Member
Releasing more overpowered cards to keep the previous overpowered cards in control is NOT the way to go. It forces the players to pick those cards, and thus limit the creativity / originality / fun of the game (it becomes a drawfest).
You do have a point whne you say that it will frustrate some players if they nerf cards they paid for (because they wanted to win cheaply by abusing these overpowered cards), but I believe nerfs are welcomed when they are well done.
Moreover, people getting mad that a certain card got nerfed would NOT be a problem if 1 ) That card was never released in that overpowered state in the first place, and 2 ) They would nerf the ******ed cards much faster than they do already. Sorry, but it doesn't take a month to see what cards are overpowered and create bad game experience (empowered spell? chain casting? titan workforce? come on)
As for players leaving... I believe the main causes for players leaving are the following:
1) They can't buy legacy and have trouble understanding the open/standard formats
2) Necropolis (that faction ruins the game for a LOT of new and older players alike - I am certain that dark magic and banshees / cripple creatures are responsible for 50% of the player loss this game has/had)
3) Academy (same thing as necro, but usually at tleast at higher elos)
4) They enter a swiss tournament at 5 and get royalled beat up by a level 200 with a full collection that's only farming swisses for e-peens and/or extra wildcards from packs they majorly won't use (so then the lvl5 player starts thinking that if he wants to compete he is forced to pay-to-win, and so usually leaves when he sees just how expensive it would be for him)
Game Designer - Balancing
The OP states one very good reason why we can't nerf stuff too fast.Originally Posted by Mushidoz Go to original post
Though releasing OP cards to counter a strategy isn't a good plan either. We often designed cards geared to soft-counter strategies and when possible, we make those cards common or uncommon to make it accessible to everyone easily. It's really hard to know when a card is a hard counter or a soft counter, every now and then, I see VIPs arguing back and forth on the usefulness and effectiveness of a card.
In the end, to know the true potential of a card, we need to play thousands upon thousands of games with the same meta, something that's impossible to do with our VIPs and test team without having to spend 6 months on a set. Once the expansion is out, it takes roughly a month before it starts to stabilize. Cards that we thought were borderline OP sometimes becomes too strong for the meta and sometimes they just don't. We need data to know a card's true potential and deep analysis of the meta that explains why it will be a problem. A card becomes a problem when slows the meta down too much and prevents it from evolving.
From there, when we know there's a problem with a card, we need to find the right solution, and that's the same thing as creating a new card: it requires a lot of tests, hundreds of games to nail down the right thing to do. Sometimes though, the card is way too problematic and it needs to be changed now (Prison & Throne) and we can't find a way to make them just a bit less powerful. Sometimes the only decision we're left with is to nerf the card really badly. It's not ideal. It never is. But if the price to pay to have a good meta is to sacrifice 1 card, then maybe it's the right decision.
Senior Member
OP you explained very well but I canīt agree with you, I think itīs the opposite indeed. Changes arenīt welcome the first days, but if they are good they end beeing accepted.
About nerfs, this is where I disagree.
I almost left the game when players could play 5 FF in a game, sometimes with 8 stone shields and altars...
I know that some people left the game cause masfar otk at turn 5.
Same with stronghold bloodthirst+IS, war tent + double shrreders killing you when you have board control, and so on...
People will leave the game if akane gets popularity with this new tsunami, and lava spawn could make a player leave the game too.
Infinite prison with sandal and hakeem mill are also very good examples.
Btw, I could easily leave the game if my favourite faction, haven, is unplayable in this expansion (like it was in HoN).
Nerfs and buffs are good, mainly buffs but, as you say, nerfs arenīt that good when the card is unique and expensive.
And once again, the problem starts with the devs in the card design phase.
Lava spawn, for instance, is non unique epic creature, like wolf captain or cloudshaper. Lava spawn is also a 1 drop, and itīs a card that you have to play with 4 copies or not play LS at all...Itīs strong enough to make certain decks competitives or at least, op at lower elos.
Iīm not surprised if people spent all their wildcards in getting lava spawns.
This card has the most evil design and was made to earn money. A 1 drop, a super strong epic card (at least in HoN meta), a card which only works when you put 4 in your deck.
You HAD TO get your 4 lava spawns, just like haven players in std were getting 4 wolf captains. It was removed from std and LS could easily be removed in bs3 or even nerfed before.
Same with cloudshaper. So you want to play academy competitively?? You need 4 copies of this non unique epic creature. Sorry, itīs too good and we are going to nerf it, but we got your money.
Empowered spell not epic?not even rare? fine we can nerf it quite fast if itīs op, donīt worry.
I know itīs a business, but most of our problems in this game have a root: the design team.
Anyway, the main cause of this small community is the lack of advertisements. But donīt be surprised if someone leaves just because haven is too weak, academy has a few popular stall decks, inferno is too op, necro is too frustrating to play against, inmolation is boring or whatever...
We want a very deep and interesting game, for easy and simple tcg we have the overrated heartstone, however we need the best possible balance. A deep game is good when itīs balanced and doesnīt work with a rock papper scissors system...
@Simon thereīs no problem with buffs though, we are waiting for a crusader watchmen/elite squire buff since ages...
Edit: I forgot to mention that 2+ weeks with the new expansion NOT available by gold makes me (and many other players) stop playing the game. In those weaks itīs easy to find another cool game and forget DoC. Again itīs a business but still, thatīs really bad for the community size...
Game Designer - Balancing
Money does get in the way of doing nerfs, but not in the way you think. When a card has been bought by so many people, and people are raving for a nerf, we have to stop and think about the consequences of any modifications that we do. If the card is changed in any way, we know we'll lose some players. If the cards is nerfed too much, we'll lose even more players. If the card isn't nerfed enough, we'll lose other players... And there's always the question; is a nerf really needed for that card?
Buffs on the other hand are more complex to analyse. We know that changing cards, for better or worse, confuses players that play sporadically, which is a good portion of our player base. Those players will not return to the game if their cards change too much. That's why we try to change the least possible number of cards and only in batches when we can. Everything we do has an impact on a type of player and there's more than just competitive players in DoC, we have to take into account every player type.
In the case of LS, it was a big risk. A card game can't evolve if you're not taking risks. I wanted to see what a 1 drop Epic card looked like. I wanted to see how the game reacts to it. This is how we learn about the limits of our game. MtG has been around for years now, they know the game's limitations and can take a lot more risks (that's not counting the fact that they have 5 developpers and 5 designers working on 1 set for the better part of a year, and we have 1 designer/developper working on 2-3 sets at a time...) When we finished balancing LS, before it came out, it was clear it would have an impact, but some VIPs felt it wouldn't dominate or be meta-defining. We thought we hit the right spot. And if we missed, we would learn from it and learn to design better and better cards.
Member
Before the change to new turn1/turn2 that card was powerful but not gamebreaking either. Godhand Deleb gets 2 of them on turn 2? Ok, sure, but first player can just insect swarm, bounce, or geyser them and then Deleb is behind. There are and were far worse cards in the game (and this new expansion brought us a majority of disgusting cards that all rival with Lava Spawn and far exceed its level of bull, imo).Originally Posted by svilleneuve Go to original post
The fact there's so much hate right now about Lava Spawn is not really because of the card itself, but more because the new turn1 / turn 2 thing just basically shat over the entire game as it redefined the rules. A single nerf to its starting HP would basically fix the entire issue I believe.. so would changing the stats of some heroes AND more importantly the requirements of some creatures would as well. Heck, just remove the damn coin would fix this issue that's only an issue because of that "booooo turn2 wins all games" crying that high elos spouted because they were too busy NOT changing their deck to have more/better t1 options... (my decks were based around t1, and they were having a good time starting, so I never got all that crying for t2 nonsense personally - EXCEPT for some factions that do benefit more from t2 than others *stronghold comes to mind*)
Senior Member
@Svilleneuve I can understand your reasoning about nerfs, and I have to agree, but I canīt with the part about buffs.
Just two things:
As a tip about nerfs, be careful when designing potentially "toxic" cards.
I know that DoC isnīt league of legends, one is a moba and the other a tcg but still, lol isnīt perfectly balance but "toxic" stuff is in continuous balancing (things you donīt like playing against, you donīt have answers for those heroes, even the player playing that op hero isnīt getting fun, the meta canīt evolve, and so on...).
LS was a potentialy "toxic" card in a way, it makes the insect swarm+geyser meta even more stale, for example. If you were just curious Iīm fine, Itīs cool to have a really strong 1 drop with a huge drawback, perhaps not the best idea since itīs a rushy 1 drop but ok. Same for workforce, inmolation or chain casting. Those are cards that you want to try, but are also cards that you need to nerf if the impact and strenght is bigger than you expected.
I suggest making common and uncommon potentially "toxic" cards, rare if necessary, but never epic unless itīs a unique card.
About buffs, well honestly Simon I might be wrong but I canīt see a player saying "what happened? some of my very weak cards are now playable...I donīt like it" or "what is this?my opponent is playing watchmen/bulb but now itīs better! I donīt like it...", mainly because those buffed cards can be easily common cards. Even if you sacrificed some of them or you donīt have 4 copies yet, you can easily get 4 or 40 of them, those cards are just common cards. It would be reasonable even with other rarity cards.
But mainly, I miss the buffs to some specific cards that could be really healthy for the meta.
For example:
A new expansion is released so no new cards in a long time from now, ok. Faction X has very weak 2 drops (haven and sanctuary in HoN for example), they are almost unplayable or just too weak. At that moment, you could buff a common 2 drop for faction X to make it more playable, less frustrating for dailies, more fun to play. So less people leave the game.
I know, for instance, that some people left the game due to haven and sanctuary daily quest in standard.
What I mean is, far from making people quit the game, buffs could even make the people stay longer in DoC, Imo.
Senior Member
I won't go into the details, I'll just say that the original poster arguments are completely wrong and off the target. Balancing the card pool and the meta is the essence of any card game.
About LS - it became a problem after new starting was introduced - basically negating LS's drawback ability for 1st turn. Made it much more powerful. IMHO, needs a nerf - easy call - 3 might requirement.
Senior Member
Not so easy Npavcec, that change makes it worse than it was in HoN/GB. But I agree with its current op state and I also think it needs a nerf.
Perhaps hp down to 2 like DA? would make it really risky against fire users, but easily countered by most 2 drops I guess...honestly I canīt find a decent nerf to this card.
Iīd make it have a completely different drawback then, like "opponent draws a card" (when enters the board, perhaps only when it dies).
Or just a different drawback if thatīs too much.
Member
The game cannot survive indefinately unless Ubsoft profits from it. So I understand when it makes choices to make money. However, printing expensive cards, and then nerfing them is not the way to go. Everytime the company does this, some will feel cheated. The reason they pay a lot for these cards is exactly because these cards are very powerful, and they need those cards to create their "dream" deck. For most new comers, this is probably their only top deck. But when the cards are nerfed without proper compensation, it is not difficult to see how these people get upset and angry, and so post negative reviews especially regarding money. Nerfing without proper compensation is really not a good business model. As I originally stated, I am not saying designers absolutely cannot nerf cards. But it has to be an absolute must, unless Ubisoft is somehow willing to compensate for the hurt people.
Regarding Lava Spawn. I agree it is a powerful card. But if you nerf that card, Inferno will become very weak, and many will stop playing Deleb and Xorm. By nerfing LS, Deleb and Xorm will also die, just like Crag Hack became weak and almost unplayable when Assasin got nerfed. Similarly, Masfar is not playable competitively now, because of the recent change. Besides, Deleb and Xorm, I think, are not the most played heroes currently. And if they were outrageously powerful because of LS, I would think more people would play those heroes, as many as the people who played Kelthor a long time ago when EnlightenedOwl popularized him. Changes like 1st and 2nd issues affect everyone who plays the game, but nerfing hurts only those people who play that particular card. So again. be really careful when nerfing.
Good Luck to everyone.
Game Designer - Balancing
And this is why it takes time to balance a game. What you think is the right call needs to be tested. You as much proof as you can that it's good for the game. You think this is an easy call, but it's miles from it.Originally Posted by npavcec Go to original post
LS is an epic, and as such, it probably cost a lot of people a lot of money, so of course, when you nerf it, it has to stay relevent, otherwise everyone that bought it will feel rightfully cheated. 3 might changes its tempo dramatically, too much even, it makes the card pretty bad. 2HP is rather sensible, but is it enough or too much? Reducing its attack is nonsense, because it was the whole point behind the creature... so we're left with funkier solutions, like reducing might when it comes into play or something like that.
These things needs testing, you can't just wing it, even if you feel it's an easy call.
