Shard "Minimizing"

[esran]

sofree isnt OP, because it is great in some decks, but it is not game breaking. i have never faced sofree and thought i lost because it was OP, it was always either luck or me not playing a great deck.
the same is not true of sosac of sofocus. sosac shuts down decks without a specific counter, and sofocus makes kills any deck that needs its permanents. a single sofocus can beat a deck if gotten early, its playable off of a single nova, and you can stuff 6 in your deck to nearly garuntee a first turn play.
some shards are obviously OP, and some shards a re just strong.
lets fix the obviously OP ones first.

[Cheesy111]

sofree isnt OP, because it is great in some decks, but it is not game breaking. i have never faced sofree and thought i lost because it was OP, it was always either luck or me not playing a great deck.
the same is not true of sosac of sofocus. sosac shuts down decks without a specific counter, and sofocus makes kills any deck that needs its permanents. a single sofocus can beat a deck if gotten early, its playable off of a single nova, and you can stuff 6 in your deck to nearly garuntee a first turn play.
some shards are obviously OP, and some shards a re just strong.
lets fix the obviously OP ones first.

It's hard to convince someone that card X is OP or UP, especially when you have little to no competitive pvp experience.  Anecdotal evidence is not the way to go.  And all OP cards should be fixed.  Fixing SoFo does not mean we are suddenly unable to fix SoW.

[rosutosefi]

sofree isnt OP, because it is great in some decks, but it is not game breaking. i have never faced sofree and thought i lost because it was OP, it was always either luck or me not playing a great deck.
the same is not true of sosac of sofocus. sosac shuts down decks without a specific counter, and sofocus makes kills any deck that needs its permanents. a single sofocus can beat a deck if gotten early, its playable off of a single nova, and you can stuff 6 in your deck to nearly garuntee a first turn play.
some shards are obviously OP, and some shards a re just strong.
lets fix the obviously OP ones first.

I did not say "Don't nerf Shard of Focus" or "Don't nerf Shard of Sacrifice!"
I have already shown the necessary calculations about the balance for SoFre. If the overpoweredness does not show, then perhaps the problem is somewhere else. If an overpowered card is not fixed due to it being OK in the current meta, it will just cause problems later on when the new cards are added. More overpowered cards = Yu-Gi-Oh! type game. Adding OP cards after OP cards for "balance".

[furballdn]

In comparison with? Try comparing it with other air decks.

Comparing to? Some other air decks like just pure mono air rush or powerful wyrms? Powerful wyrms is one of the fastest rush decks without shards.

You are the one who made the assertive statement that "SoFre is OP", so you should be the one proving it to me with decks, not making me prove that "SoFre is not OP" with decks, and with my decks, I think I actually did do that.

Using Xeno's sim, Free air has a 94% win rate with a TTW of 7.798.

This deck:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

6rr 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mv 7mv 7mv 7mv 7mv 7mv 7n0 7n4 7n4 7n4 7n4 7n4 7n4 8pr

Has a similar win rate, with TTW being around 8.2

Replacing fireflies for SoFre seems to make it a bit faster, but is that really OP? It merely seems that SoFre is more efficient than firefly in this occasion. I want to see you comparing some SoFre decks with other decks.

[rosutosefi]

My laptop is complaining. I think there is a plan for rebellion. But onto the results:

Comparing Powerful Wyrms with Tainted Powerful Wyrms:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

6rk 6rk 6s6 6s6 6u2 6u2 6u2 6u2 6u2 6u2 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mu 7mu 7mu 7mu 7mu 8pj

Player
Wins: 98136
Winrate: 98.136 %
Average TTW: 6.402064481943426
EMs: 23434
EM rate: 23.87910654601777 %

Computer
Wins: 1864
Winrate: 1.864 %
Average TTW: 10.949570815450643
EMs: 2
EM rate: 0.1072961373390558 %

Spoiler for Original:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

6rk 6rk 6u2 6u2 6u2 6u2 6u2 6u2 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7ms 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mt 7mu 7mu 7mu 7mu 7mu 7mu 8pj

Player
Wins: 97732
Winrate: 97.732 %
Average TTW: 6.708273646298039
EMs: 21748
EM rate: 22.25269103261982 %

Computer
Wins: 2268
Winrate: 2.268 %
Average TTW: 10.958553791887125
EMs: 1
EM rate: 0.04409171075837742 %

-0.306 TTW and +0.404% winrate. My theory is that you could add it into almost any air deck and get better results. I don't have SoFr's, and I don't even grind that much, so any human testers out there? I'll post "This deck has 99.97% WR with 3.97 TTW" if you allow me to test. 

[furballdn]

I will admit that by xenosim, those 2 sofres make a difference. However, I am skeptical about the xenosim and if those 2 SoFres really acted like they were supposed to. If anyone has the cards to test both decks and recheck the TTW and winrate, I'd be very grateful.

[rosutosefi]

And while someone cooks those stuff, won't anyone talk about the Earth Shard idea?

[OdinVanguard]

  SoF is the largest offender right now, so I think it needs the greatest attention.
Most shards could use a small nerfing. Some much more than others *cough* SoF *cough* ... Though I actually like having SoF as a creature. The 2 round initial delay would definitely help that...
My ideas would be to
-keep it as a 0|1 that grows by 10 hp per use and do one of the following:
1) Have the ability delay it for 2 turns after each use and transform to black hole at hp>32...
2) have the ability get removed after its hp exceed 32
3) have the ability change after hp exceed 32 -> still give +hp (with diminishing returns would be good) but remove permanent destruction
4) remove permanent destruction after first use but keep hp gain (e.g. the first time the player targets a permanent to destroy, the ability is changed to a +hp only)

My thoughts on the other shards:

  For SoSe, only allow upped to give a single upped card with the other 2 unupped (there should be a good benefit for upping the card).

  make it +3|+0 instead of +4|+0 sounds good to me.

  lowering the percentages for dodge and critical seems good. I agree that current version may be a little high... would have to look at a detailed analysis to know what to set the values at though.

  actually a buff not a nerf here, but then, this one seems to need that so looks good to me.

  interesting idea. Would certainly make it less situational... but shards are supposed to be slightly better for a specific element... how is this helping out over others?

  could work, but it doesn't really seem to give any extra edge to its element so I don't see how its better than current version in that respect

  I agree. Its good as is

  might be tricky to make this work with current stacking mechanic... extra pc resist is an interesting twist though

  smaller bump but smaller cost as well... sounds alright

  should work alright (though I am biased since I've been saying that for a while... there's a whole discussion on this in the nerf this card section though, so you may have opposition here)

  ... I guess a time limit could work out, but I don't think its really necessary. This card seems balanced already why nerf it just for the sake of nerfing?

[rosutosefi]

That SoF idea looks nice, too. I'm in favor of the 4th one because of the cost decrease. It would make SoFo balanced in monos and become less abusable with nova.
I was thinking about fractal/mitosis abuse if it was turned into a low-cost creature so I made it into a permanent. I'm not so sure if that would be OP with your nerfed version though.

interesting idea. Would certainly make it less situational... but shards are supposed to be slightly better for a specific element... how is this helping out over others?
  could work, but it doesn't really seem to give any extra edge to its element so I don't see how its better than current version in that respect
  might be tricky to make this work with current stacking mechanic... extra pc resist is an interesting twist though

These are basic ideas so I didn't think much about elemental benefits yet. As for earth, SoI isn't really giving earth any benefit. I think that it should be changed to become the "other" shard and some other shard should be given to earth instead that will benefit earth-based decks. I think a lot of people agree with this. 

... I guess a time limit could work out, but I don't think its really necessary. This card seems balanced already why nerf it just for the sake of nerfing?

Here we go again. I firmly believe that is is currently overpowered because it overshadows nightfall. My argument is that if the 2|2 bonus was placed in darkness, it will always be better than nightfall. If one card "carries" the whole power of the deck, then I say it should be nerfed and the other components should be buffed instead, which is the same for my argument for SoW and SoFr.
I don't want to discuss about this anymore for various reasons. Sorry.

[Aneninen]

In my opinion, Shards are to be minimized because they're too common and too powerful.

(1) I think, most of them were originally a great idea. However, to get 6 (or even 12) of them is not a big challenge on longer terms. Find out a good arena grinder deck (or search for one on this forum), grind relentlessly and soon you'll have all the Shards you need. They should be additions to "normal" decks, not cards which are to get built a deck around.

(2) The pervious lead to "Shard-Spam" decks which are, I suppose out of correspondence with the original goal Shards were made for. For example, a single Shard of Sacrifice was about to "turn the tide" of a match - but there are decks full of that Shard and that "damage exchange" for 4-6-8 turns is simply silly. (Even if you have a counter for that situation.) Same goes for Shard of Focus, Shard of Freedom etc.

(3) Most important: compare Shards to Nymphs! Nymphs are really rare and hard to get obtained. But, Nymphs are costy to play and to use as well (and some of them are vulnerable too). Frankly, it's way easier to build a deck around certain Shard(s) than around Nymphs. Shouldn't it be vice versa? Shouldn't a player be "forced" to think hard as he/she gets a Nymph like "hmmm... how could I create a deck for her?" Also, Nymphs are "in-element" whil'st many Shards can be used (with more or less efficiency) in any kind of decks. Why?

Making them "in-element" could be a good idea as well. Take a look at Shard of Focus: yippie, permanent control for everyone. For  quanta: erm, I still need to use a certain element for permanent control.

So...
Shards should be minimized. Or modified into "in-element" cards. Or both.

[Cheesy111]

In my opinion, Shards are to be minimized because they're too common and too powerful.

(1) I think, most of them were originally a great idea. However, to get 6 (or even 12) of them is not a big challenge on longer terms. Find out a good arena grinder deck (or search for one on this forum), grind relentlessly and soon you'll have all the Shards you need. They should be additions to "normal" decks, not cards which are to get built a deck around.

(2) The pervious lead to "Shard-Spam" decks which are, I suppose out of correspondence with the original goal Shards were made for. For example, a single Shard of Sacrifice was about to "turn the tide" of a match - but there are decks full of that Shard and that "damage exchange" for 4-6-8 turns is simply silly. (Even if you have a counter for that situation.) Same goes for Shard of Focus, Shard of Freedom etc.

(3) Most important: compare Shards to Nymphs! Nymphs are really rare and hard to get obtained. But, Nymphs are costy to play and to use as well (and some of them are vulnerable too). Frankly, it's way easier to build a deck around certain Shard(s) than around Nymphs. Shouldn't it be vice versa? Shouldn't a player be "forced" to think hard as he/she gets a Nymph like "hmmm... how could I create a deck for her?" Also, Nymphs are "in-element" whil'st many Shards can be used (with more or less efficiency) in any kind of decks. Why?

Making them "in-element" could be a good idea as well. Take a look at Shard of Focus: yippie, permanent control for everyone. For  quanta: erm, I still need to use a certain element for permanent control.

So...
Shards should be minimized. Or modified into "in-element" cards. Or both.

1. Why should Shards not be cards to build a deck around?

2. What is the original goal Shards were made for? How do you know what it is?
2a. The same argument as to many of a card amplifying its power in a deck could be made of Sanctuary or BH or countless other cards.  Why is it different for shards?

3.  Why should it be easier to build a deck around nymphs than around shards?
3a. Shards are Other while Nymphs are not, just like Hammer is other while Titan is not.  This has nothing to do with rarity.  Also, just because a card can be used in many decks does not mean that it is a flexible card.  Photon can be added to all non-60 card decks, for example.  Flexibility comes from that addition making the deck better.

[OldTrees]

In my opinion, Shards are to be minimized because they're too common and too powerful.

(3) Most important: compare Shards to Nymphs! Nymphs are really rare and hard to get obtained. But, Nymphs are costy to play and to use as well (and some of them are vulnerable too). Frankly, it's way easier to build a deck around certain Shard(s) than around Nymphs. Shouldn't it be vice versa? Shouldn't a player be "forced" to think hard as he/she gets a Nymph like "hmmm... how could I create a deck for her?" Also, Nymphs are "in-element" whil'st many Shards can be used (with more or less efficiency) in any kind of decks. Why?

3.  Why should it be easier to build a deck around nymphs than around shards?
3a. Shards are Other while Nymphs are not, just like Hammer is other while Titan is not.  This has nothing to do with rarity.  Also, just because a card can be used in many decks does not mean that it is a flexible card.  Photon can be added to all non-60 card decks, for example.  Flexibility comes from that addition making the deck better.

Not you best counterargument. Nobody builds a deck around Hammer. They add Hammer to a deck. It is a subtle but important difference. The more powerful (strength not efficiency) a card is the better suited it is to be the foundation of a deck rather than an accessory. Powerful cards have high costs. High costs don't work well in  . There are exceptions. Frogs are a good example of a cheap card used as a foundation.