DISCUSSION: A Look Into the Future

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
GANZ_Karl
GANZ_Karl's picture
DISCUSSION: A Look Into the Future

Please post your comments/questions/concerns/excitement about our latest Blog Post: A Look Into the Future here: http://blog.kingdomsccg.com/2015/10/a-look-into-future-upcoming-changes-...

Highlights:
- Scavenger Goblin change announced
- Haste change coming
- Guild Wars changes coming
- Mobile on its way
- New Deck Building rules - *** This is a big one. Please read. ***
- Campaign Expansion
- Changes to Tournaments

JosephMagnus

IDK, never tested it, but the new 2 kingdoms format can be a master move, solving lots of problems we actually have, specially lack of deck variety within the same hero.

All the other news are without doubt amazing, bar the empower/haste thing, but whatever, i can live without Groven...

Oncus
Oncus's picture

Deck building rules: I do not like the restriction that limits deck option. I'm not exactly sure either how will this help balance cards since each player will still get to choose the other kingdom.
Also this: Sometimes I add a few ancient cards like echo blast or wyrm to counter some creature spam. If I wanted to go with an undead hero, and let's say mystical, I leave myself very vulnerable to gear control as most gear removal is from other kingdoms. Am I then at the mercy of every gear deck and forced to play rush? Or wait for months until a new set comes in and add a FEW cards that may help that Kingdom.

The great thing about Kingdoms is, unlike other CCG, it doesn't restrict cards factions and you are free to combo anything you like. Master tutor with every 2-3 mana creature from every kingdom? You got it! Mixing gians and skeletons, no problem! This should come to Kingdoms as a mode rather than reverse.

JosephMagnus

That is maybe the biggest issue of kingdoms!!!! Meta decks with all the new stuff that can counter everything in the game!!! If u are exposed to some decks, like happens in lots of games that have a much broader playerbase even if being worst games, i think its a good thing!

Oncus
Oncus's picture

New stuff will always have counters for old stuff. Faction cards or not. The problem are power cards that just sweep out the competition and then instead of diverse decks, you are left with maybe 2-4 decks in standard.

wiki
wiki's picture

Not true, I 100% support new deckbuilding rules. And guess what? I was against it when I first heard about Karl's idea. I thought about it some more and I got convinced. It will actually ENABLE more variety in decks! Tribal decks, like dwarfs, undead with blood seal and so on..You never see that now, because everything presently loses to RTG manawizards and paragons.

Oncus
Oncus's picture

Of course everything loses to RTG. MCW gives out too much mana and only a few cards can prevent that. RTG has received the worst possible nerf, that did very little to stop MCW+Paragon while leaving all other options as sub-par. The problem isn't caused by variety, but power cards, and power combos that are left unchecked for way too long.

GANZ_Karl
GANZ_Karl's picture

Oncus - right below this Vasser says that Holy has the weakest cards in the game. In an effort to balance the Kingdoms, weak Kingdoms need to be given more powerful cards. So, we get a card like Raise the Guard. But in a system that allows that card to be played by 23 out of 27 heroes, and interact with every other card in the game - that card that is supposed to help/define Holy, just ends up boosting already successful decks.

If you think about the RTG/Paragon combo, this change now restricts the combo to 11 of 27 heroes and forces you to play Mystical/Holy which while filled with powerful spells, has a weak removal suite. Decks should have weaknesses along with strengths.

Oncus
Oncus's picture

There are still ways to prevent cards like RTG to mix all the way by providing either hero kingdom restriction (maximum effect if your hero is holy) or restrict it to holy creatures. Most cards aren't that problematic. Dravkas shaman, while effective can isn't that bad if you have cards to play around it or if we receive additional deny card.

It's true that some cards of certain Kingdoms are better in other Kingdom's Hero's hands (like Jorma and goblin) but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I absolutely agree with strengths and weakness though. In the current meta, they are definitely not pronounced enough (a number of cards are powerhouses and the combined effect overshadow any weaknesses).

But weaknesses shouldn't be game overs, as in situations where you can't place negative status removal cards (as a huge deal of them is holy) in your mystical/undead deck when you're fighting Wilrus with pacify stall/mill deck. So barely any chance of wining there, even if you *have* the counter cards.
For me that weakness is meaningful as much as paper has against rock...

Lastly, I'm not entirely against the change, since no one can predict how it will play out long term. That's why I would suggest to start it as a mode, to test it in live environment and see what happens after a few weeks.

Vasseer

Oof, this is a lot of big changes.
- Scavenger Goblin - I've been opposed to changing this forever and still am, however I think the new deckbuilding rule makes it even more of a pointless change.
- Haste change - Grovenhold is now Groventheunplayable
- GW change - sweet, this is like everything we wanted minus the banned list (which shouldn't matter with new deckbuilding rule)
- Mobile - Irrelevent to me
- Campaign expansion - Campaign was always an exceedingly easy and boring grind to me, but I guess this is good.
- Tournament Changes - Good concept, but we don't have a date so just gonna ignore this for a bit

Deck Building Change
So, this is the big change. I am strongly opposed to this even though it doesn't actually affect my current decks, both my limited deck and standard would only have to change 2 cards (and in limited one is gobbles). The main reason being that it puts heavy deck building restrictions on you, that I don't feel are good for being the primary way of playing the game. In the end look at standard: there are about 4 tier 1 decks - MEK (basically mono alchemy anyways), Burn (mono elemental), Thania and Bothar. This straight up kills Thania, weakens bothar who needs other kingdoms for support, while it doesn't touch burn or MEK (not entirely sure what MEK runs though). So basically this change makes it so that the only decks in standard are going to be burn vs. Mek and while Burn goes about 50/50 vs Mek, having an environment in which only 2 decks are playable reminds me of something just before GANZ took over. This change is just going to result in more cards getting nerfed to make more decks viable. In limited using Cewen's deck as an example: If he chooses undead - he changes 8 cards 6 of which are removal spells which can easily be swapped for undead removal, as for RTG, losing them would be a hit but definitely not kill the deck, meanwhile MEK goes untouched Bothar already crushes MEK so the metagame stays the same. If anything, less decks are viable. While I do understand the problem that people could just use other kingdoms to cover their decks weaknesses, I would have prefered an answer that gave you a penalty for playing more kingdoms rather than making it impossible.

While you claim that this change makes the hero matter less, it actually does the opposite, certain heroes will now have inherent disadvantages because of the kingdom they are; any holy hero will become basically unplayable because holy cards are simply weaker than other kingdoms, the popularity of elemental decks will surge simply because they have good cards and it is okay to fill half your deck with elemental cards whereas most decks will only contain 2-5 holy cards (aside from mono holy). Alchemy heroes (other than MEK) will see significantly less play simply because the number of alchemy cards I want in a deck is fairly low (Only alchemy stuff I really want are dirty fuel and rejuve) and I'll need to fill the other part of the deck with all cards from my second kingdom. Jorma will probably return as the best deck in GW defense as it only runs alchemy and elemental cards anyways.

This also raises the barrier to entry for new players even more as new players have to collect good cards of two kingdoms specifically, rather than just good cards in general. Decks will need to be much more focused in order to be competitive and good stuff decks will be generally unplayable.

Finally you totally killed essence so I hope this means EoL is coming off the limited banned list. But then again I might just be bitter about this change cause I finally made a working fire storm deck and you killed it.

Anyways, I'm extremely disappointed with this announcement and hope there is something good to come later

Dr.Bojangles
Dr.Bojangles's picture

What makes you think you can predict how this will effect different heros? This is going to shake the meta to the core. There is no way to really know what the fallout will be.

Vasseer

Why, would anybody play a new deck when 2 of the best decks are unaffected by this change? We might see a couple new decks pop-up, but the meta will still be dominated by burn and MEK.

Dr.Bojangles
Dr.Bojangles's picture

Oh i'm sure that is how it is going to look at first as people stick with what they already know. Then it is going to be on everybody to try and crack those decks. I suspect Bothar will become far more of a presence in standard now. This should give us a decent little rock/paper/scissors meta to start things off. Certainly not the worst situation in the world and then we will see how things develop with Reborn.

wiki
wiki's picture

New set is coming, so you don't know what interesting, FRESH, 2-3 kingdoms decks with what heroes you will be able to build in several days.

SlavoK

Great news! I think the format change will bring more variety to standard and limited formats as wiki said. Kingdoms for android? Count me in! And finally less time needed for guild wars, we seriously needed that. Looking forward to the changes and the new set. Keep up the good work.

cewen

1) Gob change, finally :D
2) Guild changes, thank god its coming, what a good way to motivate my team :D
3) Tournament changes, awesome. I think it would make Watcher proud :D (it WAS his idea in old old forums)
4) haste change, minor but cool.
5) Mobile. Not too sure on this as i never use my phone, but should be good to reel in players :D
6) campaign expansion, sounds good to me

And last but most important; Deck building changes; (flattered you used me as an example again, cheers very much)

It came to me as a shock, and will do to a LOT of players. But i think its something people will eventual sink into and enjoy. It will solve problems many problems, but limit deck ideas (My first impression) but will also INVENT new deck ideas. Even Kingdoms.ccg deck sharing/builder will be more frequently used.

I think it brings FRESHNESS to the game and makes it more strategic (only strategic thing you had to do up till now was count how many turns Thania could take). Its gonna make the game more fun and enjoy able i think. Will change EVERYTHING but in a good way :)

As for GANZ and Karl; You and the team(s) intend to do ALL this in a week, and everything else within about may of 2016? Good on ya lads :D. Maybe after that, you can come devote some of your time to meet the other 150 players that'll come to the game and to play a few games with the rest of us loyal good folk :)

Now, i gambled 20 gems that this would be the biggest change(s) in KCG history to sombody (about 2 weeks ago). Me and Bothar will find you! . . . . ;)

QUESTIONS
Does it apply to Guild wars? The 2 kingdom rule?
Could we have different formats with 3 kingdom rule, 4 kingdom rule etc for tournaments or arena?(rotating arena I might add)

Oncus
Oncus's picture

"And for all the other haters; Be GRATEFUL. Grateful that LEGACY (a whole new frigging arena) and tournaments are being changed just for YOU. So quit complain-ing and learn to accept changes, before you know it this may be what makes "kingdoms" "KINGDOMS"."

This is a discussion cewen. People discuss cons and pros and offer their opinions. There is nothing to be grateful or ungrateful for. So please let's keep conversation without sleazy remarks.

cewen

Exactly. A conversation were I simply put out my opinion :)

Oncus
Oncus's picture

About how everyone would just stop whining and just accept it without further conversation? That's not adding to the discussion, but ending. But whatever, you continue that way if you think that's the most productive approach.

KKanon

This is the single greatest blog post in the history of Kingdoms.

Every major "issue" in the game is addressed, and the collection of player input is fantastic. I cannot wait for these changes, I think everyone of them is a move in a better direction. I am very happy that the 2-Kingdom change is coming so quickly, I think its going to be a huge success. So many good decks will come out of this, and I expect a true rock/paper/scissors metagame to start showing up. Deck builders rejoice!

I'd now like to lead everyone is a slow clap that slowly gains steam. *Clap*

- KK

xankludan
xankludan's picture

You like rock, paper, scissors? Or is that sarcastic?

wiki
wiki's picture

I think what he meant is that he likes the fact that decks build around the same kingdom as the hero will have natural counters, fo example mass mystical with resist can handle mass ele only mostly with ele damage or invoked. But can mysticals handle mass ancient of undead?

Oncus
Oncus's picture

So, rock, paper scissors?

wiki
wiki's picture

Is that a bad thing? It's not like we will only have 3 different decks around that counter eachother. Isn't it fun to prove sometimes that MEK can beat Bothar despite fighting an uphill battle?

Oncus
Oncus's picture

I'd say yes. Battles that are mainly decided before they begin do not indicate a good intrinsic design. To use the Bothar vs MEK example, it's always gratifying to win against all odds, but it's frustrating most of the time which can players feel nothing they do won't matter (unless opus or goblin dagger MEK of course)

Dr.Bojangles
Dr.Bojangles's picture

My MEK vs Both games are more even than you would think in standard. But yes I play MO. I'm not sure how you would make a more midrange focused MEK stand up against your average Bothar build. I imagine it would be a tricky match up but they do exist. It's like trying to play lock down vs burn.

Oncus
Oncus's picture

As I said, the only exceptions are MEK opus (which I don't consider not to be balanced very well) and goblin dagger. Anything else just doesn't feel like a balanced match from the start (like tier 2 battling tier 3 heroes the way we had it before)

I mean Petrice is a direct counter to Abba, but IMO it's a lot more balanced than Bothar vs MEK matchup.

KKanon

A Rock/Paper/Scissors format in a TCG/CCG means there are more than 1 Tier 1 deck. Its an expression that's been used in Magic since Wizards started growing the tournament scene. It means your format is healthy. It means no matter what deck you choose to play, there is always something that beats it.

Currently we have Rock/bug/bug/bug/bug, and that's basically how its been forever. Why? Because we can use ALL the cards in any deck (minus 1 enemy kingdom, I know). I think in due time, we're all going to really like this. It may take some time and maybe even more than just this next set release, but once it becomes the norm, its going to be much better for the game.

In my opinion, this decision is going to greatly improve the long-term survival of the game.

- KK

xankludan
xankludan's picture

Cool I can dig that.
IMO I think Bothar is going to be broken as hell in the new format, because he gets creature and gear removal, with the ability to still use RTG and Prophets, meaning massive dmg potential, with lockdown.

cewen

Trust me, doesn't work like that. Even with my "perfect deck" before 2 Kingdom rule I fell from 1st place to 70th. It will not be close to "broken" I guarantee. And if your unsure, then please try it out for yourself, I defiantly need the rating to get my thrown and crown back :P

3e3

Just a few thoughts/ questions:

1. Reducing guild wars 30 to 15 might be overcompensating. Maybe make it 20 or so, can always reduce further later.

2. Will guild wars be governed by the 2 kingdom rule? The blog seemed to be silent on this.

3. If the underlying concern is for making kingdoms relevant and balancing power of cards, why was it decided that players could only use 2 kingdoms instead of say 3? If players could only use 3 kingdoms eg. Elemental + Holy & Alchemy that would still address this concern and let players use more cards they've bought as well. So curious if that possibility was considered at all or just plumped with 2?

Tower0Bauer

3e3 wrote:Just a few thoughts/ questions:
2. Will guild wars be governed by the 2 kingdom rule? The blog seemed to be silent on this.

This is my big concern. I think that unless the guild wars stay in the "legacy" format, you will kill the guild wars. Thania EBA decks will be just about unbeatable, since EVERY deck will need to be holy or ancient to deal with them (echo blast / cease fire).

GANZ_Karl
GANZ_Karl's picture

As Guild Wars uses Standard, the changes will affect Guild Wars.

Remember that if Thania EBA goes Mystical/Alchemy, its removal suite becomes very limited, allowing faster decks to defeat it.

And if they're thinking they're going to rely on Inverted Hourglasses to control the early game, there is an Unaligned creature in Gods Reborn that is going to punish Big Swingy Relics in a significant way.

DiarrheamazinG

I was totally all for this up until I read this. I think the part about changing standard/limited sounds neat. Like others have said, it sorta feels like MTG with the land restrictions. I can appreciate the flavour and think it will bring some really interesting new decks. And Legacy should "hopefully" keep everyone's favourite old decks from being totally useless.

But please, is there anyway we can keep GWs "legacy"? It's against AI, I don't think AI minds seeing the same decks over and over. There just wouldn't be enough places to play our old decks if the only place they were legal was some obscure format that I'm sure will be really hard to get anything started in. It's already hard getting standard/limited tournaments started as is.

While I'm all for trying new stuff, I think this could really hurt the game to take things in such a huge 180 direction with almost no options to still play as things were before.

Earthconstruct

AHHHH at last! 2 kingdom rule will be implemented. I have been voicing this out since the time of DRAV shaman before Ganz took over which is a year ago.

Now the game is not saturated anymore. Creating new cards and new sets will be flexible and should not be troublesome. And easy to balance even you have 900 cards with 27 heroes!

HEY GANZ, I think there's a need to review all nerfed cards that was not supposed to be nerfed because it was designed entirely for that kingdom alone, like manacycles, rtg, QDC, etc....

Also, there's a need to review nerfed hero abilities which is designed to be effective for that kingdom. Like bringing back Drav's tinker to 3 mana, Noran's old inspiration, etc....

GANZ_Karl
GANZ_Karl's picture

Just another quick comment: I have no issue with players like Oncus and Vasser having concerns about the new system. It is healthy to discuss both the pros and the cons of a decision and I welcome their feedback.

Keep the discussion going.

hopeprevails
hopeprevails's picture

I was hesitant about the 2-kingdom rule at first, and I still have concerns regarding the cards that provide bonuses for using a same-kingdom hero (since that's now basically required), but after a lot of testing, I'm in full support of this decision. The variety really opens up for tribal decks to shine, and many of the meta-defining combos now come with heavy penalties.

So while I'm still worried about cards like Truesworn Titan or Dragon's Breath, I think the 2-kingdom structure is gonna make life more interesting.

New players often think they need to build decks to be kingdom-specific so this change makes sense and even helps them - with one caveat: like Vasseer said, the barrier for new players will be tough with two kingdoms. Campaign may need to be kept in Legacy format, or kingdoms packs need to be better presented and cheaper for new players.

xankludan
xankludan's picture

What new players?

edit: JUST KIDDING MAN, THEY'RE EVERYWHERE

pizza87760

The deck building change is too extreme. I like the idea of making your hero's kingdom matter more, but cutting out 70% of the card pool would be bad for the game. There should be penalties for cross kingdom hybrid decks, not outright banning. In Magic you can run a mono color deck without problem, duo-color? Slight reduction in effectiveness. tri-color? Your play slows down. Quad-color? Very inconsistent and slow. Rainbow? Usually a joke.

My suggestion would be to make kingdom loyalty.: In deck building you pick 4 kingdoms and rank them 1-4:
1. Would be your hero kingdom, automatically picked with no penalty.
2. Maximum of 3 copies for cards, highest rarity: epic.
3. Maximum of 2 copies, highest rarity: rare.
4. Max 1 copy, highest rarity: uncommon

So a Jorma deck ranking their loyalty as 1. Elemental, 2. Alchemy, 3. Undead, 4. Holy.

Could run 4x of any Elemental cards and can use Elemental legendaries. They rank Alchemy 2 so they can run 3 Rejuvs. Undead 3 for 2 Spiteful Demons. And holy is ranked 4th purely so they can run a single copy of Cease Fire.

At the very least make it so you can run more than 2 kingdoms, but with the 3rd costing 1 mana more, and 4th 2 mana more. I also think Unaligned heroes should be able to run at least 3 different kingdoms without penalty. Part of Unaligned's appeal is that they can run any card they want.

Restriction breeds creativity but this is a bit much.

GANZ_Karl
GANZ_Karl's picture

I actually think that the Magic comparison is an interesting discussion, and actually moved me in this direction.

Currently an non-Unaligned hero has access to 86% (6/7) of the cards in the game, and obviously can play them all equally. By comparison, a mono-colored deck in Magic has access to about 24% of the cards in the environment (19% for their color, and another 5% for colorless artifacts - obviously some sets skew this number). This is very similar to our Kingdoms format, which gives a hero access to just 29% of the cards in the game. A two color Magic deck, which is the standard for a deck that doesn't run into mana troubles, has access to 43% of the cards. The 2 Kingdom rule? 43% of the cards in Kingdoms.

And yes I looked at a number of options, many of which were raised in these forums. Such as:

1) Any Three Kingdoms: Didn't feel like a real change. Most decks would just need to replace a card or two, and it wouldn't open up a lot of design space.

2) One Kingdom from Each Enemy Pair: By this I mean that if you played Dravkas for instance, you'd have to play Alchemy, then pick one of either Elemental or Mystical and one of either Holy or Undead. This is interesting, though it would been that enemy pairs could never be played together. WIth 2K we keep that ability, albeit only with Unaligned heroes.

3) Extra mana cost for off-kingdom: A lot of people have suggested this, but I honestly think that this would lead to more mono-Kingdom play than any other suggestion. An extra 1 mana is huge. Look at Frost Wielder - from every format all-star to sideline player with a 1 mana boost.

4) On Kingdom Cards Cheaper: This would end up being the same as above. We'd be forced to balance with the reduction in mind, so cards would largely just cost 1 more.

More complicated solutions like yours could very well be strong, balanced ideas, but they become very complicated to explain to players and would require interface for players to pick their 1st/2nd/etc.

And there are other solutions - like you start with 1 less life for every Kingdom in your deck beyond 1. Or use a Netrunner-like system where decks can have X points of "off Kingdom" cards and each card has a Kingdom value based on its power and uniqueness to a Kingdom. Each system has pros and cons.

2K is restrictive, but it is easy to understand, requires no new interface and is working in game.

pizza87760

All I'm saying is that 2 kingdoms only is too restrictive and will stifle creative decks. I believe we should have the option to play a 3rd kingdom or even 4th kingdom in a deck, but at a cost. In magic that cost is usually speed and consistency. In Kingdoms it could be any number of things. Running 2 kingdoms would have no drawback but adding more could:

Reduce the max copies of cards allowed in the deck
Increase the minimum card count
Higher charge costs on hero abilities

Or instead the extra kingdom itself could have the drawback such as +1 mana cost, that way the Elemental/Undead Jorma could run a 6 mana echo blast if they so choose.

I fear that with the change the meta will become even more stagnant and entire kingdoms will be shut out of competitive play.

Dr.Bojangles
Dr.Bojangles's picture

It reduces raw creative possibilities but not necessarily competitive possibilities. And yes some kingdoms will likely be weaker than others. But this does make it easier for us to know what we need to print in the future to fix things.

hopeprevails
hopeprevails's picture

Think about it this way:

When a great removal card is introduced, all decks will put that card in, making other removal obsolete, like Echo Blast did to Fireball. However, if Ancient is the only one that can play Echo, you've got to look for other removal, and Fireball gets used again.

Or how 4x Rejuve is in every deck. If you're not playing Alchemy, then you need something else to go in those 4 slots. Maybe buff cards? Maybe mana gain? Maybe charge gain?

You're looking at wider card use, which leads to wider variety of decks in play. And as Bo said, if there are any kingdoms that struggle, then we know what we need to print in future sets.

DiarrheamazinG

I think people are confusing the idea of "adds new decks" with "adds variety" when anyone makes the claim that this will add all sorts of new and creative decks to the field.

You're literally taking away a HUGE amount of options from people building a deck. There's now that much less variety in what you can do.

So sure, for the first couple of months after the change we'll see people experimenting with all sorts of new and weird kingdom combinations. But as with anything, people with find what works and everyone will more or less do the same thing. And now with such a smaller card base, the decks would be that much more narrow. Not to mention that lesser appreciated kingdoms like holy and ancient now have that much less support and that much less of a reason to run them.

It won't be long before it's likely just Elemental/x VS Mystical/x.

While I think the idea for this as a format is really cool and interesting. I REALLY, REALLY don't think we should be so sweeping with these changes and have them effect Campaign and GWs and have them be the dominating formats in tournament and arena play with the old format now being nothing more than some obscure tournament format that comes around once every few days and never starts like pauper or singleton.

Maybe just having 2k as one of the rotating tournament formats and Standard/Limited/Legacy in arena is enough. I really think having it be the dominating format in the game might be a HUGE disaster.

hopeprevails
hopeprevails's picture

We're currently seeing a solid variety in arenas atm, and I hope this change just makes it more so. There will be a buffer of time for the player base to get used to it, but I think if there really is a problem with the change, GANZ will switch back or find a way to make it right. Karl's more concerned with variety than anyone.

And I personally really liked Singleton back in the day, and I'm sad it's gone.

cewen

I disagree. Its going to destroy "creative" decks that use 4 X maelstrom, 4 X rejuive, 4 X echo blast etc, which is good, because its those kind of decks that dominate everything, from arena standard to guild war defence decks.

The format ISAN'T CREATING new deck ideas, your correct. But its RE-INTRODUCEING. Because right now in this system, we DON'T see Dwarfs, we DON'T see Elf's, we DON'T see volatile decks we DON'T see horror decks (get the point yet?)

Why use them when they'll get destroy by thania RtG with quadruple X of the best cards in the game?
In this format, we can see and play more fairly. It also gives more chance for new players to come in and have just as much fun :)

Besides, im personally likening my 2 Kingdom limited Alistin Ancient/Elemental (Its even beaten Legacy Limited Shamans first try!)

It allows us players to battle with old and fun decks (like Easter and poison and egg) without the fear of instant loss. What's not good about that? :D. Yea, it restricts "creative" decks *cough* dominant decks but it allows equality.

Heres an example. THIS is the deck I was gonna use when scavenger Goblins got nerfed;
http://www.kccgdecks.com#deckGIVLLNLO

Do you see the problem here? Its a perfect example; "Legacy" system will ALWAYS have something blatantly unfair and "Cheaty". And if there's a way to cheat the system, somebody will. Unlike The new system were everything is fair! :D

DiarrheamazinG

And we won't see Elves, Dwarves, Volatile or Horror after 2k either.

Again, I'm sure these cute lil pet "Gnome" decks will be fun for the first few weeks and might win a few games against players that haven't really established a solid deck yet. But once the "tier" decks get established, it'll be back to what it was. And now with even less variety.

And in what world do you think the new 2k system makes "everything fair"? Literally how? In what way is it doing ANYTHING to keep things from feeling "blatantly unfair and cheaty"? I don't know where kingdoms players have gotten the idea that restrictions always mean variety and solutions. So sure, you'll be able to do less with your decks. You'll also be able to do that much less to answer other people's decks. Unless God's Reborn like completely shakes up the meta and gives Holy and Ancient some of the best cards ever printed for those respective kingdoms. What would prevent the 2k system from just devolving into Arcanos Burn BS Thania Fairies?

cewen

Just give it a chance. It'll be fair because not every deck can use rejuive potions, maelstroms etc. Please, just give the format a chance.

mmabistra
mmabistra's picture

Again you are making a mistake.Again too much changes at once.New deck building...i played this game more then 2 years i got accustomed to how its work.Maybe the new rules will be great.But maybe it will suck like yours price hike.Why dont you first make one arena with new rules and see how its reflects on players.Dont rush with this by changing standard and guild wars.Imo you should take it step by step and see how players response.Few months ago you drive away many players with your price changes.Dont do it again.

Dr.Bojangles
Dr.Bojangles's picture

I think this is a good idea overall Karl.
The one request I would make would be to keep legacy limited and standard as permanent arena formats. Now we don't want to split the player base too much so I would suggest rotating the legacy arena between limited and standard swapping every day. You can either replace beginner arena or just add it as a 4th.

Or better yet do that with both formats. Have a limited and standard arena with one being the new format and the other being the legacy format rotating each day. That would probably be the best way to change things while keeping everyone happy and not stretching the arenas too thin.

xankludan
xankludan's picture

And while you're at it, give us about 15 new deck slots for free so we can keep all the freakin decks we will need around.

Pages