OP: what does it really mean?

[TimerClock14]

I've been browsing through the archives in crucible and such lately and have noticed that a lot of accusations against a card calling it OP, have little ground and, rather than being bad ideas, are good deck possibilities. So where do we draw the line between good deck ideas and overpowered?

discuss~

[ddevans96]

In simple terms:

Noob's OP:

There isn't a way to beat this card. There's not a counter to it!
OR
Every time this card has been played against me, I lose the game!

Veteran's OP:

Every single deck has to have this card, or else the deck will fail.
OR
This card is better than other cards in every situation

[TheCrazyMango]

another noob OP: this card beat me, OP.

[OldTrees]

Another pro definition:
Strictly superior
(not situationally better but Strictly superior)

[geekz_always_win]

It measn overpowered

Sorry, didn't read the OP.(lol) I'd just say if all the good players (masters, people with moderator privileges , anybody <1000 posts) say it's OP it's OP 

[agentflare]

OP means that that the card can be abused easily to create a deck that needs a specific counter for it to lose.
OP means that the card is game breaking and every deck will change around it.

[Uppercut]

Another pro definition:
Strictly superior
(not situationally better but Strictly superior)

This is a bad definition. Being strictly superior to a card that sucked in the first place doesn't necessarily make it OP.

[QuantumT]

Another pro definition:
Strictly superior
(not situationally better but Strictly superior)

This is a bad definition. Being strictly superior to a card that sucked in the first place doesn't necessarily make it OP.

If I had to guess, I think he meant cards that are basically strictly superior to basically all other cards.

[TimerClock14]

Another pro definition:
Strictly superior
(not situationally better but Strictly superior)

This is a bad definition. Being strictly superior to a card that sucked in the first place doesn't necessarily make it OP.

If I had to guess, I think he meant cards that are basically strictly superior to basically all other cards.

same ad QT

[OldTrees]

No I meant designing a new card knowing that it is strictly superior to an old card in all circumstances. If both cards ever existed at the same time then one would be OP compared to the other.

If the original card needed a buff then it should get a buff not be rendered obsolete while still in the card bank.
If the original card was balanced then the new card would be OP when compared to the standard.

Note:
Strictly superior means better is all circumstances.
OP and UP are terms discussing the relative power differential between either cards or cards and standards for balance.

[TimerClock14]

No I meant designing a new card knowing that it is strictly superior to an old card in all circumstances. If both cards ever existed at the same time then one would be OP compared to the other.

If the original card needed a buff then it should get a buff not be rendered obsolete while still in the card bank.
If the original card was balanced then the new card would be OP when compared to the standard.

Note: Strictly superior means better is all circumstances.

oh i get it now >_>

[Bloodshadow]

In order of descending OP-ness:

If a card is so game-breaking that it forces all decks to use it in order to compete, then it is OP.

If a card cannot be countered by anything whatsoever, then the card is OP no matter what.

If the card only has one or two counters, then it is OP, but not as much as the one above.

If a card is strictly superior to another card, then card 1 is OP unless card 2 is UP. I think only a bit of playtesting can determine this one.

If a card is too cheap for what it does, then it is slightly OP, but not as much as the ones above.

Some effects are frowned upon by the community in general (e.g. instant killing, forced discard). The community often regard those as OP.

Anything else?