PDA

View Full Version : Bloodrunstrue's weekly poll 4: Control, how would you like it?- and terrains.



Bloodrunstrue
07-25-2010, 09:51 AM
Hello again everyone,

My poll is fashionably late (again -_-), however, I still want to continue collecting opinions on the state of UFS as a game.

This week the issue in question is control in standard UFS, or rather, the lack of it. I have noted that some of the UFS playerbase want control to make more of an impact in the standard environment. That said control has broken the game before and come damn near to murdering it entirely, on the other hand, having an entire game revolving around T1/2 aggro wars becomes repetitive and boring.

So the question I would like to ask of you is how would you like control to be represented in the game? Secondly, what do you think is the best way for control to be competitive without breaking the game? These questions are entirely open so write what you will!

Onto the next subject, Terrain cards. Are you happy with the format of terrain cards at the moment?
The format of most terrains is a static ability which applies to both players and an ability exclusive to the player who played the card.

See you in the arena
Bloodrunstrue

Tagrineth
07-25-2010, 01:09 PM
Control needs to exist. Point blank. And it needs to be better than the control we have right now, which is more control-pieces-meant-to-COUNTER-control rather than actual control pieces.

We've seen how out-of-control... uh... control can be, though. It needs to be planned out carefully. There need to be checks of some sort in place to prevent people from loading up on control pieces (even across multiple resources) and just gray warring their opponent.

I've been having some ideas lately that might be neat... it occurred to me that the most valuable resource for someone stalling is... their vitality. Simply put - the control pieces should slowly kill you, putting you on your own clock. It shouldn't be too bad - 1 or 2 vitality here and there - but enough to be a valid concern to the user.

For example, there could be a series of stronger control pieces (foundation that can negate two Enhances per turn, or negate a response, without self-destruction) that say something like "At the end of your turn, lose 2 vitality." And every single one of these control pieces shares that effect. If you load up on too many, you're going to put yourself in range of violent aggro death... but they'd be strong enough to maintain control for the couple turns needed to have their effect. Alternately, they could instead say something like "This card does not ready normally during your Ready Phase. R Pay 2 vitality: After your opponent's End Phase, ready this card." but that would eliminate the humourous situation of a control player accidentally killing themselves lol.

Also, current Terrains are great.

JinKazama
07-25-2010, 03:13 PM
I believe control should still have to revolve more around attacking to keep the point of the game still intact, and make sure players could'nt built decks with less than 10 attacks. Not saying their shouldnt be control foundations but any thing that can just say no should either be an attack/action or character specific.
Cards like power of the edge make more sense to me than cards like peices of eight. I can understand how soul edge canceled my action, but your hand full of coins stopped my enhance? Only fighting game characters that have telepathy or can teleport should have access to abilitys that can just cancel effects or attacks. A good exception would be Kilik his ability makes sense because he has parrys that actually move you with kali yuga when your trying to attack.

And on terrains I agree with Tag their great the way they are.
1 effect that both players can use representing the battle field.
1 effect the player who played the terrain gets exclusive = home field advantage.
Only 1 terrain in play at a time.

TripsEX
07-25-2010, 05:58 PM
I was going to bring up a topic about how I would do control, but Tagrineth pretty much took the words out of my post. You should be punished for playing control for to long, and half of your life seems reasonable.

Terrains are perfect.

Target X
07-25-2010, 07:53 PM
Just gonna back up tag on this one.I agree entirely with him on both topics.

Bloodrunstrue
07-26-2010, 03:14 PM
Hmm that's interesting, I would have thought that the playerbase might have suggested that changes be made to terrains or something of that ilk, I'm a bit surprised at the positive feedback on them. Still positive feedback is good feedback. :)

@Tag: I think vitality loss that cannot be regained is probably the best way to handle control. I Agree with you.

In regards to what sorts of conrol we need i'm thinking along the lines of:
Speed redux
damage redux but the opponen gets a benefit
attacking on your opponent's turn
Cancel vitality gain
Character committal

Keep up the discussion :)
Thankyou
Bloodrunstrue

Da_ghetto_gamer
07-26-2010, 06:46 PM
I definitely don't want to see the grey wars come back but we do needmore control in the format.... Everyone should be able to build the deck they want.....if they want to play slower decks that have answers then I think it should be possible

As for me I have fun playing any type of deck I come up with so having more options is nice...

As we recall the highest point for ufs was when hardcore control could happen and t2k's happened all day long

Yoko Charming Fox
07-26-2010, 08:56 PM
I think that control wise the game some commit power for symbols that are not fire, and needs a lot more negation, especially in the E department, since thats where a lot of the game is occuring. I also want to see E's that can be played on my opponents attacks, that don't have to do with damage reduction. I'm sick and tired of enhanse phases where all that happens is that an attacks damage goes up and down.

For the mose part I like the way terrains are being handled right now, but I don't like that alot of good terrains lose their printed ablilty if they are commited. This just allows the owner of the card to stop his or her opponent from benefiting of the printed ability by commiting it with the terrains second ablility. It just defeats the purpose of having an ablity that effects both players in the first place. EX: Ostrienburg Castle - Thrown Room, how many times have you been hurt because you gave your own block +2 with this card? Not that it can't happen, but its pretty unlikly.

aslum
07-26-2010, 11:11 PM
Control elements that permanently reduce your maximum life total could be kind of interesting.
"When this foundation is added to your staging area your maximum life is reduced by 2. When this foundation is removed from the game or destroyed reduce your maximum life by 3."

SMazzurco
07-27-2010, 06:27 AM
If control pieces are going to reduce your life, then we really need to be careful with life gain. Don't want anymore Criminal Past/Battle prowess shennanigans...

Bloodrunstrue
07-27-2010, 12:18 PM
If control pieces are going to reduce your life, then we really need to be careful with life gain. Don't want anymore Criminal Past/Battle prowess shennanigans...

In addition to this we would also need to beware potential OTk's with Heir to the storm, for instance:

Staging area:
4 Heirs, Plus 4 or 5 other control elements that can be used on your turn

Plays Throw pass CC perfectly = GG :/

As far as life gain is concerned, I think that we should only let a card gain 3 vitality at a time. Also, having some attacks which prevent life gain would be very interesting :)

Keep up the discussion everyone
Thankyou
Bloodrunstrue

Yoko Charming Fox
07-27-2010, 01:09 PM
I talked to Jason a few weeks ago, and he told me that he does not like life gain, because it rarly shows up in fighting games, so there's a good chance that there will not be much if any life gain in future sets.

HypeMan!
07-27-2010, 01:29 PM
3 words: Ragna the Bloodedge
For life gain at least. I honestly think that is an under used ability you could make some interesting stuff with.

Now back to the topic at hand:

I'm an aggro player by default but I would like to see more control in the game. When I play fighting games with friends, there actually is a lot of control when you have a character that doesn't have a lot of rush down your throat ability, but it's all about pacing the flow of the game, forcing your opponent to make mistakes. My biggest disappointment was when control made it so you didn't have to play attacks to win the game. I've been in favor of more aggressive control, playing attacks to force your opponent into a corner or to screw up as being the most active and direct form of control with more gray/green wall game play being toned down. In my mind a good way to do it would be to have attacks have the most overt, initial control aspects on them (discard, commit something, destroy etc) then have foundations and assets push and augment those abilities. Another good way to manage the gray control in my mind, would be to have the more powerful control bits to be in the form of First E a system that hasn't been used nearly enough for balancing. Down play the amount of F controls too and have a better handle on R, maybe similar to First E or something. I view control as more tactical and technical attacking, like performing a juggle in a fighting game, you are still attacking, but you have to choose each hit precisely as apposed to flailing about and just trying to beat them into submission, or trying to range them and keep them from hitting you.

As for Terrains, I see no problem with the current implementation, it's a good deal atm.

JinKazama
07-27-2010, 03:13 PM
Im completely agree with Halbard also life gains ok if its character specific other than that it wont make sense.

Tagrineth
07-27-2010, 03:49 PM
I was thinking about this too.

Control pieces could also have drawbacks like "R Add the top card of your deck to your card pool face down: After your opponent plays an Enhance, cancel its effects. If you do not completely block this attack, lose 5 vitality after this attack resolves." Look at me, I'm a balanced Yoga Mastery.

Bloodrunstrue
07-28-2010, 03:45 PM
I talked to Jason a few weeks ago, and he told me that he does not like life gain, because it rarly shows up in fighting games, so there's a good chance that there will not be much if any life gain in future sets.

This is good. Life gain is indeed very scarce in fighting games unless your name happens to be Gill or Ragna the bloodedge. That said though I still wouldn't mind seeing chip life gain just life gain 1 vitality on an attack or as part of a commit ability since in order to gain any respectable vitality you would have to actually work for it.


@ Tag: Call me crazy but I honestly don't think that constitutes a balanced Yoga Mastery :/

Keep up the discussion everyone
Thankyou
Bloodrunstrue

P.S Sephiroth, what is that in your profile pic? o_0

jason
07-28-2010, 05:00 PM
I really enjoyed reading this discussion, and although I have mentioned not to quote me, Sephiroth is right. I was not happy with the amount of life gain you could get in one turn. Life gain is not a huge part of fighting games, and it will not be as dominant in future sets, just as the current standard has been so far.

Keep up the talks, I'm taking notes.

Da_ghetto_gamer
07-28-2010, 05:07 PM
Life gain should exist at all since after all this is a card game.....but absurd amounts like back in block 4 is just ridiculous and shouldnt ever come back

Im always for different deck types being avalible for when you want to build a deck thats one of the biggest reasons i love ufs so much....you can play alot of different deck and characters and things are interesting. Not like Yu-gi-oh or magic where the top 8 is 6 of the same decks and it gets repetitive and boring....

Even if you do run into the same deck its usually fronted by a different character with a slightly different line up so its still at least different in some ways

JinKazama
07-28-2010, 05:10 PM
It should exist but be character specific. You cant be playin Ryu n be gaining life its absurd.

HypeMan!
07-28-2010, 07:49 PM
Good to see the constant note taking. The KOF life gain was nice except for the big stupid shenanigans that came from it, like Replenish or Revitalize level of super gain. I think Ivy made a nice use of it. Since I brought up Ragna, I've always thought he would do life gain like the difference between the damage dealt by an attack, minus it's printed damage, if your attack wasn't blocked. Or something to that effect, reflecting my opinion of most of the best abilities come across through attacks. Desperation could be a nice way of controlling over active life gain. Or First to keep it from being over used. This is a card game first and foremost, so abilities shouldn't be taken out, simply balanced to keep from getting crazy.
Gain back all your health from a F or R card, bad. Gain back little bits of life as a reward for beating your opponent to cottage cheese, good.

Hatman
07-28-2010, 09:06 PM
This is good. Life gain is indeed very scarce in fighting games unless your name happens to be Gill or Ragna the bloodedge. That said though I still wouldn't mind seeing chip life gain just life gain 1 vitality on an attack or as part of a commit ability since in order to gain any respectable vitality you would have to actually work for it.
Uh... ELENA anyone?

HypeMan!
07-28-2010, 09:39 PM
From Third Strike? Did she have life gain? Don't remember that.

Lono
07-28-2010, 09:46 PM
One of her supers was she knelt down and gained life. I forgot about it, until you mentioned her.

HypeMan!
07-28-2010, 09:50 PM
Huh go figure. I just got SF Anniversary Collection and have been rubbing a blister into my thumb with Alex, Hugo, Dudley and Oro mostly. Guess I should play more Elena.

Side note, we ever get Street Fighter again, I want Oro.

JinKazama
07-28-2010, 11:40 PM
In epic battles (the first tcg based on fighting games) elenas had one of the best supers. It added 15 cards from the discard to the players deck, which was the equivilant to life gain in a game based on deck outs ( you would mill from an attacks damage their were no life totals)

TripsEX
07-29-2010, 12:59 AM
I would love to see something along the lines of the (X+) for life gain, as an enhance. Just imagine a 21 Vitality 6HSer with the ability "E (4+): Gain 1 Vitality. Only playable during your attack."

Pretty simple, eh? Keeps the player attacking constantly, and you get punished for using the life gain by having a lot set vitality.

RockStar
07-29-2010, 01:11 AM
It appears that a lot of us are in agreement: Control needs to have a larger presence, but no where near the overwhelming presence it had in the previous Block. I'm still a fan of the kind of Control that allows a player to play their cards, but exacts penalties for doing so. Not a fan of a wall of grey that simply says "no". I've said it before, and i'll say it again: There is a format for that kind of Control, and it's called Legacy!

@ Tag, i think your idea of a more balanced YM has merit, although i think the 5-vitality penalty is a bit steep, perhaps 3-vp instead?

Life Gain can and should be represented, but in small, controlled doses. For my $, Swing Kick is a pretty fair representation of how much Life Gain should be present on a card. Okay, maybe at most 3 points of Life Gain, but if Battle Prowess gets the reprint then something has seriously gone awry!!

Tagrineth
07-29-2010, 01:55 AM
@ Tag: Call me crazy but I honestly don't think that constitutes a balanced Yoga Mastery :/

Maybe not 100% balanced but you pay pretty dearly for the ability to cancel all of your opponent's Enhances. You make blocking progressively more difficult as you negate, and at the same time you grant yourself the risk of losing a lot of vitality for even using it one time in an Enhance step.

For even more shenanigans, it could even say "If you do not completely block this attack, lose X vitality. X equals the number of face down cards in your card pool." Har har.

HypeMan!
07-29-2010, 02:39 AM
YM was rough when there wasn't that much E's and it could really hurt when the bulk of my damage pumping was Tenpu-Kosai-Ryu-Kai (used that card so much I have it burned into my permanent memory).

I've thought about a YM card going from hand and not deck as a cost instead. Drastically limits how much you can do with it and makes it a more strategic choice.

Bloodrunstrue
07-29-2010, 02:19 PM
Maybe not 100% balanced but you pay pretty dearly for the ability to cancel all of your opponent's Enhances. You make blocking progressively more difficult as you negate, and at the same time you grant yourself the risk of losing a lot of vitality for even using it one time in an Enhance step.

For even more shenanigans, it could even say "If you do not completely block this attack, lose X vitality. X equals the number of face down cards in your card pool." Har har.

Um just a quick query on your idea, if you play the ability more than once during the same attack resolution do you take 5 vitality damage for each time you used the ability or will you just lose the 5 vitality once? I think it should only be once personally, otherwise the card is borderline redundant, a waste of deck space :/
Which is the other issue, the cost might be a bit too heavy, perhaps 3 vitality and a commit instead, or as you suggested face down cards in card pool could work too. :)

@ Jasco: I'm really honored to see that my polls are being taken seriously and I'm glad to know that life gain won't be dominant in the near future.
I have faith in the next set.

Keep up the discussion
Bloodrunstrue

Amaru
07-30-2010, 05:33 PM
If you want some criticisms on terrains here is one. I can't remember if it is the case but I think each player can have terrains in play. Which sound a bit unflavorful when you consider that it should represents the terrain they are fighting on.

If indeed one can have multiple terrains, or there can be multiple terrains in play, it would be good to make it a card type that would force the game to only have one in play at a time.

If not, disregards this.

JinKazama
07-30-2010, 10:40 PM
Only one terrain can be in play at a time

TripsEX
07-31-2010, 03:04 AM
If not, disregards this.Consider it done.

Tagrineth
07-31-2010, 03:35 AM
Um just a quick query on your idea, if you play the ability more than once during the same attack resolution do you take 5 vitality damage for each time you used the ability or will you just lose the 5 vitality once? I think it should only be once personally, otherwise the card is borderline redundant, a waste of deck space :/
Which is the other issue, the cost might be a bit too heavy, perhaps 3 vitality and a commit instead, or as you suggested face down cards in card pool could work too. :)

I kinda meant the vitality loss would be just once, I know it's not worded correctly for it to work that way but yeah that was the idea. Basically Yoga Mastery but with the added stipulation that if you don't block the attack you're YMing to death completely, you take an additional 5.

TripsEX
07-31-2010, 03:39 AM
"If this attack is not blocked, lose X vitality. X equals the amount of face down cards in your card pool."

Bloodrunstrue
07-31-2010, 03:03 PM
"If this attack is not blocked, lose X vitality. X equals the amount of face down cards in your card pool."

I think this is probaly the best idea, however I would like to use the above but with with th following change: X equals the nuber of face down cards in your card pool +3. This way it reaches 5 easier and has a much steeper penalty.

Just my thoughts on an otherwise solid card idea,
Keep up the discusssion
Bloodrunstrue

HypeMan!
07-31-2010, 08:16 PM
Just to play devils advocate a little. That seems like a lot of math to worry about and almost ruins the card and nerfs it to hell. Wouldn't it work this way:

Play an E
YM: 1 in card pool. Total life loss if not blocked 0+1 = 1
Play E
YM: 2 cards in pool. Life Loss: 1+2 = 3
Play E
YM: 3 cards in pool total. Life loss: 3+3 = 6

So now you have a +3 block to play, and an attack that will deal +6 damage if not blocked.

To me, that's just stupid, sure it might be a silver bullet to a few choice Es like Multiple and Powerful, but really over all it doesn't do what the card should in the meta, provide some much needed control to an E and aggro heavy environment.

Like I said earlier, my suggest is for the cards to be done from hand instead of deck, plain and simple, and its still a double edge sword, but with the life loss compounding it seems more like the side of the sword facing you is a chain saw.

JinKazama
07-31-2010, 10:34 PM
Maybe u guys should just play demon slayer only key word abilities should be able to be canceled.other enhances printed on attacks should only be stoped by cards that cancel specific abilities ex ibukis kunai would stop kb death e, p2p against speed hacks etc.

Tagrineth
07-31-2010, 11:07 PM
I'd imagine the better wording for YM would be to make the burn effect a continuous ability so it doesn't re-stack itself every time you use it.

And when negation gets too specific, it becomes too situational to be really functional in any way. The only ones that'd probably see any real play would be the ones that cancel damage/speed pumps and committal.

Enhances should be fair game for negation just like any other ability. The only reason we have such hatred toward Enhance negation is because the main experience we've ALL had with it is the unquestionably overpowered Yoga Mastery, which didn't just negate Enhances, it also made breakfast for you and did your laundry.

HypeMan!
07-31-2010, 11:30 PM
I remember EVERYONE literally, EVERYONE playing it when I walked in the store one mild April afternoon. The other thing was the Es were very few and far between, and attack were very light without powerful rares so cards like Tenpu-Kosai-Ryu-Kai were one of the few ways to get damage out, and with a limited number of damage pumps, YM could singlehandedly kill a Fire deck during the days of the first set. I really think while it would be a damper on the parade, YM would quickly fill a player's card pool and force them to eat printed 5+ damage attacks.

BUT...
What if YM was reprinted the same, save that it had "Your opponent may discard 1 momentum to negate this ability"
That would be my other choice for a change.

JinKazama
08-01-2010, 02:08 PM
And when negation gets too specific, it becomes too situational to be really functional in any way.
When control is not situational it becomes op and makes the game kinda boring.
and canceling an enhance is never situational.

Tagrineth
08-02-2010, 12:38 PM
When control is not situational it becomes op and makes the game kinda boring.
and canceling an enhance is never situational.

Control can be not situational, but have DRAWBACKS, something that hasn't really been done to any significant extent in UFS. Notably, the two worst offenders - Addes Syndicate (no drawback at all to the first use, not even a card in card pool or a commit or anything) and Chester's Backing (actually REWARDED you for negation).

The ability to arbitrarily cancel an Enhance is a pretty important one. Being able to spam Enhance negation on the level of Yoga Mastery is definitely unwarranted, there's no question about that. I really think people just have a bad taste in their mouth when they hear the phrase "Enhance negation" because of how ridiculous Yoga was, but there's absolutely ZERO reason that Enhances should be considered "sacred" and exempt from negation.

JinKazama
08-02-2010, 01:23 PM
no no no don't get me wrong canceling an E is fine thats y i suggested demon slayer a perfect balance for a control card. 1st its on an attack not a foundation - when someone can just play foundations out n block for turns until they draw into there kill condition it becomes tedious and boring/ not much like a fighting game. 2 One time, nothing that simply cancels an ability should be able to activate multiple times in the same turn (unless there are more copies of said card), this way the control player has to decide which ability to cancel in a more strategic way much like deciding which attacks to block. 3 It shouldn't be so easy to get out multiple copies of the same control piece, players shouldn't have to deck or side board anti control cards just because every ones playing heavy control. IE I shouldn't have to cancel your ability to cancel my ability.

Basically all I'm saying is control should be on actions and attacks maybe some assets because there's pretty good asset destruction in standard for almost every symbol and most assets are unique. I don't think anything besides momentum or hand control should be printed on foundations, (unless they check 2-3) they already have the added ability of helping pass checks while in the staging area. Watching my opponent wall up with grey and cancel abilities/neg damage/ block my attacks one after another because all they check is grey just does not seem like something I wanna go through again.

HypeMan!
08-02-2010, 01:41 PM
Well said Tag. If anything, negation just shouldn't be free. And the pieces shouldn't be harder to use/play the closer to free and more indiscriminate they are. Addes Syndicate is simply a blue print of what not to do ever again. 1 difficulty and a free negation for a response is just beyond the scope of anything that should be printed. Another thought, yes YM against, would be a cost of using Momentum cards instead of deck. The cost on control needs to be something discernibly finite, or if not, the card can't be overly powerful. I'd be more than fine with something that was the cost of Addes Syndicate that said "R Commit: after you opponent plays a Powerful ability, negate that ability." Also, negation shouldn't be limited to responses. An E that stops E from being used was a fine idea, can't remember the card that did that but I think there is one.

I agree with not wanting to go back to gray wars but as long as their is a careful balance of the control pieces that come out that shouldn't happen. My view on it is that there should always be more aggressive control than passive control to encourage the back and forth tug of war in a game. And that should be done with control being more effected by playing attacks. Control being on attacks is a great idea. Or being played from face-up momentum. But anything that requires that the player attack is always a good thing, like having costs being more momentum based, or foundations with abilities that can only be played on your attacks, so more Reversal oriented control.

Tagrineth
08-02-2010, 02:25 PM
no no no don't get me wrong canceling an E is fine thats y i suggested demon slayer a perfect balance for a control card. 1st its on an attack not a foundation - when someone can just play foundations out n block for turns until they draw into there kill condition it becomes tedious and boring/ not much like a fighting game. 2 One time, nothing that simply cancels an ability should be able to activate multiple times in the same turn (unless there are more copies of said card), this way the control player has to decide which ability to cancel in a more strategic way much like deciding which attacks to block. 3 It shouldn't be so easy to get out multiple copies of the same control piece, players shouldn't have to deck or side board anti control cards just because every ones playing heavy control. IE I shouldn't have to cancel your ability to cancel my ability.

Basically all I'm saying is control should be on actions and attacks maybe some assets because there's pretty good asset destruction in standard for almost every symbol and most assets are unique. I don't think anything besides momentum or hand control should be printed on foundations, (unless they check 2-3) they already have the added ability of helping pass checks while in the staging area. Watching my opponent wall up with grey and cancel abilities/neg damage/ block my attacks one after another because all they check is grey just does not seem like something I wanna go through again.

Of course, and I'm sure Jason will take all of those facts into account when he eventually adds some control to the game, which is why these discussions about possible control cards is always a good thing - HUGE props to Jason for actually READING the forums and making it known that he does so.

Control pieces should definitely punish you for trying to straight up wall behind them. Things like life point loss, or making control pieces Unique, or making them check less than 4... even interesting things like "R commit 2 foundations: After your opponent plays a Combo enhance, negate its effects. Your opponent's attack is Unblockable and cannot be made Blockable." would be potentially reasonable (note: I don't think that's a balanced card overall, but it's throwing an off-the-cuff idea out there for a possible cost/restriction on a strong/reusable negation card).

Also other possible stuff like static text "When this card readies, lose X vitality. X equals the number of in-play copies of this card."

JinKazama
08-02-2010, 02:37 PM
HUGE props to Jason for actually READING the forums and making it known that he does so. seconded

There are control pieces currently in standard there just over looked because its mainly an aggro format.
On a side note please don't let hand control get outta hand. No pun intended.