Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
What is stopping anyone from giving input?
I think its because people have been asking for this kind of thing for ages. It's no where near a new topic and its been brought up many times for literally years, yet the status quo on the issue remains the same. They clearly don't feel like they've been listened to, especially with the number of times I've seen "they won't change their minds/the errata rule, don't bother" every time its brought up. For many players, its not even a discussion anymore.

But let's actually get to the real discussion instead of that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Fristar said there are two main issues here, that all stem from the same problem. The errata policy preventing easier (and perhaps more effective) solutions to those problems. There are technically 3 though from the community's perspective, perhaps even more:

1. Problematic cards can't be addressed quickly/cleanly if they have been printed.
2. Weaker cards with some potential will remain weak if they have been printed.
3. Printed cards hold back the potential of the digital format, be it changes, budget, time investments, the power level of new cards, ect.

Here we're mainly talking about 1 and 2 though (since fixing those should help with problem 3). Problem 1 is easily the bigger issue.

1. Problematic cards can't be addressed quickly/cleanly if they have been printed.

Since the No Errata Rule prevents changes to cards (which includes bans, since that is a change to a card/set) any card that becomes problematic can't be dealt with easily, most of the time requiring a new card to solve the issue which causes its own issue (or at least has the potential to do so). Meanwhile, players continue to deal with the problems these cards are causing, be it over powered decks or (the more likely scenario) boring/unfun matches which pushes players towards not playing at all.

Proposed Solution with errata rule and potential consequences:

Make new cards to address the problem is the main thing that has been proposed. New cards coming out regularly is a great thing and can be a solution to some of the problems the game sees. New Counters are introduced, new strategies that discourage the problem strategies can become possible, ect. Unlike many of the other solutions, this one does require skill and decision making from the player to be pro-active to include the "solution card." It's not necessarily a bad solution. However, like any solution, it runs the risks of having unforeseen consequences (which is something that isn't lost on me for this post). The most obvious one to me is that this is a very slow solution. New cards do not come out often and the wait for them means that the issues facing players will continue to haunt them and then they need to actually acquire the solution and put it to use. Depending on the card made, it may be the solution needed, otherwise it will not see any play and the problem will continue. We also potentially add to the list of cards that are too weak. Beyond that, there is also the risk that the card does more harm than good with its intended target. It may stop players from doing X, but also unintentionally stops players from doing Y or Z, thus becoming a problem card itself.

So while I think that new cards can sometimes be THE solution, it is one that can spiral out of control. I think a good example of this is just how many cards have been released (as early as Dark Prophecies and as late as the most recent release and LLp2) to "take care of" Hidden and Stealth mainly (but admittedly not exclusively) because of Moonstalker and Into the Froest/Lay Low. Do we really want that for every problem printed cards produce? It was already mentioned how the power of Shadow Spawn was found much later (although this was to demonstrate how these cards may have hidden potential and don't need to be buffed), it just goes to show that there are possible cards hiding in that vien, which only grows as the printed sets grow. People keep siting Soul Reaper as a problem card, do we need to add on the ability to exile a card in the graveyard when they are played just to combat it? How many would we need? What other strategies does that hamper or destroy? Is that a good thing?

Possible Solutions without the No Errata Rule:

The changing or banning of cards. These come with their own issues as well, but they also come with their own benefits as well. These solutions have the advantage of being fast, banning in particular. We've seen this before, believe it or not. A misstep in the wording of Lythian Sledgehammer allowed Amber to buff it, making Amber very over powered. In response while a fix was being made, the card was banned, albeit temporarily, thus making sure that people weren't waiting or having unfun games because of that issue. Changes are similar. While they do take longer and more consideration than a ban does, they ultimately are much faster than waiting for the next release. These are often times much more tame solutions, as its easier to control their intended effect. The only exception to this is changing heroes, which has very far wide reaching implications that are much harder to control. Changes to these cards means that the card could still be used and still be worthwhile to include in a strategy or deck, even if they can't produce that problem anymore. Banning on the other hand, removes that possibility completely and is the more strict (but admittedly more effective and easiest) solution. By that account, changes should probably be tried before bans.

Like every solutions, it does have its downsides. As mentioned, banning cards removes any possibility of it adding to a deck or strategy entirely. Both changes and banning will undoubtedly harm the experience of the players whom enjoy using these problems to their advantage (changes less so), although they could find better ones because of it, though that's unlikely. There is also the chance of any change/ban needing to be reversed because it either didn't have the intended effect or somehow becomes more problematic (which is unlikely, but still). It's debatable that that is even a downside, since action is being taken. Banning also means that there is a card in the booster pack that players absolutely don't want (it could be removed from the pack though), not to mention earning through one of the ways to get random foils (again, it could just be removed from the table).

I've been avoiding saying we should nerf/buff anything, changing something is a lot more open and a better solution than simply making it worse or something else better.