New Armoured paladin

So. We now have a 5 cost monster that gets type benefits, spell immunity and breaks even with Spirit Bird, totally balanced >.>

It even breaks even with WGs. But I think the point is that it\'s a more defensive card than offensiv, and by a certain school of logic, should be more efficient in it\'s defensive duties. The same school that lowers the mana costs of walls. Although it will trade with a lot of creatures, it won\'t have the advantage of being able to trade on the first turn that some of the other beatsticks might - It\'s got roughly only two thirds the attack of a SB, so direct attacking will take 9 hits to kill instead of (an easily reducable-by-buff) 6. And while it can be worked around, Spell Immunity does does it harder to buff as well.

not that I\'m taking a \"side\" in the oncoming balance argument. Yet.

*gasp* Actual thought when using a beatstick against a non-beatstick creature? I never would\'ve guessed it was possible.

Who knows, maybe a Paladin/Wall deck can reasonably effectively counter 6-mana beatstick decks now. Maybe we\'ll start to see the beatstickers slipping Iridith Village into their decks. :)

Prince of halfwits Wrote:So. We now have a 5 cost monster that gets type benefits, spell immunity and breaks even with Spirit Bird, totally balanced >.>

Right.
so... uhh remind me how it is different to pre-change when Armoured Paladin was 5 cost, got type benefits, spell immunity and broke even with Spirit Bird?

Perhaps there was no sarcasm? Perhaps he\'s just letting everyone know that they break even... you know, in case they didn\'t know?

Right, I\'ll just say a couple things before I leave the Balance Forum for good again as, through several experiments, I\'ve seen it to turn all who enter it\'s brains into mush.

1: I\'ve actually been meaning to come down here and congratulate you on all your \"improvements\"(wow...I can\'t believe I typed that with a straight face) for some time, I just hadn\'t gotten around to it until I saw Armoured Paladin being used as a beatstick, I was so pleased that you\'d succeeded in adding another beatstick to the game I had to come immediately.

2: \"Attack is better than life\" isn\'t a good argument, it never was a good argument, it has no basis in actual logic unless you prefer to play rush...oh wait...most of you do.

3: I really thought you were trying to balance cards. Balanced means that the card is fair in relation to other cards in the game, I\'ve just recently discovered that this is not so, you\'re trying to improve cards that aren\'t commonly used, it\'s a noble goal but: They\'re ALREADY BALANCED, making a card more popular is no excuse to make it overpowered.

By your arguments, I\'m going to assume then, that your primarily using 55 attack creatures.

Because his supposed break in balance was a one hit point change.

So, unless you\'re using Winged Golems up the wazoo...

I have no idea what the you\'re talking about.

And yes, attack is better than life. Why?

Would you rather have a 60/10 or a 10/60? If you want to take this to the extremes, a 1/300 or a 300/1?

Before you stab people with the \"Oh, wait, most of you are rushers\" why the hell don\'t you provide some logic that we can actually attack. The one hit-point change only really affects hardcore winged golemites. And if you are, you really shouldn\'t be complaining about balance in the first place.

Prince, it isn\'t fair to say most of the people who frequent the balance forum favor the rush decks. I\'d say it\'s the opposite, that the people who frequent the balance forum are the ones against rush decks, cause people who use rush decks aren\'t the ones here frequently trying to nerf them.

Balancing cards does not just mean weakening the overpowered ones, it also means strengthening the weaker ones. The big balance bonanza didn\'t just decide to improve every single hardly-used card, it was intended to improve the hardly-used cards that were hardly-used because they suck. Just because a card isn\'t overpowered and isn\'t used frequently, doesn\'t mean it\'s balanced. Some weak cards need improvements.

And finally, let\'s all just take a deep breath... and calm down... and remember that we\'re all working towards the same goal, even if we have different ideas of how to do it. Kumbayah, my friends...

X-O, Prince is the guy who runs the all spell deck. He\'s not much of a golemer, y\'know.

But that\'s besides the point...I just want to ask one question.

If attack is more important than life...why are birds/light beatstick more popular and successful than dark beatsticks? How is skeletal abomination not tearing up the field? Oh, life\'s not enough, huh? Hmm.

BREAKPOINTS are more important than either attack or life. An increase of just 1 life can make a creature devestating in this game. That\'s what I can see as being important...that a Mystic Bird can kill a stone golem and survive, kill a 100/30 juggernaut for 5L, and trades with most other cards around its level.

As a side note, I haven\'t actually read the balance changes for most cards, so if skeletal abomination is now an amazing 100/100 monstrosity, someone should let me know.

Quote:you\'re trying to improve cards that aren\'t commonly used, it\'s a noble goal but: They\'re ALREADY BALANCED, making a card more popular is no excuse to make it overpowered.

THANK YOU

most people dont seem to understand this. If you manage to say, start over with an entirely different set of people, sometimes game patterns become completely different. This happened with BENG: some of the CMC people played it, and they barely touched ninjas, but the last group was half ninjas because they saw them as being powerful.

Well, if you\'re going to put it that way, maybe no one should balance at all?
I mean, if the entire coin of balance relies on who the players are involved in it, one can hardly say that any changes will be good at all.

There also hasn\'t been nearly enough playtesting involved in a hell of a lot of the cards. You can\'t really say a card is balanced until you\'ve actually played with it and gotten some data.

I mean, a lot of cards look fine until you actually play with them.

And it\'s not like we\'re expecting anything to be perfect in a one shot deal. However, given the speed at which we can update our data to fit a new balanced ideal...

I mean, whatever. Fine. Which cards *are* balanced then? And what\'s balance? Where\'s the line? We have strong beatstickers on one hand, and if we nerf those people complain that they\'re just nerfing all the cards that are balanced and that all the other cards are too weak. We have underused cards on the other hand (usually a sign of weakness) and if we buff those people complain that they\'re just buffing all the cards that are already balanced and why don\'t we do something about the beatsticks?

Hey, whatever. We get it. We lose either way when we try to put up a new scale of balancing.

Everyone has different ideas on what is balanced and what is not.

Hopefully, as more cards become available, balance will become less of an issue as there will always be more alternatives to anything in particular.

But then my original argument in the \"Big Balance Bonanza\" was that balance should be taken small steps at a time. Radically improving/nerfing a card will drastically alter its use, whereas small changes can slowly balance, and once deemed balanced, stop. I still stand by that idea.

I think a card can be balanced. However, a lot of people think popularity is a good measure of power, when that simply isn\'t true.

While it is true that popularity isn\'t a terribly good sign of power, it generally means ease of play, ease to get to, etc...

However...

Lack of use is usually a good sign of weakness. While not always true (Say, Doom Coffin and the like) Certain cards just simply aren\'t used at all. While I wasn\'t involved in the armored paladin rebalancing ideas, I do think that a lot of the cards have a lot more use than simply burdening a deck now as they were in their previous state.

Not to say that I don\'t disagree with a lot of the changes, but I\'d rather wait for the dust to settle rather than complain early.