Nidhoggr Adjustment Proposal: Addressing Airdrop Balance and Improving Tactics
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
Edit: 01.03.2025 0343UTC
Important Note
The proposed changes are suggestions subject to the Splinterlands team’s approval and testing. The final adjustments may include variations or additional refinements to ensure they align with the overall game balance and design goals. The team is encouraged to explore alternative options during testing and provide feedback on the best course of action.
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: 2025-01-05 05:31 UTC
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.
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
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.
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 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:
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.
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
Não concordo com alterações em cartas já lançadas no jogo.
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.
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
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.
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 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
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 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 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.
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.
Me and F.I.R.E. Squad Support this Perfect Proposal!!!
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....
!PIZZA
$PIZZA slices delivered:
@danzocal(2/10) tipped @thepeoplesguild
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!
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
For all that have voiced their opinions as being generally unfavorable of the DAO meddling, I wonder if this is a fair middle ground to be added in and would sway your vote:
Important Note
The proposed changes are suggestions subject to the Splinterlands team’s approval and testing. The final adjustments may include variations or additional refinements to ensure they align with the overall game balance and design goals. The team is encouraged to explore alternative options during testing and provide feedback on the best course of action.
I fully realize that some of the stance taken is purely in principle that cards shall not be changed post-release, but for those of you that are on the fence and generally feel the proposed changes are simply too much, perhaps this is enough compromise to get the proposal through to the official stage
Thanks for the consideration all!
@femisapiens @eldon1 @ducecrypto @vimukthi @breakingbenjamin @sakuraba @misterrogers @davideownzall @sharkmonsters @silentriot @beelzael @captaindingus @cryptobeaver @pero82 @d-zero @nozem01 @olaf.gui @maldin
It doesn't change my stance for the reason that I don't want cards changed after release but it's an appreciated change.
Figured it wouldn't be a catch-all adjustment, but I appreciate the feedback dude. Thanks
I voted for it anyway after reading through again, but thanks for the clarification :-D
that's better but to make it balanced, since the proposed reduction is to 7 mana and remove the malus, to align also to other legendary summoners the amount of units influenced by ability selection, so:
2 monsters: Blast & Deathblow
instead of 3
I appreciate you and all of the work you do to make the game a better place. It's totally fine for us to disagree on this one! Different ideas make for a stronger community. Keep up the great work <3
I voted YES already, but this makes it even bigger YES. 👍
Sincerely hope we never change card stats after they have been released. People are making buy and sell decisions based on the original cards and changing stats after the fact will have an impact on the cards value therefore creating winners and losers with their original decisions of buying or selling the cards. If this proposal gets through for Nidhoggr, then what is next? Waka too weak? Tofu too strong? Kitty to the litter box?
For me it's a yes to fixing Nid, but a no to making this the DAO's responsibility. However the yes trumps the no as Nid really needs fixing. Hopefully in the future we adjust the process so it's no the DAO's responsibility to meddle with card balancing however.
Couldn't agree more. Thank you for the support, BT. No matter how any of us have voted, the game design process should see refinement and improvement moving forward - let's mark this is as a one-off circumstance!
No doubt card design, balance and testing need improvement but I've seen too many "one-off circumstances" became permanent or last for decades in real life by governments.
Great callout. Perhaps a bit idealistic, but we have the chance to be better than that.
I know we aren't a "governament" but SPS is a governance token so, in a way, we are a "governament". I think we can certainly be better than that. Wether this passes or not, I would love to get a response from the team on this matter. I think it's very important to get a guarantee that just because a proposal to change a released card passes it doesn't mean it has to be implemented.
Let's be real: in card games there are always good cards and bad cards. Sometimes there are very good cards and very bad cards. And in rare cases, there are cards that are too good. A bad card doesn't affect the game in the same way a card that is too good does. We had Kitty running rampant for years when there was no Modern/Wild split plus all the time before Rebellion was released in Modern. Nothing was ever done to combat it. No nerf and no counter. Even Llama and Yodin had some counters printed. Tofu is very good but I don't think it's as good as Kitty, especially because it's not a dragon summoner. There's no guarantee that the dragon summoner has to be the best or very good. In fact, dragon summoners have an advantage over the rest of the summoners: they can play dragon cards plus the splinter of their choice. Sure, the dual summoners can also play 2 splinters but dragon cards are often better than comparable cards in other splinters and you can still choose which splinter to pair with dragon. For that reason, they should be slightly worse or cost a bit more mana. I do think Nidhoggr is underpowered but it is what it is.
Most importantly, we need to improve the testing process. Even MTG makes big mistakes all the time with cards getting banned because they are too powerful or have broken interactions. And their testing involves much more money, people and time. The game is also more complex but the point is that mistakes can still happen despite having a good card testing process. We need to have a good one to reduce the chances of mistakes. That's the biggest takeway from all of this.
I am against this proposal, but will not be voting on it either way out of respect for my guildmates in YGG. My reasons are that since the card was printed, many people including myself have made financial decisions based on the current stats and the teams prior reluctance to change problem cards like Yodin and Kitty, which were allowed to dominated for years. Personally, I sold all copies when I decided the card was terrible and I thought I would never play it. I made that choice based on the card as it was designed upon release. I also feel it's a slippery slope to allow SPS whales to decide the fate of cards. Since this proposal, the price of Nid has already gone up, showing that a small number of high SPS holders could easily manipulate pricing by putting forward proposals on any card they would like. This should be a company decision, not a DAO proposal, and should have been tested thoroughly before released. Splinterlands should also take initiative and remove snare from Tofu, which is an identified problem card, instead of leaving everything to a DAO vote. I am torn on this because I want our card to be good, but I don't like the prospect of a small group of people having such control over card design just because they own a large amount of SPS.
Yeah, it's definitely a flawed system with a huge conflict-of-interest problem.
THIS STATEMENT SAYS IT ALL AND FEELS LIKE IT COULD BE MARKET MANIPULATION PUTTING ETHICS AND/OR INTEGITY IN STAKE FOR THE COMPANY: ,Since this proposal, the price of Nid has already gone up, showing that a small number of high SPS holders could easily manipulate pricing by putting forward proposals on any card they would like.
I also do not agree with making a proposal like this, modifying a card, which is already powerful in itself, to make it even more OP.
I can't believe this is allowed and the players themselves ask for it. Everyone knew the card's abilities and drawbacks, so they were free to decide to try to get it or buy it. Modifying it after the fact for the benefit of the big players seems overkill to me.
I have already come across this card at my level (Silver III - Gold III) and it is very useful and difficult to beat if you chain last hits with powerful monsters. All this does is condemn players who invest little money and show them that they have no place in the game.
I don't like these decisions being made in the game and they make me consider quitting.
Very well written, extremely well articulated as well as both clearly and amazingly quickly laying out your points, and while maintaining a position that most would perceive as well thought out, as well as being in line with as you mention, fairness. So well done. However, the actual application, of your said adjustments, im afraid would be a complete contrast to what youre suggesting. Future lawyer, politician in your vision?
#proofofbrain #Splinterlands #Play2earn #Hive
From my personal experience playing Cham 1-2 in Modern format, this adjustment doesn’t make this card overly OP at all. No card in this meta is as OP as the Tofu. About 70% of the time, I play the Tofu combined with Water Summoner. The game becomes boring. Adding more balanced card options could make the game more enjoyable. Dragons are almost unplayable now when facing the Tofu or being forced to run two heals.
Why isn't this card strong?
1.It can't perform well in high-mana battles because it struggles with Debilitation Removal: Remove Force Reduction.
2.Almost every dragon card has Fly, which is countered by Snare.
3.In this meta, the Tofu and Water Summoner are OP.
4.The Blast ability is now easily countered, unlike during the Yodin era.
5.The ability to reduce health and armor by -1 isn't impactful at all.
So, how should it be adjusted?
Remove Debilitation Removal: Remove Force Reduction
Adjust Tactics Modification: Allow Nidhoggr to enable:
Option 1: 2 monsters gain +1 Speed & Execute
OR
Option 2: 2 monsters gain Blast & Deathblow
It can be set at 7 or 10 mana, either works.
I use ChatGPT to help me write because I'm not very good at English. If there are any parts of my message that aren't clear or don't come across correctly in your language, I sincerely apologize in advance.
totally against it as it sets a bad precedent for the future. People were aware of its abilities beforehand and still bought it. Cryptic and nidghor is getting rented at almost same price so just imagine what will happen when you make it stronger. Its a situational card so its better to create more rulesets to cater to it instead of buffing it.
I downvoted as I dislike making more than one change to a card at a time.
That said, I understand the sentiment behind it. While new cards have introduced interesting and fun abilities, there have been some poorly thought-out designs which have led to a meta dominated by Tofu. This has been exacerbated by the introduction of Fizbo - essentially making Tofu the only viable counter to itself. Tofu is giving you the powers of: Mylor, Vera Salacia, Lorna Shine (to 50% of team) as well as 2x Mother Khala for only seven mana. Top this off with the ability to also play both green and white cards and it's simply too versatile.
Nidhoggr cannot compare to Tofu, but neither can any of the other Rebellion summoners. I think if Tofu were to receive a nerf it would benefit Nidhoggr more than the proposed changes. Snare is a natural counter to the many dragon cards that have flying.
I hope this proposal serves as a wake-up call about balance. There will always be meta cards in a card game, but giving Tofu thorns followed by the act of making Fizbo a green card shows, in my opinion, a lack of care when it comes to design.
Do we not see then that Nidhoggr is not the problem.
This proposal should be about how we nerf Tofu. As its just a one spam army card if you have it. That was the real miss of this set ,not Nidhoggr whatever its power level ,its average.
Prove me wrong ,whoever wants.
And even a bigger thing ,it Should be about How do we change who works on cards and how its tested before release.
This may mean a rash of re-alignments per season but I have changed my vote to yes assuming that any card changes will always be positive and improve card sales
This reminds me of formula 1 racing where they tinker with car mechanics season to season...born to be wild ♫
Thought about the Nidhoggr proposal a ton and here's where I landed:
I'm ok with the company tweaking actual stats/abilities when they think it's absolutely necessary, but I think it needs to be done slowly (e.g. 1 thing at a time), only in exceptional situations (i.e. it needs to be rare), and without a "forcing hand" (they should take feedback of course, but it's ultimately up to them to decide and it's driven by them).
Furthermore, I think we need a clearer system for pre-testing and for balancing cards, which includes key players from the community. A well-informed and small team of experts would likely do a better job in making balance changes than a public democratic process.
Also, just for context, I personally own 4 GF BCX and 89 RF BCX of Nidhoggr. So if I were being selfish then yeah I'd like him to get a boost, but I'm trying to vote based on the bigger picture.
We've talked about this for a bit now and I fully appreciate you doing what you feel is best Brave. I know people think that there's a "conspiracy" or agenda where those huge whales are working to fill their own pockets. Well, here we are and the 2 biggest whales opposed each other, and a 3rd one sat the vote out.
In my opinion this shows clearly that all 3 of you vote based on your own minds and with the full community in mind. There are great reasons to vote for this and great reasons to vote against it, so whichever way anyone votes I think its going to be ok.
I know you went back and forth and spent a lot of time thinking through this, I just want to say "thank you" and glad you are such a big part of the community!
ps. For the record I voted for this, but I did so only because I have been a card design winner myself and I know what it feels like to think you got a "bad card" (even though it turned out great and I was initially wrong). I feel bad for the creators, but at the same time I also hate making changes too, so I can empathize with this line of logic as well. Hopefully in the future we won't have to ever have this come up again, as I think the testing process will be even more dynamic as they are beefing up their testing crew!
Thanks as always for the thoughtful reply Dave.
I don't think the whales are trying to manipulate things for their own benefit. However, it sets a bad precedent. SPS is cheap, although not cheap enough that anyone can aquire enough to make a difference. Even at its cheapest, getting 1M SPS would cost over $4k (that's about 3 months of my net salary), which I feel is the bare minimum to get a decent voice in the game. That's for regular people though. Even at current prices, there's plenty of people who can aquire 10M SPS or more. About 1 BTC gets you that. If someone with bad intentions and a lot of money comes here and decides to do this type of manipulation, there should be ways to stop it. The best way is to have the team not accept proposals for changing printed cards.
I agree with the principal the team should be the one that makes changes to the cards. There are multiple issues and I acknowledge them, that's why I said there were good reasons for voting in both cases. I don't think anyone was doing anything out of greed, but instead placed higher priorities.
I definitely commend people that don't want the DAO to make changes like this, I fully support that position and wished it never came up for a vote too.
I don't even think the team should be changing cards after being released. I know it happened in the past (before I was here) but I am against it. It would be very unfair for anyone who paid a lot for a card and it turns out to be nerfed later and lose value because of that. Many of the affected players would never spend money on Splinterlands again.
We never nerfed Kitty, which is still the best card in the game. Tofu is legal in Modern while Kitty isn't but Kitty had a long time when there was no split and, after that, more than a year in Modern. To me, if Kitty was untouched, we should only nerf cards that are even stronger. There's even less reasons to nerf Nidhoggr. There are many weak cards in Splinterlands and all TCGs. It happens in high and low rarities. Nidhoggr isn't special.
What we certainly need is better testing before the cards come out and that applies to everything. Core sets, mini sets, reward cards and promo cards.
100% agree
Normally I think that the proposal system is used for too big of changes that are driven by the community. In this case, the reverse is true, this is a minor change that the community can inform the company about, without it making a major impact on the mechanics or economy - just a few odd games here and there.
Edit: And the fact that the team made a bit of a mess with this card - it is worth correcting considering what went in to get it produced.
Mechanics changes are far more risky, because there is a lot of complication and unintended consequences occur that impact everything.
I agree.
I think that the bigger picture is important here and I reckon that should be that the community can make an impact on the gameplay in some way, but ultimately, larger decisions should be up to the company and team. The reason is that most people have very little understanding of what needs to happen, will look to benefit themselves, but also bear little responsibility and exposure. The entire ecosystem can suffer, but an individual only pays a fraction of the cost.
Stake gives a voice, but that doesn't mean the voice is correct.
(This isn't aimed at you in particular) :)
Good explanation! I think the company needs to stop hiding behind the DAO sometimes. "Make a proposal" is what they say whenever someone asks them about something and they don't want to give an answer.
Unfortunately, when the team does not do it's job properly with important things like this, it's the responsibility of the DAO to be the safety net and correct the problem.
Same goes for Tofu, that card needs to be made the same as the other L summoners. Who the HELL thought just giving tofu an extra ability above all the other 7 mana L summoners was a balanced move?? It's SO broken it's not even funny.
The ONLY reason I'm voting for this is that the team has been slacking in the balancing department. I would not WANT the DAO to HAVE to step in, but when the team does not do its job properly the DAO is the safety net.
Tofu falls into the same category and really rubs me the wrong way. The most played and OP L summoner and it has THREE added abilities/buffs while the other summoners only have TWO. That is HORRIBLY unbalanced and unfair to the other summoner winners. In fact it's making the game less fun because spamming tofu has become almost mandatory.
Kitty is still the best card in the game. The only advantage Tofu has is that it's playable in modern.
I saw that Tofu was released and I felt the card was very good and I bought it (10 copies plus 1 from airdrop). I made a good decision. I thought Nidhoggr wasn't very good so I didn't buy it. It did increase price a bit though.
Players need to make choices. Changing cards after they are printed is not the type of choice they should be making.
Tofu set one of the worst precedentsin the game. It is clearly out of balance with the rest of the summoners. Why on earth does it have an extra ability??? And the win rate shows this is ridiculous. It's OP with thorns, get RID of snare and it at least falls in line with the other summoners on paper.
This proposal is trying to set a much worse precedent which is not only changing a card after its released but it's setting it by a DAO vote.
I have bought Tofu because I thought it was a good card to have. I don't buy every card. Why should I be punished for buying a card that I thought was good? Again, we never nerfed Kitty, which is still the most OP card in the game and harder to counter/circumvent (in most rule sets) than Tofu.
Congratulations @thepeoplesguild! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 59000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP