PDA

View Full Version : My personal take on the necessary balance changes



Yogim4n
01-26-2015, 11:23 PM
First i would like to tell you about my personal expirience before i present my take on balance changes to this game. I've first started playing this game 4-6 months ago back when Hearthstone streamer Trump pubished his paid preview of this game on his youtube channel via a promotional series of videos. Since then i have reached Champion III with 2500 current points, although ranked was never my thing. My main faction is Haven followed up by Academy and then Necropolis,Sanctuary. My main deck is Cassandra Barracks.

The way i am going to present new changes is first i will state the new changes followed up by my reasoning as to why is it done/needed to be done. Effects stated in ( ) are the optional requests which i am uncertain about and would require adittional testing/discussing.

Inferno

We all know that Kal-Azar is the boss right now due to his absurd card advantage with hero ability + Spell stealer Heretic followed up by Time Jump kills. Next to Kal-Azar are all other burn orientated inferno decks such as Ignatius that relly on dealing damage to opponent hero through indirect damage.

New Spell stealer Heretic: Same stats,same cost, same requirements, ability: Magic Channel 2, When Spell stealer Heretic enters the battleground you may take target instant Dark of Fire spell from your graveyard and add it to your hand, it costs 2(1) less. After you play that spell banish it.
Explanation: This card made Kal-Azar upsurd since he could use his hero ability to toss spells into graveyard and then play then for free when summoning SSH giving him huge advantage over anyone else that doesnt run this card/combo. With this change the value granted from SSH would still be very good, you get a free +1 its just that it would require extra resources to play the card which would reduce the instant tempo advantage granted previously by this card.

New Bound Sucubuss: Same stats,same cost, same requirements, ability: Immunte to Retailation, When this creature attacks and destroys a creature, inflict 3 damage to enemy hero.
Explanation: Bound Sucubuss was a very cheap and non-interactive way to deal damage to your opponents. She is litteraly a Blackskull Shredder which cannot be blocked, just on steroids. With this change this creature would actually have to do something and would still represent a threat to burning your enemy,while giving your opponent a way to respond and not forcing them to have an instant removal.

New Sacrificial Pit: Same cost, same requirements, ability: Whenever a creature at Sacrificial Pit dies, inflict 1 damage to enemy hero. After 4 damge was done by this effect, destroy this building.
Explanation: Sometimes it is entierly possible to kill your opponent by only using this card, litteraly dealing 10 or more damage without an actual way for your enemy to respond but to have a building destruction/partial negation card which some factions/heroes outright dont have. A slight buff that it doesnt require an inferno creature no more would in my oppinion suffice.

Thats it for inferno specific changes, however at the end i will state couple of spell changes which will further influence on this factions current dominance. The burn/aggro strats wlll still be viable just a bit slower giving some control decks more time to try to deal with them.

Academy

This faction is considered weak, however it has couple of viable options such as Nahla Time Jump, Myranda with neutral spirits or Ashalah mass rage. Nahla Time jump can be extremly frustrating to play againts due to Arkath's Wrath clearing your board with no possible counter to avoid it followed up by summoning a bunch of Djinn Cloudshapers + OTK with Time jumps for a low price. Myranda can deal massive damage out of nowhere with Free Mage altars and Arcane Eagles. Mass rage decks in general are very poorly designed in my oppinion. They encourage minimal player interaction, for one player its very interesting to control/play arround with mindless and hopless creatures affected by berserk. This forces opponent to have a counter, and if he doesnt its most likely lights for them especially if they play a slower control deck. However all this doesnt make Academy too strong so there are not so many changes directly to this faction but academy will be affected later with spell changes that i have in mind.

New Shifting Fates: Cost 1 , same requirements, ability : Same ability with an addition. After the selected prime creatures are sent to graveyard, banish them instead.
Explanation: This card sometimes could be a winning condition in itself. Some decks that dont run Rise of the Nethermancer could get really hard abused by this card, constantly recycling strong creature weather it be a strong Prime creature or Void Wraith. Picking them back once should be more then enough for this card to be effective. A cost reduction is implemented to make it cheaper while weaker then before.

Stronghold

Stronghold has recieved a hit with Sins of Betrayal release and i believe that they are for the most part at the right place as balance is conceared. Kat with all unique epics could be considered a pay to win deck which can be a problem on lower lvl of play. I faced it when i was starting and was pretty pissed. Shaar, Invoker of the Skies is a sort of Kal-Azar on small scale, with his hero power really being quite strong in my oppinion.

New Zefiria,Windchaser : Same cost, same requirements,same stats, abiliy: Spell Resist, the rest of the ability is the same.
Explanation: This card is a must have for all Stronghold decks and for a good reason. However factions that dont run instant removal and have mostly magic creatures can have a hard time just trying to stop this single card as she can win the match very quickly if not dealth with immediately. This small change would make this card more fair and less pay-to-win in my oppinion.

New Shaar, Invoker of the Skies: Same stats, ability: Cost 1 resource : Discard a card then target two friendly creatures, they gain +1 attack until the end of this turn.
Explanation: This hero could pretty much preform Kal-Azar on small scale with constant gain from his hero power while gaining the board advantage with board clears. With this small cost it will slow down the damage he can deal while not harming him too much in any other aspects.

New Might of the Tribe: Cost 3,same requirements, same ability.
Explanation: Sometimes this card would infict too much damage for its cost. This slight nerf would affect it in late game as it should belong there.

Stronghold is fine and fair faction. Yes sometimes Acamas can get pretty crazy and all but that deck relies on direct damage which can be blocked by infinite ways. All in all not many changes are needed here.

Necropolis

This faction is also considered weak, but more then that people think of this faction as annoying to versus with. There are couple of decks for this faction, Seria with stacks, Both new and old Motehr Namtaru and Vampire decks with all sorts of heroes although they are kind weak. Boneyard can be a win condition in itself causing the opponent faction to run Rise of the Nethermancer in order to deal with. Time jump is an essential component of most of these Necropolis decks and later on i will point my changes there.

New Boneyard: Cost 3, same requirements, ability: Same with adittion. After 5 creatues have been deployed with this ability destroy this building.
Explanation: With a small cost reduction i gave this card a limit to how many creatures it can bring back. Again the reasoning here is that this card takes no real tactic or thought to play while giving you free pluses and forces your opponent to have Rise of the nethermancer or a building removal which are rare in this game(earth and prime only).

New Eternal Apprentice: Same cost, same requirements,same stats, Melee-Shooter , ability: Crippling 1, When this creature is deployed put 1 crippling counter on all enemy creatures in the same row as Eternal Apprentice.
Explanation: This card can slow games down to a point where the other player just doesnt want to play anymore. With a small buff making it a melee-shooter this creature will have the same effect when it comes into play but wont be as annoying as it used to be. This card was made with an idea to slow down the game but there needs to a limit as to how much a single card can do.

Necropolis is an alright faction i personally wouldnt mind if there were no changes at all here but this is for the good of all, for people that hate Necropolis and for ones that love it.

Haven

Haven is in my oppinion a very viable fation. The most popluar decks are Cassandra building, Alia mass rage, Anton stacks and variations on light/angel decks using Kieran or Morgan. Light/angel decks at this point in time are fair and balanced decktypes. However Barracks with Construction can sometimes spiral out of control very fast leaving many decks including Kal-Azar hopeless as you can swam the board by pretty much playing the smallest creatues over and over.

New Barracks: Same cost, same requirements, ability: same with an addition: After 7(?) creatues was deployed by this ability destroy this building.
Explanation: This building provided infinite advantage and it forced your opponents to either struggle forever with it or have a building destruction card which are rare in this game(earth and prime). I present this idea of limitation but i am unsure of how many would it be enough for this to still be fair and viable card.

New Cleansing Pristess: Same cost, same requirements, ability: same with an addition: If Cleansing Pristess did not attack and did not move, ...
Explanation: This card in my oppinion was really strong and it needed to be nerfed a bit. On lower level of plays this card can completly stop the opponent in his tracks and pretty much win you the game by just playing it.

New Warding Inquisitor:Same cost, requirements 3(4) might 3 magic, same ability.
Explanation: A small nerf to this card as it is pretty strong right now.

I believe Haven is right behind inferno in this current meta and it doesnt require too much changes as it isnt overpowered. With barracks nerf it should be a fine faction.

Sanctuary

Sanctuary is considered the weakest faction right now due to Arkath's Wrath being run in most of the compedative decks and that card on its own entierly crushes this faction. Stanctuary overall recieved some decent cards in latest expansion(SoB) but was just pushed away with Kal-Azar meta. Sanctuary has couple of ok decks most of which relly on positioning and semi board clears. Being the weakest faction right now not many changes are needed to it. Time will tell if this faction will rise up from the ashes, ups water i mean.

Spells

Spells as of right now completly override the exsitance of fortunes except the selected few. Most notable spells are Arkath's Wrath, Time jump, Soul reaver, Freezing wave, list goes on. Some of the powerful spells need to stay as they are essential to some factions such as Academy or Sanctuary. However some spells like Arkath's Wrath, Time Jump and Mass rage are in my opinion the spells that are drestroying the essence of this game.

New Arkath's Wrath: Same cost,same requirements, ability: Deal 4 damage to all enemy creatures and 2 damage to all friendly creatures. This damage cannot be prevented,reduced or incressed.
Explanation: This card made so many decks unviable and in the same time created many decks that can get away with simple tactics such as mass rage and time jumps. Players would just sit back at the start of the game, level up their magic and then clear the board infinitely while the opponent couldnt prevent this in any way what so ever. A huge change was needed and i believe this is the right way. This card would still deal with small creatures(4 heath range) and would not be used to crush litteraly everthing with no effort.

New Time Jump: Same cost,same requirements, ability: Same with addition: During this extra turn all damage done to enemy hero is halved rounded down.
Explanation: Back in the day the frist time i saw this card i thought of it as an ultimate comeback card, a tool to bring back the board control. What it turned out to be is a cheap way to do OTKs or finish off opponents with high attack low cost creatures. With this change Time jump will be still very strong while drasticly reducing its OTK / hero kill potential that i really disliked about it. This change will hit all Time jump decks pretty hard but it is for the good cause as i never liked the advantage you can get out of this card which is still pretty signiicat. Kal-Azar, Both Namtarus, Myranda and many other high burst potential heros/decks that relied on this card will be affected by this change.

New Frozen Wave: Cost 6,same requirements,same ability.
Explanation: With Arkath's Wrath nerf it would be only fair to nerf this card too as some decks could just switch into using this card over the previously mentioned one.

New Mass Rage: Cost 2,same requirements,same ability with an addition: 4 turns after this cards activation, destroy this card.
Explanation: Although Mass Rage itself creates a decktype which is cool thing, its design is very unfriendly to the player having to deal with it as it creates no interaction and gives one player the full domination of the game. If your opponent doesnt have a way to deal with it and/or is running a slower deck its very likely he will lose. In additon it forces very long games 20+ minutes. This made me question myself what am i doing in this game if i am just going to sit here while unable to play pretty much knowing i will lose in 15+ minutes. Very lame design overall and with limited duration mass rage would still be a thing but it atleast wouldnt require a direct counter. A cost nerf is a small supliment.

That is all for my suggested balance changes. I hope someone will read all of it as its quite a big wall of text but it was all made for a good cause, or atleast i hope so. Tell me if you like them or not. I would like to hear your ideas and the way you would make some changes to the current balance issue. Any critique is welcome. I am still having blast with this game and i am eagerly awaiting for new things to come.

Disgallion
01-27-2015, 12:19 AM
All the things that you suggest are currently impossible to put in game due to the game mecanics.
Because the game can't know how much time/counts/hits happened for a cards and it can't know which cards was sent to your hand (about your SSH) for exemple.
Also it's not about nerfing cards like mass rage/TJ/FW/AW, it's more about adding counter to them I think. Standard is a very narrow metagame, nerfing theses cards which don't have that much impact on open could kill them in the future, in both formats.

Cainium
01-27-2015, 02:09 AM
Also it's not about nerfing cards like mass rage/TJ/FW/AW, it's more about adding counter to them I think.

You can't add "endless" counters to OP stuff. That wouldn't change the metagame much. For example, if you give Sanctuary a reliable counter card against Arkath Wraith, which isn't complete dead against everything else, Sanctuary would automatically become the new "King". If you add a counter to this the wheel rotates again. This repeats until you have a metagame where a few decks are top(1 - 2), and some other (2-3) which can withstand the best but aren't really stronger nor negate each other out of the meta.

I still think the low and cheap damage abilities are the real problem, 'cause they hinder you from playing tactical with a good blocking strategy. If you look at the chinese servers, the Haven creature with Preemptive Strike AND Perfect Retaliate for TWO ressources is the outcome of this. You literally can't kill this creature with any two drop in the game (assuming Perfect Retaliate negates Immune to retaliation). It makes blocking possible but a no-brainer and cancels out all heroes which can't deal with him in time without losing to much tempo.

That's not the right way to "balance" this game.

Yogim4n
01-27-2015, 02:33 AM
My idea with puting the timers in for some of those cards was to not hinder the card itself instantly but rather give an opponent thats dealing with it a chance to fight back later in game if he survives its initial counter and doesnt run specific counters. I had countless people swearing at me when i deploy 2-3 buildings as Haven on them on turn 5 followed up by ragequits. I myself was pissed a ton of times when i play vs mass rage, the game lasts 20 mins and if i dont have TJ or a counter i insta lose since i mostly play midrange or slower decks.
The counter could be represented by a small hourglass that would count numbers on that card as it triggers it timer conditions and it would be placed on the bottom/top of the card. SSH thing where a card was added to hand would be easily trackeble as its cost was reduced and if you lets say have multiple of same card, the one bounced back will be the cost reduced one, or they could just have some sort of tag on it, million ways to implement this.
Also these cards dont have much impact on Open as in that format its all about rushy decks and OP cards/combos so i didnt/wont even consider that format. If cards from Open are to be returning to standard they would have to heavily tuned down in most cases as they are way over the top compared to what we have in standard.
Nerfing cheap damage abilities would create an all out rushy meta i think and my goal was to move it all towards mid/late game without runinig any current decktype.

Yogim4n
01-27-2015, 02:36 AM
Yes ofcourse that you could rotate sets but this was my take on the current stuff. I wouldnt like to see any of those cards litteraly removed from the game. Indeed sometimes u dont even have an option to rebalance a card for example if they are getting printed ( u could errata it ) but since this is a video game you can nerf stuff.

Yogim4n
01-27-2015, 02:56 AM
Yes i see your point and you are 100% right. I would like to see new Base Set released but i am also afraid if they will be able to create new and properly tested cards without totally screwing the game up. Indeed for any TCG standards, BS2 is runnuing for too long. I dont know but i really like the things are as of right now with few exceptions such as everyone and their mother playing Inferno.

Xyx0rz
01-29-2015, 02:57 PM
I, as everyone else, believe there are issues with balance that should be addresed ASAP. But we have to change our mindset of nerf, nerf always nerf. Nerfing is basically a bad idea and a last resource. It speaks very bad for the devs if the nerf very often, and this is not my opinion, is common knowledge in the TCG's world.
While I agree that developers should not treat their customers as unpaid beta testers, MtG's long history clearly shows that the alternatives (particularly printing counters) are only partially effective at best. You cannot hate a good card out. The overpowered card will continue to ruin games in which the counter isn't drawn in time, and the meta will remain warped.

Xev5
01-29-2015, 04:51 PM
Because the game can't know how much time/counts/hits happened for a cards and it can't know which cards was sent to your hand (about your SSH) for exemple.

Sounds like ********. Each time such an ability triggers, you might as well put a random counter on the card that does nothing, and once it has enough of those it gets destroyed. This is already pretty much how Soulfire works (or what is the name of that card anyways).

The game engine can't remember which card in hand is which? ******** again, Shalan and other sanctuary cost-reducing effects work just fine on bounced cards.

SerianTollus
02-05-2015, 07:51 PM
I think the single worst mistake by the developers (and their testers - it seems they have too much influence) was the introduction of Dragon Crystal. A clear emulation from The Coin, it obviously didnt worked as intended, since the games are so different. The Inferno dominance, disappearance of control and stall decks, even midrange board control, can be largely attributed to this really bad design decision. A different solution to goes first disadvantage could singlehandedly change the whole meta.

Yogim4n
02-05-2015, 08:31 PM
I dont like to put blame on anyone, but i cant stop wondering how did developers and testers let cards like Spell Stealer Heretic and Bound Sucubuss exist as they are. As if they didnt play with them at all or something. On the other hand, Time Jump makes so many heroes unviable due to the upsurd advantage you gain from playing that card. Control vs Control right now is pretty much decided as to who plays/has Time Jumps. Reworking the 1st/2nd turn advantage/disadvantage in my opinion woudlnt dethrone Kal-Azar, however i do agree that right now its not at fine spot.

Mushidoz
02-05-2015, 10:06 PM
The turn 1 turn 2 thing was implemented because the "pros" refused to build decks that had t1 options, so they spammed t2 oriented decks and complained that whenever you had t2 you automatically won (duh). The result is that we now have an even worse situation because while being first or second doesn't change much, we now have a game that is far more unbalanced as it was then, due to some factions / types of decks gaining a HUGE buff due to how their curve usually worked (they start to spam t2 / t3 / t4 faster than before)

If I am to comment on the crystal itself though (because we are stuck with the same complainers in the VIPS, so it's not gonna change anytime soon).. I think that coin should have been the first of a new type of cards that you can (and must) have only one of in your deck.

Let' say they were called "Jokers". You get to choose one "Joker" in deck creation, which would obviously have different effects.

For example
Dragon Crystal -> gives either 1 production, draw 1 card or deal 1 dmg to a creature.
Phoenix Crystal -> Heals 2 hp from up to 2 creatures
Magus Crystal --> Draw 2 cards
etc.

This would open up more strategy for the crystal.. but tbh, I think the problem is that the dragon crystal itself is probably too strong as a basis to start this new type of cards from (too versatile), and the real changes needed are in how the first player should either be able to raise their stat or draw a card on first turn. That, and the ****ing invokers need their abilities nerfed significantly AND / OR have 1 school removed and / or have their might back to 0 as IT SHOULD HAVE STAYED.

Infernal_Wisdom
02-05-2015, 10:52 PM
I hated goblins, they was so OP with 2 damage and 1 HP, and I recommended dragon crystal for it... and used turn 1-2 issue as a cover for my evil plan... BWHAHAHAHA

Every goblin dies, but no goblin really lives...

Licker34
02-05-2015, 10:54 PM
Oh my god...

This again????

A fix was desperately needed because player2 had a massive advantage in the old system.

None of the proposed 'futz with the resource distribution' either fixed it, or made any kind of sense mechanically.

So, they came up with a a card which allowed you to choose what 'advantage' you wanted. That's a pretty nice addition frankly, and it's only similar to HS coin in that one of the effects is the same (or similar, I honestly forgot exactly how HS works).

Saying they hated 1 drops? Sheeesh, there were (and are) no good 1 drops out side of LS and GS. Tithe collector maybe, other than that? 2/1/2 is just crap, still is, but now it sees some more action in some decks (sadly mostly inferNO) because there is now actually a place for 1 drops in the game.

You think it's worse now than it was? That's hilarious to me.

If you feel that turn 1 is inelegant now that's a fair enough complaint. But it's not as though you can't use that turn if you build your deck properly. Though some decks still don't care about turn 1 and it doesn't hurt them too badly since they are control/mid range anyway.

What's really funny to me in all of this is that my statistics show I have a better winning% going 1st now than I do going 2nd (and it's not that small). So if you don't like the crystal because you think they ripped of HS that's your prerogative, but within the mechanics of what it was supposed to address it worked.

And goblin scout...

Really? Really???

You should be happy everytime they nuke your scout with the crystal, it's usually a sub optimal play.

Quarison
02-05-2015, 10:57 PM
http://i.hizliresim.com/L28vYo.png

jkk89
02-05-2015, 11:04 PM
http://i.hizliresim.com/L28vYo.png

Goblin Hunter OP.

GustavXIII
02-05-2015, 11:05 PM
@licker
rest assured, your stats are not fooling you, if you are a "decent" player and/or playing decent decks your win ratio going 1st will be higher than going 2nd.

@ the rest
There is only one thing i agree with, being the 1st player "feels" very limited on that very first turn. But aside from that, you have the advantage. They were no decks you could have created with the focus on drops before, because most of them were....trash. Nothing less. The 2nd player had the ultimate advantage with insane win ratios (close to 80% at the highest level), so a change was necessary and needed. Is the coin an almost blatant copy from a different CCG? Sure, but i prefer a solution, as sloppy as it is, over nothing or sweet theories.
The amount of misleading and just wrong informations in this thread is getting dangerous. One more reason to avoid the rgular forums for me.

Edit: This is nothing against the initial post of this thread, someone put effort into it and tried to share his thoughts, tried to be constructive....but it derailed because some people are clueless.

LQDBrunt
02-05-2015, 11:19 PM
I think the single worst mistake by the developers (and their testers - it seems they have too much influence) was the introduction of Dragon Crystal. A clear emulation from The Coin, it obviously didnt worked as intended, since the games are so different. The Inferno dominance, disappearance of control and stall decks, even midrange board control, can be largely attributed to this really bad design decision. A different solution to goes first disadvantage could singlehandedly change the whole meta.


It's very easy to just say things like that without any proof or data to back it up. Everyone reads these forums, people are coming back to the game and when they come on forums, they are greeted by a read such as this one, and because so many people are saying it, it has to be true.

It worked exactly as expected, since before crystal my 1st/2nd win rate in standard differed 23%. (that's from cca 2000 of my games, and many top players had the very similar score). Now the difference is much more narrower, 5 or 6 %, with a bigger win percentage when going first.

Inferno dominance comes from powerful t2 drops (on top of everything else), yes, but the blame is on balance/design flaws, and not the mechanic that put those flaws into spotlight.

Stall decks disappearance has nothing to do with Crystal (if you can explain how this would be related?), devs made it clear they want to reduce those strategies in standard, because they are deemed as un-fun by a large part of playerbase. Not that i think stall decks disappeared, you have Dham/Sandor/Igna Mass rage, Dham Fire Elemental stall, Asalah Wraith recursion, Asalah Immolation...more than enough. If it weren't for so many indirect damage options from Inferno, those decks would be even more present.

Control decks are nowhere? Kal? Asha Namtaru? Invoker Namtaru? Nahla Time Lock? Control is doing just fine, more fine than ever imo.

I'll give you that midrange is somewhat shut down, but again, this has nothing to do with Crystal, but rather with Infeno dominant meta and their efficient t2 drops and ability to just outrush everything else. (again, make the difference that Inferno t2's are to be balanced, and not the very much needed Crystal mechanic that made them even more powerful).


The turn 1 turn 2 thing was implemented because the "pros" refused to build decks that had t1 options, so they spammed t2 oriented decks and complained that whenever you had t2 you automatically won (duh). The result is that we now have an even worse situation because while being first or second doesn't change much, we now have a game that is far more unbalanced as it was then, due to some factions / types of decks gaining a HUGE buff due to how their curve usually worked (they start to spam t2 / t3 / t4 faster than before).

If "pros" weren't so dumb and conspired together to destroy any t1 drop presence in this game, their games would go like this: 1 pro deploys t1, thinking - i got him, second pro deploys 2 t1s, and tosses a grin on his face. 1 Pro than deploys t2, but second pro responds with t2 and another t1 drowning the first one in tears and despair.
Soon they realize it would be nice not to play bad t1 drops at all and made it look as if they conspired together to ruin this game and the cuddly t1s. Why?
Because they are evil.

There are so many good posts from quality players akka "pros" about this matter, but for some reason you refuse to accept them or even refer to them.
This way, its more likely that new players will believe those conspiracy theories of yours. (Op Necro is another gem that you constantly try to push on these forums).

Resource advantage (ability to play better creature first) is responsible for second turn start advantage and no t1 or tx drop can ever fix that.

R3ZZ_
02-05-2015, 11:35 PM
Actually this forum needs any like/unlike buttons for the posts.
It can highlight the good posts and correct ideas (like a Brunt's one) from the tons of the crap.

mriClipse
02-05-2015, 11:36 PM
A like feature would indeed be nice.

Anyway, thanks @licker, gustav and LQDBrunt, you guys saved me a lot of effort in saying why these guys were wrong. And honestly, I couldn't have said it better myself.

ZergRusher
02-05-2015, 11:41 PM
I agree a solution was needed, but Dragon Crystal and new 1st turn rule were just a solution, not a good one. They are unelegant, counterintuitive, an ungly copy of HS coin. We deserve better.
while most of your posts are simply not true (hating on 1 drops? making a change to fit their style wtf? what are you smoking?) i can agree that the change is inelegant. The fact that you cannot use the hero ability isn't intuitive, especially for casuals.

But yes the change was needed. We were looking for a "fair" solution what would bring the winrates close to 50%. I believe that on this front the solution mostly succeeded.

However favoring balance over elegance and intuitiveness might have been a mistake, actually right now i think it was a mistake.

While you can call it a copy, HS solution isn't especially unique or innovative. It might have been a Gold Coin - we already have such a card.


The amount of misleading and just wrong informations in this thread is getting dangerous. One more reason to avoid the rgular forums for me.

yeah, this is the reason why i rarely post on general forum - rather stick to Balance and Decks forums

Imonothep
02-06-2015, 01:16 AM
Hello, dragon crystal hater here.

Since the introduction of dragon crystal, decks that require big/fast levels went to grave. You can observe that in Open.
First player has advantage only if he plays something on his first turn. That advantage is minimal unless you play Inferno which has exeptionaly good rush creatures (mainly lavaspawn). Being first is pain for slow decks that require fast/big levels mainly because you can't use hero ability and have no card.
Second player most of the time has advantage because of level advantage and card advantage. His first turn is very flexible.

Playing as first - winrate 50%, as second - 60%. (these are mine winrates)
Ubi's statistics were unreal, because they were collected in the time when lava spawn rushes were dominant (Deleb mostly). That's the only deck in meta that has advantage when playing first. That's why first player had bigger winrate. If Ubi would show non inferno winrate, I am sure statistics would be the opposite.

Also think about tools that first and second player get on their first turn:

1st - 6 cards, tempo advantage (he will be the first to use cards)
2nd - 7 cards, dragon crystal(1 card or 1 damage or 1 resource), hero ability.

Now use math:
6cards + tempo advantage = 7cards + dragon crystal + hero ability
tempo advantage = card + dragon crystal + hero ability

Is tempo advantage equal to (card + dragon crystal + hero ability)? In my opinion not.
Also please note that first turn without hero ability highly influences duels where there are heroes who rely on level abilities. The best example is Ignatius mirror which is ridiculous for first player.

All my wisdom which I collected clearly shows that first player is in big disadvantage unless you play heavy 1-drop rush. That's all cya.

Licker34
02-06-2015, 07:03 AM
Fine.

What is your proposal then?

I don't think many people are married to the DC, but it solved the problem it was meant to solve, and I don't see how it contributed more or worse problems to the game over all.

Because the issues that we face right now do not have anything to do with the DC, they have to do with the imbalance in power of 2 drops across factions (and that inferNO has one of the better 1 drops even if hardly anyone plays it anymore).

I don't know if you were playing during the time when the dragon crystal was being discussed (actually it wasn't being discussed directly, but the discussion around how to deal with the imbalance in going 2nd), but those discussions proved that a fix to the system was an absolute requirement. Much bandwidth was spent championing various solutions, and many of them were proven to be unsatisfactory by players with a better appreciation of their effects than I and probably you had or have.

But, as you say, anything can be discussed, so present your improvement to the DC. If it gets slapped down remember that the reason why is probably because it was already proposed by someone and debated and discarded for a reason. If not, maybe you will have a better solution.

GustavXIII
02-06-2015, 08:47 AM
@Rolandopuerto
Writing a little wall of text with basically no substance at all about respectful behavior after calling other people indirectly childish and clueless, sweet irony.

Dragon Crystal was never meant to be the "ultimate", "elegant", "intuitive" solution. But we needed something, it really didnt matter, just anything which could have helped to fix this clear diadvantage of going 1st before. And Dragon Crystal did that, closed the gap between winratios to an acceptable level. And i couldnt care less about certain cards or decks which suffered from that solution if it was for the "greater good" of a more balanced 1st vs 2nd situation.

If you can provide a clearly upgraded solution for our "problem", do so, be my guest.

Jarema03
02-06-2015, 09:20 AM
@Imonothep

There are some decks that benefit on going second, I can agree on this. Maybe you like playing such decks, therefore you have 50:60 winning ratio.
I play two decks mainly (and I do it from the introduction of the BS2, so it has nothing to do with their power, just with my playing preferences):
(a) in Open, Siham fortunes. That is slow deck, with hero ability depending on the number of stat raises. I believe I have slighty more wins when going second, but the difference is almost nonexisting one.
(b) is Standard, Deleb rush. Fast deck. Depending on playing as much creatures as I can. I have higher win rate when going first. But, in fact, I use only two 1-level drops

Now, there could be few different explanations why is it so. I will not try to describe them.
Instead of:
6cards + tempo advantage = 7cards + dragon crystal + hero ability
it shoud be:
6cards + tempo advantage + resource advantage (he always is the first one to use increased number of resources) = 7cards + dragon crystal + hero ability

tempo advantage + resource advantage = 1 card + dragon crystal + hero ability.
Yes, I believe it equals each other on general. Some decks prefer left side of equation, some prefer the right side. Depending on how they are built.

I think you are missing one advantage that going first gives to you

SerianTollus
02-06-2015, 12:48 PM
I think it all goes back to a more chronic problem of DoC, maybe the thing that doomed this great game: underfunding. Instead of hiring a proper team of developers, we got players doing that job. For testing cards, it may be fine. But changing a fundamental rule of the game, then what you got is Dragon Crystal.

Even The Coin is a bit of overkill. Player 2 already have an extra card, so tempo is traded by card advantage. But in HS context it makes sense, since we dont have might/magic/destiny restrictions. The other modes in DC try to accomplish that, only to make things worse. What people miss is that since DC introdution we slashed a whole turn of development, forcing decks to either overpopulate with 2 drops or answers against it. The curves are smaller, also viable requirements. For a game aching for diversity, its another huge restriction.

Sure, Inferno got a few OP cards, but that just reinforces my point. A solution (if theres any) must be thoroughly thought and tested. With DC what we got is a sloppy borrowed bandaid for something that wasnt entirely broken.

LQDBrunt
02-06-2015, 02:39 PM
A few important points.

-no one had said DC was more important than Inferno inbalance atm. Whatever you think on DC, it doesn't exclude to necessity fo balance. Suggesting otherwise is not a result of the discussion.

-i don't like DC, think it is too much for 2 player, besides the no hero abilitie for 1 player. It's just too much, for me, and for many others (currently here and in a fb group for example, previously here as well). But that doesn't mean we advocate to return to how things were before. That reminds me the concept of fallacy, one thing doesn't follow another.

-As someone said about game's theory in general: you might not be an enginer, but you know when a bridge it's not in a good situation when you drive trough it. Despite the difference, the idea is the same. However, one or two ideas to start a constructive dialogue comes to mind: remove damage and draw abilitie for DC, and restore heroe abilitie for 1 player. This, by any means is the full solution we might propose, it's a starting point, ideas and propossals and solutions are welcome. However, saying nothing should be done it's returning to a zero tolerance zone.

-DC could have had more testing. At least one top player said so on these forums, on good faith. Now that could be understandable, it was released for the necessity of a solution, but it has not proved to be the ultimate solution (wich is not). So what is the complaining to revise this feature and improve it for the sake of the game? It's not a contest for this or that faction of players, it's for the game.

-Your numbers may be balance in 1/2 turn, but it is not the case for many of us. Different decks, different style of playing, whatever, that's how it is. And if you ask me, there is a difference between adressing a groups of player's concerning, and just dismissing them as "non important".

-At least one top player seems to agree on one thing: DC and no heroe abilitie it's unelegant and counterintuitive. Even if we disagree on the other points, this alone is of supreme importance for the quality of the game. So let's revise DC and no heroe abilitie in order to find a solution that actually could be intuitive and elegant (this is achieved usually trough simplicity).

Again, whole lot of words, but nothing really being said.

You think DC is too much for second player, and therefore it has to be changed. Devs/Vips have actual numbers that say otherwise and you just refuse them, cause what you think is clearly more important. You will never get anywhere with an attitude like this, at lest this is what I think, I dont have actual numbers to back my claim., therefore i might be wrong.

For a non-engineer to see that something is wrong with a bridge, that bridge has to be 5/5/5 creature that costs 2.
In real world, scientific approach (numbers) is used to determine the structural stability of the bridge, and that is the only proper way of doing it.
This is also the only way of doing design/balance changes, thoughts of a random person with limited experience with the game dont really cut it.

Was the game more elegant without DC? Yes, I'll agree to that, but without Crystal the game would be unplayable. (at least for somewhat competent player that really dont like losing just because he started first).


I think it all goes back to a more chronic problem of DoC, maybe the thing that doomed this great game: underfunding. Instead of hiring a proper team of developers, we got players doing that job. For testing cards, it may be fine. But changing a fundamental rule of the game, then what you got is Dragon Crystal.

Even The Coin is a bit of overkill. Player 2 already have an extra card, so tempo is traded by card advantage. But in HS context it makes sense, since we dont have might/magic/destiny restrictions. The other modes in DC try to accomplish that, only to make things worse. What people miss is that since DC introdution we slashed a whole turn of development, forcing decks to either overpopulate with 2 drops or answers against it. The curves are smaller, also viable requirements. For a game aching for diversity, its another huge restriction.

Sure, Inferno got a few OP cards, but that just reinforces my point. A solution (if theres any) must be thoroughly thought and tested. With DC what we got is a sloppy borrowed bandaid for something that wasnt entirely broken.

Again, if you have a better solution than DC, please share it with us.
If you claim that DoC was better without it, then you were either not playing at that time, or you played at elo that is too low to notice the problem.

And no, card advantage cannot make up for the tempo loss, especially in DoC, with it's specific grid design (creature blocking/trading is different than in MTG/HS) and the fact that you can draw two cards every turn, making the card draw less important than in those games I mentioned before.

MoonSilverNS
02-06-2015, 02:40 PM
Common people, this is not complicated at all

We all agree that before Dragon coin second player got clear advantage. With DC implementation second player got free semi-turn to play 1 cost creature or even a building and first player got DC to compensate second player resource and curve advantage. That is all and it is working as intended. In past i get pissed when i played first in many games. Now i dont think about it at all. Just play game.

About Goblin scout..if your opponent kill your GS with DC then game situation is exactly the same as before DC....1-2-2-3-3... second player advantage minus one card to compensate. Fair enough.
GS is not removed from meta...you can still play him in other stage of game for low cost lane power. I think that DC influence is more psychological then real especially when you got creature killed with him. You think at DC as something you dont have and opponent do. But you got other advantage in res and curve. Great players know that and dont complain.


The amount of misleading and just wrong informations in this thread is getting dangerous. One more reason to avoid the rgular forums for me.

I hate to see this line of thinking. Why this game with such small population in this time need two forums. One elitistic and one for small folk who dont know nothing about a game. Great players and VIP posts are secluded in some hidden place and rest of us are deprived from any meaningful discussion. You got to be a lighthouse, not Lurker in the dark.

Siruthial
02-06-2015, 02:56 PM
So, if all of you guys already establish that DC is fine.(Again we are all grateful for this little victory of statistic and data over frustration and not understanding.)
I would like to go back to the first post.
Because i really like the proposals to the Inferno.



New Spell stealer Heretic: Same stats,same cost, same requirements, ability: Magic Channel 2, When Spell stealer Heretic enters the battleground you may take target instant Dark of Fire spell from your graveyard and add it to your hand, it costs 2(1) less. After you play that spell banish it.

New Bound Sucubuss: Same stats,same cost, same requirements, ability: Immunte to Retailation, When this creature attacks and destroys a creature, inflict 3 damage to enemy hero.


However to makes nerf of SSH a little less painful i would like that effects will be permanently - if i don't do it in the same turn I want to cast my AW in the next turns also for 3 res.
About Bound Sucubus, I never like the mechanics "If this creature don't attack", i think it is suitable for Haven, but not for the Inferno or Necro. So, yea actually forcing BS to fight with something sounds nice to me.

About Eternal Apprentice, same story about mechanics, but totally another conclusions. This card is weak because crippling mechanics is weak, and he is to expensive for hp and dmg he has. I think this creature needs changes and it should be some kind of buff. My proposal is to change "if not attacks" into "when it attacks" or changes it special ability into "crippling blast 1"

Rest of your proposal Yogim4n are nerfs that are totally not needed. Especially I don't like all of spell and building nerfs u presented.
i.e Nerfing boneyard is taking back only reasonable way for necro to resurrect monsters, things that necro should special in.
Playing counters and dispells is necessary.

However when I was reading about your idea of timers i decided to mention about something I have in mind for some days.
What do you think of copy some spells mechanic from HoMM3, I mean create some cheap(2-3 res.) ongoing spells, which last for the number of turns = magic level of the caster(in the moment of casting)

Licker34
02-06-2015, 05:13 PM
In order to have a discussion you have to actually present something that can be discussed.

Just repeating that you (and whomever else you are speaking for) don't like the DC isn't going to lead to any kind of discussion. Further that with your repeated insistence that the DC favors player 2 when statistics from a fairly large pool show exactly the opposite and it becomes very difficult to even see how any kind of discussion is going to be possible.

This boils down to you saying that you don't like something, so everyone else has to figure out how to fix it for you.

Present an alternative to the DC which doesn't weaken player 2s position and it will be discussed.

Alternatively, if this is really just a quibble over something which doesn't 'feel' right then so be it. Personally I think this system makes as much sense as the old system, where player 2 (arbitrarily) started with 2 resources. Using words like unelegant (should be inelegant, but if you don't like grammar corrections pretend I never said anything) and counter intuitive don't really get anywhere either, because they are very subjective.

That is I'm not at all sure why the crystal is inelegant, not that I think there really is a direct parallel to HS, but is the coin there also inelegant?

And how is it counter intuitive? It's simply a mechanic which has both players starting with 6 cards and one resource. Player 2 then gets the Crystal and a draw and a hero action on his 1st turn. That sure seems like a lot, but how is it not intuitive that player 2 needs some kind of boost to compete with the ever widening resource gap he ultimately faces? The in-game mechanics don't make it difficult to do any of this, there's no additional effort which needs to be put in for either player to simply take their turns.

My opinion is that crystal was an excellent solution to a critical problem. I can see the argument that it makes the 1st players 1st turn 'feel weird', but if that's all it does? Oh well, I don't have that concern myself, and I don't see how it makes the game worse than it was.

malkorion
02-06-2015, 05:58 PM
I used to be against the Dragon Crystal and the new turn system as well, but after playing a few games, I've realized that it was a good change. My only gripe would be that the Dragon Crystal is far more versatile than the Coin in Hearthstone. Also, the Dragon Crystal is a Fortune card, and it's affected by Week of Taxes. Though this does not apply to Standard games.

2-drops are more important than ever. Unfortunately, Inferno has the best 2-drops.

Yogim4n
02-06-2015, 09:16 PM
@Siruthial

When i was thinking about those balance changes i wanted to keep everyone in check after the initial focus on nerfing inferno. Yeah the SSH effect is permanent until the spell is played ofc.The reason i suggested the building nerfs is because right now there are litteraly no building removal cards so i was trying to find the way to make buildings still viable without adding any new cards. Ofc i would like to add cards/ideas from older HoMM's but this was my take on current cards without trying to introduce anything new, just changing the current stuff which as suggested by some people is perhaps the wrong way looking at thing and i get it.

After nerfing inferno i really feared for some cards that are currently overshadowed by dominance of inferno and such is Eternal Aprentice in my opinion. Some factions as of right now cant actually deal with this card propperly as there is lack of anti counter cards. In my mind cards like these which includes bound sucubus have an effect that triggers of off this card doing pretty much nothing. I didnt like this, especially considering the potential that this card can have. It is pretty much the same story for all other cards and the tweaks to them especially Time Jump.

We're all aware that this game has stood for too long in BS2 format and without new additions we would eventually run into such problems. All this and more can be changed/obsoleted by moving onto next base set instead.

Reading the rest of discussion, yeah i agree with the 2-drops thing. I didnt mind DC, it kinda felt natural to me since i was playing Hearthstone before i was introduced to this game.

Quarison
02-06-2015, 10:12 PM
Ok, once again i see some players don't want a honest discussion, just to dismiss us becasuse we are against the DC in its actual form.

Here i go again: We've made proposals and we´ve have our data and we don't want to return to previous stage before DC. If someone keep saying otherwise, it's just simply not true.

As SerianTollus said, not having some professionals in charge of these changes can be part of the issue. When people does something ad-honorem, it's only natural they defend it to death, but just don't ignore other portion of the player base (as if it were that large), don't disttort our arguments, don't dismiss us without acknowledging our ACTUALS arguments. The otherway is a simple fight, when you see the other side as an enemy to destroy, instead of regular players willing to improve the game.

All in all, i'm getting tired to meet this wall of intolerance, and i don't want to succumb to anger again (i did once this week, i'm too old for another).

Gratefully other players like ZergRusher, strongly disagrees with us, he pointed out some awfull arguments i did, i'm mature enough to apologize for that, and he's mature enough to reconigze there are some come ground to find a solution, and that some part of our argument it's valid enough. I thank ZergRusher for pointing out any wrong argument i did (drove by anger) but most of all i thank him for showing maturity and willingness to dialogue with us.

At this point i'm more worried about comunnity acctitude than about DC, but don't get me wrong, we are here and we deserve to be heard some how.

If we don't get any change at all, but a respectfull and honest discussion was made, and every argument is meet and dismiss properly, than i can live with that, cause see, i dont' want to fight just for the pleasure to fight. But when DC came up, us regular players had no say in the issue, and felt like "shove it trough you throat". Perhaps that was not the intention, but it certainly felt (and feels) that way so far.


How did you come to a conclusion about "some players don't want a honest discussion"?

As it seems you're having problem with DC, and you're just crying. You're not offering any usable suggestion. Yes things aren't perfect. But it's better. You can't pressure to the guys with crying like this. Forums are not wailing walls. They're for discussions. If you check this thread from start to end, there's not any useful suggestion. Just pointing to a unperfection. You may see an unbalanced issue, but both of us sure that VIPs are also seeing it. So what's the point of saying DC is not perfect, it's better than before but it's not perfect, it's not perfect? Just make a useful suggestion, and think and discuss about this. The thing you do here is merely called a discussion but more crying.

Everyone needs to be heard. But you cant change everything for everyone's point of view. There is a common ground for it. At first before the DC, data showed that being 1st/2nd affecting high elo games much more than lower elo games. That means you will make the system better for high elo players, and when the lower elo players starts to learn the game better they will see it too. You cant change a part of the game for lower elos, but you can for higher elos. In all the games in the world it happens like this. You can tell the struggles you're facing, you may even cry fountains but the balancing issue is happening with the best plays of this game. Not included mistakes.

As a stall player, because of the new system, cant giving a stat for your hero if you started 1st, it hurts like hell. But i'm aware that, if you change it to you can give stat to your hero, this will change the foundation of some of the balances in this game. For instance invoker type heroes' aggro decks will have 1 more extra turn to use their abilities without any deficit than now. So i'm GOOD with it. There's a saying you might have heard, Cure is worse than the disease. If you can come up with another cure, all the community will be appriciated, other than that, if you will be a moaning minnie i will pass...

karlHz_
02-06-2015, 10:42 PM
About Eternal Apprentice, same story about mechanics, but totally another conclusions. This card is weak because crippling mechanics is weak, and he is to expensive for hp and dmg he has. I think this creature needs changes and it should be some kind of buff. My proposal is to change "if not attacks" into "when it attacks" or changes it special ability into "crippling blast 1"

I absolutely and thoroughly disagree. Eternal Apprentice is a very strong card. When your opponent have it, unless you have some sort of instant removal, the chances are high that's the card that will tip the game in your opponents favour. If there were more cards to support it (as with bound succubus in inferno), it would be even stronger.

Claiming crippling as mechanic is weak makes no sense to me. Crippling is one of the stronger effects you can have on a creature. Affecting an entire lane with it the turn you play it? Moonsilk strands on a stick, which can remain in play turn after turn. Would you play a card that cost two resources and gave you a 2/1/5? That seems to be a pretty decent creature. Getting half a moonsilk strand immediately for an extra two resources and the potential of casting again the next turn? Yes, it's a pretty sweet deal which is certainly worth an extra two resources...

Siruthial
02-07-2015, 01:10 AM
@KarlHz_
Eternal Apprentice is 2/1/5 for 4 res. It has also an ability worth something like 1,5 res.
In the other hand we have 3/1/6 Archlich with life drain and 2/2/6 Spider Guard.
If you need more 4 drops than 8, vampire connoisseur is also absolutely better choice than Eternal Apprentice.
Only one good thing in the Apprentice is that he needs 3 strength, so in some decks using it u could try to play 3/4(6)/1 or something like that. However u will probably level up to 4 anyway to play Atropos.
There are also some decent 3 drops necro, which can be more useful than this card.
In my opinion one of the strongest effect i can get on a creature is to kill it with IS/Geyser/AW/Frozen Wave/Soulreaver, but if somebody prefer to put a crippling counter on it instead, it is your decision.

akim0001
02-07-2015, 01:31 AM
About DC, I've been thinking about this for a long time. Would it make the game better if we add the condition [this card can be used when your opponent has more creatures than you]? I wonder if the devs considered this option.

Licker34
02-07-2015, 02:13 AM
About DC, I've been thinking about this for a long time. Would it make the game better if we add the condition [this card can be used when your opponent has more creatures than you]? I wonder if the devs considered this option.

Not sure why that would make it better. 2nd player is disadvantaged anyway, why make it worse?

Yogim4n
02-07-2015, 04:23 AM
@Siruthial
Vampire connoisseur better then Eternal Apprentice, oh come on man. Spider Guard certainly is a better 4 drop however it doesnt have an instant effect. With my proposed change Eternal Aprentice would become a melee-shooter and get an instant cripple on deployed lane for a tradeoff on his ability to stall games further vs decks that dont have instant removal. Not sure if you have faced for example Anastasya troll decks ( i run one myself for dailies ) that can litteraly shut down half of the factions only using this card and her ability.