PDA

View Full Version : Return spell twister back the way it was please



ulpsz
06-11-2013, 12:28 AM
..fact that you don't know if opponent has any spells ....is too big of a gamble...and it's now allmost useless

same goes for fate twister

if you are going to leave them like this make them cost 2 resource /4 or 3 mana...that way the gamble won't be that big

ArcaneAzmadi
06-11-2013, 12:58 AM
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/Deal_With_It.jpg
If this was a real CCG, you wouldn't get that kind of convenience. All part of the game.

Tarragon
06-11-2013, 08:07 AM
Its fine as it is now. Now it isnt longer a no brain "I play it on turn 4 if I see opp has spells on his hand" card

hydramarine
06-11-2013, 11:01 AM
Do you want a pre-nerf Kieran to go along with that? The amount of butthurt you demonstrate is mind-boggling. The cards are fine, they function as they are supposed to. They are still good cards / good design.

GustavXIII
06-11-2013, 11:38 AM
I absolutely cannot comprehend how someone could be against these changes, allowing a player to scout your opponents at a 100% success rate is too strong. Depending on the deck you are up against you knew for sure you would get a fireball or soul reaver. Nobody would have increased his magic stat only to bluff an opponent so that he plays Spelll Twister too early....

And i'm against all cards which dont punish careful thinking. Now players actually have to THINK about playing that spell..... GOOD change, GOOD design, case closed, there are other cards that need more attention in my opinion, not Spell Twister.

epicafricantoad
06-11-2013, 11:45 AM
That is a very good change indeed. You may still easily predict which hero has spells on hand by observing his mana lvl and cards he plays.
cheers
Toad

WalkingHawking
06-11-2013, 02:36 PM
Excellent change, it's just ulpsz, don't expect miracles.

M0rw47h
06-11-2013, 02:39 PM
Spell Twister is fine, it's no longer play mindlessly - win the game.

ulpsz
06-11-2013, 03:13 PM
Spell Twister is fine, it's no longer play mindlessly .


actually it's now that you play it mindelessly, since you gamble without knowning what to expect...

you had to think a lot evin before...(you did not know how many spells opponent had in hand...)


but if so many of you think it's ok how it is...than i'll try it out this way and see if I can adjust to the changes

wonder if there is someone who agrees with me at all...

Shambell
06-11-2013, 04:35 PM
You could also play Sanctuary or Inferno...

ulpsz
06-11-2013, 11:47 PM
You could also play Sanctuary or Inferno...

meaning what?

Irgy_
06-12-2013, 06:09 AM
I'd just like to say, sure, the card was not well designed before (by virtue of so many people disliking it if nothing else). The old behaviour was also evidently not as intended, since they not just changed it but did so without (as far as I can see) announcing it as a change anywhere. However, none of that means it's "well designed" nor "working as intended" now. The OP made a quite reasonable suggestion of reducing the cost to make the card playable again and everyone comes launching in saying the card is now perfect the way it is. Which it's not, it's just gone from being an interesting card with had a minor but much-hated side effect to a complete waste of space. Sitting in everyone's card pools alongside all those other "well designed' Skeleton Spearmen and Heal spells.

The whole "either do something awesome or miss and do nothing" approach is certainly established design, but it's not exactly good design. It's high variance, it's feel-bad, and it's much more luck-testing than skill-testing. As far as "working as intended" goes, when they implemented the card they made what had to be a conscious choice to have it not able to be played if there were no targets. The fact that people could use that information to find out about their opponent's hand was the part that was "not as intended". So the card has never worked as intended, now or then (and probably never can since the two things are obviously linked).

No-one particularly wants the "scout your opponent's hand" functionality back, we just want the "can't be completely wasted" functionality. And not because we can't "deal with" the risk either, but purely for the sake of a card worth putting into a deck. If that's not possible then reducing the cost to make it playable sounds like an alternative at least worth considering.

Psychobabble.au
06-12-2013, 06:39 AM
The reference to inferno/sanctuary was because each of those factions have cheap cards which let them peek at their opponent's hands.


The whole "either do something awesome or miss and do nothing" approach is certainly established design, but it's not exactly good design. It's high variance, it's feel-bad, and it's much more luck-testing than skill-testing.

This is untrue. Sure, if you just run spell twister out on turn 4 in a situation where you win the game if it hits and lose if it doesn't, then it's random. But you're the one running it out there, no one else. Even pre-nerf, I only played spell twister in the late game, when I had enough resources to make a meaningful follow-up play if I whiffed (eg. hit a dispel or something) or in the early game if I wasn't under significant pressure. Nothing's changed. Yes, it can feel random when you whiff vs when you hit (although even that can be minimised by smart reading of your opponent), but whether you roll the dice in the first place is where the skill testing aspect of the card comes in.

MIGHTY778343
06-12-2013, 07:16 AM
spell twister is good its like a puppet master but use on spell + the fact that u get to see what spells they have. However fate twister sucks

hydramarine
06-12-2013, 08:04 AM
The OP made a quite reasonable suggestion of reducing the cost to make the card playable again and everyone comes launching in saying the card is now perfect the way it is. Which it's not, it's just gone from being an interesting card with had a minor but much-hated side effect to a complete waste of space. Sitting in everyone's card pools alongside all those other "well designed' Skeleton Spearmen and Heal spells.
Noone said those cards you mentioned were powerful, but Spell Twister is.

Understand that for the cost of 4, you discard one spell card from their hand. And you play that card for free. If the spell you stole has even the cost of 2 (Sunburst), you used it for 4 and discarded them one card (2 resource for discard is generally spot on). 2 res spell is actually one of the worst scenarios. Assuming you use this card at the correct time and by observing opponent's magic level, you can possibly steal 4 - 6 cost key spells. Again, assuming, you were smart enough to set up the battlefield previously so that you get increased return (meaning dmg to hero) from playing a big spell, this card is actually pretty nuts. If you know when to play it. If you use it just to discard/use spell on a empty battlefield, then it is underwhelming.

Asking this spell to require less resource or asking for a recycle function leads me to believe you are not well versed about TCGs or DoC for that matter.

Irgy_
06-12-2013, 09:14 AM
Noone said those cards you mentioned were powerful, but Spell Twister is.

Understand that for the cost of 4, you discard one spell card from their hand. And you play that card for free. If the spell you stole has even the cost of 2 (Sunburst), you used it for 4 and discarded them one card (2 resource for discard is generally spot on). 2 res spell is actually one of the worst scenarios. Assuming you use this card at the correct time and by observing opponent's magic level, you can possibly steal 4 - 6 cost key spells. Again, assuming, you were smart enough to set up the battlefield previously so that you get increased return (meaning dmg to hero) from playing a big spell, this card is actually pretty nuts. If you know when to play it. If you use it just to discard/use spell on a empty battlefield, then it is underwhelming.

This is what's called "best case analysis". Even hitting a sunburst is really very good. Let me explain to you some actual "worst scenarios":
* They're one of the at least 50% of decks (particularly with Nergal so prominent currently) that don't play spells and the card is just dead
* They have a spell, even a good one, but you can't use it effectively. Spending 4 resources just to make the opponent discard is a huge tempo loss. The thing is you don't ever really know what you're going to get, the card was always a punt even when you knew there was a target. It's not just hitting things like Dispell, it's hitting sunburst when your creatures are in the same rows as theirs or an Insect Swarm that hurts you as much as them. If you just played a Sunburst/Fireball/Whatever instead you might not get to take one from the opponent but you'd at least be able to choose when to cast it for maximum impact.
* Or of course, they play spells but haven't drawn one.

You spend all that time talking about how good it is when it's good, but a card that's a 2-for-1 half the times you commit to playing it, and that you only play half the times you draw it, is not a good card.


Asking this spell to require less resource or asking for a recycle function leads me to believe you are not well versed about TCGs or DoC for that matter.
i.e. I disagree with you so you think I'm stupid. Good for you. All I actually said anyway was it's worth considering because the card is currently underpowered, I knew better than to give a specific suggestion without having thought it through in detail. So I'm not sure what allegedly ridiculous suggestion you're attributing to me in the first place?


This is untrue. Sure, if you just run spell twister out on turn 4 in a situation where you win the game if it hits and lose if it doesn't, then it's random. But you're the one running it out there, no one else. Even pre-nerf, I only played spell twister in the late game, when I had enough resources to make a meaningful follow-up play if I whiffed (eg. hit a dispel or something) or in the early game if I wasn't under significant pressure. Nothing's changed. Yes, it can feel random when you whiff vs when you hit (although even that can be minimised by smart reading of your opponent), but whether you roll the dice in the first place is where the skill testing aspect of the card comes in.

I'm not saying the card isn't (still) skill-testing, I'm saying the hit-or-miss mechanic in general is much more luck than skill based. The card itself is quite skill testing. In fact I've outskilled quite a few opponents by having the sense not to put it in my deck while they busily whiff on it turn 4 because I'm only upping my magic skill for cards I haven't drawn yet, for instance. But more seriously, I don't think it's not any less skill testing than before as a card overall, it's just worse. My point there like I said is purely about the design merits of the hit-or-miss mechanic that people seem to think is a compulsary component of these sorts of cards.

My experience with it seems to have been pretty different to yours, incidentally. I found if I waited until the late game, they've likely already cast their good spells. By turn 7 or so if they had a fireball you'd know because your creatures would be on fire, at which point you've missed the boat on Spell Twister. I've had games where I procrastinated casting it, got fireballed (or whatever else, worse still was getting my spell-twister spell-twisted and then losing another spell to boot), and then never got a chance to cast it at all since they're playing their spells the turn they draw them. So I'd concluded if I was going to play the card I really need to do it sooner rather than later, which was a calculated risk even knowing they had a spell in had.

For what it's worth by the way, I have played the card since the change, because I made an Ariana deck for the no-more-than-one-of-each-card acheivement (which I've got now). I played it pretty similarly to how you describe, either late game or early only if I had nothing better to do. It did something good once and I'm glad I played it over another overcosted neutral creature or something but I can't imagine I'd want it in a real deck unless the meta went spell-crazy.