auto include means nerf?

andrewvanmarle

Inspired by the rationale of nerfing the gilded lotus I'm left with the above question: if a card is versatile enough to be an auto include (color of colorless) is that a bad thing for the game?

Shrine of the forsaken gods is a card that comes to mind or maybe pantheon of the gods. Similarly any good gemchanger for green would fit the bill.

I get that nerfing a card that is a one button win or an unanswerable threat would require a rebalance, but if a card is just good and finds a spot in a lot of decks?

what do you think?

Mburn7

The definition of a card that needs a nerf (From Oktagon a while back) is something meta-warping.

By definition a card that's an auto-include in every deck is meta-warping.

The debate for Gilded Lotus is more on whether or not it is actually an auto-include in every deck and if the nerf is going to far than Oktagon's definition of a card that needs nerfing.

I personally think lotus needed the bonus reduction, but not the cost increase.  +2 to every color bonus gets ridiculous fast, since it eliminates the negative penalties on just about ever walker and gets crazy with gem changers or cascades.  The cost increase is just superfluous

ZW2007-

I think they set a bad precedent and nerfed Gilded Lotus because it was going to be available too easily to too many players. I've already made the comparison to Sage of Ancient Lore getting nerfed for that exact reason. It has nothing to do with the versatility of the card but the availability. If one of the best cards in the set is guaranteed for the low, low price of buying Karn (with cash or crystals), that's one less good card for players to chase by opening packs and spending currency. I firmly believe this nerf was done for the benefit of the bottom line and not for game balance. I do agree with what someone else said that lotus might end up being very powerful with some of the other new DOM cards that care about mana bonuses but multiple card combos are a big part of what Magic is all about so I still don't believe this extreme of a nerf was warranted.

andrewvanmarle

@Mburn7:

I didnt want the gilded lotus to be the subject of this thread, It's'the auto include part I'm'having trouble with.

In green a card like animists awakening would (still) be an auto include, does it require a nerf?

Also the whole auto include precludes the whole  idea that we only have 10 cards and that in a lot of decks there is no room for a generalist.

ZW2007-

Sorry, I realized that after I posted.

On topic, no, auto include does not mean something should be nerfed.

If you are playing red and have Etali, he's an auto include. If you have Ghalta, you are likely putting him in all your green decks. The whole point of having Standard and Legacy is so that cards rotate, meaning eventually those auto includes fall to the wayside. Some cards will always be better than others. Once you get the best version of a card, be it the best card draw in your color/s or most efficient creature, it will be an auto include in your decks. That is just how games work. True balance is impossible because the business of making the game would die. Not all cards are created equal because they can't be by necessity. There is a reason for different rarities of cards. The excuse of increased complexity at higher rarities is a smoke screen for the fact that they (in paper and here) need the better cards to be more rare, thus being more valuable and harder to acquire. I understand and accept that is how things work.

Mburn7

andrewvanmarle said:

@Mburn7:

I didnt want the gilded lotus to be the subject of this thread, It's'the auto include part I'm'having trouble with.

In green a card like animists awakening would (still) be an auto include, does it require a nerf?

Also the whole auto include precludes the whole  idea that we only have 10 cards and that in a lot of decks there is no room for a generalist.

Fair enough, I just have Lotus on the brain lol.

But if you look at the cards that have been nerfed in the past, even under Hibernium, you see the same thing.

Animist's Awakening and Skysnare Spider (going way back here) were in every green deck that had them.  They were that good.  So they got nerfed.  Same with Undergrowth Champion and (like @ZW2007- said)  Sage of Ancient Lore.

There are 2 criteria for a nerf (it would seem)

1:  Infinitely Loopy (Season's Past, Harness the Storm, Baral ...ect)

2:  So powerful they must go in every deck (Sage, Spider, Animist, Undergrowth Champion, Day's Undoing...ect)
(my green bias is showing here, but there are plenty of examples in other colors too)

Yes some cards are better than others, and some go in more decks than others, but when a card is so good not having it is a distinct disadvantage because every single deck made by someone with it uses it it should be nerfed.

Of course, the same could be said for Olivia, Decimator, Deploy, Omni...ect, but maybe the rules are slightly different for Mythics and Masterpieces?  Probably because (again, like @ZW2007- said) accessibility to a lot of players is also a key component (most of the nerfs I can remember are for Origins cards, for example)

FindingHeart8

good artifacts (the majority of colorless cards) have been staples to many decks of most veteran mtg players.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that here too, but just in a smaller form because 10-card limitation

I don't like the idea of nerfing being an acceptable solution, somewhat out of fear that it'll lead to a domino effect, as the view of what is meta-warping will change with the nerfing of each card.  Today it's Gilded Lotus, Shrine of the Forsaken Gods, Omni, DtG, HuF, Sphinx's Decree, Anim Awakening.  Tomorrow it's Captivating Crew, Etali, Storm the Vault, Hour of Devestation.  The next day it's Zacama, Boomship, Piggy etcetc continues down the ladder

span_argoman

@Mburn7 As I recall, Day's Undoing was nerfed (cost increased from 6 to 10) and Avaricious Dragon had its ability changed (spells drawn have their cost reduced by 3) before any Red/Blue planeswalker was released. Though this applies more to the first category of cards being nerfed because they could have caused an infinite loop.

I'll go with the cynical take that Hibernum stopped balancing cards after a while because they were given the requirement to catch up with paper MTG on set releases which pretty much sucked up all their resources.

That and the forums increasingly became hostile to the developers so it may not have seemed to be worth the effort to respond to community feedback.

As to whether auto-include cards are a bad thing for the game. I would say mostly yes. They restrict the viable deckbuilding avenues for the game, and so should be minimised to avoid the meta being defined by the same few decks.

But at the same time, I agree that true balance is a near-impossible task and may not be desirable for the business. Resources devoted to card development (as with any other aspect of a business) are limited and sometimes creating an auto-include card helps open up options in the absence of a more well-balanced card pool.

Take for example Nissa's Pilgrimage. I would consider it an auto-include for Green decks early on in a player's MtGPQ journey. But as you get access to and include more and more Green gem conversion spells, Nissa's Pilgrimage's propensity to get destroyed by Green gem conversions make it less and less appealing to have in the deck. This makes it a great card to get people started when building Green decks but there are still downsides to it.

Another factor I believe is whether the card contradicts the colour wheel or makes it less significant.

For instance, Tamiyo's Journal granting cheap recurring draw to all colours and Corrupted Grafstone providing on-colour gem conversion to all colours. While those cards made deckbuilding in SOI and EM a no-brainer, I don't think they were healthy for the game. They overrode the weakness of the various colours which made many decks more same-y.

Likewise, Decimator of the Provinces, Metalwork Colossus and Heart of Kiran providing big and cost-efficient creatures to the colours which don't usually have access to those was to me another offender. Though I attribute this to the escalating power creep that Hibernum attempted in order to keep players interested in (and hence also interested in spending on) MtGPQ.

Cards that to me (though I must say that I never really played paper MTG and hence could be wrong about this) contradict the colour wheel are River's Rebuke, Startled Awake and Storm the Vault / Vault of Catlacan. Though the ones in Ixalan seem to follow closely to their paper versions so maybe I'm just really out of touch.

So I think we should try not too have too many auto-include cards in the game lest they start constricting the meta too much. But a few here and there, especially if they aren't Colourless, would be acceptable and as mentioned above perhaps even beneficial.

Tilwin90

There is a handful of cards that I can think of as kind of auto includes, and funny enough Gilded Lotus is not one of them. I am not going to name them as I risk giving people "ideas" that they are overpowered, when in fact those cards become enablers for a faster and less boring play (no, I'm not even thinking about Omniscience, which while a great card is not such an enablers as many others).
C'mon, I saw tons of people add Shefet Monitor in non-cycling decks and it was because it was such a great ramp spell that also drew a card, not to mention how good it was in non-spellcasting event objectives.
Or Olivia which is used ubiquitously in legacy yet recently has been lesser and lesser of a problem for me and I even stopped using it outside "vampire" decks... She's strong, I'll give you that, but nowhere near the broken monster she used to be.
Cards come and go... the rules for nerfing cards in MTGPQ is related to cards that are direct "you win" cards, and the criteria are much more different from paper magic, where usually since you are not restricted to a color or objectives, tend to warp the metagame by being played by A LOT of people and enabling clearly dominant decks (on top of any other possible decks).

DBJones

Captivating Crew already got nerfed. A couple things about this are working to me.

1. Zendikar's Roil is still bugged, which makes it pretty much an auto-include in any green gem changing deck. Is every playable colorless card going to get nerfed now, just because they see the most play?

2. They seem to be increasing the colorless tax, which may make Karn even more limited in application, especially if you don't have enough runes to level him.

babar3355

The only truly auto-include cards I have ever come across are.... River's Rebuke (even in a spell restriction node), Shefet Monitor (even in a themed deck.. ie dinos, vampires), Rishkar's Expertise, maybe pull from tomorrow, NoP in standard...

wereotter

Just to provide a different perspective (for the record I oppose the changes as Gilded Lotus seemed fine whenever I encountered it) an auto-include would have to be looked at really just with colored cards. Animist’s Awakening is great in green decks, but you can’t put it in Gideon of the Trials no matter how much it would benefit his solid green mana gains.

Better cards to compare to would have been things like Metalwork Colossus, Corrupted Grafstone, Scrapheap Scrounger, and Pyramid of the Pantheon that are pretty much good no matter where you put them. Some of these are more impactful than Gilded Lotus, yet none were nerfed. 

Tilwin90

DBJones said:

Captivating Crew already got nerfed. A couple things about this are working to me.

1. Zendikar's Roil is still bugged, which makes it pretty much an auto-include in any green gem changing deck. Is every playable colorless card going to get nerfed now, just because they see the most play?

2. They seem to be increasing the colorless tax, which may make Karn even more limited in application, especially if you don't have enough runes to level him.

Zendikar roil is only relevant in the combo with the explore support and even that gets long and boring. Definitely ran away from that. 
Gather the pack is auto include în embalm and eternalize decks as well but outside that I wouldn't say it needs a nerf. (I know some would disagree)
Pull is not more an auto include than nissa Revelation and I often find myself dropping it from hand at times. I find reason//believe as far stronger and it's still not that powerful in any deck...
Etali is great but because it's bugged I often end not getting the card because the opponent is on a full hand... Which make it meh at times. 
Fevered Visions saw ton of play in the past but I wouldn't say it is an op card. 
Mockery of nature saw play as a universal support removal but that doesn't make it op... 
Hour of devastation is super powerful yet I would argue about its opness... 
Approach sees tons of play as does HUF but in highly specific decks that also usually run goggles... 
We used to believe swarm intelligence was op yet it stays dead in my library now and I barely ever see it played. 
Turn to frog is played a lot in blue... Doesn't make the card op. 
Unlicensed disintegration was played by many many people in red decks as it was hard removal in red, something red decks did not have access to. Does that make it op or it's just a blatant color pie break? Anguished unmaking is similar for black support removal. Scout from existence for green decks... 

And the list could continue.... 

What I'm saying is the current criteria are... Debatable. They look good in theory but they are very difficult to put into practice and require really careful consideration on a situation basis. 

madwren

babar3355 said:

The only truly auto-include cards I have ever come across are.... River's Rebuke (even in a spell restriction node), Shefet Monitor (even in a themed deck.. ie dinos, vampires), Rishkar's Expertise, maybe pull from tomorrow, NoP in standard...

I'd also add Baral. Startled Awake.Behold the Beyond.Crush of Tentacles. There are more.

The thing with using the term auto-include is that it varies greatly depending on situation, player, and strategy, and those auto-includes change as a collection grows. Gaea's Revenge is an auto-include for me most of the time. If I had Ghalta, that might change. Shrine was an auto-include until Pyramid came around. Olivia, Emrakul, and Pig are auto-includes individually, but as you get more creatures, they may or may not fall out of your rotation. Etc.

I would posit that it's impossible to design a game such as this (whether talking about paper or PQ) without the cream rising to the top.  There will always wind up being cards that are superior and render similar cards suboptimal, or even unplayable.

I've always advocated that nerfs should happen primarily to cards/mechanics that enable the AI to create loops (because it reduces player agency and promotes a negative competitive experience), or act as an "I win" button (such as Deploy the Gatewatch or cycling).  

Gilded Lotus does neither; it was the latest in a long line of mana boosters that non-green decks can auto-include, and it was powerful, but it was also Fine.

Sirchombli

I jjust really hate the direction we're heading in. 'Why test cards when we can just adjust em later' is a pretty terrible practice to allow to become the norm. For one, it makes me worry that every set is going to get a giant renovation after a month. My second issue is that things that are not remotely auto includes are getting the treatment . Like blood tallow candle (may have gotten that wrong) and the lance . Were those really so powerful that they had to be made worthless? Why is there no emphasis on getting it right the first time. 

As for auto includes getting nerfed, it's sort of case specific. Og baral was degenerate . Caused ridiculous ai loops that often didn't go anywhere until the third or fourth time it went off. Card was stupid busted . Got a nerf ,but it remained a staple in blue . I can get behind that nerf . Lotus was ridiculous. Not degenerate , but still a bit much for the cost . Dropping the mana bonuses a bit , alone, would have been fine . Raising the cost, alone , would also have been fine. Do both, and the card goes from being really good to barely playable. As is , it wasn't an auto include for me. Now it won't even be a consideration. 

I think that having staple cards or auto includes can be fine. They often address specific issues that a color or pw have and allow for more competitive play. I really don't want the game to turn into sword fighting with wiffle bats .

GrizzoMtGPQ

I think the bar should be that if a card warps the meta it needs to be fixed. Runaway Carriage and Zendikar Roil are two examples. Sick of seeing the latter and the former was an absolute nightmare.

Gilded Lotus does not rise to this. I don't think it matters if it was making it into a lot of decks. Corrupted Grafstone was an auto-include for lots of decks. Doesn't mean it needed any nerf.

Sirchombli

Well put . The carriage nerf happened very close to when I started, so I didn't even notice it, but that card still gives some people flash backs .

FindingHeart8

Sirchombli said:

Well put . The carriage nerf happened very close to when I started, so I didn't even notice it, but that card still gives some people flash backs .

*eye twitch* *eye twitch*

Mburn7

Sirchombli said:

Well put . The carriage nerf happened very close to when I started, so I didn't even notice it, but that card still gives some people flash backs .

That one was especially bad since it was an uncommon.  Literally everyone had it, and would run it on every node of every event.

Also, that was before non-targeted removal was a thing.  The nightmare was real.

tfg76

In paper Magic, even really powerful (perhaps even the most powerful) cards are generally not auto-includes in every deck of the appropriate color. This is because the complexity of the game is so high that a deck generally must have good synergy to win.

In MTGPQ, I don't see that much of deck synergy - or at least, you can generally best synergy with overpowered cards. This is partly because of the low number of different cards per deck (10), but also because of the 3-different-creatures limitation. Creature synergies that try to reward you for playing the same creature type often don't become good enough because that bonus can only apply to 3 creatures, whereas an overpowered creature of a different type is just always good without any synergy. 

Similarly, it seems like they find it hard to find a good balance for combo decks, generally either becoming overpowered or not viable. Again, this is due to the low number of different cards, which give great stability to combos. Therefore, if the combo is actually good, it will typically be overpowered.

That being said, though, I like recent attempts to mirror creature synergies with reinforcements. The Vampire theme (where everyone created a 1/1 lifelink Vamp), and the upcoming Saproling theme (with Leader!) seems like they're trying to reward synergies more.

To promote more synergy even with these limitations, I believe that the "raw" power level of the top cards should be reduced, and the power level of synergistic combinations of cards should instead be emphasized. Try not to make too many cards that are overpowered by themselves at any rarity, and try to make most cards (esp commons and uncommons) be playable in some situation.

GrizzoMtGPQ

tfg76 said:

In paper Magic, even really powerful (perhaps even the most powerful) cards are generally not auto-includes in every deck of the appropriate color. This is because the complexity of the game is so high that a deck generally must have good synergy to win.

In MTGPQ, I don't see that much of deck synergy - or at least, you can generally best synergy with overpowered cards. This is partly because of the low number of different cards per deck (10), but also because of the 3-different-creatures limitation. Creature synergies that try to reward you for playing the same creature type often don't become good enough because that bonus can only apply to 3 creatures, whereas an overpowered creature of a different type is just always good without any synergy. 

Similarly, it seems like they find it hard to find a good balance for combo decks, generally either becoming overpowered or not viable. Again, this is due to the low number of different cards, which give great stability to combos. Therefore, if the combo is actually good, it will typically be overpowered.

That being said, though, I like recent attempts to mirror creature synergies with reinforcements. The Vampire theme (where everyone created a 1/1 lifelink Vamp), and the upcoming Saproling theme (with Leader!) seems like they're trying to reward synergies more.

To promote more synergy even with these limitations, I believe that the "raw" power level of the top cards should be reduced, and the power level of synergistic combinations of cards should instead be emphasized. Try not to make too many cards that are overpowered by themselves at any rarity, and try to make most cards (esp commons and uncommons) be playable in some situation.

Or maybe we could do something different, like maybe let us have 4-5 creatures out? Or up the number of cards in a deck to 12? There's no reason to let screen real estate dictate game fundamentals. I'd love to see a bit of experimentation by Oktagon. Maybe try one event where we have 5 creatures out and 12 cards in the deck.