Lightmare Community Forums

Infinity Wars => Cards and Factions => General Game Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rankelthorn on November 21, 2013, 03:35:16 PM

Title: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Rankelthorn on November 21, 2013, 03:35:16 PM
Soldier Of The Wall
Character - Human
    2 Resources
    4 Morale Loss
    3 Power
  10 Health
    1 Purity DoD
      Common

(If someone is able to fill in the picture of the card here i would appreciate it)

I feel this Card is greatly underused at the moment. I do not recall ever seeing it even once in a game.

This is for one reason mainly in my opinion:
For the same price you can have the Invincible Defender.
You loose 2 Health, but you gain Vigilance and a special ability that stacks extremely well with many DoD playstyles.

Since the Soldier Of The Wall does not have Vigilance:
1. He has to compete with enemy 3-Resource-Characters i Round 3
2. The Player may have to take a hit in round 2 because he played the Soldier instead of Defender
3. He can be buffed with Daode in turn 3, because he couldn't defend and die, and then has 13 HP (Pluspoint here)

I suggest changing the Soldier Of The Wall.
There are several ways  that could be taken to balance the Soldier
 a. Add Special Ability
 b. Change Cost of Morale or Resources
 c. Change Accessibility by adding purity
 
Id say lets do all of that.

My first Suggestion is the Following:

Soldier Of The Wall Mark2A
Character - Human
    2 Resources
    5 Morale Loss
    3 Power
  10 Health
    2 Purity DoD
Vigilance
      Common

This way it would be a powered up version of the Invincible, without the Morale Ability.
It still would not however replace all of them, since only 3 can be had in a deck.
Also screwing it up to 2 Purity means that you have to play mostly DoD to use the card,
which is now a pretty strong early game tank.

It however may be a little too strong against Flamedawn rush for example, since it can easily kill 3 Aspirants before dieing,
thats a balance issue, still I would think it may be valid.

Soldier Of The Wall Mark2B
Character - Human
    3 Resources
    4 Morale Loss
    3 Power
  12 Health
    2 Purity DoD
Vigilance
      Common

This one would go a little more into the Tanking Capability against enemies with 10 Power.
This one goes more into the territory of Gao Han with the Vigilance and Resource-Cost of 3.
It is however way weaker than him in Attack, while having slightly more HP.

These are my 2 suggestions.
Let me know what you think about my points here.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Teremus on November 21, 2013, 11:10:34 PM
Vanilla cards must exist. Plain and simple.

I won't go into the concept, but this is something that exists in every TCG that has ever existed whether the players have realized it or not. It is necessary in Card Game design to have vanilla, and basic cards.

Sorry if you disagree.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Kindran on November 21, 2013, 11:17:24 PM
Not every card is there to be used later on in the game. As Terror Moose said, there will always be cards that exist which are weaker versions of others. You can call these starter cards if you want, but not everything needs to be buffed for usefulness.

Also, do not mistake this in a way for power creeping. This is not what makes the difference between cards like Invincible Defender - Soldier of the Wall, Flame Dawn Aspirant - Flame Dawn Footman, and many others.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: TimetoSplit on November 21, 2013, 11:21:27 PM
I like this card as it is.  If you are able to keep up a consistent defense OR play with Heaven's Bell, then the lack of vigilance is not an issue.  +1/+2 over Invincible Defender is pretty significant.

Also, sometimes vigliance is bad (when you want to play your character but do not want it defending that turn) and if you're playing DoD in a deck that wants to attack (like aggro or midrange with DoD) then this guy is great because of the higher stats - you would only be playing him because he's a highly efficient defender with some power (for attacking!) for only 2 cost.  When you're not sure whether you'd want to attack or defender, he's better than Invincible Defender.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Salteador Neo on November 22, 2013, 08:31:43 AM
I use three of these guys in some deck of mine, maybe in more than one.

I like it. It's plain and simple and it does what I want it to do.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: azetsu on November 22, 2013, 09:49:25 AM
Vanilla cards must exist. Plain and simple.

I won't go into the concept, but this is something that exists in every TCG that has ever existed whether the players have realized it or not. It is necessary in Card Game design to have vanilla, and basic cards.

Sorry if you disagree.

I have no problem with plain and simple cards, but imo it needs some number tweaks. (maybe less morale or more health)
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Rankelthorn on November 22, 2013, 10:22:21 AM
Im got nothing against Vanilla Cards in general,
but having a 'weaker version' of an unlimited card is not really usefull.

As i said, I do not think the Soldier is per sé weaker than the Defender, he just has many of the same uses and his increased stats dont seem to make up for the lack of Vigilance in most peoples eyes.
I have never seen him in battle Salt, and if you have him in a deck that is not really disproving my point,
I would however like to see him more, since its a beautiful card.

But what I was getting at is that the difference between Flamedawn Aspirant and Flamedawn Footman is Significant.
The Footman is Heatwave-Immune and Invincible Defender-Immune, that is highly significant for a Flamedawn player.

As i laid out the difference between the Soldier of the Wall and the Defender is far less immediate and far less pronounced.

What I see in IW is that virtually no cards are never seen in battle, with a handfull exceptions.
I think having no cards that no one plays is a good thing, else its a waste of good artwork.

When i am proposing changing the Soldier keep in mind that raising Purity means that not in every deck that has DoD there will be 3 Soldiers now,
but it would be a little incentive to play higher purity.

It does not have to be with added Vigilance of course, those were just 2 Versions that I think could work,
if you have different Ideas on how changing him would make him more viable fire away.

Lets keep him Vanilla then, but give him stats that make him more worthwhile, maybe higher costs and higher Health or something like that.
If that means he gets out of the niche that is already filled by the DoD unlimited character I am all for it.

Soldier Of The Wall Mark2C
Character - Human
    3 Resources
    4 Morale Loss
    4 Power
  12 Health
    1 Purity DoD
      Common
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: daymost on November 22, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
I think the problem is that he does not trade will with other characters. However by Increasing his attack by 1 so he becomes a 4/10 gives him significant trading power as there a lot of 4 and 8 HP characters that he can trade with. He would be at least on part with his Flame Dawn 2 cost vanilla brother.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Salteador Neo on November 22, 2013, 10:02:36 PM
If seriously no one else uses it (and I can believe that from my own experience) it may end up needing some tweak. But the cost 2 is what makes it cool in my eyes, can't possibly change that t.t
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Adorabear on November 23, 2013, 09:51:04 AM
Ill be honest this card is totally underpowered and flavorless, invincible defender fills its role better in every way. Probably needs to be somehow reworked or given some sort of niche ability. Like invincible has TWO niche abilitys vigilance and a moral mechanic.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Rankelthorn on November 23, 2013, 11:09:48 AM
daymost is right about the trading part, raising the strength by one would make him way more viable
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: moominpeter on November 23, 2013, 12:52:37 PM
Make him 4/10. He kills a few things in one hit, then, and he trades with Knight of the Flame Dawn after two attacks. Also trades with 8/8 cards after two attacks. Still gets eaten by a lot of WP cards. I think at 4/10 he would be very playable but hardly overpowered.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: DrayGon777 on November 23, 2013, 09:30:08 PM
I would agree, and I'd even go so far as to say he might also be able to go up to a 3 cost at that point, though that may defeat the purpose of raising his attack.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: AAAAANNNTS on November 24, 2013, 02:18:40 AM
Hello, everyone.

Let me end this thread and change your lives forever by addressing your problems.


Soldier of the Wall is a bad card:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5


Soldier of the Wall is a simple card:

http://www.gatheringmagic.com/nickvigabool-design-analysis-05202013-value-of-vanilla-creatures/

and the first segment of
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr80


Soldier of the Wall is gathering dust in collections, but he's not doing his job poorly.  You all just misunderstand his job.  Not to mention, once Limited formats roll around, you might someday find yourself in a situation where you're happy to see this guy.  There's probably a slew of articles about relative power levels in Limited formats, but that's not relevant in Infinity Wars yet (cough, cough, devs  :D).
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: daymost on November 25, 2013, 03:29:50 AM
But Infinity Wars is not Magic the Gathering and it does not need to have bad cards. It’s an online TCG and has the ability to fix its cards unlike Magic. I not saying that every card has to be competitive some are there just to be fun but no card should just be bad. I do agree with you that Soldier of the Wall is a card for Limited formats and will see more play there but even in the Limited he is not on par with other Limited cards.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: soulmilk on November 25, 2013, 09:20:07 AM
I kinda feel 4/10 is a little too strong so I am thinking 4/8 might be good.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Rankelthorn on November 25, 2013, 10:07:36 AM
Soldier Of The Wall Mark2D1
Character - Human
    2 Resources
    4 Morale Loss
    4 Power
  9 Health
    1 Purity DoD
      Common

Soldier Of The Wall Mark2D2
Character - Human
    2 Resources
    6 Morale Loss
    4 Power
    10 Health
    2 Purity DoD
      Common

I have to agree with daymost on AAAAANNNTS's post.
Never really was a fan of the piles of cards from magic that were basically useless.
IW is different to me in many ways, and the fact that most every card is playable is one of them.

Couldn't the Soldier Of The Wall have a small ability that stacks somehow with the Great Wall Of Jinhai?
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Erlaya on November 25, 2013, 11:05:56 AM
You're never going to make it so that every card is useful.  It's a physical impossiblity in a TCG that doesn't make you use all of the cards in your deck.  If you buff Soldier of the Wall too much it becomes better than Invincible Defender and if you don't then people just play Invincible Defender.  While right now there are not that many cards competing for spots.  In another 100 cards or maybe another 220 cards who knows.  Suddenly you have 100 cards competing for about 12 spots in a deck (remember multiples).  Are you just going to keep buffing the 80 that don't make the cut and power creep the crap out of your game?

I'm pretty sure this was part of the point he was making in those blogs is that a card game NEEDs cards that aren't the BEST cards in the game.  Cards that people use early on but as their collection grows they phase out.  Also I'd like to point out that Soldier of the Wall does have a very good Niche atm.  He is waaay better for a shrine deck that invincible defender as he can't die to double Yuanshi and he doesn't play out into the combat zone. 

I recommend against making any changes to this card.  No reason to.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: daymost on November 25, 2013, 07:04:42 PM
I think we are arguing two different points Erlaya so I try to make my point cleaner. I don’t think Lightmare should make cards that are purposely bad just to have bad cards in the game. I don’t mind cards just there to be fun to build around or over the top like Virus of Avarrach. What I do want is from Soldier of the Wall is to be on par with cards like itself for its set and block. I feel Soldier of the Wall is not on par and could use just a small boost.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Rankelthorn on November 26, 2013, 11:40:20 AM
To underline why the fact that the Soldier Of The Wall is vanilla is NOT the reason I want him to be changed.

Here is the complete List of all of our other vanilla cards:

Soldier Of Fortune
One Of Many
(Beast Of Burden)
Flame Dawn Footman
Knight Of The Flame Dawn
(Vanguard Knight)
Unstable Demon

Of which I do not really consider Vanguard Knight and Beast Of Burden to be Vanilla, since their Morale value is zero.
Vanilla does not really exist in IW because of the morale system in my opinion, as it does in MTG.

All of these cards I think are viable.
(although I never see any Vanguard Knights around sadly, Flame Dawn Rush just can not expend thought on caring for morale it seems)

All of the listed cards are either really strong, or at least very cost-efficient.

Soldier of the Wall is not cost-efficient, since within DoD it has to compete with the Invincible Defender, and Gao Han.
If combined with Flamedawn it has to compete with the Knight of the Flame Dawn,
if combined with Warpath it may have to compete with Caretaker Of The Young,
if combined with Genesis it has to compete with all other cards for being buffed up,
if combined with Sleepers it may have to compete with Risen Of Avarrach and Infectious Zombie,
if combined with Exiles it has to compete with Hell's Gambler and Unstable Demon.

All of the listed cards are better choices in most any case and strategy,
since if you for example buff a Knight of the Flame Dawn up with Daode he will probably be a lot more dangerous than the Soldier Of The Wall if that one is buffed.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: WWKnight on November 27, 2013, 12:34:04 AM
A digital card game doesnt not mean it can "fix" cards.  Once IW goes live, a printed card will stay that way forever.

Why?  Because Agent Coyle was a heaping pile of steaming puffy.  I traded them away for next to nothing.  THen the card got changed.  It is now one of hte most valuable and sort after cards in the set. 

As a consumer, this leaves me with a terrible taste in my mouth.  I should have known better, beta is beta.  But once the game goes live, people will not be putting up with that, and a released card will be assumed to be thoroughly tested, and not changing.  Id sooner see cards get banned in play than changed.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: daymost on November 27, 2013, 04:24:50 AM
Are you sure about that Knight? I was under the impression that’s one’s cards are printed only small changes will be done to them. I understand it’s important for cards to stay the same for trading, but isn’t balance important too? This is just my personal opinion but I don’t mind trading to be a bit unstable if it makes a more balance game.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: TimetoSplit on November 27, 2013, 07:51:48 AM
A digital card game doesnt not mean it can "fix" cards.  Once IW goes live, a printed card will stay that way forever.

Why?  Because Agent Coyle was a heaping pile of steaming puffy.  I traded them away for next to nothing.  THen the card got changed.  It is now one of hte most valuable and sort after cards in the set. 

As a consumer, this leaves me with a terrible taste in my mouth.  I should have known better, beta is beta.  But once the game goes live, people will not be putting up with that, and a released card will be assumed to be thoroughly tested, and not changing.  Id sooner see cards get banned in play than changed.

Balance = way more important than trade value.  Besides, all those people who had those previously not-so-valuable cards will then have valuable ones.  So it depends which side you're on.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Kindran on November 27, 2013, 08:10:51 AM

Balance = way more important than trade value.  Besides, all those people who had those previously not-so-valuable cards will then have valuable ones.  So it depends which side you're on.

WWKnight has a solid point. Even if the people profited on one side, the other side still lost. To some balance > trade value but in a game like this changing the value of cards can make you lose a lot of followers. These changes, if any are made when Infinity Wars goes live, need to be done on the side of extreme caution. There are many people that value the worth of cards much more than balance. Most of the time because they don't play at the tip top in the competitive scene where people care about balance more so than anything else.

Once someone is displeased they will find another game out of the millions of others instead. If enough people leave then who would we have to play with? TCG's are as much a collectors hobby as it is a competitive game. We have both sides of the coin, and if one side is taken away the other cannot exist.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: TimetoSplit on November 27, 2013, 09:00:53 AM

Balance = way more important than trade value.  Besides, all those people who had those previously not-so-valuable cards will then have valuable ones.  So it depends which side you're on.

WWKnight has a solid point. Even if the people profited on one side, the other side still lost. To some balance > trade value but in a game like this changing the value of cards can make you lose a lot of followers. These changes, if any are made when Infinity Wars goes live, need to be done on the side of extreme caution. There are many people that value the worth of cards much more than balance. Most of the time because they don't play at the tip top in the competitive scene where people care about balance more so than anything else.

Once someone is displeased they will find another game out of the millions of others instead. If enough people leave then who would we have to play with? TCG's are as much a collectors hobby as it is a competitive game. We have both sides of the coin, and if one side is taken away the other cannot exist.

Changes in value happens in EVERY TCG.  Wizards bans a card = value decreases massively.  New combo comes out with an ancient card = value rises drastically.  Card rotates out = massive drop in value.  Balance changes are just our equivalent of these types of changes in value.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Erlaya on November 27, 2013, 10:27:30 AM
Actually they are not.  Restricted = Our Restricted...Rotating Cards = Us rotating cards...Top players discover new combo = our Top Players discover new combo...Balance Changes don't exist in MTG as we are discussing.  Not once the card is printed anyway.  It is a facet of DTCGs that is different than any paper TCG.  It would be the same as halfway through the 2014 block Wizards decides that X card is too OP so any boosters you open from now on will contain a new redesigned version of card X btw all those ones you payed for in the last six months?  Throw them away because they are useless now.  Wizards would lose so many players if they did something like this and so will we.  We CAN do balance changes but they need to be done with extreme caution once you go live.

Edit: Actually it would be like them replacing the old version of the card for free but you are forced to replace them and have no say in the matter.  But you just ruined a card that a lot of people enjoyed playing with and since you were forced to change it you can't even play with the old version of the card without using a Proxy.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: AAAAANNNTS on November 27, 2013, 10:38:33 AM
Wow, Erlaya, beat me to the punch.  Posting this anyway since I spent too much time on it.

Changes in value happens in EVERY TCG.  Wizards bans a card = value decreases massively.  New combo comes out with an ancient card = value rises drastically.  Card rotates out = massive drop in value.  Balance changes are just our equivalent of these types of changes in value.

In TCGs with ever-growing card pools, card values do indeed change all the time.  However, there are subtle differences between these types of changes.

Bannings are typically the most ugly changes, as it's basically the developers admitting to players "Well, we screwed up."  Bannings typically cause card values to plummet, harming players who devoted their resources to obtaining them.  Even though bannings should be expected as a possibility, it still seems like a breach of trust, or at least a great disservice to the game's involved supporters.

New combos coming out actually has a pretty positive effect on games.  It rewards players who see potential in underused cards, who bet that something just doesn't have the right support, that something is waiting to be unlocked by a future addition.  It generates new creative deckbuilding space without adding as much new content.

Card rotations are healthy for competitive environments, but also can have effects on card values, especially on cards that excel in Standard but hold no traction in eternal formats.  However, these devaluings are easily anticipated with rotation calendars being available, allowing savvy players to unload on their money cards before rotation, and allowing poverty casual players to pick up these cards after rotation at discounted prices.

Balance changes are kind of a recent concept in this age of digital card games (at least to me, anyway), but they seem more akin to bannings than to any of the other changes.  Whereas cards can be reevaluated by players or have their time in the limelight run out, them being altered has more of the "we screwed up" vibe to it, with the unsavory investor experiences mentioned prior.

CAVEAT:  This is a beta.  Investing real money in beta games, where your products are still subject to drastic, unpredictable changes, has been historically risky.

DOUBLE CAVEAT:  This is a game made by humans.  Cool, but fallible humans.  Since Lightmare seems to know what they're doing, I'm sure they will do everything possible to not screw up once they get out of beta.  But when (not if) they do, the methods they use to deal with their failures will help define how they treat their community, and in turn, will decide how secure people feel their invested time and money will be.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: WWKnight on November 27, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
A digital card game doesnt not mean it can "fix" cards.  Once IW goes live, a printed card will stay that way forever.

Why?  Because Agent Coyle was a heaping pile of steaming puffy.  I traded them away for next to nothing.  THen the card got changed.  It is now one of hte most valuable and sort after cards in the set. 

As a consumer, this leaves me with a terrible taste in my mouth.  I should have known better, beta is beta.  But once the game goes live, people will not be putting up with that, and a released card will be assumed to be thoroughly tested, and not changing.  Id sooner see cards get banned in play than changed.

Balance = way more important than trade value.  Besides, all those people who had those previously not-so-valuable cards will then have valuable ones.  So it depends which side you're on.

You new to the tcg genre I take it?

A tcg rises and falls not on game balance, but on its secondary market. If IW cannot create a healthy, stable secondary market, the game will not make it big. Shadow Era, Kingdoms CCG, Hearthstone. These are games that are great to play, but will only hold a token following because there is no way to turn what you open into anything else. Infinity wars was revolutionary because it promised a dTCG exerpience that allowed a secondary market to grow around it.

Now, you may not be one who wants to turn a profit. You just want to build the decks you love and enjoy the game. That's what I'm like too. But if I were to play, say, the might and magic card game, to make the deck I want I'd have to buy boosters after boosters, hoping to open the random card I need. Same with hearthstone, and the other games I mentioned. A secondary market allows me to find the specific cards I need, spend far less money, and build the deck I want to play.

Lightmare cannot do this, because then they set the value of the market, and it may as well be printing money. This is bad for the consumer because the game is then pay to win.

A stable secondary market is vital for a tcg to thrive. Balance, also. But it's the job of the QA testers to make sure all the cards in new sets after the game goes live. It's the job of lightmare to ensure the customers get what they pay for, and keep it that way.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Antimon on November 27, 2013, 07:55:23 PM
It's obvious that you all have a lot of experience with TGCs, those are all important points. I have several months of experience with IW now. I watched lot of streams and videos of other TCGs and CCGs during that time, but I didn't play any of those games simply because they all look too simple and limited compared to IW.
I do have more experience with online games though. And this is also an online game, which is something that I think has a deeper impact and isn't considered enough in the posts above.
It's arguably safe to assume that this won't be the first online game for most players. Patches and balance changes are very common in these games, so it can't be too surprising that these things also happen in IW. That these patches are necessary is probably the inevitable result of the fact that these games constantly generate new content. The time frame for the next release is always tight which limits the time available for QA testing.

My pragmatic view:

Experience teaches us that the QA testers can't catch all issues on the internal test server. They can even be the cause of balance issues (e.g. the 8 cost Jubalia). The question isn't if balance issues will occur on the live servers after the beta. The questions are when and how often.

From there on you don't have too many options:

1. No changes. Leave everything as it is. Cards that are too weak will simply be ignored by the playerbase. That is an undesirable situation for Lightmare as it means that the resources spent on the development of this card were wasted. Cards which overperform can have different negative effects on gameplay, depending on severity. Minor cases limit the variety of decks you play and encounter in the game. Not a big problem at first, but long term it makes the game a bit boring and more predictable (e.g. Knight of the Flame Dawn - before his nerf there was hardly any Flame Dawn Deck that didn't use him in command).
The old Lethargy Stone + Sinister corruption or the breeder without resource cost however quickly became a major annoyance.
Also, things can get worse over time as more and more issues pile up. Worst case a synergy with a new card appears someday and the issues can't be ignored any longer (monkey breeder).

2. Ban the card.
An unusable card - in this case you can just as well delete the card from the players' collections. Lightmare will have to deal with refunds for the affected players (and you can expect extended discussions on the amount of the compensation). Again, resources spent on the card in question will have been wasted.
This doesn't solve the problem at all.

3. Patch the card.
I understand the concerns about trade values. But negative experiences in this regard can be minimized. Emphasize the digital in dTCG. Make sure the players know that this evolution in TCGs gives the development team the ability to balance the game better than any other card game before. And they're going to use this ability when it's necessary.
Don't get me wrong. When it's necessary. That doesn't mean all the time or repeatedly.
Ideally the QA team finds most of the issues so they can be fixed on the test server. The majority of cards (like >90%) should be fine when they are released on the live server. For the remaining cards that need more work I demand that a proper solution is developed and tested on the test server. On the live server only one patch should be required to fix a card.
That should provide enough security so that trade doesn't suffer from balance patches.
If Lightmare wants to inform players as early as possible to prevent them from making mistakes in their trades, then they can do this:
Split the Known issues list and add a section "cards under supervision", with a caption like "we are currently monitoring the performance of the following cards and consider balance patches to them". Then there is only a list of card names. No reason why they are on that list, no explanation what might be changed. That way Lighmare can simply remove a card from the list later without changing it, if the performance of the card on the live server was as desired.
Such a list would tell players that it might be a good idea to wait a while before they sell/buy a certain card.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: WWKnight on November 27, 2013, 10:39:41 PM
Experience teaches us that 8 QA testers given 3 weeks to look at the set before it's released will let many, many mistakes through. But by the time alpha goes live, I hope lightmare will have 50+ testers and the will be testing cards two or three sets ahead.

Weak cards are allowed to happen in standard play. They are there for drafting purposes. I have a puffy load of cards in other card games in don't even look at when. Holding a deck, which will turn out to be a MVP in a sealed format.

Banning cards for standard tournament play is a fine (and preferred) method of dealing with a problem. The card is still usable outside of ranked and tournament play, and such events wouldn't happen with frequency.

And the final option is just bad, bad, bad for the health of the game. I see you can't see how, but you'll have to take mine and everyone else's word for it. Example, if I had a brilliant build around me card, and it was on your watch list, I'd just completely ignore it.  It'd sit in my collection and gather dust? Will it be buffed? Nerfed? Will I build a super fun deck with it only to have it no longer work?

These are negative feelings created directly by lightmare. I no longer have any trust in what they are selling, and these are all thoughts and feelings that have nothing to do with trade or resale value.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: TimetoSplit on November 27, 2013, 10:45:17 PM
AT WORST, minor balance changes can be made without affecting the value of the card too much.  The Coyle changes were a little ridiculous (instantly go from bottom tier to top tier legendaries), but many of the other changes didn't hurt trade value too much (Hunted Dragon going up in cost by 1 - he's still very highly demanded).  The ability to patch cards is what makes me so much more interested in dTCG's over paper right now.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Rankelthorn on November 28, 2013, 02:30:19 AM
I really did not want this to turn into a discussion about whether or not patching cards is good or horrible, or a discussion about whether or not trade-value or game-value is more important.
But since I am here.

I have nothing against cards being patched all the time,
keeps the meta interesting in my opinion.

And if Lightmare rotates a faction out and has to rebalance it before rotating it back in I'd see how that may be necersary.

But that's just me, I find TCG's boring and IW is the exception,
the fact that cards may change is part of that for me,
the fact that most any card is usefull is another one.

I discussed that with Teremus and listed 3 cards basically:

Jialan
Soldier Of The Wall
Jinhai Militia

as the ones that need minor changes in my opinion.
Teremus has convinved me that Jialan needs no change, because she fills a very specific niche which is filled by no other card.

The Soldier Of The Wall does not, as I explained earlier, the niche you can use him for is better filled with other cards.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: WWKnight on November 28, 2013, 01:31:16 PM
So you are complaining about a draft card in a constructed format.

Wait for drafting and say it has no use.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: soulmilk on November 28, 2013, 04:35:54 PM
I am pretty sure I have heard Teremus state that Lightmare studios plan to continue giving cards small changes if needed, but maybe he was just talking about beta and not after release.
I remember this because someone was talking about Hex and Teremus said that he respect their choice to ban cards, but that is not how they want to do things.

I might have misunderstood or remember wrong though. So if I am mistaken, I am sorry.

Having cards that are only good for drafts is in my opinion a bad idea.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Isa on December 01, 2013, 03:37:17 PM
The whole point of Soldier Of The Wall, is the same point as Soldier Of Fortune.
Both are useless in the way that you'd rather have other cards that are infinitely more useful in your deck, that has more possibilities for combos or that they are simply stronger due to abilities/stats.

Sodier Of The Wall is there to point at him and go: ''This is rock bottom.'' That's its whole purpose.

Flame Dawn has the Flame Dawn Footman which is ridiculously worse than Aspirant in the sense that it lacks Charge, in a faction that's all about charging. Sure it can survive a Heat Wave, but you can only have 3 of those and its just, not as useful.

Nobody uses Flame Dawn Footman. But there he is. The whole point of the card is so you know what's the worst the faction has to offer, so you can IMPROVE it.

Verore has Beast Of Burden, that unless you use Warpath it's mostly useless in a Verore deck, even with the 0 morale loss. You can only have 3 of those and you'd rather put a Demon Of Fear or something.

These cards are better for new players, who use them at start of their gameplay experience, and then ditch them as they progress.

I personally think that Warpath and Genesis need these kind of cards as well, I have yet to find a card that fits the role.

But there you go.

Soldier Of The Wall will probably never change, as well as Soldier Of Fortune. Mainly because they are doing their job perfectly well.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: DrayGon777 on December 01, 2013, 03:56:21 PM
I'd say that One of Many is kinda useless, at least in the majority of the WP decks I run, simply due to the fact that there's so many other characters with better abilities and/or stats that I tend to use. I simply use One of Many as filler, which usually ends up as 0 cards. Course, that's just me personally.

For GI, There's Cannon Fodder. Sure, it costs 0 and is hasted, but all it does pretty much is block for one turn, and that's only useful in certain decks.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Isa on December 01, 2013, 04:30:57 PM
I'd say that One of Many is kinda useless, at least in the majority of the WP decks I run, simply due to the fact that there's so many other characters with better abilities and/or stats that I tend to use. I simply use One of Many as filler, which usually ends up as 0 cards. Course, that's just me personally.

For GI, There's Cannon Fodder. Sure, it costs 0 and is hasted, but all it does pretty much is block for one turn, and that's only useful in certain decks.
You can play a Cannon Fodder at turn 1 and buff it with Aleta for FAST damage early on.

One of many has good stats and it can both be used with Breeders and Pack Leaders for serious injuries.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: DrayGon777 on December 02, 2013, 04:22:13 AM
Maybe, but there's also Trickster Monkey (granted not WP) and a hasted Killaroo that can also help with breeding and both have a bit more utility. I do have to agree that One of Many does tend to work better than the other cards when Pack Leader is in play. I suppose Forest Giant may be more universally considered a less than optimal card. Sure, it can block flyers, but the cost and the fact it only does 8 damage which several other lower cost characters can also deal seems to make it more of a niche card if it's even used at all.

As for Cannon Fodder being a fast early damage, again, that's a particular niche for the card. I had forgotten that part of it, and it's more due to the fact that Aleta's so darn useful rather than Cannon Fodder being that great of a card, least in my opinion.

Also, are we just sticking with character cards, because I'm pretty sure that WP and GI have ability cards, locations, and artifacts (not necessarily all for each faction) that aren't that great.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Erlaya on December 02, 2013, 05:58:30 AM
And yet forest giant is an amazing counter to the Xi flier deck.  Get two out with a matriarch in command and suddenly you block everything he can think of doing until you can overrun him!  I feel that just about every card has it's place in the grand scheme of things.  I actually think Soldier of Fortune has a very good place in a pure verore deck focusing on creatures to win with.  It's the only 1 drop they would have access to.  He is as effective as a lightning blast against aspirants and such.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: AAAAANNNTS on December 02, 2013, 09:37:49 PM
I love how a post about one of the crappiest card in the game has about as many replies as the Martyr Golem thread does.

Seems poetic that these two polar opposites are so polarizing.  They really are opposite sides of the same coin.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Kindran on December 02, 2013, 09:41:19 PM
I love how a post about one of the crappiest card in the game has about as many replies as the Martyr Golem thread does.

Seems poetic that these two polar opposites are so polarizing.  They really are opposite sides of the same coin.

It is due to where the thread went =p
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: daymost on December 03, 2013, 12:54:18 AM
I think I am the one to blame I kind of derail the conversation, sorry about that.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: ParadoxOfChoice on December 05, 2013, 01:08:31 PM
I'm late to the party but I have to derail again for this.
Before that I'll just say that I think all cards should have meaningful uses, vanilla or not.
This little guy could use a +0/+1. As it is now there's just too many things that have 10 damage for him to be a good blocker, and most things have 2/4/8 hp so 3 damage rarely changes the outcome. Giving him a +1/0 is a little out of flavor but would also be good enough to give him a role. Anything beyond either of those might be going too far.

So then, on to this thing:
([Bunch of most likely true stuff])

...

Banning cards for standard tournament play is a fine (and preferred) method of dealing with a problem. The card is still usable outside of ranked and tournament play, and such events wouldn't happen with frequency.

And the final option (patch the card) is just bad, bad, bad for the health of the game. I see you can't see how, but you'll have to take mine and everyone else's word for it. Example, if I had a brilliant build around me card, and it was on your watch list, I'd just completely ignore it.  It'd sit in my collection and gather dust? Will it be buffed? Nerfed? Will I build a super fun deck with it only to have it no longer work?

These are negative feelings created directly by lightmare. I no longer have any trust in what they are selling, and these are all thoughts and feelings that have nothing to do with trade or resale value.

You buy a card. The card is banned. You just payed for someone else's mistake. What is the average reaction to this scenario?

The person losing his trust in what is sold upon reinforcement of that product is the minority, the outcast, the black sheep.
The person that is happy when his favorite card is nerfed is an outcast, the black sheep, a minority.
The person that is angry when a card that he always loses against gets nerfed is a black sheep, a minority, the outcast.
The person that is happy when a card they have gets banned is retarded. Is anyone here retarded? No?
So don't assume anyone is gonna hop on the ban my martyr golems instead of changing them slightly bandwagon, but go ahead and build it anyway if you like. After all banning cards in a TCG is widely tolerated. Yay! Does that make it ok? Does the fact that most people tolerate it make it the best solution? Are you sure it's even tolerable in DIGITAL FORMAT?!   (it is not)


For all of those that instead see IW for what it is, and can be, allow me to build your rallying flag on the topic of adjustable dynamics:

The global impact of any change in value on a previously traded card is a zero-sum equation, as is all derived fragmentation outside of the following, with very few exceptions.

<assume 'player' is 'active player'>
Value increasing on a card is positive (for each player that used or now uses the card).
Value increasing on a card is negative (for each player that loses against that card)
Value decreasing on a card is negative (for each player that used the card).
Value decreasing on a card is positive (for each player that previously lost against the card)
Value increase on any card is positive (for each player that owns that card)
Value decrease on any card is negative (for each player that owns that card)

I'm not anticipating any argument with the above, just with the amount by which it matters. Right?
So then the best lens to view this under is obvious: a card being changed in value.

1:Value increase
Each player that owns the card is a +
Each player that receives the card is a +
Each player that loses to the card is a -
Each player that traded away the card is a -
Each player that traded for the card is a +

2:Value decrease
Each player that owns the card is a -
Each player that receives the card is a -
Each player that previously lost to the card is a +
Each player that traded away the card is a +
Each player that traded for the card is a -

Then there's the problem of  (+!=+ , +!=-, -!=-), there is no 1-1 correlation here. For example the number of players that own a given card can be drastically different than the number of players that have lost to or will now lose to that card. So maybe it's not INSANELY OBVIOUS that a value increase is better than a value decrease for a bad card, or that a value decrease makes the playerbase happy on an overpowerd card. I shall clarify.

Suppose the magnitude in value change (as in either direction, absolute, etc) of the given card is 'V'.
Best to think of it in terms of % change and not flat change for this example.
So a 25% change would be 1.25 regardless of direction as the card already has 100% of its original value to set scale (1.0).

1:Value increase
+(% of players that own the card)*V
+([rarity*avgPacks*time*insanely huge formula])*V
-(% of players that own the card * penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.5)/time
Trade (+/-)*V

2:Value decrease
-(% of players that own the card)*V
-([rarity*avgPacks*time*insanely huge formula])*V
+(% of players that owned the card * previous penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.5)/time
Trade (-/+)*V

[50% winrate (0.5) for simplicity, though the cards power can change this number]
example: 50% winrate card is buffed to 75% = negative reaction from (% of players that own the card * penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.75 *(1-penetration))

Obviously there are many more variables and scenarios that lead to players reacting in positive/negative ways, these are assumed to be fragmentation and across large numbers will be evenly distributed.
Exceptions are made when a cards winrate becomes extremely high/low or an artifact of the card creates issues within the game. These things cannot be generalized.

So then with these things in mind the largest factors can be identified:
 Rarity determines the number of players that own the card.
 The card winrate determines the number of players that have lost to that card.
 The penetration rate is mostly determined by the number of players that own that card and the winrate.
 The amount of value change greatly alters the impact of ownership.

example: 40% winrate card, 20% ownership, 5% penetration, 51% value change:
(51% value change assumes instant winrate and penetration altered by +/-25% (40%+25%=50%, 0.4+0.25*0.4=0.5) while really it changes gradiently over time)
(winrate calculated as linear floating point for simplicity, when in reality 0.75 winrate is not actually a 50% change in impact from 0.5 it is exponential and asymptotic near 1.0 or zero)


{case 1}
51% increase (winrate 50%, penetration 6%)
+(0.2)*1.51
+(rarity*packs*1.51)*time
-(0.2 * 0.06 * G * 0.5 * (1-0.06))/time

If G = 25 games per player before impact decay
Impact= (20%*1.51)-(20%*6%*25*50%*94%)
Impact= 0.302-0.141 = 0.161  [+packs over time excluded]


{case 2}
51% decrease (winrate 30%, penetration 4%)
-(0.2)*1.51
-(rarity*packs*1.51)*time
+(0.2 * 0.05 * G * 0.4*(1-0.05))/time  <previous winrate and penetration>

If G = 25 games per player before impact decay
Impact= (20%*5%*25*0.4*95%)-(20%*1.51) 
Impact= 0.095 - 0.302 = -0.207  [-packs over time excluded]

A positive change in value on the weak card has a positive impact immediately and over time (New winrate exceeding 50% diminishes this).
And decreasing the already weak card in value has a long-reaching negative impact both immediate and over time, even with only 20% ownership.
These hold true for the opposite scenarios as well, for an amazing card the positive numbers are going to come from decreasing the cards value.
The number of games per average and decay rate are influential as well, and if taken to the extreme can skew the numbers, but I'm assuming the average player doesn't play 50 games a day, there's probably not many that do in fact.

Mind you these are all just simple examples.
Yet even with many details removed, a plethora of things can be derived from this type of thinking, but the most important is:
Moving the average winrate per card toward 50% is the optimal solution, even if seemingly impossible to finalize.
To do this you cannot simply set the winrate of various cards to ZERO, you must CHANGE THEM.



P.S. Delete Teemo.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Rankelthorn on December 06, 2013, 10:15:48 AM
You said it sister!
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Hitori on December 07, 2013, 07:21:31 PM
Paradox, not to take away anything from that wonderful explanation of yours, but you seem to forget that cards that get banned from tournaments/ranked are still very much draftable (as far as I'm aware, but I'm no MTG pro) and can be played as is in games for fun and classic modes or whatever they are called. All that to say...your argument is invalid towards the point WWK was making (in my opinion). You can say it's valid for the game's economy assuming people only 'invest' in tournament-valid cards, but I'm not sure that's true.

All that said and done, I'm not sure which method I prefer (nerf/ban).
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: ParadoxOfChoice on December 08, 2013, 05:50:07 AM
Just to be clear I'm not dismissing any of WWK's points, as everything he's said about the trade scenario represents a long lasting problem in online game design. It's very clear that changes to cards can yield negative reactions from the players in various situations or sometimes percentages of the playerbase as a whole, as can changes in nearly any game, some more extreme than others. It's just that I do not think the points made should yield the conclusion that was made. This is not and should not be treated as an ordinary card game, and however cliche it may sound, you cannot allow negativity to imprison the game to a singular tool for adjustment, so long as positive effects shadow or create that negativity.

If everyone had every card, what option sounds the best: [Balance the game for everyone], or [Balance only tournaments, and in a very rigid way].
That is the way it looks to me; that's the choice that's being made from that negativity.

I also fear that Mark Rosewater's 'diversity of power rewards skilled players' segment may soon be taken largely out of context in terms of its justification of imbalances in a game, as it's a self fulfilling cycle that does not need to be created or maintained. He defends himself excellently , but drafting will always reward the most skilled player, even more when the game is perfectly balanced, and 100x more because we play infinity wars. The more diverse the power level, the more luck becomes involved. Sure the 'more skilled' player is going to avoid the 'bad' cards and the other guy grabs them. Cool! That gave an advantage, but the problem with that argument from Rosewater is that you do not design a game around 'pro'>'noob', because you end up with "anything that takes any skill" as an acceptable solution to the problem. Instead you design the game around 'pro'vs.'pro' 'noob'vs'noob' , you make it user friendly but the apex must be extremely solid. And of course the game can never be perfectly balanced, but that becomes especially true without patches!

Infinity wars already grants you the ability to show skill beyond deck management, but even in MTG having landmines for new players in draft is not an acceptable justification for any imbalance, be it a bad card or a good one. If it's a bad card the game is better if it is increased in power and a good card is the opposite, as the game has reached it's apex when the choice between the cards of your draft is the hardest decision you've ever made, so long as your life depends on it and you've mastered the game. This scenario highlights both your own interpretations and the estimated strength of the cards in total. A new player still creates these images of differentiation regardless of how close the power levels of the cards become, because even tiny differences can lose the game in spectacular ways, thereby removing the need for intentional power diversity.

Does anyone see the largest correlation between extreme balancing and extreme success in online gaming today?
(It's not MTGO, and it has no solution)
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: WWKnight on December 08, 2013, 08:19:49 AM
I'm late to the party but I have to derail again for this.
Before that I'll just say that I think all cards should have meaningful uses, vanilla or not.
This little guy could use a +0/+1. As it is now there's just too many things that have 10 damage for him to be a good blocker, and most things have 2/4/8 hp so 3 damage rarely changes the outcome. Giving him a +1/0 is a little out of flavor but would also be good enough to give him a role. Anything beyond either of those might be going too far.

So then, on to this thing:
([Bunch of most likely true stuff])

...

Banning cards for standard tournament play is a fine (and preferred) method of dealing with a problem. The card is still usable outside of ranked and tournament play, and such events wouldn't happen with frequency.

And the final option (patch the card) is just bad, bad, bad for the health of the game. I see you can't see how, but you'll have to take mine and everyone else's word for it. Example, if I had a brilliant build around me card, and it was on your watch list, I'd just completely ignore it.  It'd sit in my collection and gather dust? Will it be buffed? Nerfed? Will I build a super fun deck with it only to have it no longer work?

These are negative feelings created directly by lightmare. I no longer have any trust in what they are selling, and these are all thoughts and feelings that have nothing to do with trade or resale value.

You buy a card. The card is banned. You just payed for someone else's mistake. What is the average reaction to this scenario?

The person losing his trust in what is sold upon reinforcement of that product is the minority, the outcast, the black sheep.
The person that is happy when his favorite card is nerfed is an outcast, the black sheep, a minority.
The person that is angry when a card that he always loses against gets nerfed is a black sheep, a minority, the outcast.
The person that is happy when a card they have gets banned is retarded. Is anyone here retarded? No?
So don't assume anyone is gonna hop on the ban my martyr golems instead of changing them slightly bandwagon, but go ahead and build it anyway if you like. After all banning cards in a TCG is widely tolerated. Yay! Does that make it ok? Does the fact that most people tolerate it make it the best solution? Are you sure it's even tolerable in DIGITAL FORMAT?!   (it is not)


For all of those that instead see IW for what it is, and can be, allow me to build your rallying flag on the topic of adjustable dynamics:

The global impact of any change in value on a previously traded card is a zero-sum equation, as is all derived fragmentation outside of the following, with very few exceptions.

<assume 'player' is 'active player'>
Value increasing on a card is positive (for each player that used or now uses the card).
Value increasing on a card is negative (for each player that loses against that card)
Value decreasing on a card is negative (for each player that used the card).
Value decreasing on a card is positive (for each player that previously lost against the card)
Value increase on any card is positive (for each player that owns that card)
Value decrease on any card is negative (for each player that owns that card)

I'm not anticipating any argument with the above, just with the amount by which it matters. Right?
So then the best lens to view this under is obvious: a card being changed in value.

1:Value increase
Each player that owns the card is a +
Each player that receives the card is a +
Each player that loses to the card is a -
Each player that traded away the card is a -
Each player that traded for the card is a +

2:Value decrease
Each player that owns the card is a -
Each player that receives the card is a -
Each player that previously lost to the card is a +
Each player that traded away the card is a +
Each player that traded for the card is a -

Then there's the problem of  (+!=+ , +!=-, -!=-), there is no 1-1 correlation here. For example the number of players that own a given card can be drastically different than the number of players that have lost to or will now lose to that card. So maybe it's not INSANELY OBVIOUS that a value increase is better than a value decrease for a bad card, or that a value decrease makes the playerbase happy on an overpowerd card. I shall clarify.

Suppose the magnitude in value change (as in either direction, absolute, etc) of the given card is 'V'.
Best to think of it in terms of % change and not flat change for this example.
So a 25% change would be 1.25 regardless of direction as the card already has 100% of its original value to set scale (1.0).

1:Value increase
+(% of players that own the card)*V
+([rarity*avgPacks*time*insanely huge formula])*V
-(% of players that own the card * penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.5)/time
Trade (+/-)*V

2:Value decrease
-(% of players that own the card)*V
-([rarity*avgPacks*time*insanely huge formula])*V
+(% of players that owned the card * previous penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.5)/time
Trade (-/+)*V

[50% winrate (0.5) for simplicity, though the cards power can change this number]
example: 50% winrate card is buffed to 75% = negative reaction from (% of players that own the card * penetration rate * avg games per player * 0.75 *(1-penetration))

Obviously there are many more variables and scenarios that lead to players reacting in positive/negative ways, these are assumed to be fragmentation and across large numbers will be evenly distributed.
Exceptions are made when a cards winrate becomes extremely high/low or an artifact of the card creates issues within the game. These things cannot be generalized.

So then with these things in mind the largest factors can be identified:
 Rarity determines the number of players that own the card.
 The card winrate determines the number of players that have lost to that card.
 The penetration rate is mostly determined by the number of players that own that card and the winrate.
 The amount of value change greatly alters the impact of ownership.

example: 40% winrate card, 20% ownership, 5% penetration, 51% value change:
(51% value change assumes instant winrate and penetration altered by +/-25% (40%+25%=50%, 0.4+0.25*0.4=0.5) while really it changes gradiently over time)
(winrate calculated as linear floating point for simplicity, when in reality 0.75 winrate is not actually a 50% change in impact from 0.5 it is exponential and asymptotic near 1.0 or zero)


{case 1}
51% increase (winrate 50%, penetration 6%)
+(0.2)*1.51
+(rarity*packs*1.51)*time
-(0.2 * 0.06 * G * 0.5 * (1-0.06))/time

If G = 25 games per player before impact decay
Impact= (20%*1.51)-(20%*6%*25*50%*94%)
Impact= 0.302-0.141 = 0.161  [+packs over time excluded]


{case 2}
51% decrease (winrate 30%, penetration 4%)
-(0.2)*1.51
-(rarity*packs*1.51)*time
+(0.2 * 0.05 * G * 0.4*(1-0.05))/time  <previous winrate and penetration>

If G = 25 games per player before impact decay
Impact= (20%*5%*25*0.4*95%)-(20%*1.51) 
Impact= 0.095 - 0.302 = -0.207  [-packs over time excluded]

A positive change in value on the weak card has a positive impact immediately and over time (New winrate exceeding 50% diminishes this).
And decreasing the already weak card in value has a long-reaching negative impact both immediate and over time, even with only 20% ownership.
These hold true for the opposite scenarios as well, for an amazing card the positive numbers are going to come from decreasing the cards value.
The number of games per average and decay rate are influential as well, and if taken to the extreme can skew the numbers, but I'm assuming the average player doesn't play 50 games a day, there's probably not many that do in fact.

Mind you these are all just simple examples.
Yet even with many details removed, a plethora of things can be derived from this type of thinking, but the most important is:
Moving the average winrate per card toward 50% is the optimal solution, even if seemingly impossible to finalize.
To do this you cannot simply set the winrate of various cards to ZERO, you must CHANGE THEM.



P.S. Delete Teemo.

As one of the players who struggling dealing with 6's instead of 3's, you lost me at math...
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: Hitori on December 08, 2013, 01:49:13 PM
Paradox I love reading your posts, super informative.
I wish I had more experience with TCGs economy/tournaments to really be able to participate more in this discussion.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: scoobyfred27 on December 08, 2013, 02:15:39 PM
Just so you guys know, if you're ever vs WWK, just start putting out random numbers and mathematical symbols, he will surrender.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: WWKnight on December 09, 2013, 11:24:58 AM
Not a lie.
Title: Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
Post by: DrayGon777 on December 09, 2013, 03:06:00 PM
Ok, so maybe I'm not quoting WWK now, but it's still technically about him. :P

Also, I'm glad I love math now.  :D