by drew_d2
Paul, I have to say that I disagree with pretty close to everything you have said. There has been a lot said, so I'll try to address as many concerns as I can:Well, before I start with where I disagree, how about the one part where I actually agree and that's with The Flash. I generally play play with 5 (and around 10 different friends) and all but 1 think The Flash is under-powered. I have suggested fixes to him, but my friends didn't want to try fixing him. (I just don't think they liked the idea of changing the game from how it was intended to be.) One possible change you guys could try is to change The Flash's ability to be "Look at the top 2 cards, take 1, and discard 1." A variation of that is "Look at the top 2 cards, take 1, and put 1 at the bottom". A different change would be to allow The Flash to draw the first time he would draw on each players' turn (so he'd draw off of his defense cards) instead of just his own. So those are some ideas for those of you searching for answers, but I haven't tested them.
Now Paul, you bring up how you've studied game theory, but where in game theory does it say to make the weakest cards worse? You said yourself that you think Poison Ivy is one of the worst cards, but you also think the ability needs to be changed because it's too devastating. I STRONGLY disagree with that assessment. The ability has to hurt when it hits because it actually helps the other player most of the time when it misses. You're taking those terrible yellow cards off the top of their deck! What you are really advocating for is a game that is flat with no ups or downs, which is a game with no excitement.
Your changes are questionable at best:
Mera: First of all, your explanation of her is completely wrong. She does more than give you the +2 bonus for having the empty discard pile. She also gives you a base +2. Now I know you already understood that, but your explanation completely misleads people that haven't played to think that she is a dead card if you draw her at the wrong time. She's not. Your "fix" would make her a "late game Power Ring" by your own words, but she's not a late game card. Mera is an early-game card and Power Ring I'd say is more of a mid-game card.
Bulletproof: I don't think using defense cards is rare at all, but I play in groups of 5. Your comments make me think that you play in groups of 2. I think this may be your problem. I personally feel this game is best as a 4-5 player game. The reason IMO, for not allowing players to destroy cards in their hand here is because that ruins the flavor of the card. You're bullet proof but a card in your hand got destroyed? It makes more sense to have some junk in your discard get destroyed because you're bullet proof IMO.
Robin, Bat-Signal, and Man of Steel: These are 3 of the best cards in the game IMO, and you want to make them stronger? But, Poison Ivy, one of the weakest cards in the game, you want to make weaker? Almost all (if not all) of the issues you pose can be explained away by something else you can do in the game. Your MoS was at the bottom? Maybe you should have played Zatanna Zatara to put cards underneath him or to put him 2 from the bottom instead of the bottom. Maybe you should have bought him with an Aquaman's Trident to put him on top. Maybe you shouldn't have defended those earlier attacks that you caused you to draw 2 cards, which cause MoS to go from being in the perfect situation to being in the worst situation. MoS came too early? Maybe you should have picked up that Bat-Signal earlier when you had the chance, so you could get the MoS back out at a later time. Some of these things may small, petty, or stupid, but the better you get the more you will be able to pay attention to these different things and the more you will be able to change your fate. But even a +3 Power for MoS is significant. 4 +3 cards and you have any Super-Villain in the lineup without a Super Hero ability.
Poison Ivy: Touched on it already. By your own words it's one of the weakest cards in the game, so why make it weaker? It benefits your opponent if it misses (which is okay because it's cheap), so if it hits it needs to do some significant damage. -- And to whoever said Poison Ivy is 5, you were thinking of Scarecrow. Poison Ivy is 3.
King of Atlantis: Yes, if you draw it at the wrong time it can be frustrating. Games can be frustrating. That's also why they are fun. Games aren't always supposed to work out the best possible way every single time. So maybe you have to destroy that Poison Ivy since the Weakness stack is getting low, maybe even destroy a Supergirl if the Kick stack is low, destroy a Cheetah, or take your 2 less power for 1 turn!
Now, there are a lot of times you say something will win a player a game or lose a player a game. Most of things you mention actually won't. Lets say you get you get your T1 Mera, T2 Kick, and T3 Lobo. There is still the chance of me getting something like a Man of Steel. Sure, you can thin your deck a bit, which is nice but not hugely important, you'll get a quicker start, but if I can one good hit on a MoS I could get 25-30 power setting off all kinds of abilities gaining me many victory points. I can spend 8-12 on the S-V and still have another 15-20'ish for 5-6 kicks or w/e. That one turn can generate me 10+ VP's (without * cards) and can easily catch me up.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be straight up hating on this game for whatever personal reasons you may have to do so. You contradict yourself over and over, not only with the balance "issues". I mean, in regards to the luck aspect, do you think it's too easy or too hard for players to catch up? Depending on what you are arguing at the time you change your position. Oh, and your %'s are completely BS and made up. There's no way to even calculate those %'s because of variables that are un-quantifiable to a large extent (or at least variables that you didn't even come close to attempting to try to quantify that matter a lot) such as skill level.
I really dislike when people call DBG's like DC Comics "luck-based games". It's all probability. If you know what it's in the main deck, S-V deck, your deck, your discard pile, etc. then you will have a much better chance of winning.
And with all due respect to Richie Rich the MtG player (I loved a lot of what he said), I really disagree with him and many others that have said this game can't and/or shouldn't be played competitively. Personally, I think this game could do extremely well in a 5-player competitive atmosphere. I've heard there are competitions for DC, but I don't know what the format is. I'm guessing the format is 2-player and that just really doesn't do this game justice. The more players allow for more things to happen to your hands, and it also allows for cards like Starro to be played to their full effect. Maybe if 5 is a little high then 4 would be a good number, but this is just missing something as a 2-player game. Magic is an amazing 2 player game, but I feel that lacks in big multiplayer variants. The DC competitive scene could really do something new (to me anyways, maybe there are some card games out there that play with larger groups than 2 competitively).
So allow me to take a moment to convince you guys that this game could be a good competitive game. What makes for a good competitive game? IMO, it is options. Options give strategies. DC has lot of options.
I think it's important to be able to employ different methods to win as well, and you can do that in DC. Did Captain Cold come out early slowing the game down? Switch to a strategy where you target bad cards like Cheetah that can collect you more cards for the VP's, but might not give you the most power. It can actually work. Supergirl, The Riddler (kind of), Dark Knight, and Princess Diana all work the same way. You can even use Harley Quinn to slow your opponents down. Depending on how the game is going, you should have A LOT of cards if the strategy is working out right, which means that the Utility Belts and Green Arrow's should get active more easily.
Did someone take a Utility Belt or Green Arrow with no other Equipment or Heroes? Pass up that Man of Steel and take out the S-V's so they can't get it active! Behind in the game? Get desperate and go for those Suicide Squads!
Those are all strategies I've employed and won with in 5-player games because of games states. The fact that some strategies actually counter others is huge. There are also strategies that ignore the game state and can be used from the start because of your Super Hero, obviously, such as loading up on equipments with Batman. (And caution that even in these strategies you want to make sure you don't let the board play you.)
The biggest knock against this game from a competitive standpoint (on this thread) is that this game is too luck-based, but I think if people really study the cards, pay attention to what's being played, and play in games with more people so they can see more cards then much of the luck aspect will fall to the wayside. If you don't think Magic is luck-based then you shouldn't think DC is luck-based. (And as someone who loves Magic, I'm not saying it's luck-based. lol) And finally, how do games deal with the issue of probability? They play a series of games. Sure, maybe you're the better player and you get screwed, but if you play 3, 4, 5 games and you are really that much better than you shouldn't get screwed that much, so if someone gets lucky once, that will be their one lucky win in a loss for the series in your ultimate comeback!