Please nerf Baral

Phase

Reasonable solutions, in order of quality:

1) bump moon prison to 4 mana (won't have to refund anything. probably the easiest for the MtGPQ team)
2) change Baral mana gain to 2 (one number. easy)
3) mana gain at the start of turn instead of on draw (not as easy but doable)
4) disable on cast til end of next turn (weird but it would work)
5) disable in pvp (can use it, can't play against it)


If you can't decide just throw a dart. You guys can figure something out. Just please let us know as soon as you get more info. The guy is pretty much ruining part of the game that should be fun. Releasing him as a $30 paid purchase was a massive oversight you guys are going to have to resolve the hard way no matter what you do. Might be time to run your mythics past a few players in the future?

DumasAG

Phase wrote:

Reasonable solutions, in order of quality:

1) bump moon prison to 4 mana (won't have to refund anything. probably the easiest for the MtGPQ team)
2) change Baral mana gain to 2 (one number. easy)
3) mana gain at the start of turn instead of on draw (not as easy but doable)
4) disable on cast til end of next turn (weird but it would work)
5) disable in pvp (can use it, can't play against it)


If you can't decide just throw a dart. You guys can figure something out. Just please let us know as soon as you get more info. The guy is pretty much ruining part of the game that should be fun. Releasing him as a $30 paid purchase was a massive oversight you guys are going to have to resolve the hard way no matter what you do. Might be time to run your mythics past a few players in the future?

I'm not convinced that moon is the biggest offender. This is obviously in my experience, but I've found harness baral and reservoir baral to be the strongest versions of baral (and also the worst to play against) because neither of them really cares about your creatures or mooning your creatures. They don't need to interact with you. Especially Kiora/reservoir baral, who often kills me the turn the baral is played, so I never have a chance to do anything with my creatures (much less kill Baral).

I think 2 and 5 are the best options for changes. 5 especially is a good choice, because it doesn't effect the people who bought it, whilst removing the problem for the rest of the community (watching the AI loop forever WHILE being overpowered). I wouldn't have as much of a problem losing to Baral if I didn't have to watch it happen for 10 minutes. This is why I don't cry about Olivia, even though I think she is VERY poorly designed/designed simply to be broken.

Msaytar

If a nerf goes through involving Baral. I personally will be requesting a refund.

There are other cards that are just as oppressive but we don't hear about it because not as many people are running into those decks at the moment.

MTG_Mage

I'm quoting what I already said here viewtopic.php?f=36&t=61609

3 solutions to fix Baral:

reduce the mana gained from entering the battlefield and drawing a spell from 3 to 2
OR
if a spell is at full mana as a result of mana gained from Baral, that spell loses 1 mana
OR
increase the cost of the few problematic spells of cost 3 or less to 4 or more

Option 3 is the best option as it does not touch Baral and thus people wont be demanding refunds. To implement that and curb the endless loops
the following cards need to have their cost adjusted to 4:

natural connection
costal discovery
stratus walk
negate
scatter to the winds
imprisoned in the moon (this card needs its cost to be increased to at least 6 and up to 9)
transgress the mind
whispers of emrakul

imprisoned in the moon - what were they thinking when they made this cost 3? This is by far the most obsurd card cost translation in the game.
Black has a few good removal spells at 5 (which is color appropriate), there are a few conditional ones at 6, most other colored removal is 8 or 9, and colorless at 12...so what made the dev team think that 3 was good for a blue spell?! It MUST be increased to 8 or 9, considering turn to frog is 9 and this is arguably better as it is, and some PWs can get up to 8 in a single gem match.

gruntface

Regarding moon, I can only surmise it has such a low cost due to it being a double edged sword (ongoing mana generator if used on opponent creature). However, given the current state of AI in this game, it is never properly exploited. If it were, it wouldn't be such a clear win win scenario (as the AI also doesn't replace creatures, locking up the sport is an extra boon to those who use it).

Overall, I am not a fan of changing other cards because one card is too powerful. This sets a dangerous precedent and opens up a major can of worms. Where is the line drawn? Combo's are one of the most enjoyable aspect of the game to deduce and build around and if there is a common denominator of OP combos fix that directly, not everything else that it exploits (such as reducing PW spells, increase card costs etc).

Do those because in isolation those items need changing, not as an over-reaction to a ridiculous card design that should never have gotten past the test stage (yes, I realize I am assuming there is a test stage despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary )

Dologan

MTG_Mage wrote:

I'm quoting what I already said here viewtopic.php?f=36&t=61609

3 solutions to fix Baral:

reduce the mana gained from entering the battlefield and drawing a spell from 3 to 2
OR
if a spell is at full mana as a result of mana gained from Baral, that spell loses 1 mana
OR
increase the cost of the few problematic spells of cost 3 or less to 4 or more

Option 3 is the best option as it does not touch Baral and thus people wont be demanding refunds. To implement that and curb the endless loops
the following cards need to have their cost adjusted to 4:

Oh, it is OBVIOUSLY the best option to nerf a dozen other cards across multiple colours than to simply address only one...

imprisoned in the moon - what were they thinking when they made this cost 3? This is by far the most obsurd card cost translation in the game.
Black has a few good removal spells at 5 (which is color appropriate), there are a few conditional ones at 6, most other colored removal is 8 or 9, and colorless at 12...so what made the dev team think that 3 was good for a blue spell?! It MUST be increased to 8 or 9, considering turn to frog is 9 and this is arguably better as it is, and some PWs can get up to 8 in a single gem match.

Aw, is someone bitter that they haven't managed to pull Imprisoned in the Moon yet?

Yes, the card is very powerful, arguably Mythic-level so, but it is double-edged and it doesn't break the game by itself.

madwren

Steeme wrote:

PastrySpider wrote:

Thanks for following up Brigby. If you can, please let them know they'll need to address the fact that it was recently for purchase when they make adjustments. Getting their decision and messaging straight on that will help prevent another forum meltdown.

Interestingly enough, the players are doing this to themselves. No-one told anyone to run Kiora with Baral, 8 spells, and Aetherflux reservoir, given the fact that they know it will utterly ruin everyone's day when piloted by the AI. They willingly constructed the most griefing decks and submitted them into events.

I'm not sure if this is a veiled shot at me or not, but I invented/ran that deck because I wanted to win every game in the finish-with-more-than-75-life node. It worked.

It has nothing to do with griefing. It had everything to do with winning in the event.

I've led the charge to nerf Baral, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to use him until he's fixed. If everyone else is showing up with their best cards, then you can be sure I will be as well.

MTG_Mage

Dologan wrote:

Aw, is someone bitter that they haven't managed to pull Imprisoned in the Moon yet?

LOL yes you are correct, imprisoned in the moon is one of the very few blue cards I want and don't have

As for increasing the cost of 7 cards from 3 to 4, that is a small change that will not impact whether or not you would play those cards in a deck anyway. It also is the best choice from the developers point of view, and an easy fix too.
Moon however needs to be adjusted to ~9 as its current cost of 3 is past the point of undercosted and into the category of 'doesn't make any sense'. It will still see play at a higher cost just the same.
Sadly the devs will need to look ahead and not make any more new spells cost 3 or less unless very well thought over.

Hopefully the devs will be proactive and adjust Rishkar's Expertise before it is released (reducing the multiplier and/or increasing its cost)

Dologan

MTG_Mage wrote:

Dologan wrote:

Aw, is someone bitter that they haven't managed to pull Imprisoned in the Moon yet?

LOL yes you are correct, imprisoned in the moon is one of the very few blue cards I want and don't have

As for increasing the cost of 7 cards from 3 to 4, that is a small change that will not impact whether or not you would play those cards in a deck anyway. It also is the best choice from the developers point of view, and an easy fix too.
Moon however needs to be adjusted to ~9 as its current cost of 3 is past the point of undercosted and into the category of 'doesn't make any sense'. It will still see play at a higher cost just the same.
Sadly the devs will need to look ahead and not make any more new spells cost 3 or less unless very well thought over.

Hopefully the devs will be proactive and adjust Rishkar's Expertise before it is released (reducing the multiplier and/or increasing its cost)

Changing several cards from 3 to 4 mana is absolutely NOT a small change. 3 mana means single off-colour match for most max-level PW, and it is often tactically crucial for these cards to have that cost, as it means they can be reactively cast. Increasing their mana by even a single point will severely damage their value in most decks that rely on them. Of course it would impact if someone with good deck-building skills would play them in a deck or not. It is utterly bonkers to suggest that such far-reaching changes are preferable than fixing one single card.

Moon is cheap, yes, but if/when you get it maybe you'll realise why it actually makes a lot of sense for it to be so, especially in this era of plentiful servos and buffs. I can't tell you how many Moons have come back to bite me in the ****, or how many I've simply exiled because I knew they would do so. Fewer than the times it has saved it by costing 3 mana, but a large number nonetheless.

DumasAG

MTG_Mage wrote:

Dologan wrote:

Aw, is someone bitter that they haven't managed to pull Imprisoned in the Moon yet?

LOL yes you are correct, imprisoned in the moon is one of the very few blue cards I want and don't have

As for increasing the cost of 7 cards from 3 to 4, that is a small change that will not impact whether or not you would play those cards in a deck anyway. It also is the best choice from the developers point of view, and an easy fix too.
Moon however needs to be adjusted to ~9 as its current cost of 3 is past the point of undercosted and into the category of 'doesn't make any sense'. It will still see play at a higher cost just the same.
Sadly the devs will need to look ahead and not make any more new spells cost 3 or less unless very well thought over.

Hopefully the devs will be proactive and adjust Rishkar's Expertise before it is released (reducing the multiplier and/or increasing its cost)

Sorry, but hitting a ton of other cards to fix the problem is NOT the best strategy except to avoid a crusade for refunds. The reason is a) those cards ARE played in other decks where the change in mana would make a difference, and b), as you stated, Baral as is completely limits further design space. Every decision on a low-mana spell will have to pass the "does this make Baral ridiculous again" test. That isn't healthy for design, in any way. It's significantly better to lightly alter Baral so that it can't loop as it currently does. This allows the design team to still have low-mana spells in the future.

AngelForge

It's funny to see all these "if Baral is nerfed I will request a refund" statements.

I'm no lawyer but I'm quite sure that you have no rights about the digital content of this game. You paid for using the card before it is theoretically available to others.

So, what will be your legal basis to request a refund?

Corn_Noodles

How about make moon tokens 0/2 and hexproof but leave it at 3 mana cost?

blacklotus

AngelForge wrote:

It's funny to see all these "if Baral is nerfed I will request a refund" statements.

I'm no lawyer but I'm quite sure that you have no rights about the digital content of this game. You paid for using the card before it is theoretically available to others.

So, what will be your legal basis to request a refund?

it is called bait and switch. We paid 30usd for this current version of Baral. If it is changed to a lousier version, consumers have every right to demand a refund. Just because it is a digital product doesn't absolve the developers from this fact.

blacklotus

I have played my fair share of Baral decksopponents, including the Saheeli/Reservoir/HtS chain.

You can spot a Baral deck when it starts playing out cheap 3 mana spells like negate. And most Baral decks fizzle out before it loops endlessly into a win condition.

The best Baral decks are those used in conjunction with SP/Uhydra or HtS/red damage spells combo. These existed before Baral comes along. Baral only makes them slightly better, but definitely not as great as those pre-nerfed SP, Uhydra and HtS days.

You win some. you lose some.

I have lost to a Koth who throws out 3 pigs and 2 Olivias in turns 1 and 2 and 3.

Koth and Pig and Olivia deserves a nerf as much as Baral and Kiora.

AngelForge

blacklotus wrote:

AngelForge wrote:

It's funny to see all these "if Baral is nerfed I will request a refund" statements.

I'm no lawyer but I'm quite sure that you have no rights about the digital content of this game. You paid for using the card before it is theoretically available to others.

So, what will be your legal basis to request a refund?

it is called bait and switch. We paid 30usd for this current version of Baral. If it is changed to a lousier version, consumers have every right to demand a refund. Just because it is a digital product doesn't absolve the developers from this fact.

Quoted from the EULA of D3go:
"... We can manage, regulate, control, modify or eliminate virtual currency and/or virtual goods, including the price thereof, at our discretion, and will have no liability to you or any third party for any of such actions. ..."

Do I understand that wrong? (This question is meant serious and not sarcastic or similar)

andrewvanmarle

People stop trying to swing the eula and the tos around, the have limited legal weight in a lot of the regions this game is played in.

Doing so only shows shadenfreude, which is mean spirited.

blacklotus

AngelForge wrote:

blacklotus wrote:

AngelForge wrote:

It's funny to see all these "if Baral is nerfed I will request a refund" statements.

I'm no lawyer but I'm quite sure that you have no rights about the digital content of this game. You paid for using the card before it is theoretically available to others.

So, what will be your legal basis to request a refund?

it is called bait and switch. We paid 30usd for this current version of Baral. If it is changed to a lousier version, consumers have every right to demand a refund. Just because it is a digital product doesn't absolve the developers from this fact.

Quoted from the EULA of D3go:
"... We can manage, regulate, control, modify or eliminate virtual currency and/or virtual goods, including the price thereof, at our discretion, and will have no liability to you or any third party for any of such actions. ..."

Do I understand that wrong? (This question is meant serious and not sarcastic or similar)

EULA are superceded by the legal laws of the land. Just because a company writes this stuff doesn't mean they can use bait and switch tactics legally.

If you switched the product that I bought legally with cash, then I am entitled to ask for a refund.

I stress again, just because your goods are digital doesn't entitle you to use bait and switch tactics legally.

AngelForge

Well, let's stop the argument here. You (plural) think you're right and I think I'm right and if I go on now, you will go on, but it's for no good purpose..

I wish all of you good luck with your refund request, if the day of Baral's nerf come.

tygray24

I purchased Baral as I knew this card was completely broken and would be necessary to complete some of the insane objectives of RATC. For this purpose I love Baral and don't want him to change but that's simply because I am a perfectionist when it comes to events and he is the only way I can achieve full points on 3.1 RATC. Now after playing with him and more importantly against him for a couple weeks I am convinced something needs changed. While there are some very powerful cards in this game, there is not a single other card in the game that can be an "instant" win card. I use the term instant a little loosely here because it will still take 10 minutes or so for the AI to finish the kill cycle. So now while I'm getting those 5 points in RATC, I'm frequently losing more points in PVP events to Baral decks.

So I'm all for the NERF/Refund approach as I prefer strategy and skill to decide the outcome of a game not the randomness of can I build a Baral defense before the AI drops Baral and wins. Plus I'm still a little salty about spending money on this game thanks almost entirely to the recent patch so getting some of that money back would be fantastic.

Since I don't expect D3 to want to hand out $30 refunds for all the Baral purchases I guess excluding Baral decks would be the next best approach to solving the problems. In this case, they really need to have the matchmaking exclude the deck not exclude Baral from the deck. It would be dumb to face a deck built around Baral that doesn't have him in it.

Brigby

Hi Everyone. I just wanted to stop by and reassure you all that we are definitely not trying to impose any bait-and-switch tactics on anyone.

Yes, the development team is re-evaluating Baral and determining what adjustment can be, but it will only be a slight adjustment that serves to push it out of the realm of overpowered.