Yet Another Balance Thread (June 2014)

I cant see card availability being changed, unless new, toned down variations of the old card replace some of their spots on the dreaded homogeneous items.

"Fatigue" as a buzzword gave me an interesting idea: How about a encumber effect for the character once he has used the card? So even when he has a copy of ns, he cant execute it with same amount of mobility. More drastic would be a halt or a discard, losing stuff would make sense given the "wild" and exhausting action a nimble strike or conjuring a whirlwind is. Then there was the idea of proximity dependent damage similar to charge, so nimble strikes damage varies with the steps, full damage output only with all four steps taken.

But nimble strike doesnt bother me that much, I think MF is the more prominent puzzle piece in a set of cards combined to negate any defense. While a drawn ns gets its damage in somewhere almost certainly, shutting down the steady MF buff for that hit would make a huge difference. Other Frenzies are more confined, harder to upkeep, less powerful, got drawbacks, are more complicated to apply.

If you choose to play mage, you know the step move warrior scheme from a to z, he or his pal are going to follow up the first hit with at least one or maybe two other attacks, but this time you actually got a slight chance to face the music. Moving away from a buffed striker or trying to move him is not really an option. You cant outrun the potential second ns, even when you didn't end up with your back to the wall in a futile attempt to keep some distance. So its either block or disabling them, why i would really hate to loose that essential mean of defense, SPR.

 

If I may attempt to summarize this thread as well as other recent comments in other threads on balance... (I suggest reading the following as quickly as possible for full effect):

"You know what the problem with balance is, it's whirlwind that's what the problem with balance is."
"No, it's not whirlwind, its whirlwind combined with nimble strike, that's what the problem with balance is."
"That's not the problem with balance, the problem with balance is just nimble strike."
"Nimble strike isn't the problem with balance, mass frenzy is the problem with balance."
"That's not the problem with balance, let me tell what the problem with balance is, its SPR"
"SPR isn't the problem with balance, the problem with balance is cats"
"Cats?! You're crazy, the problem with balance is that we can't agree on what the problem with balance is."
"That's not what the problem with balance is, the problem with balance is how people play."
"I know what the problem with balance is, the problem with balance is nimble but not strike."
"Nimble isn't the problem with balance, strike is the problem with balance."
"That's not the problem with balance, the problem with balance is Oozeball!"

Hope that about covers it, I look forward to another month of this until changes hit, and then another month after that about how the changes should be changed. My apologies to @Jon and the rest of the staff, you're in a never ending thankless rabbit hole.

(In no way am I trying to imply people shouldn't continue to share their thoughts, I'm just maxed out with reading them at the moment and thought I'd attempt to inject a little levity.)

 

Actually atm the problem is a problem as well. Balancing is needed.

 

You can't seriously demand unity, but there is a strong and distinguished demand, as old as the card itself, and ridiculing it and burying it among a bunch of other crap that doesn't cause remotely the same uproar is just monkeywrenching the process of dealing with it, whatever that might mean.

 

My balance is just fine thank you very much.

 

The problem is that people are not wearing enough hats.

 

The availability solution would be nice. I have said before that I would be ok with NS if it only appeared in items like Excellent Rapier, or 2 NS per weapon at most. The same goes with items with too many WW/WWe, like Rod Of Winds or Sarigo's Wand. If these items were changed in a way that you couldn't stack so much of them, maybe they would become too rare to be effective and players would stop using them so much.
The problem with this aproach is what devs have already said, that they don't want to change items because they think it would be unfair to the players that own them. So the only possible thing to do is nerfing the cards, instead of the items, despite the fact that it may not be the ideal solution.

 

Epic response to EVERYONE!

*ahem*
<------

Yes, especially with Strong Hack and Strong Bludgeon.

Card quality (color) is what determines token costs. Changing Bash from Silver Common to Bronze Rare would change Hammer Of Bashing from level 18 Rare to level 9 Legendary. That's just one example of a card that I think is badly valued (more examples to come). Changing these values will have a huge affect on item token costs and rarities, but I truly believe that is what we need the most, not weird convoluted changes to problem cards (like BM's frequent attempts to nerf draw decks). Do you think a 6x Firestorm staff should be level 0?

Way back in beta I suggested replacing duplicate item slots with new item types. I don't like my idea any more (I think we have too many different item types already), but I think having the deck builder stop you from using two copies of an item on a character would help. (And make it a whole lot easier to check for excess items.) But it won't solve all our problems because too many different items have 2x Firestorm/Wall Of Stone/etc. And we would have to be very, very careful picking which items get holiday variants.

 

The best way to balance vp is to make step attacks less necessary to play a warrior with some success.

An alternative method is to put more step attacks on more of the legendary weapons then decrease melee damage across the board (aside from bashes). This would also be nice as it is a bit frustrating having legendaries basically rot while playing commons/uncommons (bejewelled shortsword, double edged sword, blocking mace). It is nice for new players that many of the best options are common/uncommon, but that is undermined in terms of competitive balance if there is an exception (vibrant pain). In that context why not keep the commons as they are and let the epics/legendaries just be minor upgrades vs them?

Here is one example:
maybe the dragonslayer sword could be a slightly better version of double-edged sword (vs being worse and more tokens at a higher rarity) - 2x impaling stab, 2x dancing cut, 2x shred strike would make it playable.

Another option is a new uncommon/rare with 6x dancing cut for 2 gold tokens. I would play this item despite being entirely worse than vibrant pain.

 

Not saying you have any bad ideas or anything, but every time I go to a balance thread I see this in my head

 

I agree with most of Kalin's assessment. BM uses card quality and rarity to set token costs for items. If cards are re-assessed and valued correctly, some items will have to change to comply with the formula. Nimble Strike seems to meet the criteria for gold quality, and if it was increased to gold the items it is on would have to be changed to match the current tokens, or the token cost would need to be increased. This could lead to a situation where VP remains as-is, but requires to equip.
I think some epic and legendary items were specifically designed to be unplayable, and it's not a bad idea. I don't think the game was intended to be as lockstep and formulaic as many are advocating. IMO, there are a few too many jokers in the deck for it to all be accidental. While I believe some balancing is needed, I hope Jon isn't overly swayed by the input of some players. I really prefer the game to remain a little bit weird and chaotic.

 

It is easier to change the cards than to change the "cost" of the card (and thus changing every item with said card).

There is a "formula" behind the cost of the cards and what an item has. Keeping the formula is easier to deal with and simply nerfing OP cards and buffing underpowered cards is a better overall solution.

 

NS is worth more like purple not gold
And yes: what Stexe just said is what I said up there too.

 

I don't like the word "easy" here; balancing is hard, however you do it. I think that revaluing cards is simpler than changing card mechanics, but you're right that it will have more side-effects.

That's what BM has been doing, and it hasn't worked too well. I think I've witnessed at least 6 attempts to nerf draw decks (resulting in Altruism self-destructing and vampires being Talented Healers, among other silliness), and the only thing they did that actually worked was draw limits.

Only once have I seen BM change card values, which resulted in Rowan Magestaff becoming level 19 and one person made a bug report because their party became "uncertified" in the middle of a module. I really think this is what is necessary, rather than trying to buff Barge to deserve Silver and nerf Firestorm to deserve Paper.

At Gold, VP would be level 27 (); at Emerald level 36 (), and at Amethyst level 45 but we don't have even pretend tokens for weapons above level 40.

 

Well, I disagree. If they had someone full time who was a focused balance designer then they might be able to re-evaluate items on a case by case basis... but that is definitely too much work for just one or two people who are doing other things.

Balance, as well as all design, should be about solving complex problems with as simple and elegant solutions as possible. Retooling dozens or more items is much more complicated and has much more problematic outcomes if not done properly.

I've covered my pre-expansion changes in my balance threads back in late December / early January. The expansion would change it a little bit (probably some analysis on Punishing Bolt, Illusory Barrier, Sparkling Cloth Armor, and Barbed Plate potentially being OP, but I haven't done much studying of them due to the season taking place) and my experiences with the season would change it a bit (Dodge is absurdly strong on some maps). However, retooling specific items that use OP cards doesn't really solve the problem. Nimble Strike is OP on every item that has it simply because Nimble Strike is OP and undervalued. Why not just change the card's power instead of changing the card's type / rarity and then remaking every item that has it? That's a lot more work and a lot more complicated for no need.

 

We may be in violent agreement here. I want to reevaluate each card's quality (color) and rarity so that the formula that sets item level/token/rarity will work properly. Once i figure out how to kill this stupid dragon, I'll start making some new charts so it's easier to see current card values and how I want them to change.

There are also a few global changes I want to make.

• I want duplicate cards on an item to raise its level (let's say, +1 for each copy after the first 2) and I want cards to have 1 or 2 default item types, and items of other types that use it have their rarity increased (this is the opposite of how the current system works).
  
• I want card effects that destroy/replace terrain attachments to affect Wall Of Stone (I consider this more of a bug fix than balancing).
  
• I like the idea of not allowing more than one copy of an item per char (and maybe no more than one copy of a legendary per party).
  
• And, of course, I want BM to promise not to make any more single card items.

But most of the balancing will happen through changing the card values.

 

You're taking a too drastic approach to what is already a fairly well balanced game all things considered. Duplicate cards on an item increasing cost? Why? There's no real reason for that. Single card items are only good because the card itself is good -- if you reduced the power of the card it wouldn't be so strong.

Affecting Wall of Stone is in my balance change list and something I've been asking for a LONG time.

Limiting one item per character would be complicated to explain in-game and create custom UI for it. Again, there really isn't a need for it -- no one item should be so strong that people stack it and nothing but it.

 

These are the points where I strongly disagree.

 

Why do you not want terrain attachments to affect Wall of Stone?

 

Because it is intended to be blocking terrain, and I see the logic in not being able to penetrate blocking terrain with other terrain spells. I may lose to it, rage at it, and will whirlwind around it if I have any available, but I believe it is a perfectly legitimate card as-is.