New wave of review bombings. UN observers say it’s linked to chuds. https://youtu.be/i_vCbge0Djc>For the third month in a row, Slay the Spire 2 is getting review-bombed on Steam. Online chuds are mad that media critic and Feminist Frequency founder Anita Sarkeesian is listed in Slay the Spire 2’s credits as a “Consultant.”https://kotaku.com/slay-the-spire-2-is-getting-review-bombed-again-this-time-because-of-chuds-2000693961
>>738421634Isnt it just the chinks review bombing?
>>738422442Yeah but them being assblasted is news worthy
>>738421634It's mostly the Chinese.
too bad i can't refund the game just because of this journo using the word chud.
The core problem with the recent Slay the Spire 2 balance direction is not simply that infinite or loop-based decks are too strong, but that the current environment increasingly forces players into them. In Slay the Spire 1, traditional scaling decks had a reliable progression path: players could fight elites early, snowball through relics, secure energy relics from bosses, and gradually build scaling engines through upgrades, card removal, and powers. In StS2, that structure has largely broken down.Elites are much stronger while starter decks are not proportionally improved, making early elite fights extremely punishing. Players are often forced to rest instead of upgrade, slowing growth further. At the same time, many relics still operate at roughly StS1 power levels despite the sequel’s harsher numerical environment, making elite rewards feel weak relative to the risk. Failed elite fights can derail runs, pushing players away from traditional scaling routes.Energy scarcity worsens the issue. Energy relics are less reliable, carry harsher downsides, and compete with stronger alternatives. Yet trying to scale through powers while defending and attacking on only 3 energy remains unrealistic. Naturally, players drift toward low-cost cards, energy generation, and repetitive card cycling. Traditional scaling cards like Forge and Doom also fail to keep pace with the game’s demands.As a result, players pursuing normal scaling decks face three pressures: oppressive early-game combat, weak relic scaling, and insufficient energy. Nerfing infinite-style strategies without addressing these systems only removes the “crutch” players rely on to survive.The larger issue is psychological. Players accept nerfs when alternatives exist. But if developers weaken the only reliable strategies before improving the environment itself, players interpret it not as healthy balancing, but as losing their only dependable solution.
