With the nerf to triton banquet, I believe triton chef should also be grouped into the “full disenchant” card stock pile, as It is worthless now as well.
2 Likes
Triton Banquet is really far from useless, I would even argue that it is stronger in some decks because its so cheap.
But I agree that Triton Chef should also give full disenchant value 
1 Like
It should give back full value, as half of the card got changed completely, but useless? I bet my whole collection that there will be more Banquets than ever before. It may start a rise of green aswell.
I think the Chef is better now, too, as now it only costs 5 total to play the Banquet plus a body for farming, much easier to accomplish than the old 7 Faeria version.
EDIT
I know who will cry out loud now (and rightfully so):
From an older topic:
[quote="Taiyodori]
No, please no. We would see this a splash in ANY deck. Jump is such a powerful keyword. I could imagine any deck would play it with only 1 lake requirement. Especially Rush and big creature decks. Thing is, blocking off the way with only one creature is an important strategic element of the game. If you give basically everyone access to jump, you pretty much remove that element.
Especially considering that you can have the banquet 6 times (triton chef!) in your deck. [/quote]
2 Likes
Well, what shall I say? I’ve warned about that.
Now I’ll see how good bulky creature decks with 3x horsemaster, 3x banquet (and maybe 3x chef) are. 
I guess Banquet will the next card to be nerfed. Especially considering that it was too strong before and only really usable in mono blue or multicolored decks. And they made it even more powerful than you originally suggested (3 F instead of your 4 F cost).
On topic: If Banquet gets a full refund, so should Chef. It’s only logical.
3 Likes
Yeah, and even at 4 Faeria cost I did agree that it will probably too much, as the other colors can splash it easily.
[quote=“Taiyodori, post:4, topic:2095, full:true”]
I guess Banquet will the next card to be nerfed. [/quote]
Funny, as that was my very first thought, too. xD
@ balancing overall
Sorry for everyone involved, but to me the balancing team does a poor job, considering all the other problems we had and still have. Away from many other cards, how could a card like UEvolution even exist in this game? It was clearly waaaaaay to strong and yet survived for a long time. I know that it ain’t easy, but the game doesn’t have that many cards by now, so where will we go when new cards enter the game…?
Hi H8Man!
Unbound Evolution has been changed before, and even if it was a long time ago, sometimes it takes months for people to figure out that a card is good/broken (Yak Attack, Triton Banquet, Archers etc).
1 Like
@H8Man I don’t think the balancing team did/does a poor job. It’s just, you can’t do everything at once. Regarding UE, I agree it existed a bit too long, but on the other hand, you shouldn’t rush reworks like that. It doesn’t help anybody to quickly rework a broken card into another broken or uninteresting card.
Regarding the new Banquet, let’s see how it turns out. Of course, everyone and his grandmother will splash it in big creature-decks now. But maybe that’s just what these decks needed anyways. And it makes the game more fast paced, I would think.
1 Like
Well, being a boardgame designer (who worked for a publisher, too) on my own, I see that quite differently. If a publisher puts out an unbalanced game, they will get punished from the buyers fast and they have every reason to do so. Sure, this is still beta status, but that would be a bad excuse if you take into account that the game is around for a few years now.
I do this stuff (balancing strategy boardgames) for quite some time now and I know how difficult it is, but looking at what they did so far just shows lack of experience. I’m not talking about strong cards only, there are enough cards that don’t see any play, too. At this moment, I would change alot of cards at the same time, as they are cleary too good / bad. A card by card change is only necessary if you completely lost the control (like having 1000 different cards), but that’s not the case here. The game is still a pretty closed system.
Also, if a card needs to be changed more than once (like Joke said), it’s not a good sign, that’s why I think they don’t do a good job. Maybe they do, but the staff doesn’t like it, who knows? I’m not here to blame anyone, I’m just stating what I see and feel.
Faeria is / was declared as an deep strategy game, but it’s not even close. First off, it’s a tactical game, not a strategic one and deep? Not really. Now with cards like Banquet, giving the game more mobility and instant take that effects just pushes the game even more away from being deep. All the positioning of the lands and units is a small part only and that’s really a very sad thing. I like the ideas and all, but that’s just not enough.
You’re being very vague. What boardgame did you work on and what balancing did you do? And how do you define “strategic” and “tactical”? Also, Failed experiment is not a change to Unbound, it is basically a new card.
Balance in a game such as this is obviously about combinations, you therefore need to take time to get an idea which combinations (of the millions of combinations) need adjusting. Then you need to take time to figure out what part of the combination you want to redesign/remove/add to. It is going to be a long process.
I think the Faeria team are doing an amazing job. The updates are frequent, the communication is great, the replies to bugs and ideas are quick and thorough, what more could you ask for!?
You don’t have to live up to your name @H8Man 
I would also like to point out that we are in Early Access still
1 Like
This is not about me, but I’ve worked for a known german publisher as an editor, looking for and finding new games, talking with designers and of course testing and polishing the games and get them published, but like I said, this is not about me, as it really doesn’t matter. I just mentioned it, as I know the work behind such games.
My point is, there are MANY board games out there that need just as much balancing and every year there are about 1000 new ones coming out. Ignoring the Kickstarter “publishers”, there’s rarely an unbalanced game and most games do not have a couple of years to evolve and for sure don’t have as many playtesters (by FAR!), so why is it such a huge problem here? That’s why I said it looks like they are inexperienced. Again, I’m really not looking to insult anyone, it’s just what I see, without blaming anyone. I wouldn’t care for it, if I disliked everything.
I completely agree, they do and did a good job, that’s out of question, but the balancing lacks big time and advertising this as a deep strategy game is just ridiculous.
Strategy is long term planing, while tactics are short term actions. In Faeria you don’t follow a great master plan, instead you act turn by turn = tactical play. And no, playing burn or control doesn’t make it a strategy game. It has elements of course, but it’s far from a deep one. It’s more like 85% tactical play and 15% strategy. Your strategy, whichever it might be, doesn’t win you games, but your tactical play does.
[quote=“J0k3se, post:10, topic:2095, full:true”]
I would also like to point out that we are in Early Access still [/quote]
I know, but as I wrote up there,the game is out for more than 3 years now? Making this game reality is one thing (and they did a good job there), but the balance is a completely different story and while the game got better and nicer by time, the balancing seems to run in circles.
so many things wrong in this paragraph, i’ll try to go through them one by one.
1 - boardgames are completely different from card games… and even within the same type of game, there might be completely different mechanics to consider.
it’s like saying “i’m a cardiologist, therefore i understand brain surgery”… apples and oranges mate
2 - you’ll never have a game where every option is equally viable… there will always be something a little better… specially on PVP games. and guess what? that’s okay.
not every card needs to be competitive. it’s fine to have cards that are there just for flavor, and it’s fine if they only work with a very specific and inconsistent combo… i really like sharra, so i made a green/blue deck designed to draw a bunch of cards and buff her health.
was it good? nope. complete garbage… but guess what? trying to pull it off was incredibly fun.
you know fun? the whole purpose of a hobbie? and the reason why the vast majority of people play videogames?
3 - how did you get to this conclusion? there is a very fine balance to keep a card in check. one faeria too much and it’s garbage, one too few and it’s OP… the balance team doesn’t have any responsibility to get everything right the first time, otherwise there would be no development time, since every card would come out perfectly fine-tuned.
expecting them to be like that is foolish in itself… “i’m not here to blame anyone” and yet you’re saying they’re amateurs, as if you somehow are a mastermind of game design…
i’ll remain skeptical of your expertise until you present evidence of it.
when someone asked you details about your work, you were quick to dismiss the questions and change topics… doesn’t really scream confidence from my point of view.
1 Like
[quote="Kyzonu]
so many things wrong in this paragraph, i’ll try to go through them one by one.
1 - boardgames are completely different from card games… and even within the same type of game, there might be completely different mechanics to consider.
it’s like saying “i’m a cardiologist, therefore i understand brain surgery”… apples and oranges mate[/quote]
Sorry to dissapoint, but boardgames and cardgames are the same and done by the same editors and publishers. The only difference here is, that this is an online CCG, but it’s still a card driven boardgame.
[quote="Kyzonu]
2 - you’ll never have a game where every option is equally viable… there will always be something a little better… specially on PVP games. and guess what? that’s okay.
not every card needs to be competitive. it’s fine to have cards that are there just for flavor, and it’s fine if they only work with a very specific and inconsistent combo… i really like sharra, so i made a green/blue deck designed to draw a bunch of cards and buff her health.
was it good? nope. complete garbage… but guess what? trying to pull it off was incredibly fun.
you know fun? the whole purpose of a hobbie? and the reason why the vast majority of people play videogames?[/quote]
Fun and balance are not on the opposite, but yeah you can add useless stuff and let the casuals have fun with it, but they would also have fun with other cards, too. Also, the flavor stuff has near to nothing to do with it.
[quote="Kyzonu]
3 - how did you get to this conclusion? there is a very fine balance to keep a card in check. one faeria too much and it’s garbage, one too few and it’s OP… the balance team doesn’t have any responsibility to get everything right the first time, otherwise there would be no development time, since every card would come out perfectly fine-tuned.[/quote]
I know the fine line between them, but that doesn’t mean that you have to or should change the same card back and forth, that’s where the balancing team is for. They test it before it’s out for the masses. I actually can’t think of a single board/cardgame where the same cards got changed over and over again.
[quote="Kyzonu]
expecting them to be like that is foolish in itself… “i’m not here to blame anyone” and yet you’re saying they’re amateurs, as if you somehow are a mastermind of game design…[/quote]
It’s not foolish, it’s what people expect, even though you might not. Like I said, a published game that needs changes afterwards has a really hard time in the world of board/cardgames. Sure, an online version has a huge advantage here, but does that mean they have to do it that way? Certainly not, but that’s a different topic.
That’s exactly why I said that I don’t blame them. It’s their game and it’s my freedom to care about it or just leave it behind. Also I didn’t said they are amateurs, I said that to ME it looks like they are inexperienced and I stated why I feel so. That’s no insult, just my personal feeling which may very well be wrong, as I don’t know how they work and who makes the decisions. I never said they are too dumb to do their work right or anything even close to it.
[quote="Kyzonu]
i’ll remain skeptical of your expertise until you present evidence of it.
when someone asked you details about your work, you were quick to dismiss the questions and change topics… doesn’t really scream confidence from my point of view.[/quote]
Be skeptical or ignore my posts, whatever you prefer, but I won’t share my private life in these forums and it doesn’t change a thing, though. Even if I was responsible for 500 games, what does it mean? Does it make me the mastermind you are talking about or is it just that I have experience in that category? If you want to check it, you need to read forums and talk to people from the boardgaming industry.
btw: Away from the fact that I didn’t say “I can do it better”, you don’t need to be better at something to have an own opinion or call someone else a good or bad player. Was Michael Jordan a better player than Steve Kerr? Of course he was, but do I have to be better than Steve to see or call that? No.
I actually find it funny that everyone is defending them big time, while the forum is full of complaints regarding balancing, even though half of it may be without any reasoning.
This is getting a little pointless but I still feel I need to make three points in response to this:
Be skeptical or ignore my posts, whatever you prefer, but I won’t share my private life in these forums and it doesn’t change a thing, though. Even if I was responsible for 500 games, what does it mean? Does it make me the mastermind you are talking about or is it just that I have experience in that category? If you want to check it, you need to read forums and talk to people from the boardgaming industry.
btw: Away from the fact that I didn’t say “I can do it better”, you don’t need to be better at something to have an own opinion or call someone else a good or bad player. Was Michael Jordan a better player than Steve Kerr? Of course he was, but do I have to be better than Steve to see or call that? No.
I actually find it funny that everyone is defending them big time, while the forum is full of complaints regarding balancing, even though half of it may be without any reasoning.
-
You were the one who originally backed your opinion by saying that you had experience in board games and balancing. Double standards I say.
-
Every single game I have ever come across faces constant complaint about balance. It is inevitable, every person has their own way of thinking and plays a game in different ways. This is also why we have so many religions (and spin-off religions), why politics is so crazy, why games like Faeria exist, and generally why problems exist for humans (and why we creatively seek solutions).
-
Faeria isn’t perfect but I find it a lot of fun, and exciting to be a part of its progress. Discussion like this is important though, and you are allowed to have your opinion, some of us are just stating that we disagree. There is no right answer, however, so we should all keep giving constructive criticism and share our ideas like this
.
1 Like
you made claims about knowing how the job works and claims of having all that experience… then the moment someone asks you to back up your claims, you hide in a corner saying “i don’t have to say it!”
until you provide any examples of games you worked on, and which work you did on said games, you’re nothing more than some random guy on the internet trying to sound smart while making baseless claims… so why should i take you seriously?
“george martin works like an amateur… i know this because i’ve written several books by known publishers… but i’m not gonna tell you which books i wrote.”
i think the game’s balance team is just fine as it is, and i’ll continue to think so until your show a single game where everything is perfectly balanced.
LOL has countless balance issues and it doesn’t stop it from being the most popular game in the world.
Really, guys, stop that discussion …
It’s pointless and leads to nothing constructive. Even if he says : I’ve balanced X and Y games, you’ll still have his word to trust and nothing else. Either you believe him, or you don’t. Make your choice and stop this.
As for the balance of Faeria, I’ve often felt as if lacked a lot as well. A troublesome card as UE should have been redesigned ages ago. Instead, it was rebalanced over and over and kept in its previous state for far too long.
I’m not blaming anyone, balancing team does their job as they see fit, but it’s true that I’ve often felt as if there was a lack of testing of balance. Actually, I sometimes I’ve wondered if there was any at all (I’m thinking of the first redesign of Tale of the Old Turtle, of the Blue Colossus which could be reduced to 0 in 4 turns, of the Wishes which could be infinitely replayed …).
So yes, I believe that balancing team does not a great job, but I also admit it’s hard to balance things correctly.
And about LoL, they unbalance their game on purpose, so that for one time, such or such champion is on the top, and the next time it’s another one. That’s because they know that attaining perfect balance is both impossible and unwanted (search for Perfect imbalance in Google). But their approach requires new balance patches on a regular basis, something that could be considered here at the beginning of the year, but no more since there is a balance patch every 2 months.
Anyway, whatever your beliefs, don’t attack people, pointing out their personal lives, it’s completely unproductive behavior. Attack their reasoning, it’s much better 
2 Likes
yugioh, MTG and hearthstone are all card games with terrible balance which get “balance patches” about twice a year… and they’re all going strong.
as much complaints as they get (and boy, there are lots and lots of them…) people still keep playing, since as you said yourself, perfect balance is impossible. so people just accept it and play the game… venting their frustration on the forums every now and then.
if you want to use the example of UE being on the game for so long and causing problems, i can easily point to you “warsong commander” from hearhstone.
the card was changed around 3 times, with every single iteration of it spawning a different type of OTK deck, the most famous of which was the “grimm patron” deck, top of the meta for several months before warsong commander was redesigned into something completely useless. (hate on hearthstone as much as you want, it doesn’t change the fact that it has a massive playerbase and generates several millions in revenue every month)
they could have done the same to unbound and turned it into something people would never play, ever. but that’s the easy way out of someone who has given up… i think it’s great that they took so much time into changing the card, and now that they redesigned it, it’s still a good card (niche as it is)
if the game was live, and a card took so long to fix, then i’d have a problem with it… but the game is still in early access (as much as people like to dismiss this) and the whole point of early access is to experiment and test this kind of thing.
everyone bought the game knowing full well that it’s a test phase… i don’t know why people expect anything other than “testing” from the part of the developers.
1 Like
I agree, Triton chef should also be given “full disenchant” value.
I won’t speak about Yu-Gi-Oh, as I don’t know anything about any online game (is it even an online game ?).
Magic is a special case as it’s the leader of CCGs : it can basically do what it wants, it is so iconic that it will always be appreciated by a massive number of people. Plus, it’s also a physical format, so not easy to balance things out. Hearthstone should never be a reference. It got terrible balance, terrible design, yet the massive amount of Blizzard fans keep the game on the top. Any other game that is going to use Hearthstone as an example, but without the playerbase Blizzard provides to it, is going to have some difficulties. And Blizzard basically doesn’t care much about HS players anyway.
If a card is problematic, but you don’t find an elegant solution to redesign it at the moment, you can always make it unplayable for a moment (big increase to its cost, or ban it from play, like Magda was before her redesign) until you find a way to make it right again. Early on, Yak Attack survived a few weeks in the game, disgusting everyone from playing. During these times, many players left the game, other kept asking for some solution, even a temporary ban of the card. If they had done that, they wouldn’t have lost so many players at the time. Same goes for UE, admittedly on a lower scale, but for a much longer time.
Yet Abrakam claim their competitive ambitions, to the point of organising regular tournaments with cash involved. If you want to play big, you have to back it up with the right decisions. And you can’t let a flipcoin (UE, or drawing one particularly strong card) decide of the outcome of each game.
I don’t know why I say that, that’s definitely not the correct thread.
so let me voice my point of view for this thread : if you decided to nerf Punishment or Safeguard effects, then you would admit that it’s a nerf to Judge as well, right ? Well, if you consider the change to Triton Banquet as a nerf, then you should consider it’s a nerf to Triton Chef as well I believe
1 Like
For me Luduan is a big problem for this reason, and because the effect occurs when collecting faeria. Collecting faeria is already a bonus, gaining a random card draw at a reduced price seems even more problematic to me, especially when you can do it twice per turn per Luduan. It is a bonus on top of a bonus, so the advantage is basically squared. It makes me think of playing against Crusader, which gets stronger the more you are suffering 
. This thread is derailing slightly though, and this discussion requires its own thread, if it doesn’t already have one.
