~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Click to learn of nerfing. So I had this idea right? If it's possible to nerf, why should we need bans? Or even Limits? So, let's just nerf unbalanced cards, why shun cards when we can save them? Here're some examples of what I mean that I made with the Card Maker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tronta Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 i thought of this a while ago, but what you failed to notice is that most of the time they release nerfed versions of the cards immediately afterward. when the chaos cards were banned, they released sky scourges. when raigeki was banned, they released vortex.etc(i may have my timelines screwed up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted February 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 LV was released years after Raigeki was banned, and releasing new, downgraded versions of unbalanced cards is unnecessary when they can simply be nerfed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tronta Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 actually, it is necessary. rewriting a card is difficult, it screws up tournaments and casual play globally. people walk in with cards with the wrong effects on em and suddenly players and then judges are making bad calls and rulings. it would cause a lot of confusion. banlists and remakes are just simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted February 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 people walk in with cards with the wrong effects on em and suddenly players and then judges are making bad calls and rulings. There aren't any problems with people walking in with illegal Decks, I don't see why people shouldn't read nerf lists if they can read ban lists were nerfs to replace bans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnSlaUghT Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 you are so right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tronta Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 yet how many people are using first version soul exchanges, stratos, and wabokus? ignoring the confusion of it, consider:by rereleasing the same cards, they make less money.instead they can just release a brand new card, and have everyone clambering for that. also, consider the lovely possibility that the new rewrite/version is still broken.what are they gonna do hm? ban or list it and make a new one, or re-re-release it? come on, that would cause some problems. and lastly of all, traditional format. your more or less talking about obliterating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonisanoob Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 lol yhea reprint every broken card in existance, GREAT IDEA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flame Dragon Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I thought of this idea a long time ago. Hell I even had a contest on this. It isn't worth it to fix all the broken cards.and lastly of all' date=' traditional format. your more or less talking about obliterating it.[/quote']No one cares about traditional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PikaPerson01 Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 actually' date=' it is necessary. rewriting a card is difficult, it screws up tournaments and casual play globally. people walk in with cards with the wrong effects on em and suddenly players and then judges are making bad calls and rulings. it would cause a lot of confusion. banlists and remakes are just simpler.[/quote'] I agree 100% with what this guy wrote. It's one thing to make an errata to slightly alter an effect or to fix ruling confusion. It's another to completely change the card's effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 actually' date=' it is necessary. rewriting a card is difficult, it screws up tournaments and casual play globally. people walk in with cards with the wrong effects on em and suddenly players and then judges are making bad calls and rulings. it would cause a lot of confusion. banlists and remakes are just simpler.[/quote'] I agree 100% with what this guy wrote. It's one thing to make an errata to slightly alter an effect or to fix ruling confusion. It's another to completely change the card's effect. Third'd. Unless it's an incredibly minor edit, as with every actual nerf so far - they're all tiny changes like Semi-Nomi to Nomi, cards to monsters, all effects to opponent's effects, or the ruling on whether Zombie Master can be used with an empty Graveyard - you should just make a new card. After all, with major changes (i.e. any change that would make Raigeki balanced), you're essentially making a completely new card anyhow; the only difference is that you're confusing everyone by making it keep the name of an old card. And if you're worried about the new card losing some sort of support that specifically names the old card (like Dedication through Light and Darkness), just give the new card an effect that makes it treated as having the other card's name under the appropriate conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~ P O L A R I S ~ Posted February 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 actually' date=' it is necessary. rewriting a card is difficult, it screws up tournaments and casual play globally. people walk in with cards with the wrong effects on em and suddenly players and then judges are making bad calls and rulings. it would cause a lot of confusion. banlists and remakes are just simpler.[/quote'] I agree 100% with what this guy wrote. It's one thing to make an errata to slightly alter an effect or to fix ruling confusion. It's another to completely change the card's effect. Third'd. Unless it's an incredibly minor edit, as with every actual nerf so far - they're all tiny changes like Semi-Nomi to Nomi, cards to monsters, all effects to opponent's effects, or the ruling on whether Zombie Master can be used with an empty Graveyard - you should just make a new card. After all, with major changes (i.e. any change that would make Raigeki balanced), you're essentially making a completely new card anyhow; the only difference is that you're confusing everyone by making it keep the name of an old card. And if you're worried about the new card losing some sort of support that specifically names the old card (like Dedication through Light and Darkness), just give the new card an effect that makes it treated as having the other card's name under the appropriate conditions. Card of Sanctity wasn't minor. Were there a nerf list I don't see why the confusion should be more than for banlists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 actually' date=' it is necessary. rewriting a card is difficult, it screws up tournaments and casual play globally. people walk in with cards with the wrong effects on em and suddenly players and then judges are making bad calls and rulings. it would cause a lot of confusion. banlists and remakes are just simpler.[/quote'] I agree 100% with what this guy wrote. It's one thing to make an errata to slightly alter an effect or to fix ruling confusion. It's another to completely change the card's effect. Third'd. Unless it's an incredibly minor edit, as with every actual nerf so far - they're all tiny changes like Semi-Nomi to Nomi, cards to monsters, all effects to opponent's effects, or the ruling on whether Zombie Master can be used with an empty Graveyard - you should just make a new card. After all, with major changes (i.e. any change that would make Raigeki balanced), you're essentially making a completely new card anyhow; the only difference is that you're confusing everyone by making it keep the name of an old card. And if you're worried about the new card losing some sort of support that specifically names the old card (like Dedication through Light and Darkness), just give the new card an effect that makes it treated as having the other card's name under the appropriate conditions. Card of Sanctity wasn't minor. Card of Sanctity was never nerfed. Stop spouting nonsense. Were there a nerf list I don't see why the confusion should be more than for banlists. A banlist merely says what cards can and cannot be used; a nerf list contradicts the text written directly on the cards. Because of the drastic nature of the changes that would need to be made, all banworthy cards would essentially serve as proxies for a completely unrelated card - and in that case, why not just print the unrelated card instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tronta Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 stratos was one who had his errata changed to include some other heros for searching, right?they do do stuff like that all the time. waboku was altered simply to avoid its wordy, confusing text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaos Pudding Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 stratos was one who had his errata changed to include some other heros for searching' date=' right?they do do stuff like that all the time. waboku was altered simply to avoid its wordy, confusing text.[/quote'] Stratos was changed because the OCG could already search for any HERO monster with Stratos. Oh, and nerfing is unneeded and over complicates everything. You're better off just releasing a new card. Oh, and in response to Crab: Kycoo and Bazoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tronta Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 well, i would assume that had to do with the release timesregardless, they reprinted its errata for the tcg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 Oh' date=' and in response to Crab: Kycoo and Bazoo.[/quote'] I already mentioned Bazoo specifically; it just replaced cards with monsters. What was Kycoo's change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werewolfjedi Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Oh' date=' and in response to Crab: Kycoo and Bazoo.[/quote'] I already mentioned Bazoo specifically; it just replaced cards with monsters. What was Kycoo's change? same as bazoo's change, card removed from play to monsters. personally, in kycoo's case it does not effect his usefulness since it has always been a better idea to remove the opponent's monsters than their spells and trap, since spells and traps are not as revivable as monsters,and few cards count spells and traps to activate effects. however in bazoo's case, it nerfs his power up ability greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysty Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 In the case of Stratos, are there any "Hero" monsters in the OCG besides "Elemental Hero", "Destiny Hero", and "Evil Hero" monsters? Anyway, I think the ban and remake cards idea is better than the nerfing cards idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaterasu Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 You know that is why I play traditional format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 You know that is why I play traditional format. That doesn't even begin to make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.