Close

Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    54
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Locations. Can we change them?

    Locations, in their current form, tend to be either very overpowered or nearly useless. Perhaps more to the point, I feel that locations have done nothing to help the game. (Though to be fair, I don't feel like they hurt the game either, as long as you put aside the pre-nerf Garina and Sosilo locations).

    Essentially, Locations act as a 0-cost card that you can play only after a certain number of turns.
    They tend to have beneficial effects for both players. But by in large, the way that locations are designed
    makes it very hard for them to be *balanced and playable*. Let me explain.

    Except for decks with very strong draw engines, by turn 5 or 6, the typical problem faced with many decks, is that they have plenty of resources to spend, but not enough cards to play. Locations solve the opposite problem. They provide a 0-resource effect at the cost of a card. Hence, it can be incredibly challenging to construct locations that positively impact the meta. Another issue is that locations can so easily be killed (when the opponent plays another location). Even if locations made their way into the meta, the locations, they could never become that prominent in the meta, because they can so easily be removed from play, the opponent simply has to play another location to remove the existing one.

    Hence locations almost seem to be doomed by design to be broken, provide free draw at 0 cost, or subpar to other non-location alternatives.

    One possible solution to this problem is that:
    a. Locations should cost resources and
    b. Locations should not be so easily removed from play.

    From my understanding, locations were conceived to demonstrate where the battle was taking place. Instead, it makes sense if we allow locations to be 'a base of operations' where we can allow players to take over (or destroy) locations by attacking them with existing allies.

    Consider the following locations.

    Fire Snake Pit
    Shadow Location
    Cost: 3
    Defense: 5
    At the start of your turn, a Fire Snake with Haste is summoned under your control.
    (When Fire Snake Pit's Defense is reduced to 0 it is destroyed).


    Poison Thorn Forest
    Neutral Location
    Cost: 4
    Defense: 1
    Damage from your allies poison opposing heroes and allies.
    At the start of each of your turns increase Poison Thorn Forest's defense by 1 to a maximum of 5.
    When Poisoned Thorn Forest's defense is reduced below 1, the opponent gains control of this location with defense 1.

    Do you think locations should be modified? How so? Do you think these changes to locations would make for a more interesting meta?
    Last edited by shadowphnx; 09-19-2016 at 04:29 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Nijjis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    391
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I agree somewhat. I don't think locations added anything exciting. I don't think their impact has caused any huge problems as far as enjoyability (of the game) or intrusiveness into the meta; things such as these were always a point of worry for me. I've always a weird feeling about them that I couldn't exactly put my finger on.

    Uneasy feelings include: •if locations were ever meta dominant many decks would by default include multiple locations and 4 bad Santa as an easy way to dig for (locations) or fill your hand easily. That would have a massive ripple effect.

    •It's a 0 resource cost card that can destroy another card. This isn't inherently a problem but I feel the locations should be more niche and less impactful . This goes to the point you made about making locations cost resources. I'm just spitballing the first thing that popped to mine bear with me... But my idea of a location would be more along the lines of: (0 resources) Upon entering play ravager allies gain +1/+1 for two turns / (opponents side) 2: SE your hero takes 2 damage, the current location is destroyed and you draw a card.

    In conclusion I would rate the introductions of locations about 4-5 (1 bad 10 good) on a 1-10 scale.
    Last edited by Nijjis; 10-13-2016 at 08:20 AM.

  3. #3
    Europe Regional (Winter 2012) Champion jacqui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,660
    Tournaments Joined
    2
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I agree their implementation is problematic for the various reasons you mentioned.

    -0 cost means you run out of cards in hand faster because you will play the location in conjunction with another card(s) at the same time (in a game where you run out naturally because you sacrifice them).
    -Easily replaceable by opponent stacking their location on top of yours exacerbates the problem, since you will have to repeat the spending of another card (location) to regain control. This of course assumes locations are viable to the point where everybody is using them.
    -Locations have dual sided effects, which means it always has an effect that helps the opponent (through current implementation). Would it be interesting if opponent was given a negative effect?
    -Combination of the last two points mandates designing the power level of the owner side to be strong in order to compensate, else the location will not get played in favor of other cards.

    Put all together - you get a strong effect for 0 cost which turns it OP. Or you get a not strong enough effect which means it isn't used.

    A step in the right direction might be removing the dual sided effect and the "mandatory" 0 cost.

  4. #4
    Senior Member highmystica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    653
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    While I agree that locations still need more love - and they do. I want to have a better idea of what the other LL cards are going to be like before getting too carried away making changes. As they stand now they are at least stable. Also, the game has entered into a certain phase of the meta where the old guard have started making more bizarre decks, which more often than not ends up with builds that alter the way this game is even seen. Just hope the crazy builds produce things more pleasant than Millstalker (which happened at the same point in the pure CotC era).

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
  •