Alternative to Nerfing

GamerX

***This from a post I placed in another thread but would like to see it conversed upon as alternatives to nerfing***

I don't post here.  This nerf has upset me enough to post.  Here is why:

Baral was purchased because he was good enough to warrant the purchase by many players.  He was a key tool in a tool box for people who don't have Season's Past, GAH, or other combo pieces necessary to accomplish some of the harder secondary requirements like on Exquisite Archangel in RAtC.  I had gone from never being able to get the 7 turns or less objective to gettting it 50% of the time because of Baral.

The card wasn't unbeatable, and there were lots of ways around it. Even people who purchased the card had to play against the card, and there are numerous answers available to break the chain.  I play in platinum and saw it often enough and didn't care.

My main gripe with the change is in the very same patch they are implementing a system which would solve the main issue have with the design of the card, and that is PVP battles.  With them implementing an event deck requirement list, this gives them the opportunity to BAN Baral from being playable in PVP events.   I don't think anybody who purchased Baral would have had an issue with that, most use him like I do and that is to conquer certain PVE and/or story mode objectives.

If people lament they want a refund, it should be given.  I would not have purchased him as he will be changed.  Many others would not have as well.   I think this would have been sound logic to fix the problem the less skilled players, or the free to play players, or the players who just couldn't afford to purchase or chose to purchase the card had with the card.  Was it powerful?  Yes, it should be to get my $30.  But I would still buy Dynavolt Tower, I would have bought Deploy the Gatewatch, and many other cards I don't have yet which would improve my decks. I honestly think Deploy should be nerfed, (yes, I have pulled 3 copies).   But when you nerf something in the same patch you create the solution...it is frustrating.

So if Brigby, Hiberium or anybody else reasonable who can see this, maybe they can look at PVP bannings in the future with the new deck registration for event system instead of violent nerfing.   Even in paper MTG sets and cards are designed with different play styles and types of magic games in mind, there is no reason to think we will see formats where older players will be forced to use newer cards for events and not crush openents souls with their "old school" cards new players haven't had the chance to aquire yet.    If I was going to make a PVP ban list it would start: Baral, Season's Past, GaH, Deploy, etc....   I think it would create better balance in the game for everybody and still allow players to use the cards in PVE and have fun with them.

---Gamer X (Lord of the UndeadHeads)

hawkyh1

'With them implementing an event deck requirement list, this gives them the opportunity to BAN Baral from being playable in PVP events.'

I have just sold you a card. now I'm banning it's use.
(that's going to go down well)

I don't think banning will work

HH

Mainloop25

It's hard to have them not sell OP cards when the player base keeps telling them they will only buy cards if they are OP. 

madwren

Mainloop25 said:

It's hard to have them not sell OP cards when the player base keeps telling them they will only buy cards if they are OP. 

This isn't completely accurate, though.

In the past, many have indicated they'd be glad to pay lower prices for mythics and rares of a lesser power level.  When they're asking $30-40 for a card, though, then yes, people will--SHOULD--only pay for power.

But offer me Anguished Unmaking for $5, then I'd be all over it.

Matthew

madwren said:

Mainloop25 said:

It's hard to have them not sell OP cards when the player base keeps telling them they will only buy cards if they are OP. 

This isn't completely accurate, though.

In the past, many have indicated they'd be glad to pay lower prices for mythics and rares of a lesser power level.  When they're asking $30-40 for a card, though, then yes, people will--SHOULD--only pay for power.

But offer me Anguished Unmaking for $5, then I'd be all over it.

Madwren's last statement is so true. There are at least a dozen rare cards that I would have a hard time refusing if they were up for sale at $5 a pop.

Mainloop25

I would also love to see more of those $4 card bundles. If they are cards I want, I can buy those a lot more often and not feel like I'm being ripped off. 

Whammaster

It's hard to justify if this was the correct coarse or not. Given the ease of a 10min loop, it was breaking game state for a lot of players (New and old) to the point were it was an auto quit just to save time.

That does not make the game fun for anyone besides the players who p2w. To justify a refund that means in the time spent with the card prior to the fix you feel that the benefits you gained from the purchase did not equal the cost you paid for the card. From my understanding a lot of players who purchased the card made Qb' s a living hell, and completed most of the PvE simpler ( not to the point of auto win though ).

People even started to complain that decks they were facing had a lot of removal or board control. Baral was changing the meta of the game, something that didn't happen as fast as when the other paid cards entered the market. Yes Olivia, pig, ect influenced the meta, but not to the factor that baral did. 

A good example is when wizards banned coptor from standard, prior to the ban it was an easy $20 rare that dominated standard play. They banned it because it was slowly warping meta. One card should never hold that much power. Where people upset? Hell yes! Some dumped $60+ for a set, but on the same coin a lot of those players where winning fnm and tourneys recouping the cost easily. The card is still used in some decks and is played in casual as a power house in thining your deck.

TLDR: people need to evaluate the benefits the gained from the short time they had OP baral and the future benefits of the card before demanding a refund. Did those benefits = $30? ( not to mention the added the runes and crystals or w/e was included)

GamerX

hawkyh1 said:

'With them implementing an event deck requirement list, this gives them the opportunity to BAN Baral from being playable in PVP events.'

I have just sold you a card. now I'm banning it's use.
(that's going to go down well)

I don't think banning will work

HH

Missing the point entirely.  He would still be usable in PVE...  which is where most people use him.  most people don't like sitting there running the combo all day long either, but it has its purpose.  Limiting the use makes me less upset as a customer to PVE vs cutting its "barals" off and now it can't due what I purchased it to do any longer are completely different.

GamerX

Whammaster said:

A good example is when wizards banned coptor from standard, prior to the ban it was an easy $20 rare that dominated standard play. They banned it because it was slowly warping meta. One card should never hold that much power. Where people upset? Hell yes! Some dumped $60+ for a set, but on the same coin a lot of those players where winning fnm and tourneys recouping the cost easily. The card is still used in some decks and is played in casual as a power house in thining your deck.

TLDR: people need to evaluate the benefits the gained from the short time they had OP baral and the future benefits of the card before demanding a refund. Did those benefits = $30? ( not to mention the added the runes and crystals or w/e was included)

Right, but Coptor is still legal in other formats and styles of play.  So limmiting Baral as is to only PVE events doesn't destroy the cards usefulness and allows it to remain as is and people get what they paid for.

Ohboy

GamerX said:

hawkyh1 said:

'With them implementing an event deck requirement list, this gives them the opportunity to BAN Baral from being playable in PVP events.'

I have just sold you a card. now I'm banning it's use.
(that's going to go down well)

I don't think banning will work

HH

Missing the point entirely.  He would still be usable in PVE...  which is where most people use him.  most people don't like sitting there running the combo all day long either, but it has its purpose.  Limiting the use makes me less upset as a customer to PVE vs cutting its "barals" off and now it can't due what I purchased it to do any longer are completely different.

I assure you baral sees more than his fair share of pvp play. 

GamerX

Ohboy said:

GamerX said:

hawkyh1 said:

'With them implementing an event deck requirement list, this gives them the opportunity to BAN Baral from being playable in PVP events.'

I have just sold you a card. now I'm banning it's use.
(that's going to go down well)

I don't think banning will work

HH

Missing the point entirely.  He would still be usable in PVE...  which is where most people use him.  most people don't like sitting there running the combo all day long either, but it has its purpose.  Limiting the use makes me less upset as a customer to PVE vs cutting its "barals" off and now it can't due what I purchased it to do any longer are completely different.

I assure you baral sees more than his fair share of pvp play. 

I only have him in the two decks I use for pve... which means they are pretty easy to beat... but I've only heard of people playing it from time to time in platinum NoP....   I've played 100's of QB's and never seen a baral deck.  I see a blue PW previewed in my NoP battle  I sideboard accordingly... everybody has that option.

hawkyh1

GamerX said:

hawkyh1 said:

'With them implementing an event deck requirement list, this gives them the opportunity to BAN Baral from being playable in PVP events.'

I have just sold you a card. now I'm banning it's use.
(that's going to go down well)

I don't think banning will work

HH

Missing the point entirely.  He would still be usable in PVE...  which is where most people use him.  most people don't like sitting there running the combo all day long either, but it has its purpose.  Limiting the use makes me less upset as a customer to PVE vs cutting its "barals" off and now it can't due what I purchased it to do any longer are completely different.

it's exactly the point. as a business how is it
possible to argue against a refund on those
grounds(if proven to be true).

' I see a blue PW previewed in my NoP battle  I sideboard accordingly... everybody has that option.'

if you bump into baral, then just don't play.
(an elegant solution?)

do you think that the card is broken?

HH

Mainloop25

GamerX said

Ohboy said:

GamerX said:

hawkyh1 said:

'With them implementing an event deck requirement list, this gives them the opportunity to BAN Baral from being playable in PVP events.'

I have just sold you a card. now I'm banning it's use.
(that's going to go down well)

I don't think banning will work

HH

Missing the point entirely.  He would still be usable in PVE...  which is where most people use him.  most people don't like sitting there running the combo all day long either, but it has its purpose.  Limiting the use makes me less upset as a customer to PVE vs cutting its "barals" off and now it can't due what I purchased it to do any longer are completely different.

I assure you baral sees more than his fair share of pvp play. 

I only have him in the two decks I use for pve... which means they are pretty easy to beat... but I've only heard of people playing it from time to time in platinum NoP....   I've played 100's of QB's and never seen a baral deck.  I see a blue PW previewed in my NoP battle  I sideboard accordingly... everybody has that option.

I see Baral decks aplenty in PVP. You won't see baral in qb decks that often because a baral deck isn't as fast as a Nahiri or koth deck.