1. #31
    Uraxor's Avatar Heed the Call!
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,396
    Originally Posted by Daefon Go to original post
    Overall, I really like the changes and the idea behind them.

    Some comments on specifics:
    - I would have liked to see the changes take it 1 step further and reduce the might cost of BS1 creatures by 1 as well, as those are basically statted to be 1 cost less. It would even give those cards, which are really weak right now, some use. That way they would be playable in decks that don't want to raise might as high.

    - Atropos: worth considering making the destiny cost 2, as his effect is very powerful - a fortune bringing back 2 target creatures would likely cost at least 3 destiny.

    - The banshee makes a lot of sense since it now has same magic cost as Soulreaver. It is certainly a buff, especially in tandem with Atropos also requiring 4 might. Necro might be a little too dominant in bs2 because of it (more work for the VIP testers)

    These are actually first comments in here reflecting on what's the thread's purpose ...
    Share this post

  2. #32
    npavcec's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    960
    Nice to see that the actual cards are going to be changed and balanced. I approve this aproach much better than tries to "fix" the metagame by adding new cards which are not thoroughly tested.

    I like PaoDeathseeker finally getting cost increase. This card was such an clear OP that I would never consider building about ANY deck without 4 pieces of them. Now, at 4 cost, things will get interesting. I imagine it will still be very useful for the rush and OTK decks.

    Originally Posted by Daefon Go to original post
    - The banshee makes a lot of sense since it now has same magic cost as Soulreaver. It is certainly a buff, especially in tandem with Atropos also requiring 4 might. Necro might be a little too dominant in bs2 because of it (more work for the VIP testers)
    I don't think that Necro will be that dominant in BS2. Firstly, without FateSealers, necro decks will become very draw dependent (no more extra cards when a creature dies), and also, Atropos is not that big of a deal now, since it gets banished after it dies due to being unique. Basically, non-fortune necro deck will have only 2 sure creature gravedigs, which may or even may not happen (imagine Atropos at the bottom of the library). Hassle with WanderingBards and a relatively big cost of Atrpos will cost em huge tempo, IMHO.
    Share this post

  3. #33
    jkk89's Avatar First 1700 ELO! Hooah!
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,932
    Ok, one more time.

    THIS IS NOT ABOUT BALANCING THE GAMEPLAY.

    It's about design recalibration to maintain consistency of released cards in terms of attribute requirements.
    It is perfectly clear to me. But U cannot seperate the 2 aspects of the game. The game has to make sense (tutoring req 2 destiny makes sense and tutoring req 2 might makes no sense) AND game has to be balanced.

    I agree with the requirements changes on the most parts, I've just highlighted the other aspect of it: how it will affect the actual meta? That is what is interesting to me, so that is why I am looking at that aspect of the incoming changes.
    Share this post

  4. #34
    Uraxor's Avatar Heed the Call!
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,396
    The main purpose of the 'recalibration' is to unify the attribute requirements of individual cards.
    IF the formulae for that is correct then you have nothing to fear in terms of balance (and yes I admit the IF there, notice?)
    That in comparison to a previous version of a card you may speak of a nerf /buff, that's just a side effect.



    edit@ jkkk's post;
    your previous posts sound nothing like that. They're purely flaming nerf & bans.
    I'm trying to make you understand that yes, while the changes' impact on meta was not ignored while drafting these changes, they were done - and had to be done - for a different reason and therefore judging them by their impact on meta is a wrong thing to do - which you focused at exclusively in your initial posts. It's like saying a nice sports car sucks because it won't take you through a muddy forest, like Humvee..
    Share this post

  5. #35

    Stronghold

    What about idiot Keltor do something about him in 10 games 5 are keltor and 3 ishuma
    Share this post

  6. #36
    Originally Posted by Sylviugh Go to original post
    What about idiot Keltor do something about him in 10 games 5 are keltor and 3 ishuma
    Maybe becouse its kinda cheap to have effective Keltor or Ishuma? and they work great in Swisses..........
    Its boring ofc to play all time against them but its good that new players have quite cheap way to have effective deck to compete with old players?
    Share this post

  7. #37
    z0k1x2's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Still on earth
    Posts
    66

    Nice step for game, keep tempo mixing the pot
    Share this post

  8. #38
    Kimundi's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,088
    I understand we did not explain why we did those changes, that's a mistake on our part. I want to thank Uraxor, who is one of our VIP, to be able to answer you on this point.

    Moreover, I take the opportunity to quote Simon Villeneuve, our Game Designer, the one in charge of those kind of balancing.

    The changes weren't meant as a nerf or buff per se, but a recalibration of the cards. Most of them were created under an old design mindset and feel obsolete. So we changed them to make them fit our new design mindset.
    Also, as some of you stated, the designers wanted for the cards to be "logical". Fetching is a Fortune effect, thus the destiny requirement. Banshee is a spell effet, so magic requirement...

    I'm sure Simon V. will come through as he often does and may answer better than I do
    Share this post

  9. #39
    SpaceElephant's Avatar Community Developer
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    334
    Hi guys, I edited Aza's post with a short note from our designers, clarifying their intention with those changes :

    With Base Set 2, we decided it was time to revisit some cards that has a set of requirement that doesn't fit our guideline anymore. When we started, requirements were set to fit with the cost of a card, but that's not the best way to design a card. So we went through all the creatures we have so far and changed those we think are not compliant to our current guidelines. These are not to be considered as buffs or nerfs but as a recalibration that just happens to change the power level of a card.
    Please note that we also have some nerfs/buffs that are going to be adressed in another thread.
    Share this post

  10. #40
    raca28's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Serbia
    Posts
    45

    Thanks for the changelouge!

    Any type of change to the meta is good since it keeps the game interesting and fresh, I think this should happen more often. I don't really care what deck will be "OP" there will be always some decks that are the better then others.

    Though I have a concern about the bugs that will pop up, I mean quite some time has passed since the unique rule change patch and silent death is still not fixed,... I don't really care about that card but if some more important card become unusable that could be quite a problem.
    Share this post