MArcomage

Hey now, try not to kill us all, will you? The tokens are the bread and butter for brigands. Nerfing each and every one of them thieves because a single card got carried away is not a fair move. Just pull that attack stat back to Earth and we're all set.

It's not nerfing, It's turning this thing inside out. Make them stronger, token dependant like mages, but with occasional ill effect

Random effects are already some horrible MMO stuff. And your other proposal? Yeah, I'd like that, but again, my conscious steps in and says no. I have 6 brigands in my hand on average. If both changes were made, everybody with a brigand deck either would win in 40 rounds, all of which are incredibly boring, unless some card goes wild and ruins everything. I don't want to have any of this.

Zaton wrote:
Hey now, try not to kill us all, will you? The tokens are the bread and butter for brigands. Nerfing each and every one of them thieves because a single card got carried away is not a fair move. Just pull that attack stat back to Earth and we're all set.

We are not talking about sellword, that card will be fixed soon.
we are talking about brigands themselves. they're not exactly overpowered but they ruin the fun of the games. Brigand tokens were fine years ago when they first came out, but since then new brigands and other cards were added. I think it's time to change how the tokens work. the malus was just a suggestion, at least we should rework the quantity of tokens gained when a brigand is played

Hmmm... That's more like it. Then we should identify the problem first. Could it be that brigands are becoming too numerous? What if we nerfed the imput and buffed the power? Such as 9 token per brigand but 3 stock for an Uncommon Robbery and 5 for a Rare one? That would force the players to play safe and save up their big guns if they want to hog enough dosh off of their opponent.

[moderator DPsycho: Created this new thread for Brigand keyword discussion that began in Sellsword card discussion.]

Zaton wrote:
Hmmm... That's more like it. Then we should identify the problem first. Could it be that brigands are becoming too numerous? What if we nerfed the imput and buffed the power? Such as 9 token per brigand but 3 stock for an Uncommon Robbery and 5 for a Rare one? That would force the players to play safe and save up their big guns if they want to hog enough dosh off of their opponent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_creep

This is a term which I found today searching DOTA forum, and I sensed its similiarity to current state of MAromage. What do you guys think?

I'll disagree about brigand being "powerful"

It is easily countered if you take it into consideration when building your deck, by adding some protection. Which cannot be said about, for example, tower-, where you need to prepare all your deck to withstand attacks.

Best card against brigand would be 0cost judge, I think.Also useful in other decks.

I agree, brigands can be countered, but i still struggle despite having judge, caravan and graceful charity in my deck.
What I wanted to say, is not only brigands grow in strenght, but also other decks with every single update. It's a long list of new cards, which made the old ones which similiar effect nearly worthless.

Coolis wrote:

Zaton wrote:
Hmmm... That's more like it. Then we should identify the problem first. Could it be that brigands are becoming too numerous? What if we nerfed the imput and buffed the power? Such as 9 token per brigand but 3 stock for an Uncommon Robbery and 5 for a Rare one? That would force the players to play safe and save up their big guns if they want to hog enough dosh off of their opponent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_creep

This is a term which I found today searching DOTA forum, and I sensed its similiarity to current state of MAromage. What do you guys think?

I used this term here before. Because yes, many new cards are in this trend. Compare old rares with high attack (Ether Dragon) with new (pre-nerfed Suzaku). Compare old version of Absorption and pre-nerfed Divine guidance.
I think that we need a big revision to existing cardset. And the biggest attention should be paid to self-paying cards. Dark templar, Desert outpost, Fire fox, Crypt, Deathwood shaman in Nature decks, Holy cards, whole Restoration cardset et cetera.
Or...

Old cards are being revised every update, some are updated others are reworked if necessary.

Yes, but most revisions make those cards stronger to be on par with new ones. Dark templar is the brightest example. You should decide what level of card power you want to see in your game.
I still think that the problem lies in self-paying resource cards. Fire fox and Thunderbird made Beast deck much stronger than before. Fairy (yes, still), Cathedral, Priest et cetera are the reason why you can just take a ton of common and uncommon Holy cards plus all those oneshots like Spectral dragon, Avenging angel, Leviathan and Bahamut and just wait for lucky draw or Scepter of summoning/Scepter of evolution while accumulating resources.
Brigands are built on partial cost returning. That's the main problem - Destruction isn't as strong as Brigand in terms of locking down your opponent despite having much stronger card effects and keyword effect.

Adding new cards to game always creates some imbalances, but I think it's worth it. If you compare current card set to those from early stages of the development, you can see that they it may be more balanced, but the game mechanics are too plain and simple.

Of course, diversity is great thing. But why do you need all those special tactics when you can spam recruit+ cards and wait for Orc regiment/Dragon squadron?

because victory is not so awarding in this game, and you will make out those interesting tactics, to make this game more likeable. Also squadron may never pop-up, or your enemy may have a cockatrice or tornado :)

Having malus tokens is literally nonsensical; if the tokens were bad for you, people would play without them, since you have that option.

That said, I can see a possibility where a token might have a particularly nice effect when triggered by a rare card, but a slight malus when triggered by a common. That might make more sense.

A malus keyword would feature cards that require that the keyword be set to be played at full potential.

The fun in it would be that cards that drain tokens would suddenly be a boon rather than a setback.

I'm in for 'full malus' although i have to admit common-bad rare-good effect is somewhat interesting too. Or otherwise. Or in any other particular order with uncommons too.

Another possible token keyword mechanic goes like this:

If tokens (before or after playing) <35 do ______(malus?)
If tokens (before or after playing) >35 do ______(??)
If tokens (before or after playing) >65 do ______(good stuff)

that way you'll want to have many keywords in hand to skip initial barrier, but afterwards you'll want to discard them to stay in the "good zone"

Also this could be turned any way around.