Why are there broken cards. Why do broken cards cost 2 and 3 gold to purchase?

Personofsecrets · October 10

Yes, a number my posts are made because I personally found something disgustingly unbalanced in a game and became encouraged to speak about.

Because balance changes have fallen on deaf ear, I decided a while ago to stop making balance posts. I found the recent game that I played egregious enough to make a balance post despite the screaming into the void.

Why is Vestments of the Druid King a broken card? More crucially, why does it cost 2?

Why is Festival of Forbearance a broken card? More crucially, why does it cost 3?

I've had my share of purchasing Vestments and Time Mastery on the first turn. It's not funny. It doesn't feel good.

I've also been on the receiving end of this card. Such games feel hopeless and dreadfull.

I've been on the receiving end of this card, which I "chose" to morph into like a complete idiot. Because of that, I get spanked. I get spanked by any level of opponent despite the thousands of games that I've played. I get spanked despite the ranks that I've held. I get spanked despite the thought I've put into the game. I get spanked despite everything because... well... I'll just put it this way...

I have no words that can express to the fullest extent how bad I believe that Vestments is all around. The same type of mistake is repeated with other cards like Festival/Bardic or Pounce/Grand.

Having cards like this in the game is completely novice of design. And I want to like design. They have real creds. They are well meaning. I'm sure that they want a good reputation. So why does it come to this? What I don't want to do is repeat tired worn out ideas like "the dev's don't care" or "they don't listen." It's not true.

So, for the love of all that is good, fix the above mentioned cards. I've used "disgust" to express how I feel about cards such as Vestments. That word isn't quite right. It's more accurate to say that I hold such choices in total contempt and that is because not only do I know that I could do better, but because I know that the designers themselves could do better. And that is of course true because, afterall, Festival/Bardic used to cost 4!

They have what it takes. Fix your cards! Update the morph system! I can't say that there is any singular reason for the competivie player base of TOT becoming a lower number of players, but I can't imagine that poor balance where players get spanked for breathing assists the situation. And I can say for sure that these types of cards make for awful feeling games for EVERYONE.

So just do it.

spartaxoxo · October 10

I think that in any card game, you should expect to lose badly because of RNG not going your way sometimes. So, IDK about "disgusting."

But, I agree that all of the cards you listed need a cost increase imo.

Largomets · October 14

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think that in any card game, you should expect to lose badly because of RNG not going your way sometimes. So, IDK about "disgusting."

But, I agree that all of the cards you listed need a cost increase imo.

The only reason "disgusting" isn't the right word is because it's not powerful enough to describe how unacceptable the RNG imbalance of this game is.

No, in fact, a well designed card game should never prioritize luck to skill. Maybe that was true hundreds of years ago when card games were first invented, but any modern card game should prioritize strategy and reward superior players for their ability to play well.

If you want RNG spam, go to a casino and gamble all your money away. Those of us who aren't gambling addicts prefer to have fun, and there is NOTHING fun about losing to an inferior player who got lucky.

spartaxoxo · October 14

Largomets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think that in any card game, you should expect to lose badly because of RNG not going your way sometimes. So, IDK about "disgusting."

But, I agree that all of the cards you listed need a cost increase imo.

The only reason "disgusting" isn't the right word is because it's not powerful enough to describe how unacceptable the RNG imbalance of this game is.

No, in fact, a well designed card game should never prioritize luck to skill. Maybe that was true hundreds of years ago when card games were first invented, but any modern card game should prioritize strategy and reward superior players for their ability to play well.

If you want RNG spam, go to a casino and gamble all your money away. Those of us who aren't gambling addicts prefer to have fun, and there is NOTHING fun about losing to an inferior player who got lucky.

RNG is inherent to card games. Someone SHOULD lose to RNG every now and then in a card game. That they are games of both luck and skill is part of the appeal. I never said it RNG should be prioritized but it is the nature of the genre. Getting mad that RNG losses are part of a card game is no different than being mad that a car can crash while racing. It's always going to suck to lose those games but it's an innate part of the type of game you're playing.

Tales is a game that prioritizes skill over RNG. The best players win the vast majority of their games.

Personofsecrets · October 14

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Largomets wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I think that in any card game, you should expect to lose badly because of RNG not going your way sometimes. So, IDK about "disgusting."

But, I agree that all of the cards you listed need a cost increase imo.

The only reason "disgusting" isn't the right word is because it's not powerful enough to describe how unacceptable the RNG imbalance of this game is.

No, in fact, a well designed card game should never prioritize luck to skill. Maybe that was true hundreds of years ago when card games were first invented, but any modern card game should prioritize strategy and reward superior players for their ability to play well.

If you want RNG spam, go to a casino and gamble all your money away. Those of us who aren't gambling addicts prefer to have fun, and there is NOTHING fun about losing to an inferior player who got lucky.

RNG is inherent to card games. Someone SHOULD lose to RNG every now and then in a card game. That they are games of both luck and skill is part of the appeal. I never said it RNG should be prioritized but it is the nature of the genre. Getting mad that RNG losses are part of a card game is no different than being mad that a car can crash while racing. It's always going to suck to lose those games but it's an innate part of the type of game you're playing.

Tales is a game that prioritizes skill over RNG. The best players win the vast majority of their games.

Where you are mixing things up is because the "should" only happens because of raw statistics. Cards need not or "shouldn't" be overpowered due to heavy handed decisions made by designers for any of the many made up reasons including what's supposedly fun, what appeals to varrying players, or even just designers experimenting and not being careful enough. That shouldn't is not with respect to randomness at all.

In the case of TOT, it's also the case that none of those excuses apply. The cards brought into question in the thread have histories of creating unfun games, being widely disliked, and being around long enough for design to know that they are problematic.

The concept of randomness here is besides the point. The cards are powerful because they are powerful. We could also say that the game is imbalanced for first and second player simply because of the data. Randomness doesn't have to enter the equation and being an enabler of poor balance by trying to justify that balance by muddying the conversation in terms of what is and isn't random hurts the overall conversation of advocating for more balanced game pieces...

spartaxoxo · October 15

Personofsecrets wrote: »

The concept of randomness here is besides the point. The cards are powerful because they are powerful.

Which is why I agreed they needed a nerf and never once advocated for bad balance.

Your opening post seemed, to me, to focus on two things. Those cards being imbalanced. And RNG losses being disgusting. I agreed with the balance, but disagreed about RNG. I expect luck to play a factor in a card game.

Edit

Also, I want some cards that are just a little better than others. They make for more interesting matches. It's like trying to get an Ace.

Personofsecrets · October 15

The random factor wouldn't matter if the cards were better balanced. Cards that warp games still warp games even if it is only every other game or every 4th game. I'm not really concerned with how often a card warps games, just that it does.

Someone recently complained about losing a very won game after the opponents had to tithes show up in a scenario where they could use all of the patrons needed to prevail. I've had this same thing happen and it was incredibly aggravating. Throwing my hands up in the air about it isn't necessary since such thing almost never happens. I don't think that this type of thing should really happen based on my principles, but sure, it crosses that threshold where it's silly to complain about. Additionally, we really don't know how skillfully each player played this game. For example, I've also gotten extremley lucky patron wins against opponents doing the most dull forced win power generating gameplay. Playing for a 1 out of a 1000 win was probably multitudes more skillful than slamming Siege Weapon Volley over and over. Anyhow...

Festival/Bardic plus Writ of Coin is an insanely good play that isn't particularly lucky. Pounce/Grand isn't particularly lucky. Even the two carder of Vestments plus Psijic card isn't that lucky. These are all just noraml openings that happen all of the time and shouldn't be so good. These are the disgusting plays to me because the cards are too good. But as I wrote, I attempted to correct my terminology. I feel some disgust with regards to how some cards are handled, but that emotion puts way to much of a passive spin on things.

The cards are obviously in need of balance and they are activley allowed to have the impacts that they have despite their obvious needing of further attention. Hence the contempt I wrote about. But even contempt isn't quite right. Contempt would mean that I know something that the designers don't know. And that isn't true. They know what I know. They just choose not to act as I would for any of the clandestine reasons that are often speculated on. I'll choose to believe that there are good intentions. And if there are good intentions, then designers can read what players here write all of the time about the same aggravating things that happen over and over and give them a look. I believe to have seen this dynamic with a ton of different mechanical based things in TOT. It's time to jump the gap from mechanics being adjusted based on feedback to problem cards being actively adjusted too.

Largomets · October 16

spartaxoxo wrote: »

RNG is inherent to card games. Someone SHOULD lose to RNG every now and then in a card game. That they are games of both luck and skill is part of the appeal. I never said it RNG should be prioritized but it is the nature of the genre. Getting mad that RNG losses are part of a card game is no different than being mad that a car can crash while racing. It's always going to suck to lose those games but it's an innate part of the type of game you're playing.

I think you misunderstand. I did not say there should be no RNG and no RNG losses, I said it should not be the primary driving factor that takes priority. The "luck of the draw" will literally always be a part of any RNG game.

But what the devs have done is put certain cards/decks in the game where a single lucky hand forever changes the balance of the game in a manner which allows one player to snowball to a point the other player cannot possibly win. This means it's no longer about who is the better player, but rather who gets "the win card" faster. And worse, they seem to be designing decks INTENTIONALLY to allow for MORE of this as time goes on, despite the community hemorrhaging out all the top players as a result. Many of the best players I ever played have not been playing for several seasons, leaving behind a community with more RNG spammers than quality strategy players.

It feels like the devs are hoping to "court" new players the same way the scratcher lottery does. "Come, even YOU can win without needing to work for it, one lucky moment and even YOU get to win!" Except the problem is, that's not how you court long-time players, because people want to feel progression and see themselves get better. If they don't want to progress themselves, they never would have been long time players anyhow.

We see they did the same thing in PVE. They made 99% of the content so trivially easy that "anyone can do it," except now there's no meaningful progression so the potential new players get bored easily and quit disappointed.

Major_Mangle · October 16

ToT should've been more like other deck building card games rather than the nonsense rng it is. The fact that you know you're most likely gonna lose because the tavern rng screwed you over and punished you because you took the gamble of buying a card on the field, for me that's so ridiculous and one of the main reasons I stopped playing ToT (that and the excessive roping that plagues it)

Personofsecrets · October 16

It's also the case that overly strong cards can undermine the development of new players.

Someone who I was matched with yesterday started playing like a clown who had already won after picking up an early Grand.

They allowed me to purchase 3 midnight raids and 3 Stonelore Rockseer as they worked on making prestige and the Patron button spam.

Eventually, they realized they were spanked and quit.

But who does that? Someone who is used to picking Rajhin and being hard carried by the power level of a single card, that's who. They have been stunted as a TOT player because the designers allow for easy wins powered by one or two cards.

Largomets · October 16

Eh, I don't see any of the rahjin cards as broken the way you do. They aren't any more or less broken than the hlaalu cards that allow you to buy a lot. I've lost many a game where I could buy a ton but didn't get any power, and similarly I've won many a game where my opponent can get 30+ gold on a hand but can't do much with it. In fact, you can poison your own hand easily by having too many cards and diluting your own draw pull. I consider them a balance problem to an extend, but they're like 3 tiers down on the list of cards that need balancing, and until the druid/mora/alessia cards get nerfed first, they are also part of the only countermeasures one can get over the short burst power generation nonsense.

I am MUCH more concerned with cards like vestments that cost 2 gold and can generate tremendous power, or the mora nonsense where a player can get 15+ power on their first turn of the game due to pure tavern RNG luck, which as we've discussed in the seeding thread, where clearly there is seeding INTENDED to make these "once in a lifetime" scenarios happen every 3 games.

If my opponent has tremendous buying power, I am at a disadvantage but I can find ways to overcome them. However, if they get lucky early with alma and lock all of my cards behind patrons and I have no recourse, or if they shoot out the gate with a 20+ power win and I have no recourse, I CANNOT overcome that, because the game is over in 3 minutes before I even had a chance to play. That's broken as hell and anytime I play a game like that, whether I win or lose, I'm done for the day because my fun was ruined.

Personofsecrets · October 16

Largomets wrote: »

Eh, I don't see any of the rahjin cards as broken the way you do. They aren't any more or less broken than the hlaalu cards that allow you to buy a lot. I've lost many a game where I could buy a ton but didn't get any power, and similarly I've won many a game where my opponent can get 30+ gold on a hand but can't do much with it. In fact, you can poison your own hand easily by having too many cards and diluting your own draw pull. I consider them a balance problem to an extend, but they're like 3 tiers down on the list of cards that need balancing, and until the druid/mora/alessia cards get nerfed first, they are also part of the only countermeasures one can get over the short burst power generation nonsense.

I am MUCH more concerned with cards like vestments that cost 2 gold and can generate tremendous power, or the mora nonsense where a player can get 15+ power on their first turn of the game due to pure tavern RNG luck, which as we've discussed in the seeding thread, where clearly there is seeding INTENDED to make these "once in a lifetime" scenarios happen every 3 games.

If my opponent has tremendous buying power, I am at a disadvantage but I can find ways to overcome them. However, if they get lucky early with alma and lock all of my cards behind patrons and I have no recourse, or if they shoot out the gate with a 20+ power win and I have no recourse, I CANNOT overcome that, because the game is over in 3 minutes before I even had a chance to play. That's broken as hell and anytime I play a game like that, whether I win or lose, I'm done for the day because my fun was ruined.

I'm focused on Pounce and Grand because they are cards that can guarantee or make highly likely pickups such as Marketplace or even Hagraven Matron on the 3rd/4th round. Something like Luxury plus Writ at least has more variance toward such line of play. Customs Seizure should be reverted since getting a free 5/6 cost card and being able to do something else on the same turn during the 3rd/4th round can be obscene. Pounce and Grand have those types of lines too. Plus they just kill agents sometimes which adds additional imbalance to certain positions.

Other cards from other decks are problems too. All of the decks have at least 1 card that should be subject to review. I think that Pounce and Grand are particularly bad because of how they enable non-interaction via the patron effect that they are baked in with.

Largomets · October 16

Personofsecrets wrote: »

Largomets wrote: »

Eh, I don't see any of the rahjin cards as broken the way you do. They aren't any more or less broken than the hlaalu cards that allow you to buy a lot. I've lost many a game where I could buy a ton but didn't get any power, and similarly I've won many a game where my opponent can get 30+ gold on a hand but can't do much with it. In fact, you can poison your own hand easily by having too many cards and diluting your own draw pull. I consider them a balance problem to an extend, but they're like 3 tiers down on the list of cards that need balancing, and until the druid/mora/alessia cards get nerfed first, they are also part of the only countermeasures one can get over the short burst power generation nonsense.

I am MUCH more concerned with cards like vestments that cost 2 gold and can generate tremendous power, or the mora nonsense where a player can get 15+ power on their first turn of the game due to pure tavern RNG luck, which as we've discussed in the seeding thread, where clearly there is seeding INTENDED to make these "once in a lifetime" scenarios happen every 3 games.

If my opponent has tremendous buying power, I am at a disadvantage but I can find ways to overcome them. However, if they get lucky early with alma and lock all of my cards behind patrons and I have no recourse, or if they shoot out the gate with a 20+ power win and I have no recourse, I CANNOT overcome that, because the game is over in 3 minutes before I even had a chance to play. That's broken as hell and anytime I play a game like that, whether I win or lose, I'm done for the day because my fun was ruined.

I'm focused on Pounce and Grand because they are cards that can guarantee or make highly likely pickups such as Marketplace or even Hagraven Matron on the 3rd/4th round. Something like Luxury plus Writ at least has more variance toward such line of play. Customs Seizure should be reverted since getting a free 5/6 cost card and being able to do something else on the same turn during the 3rd/4th round can be obscene. Pounce and Grand have those types of lines too. Plus they just kill agents sometimes which adds additional imbalance to certain positions.

Other cards from other decks are problems too. All of the decks have at least 1 card that should be subject to review. I think that Pounce and Grand are particularly bad because of how they enable non-interaction via the patron effect that they are baked in with.

I would agree on paper, but since it's a deck I play almost every game, I see every variety of scenario under the sun play out, and I haven't found them to be statistically significant in win/lose. I'd say I feel like I'm on "the wrong side" of those cards early more off than the "winning side," but I still have a 70% win ratio in ranked.

By contrast, a player getting threads of fate and unfathomable knowledge on hand 1 almost always leads to a near-impossible win to the other player. Custom seizure and luxury exports are also far more likely to imbalance a game I've noticed, because they are so much cheaper.

I will sometimes even strategically leave a pounce or grand larceny alone to my opponent if I have a chance instead at something like Cephora's insight or Prophesy. Prophesy is only 1 gold behind in buying power, but comes with a massive advantage of tavern control. Insights may only be 2 gold, but you get a massive advantage of deck control. Having them in the early rounds is WAY more interesting to me than raw buying power. Also in order to knock an agent out, you need a combo.

I've found that letting my opponent have larceny and instead taking tavern/deck control on my side and then hitting them with bewilderment is a great strategy. I can break up their luck with bewilderment and they don't get the full value of the card. Meanwhile I have tavnern + deck control and even if they bewilder me back, I can overcome it but they cannot. It's the same reason I'll leave crow cards on the tavern and prioritize deck/tavern control. I KNOW they'll buy the crow card, because no one picking crow is smart enough not to. Meanwhile I can take the RNG out of my own hand while adding it to theirs.

All of that is very different than someone spending 2-6 gold in 1 hand and shifting the power dynamic way outside of balance and drastically shortening the game life before the other player can catch up. There's no strategy in that and no strategy against it. It's just pure dumb luck and the game is now decided by a coin toss instead of skill.

Personofsecrets · October 16

I don't really see the purpose of comparing overly powerful cards to each other. This is especially the case when the cards being compared are overly strong for different reasons.

Pounce/Grand are exactly the kinds of single card pick ups that snowball games on their own. If there are some games where players aren't able to win after buying them, then that isn't really a concern to me. I wouldn't be surprised if the designers have plenty of data that shows how players can buy any card and still lose. That data is probably part of how they justify overly strong cards across the board. My earlier post was saying how such thing can happen. "Wow, look at how badly this other player messed up by throwing away an otherwise easily won game."

That's why I think it's important to look at these cards upside and determine that upside to be unacceptable. Eight or nine gold on the 3rd or 4th round based on the merits of a single card has proven to be game breaking plenty of times. Even if there are games where such gold still doesn't win, that doesn't make up for the games that were steamrolled by such effect. We also shouldn't judge how good a card is on the basis of sub-optimal players. Doing so leads exactly to the position of "it's not that good," because nothing is that good when someone doesn't know how to play the game.

I think that I can wrap up everything by saying that Vestments of the Druid King isn't busted in every game where it shows up. I've purchased it and still lost before. So what does that mean? Probably not that much.

Largomets · October 16

Yeah I'm not saying you're totally wrong, I'm just saying that I think the totally busted cards that cost 2 and 3 coins and are also some of the most powerful in the game are what I'd want them to fix first. There do need to be powerful cards in the game, but there's a difference between a powerful card, and a completely broken card that costs 2 or 3 gold which is what this thread title is about.

The mora contract cards, vestments, some of the hlaalu cards etc are on a whole different level of broken and even if you get sandbagged with 2 different 1 power cards on your first turn, you can still buy those stupidly broken cards. That, to me, is problem number 1 that needs addressing before we start going after other stuff.