Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

If each player is only allowed, say, one thread at a time (instead of the current three), this shouldn't affect newer players unless they come in and decide they want a whole host of things changed (which doesn't tend to be the case).

well the rules are already a pain to memorize to begin with, complicating them won't make it any easier is all i'm trying to say.

one thread per person is fine.

I don't think one thread per person will make the "quality" of balance changes any better.

Limiting stupidity doesn't cure stupidity.

I'm not a fan of limiting to one either. Not straight up anyways. I could see maybe one (or two) suggest threads at a time. and then when a thread gets into the boost/nerf phase, you gain a new thread, no more then a set number. But yeah, it seems fine as is really.

I think you guys are judging the balance forum's level of intelligence too harshly. Balancing is a difficult puzzle, and I'm kinda impressed that a system of majority decisions actually seem to get it fairly right fairly often - some amount of renewed hope for democracy right there. While reasoning is often kinda lacking, people's collective gut feelings often seem to point in the general right direction. At least that's the impression I've gotten so far.

And when things are balanced wrong, it feels like we can count on them being suggested again (thanks to for example Noodle), so it's not a permanent problem.

I really have no problem with a few random changes here and there if it means we get a more balanced game in the long run. In fact, if kept in moderation, random changes of the game may even be interesting.

The thing is, once something receives enough support for a change, it's incredibly hard(and incredibly unlikely) to get undone.

Getting a change to pass requires 2/3rd majority vote in the first thread and then just a plain majority vote in the second. For example, say 6 people vote to nerf a card and you don't want it to happen. Later on, when you can post a new thread for the card within the rules, assuming those 6 people are watching, you need twelve people to vote to boost it because you can almost guarantee that those 6 people will vote for No Change.

That's not even including the fact that people who didn't vote in the last thread may come in and vote for No Change.

So really it's not that simple to get a nerf undone, Dream. That's why I get annoyed when a nerf I think is stupid goes through.

If a change goes through, there's a good chance it doesn't need to be undone. You can though, change it later, without much difficulty. Assuming that is, that it was too small/big in the first place. If, for example, after a little bit of play testing, you find that Honor Burrower's 5 card restriction is too limiting on the decks it's placed in, the people here would be more than happy to consider reducing it to 3 or 4.

Don't lie to him Nacho, you know they'd throw a shitfit about changing it to 3 or 4.

Without even testing it themselves, too. Oh, the balance forum, what a dreadful place you are.

(04-15-2009 08:24 PM)Noodle Wrote: So really it's not that simple to get a nerf undone, Dream. That's why I get annoyed when a nerf I think is stupid goes through.

Hmm, so maybe what we need is just that, a scheduled chance to undo mistakes?

There could be a rule that every change is to be brought up again, after enough time for people to be able to try the changed version of the card, with another vote to decide if the change should stick.

That would give everyone who wasn't part of the initial discussion but retroactively got outraged a chance to be part of the process anyway.

People are already allowed to bring up cards that have been changed. I think Noodle's problem is that you still need the 2/3rds majority to revoke the change, which would mean there would have to be a rather drastic change of heart about the card for the change to be revoked...change.

Like I said, changes are almost never revoked, but there have been changes that were later decided to be too big, too small, or just wrong.

What I'm saying is that there could be a speacial [UNDO?] thread for each change where it would only take 50%, and only after that one is passed would the change be as solid as it gets right away today.

(04-15-2009 01:37 PM)Noodle Wrote: I don't think one thread per person will make the "quality" of balance changes any better.

Limiting stupidity doesn't cure stupidity.

It's not about limiting stupidity, it's more about lowering the entry bar to all balance threads to promote more discussion.

For example, I personally don't read every balance thread because there are so many that I just don't have the time to do so. I only read one if I see the thread title and I feel strongly enough about the card to warrant replying. Similarly, a newbie might come to the balance forum and be completely overwhelmed by the activity and decide to not bother.

Less threads = more likely to get more discussion in those threads = better balance output.

(04-15-2009 09:07 PM)Dream Wrote: What I'm saying is that there could be a speacial [UNDO?] thread for each change where it would only take 50%, and only after that one is passed would the change be as solid as it gets right away today.

A) That's too complicated
C) Don't ask for things that aren't likely to happen.

(04-15-2009 09:53 PM)Nacho Wrote:
(04-15-2009 09:07 PM)Dream Wrote: What I'm saying is that there could be a speacial [UNDO?] thread for each change where it would only take 50%, and only after that one is passed would the change be as solid as it gets right away today.

A) That's too complicated
C) Don't ask for things that aren't likely to happen.

A) Doesn't need to be complicated. Ok, sheduling was proably pushing it.

Could just make it so anyone could start an [Undo?] thread just like you'd start a [Suggest] thread. Would need to be a minimum time passed since the change was put in the system, say a month, and some maximum time so people don't post [Undo?] threads on 2 year old changes.

I'm thinking an Undo would be all or nothing, so it would actually be less complicated than re-suggesting.

C) How am I supposed to know what's likely to happen?

Major changes aren't likely to happen.

2/3rds majority isn't an easy thing to get in the first place. If a thread manages it, that's a pretty big indication that there's a problem with the card; if there's another problem afterwards, reverting it doesn't make much sense, compared to making a different change.

Except 2/3ds may not really be 2/3ds, since those who play the most with the card may have been absent, and many without actual experience with the card may be voting based on theoretical reasoning which may or may not be correct.

I just think it would make sense to actually test a change before it's considered final.

That is, if faulty balance changes is actually a problem, which several people seem to think.

Actual experience can be flawed as well, due to the luck of going against good or bad matchups (or the current metagame), or of going against good or bad opponents, or your own good or bad deckbuilding. There can also be a question of availability, for the higher end rares, secret cards, donations, vouchers etc, and also for the cards that combo with them (Dr Amp works quite well with a set of Year One Cakes for instance).

And the balance forum has consented to change cards that had only very recently been changed not long prior, such as Dr Amp (had his cost drop and attack raised, shortly later had his attack dropped back down again), The Creator (changed to not have ability affect self but also have 30 more life, shortly later reverted and instead the ability made a little weaker), Prime mana converters (oncolor aspect of cost dropped, this is dut to be reverted and given a different boost instead), G Lens Laser (was given variable sac, this was reverted and given cantrip instead), and so on...

In fact, on that subject, I just made a thread for Spirit Bird, because I think it lost one too many lifepoints in the last balance change... Icon_razz

Addressing another card in the OP of this thread, the problem with Empty Void is that while it was an effective beatstick counter, it didn't discriminate between beatsticks and ability monsters. There's nothing stopping it from wiping out Ardams and Kelar Sages and Holy Banishers and so on.

WAAAHHHHH

Edit: There are like 4000 cards in cmc give or take a few so why worry? The balance forum sucks, duh squirm. But at least this post was interesting enough to deserve a flame. Its not interesting enough to keep it alive.

I agree with masa about the one thread at a time thing for newbs though, although people seldom have more than one up at a time anyways. I think there might be a better alternative though but im not sure what.

Its pretty easy for a new player to come in here and not understand the balance forum. Its actually disasterous and could probably make some pussy new players run away from the game. The way I feel is that I like the game too much to deal with the bullshit in the forum. As to why this thread isnt interesting enough to keep open, because you have to bitch and bitch and bitch in the balance forum like squirm so you can trick you pussies into thinking theyre right and everyone else agrees. Now do you think Im right? Yes? Yes because I said bitch? Yes because I flamed someone? Yes because I called you a pussy? No? No, because I threatened your man/woman hood? Theres no reasonable excuse for this post and theres too much reason for the balance forum to be abused. Yup.. laterz dudes.

edit2: fuck, I also agree with squirm about fleshbomb and weenie rushes but didnt vote or care to be involved in the balance forum anymore. Ill play and collect the points. You guys can sit here and make changes.