The two powercards

Balance Discussion
#1

No, I’m not going to talk about legendaries Garudan, Khalim, and not even Aurora ! :sweat_smile:

After all, Legendaries are limited at one copy.
There is worse, I believe : Triton Banquet and Bomb Slinger.

Both are Epics, so not limited to one copy, both are present in some of the strongest decks of the moment (namely Mid Red and Blue Control).
Both are situational, that’s why I first believed that they were OK cards, sure strong but not OP.
Recently, I reviewed my opinion about them. It’s impossible to play around them and not loose critical advantage by doing so.

If you want to go on the offensive, or if you want to contest well domination, you will necessarily have to get in their range and pray your opponent doesn’t have those cards. The more you wait by playing around, the more time you give your opponent to draw it and the more advantage he can gain in the meantime.

The problem is that they are far too efficient :

  • Bomb Slinger is the damage of a 4-card (Firebomb) on top of the body of a threat which can once again take a good second trade easily. Even if it is removed at little cost (Soul Drain, Seifer’s Wrath, Battle Toads, Firestorm …), it’s already done its job.
  • Banquet alone does little, but with a Phantasm or Aurora, or on a Gabrian Archon or Colossus (to speak only about mono-Blue, not even considering bicolor), it makes any creature a potential Jumping threat on top of a removal. Also, it can be used to make a creature attacking the orb impervious to an attack on top of buffing it.

After having played quite a few games with and against decks playing these, I’ve come to the realization that those two cards define more than any other how things are going to go for the rest of the game.

Suggestions :

For Bomb Slinger: lower stats to 2/1 to keep the Angry synergy, or lower damage dealt to 2, maybe 3.
For Triton Banquet : either remove Protection, or make the buff last until the end of turn (might still be too strong, but at least it acts as a single removal, not a buffing tool on top of this)

#2

Yup, that’s how the game works atm, all you need is luck and some matches might even be over by turn 2…

I see way more problems in this game, as buffing is way too easy and strong, as a single buff can decide the whole match, but yeah, that’s a different topic.

I would like Bombslinger to be less similar to Salamander and given it’s name (who said thrown creatures can’t be bombs?), I came to this (within 5 seconds):

3 Faeria / 3 Mountain (to keep it away from easy splashing)
4/2
Gift: You may sacrifice a creature and deal damage equal to that creatures power, to another creature.

That’s just a rough idea of course, but i’m sure it would still be a strong card, especially for rush (wich should be kept in check, though).

Removing jump from the Banquet would make it a buffed Safeguard, but removing the Protection I would really like to see, as jump is already a strong ability on it’s own. On the 2nd thought, I would like it at 4 cost (1 Lake), to make it splashable. This would shake the game quite a bit, though.

#3

You’re right, I didn’t hink about Safeguard, that’s true it’s pretty close to it, with just a buff on top of it. Plus, that doesn’t really fits the theme of tritons if you remove the jump. I’ll edit my post :slight_smile:

Not sure that version of Bomb slinger would works, though. It seems a bit underwhelming (well, I still prefer by a mile an underwhelming card than an overwhelming ^^)

#4

That might be a bit over the top, but nerfing the very strong body on top of the already amazing gift seems a good idea to me. I’d say 3/2, 4/1 or even 3/1 would be enough. I like a solution with 1 hp, so you can remove at least the body more easily. (Groundshaker, Falcon dive, Famine, Flamespitter etc.)

Regarding lower gift damage: Thing is, you can’t just take or add 1 damage to a one-time effect (the gift) and say “now the value is fitting”. 1 Damage more or less is not just one point of damage. Each point of damage on a gift or spell is a threshold for the amount of creatures you can remove singlehandedly with that card.
There’s a lot of cards that deal 1 or 2 damage. Some with 3 damage. But only Firebomb and Bombslinger for 4 damage. And it doesn’t go any higher, except for hard removals.
That’s why I’m against changing its gift damage. Rather make it cost 1 faeria more or nerf the body.

A possibility, but one which doesn’t fit with the red theme. Sacrifice is yellow; getting positive effects of stuff dying is green. Also, in order to create ANY synergy except killing your own Seifer’s Fodder, you need to play dual color.

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.

Removing jump would take all it’s uniqueness. A one turn jump looks like a pretty good idea, if the card is as problematic. Haven’t seen it that often, but then again, I don’t play much ranked ladder atm. :disappointed_relieved:

#5

I Haven’t been playing all too long, but I think just swapping to +1/+1 for a +0/+2 would balance to card to a certain extent, but keeping it playable, it is all to easy to balance a card and make it bad, just ask blizzard, but keeping a card good is art, the attack of banquet seems pretty important.

for the slinger, I would make it a 2/4, cost one less, and have it deal 2 damage. make it much less effective at dealing with midrange threats, but stays useful as it does quite well against aggro.

#6

[quote=“Taiyodori, post:4, topic:1555, full:true”]
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.[/quote]
Yeah, that would probably too much, but even with the buff + jump, the card would still see play for sure. Like you said, jump is a very good ability, especially if it comes out of nowhere.

[quote=“Taiyodori, post:4, topic:1555”]
A possibility, but one which doesn’t fit with the red theme. Sacrifice is yellow; getting positive effects of stuff dying is green. Also, in order to create ANY synergy except killing your own Seifer’s Fodder, you need to play dual color.[/quote]
True, but that wouldn’t be the first thing that doesn’t fit well in this game. I opened a thread a while ago about the uniqueness of the cards and colors, but not many seem to care. Most people (devs included) like to keep things as they are anyway.

[quote=“Sn0wChaser, post:5, topic:1555, full:true”]
I Haven’t been playing all too long, but I think just swapping to +1/+1 for a +0/+2 would balance to card to a certain extent, but keeping it playable, it is all to easy to balance a card and make it bad, just ask blizzard, but keeping a card good is art, the attack of banquet seems pretty important.[/quote]
The buff isn’t the problem and it wont change much if it got swapped that way. The problem comes from the sneak attack with protection. Sure, the buff helps, but it’s the protection that causes the problem, as the creature doesn’t even receive damage.

[quote=“Sn0wChaser, post:5, topic:1555, full:true”]
for the slinger, I would make it a 2/4, cost one less, and have it deal 2 damage. make it much less effective at dealing with midrange threats, but stays useful as it does quite well against aggro.[/quote]
That would make it a bad Salamander. The cards should be more unique instead of a better / worse version of something else, hence my idea above (which is just that, though).

#7

Yep, and the unique part of Bomb Slinger is the 4 damage removal. Sure, Firebomb does the same, but those two cards are the only cards ingame that deal 4 damage without attacking. I think this is critical for the game’s balance, so 4 hp creatures are kept in track by something. So even though this is the most powerful part of Bomb Slinger, it’s the one thing I wouldn’t change by any means.

Also, take into account that the 4 damage of Bomb Slinger come with a condition: Your target must be adjacent to a friendly and unoccupied mountain tile. You can’t just destroy your opponents Steamforge or Gabrian Cistern next to his orb. Sure, it’s not that much of a downside, but it is a downside, compared to Firebomb.

As Sn0wChaser said, making a card bad/unplayable is easy. However, the game needs strong cards and Bomb Slinger as a strong card should be alright. In it’s current state, it may be just a little over the top. Therefore, increasing the cost by 1 point or nerfing the body by decreasing its attack or life by just 1 point might already be enough. It would stay strong, but easier (easy enough) to deal with.
So what’s the bigger problem about its body? Is it rather too hard to remove (2 hp -> 1 hp) or does it trade too efficient afterwards (4 atk -> 3 atk)?

1 Like
#8

Okay, yeah, forgot about salamander, but I don’t think you can keep the slinger at 4 damage and balance the cards effect. I guess if you want to you could just make it cost one more, which would probably work, but even so.
For banquet, I don’t think you can get rid of the protection or the jump, it ruins the card’s flavour, so the buff is the only thing you can change. you could just get rid of it entirely, but then you are left with a slightly better protection, for 2 more mana.

#9

[quote=“Taiyodori, post:7, topic:1555, full:true”]
Yep, and the unique part of Bomb Slinger is the 4 damage removal. Sure, Firebomb does the same, but those two cards are the only cards ingame that deal 4 damage without attacking. I think this is critical for the game’s balance, so 4 hp creatures are kept in track by something. So even though this is the most powerful part of Bomb Slinger, it’s the one thing I wouldn’t change by any means.

Also, take into account that the 4 damage of Bomb Slinger come with a condition: Your target must be adjacent to a friendly and unoccupied mountain tile. You can’t just destroy your opponents Steamforge or Gabrian Cistern next to his orb. Sure, it’s not that much of a downside, but it is a downside, compared to Firebomb.

As Sn0wChaser said, making a card bad/unplayable is easy. However, the game needs strong cards and Bomb Slinger as a strong card should be alright. In it’s current state, it may be just a little over the top. Therefore, increasing the cost by 1 point or nerfing the body by decreasing its attack or life by just 1 point might already be enough. It would stay strong, but easier (easy enough) to deal with.
So what’s the bigger problem about its body? Is it rather too hard to remove (2 hp -> 1 hp) or does it trade too efficient afterwards (4 atk -> 3 atk)?[/quote]

I don’t know about Fox, but to me it’s not just a single card (in this case Slinger), but the whole package red can come up with. Red does so much board damage with Groundshaker, Firestorm and Garudan and still can do 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 damage to a single target easily. Add the stuff that punishes the opponent for losing creatures and you have it. It really doesn’t matter if he loses 1 attack or health, as all the other cards will cover it up.

If it’s not burn, it’s those high power creatures like Pest and Grinder that stomp you. I guess you know the actual red deck that does just that? Removal with a 4 attack body in an aggro deck is just too much and 1 power less won’t stop it.

I must admit however, that the more I play and the more I know about the game, the less interested I am, as it’s so incredibly swingy, that it’s hard to call it deep strategy at all. In this game the player who draws the right cards at the right time will win, period. Sure you can’t play like a monkey, but I’ve seen so many really bad moves in Tournaments and yet they won… that’s the opposite from a deep strategy game. But yeah, that’s just me.

[quote=“Sn0wChaser, post:8, topic:1555, full:true”]
Okay, yeah, forgot about salamander, but I don’t think you can keep the slinger at 4 damage and balance the cards effect. I guess if you want to you could just make it cost one more, which would probably work, but even so.
For banquet, I don’t think you can get rid of the protection or the jump, it ruins the card’s flavour, so the buff is the only thing you can change. you could just get rid of it entirely, but then you are left with a slightly better protection, for 2 more mana.[/quote]
Yeah, making it cost more is a way to keep the card, but who said that a card is set in stone and why shouldn’t there be ways? There’s always a way in game design, trust me on that one.

Same here, who says that the Banquet needs protection? If protection is the problem (and to me that’s clearly the problem), then change it, no matter what. All those cards are only small parts of the whole and if a card needs to be changed to get everything else to work, go for it.

#10

I Guess, but I’d much rather see a way of nerfing banquet and have it keep the protection and jump, maybe it only gets jump for a turn, I dunno. for the slinger, you have 5 mana to deal 4 damage, if you wanted to balance that, you would take the 4 damage at face value, and call it 4 mana, leaving you with 1 mana for the minion, but the effect is slightly worse than the 4 mana card as positioning is a big factor, so say weer spending 1 1/2 on the creature. which come roughly a 2/2. Logicically, that works, if only games were so simple…

#11

Wait, what’s your goal here? You want to get Slinger back into line or pretty much every variation of the red color?

I understand, you have problems with the red color in general, be it burn, rush or control.
In that case, rather nerf more of those problematic cards very carefully (like explained above, decrease their value just a little), instead of destroying one or two single cards completely. If you nerf them just a little bit (1 or 2 points of value), the cards can still be played (keeping them in the game), but taking some power off of the too powerful decks.

That is, if the players don’t come up with some counter decks that eventually shift the meta. :slight_smile:

Nerfing any card into unplayability just removes diversity from the game: For instance, why would I ever include Bomb Slinger, if I wouldn’t get something on top of the 4 damage? Firebomb is cheaper, both land- and faeriawise, and doesn’t have the condition of positioning. I doubt a 1/2, 2/1 or even 2/2 body would be worth the higher cost.
If you destroy a card, it will be replaced with the second best option and (in most cases) the problematic decks will continue to be problematic.

Thing is, people are quick to judge something as op, once they had one or two frustrating experiences with it. And, in case they “discovered” said op-ness, they’re even quicker to demand hitting it as hard as possible, so they never ever have to face it again. Because it’s a frustrating experience that deserves to be punished, right? :unamused: (no offense)

And it’s almost the same for “cards that need to be changed”.
Who am I to tell, whether a card needs a change or not? Maybe I just haven’t found the way to play around. Or maybe I just found a counter to my favourite deck I’m playing all the time. Sometimes, the current meta favours the hated deck, which in another meta, would be pretty underwhelming.

Still, I’m inclined to agree on Slinger and Banquet being a bit too strong, so a change from “too strong” to “strong” is justified. A change from “too strong” into “pretty much garbage” never is, though.

#12

First, I made a mistake with my edit, I wanted to say : keep Jump, as it’s the uniqueness, and the flavour (tritons) and remove Protection instead. Then you still have the surprise attack, but that has a cost. You can remove a harvester, take its place, even play Safeguard (well, Judge, nobody plays Safeguard) on top of it to get the good surprise trade, but that’s a bigger cost.

About Slinger, the 4 damage is a thing, the fact that it’s a harvester on top of it is another, and the fact that the 4 attack makes it a threat is another. Currently, the 3 is too much for a 5-cost, but that’s my opinion. By getting it to 2/1, you keep the damage, you keep the harvester, but you don’t make it such a threat. And I proposed 2/1 to keep the Angry synergy, but 2/2 or 2/3 would fit as well. The point is that it doesn’t make a good trade after having done already a fine job.
And like I said, the adjacency is a restriction, but ultimately your opponent will have to get in range, so that’s not such a big restriction.

In this case, I’ve encountered them countless times, and have played them as well, so that’s indeed a bad experience, but not a 1 or 2 occurence, more like half the games I play in ranked/tournament are shifted by one of these 2 cards. For a legendary, that’s one thing, but for a 3 of a kind in a deck ? not for me.

#13

I ain’t have a goal unless I know what the devs are looking for / at. All we do is to discuss things that others may agree on, but without having any voice to change a thing.

My “problem” is how swingy and luck-based the game is, even though it’s advertised as a deep strategy one, but that really is nothing we should jump on to. But to answer your question, yes, to me there should be some fundamental changes in how the game works. I completely despise the impact buffs and mentioned cards (Slinger, Banquet) have. I would prefer a slower pace where you win your games by outplaying your opponent instead of just drawing the right cards. I have even won a game by turn 3, how can this be fun? (I know that there are many out there who consider this fun, but I don’t)

Now, back to topic, I don’t see where I want to kill the Slinger, I just changed it to something else, which I find more fitting. As mentioned above, you could also raise the cost, but I actually think that raising the cost to 6 makes the card worse than lowering the stats (see Fox’s post, it’s still a harvester).
However, the most important thing is, it was just an idea which came to my mind after 5 seconds! I just agree that those 2 cards need a change, nothing more.

Banquet at 4 cost, without the protection would be still be a great card in my book.

#14

Didn’t say it’d apply to this topic. :wink:
Again, I’m inclined to agree that both of the mentioned cards are just a little too strong.

And yes, Slinger has arguably one of the strongest gifts in the game. But removing 3 points of body value from it? I think this would kill it. As would the sacrifice solution, especially if you need to sacrifice a high attack body in the first place.
That is, if it’s just a little too strong and not completely over the top.

But hey, maybe I’m underestimating the value of getting any body at all.

As for Banquet, I agree with the proposed changes. The jump must stay as this is the defining element, but not necessarily for more than one turn. However, I somewhat favour the solution of just removing protection and maybe decreasing the cost by 1 faeria. Or instead of reducing the cost, just make it a +2/+2 buff instead of protection? I still fear for rush decks to include cheap surprise jump options…

Jump for a single turn would be a nerf, but then again, the biggest problem comes with its surprise effect. Pretty much like Bomb slinger, the job is done the second you play Banquet and remove something with it.

1 Like
#15

True, I’m not sure it would be enough to make it a 1-turn ability only, I just mentioned it as a possibility. After all, having a big jumping body after the surprise attack is still a big deal, and with this modification, you wouldn’t be able to protect preventively a creature. Not sure it wouldn’t still be too strong, that needs testing, but that indeed still looks like a big nerf to me. And, if Protection is removed, then of course its cost needs to be reduced by 1 or 2 (again, needs testing).

As for Bomb Slinger, making it one more cost (still OP) or a 3-attack wouldn’t be enough in a color that has so many options to deal the missing damage