|
Cell
Jul 8, 2014 21:32:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by Fippe94 on Jul 8, 2014 21:32:12 GMT
So I just got an idea of how to change cell. This change will make it less OP with SoPa/Bond but still usable with the combo and still useful with other combos by being able to lower the cost. This change might be a bad idea, I dunno, but it seems ok to me.
Instead of having mitosis, it has a skill that works like mitosis, but can only be used once. The new copy can also use the skill, so it can still act like a "token-spawner" but more slowly. With this change, the cost and ability cost would be lowered of course.
|
|
|
Cell
Jul 8, 2014 22:10:28 GMT
Post by serprex on Jul 8, 2014 22:10:28 GMT
Too weak. The strength of cell is that it circumvents the issue with mitosis: nonimmediate single target CC doesn't shut it down
AI improvements will help. Currently I believe on a field of [Cell, Frog] AI will kill Frog. It should only kill Frog if it's too late to stop cells
|
|
|
Cell
Jul 8, 2014 22:25:21 GMT
Post by cg on Jul 8, 2014 22:25:21 GMT
To add on to serprex's comment, "too weak" is essentially my opinion as well. Sort of. It would make cell basically useless for all of cell's current uses, but properly balanced it could make cell more useful for its original intended uses. IMO this would move it into a weak, niche use, though not useless. This would not really be preferable to me, though, as it would remove the possibility of several archetypes (i.e. everything cell is currently used for) while providing another way to do something that's already not very hard to do (slowly spam low-power critters as oty fodder or luci fodder or whatever).
If it is determined that it's impossible to balance the double-every-turn cell, this solution would be preferable to just plain removing cell, but less preferable than continuing to have cell work basically as-is.
edit: Removing the poison CC resistance (as mentioned somewhere else, bond thread maybe?) may actually help a good bit if cell still needs further nerfed (which I'm still not convinced is actually necessary).
edit2: Something else I thought of a long time ago and forgot about that might mitigate the problem somewhat is to have negative effects occur if you have too many cells on your field. Something along the lines of an "overcrowding" passive, where any given cell has a chance to die based on the number of other cells (or even number of other filled creature slots), or cell mitosis cost going up related to the number of other cells, or something.
edit3: If any major nerfs happen to cell (i.e. overcrowding or something of that magnitude, not just the poison resistance removal), I'd probably push for moving quanta costs back down somewhat.
|
|
treebeard
New Member
spodosis is love. spodosis is life. One does not simply underestimate the spode
Posts: 11
|
Cell
Jul 8, 2014 22:30:28 GMT
Post by treebeard on Jul 8, 2014 22:30:28 GMT
how about you stop nerfing cell just to reduce the strength of one combo leave the cells as is how many times have you tried nerfing it. just leave it be if you nerf it too much it will become one of those cards no one uses and that brings the meta gaming that i dislike where cards are overshadowed so much by a different card that it becomes forgotten only to be used in 'fun' decks. just leave cell alone and don't give it a weird unique ability for the sake of reducing the power of a single combo. There have been several suggestions for how to nerf the bond combo in the bond thread. The two best suggestions there were to make bond act after creatures as it does in vanilla or just add more ais that counter the powerful bond combos better.
|
|
|
Cell
Jul 9, 2014 5:31:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by Fippe94 on Jul 9, 2014 5:31:56 GMT
Treebeard, this suggestion was made specifically for people who says Cell was overnerfed, since it would lower the cost a lot, but still be useable with some combos. The suggestion might not work in practice, but that was the intention at least.
|
|
|
Cell
Jul 9, 2014 13:38:01 GMT
Post by andretimpa on Jul 9, 2014 13:38:01 GMT
I'm also not sure if this would be enough to cut the power of the current combos. I've been testing this deck and it seems to work even using very little the mitosis skill from the cell
|
|
|
Cell
Jul 13, 2014 21:06:30 GMT
Post by cg on Jul 13, 2014 21:06:30 GMT
Possible way to handle an "overcrowding" passive:
Overcrowding: Cell has a percent chance equal to the total hp of all other cells (including malignant cells) on player's side of the field to get -3|-3 (or just die) at end of turn (processes after attacking, assuming they attack. Still can trigger if not attacking due to sundial/sop).
Basically, handling it like this would weight the negative effects of the passive to situations where there are a lot of cells, and specifically punishes situations where there are a lot of buffed cells. Should have fairly limited impact on cell-based decks that use cells alongside other creatures, or that use cells to feed otys or generate death effects, or who are just judicious in how many cells to spawn. Meanwhile, it should have a more noticeable impact on people who fill their entire field with cells, and an even stronger effect on people who fill their entire field with cells and then play a SoP.
Worth noting that malignant cell wouldn't have this passive, so that things that rely upon a full field can still work with malignant cells, but if you want to be free of the overcrowding passive, you'd have to either use aflatoxin or plague, making decks a bit less stable due to requiring additional elements.
Thoughts?
|
|
chap
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Cell
Jul 14, 2014 10:26:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by chap on Jul 14, 2014 10:26:07 GMT
Cell doesn't need a nerf, the game just needs more SopaCell AI counters. Mass CC, PC, ramp damage, dim shields.
|
|
|
Cell
Jul 14, 2014 14:05:06 GMT
Post by serprex on Jul 14, 2014 14:05:06 GMT
To carry on that point: Patcell's big target is DGs. DGs have holes right now: only 25% have any PC
|
|