89692b334479dbf835bc88577a6ee09f6012e0b7
Summary
This proposal seeks to address concerns surrounding Nidhoggr, a Rebellion airdrop card. By implementing these changes, the community can restore fairness, re-align expectations for airdrop cards, and establish better gameplay mechanics to improve the overall experience.
Background
The release of Nidhoggr as an airdrop card has left many pre-sale participants feeling dissatisfied. As a high-profile card expected to reward significant investment, its current design has led to frustration among those who anticipated a more impactful addition to their collection. This perception risks setting a negative precedent for future pre-sale leaderboard positions, which could diminish the excitement and trust surrounding similar events.
Proposed Changes: Nidhoggr Adjustments
To address community feedback and enhance the card’s utility:
Mana Cost: Reduce Nidhoggr’s mana cost to 7. This aligns the card with the other legendary airdrop summoners.
Debilitation Removal: Remove Force Reduction
Tactics Modification: Allow Nidhoggr to enable:
2 monsters: +2 speed & Execute
OR
3 monsters: Blast & Deathblow
I don't always vote on proposals, but I think this one is important for one big reason. I'd like to preface what I'm about to say by pointing out that I don't think it should have gotten to this point, honestly I don't think the card should have been released in the state it was and most importantly I don't think the DAO needs to be the one fixing these problems, but here we are.
My main concern with this card in particular isn't that it's just the weakest Rebellion legendary summoner, it's also the most expensive presale summoner design reward. If this card doesn't get fixed, we're looking at a potential situation in a few months where the incentive to push for the top spot in the CA presale is going to be brought into question.
I don't personally have the time to play at every league and I abstain from tournaments as a general rule of thumb because I feel it's a conflict of interest with me being the guy making the tournaments to also be placing in them and taking rewards. So how do we do our best to attempt to avoid this problem repeating?
My personal thoughts are that we need a council of people that play at all leagues to review and test the cards before release. It's critical that this isn't just whales with max decks or people using scholars controlling the card design. We need the people with the most experience playing at all levels with the time to put the cards through the paces and figure out what works and what doesn't at each level.
I've already had a convo with a team member about testing CA before release and I've been told that there should be at least 2 weeks of testing before launch. Personally I think we may need a bit more time than that, but it would be absolutely critical to make the most of whatever time we do get.
We could make a proposal to allocate a set number of packs (maybe 1,000 packs?) to basically hire 5 of the best scholars in the game that play at all levels and have them spend that 2 weeks doing some hardcore testing and giving balance feedback to the team. Obviously there would need to be some sort of guidelines and oversight to make sure that the testing is actually being done and the DAO would have to approve all of this, but that's my two cents on the situation.
TLDR
For now, I'll vote to support this mainly because I feel like YGG got absolutely hosed with a junk card for spending the most in the presale and I don't want that to set the precedent going forward and hurt future sales.
Great comment. Completely agree. I, too, have been strongly advocating to the best of my abilities for a dedicated card design focus group. Excited to see this finally getting some real traction - look forward to seeing what it looks like as we edge closer to CA. Thanks Clay!
I suggested the team use community members for "Beta Playtesting" for awhile.
@ducecrypto has too and I am sure many others have
Like you wouldn't even need to pay a lot of us - just give us a badge or achievement in game or something lol
You'll get 1000's of battles worth of data this way as well as feedback on how certain cards perform and if they're OP, playable or junk
Im part of Ygg. I was part of the group buy that won the design for this card. So, I should be one of the people that got "screwed" by releasing this card at the state it was.
Honestly the card is terrible.
But I dont agree with this proposal. Changing 3 diferent aspects of a card at the same time is very careless. We might create the next Tofu.
Im not an "expert" but I know that changing that many things at once its not the way to go. Balance is a delicate thing that need testing and we cant just mess with it like this.
If you want to change a card you need to:
I cant emphasize point 2 enough. We are discusing this mainly because we have very limited playtesting, just a few teammembers in their free time.
We cant do this gain, dont make the same mistake twice.
Another important point to consider is that the price of the card doesnt really reflect how bad is it. This card is still more expensive than Elias and Risqurel and has a similar price point as Cryptic.
Great food for thought here Eldon. Thanks.
As I've stated elsewhere in the comments, I'd love to see a few variations of Nidhoggr 2.0 be made available for Ghost Card challenges and proper play testing.
Ultimately, what this proposal looks like as it makes it's way to an official vote (assuming it gets there), is still TBD.
I suggest starting this conversation amongst the YGGBrawler crew (and any other YGGers that participated) to determine what it looks like
I think if the proposal only promoted removing the debilitation OR lowering the mana cost it would have a bigger chance of passing.
I would vote for reducing the mana cost to 7. About removing the debilitation probably not.
This is what I suggested myself!
Completely agree with you on this.
I’m curious to know if the changed stats won’t make this card too OP, and would like the proposal to ask the team to test the changes prior to re-releasing the card with changed stats, but to tell the truth anything is an improvement on the totally useless summoner it is right now, so I’ll be voting in favour of the changes.
I could get on board with a few varieties of the card going back to the drawing board and being made available for widespread testing. I think this actually presents a great opportunity to put Ghost Card challenges to the test of this use-case.
However, I'll ultimately default to @ajpl @nameless-112 for their insight as far as what expectations / requests the proposal puts forth.
Debilitation Removal: Remove Force Reduction
Change this to forced reduction of the enemy team but keep the mana cost at 10. Affected enemy chooses the card reduction from their own team in the tactic stage.
Ya know my thoughts here!
I like this idea!
I agree with dropping Mana cost. The Debilitation is an interesting one and I want it to remain. I'm even willing to go for slightly lower Mana cost. I don't want Nidhoggr to end up being too OP.
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm uncertain that Nid will be too OP, losing one of the execute monsters.
An alternative I proposed to the group behind the proposal was that Force Reduction only apply in 6 monster rulesets (meaning VI and V rulesets would allow for a full team).
Ultimately, I'll default to others as to how this proposal reads when it goes to the official vote
I was thinking of a 7 Mana version without loosing the Execute on a Monster.
Sorry, bro. I think you know how I feel. I've already said this is my second-most used summoner and is tied for my highest winrate. In internal testing, I voted for a higher mana cost (like, higher than it is now). I also think Force Reduction is a benefit rather than a hinderance (makes you use less cards, so you use higher mana ones, which typically have more power and better synergy with the Tactics (particularly Execute).
I would be all in on a proposal for removing Thorns from Tofu. That was a huge mistake and we never should have added it (proof that listening to the community over our findings in testing is a bad idea? 😜).
Yea, I know how ya feel. You and I seem to very often agree on cards / abilities / etc... but we gonna have to agree to disagree on the power of Nid 😅
I'm not sure a proposal to remove thorns from Tofu at this point would ever pass - however, I could see a case where snare get removed in that manner - but I'd honestly be ok with either one. Tofu is way too dominant. (I will say though - I reckon getting Nid a bump could go a long way to mitigating Tofu's reign of terror)
Hopefully that more rigorous testing & editing system we've been hoping for comes into play sooner than later for future card sets. Appreciate you hombre!
The moment I learned Nidhoggr was 10 mana, my heart sank, one of the worst stat designs I've seen. Maybe there are worse, but the impact and profile of this "under the spotlight" card was a disappointment multiplier when the stats were revealed.
I hope this proposal gains traction and we can chalk it down to lessons learned
Completely agree. Major disappointment. I think we were all hoping for a very potent counter to Tofu and this, unfortunately, has not been that. I do think bringing Nid back to 7 mana with the proposed minor tweaks just may help achieve some greater parity in the L summoner category
Changing tactics isn't the easiest to process. I don't have Nidhoggr. Don't remember facing one either. Why not just drop mana cost. That's easier to process than tactics.
What is same card was 50% cheaper to use? That's easy to wrap my head around. So what if there was a poll to check that?
PS: I'll make one!
I voted on the poll. Those were some interesting results.
I don't have high level insights (or investments) but removing the debilitation AND getting the mana to 7 sounds he's getting very OP
It's important to note that he would also be losing 1 execute play; moving from 3 to 2. That said, I would hope there is ample opportunity for testing any variations of Nid in Ghost Card challenges before the final version is set in stone
I'm against changing cards after being printed. I understand that some have changed because the way the abilities work changed but this is different.
And the changes would make it the most OP card in the game. Let's not do this.
Most OP card in the game? Come on now. We both know that's a stretch.
It might be an exaggeration but it's somewhat on par with Kitty being better than Kitty in some situations.
Not sure we want to open the door to changing card stats once they are released. The purpose of the test server and team members trying on cards before they get released should be the only time cards could go through stats changes. If card testing needs to be extended before their releases, then fine by me, no need to rush new card releases.
Not all airdrop cards should be top level. A good mix of cards help with power creep and not all cards can be meta defining. Please no meddling with cards that have been released.
Seems like too much. Just remove the force reduction and keep it at 10 mana or keep it and reduce cost to 7 mana. No need to mess with the other skills imo.
I could get behind this idea.
I don't think it's a good reason to change a card just because some people invested heavily on it and got disappointed. There will always be good cards and bad cards, good investments and bad investments. Some people invested heavily on Tofu and now they are enjoying their life with a 60$ OP card. Why don't we nerf it then?
To me, this opens a door for whales in DAO to abuse the situation and adjust the cards according to their own financial gains, hence making them more or less valuable in market. This is a dangerous path.
I hope this doesn't pass and I hope Matt wouldn't go on with it even if it does.
I don't own any Nidhoggr...
This is probably because I looked at the card and thought "I'd never play that"...
At the same time it is tough to adjust cards once released...
Tough decision here and I will definitely think on it but I 100% understand where you're coming from.
Cheers Dingus. Check out Clay's comment elsewhere in the post - he's articulated my concern (and I'm certain that's shared with plenty others, including those that purchased the rights to design the #1 Legendary summoner) perfectly.
I see what you mean and agree with the conclusions drawn - I also agree that one should never change more than one variable at a time...
Because if you do... you never know which one had what effect.
I would go for dropping the mana cost. Removing the debilitation as addition is a little too much. Or the other way around - leave the Mana cost and remove the debilitation.
I usually loose against this card anyway, though :-D
Now, if I don't like the proposed changes, but am open to a general change, how do I vote? :-D
Dislike! Lost me with changing mana cost. Maybe I could agree to removing the debilitation, but absolutely not to the mana cost or tactics. I think the moment for this card has passed and it should not be up to a proposal to change cards.
Firstly, have you asked Matt what he thinks?
All I know is there have been many cards over the years that have seemed too powerful, and for a while maybe they were, but later cards restored the balance.
Maybe Yaba has a cunning plan?
Secondly, why is this a DAO matter at all? We have no jurisdiction or concern here, right?
I'll have to say no in this current edition of this proposal. Too many stat/ability changes all at once to a single card, doing too much at once may just create a broken card. Pick one to change, see how it goes, then we proceed accordingly & do another adjustment proposal if needed! I do agree it could use a slight adjustment to look more appealing for purchase, just not this much at once. I have not experienced playing the card myself though; maybe its just more of a "Expert" skill level learning curve card to use? Lily was very underused for a couple months after it dropped cause its particular play styles had a higher learning curve as well. May just need proper time & practice and/or a slight increase in the frequency of high mana capped battles to assist.
I haven't had an issue with the card. I just checked my battle log for Diamond Modern. Out of the 20 battles listed, 6 of them used Nidhoggr.
Out of those 6 Nidhoggr battles, every single one of them was a Win.
Maybe I've just been lucky, but I can understand why @breakingbenjamin says the card is fine. I suppose I don't feel particularly strong either way. As a result, I will likely not vote for or against on this proposal.
Appreciate the thoughts here, Nate, and fair enough! Perhaps my opinion is a bit too anecdotal, but I really struggle to develop any sort of consistency with Nid - I know many other top-level players far better than I that report the same. At the end of the day, I made the offer to put the proposal out there on behalf of the YGG crew that purchased the rights to design the top summoner airdrop and were left feeling very slighted having received, objectively, the most poor-performing card of the bunch (according to all the data I've seen anyway). I see both sides of the tampering with cards post-distribution argument, but I feel the positive precedent here far outweighs any negative consequences. We'll see how this thing shakes out!
I agree that Nidhoggr was a huge miss. To me, the 10 mana cap was enough of a debilitation that the force reduction is overkill. They should've gone with one or the other, but not both.
That said, I don't think we should change cards (especially not this drastically) after they're released, even if people think there's a good reason to. It's a slippery slope. I would rather leave it the way it is to avoid setting a precedent that card design is not final and put more pressure on the team to get it right the first time.
Great. But Im NOT seeing any proposals to nerf Tofu which was horribly designed. They designed it and then a team member just said Lets add thorns cause its a kitty and boom we have an overpowered summoner for no reason. But I guess people who bought it dont want to nerf it now haha. Its rather silly way to make it. The testing has been HORRIBLE pre release of that card and yes Nighogger also.
The card seems to kind of suck...
Not sure I think we should make a habit of adjusting cards after they are live on production....
Me and F.I.R.E. Squad Support this Perfect Proposal!!!
That would make it too op, way worse than tofu
Also, balance is not a matter of the Dao or players, it's company thing, otherwise I can just come up with a proposal stating 'tofu cost to 0 mana, +3 speed, blast, opportunity, bloodlust to all monster' and if passes gg
I tend to agree but am uncomfortable changing cards after they're printed (there have now been many more decisions made besides a person or group participating in a pre-sale).
As others have stated in the comments and elsewhere, this is the biggest piece for me:
This perception risks setting a negative precedent for future pre-sale leaderboard positions, which could diminish the excitement and trust surrounding similar events.It is imperative that the precedent is set for great cards being created to reward those that go heaviest in pre-sales, our current lifeblood for sustaining this game.
As far as the decisions that have been made - I assume you're alluding to folks selling off their airdrop cards because it was perceived as meh (or otherwise). I agree that that sucks - I am much more keen to support a buff than a nerf - but I think that doing right by our biggest supporters should take a priority.
I truly don't disagree with anything you're saying. I just view changing printed cards as an equally poor precedent.
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @thepeoplesguild!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2025-01-02 19:31 UTC
Não concordo com alterações em cartas já lançadas no jogo.
!PIZZA
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@danzocal(2/10) tipped @thepeoplesguild
I support this proposal, generally, since I bought and maxed the card, and I almost never play it. Because of the mana cost and that debilitation it's very very situational.
BUT, I must agree with what was said, we have to be careful not to change too many things at once so we don't create a broken OP card.
As @captaindingus and many others said, we need thorough testing before releasing it back to the public.