State of the Era

[Caitlyn0]

how to start this? lets imagine this, lets say, there were no nerfs. baduruu ravager was still roaming around. elementalis with 3cc stardust was still around. twilight aramia was still around. fire aramia was still around. majiya and gravebone fire were still around. loest rush with amulet was still around. banebow with 2/2 damage reduction krygon was still around. attachment lance was still around. Hamber was still around. how many decks is that so far? 10? how many decks that have been killed have i missed? and i wonder, how would garina lance do in that meta?


imagine those are still around, all at once, with ALL the other decks that disappeared because it was thought those decks/cards unbalanced the game. can you imagine that? i can, sounds fun and exciting to me.


but cards get nerfed and we are back to what we always have. this same dull meta we have had for a very long time. nothing can rise up and change the meta because if it does, its seen as being bad for the game, when in fact, it is good for the game. change is good. it keeps things interesting. it keeps things new and fresh. it keeps deck builders interested and looking for new decks. it keeps older players interested and the player base grows instead of just being replaced by new players. a new player has that freshness, because they are new, not the game. the game needs new decks that are better than the old. or what has changed?


lets look at deck building. like what is the point if you find a great new deck if its just going to get nerfed? so creativity is squashed. i havent talked to other players about this aspect, but i know it has effected me, several times. and say you do create something good and you play it... other plays see it and copy it, cause it is good. and it spreads and now its everywhere... is it because its too good? or that it was new and exciting and it became popular for the moment? how many nerfs are because it was popular at the time? of those decks i lited at the beginning and ones i missed... how many of those decks were really OP and needed a nerf? 1? 2? in my opinion and there was only 1, that possibly needed a nerf and that was twilight aramia. Garina Lance... maybe but it was around long enough to find out.


this mentality to nerf things that rise to the top is wrong. especially if its to see what else rises to the top so that can be nerfed as well. and so on and so on. SF is still in beta, for almost 3 years now. its out there, being played, in 2 WCs now and its still in beta. we still have to worry about it being nerfed.


and here comes the new set, but wait, its in 3 parts now. and why? so it seems development is faster because we are getting new cards over a year to a year and a half... when all it really is doing is making us wait longer for cards. we have waited 2 and a half years for new cards and we only get 33% of them with the rest coming over the next year.

what?


but lets look at these new cards. more tribe cards, new tribes. a whole new type of card and mechanic. one day out and one of them gets nerfed? or was it 3 days? but, seriously? did you have to release it as it was to begin with then? how many people even got to play it? or even play against it? and it was nerfed. and now 3 months, 3 nerf updates pretty much and it was in testing how long? how long did we wait to get to play with new cards and then what, almost half of them got nerfed and more still will? this frustrates players and the response we basically get is: deal with it, the game is doing great. the bottom of the top 100 is at 277 which means people are playing less, but the game is doing great. of course, it will be said that its at 277 because the game is more balanced.


im tired of hearing about game balance. it is so run into the ground, just like nerfing is so run into the ground. how does the game get better, when what is deemed good at the time, gets nerfed, and what rises up to be good after, gets nerfed as well and so on and so on? and we end up with the same boring and stale meta we have had for 3 years. nothing changes. and posting stats on the new cards and how much they are used, doesnt matter when those cards maintain the 3 year old meta. this isnt balance. this is stagnation. we have enough of that really, we do not need it from nerfing.


imagine if 3se Logan was still around... oh wait, he is, he is just named Garth now. is Garth too powerful? does he unbalance the meta? sure, Logan was a bit extreme back in CotC, so he was nerfed and here we are after 2 other sets were released and 3se Logan... i mean Garth, isnt unbalancing anything. and i would argue that Garth is actually better than 3se Logan because he can use ANY damage source, not just a weapon. sure, he might need two but when any damage source can be used, that dosnt even matter. and he has access to a better card pool than 3se Logan. one that is so good, that it makes 120 card decks competitive. what if hericho's ability was 3se? what if ter adun's ability were 3se? or maybe 4se and still the same but added in renew 2 resources as well? or he can attack twice that round?


lands. a brand new card type and game mechanic. i am sure was worked on hard. not even 1 month out, they get nerfed to almost non-existence. why? especially when some of them needed buffs to begin with. i can undestand, they are new and its hard to balance the no cost and opposing ability against the friendly ability, but damn... i would like to actually be able to play with them and not lose. and deck space is a cost, i do not know why some people do not think so. you are not going to put a sub par card in a 40 card deck. you are not gong to put any card in a 40 card deck if there is a card that does the same thing only better.


i am confounded, confused and just plain tired of this nerfing policy. maybe it came about to make it seem like the game was fresher or newer, like we had new cards when we didnt, i dont know. but this has to stop. its just bad for business. a lot is bad for business. still waiting on promised features like the auction house and campaigns, etc. but to not get features and to basically not get new cards because they get nerfed, is just crazy. and they are so expensive. what incentive is there to keep buying the rest of the set?


no other card game does this, they nerf cards from time to time, but so not even close to the amount SE does and not even close to as often. and those games are growing so very fast, becoming very popular and maintaining that popularity whiles still growing.


try something new, if something rises to the top, how about buffing some other cards that might counter it. what good is it to get new players, when all they really do is replace old players? the game doesnt grow, doesnt get more popular, doesnt make more money than it did in previous years.


so my biggest suggestion is this. stop nerfing, lets go buff several cards or at least only buff cards. nerfing isnt helping the game in any respect. if it was up to me, i would go un-nerf almost all the cards that were nerfed. i would REALLY love to play the game with all those decks i listed still around plus more. i wold really like to go design and build a deck without worrying that it will get killed if its good.



what can it hurt? the game is dying whether the designers believe that or not AND its still in beta, something gets messed up it can still be changed. there is absolutely NO DOWNSIDE, whereas, there is a huge downside to constant nerfing.



(this was originally posted on the A1 forums in our public section, with some comments there: http://a1-alliance.freeforums.net/thread/184/state-era )

[jonmaciel]

how to start this? lets imagine this, lets say, there were no nerfs. baduruu ravager was still roaming around. elementalis with 3cc stardust was still around. twilight aramia was still around. fire aramia was still around. majiya and gravebone fire were still around. loest rush with amulet was still around. banebow with 2/2 damage reduction krygon was still around. attachment lance was still around. Hamber was still around. how many decks is that so far? 10? how many decks that have been killed have i missed? and i wonder, how would garina lance do in that meta?


imagine those are still around, all at once, with ALL the other decks that disappeared because it was thought those decks/cards unbalanced the game. can you imagine that? i can, sounds fun and exciting to me.


but cards get nerfed and we are back to what we always have. this same dull meta we have had for a very long time. nothing can rise up and change the meta because if it does, its seen as being bad for the game, when in fact, it is good for the game. change is good. it keeps things interesting. it keeps things new and fresh. it keeps deck builders interested and looking for new decks. it keeps older players interested and the player base grows instead of just being replaced by new players. a new player has that freshness, because they are new, not the game. the game needs new decks that are better than the old. or what has changed?


lets look at deck building. like what is the point if you find a great new deck if its just going to get nerfed? so creativity is squashed. i havent talked to other players about this aspect, but i know it has effected me, several times. and say you do create something good and you play it... other plays see it and copy it, cause it is good. and it spreads and now its everywhere... is it because its too good? or that it was new and exciting and it became popular for the moment? how many nerfs are because it was popular at the time? of those decks i lited at the beginning and ones i missed... how many of those decks were really OP and needed a nerf? 1? 2? in my opinion and there was only 1, that possibly needed a nerf and that was twilight aramia. Garina Lance... maybe but it was around long enough to find out.


this mentality to nerf things that rise to the top is wrong. especially if its to see what else rises to the top so that can be nerfed as well. and so on and so on. SF is still in beta, for almost 3 years now. its out there, being played, in 2 WCs now and its still in beta. we still have to worry about it being nerfed.


and here comes the new set, but wait, its in 3 parts now. and why? so it seems development is faster because we are getting new cards over a year to a year and a half... when all it really is doing is making us wait longer for cards. we have waited 2 and a half years for new cards and we only get 33% of them with the rest coming over the next year.

what?


but lets look at these new cards. more tribe cards, new tribes. a whole new type of card and mechanic. one day out and one of them gets nerfed? or was it 3 days? but, seriously? did you have to release it as it was to begin with then? how many people even got to play it? or even play against it? and it was nerfed. and now 3 months, 3 nerf updates pretty much and it was in testing how long? how long did we wait to get to play with new cards and then what, almost half of them got nerfed and more still will? this frustrates players and the response we basically get is: deal with it, the game is doing great. the bottom of the top 100 is at 277 which means people are playing less, but the game is doing great. of course, it will be said that its at 277 because the game is more balanced.


im tired of hearing about game balance. it is so run into the ground, just like nerfing is so run into the ground. how does the game get better, when what is deemed good at the time, gets nerfed, and what rises up to be good after, gets nerfed as well and so on and so on? and we end up with the same boring and stale meta we have had for 3 years. nothing changes. and posting stats on the new cards and how much they are used, doesnt matter when those cards maintain the 3 year old meta. this isnt balance. this is stagnation. we have enough of that really, we do not need it from nerfing.


imagine if 3se Logan was still around... oh wait, he is, he is just named Garth now. is Garth too powerful? does he unbalance the meta? sure, Logan was a bit extreme back in CotC, so he was nerfed and here we are after 2 other sets were released and 3se Logan... i mean Garth, isnt unbalancing anything. and i would argue that Garth is actually better than 3se Logan because he can use ANY damage source, not just a weapon. sure, he might need two but when any damage source can be used, that dosnt even matter. and he has access to a better card pool than 3se Logan. one that is so good, that it makes 120 card decks competitive. what if hericho's ability was 3se? what if ter adun's ability were 3se? or maybe 4se and still the same but added in renew 2 resources as well? or he can attack twice that round?


lands. a brand new card type and game mechanic. i am sure was worked on hard. not even 1 month out, they get nerfed to almost non-existence. why? especially when some of them needed buffs to begin with. i can undestand, they are new and its hard to balance the no cost and opposing ability against the friendly ability, but damn... i would like to actually be able to play with them and not lose. and deck space is a cost, i do not know why some people do not think so. you are not going to put a sub par card in a 40 card deck. you are not gong to put any card in a 40 card deck if there is a card that does the same thing only better.


i am confounded, confused and just plain tired of this nerfing policy. maybe it came about to make it seem like the game was fresher or newer, like we had new cards when we didnt, i dont know. but this has to stop. its just bad for business. a lot is bad for business. still waiting on promised features like the auction house and campaigns, etc. but to not get features and to basically not get new cards because they get nerfed, is just crazy. and they are so expensive. what incentive is there to keep buying the rest of the set?


no other card game does this, they nerf cards from time to time, but so not even close to the amount SE does and not even close to as often. and those games are growing so very fast, becoming very popular and maintaining that popularity whiles still growing.


try something new, if something rises to the top, how about buffing some other cards that might counter it. what good is it to get new players, when all they really do is replace old players? the game doesnt grow, doesnt get more popular, doesnt make more money than it did in previous years.


so my biggest suggestion is this. stop nerfing, lets go buff several cards or at least only buff cards. nerfing isnt helping the game in any respect. if it was up to me, i would go un-nerf almost all the cards that were nerfed. i would REALLY love to play the game with all those decks i listed still around plus more. i wold really like to go design and build a deck without worrying that it will get killed if its good.



what can it hurt? the game is dying whether the designers believe that or not AND its still in beta, something gets messed up it can still be changed. there is absolutely NO DOWNSIDE, whereas, there is a huge downside to constant nerfing.



(this was originally posted on the A1 forums in our public section, with some comments there: http://a1-alliance.freeforums.net/thread/184/state-era )

TLDR welcome back Cait!

[Caitlyn0]

Thanks

but no TL;DR, this is important!

[Gondorian]

Welcome back, Cait. If you're going to write something that long and expect people to read it, maybe you could start with a brief intro telling people what the point of the post is.

Is it a direct copy-paste from what you wrote two weeks ago or has some of it changed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[trevorJacobs]

yes - a little summary of your argument and/or proposal for what Wulven should do would help ...

[Daemon Rayge]

yes - a little summary of your argument and/or proposal for what Wulven should do would help ...

The TL;DR is stop overreacting and crying nerf when something performs well after like Day 1 of it doing well, and give it some time.

Now I do agree nerfs are needed whenever necessary, but I personally do not agree with all of the nerfs that have been given so far.

[Caitlyn0]

Welcome back, Cait. If you're going to write something that long and expect people to read it, maybe you could start with a brief intro telling people what the point of the post is.

Is it a direct copy-paste from what you wrote two weeks ago or has some of it changed?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

are you talking about what i said here on se forums or are you talking about what i posted in our public section of A1's forum?

basically, since no one wants to read it. i propose nerfs stop. bring back most of the nerfed cards and buff some cards. i can propse a list if you like. the game needs to be exciting... not kill everything that is exciting. SF i still in beta, what will it hurt to find out what will happen? and since it is still in beta, i dont get why everything has to be nerfed and so often. never seen any game that has nerfed this much in 2-3 years, what se nerfs in six months.

[SWAT0013]

are you talking about what i said here on se forums or are you talking about what i posted in our public section of A1's forum?

basically, since no one wants to read it. i propose nerfs stop. bring back most of the nerfed cards and buff some cards. i can propse a list if you like. the game needs to be exciting... not kill everything that is exciting. SF i still in beta, what will it hurt to find out what will happen? and since it is still in beta, i dont get why everything has to be nerfed and so often. never seen any game that has nerfed this much in 2-3 years, what se nerfs in six months.

Let me put it this way - stopping of nerfs is bad way but so is overnerfing. IMO biggest problem of SE regarding nerfs is that DT almost everytime nerfs based on one strong deck that rules meta (and nerfs nerfed card into the ground)...
Nice example is Aramia - we had continuously 3 strong Aramia deck (discard, homunculus, fire) - all 3 of them are basically gone and so is Aramia...

I think maybe if DT would give more time to test some decks/cards/ideas it would shown that some so called OP cards/decks are not so OP as it seemed from the beginning (especially since we had only half of set released and it is beta)...

I always prefer buffing of weaker cards rather than nerfing of strong cards (despite I agree some were too strong and some nerfs needed to be done)

[Caitlyn0]

there is a perfect example of what i am talking about. aramia. how many good and different decks were there? at least 4 by my count (you forgot twilight). completely different. played different had different good and bad matchups, etc. THAT is actually were we should be aiming. tht was diverse. one problem is, that very very few heroes can do that. i can really only think of one, zaladar (but cards keep being nerfed to keep him down as well. 4 COMPLETELY different decks with one hero... my god, that is awesome.

but then comes nerf nerf nerf. and here comes the big problem we know. killing the deck is what the aim was, so the cards it most utilized were killed... deck goes away... another, completely different deck comes... kill cards... deck dies and yet another deck comes, kill cards and deck dies. another deck comes, kills cards, deck dies... AND, those nerfs actually killed other decks as well, like fire majiya and fire gravebone. as well as a few others.

now, i do not agree that aramia was op, but others do... nerf aramia would of been a better solution. ok good, aramia gets nerfed, because now, "we know" it was aramia that was the problem... id we get all those other cards back??? did we get all those decks and cards back? NO.

now, lets look at this. i will agree that twilight needed some adjusting... did the rest? they were not over dominating QM and tournaments, they were just good decks.

if we had all those decks, and all the other decks that were killed by nerfing that used other heroes... do you really think, the meta wouldnt be balanced? keep shaving the top and all you have left are the decks you cant kill because the are comprised of mostly CotC and a few DP cards. yeah you can add an SF card here an an LL card there, but its still a CotC deck. or an SF deck, that hasnt had its SF cards nerfed yet.

[tafkad]

basically, since no one wants to read it.

Welcome back Cait, you've been missed

I read it all and have no problem with reading long posts especially from players who are proven "thinkers" and not strait out whiners...

It's funny that the first replies look like "nerf your thread" replies in response to a "less nerfs" post

Now on to the buffs - make Forgotten Horror unable to be frozen - this mechanic needs to be used more and when it is on a high cost card it should not "unbalance" anything - as someone else said "don't let another card become forgotten"

Good read Cait - thx and cheers!