Fixing broken cards? Yea, nay. meh?

Gunmix25

@shteev gets partial credit for this poll for the inspiration. That said:

There has been many a discussion about various broken cards that led to increasing the ongoing power creep. Whether by design or by poor testing many of these cards are still in the playing field.

so...this begs the question, should Oktagon go back and "fix" broken cards?

Feel free to add what cards you believe them to be, if any, in your response.

Hopefully this will give a decent discussion

wickedwitch74

For the sake of game balance, I would like to see certain cards have their power toned down without neutering them to the point of making the card worthless. Baral is a good measuring stick. His original design debased the game, demanding a fix, but he is still a great card after his redesign, and I have decks that, while powerful, are not completely broken.

I'm sure someone has a list of the usual suspects, so I won't name names.

This would also add more variety to many events. We wouldn't see the same cards over and over.

On the flip side, I wouldn't mind seeing some cards powered up. Maybe reducing the casting cost of something like Duskwatch Recruiter, or adding a couple of power to the Elder Deepfiend, makes them more viable cards.

Also on the table should be adjusting Planeswalkers. I know there is a movement to upgrade the original five, but other walkers could use a redesign, either a toning down (Koth) or a providing them a power boost (Chandra II).

Mburn7

yes and no, Maybe two, three or five cards but leave the rest alone.

The biggest issue with this is that most of the incredibly broken cards were/are exclusives.  That means that people paid a significant amount of real money for them.  As the Baral fiasco showed, people get very defensive about the cards they spent real money on (which I totally understand). 
The best solution is to leave them locked away in Legacy where they can't do too much damage and then do a better job designing future cards, but that's pretty hard too

wickedwitch74

Mburn7 said:

The biggest issue with this is that most of the incredibly broken cards were/are exclusives.  That means that people paid a significant amount of real money for them.  As the Baral fiasco showed, people get very defensive about the cards they spent real money on (which I totally understand). 

I paid real money for Baral, and his dirty deeds helped me finally conquer Platinum, which I had been having trouble with before. 

That said, I knew that he was debased and that he needed to be fixed for the good of the game. The designers did so in a considerate way, allowing him to continue being the lynchpin for spell decks, while fixing the problem of being matched against him.

If this approach is taken, I think purchasers of those cards would be understanding, while continuing to get enjoyment out of them. There really are only a few (Pig, Olivia, etc...), and players have already gotten great mileage out of them.

I think there can be better balance down the rarity spectrum as well. For example, we would all benefit from New Perspectives getting a tweak.

While doing this, the designers could also give some unloved cards a boost. Dropping Dipala and Kambral's mana costs would make them interesting alternatives, rather then punchlines.
 

majincob

Meh .... Don't care. It's MTGPQ... ya win some and you lose some. A change will just give it some short-lived freshness but that's about it.

They already broke my spirit when they did the very first rounds of nerfing and my big blue deck was no longer supreme.

RIP meddler, you are still missed.

TheDragonHermit

YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format

But only actually broken ones. There are a lot of powerful cards out there that I wouldn't consider broken. And this needs to include cards that are unplayable because they are useless. I am looking at you Solemnity.

Kinesia

YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format

I would much rather the the worst cards that are NEVER EVER used (which they actualy have statistics for) be boosted to a normal level.
This would be far far better for the game than just a few nerfs, it might even give more tools for dealing with the upper broken cards.
_All_ cards should be usable in the right situations. Costing changes can fix a very large amount of them without other changes.

ElvaanStride

Meh .... Don't care. It's MTGPQ... ya win some and you lose some. A change will just give it some short-lived freshness but that's about it.

With how much the AI cheats, you absolutely need "broken" cards just to have a chance outside of luck.

New players might as just roll the dice instead of play a match, but we'd actually win more so that's out of the question...

Kinesia

YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format

Kinesia said:

I would much rather the the worst cards that are NEVER EVER used (which they actualy have statistics for) be boosted to a normal level.
This would be far far better for the game than just a few nerfs, it might even give more tools for dealing with the upper broken cards.
_All_ cards should be usable in the right situations. Costing changes can fix a very large amount of them without other changes.

Actually... It's far far more important that all the commons and uncommons are absolutely usable. The most people have them and they are the _main_ thing beginners have.
Making commons and uncommons balanced and usable is important to giving beginners options.

octal9

ElvaanStrider said:

With how much the AI cheats

Lol. No. 

Sirchombli

Ai doth not cheat. Humans get cascades, too. Sometimes it feels like the ai cheats, but that isn't actually the case. There aren't many completely offensive cards. Not really sure why waterveil has 10 shield or why rishkars ex only costs 5. Most of the "broken" cards aren't really that oppressive. Ulrich is probably a touch busted. Cards like Olivia and pig are annoying, but they're not super broken so much as stupid good. I'm pretty much anti nerf. I had to figure out how to succeed through a pool of super strong mythics that I didn't have. Still don't have most of them. I feel like nerfing cards is spitting in the faces of the people who choose to spend money on the game. F2p is a choice, after all 

shteev

Sirchombli said:

I feel like nerfing cards is spitting in the faces of the people who choose to spend money on the game. F2p is a choice, after all 

True, but I feel like in that case, D3 should make it explicitly clear that F2P players are choosing to lose.

Ohboy

YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format

Sirchombli said:

I feel like nerfing cards is spitting in the faces of the people who choose to spend money on the game. F2p is a choice, after all 

I've touched on the concept in another thread recently, but this is a short sighted approach.

Yes, the immediate people who benefit from a more balanced game are f2p players. But a rising tide raises all boats here. Your powerful cards are only as powerful as the game is engaging and fun.

And making the game more engaging and fun requires a healthy player base. Improving the game works towards that. By improving the game and getting more players to pick it up, you get more chances to use those fun cards you purchased.

And that's just the player aspect. Pulling cards back from the broken category allow new cards to be designed without the pressure to outdo those cards. We get better designed cards because the limitation is removed. 

Mainloop25

YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format

True, but I feel like in that case, D3 should make it explicitly clear that F2P players are choosing to lose. 

And effectively commit the game's suicide. 

shteev

Mainloop25 said:

True, but I feel like in that case, D3 should make it explicitly clear that F2P players are choosing to lose. 

And effectively commit the game's suicide. 

Mmhmm. A pay to win game has much less broad appeal than one which features balanced gameplay.

Kinesia

YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format

Paper magic initially tried balancing through rarity. Eventually they realised their mistake, they dialed back power creep and tried to make everything balanced for the mana, rare/mythics became more interesting and gave more choices but they weren't more powerful by -cost- automatically.

A number of people have said over and over that MtGPQ is just like paper was before this point. It _needs_ to learn these listens and there are many many articles directly from Wizard developers outlining all the thoughts and pitfalls, you can just research it.
Many of us complaining are frustrated because we actually already know all this because we went through it in paper. We want things _short-cutted_ because the solutions are documented. We don't _need_ the trial and error because it's been done, we can jump ahead to the solutions. 

Hibernum did not read any of the Magic design articles. They did not understand the reasons. They grabbed for short term money, but Magic is a _long_ term project, this is money for the company for the next ten or twenty years and if they focus on that rather than short term grabs they will get _more_ money in the long run.

Short term thinking will just sink us all.

blacklotus

Kinesia said:

Paper magic initially tried balancing through rarity. Eventually they realised their mistake, they dialed back power creep and tried to make everything balanced for the mana, rare/mythics became more interesting and gave more choices but they weren't more powerful by -cost- automatically.

A number of people have said over and over that MtGPQ is just like paper was before this point. It _needs_ to learn these listens and there are many many articles directly from Wizard developers outlining all the thoughts and pitfalls, you can just research it.
Many of us complaining are frustrated because we actually already know all this because we went through it in paper. We want things _short-cutted_ because the solutions are documented. We don't _need_ the trial and error because it's been done, we can jump ahead to the solutions. 

Hibernum did not read any of the Magic design articles. They did not understand the reasons. They grabbed for short term money, but Magic is a _long_ term project, this is money for the company for the next ten or twenty years and if they focus on that rather than short term grabs they will get _more_ money in the long run.

Short term thinking will just sink us all.

Well, Hibernum got its comeuppance; it went banrupt. Who says Karma doesn't exist?

Like you said, any good digital mtg developer could have learnt from wotc's past mtg mistakes, instead of repeating the same mistakes again in the digital format. 

Having said that, if mtgpq was only a solo player game, having broken op cards won't be an issue. I did enjoy the broken timewalks/timevaults/timetwister/ivory towers decks i used in microprose's duels of the planeswalkers pc mtg game. 

morgue427

NO!!!, Legacy is legacy... it is what it is. I PAID/EARNED that card so don't you dare! If you can't handle the heat then get outta the kitchen, bub (bubette).

i hate deploy the gate watch, fix it? nah got a few that use it i take a few beats live with it get on with my life and so hard to pull randomly now why bother, baral on the other hand was one that needed the fix it got it and honestly i think it works well nerfed before it was just a spoiler chore to play, so if more come out that break things as baral did fix but i say just not worth the effort to fix the old ones

Gormhaus

yes and no, Maybe two, three or five cards but leave the rest alone.

Fix broken mechanics? YES. "Fix" like they fixed Beral? NO!

wereotter

YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format

I refuse to play legacy events specifically because of the broken cards running rampant all over that format. Being able to access content shouldn't be gated behind being a long-time player.

Considering they've already dialed back the power creap, if they don't also rebalance old cards, new players will have a hard time ever playing those events, and eventually they'll become stale, underpopulated, and die.

UweTellkampf

YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format

@wereotter the recent few legacy events I was surprised to see a really small number of "broken cards". Maybe I just got lucky, but the people seem to be focussing on the objectives and not really putting Olivia in every deck. And even if there was one, there are so many answers to the threats these cards are producing, so that for me it's even more fun beating a seemingly OP deck, than beating a helpless cycling N3 build and the AI that keeps casting drake haven.

Nevertheless, I voted yes. I believe that the game would profit in variance (deck building possibilities, encountering new cards) if there was a larger "midfield" of cards, meaning a broader inventory of spells, creatures and support, that have interesting effects and are not too overpriced in terms of mana costs. This would mean that on the other end some existing cards of the "broken" feel should become more expensive to cast (depending on their rarity). New Perspectives for example should cost four times as much as it costs now (or give less mana to cycling cards), since it just creates a huge winning predisposition. Others, that seem cool but are way too expensive, could be reduced in their costs slightly in order to make them more interesting.