Close

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71
  1. #11
    Chat Mod Kip thorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North east USA gmt -4
    Posts
    4,128
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I tend to agree with Gondos last post, Locations themselves are not the problem but there are a few locations that with the correct combination of card and hero seem unstopable, if allowed to get rolling. But that can be said for any meta breaking deck, it never fails that a top deck gets called for nerfs, simply because thats easier than finding a way to counter the deck. This can be done with location decks as well but its not easy and that counter deck could be trash vs other decks.

    But I do think that cards that interact with or counter locations are important and would be a good thing to look at before LL2. Im sure they devs/board has a few counter cards in mind, and I think testing a few out would be nice. Perhaps we can look at smaller more frequent releases because we all know that cards can and will be nerfed or boosted if needed.
    A1 kip thorp
    the daddy daughter team of death
    Proud Graduate of Kiptergarten
    A1-Alliance ~ Evolution in Theory

    A1 Alliance LEADER & Crash Test Dummy
    Check out our recruitment thread

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    572
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Thanks for the input everyone.

    Let me clarify.

    I think the combo used here is not how the cards were expected to be played, not that its a bad combo but the combo comes up to fast to cheap. Might need some looking into too.

    Its not that locations are a bad idea but I think the way they have impacted the game is harmful.

    If you watch the video, the Aether wisp with the discard location that costs nothing to place down, nothing but a discard to use, gives a obvious huge advantage.
    The combo used in the match I posted is a very powerful combo that is real fast, which honestly was probably not accounted for in the balancing of the game.
    However once the location is put into play it becomes almost impossible to stop.

    The current issue I have with locations is that they cost nothing to put out, this entire game is about sacrifice to put out a better combo to win with.
    Any way of avoiding that hurts the game in a negative way.
    If Locations cost the player who puts them out from there sacrifice pool it would make it more even.
    Currently someone drops a FREE LOCATION after just waiting 4 turns and then drops allies on top of that, they get the free advantage from the location plus the adding on of the ally.
    All locations are very focused on only one way to use them so all decks that use them are focused on there benefits and I feel that this defeats the purpose of having a sacrifice card pool to summon benefit game mechanic.
    Or have the Locations require ShadowEnergy instead to put into play. Example turn4 location costs 2SE instead to place down. This would drastically make people really consider if the location is worth it.
    Also the fact that someone has to always assume there going to come into play vs locations and to use valuable deck space to account for it is hurtful.
    Maybe make locations have a turn time there in play? Turn 4 location removes itself after 4 uses or turns?

    Also could make the locations abilities themselves cost something. SE 2 to do this. 4 resources for defender on this ally until next turn etc. Its free to put down and then practically free to use once down for an obvious benefit since everyone builds there decks around them.

    If there were more general use locations it would be more helpful for random deck building and uses but its very limited and currently all decks that use locations are designed for them for huge advantages.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    572
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
    I like that you speak your mind on the forum. I wish others would too. But it would be helpful if you could elaborate to help us see where you are coming from. Obviously I will defend and promote the idea of Locations because I designed them and added them to the game, but I would also like to try to get to the root of what you think is wrong so we could simply solve that and now have even better Locations.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    I think its mainly that the player gets a obvious advantage for the cost of nothing to place down. Yes they have to wait for a certain turn but this game is based on a sacrifice system of using resources or SE to play a card to the players advantage. Also once the locations are down there is very little if any cost to using most of them. Make the locations cost resources or SE would make it more fun to play. Instead of a T4 card do a Resources 4 or 2 SE to place down. Early game would change to where is it the right time to put this down or is there a better card to use. The free placement is what I think hurts the most, change that and see where is goes maybe.

    I do love playing this game a lot, but I wish to see it better if it can be. Maybe try some new things with some ideas as far as locations go and if it doesn't work, well you can always change them back. They are digital cards.
    Last edited by Fristar; 08-09-2017 at 05:05 PM. Reason: typo

  4. #14
    Senior Member jonmaciel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States (GMT-4)
    Posts
    1,856
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Brothers' Landing is already making you discard a card - that in itself is a cost. Aetherborn Wisp is handled by many cards in the game. There are also several counters already that every hero can use against locations: Sinkhole, Groundshift, Void Wretch, Braxno Citadel. And each of those provides their own benefits when you're playing decks that aren't using locations.

    There are 2 locations that come in mind to me that would be consistent enough to consider in high level play: Braxno Citadel and Valley of Doom. Braxno Citadel is location tech, acts like a Priest of the Light in that it requires them to spend shadow energy to remove, and gives your allies defender (and yourself if you're using a weapon). Valley of Doom would be good for rush/mid-range tech to simply remove all those low cost allies.

    There are 2 locations to me that feel too weak in any deck: Trading Port and Warped Desert. They are too restrictive with not enough consistent scenarios to make them worth taking up deck slots.

    I have not come across any locations in personal experiences that have felt too strong in their current forms. The only thing that comes close is Valley of Secrets because of interactions in stall decks.
    IGN: TJ jonmaciel
    TG: @jonmaciel

    Elder, Mentoring Officer


    ShadowEra.Net Editor

  5. #15
    Lead Developer / Designer Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,080
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Fristar View Post
    Thanks for the input everyone.

    Let me clarify.

    I think the combo used here is not how the cards were expected to be played, not that its a bad combo but the combo comes up to fast to cheap. Might need some looking into too.

    Its not that locations are a bad idea but I think the way they have impacted the game is harmful.

    If you watch the video, the Aether wisp with the discard location that costs nothing to place down, nothing but a discard to use, gives a obvious huge advantage.
    The combo used in the match I posted is a very powerful combo that is real fast, which honestly was probably not accounted for in the balancing of the game.
    However once the location is put into play it becomes almost impossible to stop.

    The current issue I have with locations is that they cost nothing to put out, this entire game is about sacrifice to put out a better combo to win with.
    Any way of avoiding that hurts the game in a negative way.
    If Locations cost the player who puts them out from there sacrifice pool it would make it more even.
    Currently someone drops a FREE LOCATION after just waiting 4 turns and then drops allies on top of that, they get the free advantage from the location plus the adding on of the ally.
    All locations are very focused on only one way to use them so all decks that use them are focused on there benefits and I feel that this defeats the purpose of having a sacrifice card pool to summon benefit game mechanic.
    Or have the Locations require ShadowEnergy instead to put into play. Example turn4 location costs 2SE instead to place down. This would drastically make people really consider if the location is worth it.
    Also the fact that someone has to always assume there going to come into play vs locations and to use valuable deck space to account for it is hurtful.
    Maybe make locations have a turn time there in play? Turn 4 location removes itself after 4 uses or turns?

    Also could make the locations abilities themselves cost something. SE 2 to do this. 4 resources for defender on this ally until next turn etc. Its free to put down and then practically free to use once down for an obvious benefit since everyone builds there decks around them.

    If there were more general use locations it would be more helpful for random deck building and uses but its very limited and currently all decks that use locations are designed for them for huge advantages.
    You seem to be overlooking two huge things:

    1) When you play a card from your hand, what happens afterwards? Your hand now has one less card. So it's not free. It's exactly the same cost as having sacrificed it to get a resource, but you didn't do that - you therefore forego an extra resource for the entire game as a result of playing down that Location when you could have sacrificed it to get from 4 to 5 resources for that turn (and have the extra 1 for the rest of the game). The ongoing cost of not sacrificing it but instead playing it down is effectively 1cc EVERY TURN for the rest of the game.

    2) The other big cost of a location is the OPPORTUNITY COST of putting that card in your deck instead of something else. Obviously at 0cc to play, you have to get value worth about 0cc. When you top-deck that card late in the game and have 5cc to spend, what would you prefer to come up? Shadow Knight or a Location? This is part of a wider deck building skill called Resource Curve. Locations really pull your curve down. This will then hurt you later in the game when you tend to have more resources to spend and would like to be able to spend all of them with the cards in your hand (or other means to spend on the board).

    Hope this helps.

    Obviously because these are two HUGE drawbacks of using Locations instead of just "normal" cards, they have the in-built mechanism to counter each other as well as be a threat themselves. This saves running a bunch of different counters because any Location is a counter to the others, but each time you counter you are still using up a card from hand (that could have been sacrificed AND could have been a different card instead if you skipped Locations from your deck). I personally thought this was genius and elegant and innovative (know any other games that do it?), but I'm obviously biased!

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    572
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
    You seem to be overlooking two huge things:

    1) When you play a card from your hand, what happens afterwards? Your hand now has one less card. So it's not free. It's exactly the same cost as having sacrificed it to get a resource, but you didn't do that - you therefore forego an extra resource for the entire game as a result of playing down that Location when you could have sacrificed it to get from 4 to 5 resources for that turn (and have the extra 1 for the rest of the game). The ongoing cost of not sacrificing it but instead playing it down is effectively 1cc EVERY TURN for the rest of the game.

    2) The other big cost of a location is the OPPORTUNITY COST of putting that card in your deck instead of something else. Obviously at 0cc to play, you have to get value worth about 0cc. When you top-deck that card late in the game and have 5cc to spend, what would you prefer to come up? Shadow Knight or a Location? This is part of a wider deck building skill called Resource Curve. Locations really pull your curve down. This will then hurt you later in the game when you tend to have more resources to spend and would like to be able to spend all of them with the cards in your hand (or other means to spend on the board).

    Hope this helps.

    Obviously because these are two HUGE drawbacks of using Locations instead of just "normal" cards, they have the in-built mechanism to counter each other as well as be a threat themselves. This saves running a bunch of different counters because any Location is a counter to the others, but each time you counter you are still using up a card from hand (that could have been sacrificed AND could have been a different card instead if you skipped Locations from your deck). I personally thought this was genius and elegant and innovative (know any other games that do it?), but I'm obviously biased!

    It was a good idea however the locations are not available for every deck. There are a lot of decks out there that there isn't a single location that will help it. So basically those decks aren't able to lay a useful location down to negate the current one and get the same benefit that other decks with locations do.

    As far as 1 less card in the hand, that is obsolete since so many cards have come out to increase draw rate, one less card for a huge advantage is nothing to worry about.

    It also effects game play.
    Fristar vs Boricua88
    I win board control, and he just uses garina road to summon Nathaniel to his hand. wait I kill him and then he does it again with a different card. If you want locations to be fair then there needs to be a lot more of them, right now there limited which is just making the decks that are built around them stronger then decks that aren't.

    If he had to use SE or resources to play garina road then it would have been different.

    As well as the counters, i am not sure most of the counters are drawbacks at all for most of the cards. The benefit far out ways the counters.
    Garina Road: Owner gets to Search for 2 SE and summon for 1 less cost 4 or more.
    Opponent gets to summon for 1 less cost 4 or more.
    There is no counter here. Yea the opponent can take control if he wipes the board but once this is out it is incredibly difficult to do so.

    Give me a location where people cant play locations.

    As for a card sacrifice in the deck, it is not a sacrifice to choose the location card over any other card because they are building the decks around the location so the location will always be placed first to give them the biggest advantage.

    We are never going to agree on this I'm sure so this will be my last post on it.

  7. #17
    Chat Mod Burnout1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    268
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    If you think that decks that are made around locations are so strong, then you would see a lot of people playing those locations. So far this is not the case atm.

    The concept of locations was bringing a new mechanism into Shadow Era and the idea was great imo. A new mechanism means a larger diversity of decks [other than just standard garth, boris or whatever stàndard hero decks]. A larger diversity of decks provides more wealth for SE. Thats what people should understand with locations!

    Ofc players need to think twice now when they craft their decks because of the diversity of Shadow Era. They should ask the following questions: is my deck consistent? Do i have enough draw engines? Can i deal with location build? Should i have more item destruction? Etc etc ...
    And this is the reason WHY SHadow Era is the best card game at the moment!

    Obviously some location builds are good like;
    -Rankett: often used by homun Raikka [ this deck has a winrate around 65% but you really need a perfect hand/ start to make it working]
    -Garina road: often used by Lance or Ythan [ but i can guarantee you that ythan or lance deck could be much more consitent without Garina Road]
    -Sosilo: often used by Lay low Lance or solo Gwen to search their key cards faster [but its your fault if u dont care playing Groudshift]

    So if i need to give an answer to your questions Fristar, i would still call this game fun, SE 2017 is much funnier than SE 2011. No no no, this game is not broken because of locations. Locations only brings more variaty of decks into SE. Players just need to adapt their decks to SE 2017
    Last edited by Burnout1985; 08-10-2017 at 12:13 AM.
    A1 Burnout1985

    I always believed in myself and did well,
    but joining A1 took me the next level. Curious how?

    Click here to know how to join A1

    -Ladder 1st score: season 67, 66, 62, 61, 58, 49, 37, 35, 34, 30
    -Ladder 1st rating: season 67, 66, 63, 58, 57, 54, 53, 49, 47, 36
    -Tournament won: WORLD CHAMPION 2016, Spagetthi IV, The Fall Seasonal Championship , Bounty Price II, SLUGFEST IX, Highlander II

  8. #18
    Senior Member jonmaciel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States (GMT-4)
    Posts
    1,856
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Fristar View Post
    Give me a location where people cant play locations.
    Braxno Citadel
    IGN: TJ jonmaciel
    TG: @jonmaciel

    Elder, Mentoring Officer


    ShadowEra.Net Editor

  9. #19
    Chat Mod Kip thorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North east USA gmt -4
    Posts
    4,128
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    @Fristar,

    I'll agree on one point a very specific point.

    Nothing in SE should cost 0
    (It can be argued that locations cost time, but blah! We all got time! ).
    Nothing should be cast for 0. , it should always cost something , a sac, a discard, 1cc or 2 SE....something anything , but nothing costs 0.

    Otherwise, yes I think some balance could be found but overall, I like the twist that locations have brought to SE
    A1 kip thorp
    the daddy daughter team of death
    Proud Graduate of Kiptergarten
    A1-Alliance ~ Evolution in Theory

    A1 Alliance LEADER & Crash Test Dummy
    Check out our recruitment thread

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    572
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kip thorp View Post
    @Fristar,

    I'll agree on one point a very specific point.

    Nothing in SE should cost 0
    (It can be argued that locations cost time, but blah! We all got time! ).
    Nothing should be cast for 0. , it should always cost something , a sac, a discard, 1cc or 2 SE....something anything , but nothing costs 0.

    Otherwise, yes I think some balance could be found but overall, I like the twist that locations have brought to SE
    If it did cost something it be more fun to play.
    Just played a game.
    Leviathan on there side and plays raksul. Every turn he draws a card and/or for zero activates location. Adds 2 attack every turn to his attack for nothing. No drawback to using it on his side cause location does nothing for me.
    Once again, placed down for free, and then buffs his ally for free twice a turn.
    Locations need to be reworked or something.
    Every game i play over 310 it seems im playing vs a cheap combo with locations. I truly believe it hurts the game.

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
  •