Side effects of the Mab nerf

[AnalSwordfish]

@Jainus

@sirrian did say (unless I misread it, someone please get me the quote or correct me) that 80% of times you had 10 blue gems you’d have 13… I do not believe that for a second. I suspect that one is in there with the well-known 73.6% of statistics… Or it could have been one of @sirrian’s puns…

Glad we agree:

@AnalSwordfish

They said something about 80% of the time there’s still at least 13 – I find that incredibly inaccurate. More often than not, I have 12 Blues.

… snip irrelevant part of quote …

Yeah, yeah, recall bias… I know the 80% claim is hogwash though.

[Personette]

12 would be so much better.

[Mekkalyn]

I agree with the 12 sentiment.

Especially since there was a quote by a dev saying that want to make a universal standard because they have more fun spells like Mab coming

My sentiment is that if they want those cool troops to be played that the need to switch the overall to 12 rather than 13.

If ten is too easy, and thirteen is too annoying, I think 12 will be the best compromise for us all. I think that they should test it, bring it to the community in an update, and change it back if they deem it necessary

[Phaethon]

@TaliaParks

I’m trying not to be a dick, but it’s hard in this situation.

Are you sure?

[Spherix]

I can’t say whether 13 is too hard or not, but the point of the change was

@Sirrian

10 is just too easy to get if you build a team around it

It’s not supposed to just be a freebie. You have to create the situation for it to occur, and might have to give up a quad-match for it. If they wanted you to get the conditional effect every time, they wouldn’t have made it conditional.

I think people are misinterpreting this:

@Sirrian

Conditional effect based on number of gems on the board increased required Gems from 10 to 13, as 10 was too easy to achieve, and 13 would still be achieved in 80% of those cases.

The 80% doesn’t refer to instances of you casting the spell, but 80% of the instances in which you try to create the circumstances in which you’d get the conditional effect. In other words, if you’re not actively engineering those circumstances, the conditional effect will be a very rare event. If you are trying, you’re only intended to succeed 80% of the time.

[TaliaParks]

@Phaethon

@TaliaParks

I’m trying not to be a dick, but it’s hard in this situation.

Are you sure?

None of us, including me, can really know for sure anymore

[ian.m]

13 gems is not that hard, i find that i have 13 more often than not. Even if you didn’t have 13, cast anyways. Mab’s spell is powerful, so what if you don’t get an extra turn, big deal. If not getting the extra turn puts you in a disadvantage, don’t cast it yet, plain and simple.

How is this any different than any other characters spell that doesn’t get an extra turn? The extra turn is a bonus, that’s all. If I don’t have 13, I will tend to cast it when I know there is a skull match the AI will take and sacrifice the hit.

[TaliaParks]

@ian.m

13 gems is not that hard, i find that i have 13 more often than not. Even if you didn’t have 13, cast anyways. Mab’s spell is powerful, so what if you don’t get an extra turn, big deal. If not getting the extra turn puts you in a disadvantage, don’t cast it yet, plain and simple.

How is this any different than any other characters spell that doesn’t get an extra turn? The extra turn is a bonus, that’s all. If I don’t have 13, I will tend to cast it when I know there is a skull match the AI will take and sacrifice the hit.

Crimson Bat for example, no board manipulation, no Extra Turn

[Zelarith]

@TaliaParks

It’s not tedious to count to 13…

Let’s just agree that doing it repetitively every time you are about to cast your spell, is, on the long term, quite a drag.

@Zelfore

Queen Mab = 13 Gems, seems fair to me. A little extra counting is worth the overall speed of her spell.Aziris = Take that down to 11. He generates 1 skull, not nukes the entire team.Marid = This troop should probably be knocked down to 10 or even 9. Very unpopular.Winter Wolf = Make it 12 max. It would also offer a better promise of the generated gems actually matching.Thrall = Take it back down to 10. Only people that use him are people who use Dark Master anyways.Dire Wolf = Back to 10. 10 was the perfect number for an effect that was otherwise useless.

This seems reasonable to me.

@Spherix

The 80% doesn’t refer to instances of you casting the spell, but 80% of the instances in which you try to create the circumstances in which you’d get the conditional effect. In other words, if you’re not actively engineering those circumstances, the conditional effect will be a very rare event. If you are trying, you’re only intended to succeed 80% of the time.

This seems right. I still hadn’t seen Sirian OP, but in light of how you explained it, it seems reasonable to me.

@ian.m

Even if you didn’t have 13, cast anyways. Mab’s spell is powerful, so what if you don’t get an extra turn, big deal.

Wich is why this thread isn’t about Mab having to get 13 blue gems, but about all the other cards that were affected by the change. (but you aren’t the only going off topic, speaking about Mab only, and I take it that you are answering them…)

[Dustin1280]

Is that the only thing they nerfed on mab?

As a console player, this nerf doesn’t seem terrible to me, but I haven’t used mab in practice, so maybe someone could explain?

All this nerf does is stop you from sweeping an opponent almost immediately right?

With a proper mab team isn’t it still as quick as a Maw team would be (even after nerf)? Or did this drastically reduce mabs consistency in winning quickly?

[Tactica]

I don’t feel the other minions listed should have been adversely affected.

I also feel that Mab was adjusted too far. Where previously, Maw and Mab teams were relatively evenly encountered, though Goblins were still everywhere and probably the most commonly encountered, now Mab has fallen by the wayside in comparison. Maw seems to dominate on defense teams and Goblins have fallen a bit in favor. Mab though… much less common to encounter.

For what it’s worth, I would have liked to see @Sirrian ONLY add impervious as the single negative to Mab and Maw - as a first step, and seen how that played out with the numbers… as small changes can move meta in a big way… however, Mab got a double whammy with both Impervious and 10 to 13 for the extra turn. This dual negative to her viability was a larger swing that just the reported 80% of the time she still does what she needs to it seems… as even if 80% of the time you could get there, now the troops you are facing may deny her full effect anyway… and I agree with the sentiment that sitting there counting every round becomes monotonous vs. glancing and making a decision… is a negative to the user experience and casual nature of how the game is played.

10 adjusted to say 11 or 12 would have been a good test alone, for Mab only, and not the other troops that share the ability… OR leaving all of them alone and trying out the effects of Impervious would have been interesting. Going all the way to 13, and also applying Impervious feels like overkill and a bit knee jerk.

I like Impervious as all rocks need paper and all paper needs scissors. It keeps the game mixed and encourages team swaps… but I do feel like Mab was nerfed too far, especially in comparison to Maw which does feel powerful, and also clearly has a counter in Impervious. The ability a great addition… and when I encounter a dual Behemoth team for example, Mab and Maw teams both get set aside at first… howver, I found Maw can still beat on them if he eats something else… Mab, simply has NO chance whatsoever against that kind of a team… so, yeah, it seems she was OVER corrected.

Another effect was Mab vs Maw teams were realatively even before… a case to not mess with either perhaps in their former role… again, a case for adding Impervious only… but now, with Mab’s turn increased to 13, the Maw teams get the jump on Mab far more often it seems. If I’m playing and happen to run up to a mab team - I bring in my Maw team… however, if I run into a Maw team… I do not bring in Mab because she just not is reliable to them… instead, I bring in the Impervious team of dual behemoths… That alone, feels wrong.

Maw and Mab should have remained equal post change, and they did not.

This isn’t just about counting, there is a real net loss for Mab that feels like too much, to me anyway.

Cheers,

[Zelarith]

Mab used to need to see 10 blue gems on the board to get a free extra turn. Now, she needs 13. This made Mab deck a bit slower (as you have to engineer that situation for it to actually happen, plus you may want to count your blue gems every time…)

This is the only DIRECT nerf to Mab, but now, impervious units won’t be hurt by Mana Burn at all, so Mab don’t do any damage to these units with her spell. Also, a new trait to counter mana burn only will soon be added I think.
But on that side, Maw is having the same problem, with impervious units resisting Devour, and a new devour immunity trait was added too.

[Mithran]

Just generally having the numbers be inconsistent probably is the best solution here, but since they didn’t want to do that for whatever reason (yes, official reason is consistency), here are my suggestions under the new 13-gem conditional limit:

Aziris - Probably one of the hardest hit. Aziris is a scalpel that already usually requires quite a bit of setup to use. He also has one of the more unique spells in the game, and I’d rather not change that. Maybe add a 50% chance to gain an extra turn to his conditional in addition to regaining his mana (100% could cause an infinite skull damage loop, 50% seems ok).
Marid - Add the status effect to his normal spell and remove the conditional entirely. The conditional has been broken for so long anyway allowing the status to always apply, and Marid was still on the underpowered side. For a new conditional, maybe add a second status effect. If this wont work, add an extra turn instead. If you decide to keep the conditional where it is, consider lowering his mana cost.
Winter Wolf - Winter Wolf seems okay with 13 gems. His base spell is already really powerful. The conditional might actually be better with 13 gems, as it has a higher chance of linking up for an extra turn instead of lining one up for the enemy.
Thrall - He’s a generator, so boost that a bit. Add destroy 3 more gems to the conditional in addition to the extra turn.
Dire Wolf - Remove the conditional entirely and just give him an extra turn.
Yasmine’s Chalice (Hero Weapon) - 13 for an extra turn seems fine.

[Dustin1280]

So it seems like impervious is what REALLY hurt mab, but the extra turn reduction slowed her a little bit.

Ignoring the impervious situation is mab team still roughly as quick as a maw team, or did her speed really get hit that hard with the nerf?

[Zelarith]

The speed is significantly reduced, but not the strength of the card.

That’s because you have to engineer the good situation : quite often, you find yourself with Mab and Valkyrie’s spells ready.
Before the change, you’d just fire Mab, then Valkyrie, then Mab again.

Now, you either do that during separate turns (loosing turns = loosing time) or you just count that all 13 gems are on the board, and they probably aren’t, then you fire Valkyrie, count again, and in roughtly 80% of the time, you’ll get your 13 gems to fire Mab.

So, most people will just fire Mab without waiting for the 13 gems unless they are in a dire situation.

[zachraziel]

Just adding, the side effect I had was to press the ‘Refund’ button on her last week

[ian.m]

Impervious is the real crutch for Mab. the 10-13 isn’t IMO.

[PinkMooNinja]

giggity! 10 characters…

[Drathas]

Yeah I refunded. And no longer use her either.

[Spherix]

So I Explored Khetar for a bit, and finally got the last Arcane Spirit I needed to fully trait Queen Mab… and I don’t know what anyone’s complaining about. I’ve blazed through a dozen or so battles, obliterated goblins and maws alike, and got the extra turn nearly every time. 13 gems is not hard if you’ve got a transformer. I haven’t run into anything Impervious yet, but I’ve got plenty of decent teams that should be able to handle those. No one troop or team should be able to effortlessly obliterate every possible defense.

Whatever you were all used to had to have been ridiculous.