Close

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46
  1. #31
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,049
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Veles View Post
    Oh wow I can't believe I have to defend myself against silly arguments like this. I've been playing this game since 2012, I believe, and have done so on all levels, noobie days, competitive days, more casual days, testing new cards since PFG 3, being on design team. Reason why I don't go for high rating or tourney wins is because in SE those achievements mount to very little atm. Do you get fame? No. Do you get money? No. I don't get much personal gratification from them so I choose to focus my SE time on more casual play atm. Playing weird decks isn't proof of me not knowing how to build a deck lol It is part of effort to test weaker strategies in order to see how to improve them with new cards or balance changes (like my recent Lilyt Majiya for example). I don't post tier 1 decks but janky decks in hope I would inspire other people to try out other strategies and diversify game further. I don't need to play tier 1 deck because there is bunch of people playing them already that I face with my weird decks or spectate or get feedback from community and other DT members. And frankly wins with tier 1 decks come off too easy and cheap for me and I get no satisfaction from them.

    But just in case to see if I haven't gone crazy and made up all that experience in the game I went today on my alt to play it "for real". Currently rated 11 rank 285 which I believe puts me above everyone else on this thread atm. I guess it's a proof I am better at the game than any of you? You can check it at Blade Demonrose.

    Now if you can focus on balance changes and not derail thread on personal attacks that would be great.
    I always thought you were a great player but so are many others that were in PFG. That made you all great at informing of potential problems and investigating them through playing and also giving feedback on planned solutions but that doesn't mean you would be good with creating solutions in the first place.

    That was my forte and it's why I had responsibility for balance and beyond for so long, despite never proving myself to be a great player. I just chose to inform myself via all the great players, rather than act from just my subjective point of view.

    I feel like most of your changes are for personal preference which is like letting one PFG member decide everything, which we never did in the past because that would have been horrible for balance.

  2. #32
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,049
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1

    Preview of Balance Changes to SF and LL cards for 3.68

    Quote Originally Posted by Veles View Post
    Well so far we intended in DT to do incremental changes to cards and not risk killing them off completely as it has happened in the past. But given scarce resources we can work with and slow releases from development, which leads to us not being able to test them before they go live, it may come off as soft approach. Alternative is to be safe and nerf it to the ground. In case of priests though if we nerf this control version and we proceed to nerf attachment versions (which is being monitored and changes considered) what is left out there for priests? Either OG slow fat stall or haste that have been around for literally years now. So we need to be, imo, very careful and without option to test these in detail internally or in PFG it is almost impossible to get completely right. It is very ungrateful situation we are in atm. Why I think there is no need to be super hasty this time around is that despite playing vs priest feeling frustrating, due to nature of control archetype itself, I don't think this deck in particular is on level of brokeness some others have been in the past. Stats of all games played, both in low and high ranks, actually show very healthy diversity atm with heroes, and Zhanna and Jerry do share tier 1 with several other heroes, some of which are actually performing better than them.
    If you can't do the job due to lacking something then don't soldier on doing a bad job while wrecking the game in the process. No change is better than a harmful one.

    I offered to code balance changes for free for you to try but alas you took up Kyle instead to do this (yet he has failed to deliver as I said he would) while he took away all my access.

    How about you give us a week to chat over all things balance with the community and we try to get together a better list of changes for when Kyle returns and is able to code them?

    Rushing ahead based on hope rather than good judgment is risking more damage to SE balance that was pretty great before the new cards got introduced. They've been out six months now so people should have a decent idea of what is too strong or harmful.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Veles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    4,239
    Tournaments Joined
    29
    Tournaments Won
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
    I always thought you were a great player but so are many others that were in PFG. That made you all great at informing of potential problems and investigating them through playing and also giving feedback on planned solutions but that doesn't mean you would be good with creating solutions in the first place.

    That was my forte and it's why I had responsibility for balance and beyond for so long, despite never proving myself to be a great player. I just chose to inform myself via all the great players, rather than act from just my subjective point of view.

    I feel like most of your changes are for personal preference which is like letting one PFG member decide everything, which we never did in the past because that would have been horrible for balance.

    But you would make a decision in the end which feedback was valid and which was not, correct? Isn't there a dose of subjectivity in that as well? In the end your vision of what game should look like lead to final choice. Very nature of making decision based on often opposite feedbacks may seem subjective if taken option is opposite of what other side of the argument considers correct. You have been in the same situation as I am now may times before. Sometimes you changed your mind before implementing, sometimes going with implementation and that implementation either turns out well or not. In later case it is back to the drawing board while taking heat from unhappy players. Current situation is no different and you have been many times in it. So using it as attempt to counter argument proposed changes by devaluing my knowledge of the game is using faulty logic in similar way, albeit more civilized, Wimbled and Arc went with in this same thread.

    I gave a very detailed reasoning for CotC changes. It is not done on a whim, because I felt like it as you are trying to imply.
    Last edited by Veles; 05-05-2019 at 08:03 PM.

    Design Team Leader

    Check out this thread for some awesome articles and guides.

    “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




  4. #34
    Senior Member Veles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    4,239
    Tournaments Joined
    29
    Tournaments Won
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Gondorian View Post
    If you can't do the job due to lacking something then don't soldier on doing a bad job while wrecking the game in the process. No change is better than a harmful one.

    I offered to code balance changes for free for you to try but alas you took up Kyle instead to do this (yet he has failed to deliver as I said he would) while he took away all my access.
    You have no reason to offer this to me, because I have no control over who gets to do development, Kyle does. Kyle decided that he will do it. Talk to him about it.

    How about you give us a week to chat over all things balance with the community and we try to get together a better list of changes for when Kyle returns and is able to code them?

    Rushing ahead based on hope rather than good judgment is risking more damage to SE balance that was pretty great before the new cards got introduced. They've been out six months now so people should have a decent idea of what is too strong or harmful.
    We are doing that right now. Proposed versions are actually mildest of ones considered internally and as you can see in this thread the "good players" think they are too mild so I am listening to more feedback and proposals.

    Design Team Leader

    Check out this thread for some awesome articles and guides.

    “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




  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    132
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Veles View Post
    Well so far we intended in DT to do incremental changes to cards and not risk killing them off completely as it has happened in the past. But given scarce resources we can work with and slow releases from development, which leads to us not being able to test them before they go live, it may come off as soft approach. Alternative is to be safe and nerf it to the ground. In case of priests though if we nerf that way this control version and we proceed to nerf attachment versions (which is being monitored and changes considered) what is left out there for priests? Either OG slow fat stall or haste that have been around for literally years now. So we need to be, imo, very careful and without option to test these in detail internally or in PFG it is almost impossible to get completely right. It is very ungrateful situation we are in atm. Why I think there is no need to be super hasty this time around is that despite playing vs priest can feel frustrating, due to nature of control archetype itself, I don't think this deck in particular is on level of brokeness some others have been in the past. Stats of all games played, both in low and high ranks, actually show very healthy diversity atm with heroes, and Zhanna and Jerry do share tier 1 with several other heroes, some of which are actually performing better than them.
    The stats matter only to a certain extent. I played many games against Omar (A1 Ragosonos) that I consider to be the best Jerry player around. I feel like he broke it, he beat my Lance with perfect draw with a 70 card Jerry. He could have even milled me, there was no chance to beat the deck. After 4-5 games against that deck I find it fair to say that Jerry is broken IF it's played by a top level player. SE is supposed to be a game where all heroes have a counter, currently the rush mages for example have no particularly good MUs (Moonstalker has ballista, Priests have too much heal even after this small nerf). Those were supposed to be good match ups for them. On the other hand Jerry has no real counters apart from Zal and MS, and they can't be sure to beat him. No hero can say that he will beat Jerry in a Bo3. I find that when such a situation occurs the class/hero is way too strong, not just moderately.

    Speaking of card games more in general I find that SE doesn't have a healthy split between rush/midrange/control. Rush is scarce and no rush deck can compete at the top level (Ele and Mage are probably the best but they can't beat for example Priest that is very controllish).

    The main reason why Priests are so strong is that their draw is unbelievable. A good build piloted by a top player has so strong an engine that it can't be destroyed. They draw with COF, attachments, Scholar, Staff, Chalice, Oracle, Elizabeth. It's not so hard to establish such an engine when you have tons of heal, tidal and chalice. I feel like Chalice needs a nerf: It's one of the main reasons why fat priest decks are so consistant. With chalice out you can dig those 1-2-3 key cards early on, wipe board, establish better engine and then just go out for a win.

    The reason why the stats don't show their ultimate strength is that most people can't play fat priest too well. What's more is that the priest meta limits greatly the number of heroes that are usable at the top level. Vs a top level Jerry only MS and Zal (besides mirror Jerry) can be pretty confident about having a slight advantage. And it is slight indeed: it's difficult to predict the result of a B03 heads up.
    Last edited by Wimbled; 05-05-2019 at 08:02 PM.
    A1: Evolution in Theory

  6. #36
    Senior Member Arcadius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Montenegro,Cursed Island
    Posts
    160
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    http://www.shadowera.com/showthread....ting-for-Godot

    I'll just leave this link here .. as a proof that I predicted this state of game more than 4 months ago ..who wants to be director who won't I don't care .. I'm just pissed coz people who don't know what's going on in game at least won't listen people who know .. they doing "job" themselves, thinking they are smartest and game just taking more and more punches .
    Sinister Always Pays His Debts

    European Shadow Era Champion

    First SEF champion

    Wanna join A1 ? Contact me on TELEGRAM @MrArcy

  7. #37
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,049
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Veles View Post
    But you would make a decision in the end which feedback was valid and which was not, correct? Isn't there a dose of subjectivity in that as well? In the end your vision of what game should look like lead to final choice. Very nature of making decision based on often opposite feedbacks may seem subjective if taken option is opposite of what other side of the argument considers correct. You have been in the same situation as I am now may times before. Sometimes you changed your mind before implementing, sometimes going with implementation and that implementation either turns out well or not. In later case it is back to the drawing board while taking heat from unhappy players. Current situation is no different and you have been many times in it. So using it as attempt to counter argument proposed changes by devaluing my knowledge of the game is using faulty logic in similar way, albeit more civilized, Wimbled and Arc went with in this same thread.

    I gave a very detailed reasoning for CotC changes. It is not done on a whim, because I felt like it as you are trying to imply.
    In regards making a decision when no one can agree, we would generally just not change something unless we had really high confidence it was the right thing to do. Anything that splits opinion has to be considered high risk and therefore only done if strictly necessary. We always followed this and many changes were deferred for a long time that never came to happen at all that no one even talks about any more - clearly they were not needed after all.

    You are right that the arguments against changes here relying on saying you are not a good player are irrelevant. What you need to be is a good listener and wise decision-maker. You can only do both of those things by soliciting wide feedback, taking heed of strong objections and having a damn good reason for meddling with cards that are already live. Creating new cards is much less risky and why I backed you to finish off Lost Lands mostly without me, but balance changes are whole other thing.

    You absolutely have to start with list of problems you want to solve, and then be sure they are actually important enough to solve, and then finally come up with solutions that will have a net positive compared to the cost they might bring by harming balance potentially. Let's consider the list of changes you propose here with this in mind:

    1) Are there some major balance problems in the game right now?

    I'd say yes, with Priest and Warriors, who benefitted too much from the new cards we had to release without doing much playtesting. We gave too much new heal for Priest and Warrior really got broken with Javelin in the first place and then you buffed the durability which made it even stronger.

    2) Are these changes an attempt to address those major balance problems? (Side note: Can we even really evaluate these without knowing the other ones you are making to CotC? Just post them together please.)

    Well, I see no revert to the old Javelin with lower durability, so not sure what's happening there.

    The Knight change might be enough but why not just reduce the heal to 1 each time? I'm not convinced the new text will fit anyway and if you swap 2 for 1 then you halve the heal power right there very simply and it will take about 1 minute to code up. You can be positive it will absolutely always reduce the heal in all cases. Once per turn will not in cases where it would have only triggered once anyway.

    Someone has mentioned Adlard. I also am not sure about Sacred Martyr. What are the abusive Priest decks right now?

    3) Can we be confident the balance-impact cost of these changes will not lead to net harm to the game compared to what is trying to be solved?

    While Knight is a strict nerf, it may not be sufficient.

    The Garina change may nerf it into oblivion, which I certainly don't want to happen.

    The three buffs look sane. I have nothing against them.

    My biggest concern is with the CotC changes that are planned and they must be shared in conjunction with these for anyone to have proper evaluation of potential good/bad impact.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    312
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I think it's fair to say that priest are very strong right now. These nerfs are an attempt to hurt them without over doing it. You have to remember that the banned cotc cards will be coming back and the same time these changes are made. Zal is a great counter to all the best priest decks and he will be much more playable overall once he gets reaper back. Let's see what these changes bring, and if it's not enough then of course they will be addressed again
    IGN: TJ dubdub
    TG: @tjdubdub

  9. #39
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,049
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TJ dubdub View Post
    I think it's fair to say that priest are very strong right now. These nerfs are an attempt to hurt them without over doing it. You have to remember that the banned cotc cards will be coming back and the same time these changes are made. Zal is a great counter to all the best priest decks and he will be much more playable overall once he gets reaper back. Let's see what these changes bring, and if it's not enough then of course they will be addressed again
    How about make a separate thread where we could collectively examine the power and problems with Priest rather than skip straight to pushing these changes through?

    No proper discussion has taken place about current meta for a long time. Random conversations on Telegram between whoever was there at the time that we can't refer back to don't count.

    Clearly there are people here now ready to give some input. I think everyone wants the same thing for the game so maybe we can work together on it.

  10. #40
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    15
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    May I ask why the nerfs for Ascetic of Aldmor and Suspended Animation, 2 of the least used cards as I have observed in multiplayer.

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
  •