[Official] Blue Crawler | Abyss Crawler

[kurathedog]

In rainbow rushes, this is great cc fodder
Upgrading a flesh spider gives it +3/+0 for 0 cost
Upgrading this gives +3/+3 for 1 cost
Cost of 3 makes it OP, methinks

[guolin]

In rainbow rushes, this is great cc fodder
Upgrading a flesh spider gives it +3/+0 for 0 cost
Upgrading this gives +3/+3 for 1 cost
Cost of 3 makes it OP, methinks

We're complaining about the unupped version. Upped version has already been buffed in a previous update and is now used quite a bit in PSNBows.

[kurathedog]

Unupped version is identical to the flesh spider (almost). If this is turned into a spider, then that would be good. Though what sea spiders there are I have no idea.

[RavingRabbid]

Looks like people are almost tied on giving it an ability / not giving him anything.

[genraenera]

It seems most of these "creature X is underpowered" threads are operation under a false assumption:  That all basic, skill-less creatures from all elements should be approximately equal.  This is NOT true. 

Each element specializes in a specific area, some in control, some in offensive power, some in spell cards, some in permanents, and so on.  Water specializes in creature control and player (as opposed to creature) defense.  Water uses its various freezing spells to stop opponents' offenses in their tracks, most notably using the Permafrost Shield and the Arctic Octopus to achieve this .  This means that water's basic creatures should not be as powerful as, say, earth's or fire's; two elements that rely mostly on brute force to win.

While the blue crawler may not compare to its counterparts from other elements, water more than makes up for this due to its many ways to freeze opponents' creatures.

[RavingRabbid]

It seems most of these "creature X is underpowered" threads are operation under a false assumption:  That all basic, skill-less creatures from all elements should be approximately equal.  This is NOT true. 

Each element specializes in a specific area, some in control, some in offensive power, some in spell cards, some in permanents, and so on.  Water specializes in creature control and player (as opposed to creature) defense.  Water uses its various freezing spells to stop opponents' offenses in their tracks, most notably using the Permafrost Shield and the Arctic Octopus to achieve this .  This means that water's basic creatures should not be as powerful as, say, earth's or fire's; two elements that rely mostly on brute force to win.

While the blue crawler may not compare to its counterparts from other elements, water more than makes up for this due to its many ways to freeze opponents' creatures.

Blue Crawler has almost no point in being used, that's what.

[Rooftrellen]

Blue Crawler has almost no point in being used, that's what.

It is a 3/3 for 3.  That is very comparable to a 5/5 for 5 (entropy), 3/3 for 3 (death), etc.  It's common to see a trend like this, taking into consideration that life gets cheap creatures, earth gets high health creatures, and so on.

And so, I just don't see what the problem is.  The only thing I would say is that, for cost, the toadfish is probably better, because it has more attack than its cost, and its health increase isn't proportional, but since it exists, it can survive a hit from any source that deals 3 damage.  However, if we are to compare like that, the shrieker looks better than the golem, and the mummie gets a lot of power for little cost over the flesh spider, so even that seems fair.

[RavingRabbid]

Blue Crawler has almost no point in being used, that's what.

It is a 3/3 for 3.  That is very comparable to a 5/5 for 5 (entropy), 3/3 for 3 (death), etc.  It's common to see a trend like this, taking into consideration that life gets cheap creatures, earth gets high health creatures, and so on.

And so, I just don't see what the problem is.  The only thing I would say is that, for cost, the toadfish is probably better, because it has more attack than its cost, and its health increase isn't proportional, but since it exists, it can survive a hit from any source that deals 3 damage.  However, if we are to compare like that, the shrieker looks better than the golem, and the mummie gets a lot of power for little cost over the flesh spider, so even that seems fair.

The 3/3 for 3 has web
The 5/5 for 5 has a decent damage.

Then, shriekers are OP, do not use them for comparing.
And again, flesh spiders' web can be really used.

[Rooftrellen]

Blue Crawler has almost no point in being used, that's what.

It is a 3/3 for 3.  That is very comparable to a 5/5 for 5 (entropy), 3/3 for 3 (death), etc.  It's common to see a trend like this, taking into consideration that life gets cheap creatures, earth gets high health creatures, and so on.

And so, I just don't see what the problem is.  The only thing I would say is that, for cost, the toadfish is probably better, because it has more attack than its cost, and its health increase isn't proportional, but since it exists, it can survive a hit from any source that deals 3 damage.  However, if we are to compare like that, the shrieker looks better than the golem, and the mummie gets a lot of power for little cost over the flesh spider, so even that seems fair.

The 3/3 for 3 has web
The 5/5 for 5 has a decent damage.

Then, shriekers are OP, do not use them for comparing.
And again, flesh spiders' web can be really used.

3/3 for 3 has an ability that uses and currently takes a specific shield to be useful.

5/5 is decent damage, sure, but that doesn't make a card good, does it?

Would a 5/5 for 6 be better than a 3/3 for 3?  I would, personally, say no.  Why pay 6 for 5 damage when I could pay 6 for 3 damage.  Even facing a shield that reduces damage by 1, they are equal damage.

5 damage is good for the 5 cost.

Why is 3 damage not ok for the 3 cost?

Would it be worth it if we gave it an ability like this?

Dense Bones    The enemy creature acts as if it had 5 HP for the purpose of shields.  Actual health is unchanged.

It would then be better than web, which affects only a shield with a set amount of time before disappearing, and the costs, damage, and health are exactly the same.  It would seem like a silly change to me, since I doubt people would start using water/gravity decks anymore than they currently use death/air (or the phase spider for aether/air to use the web ability), but if that is what is missing for this to be a good creature, ok, I wouldn't stand against a buff that I would see as fairly meaningless.

[ratcharmer]

A 3/3 for 3 still takes up 1 card slot in your deck. Therefore a 5/5 for 5 gives you more value for the number of cards you used.

Otherwise, skeleton would be considered a good card. After all it's a 1/1 for 1

The other thing I would point out is that abomination is not a terribly strong card itself.

No one is really talking about huge buffs here,  for the most part just giving it some minor ability that requires a duo and is only useful under specific circumstances.

[guolin]

A 3/3 for 3 still takes up 1 card slot in your deck. Therefore a 5/5 for 5 gives you more value for the number of cards you used.

Otherwise, skeleton would be considered a good card. After all it's a 1/1 for 1

The other thing I would point out is that abomination is not a terribly strong card itself.

No one is really talking about huge buffs here,  for the most part just giving it some minor ability that requires a duo and is only useful under specific circumstances.

^this. As a massive fan of Water, the only time when I have EVER used Blue Crawlers is with Adrenaline, and that was only for a thematic Life/Water duo (adrenaline frogs is far superior). Toadfish is in the exact same element as the Crawler, and it alone is better than both Crawler and Abomination. (the ability just adds insult to injury).

[kurathedog]

After reading this, I think giving it web would be best. Graphics might change to make it a spider, though it would make this equal to the  spider. Moar stuff with airborne is needed. (see thunderstorm buff thread)