Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 183

Thread: The fear of nerfing cards is baffling to me

  1. #21
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    125
    My arguments in favor of Card adjustments/nerfing

    I do believe that, from a trustworthy, aware and talented development team, that being open to card adjustments provides a great deal of benefits, such as...

    Card value management
    -Assuming they are used sparingly, the prospect of a card being open to being nerfed should be LESS of a financial/trust factor than cards being banned anyway, for reasons mentioned in this thread (a Banned card collapses in value in a way that a nerfed card doesn't necessarily).

    Don't waste (even temporarily) good design space
    -A banned card can represent a 'good concept, but not implemented correctly', an adjusted card allows that role to still be fulfilled. For example, what if Walking Calamity had a line of text saying "When this troop enters play, if it wasn't played from your hand, put it into your deck"? I don't necessarily support that change, but it would somewhat weaken Titania's Majesty decks and, arguably, keep in theme of Walking Calamity being a card that was intended to be the ultimate 'ramp into this' card (as opposed to 'cheating' it into play, which is almost certainly one of the reasons it has that specific graveyard rule, and also why is has that "Can't Be Interrupted" effect, because it's supposed to be hardcasted).

    If CMK was determined broken, then why should there no longer be a "when this dies, draw a card" inspire just because they decided CMK specifically was too strong? What about CMK being a 0/1? What about a 3 cost 1/3 CMK? (I'm not saying a nerf to CMK is necessary either, remember these are examples)

    Opening Packs
    -Limited formats or casually opening packs both, having cards that are banned in some formats is going to sour the experience for a lot of people. Most of these cards are likely to be rare/legendary (due to the design philosophy of Hex so far), and having a 'non-card' in your rare slot can be disappointing, and with every banned card the pack experience can be soured that bit more, whereas a rebalance doesn't necessarily have this same effect.

    "Birth of a new card"
    -I play a lot of digital card games, and almost all of them accept card adjustments. As an example of a game I think has done it very well, I would suggest Solforge. As an example of a game I think does them poorly, I would suggest Hearthstone. However, in both cases card adjustments can breathe new life into cards, or even create an enjoyable, fresh experience from pre-existing cards. Unleash the Hounds in Hearthstone was changed many times (not always on good grounds, mind) until it reached its final incarnation, and when it began changing rather more drastically in effect and role, it was comparable to a completely new card being printed, or appearing in collections to tinker around with.

    -I'd like to make PARTICULAR reference to Solforge here. In Solforge in particular, some cards (especially from older sets) that just lacked many useful qualities have been improved over time, which both makes them more interesting to play with and own, as well as keeps them up-to-date when they appear in the limited/draft format. For those of you who don't play the game, the Draft format in Solforge is a pool of cards that includes the most recent set, as well as select cards from older sets, and the specific 'draft pool' changes every few months. This means they don't have to reprint cards or make near-functional reprints in order to have cards fit the same niches in their draft formats. It's one of the greatest uses of a digital design space I've ever seen in a draft format to this day, and card adjustments to bring cards created under different environments all in line is an integral element to this working, and I find it satisfying to see previously weak, 'filler' or even downright unplayable cards suddenly find important roles in my limited decks following design tweaks.

    -This 'birth of a new card' idea, that card adjustments are comparable to releasing completely new cards, can also help a previously stagnant metagame develop new life. This, however, also applies to banning cards - when specific cards are banned, it tends to pave the way to new decklists being viable, and sometimes pushes the metagame into being more diverse (this is the reason why cards are banned in Modern for MTG, in general, to prevent stagnation).

    'Evolution' of a card due to context
    -I mentioned earlier that in MTG for some time, a card that was effectively a worse Mindpyre was banned in the past, then unbanned later (due to the metagame having shifted so drastically, there being more responses, more powerful strategies, etc). The inverse is always a threat too, that a card that is weak now becomes 'broken' in the future. The solutions come in that we adjust the card to suit the context, and then re-adjust it when necessary, or we ban it when it's a problem, and unban it when it's no longer.

    Re-adjusting the card a couple of times prevents people having to purchase completely new variants down the line (assuming they're printed in the first place) and is a much less extreme response. Keeping a card in legal play is always going to, however slightly, increase the variety of plausible decklists in an event, and isn't that what everyone wants? Nobody wants 90% of the decks in a metagame be identical.

    In addition, if both card bans or adjustments are considered largely taboo or last-ditch resorts, then this can seriously impact future card design space. Some effects will never be seen on cards due to how they'll interact with current ones. At one point in time, I felt this way about Replicator's Gambit effectively ensuring we'll never get a real 'tutor' effect, but that particular argument fell apart when I realized it could just say "Search your deck for a card, revert it, put it into your hand". Even so, there are other examples out there, perhaps particularly in how extremely powerful a lot of graveyard-based interactions and effects are in Hex that effectively can create huge consequences if Hex later adopts 'self-mill'/dredge as a mechanic/strategy like MTG does, and how much 5-color decks are rewarded (Midnight Shepherd in particular comes to mind) which could mean consequences when gaining multiple thresholds becomes easier in the future. What if we could bump up his cost to 3 if it ever was considered a 'problem', instead of banning him? He'd still fill a role, then, at least.

    If mistakes are inevitable...
    -...then why wouldn't we allow them to be fixed? Hex is entirely digital, so card adjustments are actually possible here, and having a card rebalanced to remain playable, but not format-warping in a way that wasn't intended or considered fun, is a great opportunity, a chance of fixing what was broken, of shoring up weaknesses and making each individual set and every format tweaked to absolute perfection - providing variety, depth and intrigue in a way that may have just been missed the 'first time around' with so much as a single line of text or a single card change. When MTG bans cards, Wizards of the Coast don't do it to sell more (or less) of any product, they do it to create a better experience for the players. If they could rebalance cards instead of banning them outright? If they could go back and make Skullclamp as it was originally intended? If they could reconsider past mistakes as opposed to leaving this burning black hole of a 'banned' card in packs being sold? They would do it in a heartbeat - it's just not practical for a physical product. Why do we restrict ourselves to the same level?

    Final Words

    Yes, I think it's too late for Hex to go back on their promise, at least for sets 1 through 3. And, honestly, I don't expect them ever to do so, and I can't fault them for that. I'd like them to be open minded to the idea of card adjustments, but it may be too late for that. I think almost every argument against card adjustments/nerfs becomes minor if you assume a level of trust in the development team (and if you didn't have trust - why are you investing your time/money into their product?) and recognize that banning cards creates a more significant impact in most circumstances.
    Last edited by Yewstance; 08-18-2015 at 02:09 AM.
    TL;DR: Man criticizes things. Rambling ensues.

    http://sigs.enjin.com/sig/enjin-4368...tance-gray.png

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Yewstance View Post
    When MTG bans cards, Wizards of the Coast don't do it to sell more (or less) of any product, they do it to create a better experience for the players. If they could rebalance cards instead of banning them outright? If they could go back and make Skullclamp as it was originally intended? If they could reconsider past mistakes as opposed to leaving this burning black hole of a 'banned' card in packs being sold? They would do it in a heartbeat - it's just not practical for a physical product.
    Would love a source for that (bold emphasis mine)

  3. #23
    I don't think we've reached a point yet where either a nerf or a ban is necessary. We get the same outcry with every new set release, and then the meta shifts.

  4. #24
    I wouldn't mind at all if they nerfed a card to provide better overall balance and diversity in decks. However, they promised they wouldn't and as such people bought cards based on that promise while knowing a card could be banned in a particular format.

    Now, if HexEnt decides a card is really too good and completely destroying the game, but they wish for it to remain playable, they do have the possibility of making a very lenghty post with arguments about why a card is bad for the game as a whole and then nerf it. But doing so will set a precedent and people will be much less willing to invest platinum into the game.

    Simply put, it's easier to ban a card as it will create a lot less fuss about it.

  5. #25
    It was a good thing Xocoy wasn't that expensive of a PvE card, otherwise people probably would have been up in arms about his nerf.

    I wonder if they'll even touch the Slaughtergear's. They're uber powerful right now and also expensive. There'd be a huge shitstorm if they touch any of those cards considering their price would probably plummet.
    ---------

    Id like to apologize for the above statement. I commented in a very juvenile and offensive way that rightfully angered some posters. I regret it and sincerely apologize.

    ----------

    Pro + Grand King Backer. My Trade/Sell List. You can also browse my collection. Technically everything is for sale for a price.

  6. #26
    The inability to understand why nerfing owned cards is bad is baffling to me.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

  7. #27
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorgol View Post
    Would love a source for that (bold emphasis mine)
    Tonight I'm looking through old DailyMTG articles. I don't have the time to listen through Mark Rosewater's old podcasts, so I hope it wasn't brought up there. If I don't make another reply to your post, then I apologize for my baseless conjecture.

    EDIT: Can't find anything. Best I have is the Skullclamp article: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Mag...com/daily/af17

    I have only general and vague statements, such as:

    "Who Loses Out

    The thing about this banning that I feel bad about is that the card in question was much more widely used and enjoyed than cards that have been banned in the past were. Very few people had fun with stuff like Mind over Matter and Memory Jar. But everyone can find a use for Skullclamp. Players at cardshops and kitchen tables around the world are slapping it on everything from Auriok Glaivemaster to Bottle Gnomes to Fallen Angels. And to them the card isn't “broken” or “environment-warping,” but rather only very good and quite fun. I'm sure the card is responsible for making many iffy Friday Night Magic decks into contenders—heck, even a Bird or Dwarf tribal deck can laugh off mass removal with some Skullclamps handy.

    Many people have complained on the boards that their “Black-Green Death Cloud Cemetery” or “White Weenie Equipment” decks were ruined by the banning. And to them I apologize. But the Dark Side will always use power for evil, and while I appreciate your desire to employ Skullclamp somewhat fairly, I still say the card is dumb and had to go. Somewhere—maybe not in your store, or in your town—someone else was using Skullclamp more efficiently and to more devastating effect than you were. I'm sure there were kids using Lotus Petal years ago to put out first-turn Warrior en-Kor, and they were left scratching their heads when the Petal was banned. And maybe, just maybe, a guy somewhere was sacrificing Black Lotuses to power out early War Mammoths, and wondered why in the heck Wizards felt the need to create a Restricted List. There will always be casualties in the crossfire, I suppose. I feel your pain."

    --

    "That's it in all its glory. That change was made with over a month to go before the set was to be typeset, and none of us ever batted an eyelash at that card. Often when cards are changed that will impact our constructed playtesting, a memo is sent out notifying everyone about the changes and urging people to try the new incarnations of the cards. No such memo ever went around regarding “Thought Extractor”—no one thought of it as necessary.

    In hindsight it should have been obvious. Part of the problem was that our views of the card were tainted by its earlier incarnations, which were very bad. The other part of the problem was that, even without old bias, the card's power is not that easy to parse at first glance."

    --

    "We eventually figured out what we a monster we'd created during that dark period during when it was too late to change, but way before the set hit the streets. We knew there was going to be a train wreck, and all we could do was sit back and watch."

    --

    "All this was happening at about the time Mirrodin debuted in the “real world.” We knew what the future held, and we were powerless to do anything about it. There were whispers internally even then about banning the card, but we all hoped that maybe the players would find a way around the problem and it would all work out ok.

    Darksteel came out, and it didn't take long for players to uncover the Clamp's power. I distinctly remember Jarrod Bright on Brainburst deeming the card “broken” very early on, and Nick Eisel on Starcitygames saying, “Skullclamp is likely as big a mistake as Wild Mongrel, even if it isn't as obvious at first.” At this time were trying to implement fixes for the environment in Champions of Kamigawa development, but most of what we created seemed really forced, not quite good enough, or both. On top of that, we weren't even sure Skullclamp would survive in Standard until Champions was released, so we decided to sit on our hands and let the results from Pro Tour – Kobe and US Regionals tell us what to do. Maybe the players would solve the puzzle yet."

    --

    "In the weeks leading up to Regionals, as the Standard format's degeneracy was making itself painfully obvious, many players were crying out for a ban on Skullclamp. I remember reading posts on various message boards in our defense, along the lines of, “No, no, no… it can't be broken. R&D tests all the cards and they wouldn't have released it if it were really a big problem. We just haven't found the answer yet.” Or, some had the alternate ending of, “They're just letting Clamp decks rule for now, and they'll put the answers in Fifth Dawn.”"

    --

    The whole article is an important read, and an insight into a multi-tier development and testing process, of predesigned metagames and carefully laid plans and counters that all went horribly wrong for one little understated uncommon, and even so they stood behind the concept of the card, however broken the final incarnation accidentally ended up.
    Last edited by Yewstance; 08-18-2015 at 06:23 AM.
    TL;DR: Man criticizes things. Rambling ensues.

    http://sigs.enjin.com/sig/enjin-4368...tance-gray.png

  8. #28
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by ossuary View Post
    The inability to understand why nerfing owned cards is bad is baffling to me.
    And banning (even only in a specific format, which will still drastically affect their worth as cards, both in your collection or on a financial level) is okay? I believe the fun of the game, in any and all aspects, comes first, which is why every (popular) card game has dipped into one or the other to manage obscene numbers of cards and interactions.

    EDIT: Ah, I feel in retrospect I overreacted to your statement. Though, unless I skipped over a couple of posts, I'm not certain anyone here doesn't understand why it could be bad, just a few are arguing that the benefits (or flaws relative to the flaws of banning cards) outweigh the negative aspects.
    Last edited by Yewstance; 08-18-2015 at 06:24 AM.
    TL;DR: Man criticizes things. Rambling ensues.

    http://sigs.enjin.com/sig/enjin-4368...tance-gray.png

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by asdf2000 View Post
    dude, these are our cards. we bought them. they aren't just going to take our cards and change them. if they take what i own and change it i will be mad. this shit isn't hearthstone.

    we actually own these cards, we can sell them and trade them as we see fit. just like in mtg or pokemon or w/e else. and just like in mtg they can't just take our cards and do whatever they want to them (well in the terms they probably can but they aren't going to, because they know that would be wrong as well as bad for the game for the reasons people are posting here).
    we don't own any of these cards
    IGN Bfox

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Yewstance View Post
    And banning (even only in a specific format, which will still drastically affect their worth as cards, both in your collection or on a financial level) is okay? I believe the fun of the game, in any and all aspects, comes first, which is why every (popular) card game has dipped into one or the other to manage obscene numbers of cards and interactions.

    EDIT: Ah, I feel in retrospect I overreacted to your statement. Though, unless I skipped over a couple of posts, I'm not certain anyone here doesn't understand why it could be bad, just a few are arguing that the benefits (or flaws relative to the flaws of banning cards) outweigh the negative aspects.
    I was responding tongue-in-cheek to the OP's overly inflammatory post title.

    Banning, although clearly not a good thing for a given card's value, is FAR less detrimental to the value of ALL cards than the permanent threat of potential nerfs to ANY card. If anything COULD be changed, then nothing is safe, and the value of everything is impacted as a result.

    Given the choice between the two, any rational person must ultimately conclude that if it must be one or the other, banning is the only clear course. That is not to say that discussing other options is illogical (far from it), but it is the conclusion that "nerfs are fine!" that I find utterly amazing and nonsensical. Perhaps there is a third option, I don't know... I'm open to discussion on that one.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •