We need to talk about StV

1356

Comments

  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    edited July 2018
    Aeroplane said:
    They're not going to change with it being a few sets back already. If you want to nerf it because you're losing to it then prepare for it. I have no problem with the card. When you nerf a card , you're nerfing the AI which needs all the help it can get. You're not supposed to get perfect scores.
       In the case of STV,  i think if most players are talking about a nerf it's not because of the AI using it, but on the contrary because it makes things too easy for players. If it was for the AI, the rant would probably have occured earlier.
  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    I like that card. It might be one of my all time favorites. I don't really want to see it nerfed.. But balancing it would be very reasonable IMO.
    I don't build any blue deck without it anymore, and see no blue decks in our Slack without it, except from people who don't have it,and it sees even play in red green decks.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Aeroplane
    Aeroplane Posts: 314 Mover and Shaker
    Bil said:
    Aeroplane said:
    They're not going to change with it being a few sets back already. If you want to nerf it because you're losing to it then prepare for it. I have no problem with the card. When you nerf a card , you're nerfing the AI which needs all the help it can get. You're not supposed to get perfect scores.
       In the case of STV,  i think if most players are talking about a nerf it's not because of the AI using it, but on the contrary because it makes things too easy for players. If it was for the AI, the rant would probably have occured earlier.
    Well if that was the case New Perspectives would have been tossed. I never pulled it but cycling decks with NP was the most abused card and most frequent deck that I played when in standard. If NP was never touched StV doesn't come close.
  • Aeroplane
    Aeroplane Posts: 314 Mover and Shaker
    Joybubbles said:
    Aeroplane said:
    They're not going to change with it being a few sets back already. If you want to nerf it because you're losing to it then prepare for it. I have no problem with the card. When you nerf a card , you're nerfing the AI which needs all the help it can get. You're not supposed to get perfect scores.
    The vast majority of the games I play against the AI, he doesn't play an STV, whereas, the vast majority of the games I play, I do indeed play one. How is that helping the AI? What it's doing is, helping me get perfect scores.

    The AI doesn't even prioritise playing STV highly, playing a string of creatures generally, whereas I have the sense to drop my STV after I've attacked with my first one.
    And the run of New perspectives? The most abused card in Quest history was never nerfed. People even quit playing the game when it left standard .
  • Theros
    Theros Posts: 490 Mover and Shaker
    Bil said:
    Aeroplane said:
    They're not going to change with it being a few sets back already. If you want to nerf it because you're losing to it then prepare for it. I have no problem with the card. When you nerf a card , you're nerfing the AI which needs all the help it can get. You're not supposed to get perfect scores.
       In the case of STV,  i think if most players are talking about a nerf it's not because of the AI using it, but on the contrary because it makes things too easy for players. If it was for the AI, the rant would probably have occured earlier.
    why do some people want nerft because a card makes it too easy to win?
    Isn't that selfish?
    when decks building, many will choose the most optimal cards available to them with the intent for easy/safe wins or objectives. STV is one of the optimal supports.
    Of course there are others who want chalenge by intentionally picking not so good cards. Others want to have fun by trying different things. There are also arguments calling for STV nerf cause it makes Greg too strong.

    So far no one has provided a solid or convincing argument why STV should be nerfed or not
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    edited July 2018
    Theros said: 
    why do some people want nerft because a card makes it too easy to win?
    Isn't that selfish?
       I have no opinion about players motivation here. The fact is that we all knew that the card was broken and it has been pointed out several times that the crowd probably kept the silence on it because its way more powerful in hand of a player than in hands of the IA.

      Theros said
    So far no one has provided a solid or convincing argument why STV should be nerfed or not.
       I personally prefer if it stays as is ... But i am also realistic about the fact that the card is easily abusable. In the current meta, full of treasures, you can easily get the effect of an hour of promise on each turn. Godmode is great, but it clearly breaks a balance. It's not good, nor bad, its just a fact.

  • andrewvanmarle
    andrewvanmarle Posts: 978 Critical Contributor
    Aeroplane said:
    They're not going to change with it being a few sets back already. If you want to nerf it because you're losing to it then prepare for it. I have no problem with the card. When you nerf a card , you're nerfing the AI which needs all the help it can get. You're not supposed to get perfect scores.
    This! 
  • Furks
    Furks Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    All my blue decks include storm the vault (+ spell swindle) . Even with its potential to blow up your own supports, once it gets rolling you dump your entire hand each turn anyway, all you need to do is keep drawing cards. Not to mention that this is in the same color that had access to river's rebuke. 
  • andrewvanmarle
    andrewvanmarle Posts: 978 Critical Contributor
    So? the fact that all your blue decks contain something means...zilch....

    all my blue decks contain turn to frog. is it OP? needs a nerf? no

    bad logic, sorry
  • garycsl
    garycsl Posts: 23 Just Dropped In
    The fact is that, blue is turning to the sole mana-ramping color when Hour of Promise and other HOD mana generating supports/spells rotates out. When blue posseses a lot of already-good-enough cards, it will be very devastating to the standard environment, mainly towards the deck-variaty.
  • Mburn7
    Mburn7 Posts: 3,427 Chairperson of the Boards
    andrewvanmarle said:
    So? the fact that all your blue decks contain something means...zilch....

    all my blue decks contain turn to frog. is it OP? needs a nerf? no

    bad logic, sorry
    The issue is more how it effects the strengths and weaknesses of Blue than anything super-specific with the card itself.  Blue's main weakness is supposed to be damage and mana gain.  Gem conversion is supposed to be the sole dominion of Green.  Turn to Frog is firmly within Blue's color pie abilities (transmogrification), so it isn't an issue.

    The equivalents I can think of is if there was a green card that was a 7 mana "destroy target creature," or a 3 mana black "destroy a support" card.  Neither are super ridiculous as a card, but they fill a major weakness of their respective colors and would thus be seen as overpowered.
  • Furks
    Furks Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    Kiora's main strength is that she can combine the mana gains of green with the control of blue. With StV, any blue pw can do the same.

    I don't think StV needs a nerf, it's not as bad baral. That said, I do think it warps the strength of blue pw. As others have pointed out, it's not that the card itself is broken, it just fills a niche that blue is supposed to lack. If it was green/red nobody would've had a problem with it. 
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Gunmix25
    Gunmix25 Posts: 1,442 Chairperson of the Boards
    Mburn7 said:
    andrewvanmarle said:
    So? the fact that all your blue decks contain something means...zilch....

    all my blue decks contain turn to frog. is it OP? needs a nerf? no

    bad logic, sorry
    The issue is more how it effects the strengths and weaknesses of Blue than anything super-specific with the card itself.  Blue's main weakness is supposed to be damage and mana gain.  Gem conversion is supposed to be the sole dominion of Green.  Turn to Frog is firmly within Blue's color pie abilities (transmogrification), so it isn't an issue.

    I respectfully will have to disagree with you here on that train of thought in regards to multicolored cards. In regards to solid colored cards your assessment is absolutely right. Those particular strengths and weaknesses of each color [& colorless] are the sole domain of each in question.

    But when it comes to multi-colored cards, that rule goes right out the door as does any argument that states said card shouldn't provide X or Y because it is the sole domain of color X or Y. The unique and unusual effects of Multi-colored cards is their domain. In the case of StV, red is known for massive bursts of mana at the cost of some destruction, in the case of PQ it is supports and their respective shields; the burst of mana though has been translated into blue in this case. In the case of blue, effect counting before a resolving effect takes place is a well known mechanic in blue, which translates to adding up supports or applying damage till it flips. i.e. StV, or Thing in the Ice; something red is not known for. ***side note: if any change was to be made to StV … I would say that equal parts of Red and Blue gems are converted each time.

    That said, the argument that a multi-colored card shouldn't do something because it belongs to the domain of X or Y color is going to be a very tricky argument to stick to once Ravnica is released because that is what Ravnica was famous [or infamous] for; unusual color combinations and effects that break the norm. If will be okay when that is released, why cannot a multi-colored card that is released now have the same acceptance.

    Not to be off topic: but in my experience in PQ so far... Lich is far more OP than StV and Immortal Sun.


  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,959 Chairperson of the Boards
    The issue shouldn't be what colors should or shouldn't do, it's that the effect of this card is far too powerful for the hoops you have to jump through to get them, especially considering some of the other supports within the same rarity level. 
  • Mburn7
    Mburn7 Posts: 3,427 Chairperson of the Boards
    Gunmix25 said:
    Mburn7 said:
    andrewvanmarle said:
    So? the fact that all your blue decks contain something means...zilch....

    all my blue decks contain turn to frog. is it OP? needs a nerf? no

    bad logic, sorry
    The issue is more how it effects the strengths and weaknesses of Blue than anything super-specific with the card itself.  Blue's main weakness is supposed to be damage and mana gain.  Gem conversion is supposed to be the sole dominion of Green.  Turn to Frog is firmly within Blue's color pie abilities (transmogrification), so it isn't an issue.

    I respectfully will have to disagree with you here on that train of thought in regards to multicolored cards. In regards to solid colored cards your assessment is absolutely right. Those particular strengths and weaknesses of each color [& colorless] are the sole domain of each in question.

    But when it comes to multi-colored cards, that rule goes right out the door as does any argument that states said card shouldn't provide X or Y because it is the sole domain of color X or Y. 


    The reason myself (and many other people) are treating Storm the Vault as if it is mono-blue is because it only converts blue gems, and as a result is used mostly for blue walkers (or any walker with a decent blue bonus).

    If it converted to blue and red, as you mentioned later, that would be a different story (still powerful, but much less so because of the reduced likelihood of cascading).

    But since it uses a blue trigger (counting supports) and converts to only blue gems, Storm the Vault is mostly seen as a blue card, and is being judged as such.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Blazer
    Blazer Posts: 84 Match Maker
    I don't agree with the card getting nerf'd but part of why people think it is over-powered is because of how good it is for non-blue walkers as I currently run it in my Sarkhan and Angrath deck and works well in AJ1
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.

Categories