Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Everything that doesn't go anywhere else.

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby Romdeau » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:10 pm

Scientiafide wrote:Overall I found this errata to be pretty good. I personally have just a few questions though over certain cards.

1) Why was folrart shield knight's buff so underwhelming? This buff is basically saying the card is fine as is, when it seems like most of the community is in agreement the card is underpowered.

2) Why was overdose nerfed? I never really saw this card as a problem card. How exactly is this card OP? I know I'm not the only one in thinking this since every time I've seen a thread about this card there are usually people defending it.

3) Why was Exploder Wizard SS nerfed? Personally, I've always found the SS to be pretty meh.

4) Astaforce and Miandela SS were nerfed (which I agree with, 3+ sp advantage is too much), but Psycho soldier SS was left untouched? Psycho Soldier SS is just as bad. What's refess doing with such an uncharacteristic SS anyway?

There might've been some other things I missed, but overall it seems like everything else is pretty good. Like I said, all in all a good errata, was just wondering about these points.

1) We may revisit, I am a fan of incremental buffs though-it's much harder to nerf a card then it is to buff one. Right now he has a unique trait which scales with max HP, a trait that Refess is good at increasing. At the end of the day, this is just a level 2 stall card-nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure why the community is so focused on this particular card though.

2) Overdose was still one of highest used cards in the game and it was completely shutting out certain files from being played-it was thus reducing game diversity by its mere threat alone. We didn't want to nerf it's purpose, but discourage people from a) spamming it early and completely shutting down files from setting up and b) make users re-think sticking 3 of these into whatever file that uses Zu, Shavara, or MD Augment.

3) It had too much power and felt unfair compared to other souls. It still does quite a bit of damage, it just has a higher chance to leave a unit wounded instead of -50HP

4) Psycho Soldier SS is random, which is the ultimate saving grace IMO. While not in accordance to Refess themes or mechanic, soul skills tend to break the rules a bit anyhow so I don't think this is too out of line. There's been no alarming usage rates either, and nobody on the testing team (including myself) perceives it as a game-breaking threat.
User avatar
Romdeau
 
Posts: 7432
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:14 am
Location: California, USA

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby sunbunman » Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:16 pm

It just shows that orthos is capable of stalling earling game as a tech unit, not a main. You should be able to prevent ur enemy from spamming high agi high attacks early game with orthos like this design shows he's meant to do.

Midblue is just a file that gets trololol countered by orthos, yes, but it does show that orthos has a lot more potential than he's being given credit for.
Falkow {Water | Fluidity = Elusion} ∈ Win
User avatar
sunbunman
 
Posts: 1645
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:27 am

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby Scientiafide » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:40 pm

Romdeau wrote:
Scientiafide wrote:Overall I found this errata to be pretty good. I personally have just a few questions though over certain cards.

1) Why was folrart shield knight's buff so underwhelming? This buff is basically saying the card is fine as is, when it seems like most of the community is in agreement the card is underpowered.

2) Why was overdose nerfed? I never really saw this card as a problem card. How exactly is this card OP? I know I'm not the only one in thinking this since every time I've seen a thread about this card there are usually people defending it.

3) Why was Exploder Wizard SS nerfed? Personally, I've always found the SS to be pretty meh.

4) Astaforce and Miandela SS were nerfed (which I agree with, 3+ sp advantage is too much), but Psycho soldier SS was left untouched? Psycho Soldier SS is just as bad. What's refess doing with such an uncharacteristic SS anyway?

There might've been some other things I missed, but overall it seems like everything else is pretty good. Like I said, all in all a good errata, was just wondering about these points.

1) We may revisit, I am a fan of incremental buffs though-it's much harder to nerf a card then it is to buff one. Right now he has a unique trait which scales with max HP, a trait that Refess is good at increasing. At the end of the day, this is just a level 2 stall card-nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure why the community is so focused on this particular card though.

2) Overdose was still one of highest used cards in the game and it was completely shutting out certain files from being played-it was thus reducing game diversity by its mere threat alone. We didn't want to nerf it's purpose, but discourage people from a) spamming it early and completely shutting down files from setting up and b) make users re-think sticking 3 of these into whatever file that uses Zu, Shavara, or MD Augment.

3) It had too much power and felt unfair compared to other souls. It still does quite a bit of damage, it just has a higher chance to leave a unit wounded instead of -50HP

4) Psycho Soldier SS is random, which is the ultimate saving grace IMO. While not in accordance to Refess themes or mechanic, soul skills tend to break the rules a bit anyhow so I don't think this is too out of line. There's been no alarming usage rates either, and nobody on the testing team (including myself) perceives it as a game-breaking threat.


Thanks for taking the time to respond to my inquiries, it's much appreciated. I do have a few follow up questions and responses if you'll indulge me a little longer.

Anyway, I guess with Psycho Soldier SS I was thinking the ability to return units without normally having to combo with a card from the file for just 1 sp was strong (which allows for a lot of flexibility), but I suppose the random element could be a good enough drawback. It ensures that the player using it has to play agi 2 or lower units, and there's a chance of returning a lvl 2 or 1 from the enemy's board (making it inefficient at times). I was thinking, though, that by putting it 3rd or 4th in the SS lineup a player could dramatically reduce this risk (thus more consistently gaining an advantage). As the game progresses, though, Sp advantage loses it's importance (compared to other types of advantages that can be gained), so maybe it's not as strong as I was thinking. But yea, the random aspect is something I haven't considered as much as I should've, it seems the card's drawbacks are sufficient.

As for Exploder SS, I felt that the SS generally had two advantages: It had significantly more raw damage output, and had the flexibility of being useful against enemy fields with both a few units and several units. The complete lack of control in damage is already a pretty significant disadvantage. It prevents planning, and sometimes leads to situations where an enemy that is dealt enough damage to be killed is damaged again. When it comes to damage SS, I find that being able to succesfully kill off an enemy is often much more important than total raw damage dealt. This SS often leads to situations where only 1 or (in the worst case scenarios) no units are killed when a 40/40 damage SS would have done the job (especially since a 40/40 SS allows you to coordinate more effectively with open skills). Furthermore, the better 40/40 SS also give stat bonuses which are also pretty useful. I never felt Exploder Wizard ever completely replaced these, in fact I often preferred the 40/40 SS with stat bonuses. Now I don't see any reason at all to choose Exploder Wizard SS over any damage SS given it only gives an average of 20 more raw damage (And now it's completely worse when defense enters the equation).

On the other hand, while I have used Overdose more frequently than the last two cards, I never understood spamming it early over, say, developing an early field. If someone was spamming the old overdose, they would be permanently using up 1-2 sp per casting while not placing a unit onto the field, which I always found to be kind of counterproductive early game. If this tactic worked against certain file types, I'd argue that it would probably lose against the file it's facing anyway without overdose (since all the file types using it have units that hit multiple enemies). Against opponents spamming the grim, I always found it kind of easy to win the sp race (and ultimately, the game). When using the card in a file using MD Augmented, I've found that I've only ever needed to pack 1; I've often gone games without even using it (I would actually argue that putting a 40 damage close ability on a free revive is more op). As for Zu and Shvara, the old effect often pretty much read as, "Close unit for 2 sp" which I don't really find to be that op at all. I'm wondering if this nerf might actually completely kill off it's use, though, since adding a 1 sphere loss is a pretty significant change. I don't see it being effectively used with MD augmented anymore, and I seriously doubt it'll ever be used with any other units ever again (such as other augmented sub-types).

I also would argue that use does not necessarily indicate power. It can also indicate the card's high availability, the high availability of compatible cards, good utility (ie useful in several file types), niche abilities the card possesses (the only other lawtia card that can close an allied unit is the expensive sacrifice) or other factors. Nearly every player in the game has a copy of Overdose and a working augments file due to the Set 11 giveaway. Given all of these factors (and the compounded issue of cards being really hard to acquire in this game), it's not surprising at all that the card sees a lot of play. I don't think that's evidence enough for the card being too strong and deserving of a nerf.

I support the idea behind how you guys choose to buff and nerf units (little by little), it's probably the smartest approach to take imo. It's also good to see that you're willing to revisit cards. I suppose it's good that Folrart Shield Knight is on the radar. The main problem I find with the card is that it's often worse than other options available to refess. I find that it's simply better to go with a buncles-> lvl 3 opening or opening with an sp generator. If I knew of a good filetype that would succesfully use this card over anything else then it would be a moot issue, but I can't think of anything (I think this is the main sentiment the community has about the card).

Anyway, once again thanks for your time in this matter. It's good to see some responses, and I'm glad to see Alteil's taking time to respond to player feedback (from what I can read in the original thread and in this one it seems to be the case).

@ Sunbunman

Yea Ortho's design just screams tech. Cem removal, high agi single-target engaging, the fact it's a refess card without team support... I mean it's too early to tell but I think there's some potential for a good tech unit there. Seems good versus certain mids/bigs or files that rely on cemetery retrieval. Definitely not a main-stay 3 copies card. Only time will tell if it'll be able to compete against other options though, I suppose.
Image

Image
User avatar
Scientiafide
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:44 pm

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby shadowsketch » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:00 pm

Hey Rom,

What are the team's thoughts on the Chamail SS/Knight of the 2nd Shrine SS combo? Is it on the radar for them?
Image
shadowsketch
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby Romdeau » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:03 pm

shadowsketch wrote:Hey Rom,

What are the team's thoughts on the Chamail SS/Knight of the 2nd Shrine SS combo? Is it on the radar for them?

My personal opinion is I think it's power level is not overwhelming, but it is an irritating combo to play against-whether or not that warrants a nerf or not, remains to be seen. It's on my radar at least. I don't think we've ever flat out changed a soul skill's effect, but this might be a good first candidate.

If you iczer into it, yea you take a lot of damage to the face but you nullify 1SS entirely-so it costs you 1sp to iczer 2 souls. I think strong removal and/or control files make short work of this combination as well (Urgrant comes to mind).
User avatar
Romdeau
 
Posts: 7432
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:14 am
Location: California, USA

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby gadu » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:17 pm

Zrpg had a cool idea and used it with Seria so if opponent used up their SP, it cleared the whole field. Others use it behind a 2 or 3 LP SS.
Abuser Punisher / Callonia
Image
User avatar
gadu
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:53 am

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby Icyglare » Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:35 pm

Dat Overdose, usually it wasn't so bad against an Augment file because the other person is neglecting their own field BUT

I used it in Mid-Big files, I spam the crap out of it with MD Augment at the beginning and I'm usually killing two units at a time while their SS's fire into nothingness.
For a large amount of various Alteil Replays, try youtube link

<-- http://www.youtube.com/AlteilReplays -->

CEM guild brah!
User avatar
Icyglare
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:26 am

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby Scientiafide » Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:34 pm

Icyglare wrote:Dat Overdose, usually it wasn't so bad against an Augment file because the other person is neglecting their own field BUT

I used it in Mid-Big files, I spam the crap out of it with MD Augment at the beginning and I'm usually killing two units at a time while their SS's fire into nothingness.


Is that optimal though? I mean in that situation you're using up 2 cards, 1 set phase, and permanently spending 1 sp each turn you cast the grim to at most kill two units. While your opponent wont connect with damage and Engage SS, they'll still connect with any portion of their SS that gains or drains SP (which for early SS choices consists of nearly all of them); so each turn you're using the grim should see them getting a 2+ sp advantage (depending on SS). In the meantime, they'll be using their set-phases to set up the units they need to win. It seems like it would be way better to simply use soul pact or Ellie early game (for a mids/bigs).
Image

Image
User avatar
Scientiafide
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:44 pm

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby shadowsketch » Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:19 am

Romdeau wrote:
shadowsketch wrote:Hey Rom,

What are the team's thoughts on the Chamail SS/Knight of the 2nd Shrine SS combo? Is it on the radar for them?

My personal opinion is I think it's power level is not overwhelming, but it is an irritating combo to play against-whether or not that warrants a nerf or not, remains to be seen. It's on my radar at least. I don't think we've ever flat out changed a soul skill's effect, but this might be a good first candidate.

If you iczer into it, yea you take a lot of damage to the face but you nullify 1SS entirely-so it costs you 1sp to iczer 2 souls. I think strong removal and/or control files make short work of this combination as well (Urgrant comes to mind).


Cool, glad to know it's at least on your radar at least.

It's not mids/bigs that I see as a problem, it's the level 3 and below matchups that bother me. So for example players would be trading units like normal, then one player drops a problem unit that requires more than one unit for the opposing player to take out. So the defending player activates the SS, wipes out the opponent's field (taking out unit copies and costing them SP to revive) and gets a stronger version of his field. And with this stronger version of the defending players field requires more units on the opposing players side to come back.

The worst offender to me is pre-nerf buncles since they had tankiness, debuffing, and healing to force field commitment as well as Ruby Eater to take out surviving units after a field wipe. Plus, it's hard to fight through those units through combat so the only faction that had a chance would be Falkow since they had revives; all of the other factions would have to either use SSs or commit to the field.
Image
shadowsketch
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Request: Balance Team Defends Errata

Postby Scientiafide » Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:00 pm

shadowsketch wrote:
Romdeau wrote:
shadowsketch wrote:Hey Rom,

What are the team's thoughts on the Chamail SS/Knight of the 2nd Shrine SS combo? Is it on the radar for them?

My personal opinion is I think it's power level is not overwhelming, but it is an irritating combo to play against-whether or not that warrants a nerf or not, remains to be seen. It's on my radar at least. I don't think we've ever flat out changed a soul skill's effect, but this might be a good first candidate.

If you iczer into it, yea you take a lot of damage to the face but you nullify 1SS entirely-so it costs you 1sp to iczer 2 souls. I think strong removal and/or control files make short work of this combination as well (Urgrant comes to mind).


Cool, glad to know it's at least on your radar at least.

It's not mids/bigs that I see as a problem, it's the level 3 and below matchups that bother me. So for example players would be trading units like normal, then one player drops a problem unit that requires more than one unit for the opposing player to take out. So the defending player activates the SS, wipes out the opponent's field (taking out unit copies and costing them SP to revive) and gets a stronger version of his field. And with this stronger version of the defending players field requires more units on the opposing players side to come back.

The worst offender to me is pre-nerf buncles since they had tankiness, debuffing, and healing to force field commitment as well as Ruby Eater to take out surviving units after a field wipe. Plus, it's hard to fight through those units through combat so the only faction that had a chance would be Falkow since they had revives; all of the other factions would have to either use SSs or commit to the field.


To me the main component that might make the SS OP is the fact that it's 50 damage to all units as opposed to 40. 50 Guarantees a field wipe against a lot more units. On the other hand, though, a simple 40/40 SS can be used to field wipe the opponent succesfully in certain situations with just 1 SS.

The way I see it, if you're using the combo for an easy field wipe and are not iczering afterwards, you're wasting the SS' potential. You might as well be using a 40/40 or other damage SS.
Image

Image
User avatar
Scientiafide
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Alteil General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron