The Official Set Balance Thread

[That OW Guy]

So after all of us getting our asses plugged by Ash, it's finally time....LET'S GET DOWN TO BUSINESS! TO COMPLETE......THE SET! WILL YOU SUBMIT GOOD CARDS?! OR WILL THE SET.....BE SHIT?! WE'RE A SPINELESS, PALE....PATHETIC LOT! BUT YOU CAN BET....BEFORE WE'RE THROUGH......ACG, WE'LL.......MAKE A GAME.....OUT OF YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

So there's a lot we need to discuss here. What is considered OP and what is not, what kind of costs will be applied to the game, what sort of mechanics will or will not be implemented for the time being, etc.

other things should be, amount of 1-4-1 removal, accessibility for searchers, boss scaling and then basic stuff like atk/def per level

~Ash

Do we want to have a theme for the set? Like Fire vs Water, Light vs Dark, etc.

I've seen some suggestions for things like not incorporating revival effects for the time being or completely outlawing nuke effects regardless of the costs.

So let it be known guys, what do you want to do?

[seattleite]

* There should be more of a stat/effect potency difference in levels. Like, just because a level 5 and a level 6 both require 1 Tribute, the Level 6 should generally be more powerful, so that we can easily make cards that say "Level 5 or lower", etc.

* Searching > Drawing. So searching should be restricted more than drawing, except in special cases like searching Polymerization-type cards. I'd like to see more draw effects and less searching too.

* DEF is not as important as ATK. And it will probably always stay that way, but I'd like for DEF to be more relevant. That means more battle position-style control, and people using high-DEF monsters more regularly.

* Right now, Life Points don't matter much, it's more of a case of "You have the greater hand/field advantage, you win". I'd like Life Points to be more valuable, and hand/field advantage (meaning, number of cards) be less valuable.

* A slight, I said SLIGHT difference between attributes and types, so not every type/attribute deck is the same with different art.

* I don't like generic, conditionless 1-4-1s or +0s. I think we can make a more diverse pool of necessary removal/revival/recycle.

* I am OK with nukes and revivals as long as the cost or condition is big enough. Revivals also make it so that you can still defend yourself when all your beatsticks are gone.

* Let's not make:
  - Cards that require special types of removal but that are needed because if you don't get rid of the card you basically lose (i.e. Beelze). Maybe extend this to invincible boss nomi's.
  - Burn or Mill decks without any interaction
  - Monsters that have way more powerful effects than their stats should warrant (I.e. Rai-oh)

[ALiCE'S EMOTiON]

A few things to add to Sea's list that I agree with are no Instant Win cards. To me concept was always stupid and you should have to earn a victory through beatdown or tactics.

Lockdown cards should not be invicible I personally don't want to have to go through pre first reset agin with invincible lockdown decks. Lockdown cards should always be weighed and compared to what they can or cant do and there should always be some way out.

that's all I can think of for the moment.

[Tungsten Butterfly]

No effect borrowers that way cards that are balanced but strong, don't have to worry about other cards free-loading from their effects? I think "so very cunning" did that a lot.

also anyone using an OTK/FTK deck in a tournament can be banned. like, discovering them is one thing, but using it to win tournies is kind of an asshole move, right? people will discover them and find cards with missing clauses that would lead to OTKs, but generally aren't cards banned to get people to quit using them in excessiveness in competitive?

and on "beatdown or tactics" the only two ways is winning via reducing their LP to 0 or emptying their deck, so that would be just burn, beatdown and mill. I would like to see more ways to win, but Instant Win I guess really sucks and exodia shenanigans would only mean drawing would be more of a problem again.

i like the idea of less removal. while getting rid of the opponent's giant synchros or nomis may be a pain in the ass, at least the ones that aren't cheese-easy to summon aren't putting the player at a disadvantage for not being easy-to-summon.

does dark hole and heavy storm count as a nuke? or are you talking more like demise/judgment style destruction?

[.Leo]

Commenting on Seattleite's comment on DEF being relevant, I think that we should only give monsters high defense if they are meant to play a defensive role (which is what I think you are trying to get at). Ex:



High defense monsters should have some relevance in the format, but having boss monsters with 2500+ ATK and a DEF that is able to withstand most attacks from stand alone normal summon monsters is probably not a good idea.

Also, I don't see any reason that a level 5 and a level 6 should be really any different in terms of stats and effect. They have the same summoning condition, so why make level 5s weaker than level 6s?

[That OW Guy]

But in that same vein, what else would make Level 5s n 6s stand apart from each other besides 1 star? I don't think he means a HUGE difference in stats, but there's gotta be something besides 1 makes Rank 5s and the other makes Rank 6s.

[.Leo]

But in that same vein, what else would make Level 5s n 6s stand apart from each other besides 1 star? I don't think he means a HUGE difference in stats, but there's gotta be something besides 1 makes Rank 5s and the other makes Rank 6s.

Well in reality that is the only real difference too them. It makes sense that they would have some differences in power level due to the actual level on the card, but to me they are both 1 tribute monsters so they should be similar in power.

[seattleite]

Well in reality that is the only real difference too them. It makes sense that they would have some differences in power level due to the actual level on the card, but to me they are both 1 tribute monsters so they should be similar in power.

The reason is, we can make cards like this:

"Special Summon 1 Level 5 or lower ___ from your Graveyard"

or

"Special Summon 1 monster whose level is exactly 1 greater than ___"

If level 5s are exactly the same as level 6s, it makes balancing it harder.


@ Werelord - Maybe some day we can make an instant win condition that does rely on beatdown or tactics?

@ TA - Nukes means stuff like Dark Hole/Heavy Storm.

[.Leo]

Well in reality that is the only real difference too them. It makes sense that they would have some differences in power level due to the actual level on the card, but to me they are both 1 tribute monsters so they should be similar in power.

The reason is, we can make cards like this:

"Special Summon 1 Level 5 or lower ___ from your Graveyard"

or

"Special Summon 1 monster whose level is exactly 1 greater than ___"

If level 5s are exactly the same as level 6s, it makes balancing it harder.


@ Werelord - Maybe some day we can make an instant win condition that does rely on beatdown or tactics?

@ TA - Nukes means stuff like Dark Hole/Heavy Storm.

Alright, I understand the option to add cards that can search/reacquire level 5s so making them worse than level 6s.

[EMSOUP]

*More focus on battles in general
*restricted generic removal
*LP emphasis could be achieved by generic cards needing LP costs to activate, and more battle orientation will also bring LP as an actual resource once again
*Don't half-ass themes and its supports, and don't overdone them. There's a lot of themes in LCCG that was made seemingly as an afterthought, and ended up too weak to be an actual cohesive deck.

[.Leo]

Also something I am considering is our thoughts on adding cards like Dark Dust Spirit and Fenghaung.



Now obviously they will not be carbon copies of these exact cards, but I feel we should add Spirit monsters with the goal of putting constant pressure on your opponent. Here is an idea I came up with:



This could still be OP, but the goal of this card is a spirit monster you can use to deal with problem monsters your opponent controls. I am thinking it could be changed to half your opponent's monsters ATK, but I decided to go with this for the time being.

[EMSOUP]

That..is underwhelming.

The idea for it was nice, but mind that Spirits leaves barely any field presence, and as a tribute spirit with lower than average attack that needed to have a fodder reliably to make it work, I don't think it will work well.

And that bring me to a point I want all of you to discuss here.

I think we should not overbalance stuff. Like really. While it does make things interesting, them being absolutely powercreeped will be an inevitable outcome.
Just stick to the principle of:
-minuses must be meaningful and worth the loss
-break evens should be the main focus
-plusses are only given with discretion

If we stick to it, we would be able to keep the balance of this CCG well.

Also, let us try to not alienate newer members by giving them a game format completely different from the TCG. I don't mean we should mimic the TCG level, but don't make it stray too much in powerlevel.

[EMSOUP]

But, my opinion aside, there's several things that the TCG has disappointed me, and what I wish would be able to be fixed here.
1. Level 7 or higher tribute monsters SHOULD NOT only become a waste of resource, while still being balanced.
2. Some way to make DEF position matters more.
3. geminis, Unions, and the likes. LCCG Gemini was a step to the right direction, but the unions was a mess.
4.something I forgot for now.

[Tungsten Butterfly]

can we have more normal monster stuff this time?

[That OW Guy]

This is a good discussion. Remember though, the starting set only has 200 cards. I WISH we could fit everything into one.

[Tungsten Butterfly]

So at minimum there should be 5 solid types of decks we can make from 200 cards

[That OW Guy]

But see, that would just be like throwing 5 starter decks into the game and only having those playable. We need the room for experimentation. You're also counting it like you'd only run 1 of each card when you'd most likely play 2-3, which leaves a lot more room for other deck concepts.

[Tungsten Butterfly]

So at minimum there should be 5 solid types of decks we can make from 200 cards

[ALiCE'S EMOTiON]

As far as spirits go and this is just from past LCCG exp. We don't have a clue on how to balance them so we should not have those in the 200 card release set.
Gemini's take a lot of work to make good as I found out [4 sets worth for me]
This is just me talking personally and it may seem a bit boring but it is the first 200 cards every deck we can make needs to be some type of beat down deck. They are realatively easy to balance and use without using a half baked concept that 200 cards would provide also we can get some burn in there if you wish but that's up to you.

Mill, Gemini's, Spirits, Burn they usually take a lot of off course cards to make it work.

[Tungsten Butterfly]

so, whats the haps on the ritual monsters then? are they to become a pseudo-archetype thing now or are they still boss role orientated cards?

also i thought of card making and card balancing kinda like a battle of balance <-> creativity.

The answer is pretty obvious, I've only told you a bunch of times that it is a collaborative effort. You are meant to discuss as a group what level of speed and power you want to play at. I can not hold all of your hands through absolutely everything.

i can come to the idea that these are the things we all agree on:

1. we want cards that are interesting and different
2. we want everyone's cards to be on the same level

since we all have different playstyles, and some duel better than others, i'm not sure if that will always be factored in, since we all make different styles of cards.

maybe fundamental differences of cards, similar cards and stuff can be explained during set submission time, instead of a wad of yvd text. people would list what cards their new submissions, might obsolete, and what cards their new submissions would work well with. if we do that, then surprise OTK/FTK combinations are less likely, along with the avoiding of that necro/dark chaser thing.

[Tungsten Butterfly]

and also stat limitations. Like with Level 4 monsters being no greater than 1850/1900/2000. i can see why that is, to stop early-game powercreepers, and with high atk beatsticks with a dramatic drawback than can be remedied with deck synergy.

one idea is to decide the flow of the game, and when the end-game/mid-game/start-game begins. Some things are too fast/broken, some things too slow/stally. what does everyone agree on is the amount of turns a duel should last, or when the "end-game" begins? A level 12 boss synchro coming out on the 1st turn is usually too fast, but waiting till turn 10 for it might seem impossible.

[seattleite]

As far as spirits go and this is just from past LCCG exp. We don't have a clue on how to balance them so we should not have those in the 200 card release set.
Gemini's take a lot of work to make good as I found out [4 sets worth for me]
This is just me talking personally and it may seem a bit boring but it is the first 200 cards every deck we can make needs to be some type of beat down deck. They are realatively easy to balance and use without using a half baked concept that 200 cards would provide also we can get some burn in there if you wish but that's up to you.

Mill, Gemini's, Spirits, Burn they usually take a lot of off course cards to make it work.

I can agree with this, maybe not a whole "Burn" or "Mill" deck but a few cards that have those effect. Not enough to make a whole deck out of.

so, whats the haps on the ritual monsters then? are they to become a pseudo-archetype thing now or are they still boss role orientated cards?

also i thought of card making and card balancing kinda like a battle of balance <-> creativity.
i can come to the idea that these are the things we all agree on:

1. we want cards that are interesting and different
2. we want everyone's cards to be on the same level

since we all have different playstyles, and some duel better than others, i'm not sure if that will always be factored in, since we all make different styles of cards.

maybe fundamental differences of cards, similar cards and stuff can be explained during set submission time, instead of a wad of yvd text. people would list what cards their new submissions, might obsolete, and what cards their new submissions would work well with. if we do that, then surprise OTK/FTK combinations are less likely, along with the avoiding of that necro/dark chaser thing.

I think we could make Rituals work as boss monsters in certain decks (lots of searching needed though), or as a special deck.

I really like your second idea, maybe make a short sentence of the card's use and/or comparison with other cards required for submission

one idea is to decide the flow of the game, and when the end-game/mid-game/start-game begins. Some things are too fast/broken, some things too slow/stally. what does everyone agree on is the amount of turns a duel should last, or when the "end-game" begins? A level 12 boss synchro coming out on the 1st turn is usually too fast, but waiting till turn 10 for it might seem impossible.

The problem is there's no practical way to implement early-mid-late game control. The only resource that increases over time is the Graveyard, everything else is give-or-take. What if we made it more of a "wasting your resources too early" thing to control ridiculous spam on the first turn. If you get out that level 12 synchro on the 1st turn and the opponent destroys it, you're at a major disadvantage.

[That OW Guy]

I've always been a fan of duels that start slow and pick up the pace as turns go by. I am a fan of Sea's idea of controlling resources early on. Does anyone have any ideas on how to implement such a concept?

[.Leo]

Well it appears that discussion has died down a bit, probably due to school and such but I feel I should at least try to do my part to spark discussion.

Seattleite’s idea of slow paced duels at the start and picking up into a quicker paced duel is a good idea and something I have really enjoyed since I have gotten into Magic the Gathering a lot more recently. The problem with this in Yu-Gi-Oh is that with the Special Summoning and Extra Deck concept, it is easy to bring out big field presence early. Certain ways to make it slower is having decks that focus a lot on the graveyard and having resources there, since it requires you to get it there first before using it. Also “anti-meta” decks promote slow, one-for-one play, but that requires a metagame to counter. To accomplish this, most decks would have to be a one-for-one based, which promotes a slow paced format, similar to the early days of Yu-Gi-Oh.

A problem with this would be the lack of creativity and interesting deck ideas. Limiting a card game to one certain type of play makes card making difficult and boring. If all of the decks are built to accomplish the same goal, the format gets stale. I understand the desire for build up play, but we have to be careful with how we go about it and focus on allowing various different play styles that could potentially start fast, but counteract that with slower decks having more options for outs to the fast plays and allowing it to still be in the game. Perfect balance is obviously not possible, we can get close.

Tl;dr: It is next to impossible to make a slow, building up style of game, but we can at least try.

[Ash]

One thing I want to note is that powerful cards create meaningful interactions with everything around it (bar extreme cases in which they are so powerful that it fails to interact) - having a card pool in which every card everything does so little or with no conviction leads to a drawn out game in which nothing does anything worthwhile. I understand the desire for things to be slow and that is possible, but 'power cards' bring a great deal to the table and should be discussed as a possibility.

[Sponsored content]