Author Topic: Infested Hulker  (Read 1999 times)

Offline Mafia_Puppet

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: Infested Hulker
« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2014, 02:30:21 AM »
Alright, well judging by the replies and theorycrafting, Infested Hulker wouldn't gain opness from having the subtype beast and deserves to join his beast brothers!

I'll drink to that.
+1. Not doing this in the first place goes against their philosophy of depth.

Offline CommunistMountain

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 942
    • View Profile
Re: Infested Hulker
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2014, 06:44:22 AM »
First of all, using these resource valuation to justify a card's necessity for nerf is a bit intangible, mostly due to a long list of assumptions...... Given the situation and meta state of IW, this card at the moment warrants no nerf.
I'll admit that there were many assumptions made during calculation, but isn't the meta an equally intangible factor? The anti–Grave meta itself is an assumption that a large number of players use anti–Grave mechanics, and in practice that may not be the case at all.

I'm not saying that I was right, but you aren't completely correct yourself.

Offline Knive8s9704

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: Infested Hulker
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2014, 08:13:50 PM »
First of all, using these resource valuation to justify a card's necessity for nerf is a bit intangible, mostly due to a long list of assumptions...... Given the situation and meta state of IW, this card at the moment warrants no nerf.
I'll admit that there were many assumptions made during calculation, but isn't the meta an equally intangible factor? The anti–Grave meta itself is an assumption that a large number of players use anti–Grave mechanics, and in practice that may not be the case at all.

I'm not saying that I was right, but you aren't completely correct yourself.

I don't know about equally, but the meta is certainly intangible in respect to what the players actually use. For your assumptions to hold ground, you must apply the same criteria to all the cards and compare them. This act as an empirical calculation to whether a card is above or below the standard deviation (whatever alpha you want to use). My argument was focused on the external factors beyond the empirical method of which can construe the results greatly.

I didn't really make any assumptions, I stated what I observed so it can be considered an opinion. However, as you suggested, the volatility in the ever changing meta makes it a bit difficult to justify nerfs based on an empirical method, though it would be a good way to initially balance cards so we don't have to go back and change them later.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 08:15:55 PM by Knive8s9704 »

Offline DrayGon777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Friendly Neighborhood Dragon
    • View Profile
Re: Infested Hulker
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2014, 03:34:38 AM »
Alright, well judging by the replies and theorycrafting, Infested Hulker wouldn't gain opness from having the subtype beast and deserves to join his beast brothers!

I'll drink to that.
+1. Not doing this in the first place goes against their philosophy of depth.
+1 as well. I'd been asking for this guy to get the Beast subtype for a long time now. WP and Sleepers already don't mesh very well together (though that has changed a bit with the change to Infected Pack Leader), and the fact this card isn't both a beast and undead means that it doesn't help encourage mixing the two.
Just so you guys know, if you're ever vs WWK, just start putting out random numbers and mathematical symbols, he will surrender.