Should they nerf BSZ?

Options
1246

Comments

  • wereotter
    wereotter Posts: 2,064 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    No
    wereotter said:
    Mburn7 said:
    wereotter said:
    ZW2007- said:
    The easiest way to start rebalancing all overpowered cards is to start with the most overpowered card. Once upon a time it was Omniscience, which needed to be nerfed and never was. Now it is BSZ which needs to be nerfed and won't be. I've owned both for a very long time and advocated for Omni to be nerfed a very long time ago.

    Pointing to bugs and saying we shouldn't discuss game balance is nonsense. That's like saying WotC needs to solve the issue of foil cards warping before they bother with balancing a new set. Different guys do different jobs. I highly doubt that the person in charge of game design is the same person that is building code and fixing bugs.

    The existence of this card isn't a threat to me, it makes my enjoyment of the game lower because it is boring to jam the same shell into every single deck I make. The goal is to win games, which I typically do. The best way to ensure I continue winning games is to continue using the most broken cards I own. In events where rewards or losses are meaningless, I run more fun and experimental decks. In the competitive weekend coalition events, I stick to boring BSZ combo monstrosities that just win. Hardly the exciting game play I want for a game I love (to hate).  
    I speak from owning both, and I would say Blue Sun's Zenith is hardly the most powerful card in the game. I'd put that at Killer Instinct. I can play BSZ and it gives me a lot of advantage, but that's all. On the other hand, I never have lost a game after getting Killer Instinct in play.

    Also I find it interesting you support nerfing it because you think it's boring... and from what I'm reading, because you aren't willing to do anything different or creative in events, and just do "stuff my deck full of all the monstrosities" Changing Blue Sun's Zenith won't change your issues if that's how you play as once this is lower in power level, then I would expect you to just play whatever is the next most powerful, and then new threads will pop up calling for those to be nerfed too.

    If we do the cards one at a time, we're just going to be playing whack-a-mole with these cards. There needs to be a large-scale adjustment of cards rather than one at a time.
    Hmm, I don't find Killer Instinct nearly as powerful as BSZ, since it can't infinitely loop and ends up a net negative on your board (since it kills a creature the turn you play it, and then goes 1 for 1 every turn after that).  It is still extremely powerful (and slightly bugged to be even better), but its not on the same level as BSZ, at least not in Standard.
    Play it right, and you'll end up ahead on creatures, being able to cheat out really high cost creatures for free every turn and end up with massive power in just a turn or two. Perhaps is how I'm playing them, but I don't have a deck set up that loops Blue Sun's Zenith, just use it in a red-blue wizards deck where everything in it costs 12 mana or less, then have to hope to find another copy wither when I cast it or hopefully within a couple turns...
    Now, make all the cards cost 1-12 mana, add sunbird and include expansion. Boom, you've got it. If you use Brokhan, you can use thunderherd, and the 12cmc creature exploring 1+2 to add higher cost creatures and keep the loop running. It's a one turn insta win.. If it just was an accelerator for decks, it would be fine. A slight balance act could throw it from insane to just very good as accelerator, not key card.
    Your idea gives a lot of free stuff over several turns - bsz used that way doesn't need any turns

    Then I will admit that my stance on this is based entirely around the fact that I'm not doing this. I'm running it in Ral Zarek, who can't use Thunderheard Migration, and I'm not running Sunbird Invocation because it both isn't a spell (since I built the deck around Adeliz and BSZ) and because it costs more than 12 mana.

    As with many cards, I will state that it is not just the card, but it's also what people are doing with it. I don't want to be a jerk player with degenerate decks that go infinite in the AI's hands, I want to build something fun and synergistic in a different type of way, and I don't care for it to go infinite (I realized how boring that was with how Baral was released) and am not trying to grief other players. I've seen that Sarkhan deck, I tried it out, I found it really boring to play, and now don't use it.
  • Mojo
    Mojo Posts: 44 Just Dropped In
    Options
    Yes
    BSZ is absolutely out of whack.  If it is pulled against me I have two options.  Watch myself slowly loose because it takes forever or quit.  Think about what else multiply mana indefinitely?  Dumb dumb dumb dumb makes no sense in fantasy or this game.  Imagine the MTG universe if one plainswalker broke out BSZ the rest would gang up or die.  It’s basically a planet resource replicator that done right never ends.  Like only one country having nukes. 
  • ZW2007-
    ZW2007- Posts: 812 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Yes
    wereotter said:
    ZW2007- said:
    The easiest way to start rebalancing all overpowered cards is to start with the most overpowered card. Once upon a time it was Omniscience, which needed to be nerfed and never was. Now it is BSZ which needs to be nerfed and won't be. I've owned both for a very long time and advocated for Omni to be nerfed a very long time ago.

    Pointing to bugs and saying we shouldn't discuss game balance is nonsense. That's like saying WotC needs to solve the issue of foil cards warping before they bother with balancing a new set. Different guys do different jobs. I highly doubt that the person in charge of game design is the same person that is building code and fixing bugs.

    The existence of this card isn't a threat to me, it makes my enjoyment of the game lower because it is boring to jam the same shell into every single deck I make. The goal is to win games, which I typically do. The best way to ensure I continue winning games is to continue using the most broken cards I own. In events where rewards or losses are meaningless, I run more fun and experimental decks. In the competitive weekend coalition events, I stick to boring BSZ combo monstrosities that just win. Hardly the exciting game play I want for a game I love (to hate).  
    I speak from owning both, and I would say Blue Sun's Zenith is hardly the most powerful card in the game. I'd put that at Killer Instinct. I can play BSZ and it gives me a lot of advantage, but that's all. On the other hand, I never have lost a game after getting Killer Instinct in play.

    Also I find it interesting you support nerfing it because you think it's boring... and from what I'm reading, because you aren't willing to do anything different or creative in events, and just do "stuff my deck full of all the monstrosities" Changing Blue Sun's Zenith won't change your issues if that's how you play as once this is lower in power level, then I would expect you to just play whatever is the next most powerful, and then new threads will pop up calling for those to be nerfed too.

    If we do the cards one at a time, we're just going to be playing whack-a-mole with these cards. There needs to be a large-scale adjustment of cards rather than one at a time.
    If I cast Blue Sun's Zenith and pass the turn, I did something wrong or was unlucky and will probably win the next turn anyway. If I cast Killer Instinct and pass the turn, nothing happens and I get a free creature next turn. Those two cards aren't even close in the spectrum of power and KI is a very powerful card. I don't call for cards to be nerfed because they are good. I do it when they are too good and warp the meta. BSZ doesn't need a large-scale adjustment of other cards, it needs to be brought in line with what all the other powerful cards are capable of doing. KI can get me ONE free creature each turn, which I will lose at the end of said turn unless I'm also casting additional creatures each turn or pumping out tokens. Of course Garruk or Saheeli or N4 can take good advantage of KI but any blue planeswalker can make a broken deck with BSZ. I can win in a few turns and make all objectives with BSZ, regardless of the objectives (unless I'm not supposed to play with cards costing 10 or fewer mana.) One card shouldn't rule them all. When a card like Emrakul warps a format, WotC bans it in that format. Here, they have the ability to just change the card to make it less format-warping.

    wereotter said:
    Mburn7 said:
    wereotter said:
    ZW2007- said:
    The easiest way to start rebalancing all overpowered cards is to start with the most overpowered card. Once upon a time it was Omniscience, which needed to be nerfed and never was. Now it is BSZ which needs to be nerfed and won't be. I've owned both for a very long time and advocated for Omni to be nerfed a very long time ago.

    Pointing to bugs and saying we shouldn't discuss game balance is nonsense. That's like saying WotC needs to solve the issue of foil cards warping before they bother with balancing a new set. Different guys do different jobs. I highly doubt that the person in charge of game design is the same person that is building code and fixing bugs.

    The existence of this card isn't a threat to me, it makes my enjoyment of the game lower because it is boring to jam the same shell into every single deck I make. The goal is to win games, which I typically do. The best way to ensure I continue winning games is to continue using the most broken cards I own. In events where rewards or losses are meaningless, I run more fun and experimental decks. In the competitive weekend coalition events, I stick to boring BSZ combo monstrosities that just win. Hardly the exciting game play I want for a game I love (to hate).  
    I speak from owning both, and I would say Blue Sun's Zenith is hardly the most powerful card in the game. I'd put that at Killer Instinct. I can play BSZ and it gives me a lot of advantage, but that's all. On the other hand, I never have lost a game after getting Killer Instinct in play.

    Also I find it interesting you support nerfing it because you think it's boring... and from what I'm reading, because you aren't willing to do anything different or creative in events, and just do "stuff my deck full of all the monstrosities" Changing Blue Sun's Zenith won't change your issues if that's how you play as once this is lower in power level, then I would expect you to just play whatever is the next most powerful, and then new threads will pop up calling for those to be nerfed too.

    If we do the cards one at a time, we're just going to be playing whack-a-mole with these cards. There needs to be a large-scale adjustment of cards rather than one at a time.
    Hmm, I don't find Killer Instinct nearly as powerful as BSZ, since it can't infinitely loop and ends up a net negative on your board (since it kills a creature the turn you play it, and then goes 1 for 1 every turn after that).  It is still extremely powerful (and slightly bugged to be even better), but its not on the same level as BSZ, at least not in Standard.
    Play it right, and you'll end up ahead on creatures, being able to cheat out really high cost creatures for free every turn and end up with massive power in just a turn or two. Perhaps is how I'm playing them, but I don't have a deck set up that loops Blue Sun's Zenith, just use it in a red-blue wizards deck where everything in it costs 12 mana or less, then have to hope to find another copy wither when I cast it or hopefully within a couple turns...
    I could say the same thing about BSZ, play it right and you'll see why it's the single most powerful card in the game.
  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    No
    I barely even use this card. 
  • Brakkis
    Brakkis Posts: 777 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Yes
    bken1234 said:
    I barely even use this card. 

    Your choice not to use the card is irrelavant in terms of the power of the card.

    I barely use Omniscience. Doesn't mean the card isn't insane.
  • Mojo
    Mojo Posts: 44 Just Dropped In
    Options
    Yes
    I don’t understand why anyone would think it’s an ok card.  Every time it is drawn against me the match is over.  Whether it endless spells or creatures doesn’t matter.  What do people do to stop this? 
  • ZW2007-
    ZW2007- Posts: 812 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Yes
    Mojo said:
    I don’t understand why anyone would think it’s an ok card.  Every time it is drawn against me the match is over.  Whether it endless spells or creatures doesn’t matter.  What do people do to stop this? 
    Win faster by using it yourself. There are honestly two cards that can truly shut it down, a 13 mana support with one shield (Sphinx's Decree) which is easily removed and a 12 mana creature (Lavinia) which is also easily removed. If they want cards like BSZ, they should provide equally strong answers. It's fine to have powerhouses as long as there are counters that exist to keep them in check. Two answers to BSZ is not enough to keep BSZ under check.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Just Dropped In
    edited May 2019
    Options
    I understand the card is broken but I'm beginning to see that the actual problem is sadly the current system/environment of MTGPQ...

    PRO-NERF: This is one of the main arguments behind the nerf (below): (https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/872648#Comment_872648)
    jimpark said:
    "you don't have to play bsz if you think it's too good" is an argument I am not able to wrap my head around. It's a prisoners dilemma - if you're competitive, there are two reasons not to play it : you don't own it or the node has a spell limitation.
    I have left the competitive arena a few months back; but, this I can completely understand.

    Although not completely the same, it is similar to the cycling meta incident. Back then, whether you wanted to play cycling or not, you didn't really have a choice, if you wanted to be competitive. Therefore, I have to acknowledge this is a problem for the competitive coalition PVP meta.
    ANTI-NERF: This is one of the main arguments against the nerf (below): (https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/872644#Comment_872644)
    jimpark said:

    ...It takes into account one of the biggest complaints about this game which is burnout or "grindy-ness". Essentially, the game absorbs too much time. Therefore, if we are able to reduce the amount of useless time wasted in this game and provide appropriate rewards for time invested (rewards aren't nearly as relevant, other than being a scale), this nerf wouldn't even be an issue. For instance, if the "visual aid" worked properly, PvE boss health was scaled relative to the power level of cards available for use to achieve the objectives [pauper for a boss with 220 health (BoFT part 2 Node 2.1?).. lets go Yargle! ping him for 9 damage as you get decimated next turn by Slaughter the Strong], PvP events had less overall games to be played OR the rewards were adjusted to reflect the actual amount of time invested, significantly reduced loading times, seamless transition of battle start and end sequences (i.e. the waiting for check marks for objectives, card XP list, player XP overview), etc...
    NOW! Both of these two sides are valid; but, we want different things and it appears BSZ is in the middle and we are playing tug of war with it. We need to compromise. But, let me reiterate, the actual problem is sadly the current system/environment of MTGPQ. The game is a grindy mess. Solve the grindiness and I bet more people would be open to the BSZ nerf. Like I said below: (https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/872537#Comment_872537)
    jimpark said:
    ... Look I am not saying BSZ shouldn't be nerfed here; though, I do not necessarily agree with it as of right now. And by not agree, don't assume that I don't understand the broken-ness of BSZ and that it doesn't need a nerf. What I mean is I am unsure of the timing and the true benefits of the nerf...
    My personal PRO-NERF stance:
    Objectively, BSZ does need a nerf.
    Why?
    1. It is truly a meta-warping card for competitive play - specifically coalition PvP. While I am against nerfing, I can put aside my own personal desire to reduce the grind and objectively see that unfortunately BSZ negatively affects this part of the game. The non-competitive arena is a different story.
    2. It is truly overpowered and its power could be reduced but still remain powerful - even just removing the "+2" part alone would bring it down a tad and still retain broken-ness. I don't think stored mana has to be changed to 6 right off the bat (though, for the sake of true balance, it eventually needs to get scaled down to 6-7 with the supplemental +2 or just 8-9 without the supplemental +2)...

    My personal ANTI-NERF stance:
    Objectively, BSZ does NOT need a nerf.
    Why?
    1. Because the MTGPQ game environment essentially created a need for a tool like BSZ - In other words, this game is a grind... from long, uselessly time-consuming games (like unbalanced PvE boss HP vs pool of cards available); repeating of the same events (the schedule being varied helps but its the same thing over and over again anyway?); shear number of games that must be played within a very narrow time limit, complete and utter lack of seamless application speed/streamlining, and so on.

    Conclusion:
    As you can see, I cannot vote in this poll because I am torn. But, at this point in time, I can imagine that D3 has their hands tied for many reasons - most prominently, some will feel cheated out of their resources/effort to obtain BSZ and still some are still chasing it. Either way, whatever decision they decide to make, they will be hated for it. And we don't yet know the potential collateral damage associated with this small nerf - it could be devastating for the game at its current state. Consequently, it would be more reasonable to do a staged/incremental/two-part nerf to ease the transition.

    Despite the above, this is my thought:
    1. BSZ needs a small nerf, especially for competitive play (specifically standard (and maybe legacy) coalition PvP events but NOT PvE events). At the minimum, it needs to be banned for ONLY standard coalition PvP events. As Laeuftbeidir said, "it is a prisoner's dilemma." After all, you don't take only a knife to a gun fight, right? You bring out your best of the best. Though, I would say the "Naru-plicate" and its variants is a bigger issue. And to ensure, BSZ's broken-ness is still retained, the small nerf I speak of is merely removing the "+2 mana" part. This will provide a minuscule window of opportunity that is impactful enough without stripping it down completely, for now.

    2. BSZ doesn't need a nerf for formats outside of standard PvP coalition events UNLESS everything is reworked to reduce the grind. This includes, in no particular order:

    A. EXTREME visual aid enhancement fix. (This thing is lacking so much; but, pat yourselves on the back.. at least its something..)
    B. re-working of PW total health and event boss total health to be directly balanced with card options available.
    C. reduction of event length (i.e. RotGP maximum 48Hr. run; but, cushions of empty time for timezone issues is fine) **also this doesn't mean remove events, add more additional events concurrently; just reduce mandatory grinding time. And please don't say you have a choice, as there is no choice for certain coalitions.**
    D. re-working of event node maximum charges
    E. re-working of event node refresh timers (or just charges upfront or removal of node maximum charge limit, I guess)
    F. re-working of a large multitude of cards (buffs + nerfs + buff/nerfs (some cards may need combination fixes)). Not just going around nerfing the top tier cards! Some cards are not actually as broken as you really think; usually, it is the combination of multiple cards that generate that outcome. 
    G. consistent regulation of cards. Balancing cards is never a one-time deal; it must be done constantly as new sets drop; and as new card interactions arise.

    And I am sure there are more... in addition to non-grind affecting issues like freezes, card bugs, card wording/descriptions, player levels, new sets, new events... and so on...

    Potential short-term to long-term solution:
    Let's compromise and make a deal. For now, just remove the "+2 mana" part of the card. In other words, it gives a total of 10 mana to all cards. Then, after some of the grind-reducing list has been implemented, we can re-consider nerfing it to stored mana of 6-7 with the supplemental +2 or just 8-9 without the supplemental +2.

    What do you guys think? I've been mulling this over for like a month..



  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Yes
    Well..nice concept you wrote down. I hope someone official takes the time to actually read it. Your explanations make sense and would have been good enough before Brokhan became a thing. Nine mana as maximum mana gain would cut Brokhan off from looping as well - but still, your suggestion would be a good step into the direction of a more balanced meta.

    Also, you're right that the game is too grindy
  • wereotter
    wereotter Posts: 2,064 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    No
    ZW2007- said:
    wereotter said:
    ZW2007- said:
    The easiest way to start rebalancing all overpowered cards is to start with the most overpowered card. Once upon a time it was Omniscience, which needed to be nerfed and never was. Now it is BSZ which needs to be nerfed and won't be. I've owned both for a very long time and advocated for Omni to be nerfed a very long time ago.

    Pointing to bugs and saying we shouldn't discuss game balance is nonsense. That's like saying WotC needs to solve the issue of foil cards warping before they bother with balancing a new set. Different guys do different jobs. I highly doubt that the person in charge of game design is the same person that is building code and fixing bugs.

    The existence of this card isn't a threat to me, it makes my enjoyment of the game lower because it is boring to jam the same shell into every single deck I make. The goal is to win games, which I typically do. The best way to ensure I continue winning games is to continue using the most broken cards I own. In events where rewards or losses are meaningless, I run more fun and experimental decks. In the competitive weekend coalition events, I stick to boring BSZ combo monstrosities that just win. Hardly the exciting game play I want for a game I love (to hate).  
    I speak from owning both, and I would say Blue Sun's Zenith is hardly the most powerful card in the game. I'd put that at Killer Instinct. I can play BSZ and it gives me a lot of advantage, but that's all. On the other hand, I never have lost a game after getting Killer Instinct in play.

    Also I find it interesting you support nerfing it because you think it's boring... and from what I'm reading, because you aren't willing to do anything different or creative in events, and just do "stuff my deck full of all the monstrosities" Changing Blue Sun's Zenith won't change your issues if that's how you play as once this is lower in power level, then I would expect you to just play whatever is the next most powerful, and then new threads will pop up calling for those to be nerfed too.

    If we do the cards one at a time, we're just going to be playing whack-a-mole with these cards. There needs to be a large-scale adjustment of cards rather than one at a time.
    If I cast Blue Sun's Zenith and pass the turn, I did something wrong or was unlucky and will probably win the next turn anyway. If I cast Killer Instinct and pass the turn, nothing happens and I get a free creature next turn. Those two cards aren't even close in the spectrum of power and KI is a very powerful card. I don't call for cards to be nerfed because they are good. I do it when they are too good and warp the meta. BSZ doesn't need a large-scale adjustment of other cards, it needs to be brought in line with what all the other powerful cards are capable of doing. KI can get me ONE free creature each turn, which I will lose at the end of said turn unless I'm also casting additional creatures each turn or pumping out tokens. Of course Garruk or Saheeli or N4 can take good advantage of KI but any blue planeswalker can make a broken deck with BSZ. I can win in a few turns and make all objectives with BSZ, regardless of the objectives (unless I'm not supposed to play with cards costing 10 or fewer mana.) One card shouldn't rule them all. When a card like Emrakul warps a format, WotC bans it in that format. Here, they have the ability to just change the card to make it less format-warping.

    wereotter said:
    Mburn7 said:
    wereotter said:
    ZW2007- said:
    The easiest way to start rebalancing all overpowered cards is to start with the most overpowered card. Once upon a time it was Omniscience, which needed to be nerfed and never was. Now it is BSZ which needs to be nerfed and won't be. I've owned both for a very long time and advocated for Omni to be nerfed a very long time ago.

    Pointing to bugs and saying we shouldn't discuss game balance is nonsense. That's like saying WotC needs to solve the issue of foil cards warping before they bother with balancing a new set. Different guys do different jobs. I highly doubt that the person in charge of game design is the same person that is building code and fixing bugs.

    The existence of this card isn't a threat to me, it makes my enjoyment of the game lower because it is boring to jam the same shell into every single deck I make. The goal is to win games, which I typically do. The best way to ensure I continue winning games is to continue using the most broken cards I own. In events where rewards or losses are meaningless, I run more fun and experimental decks. In the competitive weekend coalition events, I stick to boring BSZ combo monstrosities that just win. Hardly the exciting game play I want for a game I love (to hate).  
    I speak from owning both, and I would say Blue Sun's Zenith is hardly the most powerful card in the game. I'd put that at Killer Instinct. I can play BSZ and it gives me a lot of advantage, but that's all. On the other hand, I never have lost a game after getting Killer Instinct in play.

    Also I find it interesting you support nerfing it because you think it's boring... and from what I'm reading, because you aren't willing to do anything different or creative in events, and just do "stuff my deck full of all the monstrosities" Changing Blue Sun's Zenith won't change your issues if that's how you play as once this is lower in power level, then I would expect you to just play whatever is the next most powerful, and then new threads will pop up calling for those to be nerfed too.

    If we do the cards one at a time, we're just going to be playing whack-a-mole with these cards. There needs to be a large-scale adjustment of cards rather than one at a time.
    Hmm, I don't find Killer Instinct nearly as powerful as BSZ, since it can't infinitely loop and ends up a net negative on your board (since it kills a creature the turn you play it, and then goes 1 for 1 every turn after that).  It is still extremely powerful (and slightly bugged to be even better), but its not on the same level as BSZ, at least not in Standard.
    Play it right, and you'll end up ahead on creatures, being able to cheat out really high cost creatures for free every turn and end up with massive power in just a turn or two. Perhaps is how I'm playing them, but I don't have a deck set up that loops Blue Sun's Zenith, just use it in a red-blue wizards deck where everything in it costs 12 mana or less, then have to hope to find another copy wither when I cast it or hopefully within a couple turns...
    I could say the same thing about BSZ, play it right and you'll see why it's the single most powerful card in the game.
    I think this is where I would still point the finger, not at Blue Sun's Zenith, but their inability to properly balance multi-color planeswalkers. People have pointed to using Sarkhan as a way to loop gem converters and Sunbird's Invocation to take infinitely long turns and win in a single turn (to which I would argue that Blue Sun's Zenith could be replaced with another card draw spell and the deck would still function as it currently does)

    Playing a mono color planeswalker should give you the advantage of speed, playing two colors you should sacrifice a little speed for a bit more power. Playing three colors should put you at a massive tempo disadvantage, and I still say that a three color planeswalker should be prohibited from using cards not in their color identity (not that it would solve this specific problem, but it is a problem more generally. I don't want to see Sarkhan casting Trostani or see Bolas casting Muldrotha.)

    I think pointing the finger at one card and saying that's the problem is really overlooking the larger problems with the game as a whole, and I don't think they can be fixed by changing one card when changing this one card won't solve many of the other problems the game has.
  • Theros
    Theros Posts: 490 Mover and Shaker
    edited May 2019
    Options
    No
    wereotter said:
    I think this is where I would still point the finger, not at Blue Sun's Zenith, but their inability to properly balance multi-color planeswalkers. People have pointed to using Sarkhan as a way to loop gem converters and Sunbird's Invocation to take infinitely long turns and win in a single turn (to which I would argue that Blue Sun's Zenith could be replaced with another card draw spell and the deck would still function as it currently does)

    Playing a mono color planeswalker should give you the advantage of speed, playing two colors you should sacrifice a little speed for a bit more power. Playing three colors should put you at a massive tempo disadvantage, and I still say that a three color planeswalker should be prohibited from using cards not in their color identity (not that it would solve this specific problem, but it is a problem more generally. I don't want to see Sarkhan casting Trostani or see Bolas casting Muldrotha.)

    I think pointing the finger at one card and saying that's the problem is really overlooking the larger problems with the game as a whole, and I don't think they can be fixed by changing one card when changing this one card won't solve many of the other problems the game has.
    I don't think the issue is with PWs either. Reducing the color bonus on PWs just for being multi colored is not only unfair but  would also make the game too slow and said PWs unplayable. A look at Sarlhan 1 and Ajani 1&2 should are prime example. The Eldrazi Desolation PW is another example of a pretty useless PW.
    The way PWs are, its much better to have the maximum bonus on one color have it spread on others. For instance a PW with +4 on 2 color is superior to a PW with +2 on 4 colors regardless of color access and abilities. Karn would be useless if caped at +2 for instance.
    This games drives on mana and high color bonuses are critical which is partly why people may love bsz and other cards that make casting easier. Poor mana bonuses are reasons why origin and early pws are not played.

    The hate for blue is somewhat out of proportion. Other colors will eventually catch up as more sets are released.
    Blue was not always that dominant if you recall the early days; each color had its prime.
    Initially Red was the strongest in the early days with Chandra until she way eventually nerfed. Old Chandra was more cascading for cheap and therefore stronger than current Koth.

    With pws nerfs and added cards, Green became the next powerhouse.
    Another contender was White since the release of Eldritch Moon expansion. The color was short-lived when standard rotation was implemented.
    Blue was not as strong as Green and White in the old days.
    Since standard rotation, Blue still did not reign supreme that long compared to green and white. People make it look like Octagon loves Blue more than anything else.
    With time other colors with catch up. May be the next hate will be red.
    Currently the weakest color is white. 

  • wereotter
    wereotter Posts: 2,064 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited May 2019
    Options
    No
    Theros said:

    I don't think the issue is with PWs either. Reducing the color bonus on PWs just for being multi colored is not only unfair but  would also make the game too slow and said PWs unplayable. A look at Sarlhan 1 and Ajani 1&2 should are prime example. The Eldrazi Desolation PW is another example of a pretty useless PW.
    The way PWs are, its much better to have the maximum bonus on one color have it spread on others. For instance a PW with +4 on 2 color is superior to a PW with +2 on 4 colors regardless of color access and abilities. Karn would be useless if caped at +2 for instance.
    This games drives on mana and high color bonuses are critical which is partly why people may love bsz and other cards that make casting easier. Poor mana bonuses are reasons why origin and early pws are not played.

    The hate for blue is somewhat out of proportion. Other colors will eventually catch up as more sets are released.
    Blue was not always that dominant if you recall the early days; each color had its prime.
    Initially Red was the strongest in the early days with Chandra until she way eventually nerfed. Old Chandra was more cascading for cheap and therefore stronger than current Koth.

    With pws nerfs and added cards, Green became the next powerhouse.
    Another contender was White since the release of Eldritch Moon expansion. The color was short-lived when standard rotation was implemented.
    Blue was not as strong as Green and White in the old days.
    Since standard rotation, Blue still did not reign supreme that long compared to green and white. People make it look like Octagon loves Blue more than anything else.
    With time other colors with catch up. May be the next hate will be red.
    Currently the weakest color is white. 

    Also, to add to this, white actually was the strongest color for a while.... 'member Cast Out? For a good chunk of time in the Amonkhet days every deck you faced seemed to be a celebration of creature disable supports. Now you rarely see a Hixus coming out at you despite being legal forever.

    Though I will say this much, I think when it comes to mana bonuses, a three color walker should have average gains in one primary color, poorer gains in the other two, and negative in the two colors it is not, and not just -1 like they have now. They should get 0 mana from off color matches. The fact that they currently have so many more options for what to throw into the deck should be the offset by making mana to cast all the different colors harder.

    Something like for Bolas +3 on black, +2 on red and blue, -2/-3 on white and green. Sarkhan would be treated similarly, I would say +3 on red for him, +2 on green and blue, and the negatives on white and black.
  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Yes
    True, but i'm getting a bit fed up with this behavior of going on and on and on and on untill that person gets what he wants. It's (to me) not about the actual contents of the request , it's about trying to just bluntforce the devs into submission. (and flooding the forum with it)
    You're not paying close enough attention if you think this is simply ranting and raving. Let me spell it out for you. This game has way more potential for depth, strategy, enjoyment, complexity, etc, than Oktagon have managed to squeeze out of it. If you track Starfall's post history, you'll notice a trend of consistently trying to get Oktagon to maximizing that potential. It just so happens that one of the easiest and most obvious places to start in that crusade is in getting them to acknowledge poor design decisions, which they are consistently resistant to doing. If you're fed up with it, just ignore the posts. Nobody's forcing you to read them.

    Aeroplane said:

    Nice results.. Looks like we can stop kicking at this dead horse. 
    I wonder how many of the people in the "No" camp regularly finish top of their individual placement brackets? Furthermore, I wonder how many of them stand to lose a placement tier or two if this card is actually nerfed?

    Dkrone said:

    I want to know how many of you that said yes actually have the card. Do you find yourself saying “this card is making my deck too good, I sure wish it was weaker.” Or are you just whining because you don’t have it? Save your pinks or just wait a few months and it’ll be out of standard.

    I think the rest of us who took the time to save and get it would feel gypped if they nerfed it now, I would anyway.
    I've had it since the second week that M19 was made available. From my very first game using it, I said it should be nerfed. You bet your **** we actually think it should be weaker! The same crowd speaking about a nerf here is (I believe) mostly the same bunch who said Cycling needed a nerf. Our concerns are not over win/loss records. We're worried about the health of the game. If you look at the collective post history of those of us advocating this, you'll find it's a level-headed bunch of players who enjoy the game enough to be concerned about its longevity, which is a moot point if the devs don't know that we think there's a problem.

    Dkrone said:

    I just don’t get it. I play this game daily and I may lose strictly because of BSZ once a day, probably not even that much. You make it seem like the entire game is busted and that every deck is using it, and using it well. That’s not my experience. I’m platinum so it’s not like I’m playing with folks who don’t have the card. Maybe people just don’t like losing. The *game* is to figure out how to beat someone who uses it (or any good cards), not complain to dev that there is a mean ol’ card out there. Sphinx’s Decree, discard spells, whatever...there are ways around it. 
    You're not paying attention if you don't get it, especially if this paragraph is actually your understanding of the argument. It's literally got nothing at all to do with what people are actually saying to justify a nerf. This card is as bad an offender as Cycling. It smothers deck variety in your opponents, it stifles creativity in the decks of those who do own it, and it makes winning an afterthought. The longer these trends characterize the environment, the more people will leave out of boredom or frustration, and the more people who leave, the worse the game does, possibly even leading to it being discontinued or shut down. Cards as broken as this one are absolutely terrible for games for
    all of the reasons I've just outlined for you.

    Dkrone said:

    “I don’t like using it so no one should be able to”? Come on, you can build winning decks without it. All of this talk about how it hurts the game and everyone uses it is junk. All I hear is “I’m losing games waaah”, so what. Don’t act like you guys are all about the purity of the game, you want to win every game and it bothers you when you don’t. 

    The real issue that needs to be addressed is the crashes. That does actually impact everyone. 
    First of all, flagged because this was pretty ****. Moving on, if you can build winning decks without it, show me one please. Those of us in top ten teams might well be able to make such a deck, but the simple fact is that if you want to remain competitive at that level, you would be handicapping yourself if you didn't use it. Regarding your personal attack, you're dead wrong. Nobody here is complaining about losing games. If you actually pay attention instead of jumping to bias-fueled conclusions, you'll see that our complaints all focus on the fact that the card stifles creativity, and thus variety. Additionally, it completely trivializes winning. It removes the minimal level of skill that this game requires without cards like BSZ being thrown into the mix.

    wereotter said:

    Revamp all the over powered cards and reassess all planeswlkers skills, mana bonuses, and health totals, and I'll get on board with including Blue Sun's Zenith in that group. Leave all the other cards as-is, and I saw leave this one too.
    Well they have to start somewhere, don't they? Why not with the most egregious offender?

    Azerack said:

    Extra: Just a few mins ago, had a Bolas vs. Bolas in Rising Tensions, we both had BSZ in our decks, which I thought was funny right after I posted this comment. I still managed to win. Just saying, it's not an instant-win card.
    You're completely missing the point. People aren't complaining because it's an instant win for Greg. The complaints are over the fact that it makes winning your matches all but dummy-proof. As Starfall has mentioned, it'll be interesting to see the spike in complaints about how slow matches are once the card rotates into Legacy.

    wereotter said:

    As with many cards, I will state that it is not just the card, but it's also what people are doing with it. I don't want to be a jerk player with degenerate decks that go infinite in the AI's hands, I want to build something fun and synergistic in a different type of way, and I don't care for it to go infinite (I realized how boring that was with how Baral was released) and am not trying to grief other players. I've seen that Sarkhan deck, I tried it out, I found it really boring to play, and now don't use it.
    With the greatest respect, wereotter, if your goal in the game is to play fun decks, rather than highly competitive ones, then are you the best player to assess whether cards are too powerful or not?

    bken1234 said:
    I barely even use this card. 
    I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. If anything, and just as you've written it, completely on its own as a single statement with no amplifying information (such as "...because I don't like it." or "...because it doesn't suit my play style"), it's a declaration of the fact that your vote should probably carry a little less weight than those of others, because it's based on a lesser degree of familiarity with just what, exactly, the card makes possible.


    wereotter said:

    I think pointing the finger at one card and saying that's the problem is really overlooking the larger problems with the game as a whole, and I don't think they can be fixed by changing one card when changing this one card won't solve many of the other problems the game has.
    This much, at least, we can agree on. But back to my previous quote from your posts, you have to start somewhere. Original Baral was a problem. So is this card.
  • Theros
    Theros Posts: 490 Mover and Shaker
    Options
    No
    I want to change my vote to I don't care. Why bother after 3.4?
  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,237 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Yes
    The good news is, after 6 months and $150, people can just craft it anyway. The playing field will be leveled!
  • rafalele
    rafalele Posts: 876 Critical Contributor
    Options
    No
    Theros said:
    I want to change my vote to I don't care. Why bother after 3.4?
    That is exactly what I came to write.
  • Mburn7
    Mburn7 Posts: 3,427 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Yes
    starfall said:
    My prediction is something equally as broken will pop in in WAR, in order to encourage people to sign up to the new subscription service. Maybe multiple somethings.
    Oh yeah.  Olivia 2.0 is on the horizon.
  • Tremayne
    Tremayne Posts: 1,624 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Mburn7 said:
    starfall said:
    My prediction is something equally as broken will pop in in WAR, in order to encourage people to sign up to the new subscription service. Maybe multiple somethings.
    Oh yeah.  Olivia 2.0 is on the horizon.
    I have heard rumours about Piglivia of the Krallenhorde
This discussion has been closed.