|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on Jul 2, 2012 1:13:17 GMT -5
I got hammered playing this combo yesterday. Even though I had two Abbazia's out and Maria ready as well, my opponent's single Silvio made sure the combo was completely useless
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 2, 2012 5:59:14 GMT -5
Hehe. Sucks. But it shouldn't be necessary to create decks around one very powerful combo. The meta shouldn't be defined by this.
Playing only Silvio and other specific counters to this combo, does not sound very fun.
I'm with Tuism here. I would rather see less powerful cards and a bigger diversity in what is competitive.
|
|
|
Post by thest4lker on Jul 2, 2012 7:40:00 GMT -5
Maybe I haven't encountered it enough, but I don't see it... Take out the site... Counter the launching site/ maria... steal the maria... discard all cards under 10 cost... there are lot's of strong combo's, this is not an insta win...
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jul 2, 2012 8:44:41 GMT -5
Ir's not an instant win, but it's still, maybe, the strongest combo if this xpac.
|
|
|
Post by mistervader on Jul 2, 2012 18:36:13 GMT -5
I actually would rather prefer a bunch of mediocre cards than everyone ending up playing the same 5 cards To each their own, let's see what the devs say And like I said, there isn't enough real data to prove that this combo is degenerate enough to require nerfing. This knee-jerk reaction to asking for nerfs before a metagame even matures results in hasty changes to a game before it could develop. Let's face it: we are basing nerfs purely on hearsay. Other card games at least cite tournament dominance over an extended period. As a veteran of MTG, I've seen the most degenerate cards and combos any good card game has to offer. This interaction is far from it, and has answers in practically every color. You know what this means? You build your decks to account for the possibility of the combo. If you build a deck completely unprepared for this combo, it's your fault for overlooking it, not the fault of thr power levels of the cards. Case in point: Ichorid and Dredge in Type I magic. This deck was powerful but relied on he Graveyard. And yet it kept sneaking in wins in the tournament scene. Why? Because not enough people prepared for it even if it *was* a legit deck. People kept on paying dearly for not *respecting* the deck. For the record, I don't even own this combo. I sacrificed all my Crime cards to play every other deck I really liked. I just believe in letting people play with the cards they earned and paid for. What this combo simply means is that people MUST really have ample answers to Site cards. How is it the combo's fault if people refuse to put in a ready answer to a group of cards just because it's mildly inconvenient? I say having a bunch of expensive cards nerfed right under your nose is much more inconvenient than having a few answers to sites. This isn't building a meta around one deck. It's treating one card type, sites, with respect, by packing answers to it. Heaven knows if more decks had answers to sites, all those Workshop and Market decks would find themselves winning a bit less, and look! The meta balances itself out, and no single strategy becomes dominant again. We are currently in a rock-scissors-paper meta. This is good. Nerfing one pilllar and then ignoring the others could very well upset that balance. My two cents, and whether you agree or disagree with my point, I hope you at least see where I'm coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jul 2, 2012 19:23:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure that we are in a rock-paper-cisors meta. Sites-based decks are just predominants. Agents decks (because of this combo we are talking about and because of Suleiman) are just unplayable.
You can either play Control and pack some Site-hatred cards, or play Sites either with surprise effects or with protections (discard, counters, etc).
That's not a rock-paper-cisors meta imo.
Of course we don't want to ask for nerfs (nerves?) too early, of course we don't want to corrupt a well balanced game because we may not see the big picture yet. Anyway, fiding a card unbalanced is possible at first day of an expantion release.
For instance, I'm convinced that Assassin Stronghold is just totally unbalanced and deserves a nerf since I openned it in a booster pack, and I won't change my mind as nobody proposed me a counter-argument yet.
That said, you are correct in the fact that people should adapt more their sequence lists instead of asking for a nerf. But doing both is a respectable position. :]
In the end, Devs won't just nerf this or that just because a few of us asked for it in the forums. They have the big picture under the eyes and know if something is wrong or not. I trust them to make the good choice in terms of balance as they already did so far.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 3, 2012 0:36:21 GMT -5
What Bronto said. How's that scenario different from everyone playing Cesares and Lanzs before their previous change? I say we let this medium be what this medium should be, and that's mutable. Mtg relies on new sets to balance itself, and they have a new one every 3 months. I do not want that for ACR, thanks very much
|
|
mana
Full Member
Posts: 367
|
Post by mana on Jul 3, 2012 0:47:33 GMT -5
hmmm i dont see one thing bronto. your right that sites are the meta right now but why would you say agents are not useable because of syleiman? the red countersite is basically the same for sitedecks like syleiman for agentdecks. so if many ppl would use agent rushes now those site would become much more unpopular and syleiman would get more popular. the way it is now sites are predominant because they got alot of new stuff added and got stronger compared to the powerboost agents got. agentrush can keep um with siterush IMO. ESR decks eg. will have much fun against siterush since they can even win faster than in 1 and a half day. (thinking bout butcher with deceptive? )
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 3, 2012 1:40:59 GMT -5
Good discussion here.
I do have some points.
The problem is not with sites, it is with Maria.
Packing anti site cards are not going to make Maria less powerful. See Bronto's deck where he uses Maria Auditore. Then all your meta game anti cards become almost useless.
There are great ways of beating site decks without destroying the site. Media have some of the best counters that shut down site decks. Sofia Sator shuts down most site decks. But this does nothing against the Maria Thorpe combo.
AC:R is an online game. Not magic. Changing the text is like patching an unbalanced game. Granted this is hard with physical cards like magic.
The (meta) game should be fun. Putting in too many counters or specific anti decks, removes the diversity. Uncounterable Silvio with pure counters decks anyone? Not fun to play against or with.
|
|
|
Post by mistervader on Jul 3, 2012 11:27:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure that we are in a rock-paper-cisors meta. Sites-based decks are just predominants. Agents decks (because of this combo we are talking about and because of Suleiman) are just unplayable. You can either play Control and pack some Site-hatred cards, or play Sites either with surprise effects or with protections (discard, counters, etc). That's not a rock-paper-cisors meta imo. Of course we don't want to ask for nerfs (nerves?) too early, of course we don't want to corrupt a well balanced game because we may not see the big picture yet. Anyway, fiding a card unbalanced is possible at first day of an expantion release. For instance, I'm convinced that Assassin Stronghold is just totally unbalanced and deserves a nerf since I openned it in a booster pack, and I won't change my mind as nobody proposed me a counter-argument yet. That said, you are correct in the fact that people should adapt more their sequence lists instead of asking for a nerf. But doing both is a respectable position. :] In the end, Devs won't just nerf this or that just because a few of us asked for it in the forums. They have the big picture under the eyes and know if something is wrong or not. I trust them to make the good choice in terms of balance as they already did so far. Funny how while I'm anti-nerfing on principle, I can't disagree with the way you laid out your points. The devs have so far done right by us balance-wise. The last time they made nerfs, they allowed a lot of new decks to exist, and I think only Pan/RI died. That's a move for the greater good, imo. I'm against nerfing right now, but am open to discussions like these, and nerfing after more data and tech has been collected. I have no reason to believe that the devs will make uninformed nerfs when their last attempt made for a more diverse meta where even my Temple deck is just as competitive as it was before the nerfs, which is to say, middle of the road all the way. Still, I really am of the Menendian school of thought, where as much as possible, nerfs or bannings should be a last resort, and never on impulse. Of course, there were obvious exceptions to that rule (Mind's Desire, I'm looking at ya.), but I actually think now that most of us here are of the same mind, and few of us would clamor for nerfs as a knee-jerk reaction to any dominant strategy. Maybe I should view ACR less as MTG and more as, say, Yugi Oh. That game's banlist fluctuates so much, every three months is a new meta altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 3, 2012 11:34:26 GMT -5
You can't really compare magic or yugioh to ACR, because this is the first ccg (first good ccg IMHO ) that's born and bred digitally, and has a balance that exists without releasing new sets. It does what mtg and yugioh could never do - change what isn't right. I don't think we're all little children clambering for the nerf hammer on everything we get beat with, so I think discussions like this are great. But enough on whether there should or shouldn't be a nerf, we can let the devs decide that. How to nerf? That's a better discussion.
|
|
|
Post by mistervader on Jul 3, 2012 13:33:37 GMT -5
How to nerf would be simple: the site simply shouldn't target the same card it discarded. Something like discard an Agent: return another Agent from the archive to your hand.
If Maria did need nerfing, I'd no doubt go with that. Sure, as a one-shot, she's pretty powerful, but far from broken. Requiring two copies of Maria for a loop is also kinda slow, so not something I would fear since you now have about two days to answer before the combo is live and running.
BTW, I think the last time I was actively talking to you guys, we did have a lot of whiners about the game. I walked into these forums with very unfond memories of those, hence why my paranoia about knee-jerk reactions.
|
|
|
Post by aman8912 on Jul 3, 2012 22:25:19 GMT -5
someone tried this combo against me the other day. Lucky for me i had 2 holy days in my hand. I used one right away and noticed maria was erased. After he played 2 of those site cards that go with this combo( forgot the name) i played a second holy day and he quit.
|
|
|
Post by mistervader on Jul 7, 2012 21:24:39 GMT -5
After extesnive play this week, I've come to two conclusions:
1. We are NOT in a rock paper scissors meta. We only have site decks, and rush decks provided the site deck draws dead.
2. Maria Thorpe is the least of the meta's problems, so I'm thinking focus should instead go to bringing up other deck strategies in line with sites.
Which leads me to wonder: why can't we buff viable but non-dominant strategies instead of nerfing dominant ones? Too much work?
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jul 7, 2012 22:58:39 GMT -5
Some of the new thieves/nobles should have cost 2 instead of 3. Militants are fine imo (even non viable). It would have allowed more Agents decks around.
|
|