Post by: Rod Whiler on August 21, 2010, 11:59:28 am
First of all:
I know that many will say... yeah, this creature got stronger but its not overpowered since it still is pretty expensive at 5 :water.
Even though it still is not very popular in PVP we must consider that many FGs use this card.
First this creature got the buff: "poisoned if ingested" ---> anti-oty buff, which is ok i think...
but then it got another HP (4 --> 5)... so a freshly played Elite Otyugh doesn't even have the chance to ingest a puffer-fish.
The worst thing, however, is the AP-increase since a simple (unbuffed) "puffer fish" now breaks through most of the shields.
Especially this makes some of the harder FGs even worse than they are already.
The problem about this card is: It is not really overpowered for player use... but it is a little bit overpowered for FG-use now.
----------------
So here are my suggestions (including buff + debuff) - it's all about nerving the creature for FGs, not for players...
Suggestion 1:
Cost: 3 :water
2AP/3HP - Add 1 Poison to each attack. Puff* 2 :air : Cause poisoning if ingested. +1/+4
or
Suggenstion 2:
Cost: 3 :water
3AP/4HP - Chance to add 1 poison to each attack.
or
Suggestion 3:
Cost: 3 :water
2AP/7HP - 1 :air Puff*: Add 1 Poison to each attack and cause poisoning if ingested.
(*"Puff" is supposed to be just like "Deja Vu" or "Lycantrophy" - a single-use ability)
---------------
My suggestions simply aim at the goal of nerving the creature for FGs without harming (maybe even improving) it for player use...
Post by: Glitch on August 21, 2010, 12:08:11 pm
See what you did there? You assumed it would be easier to change an entire card than it would be to edit the FGs deck. And look what happened. You discussed AI level in a thread where only card discussion is allowed.
[paraphrase author=zanzarino]
I don't get it. People see Scoprion, poisonous 2|2 creature for three, and say it's underpowered, and yet people see the pufferfish, a 3|5 poisonous creature for five, and say it's overpowered. And the only conceivable reason I can see is that the FGs use it.
[/paraphrase]
It's the same card no matter who uses it. It's the same card no matter what deck it's in. The only thing you can balance cards against are other cards, and right now, it's balanced.
Post by: RavingRabbid on August 21, 2010, 12:11:36 pm
Nerf every single tower!
Post by: Rastafla on August 21, 2010, 12:38:07 pm
Scorpio accelerate poison counters on the brink of op just fine with physalias, poison spells, arsenic, puffers alone even if most upgraded shields was in play.
Here comes the puffer dmg increase and suddenly it tips the scale from the edge into OP.
Im not gonna argue about what change i want.
All im saying is that 5 :water for 2dmg is just as worthless as 5 :water 3 dmg in the upped format among players. Upped is all about speed and slow poison counters that is applied AFTER attack do nothing when you have physalias at 1 :water for 2 dmg plus the poison.
And I'm not gonna bring in the options for healing that payers have.
And in FG/player that is all about drawn out fights where the FG accelerate too fast the puffer is now OP.
Post by: Rod Whiler on August 21, 2010, 01:13:25 pm
*Sigh*First of all... the discussion about Puffer Fish doesn't work without taking the AI into consideration because there is no comparable card I would know of, that is that OP for FGs, yet, still underpowered for player use....
See what you did there? You assumed it would be easier to change an entire card than it would be to edit the FGs deck. And look what happened. You discussed AI level in a thread where only card discussion is allowed.
Did you look at the suggestions i made?
Those aim to make the Puffer Fish more competitive to Scorpions...
In "Suggestion 3" Puffer Fish would become a 2/7 creature for 3 :water + active ability ... this would actually be a buff (maybe even a little bit too much but i dont think so*)... still for the FGs it would be a "nerv".
*epinephrined Scorpions cost 6 :life (3 :life + 3 :life): 9 dmg + 2 poison counters per turn
Post by: Glitch on August 21, 2010, 01:39:14 pm
You don't want your opponent to play one.
Your otyugh based rainbow can't kill them, your permafrost shield can't block them, and your SoGs can't keep up with the cumulative damage. Both your (and rastafla's) argument centers around scorpio being too difficult.
That is not a good reason to nerf a card. When a god is out of balance with the rest, change the god, not the card. It's like editing the bottom of a pyramid because the top looks crooked. It doesn't end well.
So instead of proposing Puffer-fish nerfs, why not propose scorpio nerfs. It fixes the problem while maintaining game balance.
Post by: Amilir on August 21, 2010, 01:52:49 pm
Post by: jmdt on August 21, 2010, 06:22:57 pm
The problem isn't the changes you made, it's the basis for why you changed the card.I completely agree with Gl1tch this time. I honestly think pufferfish could still use a small buff in its current form if anything.
You don't want your opponent to play one.
Your otyugh based rainbow can't kill them, your permafrost shield can't block them, and your SoGs can't keep up with the cumulative damage. Both your (and rastafla's) argument centers around scorpio being too difficult.
That is not a good reason to nerf a card. When a god is out of balance with the rest, change the god, not the card. It's like editing the bottom of a pyramid because the top looks crooked. It doesn't end well.
So instead of proposing Puffer-fish nerfs, why not propose scorpio nerfs. It fixes the problem while maintaining game balance.
So scorpio is tougher. Pack a purify, more healing, more CC, suggest a nerf to scorpio. Scorpio still isn't the toughest fg out there, he's just harder and the community doesn't like it.
Post by: MrBlonde on August 21, 2010, 06:48:24 pm
Scorpio still isn't the toughest fg out there, he's just harder and the community doesn't like it.I really don't like it but guess what? You move on and adjust like i did (add a diamond shield, and lose a little more). Pufferfish is not OP and shouldn't be nerfed.
Post by: smuglapse on August 21, 2010, 09:11:54 pm
the community doesn't like it.Communities can't hold opinions, i.e. please don't make generalizations.
Post by: Demagog on August 21, 2010, 09:20:37 pm
This card should be left as is.
Post by: smuglapse on August 21, 2010, 09:33:37 pm
As promised, Rod receives a kick to the face.I had to wait 2 weeks, but you delivered. :P
Post by: Rastafla on August 22, 2010, 04:35:23 pm
Post by: genraenera on August 24, 2010, 01:57:01 am
Post by: twinsbuster on August 24, 2010, 02:05:03 am
Post by: jmdt on August 24, 2010, 02:07:46 am
I'd have to say I agree with Gl1tch here, the card is still underpowered; scorpio could use a nerf maybe, but thats a topic for another thread. Until we start seeing pufferfish commonly in pvp decks or any player decks really there is no argument that it is overpowered. To be honest, I'd like it to get a -1 to cost, making it a much more versatile card.Yeah, -1 cost to this would help it a great deal.
Post by: hermantheowl on August 25, 2010, 11:38:43 pm
The problem isn't the changes you made, it's the basis for why you changed the card.Since when have the FG's been made fair yet without nerfing cards. I don't think that will ever happen so nerfing cards that make them unfair will be the only option. I don't think the designers realizes how brutal the FG's really are. And why does beating them have to be the only good option for getting upgrades? IF being the source of upgrades is their purpose then they are too toughor not rewarding enough for that purpose.
You don't want your opponent to play one.
Your otyugh based rainbow can't kill them, your permafrost shield can't block them, and your SoGs can't keep up with the cumulative damage. Both your (and rastafla's) argument centers around scorpio being too difficult.
That is not a good reason to nerf a card. When a god is out of balance with the rest, change the god, not the card. It's like editing the bottom of a pyramid because the top looks crooked. It doesn't end well.
So instead of proposing Puffer-fish nerfs, why not propose scorpio nerfs. It fixes the problem while maintaining game balance.
Post by: smuglapse on August 25, 2010, 11:42:57 pm
I don't think the designers realizes how brutal the FG's really are.I think he's aware:
(http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd82348/Capture.jpg) (http://imageplay.net/)
Also,
People not used to FG farming cannot possibly understand what amount of coins that are available to us users who do.
If i put my mind to in in a few hours i have 20k provided im blessed with a good string of FGs and fair luck. If i want a fully upped NEW 30 card deck with cards i don't previously own it usually takes me 1½-2 days and that's 45k.
Post by: Appawesome on November 20, 2010, 01:14:26 am
IMO, out of all the unupped cards, this is the best creature.
It has the third best atk/cost ratio of the unupped creature cards. (Ash eater is 1st, mummy is 2nd)
It's cc on a stick.
Maybe change it to 5|4 with Inflate.
Post by: Toimu13 on November 20, 2010, 01:18:30 am
Post by: Mastermind79 on November 20, 2010, 01:20:57 am
Also, what's wrong with having a card better than others? I can see that Toadfish, compared to, say, Abomination, is much better. But Abomination is within possibly the strongest element of the game. Toadfish is lethal with the rest of :water 's CC, but the costs slow it down too much.
Post by: Malignant on November 22, 2010, 08:51:29 am
Post by: RootRanger on November 23, 2010, 12:11:35 am
Post by: Glitch on November 23, 2010, 12:17:33 am
3 damage for free
1 damage for free
3 damage for 2
4 damage for 3
In fact, all of those also beat mummy, and the first two beat ash eater.
It's attack power to cost ratio is actually pretty poor.
And now for my usual mantra:
Before you post a card in the nerf this card section, please play WITH the card, not just against it.
Before you post a card in the buff this card section, please play AGAINST the card, not just with it.
Post by: Demut on November 23, 2010, 03:47:36 am
Post by: RootRanger on November 23, 2010, 10:50:41 pm
Post by: Demut on November 24, 2010, 12:01:26 am
Post by: Kurohami on November 24, 2010, 01:41:57 am
Not to pry, but 5 water for 6 damage is worse than the following:3 damage for free is not better, spark only does damage for 1 turn whereas toadfish does damage for many turns and if a shield is in effect it would be worse.
3 damage for free
1 damage for free
3 damage for 2
4 damage for 3
In fact, all of those also beat mummy, and the first two beat ash eater.
It's attack power to cost ratio is actually pretty poor.
And now for my usual mantra:
Before you post a card in the nerf this card section, please play WITH the card, not just against it.
Before you post a card in the buff this card section, please play AGAINST the card, not just with it.
Post by: RavingRabbid on November 24, 2010, 01:06:18 pm
I said perhaps a one point reduction, I did not use an absolute. The combo does need a nerf though. Perhaps the toad fish should be nerfed, perhaps the squid should be nerfed. I'm not sure what you are looking for, it was the absolute most common strategy used in underworld's winners brackets and for good reason. It destroys any deck without spell based CC. Which by the definition of overpowered is overpowered.It's a really quanta expensive combo, and is completely killed by any CC. Quanta control and CC are really common in PVP scene.
Post by: Demut on November 24, 2010, 03:18:15 pm
Quote
It's a really quanta expensive combo, and is completely killed by any CC. Quanta control and CC are really common in PVP scene.Not any CC, only spell based CC. And again, I must explain that the fact is can be countered doesn't matter in most cases, what matters is how much it counters.
Post by: ArtCrusade on November 24, 2010, 03:21:39 pm
Post by: Demut on November 24, 2010, 03:32:02 pm
Post by: Kuross on November 24, 2010, 03:51:48 pm
Post by: thatnewguy on November 24, 2010, 03:52:52 pm
Also ninja'd by kuross
Post by: Demut on November 24, 2010, 05:19:23 pm
Quote
I fail to see why this card needs a nerf simply because it is in a tier where it can see some useful action. Most of the time, Nerf = never play again, or played so rarely that it's obsolete. Honestly, this card does not need a nerf. It is amusing though to see it get a buff so it can be played a little more often only to have people ask for a nerf.The goal would be to try to get everything onto a similar teir. And its easier to nerf the few overpowered cards/combos then to try buffing the other cards.
Post by: Uppercut on November 24, 2010, 11:52:04 pm
The goal would be to try to get everything onto a similar teir. And its easier to nerf the few overpowered cards/combos then to try buffing the other cards.This will never happen. You can't expect to put everything on the same tier. Let power creep naturally change the tiers and stop trying to force it by changing cards that simply don't need to be changed.
Post by: Demut on November 25, 2010, 12:05:21 am
Just because a perfect end result cannot be achieved does not mean one shouldn't strive for that.
Post by: Ekki on November 25, 2010, 12:19:40 am
I don't believe its damage/cost ratio is OP, since it isn't even the best of all unupped cards... Neither do I the fact that it has inflate (it is part of other element and it's not THAT good, apart from the fact that it's not fractal-efficient because of its 5 :water)
IDK, but as Glitch said, have you ever had a Toadfish deck? Have you been having lots of easy wins in PvP/AI matches? I don't see any FG slayer using Toadfishes, and nearly any creature can be used to slay AI3, and, as I don't know about PvP's, I'm asking you...
Post by: Baily18 on November 25, 2010, 12:28:36 am
I don't see any FG slayer using Toadfishes*cough* http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,15519.0.html *cough*
but anyways, on topic. Like krathos said, i hardly ever see this in PvP, and it seems fine to me.
Post by: Uppercut on November 25, 2010, 12:31:13 am
Thats called the Nirvana Fallacy.I don't see how its fallacious to think it'd be a waste of time to try and do something that technically can't be done instead of trying to make an actual good product. I'd rather Elements be a good game than be wasted potential because the non-official development team decided to fart around and try to make something of it that isn't even theoretically possible. Sorry for wanting a game to be enjoyable, I guess.
Just because a perfect end result cannot be achieved does not mean one shouldn't strive for that.
Post by: Ekki on November 25, 2010, 12:36:14 am
FAIL **punchs self in stomach**I don't see any FG slayer using Toadfishes*cough* http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,15519.0.html *cough*
but anyways, on topic. Like krathos said, i hardly ever see this in PvP, and it seems fine to me.
But I was saying a good FG killer (lol joking :P)
I meant it's not overused, and it sucks in most cases, since bloodsuckers are better for infection and 6 attack for 5 :water isn't exactly OP
Post by: ArtCrusade on November 25, 2010, 06:19:02 pm
Post by: Demut on November 26, 2010, 12:46:14 am
Quote
I don't see how its fallacious to think it'd be a waste of time to try and do something that technically can't be done instead of trying to make an actual good product. I'd rather Elements be a good game than be wasted potential because the non-official development team decided to fart around and try to make something of it that isn't even theoretically possible. Sorry for wanting a game to be enjoyable, I guess.And now you straw man. perfect can't be obtained, but the cloer to perfect, the better the game. Tat is basically the definition of good. Close to perfect = good.
Post by: Uppercut on November 26, 2010, 01:44:22 am
And now you straw man.No I'm not. Straw manning would be attacking a non-point. The thing I addressed is an actual point.
Quote
perfect can't be obtained, but the cloer to perfect, the better the game. Tat is basically the definition of good. Close to perfect = good.But you're not getting closer to perfect by trying to balance a bunch of things that operate just fine.
Post by: OldTrees on November 26, 2010, 02:01:20 am
Black Dragon
10|5 for 10 :darkness
Ice Dragon
9|6 for 10 :water
(0<HP<6) is worth 0, (5<HP<8] is worth 1
From these stats we can conclude that the stats of Darkness and Water creatures are comparable.
Now let us compare the Infect creatures of each
Parasite
1|1 :death:Infect for 2 :darkness
Toadfish
6|4 :air:Inflate for 5 :water
The difference in Cost - Value between these two is 2
From these stats we can conclude either
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 2 attack or
Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude or
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 1 attack and Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude.
The Current side discussion:
A standard can and has been calculated. This standard can be used to balance the cards within the rounding necessary by the game.
Post by: Ekki on November 26, 2010, 03:20:23 am
A standard can and has been calculated. This standard can be used to balance the cards within the rounding necessary by the game.:-\ never knew that was actually standarized... Please PM me the thread (if there is one) in orderto be better prepared to comment about OP/UP-ness :D
Post by: OldTrees on November 26, 2010, 04:09:32 am
I sent you a PM of the old thread and a preview of the new thread.A standard can and has been calculated. This standard can be used to balance the cards within the rounding necessary by the game.:-\ never knew that was actually standarized... Please PM me the thread (if there is one) in orderto be better prepared to comment about OP/UP-ness :D
New thread expected to be posted in Design Theory within a month.
Post by: Demut on November 26, 2010, 04:51:50 am
Quote
But you're not getting closer to perfect by trying to balance a bunch of things that operate just fine.They don't operate just fine, thats the point. Toadfish/Squid was the most common strategy used in the winner's brackets of Underworld.
But more importantly it hard counters a shitload of strategies. Hard counter, not soft counter, but hard counters.
And that is bad.
Quote
No I'm not. Straw manning would be attacking a non-point. The thing I addressed is an actual point.No, a strawman is a misrepresentation of my argument, a red-herring is the addressing of a non-point.
Post by: zse on November 26, 2010, 12:08:26 pm
On Topic:Let us compare the vanilla (no skill creatures) of Darkness and WaterFixed.
Black Dragon
10|5 for 10 :darkness
Ice Dragon
9|6 for 10 :water
(0<HP<6) is worth 0, (5<HP<8] is worth 1
From these stats we can conclude that the stats of Darkness and Water creatures are comparable.
Now let us compare the Infect creatures of each
Parasite
1|1 :death:Infect for 2 :darkness
Bloodsucker
3|1 :deathInfect for 2 :darkness
Toadfish
6|4 :air:Inflate for 5 :water
The difference in Cost - Value between these two is 2
From these stats we can conclude either
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 2 attack or
Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude or
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 1 attack and Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude.
The Current side discussion:
A standard can and has been calculated. This standard can be used to balance the cards within the rounding necessary by the game.
You should also notify widely co-used cards on your comparisons, here Nightfall/Eclipse.
Post by: Uppercut on November 26, 2010, 04:06:17 pm
They don't operate just fine, thats the point. Toadfish/Squid was the most common strategy used in the winner's brackets of Underworld.Some strategy is bound to be the most common strategy in a given tournament. There is a finite number of cards, there is a finite number of deck possibilities.
Quote
But more importantly it hard counters a shitload of strategies. Hard counter, not soft counter, but hard counters.It isn't the only deck in the game that hard counters some strategies.
Quote
And that is bad.Can you prove it is objectively bad?
Quote
No, a strawman is a misrepresentation of my argument, a red-herring is the addressing of a non-point.So do you really have no clue what a strawman is and are thus using an ironic strawman or do you know what a strawman is and are using a red herring?
Post by: OldTrees on November 26, 2010, 04:20:34 pm
I only compared the unupped infects due to the lack of an upgraded Water infect to compare to. However I did not specify that I was comparing only the unupped. (The other reason I excluded Bloodsucker is because I did not want to complicate the argument by explaining the 1-2 cost reduction that is standard for upgrades)On Topic:Let us compare the vanilla (no skill creatures) of Darkness and WaterFixed.
Black Dragon
10|5 for 10 :darkness
Ice Dragon
9|6 for 10 :water
(0<HP<6) is worth 0, (5<HP<8] is worth 1
From these stats we can conclude that the stats of Darkness and Water creatures are comparable.
Now let us compare the Infect creatures of each
Parasite
1|1 :death:Infect for 2 :darkness
Bloodsucker
3|1 :deathInfect for 2 :darkness
Toadfish
6|4 :air:Inflate for 5 :water
The difference in Cost - Value between these two is 2
From these stats we can conclude either
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 2 attack or
Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude or
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 1 attack and Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude.
The Current side discussion:
A standard can and has been calculated. This standard can be used to balance the cards within the rounding necessary by the game.
You should also notify widely co-used cards on your comparisons, here Nightfall/Eclipse.
I did not mention Nightfall/Eclipse because it, as shown with the dragons, does not affect the balance of the cards based upon their own merits.
Although its effects would show up in the comparisons of combos which does not excuse cards to be above the standard at the individual level although it does excuse them to be under the standard in which case they would never be seen apart. However Parasites are seen apart from Nightfalls so I would make the claim the Parasite was not designed to be subpar and make up for it with nightfall. Rather I would claim that the increase nightfall gives is balanced with nightfalls cost. This leads to the conclusion that therefore Toadfish is above the standard without reason.
Post by: Kuross on November 26, 2010, 04:33:47 pm
Whatever the merits of an individual card may be, the specific cost to play a card is a huge factor to. Consider for a moment that a card does something extraordinary, say does 100 hp in one hit. But the cost is 40 Time quanta. Sure, the card may be way OP, but the chances of seeing several played at once is extremely low.
I know that's a huge exaggeration, but the point is valid. Though the Fish may not be on par for cost, it's cost at 5 quanta, unupped, is still rather high so it's very unlikely one will see it ever outrush decks that are based on rushing. simply because the Fish is more a control card. And consider it's effect. It can kill creatures, but over time, not instantaneously like Oty.
I honestly think the lack of dominant decks that are built around the Fish is enough of an argument that it needs no nerf. Maybe if Fish decks were running rampant in PvP and tournaments all over the place and were directly affected by the them I'd be more inclined to say otherwise. But the fact is, though they may be a powerful card in their own right, they just don't live up to the hype.
Post by: OldTrees on November 26, 2010, 05:56:27 pm
A thought for what it's worth...This would imply that the card needs both a nerf (to get it on standard) and then an adjustment (lower cost and lower value) to move it into popularity range.
Whatever the merits of an individual card may be, the specific cost to play a card is a huge factor to. Consider for a moment that a card does something extraordinary, say does 100 hp in one hit. But the cost is 40 Time quanta. Sure, the card may be way OP, but the chances of seeing several played at once is extremely low.
I know that's a huge exaggeration, but the point is valid. Though the Fish may not be on par for cost, it's cost at 5 quanta, unupped, is still rather high so it's very unlikely one will see it ever outrush decks that are based on rushing. simply because the Fish is more a control card. And consider it's effect. It can kill creatures, but over time, not instantaneously like Oty.
I honestly think the lack of dominant decks that are built around the Fish is enough of an argument that it needs no nerf. Maybe if Fish decks were running rampant in PvP and tournaments all over the place and were directly affected by the them I'd be more inclined to say otherwise. But the fact is, though they may be a powerful card in their own right, they just don't live up to the hype.
Post by: Kuross on November 26, 2010, 09:59:30 pm
Post by: OldTrees on November 26, 2010, 10:48:27 pm
You were pointing out that there are trends that people tend to prefer cheaper and weaker cards to expensive and stronger cards due to the speed. This talks about the popularity of a card in practice that is independent of its theoretical balance.
Post by: Kuross on November 27, 2010, 12:41:32 am
But I digress. I may be stretching here, but Toadfish has that feel to it. It's a solid card and looks as though it's OP, but if that were the case it'd be in every FG rainbow and PvP deck that can support the cost. It's not and I think that speaks for itself. Like I said, I was simply pointing out an observation.
Post by: OldTrees on November 27, 2010, 12:48:23 am
Theoretically: people shouldn't value cheap weak cards over expensive powerful cards.
Actually: people do over value speed.
I have been agreeing with you.
Post by: Kuross on November 27, 2010, 12:51:32 am
My point islol, should have had that humble pie instead of pumpkin :P
Theoretically: people shouldn't value cheap weak cards over expensive powerful cards.
Actually: people do over value speed.
I have been agreeing with you.
Gotcha now ;)
Post by: jmdt on November 27, 2010, 02:44:44 am
They are also too expensive to really be viable in a nova/SN based deck. Although bloodsucker is weaker, its cost of 2 allows it to come out quicker and be played in a large variety of decks.
Another thing to look at is toadfishes place in its respective element. Every element balances differently based on what thay have and what they do. Toadfish is the midrange attacker for unupped water. Based on the other cards water has, it needs a strong toadfish card.
Post by: OldTrees on November 27, 2010, 03:12:42 am
Toadfish is not a rush card nor a stall card. It is a hybrid of both.
This means that is can act both as win condition and as stall mechanic. This is deck building advantage.
To balance the two cards in one effect Toadfish is slow.
Furthurmore Water is the opposite of Fire. Fire is the element of destruction hence Water's reduced destruction based control (Toadfish, Icebolt, Trident).
I personally think that an adjustment is needed. I further believe that once an adjustment is made that a nerf would be possible without the herd abandoning this card.
Say:
Reduce the attack by 1, increase the Activation cost by 1 and reduce the Casting Cost by 1.
or
Reduce the attack by 2, increase the Activation cost by 1 and reduce the Casting Cost by 2.
Post by: Memorystick on November 27, 2010, 08:32:02 am
Post by: OldTrees on November 27, 2010, 03:58:50 pm
Oldtrees, might I point out that upped oty, which, under the current standard should have a cost of 3 or 4 :gravity, has a cost of 5 :gravity instead? Not all cards need to obey the standard if doing so would make said card OP or UP. I agree that toadfish needs neither a buff nor a nerf (even if I would like to see its upped version, pufferfish, lose a hit point :P)Otyugh has the skill Devour.
Devour is not a statically valued skill but rather is dependent on what percentage of creatures it can consume and any accelerated HP growth (swarm)
So far about 10% of creatures do not obey the standard. Many of those are either agreed upon as UP (Graviton Mercenary, Graviton Guard, Massive Dragon) or agreed upon as OP (Graboid, Elite Graboid).
However I do not expect my version of the standard to be complete which is why I am going to submit it for discussion in the Design Theory forum within a month.