Duelyst Forums

[Discussion] The Death of Fair Decks?

Still traveling, so I didn’t have time to go through the whole thread, but I pretty much see where @thematsjo is coming from.

I didn’t play much this month due to real life business, but it seems that since the introduction of the new generals something has changed. I feel more games are unfair and less fun, though I might be biased because I’m losing a lot more. Still, losing can be fun when you learn that you actually did some mistake, but most of the times my feeling was “my deck was not just the right one for this”.

I believe now a few decks are so hard to counter that they really need very specific techs. If you miss them, it’s really hard and this is pushing away meme-y decks from the game, which is a pity and unfortunate for good players who can make them shine. I will play more in a few days and provide more details

2 Likes

First of all I want to say that you’ve done a very good job making your point across. It’s rare you see posts of this quality. Most of the time it’s just some angry rant saying why game company is doing a horrible job balance etc. So thanks for that. However, I’m going to have to disagree with you. I personally don’t agree with your idea of a fair deck nor do really agree “fair” decks are “dying”. Personally after going through your post I feel like your view on fairness is very constrained.

First of all, balance is a very subjective opinion that depends on each of our opinions. Your opinion to me seems to greatly favor a very Late-Midrange styled deck that curves out and caps out with a 7-8 mana finisher. These are the decks that follow your power graph the best. These are the ones capable of making back and forth trades with each other the best (Aggro is too snowbally to do so. Control stares at each other until 7-8 mana. And combo is racing trying to pick up its pieces. ). No offense, but to me this kind of view is very narrow. If you feel that the fairest decks are like this than all of a sudden a LOT is unfair. Any aggro deck is unfair. Earlier midranged decks are unfair. Combo decks are unfair. Control decks are less unfair but have unfair elements. Etc. All of these styles have elements that define them as “unfair”. However, these decks all have their respective strengths and weaknesses and means of interacting with them.

For an example, you bring up Decibot- Assassination Protocol -Silvers combo. If you look at the deck, this deckis a tempo deck orientated on this play. This is a Midrange deck that power spike strongest at 5-6 mana where it makes its explosive play. The deck wants to capitalize on this combo with Thunderhorns and Decibots. However if you can stall it out past that explosive turn the deck starts to taper off. Decks that can slow down that play can capitalize on this and out grind the mech deck. All of the styles have their respective weaknesses and such. VS Control is all about removal versus pressure. VS Aggro is about how much you can slow the bleeding. VS Combo is about maxing out your damage dealt in the smallest time possible. Every style has something that makes the matchup “fair-ish”.

I understand this falls under another one of your points about not needing a specific counter. But we’re playing a card game by nature of these type of games everything falls under this kind of category. Lets say I told you to break open a rock. If I gave you a hammer it’s very easy, if I give you a paper it’s borderline impossible. Same thing applies to card games. Cards are the tools that shape our deck and define the way we play. We change the tools we bring by changing our decks and these tools are what we use to interact when we play.

Also you bring up a lot of examples of decks that you consider “fair”. But all of these decks also fall under categories you describe as “unfair”. Zoo, Token, Swarm, decks are all about an extremely powerful early power curve. Their goal is to overwhelm the opponent with an unsurmountable advantage and win off that. this is gameplay of hyper swarm Lynor right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPTP54pgax4. Look at me in the eyes and tell me this is back and forth gameplay. Arcanysts are the original build an insurmountable board archetype. Vet Golem is literally the first 5 mana play 13/ 10 worth of stats(Sirocco and 3 golems. Something very easy for the deck to do on turn 5.) . Lynor relies on low curve swarm tactics while Magmar is about curving out an early Lavaslasher. One of the most successful Obelysk variants is hyper swarm which aims to establish a huge board of Obelisks early on and snowball off of that. Heal, Variax, and Creep are primarily control decks that rely on mass removal and healing past your opponent board. Pure Doom, Zeal, Backstab, Grow, Artifact decks do not exist do to awkward limitations in their base mechanics (Doom is a meme. You probably killed your opponent with Desolator Burn by the time it finishes. Backstab is countered by sitting next to a wall. Grow is a fancy way of saying Vanilla beatdown which rarely ever works. Vet artifacts are very clunky and fragile by nature to be competitive.) Most of these decks don’t follow your ideas of a fair deck. And at least half of these abuse combos similar to the ones you describe in your examples (Sirocco, Owlbeast, Sunforger + tokens, Deathfire Crescendo, Songhai Shenanigans, etc.)

Which kind of brings me up to another point. Ultimately, what I feel you are complaining about isn’t necessarily a design decision of decks but just strong interactions that have come up in the games history. Some of the decks you complain about actually fit your description of a fair deck. Wallnar is about trading removal /tokens. Keeping as many walls of the board while trading vs removal. It’s a deck that follows the curve all the way til 7/8 and explodes in a powerful combo. Same with Azure Summoning, which found it’s way into Midrange Vet. Another deck that plays steadily until the 7-8(Originally 6) mana and explodes with value depending on what other engines that the deck is playing(Sirocco/ Cataclysmic Fault if I understand.). Obviously these decks were “broken” even though they don’t differentiate very far from the curve you present (They power spike a bit earlier than 8-9 mana.). Broken interactions are an entirely different discussion. But they’re always going to happen. No matter how carefully you design a set of cards the players will find interactions you never though of. Flying Vet was meme before UP and Azure Summoning was thought of as a meme card. Nobody realized that the Skywing combo was meta defining until we had tested it thoroughly and realized it was very strong. They’re kind of a fact of life no matter what game you go to. It’s a balancing issue that is up to the devs to respond to. There’s a bit more I want to add but it’s 3 Am right now so I’ll finish this up tomorrow.

5 Likes

A slight addition from my side.

One of the “unfair” styles which looks particularly popular is swarm. Swarm used to be a niche style, mostly used by Abyssian with Lilithe. Now swarm is arguably better in Lyonar and Vetruvian, which I think is a problem because their threats are way harder to remove. I don’t like playing against swarm, because it mostly boils down to drawing AoEs at the right time.

Then we have combo decks with no setup. Good examples are typical Ragnora and Shidai decks, which are essentially improved versions of already existing archetypes in the game.

I believe that if these decks become even more popular, the game may degenerate into an aggro fest where everyone tries to win as fast as possible before the opponent overwhelms her. I don’t think this is something I like

2 Likes

I don’t agree with your analysis but I understand where you’re coming from, thank you.

You’re very welcome, thank you for the compliment.

I personally favor those decks in terms of what I like to play most but I think you’re casting my perspective in too binary a light. “Unfair” and “fair” are very malleable, subjective terms (as you rightly point out) but many cards and interactions fall somewhere in between some conceivable abstract “absolute fairness” and “absolute unfairness”, meaning that when we talk about fairness we tend to pick a center and then judge cards by how they deviate from that center. For me, a fair card is one that stays true to the three traits I discussed but there are levels of unfairness and unfair cards can be balanced by other cards so everything gels well within their shared context. I don’t think the decks you mention are unfair per se and I don’t see how that conclusion would flow from my premises. Could you elaborate on that perhaps? Perhaps you think that I’m suggesting that any archetype or deck that contains even one (card with an) arguably unfair element is immediately unfair? For the record: I’m not. I even mentioned a bunch of those archetypes as ones that I dó appreciate.

My issue with this combo is that there is no “after the explosive turn” most of the time because the tempo shock is so great that there is no reasonable way to recover. I don’t see how one can slow down a T2 tempo explosion of this magnitude, but if you have feasible examples within decks that can compete generally as well without containing one of the other unfair interactions I brought up I’d love to learn about them.

I appreciate the analogy but in my argument I’m saying that there are certain top-tier tools that just outclass almost everything else, so why bring the other stuff? And if I follow your analogy: I need my toolbox to be able to handle a lot of different things but I only have limited space. Now I’ve come across some rocks that I can only (hyperbole) crack with either one of the top-tier tools I mentioned or by bringing a bunch of other tools that can only crack one of those new types of rocks, and not most other rocks. Why am I not bringing the top-tier tools every time if I need to crack rocks? The analogy became a bit tortured there but I hope it conveys. My point is that players can’t tech against everything and building a deck to counter one or a few of the unfair interactions means not building against everything else so you’re better off just using the unfair things yourself to cover your weaknesses the best way you can. If we need Golakka Crawlers or Hungry Crabs for more honest decks to keep pace with the top-tier archetypes I think we’re in a lot of trouble.

I don’t mind an archetype being weighted very heavily towards the early game, as long as its unfairness early on is balanced with weakness later on. I think Surge swarm is on the border of being straight-up too strong and if it needs to be toned down I’m fine with that. Vet Golem can be very strong but the Skyrock Golems are very fragile and their random spawns make the outcome very unreliable while Sirocco doesn’t provide immediate protection either. I haven’t gotten the impression that the deck is too strong overall (although I haven’t seen it in action yet since Frostburn’s nerf but if it’s a bit too much it should be changed). To me it seems like the weaknesses within Vetruvian have been able to keep the deck in check so far. What I like about Sirocco by the way is that it’s 100% bound to an archetype, meaning you can see it coming and anticipate it coming down. I’m no fan of it having that big of a random payoff but it seems to stay within the margin of fairness because you need to be playing a specific deck with a big wind-up to make it (sometimes) work.

How does one determine whether or not something is broken? I’d do it by establishing what I think is fair within the game and then comparing the two. Wallnar’s problem is that the Tokens are able to immediately act after being transformed into Seraphims because of the way the mechanism works. That means the combo comes into effect immediately. It’s not like Azure Summoning where you at least have to wait a turn for the Flyers to become active, they can move and attack right way. The issue for me is that the punch is far bigger than its wind-up should allow, and if the same thing were to happen two turns later at 9 Mana I probably wouldn’t mind, especially because even after MDG & Crystal Wisp ramp you likely wouldn’t be able to get more than 2 ramps and then you at least invested the card advantage and tempo to justify getting the big swing so early. Azure Combo isn’t as bad as Flawless combo imo but I dock it points for not requiring any previous setup besides holding onto 2 cards and being able to fit into a lot of different decks. Flawless combo is restrained to its two niches where it could theoretically be counterbalanced by weak cards but Azure Combo is self-contained and usable in any deck that can find the space for it (and doesn’t want to end the match before 7 mana).

In my opinion Mana cost is the single most important aspect to a card in Duelyst (as evidenced by how cost changes completely push and pull cards into and out of use). Ask anyone if getting Grandmaster Variax, Ghost Seraphim, Makantor Warbeast or Decimus into play two turns earlier makes a significant amount of difference or not. Power spiking two turns earlier or later makes áll the difference, in my opinion.

Thank you very much for the in-depth response. We obviously disagree on several points and I think you’re very reasonable where we differ.

Something that I’m thinking about more with regards to Shidai decks’ interactivity is that while there is setup, the setup can’t be disrupted by the opponent because it’s all happening in the player’s action bar rather than on board. This was probably very obvious to some others here but its significance is becoming more clear to me now. I’m not that harsh on Spellhai because I think it’s interesting to have one or two archetypes around that play in the ways they do but I certainly wouldn’t appreciate matches being determined by players shuffling their cards for a few turns and then unloading combos at one another from across the board. Spellhai mirror matches must be so weird now, I should really find a replay for one.

Thank you for your kind words as well <3

1 Like

I love this stealth graph, flying silently through the night

2 Likes

I wrote a grumpy novel. Contains twice the daily recommended dose of grump. Sourced naturally. TL;DR at the bottom. (I wasn’t even planning to write this stupid thing. But I made it, and now you have to read at it. Or TL;DR it, whatever.)

Some of us may disagree with this post, but at this point, can’t most of us tell that something needs to be fixed? Short-term, because you can now build a Magmar deck out of nothing but good cards that don’t hinge on your other cards to be good, with at least three of them being nuts.

But also fixed long-term, because whatever method Counterplay uses to make new cards spits out results, on a pretty regular basis, that are game-definingly strong in the right combination, or worse, by themselves. And they don’t tend to fix them unless they’re really bad, and then they have a track record of destroying them.

Inquisitor Kron could have been released as, or nerfed to, a 4/5. If that was still too strong, then something else could have been done, maybe 3/5, or 4/6 without provoke. Nope, punch him straight down to 4/4 and expect he’ll still see play, I guess in replace decks? Except those don’t have enough support to be a thing. We need more enablers than aethermasters and those replace-your-hand guys, or it doesn’t matter how many payoff cards we have, come on. The point is Kron went from a three-of in literally almost all top-tier decks to vanishing into the…aether. …Get it? …Anyone?

Meanwhile they also consistently produce seven-mana-plus cards that are so powerful they end the game if not answered right away with very little chance to come back, yet these cards see no competitive play and get called bad because Counterplay’s spent the game’s whole history loading it up with such newbie-tear-inducingly efficient and powerful removal that expensive cards with no effect the same turn and no dying wish just get erased, or dispelled and reduced to a sad vanilla.

Ritual banishing. Kill your thing to kill their thing. No we don’t care how far away their thing is or what’s between you and it, no we don’t care how much health it has or how much effort they had to put into getting it out, it dies. And how many cards do we have now that go “it dies” or “it’s vanilla” with not a care for how strong or impressive it is? And good thing we have them too, because as it stands all these absolute answers are the only armor between you and your opponent’s nuclear handgun.

Huge drops that no one plays aside, cards in the upper cost range with immediate impact tend to have that immediate impact in much the same way as a meteor, and there are plenty of cheaper less-scary-sounding cards that still have amazing immediate effects and/or will still murder you and empty your wallet for spite if you can’t deal with them cleanly.

Counterplay seems to like big, intense effects that can be described in small amounts of text and are easy to understand. There’s something to be said for designing cards this way, I suppose. It’s a good way to generate initial hype. It makes the cards feel punchy, cool and exciting. At first. Then you start to realize that the effects are stupid. Do you really think your game will be boring or something if you scale back to have effects that are merely large, rather than all trying to compete with each other and Jupiter for the title of largest object in the solar system besides the sun?

Silithar elder. Rebirth. Okay. Makes a silithar elder egg every turn. …What?

Grandmaster Nosh-Rak. Have some stats and some keywords. I’m sorry, the enemy general takes how much more damage? Half again rounded up? That would be a lot of extra damage right there. But it takes too many words to convey the point I guess, or it doesn’t sound punchy enough even though that’s pretty huge, or they don’t want to make people do math as complicated as half again rounded up, so it’s double damage. Whereas spiral technique does a flat eight for the same cost, and doesn’t leave an insanely threatening minion behind.

Gate to the Undervault. Can never be dealt with once it’s done. Makes demons forever. What’s a demon, a small token with an ability or something? Um. Well. Remember klaxon and vorpal reaver? Cue the Abyssian girls forming a metal band. Six, six, six, the number of the beast.

The old enfeeble. Everything’s trash now. For three mana. Exept zero-attack walls for some reason, which is a dumb off-flavor interaction. Seriously, why would you code it to set minions to 1/1 instead of lower? Having the ultimate debuff buff certain things just feels bad. But the main problem was it ruined any enemy board that wasn’t mostly wraithlings for dirt cheap, and instead of reworking it they just raised the cost to five and killed it as dead as Inquisitor Kron.

Swarm. Any kind of effective swarm. Have your mass answers ready, they cry. Don’t have them, you cry. That’s basically it.

And circulus’ ability is still insane, the only thing holding it in check now is it’s so fragile. Why not buff the stats to 2/2 and limit the number of illusions it can give you to one per turn? It wouldn’t die to pings anymore and it would still pay off after a single illusion. Your two-drop doesn’t need to generate card advantage and/or 2/1’s at the rate of two or three every freaking turn. But “Whenever you cast a spell, do this,” is easier to understand and sounds more “awesome” than “The first time you cast a spell each turn with this on the board, do this.” Heck, you could cut out “with this on the board” and just have it work that way without saying it, if you’re worried about cluttering up the card text. Same thing with blue conjurors and their endless arcanysts, although that’s somewhat more justified considering it doesn’t happen on their first or second turn.

And this is without getting into card combos with nuts effects. Assassination protocol, should have seen that one coming, you can’t just go out handing pseudorush to everything, conditional or not. And who enjoyed playing against artifact Songhai? Who enjoys playing against firestorm mantra Songhai? I’m guessing not a ton of people. …Flawless reflection.

Once you leave the newbiesphere, the whole game hinges on insane threats that are held in check only by insane answers. Meanwhile at least four or five hundred cards drift in the abyss of not-good-enough, and don’t see top-level play no matter how well-designed they are because they don’t have a high-enough power level for cost. Counterplay, you put effort into creating those cards, designing and naming them, giving them art and animation…so why won’t you fix them? How can you be afraid of breaking your game or whatever by making weak cards stronger, when you already break your game by releasing cards that are way too good, and then leaving all but the worst of them that way, ensuring the card pool stays eternally narrow?

(Okay, I hope I didn’t make any major mistakes, I’m tired of editing this behemoth. Why do I keep doing this to myself?)

TL;DR Counterplay seems to design their cards more by feel, flavor and cool factor than by what’s actually balanced, and it produces cards with a cool concept and stupidly low power level like suzumebachi and astral crusader, and cards that trainwreck the matches they show up in.

@ThanatosNoa, @stormshade, @ anyone who cares to listen, feel, flavor and cool factor are the right starting point for making good cards, no doubt, but it feels like that ends up being the stopping point in the design process enough of the time that it’s making things go seriously wrong.

2 Likes

I once lost a game to Battle Pet Abyssian in D3. It was a fun match.

1 Like

Before anything else, I feel it’s wise to be clear that the things we’re talking about are very unlikely to see any kind of impact in-game. CPG has some very long-standing practices and while I don’t agree with them I don’t see any indication they’ll listen to any of us here on issues of this magnitude. I can hope, but let’s keep some perspective.

I agree of course. In my opinion Duelyst shouldn’t use the rotation system as an excuse to keep toxic cards and interactions around “because they’ll be gone eventually anyway.” Instead, I’m in favor of a Smogon-esque suspect-testing system. Imagine, every 4 weeks or so CPG announces a new batch of cards (maybe 3-4) they’ll be trialling changes to in order to see how those changes might play out. The community has that month to respond, give feedback on the initial idea, and then it goes into effect the next month (at which point CPG announces the suspects for the next period). After that month, CPG decides to keep (some) changes permanent, revert them or whatever else, depending on how things play out. You get a low-effort system that can help improve balance, gives players an expectation that a card they own might change but lets them see it coming, uses free testers, gives the community something to discuss and talk about, continuously shakes up the meta and maintains creative control for CPG without risking breaking the meta for longer than a few weeks at worst.

I expect CPG will just do nothing or completely destroy a few cards in a month or two but I always enjoy being wrong on this. I wasn’t expecting the nerfs they made recently either so who knows.

Yeah that nerf was really overdone and sad. Theobule is cool but you need actual payoff cards for its effect to matter and Kron is just too weak individually in its current state. 4/5 seems like a sensible buff to trial.

I cri evrytiem :’(.

I actually did a big think piece on this issue a while back, it seems like it could be right up your alley.

So much this. This seeming aversion to writing specific conditions is so incredibly weird to me. CPG seems to favor numerical changes rather than design ones (more or less damage/Mana cost) to the point of absurdity. Thunderhorn would be such a better design if its effect didn’t chain through the enemy General but those kinds of changes happen so rarely in this game, and for no good reason I can think of. I think your examples exemplify this mentality well enough.

My guess would be to make new players feel good for getting essential tools, to have cards that are exclusively suited to Gauntlet and to just plain old sell-new-cards to us. If the old stuff is as good as the new stuff they’ll fear we won’t pay to buy the new stuff.

As a side note: How would you feel about making certain spells exclusive to certain Generals, or limit their effects with others? Bond is an example of a keyword that restricts cards to specific decks, maybe cards like Inkling Surge, Sphere of Darkness and Vaath’s Brutality should be exclusive to one General? There could be ‘tribes’ for spells or you could have something like an “Affinity with [X]” where (part of) the effect of a card is locked off unless played under a certain General. For example, only Cassyva might get the cantrip off Sphere of Darkness. Just spitballing ideas here.

I appreciate trying to signal-boost posts to mods but I’m 100% sure at this point that someone at CPG is always reading pretty much every post. I don’t think we need to spam their mentions if we can help it. Just a thought there.

Thank you for writing out your thoughts: I’d recommend getting a bit of distance for a bit because you seem to be reaching a point of exasperation at this point (apologies for the armchair psychology there, just trying to help) because if anything were to change it’d likely be slow. We have the luxury of only being concerned with good design, CPG is stuck having to function within a market system, and now under a publisher.

3 Likes

Thanks for the breakdown. I looked over some of the stuff you posted in those other threads, definitely feeling a lot of agreement with you concerning removal and big dumb things, and it frustrated me how several others were so keen on shooting down your ideas. I really like the sound of the suspect-testing system, seems smart and a good way to involve the community. The idea of marrying some cards to specific generals to increase general identity is also interesting. Some minions/spells/artifacts could be faction-specific, and some could be general-specific. Cool concept.

Your armchair psychology isn’t wrong. If you’ve been generally following my posts over the last week or whatever it’s been since I got back on the forum, I’ve been winding myself up debating balance, and I could probably use a break. I’ve written what I’d guess to be several thousand words on here in the last twenty-four hours. I need to start cutting myself off after two hours a day or something, or I’m going to end up melting my brain.

1 Like

Yeah I think we have a lot in common on these fronts, including getting exasperated when someone seems (to us) to wilfully retreat to unreason-able (pun intended) standards to maintain their initial position. Suddenly you’re arguing about increasingly esoteric things without as much as an acknowledgement that the goal posts have been shifting. Giving yourself a break and/or limit might be just the ticket.

they count as counterspell and hand disruption respectively right?

2 Likes

Sorry for the delay on this. Was caught up in some stuff for the past few days.

Could you elaborate on that perhaps? Perhaps you think that I’m suggesting that any archetype or deck that contains even one (card with an) arguably unfair element is immediately unfair? For the record: I’m not. I even mentioned a bunch of those archetypes as ones that I dó appreciate.

I was under the impression from your post that you were suggesting that this was the standard all deck were to be held to. Even if this is your middle ground, a lot deck stray so far from this idea that it becomes questionable. I think that I thought you judged far too harshly to this idea, in that case my apologies.

I appreciate the analogy but in my argument I’m saying that there are certain top-tier tools that just outclass almost everything else, so why bring the other stuff?

Because like tools in real life different tools have different properties and different weaknesses. For an example; Walls are weak to mass dispel (Lightbender, Emp), Midrange Mag minions crumple to efficient removal (Aspect of the Fox, Sand Trap), Swarm AoE, etc. Every deck has some specific weakness and if the meta is so polarizing toward these top tier decks it would be smart to play decks to counter them or at the very least tech if your decks can’t handle the match up, it’s theoretically an easy way to climb. You can always bring top tier to face top tier but it might not works as well. For an example, Arcanyst Vanar used to be a top tier deck but that doesn’t mean it gets to run over something like Control Vanar which specializes in breaking Arcanysts normally insurmountable boards. Being “top tier” doesn’t mean it destroys 100% everything else in the game. By being a mechanic in this game it will also bring inherent weaknesses. (Control Vanar never really took off because at the time it didn’t have a solid win con outside of Embla and pray. Also Midranged Magmar, the other meta deck at the time which walks all over it.) I don;t think the crabs are a bad solution truth be told. I think they’re ungraceful, but if they preform they’re purpose quite nicely. They allow decks to adjust to a specific environment or against decks they are unfavored against. It’s little different from Control decks in HS from running Skulking Geist to beat Jades and in Yugioh Hand traps to stop SPYRAL from making unbeatable boards.

Also, we all don’t play to have the best chance at laddering. I like messing around with different decks. Vespyrs, Midranged Sajj, Geomancer Burn are all off meta decks I enjoy playing. I like playing with things do to thematic and style. and so do many other players. I can’t splash “broken” combos into these decks and I quite frankly don’t want to. So instead I may resort to techs if they’re truly needed. But I take this more of a competitive discussion so moving on.

Also about your Smogon example in your original post. Polarization in Pokemon is a far bigger deal than in card games because you only have 6 slots in Pokemon. In formats with incredibly dominating Pokemon, the constraints that these metas put on team building is far greater than anything that could happen in card games because of the limited slots. For an example, Mega- Lucario was a problematic pokemon a long time ago. It had an extremely powerful Physical and Special build which made checking both impossible. The only Pokemon at the time that could wall both sets was Weezing, which is a very low tier pokemon. This is a problem because it means you have to to use one of your valuable team slots on a pokemon that probably does not do any favors to your team greatly constraining team building. This isn’t the case in card games do to a greater deck size. We have 40 slots in Duelyst, even if I commit 4 slots to tech I still have 36 left, this is enough to execute whatever game plan I was going while having cards to help with unfavored or popular match ups.

My issue with this combo is that there is no “after the explosive turn” most of the time because the tempo shock is so great that there is no reasonable way to recover.

It’s mostly theory crafting here, problem is I’ve only seen the deck twice, so I don’t know much about. Once as Calculator Pokemar and the other time he didn’t draw Assassination Protocol. Also Midrange Kaleos naturally makes play like this anyway without Decibot. It’s all about getting a massive tempo lead midgame via movement abilities. Control Vanar has a nice way of stopping it with cheap removal, stuns, Enfeeble, etc. Vet can tech in Hexblade and Sandtrap if it REALLY becomes a problem. If it become meta defining there are ways for decks to slow the push down and win.

In my opinion Mana cost is the single most important aspect to a card in Duelyst (as evidenced by how cost changes completely push and pull cards into and out of use). Ask anyone if getting Grandmaster Variax, Ghost Seraphim, Makantor Warbeast or Decimus into play two turns earlier makes a significant amount of difference or not. Power spiking two turns earlier or later makes áll the difference, in my opinion.

True. But that’s not the only factor at work. Midranged Magmar and Tempo Lynor have been or were top tier decks in the game. They never really went over the mana curve you propose and quite honestly don’t have powerful spikes. They simply just played very efficient minions on curve or just never ran out of steam. Also ramping out cards earlier doesn’t always break a card. Variax was actually a fairly average deck even at 7 mana. It didn’t always get Variax out early and even if it did it didn’t always win. In fact it was fairly easy for Mid Ranged decks to just over run Variax decks, hence why it fell out of favor before the nerf. Ultimately, I do think there’s any correlation between top tier decks. They all simply just had elements that pushed them up to the top of the meta for one reason or another. Which brings to another topic I wanted to gloss over.

No matter what you do there will always be a meta with a top tier deck or broken interactions. You can provide OP support to the decks you supported. You can change the balancing philosophy. But there will always be a meta because players are always going to be min-maxing decks and finding something they view to be above the cut. This is just a product of players being competitive and exploring every option they can find. It’s up to a devs to provide an environment that induces metas that promote player enjoyment. But it’s also up to the players, especially the top players which everyone follows to be creative and experiment. A meta is ultimately just a player’s view point of the game state. It’s normally right, but they’re thing the player can miss. In LoL, recently there was an OP item called Ardent Censor that got absolutely abused in the recent worlds and champions that could abuse the items were very prevalent. The funny thing about the item is that it had been that way for the entire year. No buffs pushed it forward, it just that players discovered it in a year and abused the hell out of it. Also, about the decks you bring up. Most of the more relevant ones can make S- Rank and compete on the ladder. Pure Golems are a solid deck. Arcanyst is still a thing and so is Creep. Unless you’re playing to become the very top or in a major tournament these decks are perfectly fine and can hold their own vs the meta.

2 Likes

I’m sorry, but pointing out that there are weaknesses to even top tier decks doesn’t change their top-tier status: they’re better than everything else, by definition. Weaker decks might do fine against some of the top-tier, but not all of them, and typically equally well when compared to other top-tier decks. Your second comment shows that we have very different standards when it comes to game design. To me, forcing most players to give up 4/30 slots of their decks to have a reasonable chance against two very specific archetypes is a complete failure of design. To be clear: those cards are deemed absolutely necessary to survive against specifically Murloc and Pirate decks. It’d be like printing a card with “OG: Destroy all enemy Wraithlings” in Duelyst so decks continue to be able to deal with a hypothetical hyper-swarm deck. It’s why I’ve always disagreed with the “just run Crossbones” response to people complaining about old Mechaz0r.

I like messing around with different decks, I just don’t see why my enjoyment would be less if those different decks all had a reasonable chance of competing, if I chose to attempt that. Do you enjoy a deck less when it performs well? Do you dislike getting stomped by meta decks without feeling like you had a chance to beat the odds?

A 2-card 5-Mana combo on T2 that generates a 4/5 and a 7/5 body, of which the first has Rush against Minions. One of the two combo cards is generally useful even outside the combo and the combo can be combined with Metaltooth synergy to give the 7/5 true Rush as well. Citing Vanar doesn’t help your case imo and the combo comes into play instantly regardless. If the other player is spending their turn somehow stalling or removing my stuff instead of playing their own strategy I’m still well ahead. I’m not saying that Songhai will win 100% of matches where they combo on T2, I’m saying that the combo is too strong for that point in the game and it turns matches into mostly “do they have it” guessing games.

I disagree, I think both decks are/were defined by just playing a stream of overpowered cards at each moment of their curve which Tempo Lyonar used to snowball to victory and Magmar used to counter everything the opponent plays to first grind and then burst them down.

You’re accidentally making my point for me: Variax was playable because you could cheat it out earlier than you were “supposed to” be able to. I wasn’t arguing that Variax was too strong (I thought it was a great deck design and execution), just that getting things out earlier is absolutely devastating in Duelyst, even more so when it’s so early that players can’t both deal with it and develop their own strategy.

Why? As far as I can tell that’s a decision developers make. Regardless, there’s a matter of degrees: you can try to keep the disparities low even when you fail to eliminate them entirely.

I emphasized the key caveat there. With enough patience you can compete with more decks than just the current best, that’s still true. I’m arguing that the effort and fun gaps are widening between the top and everything else. If you want to ladder efficiently or if you want to feel like you have a chance in matches I believe you can only bring a select few decks, now more than ever before in Duelyst. I’m happy you’re happy with the state of the game though.

…I thought all my posts were very carefully reasoned and thought out, if perhaps just a little bit manic in tone. And I only have one singular obsessive goal, the promotion of the idea that there is a balance ideal that all games can strive for, and that pursuing it is always the correct choice by definition.

I’m not going to type more on that subject here because I’ve already done enough of that to make smoke come out of my ears in the last few days.

That’s probably wise, if you’re looking for something to sink your teeth into I’ve prepared a special little ExpireBox PDF download of an online CCG concept I’ve worked on (off and on) as a bit of creative amusement for a good while that doesn’t even have draw RNG. I added an external source of RNG so players can have someone to blame other than themselves when they lose matches. Here you go. Just a bit of fun theorycrafting, there are some changes I’d make that I’ve saved in another document but haven’t incorporated into the design document (yet).

2 Likes

Dude.
Seriously.
That is freakin’ sweet af…

Preach! :rofl::joy:

2 Likes

You should kickstart this. Seriously.

3 Likes

@unreason, @isbee, @alplod Oh stop you’re making me blush :relaxed:.

I have literally no digital skills to make a game with, I’m just a creative guy with a penchant for systems design. I wouldn’t even know where to begin with something the scope of a crowdfunding campaign :fearful:. Compliment well received though :kissing_heart:.

2 Likes

I second @alplod, provided that you have any way of making this happen, with or without help from others. I think you could get a fat chunk of change just from the people on this forum.

Edit: This is why you shouldn’t reply without reading all the comments first. Oops.

Edit to edit: But what if you could team up with someone who’s got the ability to handle stuff like crowdfunding? There are lots of indie developers floating around making all kinds of games, if you could get one of them interested in this idea, they could handle the messy stuff and you could be the main idea man. You wouldn’t have to draw or program or anything, you’d literally just be the main owner of the concept and main creator of cards.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 5 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.