The forums are closed as we are moving all discussions into Discord.

Join our Discord server by following this link.

Pandemonium of Overnerfness

The game's community balance team discusses card changes here.

Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby ivko » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:00 pm

So, there are several things going on with this card:

  • We wanted to distance it from Trigon and capture the selfishness of the Evil aspects, thus the main shrine mechanic. Ramp was out of the question on a Shrine card, although we briefly touched the "sac mana => get 2 levels" idea.
  • We were quite scared of the potentially powerful spell effect on a Shrine, so it ended up looking mediocre. People are comparing it with the former Word of Pain or Succubus, which is inevitable and it seems weak. On the other hand, I see it all over Masters - which means it is certainly playable.
  • We didn't think the card needed to be as powerful as Trigon, apparently contrary to the popular opinion, which got a lot of folks disappointed.

Most of the time, it is quite more important for a card to look good "on paper", than in reality. All in all, I just think we overdid ourselves with being cautious, and simply making it require 1 Corruption + 2 generic levels will be good enough, but I need your opinion.

Please let me know what you think, and I will edit in any suggestions here in the first post.
Your friendly Spellweaver lead, programmer, designer... you name it!
ivko
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:13 pm

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby SashaIr » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:29 pm

I'm the first one that suggested the "Sacrifice 1 mana, gain two (any? equal?) Evil aspects", and I still think that it would be a good card if it had this effect (it basically gains you a card if you go mana + double level instead of level + level).

For the spell, making it 4 mana and CXX seems pretty fair, it would be a Succubus without a body.
User avatar
SashaIr
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:10 pm

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby ivko » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:37 pm

Let me explain why it wasn't made "Sacrifice mana, gain 2 levels" in the first place - it was considered as an option, but...

What exactly does "Sacrifice 1 mana crystal" mean? Technically, the mana crystals recharge your mana at the start of your turn, and if they are later lost, you should keep the mana. But in this case the case also serves as "ramp" for one turn.

I think that having ramp on a shrine, even for one turn, is too powerful no matter what we do. This will basically get you ahead in the curve by 1 turn to play any (monocolored?) Evil card of level 2 or more. With a Power Surge, it may mean getting ahead by 2 turns, be it for Karthas, Mutant, or Dreyla.

On the other hand, you can see how it can be confusing. Players might not know whether to expect to lose one mana or not. Being forced to only display this on the card by an icon doesn't help either.

So I don't think it is an option.
Your friendly Spellweaver lead, programmer, designer... you name it!
ivko
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 9:13 pm

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby VitamineC » Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:45 pm

I don't thing the sac mana for 2 levels effects is all that appealing, but a relatively simple way to clarify the effect is to have it be "sacrifice a full mana crystal". And that effect was in the game before with the old word of power. How was it handled there?
Your friendly neighborhood forum moderator
Filthy spammer vermin exterminated: 892
User avatar
VitamineC
 
Posts: 2340
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:48 am

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby Maraut » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:01 pm

As I have said elsewhere, I do like the flavor of Pandemonium's shrine side, but it just doesn't seem to have any obvious application in the actual game. It can't do anything except playing "surprise" double aspect cards, but I personally prefer having my aspect levels nice and clean.

I do not like the idea of sacrificing a mana crystal to gain two levels. That way, you would basically draw cards while going up in levels, which would make pandemonium strictly better than basic shrines. That would in turn make it an auto-include for many evil decks, and I don't think we want any of these.

Sadly, I don't have any decent ideas how to fix Pandemonium's shrine side.

As for the spell side, I agree that the card needs to be more flexible for evil decks. I don't know if we really need to reduce its mana cost, but we certainly should change the aspect requirement to CXX before trying out anything else. I admit to having a secret hope of balancing this card through its spell side rather than its shrine side, in contrast to Trigon, whose spell side post-nerf is more of a gimmick.

EDIT: We *could* just change the aspect requirements to XXX to allow all evil decks to run it regardless of aspect combination. But flavor-wise, it feelds right that Corruption is something of a first among equals of evil aspects.

Tldr:

- "No" to the sac one mana crystal, gain two levels.
- "No" to reducing its mana cost - for now.
- "Yes" to easing its aspect requirements to CXX.
Last edited by Maraut on Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maraut
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:47 pm

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby komsiant » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:14 pm

Mb just simplify it? Remove sacrefice level part and left choice between C R D + lower level cost ablility to CCX?
komsiant
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 11:42 pm

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby Maximvs » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:33 pm

Grant it more spell options, for 3 red or 3 dominion. Enough with the pure black love.
"Quick quick, rush him, we don't want the game to last more than three minutes!"

"Oh crap, he's playing a complicated deck, but that hurts my brain! What should I do?"
"Just play a mill deck, bro."
Maximvs
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:26 pm

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby Rinriet » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:55 pm

I'll analyze the difference in level requirements in relation to which decks would play each version of the spell.

- The current CCC version is only playable in Mono Corruption Control, Casual Daris and Reanimator variants (Duke's Hydras and Bezarok Party). Afaik, there rest of the decks that play corruption don't want to spend a 3rd level to use that shrine. Zombies and mono Demons can play it too, but it's too expensive and can mess up your mana curve to make a place for it.

- If it gets buffed to 2C, Casual Daris and Reanimator will be able to play the spell at WCC instead of WCCC. In my opinion that would be ok.

--> Which decks would start using Pandemonium if it gets changed to 2C?

-Aezerhis Decay aka Snakes. It goes WCR. But with the current version, Pan wouldn't help with leveling at all, and effect isn't needed because the deck has better ways to heal or hit face. NO

-Ivia Path (Dobrycy's Dread Knights one). It goes OCC. I think here the new Pan can shine. It can allow things like Arrow Barrage into Tombs, or allowing the deck to include Holy Rads with second cast and then fix the curve. The spell effect fits, even with only 2 evil levels. YES

-RC Totems. The Ad. Zash version goes RRC. The level up is useless unless somebody wants to play early Tombs. Spell effect could be very useful though. The deck already has a lot of face damage and a little healing, so one extra way to strenghten the wincon is nice (Totems don't run Succubus afaik so this may be a replacement). I don't know if the change can bring back totems to meta, but i doubt it. MAYBE

-Passageway RC Burn. Isn't meta right now. Leveling is RRC in the version I know. Reasoning pretty similar to totems.

- RC Control. Isn't meta. Leveling RRCC for Succubus and Dragon. Can Tombs into Phoenix which is very nice. Maybe shennanigans like triple Word Of Pain in early game vs aggro and then fix curve. The spell effect would be very good with 4 evil levels. RC control may be back into the meta with Pan changing. YES

- Red Demons. RCC. Like mono demons, they won't use it. There are no RR cards to justify level fix. NO


As far as I know, there aren't more 2C decks out there. But:

- Things with half good aspects won't play Pan because the effect would be weak.
- If Prosperous Rulling gets better It can be in a deck with Tombs where Pan would be playable, but at the moment the deck is too weak to consider.
- Things like GoodAspect+RCC or Trigon+DDC can be a thing, but we haven't decks to try yet.
- I've never seen a WWCC control deck, but Tombs into Cataclysm/Prin'ha buff seems good enough to give it a try.


Little conclusion: In my opinion, the level requirement change can be a deciding factor on widening the meta, and that is good enough to at least give it a try.

What do you guys think?
(btw, feel free to correct me if I said something wrong or forget anything)
User avatar
Rinriet
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:49 am

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby ershtug » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:09 pm

Shrine part:
Make the cost as "pay X (=3,4,5 or so) life", or "sacrifice Y (=2,3 or so) creatures", or "discard Z (=1 or so) card", or "put W = (2,3 or so) creatures from grave to deck", or other options.
There must be a fair way to trade for a 2-level ramp. Sacrifice level/mana-crystal/life/board/hand/grave etc, all options could be considered. I feel comfortable to make the cost as "sacrifice 2 creatures and lose 2 life".

Spell part:
I like the core idea of its effect, but the numbers can be reconsidered. I will feel comfortable with this:
CX 2 mana: you gain 1 life, opponent loses 1 life.
ershtug
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:54 pm

Re: Pandemonium of Overnerfness

Postby Dobrycy » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:53 pm

Ok, so I'll give my thought here and DISCLAIMER I've read the rules and it reads "don't post new cards ideas" but I'll make an exception and I hope you'll forgive me as a topic is about shrines and more about resource system imo than an actual cards

So, having it said, I'll divide it into two sections, first about pandemonium/trigon (that's more on topic), second about my general idea for helping with resource system (more off-topic, but still important)

FIRST SECTION

1a) Pandemonium compared to trigon is a lot weaker ofc, my first idea to balance this is "reverse trigon", so basicaly make a pandemonium like trigon but with -1/-1 2 mana 1 black effect
1b) Make pandemonium level effect like trigon, but keep current effect with CXX or CCX requirement (I would prefer first option)
1c) Make BOTH special shrines give you one of their faction aspect (f.e Red OR Purple Or Black) and either keep current effects (with changed requirements ofc) or make pandemonium "reversed trigon"

SECOND SECTION

So my idea is to introduce dual shrines of every combination of two aspects in game (f.e Red and Black, Green and Red etc.) and I have few ideas for it, all of those shrines will give you one of the two levels, but secondary effects and deck restriction will vary. Also I belive all those shrines should be non-obtainable/non-craftable (besides foils) and given to players in 4 copies, eventually make them uncommon rarity.

2a) make secondary effect like a normal shrine (+1mana, draw a card) and make it "Dual Shrine" type, limiting amount of dual shrine you can have in a deck to 4. That's one idea, but tbh I like the second one more

2b) make secondary effect: gain 1 mana + a combination of minor effects related to faction. Examples of those kind of effects:

-Order: gain 2 life/ Give a creature +1ATK
-Rage: Deal 1 damage to creature or hero (that might be too strong actaully, but that's only an example)
-Dominion: Give a creature -1Spd
-Corruption: Drain 1 life from opponent
-Nature: Give a creature +1Spd
-Wisdom: Give a card +1 energy

So, for example Purple/Red dual shrine secondary effect will be smth like this: +1 mana. Give a creature -1Spd. Deal 1 damage to a creature or hero. You can put how many of those dual shrines you want in your deck. Either givev to all players or uncommon (here uncommon would be better imo)

So, that's going to be everything for now I belive, I think that second section would add many interesting factors to the game and help making multi-colors deck, I think that option 2b) is more interesting than 2a). Consider this ivko!

Cheers
Dobrycy
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:01 pm

Next

Return to Balance Team Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group