NightmareX wrote:There are many threads based on arguments about cards being buffed or nerfed. This is common for a strategy game because we all love our individual decks and we believe that some are putting others in the shade because the power difference in general is insane. Remember that balance is opinion, not fact. So someone who disagrees with you is not necessarily "wrong." Remember, we all have our biases and loved/hated cards.
The basic idea of this thread is to encourage more creative arguments about cards. If you are going to make a thread about cards, at least spell the title correctly and say something reasonable instead of 'nerf dis now'. Who wants to read that? The reasons are important. There is no point in changing a card if it's going to make no difference to counters and gameplay. So make sure you explain why said card(s) need a change and why your change is adequate.
Therefore I suggest that threads should be organised in a more structured and detailed way.
Step 1: Name the card. Which card needs changing? This can be in the title.
Step 2: Issue - What is wrong? State what stats make the troop superior/inferior.
Step 3: Changes (Nerf/Buff) - State what stats could be changed. Try and be specific by using percentages.
Step 3.5: Why do you wish for this to change? - Give reasons for the buff/nerf.
Step 4: Effect - How will this change the game or how the troop is countered?
Step 5: Summary - Justify your choices and explain why the buff/nerf will not ruin the card.
The layout of your thread doesn't have to be as detailed as I will show below. Instead, you can capture key information and explain why a card should be balanced. You may wish to argue why a card is currently overpowered or ineffective from statistics alone as well as in-game situations.
Example of an opening post
Royal Giant (Common troop card from arena 7)
The Royal Giant currently offers too much damage since his recent buff. He dodges the main counter Inferno Tower unless it is placed whilst he is in range. The other alternative is to desperately place swarms that can be countered instantly with a cheap spell such a zap spell. If this is not present, the Royal Giant can still damage buildings or a crown tower for quite a while. The worst part is that he can instantly attack crown towers after stepping over the bridge if no buildings are present. If they are, he would abuse their range and get through them without taking damage. If not, he will take minor damage from the building as he targets the crown tower instead. Either way he will do mass damage to a crown tower when troops are being ignored. Even high dps troops such as the Mini Pekka take too long to kill the Royal Giant alone. Even if support does not kill a Mini Pekka, the Royal Giant will get the opportunity to deal mass damage.
To fix the ability to allow him to instantly target crown towers once he steps over the bridge or destroys the defenses (That have all had a nerf) I suggest that his target should be set to: All. This means that he has to kill troops before targeting a crown tower.
This should give players a chance to stop the Royal Giant before he does damage to a crown tower. The Giant Skeleton has to attack troops first and also walk up to a crown tower for the same elixir cost as a Royal Giant whereas the Royal Giant snipes the crown tower instantly.
The normal giant will also be able to make an appearance again because he is currently outmatched when compared to a Royal Giant
If the Royal Giant loses it's ability to target buildings, he can still do his damage but require support rather than being a 1 card wrecking team. It is also an important balance because all other troops have a reasonable costing counter troop/building to stop the RG . This would include a few more counter methods other than placing a Bomb Tower while he is in range and praying that your next troop will kill him.
-Put important information as well as your suggested changes in bold!
-Suggest the changes and aims of your balancing!
-Compare the card you are discussing to others. After all, we are balancing statistics.
-If you have several ideas for changes, create a poll to see which is more popular.
Replying to a thread
Please be respectful as forum rules still apply here. Rather than swearing at people because of disagreements, simply suggest why you disagree with a user's post. Maybe even suggest better changes to add to the discussion. After all, if Sparky is an issue, you could develop a large discussion to see in 1 thread rather than having a lot of thread spam that isn't worth reading.
If you agree with a post, there isn't much I can say. If you wish to bring up a thoughtful post, rather than yelling "Bump", just say that you believe this is worth mentioning and bring the discussion back.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!