Close

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 85
  1. #41
    DP Visionary Demnchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (GMT -4)
    Posts
    5,858
    Tournaments Joined
    8
    Tournaments Won
    1
    (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 Forest could 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 could be impossible to return to your hand or exiles itself upon doing so (Winged Redeemer would still counter it for example) or have it skip the readied step of the turn so the things laying low can't do much. Remove the hero from the hidden equation to make it riskier to play. Some of these might be a bit band-aid esque, but you get the point.

    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.
    Was the Leader of Acolytes of A1

    A1's Dimensional Eyes in the Sky
    A1 Alliance: Evolution in Theory
    PFG3 Leader

    Was Shadow Era Community Manager

    Sota, The Switch Axe Monster Hunter

    "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
    "Humans fight to secure peace as they envision it. The trouble is, everyone's vision is different." - Ringabel

  2. #42
    DP Visionary Shadow Mann's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,874
    Tournaments Joined
    5
    Tournaments Won
    1
    I agree with Demnchi...and appreciate the detailed post, great points.
    Avenger of Valhalla
    Warriors of the Blue Phoenix
    Greatness, Reborn

  3. #43
    DP Visionary Shadow Mann's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,874
    Tournaments Joined
    5
    Tournaments Won
    1
    BP Shadow Mann vs A1 Haunty

    Perfect example of why more ways to deal with attachments is needed. Solo Maj can crush a hero now with loads of attachments that deal direct damage. Please fix SoE and Vermin to work on summon. In the meantime, I guess I'll only be using direct damage heroes...hello zal and damn mages, if I even play...might be time for a break until things get balanced a little more. I get irritated more by all the attachment crap than I ever did by the banned cards on this list.
    Last edited by Shadow Mann; 03-30-2018 at 09:53 PM.
    Avenger of Valhalla
    Warriors of the Blue Phoenix
    Greatness, Reborn

  4. #44
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,044
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1

    Ban List for Rated in v3.60

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Mann View Post
    BP Shadow Mann vs A1 Haunty

    Perfect example of why more ways to deal with attachments is needed. Solo Maj can crush a hero now with loads of attachments that deal direct damage.
    I assume you had a lot of allies stuck on the board.

    I think this is perfect example of where you could change your deck in light of new cards and new meta! I guess you have been lucky to cope without ways to remove "stuck" allies in the past.

    There's at least 4 cards available to Garth now that can bounce them for you, sending Subdue and Consuming Fear straight to the graveyard, and allowing you to replay them for their on-summon abilities too.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Bluejet24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,656
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Soul Reaper... Just change it to +1 life only per ally..and 4cc...and when used, SR is exiled from game
    IGN: TJ BlueJet24

    Founder of Team Juggernauts

  6. #46
    DP Visionary Shadow Mann's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,874
    Tournaments Joined
    5
    Tournaments Won
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluejet24 View Post
    Soul Reaper... Just change it to +1 life only per ally..and 4cc...and when used, SR is exiled from game
    This would mean they are willing to change the older cards...the ban list seems like their preferred option to try first. I'm not sure they really want to start modifying the older sets.
    Avenger of Valhalla
    Warriors of the Blue Phoenix
    Greatness, Reborn

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    If banning these cards leads to shorter matches, then I guess you achieved your goal of shortening the matches but that may be a pyrrhic victory for wulven studios (or whoever controls this game) and not a victory at all for the players or for the game. I wonder if, in this case, player frustrations manifested with statements such as "stalling games are the worst kind of games" but actually depend more on the probability that one player is able to dominate their foe throughout the match. Stalling is a form of domination -- make the other player wait and feel powerless. But there exist so many other forms of domination and humiliation in this game even after you remove these 5 cards, so I doubt you've solved the real problem. For example, you can take away armor of ages, but there are still plenty of scenarios in this game that feel unfair and lead to one player dominating the other throughout the match, and then the match was unfulfilling for the loser.

    I see the problem as being something like, shadow era matches are too one-dimensional: you either win or lose (yes, draw is possible but statistically hardly ever happens).

    I'm not here to rant though, I love this game. I play almost every day. Not to win, just for the chaos and bizarre strategies to be truthful.

    so here's my analogy/idea to shadow era's match gameplay frustrations: golf!

    Personally, I'm not an advocate of the sport of golf, but I admire golf's multi-faceted approach (pun intended) to the humiliation problem, which include: "handicap" (players of unequal talent compete equally based on statistics), "re-match" (lose one hole, then start over on the next hole against the same opponent), "pace of play", "front 9/back 9", "skins", etc, etc.

    there are a long list of rules in golf designed to ease the frustration of one player dominating another. It would be easy to offer a handicap (increased health or more frequent crystal energy?) , or a more elaborate scoring system, such as points for kills, or some type of reward so that, as in golf, there is a winner and a loser, but the loser doesn't feel humiliated because the loser "won something".

    Think about a player who logs in, builds a deck, learns the basics....then gets their ass kicked by thoughtripper+fagan, or their opponent summons 2-3 leviathins in one turn, or gravebone puts forgotten horror into play despite having 4 resources, or tidal wave disappears all your allies, or nova, or embers, or hidden, or soul reaper, or transmog, or most of the Location cards, or any of the other hundred of humiliating "surprise I just kicked your ass via loophole xyz ha ha" card combinations in this game.

    I'd rather have a point-scoring system that is designed to reward winners AND losers rather than what we have now often in many matches: a one-dimensional beat-down.

    to sum up (what did we learn?):

    * ban list does little to improve game play
    * handicaps even the playing field (based on match play score, experience, deck strength, etc)
    * re-match offers a second (or third or fourth) chance
    * pace of play prevents slow games
    * alternate point-scoring systems acknowledge good match play regardless of win or defeat, ie points for dealing damage, points for defeating any card with casting cost 3 resources or above (it should be a major achievement to kill Vull before he kills you, am I right?)
    * I hope banned cards get reborn
    * the idea of permanence. it makes little logical sense why some cards are permanent and others are used up over time, and others are single-use.
    * cards that statistically give advantage or circumvent "natural" game play (high percentage win cards or so-called "kill cards") should require an equal/opposing penalty of some kind

    love this game! love what you guys do! for your health!

  8. #48
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,044
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hi, Dr Steve Brule. You make some great points and I like your style of writing, but you've put too much emphasis on thinking we banned these cards because they win. The fact is that they are miserable to face even when you can beat those decks, and they are most prevalent in average ratings where players are the same approximate skill but one had chosen to use misery-inducing cards and the other hasn't (so handicap is irrelevant and no one is really dominating the other, but one is being aloof and the other wishing to have interactive match).

    Speaking of interactive, I have to say I do like the golf analogy - not only because it's a pretty boring sport IMO but also because it's essentially a solo game where each player can focus on their own plays and ignore the opponent, which is a lot like when a player uses some of the above cards to ignore their opponent and play in non-interactive fashion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  9. #49
    Senior Member Maldazar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    904
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Finaly something is being done about the 30-40 minutes boring games that made me stop playing SE. No, stalling has never been overpowered, I probably have won more games against it then lost against it, but every single game against stalling decks made me want to close the app and just never open it again.. It's just not fun (for me, everyone has diferent conceptions of fun). I agree with the cards on this list, although possible some more need to be added to it in the future.

    But I love the idea of having a ban list in every season, exactly to be able to balance out older cards that might start to be game breaking (not in balance, but in fun to play).
    Member of E2E.

    “Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous.”
    “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
    “God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.”
    “I want to know God's thoughts - the rest are mere details.”
    “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

    - by Albert Einstein

  10. #50
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,044
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1

    Ban List for Rated in v3.60

    Quote Originally Posted by Maldazar View Post
    But I love the idea of having a ban list in every season, exactly to be able to balance out older cards that might start to be game breaking (not in balance, but in fun to play).
    Hi, welcome back. I appreciate there's some support for the idea of a rotating ban list to shake things up regularly, but I think at this stage we should confirm it's not one we'd consider any time soon. It just seems like a band aid used in other games to make up for lack of balance and variety. It's something to keep in the back pocket if we need it though!

    But it's our hope we can continue with keeping all cards legal in Rated Multiplayer apart from the ones selected here for being "not in the spirit of the TCG we want to be making". I think you are right there are a few more cards that are likely offenders on that which could also get them onto the trial Ban List, such as Robes of Mending.

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
  •