Understanding Balance - A Discussion

Take the current discussion going on in the Super Freezeplay thread with regards to Deregister. I think it's fairly clear that the point was to remove creature types, and inherent in that was the ability to make walls attack. I don't think anyone would be complaining (even about the cantrip/dizzylock/cost) except for the existence of Starship Blockade which makes Deregister arguably "too powerful". On the other hand, the card, in that situation, works exactly as intended. It allows walls to attack. Starship Blockade is a wall (although, by default, a very powerful one). Should we, or should we not, change this? Nounou suggested adding a "cannot attack" clause to Starship Blockade similar to that of Vendor NPC. I would personally disagree with such a solution unless the intention was to make all walls "cannot attack" as singling out the strongest one and saying it's not allowed to attack seems rather ridiculous to me. If you really wanted to make a change, I would say to remove the dizzy lock AND the cantrip and keep everything else the way it is. But that's just one opinion. How would you all, as balancers, respond?

Exile, I wouldn't use direct examples as all you might accomplish now is turning this thread into a discussion of Deregister rather than a discussion of balance in and of itself. Save that for an actual thread regarding deregister.

To address what I believe is your attempted point behind the example given: Nobody is saying to remove the flavor and point of cards. However, in situations in which a card (such as deregister) is creating problems with a single other card (starship blockade), I see no reason as NOT to single out the creature (a card applicable essentially only to itself) rather than the spell (a card applicable to everything). I also see no reason why it is ludicrous to impose an extra limitation on what is, quite simply, the most powerful wall in the game (with a few situational exceptions), because let's be honest, that would alter NONE of the card's flavor (blockades, you might remember, do not attack) and completely fix the deregistration issue. By dismissing it as 'ridiculous', we accomplish nothing. By accepting what is quite a viable suggestion, we solve a problem.

Keeping a card the way it is despite obvious faults for no reason is no better than changing a card that is already more than in line with the rest of the game. It is my view that you are simply the opposite extreme of the 'balance freaks' that you dislike. I would prefer a happy middle ground.

POW9432 Wrote:Exile, I wouldn't use direct examples as all you might accomplish now is turning this thread into a discussion of Deregister rather than a discussion of balance in and of itself. Save that for an actual thread regarding deregister.

Fair point, I'll start a new thread specifically for deregister/blockade after this point.

POW9432 Wrote:To address what I believe is your attempted point behind the example given: Nobody is saying to remove the flavor and point of cards. However, in situations in which a card (such as deregister) is creating problems with a single other card (starship blockade), I see no reason as NOT to single out the creature (a card applicable essentially only to itself) rather than the spell (a card applicable to everything). I also see no reason why it is ludicrous to impose an extra limitation on what is, quite simply, the most powerful wall in the game (with a few situational exceptions), because let's be honest, that would alter NONE of the card's flavor (blockades, you might remember, do not attack) and completely fix the deregistration issue. By dismissing it as 'ridiculous', we accomplish nothing. By accepting what is quite a viable suggestion, we solve a problem.

By that logic though, perhaps we should set similar limitations on any creature deemed to be "too strong". What makes Starship Blockade any different from War Wizard, FBK, Sheena, etc.? If you say "blockades don't attack", the same can be said for *all* walls, so your flavor argument doesn't make sense to me. If you say it's because Starship Blockade is originally a wall, then you would be denying a big purpose of Deregister removing *all* creature types. Once the wall type is removed, it can be considered a creature like any other. On the other hand, you could argue that it's the high cost of those powerful monsters that makes up for the fact that those cards are very strong. So perhaps raising the cost by 1-2G might be the solution then.

POW9432 Wrote:Keeping a card the way it is despite obvious faults for no reason is no better than changing a card that is already more than in line with the rest of the game. It is my view that you are simply the opposite extreme of the 'balance freaks' that you dislike. I would prefer a happy middle ground.

Getting back to balance in general, You're probably right. But it comes down to a matter of opinion as to what CMCers consider a problem. Players may have very different perspectives and will consequently interpret situations using their own base values. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I just happen to disagree with what a lot of people perceive as problems. People's perceptions can often be distorted by other factors when they experience things first hand. For example, there was a game I observed a little while ago where Slimeborg was used, and in a turn pumped up 90 attack. This was viewed by the opponent as too powerful and suggested that perhaps the cost of its ability should be doubled. This, however, neglected the analysis that it costed 9D 9G total and 2 turns to get there while for 1 turn it was a vulnerable 2/45 (compare it to rust dragon for example).

As for my own philosophy, when I see a strong card/deck, I usually see no problem with it, I just take it into account and make it a goal to build a deck capable of beating it. I recognize that that's not possible for a lot of people since I have access to more resources and experience than most, I just wanted to explain where I, personally, was coming from. Again, not to say I'm against all balance, I would just like to limit it to *extreme* cases.

The movement to "make all cards playable" worries me a lot (and not, for the most part, because I suspect it'll be done badly, though admittedly I do worry on that score too). I mean, I've beaten people with Dove-bearing decks. And was it the best card in those decks? Heck no. It was a card I settled for because there wasn't anything better to fill that slot. And y'know, that's perfectly okay. That's part of what makes deckbuilding interesting--is this "bad" card that fits into my deck better than a "good" card that doesn't?

I've really only got a few minutes before I pack up from work and leave (I love slow days at the office, it's the only time I really have to post these days...heh), so I'm not using quotes. Apologies.

Regarding the Starship Blockade: You're right, my flavor suggestion doesn't make sense if you want to take into account every wall, but my point was just that in the case of starship blockade, you can definitely add an ability such as 'does not attack' and we get to keep the flavor of the card, the original purpose of the card, and the original purpose of deregister, and I simply don't see a problem there beyond removing an overpowered combo. I feel like that's an excellent balance, and the type of balance that should be getting some notice. I'll save anything else specific about this particular issue for a deregister thread.

Additionally, not all powerful cards are really comparable...in balance, one must compare cards to others that serve similiar purposes, and the abilities of all three cards you mentioned make them substantially different from the initial example of Starship Blockade. That is something to definitely keep in mind, please.

As to your last point...fair enough. AS long as you understand that you are on an extreme end, and realize that what goes for you is NOT what goes for the majority of CMCers, we don't have a problem. But understand also that your understanding of balance in fundamentally flawed if you want to limit it to only broken cards. As I mentioned in the PABST thread, fixing a broken card is not balance, it is FIXING something that is broken. Balance is another beast, bringing cards that are over the line back into the line.

And you have a point in saying that balance is subjective, but I don't think anyone was arguing with that. Yes, it is. That's why there's numerous people constantly arguing on the balance forums. I thought you noticed that. For every one person in a game who sits there yelling about how a balanced card is overpowered, there are people yelling back that it is not. And when there aren't an equal number of people on each side...ahem...that suggests the presence of an imbalance. now, that's not the set-in-stone rule...but it's worth noting. I understand you dislike what you interpret as "minor" squabbles, but then...you're an extremist.

Yay! I'm an extremist, it's time to declare a jihad! :)

No, seriously though, recognizing that balance judgments are inherently subjective also means recognizing that while some people view the changes to be for the better, some might also consider them for the worse. How many there are on each side may impact your decision, but as you said, I'm an extremist and I hold a sort of Hippocratic "do no harm" view. Unless there's a serious problem that needs FIXING, as you so helpfully put it, I would prefer to leave the cards in the form Webrunner gave them (unless he explicitly asked that they be changed as in the case of 1-cost monsters).

My vision of the balance forum is more of a "Suggestion" forum where people put forth ideas on how to correct broken cards (since it's not like such card discussions belong in the bug report section), and where responses can be made to calls for ideas from webrunner (again, using the 1-cost monsters as an example).

sorta a "if its not broken don't fix it" attitude then?

i have to say having someone like exile on the balance forum is probably a good thing - cos ya know it "balances" us out with the different extremes

Exile Wrote:I'm an extremist and I hold a sort of Hippocratic "do no harm" view.

Hippocratic Oath Wrote:I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

In other words, "I will apply, for the benefit of all unbalanced, all measures [that] are required, avoiding the twin traps of overnerfing and balance nihilism."

Exile Wrote:My vision of the balance forum is more of a "Suggestion" forum where people put forth ideas on how to correct broken cards (since it's not like such card discussions belong in the bug report section), and where responses can be made to calls for ideas from webrunner (again, using the 1-cost monsters as an example).

That's, um...exactly...how...I...view it.

SO I guess we're agreed there? I just happen to think that more things need fixing than you do.

That's a remarkably anticlimactic conclusion, ain't it?

It might be anticlimactic but it's certainly reasonable. The next step would be to try and achieve a common ground on what needs fixing. I'll start up a separate thread for that and leave this thread open for other people to continue posting their own ideas/visions for what they view Balance as.

TO be fair, Exile, I doubt you and I will ever see eye to eye on balance issues. Our particular views on balance are irreconcilable. I don't think that things are fine just as they are, whereas you do...hence, we're going to butt heads consistently. The same is true for many other people on the forums.

However, the main thing here, and in any thread regarding balance, is that people understand more than simply their side of the argument. I understand your desire to leave cards as they are. I simply disagree with it. Vehemently. But then...that's for balance threads :)