The Art of Balance

babar3355

With Oktagon taking the helm we have seen some dramatic improvements to the game and a clear pivot in stance around the conductibility of the cards. I am really excited about the new direction of the game and wanted to take a moment to lay out a case for how the developers could (should) approach card balance.  The last thing we want is a few dominant strategies making up the entirety of the meta-game for end game players.

The current state of the game is that the cards have fixed stats and functionality and only extremely overpowered cards end up getting adjusted (nerfed).  But why should this be the case going forward?  Unlike paper MTG, D3/Oktagon can access card usage statistics and use this information to constantly make small tweaks to the card pool in order to create a continually shifting meta that always encourages new ideas and different deck construction.  Consider other successful games like WoW or DOTA. They frequently make tweaks to abilities, stat gains, etc which causes the game to constantly evolve and have a different look and feel.

Rather than engaging in debates over whether Omniscience deserves a nerf the community would have a clear expectation that all cards will be constantly monitored and slightly adjusted in order to have a fresh and challenging game-state.  It is one thing for the company to sell Baral and then nerf him as the only nerfed card in 2017.  It is a different thing if your expectation is that the card will be similar in design but will be tweaked up or down based on realized strength in the meta-game.  You could argue that people might not want to purchase such a fluctuating card, but look at it form the other perspective.  Might you have bought Depala, Mirrorwing Dragon, Terretorial Gorger, etc if you knew they would likely get buffed in the future?

Some might see this being a very time consuming task, but I suspect you could use machine learning or even a basic algorithm to make suggested tweaks to the card pool.

Let me know your thoughts!  

TheF3C3SK1ng

Nice post, and I totally agree.

A few things.

1. Are you telling me Mirrorwing was actually WORSE than it is now? I didn't get it until way late, so I guess I missed the pre-buff version.

2. Baral was not 'nerfed' just FIXED. If one card plus a bunch of dumb uncommons and commons is enough to make a deck go full on looping for 20+ minutes then that card is broken, not overpowered. IF, on the other hand, that dumb card had required multiple rares and another mythic to go full on loop mode, then yes, it should have been left alone. As it was, it was just stupid, and poorly thought out. (sorry to bring this up, but so many people are sore about buying a broken card, but I mean, it was broken, not powerful

3. I am really curious whats going to happen over the next few months, as the people who have amassed NEARLY every amazing card, are going to just add to their already ridiculous collections. Your solution may be the only way to keep the game from turning into a frustrating nightmare.

4. I play A LOT, and grind A LOT, and am still missing so many of the amazing cards these super power decks use to get 100% on every event, and I still enjoy the game. Also, what is the secret to pulling MPs? I have been playing for two years, and have opened something like 4 million packs, still zero

Emanon2000

4. I play A LOT, and grind A LOT, and am still missing so many of the amazing cards these super power decks use to get 100% on every event, and I still enjoy the game. Also, what is the secret to pulling MPs? I have been playing for two years, and have opened something like 4 million packs, still zero

Heh... Dittos...
I can't even pull them using the pinks... I get a Mythic ... every.... time.

andrewvanmarle

babar3355 said:

With Oktagon taking the helm we have seen some dramatic improvements to the game and a clear pivot in stance around the conductibility of the cards. I am really excited about the new direction of the game and wanted to take a moment to lay out a case for how the developers could (should) approach card balance.  The last thing we want is a few dominant strategies making up the entirety of the meta-game for end game players.

The current state of the game is that the cards have fixed stats and functionality and only extremely overpowered cards end up getting adjusted (nerfed).  But why should this be the case going forward?  Unlike paper MTG, D3/Oktagon can access card usage statistics and use this information to constantly make small tweaks to the card pool in order to create a continually shifting meta that always encourages new ideas and different deck construction.  Consider other successful games like WoW or DOTA. They frequently make tweaks to abilities, stat gains, etc which causes the game to constantly evolve and have a different look and feel.

Rather than engaging in debates over whether Omniscience deserves a nerf the community would have a clear expectation that all cards will be constantly monitored and slightly adjusted in order to have a fresh and challenging game-state.  It is one thing for the company to sell Baral and then nerf him as the only nerfed card in 2017.  It is a different thing if your expectation is that the card will be similar in design but will be tweaked up or down based on realized strength in the meta-game.  You could argue that people might not want to purchase such a fluctuating card, but look at it form the other perspective.  Might you have bought Depala, Mirrorwing Dragon, Terretorial Gorger, etc if you knew they would likely get buffed in the future?

Some might see this being a very time consuming task, but I suspect you could use machine learning or even a basic algorithm to make suggested tweaks to the card pool.

Let me know your thoughts!  

Oh please no!!

and I mean this in the nicest way possible, babar, but that is a really really bad idea.

sure tweaking cards that have unexpected consequences  on the meta can be tweaked (as little as possible though) but we should have a constantly shifting meta where every time something new is intro duced you get this loooong list of cards that get this or that tweaked.

You see it with other games (like faeria recently) where the devs think a card is played too much and so they chop off it's'head.  an example in this game could be shrine, drownyard and my face piramid of pantheon. Those cards end up in 80% of my decks, but is that a reason to tweak m?


Balancing is a slippery slope, and i think the devs should tread very very carefully, both in the number of tweaks and the severity of them.

your idea opens the door to a bunch of tweaks each month (or something similar)

I think the brunt on the work should be before the cards are released, and post release balancing should only be done to plug holes.

TheDragonHermit

I am all for avoiding a dominant strategy, but the issue with constantly tweaking cards is that players may not be able to keep up with the changes. A strategy that once worked could suddenly slip out from under a player. There would need to be done comprehensive changelogs to go with them.

babar3355

TheF3C3SK1ng said:

Nice post, and I totally agree.

A few things.

1. Are you telling me Mirrorwing was actually WORSE than it is now? I didn't get it until way late, so I guess I missed the pre-buff version.

2. Baral was not 'nerfed' just FIXED. If one card plus a bunch of dumb uncommons and commons is enough to make a deck go full on looping for 20+ minutes then that card is broken, not overpowered. IF, on the other hand, that dumb card had required multiple rares and another mythic to go full on loop mode, then yes, it should have been left alone. As it was, it was just stupid, and poorly thought out. (sorry to bring this up, but so many people are sore about buying a broken card, but I mean, it was broken, not powerful

3. I am really curious whats going to happen over the next few months, as the people who have amassed NEARLY every amazing card, are going to just add to their already ridiculous collections. Your solution may be the only way to keep the game from turning into a frustrating nightmare.

4. I play A LOT, and grind A LOT, and am still missing so many of the amazing cards these super power decks use to get 100% on every event, and I still enjoy the game. Also, what is the secret to pulling MPs? I have been playing for two years, and have opened something like 4 million packs, still zero

1. No, I am saying Mirrorwing is one of many cards that very few bought but they might have if they expected a future buff.
2. It's true that he was broken but the community was SCREAMING he was broken before they even released him.  You didnt need to test him out to know how badly he could have been abused.  Yet they still sold him in his broken form and later nerfed him.  That's just not appropriate behavior.
3. This is the reason you need balance.
4. Luck luck and more luck

andrewvanmarle said:

Oh please no!!

and I mean this in the nicest way possible, babar, but that is a really really bad idea.

sure tweaking cards that have unexpected consequences  on the meta can be tweaked (as little as possible though) but we should have a constantly shifting meta where every time something new is intro duced you get this loooong list of cards that get this or that tweaked.

You see it with other games (like faeria recently) where the devs think a card is played too much and so they chop off it's'head.  an example in this game could be shrine, drownyard and my face piramid of pantheon. Those cards end up in 80% of my decks, but is that a reason to tweak m?


Balancing is a slippery slope, and i think the devs should tread very very carefully, both in the number of tweaks and the severity of them.

your idea opens the door to a bunch of tweaks each month (or something similar)

I think the brunt on the work should be before the cards are released, and post release balancing should only be done to plug holes.

Ok, so maybe as many tweeks as my post implied would be a large scale headache.  And maybe the primary focus is on tweaking the rares and mythics rather than every single card in the game. And perhaps they only make adjustments on a quarterly basis.  But I still absolutely think it is necessary to avoid using the same 7 cards in every possible deck.  

So if you have a preference for Shrine because you like the guaranteed mana, that doesn't necessarily mean that the community as a whole will be using Shrine as their primary mana fixer.  But if a card is so strong that it shows up in 80% of decks for people who own it across the community, that's a clue that the card is overpowered.  If one shows up in less than 1% that is also a clue that its broken on the weak side.

And I am not saying make massive changes.  But perhaps changing the mana cost of shrine from 5 to 6 would cause people to reassess the other options available.

I played DotA for a really long time and the constantly adjustments of characters and accessories was one of the best parts.  A creature would totally disappear from the game for months, would get a buff and then would be one of the dominant options for a while.  How is that anything other than keeping the game fresh and interesting?

andrewvanmarle

No that is exactly what i mean, if shrine is a dominant manafixer, that doesnt mean that it is overpowered, it means that it is the best option out there. Changing cards like that even on a quarterly basis is arbitrary and has less to do with balanve than with fixing things for the sake of fixing things.

Keeping this game fresh (contrary to dota) is done by regular new content in the form of new sets. 

As i meant to say before, fixing cards should be at a bare minimum, only to reign in cards that were released broken. 

The day that we get long changelogs with all sorts of changes to cards because they are played too much, thats the day ill immediatly uninstall. 

andrewvanmarle

grovercleveland said:

andrewvanmarle said:

No that is exactly what i mean, if shrine is a dominant manafixer, that doesnt mean that it is overpowered, it means that it is the best option out there.

Isn't it a bit dull having a best option out there that you always use? I like it when there are 4 or 5 best options out there and I pick the one which is appropriate for the deck I'm building at the time. That's not to say that a grand effort should be made to have all mana accelerators be on exactly the same power level, just that a flatter power level across the cards makes everyone's life more fun. Cards like Sunscorched Desert are a waste of everyone's time.

It would be if we didn't get a set of new cards every so often and we ddnt have the legacy standard system.

Tweaking cards to simulate content is a lazy and cheap option. I'd'rather have a new set.

It's a fixed given that  in CCG's cards aren't all of the same power/desirability. it'd make the game ultimatly boring to attempt to  get all cards on the same level.   A certain amount of difference makes the game interesting, too much will make the game boring again.  We do need less interesting cards to make the game as a whole more interesting.
There are a few cards  that are patently useless like Aven Mind censor and Compelling argument that could do with a reevaluation, but most cards are good as they are.

please no "regular "tweaking to shake things up", new content shakes things up.

babar3355

andrewvanmarle said:

It would be if we didn't get a set of new cards every so often and we ddnt have the legacy standard system.

Tweaking cards to simulate content is a lazy and cheap option. I'd'rather have a new set.

It's a fixed given that  in CCG's cards aren't all of the same power/desirability. it'd make the game ultimatly boring to attempt to  get all cards on the same level.   A certain amount of difference makes the game interesting, too much will make the game boring again.  We do need less interesting cards to make the game as a whole more interesting.
There are a few cards  that are patently useless like Aven Mind censor and Compelling argument that could do with a reevaluation, but most cards are good as they are.

please no "regular "tweaking to shake things up", new content shakes things up.

I think its fine that we disagree, but I stand by my original post.  Cards like pull from tomorrow, new perspectives, and shefnet monitor are going to be in virtually every G or U deck for the next year.  How is that positive for the game?  Or should the developers just create even more broken cards to encourage players to change up their decks?

I think it is a really short-sighted approach to not seek to balance cards that are clearly dominating the meta game and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

ZW2007-

I do think a lot cards need to be rebalanced. That doesn't have to mean making the cards that are currently good worse. They could look at some of the underused or niche/junk rares and mythics and reduce their costs or tweak their abilities to make them playable.

Angel of Condemnation - Remove vigilance and you have a slightly expensive 6/6 flyer that can keep removing creatures until dealt with. Currently it just dies. I would play this rebalanced card.

Apocalypse Demon - Drop its cost to about 10, then it would probably see play.

As Foretold - Make it more like its paper version and have it give mana equal to its number of shields and it gains a shield each turn. This concept was already used for Pyramid of the Pantheon which also isn't much like its paper version.

Champion of Rhonas - Drop its cost to around 10. 19 mana for a 3/3 is not worth it. At exert 3 its not like he spits out free creatures each turn either.

Djeru, with Eyes Open - Same treatment as the angel above, without vigilance you have a very good card. A card people would have actually paid cash for. I would love to have this card if it didn't have vigilance.

Just an example of some of the mythics from the two most recent sets. There are plenty more that need to be made better. Paper magic is played in so many different formats that it's okay to have junk rares and mythics because they aren't always junk in all formats. PQ magic should not have junk rares and mythics.

I also look forward to new content shaking things up, as long as it's done by bringing us new ideas and not just more powerful, old ideas. Cards that actually do things differently than all the cards we already have. I don't want a new Shrine of the Forsaken gods that just gives 4 mana at the start of my turn. Pyramid of the Pantheon is a pretty good example of what shouldn't be done.

We could also use creative new cards at all rarities, not tucked away at mythic. For example, Lightning Runner is a powerful mythic with the unique ability of overload effecting all your creatures.Why not make an uncommon with a similar effect? Say overload 1, all your creatures get +2/+2 until end of turn. Maybe not the greatest example but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Froggy

I’m all for card balancing. I think your review and description is spot on. Making constant adjustments would help keep players engaged and active in working out new deck strategies, etc. Though when I am short for time it can be a hassle. Oh well... But I agree with not just going on a nerf trip for the frequently complained about cards that might (or might not) be way too OP.

Some players in my group work out absolutely killer decks with the most ridiculous cards that you’d never think were any good - unless you took the time to read each card and see how they play together.

But general re-balance of cards will never hurt a game - IF IT IS DONE RIGHT AND IS NOT AN OVERKILL!

Mainloop25

@ZW2007- thanks for your post, I have been planning on making a How Would You Fix It thread, that is very similar to your post.  I'll do that soon. 

andrewvanmarle

I think it is a really short-sighted approach to not seek to balance cards that are clearly dominating the meta game and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

There is nothing wrong with cards that find a place in many a deck : nissa's pilgrimage was in litetally every green deck when we only had origins and is still found in a lot of green/mixed decks does it mean its a bad card? Overpowered? Reason to nerf? No... 
Same goes for  a lot of other cards. 

Shaking up the game by messing with cards is just a bad thing. It doesnt make it interesting, its just annoying. 

Cards that are broken in the overpowered or not functional manner can be looked at. But the measuring rod should never be if a card is played a lot or very little. 

Shaking up is not balancing, its a substitute for actual content. 

Thuran

I think the solution is not to make regular nerfs that screw people over, and give bad experiences on a regular basis.

Frankly I think the key lies in the difference between the power of rarities.

While I'm not advocating they be equal, commons and uncommons should at least be playable, to help encourage variation, akin to how some commons and uncommons are great in limited, even if bad in constructed.

The best way to do this in my opinion? Base stats and unique effects. 

A 2/2 grizzly bear for 2 in paper is not exciting, but it is decent and solid. That is what Commons should do: set out the baseline. A vanilla 3/3 for 5 in mtgpq is not great, but also not too embarrassing. Uncommon could be a 3/3 first strike for 5, a rare 3/3 first strike and trample for 4 at rare, then at mythic comes in the 4/4 for 4 with a nice effect on top. 

The other side, the unique effects, is also an easy one, make commons and uncommon with rates below the curve, but effects you cannot get elsewhere, such as a 10 mana 4/4 with "when a creature you control deals damage to a player, energize 1". Not too powerful, but strange enough to be worth playing around with.

Common should set the baseline (bears), uncommon the staple (terminate), rare the great (shefet monitor, aethersphere harvester, pull from beyond, doomfall), and mythic the strange and awesome (imminent doom, vizier of the menagerie, lightning runner, unleash the menagerie)

Kinesia

I don't think I want _constantly_ shifting sands but I do want at least one _major_ pass at rebalancing.
My focus remains, however, not on the mythics etc but on the commons, uncommons. There are WAY too many that you don't consider using on a brand new alt because they aren't even equal to the starter decks you have...

_That_ is the biggest thing that needs fixing. _But_ in the process of fixing this you can work out better general policies for pricing things in the future and you can set it up so things will be less messed up going forwards too.

Like in paper magic, there is a _rough_ price of 1 red mana to do 2 damage to any target. This moves slightly from set to set but you'd never see 1 red mana to do 4 damage without restriction (it's capped at 3) and you'd never see it totally reversed "3 red mana to do 1 damage". Guidelines help.

We don't currently have any guidelines. Compare the supports that generate mana or change gems...
Compare Manalith to:
Hedron Archive - You get a potential draw 2 cards for 12 mana. probably not worth it.
Sunscorched Desert - 12 mana for 3 colorless damage to opponent where Ramunap Ruins does more for 5 mana.
There _aren't_ guidelines for what things cost at the moment, it seems to be completely on a whim.

But look at the above... If you change Sunscorched Desert to cost 10 it might see play in some situations, still not many, but it would become an option.

babar3355

I am really surprised that people disagree with this point.  What is fun about having Gaea's Revenge be the strongest creature in the game for 2 years?  Why is it fun to have Deploy the Gatewatch in every legacy white deck I have built since the day I got the card?  What is fun about having 50% of my mythics never being played in a single deck?

Of course we attempt to do a broad based rebalance like @Kinesia described, but we know it won't be perfect.  Why just establish the new and permanent system and never make another adjustment.

I also don't see how regular balancing "screws people over".  Will I love that my deploy gets nerfed?  No, of course not.  But I see the reason for it and will be excited that my Worldbreaker or Depala got a bit of a buff. 

I just really don't understand why you think it would make the game worse by not having a few dominant pieces in virtually every deck for the rest of the games life.  And similarly, bad cards will always just be bad from now on.

Marvaddin

Card games like paper MTG always have trash common cards that do nothing but fills space in the boosters you buy. Playing it several years ago, I remember the Mirrodin block had a 3/3 creature for 3+B, and it couldn't block, when 3+B for a vanilla 3/3 was already the (poor) option at the base edition. What's the point in this card?

Here, same thing. There are tons cards (mostly commons, but we have bad cards of all rarities) a player will never use, if not in the very beginning of his career, or to fill the card dominance bar (I did it a lot, getting 10 useless cards each time to fight the 1st opponent of history).

That said, I feel it's impossible to keep an eye on each card to improve them all and make them playable. Let some trash cards be, although we have way more than we should, I guess.

The other side, OP cards. Paper MTG had enough variety to deal with all OP cards, except for some that were banned / restricted in some events. Here, if the gameplay is becomming really BROKEN, then I would be up for nerfing some, but this should be an exception. And I don't feel it's the case nowadays.

In fact, you should take into consideration that MTGPQ is a solo game. You face people decks, but you play the AI, which is not that great and will fail, letting you defeat decks that are way more powerful than yours most times. To me, this even adds fun to the game. What would make me really angry is that if I hard work to get my powerful
deck, just to get it nerfed. Will the AIs I'm beating smile about this?

I used to play a little game, Elements the game, which the dev used to do buffs and nerfs like you suggested. It had PvP and PvE, and changes were directed due to PvP, but always hitting my decks I was playing PvE. Man, that was disgusting. My feelings was that the dev was protecting the Fake Gods (most powerful enemies we had in PvE). Every time a deck reached win rate around 50-60% against them, a NERF in its main cards was in the way. Very very VERY annoying.

I'm against dominant strategies too, but how about do it like paper MTG? Something got too powerful? Add cards that counter it next expansion. Unless it's broken, like said.

Maybe I will change my mind after the booster craft thing (let´s see its affect after some months), but to me the gameplay is currently ok, and not everything is to be played anyway.

Marvaddin

I have seen that thread before, and like said, tons of useless cards, all rarities. I won't really check the cards, because I play the Portuguese version, and looking for them by English name would be, huh, painful.

Man, Elements is a very good idea, which could be much expanded. And it fulfills the dreams of some Magic players... decks of 30 cards with up 6 copies of the same card? Wow! The community is also great, with some really devoted players. The worst part is the dev, who wants the game as a piece in his portfolio and stopped the development, when the game has a lot of potential, even to make money.

If you loved it, you may check OpenEtG, which is made by fans and afaik is still being developed, and the trainer, which allow you to "cheat", to test your strategies before upgrading cards. (Can I post the links here?)

James13

I'm surprised to see As Foretold mentioned as needing anything.

It's an awesome card in the right builds.  So what if it's not universally useful in every deck concept?  I'll keep my 25 mana for free every turn niche builds quite happily.

Szamsziel

25 supports on board? Even if just servos with +25 you do need mana anymore.. Or I miss something 

James13

Szamsziel said:

25 supports on board? Even if just servos with +25 you do need mana anymore.. Or I miss something 

No real point.  Just to illustrate it has a clear niche and I don't see any need to tweak it.  Servos, clues, and (presumably soon treasures?) being supremely spammable can snowball quickly to free heart of kiran casts, etc.