Yet Another Balance Thread (June 2014)

"I strongly believe BM shouldn't be afraid about changing around cards and items"
Don't we all agree about this?

 

Well, not everyone is on the same line tbh. I.e. those who think toning NS (or other offending cards) down would be more preferable than changing VP around in some other way. The feedback forum is full with this sort of stuff, and pretty much everybody but my grandmother has his own ideas about what the best way to "fix the game" would be.

Similarly, there's an overabundance of people thinking that fixing balance is as simple as nerfing a few cards or <put your favorite change here>. This obviously isn't easy stuff, period.

I can truly feel Jon's dilemmas btw, he needs to solve some pretty hard problems. The guy has all of my support and respect.

So yeah, I'd be okay if Jon opted for returning to the drawing board altogether, changing card values and items around, if that meant a game more balanced, at a deeper level. As opposed to simply fixing a few problematic cards, while still negleting subtler issues which are only waiting to explode later on.

 

I doubt we'll all agree about anything. I don't have a problem with it, primarily because I think it's the best (as opposed to the easiest) way to get things sorted out. Strong items should still be strong, and probably retain most of their cards. The same basic theme, just toned down. Or up, in some cases.
I'm still anxious to see what Jon comes up with. Overall, I like the job he's done so far.

 

You know, I think I've only seen players explain to each other than Jon doesn't want to change things because it'll make players mad. I've never seen a player say that they themselves would be mad if things changed. XD

 

You can bet some people will be upset if powerful cards/items get changed. Do note I said "changed" instead of "nerfed". Players are like that, you can't make everyone happy, yada yada yada.

Although, at the same time, I also think the vast majority of the core playerbase (veterans, returning players, etc.) are mature/wise enough to understand any change in the direction of a more interesting meta takes the precedence over you having fun with your VPs or WoWs or whatever.

But again, making the game better >> having to deal with a whining minority. I'm 100% confident BM is on the same line, all they really need is our full support whenever they opt to take the "scary" path.

 

Actually, Jon said something like it himself:
"In general, we're very loath to nerf or buff any cards that are already in circulation. Although the ability to do this is open to us, every time we do so we send a subtle signal to you, the players, that you can't rely on a card or item remaining valuable after you've collected it. Many of you might be OK with this if the change improves the game overall, but some of you won't be and it actively works against the excitement of collecting.

So nerfing and buffing is like a forbidden candy for us. We'd love to be able to do it constantly to get the meta-game into the state we would ideally like it to be, but we try to restrain ourselves to only do it when we really feel that we HAVE to."

That said, we'll get a better handle on what Blue Manchu's current thinking on this is once the new balance changes Jon has talked about are revealed.

 

I remember when Jon posted that, and I still think what I thought when I first red it: is that approach (introducing new cards as the main way to fixing balance issues) sustainable, in the long run?

But yeah, I certainly agree with the overall sentiment. Nerfing, or otherwise changing existing cards and items around, is something you certainly can't abuse too lightly. This is also why fixing balance issues isn't as easy as making a few changes here and there as you see fit, there's a ton of subtle stuff to be considered.

I can't wait for knowing more about what Jon's current plans are.

 

In paper card games it's not possible to change existing cards but in online games it can and should be done when needed.

 

Personally I would see changing the OP items as more effective versus the cards themselves, if it weren't for the fact that there are too many cases of cards that can be loaded up on (Wall of Stone for example). You (well BM) would need to change it so sticking with WoS making it such that it only shows up on either staves or arcane items, an only 1 per item for Arcane or 2 per item for staves. That would be a LOT of changes and that is only 1 card. Then add to that the biggest replay factor for this game AND (likely) the biggest revenue generator is the desire to get new items, there is a significant risk to changing items and alienating long time players with significant collections and could turn-off new players who would be worried that they would have items changed and that the game is unstable.
So if you then change the cards there are some of the same potential issues, but it is a much smaller degree of changes and will more directly impact game play. The degree of impact (either positive or negative) is much higher than changing just the items. Of course BM could could do a combination of the 2 which might be effective, but is just a combo of the potential issues.
Then you have the expansion additions which you can add balance by introducing new items/cards to try to balance game play. Some of the AotA additions were welcome, but none did much to address the biggest issues commonly discussed. Again you could add cards/items specific to countering the current OP cards/items as they currently exist and not affect anything that currently exists.
But the one idea which I have yet to see discussed (other than to say it can't be done) is to have restricted cards. Card restrictions in this game are based on the items they exist on but certainly (to use WoS or WW or WWE for example) you can have a lot of certain cards which are very powerful. I don't know the programming aspect of this (and I am sure it is not as simple as a few lines of code) but to have certain cards which are marked as restricted (perhaps with 2 levels of restriction) that you can only have up to 3 or 6 per character (6 to allow a VP to be playable). This could be done in the character build phase and would be the final remedy for OP cards/items without actually changing them. This is something that is done in MtG and while sometimes it is annoying, you don't feel like you have lost out being able to use a card you like, it is just limited now. I think this would make WW and WoS much less spamable, although I still dont think it solves the VP is overpowered issue, but it does limit it.

I am sure there are other ways to bring balance. I have been tinkering with the idea of a 4th character class the Rogue, who only uses ranged weapons (bows an throwing weapons) cannot use armor, but can equip 1 shields, 1 boots and 3rd hybrid boots or shield slot, and has rougish items such as poisons (with no initial damage but attachment damage over time), poisonous traits (add poison damage to attacks), stuns, pushes and armor destruction... well I dont have time to go into it, but variety always reduces anything from being OP.

 

Restrictions on the number of identical cards in a deck has been discussed occasionally, but it isn't a very popular idea. I personally don't like it, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work. I think having cards properly valued in relation to thier impact on play is a better solution. Players may then stack as many as they can of whatever they like, but that won't be very many for powerful cards.

 

But CH features a mechanic for restricting the number of cards in a deck already. It's none other than the "items = your deck" system itself (one of CH's most unique and greates features, if you ask me). Imposing an additional layer of restrictions to deck-building would, in my humble opinion, make the system less elegant and more complex to grasp. Furthermore, it would be completely unnecessary (since, if you identify you can have too many of any given cards, you can simply modify items to put things back in line).

Okay, I agree with the overall sentiment, but I don't think making far fetched assumptions would help the discussion in any way.

How many items feature Nimble Strike? 14
How many WW/WWE? 11 (the former) and 8 (the latter). In total, 15 items (because of some overlap).
SPR? 19
Punishing Bolt? 7
Wall of Stone? 15
Winds of War? 13

Now, for the sake of not turning this silly post of mine in a wall of text, let us pretend these 7 cards are the only cause of imbalance in CH (this obviously isn't the case, but these probably are the most serious offenders, and the figures wouldn't grow much larger even if we considered other problematic cards).

We are looking at a whooping 84 items which might (potentially) require changes. Is this really that astonishing a number? Actually, nope, that isn't, especially when you consider the number of items in the game: 1742 item. So, in short, we're hypothetically speaking about messing with 4.822% of the items-pool as a whole.

Ofc, it goes without saying, the fact one of the cards being examined appears on an item doesn't automatically mean the item needs a change. Talking about NS, it's apparent that only a bunch of items (out of the 14 featuring it) would really need being changed. This is assuming you don't consider, say, Excellent Rapier (actually a fine weapon for it's token cost) as serious an offender as VP or LA.

So, realistically speaking, we're looking at a very small set of items (when compared to the pool as a whole) which would need some major change of sorts. This is of course assuming the devs only changed items which ended up being a bit too good for their tokens cost, or items which simply shouldn't otherwise exist in their current shape or form.

If, otherwise, we're to re-consider card quality/rarity across the board and then adjusting items accordingly (something I would honestly prefer), then we would be looking at a larger-scale design work. Keep in mind though, if you're willing to make such changes, it's because the return of investment (fixing the game balance in a much more solid way) is probably very much worth it.

I'd point out why I think fixing balance by only/mainly introducing new card isn't an entirely good idea (and of course this is only my opinion), but I'll leave that for another post.

 

Who doesn't like punishing bolt?

I still think it would be a lot more work to change items over cards and I would feel more slighted to have MY items changed over having a specific card changed.
Changing about 5% of the items is fairly significant, even if it would likely be closer to 3-4%.

Personally I am not worried specifically about items which are too good for their token cost. There should be some inefficencies in the game. But what I beleive is that having a high frequency of the most powerful cards is the problem. Imagine if you will you are playing a racing game with nitro boosts. If you can have enough nitros that you are boosted for the entire race it becomes foolish. If you are able to use top 10 cards again and again during a match it is like running nitros the whole time. I am a bigger fan of clever play and unique card combinations added to the mildly overvalued build. Righ now in MP we have top players who have builds that are so far superior it is like racing a sports car against a race car.

 

The point being, changing a card around affects 100% of the items holding that card (in any number). Sure, editing a card is definitely "easier" than bringing a bunch of items back to the drawing board, but I wouldn't say it would have less of an impact of the item pool (and, consequentially, the meta) as a whole. Actually quite the contrary.

If I had a VP, I would be far happier if [WARNING: totally random and unreasonable balance-change follows] the devs made it 4x NS 1x Penetrating Lunge 1x Trip, rather then if they simply nerfed NS down. In the first case, I'd end up with a different item but (hopefully) a viable one still I can use in my builds. In the latter, the item might very well be rendered nearly useless (depending on how severe the nerf is), possibly making me drop it altogether.

Keep in mind, changing NS is going to affect all 14 items holding at least a copy of it (as opposed to changing VP and Loch only, which would leave all other items unchanged). I realize this was a poorly put-together example, but I hope you can see nerfing a card isn't as simple as waving a magic wand around and looking every balance issue magically going back into place.

Also, if BM opted to go the way of changing the offending items only, I'd say less then 3% of the items would need significant work, possibly about 50 items, total. I can fire up my wiki skills and bring more solid data to the table if that'd be useful/interesting in any way or fashion.

 

I agree with you, as I have said, I'll be ok if NS only appeared in balanced items. The problem is the abuse of this card, so changing the items instead of the card itself is a viable nerfing option, just as viable as nerfing the card. Actually, maybe better, because if we don't want one item (VP) to be clearly above the rest, just nerfing NS would downgrade it a bit but it would probably be the best item anyway, just not as good as before.
Another aproach is taking both paths, which is not something crazy if we remember what the devs did with Demon Charm Of The 2nd Circle, which was the most important nerf made so far (excluding beta): they didn't only nerf the cards (all of them) that the item contained, but also they changed the drawback card to make the item even worse (= more balanced). So, I don't see why we couldn't ask for changing VP and NS at the same time.

 

Yes of course, changing both cards and items around is a perfectly viable option the devs should be ready to use if the situation is bad enough.

As a matter of fact, I'd say the dynamics brought to the game by WWs are very similar to what happened with the draw engine build: not only a deck built around those two cards can be quite effective, even worse, it also makes for very frustrating matches for the opposing player.

Maybe BM even went a tinsy bit overboard with the draw engine nerfs (and, nowadays, you rarely see any of those cards ever being played, save for Altruism). I would like to still see WWs being used (and in a viable fashion, even), only not so prominently that you find yourself having to deal with it every other MP game.

Regarding all other cards currently being considered OP by most players, I firmly believe fixing a few itemization issues would probably be enough to put balance back in check. Interestingly, WWs, NS, MF and SPR all share a considerable amount of interplay, and you almost always see all of those being played together to terribly effective results. If my intuition is right, a minimal amount of changes on the itemization level would be enough for making things much more manageable. If that wouldn't be enough, the devs could then opt taking more serious measures (i.e. card changes across the board) in consideration.

Anyways, I didn't mean to bring the discussion on the "name your preferred blance-fixes" level yet again. Just trying to stress the fact BM shouldn't be overly afraid of fixing evident itemization issues. Actually, this might be the perfect chance for cutting all the loose ends once and for all, so they might as well go full speed with it (fixing card qualities/rarities while the pool is still manageable in size) and call it a day.

 

Thinking about this some more tonight.

What if the item level formula looked at how many copies of each different card on the item, subtracted 2, and added that to the item level? Examples:
6x A = +4
3x A, 3x B = +2
1/1/1/1/1/1 = -6
Basically, we'd increase the level of consistent items and lower the level of inconsistent ones.

I don't think I've mentioned this yet (in this thread), but I really dislike the whole idea of introductory levels. (Did you know that it's absolutely impossible to get a Giant Skeletal Arm or St Ulrich's Bones in a random SP chest? Both of those items have cards that require a renown above 20.) We should just drop that whole concept and adjust card quality if needed.

I wish we could get rid of the +/- value too, but we don't have enough quality levels for everything, so I'll settle for making that value visible to the player somehow. Maybe a stripe of color on the title bar?

 

First example that came to my mind: does whiteglow flail deserves this buff?

 

In all honesty, and leaving the issues with card quality/rarity being all over the place, I don't think the itemization system has anything inherently wrong with it.

It's more like, some human judgement is needed in order to fine-tune the system's output. I'm not intimately familiar with the item formula, but making multiple copies of a card inflate items values further would have its good share of issues (Squidy pointed out an example, but also keep in mind all those items with 3x of a card which are absolutely fine and would be penalized further by such a change, possibly turning those in overvalued items. It's a dog going for his own tail).

Somebody suggested the devs should manually adjust the formula's output for those items which end up having a problematic value (sorry, don't remember who suggested this nor have the time to search for the post). Well, I agree this would probably be the most effective way to go, because no matter how good your formula is, you would always end up with edge-cases of over/undervalued items.

The interesting thing is, the devs seem to have such a system in place already ('Manual Rarity' and 'Manual Value' columns in equipment.cvs), only they haven't made use of it yet.

 

I'm sorry to disagree, but I don't think this is a good idea, Kalin. I really don't see having multiples of the same card on an item as being particularly powerful unless the cards are undervalued, and I believe using a broad brush approach would make matters worse.

These are the arcane items I have with 3 identical cards:
Amulet Of Blades, Luke's Iron Hand, Miligar's Dragon Tongue, Twizel's Stone Talisman, Sander's Force Mirror, Smoag's Bucket Of Pitch, Acidic Gland, Blazing Stone, Copper Amulet, Copper Zapping Wand, Horn Of Acid, Magma Spiral, Arcane Crown, Destructive Wand, Penetrating Chain.
Some of these are playable, but most are junk.

It probably wouldn't matter if the level of the Ring Of Bifurcated Healing was increased, because I doubt anyone plays it anyway. Twin Heals sucks, and having 3 on an item is just sucking cubed.

An example of a mix of cards being better than identical cards is the Reliable Axe vs. the Hefty Chopper. The buffs from Strong Chop make the chopper a better weapon, but reliable would be assigned a higher level under the system you propose.

 

This is a good point, and I agree that fixing the card values needs to be done first. My idea was mostly an attempt to do the opposite of the current system which increases the rarity of consistent items. I also wanted to make the more unusual items more attractive, but I haven't actually looked at the consequences of any of my changes yet. Does anyone want to put together a script or spreadsheet that would show the results of changing formulas and card values? (I almost got one to work for the current item level formula, but whatever I did there were always some boots that were wrong.)