New Balance System Ideas

Seattleite wrote:
Once a week on a designated day (Saturday, maybe), all members may suggest 1 change for 1 card. This number may change. These include Errata’s and Banlist Changes. Your change cannot be one that cancels out another person’s change from the same week. Changes must logically follow the card’s effect. (Example: If I were changing marshmallon’s effect, I could decrease burn damage to 500 instead of 1000. But, I couldn’t add several sentences about piercing effects, spell-negation, graveyard searching, etc.)

If a change is suggested for one of your cards by another person, you may provide your own change instead. However, it must be a change that is similar to the type of change given by the other person. (I.e. If someone suggested marshmallon’s burn effect to be decreased to 500 and marshmallon was my card, I can’t suggest the damage be only 950 instead.) If someone seriously was concerned about the amount of burn, I must address it.

After a week of experiments and testing, the members will get the chance to change another card, or to “Revert” any cards to a previous form. However, reverts for Nerfs and Buffs can only be done once it can be proved that a deck with those cards has created a consistent losing or winning streak, respectively. The same applies with banlist changes. Reversions do not count toward your once-per-week limit. After a card is reverted, it cannot be changed at all for 2 months (number may change)

Alpha WereLord wrote:So you wish to make mulligan a yugioh rule? Slightly different than mulligan. And yes if it will make duels more interesting

And you wish for members to post changes to cards as they see fit and not even giving the creator the option to just say no? They can provide their own change, but it must follow suit to the original change. This would only be when cards are already in the set, btw.

as for Stagnant teired decks, if something in this CCG that isn't OP'ed remains Stagnant at the top of the list for say 2-3 sets then it's fine. It just means it was well put together and that people should try to think of ways to beat the deck. [or at least thats my oppion]The thing is we all have different ideas about which cards are OP'd and which are not. This idea is based entirely on duels to make decks relatively equal in wins/losses instead of people's opinions on balance.

Skeith wrote:* what would happen if ones purposely UP a card of another creator's to a state of being almost unplayable

*what would happen if ones eliminated the point of a creator's card's effect then add something that isn't relevant to other cards (supposedly this would be question for theme/archetype but when it come to theme those would by chance to be convert to something else other than a specific theme.)

Alpha WereLord wrote:Once agin you say that the creator may offer an alternative change it doesn't give the creator a chance to deffend the card as it is and it means that the text of the card must be changed.

Darkest Hour wrote:This seems very interesting, I could get into it, although I am not sure I want to touch any of the more revered cards yet until the format goes on a little longer.