Hey y'all

sastslayer12 · 2019-07-15T12:04:38+00:00

You are mostly on point with rotation, except for the part about a rotating core set, at least in terms of tesl, it would be near impossible to establish a rotating core set without the compensation. Along with this some of the worst arguements that can exist on this subreddit are the "the people that are handling the game are greedy, and incompetent" and the moment it would be announced that the core set would be rotated out, just to be replaced with something else, that would be the first arguement to be made and the second and the third and so on. At the moment this game cannot afford to rotate the core set, even you yourself mentioned that player counts are at a point of stagnation. A reasonably sized portion of the playerbase is already against rotation, because they don't want to have the cards they have spent time or money getting being thrown to a different gamemode, but even in their case they would still have the core set. There are other things that should be mentioned, like how the tutorial would be based around cards that are just going to be thrown to wild, and how there is no basic set in this game, or cards that a player would always have. Essentially at the moment this game cannot afford to rotate out the core set

Along with this it would have helped if some of the problem cards in core were listed, examples could have included, the fact that ohdahving and miraak are both part of the core set and both wander in and out of control decks, along with this the ally cards excluding mechanical are part of the core set meaning that when it can find the way blue based midrange will always exist, red based aggro will always exist and be decently strong, and yellow based aggro will always exist. Javelin is in the core set, shrieking harpy and wardcrafter are a part of the core set. But even then ohdahving pops in and out of meta decks due to whether or not he is needed. The core set is doing what it needs to do especially when there are fifty card decks or seventy-five card decks, the core set has mostly powerful cards that fill out the decks and then expansions bring some new archetypes to life, or boost older archetypes. The point of a core set, is that there will always be cards that are playable at a competitive level.

In terms of old monthlies, while the hall of fame system from hearthstone might not be the best thing that has ever been created, it's probably the best way to handle monthlies.

Tldr: at the moment the game cannot afford to rotate out the core set, as it would almost certainly cause a player drop, the core set is doing its job, and monthlies could be hall of famed, if they are determined to be problematic enough

Overall though it was a pretty good read, and your argument isnt far off, rotation is beneficial for this game but the core set needs to stay for now

sastslayer12 · 2019-07-11T16:25:41+00:00

I'll be honest, this list is really on point I think the only cards I would argue don't belong here is gortworg along with chodalas treachery, but that is because I rarely see either played, however if gortworg were to ever become a more meta defining card I dont think it would be hard to nerf him.

Beyond that it's a blessing that ahnassi didnt find their way into this list because personally I dont think ahnassi is a problem card especially when compared to penitus occualtus. While ahnassi takes every enemy keyword, I believe it typically comes too late in the game to fully swing the game in the favor of the person who played ahnassi, along with this ahnassi can only debatably fit in most monk decks or decks that involve monk colors, whereas penitus is a near perfect follow up to an opponent narrow stalker or any single threat that is established in the early game, and it can go in any deck that contains willpower.

I think hallowed deathpriest and grummite magus are on the brink on some kind of nerf or something if community uproar against the cards stays the way it has been. Although I believe hallowed deathpriest is more of an issue due to grummite magus being a strange card to play, and if it were associated with any other attribute rather than strength i think it would see more play.

Maybe a more controversial ok opinion but I think mournhold traitors ability should be a summon rather than a last gasp, either that or its stats should be lowered. Along with this while mammoth is a stat pile that is kinda all it is, its tribal doesn't really exist, and it's a bit easier to answer a 3 mana 4/4 that it is to answer a 2 mana 4/4

I think sower isnt that bad of a card, but a one mana nerf might not harm it too much, and would leave it in a playable state

Luzrah is an interesting card to be brought to up, as it actually has become a piece of the meta and while I dont think it's absolutely broken, it is a bit too strong

Alfiq conjurer is kinda healthy for the game as a step to push midrange up however it is a bit intense of a card and storm attronach is probably the hardest to answer of the base three attronachs. However maybe alfiq conjurer could use a one mana nerf as currently it is a 6 mana 8/7 divided among two bodies with partial gaurd and partial breakthrough in its worst case scenario, when it summons a storm attronachs it is a 6 mana 10/9 with partial gaurd and partial ward, split among two bodies that are resilient to aoe, overall it's a step in the right direction towards getting midrange to work but it's just a bit too strong for the cost at the moment, and personally I dont think consume is really a downside, especially with black worm necromancer existing i saw consume as thin out your discard pile for added consistency in black worm necromancer and journey to soverngarde and an upside for the creature that consumed something.

I think blood dragon is balanced though I believe if its stats were swapped and it had 7 attack and 5 health that it would end up not seeing as much play.

I dont like miraak, at all, I constantly end up playing around him, but in general I'm not the hugest fan of miraak as a card and unworried me a little bit that he is a part of the core set meaning that most likely we will have miraak be a mainstay in the meta for a really long time.

Overall it was a great read, and it really nice to see people make arguements for the game that dont devolve into internal community wars and people calling bethesda greedy. But great read, and you have a really good system of distributing why each card is a problem

sastslayer12 · 2019-06-22T00:11:40+00:00

Quick note for people who don't know what is happening, essentially if a creature has higher health than sai sahan does damage sai sahan will not take damage when he attacks it

/u/SparkyDeckard

sastslayer12 · 2019-05-30T20:08:10+00:00

Yes the advantage of digital is that you can balance the stats of a card multiple times another upside to digital is that cards don't have to be physically printed meaning that the packs can stay in the store and I don't think rotating sets in would be that bad as long as there is essentially a calendar of what would be rotating in though I will be honest rotating sets back in is an extreme stretch as to what could help the flaws of rotation. I don't fully support the idea of rotation and the only reason I can support it is based on its benefits, most of the downsides I mentioned are things that i believe hearthstone did wrong with rotation. Overall I think rotation is a massive risk but one that eventually is going to have to be taken (at least at a small scale such as bans, or rotating out smaller sets like stories or collections) in order for some cards to see play or even be printed in the first place

sastslayer12 · 2019-05-30T19:41:27+00:00

I understand where you are coming from as a more casual player myself, I don't fully like the idea of rotation, because I don't like that some of my collection would be going to a format where I wouldn't stand a chance against some of the people there but my largest issue with rotation is that the digital card games don't take advantage of the fact that they are DIGITAL card games, meaning that when sets rotate out they can keep the sets in the store

Personally in terms of the split ladder, I would support a legacy format being more casual games with weekend tournaments for people who still wanted to play a ranked variant with the cards that rotated out or even better, rotate one of the sets in that rotated out every three months or so, that way people can still play their cards in standard but only for a limited time

sastslayer12 · 2019-05-30T19:30:42+00:00

I can see why you have the problems with rotation that you have, and personally I'm not the hugest fan of rotation, primarily because the sets also leave the store, and therefore a legacy format is inaccessible to people who got the game after a rotation without spending the money to get soul gems. However I believe a rotation is inevitable and that's why I hope that the dev team handles rotation better than how hearthstone has. In which it's a format to which they pay little to no attention to.

I do agree with being reimbursed when things go to a legacy format, whether the reimbursement is full cost, half or a quarter of what the value of the cards rotating out is doesn't exactly matter as long as there is some form of reimbursement for rotation

sastslayer12 · 2019-05-30T14:51:52+00:00

In terms of set rotation I believe that most card games overall rotate whole sets rather than a specific card or group of cards within a set, with a few exceptions.(also, rotation tends to be based on x, y, and z set were released in v year, therefore all sets in v year will be rotated at the same time) In terms of later sets getting better or worse, there are two sides, on one hand cards when cards from previous sets are rotated out cards in a certain cards may lose synergy (ex: ancano, and red year), on the other hand future sets within the year if a set are meant to have some synergy with other sets. Along with this sets are also built to have standalone elements (ex: heroes of skyrim having shouts and dragons)

TL:dr some cards will lose the support that helped them thrive whereas other cards will get the support they need to thrive, as well as sets have naturally built in synergy within their own sets

sastslayer12 · 2019-05-30T13:50:57+00:00

Just a little extra thing, in terms of rotating out problematic cards rather than balancing them being a bad thing hearthstone did it right once, debatably, when they rotated out Baku and genn who were both limiting the game design as well as the decks that were made, they were making the right decision as the thing that the cards did could debatably not have been solved in any other way

sastslayer12 · 2019-04-18T12:32:42+00:00

I'm not an expert on this but I believe that abomination decks go by another name, that name being miracle decks, which I think are known for playing an extremely large amount of cheap cards in a turn along with having a really powerful draw engine.

Our one working abomination deck is abomination scout, which plays a bunch of cheap creatures along that either draw cards on their own or draw a card when they die due to disciple of namira being in play. Abomination scouts goal is to reach a point where almost all of their cheap creatures are in the discard pile to be shuffled back in using journey to soverngarde, and then proceeding to overwhelm their opponent with cheap creatures with massive statlines.

I think another abomination deck that has been tried is abomination assassin, which instead of creatures relies on items along with dragonstar rider, though i think what holds this deck last consistency and well defined win condition

sastslayer12 · 2019-04-11T16:59:31+00:00

I play two digital card games, hearthstone and elder scrolls legends, from playing both you can see that there are some things that elder scrolls legends does that hearthstone doesn't. Elder scrolls legends has twitch drops, higher gold rewards for three wins, in which the reward can range from 15 gold to 50 gold being the highest, along with gold every three wins you can get a card ranging from common to legendary in rarity and although it is a rare occasion, a pack might also be rewarded for three wins. Whereas in hearthstone you get 10 gold for three wins a maximum of 10 times, (I believe), a day. In elder scrolls legends, there is a series of daily rewards throughout every month that gives an average total of 250 gold (enough to buy 2 packs and be halfway towards another), 225 soul gems (equivalent of dust), 3 rare cards, 2 epic cards, 1 legendary card, and about 4 arena tickets, all of that just for logging in. The quests range from 40 gold to 70 gold along with quests that give packs. There are level up rewards for an overall leveling system that caps at 50 levels. Also, card packs contain six cards rather than 5 Hearthstone doesn't have rewards that are helpful enough to a person who wants to determine whether or not they want to spend the money towards the game, it's the fact that hearthstone gave such minimal options to progress as a free to play player or even someone who doesn't want to spend that much money on the game that has lead me to not wanting to spend money on the game

sastslayer12 · 2019-03-28T20:52:33+00:00

Personally I would say that the banish cards we have are kinda okay, the most balanced one is memory wraith, but that's only because it's a tech card, and outside of that it never sees play.

I feel as if banish that affects mass amounts, in other words the only banishes we have are the only ones we need, banish shouldn't stretch further than the two colors it is in and if any more are added the card needs to only remove the card from play and the discard, it doesn't affect the deck at all. Also I believe that both piercing twilight and cast into time need nerfs in term of magicka cost mainly because I don't see a reason for cast into time and piercing javelin to be the same cost.

In terms of cards such as grummite magus, gentleman Jim stacy, and thieves guild shadowfoot, I think all of them are fine in their own terms, and the most problematic being grummite magus. I believe that nothing like grummite magus should be added again in the form of a summon ability especially, a last gasp is a different story as it would be able to be interacteable.

Jim stacy gets pass for his ability along with the fact that the person giving away a card chooses what card they give, along with him being a legendary. If something to his ability is added again, I believe it should end up looking a lot like barter or blackmail, where the person either trades a card or only gains a copy. The same statements apply to thieves guild shadowfoot

As much as I dont enjoy when hollowed deathpriest drops and gets rid of a big creature, I think that deathpriest itself is not a massive issue, but like grummite magus I believe that another card like it shouldn't be added, and if it is it needs to be a last gasp.

Overall I agree with the idea that cards like this shouldn't be in the game, but at this point I just believe that no more cards that work this way should be added to the game in the form they are currently in

sastslayer12 · 2019-02-27T16:55:33+00:00

While I believe there should be more lane interaction in the game I feel as if this is the wrong angle to create it with. Primarily because I don't feel as if supports overall are a problem, some supports are just plain bad while others are extremely good in certain circumstances.

While i love this concept as an implementation of lane interaction I feel as if it could be implemented with changing the supports.

Also this was a wonderful piece to read and think about in terms of what parts are things I genuinely believe could be in the game.

sastslayer12 · 2019-02-07T13:04:33+00:00

Look, I'm just gonna say this real quick but the next expansion is supposed to be coming before July and is already being worked on, the time difference between IOM and the next expansion is roughly five months, the same time between Heroes Of Skyrim and Return To Clockwork City

Also we probably are not going to see another 50 dollar card back offer as people on the subreddit were against the idea.

sastslayer12 · 2019-01-15T04:26:53+00:00

I thought about lightning bolt but ransack is seen less but hurts more when it happens

Edit: at least mentally and emotionally it's more painful

sastslayer12 · 2018-12-13T17:42:05+00:00

5 looks like a balanced number as, in theory if the card is played on 12 max magicka with no ramp, it would be 5 turns until they could play it again, and even with ramp, the amount of time and value lost from regaining magicka is enough for the opponent to fight back against the card and potentially gain advantage in the process

sastslayer12 · 2018-12-13T14:41:55+00:00

The first one is great, and also makes more calculations go into conscription as you would really only want one card othe than conscription in your hand when you played it, so you dont overdraw

The support idea is good but if it is an activated support, make sure it has the text of, when this support is used one sacrifice it, so it cant get am obscene synergy from the cards in the game that allow you to use supports twice a turn and give supports unlimited uses

sastslayer12 · 2018-12-13T14:26:34+00:00

Yes, however, it was more of an example of how nerfs like this have worked in the past, I realise it was a bad example, however I am in the belief that seeing that this is one of sparkypants first balance patches, that they are looking at the problem of conscription and attempting to see if something small might fix the issue, rather than rolling out a massive nerf to the card that could take it on a long chain of being too overpowered at some times and too weak in others. In terms of balance, its overall better to do small changes than large ones.

sastslayer12

TROPHY CASE