I'm against not quickly drawing those other buildings(and diplomat) through cycling. It would really reduce their value in my opinion. Any deck based on racing for the middle would be hurt considerably w/out garaunteed great oak/bone fortress/mahal draws.

I think this is a good change. I do agree that this would weaken other domain cards, or even making them unplayable, but I think this is a good thing. If the only way to get a new level of domain was paying seven flux, that would seriously slow things down, and to me that would be a good thing.

I hope you are willing to buy back Thrones and Fissures and Hadarcks Forts if you follow through with all these changes. You are nerfing all of the fun cards in the game

Changing auto draw cripples my two competitive decks once again. I need Great Oaks.

I've been giving this topic some more thought, and I've come to agree that Alabaster Pantheon should be added to the default buildings. Otherwise, three-domain decks become too difficult to play. Also, I think that as an additional cost to play a default building, you must put a card from your hand on top of your deck. It needs to cost a card, and I think that this option is what would be the most appealing to new players.

Autodraw gave players a consistency in what they could depend on to play. Several people are lamenting this loss of consistency. I think that the mulligan system could be slightly changed in order to mitigate this loss of consistency. Let players have one free mulligan to 7 cards. Unlike other card games, there's no real combo decks out there that can easily abuse this. This would allow players to gain back some of the consistency that would be lost with the Autodraw changes.

Hey wo, wo, wo. 7 flux is already the cost, why gimp people who want to go towards lots of domain buildings?
Consider the other non default buildings as one of those other in demand creature/spell cards and its all back to normal then.


I think AlaPan is rather strong as a default building....

Such is the unfortunate effects of balancing. Go ahead and find the people whom you paid to, cos last I checked, the store sells things in packs.
And by your reasoning, those cards which becomes better, the players who own them should pay extra now, or not be able to use it.

The card to the top of the deck thing is if the proposed infinite reserve of basic buildings is implemented. Without having buildings cost a card, the whole purpose of the change would be defeated. Consider Hadarck's Throne: It costs 1 card and 4 flux; You get a 2H, 0V domain building. With the proposed change Gather Spirits gets you a much, much better deal: It costs 1 card and 4 flux (1 from the Gather Spirits to go to 4, then an additional 3 to go to 7); You get a 5H, 1V domain building that is also a base and has Salvage. I don't think that's what the designers want.



Alabaster Pantheon would be too weak without Autodraw, though. The decks that rely on Alabaster Pantheon aren't merely slowed down like decks relying on, say, Hadarck's Throne. Alabaster Pantheon decks become unplayable. It's unrealistic to expect three-domain decks to play 3,4, or even 5 basic default buildings. If Alabaster Pantheon were too strong as a default building, 1 or 2 less health could easily balance that out.

So I am replying without having taking the time to read all the other posts.

A change like this should not be taken lightly. The autodraw mechanism was something that I loved about TFW. Changing it in the proposed way makes things like Bone Fortress, Great Oak, Hadarck's Throne, Weather Vane, etc. almost useless, or significantly lower their value. This would also screw with the economy a bit, since the price of throne is so high. There was enough complaints when cards were nerfed the first time with that balancing change, but Jed did reimburse value changes.

I have not been able to spend much time playing the beta of Borderlands so I do not know any cards, but I would hope to imagine that some of those cards can deal with the domain acceleration problem.

So I have mixed feelings about this. I am for keeping the old autodraw mechanism, since the whole structure of decks and economy and deck-building rules have been based off the mechanism. But I could see how the new autodraw mechanism can shake things up; change may be a good thing, but now cards that give flux like Scorched Horizons, Ord Stone, and Gather Spirits will skyrocket in value.

If the new changes are implemented, I would hope that Jed would be ready to reimburse on the major net market changes. For example, I would imagine the price of Hadarck's Throne to drop considerably, but the price of Scorched Horizons to rise. Say I owned 1 of each. If the price of Scorched Horizons rises more than the Throne drops, then I would not need to be reimbursed. Instead, if Throne drops say 200 gold, but Horizons only rises 150 gold, then I believe 50 gold is a fair reimbursement. Why do I think reimbursement is necessary? Because the rules of the game are being changed. Having a new set change the way cards are valued is part of the CCG nature and these price changes should not be reimbursed, but changing the core fundamental rules of the game (or changing cards after they've been released) should call for reimbursement.

Just my two cents.

I'm for limited reimbursement.
And I'm all for changes, good ones at any rate.

I rather some players lose out now, then everyone lose out from a weak mechanic for the rest of this game's life.

Now limited reimbursement as in you are reimbursed FULLY if you had bought it with gold you paid for, or from a booster pack. The former part takes a bit of intregrity, but yea. You also have the option of selling the card, but at -5% or 2 gold charge, whichever higher.

Limited reimbursement for those freeloaders(like me) is that the game will offer to buy back at 1/2 the price change, determined by the owners of the game.
Yes, you atcually have to lose that card. If you want it back, go buy it in the market again. And if the card is still in demand, the price will atcually increase some, reducing the change in gold price(reduced supply, slight demand increase). Then again, if the card sucked so much, you would be GLAD to get rid of it, no one will buy the extra cards being sold cheap, and nothing will happen(reduced supply and demand).

Exaple:
Like say the card is adveraging 189 gold this past 2 months, and when the change occurs, it adverages 85 gold (assume the price had time to stabalized), you are reimbursed 52 gold, while those that paid for it is reimbursed with 104 gold, or can sell it for 179 gold to the Game.

This gives more incentive for people to give money to the site. Don't forget, balance > value of cards. We win in the end.

Lastly, large changes like this should give sufficient time for people to be aware and prepare for it.

I'm guessing reimbursement is a huge pain in the ass for the devs. Think about how they'd have to arbitrarily assign some sort of "value change scale" to all the cards that are changing... then run some database queries... award gold... ICK. Some cards will get stronger, some will get weaker, but that's the nature of balancing. I'd rather have them work on "real" development rather than try to sort out that madness. And besides, I'm quite certain that even if they did do some kind of reimbursement, people would still complain about it.

Furthermore, if you own the cards that are being nerfed, you've (theoretically) already been reaping the rewards of any imbalance. Why should you receive additional rewards? And if you're fortunate enough to own cards that got a little bit better-- lucky you. Who cares.

I think the autodraw mechanic is great and it should not be changed. The game would be much weaker if basic buildings were all just there for the casting and the autodraw mechanic smooths out the randomness in a way that a skilled player can benefit from.

If it makes certain cards too powerful, then they are the problem and should be changed rather than a core mechanic of the game. For example, add 1 to the cost of a throne and it would still be the cheapest way to get another domain. Should thrones be cheaper than weathervanes? Generally I'd rather see my opponent with a weathervane on a domain building than a throne beside it even at the same cost.

As for reimbursement I say no. That it was done in the past I think was a bad idea as it set a precendent that needs to be reversed. People should realize that any card that is overpowered may be subject to change and price it accordingly.