I would just like to say although Im against balancing. I think it should be done very slowly and I think last balance there was a lot of over reaction to what is balanced. For instance you cant compare lysis to ascent because theyre two different abilities from two very different domains. My dad says if you want somthing done fast go slow and I think that aplies here. Also im not specifically pointing out ascent.

When this happened it also pissed off a lot of people and I think this should be took into consideration with the new set because Im sure its still going to be rebalanced after the release.

I wouldn't be surprised if we can only play the new set in limited play at first to help balance it out before people start trading/buying/selling cards that might get nerfed...

I think what I really wanted to say is im uncomfortable with the idea of the new set. I came from a game that balancing was done every 3 months and I get so worried about balance. The more balanced the funner the game is and thats the plain truth. So yeah.. Im worried.

Wait you are against balancing? or against balancing after release? or for balancing every 3 months?

He's saying he's against what he considers "extreme" balancing.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

I am against all balancing and patching, personally. My dad always says if it's broke don't fix it and I tend to agree with him.

But that's the whole point lolz. Balancing occurs because things ARE broken.

The question then becomes "who believes" something is broken.

Hmmm, but if something is broken, people will either, be forced to fix it, or come up with a way around it, like earlier when sylvan was nerfed horribly and MF elem decks started to be power houses, now, alot of people use none elem MF decks because they have found ways to beat them.

For me the fun part of this game is to try to figure out some use of the cards that no other has thought of. And since this game is so complex this is possible. But this could also lead to someone finding some combo that is "too good". With that I mean so good that it changes what this game should be about, or makes thus use of aloth of other cards just stupid. Ascent was one such card. The problem with this card wasn't that it was overpowered or that 95% of all sylvan players used it, but that it keps people from using cards with a high casting cost. Wich again means a less diversity of different decks that people can use competitively, wich I think is a bad thing. The more decks, the bether. I personaly think that a game like this should be balanced at least once a year, but I also agree with Uber in that this should be done slowly. Let the new set be tried out for at least six months before one do some new balancing. Just because 80% was playing sylvan, didn't mean that it was the best. I think this was just because this was the only domain that was strong with only common cards, and that was the only cards people had at the time.

So please continue to balance this game when it needs to!

I believe one of the huge advantages of an on-line game vs something like Magic is the ability to continually rebalance cards until everything is playable competitively. That doesn't mean everything is even remotely similar...

The easiest way to balance things is to change how much they cost to get into play and I believe most cards are balanced at some cost point, with the one exception being cards so bad that at 0 cost, 0 domains they still aren't worth a deck space. Unfortunately, going from 2 to 3 flux is a pretty big change. I'd actually like to see dynamic balancing something like this:

Flux generation is multiplied by 10.
All flux costs are multiplied by 10.
Most/least used cards in winning EC decks are tracked.
On a weekly(?) basis the top x cards increase in cost by 1.
On a monthly(?) basis any cards not used at all decrease in cost by 1.
If costs overall start to get out of line, increase or decrease everything by 1.

This creates a non-subjective process which forces decks to continually innovate over time. Something similar was/is used in the megamek on-line Battletech campaign games. I have suggested it other places and although they eventually started adding/subtracting small amounts to many cards each patch they never completely implemented it.