Having been through several "nerf this card" topics and the section in general. I have noticed that the notion of "when is a card OP" and "When is a nerf justified" gets stated Ad-Nausium... Yet there is no central place to look for a discussion on the matter.
It would be good, therefore, to have a topic in this section solely for discussion of these points without focus on any card in particular.
This will help those new to the forums get acquainted with some background of when, why, and how a card should be nerfed. It will also give a common reference point for posters so they don't have to spend time hunting down previous general "nerf theory".
To be more specific, I am proposing this topic as a commons for discussion of:
1) What makes a card OP
2) When is a nerf the proper solution
3) What are the alternatives to nerfing an offending card
4) When are the alternatives a better solution and when is nerfing the better solution.
To get things rolling:
Number 1 gets stated in many ways in many places and each person seems to word it slightly differently, but I will try to summarize the main themes:
- The card disrupts the metagame
- Forces players to put cards in their deck solely to deal with the offending card
- Makes a number of previously valid and balanced strategies totally infeasible
- Counters are too few and too specific (e.g. just because a counter(s) exist, does not mean a card is not OP)
- "Counters" require a greater cost investment (this includes not just quanta but also card advantage, etc.) than the card itself.
Number 2 and 3 are less commonly discussed, so I will put forth my views on the matter and encourage others to post theirs:
-If a card is so powerful that any viable counter(s) introduced would itself need to be overpowered / heavily disrupt metagame, then the only solution is to nerf the offending card (this should hopefully be very rare)
-If a card is only overpowered because there are too few options currently available to deal with it (e.g. a handful of elements lack any viable counters, but the card is well balanced vs most others) then introducing new cards may be an alternative to nerfing.
Related to this, it would be good to discuss what makes for a viable "counter"
-To be viable, a counter should
1) negate or greatly mitigate the countered cards effects.
2) should not require a higher "cost" investment than the card being countered
The latter is tricky to define since here "cost" refers to more than just the amount of quanta required, but also to the number of turns to set up, number of cards needed etc.
3) A counter need not utterly destroy or remove the other card from the game. E.g. a card with a high cost can be "countered" by quanta denial and rush tactics. I.e. It is important to consider indirect counters as well as direct ones.
Discuss!
P.S. This topic is closely related to card design and I'm sure there are relevant threads in design theory. If anyone knows of a relavent thread(s) in design theory let me know so I can put them here too.
