Yea lets make control decks incredibly boring and 1 dimensional??
Strawman that doesnt even make sense. You think that carefully choosing legendaries would make the game boring and 1 dimensional? Whats wrong with you lol.
You don't need to have a win condition, you just purely focus on defending and win by default.
Has literally nothing to do with using moral to help balance legendaries. Unless legendaries are the only cards in the game. Also you just contradicted yourself within the space of 1 sentence claiming you dont need a win condition and then going on to describe a win condition.
Sounds boring AF, you're taking away the intricate balance that makes control a fun style of play. The balance between defending and committing to your win condition, playing a game of how greedy can I be? That's what makes control challenging and interesting to play.
The strawmen you set up sound boring do they? Whats being taken away? How? What are you talking about?
Moral is a failed mechanic. It was designed to prevent people from sending endless armies into each other. But literally no thought ever went into it.
Thought was put into it... and it was great and did its job perfectly when that was the case. Once thought stopped being put into it, THEN it quickly became at best irrelevant and at worst toxic.
Really all im saying is that as a design team we need to be intentional and purposeful about what moral costs go on cards. To the same extent that we consider the other stats on the card like attack or cost or text. And your response is that you find putting thought into card design is boring? Come on socks I expect better from you.
Saying 'strawman' is a 'strawman' argument. As is any metaphor.
Besides I was using my 'strawman' as an opening sentence, I then went on to explain why I thought making moral relevant would make the game worse. You clearly read the rest of the post, so I don't get why you're throwing about degrading statements like that?
Meanwhile your arguments are quite 'trump' like. At no point have you engaged my points or shown any comprehension of them. Instead you have waved them aside with statements like "strawman"
You go on to be almost comically trump like with further statements "and it was great and did its job perfectly"
And just like Trump you have provided no statements to back this up, you just expect people to accept your superior wisdom.
Anyway, allow me to explain myself without the use of metaphors:
You can't just consider tweaking the moral on a few cards in a vacuum, you have view the entire metagame as a whole.
If you make Moral a balancing tool then you have to make moral relevant. If you make moral a relevant consideration you will ruin the game. First let me clarify this by saying that moral is not a relevant mechanic at the moment. Yes moral decks do exist, even at the high level. But no, at no point in deck building does anyone ever consider moral. People do not consider moral, because it is not really a relevant mechanic.
If you make moral 'relevant' in a normal match (with the average game ending on turn 9). Then you have made it so that people could potentially lose on moral with a standard deck by turn 9, yes?
If this is the case then you have made control decks incredibly powerful. All they need to do is kill your characters and survive till turn 10 to win the game. Surely you can see that this would be toxic?
If we extract this further, characters will become less and less popular and you'll get a metagame of decks filled with some uncouterable win condition like Siphoner combos. But just enough control to beat standard decks on moral.
Moral cannot be a relevant mechanic, or it would ruin the game. Characters are an important part of the complexity of this game, you should not discourage people from using characters.
If you are going to reply, please attempt to read and interpret this post more carefully. Because I can't cope with future statements like these:
"And your response is that you find putting thought into card design is boring? Come on socks I expect better from you."
Where did you even attempt to read a statement of mine that even vaguely represents this conclusion?
"Also you just contradicted yourself within the space of 1 sentence claiming you dont need a win condition and then going on to describe a win condition"
I clearly meant a win condition other than just defending and winning with moral. How could you not interpret that? That was literally what my entire post was about!!?