Close

    • Balance Changes for 3.62




      We're very pleased to announce balance changes coming in 3.62 that are intended to boost some less viable decks and hopefully encourage some new ones, without particularly hampering or hindering what's currently popular in 3.61 since we think it's in a pretty good state, with good variety across classes.

      We have therefore restricted ourselves to just one nerf to a Neutral card (Stun Turret), which will not penalise any particular heroes explicitly like some Class-restricted nerfs we were considering would have.

      The other changes are two rejigs (Mettle of the Warrior and Armored Packbeast), which are aimed at encouraging more proactive play and less passive/stall play, and eight strict buffs.


      SHATTERED FATES

      Voracious Arachnid - Ability changed to "When an ally is killed, Voracious Arachnid gains +1 base attack. 1SE: Target other ally with cost less than Voracious Arachnid's current attack is killed." (from "When an ally is killed, Voracious Arachnid gains +1 base attack. 1SE: Target opposing ally with cost less than Voracious Arachnid's current attack is killed.").

      Mettle of the Warrior - Ability changed to "Attach to your hero. When you summon a weapon, armor, Warrior ally, Warrior item or Warrior support ability, your hero and Warrior allies you control heal 1 damage." (from "Attach to your hero. When you summon a Warrior card, your hero and Warrior allies you control heal 1 damage.").

      Aural Battery - Cost reduced to 3cc (from 4cc).


      LOST LANDS

      Kallista, Twilight Matriarch - Health increased to 7HP (from 6HP).

      Armored Packbeast - Attack increased to 1 (from 0). Ability changed to "All damage to Armored Packbeast is reduced by 1. At the end of each of your turns, adjacent heroes and allies heal 1 damage." (from "All damage to Armored Packbeast is reduced by 1, and it has +1 attack while damaged. At the end of each of your turns, your hero and other allies heal 1 damage.").

      Yari Plunderer - Ability changed to "When Yari Plunderer is summoned while you don't control a weapon, target weapon in a graveyard is returned to play under your control with 1 durability and +1 base attack." (from "When Yari Plunderer is summoned while you don't control a weapon, target weapon in a graveyard is returned to play under your control with 1 durability.").

      Disarming Personality - Ability changed to "Target weapon with X base attack or armor with X defense becomes a readied ally with X base attack, health equal to its durability and no abilities." (from "Target weapon with X base attack becomes a readied ally with X base attack, health equal to its durability and no abilities.").

      Leash of Life - Cost reduced to 2cc (from 3cc).

      Tempest Runebearer - Attack increased to 2 (from 1) Ability changed to "Ability damage to Tempest Runebearer is reduced by 1. While ability damage has been dealt this turn, Tempest Runebearer has +1 attack." ( from "Ability damage to Tempest Runebearer is reduced by 1. While ability damage has been dealt this turn, Tempest Runebearer has +2 attack.").

      Rest for the Weary - Ability changed to "If there is a location in play, target ally is moved to the top of its owner's deck. If there are no locations in play, draw 2 cards." (from "If there is a location in play, target ally is moved to the top of its owner's deck. If there are no locations in play, you draw 2 cards and each other player draws 1 card.").

      Stun Turret - Durability reduced to 2D (from 3D).

      Feel free to comment below with your thoughts!


      We expect to have 3.62 on your devices by 7th September!
      Comments 49 Comments
      1. Gondorian's Avatar
        Gondorian -
        Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Mann View Post
        I certainly don't build my deck to mill others (though that sometimes happens). To be honest, I never used decks larger than 40-41 until praxix was created. He alone forced me into my MONSTER (well, praxix and millstalker anyway). I needed a way to counter them so they weren't autoloss (rather than just say, I hate playing vs them...now they offer draw every time they see me or rage quit). I just morphed my deck to try to have an answer for everything as I hate any autoloss matchup. Most that hate to face me think I'm using a hack or something but fail to realize I've been working on this one deck construction for a LONG time now.
        But Praxix barely shows up (maybe 4-5% max), so why go huge all the time just for that one match-up? Even if we include Moonstalker, it's probably only 8% total. I guess you have got hooked on the monster style, but I think you are missing out on a lot of the SE experience by having to stick to heroes that can really pull off the monster! Maybe you could be talked into trying 40-41 again. I think that is when people will think your account has been hacked.
      1. Gondorian's Avatar
        Gondorian -
        Quote Originally Posted by Shadaba View Post
        This is a really interesting and illuminating discussion, thanks for those who are contributing.

        The design team mostly wants to make sure people have fun. Which of course makes sense! A few different valid points have been raised:
        1) People, in general, may have less fun if they play against someone who drags on the game forever - also because there is an expectation that many online players will only have a couple minutes on the bus or in between chores.
        2) People may dislike playing against control decks that limit their options of playing their own preferred strategies.
        Though related, these are different points, and I think it's good to keep them separate.

        On 1), I agree. I also very much prefer facing opponents who play fast. That does not mean I prefer games that last a low number of turns - in fact, the opposite. I just like each turn to be fast.

        Also on 1): there is a fundamental choice to be made here as well. The designers could choose to move the game towards a meta where each game is (predictably) fairly short. This would help those with little chunks of time to enjoy the game. However, it would (in my opinion) almost necessarily also move the game a little bit more towards "casual" rather than "strategic". I'm sure there are people who would like or prefer that. I'm not one of them: I strong prefer strategic games over casual games.

        To be a bit more clear: one way to make sure that all games are short enough, is to sculpt a meta where most games lasts at most, say, 6 to 10 turns. This means that players will have seen around 12-16 cards from their decks. Luck of the draw will play a bigger role than if you see more of your deck each game. That's a valid choice: the luck will still wash out over many games, and well-navigated and well-sculpted decks will still win more than they lose.

        I personally prefer games that last more turns, where it really feels like an epic battle between two well-matched players. So I don't mind a game which lasts, say, 20 to 30 turns, as long as the game feels balanced.

        Which brings us to 2). I don't really know how many of these people there are, also because complaints are often conflated with the first point. But limiting your options is not the same as "dragging the game on forever". I personally don't like playing (with or against) rush or burn decks. I also don't really like playing (with or against) decks with a resource curve that is highly tuned to the first 5 turns, runs great for those turns, but then keeps on drawing dead 2cc drops that are only in there to prevent you from losing in the first 3 turns against a rush opponent. I like playing (with and against) decks that try to win in some tactically smart way - not just by "my monster is bigger than yours" or "my deck type happens to hard-counter yours".

        This doesn't mean that control decks should or will always lead to long games. Even the worst stall archetypes (Millstalker, Gwen-in-the-forest) don't necessarily lead to slow games: typically both players can play quite fast (e.g., Gwen: into the forest, opponent: play ally, done). I personally even think properly played stall is fine: as long as you don't unnecessarily draw out the turns, the game could still feel quite fast and exciting, you just happen to go through more short turns rather than a few longer turns. That said, of course I fully agree that uncounterable stall should be prevented - and I believe it has been at this point. And, considering all, even if I don't mind playing against it, I also don't mind if the designers limit pure stall, as they have. This is all fine.

        Moving away from stall, a similar argument applies to control. A control player typically can play quite fast, because a lot of plays are quite reactive. E.g., you play ally? I play crippling blow: your turn again. So "many turns" does not imply "30 minute game".

        Of course, I do know some players abuse the turn counter when playing stall or control, thereby not just increasing the number of turns, but also (unnecessarily) increasing the game time. That is bad, and should be avoided, and is frustrating even when each game only lasts 5 or 6 turns (because it still means you can only play one game rather than 3 in the same amount of time). I don't really know how to prevent that though. But if the design team think of something for that, I would be very supportive! (In a different thread, someone asked for faster animations, which may be part of a solution?)

        So, in summary: I'm strongly in favour of making the game enjoyable, fun, and snappy, and making turns go fast if not a lot is happening. I'm also strongly in favour of a meta where games can last for many turns, and turn into epic strategic battles, which to me means that control should be allowed, and even encouraged, to facilitate that. I'm also strongly in favour of limiting "block all" control and stall, although I find myself hating Serena more than Moonstalker (stealing random cards messes more with my strategy and feels more unfair to me than a temporarily deferring an impending onslaught - also because it introduces more randomness, so it is much harder to plan for).

        Anyway, please do continue (civilised) discussion - I think this is very helpful. It does feel like the design team has to make a conscious decision on whether to encourage the meta to be more casual (which I wouldn't like as much) or more strategic. To me it has felt as if we're leaning more towards casual lately, and perhaps that's deliberate. But perhaps it would be good to discuss that in the open, rather than indirectly by talking about the merits of specific archetypes.
        Thanks for the well thought out post. I think you have over-thought it though!

        We are not aiming for a long distance from where we are in v3.61 (which is a very nice version with least stall complaints I have ever heard of whilst having some great control options), but just a few surgical tweaks. To that end, there was a grand total of one nerf here (Stun Turret, for being too much value at the cost it needed to be) and only two rejigs (Armored Packbeast and Mettle of the Warrior, to alter how large healing could be achieved).

        The Stun Turret change was in no way aimed at stall or control decks - just everyone, since it was a Neutral card that was fighting its way into even the most conventional builds that previously didn't have it, due to being crazy good value.

        The Armored Packbeast and Mettle of the Warrior changes were purely aimed at situations where there was too much healing that took your hero back out of range of opponent, undoing all their efforts. Healing is not control. It is indirect control, at best, since healing damage can be done regardless of what opponent is doing and simply is about what you want. You are not controlling anyone by healing. What you are doing is evading.

        Let's consider this by way of an analogy, looking at the constant battle between parent and teenager for dominance in the household:

        There is a huge difference between making your child do their chores (positive control) or grounding them from going outside (negative control), compared to taking some valium to block out the upset/stress you are feeling about their attempts to rebel against you in an attempt to win the power struggle (evading/prolonging). All you do with the latter is allow them to continue exactly as they are for longer, in the hope they run out of steam! It's being a doormat, if anything!
      1. Shadow Mann's Avatar
        Shadow Mann -
        Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
        But Praxix barely shows up (maybe 4-5% max), so why go huge all the time just for that one match-up? Even if we include Moonstalker, it's probably only 8% total. I guess you have got hooked on the monster style, but I think you are missing out on a lot of the SE experience by having to stick to heroes that can really pull off the monster! Maybe you could be talked into trying 40-41 again. I think that is when people will think your account has been hacked.
        I don't care if certain matchups are rare, I can't stand entering a matchup knowing it's autoloss. Certain heroes and cards led me to the MONSTER...and once you go MONSTER you never go back!
      1. Shadaba's Avatar
        Shadaba -
        Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
        Thanks for the well thought out post. I think you have over-thought it though!

        We are not aiming for a long distance from where we are in v3.61 (which is a very nice version with least stall complaints I have ever heard of whilst having some great control options), but just a few surgical tweaks.
        I was responding to the more general discussion in this thread about stall/control/etc., and the desire to support or discourage certain play styles. So my post was more about the general direction than on the changes for 3.62. I don't mind those tweaks (I thought packbeast was fun, but I do think it was undervalued).

        To give a concrete example: I used to play solo Ter Adun quite a bit, back when Ter was considered a bottom-tier hero. The idea of playing an unconventional hero in an unconventional playstyle (solo) appealed to me. This was never a top-tier deck, but I didn't care. It becomes less fun though when someone can hard counter it with a single card that wipes all the carefully setup items that a solo warrior must rely on. I understand the counter was created for other decks (e.g., Millstalker), but I do think the collateral damage to other archetypes was unfortunate. It feels as if we're being steered somewhat towards a certain pre-designed way of playing the game, rather than begin encouraged to creatively come up with really novel decks. (That comment also applies to strong tribal interactions and pre-designed combos: they encourage following certain preset paths, rather than encouraging novel creative solutions.)

        On a similar note, I was a bit surprised to see you encourage Shadow Mann to try 40 card decks again. I like diversity, and I like seeing (and building) decks that win in creative ways. I think monster decks are a great addition to the game. I also thought monster decks mostly counter stall/mill, so if people playing those decks dislike playing against monster decks, doesn't that then mean monster decks are good for the meta/game? I'm probably missing something.

        (BTW, the recent introduction of seek makes monster decks more relevant than ever.)
      1. Shadaba's Avatar
        Shadaba -
        To be clear: I do really appreciate the care and thought that goes into the design decisions, and the strong interaction with the community. Thanks for taking the time to engage with us.
      1. Gondorian's Avatar
        Gondorian -
        Quote Originally Posted by Shadaba View Post
        To be clear: I do really appreciate the care and thought that goes into the design decisions, and the strong interaction with the community. Thanks for taking the time to engage with us.
        No problem. We are all working towards same thing but can't expect the ideals of that thing to line up precisely. [emoji4]




        @Everyone:

        Since 3.62 is has now been released, we can transition into my favourite phase of feedback, where the comments are informed by actual usage! Would love to hear your experiences!
      1. Mode Keen's Avatar
        Mode Keen -
        Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
        I ask you please to consider this, Cerddorion:

        If this were a real life card game where you sat down to play for whatever reason, I honestly think 99/100 people would just choose NOT TO PLAY you! Due to your preferences for how you wish to approach the game, you'd have the reputation as the local person to avoid!

        (Similarly, they would also hope to avoid an ultra-competitive player who gets visibly and audibly frustrated to the point of others present being very uncomfortable. But we aren't talking about them today, so let's move on.)

        So when propositioned for a game by you, 99/100 players would simply say "no thanks" (or worse), assuming they had not already made a swift exit from the gaming store upon your arrival. Maybe then some unsuspecting new player who did not know of your reputation would become your next torture victim instead.

        Why do I believe this? Well, most people play games for a combination of: enjoyment; challenge; or excitement. They are not going to get this against you. It's nothing personal, but your decks just aren't designed to offer that to them. In fact, you seem to wish to limit all of those, and instead try to cause a perfect blend of misery, boredom, frustration and anger instead.

        The only time I could see someone actually choosing to play you would be if you were paired up for some event that they wish to progress in that you had become a hurdle to cross. They would reluctantly play as a means to an end and have to put aside all those original reasons for playing (enjoyment, challenge and excitement).

        ~~~~

        Unfortunately, with the online game, we have to force people to play together more often than would happen in person. They can't choose to avoid players who do not play in the spirit of the game we have designed.

        It's for this reason that sadly we have to attempt to limit the effectiveness of decks that appeal to people like you, who everyone else would simply choose not to face in real life! Whether that be casual players, veterans or new players. Too many encounters with you and your preferred approach that you call "slow heavy control" will harm this game, since the return of enjoyment/challenge/excitement for time spent will have dropped too low to risk making that trade.
        This person deserves to be criticized for thinking strategically? No. You’ve created the conditions for these decks to exist not the players. It is understandable that you are working to move away from a play style that you no longer wish to support. Leave it at that. It’s shameful that you would respond to a person this way for a play style that you have allowed to be viable for years. It is because of your balance issues not their character! Very sad to see this “shaming” and personally attacking response especially when the blame rests mostly within the game itself!
        All is fair within the rules you allow. So yes improve the game to make it faster and more fun etc but show some more respect while you’re at it. A more appropriate response would have outlined your desire to speed up the game and apologize for retiring a strategy you were responsible for allowing to begin with. It’s not the direction that’s a problem here it’s the lack of leadership and respect.
      1. Gondorian's Avatar
        Gondorian -
        Quote Originally Posted by Mode Keen View Post
        This person deserves to be criticized for thinking strategically? No. You’ve created the conditions for these decks to exist not the players. It is understandable that you are working to move away from a play style that you no longer wish to support. Leave it at that. It’s shameful that you would respond to a person this way for a play style that you have allowed to be viable for years. It is because of your balance issues not their character! Very sad to see this “shaming” and personally attacking response especially when the blame rests mostly within the game itself!
        All is fair within the rules you allow. So yes improve the game to make it faster and more fun etc but show some more respect while you’re at it. A more appropriate response would have outlined your desire to speed up the game and apologize for retiring a strategy you were responsible for allowing to begin with. It’s not the direction that’s a problem here it’s the lack of leadership and respect.
        I would completely agree if we were talking about just about anyone else, but those in official chats who have seen his constant trolling, or unlucky enough to have to wait 2 mins for their victory when he disconnects while he is heading for a loss, know exactly why I called him out. This goes far beyond deck choice and play style!

        Having said that, I won't be calling out players in future in a similar way because you are absolutely right - those without the whole picture will see this like you have and it does reflect badly on the leadership of Shadow Era, especially me. Thanks for the honest feedback.
      1. Mode Keen's Avatar
        Mode Keen -
        Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
        I would completely agree if we were talking about just about anyone else, but those in official chats who have seen his constant trolling, or unlucky enough to have to wait 2 mins for their victory when he disconnects while he is heading for a loss, know exactly why I called him out. This goes far beyond deck choice and play style!

        Having said that, I won't be calling out players in future in a similar way because you are absolutely right - those without the whole picture will see this like you have and it does reflect badly on the leadership of Shadow Era, especially me. Thanks for the honest feedback.
        Ya none of that backstory was evident because you compared it to a real-life one-on-one scenario where people wouldn�t play him, not for walking away from a game, but for his play style which is what I believed you were trying to make your case in point. You know, a player like you have now described does deserve to be called out. Maybe If you�re calling someone out for things they are doing across multiple threads and forums you could indicate that. I followed this thread from the game page as invited to do so and it appeared to me after reading all comments that the focus was more on a �slow� deck not a person deliberately making slow turns and deliberately causing people to wait for an earned victory. One is a strategy people have used in the game, the other is douchebaggery and not at all in the spirit of the game. In any thread I don�t think you can presuppose that people know what someone has been doing or saying in another. So I don�t think my missing the big picture is purely through a fault of my own. Thank you for providing further context of your comment. I can now see that you are not trying to shame a person for their play style but for conducting themselves shamefully when playing other members of this gaming community. Good luck in your efforts to keep improving player experiences in your game.
      Untitled Document