Author Topic: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall  (Read 9435 times)

Offline soulmilk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #15 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.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 09:22:02 AM by soulmilk »
Yobo, Forever Alone

Rankelthorn

  • Guest
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #16 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?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 10:09:17 AM by Rankelthorn »

Offline Erlaya

  • Lightmare Support
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #17 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.

Offline daymost

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #18 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.
Pro drafting advice from Teremus: Don't Suck!

Rankelthorn

  • Guest
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #19 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.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 11:43:48 AM by Rankelthorn »

Offline WWKnight

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
    • dTCG Sanctum - One stop for all your IW needs!
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #20 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.
I'm a pretty big deal around here.

Feel privileged.

Offline daymost

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #21 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.
Pro drafting advice from Teremus: Don't Suck!

Offline TimetoSplit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #22 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.

Offline Kindran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
  • May Death's cold grasp deem you worthy.
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #23 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.
Death's Demise shall arise when Life's Creation nullifies.

Offline TimetoSplit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #24 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.

Offline Erlaya

  • Lightmare Support
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #25 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.

Offline AAAAANNNTS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #26 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.
>Lightning Bolt will never be in IW ;_;

Offline WWKnight

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
    • dTCG Sanctum - One stop for all your IW needs!
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #27 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.
I'm a pretty big deal around here.

Feel privileged.

Offline Antimon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
    • View Profile
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #28 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.

Offline WWKnight

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
    • View Profile
    • dTCG Sanctum - One stop for all your IW needs!
Re: Single Card Discussion: Soldier Of The Wall
« Reply #29 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.
I'm a pretty big deal around here.

Feel privileged.