AqvasFire2 wrote:GonFreeces31 wrote:Just because counters to something exist does not mean that a card is not overpowered. You tried to make that claim about the original Bringer and Ruuca and it made no sense.
What you said is the epitome of bullsh!t.
To use Sirlin's favorite fighting game analogies,
"Just because jump exists doesn't mean having a projectile isn't OP!"
Yet that's
EXACTLY what it means. Cards have counters. And if you don't feel like using those counters, that's not evidence of a card's overpoweredness. That's evidence of you being a bad player or a bad file designer.
Know why Alteil is in the doldrums?
Precisely because the testing team is killing metas going by your trash philosophy of "just because counters exist doesn't mean it's not OP". Ruuca was defeatable. So was Dilate. So was Bringer (in fact Bringer never frightened me, not even before a single one of his nerfs).
And I'm not talking about ridiculously obscure counters, either. Splashing Gaiessoul is a strong strategy for either Refess or Gowen. And if there was a falk/lawt proxy, it would also be for Falkow. With Falkow, WK uses storm wiz/volfied, serpent uses frog, and I believe strike wyvern can also engage Greg out of his focus (forget if it's random or not). Gowen has sakura, which anything outside a Gowen rush should be running, and Gowen rush, as worthing demonstrated, has pixies to lock him out.
This whole "to the nerfmobile" every single time someone (
especially a horrible player like Callonia, who prides himself on playing deliberately bad files) is precisely one of the reasons Alteil is in the crapper right now--because it's just not a game very conducive to establishing a metagame and having the best players win.
I know what you're saying, and via a player's perspective I agree. When a player plays, sure you play to have fun, but the objective in a game ultimately is to win. Complaining about certain aspects of a game and playing by your own arbitrary rules (while simultaneously expecting everyone else to play the rules you bind yourself to) is pretty ridiculous and actually somewhat childish. The rules of the game are already set, learn the nuances of the game and stop complaining about something being "cheap" or "unfair." In a well designed game, there are always counters; if the game isn't well designed, stop complaining and play something else. Of course, if the tactic truly has no counters and is pretty much an insta-win, that needs to be rectified asap or else the game will lack depth and become pretty stale.
But from a game design perspective it should be different,
especially in a collectible card game. The whole point of a ccg is that each card should provide different and viable options. If a card is so powerful it makes several other cards obsolete, well that's problematic. You don't want the entire game revolving around playing that one card, with either one player having a file that supports it while the few other files in existence exist solely to counter. Instead of having cards that can only be countered via a few specific cards that hard counter it, cards should be able to be countered via different strategies and tactics. The whole appeal to a ccg (and what justifies having the large card pool) is that there should be a staggering amount of variety in strategies that can be played competitively (as opposed to only a select few cards that work and can be played). I think this is what gon meant by his quote, although he was pretty vague as usual (sorry gon but it's true).
Also to be fair, just because a player plays a bad file once in a while to mess around, that doesn't make them a bad player. I saw a replay of worthing messing around, losing his gold star with cotc and collecting event cards. He must suck amirite?