Yes, I’m bringing it up... Allow buffs/nerfs for old cards!

[Wimbled]

To me it's clearly in top 5. This game is very mathematical, and it's a good base to build on. If you have to make the deck size bigger, change it to 45. That's not such a drastic change. Increasing deck size will also increase the need for cards with "seek". It's a bit contradictory not to like consistency and bring in new cards with that mechanic, like the new 3cc weapon smith. Running 4x him and 4x JD gives amber a 90% chance to play Jewellers Dream on t4.

I'm trying to get as many people involved as I can. What I would appreciate a lot would be involving the WC top 8 in the decision making, just to give an example of a way to give some power to the players who understand this game best, or in some other way to give them a more direct route to give input for the game. There's no people from our guild that has any say in the development for example (apart from Demnchi), even though A1 is consistently one of the best guilds in the game.

[Gondorian]

I'm trying to get as many people involved as I can. What I would appreciate a lot would be involving the WC top 8 in the decision making, just to give an example of a way to give some power to the players who understand this game best, or in some other way to give them a more direct route to give input for the game. There's no people from our guild that has any say in the development for example (apart from Demnchi), even though A1 is consistently one of the best guilds in the game.

What is stopping anyone from giving input? We welcome it. Do top 8 from WC need some special Telegram room and secret email address to contact us with?

I don't know why you say no one in your guild has any say in development when everyone does. You are using one one of the platforms for that right now. And I thank you for adding good insights here about what you like and what you think are the problems. It's very helpful.

[Spartan]

@gondorian many of us like the consistency, thats why we play this game.

Maybe if you tell us a bit more about why in your opinion 40 card decks are hurting this game, so we can understand better.

To me above 40 cards are used usually for control and heavy control decks or fat garth that has lots of good draw options and seek. A heavy control meta would not be my ideal playtime

[Wimbled]

I think that some "special" room could be a good way to enhance activity among the top 8 for example.

It's true that this is a platform too and it's very nice to be able to talk so directly with the developers. I just think that 1-2 people from every major guild could have a more direct route for input on the details of the game development. It would be easier to make the in-guild voices heard too as people are more active about these topics in our Telegram groups than they are in here or on the official channel.

I'm only happy to help and to make my voice heard as I care a lot about this game and hope that it will develop in the right direction, both economically and on the level of player experience. I think that the basic concepts are very good, and it's one of the topics that almost everyone in the 2 guilds I chat with (17 and A1) agree on. That's why I think it to be a bad idea to start changing them.

Almost everyone I've talked with agrees about the most annoying cards too: soul reaper is always on the list. It's just a very unbalanced card. Most hope to see less decks that are uninteractive, like the examples of Lay Low Lance and Solo Gwen. That's why I and many others think that cards like ITF/RD/LL should be changed/banned. Standard Vess is very annoying to face too, but there's no such easy fix for it as there would be for the previously named builds.

[Gondorian]

@gondorian many of us like the consistency, thats why we play this game.

Maybe if you tell us a bit more about why in your opinion 40 card decks are hurting this game, so we can understand better.

To me above 40 cards are used usually for control and heavy control decks or fat garth that has lots of good draw options and seek. A heavy control meta would not be my ideal playtime

I didn't say 40 card minimum was hurting the game. We still have it, don't we? I wish I never mentioned a potential change now. The point was meant to be that if there was a change after some edits to old cards then maybe some of those edits would be rendered pointless or even need reversing.

To attempt to be even more clear, I think raising this subject now of changing old cards is the wrong time (if you demand some action other than us listening and talking) because: 1) it's an attempt at a solution before problems clearly established and without considering other solutions. 2) there are changes coming already to the environment.

This is why the stance is currently no changes to CotC/DP and will stay that way until we next revisit it (when LL is out in full) - at which point it might stay the same or it may change. In the mean time, keep informing us of your likes and dislikes and we can factor everything in at the appropriate time.

[Wimbled]

I didn't say 40 card minimum was hurting the game. We still have it, don't we? I wish I never mentioned a potential change now. The point was meant to be that if there was a change after some edits to old cards then maybe some of those edits would be rendered pointless or even need reversing.

To attempt to be even more clear, I think raising this subject now of changing old cards is the wrong time (if you demand some action other than us listening and talking) because: 1) it's an attempt at a solution before problems clearly established and without considering other solutions. 2) there are changes coming already to the environment.

This is why the stance is currently no changes to CotC/DP and will stay that way until we next revisit it (when LL is out in full) - at which point it might stay the same or it may change. In the mean time, keep informing us of your likes and dislikes and we can factor everything in at the appropriate time.

I completely agree with you about the fact that this is a bad time for any changes. Let's test the new cards, see the new meta, listen to what people say. I can't wait to build some new decks after such a long wait

[Gondorian]

I completely agree with you about the fact that this is a bad time for any changes. Let's test the new cards, see the new meta, listen to what people say. I can't wait to build some new decks after such a long wait

Right on! I'll drink to that.

[Fristar]

I didn't say 40 card minimum was hurting the game. We still have it, don't we? I wish I never mentioned a potential change now. The point was meant to be that if there was a change after some edits to old cards then maybe some of those edits would be rendered pointless or even need reversing.

To attempt to be even more clear, I think raising this subject now of changing old cards is the wrong time (if you demand some action other than us listening and talking) because: 1) it's an attempt at a solution before problems clearly established and without considering other solutions. 2) there are changes coming already to the environment.

This is why the stance is currently no changes to CotC/DP and will stay that way until we next revisit it (when LL is out in full) - at which point it might stay the same or it may change. In the mean time, keep informing us of your likes and dislikes and we can factor everything in at the appropriate time.

So next year you mean basically. 9 months from now?

[Fristar]

Wheres the rest of the board on this issue.

[SEF Mango]

I didn't say 40 card minimum was hurting the game. We still have it, don't we? I wish I never mentioned a potential change now. The point was meant to be that if there was a change after some edits to old cards then maybe some of those edits would be rendered pointless or even need reversing.

I would say that you should never regret mentioning anything to the community. How else are you to know what the general feel of the idea is? Also, it brought up some great points from DubDub about it potentially killing an entire archetype, Rush mage. Larger decks to ruin consistency which is why you would have to morph into a more control oriented deck to be able to survive the higher probability of not have ideal or close to ideal openings. So, larger deck size is not the greatest idea in my opinion however, it is far from crazy. I think what you find here is that so many players enjoy a majority of the game play as it stands and we should be mindful of that. There are just certain things that come up as an issue.

To attempt to be even more clear, I think raising this subject now of changing old cards is the wrong time (if you demand some action other than us listening and talking)

I do not feel it there is a wrong time for us to come forward with suggestions. That is the point of the forums am I right? discussion =) None of us here are demanding any changes. We can however let you and the board know what we see are the issues in game and how it affects enjoyable game play for the majority of the community and for future players.

I know it sure seems that some are demanding, even myself. That is just based on how much we care for SE and also how badly we want to see it succeed. The emotion behind some of these posts shows you some problems in the game. The conversation has not bounced all over, it has remained steady on a handful of cards: Soul Reaper, Rain Delay, Into The Forest, Evil Ascendant.

1) it's an attempt at a solution before problems clearly established and without considering other solutions.

As I stated above, the responses to this thread have indeed outlined which cards give rise to an NPE environment or just are OP as they stand. I feel the problems have been voiced properly enough to take notice of and cause the Board to look more intently into. No member of this community thinks about making huge changes lightly. The players have a better understanding of what makes the game enjoyable or what hinders that enjoyment. We just want to be sure that our voices are heard and not disregarded. Your interaction has been great in that regard.

2) there are changes coming already to the environment.

We are aware of future changes. You have kept every word to us in regards to these. I will personally never stop thanking you for that. I know you likely do not recieve as much as you should because there is some built up anger from the past. However, I am happy in the direction of the game.

The changes that you mention though also are not fair to bring up because other than those that are in development, we have no idea about what is to come. So, we voice our concerns based on what we know and how we feel at the current state of the game. There is really no other way we can speak other than that.

Lastly, in regards to changes, there are some things that future changes will, in my opinion, not help with. The main issue that came up again and again was Soul Reaper. Unless there is a card to come that exiles numerous allies from the grave (which i do not want to see) then this card will likely always be an issue. The constant threat of having to kill your opponent 2 or 3 times is not something anyone wants to deal with and is not an option that any other Hero has to force on their opponent. Does such a card make sense flavor wise? I believe it does. Does it make sense game play wise? Heh... Heck no.

Look at a few other options:

Enrage is 4cc and grants you +10 health. However, it is an attachment and is very vulnerable to removal.

Rampage is 4cc and grants you +2 heal per ally death. At a certain point in the game, Zaladar can go solo and render this ability mute. Also, healing for every ally death means nothing if your opponent is a mill deck that can eventually win by decking you out. While it is very underused and underrated, it does require a condition in order to activate that some decks simply can avoid. Soul Reaper only needs for you to feed your graveyard.

Infinity Core costs 2 and heals 2 per ally removed from grave. TBH, this is likely too much as well. However, it does cost you resources to activate so you often can find yourself not in the position to activate it.

This is why the stance is currently no changes to CotC/DP and will stay that way until we next revisit it (when LL is out in full) - at which point it might stay the same or it may change. In the mean time, keep informing us of your likes and dislikes and we can factor everything in at the appropriate time.

It is fine for you to have a stance on this issue. What should go along with that stance is a more comprehensive explanation of why you come to that conclusion. However, this statement makes it seem that this conversation was disregarded. Especially when you say "you next revisit it" as I am fairly certain the only time it comes up is when the players bring it up. So, this makes it feel as though you stamped this discussion as "closed." It is hard to understand ones intentions via text on the internet since all we have to go on is words. While I do not believe this was your intent, I have already heard from some that this is exactly the way they received this comment from you.

"You see Mango. He will never change." or "Waste of time to say anything."

There is something to keeping the game past in tact for history sake. However, with all the constant and focused comments from the community here in regards to a very handful of cards, I think to move past that is not a great showing of support in the time we all spent in reading and speaking our mind. As I mentioned above, we all want to see this game succeed. Many of us who log hours upon hours of play in this game have more standing perhaps than any board member to voice which cards are an issue. We are on the ground floor. We see what the issues are and can point specifically to them. While you guys may run the show and generate the product, we are the consumers.

While we may not have a plethora of solutions to solve these problems, that is what management is there for. To listen to those who are consuming the product and can tell you where it tastes a bit sour. Together then we could work towards bettering the flavor of this product and making it more enjoyable and satisfying for all to experience.

I got hungry towards the end of this post and it came across there... sorry :P