Mono saph/empress and how to make it a fair deck.

    • Gregangel wrote:

      Opalia wrote:

      Based on EVO, drafts and seal and tournement last 6 months it is clear that HEX only makes 1-2 mill $ per year.
      So It is very limmed how much staff they can have as they are only in US.
      This again limmed they testing they can do when most staffs work on making new stuff.
      Maybe income will be better in future but player base seem to grow very slowly i HEX.

      Also more than 25 mill $ have been use on HEX so far and total income so far seem under 10 mill $
      stop throwing number coming from nowher
      The 25 mill $ info is from Cory interview.
      The income per year are basted on all actual tournement + all EVO + all Seal + Draft for last 6 months which is less than 750 000$ (100 plat = 1$, 1 PVP booster =2$ rewards subtracted) .

      Some other player did same callulation and got to same result +/10%. So apx 750k $ for 6 month is same as 1-2 mill $ per year atm.
      Cory say HEX income are growing which least to income in past are max 1-2 mill $ per year too.

      Game have been runing for less than 4 year x anual income (less than 2 mill per year) + kick start (2 mill $) so total is less than 10 mill $ total.

      Question: Which of my numbers are from nowhere ??
    • Opalia wrote:

      Gregangel wrote:

      Opalia wrote:

      Based on EVO, drafts and seal and tournement last 6 months it is clear that HEX only makes 1-2 mill $ per year.
      So It is very limmed how much staff they can have as they are only in US.
      This again limmed they testing they can do when most staffs work on making new stuff.
      Maybe income will be better in future but player base seem to grow very slowly i HEX.

      Also more than 25 mill $ have been use on HEX so far and total income so far seem under 10 mill $
      stop throwing number coming from nowher
      The 25 mill $ info is from Cory interview.The income per year are basted on all actual tournement + all EVO + all Seal + Draft for last 6 months which is less than 750 000$ (100 plat = 1$, 1 PVP booster =2$ rewards subtracted) .

      Some other player did same callulation and got to same result +/10%. So apx 750k $ for 6 month is same as 1-2 mill $ per year atm.
      Cory say HEX income are growing which least to income in past are max 1-2 mill $ per year too.

      Game have been runing for less than 4 year x anual income (less than 2 mill per year) + kick start (2 mill $) so total is less than 10 mill $ total.

      Question: Which of my numbers are from nowhere ??
      So what about packs purchased from the store and opened up outside of limited tournaments, platinum spent on collector's decks and other cosmetics, and platinum sitting around in player's accounts? What about auction house tax? Are you just assuming that any plat consumed outside of tournaments is negligible?
    • Steric wrote:

      So what about packs purchased from the store and opened up outside of limited tournaments, platinum spent on collector's decks and other cosmetics, and platinum sitting around in player's accounts? What about auction house tax? Are you just assuming that any plat consumed outside of tournaments is negligible?
      yes they did and that why these numbers means absolutely nothing

      I know we are off topic here. But to close it. HEX income are :
      - Plat sale
      - VIP subscription

      These things are not public so nobody can estimate Hex yearly income.
      Plat sunk in limited is just a very incomplete data

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Gregangel ().

    • What I can mesure is how much platinum are spend on tournement entry and boosters for entry minus booster won and AH fee and VIP.

      I dont accont for people who enter for free with a ticket.
      People who buy VIP get 4 boosters for 8$. Buying VIP mean 4 boosters shop so it dont affact HEX income.
      EVO, draft, seal, tourment gives around $1.0-1.5 mill per year.

      5% cut on HA gives areound $50,000 per year.

      I dont know how many PvP boosters are opend without entering a tournemet.
      I dont know how much money as spend on AAA decks, battle bords and other decks.
      But I feel prity cetain most of the platinum players spend are use for: AH, tournement entry and booster for tournement.

      Is there anything else other than AH, packs, AAA decks, other decks, battlebords, VIP player can spend money on??

      You are right some players can might just buy platinum without spending it but it is offest by player who use platinum the bougth in the passed.

      My guess of $2 mill might be too low if say 25% of PvP boosters bougth in shop atm get opened without entering a tournement.

      I still say $2 mill anual income is a very very optimistic.

      Look at tournements less then 500 players each time and sometime only 50 players.
      Look at cosmic rank we are less then 1000 player there ends there per season.

      If half of all money spenders get to cosmic rank then HEX would only have less then 2000 active money spenders!!!
      Even with 4000 active money spenders in HEX 2 mill $ per year is equal to 500 $ per money spender per year which is a lot more than I spend...

      So $2 mill per year is optimistic.
    • Winds wrote:

      You think my argument is a logical assumption, but refuses to see where it can apply to Hex. Is it because I am in that group of old tcg players that you so despise?
      I didn't say it doesn't apply, I just think it's not a valid argument against something that would be better for the quality of the game.

      As to the 'despise' comment. I don't despise them - I have several friends who are among those players and many of the people I respect most on these boards come from tcg backgrounds. There are just some of them that I wish would stop being so arrogant and acting like their way is the only possible right way. So many valid points on these forums get dismissed because 'oh that's not how tcgs do it'. It's obnoxious, annoying, and incredibly disrespectful.

      Winds wrote:

      That they didn't catch it before they spoiled it shows how little testing was done as it took very little time for people to point out the combo. It is not a point for post release changes, it is a point for what I said, which is their design/playtesting budget is very bad.
      Even the best players miss things occasionally. There are tens of thousands, probably more, possible interactions in every set. Missing one does not make them bad at testing, but jumping on it as soon as it is pointed out means they've got their minds in the right place.

      Winds wrote:

      Also, where are these gamers you are talking about that is willing to invest?
      They're either those 'free to play' players that aren't spending money, or they haven't heard of Hex because of lack of advertising.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • Eraia wrote:

      Winds wrote:

      That they didn't catch it before they spoiled it shows how little testing was done as it took very little time for people to point out the combo. It is not a point for post release changes, it is a point for what I said, which is their design/playtesting budget is very bad.
      Even the best players miss things occasionally. There are tens of thousands, probably more, possible interactions in every set. Missing one does not make them bad at testing, but jumping on it as soon as it is pointed out means they've got their minds in the right place.

      This is a bit of a different angle (with a lot of overlap, of course): Hex could conduct a period mass play-testing of every set by letting players play-test the cards a few weeks before the set is released, but for some reason (marketing? hype? fear that cards will lose their "new toy" shininess and lead to lower sales?) they seem not to want to go down that route.

      It's a fact that they could do so (in at least in two different ways, actually, as seen during the launch of Set 5: Hex is technically capable of both having a separate test-server, and to give certain players a full soul-bound set during a fixed amount of time), but they chose not to do so during the launch of set 6 for some reason.

      Notice that, at the end of the day, what we are discussing here (cards being tweaked) boils down to imperfect testing: in a perfect world with perfect design and execution, change to cards would never be needed, so the point of this thread would be moot.

      Perfect design and testing does not exist, but it's a fact that one of the advantages of the digital design space is to allow your customers to beta-test your product before it's officially launched (and sold); why Hex seems to be remiss to do more extensive beta-playtesting (when they clearly have the capacity to do so) is unclear to me.

      Perhaps that could be the optimal middle ground? Try to coordinate, between Hex and Community, a period of extensive play-testing? Could even be a "prize" to, say, the highest 300 (or 400, or X) ranked Constructed players, giving them a soul-bound full set a couple of weeks before the official launch, for them to test?

      I have a hunch something like this may be seen by Hex as a bad move from a sales point of view (killing the hype of new cards, thus less cards sold), but well, maybe worth exploring?

      The more play-testing, the less chances some cards will be seen as overpowered, so no need to change cards... everybody happy! =)
    • I think it's important to point out that Hex DID have a pretty extensive playtesting system in place prior to 4 months ago. The problem is that it was run by gameforge, so at least for now, it's gone. Not a lot of people knew about it, and it wasn't talked about a lot, but we did quite a lot of testing and had a fair bit of back and forth discussion with the devs about both functional issues and potential balance problems.

      Part of the problem with this sort of thing vs. a paid QA department, though, is obviously going to revolve around privacy / security, as well as the amount of time it takes for communication to move back and forth between all the layers of two separate companies, plus a group of volunteers, so something like that will always be slower from identification to resolution than a pure internal QA department working directly with the engineers. Hex Ent is focusing on their own QA people for now, which is totally fine and understandable. Those guys are amazing (Hexahedron is one of them, by the way).

      That being said, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see this start back up again at some point once CZE has the time / energy to put into getting it switched on. Not for wide public access, as nice as that might be for discoverability, but for a select group of dependable and trustworthy testers who can be relied on to be both thorough and discrete.
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • I love seeing overpowered cards, the best feeling I have is tinkering around how to beat those cards and never utilising them. I never played TM, nor spellshield hierophant but was always looking for solutions to such cards.

      But balance is kind of important, after some time, playing in those situations becomes redundant, and you just give up.
    • New

      Gravitygroove wrote:

      We ended up with a semi productive discussion in this thread, but sadly, i've still seen no dev weigh in on anything in here or address the community, which is pretty disappointing.
      Even most of the people who believe changes could be beneficial to the game don't think this deck is a contender for them. So there's not much for them to address.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • New

      Gravitygroove wrote:

      We ended up with a semi productive discussion in this thread, but sadly, i've still seen no dev weigh in on anything in here or address the community, which is pretty disappointing.
      There's a difference between 'perhaps could be improved on' and 'needs to be addressed asap' - with mono sapphire leaning towards to former for most from what I can tell. I wouldn't be surprised if they did make some changes to Uzzu, but on the other hand I also wouldn't be surprised if they left it as is for an intermediate amount of time longer.
    • New

      Honesty, the arguments for nerfing or banning a cards are largely the same. I see where people are coming from from both sides... Problem is, people aren't taking the time to actually listen to the other side. Everyone just hyperbolizes the worst case scenario for doing one over the other.

      The only argument I see that people wanting ban over nerf that holds the most merit is playability.

      Once a card is nerf, it's changed across all parts of the game. Sure you can always un-nerf a card the same way you can un-ban a card, but it's not the same. I feel that the devs like banning over nerfing because of the multiple formats the card can be used.

      If you change a card, then you're affecting people who may want to use it in PvE. Banning it doesn't do that. Also now that we have 2 formats, TM is an example where a ban over a nerf is the way to go for that card. Immortal can use it. Standard cannot.

      I guess you could always create a PvE version of the original card and then nerf the PvP version, but that can get messy.

      Then again, the devs have no issue nerfing cards in PvE anyways, so it's weird that they have separate rules for each segment of the game. They completely destroyed the dream deck by the heavy nerfs.

      Nerfing seems like a logical choice in a digital only environment, but it must be handled as delicately and seriously as a ban.

      Any solution the devs make going forward is going to piss off someone.
      There was a signature here. It's gone now.
    • New

      If necessary I would prefer a ban to a nerf. In PVP that is, don't really care about PVE nerfs.

      However, I have always liked the restrictions that MtG has for power 9 in legacy/vintage and don't really understand why they haven't used that rule more often in other formats.

      So, if necessary, restriction>ban>nerf. In the case of Empress or Copycat I don't believe anything is necessary. But if Copycat was a problem I could totally see it being restricted to 1 in Standard to deal with that problem.
      "Ignorant beliefs are stains upon the mind."
    • New

      Transience wrote:

      So, if necessary, restriction>ban>nerf. In the case of Empress or Copycat I don't believe anything is necessary. But if Copycat was a problem I could totally see it being restricted to 1 in Standard to deal with that problem.
      Restriction = nerf > ban for me. I'd rather the concept of a card be playable, even if slightly weaker... than have it simply disappear. Although restricting the number that can be played seems like a good place to be too, and I hope Hex utilizes that tool
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • New

      Eraia wrote:

      Transience wrote:

      So, if necessary, restriction>ban>nerf. In the case of Empress or Copycat I don't believe anything is necessary. But if Copycat was a problem I could totally see it being restricted to 1 in Standard to deal with that problem.
      Restriction = nerf > ban for me. I'd rather the concept of a card be playable, even if slightly weaker... than have it simply disappear. Although restricting the number that can be played seems like a good place to be too, and I hope Hex utilizes that tool
      Well, some of us play more than one format. If I use a card in PvE, banning it in PvP doesn't affect me while nerfing it does.
    • New

      Steric wrote:

      Well, some of us play more than one format. If I use a card in PvE, banning it in PvP doesn't affect me while nerfing it does.
      If a card is too powerful in pvp, it's probably problematic to pve balance as well. And, I guess unlike some, I care about PvE having longevity through balanced experiences.

      Admittedly, currently there are far worse problems to pve balance than strong pvp cards... but... that doesn't change that 'oh shit this is too powerful in pvp, so let's just let it break pve 'cause we can't change it at all' is a bad solution.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • New

      Darkwonders wrote:

      Honesty, the arguments for nerfing or banning a cards are largely the same. I see where people are coming from from both sides... Problem is, people aren't taking the time to actually listen to the other side. Everyone just hyperbolizes the worst case scenario for doing one over the other.
      I think the source of the problem is that people call for bans/nerfs on things that they personally find unfun to play against whether it is broken or not. Before calling for a nerf/ban, one should always ask if there are counters to the so-called "problematic" card. In this case here, there are so many good counters to mono-Sapphire than it has not dominated a single tournament, and it's only present in a small minority of ladder matches.

      What's happening is people don't want to have to play those counters. Most of the time, people calling for a nerf are basically saying "I want my sub-par deck to be competitive without doing any changes to my deck or my play style". Rather than adapt themselves to the meta, the want the meta to change so that their deck becomes good.

      The only card that was ever banned was Titania's Majesty, because despite the counters that existed at the time, they were all too late or too unreliable, and TM did end up being oppressive to the point where major tournaments were almost always mirror matches and a race to who could play TM first.

      We are not in such a situation now. We are not even remotely close to that situation now.
    • New

      Eraia wrote:

      Steric wrote:

      Well, some of us play more than one format. If I use a card in PvE, banning it in PvP doesn't affect me while nerfing it does.
      If a card is too powerful in pvp, it's probably problematic to pve balance as well. And, I guess unlike some, I care about PvE having longevity through balanced experiences.
      Admittedly, currently there are far worse problems to pve balance than strong pvp cards... but... that doesn't change that 'oh shit this is too powerful in pvp, so let's just let it break pve 'cause we can't change it at all' is a bad solution.
      Titania's Majesty isn't anywhere near a problem for PvE balance. It was bad enough that it got banned in Standard, but it's not popular in PvE.