Regarding Nerfing and Changing Economics | Forums

[Havenworld]

I do not think nerfing cards and changing economics with every expansion is a good idea. Let me explain.

Many new players spend money and work very hard to make a single top deck. But when cards are nerfed, the deck becomes useless. To name a few, Kelthor, Crag Hack, Circle of Nine, Masfar--all of which became useless because of nerfing. Whenever this happens, some players feel their money wasted and their hard work unfairly nullified, and so they stop playing. If the concern is "balance," this should be dealt with by creating stronger cards with every expansion, and so the meta changes naturally rather than by force, meaning, nerfing cards and decks that are popular. I am not saying cards cannot be nerfed, but this should be done only when it is an absolute must.

Regarding economics of the game, I think Ubisoft offers better deal now than before, but these changes always disappoint some people, and some of them, again, leave. More than 10,000 people used to take part in Jackpot competition. Currently, I sometimes see numbers below 800. The numbers have decreased so much so that finding a competitive opponent to reach T1, at times, is very difficult. Even if the introduction of different formats, standard, open, weekly, is considered, such decrease in numbers means lost of many players.

I believe two of the main reasons this game community is not as big as it should be are frequent nerfing and changing economics. Upset and disappointed, some players just don't want to play anymore, and some of them post negative reviews about the game whenever they can.
,
I write this only because I care for this game. I think this is the best card game on the market now, but it gets too many bad reviews by former players who left upset and disappointed. I hope the game becomes more popular and successful.


EDIT after reading some comments below: Instead of "creating stronger cards," I would like to revise the phrase to mean "creating a counter." So the new card does not need to be stronger or more expensive. It just needs to be able to deal with the card that is deemed too strong.

[Havenworld]

Let me explain a little more as to how nerfing a card could upset a new comer.

A single Lava Spawn card, when Deleb was popular and many people wanted to play her, required 24 wild cards to obtain. To make a Deleb or Xorm top deck, 4 Lava Spawn cards are needed, and that means 96 wild cards. If you buy a Box, if I remember correctly, you get 24 wild cards. This means a new player has to either spend a lot of money or work very hard or do a lot of both to make this one deck. But if Lava Spawn is nerfed suddenly, this deck is not competitive anymore, and the player who has been passionate about the game, passionate enough to make this expensive deck, gets understandably upset. It is not too unfathomable that the upset former player posts negative reviews when possible.

This is why nerfing should be done only when it is an absolute must.

[memetichazard]

Of the cards that were nerfed this release, which ones do you think were particularly egregious? Are you posting this because you're unhappy with the nerfs, or because you don't want Lava Spawn nerfed? :P

The majority of players will agree with the chain casting nerf, most likely. The design considerations are likely more important than that the Masfar deck gets killed off. Bloodsnake Shaman, you're also likely to find few dissenters for. Lurker nerf, well, the card's uncommon anyway, and still sees a bit of play. Titan Workforce, well, I don't know what tier the deck was before the nerf, and the fortune's probably still worth putting into a construct deck.

Regarding the economics, as someone playing in the Champion 1 level, I think my current gains are slightly worse than they were pre-patch (but the additional wildcard flexibility makes me happy enough to make up for it). However, this is primarily because the new dailies require 1.5x to 2x the amount of time to complete as the old ones. In the end, I'm sticking around but feeling a bit disgruntled with the whole thing.

[Havenworld]

As I said above, the reason for my posting is to see more people playing the game, and less people leaving the game, upset.

I am a 200+ level player who plays in the Champion 3 level. I have about 600 wild cards, and I can make any top deck I want. So I personally don't really care whether Lava Spawn or any other cards get nerfed or not. I just want to see new comers who have worked so hard to build one single top deck to stay happy with each expansion and continue to play, rather than get upset because one top deck they have gets nerfed. Frankly, I don't know any card that is particularly egregious, and if anyone feels any one card is particularly good, let him play with that card until a better card is created. Just don't force this by nerfing cards.

Djinn Cloud Shaper is another epic card that cost many wild cards when it was first available. And to play Circle of Nine, which was very popular for a while, 4 cards of Djinn Clould was a must. So many people invested in that card. But after nerfing, that card is not competitive enough any more, and I haven't seen anyone playing Co9 for a while now. Would u not be upset if this happened to you.

Regarding Masfar, I rarely played him, but the many times I played against him, he was not that difficult to beat. Top players like Jkkk89 hated the deck, but some people loved it. Let them continue to love their deck, so they can continue to love the game. As I said above, Ubisoft can nerf cards if it must, but the company needs to think of some players who feel cheated when nerfing happens--unless Ubisoft is considering paying back with Wild Cards to the affected people.

Regarding the economics, like nerfing, I personally don't really care for myself. I just want Ubisoft to be careful when it changes it, because some people always get upset when changes occur.

Thx for the reply and have fun.

[Starwatcher1625]

I imagine more people probably quit over having to play against Masafar a few times too many then quit because they couldn't play Masafar anymore. I think with the turn changes the same would be true with Lava Spawn, though I don't know if there are any plans to nerf it. Not sure if I would call it OP. Certainty is hard to come by when talking about balance changes. Haven will suck again though, am sure on that front. So at least with some things you can be sure it will never change.

[Fik25]

Haven, I like yours attitude. Not many people are able to thing from other people perspective.

I consider Ubisoft nerfing as sensitive. But agree with you, some nerfing dont need to happen. Anyway, new expansion is going to introduce new (usually) stronger cards so its not needed. Worst way how to nerf cards is wait whole expansion lifetime and nerf them before new expansion release.

[mxksowie]

If the concern is "balance," this should be dealt with by creating stronger cards with every expansion, and so the meta changes naturally rather than by force, meaning, nerfing cards and decks that are popular.

I almost absolutely disagree with this point. I believe that the term power creep shouldn't be that foreign of a term to you. And that's exactly what it leads to. It essentially makes it such that I absolutely have to buy the new cards from the new set to be competitive. Over time, this could spiral heavily out of control too. I don't wish to be forced into that situation as it also makes new expansions become a dread because they're now all must have cards. Instead, new cards should be ones that add new dimensions and possibilities to the game, allowing for these new possibilities and hence decks to join the league and transform the game. Meta changes shouldn't be forced this way either. Instead, it'll be good if we have a little bit of cyclical imbalance as well as just that many possibilities that counter metas can quickly come and go.

But on the subject of nerfing, I guess, for some cards where nerfing is simply fundamental as you pointed out. I share your belief in that if it has to be done, it should be done properly (i.e. Don't nerf it all the way to the ground. It still has to serve it's intended function, at least to some extent) I do feel quite sad when my cards get nerfed, but I think the frustration from being forced into playing newer cards is even worse. It's okay to feel excited and happy about a new set, but it shouldn't feel like you're forced to abandon what you have now and grind for the new cards. Instead, they should feel like compliments to smooth out the edges or add more mechanics to your decks. And also as inspiration for new decks from that new set of cards. It's an intricate balance.

[Xyx0rz]

Some cards (Chain Casting in particular) really had it coming and that nerf should have come as no surprise to anyone. Same for Lava Spawn. I shelled out 96 wildcards for Lava Spawns last month knowing full well that it's overpowered (which is exactly why I did it). If it gets nerfed, so be it. I knew what I was getting into.

My "oh, come on, this is bull***!!" experiences have thus far been:

• Chain Casting
• Immolation
• Lava Spawn
• Empowered Spell

Two of those got nerfed. Draw your own conclusions.

I think Ubi shows more concern for the game and its community by nerfing cards than by not nerfing cards. It's not like they nerfed anything into the ground either; they just took the edge off. Perhaps they could do what Blizzard does for Hearthstone whenever they nerf a card; temporarily provide a full refund in the Infernal Pit.

[Voidstranger]

I am totally agree with Havenworld! Many players work hard to get some cards. Nerfing some of cards make them useless. This means, that player wasted his/her time or money to obtain these cards. Maybe player should get some gold or WC when his useful card was nerfed? Maybe you can view the statistics of games played by player (Can you check most used cards by any player?) and if some card was used too often by player and you plan to nerf that card, this player should get some reward?
P.S. Sorry for my english.

[Aranarth78]

Balancing by adding more cards is bad for the game. It leads to a more and more violent meta. I bet that if stronghold isnt played as much since Sins of Betrayal it's not because Bloodsnake Shaman got nerfed or because you can kill a Goblin Scout with the Crystal, but most likely because of 2 factors: stronghold was everywhere and it was boring to almost only face them or play them if you wanted to be competitive, and because now it seems power creep has reached a new level where overpowered stronghold might be overshadowed by even stronger decks like Kiril/Deleb, Kal Azaar, Namtaru...

And the expansion isn't even yet available in gold, so there's not so many players with 4 heretic spell stealer, but this time will come and it will be a nightmare. This card, and many more, deserve a nerf. I don't need to wait for the meta to evolve to see this. So why designers that thought about it a while longer couldn't ? Is there a need for more and more powerful cards ? What's the limit ?

To balance that you would add more cards. Let's say:
- A 4/0/4 for 1 res that deals 2 damage to its controller when summoned
- A hero with a passive that instant kill opponent when you reach turn 10
- Another hero with a passive that increase the cost of 1-2 res creatures by one
- An untargetable 0/3/1 preemptive strike for 1 res
And 90 useless cards that will never see play (nor a buff) to wrap an expansion up.

Sorry if I seem aggressive, it's not against you. I want the game to have a future, but unless BS3 comes quickly, I don't see that game living long enough if nothing's nerfed.