[Official] Nightfall | Eclipse

[Marsu]

Pardon me but when cards can be included in deck in quantities of 1-6 it is better design to be able to use cards in quantities 1-6.

I don't see why you come to this conclusion.

In addition, your own argument can be used against your point, because for non-rainbow decks, 4-6 copies are used for almost every card and using 1-3 copies, but more different cards make 95% of all decks significantly weaker - so you're also not able to "use Cards in quantities 1-6".

[ARTHANASIOS]

So your argument is that it shouldn't stack because because it shouldn't stack.
Pardon me but when cards can be included in deck in quantities of 1-6 it is better design to be able to use cards in quantities 1-6. Flooding and Nightfall are similar and both should be redesigned to the better stackable design. This would come with the companion nerf in order to maintain the balance of the cards.

I think there should be a general thread (in the Design Theory maybe?) about stackable & non-stackable effects and which cards should have stackable/non-stackable effects. I am actually going to make a thread like this, because I have seen pletny of "spamming" in Buff/Nerf sections where the suggestions are about changing a non-stackable card/effect into a stackable one or vice versa. I also should apologize for my utterly offensive previous post.

However, in my most honest opinion I LOVE non-stackable cards & effects because:
1) They encourage more creative deckbuilding; when effects are stackable, you are always like "let's put 6 of this card in our deck in order to grip out the greatest benefit". In other words, when a card is stackable, it just makes almost no sense to include less than 6 copies of it in a deck, reducing the variety of buildable decks which include that card.
2) Non-stackable cards are almost always too powerful if they become stackable; A good example here is SoFre, which is a nice & fairly balanced effect for a shard if used once, but when stacked it is ridiculously powerful, even making it the most broken shard at the moment.
3) There are plenty of occasions where non-stackable cards need to be included even 6 times in a deck; Those occasions include fat decks, stalls, rng-resistant decks as well as counter-resistant decks.

EDIT: I made that thread, the link is  here.

[OldTrees]

Pardon me but when cards can be included in deck in quantities of 1-6 it is better design to be able to use cards in quantities 1-6.

I don't see why you come to this conclusion.

In addition, your own argument can be used against your point, because for non-rainbow decks, 4-6 copies are used for almost every card and using 1-3 copies, but more different cards make 95% of all decks significantly weaker - so you're also not able to "use Cards in quantities 1-6".

Not every deck needs to be competitive but a larger variety of decks allows players more freedom and players tend to enjoy that freedom. You will note that there exist players that would prefer the option of using multiple nightfalls. This supports my theory that granting additional freedom when not at the expense of balance will result in greater total enjoyment of the game. (The metric I use to judge design) However Arthanasios has surprised me by enjoying non-stackability. So I need to investigate that to see if I should continue with my assertion or if I should change my position.

So your argument is that it shouldn't stack because because it shouldn't stack.
Pardon me but when cards can be included in deck in quantities of 1-6 it is better design to be able to use cards in quantities 1-6. Flooding and Nightfall are similar and both should be redesigned to the better stackable design. This would come with the companion nerf in order to maintain the balance of the cards.

I think there should be a general thread (in the Design Theory maybe?) about stackable & non-stackable effects and which cards should have stackable/non-stackable effects. I am actually going to make a thread like this, because I have seen pletny of "spamming" in Buff/Nerf sections where the suggestions are about changing a non-stackable card/effect into a stackable one or vice versa. I also should apologize for my utterly offensive previous post.

However, in my most honest opinion I LOVE non-stackable cards & effects because:
1) They encourage more creative deckbuilding; when effects are stackable, you are always like "let's put 6 of this card in our deck in order to grip out the greatest benefit". In other words, when a card is stackable, it just makes almost no sense to include less than 6 copies of it in a deck, reducing the variety of buildable decks which include that card.
2) Non-stackable cards are almost always too powerful if they become stackable; A good example here is SoFre, which is a nice & fairly balanced effect for a shard if used once, but when stacked it is ridiculously powerful, even making it the most broken shard at the moment.
3) There are plenty of occasions where non-stackable cards need to be included even 6 times in a deck; Those occasions include fat decks, stalls, rng-resistant decks as well as counter-resistant decks.

EDIT: I made that thread, the link is  here.

1) They 'encourage' more creative deckbuilding by excluding common deck designs. I am not sure if this effect is desirable.
(we both agree it is not ideal since ideally people would sometimes be building decks that mimic non-stackability with stackable cards)
2) When a card is changed it gets rebalanced. Therefore non-stackable cards are rebalanced if they become stackable. This results in the same balance distribution as normal for the designer in question (Zanz). Please tell me if there is any part of this that is confusing because the propagation of this critique is a problem.
3) Even 6 times? I find that doubtful but you are making the claim so I suspect to be proven wrong.

I will also jump over to that thread.

[skyironsword]

I like how this buff fits thematically, how you can have multiple eclipses at the same time ignoring the fact that there is only one sun and one moon.

[CuCN]

I like how this buff fits thematically, how you can have multiple eclipses at the same time ignoring the fact that there is only one sun and one moon.

Why do you say having more eclipses than there are things to eclipse fits thematically?

[OldTrees]

I like how this buff fits thematically, how you can have multiple eclipses at the same time ignoring the fact that there is only one sun and one moon.

Let us examine nightfall for an instance. We can imagine the first copy as dusk and additional copies bringing us closer to midnight (the peak of night's power).
Let us examine eclipse. We can imagine the eclipsing object growing with each additional eclipse until all light gets blocked out.

[skyironsword]

I like how this buff fits thematically, how you can have multiple eclipses at the same time ignoring the fact that there is only one sun and one moon.

Why do you say having more eclipses than there are things to eclipse fits thematically?

Because sarcasm.

[Treldon]

The following modifications occurred to me regarding Nightfall, and the theme behind the effect
(One could say that this would buff the other cards more, but it would increase Nightfall's usefulness)

- Lycanthrope, being a creature of the night (and  sort of an  - halfblood) should receive the buff from Nightfall

- Liquid Shadow turns creatures into vampires, right? Well vampires are also nocturnal, therefore all LS'd creatures could receive the buff as well (of course it would not apply double for LS'd or creatures)

Opinions?

[Chapuz]

That's exactly how Nightfall works in oetg: there are non- nocturnal creatures like Lycans that also get the buff.

[iDaire]

Nightfall should also activate the lycanthropy skill for lycanthrope.
We can expand on this:
Spell Card Wolf Claw: This creature gains +5 | +5 if nightfall is out.