Bah, Sheena attachment issues

no i understood it - just showing u how wrong u are.

i'm talking ....here


and u'r talking.........................here

you want speciffics and i'm talking mostly in the general because we managed to stray off of the subject to abstract flavor

---

but i'm done w/ this since we're so far off topic now - think what u wish, have a nice evening

DC needs a few good smacks upside the head and a reminder to actually consider other people's opinions rather than just repeating his own over and over.

Anyway, I'm inclined to agree that the invulnerability of Sheena+Shadowforce is a bit much compared to other similar combos. I could get behind constant 0 attack - she's a dang good card without it.

As for others gaining constant 0 attack, I don't think it's necessary unless it's supposed to be near-impossible and becomes a balance concern. NPC Sheena is supposed to be generally untargetable by stat boosters in the first place.

Seeing as how the last tally is post #27, new one:

Constant Attack of 0: Kajamakuji, Kennisiou, sXeAndriex, RazorD9, Silaqui, NOLDER(against Can't Att.), Tamdrik, bubbleman2, Clyceer(?), Blue_Elite, Ultros, �ルノ
Total: 12(11)
Can't Attack: bubbleman2
Total: 1(0)
Keep as is: Leander, Sol(against Can't Att.), Nacho, Noodle, Exile, DemonCowboy(against flavor argument), RogueThunderBird(Att=0 if anything)
Total: 7

�ルノ Wrote:As for others gaining constant 0 attack, I don't think it's necessary unless it's supposed to be near-impossible and becomes a balance concern.

You guys know I wasn't serious about that, right? Though I am curious how Saint plans to explain Cybernetic Kill-Fog.

Blue_Elite Wrote:Seeing as how the last tally is post #27, new one:

Constant Attack of 0: some people, Clyceer(?)
more stuff

I wasn't really planning on actually voting, since I haven't actually seen the combo in action. That said, it would not be inaccurate to say that I support that choice as a balance.

Blue_Elite Wrote:Seeing as how the last tally is post #27, new one:

Constant Attack of 0: Kajamakuji, Kennisiou, sXeAndriex, RazorD9, Silaqui, NOLDER(against Can't Att.), Tamdrik, bubbleman2, Clyceer(?), Blue_Elite, Ultros, �ルノ
Total: 12(11)
Can't Attack: bubbleman2
Total: 1(0)
Keep as is: Leander, Sol(against Can't Att.), Nacho, Noodle, Exile, DemonCowboy, RogueThunderBird(Att=0 if anything)
Total: 7

so is 12/19 enough to implement the constant attack of 0 in the next balance spree or is more discussion needed? (i can't imagine what could have been left unsaid at this point...)

@Nacho: You just need to watch more anime. Seriously, you can BS anything in anime.

@Clyceer: I'll keep your name on there and keep the (?) to imply that you aren't "committed" to the decision and can yet be swayed by actually playing it.

@NOLDER: Even if we keep Clyceer's vote it's still a little less than 2/3 majority (~62%). I believe +75% is needed for a balance to be a "sure thing" but the chances of this being implemented are fairly good.
As for discussion: ya I think everything that could be said has been said. About the only other thing that could change the results is new votes.

Strange, I thought changes were still based on whatever the person reading it (webrunner, masa, whomever) feels is right. From the changes that have gone on, the votes seem to have very little to do with things aside from if the majority is for change or not and a vague sense of what it should be (cost change, ability change, etc.)

There's no set rule, but I'd consider having about 2/3 majority for making a change at all to be a good guideline. Then I'd just make whichever change got the most votes, unless something such as a webrunner veto or unforseen coding problems (like what happened with The Dark Quadrant) requires a different change to be made.

Just curious: is that some web mandated thing, or just how you do things? I've always been a bit curious about the process.

It's pretty much about the individual judgement of myself or masa, depending on who's implementing the balances. Unless there's something we figure webrunner would want to okay first (generally, any non numbers change), we determine which balance changes to make ourselves. This is pretty much based on votes in the balance threads, except in a few special circumstances (as with coding issues as mentioned above. And the First Avrillian thing, I guess, though I really don't like how that was handled without player discussion)

Nacho Wrote:You guys know I wasn't serious about that, right? Though I am curious how Saint plans to explain Cybernetic Kill-Fog.

And I have time to explain it now. I'll use the Cybernetic kill-fog first as it'll be the hardest to explain. So without further ado, I shall now make crap up.

The mana used in the summoning of the heart is only partly used when the heart is brought into play. Thus why it takes two types of mana to summon . The other color of mana is used to bond the heart with the target entity. In the case of the fog, the heart brings all of its abomination-of-science grade malicious intent with it when it is bonded to the fog. The heart then acts as the evil nerve center or brain. Your now evil fog is free to mess with peoples minds, make them walk into walls, lead them into caves of god-slaying beasts, mess up your taxes, things like that.

As for how the heart actually bonds to the fog, it fuses with the water molecules. And with the power of a now evil half magic half cybernetic heart, the molecules can move themselves to attack any hapless soul who wanders into the fog. (It works kinda like the boss of the water temple in Ocarina of Time. Only with more fog and less water.)

Can we make it a rule somewhere that anyone who specifically votes in direct violation of the balance codex without any good justification for it doesn't have their votes counted?

Well, we can pretty much handle that in the thread discussion itself, and even if by chance there was something against the codex that got the most votes, it wouldn't be implemented anyway. Not unless there was a really good reason why no other option would suffice, and webrunner approved.

Yes, but it could count against the 2/3 majority that the mods look for in order to make their decisions, which is counter-productive when some of the votes are for something that could never happen (or, at least, something that wouldn't happen because of the reasons that are being given) anyways.

The guideline of a 2/3 majority that I mentioned is for whether the card is changed at all, not what particular change should be made. Votes like that would only ever count towards the 2/3 majority. Just because the particular change they're suggesting isn't going to happen doesn't mean that they shouldn't be counted as wanting a change at all.

I added "(against balance codex)" "(against flavor argument)" next to DemonCowboy's name.
I make it a rule not to exclude people when tallying for any reason because then it's a bias summation of the general feeling regarding a card. That's also why I add those notes in parenthesis. Clyceer, for example, I wasn't sure if he was voting or not so rather then use my personal judgment and ignore him since he didn't explicitly say he was pro-change, I added his name with a note that I wasn't sure. Likewise sometimes people don't really feel strongly one way or another but say to put them in a category so I add them with a note about their indecision.

Basically, if you think the reason noted shouldn't count for the overall vote, you can just adjust the numbers to reflect that.

EDIT: Changed per Ultros' (Ultros's?) post.

It's kinda hard for a vote to leave a card as is to be against the codex; DemonCowboy isn't doing much more than repeating his point over and over, but that's bad debating, not bad balance.

I'm for a constant attack of zero.

I'm not going to comment on whatever because it's already been said and nobody'd read it at this point anyway.

Edit: No, actually, I will, but briefly.

There's a difference between the flavour for a character and the flavour of a card (its designed function/purpose). This has been said in more detail already, so I won't go into detail again.

Also, that flavour aside, 575 and two cards and a life maintenance for a 50/51 that can't be targeted by mods, spells or abilities and takes no combat damage. The problem here is that this is far too powerful. This is even before considering that you can transform her into a 110/4 lifebar monster (hooray for constant attack), and gamble on a transformation back (to a 50/1) which could wipe out all the opponent's non-unique monsters.

Constant attack of zero isn't the only option. Being unable to attack/defend is an option. Raising the mana costs of either or both cards is an option. Reducing the statgain of Shadowforce Heart is an option. There are probably quite a few other very simple options. But each of these weaken the individual cards outside of the combo. Constant attack of zero weakens the combo, while affecting only a very select few other combos. But for the most part, I can use Sheena without the constant attack of zero being a problem, and it doesn't change Shadowforce Heart at all. It pretty much just removes the problem, and it fits the card's (presumed) original purpose.

That it seems to be in flavour with the webcomic character is an added bonus.