Thread for discussing mechanics

Discussion in 'Yomi: Fighting Card Game' started by Lofobal, May 30, 2012.

  1. Lofobal

    Lofobal Well-Known Member

    It would be a shame to derail the main thread with arguments about the normal draw rules or hand cap, so let's discuss it here instead and keep that thread about the characters. Additionally, please try to avoid long arguments that go on and on. If you have a major disagreement with someone, take it to PM or chat or something to work it out.

    I am mildly in favour of a handcap, having tried it for a while. I see it as a safety net for extreme cases.
    Shouldn't be surprising. Good players will do what they think is optimal, even if they don't feel it's best for the game. Garcia is good at changing from player hat to designer hat.
  2. CrystalChaos

    CrystalChaos Moderator Staff Member

    think effects of normal draw on character power:
    Valerie, Jaina: much more powerful
    Grave, Argagarg: significantly more powerful
    Degrey, Geiger: about the same
    Lum: somewhat weaker
    Rook: considerably weaker, with more differences in power
    Midori: much weaker
    Setsuki is worse too, not sure how much

    think effects of hand cap on character power:
    Setsuki: more powerful
    Argagarg, Grave: about the same
    Degrey: slightly weaker
    Jaina: some weaker
    Geiger, Valerie: considerably weaker
    Rook, Midori: much weaker
    Lum is weaker, not sure how much

    some of these are kind of uncertain
  3. Morn

    Morn Well-Known Member

    I spoke on this in the chat, but it's worth discussing in forum. Maybe Sirlin will read it and maybe he won't. Regardless, it's a consideration that needs to be looked at as far as normal attacks adding a free draw is concerned.

    While everyone talks about Val being broken by it, she's not the one I see most affected in playtesting. Jaina is the one that concerns me the most. With her ability to buy back cards and the draw off of normals, she has very little incentive not to just pound the attack button every turn. Since the draw, at least as it is implemented now, happens before abilities are checked, she can actually draw the unstable power she needs to flip a normal to a dodge or 6 into Knee Bash. Combine this with 10s making dodge a less useful endeavor and red normals doing chip damage and you have a recipe for a very degenerate character.

    Similarly, DeGrey's 7 is now always played as an attack just because it can be flipped into throw for free, not to mention Valerie drawing free Bursts of Speed or Bold Strokes. I haven't tried it with Lum yet, but I feel that a little luck could give crazy Poker Flourish scenarios and, while they're a corner case, the first time someone wins off of normal, then draw to fill a straight flush, complaints will happen.

    As a player, I want this change very badly because of its abusability. As someone looking at the game as a whole, I do not like it as it is and I would think that the game is better without it this way. It's less degenerate, but still powerful, to have the draw come after abilities are done but before facedown, or, better, draw at end of turn if normal was played. And that's if you're going to have normals draw at all, something I remain unconvinced is needed.
  4. Atma

    Atma Active Member

    I had an idea to make the Attack-draw mechanic better (if it was to be implemented). As it stands now, drawing off Attack steps on Block's toes, is redundant with Val, etc etc etc. So why not the following instead?

    -----
    On successful Attack or Throw, you may continue with a combo (etc...). If you choose not to follow-up your combat option, DRAW A CARD.
    -----

    More elegant, no? That way the draw comes not from the Attack itself but from forgoing the extra damage. Feels like a more nuanced way to get the same effect. Wouldn't penalize grapplers this way either, though it might be worth specifying that this only applies if you COULD continue your combo, that way you don't get the draw bonus off of can't combo cards. Thoughts?
    Jiggernaut likes this.
  5. Morn

    Morn Well-Known Member

    My thoughts are that this gets in the way of Joker.

    Imagine this scenario:

    DeGrey: 7 Throw
    Opponent: 8 Throw, loses, chooses to facedown
    DeGrey: "I'll take my draw and Knockdown, so no followup."
    Opponent turns up a Joker.

    Bad times.
  6. Atma

    Atma Active Member

    That's an unavoidable argument as far as I'm concerned Obscura. If something is desired to make the early game more dynamic, and if it takes the form of drawing a card, then my interest is on making that as good as possible instead of refusing to consider it at all. Having said that, are there any other suggestions besides "do nothing?"

    Morn - that doesn't change the damage-risk calculation of Jokers that much. If anything, any changes of this sort would reduce the variance of the game (largely seen to be undesirable) by making the Joker (VERY SLIGHTLY) less powerful.
  7. Morn

    Morn Well-Known Member

    Atma - Jokers don't need to be less powerful. With only two in a deck, they're just swingy enough to be a threat while just rare enough to make attacking into a bluff a reasonable proposition.

    Beyond that, though, since nothing exists in a vacuum, your change affects something completely separate: dodge. With your suggested change, Dodge is the only card type that has no potential to draw a card. Something seems less than ideal about that.
  8. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    We tested Val/Midori and Rook/Grave. The grapplers seemed alot worse. Rook/grave went 3-2. Grave seemed to be around 6-4 favorite (maybe higher). The games were also slower than usual. Grave's deck got to 10/12/13/28/31 cards which is lower than usual. As expected block a normal happened a ton. Mu seemed not unplayable but grave was now favored. The Val/Midori Games were a disaster imo. Val won 2-0 easily. She can just spam attacks and occasionally throw or kd. First game I had 6 throws in opener and second game I got 2 normals J Q K K A and still won without really trying.

    Obviously the grapplers will be worse but they need a buff for this new rule to work out (this was well known but just reporting my experience).
  9. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    One thing I want to ask is how long should yomi games take? My experience from calculating my games is they take around 11 minutes with grave. Is this too slow?

    edit: I will edit some more data on this later but its being a bit time consuming.
  10. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    The normal draw rule does not "step on the toes" of block. Block is the best way to get cards still and normal attack is the second best. If you normal attack each turn, your hand size goes up by 1. If they other guy blocks, his goes up by 2. I think it works really well actually, in reducing the number of boring turns and getting to the real game. Also, it's not like the option to just poke to increase hand size is "safe." You are opening yourself up to being dragon punched or supered, which is pretty cool.

    I agree Jaina benefits the most possibly. Valerie second. Setsuki being worse is being way exaggerated though.

    Consider the possibility that losing a bit of balance for way more fun is worth it. I have found the game much more fun at least. Having an option other than block block block really opens up the choices, and those choices still have counters.

    More cards flowing into the game makes it faster, not slower.

    Yomi games take WAY LONGER than 11 minutes in a tournament setting with real cards, as seen at PAX East.
  11. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    They all knew the rules and how to play. But they are the target market, so if you are able to play 10x faster than them, we don't actually care about that. We are about how fast they played. This is yet another derail though. The point is the game should be faster. Normal draw rule does speed it up, from everything I've seen.
  12. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    Ok maybe this is asking alot but I will calc average number of turns +mniutes my games this week take in normal yomi and also expansion and get back to everyone with this data in a week. Maybe other people could also do something like this?

    (time in expansion would be not accurate do to rulesless)
  13. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I don't really see the point, but ok. I mean more cards seriously does make it faster, and in my experience, it works exactly as predicted. And also the other guy is more likely to open himself up to damage in attempting to do a normal more in combat, such that your faster attacks (even speed 2.0 attacks) can actually hit him. I don't see even theoretically why you think it would be slower. And also the strategy seems better in that it means a wider range of speeds are reasonable to use, and there's more interaction in the game with attack vs attack than in block vs block.
  14. Morn

    Morn Well-Known Member

    Sirlin, I do not wish to quote you out of turn or otherwise misuse your words, but there's something important that I think you may have forgotten. Many times in advertising, promoting, and discussing the game, you touted its tournament suitability, with an emphasis on six years of design and playtesting to achieve the best balance possible. By doing something that weakens this concept, you weaken one of the bigger selling points of your game. I can not think of a scenario where this is a good thing.

    Furthermore, the way the game is played now has very few block-like-mad turns. From Quick Matches that I have watched and participated in, as well as recent small tournament wins, the attack/throw game seems to dominate specifically because block is so known to be the best move in a vacuum. Incidentally, block will continue to be the best move because the only thing it loses to is throw, breaking at least even against every other general move option.

    The metagame is different from where it was, because of an influx of new players and new ideas being brought to the game, and this in itself gives me pause when it comes to the need for a reduction in balance. Yomi as it is is a wonderful game that has a continually evolving metagame. I'm not saying don't fix broken things, but I am saying that the consideration should be whether things are truly broken before fixing them.
    x00x likes this.
  15. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Obscura, your post adds nothing as usual. Please post less. I am totally serious that a tournament at PAX East is a very real and important thing and yes it matters how long they take to play. That is like "regular people" playing instead of the super ultra hardcore.
  16. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Morn, the game seems more fun and better strategically. That is not in conflict with saying it's a tournament game. Also, there is something that I think it's hard to get around here, that's really important. And that is...

    that as I just said, it seems more fun and better strategically. I have said why over and over and over. It's hard to understand why not to do a change that makes it more fun and better strategically.
  17. Morn

    Morn Well-Known Member

    I appreciate that you find the game more fun, and I am of course in favor of things that improve fun and/or strategy, but I'm of the mind that this one change, as it is implemented now, does neither of these things. Someone playing Jaina will make me want to concede immediately or play Jaina myself. This is not more fun, nor is it more strategic. And, as I posted before, DeGrey loses a strategic option, because there is suddenly no upside to playing his 7 as a throw. I feel like there has to be some sort of middle ground, where more fun and strategy can be added with such blatant breaks to the game. Furthermore, if such a middle ground is out there, I have absolute faith that you can find it. :)
  18. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Obscura this is an example of why I want you to post less. Let's examine it. You are causing me to respond, which is wasting my time. I'm having to respond to a terrible point of yours that you made just to argue, and that has no valid basis. We were talking about how when measuring how long an event will take, we should look at how long it takes people in that event to play. Then you bring up game balance being aimed at experts, which is totally unrelated. That has NOTHING to do with the idea that we should care how long people who actually attend a tournament take to play the game. Like if we want to change the power level of a character, yeah then we look at the experts. We weren't talking about that. We were talking about how long it takes to run an event.

    Seriously, stop clogging up these threads and wasting our time.
  19. Inkstud

    Inkstud Well-Known Member

    I've actually thought for a long time that it would be nice if normal attacks were playable, so it's cool that this helps in that regard.

    With that having been said the balance concerns that people mention seem really legitimate. A systemic change like this or the -$1 combine calls for, I imagine, a reevaluation of the old characters to make sure they still function ok in a new environment and people like Midori aren't just kicked to the side of the road.

    Hand size limit seems fine I guess, though not being privy to a lot of earlier discussion I'm not exactly sure what problem it's intended to address. Maybe the idea is that if people have to use or discard their cards there will be less blocking and this will make the game faster I guess. Seems fair, but of course it's another systemic change and Rook and Midori shouldn't just be left in the dust because of it.
  20. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Another thing to consider is that the masses made it absolutely clear that they prefer worse games to better games. So if you improve the game by making more than 0 changes to the base set, then the BGG will go insane. They already posted super long threads at the mere THOUGHT of MAYBE changing anything. (You are aware of this right?) They seriously do not want better things and are scandalized by the mere mention of changing a single thing in the base set. I was going to anyway but actually that might be better to save for a second edition later, after there are 20 chars done.

    Anyway, the base game seems to work ok with the draw rule (and maybe hand cap). The thing that makes it hard is, the following two things look exactly alike:
    1) it's not ok
    2) it is ok, but at first people way, way overstate how changes affect things, and cling to old ways.

    So in the world where this turned out totally ok, we would EXPECT forum posts complaining that Rook is worthless or something, even if that is not true. So the best thing imo is to just wait. Let it be normal draw for a while and eventually it gets sorted out.
    Inkstud likes this.
  21. MarvinPA

    MarvinPA Member

    I don't think that list is anything to do with the goals of the card draw mechanic, it's just what CC expects the effects to be. And having played a bunch of Arg games with the rule I would agree that it does make him at least a bit stronger, since he already likes to poke with normals anyway. He plays pretty much the same but with few bonus cards, it felt like.
  22. Inkstud

    Inkstud Well-Known Member

    Yeah I saw those threads. I certainly like to think those kinds of attitudes aren't representative of gamers as a whole though. Squeaky wheel and all that. Hopefully that's not naive.
  23. the-cap

    the-cap Member

    I kind of see where they are coming from. Despite all the talk about how its a great buy, $100 is still a lot of coin to drop. Then a few years later, the game is changed for a reason they don't necessarily understand and cannot immediately see the benefits of. They would feel betrayed and cheated. Board gamers have this weird desire to own everything including the newest version of things and playing anything less is cheating yourself.
  24. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yeah it's a terrible anti-progress attitude that leads to worse games. Also $100 is totally beside the point imo, and really deceptive. Other games cost WAAAAAAY more than that, but those complaints wouldn't be raised because they emphasize selling the game in pieces. For example, imagine if Summoner Wars made a major change, and there are two different universes:

    A) the universe we really live in
    B) an alternate universe with only one difference: in addition to every currently existing summoner wars product, there is one extra product: the super bundle where you buy the whole thing at once (it would cost many hundreds of dollars I think), and where doing so costs a bit less than buying each individual piece.

    The complaining in world B would be massively more than A, even though it makes no logical sense for the complaining to be any different. So yeah, that people hate the existence of a money-saving bundle is some other problem. The problem I'm mentioning here is them hating better games. The worst part was seeing someone on BGG call that "strawman" then immediately saying stuff where the actual implication is directly: "and it would be better if newer better versions of things weren't made." (lol not strawman after all.)

    Like I said though, even in pursuing the goal of making a better game, it might be better to release 10 new chars and use the new rule, assuming it all works pretty well. Then let all that settle and someday make a 2nd edition of all of it. Though I have to say, the worst thing of all is that when that day comes, even though such a 2nd edition could potentially be a great improvement, it seems people are not only not willing to buy it, they would protest its very existence. People would say it's "no content, and just a ripoff" when actually it would be a commitment to making better and better games.
  25. Zigkirby

    Zigkirby Active Member

    I may not really be good at yomi, or even know where to begin with how things should be balanced in it (or even if the current build is better than the changes), but I am a competitive player in other games (TCGs and video games alike), and I will say that those who are against the changes haven't really delved too deeply. I mean, we have two sets with only four characters two guys ran and they're calling it proof positive for their point? It just needs to be tested more. More empirical evidence the better.

    It is truly one thing to state the direct and immediate impacts some changes will have on the meta, but it takes a lot of dedication and thought to understand how a metagame will evolve. So again, test it more and post hard numbers. You might be surprised with what you find.
  26. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    How would A/B be net +2 for the blocker and +1 for the attacker?
    Both start at 7. Attacker plays 1, then gets a random (7). Blocker plays 1 and gets the block back (7).
    Both players draw (8). I'm seeing +1 net any way I see it.

    For the hand limit, I agree on a hand limit, but 10 seems too low. Maybe balance it at 12 or 13?

    And in terms of BGG, they'd much rather prefer better games, but they'd also want to buy a game and then be done with it. They don't want to have to buy a $50 game, then a $20 upgrade, THEN ANOTHER $50 GAME just to get the current version.
  27. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    Sirlin I agree with your premise. I just don't understand the need for a rules change. Why not just rebalance with old rules. The Expo seems rather agressive anyway. I understand concern about tournament times but It has not been an issue in my experience (and i have played in most tournaments recently). I am trying to take notes on the apho vids to explain how long they went and what happened but this is slightly time consuming. Still I will have this data in like a week. Sirlin what length do you think is reasonable for a round of yomi? 50 min seems ok to me (from official ruleset). Maybe 40 min online would be better since no shuffling.
  28. Inkstud

    Inkstud Well-Known Member

    Attacker plays 1, then gets a random (7). Blocker plays 1 and gets the block back (7) and draws a card for blocking an attack (8). Both players draw (8 / 9).

    You draw a card when you successfully block an attack or ace.
    Turbo164 likes this.
  29. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    If you block, you lose 0 cards (you keep your block) and you draw a card from blocking. Also you draw a card for the turn. If you normal attack, you lose 1 card (the normal attack) and you draw, also you draw for the turn. So you are +1 card over the other guy if you are the blocking guy.

    Actually that is not true about BGG. Many, many people use arguments where if a game is updated that SHOWS it's a problem. Whereas if a game is not updated that SHOWS it's very great. This is totally unrelated to whether it costs something or nothing to upgrade. It exposes the anti-progress attitude that is so prevalent by gamers in general.
  30. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Oh and another thing. Let's factor the cost into it. Here are two games:

    Game A: it's fairly good.
    Game B: it's fairly good.

    Game A revises itself to be really good, much better.
    Game B does not, but it releases an expansion. The expansion is still just "fairly good."

    Actually game A makes a much better contribution to gaming. It's a lot more interesting and valuable for a really good game to exist than just more content for a fairly good one. People are absolutely more willing to pay for game B though, so by virtue of voting with their wallets, they prefer worse games. That is a sad state of affairs.
  31. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    I stand corrected on the block situation; somehow I wasn't thinking clearly this morning.

    I agree fully that a better game makes a better contribution to gaming. However that doesn't matter if people won't buy the better game.
    Going back to your cost analogy, more people would buy B, because it adds content to the game, and thus that game would be considered more successful. I know people personally who are against buying PS and now Yomi on fears they'll have to buy the game again and their purchase will be wasted. They were fine with base + upgrade pack as it was a small one-time thing, but now it seems that you're releasing a new version of a non-collectible game every year, and that rubs consumers the wrong way.

    For a real life example, take Thunderstone. The original game was rather broken, so they rereleased it with a balance patch and to make it more fun. What they did not do, however, is invalidate every card that they've ever put out in the past. You can still use the old cards in the game.
  32. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    Also, in terms of time, Magic BO3s are 40 minutes max. Are Yomi BO3s taking any longer than that?
  33. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    That's a terrible attitude Obscura. Making a better game is a better contribution to gaming than a game that isn't as good. And apparently people are willing to pay for a better game. See: puzzle strike kickstarter.
  34. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Yes of course they are taking more than 40 minutes. It was very common to not finish 2 out of 3 in 50 minutes. I think you guys aren't realizing this.
  35. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    See, Sirlin, I agree that making a better game is a better contribution to gaming. I also agree with Obscura, though. If you make the best game in the world, but either (a) nobody buys it, or (b), which is happening now, nobody wants to buy it because they know they'll just have to buy it again later, it's not a successful game.
    Even though Catan has some faults, I'd agree it made a great contribution to gaming as people were playing the game. The best game that nobody wants to play is an unsuccessful game, and designers will see that it's unsuccessful and never want to do it again, removing whatever contribution it made in the first place.
  36. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    If I make games better and no one buys them, I will just stop making games and do something else. I am pretty much unmoved by this stuff about "what if no one buys it?" I only care about making better games. If no one buys them, that is their loss, because they are apparently against better games.

    It seems that enough people are on board with the idea of making games better though, so this is a false choice. And sort of a waste of time.

    Third, it would be a better world if more people were in favor of Game A, and if people didn't rally AGAINST Game A. We'd have better games. So that's an education thing.
  37. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    I don't really feel like discussing all these details of how long Yomi takes. It would better if it were shorter, we have a way to do that, that way also has other good effects, so let's try it. DONE. Move on.
  38. Inkstud

    Inkstud Well-Known Member

    Re: Upgrading games, probably the solution that the most people find agreeable is the "patch" method, like what you mentioned, and similar to the Puzzle Strike 2nd Edition upgrade pack. That was nice because it was like 20 bucks or something, and you just replaced a bunch of old chips with new ones, but didn't have to spend an extra 35 dollars to duplicate all your old crash gems, wounds, and 1 gems etc. So presumably that would rub people a little better.
  39. Aphotix

    Aphotix Well-Known Member Staff Member

    "Better" and "Successful" have nothing to do with one another in the slightest.
    Wobberjacky likes this.
  40. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    In terms of "rallying against game A", people are scared you're setting a precedent. Take DLC on video games; people rally against DLC all the time because they want the game they buy to be the complete game. To them, it doesn't matter if the DLC makes the game better.

    If the new rule has other good effects without excessive negatives is yet to be seen. Upsetting balance is not necessarily a good effect. However, speaking from the almost 300 games I've played so far at Microsoft with everyone (and these are competitive magic players), the range for a single game was 10-15 minutes, with 20 in the absolute maximum. Those times are not short, but not long enough to justify changing the entire game just to make it shorter.
    Coffee likes this.
  41. Inkstud

    Inkstud Well-Known Member

    Guys I think we really need to be differentiating between "rounds" and "matches" and "games" in this conversation about how much time things are taking. From what I can tell Sirlin is talking about a Best of 3 match taking 50 minutes and saying that's unacceptable. Are you guys doing best of 3 Yomi matches in meatspace that are taking 10 - 15 minutes? Because to me that's like way fast and sounds more like the amount of time a single round might take.

    My IRL Yomi Bo3 matches probably take about 30 - 40 minutes I'm gonna guess though I've never actually timed that.
  42. perinigricon

    perinigricon Member

    That's 10-15 for a single game. The range for a BO3 would thus be 20-45, with an average of 30 +- 5 depending on if it goes 2-0 or 2-1.
  43. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    Aphotix will tell you the advantages of streaming matches when they each have a few turns fewer of block / block. And when more attack - attack interactions happen. There are several things going on here in addition to just shortening things for tournaments. And maybe not everyone who goes to tournaments has played 300 times like you. I'll put you down for not liking it or whatever, now we can move on to productive stuff like figuring out how to play whatever new matchup is hard, such as what rook can do vs valerie or whatever.
  44. Wobberjacky

    Wobberjacky Well-Known Member


    This is exactly what Sirlin was talking about earlier with overstating how changes affect stuff. Changing the entire game of Yomi would be like having dodges beat throws or some other crazy thing. Adding a simple rule that makes normal attacking not such a shit option for most characters and makes blocking not such a brain-dead good option for most characters is not that at all. It adds a lot of other obviously cool stuff to the game too. How it affects balance remains to be seen, but in all likelihood it won't change that much.
    Lofobal likes this.
  45. Kawaiiness

    Kawaiiness Active Member

    Be very careful with the normal draw rule. Valerie is a lot stronger already than most people give her credit for. The normal draw rule makes val v rook 8/2 or possibly even 9/1 IMO (from 7/3 IMO in the base set). Midori is easier too (possibly 7/3...but I can't say without playing it more). It's not a strict val "buff" but it helps her enormously in MU where she doesn't need to be stronger in.

    As for the hand size, 10 cards is a slight nerf to val but the overall effects are negligible. In fact, it's actually a strong buff in the val/panda MU and again in the val/rook MU. On the other hand, it's a slight nerf to val against jaina. Although I don't know the MU from jaina's side so it might hurt jaina just as much. I don't think it really affects any other MUs for val strongly.
  46. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    Wobberjacky why do you think it will not change much. Two characters become unplayable according to most people. I think it is not possible to change normal draw without changing midori and rook's cards. Does anyone here actually think midori can actually beat val under these rules? would anyone like to actually test this?

    Also bo3 takes 30-40 minutes imo. why is this too slow. No one is explaining this to anyone. No one who actually plays yomi right now seems to feel this is too slow. I never here people complaining.
  47. Aphotix

    Aphotix Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Any turn where both players lack the tools to strongly affect the game are very bad for spectators. It is very draining as a commentator to have to fill in this space with promises of what will happen later on. The bottom line is that it simply is not appealing to watch two people block, even if you are part of the minority who enjoys it. Giving another method of tool gathering that involves dealing damage will do wonders for early game excitement in my opinion.

    This game has almost no players. It is depressing, but it is true. Saying "you don't see people complaining" would only make sense if there were people around to complain.
    A Man In Black and Lofobal like this.
  48. deluks917

    deluks917 Yomi League 1 Champion

    if two people are definately going to block that would be boring. When are two players both almost certain to block (if one guy is certain to block why would you not throw?) ?
  49. Wobberjacky

    Wobberjacky Well-Known Member

    I play Midori, I absolutely think so, and I will when I get time. Kawai's MU numbers seem insane to me. I am not scared of Valerie at all without normal draw, and I'm wondering who is? With normal draw, she's a lot scarier since I have to make many more guesses at 50/50 or close to 50/50. That sounds like fun. BoS was always the most annoying thing about Val, the fact that she isn't incredibly inept at dealing with early game throw pressure doesn't suddenly make her unbeatable.

    My general comment about balance is based on experience. The number of cases where changes of this magnitude drastically affect balance is very small compared to the number of cases where they don't.
  50. Aphotix

    Aphotix Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Because you should save the throw for when it has a higher impact. That's like saying "Why shouldn't I always use all of my combo points?". You know better.

Share This Page