(sorry double post, darn character limit, lol)
This brings me to the proposed other possible solutions that have been brought forth. I'd like to explore possible consequences and benefits of these as well.
1. - Keep that card on the Ban List permanently and compensate any players with that card for the playability restriction we have imposed.
- Design a new card based on the redeeming features of the original, which can be given free to any players owning the banned card.
These two go hand in hand. I think creating a new card and giving them out to players for effectively removing a card from their collection is a good idea if bans were to remain permanent. In this world, its a good path to travel so long as it really sticks to "keeping the redeeming features of the original," even as far as theme and artwork. Being as close to the original as possible while removing the part that causes the problem. However, It was mentioned here how Hearthstone rotates whole sets, but what I doubt many others don't say is how they also "ban" cards. They essentially nerf the card to oblivion, removing what was unique or interesting about it instead of bringing it inline. This is what this reminds me of and what I would fear in the end. I know a lot of people would disagree with me, but I haven't seen much of a reason to believe it would basically be the same card, but balanced.
2 - Add that card to a Restricted List where only 1 or 2 copies are permitted in a deck.
The problem I have with this path is that it overwrites one of the fundamentals of the game. You're basically adding in a new rule for these cards retroactively just so they can't be recycled or used so many times consecutively. It's not like these are special card types (such as the kind you would see in Pokemon like Prism Star or Ace Spec). There is also the problem of this ruining the consistency of these cards and not just the number of times they can be used. I simply see no reason to go down this path.
3. - Remove that card from the Ban List and admit actually it does have a place in the game.
For the sake of completeness, sure. That is one good thing about this is that it may show something like this.
4. - Errata the card in an attempt to make it not so harmful.
This is similar to the first idea, except you don't ban, restrict, or take anything away. Much like what I stated above, it still has the potential to remove the card anyways with a terrible change. But I think trying (even possibly a few times) is much better than removing the card completely. Into the Forestcould act like Rain Delay and stick around until the end of the next turn and/or become a support ability. Soul Reaper could heal 1 health per ally exiled or 1 health per 2 allies exiled. Lay Low
The downsides to this one are primarily two main things. First, it would make an errata to the physical game (unless they decide to seperate them, which is an option btw) and potentially cause some confusion to those players. I think the kind of people who would play Shadow Era physically is already used to this sort of thing and would appreciate the balance much more than the slight confusion they would have, or even the frustration of dealing with these exact same problems. Not to mention pulling a card from the booster only to realize its banned and instead of merely changed! (Thanks Full Art Lysandre's Trump Card!). You could even release reprints of errata'd cards when you're comfortable with the version you have in a nifty "errata pack" or something if they really care that much about it exactly matching the online game (which a few cards don't anyways, wordings and such are different on some cards). Admittedly you could do that with the "replacement card" for physical players in point one, although they would need it since they can't use the old version and would likely frown upon having to buy it. The other thing it will do is what any of these would do (except doing nothing) and anger the people who like these cards and the play-style most of us find problematic. You can see that in this very thread. I genuinely believe that errata's are meeting half-way, a compromise to these players. I really don't feel that these strategies that (clearly) some people like are worth destroying completely. It just must be made interesting on some level, rather than uninteractive or hopeless feeling. I feel there needs to be openings in the strategy itself, not counters no one wants to run as well.
----------------------------------------
Btw, I know the rebutle to most of what I've written here is that "its just a test, calm down!" but I don't find that to be a valid argument to not speak up and give my feedback (I even only say this because I've been told this exact thing when discussing this in the past). My fear is that this test will be used as justification to just keep banning cards and not tackling the problem at its roots. I'll make it no secret that I think banning cards as THE END SOLUTION will destroy a large reason why so many people love this game. This may be a test to gather more data, but I fear it will be the solution instead. I also have no fear in saying that I think the banning path is particularly lazy. It's great that it's "low low cost" for the bottom line, but that's not a great excuse when it comes to the player experience of playing Shadow Era as a game, as a whole. The fact that the future plans says they only might try erratas proves this point to me, especially when there is no way the cost of trying erratas is so much that it's not worth even trying before making any ban permanent. Especially when the 1st proposed solution would create a new card, which requires new art which costs more money in addition to the newly designed and implemented card. I really hope to be proven wrong about that, and that this test is but one of many.
TL;DR: I'm glad that something is finally happening, but I still disagree with bannings in general and feel the current experimental list is a bit lacking and doesn't provide enough scope. I also think that some of the proposed future plans aren't so great and that I still feel errata changes are the best middle road path. I hope that people won't settle for bans until they are proven to be THE END SOLUTION definitively. Even though many would disagree, I have my doubts with the intentions of these moves and I hope to be proven wrong in the coming months.
Originally Posted by Shadow Mann
Bookmarks