Close

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    591
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    How about changing ITF to be attached until end of your next turn? This doesn't help Gwen much, Vox ability would also not work and the concept stays the same.
    Lay low looks totally meh
    I milled fat Garth with rush Loest. Twice.
    I stalled Moonstaller with Rothem.
    I played Ter with monopoly cards and 4x toll bridge and managed to win a tournament.
    I cast Portal and Kris in one turn and lived to tell the tale.

  2. #32
    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
    It would be nice to get some interaction here from the shot-callers (DT). Many great points have been raised, but have yielded no replies from the DT. We have no clue if any of this feedback is being taken on board or not, which is only going to discourage wider feedback.

    At the risk of being provocative, I'd like to address the elephant in the room that is the subject of errata to CotC cards. It's my suspicion we are only getting these changes beyond the cards on the banned list (which could have just been considered temporary experimental changes to remove the need for a ban list as opposed to full errata) *now* because there was an assumption by the DT that the only person standing in the way of changing any CotC cards was previously me and I am now "out of the way" with no official roles after resigning in October.

    Well, I really think that assumption was wrong on two counts: firstly, it was never just me opposed to meddling with the old cards while it was not strictly necessary; secondly, having me "out of the way" should not be the main reason for pursuing this course of action at this time without other good reasons. It seems a lot like these extra changes are based on personal preference and agendas of individual DT members instead of what is good for the game and its players at this time.

    I therefore again would like to propose that only the 5 banned cards get changed ASAP (and preferably not nerfed as much as in this Preview thread) and defer any additional changes until more analysis, insights and feedback can be collected to help us have high confidence that whatever decision is made at whatever time will do more good than harm when implemented.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Xander Spitfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    998
    Tournaments Joined
    10
    Tournaments Won
    0
    NPE should have been dealt with a long time ago. These changes are more then welcome.

  4. #34
    Member Steedious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    74
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I love the fact that these cards are being rebalanced and unbanned but the new Lay Low looks really weak. Considering cards like Assassin's Cloak , Cover of Night and Silent Strike have similar abilities and don't see much play. I see LL becoming another dead card.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Steedious; 04-04-2019 at 12:15 PM.

  5. #35
    Member Tria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    74
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I would like to argue that the static ability (non-attachment) defensive cards are necessary to encourage interactive deckbuilding.
    As mentioned previously, they all die to any form of removal, as they do not protect themselves - focused prayer, both shrieks, Eriss are 4 already played cards that all deal with them. Sorcerer/vermin are not as prevalent anymore, but both are still strong contenders for slots in item/ability metas.

    Removing solo aggro decks with defensive abilities is akin to removing all creature removal. Crippling Blow hurts when you play less amounts of bigger things. Death trap recursive Victor killing any creatures locks people out of the game. Burn mages with 1/2/3 aldon has practically no counterplay. All of these are NPE.

    If your argument is to slot tech cards like shriek of revulsion, widespread decay, or armored packbeast, then the same can be applied to fighting stall - play shriek of revulsion. Play sorcerer of endia. If decks choose to have less favored matchups for less dead draws in others, that is a decision on their part, and leads to a more diverse meta.
    ---
    ITF I do agree protecting itself is somewhat annoying.

    ---
    Soul Reaper may merit a discussion on graveyard hate instead. Vess control / Big Things Gravebone / Twilight Avatar / Reaper are the most abusive graveyard matters decks; GB and twilight are both accumulated value, while vess is just recursion and reaper healing. Reaper's value is that it doesn't cost other resources than what's already in the graveyard for such a strong heal. If it was easier to splash cards like Spirit Warden, or wizent's prayer had draw a card stapled onto it, reaper goes down significantly in value.
    IGN Triassen.
    Elementalis <3

  6. #36
    Senior Member Veles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    4,394
    Tournaments Joined
    29
    Tournaments Won
    2
    We appreciate all feedback so far and we are still listening so keep it coming!

    To address common remark that these cards are fine because there are several tech options to counter them, I will point to my original posts because it is already covered there in detail. It is not about the lack of tech options, it is about situations these decks put both players in during the course of the match, where having or not having a tech card decides the entire match.

    If wall of text is too discouraging I added short version in my 3rd post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Veles View Post
    TL;DR

    Changes to these cards are being made because:
    -Nature of decks they are most commonly used in reduces matches too often to a situation where a single card, tech option for the card that allows stall decks to avoid interaction with the board, decides the outcome. This is often the cause of negative player experience more so than lack of tech options or win rate of decks that use stall strategy.
    -They are greatly limiting design of new cards
    Last edited by Veles; 04-06-2019 at 02:56 PM.
    Retired Card Game Designer

    “Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments.
    The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  7. #37
    Member Tria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    74
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    So is Tidal Wave. Having it lets priests recover. Late game priests rely on a single card that eliminates everything the opponent did.
    Moonstalker with Shadow Font. It's basically the same as delay/moon, except with less tech options. Same with Skervox.
    VoW/Sapphire in control mages. Need to be answered or you won't be able to do anything. They stall the board.
    Chain supernovas. You stabilize vs their early allies, they just nuke you. Doesn't matter what you have or had down, they have you in topdeck burn lethal range.

    Are we nerfing TW? Nova? Vow? All of them basically say none of your allies matter.

    Tala + Armored ally. Nigh impossible to get rid of unless you draw removal. Did I draw my creature tech? Same feelbads as ability tech.
    Derk'an, again and again. You need something or his pinging will just outcard you.
    Vess recursion loops with Arthyle's Crypt. Crypt being able to get back other allies that get back more stuff. If you can't kill it, you won't stick another ally.
    Arada Jewels + stuff. Easily built 10 power creatures that just hit you twice and you're dead, since attachments are basically free to put onto Zailen Scholar. Jewels is gamechangingly big.
    Victor death trap infinitum. Death trap just kills anything you try to play, and then they recur it. Death trap warps games, and its seek-able.

    ---

    Control and combo are both annoying matchups. But without them, everything is burn or card advantage midrange grinds.

    ---
    Afterthought:
    Why don't we just ban Moonstalker?
    Last edited by Tria; 04-06-2019 at 04:24 PM. Reason: Reorganized a bit
    IGN Triassen.
    Elementalis <3

  8. #38
    Senior Member Veles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    4,394
    Tournaments Joined
    29
    Tournaments Won
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Tria View Post

    Control and combo are both annoying matchups. But without them, everything is burn or card advantage midrange grinds.
    In the same post you listed several control and combo decks that do no need to use any of cards on nerf list so you are contradicting yourself here. As I said these changes won't kill control, nor combo as archetypes in shadow era and we will continue to support them with new cards.
    Retired Card Game Designer

    “Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments.
    The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  9. #39
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Finland, Europe
    Posts
    14
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    During previous try my message did not get sent for some reason, so here is another attempt.

    Quote Originally Posted by dejvo View Post
    How about changing ITF to be attached until end of your next turn? This doesn't help Gwen much, Vox ability would also not work and the concept stays the same.
    Great idea! That or the proposed stealth version of hero ITF.

    During the last 100 matches I faced only once a Gwenneth deck (and at the opposite end dozens of Zhanna, Jericho and Lance decks that seem to be at the top of the current meta). At least with the solo option she used to be more popular and thus brought diversity to viable deck pool. Would really love to play both with and against her, should the modified (and more susceptible) ITF make her solo once again an option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tria View Post
    If decks choose to have less favored matchups for less dead draws in others, that is a decision on their part, and leads to a more diverse meta.
    Well said, my thoughts exactly! The beauty and diversity of deck building are those small choices. This card would save me in this and that situation, and be useful in some others, so is that enough to justify it being in my deck? Sometimes answer is yes, sometimes a risky no.

    Many of the decks lacking any ability removal also lack attachment removal and have no kind of an armor. Everything has been streamlined around bringing allies efficiently to the board. Works well to gain board control, I guess, but there is nothing to slow down a solo opponent. Thus it is no surprise what happens should the deck face one. It is all about choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Veles View Post
    TL;DR

    Changes to these cards are being made because:
    -Nature of decks they are most commonly used in reduces matches too often to a situation where a single card, tech option for the card that allows stall decks to avoid interaction with the board, decides the outcome. This is often the cause of negative player experience more so than lack of tech options or win rate of decks that use stall strategy.
    -They are greatly limiting design of new cards
    In the case of these solo cards (ITF, LL, Holy Shield, Full Moon), even if a player does not have any ability removal, he may still improve his chances to win by destroying solo's weapons / attachments or by summoning an armor of his own. (What if he has chosen not to have any of these either? Well, then he probably is in trouble, and rightly so.) Plus all the other interaction options are available.

    The only thing these cards do (if not having the right counter) is block causing attack damage for one turn, not prevent the opposing player from interacting altogether through some magical deep freeze.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    346
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Coran View Post
    During previous try my message did not get sent for some reason, so here is another attempt.



    Great idea! That or the proposed stealth version of hero ITF.

    During the last 100 matches I faced only once a Gwenneth deck (and at the opposite end dozens of Zhanna, Jericho and Lance decks that seem to be at the top of the current meta). At least with the solo option she used to be more popular and thus brought diversity to viable deck pool. Would really love to play both with and against her, should the modified (and more susceptible) ITF make her solo once again an option.



    Well said, my thoughts exactly! The beauty and diversity of deck building are those small choices. This card would save me in this and that situation, and be useful in some others, so is that enough to justify it being in my deck? Sometimes answer is yes, sometimes a risky no.

    Many of the decks lacking any ability removal also lack attachment removal and have no kind of an armor. Everything has been streamlined around bringing allies efficiently to the board. Works well to gain board control, I guess, but there is nothing to slow down a solo opponent. Thus it is no surprise what happens should the deck face one. It is all about choices.



    In the case of these solo cards (ITF, LL, Holy Shield, Full Moon), even if a player does not have any ability removal, he may still improve his chances to win by destroying solo's weapons / attachments or by summoning an armor of his own. (What if he has chosen not to have any of these either? Well, then he probably is in trouble, and rightly so.) Plus all the other interaction options are available.

    The only thing these cards do (if not having the right counter) is block causing attack damage for one turn, not prevent the opposing player from interacting altogether through some magical deep freeze.
    The issue with your arguement is that it keeps coming back to: people should use tech cards. As Nik has said, it is not about whether there are answers. The issue with these cards is that they promote a playstyle that makes most of the opponents choices within the game meaningless. It comes down to whether you draw your counter in time. Card games have a ton of rng already, and this adds even more. When the game essentially becomes "I hope I top deck my one tech card" it isn't a fun way to play. There will always be elements of this, but the decks that use these cards rely on it.
    IGN: TJ dubdub
    TG: @tjdubdub

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
  •