Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forming an Agenda
#31
(04-02-2017, 08:02 AM)Raijinili Wrote: I'd just increase the cost for Lanir and Eezic.

If no change is made to the 'reanimate' ability, then Eezic's cost should definitely be increased. In his current form he should probably cost about 12 crystals. Even then he could potentially pay for himself twice over in just his first turn. Ideally I think 'Reanimate' needs to be reworked, so it's more on par with Matriarch.

Unfortunately, Lanir cannot be fixed with a cost increase. The multiplying effect of 'gamble' is too great. A pair of Flips with just one Lanir produces 64 attack points. So, for that combination to be balanced with the rest of the game, Lanir would have to cost 30-40 gold. The devs could literally DOUBLE Lanir's cost, and he'd still be overpowered in his current form.

In their current forms Lanir and Eezic effectively break the game.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#32
(04-02-2017, 03:21 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: The devs could literally DOUBLE Lanir's cost, and he'd still be overpowered in his current form.

No, if Lanir's cost were doubled, the combo would take at least a turn, probably 2, to assemble. That's more than enough for a good deck to exploit flip's greed.
Self proclaimed Highlord of Highgrounds

I dare you to say my name properly!
Reply
#33
(04-05-2017, 11:36 AM)Impronoucabl Wrote:
(04-02-2017, 03:21 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: The devs could literally DOUBLE Lanir's cost, and he'd still be overpowered in his current form.

No, if Lanir's cost were doubled, the combo would take at least a turn, probably 2, to assemble. That's more than enough for a good deck to exploit flip's greed.

I don't understand your argument. A player could just pay for Lanir using farmers. Greed doesn't have to be a factor at all.

Let me put it to you this way:
Assume Lanir's cost is doubled (22 gold). One Lanir + two Flips would cost a total of 30 gold in that scenario.  Name another combination of ANY faction that would produce over 60 attack points for the total cost of 30 resources. It can't be done. Name another combination of ANY faction that would produce over 55 attack points for that cost. Still can't be done. 50 attack points? 45 attack points? Nope.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#34
(04-05-2017, 01:27 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote:
(04-05-2017, 11:36 AM)Impronoucabl Wrote:
(04-02-2017, 03:21 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: The devs could literally DOUBLE Lanir's cost, and he'd still be overpowered in his current form.

No, if Lanir's cost were doubled, the combo would take at least a turn, probably 2, to assemble. That's more than enough for a good deck to exploit flip's greed.

I don't understand your argument. A player could just pay for Lanir using farmers. Greed doesn't have to be a factor at all.

Let me put it to you this way:
Assume Lanir's cost is doubled (22 gold). One Lanir + two Flips would cost a total of 30 gold in that scenario.  Name another combination of ANY faction that would produce over 60 attack points for the total cost of 30 resources. It can't be done. Name another combination of ANY faction that would produce over 55 attack points for that cost. Still can't be done. 50 attack points? 45 attack points? Nope. 
so u r ignoring the existence of wounding unit? what is the point of producing so much attack power when a simple wounding unit can ruin it? oh.. i think u forgot that gamble ONLY generate that amount of attack when the number of front unit MATCHES. there are so many conditions need to be met in order to succeed in gamble and missing any 1 of it will render it useless. 2 flips + 1 lanir cost 19 resources. let see how other woudning unit cost... spike-15, rune-8, payne-5,ray-4 ,drummond-3 and list go on. any 1 of these can counter gamble with the right combination of other units. flip+lanir only will not make it competitive, and commander with reseouce+recruit at the back, double attack in front only make it viable.
Reply
#35
(04-06-2017, 09:17 AM)shaymin Wrote: so u r ignoring the existence of wounding unit? what is the point of producing so much attack power when a simple wounding unit can ruin it? oh.. i think u forgot that gamble ONLY generate that amount of attack when the number of front unit MATCHES. there are so many conditions need to be met in order to succeed in gamble and missing any 1 of it will render it useless. 2 flips + 1 lanir cost 19 resources. let see how other woudning unit cost... spike-15, rune-8, payne-5,ray-4 ,drummond-3 and list go on. any 1 of these can counter gamble with the right combination of other units. flip+lanir only will not make it competitive, and commander with reseouce+recruit at the back, double attack in front only make it viable.

The mere existence of wounding does not automatically negate cost imbalances. If this were the case, then why not create a unit that cost 4 gold and produces 40 attack -- because, hey, it might get wounded, right? There needs to be a cost/benefit balance in the game in order for it to function properly. My last post about Lanir was to illustrate that a cost increase is not a practical solution for balancing him with the rest of the HG collection.

I acknowledge that a match must occur for gamble to be triggered. But, I have two points on this:

1) The counter-argument to my position implies that Lanir+Flip is an "all or nothing" tactic. This is not the case at all. Even in the event of a mismatch they produce 16 attack for a total cost of 19 gold. This is actually on par with the rest of the HG collection. For example, Jimein cost 14 crystal and produces 12 attack. Indeed if a 16 attack unit existed in HG it would likely cost 18 or 19 resources. So, even in the event of a mismatch the Lanir+Flip combination produces an attack on par with the HG standard. In other words, "heads you win, tails you don't lose." That's not how a gamble is supposed to work.

2) We are discussing a tactic that only requires the combination of two different cards. It is not a complicated tactic that requires many conditions. Once the combination is in play, then there is a better than 50:50 chance every turn that this 16 base attack will be multiplied by 4. If you play gamble, and you are not matching at least 50% of the time, then you are doing it wrong.

So, once Lanir+Flip are in play, then half the turns they produce an attack on par with their cost, and half the turns they produce 4x that amount. This is why the combination breaks the game.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#36
(04-06-2017, 01:29 PM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote:
(04-06-2017, 09:17 AM)shaymin Wrote: so u r ignoring the existence of wounding unit? what is the point of producing so much attack power when a simple wounding unit can ruin it? oh.. i think u forgot that gamble ONLY generate that amount of attack when the number of front unit MATCHES. there are so many conditions need to be met in order to succeed in gamble and missing any 1 of it will render it useless. 2 flips + 1 lanir cost 19 resources. let see how other woudning unit cost... spike-15, rune-8, payne-5,ray-4 ,drummond-3 and list go on. any 1 of these can counter gamble with the right combination of other units. flip+lanir only will not make it competitive, and commander with reseouce+recruit at the back, double attack in front only make it viable.

The mere existence of wounding does not automatically negate cost imbalances. If this were the case, then why not create a unit that cost 4 gold and produces 40 attack -- because, hey, it might get wounded, right? There needs to be a cost/benefit balance in the game in order for it to function properly. My last post about Lanir was to illustrate that a cost increase is not a practical solution for balancing him with the rest of the HG collection.

I acknowledge that a match must occur for gamble to be triggered. But, I have two points on this:

1) The counter-argument to my position implies that Lanir+Flip is an "all or nothing" tactic. This is not the case at all. Even in the event of a mismatch they produce 16 attack for a total cost of 19 gold. This is actually on par with the rest of the HG collection. For example, Jimein cost 14 crystal and produces 12 attack. Indeed if a 16 attack unit existed in HG it would likely cost 18 or 19 resources. So, even in the event of a mismatch the Lanir+Flip combination produces an attack on par with the HG standard. In other words, "heads you win, tails you don't lose." That's not how a gamble is supposed to work.

2) We are discussing a tactic that only requires the combination of two different cards. It is not a complicated tactic that requires many conditions. Once the combination is in play, then there is a better than 50:50 chance every turn that this 16 base attack will be multiplied by 4. If you play gamble, and you are not matching at least 50% of the time, then you are doing it wrong.

So, once Lanir+Flip are in play, then half the turns they produce an attack on par with their cost, and half the turns they produce 4x that amount. This is why the combination breaks the game.
40 attack for 4 gold? come on. that is turn-2 10 city damage which is much more ridiculous that lanir+flips. can lanir + flips got pulled out in 2 turns? obviously cant. since it requires some time to setup, isn't this a good opportunity to disrupt their economy? beside, if u know they r playing gamble, and u still somehow manage to trigger their gamble more than 50%, then u should either reconsider ur playing style or change to other deck.  i mean this is game work something like rock-paper-scissor. sometime fighting scissor with bigger scissor doesnt work because there will always be another bigger scissor, use stone instead. btw, cast can generate 21 attack point with cost of 14 wood. wood and crystal r able to generate resources in front row can slow down gold generated from lanir too.
disclaimer: i have a mediocre gamble deck that consist of 2 flips, 2 lanirs and 2 stags but i dont really play this deck cause it doesnt work with veterans that i played against. probably will be a okay deck if i have suitable commander but still, meh....
Reply
#37
(04-06-2017, 05:38 PM)shaymin Wrote: 40 attack for 4 gold? come on. that is turn-2 10 city damage which is much more ridiculous that lanir+flips. can lanir + flips got pulled out in 2 turns? obviously cant. since it requires some time to setup, isn't this a good opportunity to disrupt their economy? beside, if u know they r playing gamble, and u still somehow manage to trigger their gamble more than 50%, then u should either reconsider ur playing style or change to other deck.  i mean this is game work something like rock-paper-scissor. sometime fighting scissor with bigger scissor doesnt work because there will always be another bigger scissor, use stone instead. btw, cast can generate 21 attack point with cost of 14 wood. wood and crystal r able to generate resources in front row can slow down gold generated from lanir too.
disclaimer: i have a mediocre gamble deck that consist of 2 flips, 2 lanirs and 2 stags but i dont really play this deck cause it doesnt work with veterans that i played against. probably will be a okay deck if i have suitable commander but still, meh....

40 attack for 4 gold? come on. that is turn-2 10 city damage which is much more ridiculous that lanir+flips.

Good. We agree that the mere existence of 'wound' does not negate imbalanced cost/benefit ratios.

since it requires some time to setup, isn't this a good opportunity to disrupt their economy?

That is essentially the same as the 'wound' argument. Decks containing overpowered units have no greater exposure to disruption than balanced decks do, so the existence of disruptions in no way offsets an imbalanced cost/benefit ratio. All things being equal, large cost/benefit imbalances will consistently produce skewed results. That is a statistical fact.

Hypothetical: You and I are competing with identical decks. We have the same: attackers, producers, healers, and disruptors. The only difference is that I'm using a cheat that makes the heavy attacker cost half as much for me to hire. If you manage to disrupt me enough that I am unable to hire him, does that somehow make it a fair competition? And if you were to beat me in this game would that make me any less advantaged in the next game?

beside, if u know they r playing gamble, and u still somehow manage to trigger their gamble more than 50%, then u should either reconsider ur playing style or change to other deck.

The most obvious method of avoiding 'gamble' is to only use 5 or 6 attack slots. How is that a fair fight? Especially when there is no real downside to a mismatched 'gamble' attempt as I explained in my previous post.

i mean this is game work something like rock-paper-scissor. sometime fighting scissor with bigger scissor doesnt work because there will always be another bigger scissor, use stone instead.

I really wish that were still true in Highgrounds! However, I have already proven that there is no bigger "scissor" than Lanir+Flip. I will pose the same challenge to you: name a 30-cost combination of any faction that can produce over 60 attack...55 attack...50 attack...or even 45 attack. Lanir+Flip is in a class all by itself. That is the definition of imbalanced. And, the very reason I am pushing so passionately to rebalance the game is so we can return to a "rock-paper-scissors" environment where one or two overpowered tactics no longer dominate over all others. I think we all would prefer that.

btw, cast can generate 21 attack point with cost of 14 wood.

Cast arrives 'dormant', so right off the bat he has a significant detriment that Lanir doesn't have. Regardless, assuming that a player has 2 of these Legendary cards (a scenario that likely applies to less than 5% of all players), that still only gets you to an attack of 42 points for a total cost of 28. And most importantly, Cast uses 'spearhead', so most of the attack row would have to remain empty for him to produce that much attack strength. Lanir+Flip require no such sacrifice. Plus, Cast's back row ability is much weaker than Lanir's.

wood and crystal r able to generate resources in front row can slow down gold generated from lanir too.

Sure. But, I am not arguing that Lanir's 'tax' function is imbalanced. Someone else brought up that point (though they may be right about that too). I am arguing that his 'liege' function is imbalanced.

disclaimer: i have a mediocre gamble deck that consist of 2 flips, 2 lanirs and 2 stags but i dont really play this deck cause it doesnt work with veterans that i played against.

I have 2 Lanirs as well, but I never use him in combination with 'gamble' out of consideration for my fellow players. Nor do I use Eezic for the same reason. I may actually be one of the veterans you mentioned. I beat Lanir decks from time to time (and Eezic decks as well), but I still recognize how overpowered those units are. A unit does not have to guarantee victory 100% of the time to be overpowered. Perhaps, this is where we disagree. Do you believe that a unit or combination of units has to win 100% of the time to be considered overpowered? I think most gamers would disagree with that philosophy.
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#38
(04-07-2017, 02:01 AM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: Good. We agree that the mere existence of 'wound' does not negate imbalanced cost/benefit ratios.

of course wound does not negate imbalance cost/benefit ratio but flip+lanir is not imbalance.

That is essentially the same as the 'wound' argument. Decks containing overpowered units have no greater exposure to disruption than balanced decks do, so the existence of disruptions in no way offsets an imbalanced cost/benefit ratio. All things being equal, large cost/benefit imbalances will consistently produce skewed results. That is a statistical fact.

Hypothetical: You and I are competing with identical decks. We have the same: attackers, producers, healers, and disruptors. The only difference is that I'm using a cheat that makes the heavy attacker cost half as much for me to hire. If you manage to disrupt me enough that I am unable to hire him, does that somehow make it a fair competition? And if you were to beat me in this game would that make me any less advantaged in the next game?

how is lanir+flip cheating when all of us can access to those units? furthermore, if it is that OP, why wouldnt all the players running that deck? those are certainly easier to pull from booster pack compared to eezic+jimein? the only reasoning i can think of is not everybody think lanir+flip is a deck that can win the game most of the time.

The most obvious method of avoiding 'gamble' is to only use 5 or 6 attack slots. How is that a fair fight? Especially when there is no real downside to a mismatched 'gamble' attempt as I explained in my previous post.

 why is fighting 7 units with 5-6 units consider unfair?  isnt this a strategy game? [i]do u know u can still counter flip+gamble with just 5-6 units?  beside, i can even match lanir+flip front row unit and still beat them!![/i]


I really wish that were still true in Highgrounds! However, I have already proven that there is no bigger "scissor" than Lanir+Flip. I will pose the same challenge to you: name a 30-cost combination of any faction that can produce over 60 attack...55 attack...50 attack...or even 45 attack. Lanir+Flip is in a class all by itself. That is the definition of imbalanced. And, the very reason I am pushing so passionately to rebalance the game is so we can return to a "rock-paper-scissors" environment where one or two overpowered tactics no longer dominate over all others. I think we all would prefer that.

what i mean u r fighting flip+lanir with raw power when that deck is the has the potential to generate the biggest raw power. in other word, u r using scissor to fight a even bigger scissor.


Cast arrives 'dormant', so right off the bat he has a significant detriment that Lanir doesn't have. Regardless, assuming that a player has 2 of these Legendary cards (a scenario that likely applies to less than 5% of all players), that still only gets you to an attack of 42 points for a total cost of 28. And most importantly, Cast uses 'spearhead', so most of the attack row would have to remain empty for him to produce that much attack strength. Lanir+Flip require no such sacrifice. Plus, Cast's back row ability is much weaker than Lanir's.

okay, cast does arrive in dormant state but it is cheaper that lanir+2flips and it can easily heal. cast can generate up to 21 attack power if u have full back units but it doesnt have to be generating 21 attack power all the time. i mean, having 5 units at ur back row already generating 15 attack power.which mean 2 cast in front already generating 30 attack. u have 3 more unit to spare at front, it can be blight, or ur hard hitting commander.that will generate much more attack power in total compared to just 2 cast+ 1 spearhead commander.



I have 2 Lanirs as well, but I never use him in combination with 'gamble' out of consideration for my fellow players. Nor do I use Eezic for the same reason. I may actually be one of the veterans you mentioned. I beat Lanir decks from time to time (and Eezic decks as well), but I still recognize how overpowered those units are. A unit does not have to guarantee victory 100% of the time to be overpowered. Perhaps, this is where we disagree. Do you believe that a unit or combination of units has to win 100% of the time to be considered overpowered? I think most gamers would disagree with that philosophy.

i think a unit is imbalance when u cant do anything to it. take pokemon tcg as an example. there was once a card called "shiftry" which can win the game on first turn most of the time. it was so broken that everybody was running that deck and if u happen not to use that deck,  chances r u will lose the game straight away. it was so notorious that it was banned in expanded format in TCGO. not sure whether it is still legal in legacy format but u get the idea. the thing is there r counters to lanir+flip strategy and it is not hard to do it if u know how .so how does it consider imbalance at least in current state? 
Reply
#39
of course wound does not negate imbalance cost/benefit ratio but flip+lanir is not imbalance.

I have discussed the 'gamble' issue with about a dozen different Highgrounds players. You are literally the only player I have encountered who does not believe that flip+lanir is imbalanced with the rest of the game. I respect your opinion, but I agree with the majority that flip+lanir creates a very unhealthy imbalance in the game.

The point of my hypothetical was to demonstrate that cost/benefit imbalances create an unfair competitive environment regardless of the existence of disruptions. And, that not all unfair imbalances guarantee victory 100% of the time.

furthermore, if it is that OP, why wouldnt all the players running that deck? those are certainly easier to pull from booster pack compared to eezic+jimein? the only reasoning i can think of is not everybody think lanir+flip is a deck that can win the game most of the time.

There are many reasons why players don't use Flip+Lanir every game. Here are but a few:
1) Playing the same deck every game would be incredibly boring.
2) Special city bonuses encourage players to play with a variety of cities.
3) Not all players feel the need to win at all costs.
4) Many players avoid using overpowered units because they do not want to ruin the experience for everyone else.
5) Many players generally believe in good sportsmanship and have a strong sense of fair play.
6) Many players would actually prefer to compete in a balanced competition.
7) Lanir is an ultra-rare unit. Many players do not have him in their collection.

okay, cast does arrive in dormant state but it is cheaper that lanir+2flips and it can easily heal. cast can generate up to 21 attack power if u have full back units but it doesnt have to be generating 21 attack power all the time. i mean, having 5 units at ur back row already generating 15 attack power.which mean 2 cast in front already generating 30 attack. u have 3 more unit to spare at front, it can be blight, or ur hard hitting commander.that will generate much more attack power in total compared to just 2 cast+ 1 spearhead commander.

Using YOUR OWN EXAMPLE: You claim that 2 Casts, a 'spearhead' commander, and a Blight would be a reasonable strategy for beating Flip+Lanir. I won't even presume to guess which side would win in the end. But, let's just breakdown that cost shall we...

2 Flips, 1 Lanir = 19 gold

2 Casts, a 'spearhead' commander, and a Blight = 62 wood [And that's assuming the commander has NO additional stats.]

If you cannot see the cost/benefit imbalance in YOUR OWN EXAMPLE, then there is no need to continue debating the 'gamble' issue any further.

i think a unit is imbalance when u cant do anything to it.

And, that is indeed the bottom line in this debate. We disagree on the definition of 'imbalance'. Again, I respect your opinion, and I appreciate you contributing it to this discussion. However, I do not agree that all imbalances must produce an inescapable result 100% of the time.

Imbalance - A situation is imbalanced if it's not equitable or fair. Something that's imbalanced is off-kilter or out of whack. Things that are imbalanced are out of proportion — power itself is something that's frequently imbalanced.
Source: vocabulary.com

Imbalance - lack of balance :  the state of being out of equilibrium or out of proportion
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Never argue with a hobgoblin. It'll just amuse him more.
Reply
#40
C'mon guys, we can make much better, constructive arguments.

(04-07-2017, 02:01 AM)LegendaryHobgoblin Wrote: All things being equal, large cost/benefit imbalances will consistently produce skewed results. That is a statistical fact.

All things being equal, any imbalance will consistently produce skewed results. E.g Rowa has an infinite attack to cost ratio, but you're clearly not going to complain about him.

As late-game draws closer, cost efficiency matters considerably less.

That is the weakness of lanir + gamble, in that there are several decks that can overpower even a successful gamble, but they just don't have the time to get to that point. That's the reason why increasing the cost of lanir to delay him by 2 turns (1 if you're super lucky), should be enough to balance him.
Self proclaimed Highlord of Highgrounds

I dare you to say my name properly!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)