How relevant or irrelevant should the errata changes be?

[Khiruki]

i havent decided which errata was worse, jp massive change everything around, or usa not so effect change, i mean the so call special treatment ones, verlaat ,myffyre and phoenix chick didnt change anything. did the gms even watch the matchs of players using these cards to change them appropriately, remember when i said most jp errata comes from the cards mostly used, great example showing what is balanced and what is not.

USA errata is also based on usage.

[GonFreeces31]

USA errata is also based on usage.

This is not true.

[Peralisc9001]

i havent decided which errata was worse, jp massive change everything around, or usa not so effect change, i mean the so call special treatment ones, verlaat ,myffyre and phoenix chick didnt change anything. did the gms even watch the matchs of players using these cards to change them appropriately, remember when i said most jp errata comes from the cards mostly used, great example showing what is balanced and what is not.

USA errata is also based on usage.

According to logress it is.

[AqvasFire2]

USA errata is also based on usage.

This is not true.

Did you or did you not read the post about spike-hunting? AKA "we have no freaking clue what about this card so desperately needs a nerf, or why it's even being used to begin with, but let's just nerf something about it anyway!"

By that logic, in terms of overuse, let's see nerfs on:

A) Guardian
B) Miff/verlaat/chick (still)
C) Shade
D) Return, cyclone, wrath, tidal (don't leave home without these if you play Falkow, possibly no cyclone in a WK other than that though...)
E) Rasam SS
F) Buncle
G) Willowisp

Anything else I'm missing?

[WhiteDragon2]

USA errata is also based on usage.

This is not true.

I seriously find it strange that you completely deny this claim, or do you just mean it's not the only thing looked at, without denying usage is considered when doing errata. There is a correlation between use and power, but errata seems at least a bit more focused on cards in high use that those with highest power.

Lets illustrate with an example:
locking pixies came out: several sets, no nerf
A lot of pixies in the same set making pixies a powerful tribe: no nerf.
Pixies prebuild comes out, a lot of people are playing them: nerfs on at least 5 pixies.

Partially judging the need for a nerf based on popularity is one way to go, but if you deny it doesn't happen you should at least explain why it isn't that case.

[GonFreeces31]

I seriously find it strange that you completely deny this claim, or do you just mean it's not the only thing looked at, without denying usage is considered when doing errata. There is a correlation between use and power, but errata seems at least a bit more focused on cards in high use that those with highest power.

Lets illustrate with an example:
locking pixies came out: several sets, no nerf
A lot of pixies in the same set making pixies a powerful tribe: no nerf.
Pixies prebuild comes out, a lot of people are playing them: nerfs on at least 5 pixies.

Partially judging the need for a nerf based on popularity is one way to go, but if you deny it doesn't happen you should at least explain why it isn't that case.

There is definitely correlation between use and power, but not always. Some cards are high in power but low in use (pre nerf Emana, Diondora), others are fun to play or easily accessible, but may not be as powerful.

To an extent usage does matter - you can't really justify any nerf unless you have enough people using it to get sufficient data to support/reject an errata decision. Before the pixie prebuilt came out, it was pretty much just blacksunrx playing them at top RP. Sure when he played them they looked amazing, but you can't nerf a card because one player uses it really well. So when the prebuilts came out people got easy access to the cards and thus suddenly you have tons of data to justify/deny a nerf claim.

What I disagree with is the opinion that cards are nerfed that are frequently used. That's really never been the case. If cards are used frequently that's actually a good thing. It implies the card is fun and/or easy to use and it's great when players use the cards you make. Nerfing successfully designed cards just makes no sense.

[AqvasFire2]

I seriously find it strange that you completely deny this claim, or do you just mean it's not the only thing looked at, without denying usage is considered when doing errata. There is a correlation between use and power, but errata seems at least a bit more focused on cards in high use that those with highest power.

Lets illustrate with an example:
locking pixies came out: several sets, no nerf
A lot of pixies in the same set making pixies a powerful tribe: no nerf.
Pixies prebuild comes out, a lot of people are playing them: nerfs on at least 5 pixies.

Partially judging the need for a nerf based on popularity is one way to go, but if you deny it doesn't happen you should at least explain why it isn't that case.

There is definitely correlation between use and power, but not always. Some cards are high in power but low in use (pre nerf Emana, Diondora), others are fun to play or easily accessible, but may not be as powerful.

To an extent usage does matter - you can't really justify any nerf unless you have enough people using it to get sufficient data to support/reject an errata decision. Before the pixie prebuilt came out, it was pretty much just blacksunrx playing them at top RP. Sure when he played them they looked amazing, but you can't nerf a card because one player uses it really well. So when the prebuilts came out people got easy access to the cards and thus suddenly you have tons of data to justify/deny a nerf claim.

What I disagree with is the opinion that cards are nerfed that are frequently used. That's really never been the case. If cards are used frequently that's actually a good thing. It implies the card is fun and/or easy to use and it's great when players use the cards you make. Nerfing successfully designed cards just makes no sense.

Oh that's funny, because prenerf Ruuca and Dilate weren't used that much. There were a few players using them. BSRX on Fargs's account, minimochi I believe, and uh, uhm, I really can't recall anybody else. Now? Ruuca's more or less a memory, Dilate appears every once in a blue moon, along with the rest of the Gowen sphere.

BKR/Bringer/Dandan/etc...? Firmament was the only one I could recall that was excellent with it.

Mirelia toolbox? Bob and Ernn. All of two players.

Look, don't get cheeky with "data this, data that". This game's community is tiny. The idea that we have a bunch of maestros all coming up with the idea that a meta is strong is ridiculous. Honestly, rather than nerfing files, you're nerfing players. This isn't the Magic: the gathering pro tour. You don't have a vast swathe of different players using different things, especially given the lack of accessibility. This is why the errata never works to create a more diverse environment.

[GonFreeces31]

Right, sometimes we figure out that certain cards are overpowered without extensive data (Emana, Dilate, Ruuca). Then those cards get nerfed. That's probably a good thing.

This also has nothing to do with the opinion that cards are nerfed based on usage alone - which is what was suggested earlier.

[AqvasFire2]

Except after the first nerf, Emana was fine. Dilate was also fair. Bordering on it, extremely good, but nothing overly scary. He whacked things and he was tough to bring down for an individual unit. Ruuca was only OPOP if you let her get that way. I played against Cosine today and he never really even let me use her, with or without Inzaghi. Sakura one copy, Gaiessoul another...there was also Lelein, Wrath of the Sea Lord, and Storm Wizardess. Three spheres had some pretty hard counters for her. Only Refess didn't have an extremely good option to get rid of her. Only Refess.

Yet what's interesting is that because cards were specifically rough on Refess (Jack, Ruuca), did they get the nerf bat. Yet Catira rough on Gowen? Nothing. Nightwing wyvern absolutely destroying Falkow? Nothing.

What's with all the Refess coddling?

[GonFreeces31]

Yet what's interesting is that because cards were specifically rough on Refess (Jack, Ruuca), did they get the nerf bat. Yet Catira rough on Gowen? Nothing. Nightwing wyvern absolutely destroying Falkow? Nothing.

What's with all the Refess coddling?

Lots of cards besides Jack and Ruuca have been nerfed and it has nothing to do with "Refess coddling" whatever that is.