Post by caitlyn0 on Apr 29, 2016 0:42:04 GMT
how to start this? lets imagine this, lets say, there were no nerfs. baduruu ravager was still roaming around. elementalis with 3cc stardust was still around. twilight aramia was still around. fire aramia was still around. loest rush with amulet was still around. banebow with 2/2 damage reduction krygon was still around. attachment lance was still around. Hamber was still around. how many decks is that so far? 8? and i wonder, how would garina lance do in that meta?
imagine those are still around, all at once, and all the other decks that disappeared because it was thought those decks unbalanced the game. so cards get nerfed and we are back to what we always have. this same dull median we have had for a very long time. nothing can rise up and change the meta because if it does, its seen as being bad for the meta, when in fact, it is good for the meta. change is good. it keeps things interesting. it keeps things new and fresh. it keeps older players interested and the player base grows instead of just being replaced by new players. a new player has that freshness, because they are new, not the game. the game needs new decks that are better than the old. or what has changed?
it hinders new deck building as well. like what is the point if you find a new great deck if its just going to get nerfed? so creativity is squashed.
this mentality to nerf things that rise to the top is wrong. especially if its to see what else rises to the top so that can be nerfed as well. and so on and so on. SF is still in beta, for almost 3 years now. its out there, being played, in 2 WCs now and its still in beta. we still have to worry about it being nerfed.
and here comes the new set, but wait, its in 3 parts now. and why? so it seems development is faster because we are getting new cards over a year to a year and a half... when all it really is doing is making us wait longer for cards. we have waited 2 and a half years for new cards and we only get 33% of them with the rest coming over the next year.
what?
but lets look at these new cards. more tribe cards, new tribes. a whole new type of card and mechanic. the first day out was it, one of them gets nerfed? or was it 3 days? but, seriously? did you have to release it as it was to begin with? how many people even got to play it? or even play against it? and it was nerfed. 3 months, 3 nerf updates pretty much and it was in testing how long? how long did we wait to get to play with new cards and then what, almost half of them get nerfed and more still will? this frustrates players and the response we basically get is: deal with it, the game is doing great. the bottom of the top 100 is at 277 which means people are playing less, but the game is doing great. of course, it will be said that its at 277 because the game is more balanced.
im tired of hearing about game balance. it is so run into the ground, just like nerfing is so run into the ground. how does the game get better, when what is deemed good at the time, gets nerfed, so what rises up to be good after, gets nerfed as well and so on and so on? and we end up with the same boring and stale meta we have had for 3 years. nothing changes. and posting stats on the new cards and how much they are used, doesnt matter when those cards maintain the 3 year old meta.
imagine if 3se Logan was still around... oh wait, he is, he is just named Garth now. is Garth to powerful? does he unbalance the meta? sure, Loan was a bit extreme back in CotC, so he was nerfed and here we are after 2 other sets were released and 3se Logan... i mean Garth, isnt unbalancing anything. and i would argue that Garth is actually better than 3se Logan because he can use ANY damage source, not just a weapon. sure, he might need two but when any damage source can be used, that dosnt even matter. and he has access to a better card pool than 3se Logan. one that is so good, that it makes 120 card decks competitive.
lands. a brand new card type and game mechanic. i am sure was worked on hard. not even 1 month out, they get nerfed to almost non-existence. why? especially when some of them needed buffs to begin with.
i am confounded, confused and just plain tired of this nerfing policy. maybe it came about to make it seem like the game was fresher or newer, like we had new cards when we didnt, i dont know. but this has to stop. its just bad for business. a lot is bad for business. still waiting on promised features like the auction house and campaigns, etc. but to not get features and to basically not get new cards because they get nerfed, is just crazy. and they are so expensive. what incentive is there to keep buying the rest of the set?
try something new, if something rises to the top, how about buffing some other cards that might counter it. what good is it to get new players, when all they really do is replace old players? the game doesnt grow, doesnt get more popular, doesnt make more money than it did in previous years.
what can it hurt? the game is dying whether the designers believe that or not and its still in beta, something gets messed up it can still be changed. there is absolutely no downside to this, whereas, there is a downside to constant nerfing.
imagine those are still around, all at once, and all the other decks that disappeared because it was thought those decks unbalanced the game. so cards get nerfed and we are back to what we always have. this same dull median we have had for a very long time. nothing can rise up and change the meta because if it does, its seen as being bad for the meta, when in fact, it is good for the meta. change is good. it keeps things interesting. it keeps things new and fresh. it keeps older players interested and the player base grows instead of just being replaced by new players. a new player has that freshness, because they are new, not the game. the game needs new decks that are better than the old. or what has changed?
it hinders new deck building as well. like what is the point if you find a new great deck if its just going to get nerfed? so creativity is squashed.
this mentality to nerf things that rise to the top is wrong. especially if its to see what else rises to the top so that can be nerfed as well. and so on and so on. SF is still in beta, for almost 3 years now. its out there, being played, in 2 WCs now and its still in beta. we still have to worry about it being nerfed.
and here comes the new set, but wait, its in 3 parts now. and why? so it seems development is faster because we are getting new cards over a year to a year and a half... when all it really is doing is making us wait longer for cards. we have waited 2 and a half years for new cards and we only get 33% of them with the rest coming over the next year.
what?
but lets look at these new cards. more tribe cards, new tribes. a whole new type of card and mechanic. the first day out was it, one of them gets nerfed? or was it 3 days? but, seriously? did you have to release it as it was to begin with? how many people even got to play it? or even play against it? and it was nerfed. 3 months, 3 nerf updates pretty much and it was in testing how long? how long did we wait to get to play with new cards and then what, almost half of them get nerfed and more still will? this frustrates players and the response we basically get is: deal with it, the game is doing great. the bottom of the top 100 is at 277 which means people are playing less, but the game is doing great. of course, it will be said that its at 277 because the game is more balanced.
im tired of hearing about game balance. it is so run into the ground, just like nerfing is so run into the ground. how does the game get better, when what is deemed good at the time, gets nerfed, so what rises up to be good after, gets nerfed as well and so on and so on? and we end up with the same boring and stale meta we have had for 3 years. nothing changes. and posting stats on the new cards and how much they are used, doesnt matter when those cards maintain the 3 year old meta.
imagine if 3se Logan was still around... oh wait, he is, he is just named Garth now. is Garth to powerful? does he unbalance the meta? sure, Loan was a bit extreme back in CotC, so he was nerfed and here we are after 2 other sets were released and 3se Logan... i mean Garth, isnt unbalancing anything. and i would argue that Garth is actually better than 3se Logan because he can use ANY damage source, not just a weapon. sure, he might need two but when any damage source can be used, that dosnt even matter. and he has access to a better card pool than 3se Logan. one that is so good, that it makes 120 card decks competitive.
lands. a brand new card type and game mechanic. i am sure was worked on hard. not even 1 month out, they get nerfed to almost non-existence. why? especially when some of them needed buffs to begin with.
i am confounded, confused and just plain tired of this nerfing policy. maybe it came about to make it seem like the game was fresher or newer, like we had new cards when we didnt, i dont know. but this has to stop. its just bad for business. a lot is bad for business. still waiting on promised features like the auction house and campaigns, etc. but to not get features and to basically not get new cards because they get nerfed, is just crazy. and they are so expensive. what incentive is there to keep buying the rest of the set?
try something new, if something rises to the top, how about buffing some other cards that might counter it. what good is it to get new players, when all they really do is replace old players? the game doesnt grow, doesnt get more popular, doesnt make more money than it did in previous years.
what can it hurt? the game is dying whether the designers believe that or not and its still in beta, something gets messed up it can still be changed. there is absolutely no downside to this, whereas, there is a downside to constant nerfing.