Majin Goo

Possible PanZ Fixes for FanZ

33 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Denithan said:

 

I'll agree with this within reason, but that still makes banning seem like a temporary measure or last resort for after all the erratas have failed to fix things (/make Unleashed unplayable). So far as I know, this thing hasn't ever received an errata, and there could be a pretty simple parenthetical solution. For example, would it be acceptable if it was power level restricted, or if it straight killed non-constant effects of a personality permanently?

And now I'm just actually curious. To what degree of a negative would you feel needs to be placed there before the card becomes just another tech as opposed to a staple in non-MPPV?

Banish after use is an official errata for Unleashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Majin Goo said:

Banish after use is an official errata for Unleashed.

Ah crap, I actually didn't know that. Fair dues.

REALLY not enough of an errata. But fair, it counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Denithan said:

Ah crap, I actually didn't know that. Fair dues.

REALLY not enough of an errata. But fair, it counts.

It's honestly nothing more than one last attempt at insulting the customer bases intelligence. We'll see what the final CRD does. Hopefully, it includes all of the wiki and blog clarifications. Otherwise, that shit will eventually be lost to time. 

The Bear likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me. Before f***ing fixing anything else. They need to go over and undo their bullshit because we f**ked up and need to change the laws of language to fix it. My first example. Bulma Ally. The ruling stating that cards attached to her are not considered in play is counter productive to the ruling that cards attached are considered in play. I understand they did it because of Acquisition Drill. Seriously though. How broken can it be given that most decks don't run Bulma and it's rare you would attach a drill to her given the number of greater threats in most decks. Want to chase players away... make rulings that contradict each other and enforce them both at the same time. Next fix, Beerus Ally. I understand the reason behind the ruling. However, the ruling goes against both the text on the cards in question and the rules of the game. Instead... freaking errata him so that it works within already existing parameters. I swear. Panini devs were on jenkem when they were making some of the rulings and cards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Majin Goo said:

That reminds me. Before f***ing fixing anything else. They need to go over and undo their bullshit because we f**ked up and need to change the laws of language to fix it. My first example. Bulma Ally. The ruling stating that cards attached to her are not considered in play is counter productive to the ruling that cards attached are considered in play. I understand they did it because of Acquisition Drill. Seriously though. How broken can it be given that most decks don't run Bulma and it's rare you would attach a drill to her given the number of greater threats in most decks. Want to chase players away... make rulings that contradict each other and enforce them both at the same time. Next fix, Beerus Ally. I understand the reason behind the ruling. However, the ruling goes against both the text on the cards in question and the rules of the game. Instead... freaking errata him so that it works within already existing parameters. I swear. Panini devs were on jenkem when they were making some of the rulings and cards. 

So, with this in mind, we've totaled up to:

- Readdress and simplify the rulebook

- Change wording of older cards to make it consistent with the current format(?)

- Address the current state of the meta and problem cards. Errata/Ban problems cards as needed.

- Establish less complex rulings/correct problem rulings

- Develop a more open channel for communication with community to determine what the aforementioned problems are.

 

And then I still think a quality of life thing would just be to include letters before power levels that state its place on the AT table to make it a bit more accessible to newcomers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Denithan said:

 

I'll agree with this within reason, but that still makes banning seem like a temporary measure or last resort for after all the erratas have failed to fix things (/make Unleashed unplayable). So far as I know, this thing hasn't ever received an errata, and there could be a pretty simple parenthetical solution. For example, would it be acceptable if it was power level restricted, or if it straight killed non-constant effects of a personality permanently?

And now I'm just actually curious. To what degree of a negative would you feel needs to be placed there before the card becomes just another tech as opposed to a staple in non-MPPV?

See, I don't like unleashed. I don't think anything that more or less can read 'advance to 4. Lower your opponent to 1 if they're using autolevel cards.' is inherently a healthy design. It's both too fast/strong and a massive feel bads in one package.

But, if I were to be making something along the same lines, I'd base it off Kaioken, make you card destroy the top 3 of your deck per level gained, let the opponent shuffle 3 from discard into life per level you lower them. 

 

But I don't think that design space is there thanks to Kaioken

sh0ryu_repp4 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Majin Goo said:

My idea for Unleashed

Unleashed - Event

(Limit 2 per deck. If you advance a level with this cards effect, you cannot win by MPPV for the remainder of the game.)

POWER: If there are no cards attached to your MP search your Life Deck for a card that can Attach to your MP and Attach it to your MP. You may banish any number of cards Attached to your MP. If you do, advance your MP X levels where X equals the number of Attached cards banished by this cards effect. If your opponent cannot win by MPPV, you may lower your MP to a lower MP level. If you do, lower your opponent's MP to the same level. 

(Banish after use.)

There's a rough idea for a fix I thought of. Probably could use some work. 

I've actually never thought about this and I honestly like it much more. It could still be nasty forcing your non mppv opponent to stay at an undesirable level but would also force the unleashed player to keep the same pace as their opponent instead of the massive tempo play they have now.  I play resolute Goku while my friend plays restored cell and usually when I unleash to 4 and knock him to one, I win. If it read like that, I would still play unleashed because cells level 3&4 are strong af (especially 3) but I won't have the overwhelming power [ ;) ] of constantly searching out answers every combat when I'm already ahead.

i like this. FanZ, do this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now