Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Elements the Game => General Discussion => Topic started by: TheIdioticIdiot on February 23, 2011, 05:02:19 am
-
Let's face it, no games are perfect... Elements isn't either... It's my favorite free Internet game atm, but here is a reason to hate it.
Older, rich players want all cards to be balanced based purely on PvP, which is logical
Newer, poor players want to keep cards such as SoG and fractal un-nerfed, so they can farm FGs to get rich
I belong in the rich group, but I do empathize new players.
If you think about it, if all cards are to be balanced based purely on PvP, beginner FG decks are ???, which will mean the game will get less players, as less new players join and stick around, and more old veterans eventually "retire". Which means there wouldn't be any PvP left to be balanced.
While I agree PvP is what the game should be focused on, the game design is flawed in that it needs to compensate for PvE, so I guess the point of this topic is that people should stop yelling "nerf SoG" all the time, I personally agree it's quite a strong card, but rather than focusing on balancing PvP, we should focus on maintaining PvP.
-
PvP balancing takes priority. If there are no good FG-killing decks or FG-farming becomes more difficult, then zanz can weaken FGs (give them worse strategies, AI, card combos, etc.) However, zanz cannot control what is used in PvP. People will always make the best decks they can. If a card is OP then too many decks will be too similar.
-
PvP balancing takes priority. If there are no good FG-killing decks or FG-farming becomes more difficult, then zanz can weaken FGs (give them worse strategies, AI, card combos, etc.) However, zanz cannot control what is used in PvP. People will always make the best decks they can. If a card is OP then too many decks will be too similar.
I agree, but if you look at PvP, what do we see?
BL for example, nova graboid bow everywhere...
CL? SN bows, PSN bows, cremate rushes...
so, why are we so intent on nerfing things like SoGs, when we should nerf graboids, SN, and so on?
Like I said, I agree that the game should be balanced based on PvP, but do we really have a PvP if we don't have the "P" part of it? I have seen a ton of people quitting the instant they found out that each upgrade costs 1500 :electrum, and I have seen ppl who stick around and farmed up beginner FG decks, and those FG decks depend on SoG, fractal, and such cards we want nerfed because it's "OP" in PvP, when SN rushes and cremate rushes are the most used?
-
Why nerf SoG at all? All PvP events are primarily unupgraded, and the ones that are upp'd ban SoG as it makes games too long.
-
Why nerf SoG at all? All PvP events are primarily unupgraded, and the ones that are upp'd ban SoG as it makes games too long.
that too, I barely ever use SoGs in PvP...
-
As for farming, I'm sure zanz is doing what he can to optimize the amount of players. Keep in mind that farming allows old players to stick around as they try to build more upgraded decks. Many players would quit without the high upgrade cost.
PvP balancing? I think it's pretty good. I know the unupped game pretty well, and there are ways around a graboid bow that do not severely hinder your performance against other decks. While I think the graboid could use a nerf, it does not make PvP boring. My signature rainbow only has one grabiod and it slays graboid earth bows all the time. As for upped play, I'm sure there is a balanced metagame. In upped you have very cheap CC light thunderbolts and rewinds that can slow down your enemy's rush while your own attackers damage them. Stalls are pretty scary with SoGs and a strong shield, but they can be beaten by the right deck.
-
As for farming, I'm sure zanz is doing what he can to optimize the amount of players. Keep in mind that farming allows old players to stick around as they try to build more upgraded decks. Many players would quit without the high upgrade cost.
PvP balancing? I think it's pretty good. I know the unupped game pretty well, and there are ways around a graboid bow that do not severely hinder your performance against other decks. While I think the graboid could use a nerf, it does not make PvP boring. My signature rainbow only has one grabiod and it slays graboid earth bows all the time. As for upped play, I'm sure there is a balanced metagame. In upped you have very cheap CC light thunderbolts and rewinds that can slow down your enemy's rush while your own attackers damage them. Stalls are pretty scary with SoGs and a strong shield, but they can be beaten by the right deck.
so... you are agreeing with me
PvP is balanced, yet we are still trying to nerf SoG...
-
While there are ways around SoG, there are valid points to nerf it. Just because a card can be beaten doesn't mean it is overpowered. The old sundial did nothing against poinson rush, but it was still nerfed. Do I think the SoG is overpowered? Perhaps, but I would need to play more with and against it to have a better idea of it.
The metagame is viable, but some cards are still strong.
-
First obvious detail is the card bank is increasing and being fine tuned with the passage of time.
Balance:
This means that at the current rate (rate determines quality of balancing and creativity) we end up with a very well regulated game even without all the cards being balanced to the standard.
Deck variety:
Obviously only the best of the best decks will be competing in competitive PvP. As the card bank grows the equilibrium number of decks will increase ever so slightly. Additionally the card changes will help adjust when a card is unsed or a strategy becomes dominant or non-competitively advantageous.
Game Length:
As the game grows older the time it takes per individual (regardless of gamer type) will grow (although slower than the game ages probably)
Rarity:
Adding rare cards every once in a while artificially increases the game time for collectors (those that desire long game time) while barely affecting non collectors. This is a mechanism that if T500 works will be useful to regulate the number of rare cards to the distribution between collectors and non-collectors. Combined with the commonness of every card in the trainer, we should see a increasing demand for the game into the future at least until the card bank reaches a size at which the additions are not significant enough.
Note: This analysis does not count non game reasons for leaving the game and or forum.
-
In an attempt to steer this away from an SoG thread (well, a debate about buffing.nerfing SoG) I will say this. One of the main reasons i do not participate in pvp in the forums are the restrictions. It is becoming like yugioh. Forbidden cards arent good for a game. If I was in Zanz's shoes, Id almost be insulted that a card that I made is almost always banned. I would probably NOT give out awards if in regular pvp tournies cards were banned. I would never join a tournament in Super smash bros Brawl where metaknight (considered to be so powerful, he has his own tier) was banned. I think it should be up to the player to learn the opponent, know the playstyles, and build a deck accordingly. I think the biggest thing hold the game back is the community. Not the cards. The community is making its own rules that dont exist, and asserting them as fact. When these "rules" are broken, then people make a big deal about it, however, they arent really rules, and are probably just part of a theme, and in reality, not the whole picture.
Whoever side life is suppose to be about healing? Why not creature swarm? Poison fits life perfectly as well. Ever seen The Last Airbender? Fire is actually not all about deah and destruction, its also about life. I could go on, but I feel I am rambling.
One more note, when talking about sanctuary
Yes, but if a mono-light deck has multiples of this card, it is now impossible for a mono-darkness deck to beat it.
This is what i am talking about. Aside from war, where does it really matter what element can beat what? And guess what, Elements doesnt just revolve around this forum and its events... People need to remember that.
-
I think there are good reasons, why cards should be balanced based on PvP:
- The most democratic way to decide , which cards work good, and which not. Although cards have a popularity, because of art, name , coolness of the effect and so on.
- Players always try to play with intellegence (if they want to win), the AI can´t.
- The greatest variety of decks we have, atm.
@tournaments
I personally don´t play them, because they limit my time, and regular weekly tournaments have the "wrong" time.
Special rules are ok for tournaments, it´s part of card games, that you "play with the rules", (what happens, if we hadn´t card X...)
A negative development of this is, that it becomes harder to find opponents just for a few PvP Duels game and then talk about the game. In the beginning of forums and chat, this was quite easy.
I see that the chat is "PVP- Event focused".
Another possible negative development is: Players could make "nerf /buff card " decisions because of PvP events with special rules.
@ BluePriest
Life has "swarm cards". The skill of FFQ is :life. Mitosis is a new "swarm card".
I know Avatar, the last Airbender, one of the reasons I play this game, I know all 3 books.
The other side of Fire is completely neglected in Elements, Fire also means warmth and life.
But I don´t know good card ideas for this. Without card ideas, no warmth with fire.
-
In an attempt to steer this away from an SoG thread (well, a debate about buffing.nerfing SoG) I will say this. One of the main reasons i do not participate in pvp in the forums are the restrictions. It is becoming like yugioh. Forbidden cards arent good for a game. If I was in Zanz's shoes, Id almost be insulted that a card that I made is almost always banned. I would probably NOT give out awards if in regular pvp tournies cards were banned. I would never join a tournament in Super smash bros Brawl where metaknight (considered to be so powerful, he has his own tier) was banned. I think it should be up to the player to learn the opponent, know the playstyles, and build a deck accordingly. I think the biggest thing hold the game back is the community. Not the cards. The community is making its own rules that dont exist, and asserting them as fact. When these "rules" are broken, then people make a big deal about it, however, they arent really rules, and are probably just part of a theme, and in reality, not the whole picture.
Whoever side life is suppose to be about healing? Why not creature swarm? Poison fits life perfectly as well. Ever seen The Last Airbender? Fire is actually not all about deah and destruction, its also about life. I could go on, but I feel I am rambling.
One more note, when talking about sanctuary
Yes, but if a mono-light deck has multiples of this card, it is now impossible for a mono-darkness deck to beat it.
This is what i am talking about. Aside from war, where does it really matter what element can beat what? And guess what, Elements doesnt just revolve around this forum and its events... People need to remember that.
I agree that the community has imposed a set of "rules" on competitive play, card design, and tournament structure that could potentially hinder creativity in the long run. I won't go into details, but there have been tournaments whose rules were quite contrived as to dictate the deck builds to the point that it turned into an RPS game. I miss the days of simple rules. If anything, PvP Limited should be about restricting card use (e.g. "four card max instead of six") instead of eliminating specific cards or sets of cards from the available pool. I have several other issues regarding PvP, but they shall be discussed elsewhere.
I love our community's involvement in the card design realm, as it has shown to be a great inspiration to Zanz's creative genius and impetus. However, I am concerned about how some aspects of card design have turned into a science and less of a creative design process. While it is definitely possible to assess a card's balance potential based on hard statistics of actual cards in the game, designing potential cards requires innovation, something that cannot be measured by quantum cost or base creature stats. Status quo should never be the goal with a potential card idea. I would encourage all card idea enthusiasts to jump out of their own comfort zone, take a deep breath, and work on designing cards that don't fit any mold, formula, or archetype. Take an Elements environmental scan of sorts, and design cards that fill needs and offer layers of utility. Remember, complexity doesn't have to be complicated - sometimes less is more.
About card balance... PvP is the ultimate measuring stick because it is the most versatile, dynamic form of play. PvE is quite static, as opponents use predictable decks with predictable playing techniques. The measure to which a card is balanced in Elements is not whether or not it is too powerful (or not powerful enough), but whether or not it is a viable candidate in a competitive deck, either as a key player, an enabler, or as a synergy. If this question is examined with the correct scrutiny, every card that comes out of development should be at an appropriate "power level."
-
PvP balancing > Easy access to FG decks for the Beginners : All the non-new players can agree with this statement. However several critical point have to be solved in order to have every oen enjoy the game.
1- SoG : SoG could be just forbidden in PvP. I'm sure that coding an automatic downgrade of SoG in PvP is not very complicated. It would allow everybody to use it against FGs and re-establish the superior healing ability of life and light in PvP.
2 - Getting started : Increase the number of quest would allow the beguinners to start faster (specially if the several first rewards are interesting enough). I have heard that Zanzarino is already working on that one.
3 - Farming : Here again experienced players and newcomers are opposed on the subject. Everybody has heard about the end of T50. This would also become the end of the T50-farms. I think it is a good thing because then new rares will be introduced. The newcomers and the veterans will have the same difficulties to obtain them and it will then increase the interrest of both categories.
I know Avatar, the last Airbender, one of the reasons I play this game, I know all 3 books.
The other side of Fire is completely neglected in Elements, Fire also means warmth and life.
But I don´t know good card ideas for this. Without card ideas, no warmth with fire.
What you forget is that in avatar only 4 elements are present. A lot of aspects are to be shared in 4 then. In elements-the-game, the very same aspects are shared in 12. It is then logical than the original four elements are a bit depleted. Don't you think?
-
1- SoG : SoG could be just forbidden in PvP. I'm sure that coding an automatic downgrade of SoG in PvP is not very complicated. It would allow everybody to use it against FGs and re-establish the superior healing ability of life and light in PvP.
2 - Getting started : Increase the number of quest would allow the beguinners to start faster (specially if the several first rewards are interesting enough). I have heard that Zanzarino is already working on that one.
1) SoG already is banned in 99% of all PvP events and tournaments, and has been for over a year.
2) Yes, Zanz has mentioned the possibility of more quests.
-
Zanz has already noted that he wouldn't make FGs easier. I heard him say it in chat, but I'm sure there are others who heard it and/or recorded it.
-
One solution would be to make cards that can only be used against the AI. They can be strong too and you wont have to worry about PvP. If you want a better challenge don't use them.
-
Personally, I like the idea of more quests
and I also think one of the quest requires you to go to a link, the link to either the forums, or the newbie tutorials
When I first started, I was a noob, and I had no idea how to get rich, at one point, I almost quit the game (after I completed all the quest, and played an FG game, lost horribly, and then saw that each upgrade was 1500 :electrum...), but later, I found the forums, and the tutorials helped me a lot, and now look at where I am, the forums are actually a large part of the game
-
Let's face it, no games are perfect... Elements isn't either... It's my favorite free Internet game atm, but here is a reason to hate it.
...
...but rather than focusing on balancing PvP, we should focus on maintaining PvP.
It seems, to me, that you intend to discuss the community itself, rather as the game as the thread title implies.
I think the game is doing wonderfully. PvP and AI-smashing environments both. The only things to dislike are the bugs, but those are being handled accordingly, so there is nothing for me to be displeased about.
I also think that the community is fine. Certainly, there are disagreements between people, but most of these are the result of discussion. If it was the other way around, I would have reason to frown, but that is not so. The birth of factions is not a problem either. You are going to have groups of people that yearn for certain nerfs in every game. This is one of the best communities I've been a part of.
I'll leave PvP discussion to the people that actually play it regularly.
...but if you look at PvP, what do we see?
BL for example, nova graboid bow everywhere...
CL? SN bows, PSN bows, cremate rushes...
so, why are we so intent on nerfing things like SoGs, when we should nerf graboids, SN, and so on?
Like I said, I agree that the game should be balanced based on PvP, but do we really have a PvP if we don't have the "P" part of it? I have seen a ton of people quitting the instant they found out that each upgrade costs 1500 :electrum, and I have seen ppl who stick around and farmed up beginner FG decks, and those FG decks depend on SoG, fractal, and such cards we want nerfed because it's "OP" in PvP, when SN rushes and cremate rushes are the most used?
When I look at PvP, I see players. A lot of players. That's good.
Trends are inevitable. People trying to solve problems that are overdramatized is also inevitable. The former displeases you, the latter displeases me. And what we both do is: deal with it.
Keep in mind that farming allows old players to stick around as they try to build more upgraded decks. Many players would quit without the high upgrade cost.
This is one of the better points that I've seen made in a long time.
I know Avatar, the last Airbender, one of the reasons I play this game, I know all 3 books.
The other side of Fire is completely neglected in Elements, Fire also means warmth and life.
But I don´t know good card ideas for this. Without card ideas, no warmth with fire.
You can see the "life" aspect of Fire in Phoenix, and in an awkward way, "warmth" in Fahrenheit. Zanz has everything covered :P
-
Making cards just for AI would be horrible. People need to realize the great thing about this is that although some cards may have debate about being OP, there isnt a single card that is undoubtedly that way. Which is one of the reasons I think its stupid to ban SoG from almost all pvp tournies. I think this community (no offense) is filled with wimps who would rather try to ignore cards they dont like instead of learning to counter them. There is a reason Rushes rule the metagame. Because Stalls have 1 of their most important cards banned in pvp. If shards were enabled in pvp then I believe the metagame of the pvp would change greatly. Stalls would be more viable. However, without a way to heal, whats the point of stalling just a little longer? To make the death slower? Cause without decent healing, it is still going to happen.
hmmmm... perhaps the thread title should be changed to "Should pvp have as many restrictions as it does?"
-
Making cards just for AI would be horrible. People need to realize the great thing about this is that although some cards may have debate about being OP, there isnt a single card that is undoubtedly that way. Which is one of the reasons I think its stupid to ban SoG from almost all pvp tournies. I think this community (no offense) is filled with wimps who would rather try to ignore cards they dont like instead of learning to counter them. There is a reason Rushes rule the metagame. Because Stalls have 1 of their most important cards banned in pvp. If shards were enabled in pvp then I believe the metagame of the pvp would change greatly. Stalls would be more viable. However, without a way to heal, whats the point of stalling just a little longer? To make the death slower? Cause without decent healing, it is still going to happen.
hmmmm... perhaps the thread title should be changed to "Should pvp have as many restrictions as it does?"
It seems your only complaint is that SoG is banned in PvP. Do you even know why it's banned in PvP? I witnessed firsthand how SoG completely dominated and defined multiple formats, completely denying the competitiveness of non-stall decks. In the first weekly PvP tournament, every deck used by the top four included six copies of SoG. Every single one. This was during a time when veterans were few and new players were just starting to be included in the scene. True, access to rares has become obscenely universal, but the fact that a single card can completely shape an environment due to its easy accessibility makes it a prime candidate to get the axe.
This is FAR off-topic, however, as there have been so many discussions on SoG already that this is simply noisy chatter.
-
It seems your only complaint is that SoG is banned in PvP. Do you even know why it's banned in PvP? I witnessed firsthand how SoG completely dominated and defined multiple formats, completely denying the competitiveness of non-stall decks. In the first weekly PvP tournament, every deck used by the top four included six copies of SoG. Every single one. This was during a time when veterans were few and new players were just starting to be included in the scene. True, access to rares has become obscenely universal, but the fact that a single card can completely shape an environment due to its easy accessibility makes it a prime candidate to get the axe.
This is FAR off-topic, however, as there have been so many discussions on SoG already that this is simply noisy chatter.
SoG has since been nerfed and there is a much larger card DB since then If Im not mistaken. All sorts of balancing has taken place. Aside from that, Rush decks have been spotlighted to the point where I wouldnt be surprised if the fastest deck possible with the current cards has already been discovered.
This is my sentiments as far as healing goes
5 Healing is too much. Other shouldnt be that good at healing!
Zanz adds a new healing card
4 healing is too much, Light shouldnt be that good at healing!
Moral of the story. People just dont like healing if is actually worth being used. They will find a reason to bash it one way or the other, so its best to just ignore them all and do it anyway
That will be my final piece ont he subject though, and will henceforth steer away from SoG period in this discussion ;)
-
my view on healing: come on guys, do we really want elements turning into a rushing battle, where you pit rushes against rushes and see which rush wins?
boring....
SoG and such help promote more stall deck usage, and most people complaining about SoGs (to my knowledge) use rush decks almost all the time, and thus hate it when SoGs delay them, or even cause them to lose.
It seems that all the nerfing are more to have faster and better rushes
from the first page of "Nerf This Card!":
dusk mantle
EQ
silence
discord
SoG
antimatter
panda
PA
BH
gravity shield
fog
dimentional shield
hope
miracle
(I know graboid, immolation, and SN are there too, but look at the sheer number of stall cards that ppl want nerfed)
-
People are more likely to judge stall cards to be OP based on intuition. Rush cards are deemed OP only by mathematical comparisons or by vast discrepancies.
SoG is probably OP. (I say this because I think that Sanctuary hit the right balance 4 healing for 3 :light|2 :light [with quanta protection being an additional +1 :light|+1 :light])
In the past this was demonstrated through the pvp winners. SoG has since been nerfed slightly. I think that SoG is a valuable resource to stall decks and (as much as I hate saying this due to thematic reasons) probably is necessary in some form to reduce the rush advantage.
So we have a card that was OP, probably still is OP but would be a tremendous asset to the pvp field when balanced.
Conclusion: Balance it.
Options:
Verify if and how much it is still OPed.
Determine if a nerfed version would be balanced. (like players that use it must forfeit if their life drops below the sum of the number of turns per SoG used. This would test regeneration 4 instead of 5)
Play with it in pvp tournaments and try to find viable counters to it.
SoG is a problem. So balance it pvpers. Find solutions in the metagame or identify what alternative version would be balanced. Perhaps use sanctuary as a test run considering it costs more(3 :light vs 3 :rainbow) than SoG and heals less.
-
I don't consider SoG to be OP, main reason being that a good rush will still beat it
not to mention what I said before, SoG is the main stall card of the game, even with it, stalls are less common than rushes, imagine the meta game without it...
-
The game is turning more into something with more parts of it set in stone. Ex. Bans. I think it's happening because of personal satisfaction. I'll bring my quote later about satisfaction (or someone can do it for me). SO while Satisfaction is key to the game, people are twisting it like words in court, and the result is that list of cards to be nerfed/buffed.
-
People are more likely to judge stall cards to be OP based on intuition. Rush cards are deemed OP only by mathematical comparisons or by vast discrepancies.
SoG is probably OP. (I say this because I think that Sanctuary hit the right balance 4 healing for 3 :light|2 :light [with quanta protection being an additional +1 :light|+1 :light])
In the past this was demonstrated through the pvp winners. SoG has since been nerfed slightly. I think that SoG is a valuable resource to stall decks and (as much as I hate saying this due to thematic reasons) probably is necessary in some form to reduce the rush advantage.
So we have a card that was OP, probably still is OP but would be a tremendous asset to the pvp field when balanced.
Conclusion: Balance it.
Options:
Verify if and how much it is still OPed.
Determine if a nerfed version would be balanced. (like players that use it must forfeit if their life drops below the sum of the number of turns per SoG used. This would test regeneration 4 instead of 5)
Play with it in pvp tournaments and try to find viable counters to it.
SoG is a problem. So balance it pvpers. Find solutions in the metagame or identify what alternative version would be balanced. Perhaps use sanctuary as a test run considering it costs more(3 :light vs 3 :rainbow) than SoG and heals less.
I love our community's involvement in the card design realm, as it has shown to be a great inspiration to Zanz's creative genius and impetus. However, I am concerned about how some aspects of card design have turned into a science and less of a creative design process. While it is definitely possible to assess a card's balance potential based on hard statistics of actual cards in the game, designing potential cards requires innovation, something that cannot be measured by quantum cost or base creature stats. Status quo should never be the goal with a potential card idea. I would encourage all card idea enthusiasts to jump out of their own comfort zone, take a deep breath, and work on designing cards that don't fit any mold, formula, or archetype. Take an Elements environmental scan of sorts, and design cards that fill needs and offer layers of utility. Remember, complexity doesn't have to be complicated - sometimes less is more.
I seriously doubt Zanz has some super method that he uses to determine card balance. In fact, I am sure of it. Zanz has said himself that he puts cards in the beta stage too strong, and intentionally nerfs them accordingly. He doesnt use some secret formula that we have to figure out. Dont get me wrong, it is still useful, however, it is far from being the rule.
One of the big problems of this is that it puts elements in a box. People try to keep it in that box
-
People are more likely to judge stall cards to be OP based on intuition. Rush cards are deemed OP only by mathematical comparisons or by vast discrepancies.
SoG is probably OP. (I say this because I think that Sanctuary hit the right balance 4 healing for 3 :light|2 :light [with quanta protection being an additional +1 :light|+1 :light])
In the past this was demonstrated through the pvp winners. SoG has since been nerfed slightly. I think that SoG is a valuable resource to stall decks and (as much as I hate saying this due to thematic reasons) probably is necessary in some form to reduce the rush advantage.
So we have a card that was OP, probably still is OP but would be a tremendous asset to the pvp field when balanced.
Conclusion: Balance it.
Options:
Verify if and how much it is still OPed.
Determine if a nerfed version would be balanced. (like players that use it must forfeit if their life drops below the sum of the number of turns per SoG used. This would test regeneration 4 instead of 5)
Play with it in pvp tournaments and try to find viable counters to it.
SoG is a problem. So balance it pvpers. Find solutions in the metagame or identify what alternative version would be balanced. Perhaps use sanctuary as a test run considering it costs more(3 :light vs 3 :rainbow) than SoG and heals less.
I love our community's involvement in the card design realm, as it has shown to be a great inspiration to Zanz's creative genius and impetus. However, I am concerned about how some aspects of card design have turned into a science and less of a creative design process. While it is definitely possible to assess a card's balance potential based on hard statistics of actual cards in the game, designing potential cards requires innovation, something that cannot be measured by quantum cost or base creature stats. Status quo should never be the goal with a potential card idea. I would encourage all card idea enthusiasts to jump out of their own comfort zone, take a deep breath, and work on designing cards that don't fit any mold, formula, or archetype. Take an Elements environmental scan of sorts, and design cards that fill needs and offer layers of utility. Remember, complexity doesn't have to be complicated - sometimes less is more.
I seriously doubt Zanz has some super method that he uses to determine card balance. In fact, I am sure of it. Zanz has said himself that he puts cards in the beta stage too strong, and intentionally nerfs them accordingly. He doesnt use some secret formula that we have to figure out. Dont get me wrong, it is still useful, however, it is far from being the rule.
One of the big problems of this is that it puts elements in a box. People try to keep it in that box
The formula approach of mine is never a final step. It is more of a shortcut to aim at the right target prior to playtesting.
-
Thats where I get my box comment though. Shortcuts can often take people off track and cause more trouble than help. Often times, creativity is tossed and balance is based on card cost formulas. Dont get me wrong OldTreees, your formulas are genius and they should be considered, however, many people use them to dictate what a card should be. It really has NO use in other cards either, which is the current comparison that was made. it only balances them for rainbow decks that use QT's and nothing else. In reality, other has be balanced for both mono and rainbow. Otherwise, cards like SoG will only be useful for rainbows, and nothing else.
im issuing a challenge. Someone create a deck that is so OP due to SoG's. Pvp me with it. Winning or losing wont be the final factor, only the margin of defeat for either side will be. If pvp is meant to be the balancing factor, then lets have at it :)
*goes to chat to wait for someone to challenge him*
blarg: