|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 17:38:53 GMT -5
And balancing should be about all the cards, not just half of it, right? And in the "all the cards" scenario, order is the strongest by far. So it doesn't make sense to maintain even a bit of that power to undermine other strategies that can be countered with other expertises.
Besides, order of the king, teddy, Dante, all work very well anti-discard by early drop and providing threat, and that's just in order. Then let's look outside of discard.
Counters suffer against discard, its fact. Doesn't mean the rest of the field dies to discard as easily. Why don't you look outside of order or counters for anti-discard? Any fast enough Strat can work. Really discard isn't godly. It's blind half the time.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 17:43:11 GMT -5
Annnd once again that'll be the last thing I say on THAT subject, it's really pointless cos we don't agree. Agree to disagree then!
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 18:31:02 GMT -5
And balancing should be about all the cards, not just half of it, right? And in the "all the cards" scenario, order is the strongest by far. So it doesn't make sense to maintain even a bit of that power to undermine other strategies that can be countered with other expertises. Order might be the strongest, but all its power cards are taking a hit. That's good. Nonsense. I play all sorts of strategies. Site rush, agent rush, and so on. Plus I never said "counter suffers vs discard." What I said was "everything suffers vs discard, except counters. Now everything will, including counters." I do look outside of Order for anti discard. It turns out the best anti Discard templar cards available are Lanz and two of the weak discard cards. Not the power cards, not the cards that make blue too powerful. Two weak cards. Blue will take plenty a hit without those. Those weak discard cards are pretty much low power except against discard. Discard is very strong and getting stronger. I'd contend the single most powerful strategy available is Red/Blue discard/counter. Lanz might beat it, but Lanz is being weakened (for the best).
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 18:31:33 GMT -5
Tell you what:
You show me a Templar deck that is strong vs Discard but doesn't use blue (or Lanz) and I'll stop arguing with you.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 18:41:42 GMT -5
It is not my mission in life to make people believe what I believe plus I *never* said all Templar decks will be better than decks with assassins
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 18:46:07 GMT -5
I never said anything about *all* Templar decks. I will take *any* Templar deck. And I never said anything about *all* assassin decks. Just discard decks. And it doesn't have to be better. Just have a solid fighting chance. Win around, say, 40% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by xatria on Feb 3, 2012 18:55:57 GMT -5
I am saying Templar players need to be able to design decks that are viable against any deck. Not EVERY deck at the same time, mind you. Is that a design goal of the designers or just your wish because of your preferred play style? I understand the need to cater players who don't want to spend to get Assassin cards but I don't think this is good way to go about it. It's unnecessarily complicating the balancing to cater players who probably don't spend money to even justify their use of server bandwith. A better way is to provide Templar only matchmaking. I'm not commenting about discard vs counters but I don't think the Templar argument is valid in the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 18:58:24 GMT -5
Look man, you know all the popular Templar combos, and they're popular for their own reason. Any reasonably fast deck can kill a discard on a good day or a bad day. And really, you don't have to believe what I believe, and I don't either, we really can just agree to disagree
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 18:59:14 GMT -5
I am saying Templar players need to be able to design decks that are viable against any deck. Not EVERY deck at the same time, mind you. Is that a design goal of the designers or just your wish because of your preferred play style? I understand the need to cater players who don't want to spend to get Assassin cards but I don't think this is good way to go about it. It's unnecessarily complicating the balancing to cater players who probably don't spend money to even justify their use of server bandwith. A better way is to provide Templar only matchmaking. I'm not commenting about discard vs counters but I don't think the Templar argument is valid in the discussion. I didn't wanna go there whole different can of worms
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 19:04:40 GMT -5
I disagree (re Xatria) Players with Assassin cards will always have better decks because they will always have a better pool of cards to choose from. But a style of deck that goes 90% vs every possible Templar deck is bad, and not a way to get players to buy cards in the first place. I've already put money into the game and will in the future, but only because I enjoyed the game so far. Crushing cheap players is bad marketing.
In particular saying "We are going to balance the game by making Templar weaker than it already is" is bad. That's not balance at all. Plus we aren't talking about anything "unnecessarily complicated", since I'm simply proposing not making certain cards weaker.
How about this, for a start. Show me any deck, any deck at all that 1) Doesn't use counters, Lanz or any of the soon to be nerfed cards that is strong vs Discard (and isn't itself Discard, of course).
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 19:05:39 GMT -5
Look man, you know all the popular Templar combos, and they're popular for their own reason. Any reasonably fast deck can kill a discard on a good day or a bad day. I don't think you've met enough strong Discard players yet.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Feb 3, 2012 19:12:58 GMT -5
Not trying to convince anyone of anything here, bored of it looking like I am. Continue if you wanna but I'm gonna go look at some other things. Like improving my pietro Rossi deck.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 19:16:14 GMT -5
I think I've made my case:
Changing Faux Pas and Radical Demotion (esp. Radical Demotion) will not bring the game more into balance, but move it further from balance.
|
|
|
Post by xatria on Feb 3, 2012 19:25:30 GMT -5
But a style of deck that goes 90% vs every possible Templar deck is bad, and not a way to get players to buy cards in the first place. I've already put money into the game and will in the future, but only because I enjoyed the game so far. Crushing cheap players is bad marketing. Yes, catering Templar players is good but I just don't agree that it should factor into design and balancing. Like I said, there are other ways to cater them. Re 90%, I heard that 73.58% statistics are made up.. I don't play that much but I also tend to disregard 'based on my experience playing such and such' argument. Based on my experience, decks with Juan Borgia IS super strong and win 92.45% of the time! See what I did there? Scenarios, concrete examples, actual nature of card play have much more weight in this kind of discussion In particular saying "We are going to balance the game by making Templar weaker than it already is" is bad. That's not balance at all. Plus we aren't talking about anything "unnecessarily complicated", since I'm simply proposing not making certain cards weaker. If it's just Faux Pas, I actually agree it can be left on as it is now. However, I don't think losing +1 income is that big of a deal because it then can also counter X-cost cards. How about this, for a start. Show me any deck, any deck at all that 1) Doesn't use counters, Lanz or any of the soon to be nerfed cards that is strong vs Discard (and isn't itself Discard, of course). I would try to do this if I buy your Templar argument first. Which I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Feb 3, 2012 19:30:05 GMT -5
Scenarios, concrete examples, actual nature of card play have much more weight in this kind of discussion I believe I've provide some pretty solid examples to back up my claim. What specifics would you like? The designers considered several powerful deck archetypes in their balance consideration. But I don't think people fully realize Discard's potential yet.
|
|