MArcomage

One of the few things about Marcomage that struck me as a little unbalanced was that there are two cards that basically do "something for nothing". Wind and Militia both give a positive effect, which costs you not a single thing - no resource cost, and they don't take up a turn. The fact that they're common just makes them even better, since it essentially means that your deck will have a higher density of uncommon and rare cards. There is literally not a single deck that I can think of that wouldn't be improved by having Militia and Wind. Last Hope and Pegasus also seem to suffer from the "something for nothing" phenomenon, but the fact that they're uncommon excuses them for the most part. (Sorry, I'll have to break this up since the Thread text is too long =< )

Having cards that are good for literally every deck makes the game a bit more boring in my opinion, since it diminishes variety in deck-building. One way this could be fixed would be balancing the cards (making them cost resources), but I have a different suggestion. I think it would be interesting to have a card that punishes the use of quick cards, in a similar way to how "Time Lock" punishes swift cards. This would make people actually pause to think before adding Wind and Militia to their deck, but it wouldn't completely make them useless, adding another layer of strategy to deck-building.

I'm not sure how it would work exactly. It could be like Time Lock and reduce your opponent's stock if they played a quick card last turn. It could even be like Fairy Dragon and transfer all quick cards from your opponent's hand to yours. Maybe it could be a damage-dealing card that deals significantly more if your opponent played a quick card last turn. Any of them could work really, it's a matter of taste I guess. As for the name, um... Quicksand? I'm open to suggestions. >_>

I like the sound of this. What about "Quick Study," a Durable card with a low cost, perhaps one of each resource, that copies and performs the effect of any Quick card played in the opponent's last turn? If the opponent played Pegasus and Wind, the effect would be the total of those effects and it would still be the player's turn. Then again, that might be difficult to program. I also don't know if Necromancy would have no effect or replace the durable card with an undead one... I suppose Militia and Vampire Lord would also require the selection of another card, unless it uses the same position chosen by the opponent. Huh, this is more complicated than I'd thought. Probably best to limit it to Quick cards with zero cost.

I remember that months ago militia and wind were swift cards (actually there was no differencies between swift and quick) with cost 4/4/4 and 3/3/3. I think that upgrading timelock so that it affects also quick cards is a good idea. anyway I hate timelock becouse I have a "swift deck" but I think that is a nice card 'cause it adds a lot of strategy (as master of the past).

This in an excellent concept, and the proper way to deal with the metagame solution than to nerf Militia/Wind, kudos (I proposed the concept of something like time-lock myself though I was unhappy with the final card that came out.)

Here's a concept for my style of counter-quick card:

Time Paradox:

Uncommon, Cost 0, Durable

Each player suffers N damage, where N = 10xNumber of Quick/Swift Cards they have played recently. (The cards that are still being shown on the game board, so if someone plays a quick card before Time Paradox, it will hurt them as well.)

It would provide a serious downfall to playing so many quick/swift cards, while not nerfing them or making them useless by any stretch.

I think we only need to punish Quick, not Swift? Knight of time, costs 11 recruit 11 gems. Another uncommon Griffin costs 10 recruit does 14 damage. Knight's 11 recruits for 14 damage and 11 gems for extra round seems extremely reasonable to me. And really, the only imba Quick card are probably Wind & Militia, I think giving them some minor cost are probably the best option.

I largely disagree with the idea of giving them minor costs, changing the card choices is a much more acceptable way of rebalancing things to me.

A durable card that gives 10 attack for no costs? even with the requirement that your opponent plays a quick card, isn't that somewhat strong?

I'd have to agree that 10 attack per Quick is too strong. Perhaps that much if not durable, but the thing to consider is that if someone has two or more quick cards on hand, there is really no other choice but to use them. Most punishers either target what's on hand, forcing their play ahead of time, or target the last single card played, giving the opponent pause while deciding whether to press on with a particular strategy. Neither works so well for quick cards. Forcing their play just gives a single turn where they all go, something the opponent may likely have done anyway. Punishing their use would be maddening with a durable card as the player with quick cards on hand has to dispose of them somehow, and given their frequency, they're almost certain to show up again shortly after. There currently are no durable punishers, correct? If a durable one was desired, I'd suggest that its effect doesn't take unless the opponent chains two or more quick cards.

To DPsycho: It is impossible in our card system to make a card that would copy the effect of some other card.

One card that is a counter to quick cards will be added in the third part of this update.

I disagree with the ones saying that this is too powerful, your damage is COMPLETELY up to the opponent, you cannot damage them unless they allow you to, by playing quick cards, they can see your hand afterall.

The only way you can "surprise" them with it, is to play quick/swift cards of your own, in which case, you'll be taking the damage as well, another balancing factor.

Also, the opponent can always discard (either the discard function, or the many many cards that allow you to discard cards) You wanted a serious downfall to playing so many quick cards, here's an example of that, it's not overpowered, as all the damage you do the opponent is completely up to them.

The OP is thinking exactly the same thing as mine. :D Swift/quick cards are always parts of all my card decks whether playing offensively or defensively. They are not strong themselves but they are overpowered in the way that they are useful for other purposes. I can get Wind > Wind > Militia > Wind, or some similar sequences. This sort of luck is not uncommon as it looks. I feel I'm getting relatively more than it should. The best record is 8 cards in a row.

I once talked with Mojko about the problem of Wind and others. Wind was "Quick. Wall -2, Stock -1". I told him I would still use Wind even if it's reduced to "Quick. Wall -1" or even "Quick". Well he seemed unable to see the real power of Wind and so. The weakened "Wind" is still a very good card.

I don't like the concept of free. If a card is so useful, how come it will be free? Every card should have its price unless they are nothing but rubbish (Well then no one should add them). Some can be "free" because they are apparently free but the true "cost" is buried inside the card itself (eg Army of Volunteers, Difficult Times). A narrow usage (inflexibility), infavourable conditions etc. can be deemed as "cost" too.

Really "Wind", "Militia", "Pegasus" and a few zero-cost cards are worth some prices (I'm no fear of the only so-called quick counter - "Don't be hasty"). I would like to see they cost a bit to play (eg 1 stock) so more players will drop the seemingly weak cards and I will have higher chances to win. LOL

A quick punisher helps little. We are "open". I won't be stupid enough to play any quick/swift when I see you get a card which can punish me. That's the reason why I don't add "Time Shift".

Theoretically most zero-cost cards are under-evaluated. They should be worth something, but are worth only a few resources (eg 2 Recruits, 1 Recruit and 1 Gem etc.). In reality it doesn't matter. Saving resources are not our goal. Simply speaking our aim should be to play the best cards in as fewer rounds as possible (of course without over-budget).

Quick/Swift cards are going to be necessities with or without punishers. They hardly pose a threat to me.

Well imagine such a funny card born:
==================
April's Fool (zero cost)
Common/Uncommon/Rare
Quick. You can put as many April's Fool as you want in any slots of any rarity. What does it do? Well nothing. I will actually take -1 resource from you. Dummy! LOL
==================

Good enough. My plan is to replace all rares with April's Fool, except a few. Those two must stay: Overpowered supportive card: "Prince of Thief", and overpowered attack/summon card: "General's Army".

Only the best of the best commons, and the best of the best uncommons will be survived. All the rest will be replaced by April's Fool. Hehe... Let's see who can counter such a foolish card deck. :D

OK, so what's the best way to do to solve the problem? Think about it. What makes quick/swift cards so useful - the ability to keep drawing new cards.

Suggestions:
(1) Max 1 free turn per player's round
(2) Think about price/cost. Price is a good balancer. If you don't like the price tag, feel free to drop the quick cards. Let's see which party will win more in long run; and/or
(3) Invisible quick/swift punisher (unfortunately it's impossible), or quick/swift punisher which will punish you if you play quick/swift cards last X turns (again impossible for the time being)

Just a quick thought. I think I'm willing to spend 2-3 resources (eg 2 gems) just for quick, 5-6 resources just for swift.

Quick/Swift/Zero-cost cards which are too attractive that they become necessary in nearly all sorts of card decks:

Common Cards:
* Militia
* Wind
* Black Market / Tribute

Uncommon Cards:
* Fairy
* Sorceress
* Time warp
* Pegasus
* Last Hope

Below are okay altho still very/pretty attractive:
* Mage (High price tag defeats the purpose, assuming I'm only for Swift/Quick)
* Knight of time (same reason as above)
* Salvation

Not too interesting:
* Fairy dragon

I was thinking on limiting the number of played quick cards in a row (maybe swift also). What do you think?

i believe its a bad idea to limit number of quiok cards per turn

either
#1 balance the cards (make wind and militia cost something)
#2 add more "counters" like the card "don't be hasty"

or even make "quick" a keyword with a very negative effect, like

20% of chance of stock -1 for every quick card in hand except the one played
but i prefer the options #1 or #2