[Suggest] Would You Be Mine [Finished]

(04-22-2009 10:52 PM)i1uberi Wrote:  How many balance changes are you guys going to do to this card? It seems like no one will be satisfied unless they have easy access to unfair monster theft. So laters guys. Boost or Nerf away.

ahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahah

do you know how many fucking times they've tried to cripple this card? It was fine god knows how many iterations ago, and tons more fun.

Vote: Boost

Re: Noodle and because for the love of god we need to stop shitting on this so much guys.

What's better?

Zero mana, 50 life, give opponent a random card: Steal target monster for a turn
Zero mana, 50 life, give opponent a random card: Destroy target monster

Zero mana, discard a card, dizzy target monster entity . Hell, even is better.

Chris: You usually vote against cheap monster destruction; why the change of heart?

My opinion falls into the moral of this little story I drew in this Comic

WYBM is by far the most aggravating card I have ever dealt with since the time of it's creation, both in the game and in the balance forum, becuase it's concept is just so hard to make.

1) Made to steal a monster
2) It was made to cost no mana with additional drawbacks(originally life loss) to balance it. Webrunner Vetoed any mana cost added to it when we changed it the first 20 times.
3) It is really fucking hard to figure out how to make those non-mana drawbacks fair. Which is why it went through 20 changes of "change it and test if it is fair or not" process we went through.


BUT ENOUGH OF THAT!

Ideas I have

Make it work on like 5 mana monsters or less, so you can't just use it for zero mana and 50 life or loss card, or whatever the hell it does now, to take my 150/150 gloopzilla. It seriously was overpowered mainly because it just worked better and better the higher costing monster your opponents played, losing my 15 mana monster to WYBM is far worse then losing a 5 mana one, which still kind of sucks but not as much.

I might be changing the concept of the card a bit, but hey, I think it might work to make it readily usable in most decks yet not overpowered against them at all. Most decks do use 5 or less mana monsters, but it wouldn't be crippling as your 6 mana and higher ones are still safe.

My biggest problem is that combos like WWBM+Furnace and WWBM+BoS, while probably almost balanced if both players are swarming with Stone Golems and Mystic Birds, are totally broken if they hit a Eliot. Not only do you destroy a much stronger monster for the same cost, but the combo's power scales with the power of the monster it targets. That's why we can't balance WWBM for tournament play, where Eliot isn't seen and Golems run rampant, for the same reason we can't balance Alien Lawyers or Crush for tournament play. Monster D, in general, will never be useful in a format where the largest monster you're likely to see costs 6 mana, unless it's broken in the format where the largest monster you're likely to see costs 60.

Edit: Gospel makes a good point/idea. Monster D with scaled costs would be perfectly balanced in both forms. Maybe 10 life per mana the monster costs?

And you guys vote against beatsticks, why the change of heart?

No seriously, do any of you guys who are voting no change still play WYBM? I'd like to play against your deck just to see how it goes.

I'd be okay with WYBM stealing a monster that costs 7 or less for one turn but I dunno about 5.

EDIT: 10 life per monster? Are you fucking crazy? It becomes okay at first (i.e 10 damage for a 13/13, 20 damage for a 30/6, 30 damage for a 30/30, 40 damage for a 60/10) but after that it becomes absolute shit because you're paying more life than the damage you'd be taking from the monster. Even with the combos and the possibility of blocking with your stolen monster, that's still pretty bad. Maybe 6-7-8 life per monster but definitely not 10.

I used WYBM to remove walls and blockers more than anything else, anyways. So it'd actually help me more than hurt me(ie only paying 40 life rather than 50 to remove an asteroid belt, or 30 life for a shigatsu ninja, the usual 50 for a boardroom avenger) but there are definitely certain situations where the sting would be too much for other decks.

I'll see you half-way,

How about 6 mana costing ones?

Or perhaps that scale cost of more life loss per mana that the monster costs? That does sound good to me too as an alternative.

(04-24-2009 01:03 PM)Noodle Wrote:  EDIT: 10 life per monster? Are you fucking crazy? It becomes okay at first (i.e 10 damage for a 13/13, 20 damage for a 30/6, 30 damage for a 30/30, 40 damage for a 60/10) but after that it becomes absolute shit because you're paying more life than the damage you'd be taking from the monster. Even with the combos and the possibility of blocking with your stolen monster, that's still pretty bad. Maybe 6-7-8 life per monster but definitely not 10.

I used WYBM to remove walls and blockers more than anything else, anyways. So it'd actually help me more than hurt me(ie only paying 40 life rather than 50 to remove an asteroid belt, or 30 life for a shigatsu ninja, the usual 50 for a boardroom avenger) but there are definitely certain situations where the sting would be too much for other decks.

Since your post ninja'd my edit. I'd be okay with a scaled life cost but definitely not x10.

(04-24-2009 01:03 PM)Noodle Wrote:  I'd be okay with WYBM stealing a monster that costs 7 or less for one turn but I dunno about 5.

EDIT: 10 life per monster? Are you fucking crazy? It becomes okay at first (i.e 10 damage for a 13/13, 20 damage for a 30/6, 30 damage for a 30/30, 40 damage for a 60/10) but after that it becomes absolute shit because you're paying more life than the damage you'd be taking from the monster. Even with the combos and the possibility of blocking with your stolen monster, that's still pretty bad. Maybe 6-7-8 life per monster but definitely not 10.

I used WYBM to remove walls and blockers more than anything else, anyways. So it'd actually help me more than hurt me(ie only paying 40 life rather than 50 to remove an asteroid belt, or 30 life for a shigatsu ninja, the usual 50 for a boardroom avenger) but there are definitely certain situations where the sting would be too much for other decks.

Once you hit Winged Golems, you're paying exactly as much life as you wanted WWBM nerfed to, with the added advantage of being a very cheap and effective rush counter. Yeah, it's shit once you go past ~7 mana, but, like you pointed out, it would be a lot better in other situations, like removing walls. I could see 8 or 9 though, but not 6 or 7.

Actually yeah you're right, I was thinking Nekomagus and etc. when I made that post but I guess I could live with x10. But only if the give a card to your opponent drawback is dropped, because those two combined is too much.

(04-24-2009 01:03 PM)Noodle Wrote:  but after that it becomes absolute shit because you're paying more life than the damage you'd be taking from the monster.

thatisthepoint.jpg

The problem he's trying to address is keeping it as mostly an effective theft/basically-destruction for low-mana cards, rather than being mediocre on smallish creatures, good against medium creatures, and stupid against large creatures. At 50 and nothing it'd be roughly comparable to Fleshbomb for the effective cost, which only goes up to 4 cost (though at a lower speed, and with fewer external conditionals... maybe closer to 5, then).

That might not be a bad idea, at least in the general concept.

Fleshbomb sucks. It's virtually unplayable.

(04-24-2009 01:20 PM)Noodle Wrote:  Actually yeah you're right, I was thinking Nekomagus and etc. when I made that post but I guess I could live with x10. But only if the give a card to your opponent drawback is dropped, because those two combined is too much.

slowpoke.jpg

(04-24-2009 07:39 AM)Kennisiou Wrote:  Uber:

Cameo takes a card, not gives one. Just like ToK is not a valid proof of the worth of discarding, Cameo is not a valid proof of the worth of cardgiving. Also, Cameo takes from the deck, not the hand. Data Hack is the one that takes from the hand, and if this comparison is valid (I believe both it and the cameo comparison are not valid) it shows that losing a card from your hand to give to the opponent is worth much, much more than 2.5

Second, you're still comparing apples to oranges and saying apples are better because more people buy them. WYBM is not better than summon city bus. Many decks don't use anything larger than a Dragon Whelp, in which case summon city bus will be getting you a bigger monster. Many decks don't use anything with more attack than life or attack equal to life, in which case WYBM just becomes a damage two monsters spell whereas summon city bus can work as outright removal. Many decks just don't use monsters (The Dark Quadrant), or only uses them as small combo pieces (Dr. Amp). What good is WYBM there? I'd rather just summon a city bus to the face.

You show that they have a similar overlapping purpose, but you don't show that one is always stronger at that purpose, you're just showing that if the circumstances are right (if the opponent is attacking with two monsters and at least one is stronger than summon city bus and they're both able to kill eachother) then WYBM is stronger. Okay. If the opponent is using nothing but Giant X's then my Arc Lightning is way stronger than reclamation. If my opponent is using nothing but Dark Wasps then I'd much rather have Stone Golem than Kelar Sage. This doesn't make arc lightning better than reclam, and doesn't make Kelar Sage better than Stone Golem, it makes them usable different ways in different situations, the same way that summon city bus is.

hmm.. I never thought of darkquadrant decks. But monsterless decks are few and far between. You could even easily argue that wybms ability is more often a lot stronger than summon city busses ability more often than your going to play a monsterless deck. To aruge its weaker in monsterless decks is a valid point and Im going to edit my reasoning to include it but it is also very circumstancial, more so than any other comparisson. Not only that and not to say all dark quadrant decks do this but wybm can still steal a DLK prime or maxima termis which is common in dark quadrant decks but Ive seen some really good tbh decks but those are still uncommon.

In reference to dragon welp.. a dragon welp can still kill another dragon welp and can still do a whole lot more damage if you stole a dragon welp and defended against a dragon welp than just summoning a city bus. Thats not to mention the theft of commonly played cards like kelar dragoon or mind burrower. Kelar dragoon can defend then use its ability on itself to kill itself.. Wybm is still a stronger card in 90% percent of decks than summon city bus.

I didnt even mention the monster destruction combos that go with wybm which the card giveaway is meant to stop. Its in my nature to low ball people with cards like I did with my comparison with cameo. You also tried to sell monsterless decks for more than they were worth. . So lets say with alliance card giveaway is worth 2 2. You cant just say its one mono color to make it look worse and you can not add in the fact it uses alliance to steal 2 cards because it seems to be understood that non-generator cards with alliance are meant to be used with alliance generators.

so heres the differences so we can start to stop all the arguing. You actually can compare apples to oranges... if you seperate the differences.

1:Wybm has a weakness when there are no enemy monsters
2:Wybm has the possibility to elimnate 2 monsters.
3:Wybm has destruction or cycling combos.
4:Wybm can eliminate a defender and create an attacker
5:Wybm costs 50 life and a random card giveaway.
6:Wybm can steal and attacker and make a defender
7:Scb can only flank a defender
8:Scb can only create a defender
9:Scb can create an attacker when playing against the dark quadrant.

Im not sure where to go from here.. a little help?

A lot of monsterless decks are really good. One got me fairly far in The Other Tournament.

I like the idea of a scaling life cost to match monster cost, and x10 life doesn't sound out of line (I honestly wouldn't go much lower).

EDIT: WYBM and SCB are very different. Here's another difference: SCB can create an attacker at any time, when you need to go after their lifepoints instead of their monsters. For that to happen WYBM needs an opponent's monster to be undizzy on your own turn and likely not have an activated ability above E speed. This doesn't happen all that often.

Vote: boost

Re: The idea of life scaling, at least at ~10 life per mana, deals with all my problems regarding using the card on larger monsters, while still leaving it playable on smaller monsters and beatsticks. See most of the things me/noodle/gospel said since gospel showed up for more reasoning, and why I like 10 life per mana.

Uber: You're falling into the same trap that many of us on the balance forum have fallen into before - that of trying to split a card's ability into its most basic parts, and then looking to the rest of CMC for what each of those parts should cost so as to figure out what the card should cost as a whole. This just doesn't work; the parts of a card can't be separated like that because it's what they do when put together that defines how strong the card is.
Specifically, you're trying to make a series of comparisons where you equate one basic part of WYBM with how it's costed on a card that also has that basic part. This problem with this is that the two cards in such a comparison use that basic part in completely different ways, and are costed with respect to the way they use it, rather than what basic part or parts they use. Comparisons like that only work (and even then, they don't always work well) when the two cards in question are similar in what they do.

You compared WYBM to Summon City Bus because one aspect of both is that they stop and possibly destroy an attacker/defender (despite them having other aspects with nothing to do with each other). You then compared the comparison with a comparison between Smash Hopes and Burn! Burn! (which do exactly the same thing rather than merely having a common aspect to what they can do like WYBM and Summon City Bus).
You then compared the difference between the costs of each pair of cards and ended up having to find a way to compare 2 with giving a card away, which you attempted to do with another comparison to Cameo (later, Data Hack), despite both of those being cards where you pay a cost to take cards from the opponent, rather than giving cards to the opponent in exchange for not paying a cost.

None of the comparisons were perfectly accurate (no comparisons are), and the sheer number of them that you had to do means that the inaccuracies from each comparison keep adding up until you have a final result that can't be relied on in the slightest.