Article: Balance Changes for 3.62

[Gondorian]

You can view the page at http://www.shadowera.com/content.php...anges-for-3-62

[Offspring]

Excited to try the new Arachnid ^^

[guessagain]

A rejig for the packbeast? Really? It never needed +1attack; it's a support ally and gaining attack was never a problem for homunculus decks. The nerf on healing is not on par with the +1 attack.
Now you can't use more than one packbeast to get extra healing for your hero, and you only get it while it's adjacent to your hero. Major bummer. I don't mind the adjacency healing to allies if the aim is to get players to play more tactically, but the healing to your hero is vital to reach your endgame imo.

I like the voracious arachnid change off course, but I feel it could lead to cheesiness.

[Gondorian]

A rejig for the packbeast? Really? It never needed +1attack; it's a support ally and gaining attack was never a problem for homunculus decks. The nerf on healing is not on par with the +1 attack.
Now you can't use more than one packbeast to get extra healing for your hero, and you only get it while it's adjacent to your hero. Major bummer. I don't mind the adjacency healing to allies if the aim is to get players to play more tactically, but the healing to your hero is vital to reach your endgame imo.

I like the voracious arachnid change off course, but I feel it could lead to cheesiness.

Thank you for the feedback. If you are interested in where we were coming from, here's more detailed rationale:

Analysis of data from games, and even just watching some games, clearly showed that the huge heal possible with Packbeast (especially multiple) was really working against the goals of the game. It can't end until one player hits 0, yet this could sometimes negate multiple turns of offensive action while the user also did none of their own. I know some very slow control decks depend on this to reach their end game but I'm afraid I would prefer to risk sacrificing those from the meta - though I don't think this will be as damaging as that - than offer a way for people just interested in stalling and surviving until their opponent decks out to do that really effectively.

I created Packbeast mainly to allow Mages some source of heal, which should not be in their class, but 1 heal per turn is plenty when they previous had 0, unless you count the Frying Pan (which I also created) and the rarely played Honored Dead for humans. All other classes have their own heal so should not be relying too heavy on the heal part.

[Cerddorion]

I know some very slow control decks depend on this to reach their end game but I'm afraid I would prefer to risk sacrificing those from the meta - though I don't think this will be as damaging as that - than offer a way for people just interested in stalling and surviving until their opponent decks out to do that really effectively.

THIS is what aggravates me to no end when it comes to the subject of nerfs and buffs. There's no reason to attempt to stamp out a style of play or type of deck. Instead of "power creep" this is "meta creep." People that have been playing SE for a long time brag about how this is such a complex game, and it's deeper than most other card games out there. That won't be the case if "hate on control" trend continues. It'll just be Hearthstone, with a twist or two. Sure, stall is annoying as hell to play against. Most control type decks are. That doesn't mean they need to be confined to a small percentage of the meta or stamped out all together.

[guessagain]

Thank you for the feedback. If you are interested in where we were coming from, here's more detailed rationale:

Analysis of data from games, and even just watching some games, clearly showed that the huge heal possible with Packbeast (especially multiple) was really working against the goals of the game. It can't end until one player hits 0, yet this could sometimes negate multiple turns of offensive action while the user also did none of their own. I know some very slow control decks depend on this to reach their end game but I'm afraid I would prefer to risk sacrificing those from the meta - though I don't think this will be as damaging as that - than offer a way for people just interested in stalling and surviving until their opponent decks out to do that really effectively.

I created Packbeast mainly to allow Mages some source of heal, which should not be in their class, but 1 heal per turn is plenty when they previous had 0, unless you count the Frying Pan (which I also created) and the rarely played Honored Dead for humans. All other classes have their own heal so should not be relying too heavy on the heal part.

When you pit homunculus decks against most other opponents they have a hard time surviving early game since most allies are not as strong until you get the buffs going. Add to that that the best allies are 3cc and thus vulnerable against a host of abilities even when buffed, the healing of the packbeast seems less of a perk than a necessity.

The adjacency heal to allies is already a bummer, since now you have to have two packbeasts adjacent for them to heal at all. As I said, if the goal is to force players to play more tactically, fine. Annoying, but understandable perhaps. The real kick in the nuts however is the need for it to be adjacent to your hero. Which makes it only able to heal one more ally. The packbeast costs resources and packs no punch of its own, so it becoming less useful to such a degree makes it nigh worthless now.

I would suggest keeping the old healing but limiting it to max one point per turn per ally/hero. That way you remove the exploit/cheesiness without downright killing off the card for viable use in what should be a valid strategy (slow play)

Btw, calling it a 'rejig' instead of a nerf is disingenuous imho. No offence.

[guessagain]

Just adding that you have max four packbeasts in your deck. You probably don't draw more than two in a game. If you manage to cast more than two it means you either already have enough offence to afford such luxury (and thus won already), or you lack enough offence and you get beaten despite the healing.

[Shadaba]

THIS is what aggravates me to no end when it comes to the subject of nerfs and buffs. There's no reason to attempt to stamp out a style of play or type of deck. Instead of "power creep" this is "meta creep." People that have been playing SE for a long time brag about how this is such a complex game, and it's deeper than most other card games out there. That won't be the case if "hate on control" trend continues. It'll just be Hearthstone, with a twist or two. Sure, stall is annoying as hell to play against. Most control type decks are. That doesn't mean they need to be confined to a small percentage of the meta or stamped out all together.

Yeah, I agree.

I like a tactical game where people have to think. I've been playing less and less because of the constant nerfing of non-standard ally-heavy mid-game decks. And the rise of pre-thought-out combo's.

If decks almost need a turn 2 ally to survive in the meta, then you've severely limited the variety in decks.

Similar comments hold for solo heroes: too many hard counters (e.g., mass decay) have been added. The game is becoming less fun and interesting, in my view. Still fun, but less fun.

I enjoy trying to come up with truly new decks. Even though cards were added, the game somehow feels more constrained rather than less in terms of feasible novel deck ideas. Case in point: new "broken" decks almost always seem to rely on recently added or changed cards, and rarely on newly discovered combinations of earlier cards (with some rare but cool exceptions).

[Gondorian]

THIS is what aggravates me to no end when it comes to the subject of nerfs and buffs. There's no reason to attempt to stamp out a style of play or type of deck. Instead of "power creep" this is "meta creep." People that have been playing SE for a long time brag about how this is such a complex game, and it's deeper than most other card games out there. That won't be the case if "hate on control" trend continues. It'll just be Hearthstone, with a twist or two. Sure, stall is annoying as hell to play against. Most control type decks are. That doesn't mean they need to be confined to a small percentage of the meta or stamped out all together.

There is no hate on control from here. There is much hate on "stall", however.

There is also great sadness and disappointment about players who choose to disconnect rather than concede when they are losing, to cause their opponent to wait for the game to time out for their win. There's no need for that, so we now have a "Hall of Shame" tracking the people who disconnect the most and will take appropriate action against those people if they continue like this once they are aware their behaviour is not welcomed.

[Gondorian]

Yeah, I agree.

I like a tactical game where people have to think. I've been playing less and less because of the constant nerfing of non-standard ally-heavy mid-game decks. And the rise of pre-thought-out combo's.

Please can you give examples.