Imported comments regarding "Encourage careful positioning."
DeathsAdvocate Feb 20 at 9:09 AM
@smash_the_hamster @qazzquimby In general reactive style cards are a non issue, and personally I have come to embrace the powerful cards require powerful answers. As long as we have strong threats/backline stuff global answers are also acceptable. I agree with not pigeon holing formations.
While it is acceptable to move away from the Strong Threats / Strong answers style, I do not want to change things to drastically, and based on the poll the majority is in agreement.
It is proactive/win con spells that tend to be the problem. When your wincon is global and or board agnostic that is when we have a problem. (AKA unconditional burn / excessive out of hand burst to the general has no place in a board game, and decimus certainly falls into this category, although it is far less offensive compared to most burn.) Now I am ok with these types of things existing, but these are the ones that should have positional requirements and or range limits.
Edit - Delete
Chris Feb 20 at 4:56 AM (edited)
@qazzquimby as much as I like positioning, we don't want to turn the board into a maze or puzzle game.
if you make decimus work only near your general and some other deck's removal is decimate, then you end up with these polar rock-paper-scissors type matchups where I win or lose depending on whether my removal works against your threat.
Moreover, I also think that there is an inherent design conflict by forcing minions to be played on certain squares. Decimus is played backline because players have DECIDED for themselves that this is the right thing to do strategically. Design a lot of cards that say "has X if positioned in Y way" then you deny the player a choice. And choice is what made the board interesting in the first place.
I'm all for positional based removal (e.g. "chain lightning" sounds fucking cool), but like most things it's all about moderation.
Reply
Qazzquimby Feb 20 at 4:47 AM
@smash_the_hamster strong global effects require strong global answers, but I was suggesting avoiding strong global effects. Imagine if decimus only worked while adjacent to their general, or positionaly in some other way
Reply
Chris Feb 20 at 4:41 AM (edited)
@qazzquimby
the inherent problem with that is easily observed when you think about where powerful minions are played; something like 4 winds magi, decimus, etc are all backline minions. Nobody puts one of these 4/4's "in the face' of the opponent.
Ergo entropic decay has probably never killed a decimus in the entire history of Duelyst outside of bronze.
Im all for positional based removal, but there is a serious need for 'global' type stuff as well.
Reply
Atheistmantis Feb 4 at 4:11 PM
This should become a mantra in the new Duelyst(s). The fact that we're discussing a tactical board game should be enough to re-set the focus on the importance of the board over out of hand stuff.
It's much more rewarding when you position to avoid Backstab, or when you optimise the placing of your Provoking minion, instead of having too many ways to camper->shoot->run away-> repeat.
2
Reply
Qazzquimby Feb 1 at 8:00 PM
@deathsadvocate
casdrop I like the concept of limited ranges in general. We should explore that for the successor. When nerfing removal, limiting to only targets in your row or something could be more interesting than just raising the cost.
2
Reply
Casdrop Feb 1 at 7:51 PM
Damage dealing spells are needed, not only as finishers but as control tools, maybe giving them an area where they can be used such as 3 spaces from your general or something so they can't just run away from you forever
Reply
DeathsAdvocate Jan 30 at 1:02 PM (edited)
@qazzquimby This one is really important. Reactive spells are generally ok, but proactive/win con spells detract from it being a board game to much. (Looking at you burn)
Edit - Delete
Qazzquimby Jan 30 at 11:25 AM
This implies more focus on units than uninteractive spells.
