Ask for public opinion, before creating cards

[angelspawns]

They may ignore alot of advice, and i would defenetly recommend them to. Just opening the discussion themselves is more then enough to me. It's saying that they know stuff may be broken and need a second opinion, and people have a place to cry and moan in.

But that's for afterwards. Up front for things like Ex Cards, it would be nice to ask around what would be a fun addition to Carbuncles. What would be needed for TGC. What would people like to see happening to Falkow. Any ideas on grimcount additions?

I can make a dozen of questions that could be interesting for the designteam to ask. Clearly they walk around wondering themselves at times. Like how TGC Martials are a big failure to try. Why don't i see a post asking what's needed to make it work? Why isn't any1 asking for ideas about whats needed in the assassins tribe? Are you just planning to keep doing "whatever", in the hope some1 finds a use for things like Gafc, Gardia, Ex Rubia?

[Muklas]

I noticed that all assasins need atleast 5-10 more HP in order to not die to a single fireball.

[Peralisc9001]

Stuff like gardia is just wtf? In the end the players are the ones who decide if they spend money on the cards or not and they do that based on the cards actual value.

Fighter pixy has a 'must have' value for future possible combos, a highly flexible card. That open is incredibly good.

[GonFreeces31]

Do you really think you could get non biased opinions on the forum? Look at all the threads, someone starts a strategy discussion, it ends up in a nerf in this and that thread.

This.

[angelspawns]

I realise that, and i kinda posted this in the spur of the moment. If i were them i'd ignore 95% of the people and their complaints aswell.
Personally i rather see them asking feedback before they implement stuff and ignore alot, then just doing "whatever".
Why not ask about specific ideas on errata, buffs, new Ex. What people think is needed in certain tribes. Etc.

[GonFreeces31]

I mean I agree with the ideal, but with how crappy public game forums chronically are I can't say that this is ever a good idea.

[angelspawns]

I agree with you there.

I guess there will just be alot more facepalm and *sigh* moments then in the future, like there been in the past... untill they dare and ask for opinions when they're at a loss.

[GonFreeces31]

I guess there will just be alot more facepalm and *sigh* moments then in the future, like there been in the past.

It's a lose lose situation.

[Icyman2]

I can say that marchare is legit. First it is in a subtype that does not die tI returns. Second it is in a subtype that has a counter to bof. Third, as someone who has played lawtia a ton, there is. Huge advantage in saving offensive power for a turn. If you could kill one unit at a time vs field wipe, the field wipe is much better.

[AngelicDeath]

Not necessarily spawns,

Here is why. You have a lot of ideas on how certain tribes should be or need to be to become more effective. The same can be said for many other topics not just cards but they seem to be of high interest to you (and me btw). It is like I told DG- if you want on the development team and you aren't then post your ideas proactively. Hopefully, the card list will have a 1-5 star player review lke the MTG database has. That would be a start.

Furthermore, it would be nice if we could sit here and discuss a card a week from set 12 ( based off of alteil.jp) and have normal conversation about it. However, there are so many opinions and biases and this is OP that needs buffed we would bs shot down before taking off. best to directly pm Rom and Logress your personal ideas and hope the listen.

I'll work with inferinty on a preview of set 12 ( actually a lot of lawtia looks fine out the door) refess needs some work but not a ton -their 5 star is ridiculous, gowen samurai lv 1 has a crazy strong open etc.

but i can only imagine how it is going to go over.....we really need that forum ability to wherein if a post has too many negatives it is just wiped out.

until then,
AD