Nerf or Buff? Featured FG: Serket

[Higurashi]

My comment was sparked by seeing the votes, btw. People are doin' it wrong.

[Bhlewos]

(Playing minor devil's advocate here) By the above reasoning, no FG should be changed since they all have strengths suited for different types of decks. People complain about Neptune being "one of the weakest FGs", but in a topic for buffing it (Neptune Strategy subforum), there have been several reasons pointed out for it being strong towards most decks. It's just that the way the metagame is right now, more people are likely to use decks strong against Neptune, and by the same reasoning, the metagame is also why so many popular decks are weak against Dark Matter.

It's true that the metagame shouldn't be a good reason to nerf/buff a FG (who knows? Maybe some other deck will become really popular that's strong against DM but weak against Neptune; should we rework all the FGs every time the metagame changes? Of course not), and voting to nerf/buff a FG solely on the deck you use is even worse. However, if that's the case what justifications can we give for our votes? Most FGs were designed to be balanced when they first came out, and only certain FGs (Decay comes to mind) could be streamlined in light of new cards that have come out since then (I'm referring to the Decay:Improved topic by Xenocidius in the FG Proposals subforum).

What I'm trying to say is, it's tough to find an objective reason for buffing or nerfing the FGs, because there are few FGs that objectively need heavy reworking. Chances are out of the 29 FGs that are going to cycle through this topic each week, for most of these Gods we're going to get a bunch of biased votes. Besides, it's the contents of these posts that should be more important in deciding what to change about the FGs, not the votes.

[TheForbiddenOracle]

(Playing minor devil's advocate here) By the above reasoning, no FG should be changed since they all have strengths suited for different types of decks. People complain about Neptune being "one of the weakest FGs", but in a topic for buffing it (Neptune Strategy subforum), there have been several reasons pointed out for it being strong towards most decks. It's just that the way the metagame is right now, more people are likely to use decks strong against Neptune, and by the same reasoning, the metagame is also why so many popular decks are weak against Dark Matter.

It's true that the metagame shouldn't be a good reason to nerf/buff a FG (who knows? Maybe some other deck will become really popular that's strong against DM but weak against Neptune; should we rework all the FGs every time the metagame changes? Of course not), and voting to nerf/buff a FG solely on the deck you use is even worse. However, if that's the case what justifications can we give for our votes? Most FGs were designed to be balanced when they first came out, and only certain FGs (Decay comes to mind) could be streamlined in light of new cards that have come out since then (I'm referring to the Decay:Improved topic by Xenocidius in the FG Proposals subforum).

What I'm trying to say is, it's tough to find an objective reason for buffing or nerfing the FGs, because there are few FGs that objectively need heavy reworking. Chances are out of the 29 FGs that are going to cycle through this topic each week, for most of these Gods we're going to get a bunch of biased votes. Besides, it's the contents of these posts that should be more important in deciding what to change about the FGs, not the votes.

I feel the need to say this. The odds that Zanzarino will actually see this topic are slim to none. The odds that he will change some of the FG because of this topic, dangerously close to 0. This topic is just for people to post their own opinions about whatever FG pops up, and I seriously doubt that Zanzarino will change a few Fake Gods simply because a handful of players feel the need to make the game more fair.

[Bhlewos]

Well then shouldn't it matter less whether members' votes are biased or not? If it has no significant bearing on the game, and there's no real danger of someone being misled by the votes, then the only issue is making sure people understand that some players' opinions are biased, and debate these FGs with that understanding in mind.

[Xenocidius]

I currently use CCYB with 3 SoGs replaced with Sanctuaries, and so far it's been a 100% win rate if I can get a Sanctuary out. I don't think it should be nerfed, as Sanctuary completely shuts down its denial/healing. It doesn't even have any permanent control ..

[Higurashi]

Wrong. People are always misled by popular votes without thinking about the ramifications.

Also, it's very easy to be objective actually. You only need to judge their deck on its own. For instance, even if Paradox pwnd most FG decks, his deck still sucks.

[Vineroz]

Let's look at this: If you have DM in Oracle, which deck will you use to face him?
RoL/Hope? You need an early lobo + store quanta for the first fractal of RoLs, then you need to have Hope up rather early. BH denial + several cards combo make this hard actually.
GotP? Eternity + Hourglass cost too much quanta under BH. It even stops you chaining Phase Shields, if you indeed have any. If you are lucky enough to set up those withsufficient quanta left, DM would probably out damage you already.
And don't you mention CCYB and Shakars, DM can pull off BH from his first turn. Tell me what is the chance of getting a sanctuary in a 35-40 card deck. And you have to save 2 SNs to play it, and then you still have to stall the hell out of it to get a shield + 2 AMs to overcome the damage from Chargers and Titan.

But then I understand harder FGs are needed for the balance, and I really think it is OK if it pops up randomly and beats you up. The only thing is we should be able to have a high win rate (~80%) if we know what we are facing. Let's look at the Oracle deck by majofa

Code: [Select]

6rn 6rn 6rn 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 80d 80d 80d 80d 80d 80d 80e 80e 80e 80e 80f 80f 80f 80fThis actually looks quite good. 4/31 lobos looks reliable to get one early. But I actually never have a chance to play this deck, because I don't have all the upped cards.

So that's my opinion. What do you think?

[Higurashi]

GotP? Eternity + Hourglass cost too much quanta under BH. It even stops you chaining Phase Shields, if you indeed have any. If you are lucky enough to set up those withsufficient quanta left, DM would probably out damage you already.

As mentioned, GotP Time wins more often than not. If you read the stats on its thread, you'll see both packages have a winrate of 50%, and I personally have a 7-3 record right now.
RoL/Hope I would guess at around 30-40% win, depending entirely on how early you get Lobo and SoG's. Typical RoL/Hope has 3 Lobos, which makes that likely, but they also have few SoG's, which makes an extended game harder.
Contemporary CCYB has 2 Sancs, which I would pack as well, and the chances of drawing one when you have HG's aren't low. Either way it has a winrate of 26%, which is awesome for a rainbow.

I've never lost with the Oracle deck. Not even when mostly unupped with SoG's and Lobos.

[Rastafla]

Mono aether against Dark Matter is VERY stable.  Ive lost once due to no sogs and enemy titan and a little topdecking of momentum and charger.

I consider it a sure win and even EM.

[TheForbiddenOracle]

Fourth week: Decay

Description:

Code: [Select]

7t6 7t6 7t6 7t6 7t6 7t6 7t8 7t9 7t9 7ta 7tc 7tc 7tc 7tc 7tc 7tc 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 80e 80i 80i 80i 80i 80i 80i
His strategy is to suck your quanta dry with Pests+Fractal and to kill you/heal with his Drain Lifes. He racks up his quanta ridiculously fast after his first Fractal, and with a full board with no shield or healing, his pests can easily kill you in 3 turns (+2/+1 from Eclipse, 23 pests, 23*2=46 46*3=138). He also has Dusk Shields to hold you off while his builds, and 4 Steals which can downright annoy you to death. He is absolutely atrocious to play without a rainbow, likewise a rainbow deck can easily beat him because all that is needed is 8 quantum towers to stop his drainage (23 drained, 8*3=24, so your even gaining 1 quanta)

Counter Cards:

Supernova
Effect: Generate 24 quantums, 2 for each element

1 of these can hold off an entire field of 23 pests, with 1 quanta to spare. Gives the same quanta that a Quantum Tower gives in 7 or a Quantum Pillar gives in 8

Jade Shield
Effect: Shield: reduce damage by 2. Spells are reflected against your opponent. Can not be destroyed or stolen.

This card guarentees to block almost all the damage Decay can bring. It blocks his Drain Lifes and blocks his Eclipse'd pests, so the most damage he can give you every turn is 3 with this shield.

Sanctuary
Effect: Your quanta pool and your hand can not be altered during your opponent’s turn. Heal 4 HP per turn.

His Pests effect becomes useless with this, so if you have this with a 2 damage blocking shield, his fractal'd pests become nothing more then aflatoxin cells
Results:
Nerf:3
Buff: 2
Let him be: 17

[nilsieboy]

1/2 vamps'd be great for decay because they might solve his weaknesses like the jade shield lockdown or more damage against sanctuary.

[zse]

I think the deck Decay has is perfect and doesn't need any adjustments other than maybe adding Tower or 2. The way AI uses the deck needs improvement though. Especially the playing order of these cards:
1. playing everything else before playing Fractal, and
2. using Siphon Life before playing any other cards on the same turn (if not going to save SL for next turn).