What can be done against this thing on turn 4?

---

@daalnnii wrote:
@wonoz I think people just need to stop crying because they haven't figured out how/don't have the cards/suck too bad to actually beat things.

With what zombies have now, did clique peas really need to be gutted? I sure don't think so. But hey, you don't hear those hypocrites crying that an untrickable 5/6 on turn two, and three with going viral by turn five is too strong. Why because it's mindless to play and that's right where their skill sits.

I don't want anything nerfed, I just want people start figuring out how to beat these decks, instead of whining when they can't just push an "I win" button anymore.

I'm sure as more of us plant players figure out how to counter these cards, they'll cry more, and never even consider that plants have team up... Zombies have overshoot, deadly, gravestone, frenzy, the best strikethrough, the best card draw, the best untrickable, the ability to completely change play order... But yeah, clique peas needed a Nerf and they needed no brainier cards because it's easier than actually putting thought into how you play.

I relish that I made it to ultimate this season playing plants because most of you still suck with the crazy advantage you have this season.

Learn to play, stop crying op every time someone beats you, and just enjoy the cards you have and stop worrying about what I have.

Stop nerfing everything!!!

---

I'm sure there are some people who are just whining because they can't figure out how to play, but you can't simply dismiss every complaint as being unjustified.  Sometimes a card is actually OP and needs a change.  Other times a card isn't OP, but still needs a change because it's simply no fun.  Personally, I haven't encountered Fossilhead much, so I can't speak to him personally, but it does seem awfully potent in the early game, and I could see Untrickable easily getting out of hand if not addressed.

I also can't help but thinking you're a little biased in your assessment of the game.  In particular, you seem to severely underestimate how powerful Team-Up is (in addition to leaving out Plants having the better healing and overall tending towards better synergy), meaning zombies need Strikethrough or Frenzy to have a chance of getting to the most powerful, protected plants.  Not to mention, plants have more and better anti-trick cards, which can absolutely shut down some zombie decks (not having access to Team-Up, zombies tend to rely more on tricks than plants do).

You also seem to characterize the majority of zombie players as whiners who just want an easy button, but the majority of plant players as more skilled players who really know how to play.  Yet it doesn't take much searching to find on both sides people who simply whine and people who actually want to improve the game.  Add to that the fact that just a month or two ago it seemed that plants were vastly more popular than zombies, and now it's the reverse; and suddenly it becomes clear that the majority of players simply go where the strengths are at a given time, rather than being dedicated to one side or the other.

I guess the long and short of it is that not all nerfing is bad, and not everyone calling for it is doing so because they want easy wins.  Balancing an asymmetric game like this is tough, and mistakes will happen, but sometimes changes can be made to help bring things more into balance.

@daalnnii  Understood.  But sometimes when good players are experimenting, they find that something is so overpowered or leads to such a negative playing experience that it needs to be nerfed.  Sometimes the solution is simply "git gud", but other times there are real problems with balance that need to be addressed.

To be fair. The game mechanic that Zombies and Plants have different "turn" mechanisms makes this very hard to balance. Although its safe to say that by default Zombies turn order is slightly better.

The main flaw of the whole thing is the disparity of collecting cards vs. playing the side you wish to play. It is VERY VERY hard to keep up with both plants and zombies without stuffing money into it and the mixed boosters do not make this easier as well. Since zombies also have a tendency to be more combo-y you probably need more specific cards to play an efficient deck with them which eventually leads new players to playing plants. I mean why would you take the hard long road to collect your combo/synergy pieces if collecting efficient singles with plants is much more effective (one of Brainana is excellent; one of valkyrie sucks *) ?
An uneven number of zombie and plants players eventually leads to balancing towards the less favoured side to fix matchmaking.

the question is; why not just make exclusive plants/zombies boosters for each set and watch the problem fix itself? 

no. not really. At least not here. I already mentioned the concept of "bridge building cards" in an other Thread but the resonsnace was sort of weak. I´d be happy to see the thread alive tho.

Here I just wanted to say that a booster in PvZ:H has a far lower probability to contain no cards of a specific hero at all then in virtually every other tcg. simply because, assuming each class has the same amount of cards, you already have a 50/50 chance to roll your less prefered faction and of these 50% you still got "only" 70% that you can use the card in the class you want to collect cards for.

In the end 7/20 seems like a pretty bad ration to draw a card you can even use. let alone the possibility that the card is even really good.
To be honest PvZ:H does a GREAT job at not printing magma ragers but I still think there should be boosters for 100 gems that contain either 5 plants or zombie cards. Making sure at least your rare is at least in your prefered faction would develop useful metagame much faster. Which is GOOD.

However. Yes. more modes would be fun I think.