The main problem I see here is that those cards could not have 6 copies of similar things rather than 3 in the deck.

I just bought benefits of spec... great.. go figure.. now im out a ton of gold.

And i think thats a horrible balance change for ascent. You may as well delete the card because you would have to be really desperate to use it.

I think balancing cards is bad anyways. In fact I think its a form of insider trading.

None of the cards you nerfed were broken.

I think balance changes are stupid. I just left a game where they did balance changes and I still think theyre once again, a form of insider trading. It ruins the game. Im not puting a single dime into this game again. I dont want to have to be a forum hawk to protect myself from balance changes.

If you make cards beta test them.

The only thing I think is potentialy broken is the salvage rule. I see a lot of building decks and its near impossible to beat them because of it. But even then. I could always make the same deck if I wanted. So its fair. Balance changes are not.

Yes im dissapointed about my recent purchase but im sure everyone else has had the same thing done to them *coughunlessyourmakingthechangescough*. Ive even been on the better end of balance changes. But regardless. Experience shows I do not like them. Im not getting milked for another cent. Visiting the forum every day to look for balance changes dose not pay well enough. I wont do it. But if thats what I have to do to protect my investment then Ill stop investing and count my losses.

I would like to apologize if I offended anyone because I refuse to invest anymore. Stop balancing the game and maybe I will consider reinvesting at a later date at my discretion.


Edit: I would also like to apologize because im not sure if balance changes are normal. The above mentioned card game had a constant balance forum that every player was allowed to participate and vote in. Which wasnt the actual reason i didnt donate. I didnt donate because you donated by buying "donor" cards. Most of the donor cards were over powered and I didnt feel comfortable having to donate to play them. After being a long time gamer I almost always choose the difficult route when it comes to games and the overpowered donor cards seemed unsportsmanly.


What made me buy gold on tfw was it seemed proffesional. But now it just dosnt. Cards really should be beta tested and final. Even if something turns out really really over-powered theres still domain which increases the likelyness of getting it in a pack, theres also a limit of 3 to a deck, and everyone can use it if they eventually earn it or buy gold to pay for it.

Well like I said we really don't intend to do many changes after we release a set. There are a lot of cards and there are many many interactions between them it is very hard to avoid releasing things that are completely balanced. Specially since we have such a small team.

How about this:
Any card you bought off the market at most a month before these changes happen that was nerfed we will look at the price a month after the changes and give you the difference. So if you bought BoS a week ago and a month from now its price drops 20 gold from the price you paid we will give you 20g.

Actually we will do this. We will make a note of all the owners of these cards:
Vapor Mahal
Benefits of Spectacle
Ascent
Training
Charm

And the price of these cards on the market before I posted about the changes.
After a month we will see what the current price of these cards is and pay these people the difference. So no one's collection will lose value because of these changes.

oh yeah, forgot before:

it's definitely true that either bamboo tower or beacon of celador should also be adjusted. yes it's true you took ascent out of that deck but most of the time it can win without it (ascent just makes it a blowout).

but especially if, as mentioned you adjust vapor mahal, a change i definitely agree with, it's one of the strongest cards in the game despite being common, you have to do something to account for the other 2-vision buildings, especially the very cheap ones that are in the fastest domain. i think that as long as you make all of the adjustments with this set before/during the release of the next set it's perfectly fine to make those adjustments. I find it actually sort of absurd that people were willing to pay 100g+ for any card in a game with what I estimate to be less than 200 regular players (no offense meant to the developers, who have done a good job creating the game, but i'm just being honest -- market value should reflect demand for a product, especially in a situation where product is being very rarely opened.... i mean, if nobody's buying packs and entering domain/keep cards, there can't very well be enough demand for the product that people should be paying 100+ for an uncommon that isn't even in the best deck)..

beacon and watchtower were changed, just not listed individually.

to those complaining about the nerfs, it happens with all online card games; it's just a fact that you need to rebalance sometimes. no one seems to be complaining about the buffs, however.

As for ascent, it's still quite useful; it just won't be useful AND a flux advantage to the caster.

Im very surprised and disappointed that these cards that I paid money for and supposedly own are being edited after the fact.

It's not just the cards that were changed. The Enchantments starting dim kills my deck. I just bought arid encroachments to go with my sand storms, as defense for the wandering whorls and chambered reefs I bought. My strategy, and the cards I decided to spend real money on, was built on an analysis of the rules. Now my chambered reefs cannot speed around the board nearly as fast, and I cannot defend myself by waiting till an opponent has moved to play arid encroachment/sand sand strom. Since the game is still small and Im one of the few people employing this specific set of tactics, my set of card values wont change much on the open market.

I agree that a more balanced game is better in some respects for TFW and it's owners. However, everyone has the same rules and same cards available to them. The long term winner is the player who can best identify and exploit the inherent imbalances. If you are going to just change the imbalances as players find them, it makes it hard to justify spending any money at all to play.

It would be far better for players, the market, and eventually TFW's bottom line to change the rules and future release versions of cards while leaving the virtual entities which players would appear to "own" intact. By admitting that current cards may be overpowered and eventually out of print, you create centerpieces for an active marketplace and incentive for players to buy more cards. If I remember correctly from other card games from my youth, it's these avid collectors/traders who fueled the word of mouth advertising that brought in all the starter deck and pack buyers.

In any case, it would be nice if my card collection at least appeared to be mine. Good job with your programming, good luck with your business.

1 ) I think benefits of spectacle can give glory only to the card owner. So, u can still use this without risk be surprised by spells casted by your opponent. If benefits of spectacle will give glory to both players, its will become a dead card.

2 ) Awesome change on Mahal. Now its fixed!

3 ) 3 flux cost to ascent is fair enough

4 ) Why enchantments dim? Isnt better treat case by case?

_________________

To those who are worried about gameplay: Give it a month. Eventually people will find a new niche to dominate with, or they won't and the developers will have to make changes. The best players will always deal with changes.

To those complaining about lost gold: Jed offered a way to refund some of it. On top of that, numerous of the cards changed will still hold value. When a new set comes out some cards that you thought were nerfed too hard might actually become amazing again.

For those saying "cards should be finalized": Your logic sounds fine, but there are always going to be cards that seem fine in testing, but once presented to the player base *someone* finds a way to abuse that card. Others follow suit. The choice is then either: A) Play with said card or your lose, or B) the developers can modify it. The first option leads to "The best deck", which eventually becomes boring once everyone plays it. The later can lead to the option of a diverse metagame. Yes, people will lose gold, and yes, people will get upset. But I'd prefer B) if it keeps the game fun for the player base in the long run, something A) definitely won't do.

Word.

Is it too much to ask for a complete list of changes?