C3G Requests for Reevaluation

[Tornado]

We really should take care of the Cube before tackling Zod!

I think that will pretty much wrap up the competitive concerns for the most part.

[Porkins]

Umm...I only see one version of Nightcrawler in the index. Am I missing something? Not yet released? I am in the "I wish Nightcrawler would get an update because he doesn't feel like he lives up thematically" camp.

[Tornado]

Two are on deck. You will love them.
Bamfs galore!

[Yodaking]

Originally Posted by japes

Underpowered cards don't "hurt the game" since you can just choose not to play them...Overpowered do since your opponent can choose it.

I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment. If I'm hosting a C3G game day and someone who hasn't played before comes over to check it out, it is important that they can draft whoever they want without me looking over their shoulder and saying, 'don't take that guy he sucks and you will lose.' If someone really loves the Superman story and Zod vs. Superman is at the top of his movie/comic list, he might grab Zod and build a team around him. If he does, I want him to have a chance to win or at least have fun playing in a competitive loss. What I don't want is for that new player to go away thinking our game is unbalanced and lame because their one play experience was seen through the lens of a figure/army build we all know isn't competitive as is.

I guess that would be one of my criteria if we are creating a list. Lynch Pin figures that you build whole armies around but don't currently do so successfully should be fixed via the reevaluation process as they have a greater impact on army building and thus their poor play has a bigger impact on the overall game experience. Where as stand alone figures that are not a key component of any team but consistently under perform are better candidates for new synergy offered by new cards.

Fixing Zod doesn't just make Zod more playable, it helps get the Krytponian Soldiers some play time as well. I've played them without Zod quite a few times (my GI Joe tested often centered around soldier synergy) and Zod is the only army they really make sense in. They just don't measure up to the other 200 point figures I can choose from. I'm hopeful that someday some new soldier synergy options in C3G might give them a second life outside of a Krytonian army but right now it isn't really there. Thus fixing Zod kills 2 birds with 1 stone.

[Arkham]

I don't disagree with either assessments. I think both are important to fix for reasons stated. I also think critically underpowered units need fixing because people like me spent the money on said figures, photo paper, ink, and time on making that design usable, only for it to never get used. Sort of a waste. At least really good figures get played.

[johnny139]

See, that's a philosophical difference - I don't think it's realistic, or even desirable, for every design and every build to be equally valid. Some are going to be worse than others. The ability to build an army that's good, and that best takes advantage of the units in it, is a skill that should be rewarded. Yes, this means that more experienced players have an advantage - but shouldn't they? The game is already full of variance with dice rolls galore. Right now, a Zod-centric army can beat any other army in the game - it's just, you know, not all that likely.

I know that I, personally, don't design units to be "good." I design them to be fun. And I've definitely had fun with underpowered units before. If your friend is over and wants to play with Zod? Take that as an opportunity to bust out some other C- units that you've always liked.

Fundamentally, I don't look at C3G as a "living game" in the sense that units can change all the time. If you printed out a card last year, or five years ago, it should be just as valid and usable today. Updates are often made for clarity, or to seal mechanic holes. And exceptions ARE made to this rule - if a unit or card is damaging the overall health of the C3G metagame (something I admit I have very little understanding of ), it's a necessary evil to make those changes.

Good units, and great units, and bad units, and "meh" units, all have a place in the world. I don't usually like to play with Zod. You probably never play with Zod. But maybe there's a person out there that DOES really like Zod - maybe they like having a "meh" team to play against their spouse, or their kids, or their cousins, who aren't as skilled at the game.

So, fundamentally, I'm opposed to making any unnecessary changes, admitting that "unnecessary" will have different meanings for different people. I don't consider the presence of subpar units, even if they occupy design space and mental real estate that could otherwise be used.

THAT BEING SAID: If this argument is unpersuasive, and we end up driving into the mess anyways, I'd like to keep a hand on the wheel. Consider it the Black Widow strategy. So, here's what I'd see as necessary to allow an underpowered unit to be reevaluated.

1) The unit CANNOT be improved by any other means. Simply designing new support units or other strategies aren't workable.
2) The change MUST be minimal. If at all possible, the change should be limited to a change in point totals. If this is not possible, stat and/or left box tweaks. If that's not possible, power tweaks, but to the smallest mechanical impact.
3) The new design MUST conform to the original designer's vision. In most cases, I would like to see the LD take an active role in the reevalution process. If this is not possible, the thread and design should be examined as closely as possible to determine what the intent was, and we should follow it as closely as is practicable.

I see other people (like japes) have also put up a few boxes to be checked for reevaluation, so I'd suggest coming up with a single coherent list, and requiring whoever is suggesting the reevaluation go down that list and make an argument that the changes suggested would fit all of those points.

But, again, that's assuming we want to open the can of worms, which I'm still, stubbornly, opposed to.

[Arkham]

There is a point where if you put enough hoops and obstacles in the way of the goal, I'm sure people will give up, so it's a decent strategy.

Half joking aside, I'm fine with being as minimal as possible to get the design up to snuff. Taking the points > stats > powers type hierarchy approach. I don't think anyone is suggesting we re-evaluate 20+ units here, I'm sure if we narrow it down to the most necessary of a boost, we could get it down to ~5.

People are going to pick who they like, and we should always try to balance things as much as we can help. Point values are there for a reason. Ventriloquist and Angel are both valued at 90 points, yet they are on the extreme opposite ends of the competitive grading spectrum. IMO, that's not a good thing. Sure, we can't be perfect, but I don't exactly think we should just wipe our hands and turn a blind eye to it as if that's an ideal valuation(using Ventriloquist and Angel as examples in this case). In competitive video gaming, be it fighters like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken etc. or FPS games like Overwatch and Halo etc. They don't just nerf the things deemed too powerful, they also buff those that are deemed underpowered. It's all about trying to raise the floor and lower the ceiling to an acceptable level. It's never going to be 100% perfect. I get it. But that doesn't mean we just abandon those underperforming/overcosted designs, relying on 2nd versions to cover it up.

[japes]

Originally Posted by Yodaking

I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment. If I'm hosting a C3G game day and someone who hasn't played before comes over to check it out, it is important that they can draft whoever they want without me looking over their shoulder and saying, 'don't take that guy he sucks and you will lose.' If someone really loves the Superman story and Zod vs. Superman is at the top of his movie/comic list, he might grab Zod and build a team around him. If he does, I want him to have a chance to win or at least have fun playing in a competitive loss. What I don't want is for that new player to go away thinking our game is unbalanced and lame because their one play experience was seen through the lens of a figure/army build we all know isn't competitive as is.

I guess that would be one of my criteria if we are creating a list. Lynch Pin figures that you build whole armies around but don't currently do so successfully should be fixed via the reevaluation process as they have a greater impact on army building and thus their poor play has a bigger impact on the overall game experience. Where as stand alone figures that are not a key component of any team but consistently under perform are better candidates for new synergy offered by new cards.

Fixing Zod doesn't just make Zod more playable, it helps get the Krytponian Soldiers some play time as well. I've played them without Zod quite a few times (my GI Joe tested often centered around soldier synergy) and Zod is the only army they really make sense in. They just don't measure up to the other 200 point figures I can choose from. I'm hopeful that someday some new soldier synergy options in C3G might give them a second life outside of a Krytonian army but right now it isn't really there. Thus fixing Zod kills 2 birds with 1 stone.

If you are hosting a game for newcomers and you have a pile of 800 cards laid out with nothing to guide them, you have bigger issues. If a card is that bad just don't have it out.

But I think you miss my point. I'm not saying UNDER powered cards have 0% need to be adjusted I'm saying the OVER powered cards have 100% need to be adjusted and the others are a distant (but not completely out of the race) 2nd in priority.

Originally Posted by Arkham

There is a point where if you put enough hoops and obstacles in the way of the goal, I'm sure people will give up, so it's a decent strategy.

Too me though, I see that as the point...Then only the figures that REALLY need it will get the attention...

I say we finish off the OVER cards and take this discussion into the sanctum and put together our list...it looks like Johnny and I are on the same track he just added more detail.

[johnny139]

Funny you mention video games, since that came to mind for me, too - but I'm thinking about older fighters, like the original Street Fighters, Super Smash Bros. Melee, and so on. They have tier lists that are essentially set in stone. Some characters are simply better than others. Some aren't viable at all. That's simply part of the competitive landscape - is it a bug or a feature? Depends on who you're talking to. Melee has one of the worst balanced rosters in gaming history, but I don't think anyone playing it seriously would change a thing.

Also, Hearthstone vs. Magic the Gathering is a point of comparison. Hearthstone constantly tweaks its cards up and down, MTG makes a point of avoiding ANY functional errata whenever possible. C3G is in a weird space between "purely digital" and "purely physical," so there's no clear precedent to follow. Unfortunately.

[Arkham]

Those older fighters were what they were because of the time they were created. It was before a time of patching and balancing post release. Smash Wii U has received balances, with both nerfs and buffs. So yeah, the fact that that's a common practice/approach for competitive games in the modern era is probably based on good reasoning I'd imagine.

Like I said, I think it's a matter of whittling down what necessitates a boost, and going from there. I agree on that point. I also certainly am not stating we should be getting everything to B- grade or higher. Not at all. I have no issue with a spectrum of grading, a tier list, but we should be making sure that the difference between the lowest tier and the highest tier isn't a huge gap. You can still have A+ to F-, that will always be the case, but we should be setting the bar for F- closer to A+, and vice versa.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by johnny139

See, that's a philosophical difference - I don't think it's realistic, or even desirable, for every design and every build to be equally valid.

So on and so forth. I hate long quotes.

From a game perspective, I totally agree. I think it's the fact that we're working on not just a game, but also an adaptation that has me (and likely others) diverging from your train of thought. Not fun when your favorite character is a dud.

THAT BEING SAID: yadda yadda yadda

I agree that those are good principles.

I'd add the caveats that LO suggested as well:
-the unit must be in some way undermining other units by not being up to snuff
-doing a second design for the character that tries to explore the same design space would be in some way inelegant

Zod is the underpowered unit I'm most on board with the idea of reevaluating, in that he's a unit that's dragging down a whole faction and particularly undermining the usefulness of the generic Kryptonians, it would be awkward to help him out or redesign a version that does basically the same thing, and he can be fairly simply upgraded.

I'm a little slower to want to update Nightcrawler or Nomad or whatever other C-Lister just isn't the most appealing draft in their mega-faction.

[Lazy Orang]

I'd also like to suggest tweaking Judge Death as well, especially because, in that case, the design was tainted by trying to accomodate The Crow's power - it seems a little amateurish to have a figure made underpowered to accomodate an overpowered figure we have since changed.
Also, not tweaking Judge Death would make Tornado sad. You don't want to make Tornado sad, do you?

Speaking of computer games, I don't play Mortal Kombat, or Street Fighter, or Overwatch, or anything like that - but I do play Age of Kings. Not seriously, and I'm not that good - I mostly just play the campaigns and occasionally get obliterated online by my brother - but I play it nonetheless, and my brother does follow the competitive scene to a degree, which means I do as well, and I have to say, them patching underpowered civilisations to be stronger has resulted in a better, more fun, more interesting game. The Franks and Indians used to be really underpowered, but now they've been tweaked to be fun, interesting civs to play. Of course, some factions are better than others - Aztecs and Byzantines are great while the Portugese and Turks are ironically on the lower end and could honestly do with a boost since no one uses them - but these tweaks have only served to make the game better.
I think it would be short sighted and stubborn to not try to make the game the best it can be, especially because of what Ronin said - these aren't just abstract game pieces, they're representations of characters people want to play, and it's just no fun when a character you like and want to play is a bit crap. I'm not really pushing on this one, but I have long been disappointed by the fact that Gambit, one of my favourite X-Men, is overcosted, and have recently chosen to lower his cost in my games because of that. I can only imagine how frustrated Tornado must have felt about Judge Death, and it seems like a real shame to me to leave him tainted by a figure who isn't even in the game anymore.

~Lazy Orang, who is concerned that, while most people seem in favour of these tweaks, the minority who aren't will make sure there are so many hoops to jump through that it just doesn't happen anyway. Honestly, I'm kind of tempted to set up a C3G equivalent of the Competitive Unit Congress.