Bringing all mages on par!

[BoomFrog]

Why not both!  Issue temporary errata for tournament play that balances the game as is, and continue to work on releasing cards to balance the potency of every school.  For example, when an expansion is released that has sufficient counters to teleport dominance than the errata nerfing teleport is repealed.  Everyone is happy:

Casual players will either not notice the balance issues or if they do they will be happy to use the "suggested house rules" to keep the current game fun.

Tournaments can be balanced and pro players are happy.

Long term the game stays healthy by not crippling itself with hasty short sighted errata.

I think at this point we should start two new threads:  "What errata would fix the game right now?", and "What cards would you suggest to bring all the mages to the same power level?"

[lettucemode]

I think one issue worth discussing is that the game we are playing and the game the playtesters are balancing for are not the same game. A few of the playtesters have mentioned that before every release, there is a vote to pare down the set of balanced, playtested cards to the number of cards they can print in one expansion. Which means that we are effectively playing with a subset of the complete game.

This has a huge impact on our discussion of what should and should not be changed because all the issues we bring up may have already been fixed at the playtester level. It's just that due to unavoidable limitations in distribution and release schedule we have only been given pieces of the real game. And because we only have part of the game, there are balance issues.

What if all other mages have been given powerful, exciting new tools such that the Wizard doesn't seem like a big deal? That would certainly explain why Wizard's Tower was released into the current card pool.

This would basically render all of our discussions obsolete because we are attempting to balance an incomplete game, which, to the playtesters, may as well not exist.

[Laddinfance]

I think one issue worth discussing is that the game we are playing and the game the playtesters are balancing for are not the same game. A few of the playtesters have mentioned that before every release, there is a vote to pare down the set of balanced, playtested cards to the number of cards they can print in one expansion. Which means that we are effectively playing with a subset of the complete game.

This has a huge impact on our discussion of what should and should not be changed because all the issues we bring up may have already been fixed at the playtester level. It's just that due to unavoidable limitations in distribution and release schedule we have only been given pieces of the real game. And because we only have part of the game, there are balance issues.

What if all other mages have been given powerful, exciting new tools such that the Wizard doesn't seem like a big deal? That would certainly explain why Wizard's Tower was released into the current card pool.

This would basically render all of our discussions obsolete because we are attempting to balance an incomplete game, which, to the playtesters, may as well not exist.

I would not say that these discussions are useless. Yes, the playtesters often have access to a different game than is currently out. However, it is just as important to see how cards are actually affecting the game "in the wild". Yes, it's possible that we have a solution for many of the concerns listed, but seeing these threads let us know that we should work them in sooner or in some cases push cards back.

I guess what I'm getting at here is that the perspective of our community as a whole is important in knowing how to go forward. Design is full of difficult decisions and the more information we have the better a decision we can make. I want to see both perspectives, the ones from my playtesters who get to see the game further in the future, and the players who are working with what is out right now.

If you tell me you need "X" and I know we have it in a set, then that makes me feel good that we anticipated your need. But if it's not then I get to look at the need and see how to best address it.

Long story short, These conversations are not obsolete.

[lettucemode]

That is an excellent reply Laddinfance. Thank you for the write-up.

[Wildhorn]

I was thinking about this today and I think Dissolve and Dispel should have been level 3 spell instead of level 1.

Now I can hear people screaming "Are you crazy?!?". But here is my thought.

Typical water wizard has 6 dispel and 6 dissolve while most mages has 3 of each. Mages have their spellbook made and are at 120 spellpoints. Now make these 2 spells level 3. Wizards get to 144  SP while other mages (except druid, she is the exception) get to 132 SP. So, non-wizard has to lose 12 SP (or 2 Dissolve and 2 Dispell) while wizard has to lose 24 SP (or 4 Dissolve and 4 Dispel).

Now instead to have 3 more Dissolve and 3 more Dispel than other mages, Wizard only has an advantage of 1 of each over other mages.

Of course you could remove other spells than Dissolve and Dispel, but while other mages only have to remove 12 SP, water wizard get to remove 24 SP. So if he wants to keep his "control" over equipment/enchantment he has to lose alot of options/tools.

[baronzaltor]

I was thinking about this today and I think Dissolve and Dispel should have been level 3 spell instead of level 1.

Now I can hear people screaming "Are you crazy?!?". But here is my thought.

Typical water wizard has 6 dispel and 6 dissolve while most mages has 3 of each. Mages have their spellbook made and are at 120 spellpoints. Now make these 2 spells level 3. Wizards get to 144  SP while other mages (except druid, she is the exception) get to 132 SP. So, non-wizard has to lose 12 SP (or 2 Dissolve and 2 Dispell) while wizard has to lose 24 SP (or 4 Dissolve and 4 Dispel).

Now instead to have 3 more Dissolve and 3 more Dispel than other mages, Wizard only has an advantage of 1 of each over other mages.

Of course you could remove other spells than Dissolve and Dispel, but while other mages only have to remove 12 SP, water wizard get to remove 24 SP. So if he wants to keep his "control" over equipment/enchantment he has to lose alot of options/tools.

Another thought along similar lines would be to make them novice, but also level 2-3.
As novice spells they would only cost 1 spell point, but as level 2+ spells no one could have more than 4 copies.
This makes them more affordable but keeps there from being upwards of 6 in a spellbook.

[Wildhorn]

I am against "mandatory" spells being Novice. It remove flavor from the school, reduce diversity between mages and it creates a spellbook tax. Make Dissovle or Dispel Novice and you are sure everybody will run the maximum just like water wizard does.

[Aylin]

I was thinking about this today and I think Dissolve and Dispel should have been level 3 spell instead of level 1.

Now I can hear people screaming "Are you crazy?!?". But here is my thought.

Typical water wizard has 6 dispel and 6 dissolve while most mages has 3 of each. Mages have their spellbook made and are at 120 spellpoints. Now make these 2 spells level 3. Wizards get to 144  SP while other mages (except druid, she is the exception) get to 132 SP. So, non-wizard has to lose 12 SP (or 2 Dissolve and 2 Dispell) while wizard has to lose 24 SP (or 4 Dissolve and 4 Dispel).

Now instead to have 3 more Dissolve and 3 more Dispel than other mages, Wizard only has an advantage of 1 of each over other mages.

Of course you could remove other spells than Dissolve and Dispel, but while other mages only have to remove 12 SP, water wizard get to remove 24 SP. So if he wants to keep his "control" over equipment/enchantment he has to lose alot of options/tools.

I can only see this making the problem worse than it already is. Making the spells higher level won't make them less mandatory, it'll just make it harder for anyone who isn't a Wizard (Druid for example goes from paying 1 per Dissolve to 6!), especially the Warlord who would then pay 9 for a Dispel. Most of the Wizard books I've built have had extra spell points left over that I could devote to unlikely problems, but non of my other books ever had extra. With that change I would simply spend those extra points in Wizard books on the mandatory Dissolve and Dispels, and my other mages would cry.

[Bjorne]

I would just like to add that I don't think card erratas are problematic, at all. This is competitive play we are discussing. I don't think casual players will run into the problems we are discussing. All hobby/competitive gamers can keep a large number of erratas in their heads. If a slight chance of wizard stats would be efficient, just do it.

[lettucemode]

I would be interested if sIKE or Lettucemode could print out the win/loss resulte of mages on OCTGN...

Currently the OCTGN module does not store or report this data.
Currently.
<.<     >.>

[sIKE]

Currently a stats server does not exist, it is a thought though.

[wtcannonjr]

I would be interested if sIKE or Lettucemode could print out the win/loss resulte of mages on OCTGN...

Currently the OCTGN module does not store or report this data.
Currently.
<.<     >.>

So what actual data is everyone using to assess that indeed the Wizard is too powerful?

I assumed this was data driven, but now I wonder. How are we controlling for other variables like player skill?

Perhaps there is an abundance of Wizard vs Wizard match ups on OCTGN which would suggest that players are using the perceived strongest mage when they play?

[Alexander West]

This conversation has not been data driven.  Instead, it has been driven by some people feeling that the Wizard is imbalanced, some people feeling like people were leaving the game because the Wizard is imbalanced, and one of the consensus best players saying the Wizard is imbalanced.

Having no stats is unfortunate, since in other hobbies it has been the case sometimes that the thing the crowd complains about is just okay.  Also, the crowd will always be complaining about something, regardless of whether there is something significantly problematic.

All I know is that the four varieties of Wizard are very good, but I don't know if that means they're broken or not.  (There are several other mages that seem very good in the post DvN meta.)

[ringkichard]

The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to agree that Arcane and other Wizard problems may just be undercosted.

Iron Golem would have been fine at level 4, 17 manna, same stats.

Teleport would have been fine at level 4, 4 mana per zone.

 Wizard's Tower at level 4, etc etc.

[Aschab]

I'm pretty new to the game. Yet I've been reading a lot, and I have plenty of experience with mtg and similar ccg games.

For the games of MW i've played (not much, less than 30 probably) and what i've read, I understand the power of wizard and his versatility, yet I think that he's only overpowered on the "pro" game, the casual player, specially offline, doesn't get really hurt by this. I mean specially offline because a lot of people have not all the expansions, so not access to 6 dispels, 6 dissolve, and 6 teleports. Also when they have it a lot of people rather have a few balanced books than 1 overpowered.

So the issue comes to balance the mages at tournament level. And here is where I will start my line of thought.

Dispel, teleport, and dissolve are powerful because they have not inherent counter (as it have been told many times on this post). If the future expansion have enchantments that can't be dispelled, or obscure, conjurations that penalty teleport, equipment that can't be dissolve, or conjurations that penalty dissolve, or any way to make this 3 specific cards less appealing, everyone including wizards will start playing this cards, but this will cause an extra effect, when a card is less effective people also stop playing it, if a wizard see he's finishing most of his games with only 1 or 2 dispel useds and lost because of it he will take out of his spellbook this cards to fill it with counter measures for the new enchantments, conjurations and equipment. New cards if done in the good way can bring balance to the game in the sense that: If everything can be countered, you have to be really careful with how much of each you counter. As people stop playing so much dispels and so much dissolve people will also stop playing their counters, and with enough time the game will achieve (or get close to) balance. But to achieve this balance the future expansions have to address this issue with precaution. As it have been said here too, it would be a shame if the new cards get so powerful that anyone with a brand new game have just obsolete options.

So as I see it, the game can be balanced with expansions that nulify the current power of current cards, without the need of errata. And errata can be used for the purpose of pro gaming, I don't see how the community would get hurt if the next year of tournaments have a wizard with *3 nature, or novice arcane level 1 spells, making teleport epic, or any temporary measure that would not affect new players and would only be an incentive for pro players to explore and re-explore tactics.