Fixing broken cards? Yea, nay. meh?

2

Comments

  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,264 Chairperson of the Boards
    yes and no, Maybe two, three or five cards but leave the rest alone.
    Sirchombli said:
     Still don't have most of them. I feel like nerfing cards is spitting in the faces of the people who choose to spend money on the game. F2p is a choice, after all 

    F2P viability is also necessary for the game to succeed and flourish. 

    I've whaled extensively, but that doesn't mean I can't look past my own self-interest and realize that broken cards make broken games that no one wants to play. 


  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    yes and no, Maybe two, three or five cards but leave the rest alone.
    Gormhaus said:
    Fix broken mechanics? YES. "Fix" like they fixed Beral? NO!
      Do you honestly think Baral being changed was a bad thing?
  • wereotter
    wereotter Posts: 2,070 Chairperson of the Boards
    YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format
    UweTellkampf said:
    @wereotter the recent few legacy events I was surprised to see a really small number of "broken cards". Maybe I just got lucky, but the people seem to be focussing on the objectives and not really putting Olivia in every deck. And even if there was one, there are so many answers to the threats these cards are producing, so that for me it's even more fun beating a seemingly OP deck, than beating a helpless cycling N3 build and the AI that keeps casting drake haven.

    Nevertheless, I voted yes. I believe that the game would profit in variance (deck building possibilities, encountering new cards) if there was a larger "midfield" of cards, meaning a broader inventory of spells, creatures and support, that have interesting effects and are not too overpriced in terms of mana costs. This would mean that on the other end some existing cards of the "broken" feel should become more expensive to cast (depending on their rarity). New Perspectives for example should cost four times as much as it costs now (or give less mana to cycling cards), since it just creates a huge winning predisposition. Others, that seem cool but are way too expensive, could be reduced in their costs slightly in order to make them more interesting.
    Olivia is definitely a force to be reckoned with, but she's only one of many, many cards that I see all too often and are just ridiculously over powered, cards I'll be happy to never see again. Short list:

    Olivia
    Ulrich
    Metalwork Colossus
    Angel of Invention
    Tyrant of Valakut

    These are cards I see played WAY too often and are either ridiculously powerful or incredibly obnoxious to be on the other side of, and all need a rework. Either way the previous over saturation of these cards has turned me off to the entire legacy format in the game and has me looking forward to the day when Kaladesh leaves standard.
  • Szamsziel
    Szamsziel Posts: 463 Mover and Shaker
    For creatures you mentioned: Olivia, pig, Angel - all are quite expensive and can be removed or stopped easily. Actually I like when opponent cast Olivia on my green Sandwurm decks ;)
    Each color have cheap ways to deal with them. I'd rather worried about untargetable supports - omninescence - I'm looking at you! For each strategy there is an answer so I don't see that single card is broken. Baral itself was not a problem - abundance of cheap spells make him broken.
    The only thing I'd like to see is adding more control like cards - aggro and combo decks are in good shape.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,979 Chairperson of the Boards
    YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format
    Matthew said:
    Gormhaus said:
    Fix broken mechanics? YES. "Fix" like they fixed Beral? NO!
      Do you honestly think Baral being changed was a bad thing?

    Believe it or not, there was a significant amount of people who thought Baral shouldn't have been changed. 
  • Gilesclone
    Gilesclone Posts: 735 Critical Contributor
    The problem was, people paid cash for a card that was obviously broken. No possible painless solution to that.
  • Gormhaus
    Gormhaus Posts: 190 Tile Toppler
    yes and no, Maybe two, three or five cards but leave the rest alone.
    Matthew said:
    Gormhaus said:
    Fix broken mechanics? YES. "Fix" like they fixed Beral? NO!
      Do you honestly think Baral being changed was a bad thing?
    I liked Beral and i didnt think he needed to be nerfed. His only drawback was when the ai piloted him the matches were long. He was just as powerful as a drakehaven cycling deck or kiora crazy cascade deck. 
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,979 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited October 2017
    YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format
    Your solution was to leave the card alone?

    Old Baral was the definition of P2W. Most of us who bought him only did so because they didn't want to be left behind when we saw how  it was going to ruin the game experience for the rest. 
  • morgue427
    morgue427 Posts: 783 Critical Contributor
    NO!!!, Legacy is legacy... it is what it is. I PAID/EARNED that card so don't you dare! If you can't handle the heat then get outta the kitchen, bub (bubette).
    i bought it, yes i knew it would be broken. It was, and i used it just on pve challenges the rest of the time it just was not worth the effort or time for the long drawn out battle just to have one creauture high enough to kill the opponent for one round only. fixed he is in several of my decks he isnt huge but a decent price with the advantage of being a decent mana ramp to get more spells out, baral and cheap black kills spells in t2 wow ;-)
  • Gilesclone
    Gilesclone Posts: 735 Critical Contributor
    Gormhaus said:
    Matthew said:
    Gormhaus said:
    Fix broken mechanics? YES. "Fix" like they fixed Beral? NO!
      Do you honestly think Baral being changed was a bad thing?
    I liked Beral and i didnt think he needed to be nerfed. His only drawback was when the ai piloted him the matches were long. He was just as powerful as a drakehaven cycling deck or kiora crazy cascade deck. 
    Unlike cycling, Baral was inflicting turn 3 losses when piloted by the AI.
  • wereotter
    wereotter Posts: 2,070 Chairperson of the Boards
    YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format
    Szamsziel said:
    For creatures you mentioned: Olivia, pig, Angel - all are quite expensive and can be removed or stopped easily. Actually I like when opponent cast Olivia on my green Sandwurm decks ;)
    Each color have cheap ways to deal with them. I'd rather worried about untargetable supports - omninescence - I'm looking at you! For each strategy there is an answer so I don't see that single card is broken. Baral itself was not a problem - abundance of cheap spells make him broken.
    The only thing I'd like to see is adding more control like cards - aggro and combo decks are in good shape.
    The problem is that if you don't have that solution in hand, you're screwed. And no, not every color can cheaply take them out as green's only creature removal in legacy is Scour from Existence, and that's hardly a cheap spell. But the problem I find with the last three is that they can easily take out your entire board state the turn they come out.

    On a related note, Sandwurm Convergence is another of those cards that feels ridiculously over powered. For its effect. The card does accurately reflect it's paper counterpart, however, the cost of the card is too low for it's power level. It's an 8-mana spell in paper magic, should have translated to a higher cost here. World Breaker is 25 mana and is a 7-mana spell in paper magic.
  • wickedwitch74
    wickedwitch74 Posts: 267 Mover and Shaker
    Gilesclone said:
    The problem was, people paid cash for a card that was obviously broken. No possible painless solution to that.
    If there were terms and conditions (and there probably are) that stated D3 reserves the right to change the text and/or behavior of any card, would people still buy cards that are obviously broken? My guess is that they probably would take that risk.

    For the health of the game, the designers need to take steps and modify cards that debase the player experience. I, as a consumer, understand this.
  • Gilesclone
    Gilesclone Posts: 735 Critical Contributor
    In a way SWC is worse.  There is no targeted support removal in the game.
  • Gilesclone
    Gilesclone Posts: 735 Critical Contributor
    wickedwitch74 said:
    Gilesclone said:
    The problem was, people paid cash for a card that was obviously broken. No possible painless solution to that.
    If there were terms and conditions (and there probably are) that stated D3 reserves the right to change the text and/or behavior of any card, would people still buy cards that are obviously broken? My guess is that they probably would take that risk.

    For the health of the game, the designers need to take steps and modify cards that debase the player experience. I, as a consumer, understand this.
    The card had to be fixed.  I object to the fact that they deliberately designed an overpowered card because they knew they could sell it. 
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,979 Chairperson of the Boards
    YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format
    Gilesclone said:
    wickedwitch74 said:
    Gilesclone said:
    The problem was, people paid cash for a card that was obviously broken. No possible painless solution to that.
    If there were terms and conditions (and there probably are) that stated D3 reserves the right to change the text and/or behavior of any card, would people still buy cards that are obviously broken? My guess is that they probably would take that risk.

    For the health of the game, the designers need to take steps and modify cards that debase the player experience. I, as a consumer, understand this.
    The card had to be fixed.  I object to the fact that they deliberately designed an overpowered card because they knew they could sell it. 

    Well, in a way I agree. I think they knew they were designing a very powerful card, but they didn't see how degenerate it would be despite multiple warnings by the community between our first preview and the day it went for sale. A lot of us were trying to tell them, "DON'T release this card as is! You are just going to have to change it," and they ignored the warning. Then when all hell broke loose, they dragged their heels for weeks about changing it. Partly because the designers treated it like a bug rather than a complete design flaw. 
  • shteev
    shteev Posts: 2,031 Chairperson of the Boards
    Mainloop25 said:
    Gilesclone said:
    wickedwitch74 said:
    Gilesclone said:
    The problem was, people paid cash for a card that was obviously broken. No possible painless solution to that.
    If there were terms and conditions (and there probably are) that stated D3 reserves the right to change the text and/or behavior of any card, would people still buy cards that are obviously broken? My guess is that they probably would take that risk.

    For the health of the game, the designers need to take steps and modify cards that debase the player experience. I, as a consumer, understand this.
    The card had to be fixed.  I object to the fact that they deliberately designed an overpowered card because they knew they could sell it. 

    Well, in a way I agree. I think they knew they were designing a very powerful card, but they didn't see how degenerate it would be despite multiple warnings by the community between our first preview and the day it went for sale. A lot of us were trying to tell them, "DON'T release this card as is! You are just going to have to change it," and they ignored the warning. Then when all hell broke loose, they dragged their heels for weeks about changing it. Partly because the designers treated it like a bug rather than a complete design flaw. 
    Forum users should bear responsibility for this too. If they hadn't been a tiny bit sarcastic when pointing out just how powerful Baral was, I'm sure D3/Hibernum wouldn't have pushed ahead with their egregious and calculated business plan.
  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    edited October 2017
    yes and no, Maybe two, three or five cards but leave the rest alone.
    Mainloop25 said:

    Believe it or not, there was a significant amount of people who thought Baral shouldn't have been changed. 
    The thing is, those players are more than likely not interested in the overall health of the game. I paid for him, but as you yourself said in your post just a few slots down from the one I've quoted here, it was because I knew I'd be worse off if I didn't do so. And yet, despite paying for him and abusing him, as did everyone else who bought him (myself included), you were here along with me and many others trying to talk some sense into the developers about his game-breaking design.

    The card was the textbook definition of game-breaking. But as both you and @Gilesclone pointed out, this was almost certainly an intentional move on the part of the D3/Hibernum as a way to push a spike in revenue. Thus, it was sold in its original form, and we endured weeks and weeks of nonsense.

    Gormhaus said:

    I liked Beral and i didnt think he needed to be nerfed. His only drawback was when the ai piloted him the matches were long. He was just as powerful as a drakehaven cycling deck or kiora crazy cascade deck. 
    Try to look at it from the perspective of what is good for the game though, rather than what is good for just you as an individual. It seems to me that you're overlooking the fact that this single card completely warped the way the game was played. In a game like this one, where you have no options that allow you to interact with your opponent during their turn, cards like Baral, which change how the entire game has to be played, should never make it out of the concept phase. No single card should ever be that powerful. Paper Magic is all about balance, and that's a lesson that Hibernum failed to realize, to their own detriment. That sort of thing is not good in any game you play. At least, not if you want that game to continue to exist so that you can continue to enjoy it.
  • Mainloop25
    Mainloop25 Posts: 1,979 Chairperson of the Boards
    YES!!!!! This would add balance to the present legacy/standard format
    Yeah Kiora cascade decks are their own problem, as well. You just don't see them often due to the much-needed introduction of limited format.
  • morgue427
    morgue427 Posts: 783 Critical Contributor
    NO!!!, Legacy is legacy... it is what it is. I PAID/EARNED that card so don't you dare! If you can't handle the heat then get outta the kitchen, bub (bubette).
    well said as a player you should realize you cant win every battle, there will always be one deck or time you go against that you will just not get what you need to beat it. knowing it was a beat because of bad luck not bad design. continue on with life blaming cards because you dont have them is just the easy way into the land of denial. Baral did break the system not just because the ai could just quick kill you but because it took all of the parts that make magic fun, which is options, with him the turn started and then ended some time later 5-10-20 minutes later and all you could do is watch. that is fun i can watch video replays and enjoy that more. olivia and war pig bad opponents to suddenly have drop but both are managable honestly, i was suprised gisela was never complained about a 8/8 life link first striker in gideon and turned into a defender is obnoxious, i still use it on the pve challeneges when i can

Categories