Close

View Poll Results: What do you think of this ?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    9 64.29%
  • Disagree

    6 42.86%
  • Don't care

    2 14.29%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Greece(GMT +2)
    Posts
    215
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Lightbulb Nerfing/Buffing Poll Idea

    Some recent posts gave me the idea, of before doing a nerf ( or a buff if that ever happens ) a poll should be held to see what players think about it. No player is going to make a thread about a card he thinks is great, enjoys using it , thinks its perfectly balanced, but the nerf threads are filling these forums. So even if diff opinions are heard there, the complains on the title and the 1st post have more power.

    So my recommendation, is : Making an official thread in which a poll is held about a card that ppl think is stronger than it should. Even if ppl against nerfing it are more there will be a clear image about what the community believes and a nerf or not could be desided on another % that 50-50 (mb 40-60) Also everyone could comment on that thread and there wouldnt be like 3-4 threads about a single card (like there where for garina) , recommend a change and suggest a card for next poll. This way, no nerfs will happen where a small group agrees and complains while the bigger group which disagrees enjoys playing the game.

    Or the person making the thread could make a poll.
    And im not talking about the recent threads (only ) but this goes way before LL( like vermin- stardust)

  2. #2
    Senior Member maskee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    527
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    ...or just ban Mindy...
    IGN: TJ Maskee - Proud member of Team Juggernauts !

  3. #3
    Moderator danae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the forums
    Posts
    3,920
    Tournaments Joined
    4
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I would assume that feedback from the general playerbase are always welcome but I hope that the Design Team has a view of the bigger picture of the direction they want to follow not just for the current set of cards but for future sets as well. Given this, I don't think a poll would be the right way to decide if a card needs to be nerfed/buffed.

  4. #4
    DP Visionary Kosmiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Temple of Ellos
    Posts
    338
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    1
    I don't think all the community uses the forum so no deal, and like Danae said, Dev team should have the last word.
    I wanted an image as a signature and all I got was text.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Greece(GMT +2)
    Posts
    215
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by danae View Post
    I would assume that feedback from the general playerbase are always welcome but I hope that the Design Team has a view of the bigger picture of the direction they want to follow not just for the current set of cards but for future sets as well. Given this, I don't think a poll would be the right way to decide if a card needs to be nerfed/buffed.
    My point isnt changing dt mind, its helping them deside about what happens to cards when ppl ask for nerfs. They obviously cant ignore them but some opinions arent proving a card needs changing.

    Every opinion respected tho

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    580
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by maskee View Post
    ...or just ban Mindy...
    nooooooooooooooooooooooo! then no cards would be nerfed

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Prague, Czech republic
    Posts
    22
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I do not think it is good thing to let players decide what they want to nerf and what not. I think current system (unless you are spamming nerf threads like mindy...) is good enough, also I must really say that despite some things take quite too long to implement, but usually after implementation (changes, new sets, etc.) it is not much buggy and usually quite balanced - of course there are some exceptions (like for example A:GR in this set (honestly I have no idea have it could move through testing phase only as strong), but many times players are basically making cards OP - for example Aramia was OK, until someone got the idea to use fire Aramia - of course if there would be one user of this deck, it would not be so big issue, but it became so much used, Wulven had to take action).

    Also I can give you one great example why letting people vote is not good option - I do not know if you have heard about game named Magic the Gathering: Tactics. When they made first set, me and my brother simply loved this game and with exception of Black Lotus even free to play player could get almost all cards by doing daily missions. But when next set came, they made this game very much p2w - so many strong cards but for insane prices (f2p would have to do daily missions 50 days in row (with assumption you bought 4 remaining chapters, if you were really f2p player, you needed 250days in a row... ) to afford one good card.) And since this game was using mostly cards that really exists (some adjustments were made to balance game), they made one superbroken card - Biorhytm.

    It was doing, that every players health is equal to creatures (=allies) he controls. But this card was broken, because even if NO player had NO creature, caster won. They made some official thread about this, if we want to nerf it - but it was basically two sides against each other - one side (players with this card exploiting it - this deck was really almost impossible to beat) claimed, it is OK, that they paid for it, there is defence, etc. Second side claimed it needs nerf because bluegreen deck with this was simply too powerful. Long time nothing happened. only after players started to leave (and a lot of them spent quite some money on that game, but decided not to play that broken card even if they had it), Sony decided to take action. And shortly - they made themself fools. OK, now you did not need only one card to win, you needed whole 3 to win (with a loads of draws, mana acceleration, creature denial...). And for example no action or limitations were made on Black lotus (it was Artifact for 0 cost, when you sacrifices him, next round you get +3 mana of any color). So many players were casting T2 Baneslayer Angel (another very good card, almost auto win against most of opponents).
    Everytime they decided to make poll to change something, it was about 50:50 - so balancing was very poor, new cards were really overpowered (only two sets were released, then some additional cards) - so after about 2 years (even less, first year was basically beta, 13 months after beta game was released as full release on Steam and after about year game started to struggle much (too many players leaving) and after the game was six months in a state of basically everyone waiting on servers being closed, it was announced they will really be closed in 6 months... Sad end for game with such potential as that one...
    Last edited by SWAT0013; 01-05-2016 at 10:19 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    409
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dejvo View Post
    nooooooooooooooooooooooo! then no cards would be nerfed
    im very flatter that you think i have that much influence over the dt desisions. the truth is i only say what i think are necesary to change and the dt desides which cards should change. so in the end its theyre desision and if they think so then they will change cards. if not then the cards will stay the same. if you dissagre you can say your arguments and they will maybe also take that in theyre consideration. good luck.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Arcanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Santiago, Chile, Chile
    Posts
    402
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Opinions, should be exactly that... just opinions.
    Wulven shouldn't try make all the people happy, cuz is just impossible and they can lose the real target of every collection's design.

    Like Henry Ford Said "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
    People haven't idea what they want :v especially when it comes to changes that take them out of their usual comfort zone
    ▁ ▂ ▄ ▅ ▆ ▇ █ ⓐⓡⓒⓐⓝⓔⓢ █ ▇ ▆ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁
    ---------------------------------IGN:Mirrodim------------------------------

    Here!! Arcania Expansion !! come and share you ideas!! suggest balanced fixes!! comment you favorite idea!! lets do a virtual edition with 200 cards of user's creations.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Greece(GMT +2)
    Posts
    215
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SWAT0013 View Post
    I do not think it is good thing to let players decide what they want to nerf and what not. I think current system (unless you are spamming nerf threads like mindy...) is good enough, also I must really say that despite some things take quite too long to implement, but usually after implementation (changes, new sets, etc.) it is not much buggy and usually quite balanced - of course there are some exceptions (like for example A:GR in this set (honestly I have no idea have it could move through testing phase only as strong), but many times players are basically making cards OP - for example Aramia was OK, until someone got the idea to use fire Aramia - of course if there would be one user of this deck, it would not be so big issue, but it became so much used, Wulven had to take action).

    Also I can give you one great example why letting people vote is not good option - I do not know if you have heard about game named Magic the Gathering: Tactics. When they made first set, me and my brother simply loved this game and with exception of Black Lotus even free to play player could get almost all cards by doing daily missions. But when next set came, they made this game very much p2w - so many strong cards but for insane prices (f2p would have to do daily missions 50 days in row (with assumption you bought 4 remaining chapters, if you were really f2p player, you needed 250days in a row... ) to afford one good card.) And since this game was using mostly cards that really exists (some adjustments were made to balance game), they made one superbroken card - Biorhytm.

    It was doing, that every players health is equal to creatures (=allies) he controls. But this card was broken, because even if NO player had NO creature, caster won. They made some official thread about this, if we want to nerf it - but it was basically two sides against each other - one side (players with this card exploiting it - this deck was really almost impossible to beat) claimed, it is OK, that they paid for it, there is defence, etc. Second side claimed it needs nerf because bluegreen deck with this was simply too powerful. Long time nothing happened. only after players started to leave (and a lot of them spent quite some money on that game, but decided not to play that broken card even if they had it), Sony decided to take action. And shortly - they made themself fools. OK, now you did not need only one card to win, you needed whole 3 to win (with a loads of draws, mana acceleration, creature denial...). And for example no action or limitations were made on Black lotus (it was Artifact for 0 cost, when you sacrifices him, next round you get +3 mana of any color). So many players were casting T2 Baneslayer Angel (another very good card, almost auto win against most of opponents).
    Everytime they decided to make poll to change something, it was about 50:50 - so balancing was very poor, new cards were really overpowered (only two sets were released, then some additional cards) - so after about 2 years (even less, first year was basically beta, 13 months after beta game was released as full release on Steam and after about year game started to struggle much (too many players leaving) and after the game was six months in a state of basically everyone waiting on servers being closed, it was announced they will really be closed in 6 months... Sad end for game with such potential as that one...
    I can see your point, althought, all cards are available to everyone so sth like that would be hard to happen

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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