Lightmare Community Forums

Infinity Wars => News and Developer Talk => Topic started by: Teremus on July 03, 2014, 12:27:21 AM

Title: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 03, 2014, 12:27:21 AM
Hello everyone,

This has been a long time coming, and I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed typing it.

This is the first Infinity Wars Dev Blog, titled Tipping the Scales.

There's been so many people concerned with balance, wanting to know what Lightmare is doing, what our plans are, what our train of thought is. This is for you, I hope it does the intended job.

Tipping the Scales (http://teremus.weebly.com/dev-corner/tipping-the-scales)
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: TimetoSplit on July 03, 2014, 12:39:26 AM
Very interesting article, a good read and always nice to hear from the great Moose!  :D 
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Adorabear on July 03, 2014, 01:03:26 AM
Mooooooooooooooooose! Glorious!
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Antimony on July 03, 2014, 03:13:32 AM
Great post, Teremus! You and Robbiesla made a lot of great points about how the openness of the metagame is a priority over the subjective idea of balance.

To me, Verore and Sleepers currently have become the most complete factions, each with an extensive toolkit to allow plenty of flexibility within their respective themes. The other factions seem to be a bit more constrained in that regard, limiting them more to playing in a certain way (DoD is the most guilty of this imho). If anything, I'd rather see the other factions get buffed cards in the future instead of nerfing anything we already have, since that would add to/change the metagame rather than take away from it. A good example of this already happening is with the Exiles, since the release of Ascension added enough cards to play them without requiring a Ritual Master in command as well as more removal abilities and demon-themed buffs. I'm super stoked as to what LM is going to do with the Overseers, too. :)
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Cleanse on July 03, 2014, 08:40:49 AM
Just give us some decent, and preferably factionless, ability-hate.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 03, 2014, 08:43:09 AM
Just give us some decent, and preferably factionless, ability-hate.

Balance is not created by giving another answer to an already existing answer. There's no "Simple" way to create balance.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Dreamplume on July 03, 2014, 08:47:38 AM
Great post, Teremus! You and Robbiesla made a lot of great points about how the openness of the metagame is a priority over the subjective idea of balance.

To me, Verore and Sleepers currently have become the most complete factions, each with an extensive toolkit to allow plenty of flexibility within their respective themes. The other factions seem to be a bit more constrained in that regard, limiting them more to playing in a certain way (DoD is the most guilty of this imho). If anything, I'd rather see the other factions get buffed cards in the future instead of nerfing anything we already have, since that would add to/change the metagame rather than take away from it. A good example of this already happening is with the Exiles, since the release of Ascension added enough cards to play them without requiring a Ritual Master in command as well as more removal abilities and demon-themed buffs. I'm super stoked as to what LM is going to do with the Overseers, too. :)

I will agree with you, as for the sleepers being one of the most complete factions I wouldn't say that more like the warpath faction and Verore are at the top as being the most complete just over taking everything else.

I saw the section about Orion and the Mega Unit combo it is a powerful combo I can say that and hope it doesn't really get changed because it can be beaten so badly at the same time. I made a deck for it which has amazing success rate but I have lost a lot with it at the same time, factions such as the Warpath and Verore still counter it even a rush deck will be a problem. However I can see why this can upset the meta but look at the current decks that have such huge success like karani, Verore ability and others but not sure what else ether way GI now just got a deck on similar level, yes there is probably other strong GI decks but to me not on the level of that combo. To long have those faction and the amazing powerful decks they create overtake ranked play cause they are not easy decks to beat and with ascension they can be even more powerful.

In addition oh my overseer again why does everyone want to talk about changing them what is it with this want to nerf them when they are fine and well worked out. If this faction gets nerfed because of all the people asking for change to the smallest faction in game which I have said many times dragging them drown from being a tier two faction ("Just something in which I rate the faction in strength") then I will probably kill someone.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 03, 2014, 08:57:18 AM
Quote from: Dreamplume
In addition oh my overseer again why does everyone want to talk about changing them what is it with this want to nerf them when they are fine and well worked out.

Please note that, in the article, nowhere did I actually state they're getting change or what will eventually occur. I never speculated any of that. I merely presented a concept of an issue commonly discussed.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Cleanse on July 03, 2014, 09:15:34 AM
Just give us some decent, and preferably factionless, ability-hate.

Balance is not created by giving another answer to an already existing answer. There's no "Simple" way to create balance.

That doesn't really make any sense. There's plenty of character-hate in the game, as well as a growing amount of artifact and location hate. But there's exactly one ability-hate card, Ancient Aether, and its a bit too situational at the moment, and is 2 purity.

Sure, there's a number of anti-kill spell options (a few more wouldn't hurt), but some general anti-spell spam would be nice.

I didn't even say what form this ability-hate would take, there's certainly plenty of creativity available. Nor was I suggesting it would be a "magic bullet" as you seem to be implying. In your analogy, I'm simply suggesting more tools be available to players when playing against different types of decks.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 03, 2014, 09:29:36 AM
We both seem to be discussing two very different topics.

My article covers an extremely broad range of topics, and the mentalities behind them. When I say "Balance" I do not refer to one specific subject within the whole.

What you're suggesting is fine, a more capable toolbox for each potential build. In it's infancy, there's no way for us to create that in Infinity Wars. A larger library with more fleshed out concepts needs to exist.

Like I said, what you're saying is perfectly fine. It just takes time to grow into those overall capabilities.

Edit:

You referenced character-kill abilities being an answer, in reference to my response to you. Characters are not an answer. There are two points to a chess match, Initiation and Response. A response can take shape in many different forms, however moving a pawn into a position to threaten your opponents board state is only ever initiation. An answer to an answer, is what you're referencing here.

While those are well and good, it's the same concept as what others may say with "MD isn't OP, just give an MD-like option to other factions" which doesn't actually address the underlying issue. There are many other factors to consider, and I tried to cover them as well as possible in my article.

Perhaps I didn't do that well enough, but the concept remains a global ideology rather than specifically to one subject within the whole.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Dreamplume on July 03, 2014, 09:32:32 AM
Quote from: Dreamplume
In addition oh my overseer again why does everyone want to talk about changing them what is it with this want to nerf them when they are fine and well worked out.

Please note that, in the article, nowhere did I actually state they're getting change or what will eventually occur. I never speculated any of that. I merely presented a concept of an issue commonly discussed.

Don't mean the article I mean people bringing overseer back up in the posts made. As one person said I look forward to what lightmare will do with the overseer faction to me is like saying I look forward to the change they are going to make. Whether it is a good change or bad I do not know the only thing I don't want to happen is from all this overseer hate they get dragged down lowering there level of strength they currently have.

Don't worry your article is perfectly fine and I like I do not want another overseer rampage on this thread so I am trying to put a full stop in it before that happens lol hopefully though.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 03, 2014, 09:33:26 AM
Haha that's fair Dreamplume, I can understand that.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Cleanse on July 03, 2014, 09:44:25 AM
We both seem to be discussing two very different topics.

I think we might just agree on that...  ???
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Thechynd on July 03, 2014, 09:46:47 AM
I don't really see how you expect to be able to reduce Verore's toolkit without nerfing anything unless you just wait until cards rotate out or implement power creep for all the other factions. Even if you give them fewer pieces for their toolkit in the future, that won't remove their existing options.

I also think that regardless of balance concerns Dark Wish is a terribly designed card because the way it works in practice is completely contrary to what the card seems intended to do. Its clearly meant to be a card that gives you a wide variety of options to choose from, but that's irrelevant if one of those options is so overly strong for its cost compared with the others that it gets chosen more than 90% of the time. If that's meant to be acceptable then why doesn't Undeath Wish make something like a 16/16 with infect?
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 03, 2014, 09:49:37 AM
I never said anything about nerfing nothing. I tried to explain this concept as clearly as possible, and I'm not sure I did that to the best of my ability.

I'm talking about a very broad, overarcing ideology. I am, never, talking about one specific concept that needs to be changed or altered. Simply a train of thought, that guides us through each decision and how we approach various topics.

Please understand that this blog was in no way designed to state what is, or what is not happening. The sole intention was to convey our thought process, and mentalities to a community that has been seeking to connect with us deeper for quite some time.

Nerfs, or buffs, were not the subject of this article whatsoever.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: -tHeGaMe- on July 03, 2014, 10:09:18 AM
Great post Teremus. I would offer you some delicious cheese but alas I ate it all  :-[
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Thechynd on July 03, 2014, 10:30:26 AM
I never said anything about nerfing nothing. I tried to explain this concept as clearly as possible, and I'm fairly certain I failed.

Fair enough. I apparently misunderstood as there were two sections that seemed to suggest you wanted to reduce Veroria's toolkit whilst avoiding actually nerfing the biggest contributors to that toolkit.

Quote
Most people might say "Mass Death" "Death Ray" "Veroria" are the "Problems" with Verore. The fact of the matter is much larger. When discussing Balance you can't just point out a single card and say "This is really strong! Nerf it!" in most cases that will tip the scales in another direction.

Quote
Nerfing Mass Death or nerfing Veroria doesn't change the concept of their Toolkit, the Toolkit itself needs to be looked at to reduce it's overall capabilities in such a wide variety of scenarios.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Dreamplume on July 03, 2014, 10:42:57 AM
Your talk about verore tool kit is interesting because it really is not about single cards within the faction but the overall range of what is available to use, it is like have 100 hundred spells and each individual one has an answer to a problem. Someone also said Rock, Paper, Scissors is a good concept I have played many games with that concept in mind and those games ended up scrapping the concept because you can easily one side it. So when everyone is using paper you beat some people fair enough but everyone can suddenly change to scissors beating you every time till you change. As lightmare strive towards a player controlled Meta goes without saying wouldn't they be able to control the RPS.

Another way I can see this is will a person have what's needed for there deck to supposedly beat this other deck even though they are scissors against paper. I now that it is going to be more complex so I am trying to view it in a stage of only rock, paper and scissors as three factions let say or three decks.

Faction 1 Rock - beats 3
Faction 2 Paper - beats 1
Faction 3 Scissors - beats 2

Now if I look at it for Infinity Wars from above it can go backwards resulting in rock beating paper for lets say a reason paper does not have the available cards needed to fight the rock faction/or deck making it go in multiple directions. Would that be the kind of RPS system lightmare could or would strive towards in wanting to balance the game.

I am not sure if I made sense hopefully I did a bit as it clear to me in my mind just hope I can make some insight for everyone to see what I see.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 03, 2014, 10:46:46 AM
The toolkit itself isn't about a single card, it's about their abilities to respond to various scenarios.

As I stated in the article, verore has the ability to bypass critical thinking where other factions would be forced into such mindsets. Reducing or raising the power level of certain things doesn't affect the fact that they have the "Option" where other factions flat out don't.

Hence why I said the concept is much larger than discussing a single card. :)
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Qweeg on July 03, 2014, 10:47:47 AM
...and I'm fairly certain I failed.

I'm talking about a very broad, overarcing ideology. I am, never, talking about one specific concept that needs to be changed or altered. Simply a train of thought, that guides us through each decision and how we approach various topics.


I don't think you failed at all.  I thought it was an interesting blog post looking at high level concepts and problems associated with balance.  The ideal of allowing the community to find solutions to perceived balance issues in the first instance, and only after that if there is still a problem stepping in to look at how best to solve it seems dead right to me. And you made some really interesting points and observations in there.

Thank you for taking to the time to write this - I look forward to future posts.

Q
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: -tHeGaMe- on July 03, 2014, 11:55:07 AM
phase out verore. problem solved  :P
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: chaosangel2112 on July 03, 2014, 01:36:35 PM
Use the force dudes and read the blog.  Its a generalized talk on LM's stance towards balance.  Talented people with the inside scoop on where they want to go with things.  If creating amd balancing a DTCG was easy we'd all have our own.  Failing all that, beware, he might go Darth Moose on us all. ;)
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: TimetoSplit on July 03, 2014, 01:40:00 PM
I think the main problem people have with Verore comes back to plain old counterplay - if we feel counterplay is too difficult against a given card, it becomes frustrating to many players.  Mass Death and Death Ray are excellent because they can always be dodged.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: The_Fallen on July 03, 2014, 05:05:33 PM
Tbh I'm not very happy with this post, as it is mostly general talk.  Much more specific details would be very appreciated: For example the discussion about 2 purity for token generating cards, bloodthirst and its strange behaviour or the struggle about Enyah. I' know you can't say that this cards will be like this in the next patch, but you could point out the pro/contra arguments discussed by lightmare.

About the verore topic: Did anybody just think for a moment, that there are so many counters to verore? In fact every faction has them. As an addition, verore is the faction with the most luck involved. Imagine for example flipping a coin and reduce your 6/6 demon to a 2/2... yeah big deal compared to a missed mass death, just because the other player did not choose to attack at this moment. So next turn you probably die.
If the whole gamplay mechanic was turn based (tradtional), I would aggree that with that many removals verore has the upper hand. But this way you have no guaranted kill, even annihilate can be deflectet and so on. Even oblivion has its restrictions.
 The statement: "The Cult has a lot of answers, responses, and options available to them that are able to simply bypass strategy and critical thinking in situations..." is simply outrageous. You need to be able to make a psychological profile of your enemy in the first few turns and predict his movements and then apply counter measures. And please explain to me how you can counter an Call of the crusade on my initative or a deflect, or charge/vigilance characters? ( I assume you don't have 20 massdeaths in your deck to play one every turn after getting 6 ressources.)
Conclusion: I know verore bashing is in, but please consider what you say, as many will now further pressure you into nerfing verore quoting the same statment I did and maybe the one with the toolkit.

Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: TimetoSplit on July 03, 2014, 07:36:27 PM
The_Fallen - the "luck" thing is a two-way road.  You say that the Verore player can lose the game simply because they did not play Mass Death at the right time.  Likewise, the Warpath player can lose because they decided to attack on a given turn, and they lose all their characters and lose the game.  Both players must predict one another.  Of course, you can go "partially" in (sending in some but not all) but then you only gain a partial benefit/partial risk.  It's a relational game between the Verore and the non-Verore player.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 04, 2014, 01:23:19 AM
Quote from: The_Fallen
Conclusion: I know verore bashing is in, but please consider what you say, as many will now further pressure you into nerfing verore quoting the same statment I did and maybe the one with the toolkit.

They can pressure me all they want, that doesn't mean it's going to be changed. I didn't discuss verore because a bunch of people were QQ'ing about them, I discussed the guiding principles behind how Lightmare discusses balance in Infinity Wars. What you are saying regarding that line is also correct, however you're only discussing a single version of the story. I appreciate that side, however there's a much larger picture that we as Developer's have to be aware of.

There are many different sides to many different stories, and I was not discussing any single one of them. I was being very broad, very general, for a reason.

Much more specific concepts will be listed out by someone within our team on one of these blogs, I'm not the guy that does any of that and would be the worst person to make an article on that topic. So when the time comes, they will be the ones making that article.

I'm sorry you didn't like the article, I'm sure there will be some out there who don't like what I had to say.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Heart on July 04, 2014, 03:05:10 AM
People still talking about verore and I'm just here qqing about overwhelming deads purity puffy :/
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 04, 2014, 05:43:10 AM
People still talking about verore and I'm just here qqing about overwhelming deads purity puffy :/

Again, the blog wasn't about a single cards power level or buffing/nerfing anything. The article was about guiding principles and thought processes.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Tyroki on July 04, 2014, 10:18:41 AM
People still talking about verore and I'm just here qqing about overwhelming deads purity puffy :/

Again, the blog wasn't about a single cards power level or buffing/nerfing anything. The article was about guiding principles and thought processes.
Kinda thought that was obvious myself...
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Qfasa on July 04, 2014, 10:27:21 AM
I have a very mixed feelings about this topic but maybe it because I don't have a full understanding of your ideas. From the one hand, I'm supporting your approach, because an idea of constant changes of every card in the game isn't good in my opinion.

From the other hand, you're looking at this situation from the position of physical card game with a billions of players, where any changes could bring huge consequences.

What I'm seeing in your message is "we were young, we made some mistakes. Now we are experienced and wise and we will fix mistakes of our past. But our new wisdom tell us that we should bring cards' changes to the minimum, so we'll go another way and you should wait until we reach our goal". Don't you think that in the current state of the game this is a little too much?

While you have a few thousands of active players at best, while the game in the beta, wouldn't it be better to be a bit less sensitive about your concepts and make those few changes which even veterans of IW consider to be necessary? In the full developed game with a lots of players and pro-players this is a bad idea I'm completely agree but for now there isn't such thing in IW as pro-players. There is barely a few hundreds of passionate fans who can understand why are you doing this.

Isn't now the best time to bring toolkits of all factions to a normal state by making moves which later will be impossible (or at least much harder) to make?

And I don't understand how you can fix the toolbox of Cult without changing any cards? Yes, the Cult has an answers to everything but their answers are their cards. You can change a card, you can remove a card and it will change their toolbox. Or, you can create a new situation (a strategy) and not to give to the Cult answers to that strategy which will definitely change an approach to how you should play it. Any other option?
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 04, 2014, 12:01:57 PM
Qfasa I believe, as I have seen many in this thread follow suit, that you misunderstood the intention of the article.

I never said how, or when, anything is being changed. I provided a thought process, and our guiding principles. I never said that we're not changing any cards, I never said that nerfs or buffs wouldn't happen, those also weren't the subjects of the article.

It would have been an exceptionally bad idea for me to be the one that goes into specifics of that nature.

Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Swiftwynd on July 06, 2014, 11:58:29 PM
Qfasa I believe, as I have seen many in this thread follow suit, that you misunderstood the intention of the article.

I never said how, or when, anything is being changed. I provided a thought process, and our guiding principles. I never said that we're not changing any cards, I never said that nerfs or buffs wouldn't happen, those also weren't the subjects of the article.

It would have been an exceptionally bad idea for me to be the one that goes into specifics of that nature.

Hey Teremus :D

Just wanted to get your feelings regarding cards that have very little "interaction" with the opponent and are essentially guaranteed plays.

Things like Sacullas / Champion of Ruin / Lucca / Dark Blast / Torch Bearer / Mortar Cannon / Demoralize and to a lesser extent Shrine to the Heavens.


Most of these cards can get into situations in which the opposing player literally has absolutely no method whatsoever of preventing their outcomes during the turn they are used, which makes these turns appear boring and methodical, removing any elements of prediction, counter play, and attempting to secure your win or prevent your loss.  Often times the opposing player can only desperately hope to tie, which allows the offensive player to just chip everything into defense since they no longer need to try to win, only to not let the opponent tie.


In a game like IW where simultaneous turns, board placement, and predicting and countering your opponent is key, do you feel that these 100% (or near, in some cases) guaranteed effects are healthy from a design standpoint?
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: NatoPotato on July 08, 2014, 03:59:51 AM
This thread reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about balance in games, here's a link if anyone wants to check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w)

(For anyone too lazy to watch the whole thing, skip to 4:15)
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 08, 2014, 09:56:28 AM
This thread reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about balance in games, here's a link if anyone wants to check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w)

(For anyone too lazy to watch the whole thing, skip to 4:15)

That is a very good video, and I commend them for it.

Swiftwynd,

My personal feelings on the matter may differ from where yourself and LM's heads are at. From a standpoint of understanding various necessities, there is a concept within those cards that is necessary however it's a very careful line where they can be too efficient. That's something that's on our radar at the moment.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: lilo on July 08, 2014, 01:35:14 PM
That's something that's on our radar at the moment.
So happy~ :'(
Here.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Swiftwynd on July 08, 2014, 03:29:53 PM
This thread reminded me of a video I watched a while ago about balance in games, here's a link if anyone wants to check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w)

(For anyone too lazy to watch the whole thing, skip to 4:15)

That is a very good video, and I commend them for it.

Swiftwynd,

My personal feelings on the matter may differ from where yourself and LM's heads are at. From a standpoint of understanding various necessities, there is a concept within those cards that is necessary however it's a very careful line where they can be too efficient. That's something that's on our radar at the moment.

Thanks for the reply!

I agree that there certainly is a careful line with these cards, and while I understand that cards that can be "nearly sure to work how you want them to, reliably" are not bad in theory, in practice I personally feel they would be much better suited to be altered in a way that offers the opponent at least some method of preventing the effect.

I believe the solid design method of merging such "surefire effects" effects to Character cards, and making them contingent on certain combat related actions, could greatly improve their fairness for opponents and to keep their usage interesting.

For example, what if you actually had to protect those Come Into Play mass target cards? 

What if it was crucial to actually protect Lucca / Sacullas / Champion of Ruin throughout the combat phase for their effects to take place? 

What if their effects could happen for multiple turns in a row if you successfully protect them while keeping them in combat? E.G. Sacullas dealing his effect when he hits the fortress, Lucca providing her buff at the end of turn if alive in a combat zone, Champion of Ruin dealing 2 damage to each non-flyer on the field at the end of turn, etc.


I believe these types of redesigns are more in spirit with the concepts that make IW unique and fun.  It rewards good, intelligent use of these characters, and often times really seems to fit more with their theme, rather than a one-use entrance effect that then is useless for the remainder of that card's life (barring some bounces) which incentivises just killing off the Unique to replace it with one in hand.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: MzudemX on July 08, 2014, 04:27:25 PM
At least it would be nice if the cards would state that there effects (lucca) are preemitive other then deamon of fear which is handled like any other effect.
Imo these cards shouldn't be preemtive for the reasons Swiftwynd mentioned above.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Swiftwynd on July 09, 2014, 05:48:03 AM
At least it would be nice if the cards would state that there effects (lucca) are preemitive other then deamon of fear which is handled like any other effect.
Imo these cards shouldn't be preemtive for the reasons Swiftwynd mentioned above.

This is a prime example of just how unintuitive their mechanics are.

From your understanding,  you believe their effects happen preemptively,  but in actuality they occur before preemptive abilities even as they register on the placement phase before the ability phase even occurs.

Preemptive simply means it will go first before other non preemptive abilities.

Sadly, these upon play or when entering battlefield effects have nothing in the game that currently can prevent their effects and they will always resolve before literally anything else.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Thechynd on July 09, 2014, 10:42:38 AM
At least it would be nice if the cards would state that there effects (lucca) are preemitive other then deamon of fear which is handled like any other effect.
Imo these cards shouldn't be preemtive for the reasons Swiftwynd mentioned above.
Sadly, these upon play or when entering battlefield effects have nothing in the game that currently can prevent their effects and they will always resolve before literally anything else.

What happens if you have initiative and play multiple Champions of Ruin on the same turn your opponent plays Lucca? Will they prevent her ability by killing her before it triggers or not?
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: DrayGon777 on July 09, 2014, 01:29:56 PM
I would say, yes, it would prevent her effect, due to you having initiative and both currently going of when they come into play. Might be worth testing to be sure, though.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Palaxar on July 09, 2014, 07:17:59 PM
Qfasa I believe, as I have seen many in this thread follow suit, that you misunderstood the intention of the article.

I never said how, or when, anything is being changed. I provided a thought process, and our guiding principles. I never said that we're not changing any cards, I never said that nerfs or buffs wouldn't happen, those also weren't the subjects of the article.

It would have been an exceptionally bad idea for me to be the one that goes into specifics of that nature.

Hey Teremus :D

Just wanted to get your feelings regarding cards that have very little "interaction" with the opponent and are essentially guaranteed plays.

Things like Sacullas / Champion of Ruin / Lucca / Dark Blast / Torch Bearer / Mortar Cannon / Demoralize and to a lesser extent Shrine to the Heavens.


Most of these cards can get into situations in which the opposing player literally has absolutely no method whatsoever of preventing their outcomes during the turn they are used, which makes these turns appear boring and methodical, removing any elements of prediction, counter play, and attempting to secure your win or prevent your loss.  Often times the opposing player can only desperately hope to tie, which allows the offensive player to just chip everything into defense since they no longer need to try to win, only to not let the opponent tie.


In a game like IW where simultaneous turns, board placement, and predicting and countering your opponent is key, do you feel that these 100% (or near, in some cases) guaranteed effects are healthy from a design standpoint?
I'm sorry, but what? you can prevent pretty much half of them, and in the case of Mortar Cannon, you can do it with 1 resource if you're playing Verore: Lightning Blast, Mortar Cannon is an Artificial so you can Lightning Blast it for 8 damage and if you do so on your priority, you won't take ANY damage from it. You can also use things like Fight on it if you're playing Warpath, and you can potentially kill it off before it has the chance to use its ability with Mad Monk.

When it comes to Shrine to the Heavens, you can kill his characters that he's gonna be exhausting, or you can just outright destroy the Shrine with Consecrating Angel. There are ALOT of counters to abilities in the game as well. I'd say the only ones you can't counter very well out of the ones that you listed are Lucca, Sacculas, and Champion of Ruin, and even those can be countered in some ways(though some of the cards you'd use to counter them aren't really valuable in a normal deck.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Teremus on July 10, 2014, 04:51:11 AM
At least it would be nice if the cards would state that there effects (lucca) are preemitive other then deamon of fear which is handled like any other effect.
Imo these cards shouldn't be preemtive for the reasons Swiftwynd mentioned above.

This is something I have already discussed in this post. The language and terminology of our cards has been rather inconsistent for a long time. We're working on hammering all of that out pretty hardcore over the coming months.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Swiftwynd on July 13, 2014, 02:50:56 PM
Qfasa I believe, as I have seen many in this thread follow suit, that you misunderstood the intention of the article.

I never said how, or when, anything is being changed. I provided a thought process, and our guiding principles. I never said that we're not changing any cards, I never said that nerfs or buffs wouldn't happen, those also weren't the subjects of the article.

It would have been an exceptionally bad idea for me to be the one that goes into specifics of that nature.

Hey Teremus :D

Just wanted to get your feelings regarding cards that have very little "interaction" with the opponent and are essentially guaranteed plays.

Things like Sacullas / Champion of Ruin / Lucca / Dark Blast / Torch Bearer / Mortar Cannon / Demoralize and to a lesser extent Shrine to the Heavens.


Most of these cards can get into situations in which the opposing player literally has absolutely no method whatsoever of preventing their outcomes during the turn they are used, which makes these turns appear boring and methodical, removing any elements of prediction, counter play, and attempting to secure your win or prevent your loss.  Often times the opposing player can only desperately hope to tie, which allows the offensive player to just chip everything into defense since they no longer need to try to win, only to not let the opponent tie.


In a game like IW where simultaneous turns, board placement, and predicting and countering your opponent is key, do you feel that these 100% (or near, in some cases) guaranteed effects are healthy from a design standpoint?

I'm sorry, but what? you can prevent pretty much half of them, and in the case of Mortar Cannon, you can do it with 1 resource if you're playing Verore: Lightning Blast, Mortar Cannon is an Artificial so you can Lightning Blast it for 8 damage and if you do so on your priority, you won't take ANY damage from it. You can also use things like Fight on it if you're playing Warpath, and you can potentially kill it off before it has the chance to use its ability with Mad Monk.

When it comes to Shrine to the Heavens, you can kill his characters that he's gonna be exhausting, or you can just outright destroy the Shrine with Consecrating Angel. There are ALOT of counters to abilities in the game as well. I'd say the only ones you can't counter very well out of the ones that you listed are Lucca, Sacculas, and Champion of Ruin, and even those can be countered in some ways(though some of the cards you'd use to counter them aren't really valuable in a normal deck.

Mortar Cannon played on the opponent's initiative can only be dealt with by Controlled Temporal Anomaly or dealing sufficient "Come into Play" character damage from Mad Monk and Champion of Ruin.  You can prevent the loss from it by playing Jialan or healing through the damage on the same turn.  It is more "fair" than other methods of mostly-unavoidable damage since you are given at least a turn to react, but it is still near functionally impossible to survive a Mortar Cannon played on your initiative if your health is already in the kill zone.  A smart user of the Mortar Cannon will always be sure to get 8 damage out of it, period.  Very low efficiency of total resource cost to damage ratio is the only thing keeping this in check, but with Sacullas the opposite is true, hence why he is out of balance at the moment.


With Shrine, if you do not splash angels and have no support targeting mass removal, you have no means of preventing a loss if you cannot reach your wincondition first.  But thats not what I was refering to, which is that in the SAME turn as played, if your opponent has the initiative and played enough token generators in the previous turn or just plays a slew of characters that turn, you cannot "prevent" a loss from Shrine during the same turn.  That is, there is no card in infinity wars save for Consecrating Angel that can currently prevent a "win" from Shrine on the same turn if the opponent has initiative.  Shrine is still hard to win with, but with it simply being a "win if condition met" type mechanic that the opponent has little they can do to mess up the win, the only options being Consecrating Angel and attempting to beat the opponent down to force them to have to block with characters.

Shrine I feel is largely more balanced than most other unavoidable-in-turn win conditions, because you do have more time to attempt to get in your own win condition, but if you simply lack the tools to either remove mass units from support or the power to win fast, then its a card in which you cannot really prevent the win. 

For example, lets say a CoV / DoD deck with loads of removal has been continuously removing units on the board, or hell maybe even the Calamity is played by the opponent on their initiative, but the Shrine is at 90% and you play Overwhelming Undead after their Calamity.  In this situation, the only way to prevent a loss is through Controlled Temporal Anomaly, Mad Monk, or Angel of Ruin/Consecration, because the shrine will trigger off all the overwhelming dead as well as any other character dropped that turn even if those characters are removed during the turn.


To make cards like this "fair" in a simultaneous turn system, those types of effects should happen at the end of turn.  For example, if Shrine read "Exhausted target character.  At the end of turn, this Character will add 3% to Shrine of the Heavens.  If shrine of the heavens is 100% complete at the end of turn, your opponent's Morale becomes 0."

This alteration slightly buffs the speed of the win condition at the cost of making it interact with character removal.  Now Shrine decks wouldn't simply be able to all-in defensively on their final turns, and would have to consider how much they can sacrifice to defense against how many characters they fear will be removed.

Additionally, the current wording of "you win the game" is absolutely not accurate, as it makes the opponent lose the game via morale but does not prevent your loss of the game, which makes it tie in that scenario.  If the current card text was taken literally, you would actually 100% win the game and prevent any tie.



Long story short, there are some very simple and effective methods of making otherwise low player-interaction winconditions more dynamic and less static.  Currently, Shrine = have characters sufficient to build shrine, you at best win and at worst tie, you cannot lose (ignoring the very, very few counters I mentioned before).  With my suggestion to shrine, the well-being of your characters on your "assumed" final turn is critically important, and the opponent has more methods of delaying your win.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: OrdoM on July 24, 2014, 04:27:01 AM
This type of blog post is a vital bridge of communication between Lightmare and the players. I sincerely hope to see more of this. Top shelf work.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Zahiri on July 24, 2014, 02:12:19 PM
I would would to see this along with someone who actually creates content similar to what Rosewater does with MTG.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Theorician on July 28, 2014, 03:56:01 PM
There is nothing to 'nerf' about verore as a whole. Almost all of their cards are situational and can fail at any given time.

If you want to nerf something, try looking at these genesis goons  ::)
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Tyroki on July 28, 2014, 06:20:25 PM
Oh man, we need to nerf the Exiles too!

They're too stronk! TOOOOOOO STROOOOOOONK!
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: JSlayerXero on July 29, 2014, 02:21:13 AM
I looked into a few cards that got mentioned, Sacullas being one of them, and I've previously noted why resolving during the effect phase can be a horrible, horrible idea in this thread http://forum.lightmare.com.au/index.php?topic=61977.0

The thing is, he's already horrible to people. FD has a lot of +2 per character options. Bromich/Banner give +2 to your guy directly, Sacullas does +2 per character, and Centurion gets +2 per character. Bromich is, stat-wise, a +2/+2 to Sacullas, so Sacullas getting a cool effect upon hitting the fortress would make sense, actually, as all these OTHER methods require hitting the fortress directly. Centurion isn't unique, is 3 cost, but has understandably smaller stats for it. I'm not saying he has to change, but I'm starting to see why they would want him changed.

Something about Dark Wish is that, yes, it does everything, but it's only stronger than a few certain cards that I can think of. Does it ahve Varyus's ability? Yes. Does it cost a resource more despite this? Yes. Does it deal as much damage as Blood Arrow? Yes. Is it more expensive? Yes. Is there no sacrifice? Yes. Would 3 lightning bolts deal more damage? Yes. Would it be cheaper? Yes. Is it like how Exhaust is 1 extra resource for a second Stumble? Yes. Does it draw 3 cards? Yes. It is actually better than Devil's Bargin? Yes. Is it a higher purity? Yes. Is it a higher rarity? Yes. Does it do the same thing as Awaken? Yes. Does it cost exactly as much? Yes. Does it, for some reason, not have the ability to target the field (and maybe hand) like Awaken can? Yes. Does it create a demon that is much stronger than most other fliers? Yes. Is it far cheaper? Yes. Does it stop you from using other effects? Yes.

Is anybody complaining about Vasir though? Alright, he's a 7-cost, but he has +2/+2 and Unstoppable. Is he really THAT MUCH more balanced than Dark Wish? The demon aside, Devil's Bargin is the only card with a similar effect where this outright bests it. While Blood Arrow does require sacrifice, that's been a running theme throughout Verore as of late. Plus, Blood Arrow and accept Rita's Thrall, allowing for a fodder thaat comes back anyways, mitigating the cost some. However, both Devil's Bargin and Blood Arrow are of a much lower purity and rarity, which means you're likely to have 3 of them long before 3 Dark Wish copies. In theory, Devil's Bargin could be a great Exiles splash if it wasn't a 2 purity.

The problem with giving every faction a Mass-Death card is that it devalues Mass-Death being a 2 purity Verore card in the place. If every faction was going to use it, then it might as well be Factionless. I have run into Dark Wish decks that use it for anything but the 16/16 Demon. Granted, I'm pretty sure a Warped Swarmer deck isn't too frequent, but that's a thing. The thing with all-in-one cards like Dark Wish is that I often have to consider which option I pick. Oddly enough, I've have many isntances where I had to consider what I wanted out of it, or outright didn't use it because I didn't need anything at the time. Maybe it's just me, I dunno. I do think some work is needed overall, though I'm not entirely sure how much. Making Dark Wish 6 cost would, as far as I know, balance it out almost immediately.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: ceces on July 29, 2014, 02:38:41 AM
Oh man, we need to nerf the Exiles too!

They're too stronk! TOOOOOOO STROOOOOOONK!

http://i.imgur.com/njz0Ewt.png?1

\o/
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: stranger42 on July 29, 2014, 04:13:57 AM
http://i.imgur.com/njz0Ewt.png?1

\o/

Haven't seen a good devil of despair deck in awhile. Danm that must have felt good
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: Adorabear on July 29, 2014, 07:14:01 AM
Is anybody complaining about Vasir though?

No... no they are not... lol
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: ceces on July 29, 2014, 11:05:20 PM
http://i.imgur.com/njz0Ewt.png?1

\o/

Haven't seen a good devil of despair deck in awhile. Danm that must have felt good

I love devil, to bad you need to baby him entirely just for him to work >.>

wish he was a bit more usable. he use to be a lot more usable when Fight! was able to be used with him, and ritual master had no rng...good times back then :(
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: JSlayerXero on July 30, 2014, 01:39:38 AM
I've previously made a long post on making Exiles targeted discard here: http://forum.lightmare.com.au/index.php?topic=61955.msg112774#msg112774

WWK & ceces already made an entire thread on making them sacrifice here: http://forum.lightmare.com.au/index.php?topic=21205.0

Both take a long look at the entire faction, theirs probably longer than me. I'm pretty sure doing either one could suddenly make the Exiles a force to be reckoned with across the entire game, and not just specific scenario like we have now.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: ceces on July 30, 2014, 01:45:21 AM
me and wwk sat both together to redesign them for sacrifice, we are a team \o/
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: The_Fallen on July 31, 2014, 08:39:17 PM
Well the exiles, given you have all cards, are a damn powerful faction now.
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: DrayGon777 on July 31, 2014, 09:07:22 PM
So they are similar to DoD in needing all the cards, but actually pull ahead a bit? :(
Title: Re: [Dev Blog] Moose Report #1
Post by: The_Fallen on August 06, 2014, 08:05:33 AM
Quote from: The_Fallen
Conclusion: I know verore bashing is in, but please consider what you say, as many will now further pressure you into nerfing verore quoting the same statment I did and maybe the one with the toolkit.

They can pressure me all they want, that doesn't mean it's going to be changed. I didn't discuss verore because a bunch of people were QQ'ing about them, I discussed the guiding principles behind how Lightmare discusses balance in Infinity Wars.
...

Well we all see how this turned out.