Tenacity Up is slowly killing this game!
Tenacity Up (as it is now: debuff immunity, and how easily available it is) is shutting down about one third of the creative possibilities of this game. What is this game about? Kill your opponents...
Forum Discussion
" 'Would every buff has a counter' be solid reasoning in this discussion? "
This is a very good question, and my answer would be that this depends on what you mean by "counter".
A real counter is something that turns said advantage into a liability. Let me give you an example from a card game:
1) Healthy metagame
A new set comes out and pretty soon people find "the best decks". Let us call these decks A, B and C
Deck A: is the most powerful deck
Deck B: is a counter to deck A
Deck C: is inherently weaker but good against deck B
In this scenario, Deck A would likely win against Deck C most of the time. Deck C might have a reasonable chance against Deck B. Deck B will likely win against Deck A. It's a rock-paper-scissors meta, the kind we mostly see as somewhat imbalanced but benign.
2) Unhealthy metagame
A new set comes out, and provides an extremely powerful card for Deck A. Deck B can solve that card if it compromises its own strategy. Deck C cannot solve the card and has to cripple itself to solve that card.
(This is the scenario we are in with Tenacity Up)
Now Deck A will likely win against Deck C. Deck B in its compromised state, can no longer consistently beat Deck A. Deck C is either compromised so far that it can no longer consistently beat B, or it foregoes its compromise, but flat out loses to Deck A all the time.
In Magic: the Gathering this happens every few years, and a deck emerges that dominates 60+% of the meta, much like we see here now.
My point with this story is the following: if you need a "counter" to allow you to do your regular thing, you must compromise on your strategy. To truly have a healthy metagame, you need something that punishes Tenacity Up as much as it punishes debuff-oriented teams. So no, having a counter does explicitly NOT mean that something else is not imbalanced. Requiring a counter is in fact a very good way to tell that something IS imbalanced.
This is a very good question, and my answer would be that this depends on what you mean by "counter".
A real counter is something that turns said advantage into a liability. Let me give you an example from a card game:
1) Healthy metagame
A new set comes out and pretty soon people find "the best decks". Let us call these decks A, B and C
Deck A: is the most powerful deck
Deck B: is a counter to deck A
Deck C: is inherently weaker but good against deck B
In this scenario, Deck A would likely win against Deck C most of the time. Deck C might have a reasonable chance against Deck B. Deck B will likely win against Deck A. It's a rock-paper-scissors meta, the kind we mostly see as somewhat imbalanced but benign.
2) Unhealthy metagame
A new set comes out, and provides an extremely powerful card for Deck A. Deck B can solve that card if it compromises its own strategy. Deck C cannot solve the card and has to cripple itself to solve that card.
(This is the scenario we are in with Tenacity Up)
Now Deck A will likely win against Deck C. Deck B in its compromised state, can no longer consistently beat Deck A. Deck C is either compromised so far that it can no longer consistently beat B, or it foregoes its compromise, but flat out loses to Deck A all the time.
In Magic: the Gathering this happens every few years, and a deck emerges that dominates 60+% of the meta, much like we see here now.
My point with this story is the following: if you need a "counter" to allow you to do your regular thing, you must compromise on your strategy. To truly have a healthy metagame, you need something that punishes Tenacity Up as much as it punishes debuff-oriented teams. So no, having a counter does explicitly NOT mean that something else is not imbalanced. Requiring a counter is in fact a very good way to tell that something IS imbalanced.
