolokee's phenteo / 5th book deck for example).

If more of the tournaments had had decklists available and the community had been given more time to work on iteration as a result, it's inarguable that better overall quality decks would have resulted - more data + more minds = better results.


The second issue you will not be easier for you. The deck is not fun to play. The deck is not fun to play against. This is something that is subjective, granted, but that doesn't change that it is the overwhelming view of not just the community but now the developers as well. The point of the game is to have fun. If people want to compete, in the absence of the counterdeck you claim could exist, then they must play an unfun deck. This breaks the game at a fundamental level. There is no way they couldn't do something about it. Are you claiming that TM was fun to play or fun to play against? What is the basis of your disagreement with Hex banning the card based on it not being fun?

This one is going to be impossible to talk about objectively, of course. What is fun to one person is not fun to another, and vise versa. What do we even use to quantify fun? Where do you draw the line? The devs themselves throw around the term "unfun," but this is one of those things that can never be nailed down. "I'll know it when I see it," people say - well, that's still going to differ from person to person.

However, let's review the terminology from the article itself and try to break down what's going on here, to see if we can make at least an attempt to rationalize it.

Edit: actually, going to have to split this into two posts, it's too long after all. :(

Yewstance
09-09-2015, 03:41 PM
For once, a short post from me.

I am fully in support of this decision, and seeing HexEnt make the brave move to uphold or enhance the enjoyment, interactivity and quality (even challenge?) of the game experience only serves to cement my confidence in them. I do not believe that financial concerns on a collectible level should be a reason to weaken the actual game experience even slightly - the primary draw for new players and the primary enjoyment of existing ones - and so the market effects of this banning do not concern me in the slightest, despite having a set of TMs and Calamitys myself.

Thank you. I think I've got a bit of theorycrafting to do. Maybe I'll even try out Constructed Gauntlet again. :)

ossuary
09-09-2015, 03:41 PM
This card is frustrating because it does not promote interactivity in the game in order to win.

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

This is a pet peeve of mine. People misuse interactive all the time, or rather, they misuse lack of interactivity.

Split Second from MtG is non-interactive, because you cannot respond to it. A troop that is both spellshielded and cannot be countered is non-interactive, because you can't use an answer card against it at any point (save for board sweeps). Taking away priority from the players is non-interactive, because you reduce their capability of interacting with different stages of the turn. Having powerful effects trigger off of playing a resource is non-interactive, because you can't stop the player from playing them, and they bypass the chain completely. Not having priority on your opponent's turn at all (Hearthstone) is non-interactive, because the players don't interact in any way, they just flail at each others' boards.

TM is NOT non-interactive; you can respond to it, and there are a number of possible answers to it, both before resolution and after. How many answers you run in the deck, whether or not you have an available answer in hand, whether or not you choose to leave resources open to potentially counter it... this is no different from any other control-style matchup, they are choices you make as part of the cat and mouse, back and forth play. Can I afford to tap out? Does he have it in hand? Did I gain some life to survive a successful hit?



When Majesty successfully hits an Ozawa, Cosmic Elder or a Walking Calamity, most often there is no gameplay after that. The opposing player has very few options once Majesty resolves and successfully hits, which is the opposite of the back and forth feeling we hope to achieve for the best gameplay experience.

This is no different than any other combo deck. You are sacrificing board presence and the early game strength in the hopes of getting a powerful troop on board or a one-shot big damage effect at some point in the future. The back and forth play vs. a combo deck comes from things like I said before, choosing to hold counters, trying to undercut their ramp, etc. These are things you can do in response to their actions.

Nevertheless, when a combo deck works and does not get countered, the game SHOULD be over quickly, because the player running the combo has little staying power compared to normal decks, which can build up presence, life, card advantage, etc. over time. It's the ultimate glass cannon gambit. A TM deck that whiffs is likely dead - that's the risk and penalty of running it. People who don't understand that shouldn't be running a combo deck, if that is "unfun" for them, then they failed to recognize the type of game experience their deck was creating. That is their fault, not the designers or the opponent.


In order to successfully fight against this deck, a player would have to focus their deck just to beat it, but since Majesty is more about “play this card and that is all you have to do to end the game”, and one of the best ways to fight against it is to just flat out stop them from playing Majesty, which ends up promoting decks that are also somewhat “unfun” to interact with. Either attempting to pick apart the opponents hand with cards like Inquisition or using cards like Countermagic to cancel the card they are playing. Both of these tools can lead to a bad expirence on the receiving end.

Two points here:

1. "play this card and that is all you have to do to end the game"

Untrue. Timing is everything here. You MIGHT win by dumping your ramp cards and snapping down TM, but that is actually a low percent chance to happen given all the required ingredients (5 resource sources by turn 3, plus the TM, then having to hit a killer troop). More likely, you are missing the required ramp in the first place (and have no board state whatsoever, leaving you vulnerable to rush), or your opponent removes your ramp, counters your casting, you whiff, or your opponent hamstrings the troop you do hit.

Players who ignore what their opponent is doing can be defeated much more easily than those who are careful and smart. This is again part of the cat and mouse. Do I rush it out immediately? Or do I hold back and let my opponent have another turn to possibly use up resources? Do I get Periwinkle out first to increase my chances of a successful hit? Or is he holding a Heat Wave, hoping I'll overextend? Do I TM right now, or is his board too scary and I need to use the crocosaur first? These are all choices and interactions that the wily player will analyze before throwing down the biggest card in their hand.

There is a much deeper game available to the clever player that may not immediately be apparent to the "slap it down and see if I won" player.

2. "one of the best ways to fight against it is to just flat out stop them from playing Majesty, which ends up promoting decks that are also somewhat “unfun” to interact with"

If playing against counter decks is unfun, and one of your supposed reasons for banning Majesty is because it is unfun, then why have counter decks? Why have hand denial at all? You have purposely not printed very much resource destruction, and NO threshold destruction, for the same reason - because it's unfun to play against. And yet we keep getting denial cards and counter cards in every set. Why, if they're "unfun?" Because you recognize that they're necessary - if every card resolved, THEN there would be no interaction, no responses. To allow for healthy back and forth gameplay, some denial is mandatory - therefore, allowing it to exist is more important to the health of the game than some players feeling it is "unfun" to play against or with.

You already know this, because you print denial and counter cards - therefore, you are already aware that "this is unfun" is not, in itself, a valid argument not to have something.

Losing games to resource flood or screw (or mulling to 3) is definitely "unfun," but we've all (for the most part! :D) agreed that it is necessary for the greater good of the game by having a real resource system, allowing for more balanced costing of cards, power progression, and whatnot. If you wanted to avoid anything being "unfun," then you would not have used the resource system we have. The benefits of having a more robust resource system and better balanced cards outweighs the percentage of games that are unfun because of flood/screw.


Which begs the question, “Who is having fun with this card?”

The more important question, again taking the individual person's definition of "unfun" into account, is, "Are the percentage of games that are unfun as a result of this card more harmful to the game as a whole than banning this card is?"

As I have said previously, banning this card at this time sets a bad precedent. Colin has stated in this thread that the decision was not reactionary, and I believe that both he and the developers believe that to be true. However, the fact remains that we have created an environment where loudness and vehemence can be perceived to be getting people what they want. There was a LOT of conversation on this subject, but beyond the first couple of pages, there was not a lot of rationality or new evidence being offered by either side. It devolved into a matter of noise and volume, with a lot of anger and insults being tossed around, rather than structured conversation.

When a decision like this comes down, the reaction should never be "See? I was right." There are no winners and losers on this issue. The game as a whole is what matters here, and if people feel they can affect change by yelling, or whining, or repetition, the whole community and the quality of the product will both suffer as a result. I fear we are heading down a dark pathway - that is my true concern in all of this.

I am not angry about this decision. But I do believe very strongly that it was still too soon to make this call, if it should have been made at all. I think it will prove, in the fullness of time, to have been detrimental for the game as a whole.

Yewstance
09-09-2015, 03:57 PM
When a decision like this comes down, the reaction should never be "See? I was right." There are no winners and losers on this issue. The game as a whole is what matters here, [...]

Absolutely agreed.


[...] and if people feel they can affect change by yelling, or whining, or repetition, the whole community and the quality of the product will both suffer as a result. [...]

I completely agree that a large portion of the community response - not only for Titania's Majesty, but in many issues - do not include a lot of factors, and carry enormous repetition. This is true of any medium to large forum that caters to a given audience/fanbase/consumer base, in particular of gaming.

However, I disagree with the sentiment that this sets a bad precedent by 'caving in' to "yelling, or whining, or repetition". Regardless of how it was framed, there existed a part of the established playerbase - as well as newcomers - that was unhappy with certain elements of gameplay that reflected from TM's presence in a constructed setting, such as deckbuilding considerations that players did not feel, in their minds, sufficient enjoyment from undertaking, or games that they did not find fulfilling.

Regardless of how it was put, recognizing community feedback - whether or not you incorporate it as you think is best - is an extremely important consideration for any developer, and I don't believe the fear of setting a negative precedent is a strong reason to avoid trying to better your product in the eyes of its consumers.

Beyond that, I trust the developers to make the best decisions they could make at a given time, with the information available to them, now and in the future. No, that doesn't mean they won't make mistakes, but it does mean that when they make them they will try to do better in the future. I do not believe that some precedent is going to trigger some slippery slope that will decrease the game's overall quality (or userbase) in any significant negative manner in the future from this. I was not particularly vocal in regards to Titania's Majesty - I'm happy to see this announcement, but I wouldn't have been actively disappointed had it never come, or taken more time. Regardless of what happened, I believed that Hex Ent had the information, the awareness and the understanding to make the right decision - the banning simply shows a willingness to act if they deem it necessary, which I trust them to do with their own game.

RCDv57
09-09-2015, 03:57 PM
I have spoken with Titania herself.

While she understands the decision and why it was made, she is most displeased that people have been speaking ill of a card that bears her name.

Suffice it to say, she will inflict her grievous wrath on all of you come PVE time.

Have a lovely day! :)

Bring it on ya tubby Elf!
http://i.imgur.com/P6pnKeA.jpg

Metronomy
09-09-2015, 03:58 PM
We have some supporting evidence that progress was being made - the 2nd place deck in the stress test went 7-1 vs majesty (this is not PROOF, but it is a factor to consider).

You could also consider that the pilot of that deck (Galwen) said that after sideboarding she was behind against TM...

I'm too tired to respond any further...maybe tomorrow..

BigDog
09-09-2015, 04:00 PM
I respectfully disagree. I actually think the amount of time this took was correct. I feel like the weekends tournaments were the last chance to see if the metagame could right itself. I'm fine with the ban and I believe adequate thought went into it... Should it have been banned? Probably, but I can't shake the feeling that if I had done more testing or had more time I could have solved it. The larger teams were probably better served by tuning their versions of the deck rather than trying to solve it. I didn't have to but I think it's absence will really open up the meta..... I don't know if that alone warrants a ban. Though I definitely share ossuarys concern about the people celebrating "their" victory ad the behavior it will engender in the future.

Yewstance
09-09-2015, 04:01 PM
In short, I think it's both justified and natural to support a decision, one way or another, that will enhance your enjoyment of the game or that you believe to provide some long-term benefit to the game, but far more difficult to criticize a decision, if only because we cannot assume that any single one of us, however our experience in game development (or card game history and play) truly knows better than the developers themselves.

And even if we had cause to believe that - if we didn't trust the development team, why were we investing so much time and money into a product we didn't trust?

ossuary
09-09-2015, 04:07 PM
I respectfully disagree. I actually think the amount of time this took was correct. I feel like the weekends tournaments were the last chance to see if the metagame could right itself. I'm fine with the ban and I believe adequate thought went into it... Should it have been banned? Probably, but I can't shake the feeling that if I had done more testing or had more time I could have solved it. The larger teams were probably better served by tuning their versions of the deck rather than trying to solve it. I didn't have to but I think it's absence will really open up the meta..... I don't know if that alone warrants a ban. Though I definitely share ossuarys concern about the people celebrating "their" victory ad the behavior it will engender in the future.

If we had had decklists from ESL and therefore more capability to have iterated on the decks prior to the stress test, I might agree with you that the amount of time has been sufficient to make that call. But because the community was not able to operate at full capacity on the issue, that is the factor that makes me feel like it was too soon (and remember, again, that it took 4 months for Gore Feast to be solved, WITH some full decklists along the way).

Lacking the normal iteration and improvement capabilities, it was inevitable that a disproportionate percentage of the community would say, "frig it, I'm running TM." Known... easy. Like I said before. :)

tecnophi
09-09-2015, 04:09 PM
Since the decision is finally made...

My opinion why Titania's Majesty was bad for the Hex.

1. It shifted game speed to focus around turn 2/3. Opposing decks have to be able to reliably respond with a 1 or 2 cost card to survive an on the play TM deck. This narrowed the meta deck building possibilities to revolved around a limited amount of cards, and in turn narrows viable decks greatly. Better counter cards in the future I find a weak argument as with TM in the format still narrows the focus to 1 and 2 cost cards.

2. Opposing decks have only 1 chance to counter, and in most situations the opposing player doesn't stabilize or gain an advantage from it. In most cases it is just staying even with the TM deck, and the TM deck is always a threat with a top draw. The "one-hit-KO" threat persists. Unlike other previous top tier decks where those had more chances to interact with (or at least try to).

3. The existence of a significant chance at a win condition on turn 3 lowered the amount of decisions to be made during a match on average. What I mean is that play with and against a TM deck the amount of decision points is much lower on average than previously set 1/2 meta. I find that there is very little "should I do murder this or that?" or "counter this or save it". Turns 3, 4, maybe 5 it is quite predicable and straight forward how to play with and against TM. There was very little reason to not play TM when you have it, and in turn very little reason to buff that you have a quick action counter.

4. For all the reasons above... spectating and watching Hex was boring. I was personally afraid that if the 100k tournament and major tournaments were dominated by TM, it makes the game look not so attractive to play or watch. Especially compared to before set 3 release. Before the ban my opinion was that set 1/2 meta tournaments were much more interesting and it made for a better show.

gruntwork
09-09-2015, 04:11 PM
It took approximately 4 months for people to "break" Gore Feast from the time it first became popular towards the end of set 1 until midway through set 2. During that time, an extremely large percentage of decks in the tournaments we had decklists for (VIP) were GF decks, most of them nearly identical. Sound familiar?

Many have discussed how TM is not the same situation as Gorefeast. I'll leave that alone.



Gwaer, among others, has talked about this at length - how one person iterating on their own design can miss crucial design flaws because they are already stuck down a line of thinking. Having a full community bashing on a deck to make improvements to it is exponentially more powerful than a single user or small group of users iterating on the same deck. This is why I say that running a tournament without decklists is less effective than running it with them. This is why I say there was not sufficient time or effort put into iteration and counter-seeking. I never said it wasn't being done at all, merely that not enough people were doing it and those who were doing it were partially hamstrung by the lack of complete visibility.

No one disagrees with this. The only disagreement is with your assumption that a silver bullet deck was inevitable. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that.



It is impossible for me to prove a lack of something, but this is the reasoning for my statements. We have some supporting evidence that progress was being made - the 2nd place deck in the stress test went 7-1 vs majesty (this is not PROOF, but it is a factor to consider). There are a number of coyotle control decks that have shown very strongly, and the VIP decklists showed us some truly surprising decks that were just beginning to be honed (Kolokee's phenteo / 5th book deck for example).

I grant that these might have been the beginnings of top tier decks but that doesn't mean that they were ever going to be truly satisfactory responses to TM. Turn 3 TM wins are bad but my exemplar situation is Periwinkle turn 3 into TM turn 4. There are no right answers here. The only way to counter this is to have hand destruction before turn 4. No deck runs enough hand destruction to have a satisfactory percentage against this situation. Someone can do the math and tell you what the odds are of having either a turn 3 majesty or a turn 3 periwinkle into turn 4 majesty, statistics is not my forte, but whatever it is it's far too significant to be ignored.

Gwaer
09-09-2015, 04:13 PM
It was a good post, Oss. I definitely would have liked to see more full decklists tournaments. I had high hopes for the sapphire cup, but if the devs think they have enough info, we gotta take them at their word on this. They can't unban it now. The decision is made. Gotta move on.

ossuary
09-09-2015, 04:15 PM
Turn 3 TM wins are bad but my exemplar situation is Periwinkle turn 3 into TM turn 4. There are no right answers here. The only way to counter this is to have hand destruction before turn 4.

Burn, Meek, Time Ripple, etc. at the end of opponent's turn 3 to eliminate Periwinkle. Counter and resources still available turn 4 to stop Majesty.

YojimbOo
09-09-2015, 04:15 PM
Tyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

ossuary
09-09-2015, 04:17 PM
It was a good post, Oss. I definitely would have liked to see more full decklists tournaments. I had high hopes for the sapphire cup, but if the devs think they have enough info, we gotta take them at their word on this. They can't unban it now. The decision is made. Gotta move on.

I know it's probably not going to change. And for the record, I'm not angry - I just believe in my heart of hearts that this is a mistake. And because of that, I will voice my thoughts on why, in the hopes that the devs listen and think on it. They have been wrong before, and admitted it, and reversed course to correct.

I don't mind being unpopular, I'm not trying to win points. I'm just saying what I feel needs to be said, for what I see as the good of the game. I wouldn't be happy with myself if I stayed silent on it just because I'm on the "losing side" of this.

keo
09-09-2015, 04:23 PM
As I have said previously, banning this card at this time sets a bad precedent. Colin has stated in this thread that the decision was not reactionary, and I believe that both he and the developers believe that to be true. However, the fact remains that we have created an environment where loudness and vehemence can be perceived to be getting people what they want. There was a LOT of conversation on this subject, but beyond the first couple of pages, there was not a lot of rationality or new evidence being offered by either side. It devolved into a matter of noise and volume, with a lot of anger and insults being tossed around, rather than structured conversation.

When a decision like this comes down, the reaction should never be "See? I was right." There are no winners and losers on this issue. The game as a whole is what matters here, and if people feel they can affect change by yelling, or whining, or repetition, the whole community and the quality of the product will both suffer as a result. I fear we are heading down a dark pathway - that is my true concern in all of this.

I am not angry about this decision. But I do believe very strongly that it was still too soon to make this call, if it should have been made at all. I think it will prove, in the fullness of time, to have been detrimental for the game as a whole.

ossuary makes a good point (eventually :rolleyes:)

However, there are some other aspects to this impact. My turn for an essay.

Please also consider,

1. Since this is still beta, the developers could turn this off tomorrow and we would all have nothing to show for it. Luckily for use they are all very nice people and probably won't do that. However, the beta designation does carry with it some extra rules and exceptions. They decided to ban a card. Nothing is stopping them from un-banning a card if they decide later, based on more feedback, that it would be better to do so.

2. While I firmly believe that the developers have the community first in mind, eventually there is also the subject of sales. Apparently programmers, designers, and moderators have to eat too; who knew?
Speaking personally, I was very interested in constructed gauntlet since I had a free ticket or two from a stress test. It seemed like a really fun format. However, after watching a much better player than I get trounced by 3 TM decks in a row, I had absolutely no interest in constructed gauntlet. My casual play wouldn't stand a chance, so it's back to Swiss draft for me.
Based on the forums, it sounded like you would be severely hard pressed to win everything in constructed tournaments without at least considering a counter to the TM deck or taking one yourself. I don't have any numbers, but my speculation is that tournament entries may have been down compared to the initial set release. Tournaments cost platinum to join, so HEX makes money when tournaments are entered. If people think they will not have a chance, whether that is true or not, they are less likely to enter.

3. HEX did just add Gauntlet as a new format. Once there are more sets out, and an even bigger pool of cards to pull from, there may be a "free for all" style with any card from any set (in any quantity?) or "unlimited" format that has no restrictions whatsoever. Who knows, they may even have a special PVE cards legal format some day, or let players duel with PVE cards in an arena during Campaign mode for bragging rights only or through the duel a frenemy feature.

A big thank you to Dan Clark and the HEX team for the official HEX response. I really appreciate the insight into the development decisions, from stress test results to this new explanation.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 04:29 PM
I actually think I have a possible solution to the decklist issue.
One thing that I have found pleasantly surprising given the fledgling state of op is the community scene and the tournaments surrounding it.
My idea is to have a Tab for community tournaments in the proving grounds page that has single elim or Swiss pairing with possible cut to top 8 and uses the tournament pairing software. Also a lobby for the various community leagues such as rock league. The caveat for this functionality is that you sign over the right to post deck lists and use the tournament in hxe marketing, probably in their Friday updates. But as currently, people have to use outside pairing software when I should be encouraged to stay logged in possibly spending Plat. This encourages people to create more community run events with better tournament experiences while simultaneously providing decklists and publicity for hxe and providing the necessary information for the metas to evolve.
Ps hex entertainment I renounce all rights to this idea in perpetuity if you wish to implement it =)

gruntwork
09-09-2015, 04:33 PM
TM is NOT non-interactive


Ok so it's not non-interactive 100% of the time but there is a significant percentage of the time where you will not be able to answer it because the few necessary response cards you have were not yet drawn. There are just too many times in a TM deck that you can't respond to what they are doing.




This is no different than any other combo deck. You are sacrificing board presence and the early game strength in the hopes of getting a powerful troop on board or a one-shot big damage effect at some point in the future.

If that were the case for majesty then no one would have been complaining. You sacrifice nothing at all when you can get a TM out turn 3 or 4. There is only one deck that can punish majesty for attempting to build to it's combo, the ruby rush, and even that can't kill turn 3 or 4 regularly. Most decks are operating on a speed level similar to majesties. The difference being that no other deck was dropping one turn kill cards as their first few cards played.




Nevertheless, when a combo deck works and does not get countered, the game SHOULD be over quickly

No one is saying the combo shouldn't result in devastating effects, but that it shouldn't be able to result in those effects so early in the game.



A TM deck that whiffs is likely dead - that's the risk and penalty of running it.

But again this wasn't true in the case of TM. TM can whiff turn 3 or 4 and the TM player can be fine. They still have plenty of options. The first and foremost option for a TM will always be a TM topdeck. Putting that aside you still have crocosaurs to stabalize the board and ramp to build into the hard cast 8 drops. A TM deck that whiffs still has quite a few ways to win, it's why ruby/wild ramp decks will still be a thing in the meta going forward without TM. TM didn't sacrifice anything by going for it's combo.



Players who ignore what their opponent is doing can be defeated much more easily than those who are careful and smart. This is again part of the cat and mouse. Do I rush it out immediately? Or do I hold back and let my opponent have another turn to possibly use up resources?

When playing against TM you are left with only one option for a lot of decks. Slow play and try desperately to counter everything they are doing for the first 4 or 5 turns, then pray that they don't topdeck a TM while you attempt to establish board presence. This is key to the unfun claim.



The more important question, again taking the individual person's definition of "unfun" into account, is, "Are the percentage of games that are unfun as a result of this card more harmful to the game as a whole than banning this card is?"


Most seem to have come to the conclusion that any harm from banning is overwhelmed by the good done to the game by going ahead and banning it. Hard to know percentages without polls but on every stream today and in the overwhelming majority of posts here there is support for the ban.



However, the fact remains that we have created an environment where loudness and vehemence can be perceived to be getting people what they want.

This only becomes true if the developers are unable to stand their ground in the face of opposition from vocal groups of players. Just because they agree with a vocal group this time doesn't mean that they will cave to every vocal group that comes along. You are assuming the worst of people that we have no reason not to give the benefit of the doubt to.

gruntwork
09-09-2015, 04:43 PM
Burn, Meek, Time Ripple, etc. at the end of opponent's turn 3 to eliminate Periwinkle. Counter and resources still available turn 4 to stop Majesty.

Hmm I suppose I overlooked this. Thanks for pointing it out. Still there are going to be plenty of times you aren't going to have one of those answer cards available because the combo happens so early.

IronPheasant
09-09-2015, 04:46 PM
This was the right call.

It would have been better if the card had been somewhat balanced in the first place. You guys can do better on this front! Point cards in development. Don't make threats with unbounded power levels.


Will Crocosaur be the next card on the ban list due to how powerful or effective it is? Where do you draw the line is I guess my main concern moving forward.

Crocosaur is indeed a pretty busted card. It'd be incredible if it targeted just one guy and we get to target two.

Constructed is all about busted cards and I get that people love the format because of that. The line should be drawn at turn three wins against a guy who hasn't goldfished, and 1 turn kills against someone with full life.

Yeah Crocosaur is often a 3 for 1, but Extinction is too. Should Green have access to powerful mass removal like this? .... Probably not. But it adds some character to the zany madness that is Hex.

RoyHarper
09-09-2015, 06:04 PM
So the article says, "For context, developers test the game to ensure that the game is fun and the power level of cards are balanced and in the right place. For socketing cards we have to look at the card and make sure it lands correctly with every possible socket it can have, when any troop can have a socket, it becomes very difficult to perceive all potential outcomes.

Phenteo also said that, "our designers spend a good portion of a work week playing with and against the deck as well. Several meetings and conversations happened over the course of a three week period."

Are we supposed to assume, then, that designers never came up with the Tits deck and tested it before the set was released? Are people really buying that this two-card combo was somehow overlooked by developers? And if so, what does this mean for our game as we move forward, considering the complexity of all the PvE and PvP card/champ/merc/equip interactions?

McCloud68
09-09-2015, 06:06 PM
Done.

RamzaBehoulve
09-09-2015, 06:08 PM
Good decision. I'll play constructed again.

poizonous
09-09-2015, 06:24 PM
and once again, game gets ruined by over voiced amateurs.... Sorry HXE but I understand why you banned it but it is the wrong decision. Wayyy too premature but when you get an angry mob asking constantly for something i guess you have to give in

FrostWynn
09-09-2015, 06:25 PM
Hmm, would have preferred if they just changed the Ruby major gem instead of banning a released card. Card values dropped so much already lols.

Expecting Ruby aggro (maybe R/S Gore Feast) and Winter Moon control decks, though interrupts for days is going to be frustrating to play against.

majin
09-09-2015, 06:32 PM
I have a competitive TM deck that I used on constructed gauntlet but I abandoned it for my mono ruby rush deck as it's just not that fun.

one thing I hate when using my ruby deck vs TM is even if i killed peri, puck and that 1 cast coyotle, your opponent can still 1 hit kill you on turn 4 or turn 3 (1 or 2 Chlorophilia is used on turn 2, i used to do this) by using TM and picking Calamity when you have no blocker. how can you justify that this has any interaction at all?

i stopped playing constructed last week but it seems I will have the drive to start playing again and see how the new meta will be now that TM is banned

TJTaylor
09-09-2015, 06:33 PM
I was debating whether or not to add my voice to the discussion that was going on about TM since I had been one of the people at the beginning that was saying someone will figure out the counter to it and not to worry about it. That is what usually happens after all and most initial kneejerk reactions to powerful cards prove to be unfounded. But I changed my mind on it after a few weeks and felt very strongly that TM needed to go. Can't say I'm unhappy to see this ban. Too bad I didn't sell my extra copies before hand though. :P

wolzarg
09-09-2015, 07:06 PM
If we had had decklists from ESL and therefore more capability to have iterated on the decks prior to the stress test, I might agree with you that the amount of time has been sufficient to make that call. But because the community was not able to operate at full capacity on the issue, that is the factor that makes me feel like it was too soon (and remember, again, that it took 4 months for Gore Feast to be solved, WITH some full decklists along the way).

Lacking the normal iteration and improvement capabilities, it was inevitable that a disproportionate percentage of the community would say, "frig it, I'm running TM." Known... easy. Like I said before. :)
While i agree with you i have a feeling (subjective) that it would have been banned in the end regardless. Gorefeast never was as oppresive and meta defining as this deck. It gave you more room to inovate and find a new the best deck because you could tackle it from different directions in another way. I personally didn't really cave to the whole gorefeast craze as i like to play control more but if you remember the gorefeast deck was also solved much slower. The very slim itterations of the titania deck show that the deck was either solved very early or more likely so good already it didn't need further tuning. This leads me to belive that as more answers where found for it the more it would just evolve it self to couner those answers.

Either way i support your concern for what this means going forward with complains and HXE potentially caving to them. But in this instance despite not having been very vocal about having a ban i support it and accept that they claim to have enough good cause for the decision and enough data to back it up.

Mahes
09-09-2015, 07:10 PM
Nice post Ossuary. I agree with a lot of what you said. I am not sure if banning TM was the right call but I will hold faith that the developers have a better idea than I would for making that descision. Hopefully this will not be a situation again for a few sets/years.

ossuary
09-09-2015, 07:21 PM
Another thought I had just a minute ago about the Gore Feast vs. Titania's Majesty discussion is this: when Gore Feast was first available, we had a VERY limited pool of cards. Because of this, it may have been impossible to have a "killer" version of the Gore Feast deck early on; all of the options were strong but not necessarily ideal. When new cards were added in set 2, it became (for a time, until it was broken) significantly more powerful than the initial versions, even with several different new versions being tried.

We see archetype decks in Magic come back out after several years much stronger than their older version all the time, because of more options. Perhaps we crossed a threshold with TM that there were just enough powerful cards available to pair with it that it made that style of deck (combo, or ramp, or "eye of creation" archetype) significantly more powerful than it had been in the past.

If someone were to make a brand new Gore Feast deck 2 or 3 sets from now, Gore Feast might very well end up being way too powerful (imagine if you could have 2-3 speed troops on the board by turn 2, and enough resources to also gore feast - that would be nearly GG right there). And the reverse of the same concept - if Titania's Majesty had been released as part of set 1, it would very likely have had far fewer complaints, because there were far fewer OMG OTK BBQ troops for it to hit.

The power level of all the cards is a factor in the strength of cards that use other cards (as opposed to standalone cards). This is especially true when you start dealing with things like recursion, cheating troops into play, casting things much earlier than normal with ramp, etc.

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 07:24 PM
If you are continuing to use gorefeast as a comparison point, you are missing the point.

N64Overclocked
09-09-2015, 07:37 PM
First off, I want to say that I think the ban was probably for the best, though I do agree with Ossuary that Gorefeast was just as prevalent for a much longer period of time.

Secondly, I want to discuss my personal experience with this as a player. I love ramp decks. I loved ruby/wild back in set 2 and the TM deck seemed to be exactly the style of deck I loved to play: get big guys out quickly to win. And now it was actually competitive. I don't have a lot of money to throw at the game, but a while ago I saved some money and dropped $60 on the legendaries I needed to make the TM deck. I'm still missing 2 Walking Calamities, so the deck never became "tournament ready." Now that the deck is banned, my hopes of entering into constructed PvP at the competitive level are incredibly low. I simply can't afford to spend so much money on cards for decks I don't enjoy playing very much. And I don't think straight up ramp is going to be strong in the meta after the TM ban (it's never been strong in the meta pre-TM anyways). So while I agree that the TM ban is probably good for the meta overall, I feel as though my $60 deck is now a $30 pile of cards I can only use to play arena (and even then Xarlox will still wreck me 4/5 times).

I could be wrong, and ramp could still be strong in the meta later on, but I have a good feeling this won't be the case since there are a ton of easy counters to ramp.

So my options are to drop another wad of money on a deck I don't enjoy playing, or accept that I will never be able to play competitively in constructed PvP and quit the game until PvE is released. I'm sure you can see how disheartening my options are. I feel more and more that I will never be able to be a part of the competitive PvP scene, and this TM ban dips my fears in carbonite. This saddens me greatly, but I guess I'll just have to be a PvE player and watch the well-established guilds make top 8 and root them on from the sidelines.

That being said, I don't expect nor do I think I deserve any sort of compensation. I chose to spend the money on the deck and the ownership of my losses is mine. I simply wanted to post how this change has affected me personally so that HEX Ent can better understand how this feels to a player like myself. And honestly, if anybody can tell me how I can still have fun and be competitive in constructed PvP, please let me know.

WWKnight
09-09-2015, 07:39 PM
It was a good post, Oss. I definitely would have liked to see more full decklists tournaments. I had high hopes for the sapphire cup, but if the devs think they have enough info, we gotta take them at their word on this. They can't unban it now. The decision is made. Gotta move on.

Kinda like the decision to re-run the convection event was made, cant change it now?

WWKnight
09-09-2015, 07:44 PM
I honestly feel ramp decks will stay viable. Also on that 5 cost mark is the crocosaur. That still absolutely shuts down any rush deck and takes board control in its favour. Ive also long been of the theory that Jadiim is grossly undervalued/played. Wild will rise again. The mightiest oak grows from but a single seed...

ossuary
09-09-2015, 07:56 PM
If you are continuing to use gorefeast as a comparison point, you are missing the point.

You keep dismissing basically everything I have said in the last 5 threads about TM with this one comment. You are the one who is missing the point. The comparison is valid because of how strongly represented the 2 cards were in their respective metas, and for how long, and for how much volume of bitching and moaning there was about how powerful, unfair, and unfun they supposedly were.

I am not making a direct comparison to their relative strengths, or on how easy they are to deal with, as you seem to think. I am only comparing their effect on tournament gameplay as a whole, and the community response to their existence.

Clear enough? Please stop trying to dismiss me so flippantly over your failure to grasp the difference.

nicosharp
09-09-2015, 07:59 PM
I honestly feel ramp decks will stay viable. Also on that 5 cost mark is the crocosaur. That still absolutely shuts down any rush deck and takes board control in its favour. Ive also long been of the theory that Jadiim is grossly undervalued/played. Wild will rise again. The mightiest oak grows from but a single seed...

Yeah, it should still be quite great. Croc / winkle / ramp / other great cards in both Ruby and Wild. I think people were quick to disregard that TM did a lot more than simply cheat a troop into play. It created side-board scenarios that would virtually take entire side-boards dedicated to hating TM side-board choices, and assumptions to be made that the TM player would make those side-board choices. It comes back to the Gems, and what is available primarily in Wild+Ruby through gems, and cheating large troops into play, and what happens when the two elements combine with some of the most powerful highest cost troops in the game acquiring those elements. Sure, you can get the same jollies with an azurefate, but it's not nearly the same, as that at least takes setup. Potentially if there were counter ramp strategies, or early focus on resource destruction, there may have been more effective ways to contend.

I don't want to invigorate this discussion, but will just say, yes, wild/ramp will still be viable.


You keep dismissing basically everything I have said in the last 5 threads about TM with this one comment. You are the one who is missing the point. The comparison is valid because of how strongly represented the 2 cards were in their respective metas, and for how long, and for how much volume of bitching and moaning there was about how powerful, unfair, and unfun they supposedly were.

I am not making a direct comparison to their relative strengths, or on how easy they are to deal with, as you seem to think. I am only comparing their effect on tournament gameplay as a whole, and the community response to their existence.

Clear enough? Please stop trying to dismiss me so flippantly over your failure to grasp the difference.
You make it relatively easy to dismiss because it's not an apples to oranges comparison, even in regards to how their strengths were, are, and will ever be represented. But, that is on the developers, and they know it, and I'll just be flippantly dismissive to that end. I won't put words in their mouth, yet others might understand what I am loosely referring to in terms of what 1 card is vs. 3+. The community response, and tournament results now, are a lot different than then, and so is the community.

McCloud68
09-09-2015, 08:51 PM
I have checked the AH for all the cards that were staples in the TM decks and they all have taken a big hit except for Eternal Guardian. Glad 1 card is resilient to the masses.

BigDog
09-09-2015, 10:28 PM
I have checked the AH for all the cards that were staples in the TM decks and they all have taken a big hit except for Eternal Guardian. Glad 1 card is resilient to the masses.

i'll be picking up the cards while they are diminished in value, its very unlikely that TM stays banned forever and i'd like to get the deck on the cheap

Malicus
09-09-2015, 11:00 PM
I have had a lot of luck with TM and am pretty sad to see it go - I was actually excited about constructed while it was a deck and now I just see a future where every time I try and cast something the opponent says no or my troop just dies instantly.

To me it felt like with TM as a deck we were talking about and playing constructed more than ever, I hope I am wrong but I certainly will be playing less constructed unless a new deck is actually fun and control doesn't dominate the meta.

wolzarg
09-09-2015, 11:41 PM
I have had a lot of luck with TM and am pretty sad to see it go - I was actually excited about constructed while it was a deck and now I just see a future where every time I try and cast something the opponent says no or my troop just dies instantly.

To me it felt like with TM as a deck we were talking about and playing constructed more than ever, I hope I am wrong but I certainly will be playing less constructed unless a new deck is actually fun and control doesn't dominate the meta.
Try the mono ruby aggro it should be even stronger against control.

Patrigan
09-09-2015, 11:52 PM
i'll be picking up the cards while they are diminished in value, its very unlikely that TM stays banned forever and i'd like to get the deck on the cheap

I wouldn't bet on it. HXE clearly states they think the card is unfun and that the card primarily promotes unfun conters (interrupts). I don't immediately see good counters that are also fun to play against. Since HXE clearly states they don't want to promote interrupts, i also wouldn't expect interrupts to start popping up across the board. At least those that do will be far more conditional and aimed to the color they're in aand not against TM.

So yeah, I honestly don't think we will ever see Titania unbanned in standard constructed tournaments.

I am also laughing a bit internally at the fact that there are people who actually expected TM deck cards would not take a value hit if the card got banned. But worst of all, I am quite disappointed in the community. People like Ossuary are usually the first to tell others to suck it up, but here he is now, acting exactly the same as others who oppose a decision by HXE. It saddens me that some personalities already grew so big to think they're different than the rest of us.

Eierdotter
09-10-2015, 12:32 AM
i am happy it is banned
but i am frustrated that i bought 4 (now worthless) calamitys two days ago after waiting so long for something to happen...

Metronomy
09-10-2015, 01:07 AM
Maybe...just maybe...they didnt react because there was an angry mob, but because they actually agreed with the arguments advocating a ban. There were more than enough and we discussed them extensively. If you want to discuss them once more I am happy to do so but you should at least accept that there is a possibility that the arguments might be valid.

Just in short:
If you think that there would have been a silver bullet to counter TM my question remains. What makes you think that this is the case ?
I cannot believe we need to discuss the gorefeast comparison once more. I won't bother at this point to repeat myself a fourth time. I agree decklists would have been an improvement but I dont think you can just dismiss all the tournaments we had because we had no decklists.

The bigger point was and is that TM leads to unfun games (and this even remains if there was a silver bullet). Here you basically said that this is subjective. I agree... But wouldn't you say that if a very big amount of players has an very unfun experience with the card that this is a problem ? It remains subjective but numbers matter. And they internally agreed that it was unfun. They didn't have fun themselves in those games.


Honestly I find it a bit insulting how dismissive some people here are towards the whole discussion that was going on. Believe it or not but I presented new arguments even after 40 pages and I also made some progress in discussing with gwaer to clear out our positions and find the points we agreed with (which were actually more than you might exspect) and the points we disagreed with. It wasnt all angry insulting and whining. Maybe a little bit but for the most part we were arguing with arguments(!) and trying to resolve who had the better arguments. Turns out HXE came in a 3 long week internal discussion and playing with the deck to the conclusion the reasons for banning the card were valid. There is a good chance they would have made the same decision without the thread. One way or the other we should be allowed to voice our oppinions.

Some here just seem to believe it was a kneejerk reaction to an angry mob. I beg to differ and I feel those people probably didnt follow the discussion we had over 50 pages.

Gwaer
09-10-2015, 01:25 AM
It is also possible that eventually something could have broke and allowed a major meta shift, and it's possible that the community furor and general reaction to the card led to a stale meta.

I don't think any of this is relevant anymore since it is banned. It's also possible that the reverse is true, and no matter how much time it was given the meta would have been stuck. In the future I would like to see a few full decklist tournaments where the community as a whole have easy access to what other people are doing and can try to iterate on that before there is a ban. And I'd love for people to take a more reasonable approach to the discussion. The second we had a massive free tournament with expected participation it was pretty clear that the constructed game wasn't dead, or even dying. I imagine we'll see an upswing in participation in the esl just from all the attention. Time will tell whether that upswing lasts, or whether participation wasn't really that affected by majesty afterall.



But even leaving all that aside, saying ossuary has a big head because he is presenting his opinion on the situation is pretty ridiculous. This is a place of discussion, I agree in many ways with ossuaries post. Though I might disagree with people on the forum all the time, if I didn't it would be boring, and I'd have lost interest a long time ago. I know for a fact that my discussions here have shaped the direction of the game, and I know for a fact that is true of most people who regularly participate here. The devs listen to us, and usually take what we say seriously... Except things like hold priority sometimes... And begrudging him his desire to get his opinion out there in the wake of this change is so hypocritical when you're honoring people who were for the change you agree with.

Metronomy
09-10-2015, 01:38 AM
Just to be clear. I said it at my very first response but it deserves to be repeated..I applaude Ossuary for voicing his oppinion. If I went to far in the heat of the discussion (might very well be) I want to apologize. I just happen to disagree with his arguments. I did with you as well Gwaer but after a back and forth over 5 pages I came to understand your position and to understand where our disagreements are. Discussions (even heated once) sometimes are not pointless.

Since we have a decision now I probably won't weight in much more on the topic (since it still seems to cause bad blood). Only this much...according to quantum physics pretty much anything is possible..the question is: what makes you believe it is likely going to happen ?

One last note: I agree that hopefully in the future we will have more tournaments and more decklists. The lack of decklists just doesn't necessarily mean the ban was too early or not justified.

nicosharp
09-10-2015, 01:41 AM
I think its really great that there are so many intelligent people posting their opinions on the game, and offering feedback. Not all arguments are intelligent, and not all discussions are arguments. Not all intelligent people offer the same nuggets of truth and wit in every single post they make. Sometimes it's hard to see the Why, the What and the How. I think it's far more devastating to the game to let people, that are quite active on the forums, continue to be dismissive about issues raised by players, to push their own agenda and bias. We may all fall victim to this from time to time. That is not the same, as being a smart ass, and coating a one-liner heavily with hidden meaning.

There seems to be a heavy counterbalance against negativity pushed by certain people that post here, and lately the counter arguments have seemed less based in logic, and seem more forced in habit. Not all criticism is negative, it is just criticism, and sometimes mixed with suggestions. Its good to see HXE put this to bed, so the defensive community unit can let this one go, and double-up efforts on finding out where those 1k registrations per day are hiding and why.

Gwaer
09-10-2015, 01:50 AM
People seem pretty free to push their own agendas and biases in all cases. You're just as guilty of that as the rest of us nicosharp. Don't see how you can try to levy a tax on that on ossuary or myself while in the very same post availing yourself of that right.

Also my paragraph on not calling ossuary big headed was not directed at you specifically Metronomy. I think your post was fine even if it still makes assumptions I disagree with -the bit about tournaments without decklists still being valid from a meta evolution standpoint. I'm afraid I can never agree that those tournaments do more than a tiny fraction compared to one that releases full decklists. =P

nicosharp
09-10-2015, 01:59 AM
My post does not admonish myself. I said we, meaning we.
Head checks for size, definitely are in-order :)

Gwaer
09-10-2015, 02:07 AM
A single inclusion of the term we in a previous paragraph does not alter your very pointed and in my opinion hypocritical statement. But I'll leave it at that. I don't really have much of a dog in this fight.

WWKnight
09-10-2015, 02:41 AM
Im sad because I have been playing a deck that was beating TM. Reaping the benefits in gauntlet too. Now its likely this deck I am playing will become really popular, and I will have to play against it... and let me just say... Id rather lose on turn 3. :(

Valnir
09-10-2015, 03:05 AM
This is the best solution!
It will be interesting to see the new PVP decks, also the prices of the cards.

ossuary
09-10-2015, 03:55 AM
Im sad because I have been playing a deck that was beating TM. Reaping the benefits in gauntlet too. Now its likely this deck I am playing will become really popular, and I will have to play against it... and let me just say... Id rather lose on turn 3. :(

In before there are calls to ban Frost Wizard because people think it's "unfun" to have their recursive control decks hamstrung. ;)

"None of my cards that don't let them do anything let me do anything anymore! No fair!" :D

Metronomy
09-10-2015, 04:21 AM
there is unfun and then there is unfun(!)....comparing frost wizard to a card that can end the game by itself on the spot and that can be played in ramp early as turn 3...do I realy have to continue this sentence ?

gonzo007
09-10-2015, 05:22 AM
TM will still be one of the most expensive rares in a set 3 pack - you'd be silly wanting it to be removed since the price of an average rare will definitely be below even a banned Titania's Majesty.

card value based are on how it do in tournaments and how rare it is (for pve, like rarity of coat so high because its very rare) but TM from now have 0 tournament value, and its not rare or hard to get for pve, so again 0 value. So please explain to stupid me - how is it gonna still be most expensive rare from set3?



Titania's will be back when we get rotations and an eternal format of some kind. sorry but no, as long as it keep its text not changed, it not become less powerful, as there always will be fome huge big costed troops with powerful effects, meaning its always gonna be like now

Milamber
09-10-2015, 05:50 AM
Two thing right up front
#1 Grats to those that have stuck their head out to express the non fan boy reaction that doesn't swoon over the fall of the king (or queen titania in this case)
#2 I do believe that turn 3 win was not the intention of the game design for Majesty nor any card design ever
- mind you there are decks that if they have had their ideal turn 1,2,3 and cards in hand the game can be more or less over it just doesnt resolve "on the 3rd turn"
#3 I do have the Titania deck, This set was always about ramp big critters and spiders for me, so it was an obvious archetype that i was going to facilitate
#4 I did not play it in the stress test I played mono blood, I gave the cards to mate to play. & I played it in gauntlet twice

I agree with the pragmatism of ossuary alot, while i appreciate there was some circumstance provided in response to being asked as to the lead up to the decision. I very much would like to see the participation stats and match ups or have been given some insight to its loss rate.... not just how many Titania's were played because lets face it because of the uproar there would be plenty of people that bought into it with out any insight to its playstyle (and it does have play style) sure turn 3 ozawa ends game but there's more to it after that.

The term entitled gets thrown around and id suggest that many of those armchair word slingers look in the mirror leading to my stating the unpopular topic #1
Compensation
To outright reject this is absurd, i see that even some those claiming to be on the but end of the card price falls are joining the popular and easy smash wagon against the idea...!
i recall that even the game that shall go unnamed at some point maybe to this day introduced a rule that if there was a ruling against a card that effected its perceived value they would buy it back for the standardised price X time after the ruling. Plat is a straw man currency for the vendor people it does not cost CZE (besides logistics) to do this. I challenge anyone to tell me how this is not an equitable possibility, i mean hey do it through the support ticket system if that is easier. This change was not the fault of the player base, it was not a code exploit.
commercial example lets use the obvious, Walking calam
believe i paid in excess of 1200 as i type 630 on AH

Why did i choose to throw plat to the Titania Altar
I have not often put hard currency into the game except to help others, but i did to fill out a few options i was playing with for titania, why?
It was not to join a perceived team easy win, Illustrated by the fact i played mono blood in stress test.
(I stress perceived because there are recursion spell defense decks i believe are the strong counter) and an absolute slow and painful thing to play against, if you havent crafted for it in reserves
I did it because i found the deck interesting to explore and yes competitive in current meta. I also wanted to play it from the inside to understand it and see if there were ways as yet uncovered to variant it, "ok" you say how does banning change that fact now for me.... Correct good question sir but it does now i could buy those cards at a pittance and before i had every reason to believe that certain cards in that deck were a sound investment to cycle out to AH again later if i wanted without massive loss.
So was that last remark a little naive, possibly to some part yes, but bare with me I legitimately thought that hex would have something in mind for this with the next release (bare in mind too that I'm not buying the fact that this was the oh the sky is falling moment that its the extreme fringe presents, but i do agree again that turn 3 win is not a chased after design aspect.

SUMMATION
plenty more to say and would like to validate the points i agree with on both sides but the need to draft is calling......
Soooo...
#1 I do not see the decision in isolation as being world ending. Thing is that it could be good for the short term "perception" of the game. But cmon over 750 people in stress test for a beta game .... sky was not falling
#2 was titania socketed to face damage interactions a design mistake, almost certainly
#3 Is learning from that something we should expect, yes
#4 If it was a mistake is correcting it something that is constructive, almost anyone would have to say... yes
#5 Should we as players end up out of pocket with no recourse from the correction, absolutely not
#6 Should we expect this to never happen again.... NO, part of what makes hex great is the new grounds and interactions that are possible, we did not sign up for a safe and mundane experience we signed up for something new, exciting, unexpected, challenging and thought provoking. it would be insane to want CZE to water down the vision of the game just so feathered never got ruffled.

Addendum:
Despite what CZE say about it not considering the outcry as motivation, I think that's a stretch. I say they could simply have swung thte desicion and pulled out ban hammer simply based on the "Turn 3 win, on turn 3" is not our intent. But i worry that this does get chalked up to a win by many (not saying all) that took up the vocal call to ban simply because it was the hipster thing to do and never even bothered to consider the counter.
so damned if they do damned if they don't but..... better use of the stats at hand , which they have could have ratified the decision and still would if they release it.

By all means CZE correct mistakes or unseen occurrence of interaction, do not go quietly into the dark of night because you are shy of making said mistake, stay to the vision try the un-imagined smash our expectations against the bow of your ship of awesome.

But do not leave a mess of a financial stock crash in your wake
That would be the most damaging legacy as it raises the stakes the ire the emotion fallout of you steering the ship out of expected course.
For those that have an opinion for those on the receiving end of CZE's red socketed for slap to the face ban decision. Uttering suck it up with a smirk on your face.... who are you to dismiss the worth to another of their investment in this game.
Many are not in abundant wealth that such things go un noticed or without sacrifice.
For many that the financial impact is not consequential to life it may infact be to their "gaming budget" that they make allowance for.

#endofrant

damn i love this game, proof reading also be damned...
*mic drop*

forgot to say.... why would i want to be compensated for the card at the value before change, because i would buy me some phenteo's baby.... i love that spider RNG rage shieeeeeeeet

Tinfoil
09-10-2015, 06:12 AM
I would like to debunk three arguments repeated ad nauseam about not banning TM yet.

1. Fun is subjective
An argument (or claim rather) has been raised several times, that fun is subjective and cannot be evaluated. This is a common misconception that should be corrected. Game design is indeed a difficult process that is hard to put on formular, but that does not mean that games being fun is subject to random subjective preferences. That is why some games a better than others and why not just any idiot can be a (good) game-designer. Books have been written about the subject and it is too complicated to discuss in its fullness. However, I have mentioned earlier that a good game involves choice and that TM takes that away. That is actually imprecise - since everything potentially is a choice, the relevant kind of choice is the choice that involves a sense of agency. TM and the counterplay that is Inquisition involves very little agency - they are just things that happen to you. therefore they are perceived as unfun. Still, personal subjective "random" experiences will still have an impact. The person that has piloted TM succesfully might not feel so strongly as the person that has been on the receiving end. This is why game design is important - a game is more than just 1 winner and 1 loser.

2. A new deck might arise
A very easy claim to make. It is basically just the skeptical argument ala The Matrix "everything we think we know might turn out to be false". While technically true you can say that about everything. The reason my many people have come to the conclusion that TM was too hard to build against is the number of things you have to deal with. They are:
a - TM itself
b - An early Periwinkel
c - Big troops like crocosaur and the battle effect
d - artifact troops like Eternal Guardian
e - spellshield post sideboard
f - Playing out a wincon of your own while dealing with the above
g - Making a deck that is also viable against other archetypes
If you manage a-e, f and g becomes hard. If you prioritze f and g, a-e becomes less reliable. Our card pool is simply just too small to deal with all those things in a reliable way, that is why aggro is best pre side-board, but suffers post SB. In short, you will gain more by playing TM, than by not playing it.

3. It's just like that time with Gore Feast
That a direct comparison between GF and TM is untenable has been shown many times, so i will not repeat that again. Instead, I will argue that the reason GF saw that much play was because of the dominance of control. Set 1 was meant to have a much more diverse meta (or so I will claim), but B/D control ruled supreme untill GF showed up as an affordable alternative to many players. In fact, highlighting GF is something of a misnomer, because the real engine was Cerulean Mirror Knight which became apparant when "Reese" was discovered. Control was so dominant that the only way to get around it was having a draw engine+finisher and in that respect Reese and GF was very similar. Gore Feast was never the problem, the problem was the power of control and card draw. That the meta evolved relatively slowly was not because people were stupid or lazy, but because the design had left relatively few viable alternatives. (Disclaimer: Since critique is a rather sensitive subject, I do not mean this as a complaint or any kind of bashing or even saying that players didn't have fun - I am just pointing out factors that goes against a popular narrative).

TCG's and other games for that matter, has has a history of balance problems. Pointing to those problems and saying "see there was also a dominating deck in that format" is a fallacy. If there is one or even two or three decks that is the meta it might be a sign that balancing was not good enough. Mistakes and skewed balancing will happen, but we as a community should point them out (without whining or hysteria) and then HXE can decide what and if anything should be done.

Now, with set 3, we have for the first time a number of archetypes that can ignore or play around Extinction+removal and control in general, as well as a number of fast decks that can put serious pressure on draw decks. Now that TM has been culled I think we will see the meta explode.

gonzo007
09-10-2015, 06:27 AM
watched some streams, and you know what you see in constructed? :blood::diamond: - :blood::sapphire: - mono:ruby: , and you know what are not there ? ":ruby::wild: ramp that "still good and gonna play ok even without TM" 100% same will be on saphire, same old pre-set3 decks, with very minor additions like phenteo to decks with :blood: and martyr to decks with :diamond: and sometimes arcane focus to :sapphire:, and nothing else from set3, what a huge change, what a diversity!

gruntwork
09-10-2015, 08:02 AM
watched some streams, and you know what you see in constructed? :blood::diamond: - :blood::sapphire: - mono:ruby: , and you know what are not there ? ":ruby::wild: ramp that "still good and gonna play ok even without TM" 100% same will be on saphire, same old pre-set3 decks, with very minor additions like phenteo to decks with :blood: and martyr to decks with :diamond: and sometimes arcane focus to :sapphire:, and nothing else from set3, what a huge change, what a diversity!

Being able to see the future should be put to better use than looking into the future of Hex's meta.

Mourad13
09-10-2015, 08:07 AM
Tinfoil is right imo

WolfCrypt
09-10-2015, 08:28 AM
I love this. Everyone from Maine to Hong Kong was hellbent on banning TM more arguments were about it then Gore and now everyone is saying "Well what the hell why'd you ban it???" I wish everyone would stop talking bout this damn card...

Miwa
09-10-2015, 09:51 AM
S1. It shifted game speed to focus around turn 2/3. Opposing decks have to be able to reliably respond with a 1 or 2 cost card to survive an on the play TM deck. This narrowed the meta deck building possibilities to revolved around a limited amount of cards, and in turn narrows viable decks greatly. Better counter cards in the future I find a weak argument as with TM in the format still narrows the focus to 1 and 2 cost cards.
This was by far the biggest reason I wanted to see it banned. Yes, there might have developed counter-strategies, but they were all going to have to be ready to go on turn 2. When you completely wipe out any chance of having decks that have some element of "struggle-then-stabilize" you wipe out way too much in the way of variety.

There needs to be a decent chance of survival to turn 4 or the whole game is just a big coin flip, and that's just not very interesting. One-card-no-board-state-insta-kills shouldn't have a place in the game.

hitchslap88
09-10-2015, 10:49 AM
I thought that, since the community was so vociferous before the ban, perhaps we'd say something afterward. That said, in this thread, please do not debate the decision. Make one post stating your opinion and concerns and be done. This is an important decision by the company on a contentious issue; please take the complexity of the matter into account when making your statement.

To begin with:

I'm happy. I agree that the card caused all of the problems raised in the announcement: it mixed power, speed, lack of interaction, and lack of fun in a such a way that I feel a ban was necessary. Now that the card has been banned, I feel more of an urge to participate in constructed pvp.

Case in point:

This morning, upon hearing the news watching Twitch, I saw someone in the chat asking whether anyone wanted to do some deck testing. I obliged, modifying my B/D Vampire Marble deck by removing Withering Touch, along with a few other tweaks.

He played essentially the TM deck with adjustments. Calamity was gone. The deck featured Balthasar and Rootfather with DD Ruby gem and Spellshield gem, using Eye of Creation instead. We played two matches. He won the first match, which featured a game he won by copying a Rootfather to deal fatal damage with only 7 cards left in his deck (Balthasar). I won the second match by changing my champion from Zared to Prairie Meadow and adding Shard Ward to my sideboard; the combination of Prairie Meadow's charge power and Shard Ward kept my Vampire King from being eaten by Crocosaur twice. A card that replaced Withering Touch, Rise Again, allowed me to resurrect a Repeled Syyn and win a game.

Back are the interaction, the fun, and the healthy pace. Thank you for banning TM.

Edit: this was originally meant to be a new thread but was moved here.

Chounard
09-10-2015, 10:59 AM
In before there are calls to ban Frost Wizard because people think it's "unfun" to have their recursive control decks hamstrung. ;)

"None of my cards that don't let them do anything let me do anything anymore! No fair!" :D

I disagree with you on many points, but I support your right to make your arguments. However, is there really a need to troll like this? Please don't.

Gwaer
09-10-2015, 11:22 AM
@tinfoil

When people say fun is subjective what they mean is 'different strokes for different folks' they're arguing some people enjoyed majesty decks and everything about them. And were having fun. This is indisputably true since a few of those people have expressed that. Majesty want universally unfun. And just like other cards that have an unfun component for other players if it weren't 'the' meta might not have been so bad

Secondly, I know for a fact there were deck options that did very well vs majesty. I'd just been refining one that won vs majesty well above 70% even after sideboarding, could the majesty deck have changed to deal with it? Probably. But it would have to water itself down with non creature removal and become less reliable. Was it enough to break the meta? Maybe not. I wish I had hit on it a bit earlier and had more time to refine it. Things could have gone differently and made a ban not necessary. There's no way to be certain of either outcome. The devs had to choose a likelihood of majesty always being a problem and came down on the side of a ban. I personally accept that. But to say that it's impossible that this could have gone differently is just hubris.

wolzarg
09-10-2015, 11:38 AM
I'm not trying to dispute anything Gwaer but could you share that list with me? Here or in pm either is fine really.

Gwaer
09-10-2015, 12:05 PM
I believe some number of my team intend to run it in the Sapphire cup still. I'll share it after that.

selpai
09-10-2015, 01:05 PM
So, let me get this straight. Permanently banning a card from a large section of the game doesn't affect it's value, and is totally fair to the people who invested in them, but balancing the card by changing what it does somehow ruins the game experience?

This is just the designers being lazy. Hex is a digital card game, and there are tools available to it that allow content to be iterated upon and improved. Choosing not to do so isn't some revolutionary gameplay experience, it's a cop out.

Gwaer
09-10-2015, 01:20 PM
Funny. I'd argue that a world where they can change cards is lazy. It's much harder to design a set set in stone than one that can be changed and modified.

The value part is silly. Card prices will change based on both bans and nerfs. And that has nothing to do with why they ban instead of nerf.

Steelio
09-10-2015, 01:23 PM
I think it was a good move. I deliberately skipped HEX for a month and a half or so because I wanted to get into constructed but didn't want to play against the Damoclese' Sword type decks which TM represented. A few people are missing the main points, I feel:

1. It required a little setup to be played on turn 3. A little later and it was still super strong.

2. It OTK'd with face-damage.

3. It was a win-con by itself.

4. Big big spells which do things are generally costed higher [mass dingler is 8.]

5. Easy win if topdecked.

I didn't play in set 1, but on my appraisal, gorefeast required troops on the board, which can be swept/blocked. Majesty on the other hand could only be interrupted. And there were very few ways to deal with a calamity once it had landed. 'Cast a big spell and win the game' is pretty bad, 'cast a big spell and have a strong advantage' is fine. But TM wasn't even that much of a 'big spell.'

Typed this up kinda fast but have tried to express my thoughts =) My concluding remark will be that if you aren't a net-decker then you're probably happy :D

vickrpg
09-10-2015, 01:37 PM
The ban is a good call, IMO, the timing? meh... We will never know, because we can't experience all possible futures. Feel free to argue it forever.

I think though, that if a card like this were released, we could feel free to unban TM:

Jinx!
2 Resource, Shardless
Quick Troop- Cat, 0/3
While this is in play no Copies or Replicas of cards can be made. "Create a card with that card's name" effects also do not function.
There's many copy cats, but only one original cat.

Tinfoil
09-10-2015, 03:34 PM
@Gwaer

Noted, but I don't think it adresses my post. And I look forward to seeing the deck you are hinting at

Zophie
09-10-2015, 03:43 PM
We will never know, because we can't experience all possible futures.

http://i.imgur.com/fonhACl.gif

Selanius
09-10-2015, 04:20 PM
@Tinfoil

Love your post, captured a lot of what I was thinking and going to post except you said it even better. Thanks for taking the time to write that.

Sixlooter
09-11-2015, 01:22 AM
So, let me get this straight. Permanently banning a card from a large section of the game doesn't affect it's value, and is totally fair to the people who invested in them, but balancing the card by changing what it does somehow ruins the game experience?

This is just the designers being lazy. Hex is a digital card game, and there are tools available to it that allow content to be iterated upon and improved. Choosing not to do so isn't some revolutionary gameplay experience, it's a cop out.

As I first read you post I thought "Hm, I somewhat agree. At least possible...". But maybe you are right and wrong at the same time. I think changing the card is not that big of a deal. Like fixing a but with a card, there you also have to alter the game in a certein war. But the truth seems to have a real digital TCG by selling a booster you also sell some promise that goes along with value. I mean the fun of every TCG is, that the devs sell you a new set, where some completely overpowered combo is just waiting to be discovered. But the same chances then go along with the chance of a ban in certain formats. All the big TCGs do it and it hasnt destroyed economy. Where ever you can make profits there are risks for losses. And for most real life TCGs there is not even PVE to go for.
On the other hand after choosing to stay with "What once goes out stays the same, even if he have to ban it from certain formats" I think the effect, that it is not much work is a nice side effect for the capacity of the team ;) @Hex invest it in the PVE content! :P

Kami
09-11-2015, 06:23 AM
So, let me get this straight. Permanently banning a card from a large section of the game doesn't affect it's value, and is totally fair to the people who invested in them, but balancing the card by changing what it does somehow ruins the game experience?

This is just the designers being lazy. Hex is a digital card game, and there are tools available to it that allow content to be iterated upon and improved. Choosing not to do so isn't some revolutionary gameplay experience, it's a cop out.

As I stated elsewhere (and in the past a number of times):

Long story short, bans are better in the long-term than nerfs. While I realize people are adamant that nerfs should be the de facto standard since this is digital, that's not true.

Nerfs:


A single card changed could affect past and future card interactions in an unforeseeable manner. There's no way to guarantee a changed card will not break something else (and I don't mean just technically). Not to mention that a nerf does not guarantee that it would be satisfactory.
A nerfed card is still nerfed. In high-level competition, people will always go for what is strongest. If it is nerfed, it will no longer be as viable as it was and thus, depending on the nerf, it could be unused in play regardless.
The card as you knew it is forever gone. It will no longer be playable, period. All existing copies would be modified.
Value of the card will drop indefinitely regardless so it's a moot point.

Bans:


A single card is banned from specified formats. However, other formats to come could still allow it. For example, Highlander. (Please tell me how OP Titania's Majesty would be in Highlander for example. lol)
A banned card is surgical. It removes interaction but does not modify so it's clean. You don't have to worry about random interactions going awry due to a change.
The card still exists, as opposed to a nerf.
Value of the card will drop but may go up again due to demand in other formats to come.

The ideal solution is to ban and reprint a variation of the card under a different name. Thus, you keep the existing card for play in other formats to come and you get a new card that is tournament legal in the future.

Best of both worlds and little mess.

In terms of your argument, because it's digital, there's nothing preventing them from banning and 'printing' another version of the card under a different name that you could consider 'nerfed' that is tournament legal. This way, it preserves the original card for play in other formats.

Edit: The exception to this is PvE because it is a singular format. If you ban from PvE, it is not usable anywhere, period. Hence why card/equipment modifications are reserved solely for PvE only, imo.

selpai
09-11-2015, 06:45 AM
As I stated elsewhere (and in the past a number of times):

Long story short, bans are better in the long-term than nerfs. While I realize people are adamant that nerfs should be the de facto standard since this is digital, that's not true.

Nerfs:


A single card changed could affect past and future card interactions in an unforeseeable manner. There's no way to guarantee a changed card will not break something else (and I don't mean just technically). Not to mention that a nerf does not guarantee that it would be satisfactory.
A nerfed card is still nerfed. In high-level competition, people will always go for what is strongest. If it is nerfed, it will no longer be as viable as it was and thus, depending on the nerf, it could be unused in play regardless.
The card as you knew it is forever gone. It will no longer be playable, period. All existing copies would be modified.
Value of the card will drop indefinitely regardless so it's a moot point.

Bans:


A single card is banned from specified formats. However, other formats to come could still allow it. For example, Highlander. (Please tell me how OP Titania's Majesty would be in Highlander for example. lol)
A banned card is surgical. It removes interaction but does not modify so it's clean. You don't have to worry about random interactions going awry due to a change.
The card still exists, as opposed to a nerf.
Value of the card will drop but may go up again due to demand in other formats to come.

The ideal solution is to ban and reprint a variation of the card under a different name. Thus, you keep the existing card for play in other formats to come and you get a new card that is tournament legal in the future.

Best of both worlds and little mess.

In terms of your argument, because it's digital, there's nothing preventing them from banning and 'printing' another version of the card under a different name that you could consider 'nerfed' that is tournament legal. This way, it preserves the original card for play in other formats.

Edit: The exception to this is PvE because it is a singular format. If you ban from PvE, it is not usable anywhere, period. Hence why card/equipment modifications are reserved solely for PvE only, imo.


Interesting perspective, but half of your list can be summed up as "the designers are lazy or unskilled".


A single card changed could affect past and future card interactions in an unforeseeable manner. There's no way to guarantee a changed card will not break something else (and I don't mean just technically). Not to mention that a nerf does not guarantee that it would be satisfactory.


A nerfed card is still nerfed. In high-level competition, people will always go for what is strongest. If it is nerfed, it will no longer be as viable as it was and thus, depending on the nerf, it could be unused in play regardless.

No other online game does this. When something is unbalanced, they change how it functions. They don't say "well, there could be unforeseen consequences, or people might not use it anymore" "let's just get rid of it". Any other community would be furious, but HEX is still stuck in the mindset of being locked into the limitations of a physical card game, and having no other choice but to ban the card.

Kami
09-11-2015, 06:58 AM
Interesting perspective, but half of your list can be summed up as "the designers are lazy or unskilled".

Sorry, but you'd have to prove that. I'd like to know how you would nerf a card that could potentially interact with hundreds upon hundreds of cards. Would you keep trial and error'ing until you find the perfect balance - what is the perfect balance? Does that mean you continue to modify other cards that become affected? Now you have a dozen cards you're modifying that interact with hundreds upon hundreds of cards in the future.


No other online game does this. When something is unbalanced, they change how it functions. They don't say "well, there could be unforeseen consequences, or people might not use it anymore" "let's just get rid of it". Any other community would be furious, but HEX is still stuck in the mindset of being locked into the limitations of a physical card game, and having no other choice but to ban the card.

Other online games do not usually have the ability to get rid of something in one place but use it elsewhere. For example, if an MMORPG class has an OP skill, if you 'remove' it, where else can you use it? It's gone. If a piece of equipment is OP, if you 'remove' it, where else can you use it? It's gone.

As I stated in my PvE exception, if you ban something in PvE, it is no longer usable anywhere else in HEX, hence why nerfs are used instead. If you ban a PvP card from tournament play, it is still usable elsewhere.

You're trying to make a claim that they 'got rid of it' when in fact, they've only restricted where it can be used. If they nerf it, then it is literally gone. The original card no longer exists.

The ideal solution is ban (thus preserving original card) then print modified card under different name that is not banned.

LegoFortress
09-11-2015, 07:03 AM
Interesting perspective, but half of your list can be summed up as "the designers are lazy or unskilled".

No other online game does this. When something is unbalanced, they change how it functions. They don't say "well, there could be unforeseen consequences, or people might not use it anymore" "let's just get rid of it". Any other community would be furious, but HEX is still stuck in the mindset of being locked into the limitations of a physical card game, and having no other choice but to ban the card.

I disagree. I think it means that they want to take the time to really understand how/why this broke things, and they want to "fix" it in the proper time, rather than engineering a solution under the pressure of a relatively stale/unfun meta.

I mean... maybe I'm thinking game design is harder than it actually is, but, it would seem to me that to come up with something that gives the same "flavor" or feel as Titania's majesty but doesn't break things is relatively non-trivial. And, having made a mistake and pushed the boundaries too far, you want to extract all the lessons you can from this experience before testing the limit again. The ban allows them to take the time needed to really R&D and test the next card. And, when they release, say, Titania's Virtue in the future, they will do it with the confidence of knowing that they've looked at interactions accordingly.

As far as losing value, your card collection isn't a bank account. It's an investment. And while you need a certain level of faith to maintain the economy, anyone with a retirement account can tell you that "past performance may not be indicative of future returns", and that events happen in the real world which unpredictably and irreversibly alter the economy. Do we try to control them? Yes. But, as Colin said elsewhere, a card getting banned was inevitable, eventually.

Elwinz
09-11-2015, 08:15 AM
watched some streams, and you know what you see in constructed? :blood::diamond: - :blood::sapphire: - mono:ruby: , and you know what are not there ? ":ruby::wild: ramp that "still good and gonna play ok even without TM" 100% same will be on saphire, same old pre-set3 decks, with very minor additions like phenteo to decks with :blood: and martyr to decks with :diamond: and sometimes arcane focus to :sapphire:, and nothing else from set3, what a huge change, what a diversity!

Meh i run gauntlet yesterday and i got wrecked by R/W Eye deck few times ... Its sitl very strong. I was kiling his ramp but iit did nothing to me .. Eternal guardina .. rotofathers with dmg .. crocasaurues ... its stil VERY strong deck. Poeple are just overreacting and disabande the dekc for no reason. Calamity is the noly card whixch should have dropped in price.

malloc31
09-11-2015, 09:17 AM
Nerfs:


[1]A single card changed could affect past and future card interactions in an unforeseeable manner. There's no way to guarantee a changed card will not break something else (and I don't mean just technically). Not to mention that a nerf does not guarantee that it would be satisfactory.

If the amount of data and play testing they have on this card isnít enough to re-design a card how can they ever have enough data to design a new card? This is much more tested then a card pre-release, if they only make it weaker and not change the basic nature of the card it doesnít need complete retesting.


[2]A nerfed card is still nerfed. In high-level competition, people will always go for what is strongest. If it is nerfed, it will no longer be as viable as it was and thus, depending on the nerf, it could be unused in play regardless.

This is only true if there is another card that does the same thing better, if it is still the best for what it does it will still be used, doing this is challenging but no way impossible.


[3]The card as you knew it is forever gone. It will no longer be playable, period. All existing copies would be modified.

Right now if you only play constructed PVP the card as you knew it is forever gone. It will no longer be playable, period. Maybe in 5 years we will have some format where it is playable but maybe the game will be dead by then also who knows? I would rather worry about today.


[4]Value of the card will drop indefinitely regardless so it's a moot point.

On non playable card will drop further then a card that is weaker but playable, because it has some utility.



As for saying it is too hard to redesign it like that. Just off the top of my heard they could have changed it so that you only look at the top 3 cards of the deck, and you still needed to meet threshold requirements of the troop and that may have been fine. Just because something is complex doesnít mean it is impossible.

Kami
09-11-2015, 09:43 AM
Right now if you only play constructed PVP the card as you knew it is forever gone. It will no longer be playable, period. Maybe in 5 years we will have some format where it is playable but maybe the game will be dead by then also who knows? I would rather worry about today.
If you nerf the card, the card as you know as Titania's Majesty will literally be gone. In a ban, the card still exists, it is just restricted for certain formats.

This type of thinking is also extremely narrow. Not everyone focuses on constructed PvP.

The difference is that with a nerf, I can never play the card as it was ever again. With a ban, I can still play it in other formats.


On non playable card will drop further then a card that is weaker but playable, because it has some utility.
Except it isn't unplayable. It just isn't playable in certain formats. Again, if you nerf the card, it will then literally be unplayable because the card no longer exists.

At this point, I question why people calling for a nerf refuse to accept a ban and a modified 'reprint' instead (Edit: To add, this is something that was stated by Cory waaaaay back in the day iirc in an interview). It achieves the same thing but actually preserves the card as opposed to destroying it.

If you were able to go back and nerf Black Lotus in MTG, would you? Or would you rather hold on to the original and make a new version?

Another way to look at it:

Nerf = Destroy Card
Ban = Preserve Card

malloc31
09-11-2015, 09:54 AM
My position on all of this is they promised no nerfs, so I understand no nerfs. But I would prefer they change that stance at some point.

Your view is very very biased.

A card modified correctly should still be a good card, and if done correctly it would be much less of a hard pill to swallow for most people then having a card banned.

I know you will not agree, but I hope you can see from my previous points that the nerf side of the argument at least also has rational arguments behind it, and this isn't the one sided argument you make it out to be.

Kami
09-11-2015, 10:07 AM
My position on all of this is they promised no nerfs, so I understand no nerfs. But I would prefer they change that stance at some point.

Your view is very very biased.

A card modified correctly should still be a good card, and if done correctly it would be much less of a hard pill to swallow for most people then having a card banned.

I know you will not agree, but I hope you can see from my previous points that the nerf side of the argument at least also has rational arguments behind it, and this isn't the one sided argument you make it out to be.

And yet all arguments involving nerfs refuse to consider what has been stated repeatedly, ban and reprint modified card under different name.

The biggest issue with a nerf, again, is that you are destroying the card. Yes, it may be playable in tournaments... but it is no longer the same card. It will become a different card with the same name.

I don't know about you, but if there's a chance I can use the original card in the future for fun, I'd rather keep that option open than making that possibility impossible.

Some of you have suggested conditional nerfs. However, logistically, this is impractical. It would require constant consideration of different rulings in different formats for each individual card that is modified. Yes, currently it is only Titania's Majesty but in the long-term, who knows? (And the strawman argument is: "If they're making that many poorly designed cards, they have a bigger problem." - That's not the point.)

This isn't a one-sided argument, I've made it abundantly clear that there is a middle road to take here. You ban and you reprint a modified (i.e. nerfed) version of the card under a different name.

If that's unacceptable, please elaborate as to why a nerf only would be a better solution. If the argument only entails 'value of the card' or 'what people paid', etc. I will consider the argument invalid because that has NOTHING to do with gameplay.

Thand
09-11-2015, 10:19 AM
I am in full support of the ban. Some of the people against it have made good points, but there's one that baffles me. Some people have claimed that this sets a bad precedent for "giving in" to people who complain. Shouldn't a card worthy of a ban cause complaints, by definition?

Aradon
09-11-2015, 10:35 AM
I am in full support of the ban. Some of the people against it have made good points, but there's one that baffles me. Some people have claimed that this sets a bad precedent for "giving in" to people who complain. Shouldn't a card worthy of a ban cause complaints, by definition?

Not really. People tend to complain pre-emptively, rather than seek a solution via deckbuilding. Not everyone, of course, but as soon as a small crowd decides they don't like X card, there'll be a forum thread for getting it banned. Happened with Gorefeast, but no ban there. If this does set a precedent for giving in, then there would be encouragement and positive reinforcement for immediately complaining, worsening the problem.

That's the concern of that argument. No comment from myself on its validity.

malloc31
09-11-2015, 10:43 AM
If that's unacceptable, please elaborate as to why a nerf only would be a better solution. If the argument only entails 'value of the card' or 'what people paid', etc. I will consider the argument invalid because that has NOTHING to do with gameplay.

If when you ban the card you immediately produce a nerfed version (with a new name) and you distribute to every one who currently has a card then I am for what you are saying, I just would prefer not to make people have to reacquire the card.

malloc31
09-11-2015, 10:50 AM
Not really. People tend to complain pre-emptively, rather than seek a solution via deckbuilding. Not everyone, of course, but as soon as a small crowd decides they don't like X card, there'll be a forum thread for getting it banned. Happened with Gorefeast, but no ban there. If this does set a precedent for giving in, then there would be encouragement and positive reinforcement for immediately complaining, worsening the problem.

That's the concern of that argument. No comment from myself on its validity.

you are both right but missing something.

He is right that a card worth banning will be complained about that is always true. (and people should not say they are just giving into whining)

They point you are trying to make that is true is that many other cards that are not worth banning will also be complained about. (so the devs need to not just read us complaining but also look at data and many other things)

So the point is many things need to be factored in beyond complaints before banning is considered, and in my opinion the devs did factor in many things and reached a good decision.

Thand
09-11-2015, 11:10 AM
Not really. People tend to complain pre-emptively, rather than seek a solution via deckbuilding. Not everyone, of course, but as soon as a small crowd decides they don't like X card, there'll be a forum thread for getting it banned. Happened with Gorefeast, but no ban there. If this does set a precedent for giving in, then there would be encouragement and positive reinforcement for immediately complaining, worsening the problem.

That's the concern of that argument. No comment from myself on its validity.
I'm well aware that people tend to complain about cards that don't deserve a ban. My point is that if you argue that banning a card that people complain about sets a bad precedent, you're essentially arguing that only cards that are popular should be banned, which makes no sense. What matters is how compelling the complaints are, not their mere existence.

selpai
09-11-2015, 11:19 AM
I mean... maybe I'm thinking game design is harder than it actually is...

You totally are. It can be tweaked in several ways, without fundamentally changing what the card does.

*Cost increase for the action.

*Threshold increase for the action.

*Socketable major >> Socketable Minor

*Void the unchosen revealed cards, instead of putting them back into your deck.

*Put the chosen troop into play, instead of making a copy.

*Chosen troop enters the players hand with a cost decrease equal to the cost of the spell, instead of entering play for free.

Not a revolutionary or even laudable design choice, just a cop out from the devs.

malloc31
09-11-2015, 11:23 AM
You totally are. It can be tweaked in several ways, without fundamentally changing what the card does.

*Cost increase for the action.

*Threshold increase for the action.

*Socketable major >> Socketable Minor

*Void the unchosen revealed cards, instead of putting them back into your deck.

*Put the chosen troop into play, instead of making a copy.

*Chosen troop enters the players hand with a cost decrease equal to the cost of the spell, instead of entering play for free.

Not a revolutionary or even laudable design choice, just a cop out from the devs.

I am in agreement that they could have just nerfed it, but you are being unfairly harsh to the devs. they never said they did not have the ability to come up with a way to nerf it, I am sure they have the intelligence to nerf it if they want. They had promised "No Nerfs", that is why it was not nerfed. And I for one value people who actually honor their promises and stick by their word (even if in this case, I was against the promise in the 1st place.)

selpai
09-11-2015, 11:29 AM
I am in agreement that they could have just nerfed it, but you are being unfairly harsh to the devs. they never said they did not have the ability to come up with a way to nerf it, I am sure they have the intelligence to nerf it if they want. They had promised "No Nerfs", that is why it was not nerfed. And I for one value people who actually honor their promises and stick by their word (even if in this case, I was against the promise in the 1st place.)

And that's laudable, sticking to your principles that is. There's a point however where you have to reassess the value of those principles. I could understand the block system in a digital format, if they went back to previous sets and iterated upon them, before reintroducing an old set in a new block. That doesn't seem like it's going to happen.

Instead, we have a situation where a bunch of lazy conniving developers got together and said "you know what would be great? What if instead of giving players all of this free constantly improving content that they've come to expect from an MMO, we made them pay for bug fixes and balance in the form of card sets?"

Yeah... F@ck that Sh*t.

LegoFortress
09-11-2015, 11:32 AM
Yes, I agree, those are all options. But rather than picking one (or more) and trying it, and then, if it's too "weak" tweaking it again, a cleaner way to deal with it seems to be to ban the current iteration, bring the concept behind the card back into development. To me, what you're suggesting seems like a "quick and dirty" solution of just throwing some stuff at it and seeing what sticks. I mean, I work in R&D (granted, in a much more regulated industry than game development) so I know what a pain it can be to bring something back into development, and how much pressure you're under from customers when you're trying to find a solution "live".

I don't see this as a revolutionary or a laudable choice, and I'm sure they don't either. But, short of making everyone work (more) overtime until they find a stable solution, banning it seems like the best of a bunch of bad choices.

I do think there's something nice about kami's idea of being able to bring out a subsequent card with a similar concept to TM later, but my primary reason for liking the ban is it solves the issue currently and allows them to go back to engineering a better card in the future, rather than making post-market workarounds. We may have to agree to disagree here.

Thand
09-11-2015, 11:41 AM
You totally are. It can be tweaked in several ways, without fundamentally changing what the card does.

*Cost increase for the action.

*Threshold increase for the action.

*Socketable major >> Socketable Minor

*Void the unchosen revealed cards, instead of putting them back into your deck.

*Put the chosen troop into play, instead of making a copy.

*Chosen troop enters the players hand with a cost decrease equal to the cost of the spell, instead of entering play for free.

Not a revolutionary or even laudable design choice, just a cop out from the devs.
You have yet to address the actual reasoning given for choosing bans over nerfs. Your last several posts cherry pick parts of other peoples' posts while ignoring all their valid points. You couldn't even manage to quote a full sentence in the post above. Then you merely repeat the same phrase over and over, hoping repetition makes it true. I'll make it simple for you: please explain why preserving the card for non-constructed formats is not a good reason for using bans instead of nerfs.

selpai
09-11-2015, 11:48 AM
Because you're sacrificing one game mode for another. The same thing could be accomplished by nerfing the card in constructed specifically, and leaving it the same in other formats. The choice to simply ban the card is lazy.

Thand
09-11-2015, 11:57 AM
Because you're sacrificing one game mode for another. The same thing could be accomplished by nerfing the card in constructed specifically, and leaving it the same in other formats. The choice to simply ban the card is lazy.
Once again, this has been addressed in this very thread already, and you've chosen to ignore it. Allow me to refresh your memory:

Some of you have suggested conditional nerfs. However, logistically, this is impractical. It would require constant consideration of different rulings in different formats for each individual card that is modified. Yes, currently it is only Titania's Majesty but in the long-term, who knows? (And the strawman argument is: "If they're making that many poorly designed cards, they have a bigger problem." - That's not the point.)
I'll throw in a few additional questions I have regarding conditional nerfs for you.
Which version do you display on the auction house or card manager?
How do you expect new players to realize and understand the differing functionality?
What would happen to any PvE equipment the card might have?
Why is this better than printing a new, different card that is essentially a nerfed version of the banned card?

Gwaer
09-11-2015, 12:02 PM
The choice to nerf is lazy. It takes so much more work to try to design sets that need no bans, than to just say 'we'll change it after release if it's a problem' You've got it backwards what is lazy and what is dedicated to design. Sets wouldn't be near as good if cards could be in a state of constant flux because A) it's less important to get it right the first time, and B) every patch a swath of cards would change functionality, since that is the approach, change it rather than get it right the first time.

So instead of more work on the back end getting it right, we get less work but more tedium responding to endlessly tweaked cards of an ever increasing card base. No, nerfing is crazy inferior to banning. The ban and replace idea is nice, but I feel like that too would turn into a regular occurrence. Best to stick with straight bans, and maybe deckbuilding restrictions but I'm not really sold on that one yet.


Ah. yea. I forgot about the conditional nerfs. That's incredibly complicated, and totally unnecessary, if you're going that route you can do the exact same thing with bans and adding new cards with a different name to stem the incredible confusion of having a single card be different in different formats.

selpai
09-11-2015, 12:18 PM
Once again, this has been addressed in this very thread already, and you've chosen to ignore it. Allow me to refresh your memory:

I'll throw in a few additional questions I have regarding conditional nerfs for you.
Which version do you display on the auction house or card manager?
How do you expect new players to realize and understand the differing functionality?
What would happen to any PvE equipment the card might have?
Why is this better than printing a new, different card that is essentially a nerfed version of the banned card?

Oh? And is the fact that the card is banned in constructed going to be listed on the card now? In the auction house? Your example is ridiculous. That said, i didn't suggest conditional nerfs; i suggested that conditional nerfs are a better alternative to conditional bans. I suggest changing the card for *all* formats.

Gwaer
09-11-2015, 12:25 PM
So you're suggesting sacrificing the card in other formats just to make it playable in the format it was too strong for. Take a great limited card that is not a problem, and instead quite strong, and remove it. Yea, great plan totally fixes the issue

Thand
09-11-2015, 12:26 PM
Oh? And is the fact that the card is banned in constructed going to be listed on the card now? In the auction house? Your example is ridiculous. That said, i didn't suggest conditional nerfs; i suggested that conditional nerfs are a better alternative to conditional bans. I suggest changing the card for *all* formats.
There are already systems in the game to let you know that the card is invalid for constructed. Everyone knows this. Since you've fallen back on your strategy of ignoring points in favor of generic insults, I think I can rest my case.

So you're suggesting sacrificing the card in other formats just to make it playable in the format it was too strong for. Take a great limited card that is not a problem, and instead quite strong, and remove it. Yea, great plan totally fixes the issue
Which is ironic considering that selpai is the one who claims that we are the ones who want to "sacrifice one format for another". At least we're in favor of preserving more than one format.

Kayas42
09-11-2015, 12:39 PM
You totally are. It can be tweaked in several ways, without fundamentally changing what the card does.

*Cost increase for the action.

*Threshold increase for the action.

*Put the chosen troop into play, instead of making a copy.

[/B]

You mean Eye of Creation?

Leingod
09-11-2015, 12:46 PM
And that's laudable, sticking to your principles that is. There's a point however where you have to reassess the value of those principles. I could understand the block system in a digital format, if they went back to previous sets and iterated upon them, before reintroducing an old set in a new block. That doesn't seem like it's going to happen.

Instead, we have a situation where a bunch of lazy conniving developers got together and said "you know what would be great? What if instead of giving players all of this free constantly improving content that they've come to expect from an MMO, we made them pay for bug fixes and balance in the form of card sets?"

Yeah... F@ck that Sh*t.

A few things. You don't pay for bug fixes in Hex. Content in MMOs is often either not free, or hardly improved. Most often you have good content getting nerfed quickly after world first clears in order to let less skilled players clear it. And additional raids/etc are basically coinflips as to whether they will be good. Maybe you get Ulduar, maybe you get TOC. MMOs often ban unbalanced abilities in competitive PVP modes. (Easiest example is self-rez abilities.) Card sets can often be much cheaper as additional content than any kind of expansion if you are a strong player. They can even be free if you do a few early constructed gauntlets since prizes are made up of the newest set so far.

selpai
09-11-2015, 01:18 PM
There are already systems in the game to let you know that the card is invalid for constructed. Everyone knows this.


Well then, by your current logic you've invalidated your own argument. People should inherently know that a card does different things in different formats, and there should be no need for any sort of notation in the AH. And you call my logic selective.... Geez.

I'm honestly baffled at how far you people will twist yourselves around, to justify not iterating upon digital content.

Gwaer
09-11-2015, 01:36 PM
I don't think you know what the word logic means, since in no way is the conclusion you drew from his statement logical.

Kliphph
09-11-2015, 02:27 PM
A quick question regarding the banning of Titania's Majesty in constructed PVP. I noticed the card is still playable in the proving grounds, is that intended or are the proving grounds not considered to be PVP constructed?

Elwinz
09-11-2015, 02:36 PM
It is banned from torunaments. PG its not banned

Zophie
09-11-2015, 04:56 PM
This just posted on main site:

https://www.hextcg.com/top-32-stress-test-decklists/

Counter
09-11-2015, 06:56 PM
Based on some conversation we've been having on twitch, I'd just like to say that I apologize if I offended anyone with my previous comments. I did not mean to imply that everyone who had a complaint was lazy or complacent. That was a hyperbolic statement, and I was out of line for making it. Reality is much more nuanced than that, and there are various shades of grey in between extremes. Again, I apologize for causing offense.

I still believe the rest of what I said fervently, and I would be happy to continue discussing the overall merits, but I promise to make a better effort not to be insulting or dismissive. I assure you, I mean no disrespect to any of you.

For me it wasn't about the power level as much as it was about the fun factor. I always felt like when the card was played, the way the things hit the stack, it just ended the game instantly, which is unfun on turn 3.

Philomorph
09-11-2015, 11:01 PM
I have to say that this sort of thing was probably my biggest fear when I first backed hex on ks... That is, methods of pushing the tcg genre like sockets and cards that transfer powers to other cards was going to make balancing an impossible nightmare for the devs, which would lead to this very issue.

But of course innovation in the space was why I backed in the first place. I don't envy the team having to try and continue to come up with new ideas without breaking things!

But I will say that as a casual player I sometimes find it frustrating trying to come up with decks that can compete when your opponents abilities are so completely unpredictable (for someone that doesn't live and breathe the game at least). The variety and versatility they have introduced so far is reminiscent of how mtg felt after like 10 expansions, if you played with no set restrictions. I think we're learning it's a double edged sword.

Philomorph
09-11-2015, 11:04 PM
This just posted on main site:

https://www.hextcg.com/top-32-stress-test-decklists/

What does it tell us that by far the most common champion listed here is Cressida?

Venitas
09-12-2015, 12:55 AM
Not really. People tend to complain pre-emptively, rather than seek a solution via deckbuilding.
Not everyone, of course, but as soon as a small crowd decides they don't like X card, there'll be a forum thread for getting it banned. Happened with Gorefeast, but no ban there. If this does set a precedent for giving in, then there would be encouragement and positive reinforcement for immediately complaining, worsening the problem.

I'd like to repeat something from that post above, for emphasis: "Happened with Gorefeast, but no ban there."

Out of two data points, we have one where a ban happened and one where it didn't. While the sample size isn't large enough for statistical relevance, the fact that GF wasn't banned *does* still run against the notion of setting a precedent for 'giving in.'

This implies to me that the precedent they're aiming for is one of "reasonable consideration" rather than one of "giving in."

This may still be interpreted by some as "positive reinforcement for immediately complaining," but I'd still rather risk that than see it's opposite: negative reinforcement for any feedback.

Gwaer
09-12-2015, 06:21 AM
That is a very good point venitas, welcome to the forum. Great first post.

Altima
09-13-2015, 02:54 AM
While this is a good move I have to say that this problem should not exist in the first place.

You print Cassida + Walking Calamity + Majesty in one set. I mean how can you not know that this is going to break the game?

Many players see it from mile away that this will break your game but how can developers get no clue about this and insist to print such a card like this?

Elwinz
09-13-2015, 04:04 AM
funnky like so many instnalty selling TM dekcs .. whiel decks is stil very strong .. saphirecup confirms it

nicosharp
09-13-2015, 07:25 AM
While this is a good move I have to say that this problem should not exist in the first place.

You print Cassida + Walking Calamity + Majesty in one set. I mean how can you not know that this is going to break the game?

Many players see it from mile away that this will break your game but how can developers get no clue about this and insist to print such a card like this?
They wanted Wild and Ruby to be more prevalent in the constructed meta game. They may have overshot a bit, but I feel like they achieved that goal. You forgot Croc and Winkle :) Wild, specifically, had a pretty dismal showing in the constructed scene during set 1 and set 2.

Anyways, it is still quite a great deck, even without the dice-roll win con that could be achieved on turn 3.

Vorpal
09-14-2015, 07:24 AM
Wish they timed it better. They waited way too long and so many people spent a ton of cash on decks which are now pretty useless. I wish they either banned it sooner, or not at all.

Caveat Emptor.

Titania's Majesty itself was always (IMO) shockingly cheap for being the meta defining rare. It never rose to the cost of crackling vortex, for example.

Card prices rise and fall. I have seen other people (not Obliviate) asking for refunds or compensation. I think this is misguided. Card prices go up and down all the time, wholly unrelated to nerfs. Angel of Dawn has swung back and forth for over 1000 plat of value.

Obliviate
09-14-2015, 11:56 AM
Caveat Emptor.

Titania's Majesty itself was always (IMO) shockingly cheap for being the meta defining rare. It never rose to the cost of crackling vortex, for example.

Card prices rise and fall. I have seen other people (not Obliviate) asking for refunds or compensation. I think this is misguided. Card prices go up and down all the time, wholly unrelated to nerfs. Angel of Dawn has swung back and forth for over 1000 plat of value.

Sorry for the confusion, but I was more referring to the other cards that make up the typical TM deck. ie: Walking Calamity, which lost a ton of value.

Xenavire
09-14-2015, 11:59 AM
Sorry for the confusion, but I was more referring to the other cards that make up the typical TM deck. ie: Walking Calamity, which lost a ton of value.

Those were all artificially inflated because of the deck - anyone buying those cards had to know that there was a good chance that any one of those cards could plummet in value (regardless of bans.)

There is no reason for refunds or compensation of any kind, especially since TM itself wasn't the card that lost huge amounts of value.

Obliviate
09-14-2015, 12:06 PM
I don't believe I had asked for a refund or compensation. I was only pointing out that I wished the ban came before so many people invested in the deck. Also, I highly doubt the value of these particular cards would have went down so drastically without the ban.

Gwaer
09-14-2015, 02:13 PM
The exact same thing would have happened if the meta shifted and the deck fell out of favor, cards changing values is a fact of life.

Xenavire
09-15-2015, 04:36 AM
I don't believe I had asked for a refund or compensation. I was only pointing out that I wished the ban came before so many people invested in the deck. Also, I highly doubt the value of these particular cards would have went down so drastically without the ban.

Others were requesting compensation, so I tacked that on as a catch all. Wasn't trying to imply you were asking for refunds, and I apologise if it came across that way.