|
Post by Tuism on Jul 13, 2012 11:46:48 GMT -5
The problem that counter decks had - and about the only reason why everyone didn't all play all counter all the time - was that countering everything couldn't win you a game.
Now? There's no penalty to the solve-all solution. Every single other strategy has to deal with a limited range of solutions (this to kill sites, that to kill agents, if i have agents i might get kicked by sites, if I have sites I might not outrush agents, blah), but not counters. Counters could deal with anything.
So to say that counters needed a leg up in terms of "finishing the game" is really just silly.
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Jul 13, 2012 12:08:12 GMT -5
Pure counter worked fine, previously. People didn't play it, not because it wasn't effective-- in fact you will find many complaints about how easy it was to play. People didn't play it because it was boring. You just had to wait until you got your win piece. Pushing counter to make it more aggressive makes for faster games.
Even in the current meta, few people play pure counter. More people include counter cards to be sure, because there are more counter cards to include, particularly in red.
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Jul 14, 2012 2:53:33 GMT -5
Playing too much counters in a deck just shows how much unsecure is someone when building his deck. 5/10 counters maximum is really what is just needed.
It's because it gives easy wins and the feeling that you can outplay any deck that counters are played. I'd say it's the poor brain's solution to deck building issues, but it would be insulting and that's not what I want.
I don't play Order in my two main decks, and I crush counter decks all day long. Players just need to learn how to build deck that are not counter-vulnerable or counter-dependant. No need to nerf anything.
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 14, 2012 3:32:57 GMT -5
I agree, and tend not to build counter decks. BUT I have to deal with pure counter decks, and that means the whole meta is counter or be countered. I think it's an unhealthy lean, sure there are lots of anti counter strategies, but that leaves a lot of strategies pretty useless. Whether this is a function of people's laziness or a function of an imbalance towards counter/counter-counter, well, that's just semantics. Ok let's not nerf anything, let's just tell people stop being lazy
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Jul 14, 2012 12:38:34 GMT -5
Oh bs. Counters are no more lazy than rush or combo. They never have been, never will be. People always accuse some strategy or the other as being too easy. Every successful strategy gets that accusation once in a while. Pretty soon someone will post how playing surprises is too lazy, or political patronage is lazy or playing Piri is lazy, etc.
And to the next poster: no, I am not biased in favor of counters. I play as wide a variety of decks as I can.
|
|
|
Post by Diomedia on Jul 14, 2012 12:59:18 GMT -5
to me, lazy is something like pan/RI, or bug exploiting, everybody gets pleasure from different play styles i guess. i dont understand people who play decks i used t oencounter in recollection, the order/faith counter/discard decks, but whatever floats your boat
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 14, 2012 13:27:11 GMT -5
My point is really simple. I don't like it that every deck has to other pack counters or deal with counters. There used to be decks that rock paper scissors around each other, not every stray needed to have all the answers - like site or agent, rush or control. Now? Rush or control, it's counter or anti-counter. And I'm leaving it at this, no more from me on this here, thanks all
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Jul 14, 2012 14:00:11 GMT -5
Fair enough. Possibly counters need balancing, possibly not, but I still contend counter+thing makes for a better game.
|
|
|
Post by demkon on Jul 16, 2012 8:19:59 GMT -5
Rush or control, it's counter or anti-counter. I don't think so, there are viable other strategies. Counters are not new to the game, you had to deal with them pre-expansion too. Although I have 2 counter decks myself, I hardly play them because it's too boring.
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 16, 2012 8:28:54 GMT -5
My point is really simple. I don't like it that every deck has to other pack counters or deal with counters. There used to be decks that rock paper scissors around each other, not every stray needed to have all the answers - like site or agent, rush or control. Now? Rush or control, it's counter or anti-counter. And I'm leaving it at this, no more from me on this here, thanks all This! I wrote a topic making the anti counter site better. So far the isn't much support for that which wonders me. A lot of players seem to dislike the current meta and the power of counters. I have a suggestion for this. Make anti counters better! (and nerf some of the counters like suleiman.)
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 16, 2012 10:09:13 GMT -5
My point is really simple. I don't like it that every deck has to other pack counters or deal with counters. There used to be decks that rock paper scissors around each other, not every stray needed to have all the answers - like site or agent, rush or control. Now? Rush or control, it's counter or anti-counter. And I'm leaving it at this, no more from me on this here, thanks all This! I wrote a topic making the anti counter site better. So far the isn't much support for that which wonders me. A lot of players seem to dislike the current meta and the power of counters. I have a suggestion for this. Make anti counters better! (and nerf some of the counters like suleiman.) I don't agree with it because when cards get better to beat other better cards you'll just end up with a viscous cycle, and eventually every game is gonna come down to who draws that power card first. Or opening hand. That's not cool.
|
|
|
Post by mistervader on Jul 16, 2012 10:51:56 GMT -5
So how is the exact opposite, nerfing to uselessness, any different? People will just keep going to the next best thing until that, too, is deemed overpowered. Then we nerf again.
Counters as a mechanic are important and I see them as a glue that keeps this meta in check because a degenerate goldfishing meta would be lousy. But yeah, counters in practice, with able threats like a 2/2 body or 5 influence attached to them are a tad worrisome, because in a game where answers are needed, there currently is no way to answer a surprise, and counters are exactly that.
And the fact that Piri makes the guy with Piri a stronger counter deck is even more alarming, even if I don't think Piri itself is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Jul 16, 2012 11:20:34 GMT -5
This time I disagree with you Tuism. You are right IF Constantinople was a powerful card in itself. It is far from it. It does one thing (poorly). If you play it and the opponent does not use any counters it surely isn't going to win a game. Counters on the other hand can. I don't see buffing the effect as a game breaker. A meta bender yes, but not more than it can easily be destroyed forcing counter decks to use anti site cards. I doubt that change will have the consequences you prophesies
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Jul 16, 2012 12:09:23 GMT -5
This time I disagree with you Tuism. You are right IF Constantinople was a powerful card in itself. It is far from it. It does one thing (poorly). If you play it and the opponent does not use any counters it surely isn't going to win a game. Counters on the other hand can. I don't see buffing the effect as a game breaker. A meta bender yes, but not more than it can easily be destroyed forcing counter decks to use anti site cards. I doubt that change will have the consequences you prophesies That change alone wouldn't, but then counters will be imba weak, cos everyone and their dog will play something else. Or tons of site killing. Then agents get too strong. Then we'll need a card that's 2 and agents deal no damage. It's not too different from the concept of UBER constantinople. Etc etc etc. I don't want card to get stronger and stronger, cos that just feeds power creeping.
|
|
|
Post by The Rancord on Jul 16, 2012 12:35:58 GMT -5
the problem would be not that counters are weak, the problem is that cards like papal influence and in depth would be to strong, without anything that stops them.
|
|