|
Complexity that arises from interactions of simple units is far superior to complex units, at least for me. Having to resort to the latter is often a sign of a lacking overall concept or inability (compare BW to SC2...).
Sure, nothing wrong with the occasional multi-purpose card. But even in magic, there are few cards that do multiple fundamentally different things. I would consider some (not all) charms complex cards, but for example not the bloodrush cards as they always serve an aggressive purpose.
In the tower D card game however, runners and towers are fundamentally different concepts. It's not like a creature being able to both attack and block in magic. It's seems more like "draw 2 cards at sorcery speed or deal 5 damage to target creature or player at instant speed".
|
On March 30 2013 21:04 spinesheath wrote:
In the tower D card game however, runners and towers are fundamentally different concepts. It's not like a creature being able to both attack and block in magic. It's seems more like "draw 2 cards at sorcery speed or deal 5 damage to target creature or player at instant speed".
That's exactly why it's good design, because any time you're forced to draw a specific ratio of two different types of cards (i.e. lands and spells, or towers and runners), you can reduce the variance by combining them. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of games lost to bad draws.
|
On March 30 2013 21:04 spinesheath wrote:
Complexity that arises from interactions of simple units is far superior to complex units, at least for me. Having to resort to the latter is often a sign of a lacking overall concept or inability (compare BW to SC2...).
Sure, nothing wrong with the occasional multi-purpose card. But even in magic, there are few cards that do multiple fundamentally different things. I would consider some (not all) charms complex cards, but for example not the bloodrush cards as they always serve an aggressive purpose.
In the tower D card game however, runners and towers are fundamentally different concepts. It's not like a creature being able to both attack and block in magic. It's seems more like "draw 2 cards at sorcery speed or deal 5 damage to target creature or player at instant speed".
Yeah, this is kinda what I'm going for. I want a completely new player that hasn't seen it the game to be able to play a deck with simple cards intuitively. Click a card - either it just works or you select a single target to place a tower or use it's effect. Most of the cards should be self explanitory without too much reading, although perhaps a few cards will have a paragraph to explain their effect.
|
It's funny how bad people still are at this game. Haven't played constructed anything since Avacyn. People playing Thragtusks and Olivias into Sorin Ultimates...good times were had that day.
Also how do you rank Planeswalkers right now in Standard at power level? A friend of mine and I were discussing it and our thoughts were Mill Jace and Lilianna were 1 and 2 in some order and Tamiyo and Sorin were 3 and 4 in some order(deck dependent).
I quickly realized why I haven't played since avacyn, Miracles and Revelation are dumb cards.
|
Miracles are largely irrelevant. Tamiyo and Sorin are not played. Jace is a little under Lily but not by much on the sole virtue of Lily's 3 CMC.
Revelation is good but not necessarily broken.
|
Miracles are totally relevant. I've won several games I had no business winning on the back of Miracle draws. Including one memorable game where I drew back-to-back Bonfires to nearly kill my opponent. (And finished it off shortly afterwards.)
Fact is, the mechanic is just...horrible. It's completely swingy, and doesn't have that much skill involved. Miracle up a Terminus or Bonfire at the right time, and you can just outright win a game you were never going to win otherwise. I've been blown out by Miracles, and hated it, and I've blown people out with them and still disliked the mechanic. Take Tragic Slip as a counterpoint: It becomes MASSIVELY better if X condition is met. But that condition can be manipulated. You can save up two removal spells in order to kill two guys cheaply. You can send suicidal attackers in (And can also send suicidal attackers in when you DON'T have the card, and try and bluff) or make suicidal blocks. You can put on pressure and force the opponent to make trades. You can try and manipulate the board state in such a way that you can activate it, or your opponent can't activate it himself. Just today I had a cool sequence of plays in one match:
Play 1: I make a suicide attack. He blocks. I Slip his Reckoner.
Play 2: I make a suicide attack, Slip in hand. He doesn't block. Damn!
Play 3: I make a suicide attack with no Slip in hand. He doesn't block. Yay!
I noticed I could make Play 3 after Play 2 happened. Morbid: Good mechanic.
In Standard, you can't manipulate draws very well. I don't think it's even possible to manipulate a Miracle draw with cards that see play in Standard. There's very little interaction involved, and no ability to control it. And you certainly can't stop your opponent from drawing it.
Don't get me wrong, I still like Standard. But I believe it would be better without Miracle.
|
Terminus barely sees play, Bonfire sees play in like 1 deck and that deck has to live with the consequences of drawing it early on.
That's largely irrelevant in the big picture of standard. Comparing it to another mechanic is largely pointless as well, likewise I can make the argument that Miracle is a good mechanic in light of Phasing.
Also, the decision of including Miracle cards is made during deck building and an assumed risk. If you want to make the argument that deck construction is a separate entity of play, I would disagree, piloting a deck and building a deck are all parts of "playing Magic". Additionally, you tend to remember miracles that win you the game or cause you to lose the game, but do you remember the times where you lose a game because that miracle card was stuck in your hand?
Then the last question I want to ask you, is that how's this assumed risk any different than any aggro deck that's being played in standard where you make the basic assumption that your first 15 or so cards will be good enough to either win put you very close to winning? Cackler on 1 is so much better than Cackler on turn 5, yet you still play with Cackler in an aggro deck. I think someone on CFB said it best, Miracles were always part of the game (aka the top deck), it's just now that it's quantified (if you will) as a mechanic.
Basically, I just fail to see the complaint about Miracles, when I can think of numerous other times/situations where I "don't have any business winning" unless I drew a wrath, a Revelation, an O-ring, etc.
|
On April 01 2013 02:10 Judicator wrote:
Terminus barely sees play, Bonfire sees play in like 1 deck and that deck has to live with the consequences of drawing it early on.
That's largely irrelevant in the big picture of standard. Comparing it to another mechanic is largely pointless as well, likewise I can make the argument that Miracle is a good mechanic in light of Phasing.
Also, the decision of including Miracle cards is made during deck building and an assumed risk. If you want to make the argument that deck construction is a separate entity of play, I would disagree, piloting a deck and building a deck are all parts of "playing Magic". Additionally, you tend to remember miracles that win you the game or cause you to lose the game, but do you remember the times where you lose a game because that miracle card was stuck in your hand?
Then the last question I want to ask you, is that how's this assumed risk any different than any aggro deck that's being played in standard where you make the basic assumption that your first 15 or so cards will be good enough to either win put you very close to winning? Cackler on 1 is so much better than Cackler on turn 5, yet you still play with Cackler in an aggro deck. I think someone on CFB said it best, Miracles were always part of the game (aka the top deck), it's just now that it's quantified (if you will) as a mechanic.
Basically, I just fail to see the complaint about Miracles, when I can think of numerous other times/situations where I "don't have any business winning" unless I drew a wrath, a Revelation, an O-ring, etc.
The only argument I have against this. Is you now have the possiblity of wrathing the board for 1 mana. Not 4, not 6, 1. Now not only does that mean you slowdown the aggro deck even more but you also have the ability to either leave counter magic open or play a threat yourself like a planes walker. So this isn't like top decking a Day of judgement on turn 4, this is top decking a Day and having dissipate open.(In Terminus terms)
|
I also have the option of playing with a card down effectively. Does Miracle play towards the extremes? Sure. Are the extremes worth it? For the large part in Standard, no.
Like I said, in the situation you described, Terminus/Bonfire/Entreat could all very easily be in my hand and I would effectively be playing with a card down; if anything you are hoping to miser a properly timed Miracle which isn't any different to top decking. The mana open helps some times, and some times pointless.
|
On April 01 2013 02:42 Judicator wrote:
I also have the option of playing with a card down effectively. Does Miracle play towards the extremes? Sure. Are the extremes worth it? For the large part in Standard, no.
Like I said, in the situation you described, Terminus/Bonfire/Entreat could all very easily be in my hand and I would effectively be playing with a card down; if anything you are hoping to miser a properly timed Miracle which isn't any different to top decking. The mana open helps some times, and some times pointless.
Not sure what you're trying to argue. Miracle is the worst mechanic ever made because it creates incredibly high variance situation as you described. The card can be awful in your hand or amazing on top of your deck, with the only difference being which turn you draw it.
It doesn't dominate standard, but it kind of did when Bonfire saw a lot of play. Way too many games were won from a topdecked miracle, or lost because you were forced to play with them and drew them at bad times.
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On April 01 2013 02:47 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 02:42 Judicator wrote:
I also have the option of playing with a card down effectively. Does Miracle play towards the extremes? Sure. Are the extremes worth it? For the large part in Standard, no.
Like I said, in the situation you described, Terminus/Bonfire/Entreat could all very easily be in my hand and I would effectively be playing with a card down; if anything you are hoping to miser a properly timed Miracle which isn't any different to top decking. The mana open helps some times, and some times pointless. Not sure what you're trying to argue. Miracle is the worst mechanic ever made because it creates incredibly high variance situation as you described. The card can be awful in your hand or amazing on top of your deck, with the only difference being which turn you draw it. It doesn't dominate standard, but it kind of did when Bonfire saw a lot of play. Way too many games were won from a topdecked miracle, or lost because you were forced to play with them and drew them at bad times.
Miracles pretty much asks for someone to try and abuse it and aim for it's Miracled cost all the time (see: Legacy). While I don't think there's a problem with high variance cards when you can build around them from a design perspective if they don't turn games into massive gambles with no skill involved, it does create a very one-sided emotional response though. But Judicator does have a point that lots of other top-decks also feel pretty one-sided and mise. Like, on the Storm scale it's maybe a 7 or 8 but the cards don't feel insanely oppressive like some of the Storm cards created do.
That, and it's amusing to watch Team USA and Aaron Forsythe during a Miracle.
On a side note, I want Miracles and Omniscience to be a thing in Modern but I can't find a way to get it to work. So sad.
|
My problems with the complaint of Miracle (namely Bonfire since it was probably the highest impact Miracle card) was that it was always always always "Fuck Miracle, my opponent (or the player) top decked Bonfire and won". I never heard or have heard anyone complaining "Fuck Miracle, this Bonfire was stuck in my hand and I lost". Since for the most part, Bonfire is a pretty shitty card outside of Miracle (5 mana sorcery speed Volcanic Fallout without counter protection), rather than focusing solely on how many games were won on miracle Bonfire, what are the relative numbers of games won and lost due to having Bonfire in the deck (I know that's not easily measurable so pretty sure everyone is going just by "feel").
That's what I am arguing.
|
On April 01 2013 03:01 Judicator wrote:
My problems with the complaint of Miracle (namely Bonfire since it was probably the highest impact Miracle card) was that it was always always always "Fuck Miracle, my opponent (or the player) top decked Bonfire and won". I never heard or have heard anyone complaining "Fuck Miracle, this Bonfire was stuck in my hand and I lost". Since for the most part, Bonfire is a pretty shitty card outside of Miracle (5 mana sorcery speed Volcanic Fallout without counter protection), rather than focusing solely on how many games were won on miracle Bonfire, what are the relative numbers of games won and lost due to having Bonfire in the deck (I know that's not easily measurable so pretty sure everyone is going just by "feel").
That's what I am arguing.
Yeah but just because it evens out in the long run doesn't mean it isn't horribly designed. Has nothing to do with whether or not the mechanic is too powerful (it's not), people simply don't like the fact that it lets then win games which should be unwinnable, and that sentiment is justified.
|
United States5142 Posts
On April 01 2013 02:47 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 02:42 Judicator wrote:
I also have the option of playing with a card down effectively. Does Miracle play towards the extremes? Sure. Are the extremes worth it? For the large part in Standard, no.
Like I said, in the situation you described, Terminus/Bonfire/Entreat could all very easily be in my hand and I would effectively be playing with a card down; if anything you are hoping to miser a properly timed Miracle which isn't any different to top decking. The mana open helps some times, and some times pointless. Not sure what you're trying to argue. Miracle is the worst mechanic ever made because it creates incredibly high variance situation as you described. The card can be awful in your hand or amazing on top of your deck, with the only difference being which turn you draw it. It doesn't dominate standard, but it kind of did when Bonfire saw a lot of play. Way too many games were won from a topdecked miracle, or lost because you were forced to play with them and drew them at bad times.
Epic is the worst mechanic ever. "I play an Epic Enchantment! From now on only my opponent gets to play the game!"
The only worse mechanic than one that swings the game, is one that completely removes all swing from the game.
|
On April 01 2013 03:12 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 02:47 Cel.erity wrote:On April 01 2013 02:42 Judicator wrote:
I also have the option of playing with a card down effectively. Does Miracle play towards the extremes? Sure. Are the extremes worth it? For the large part in Standard, no.
Like I said, in the situation you described, Terminus/Bonfire/Entreat could all very easily be in my hand and I would effectively be playing with a card down; if anything you are hoping to miser a properly timed Miracle which isn't any different to top decking. The mana open helps some times, and some times pointless. Not sure what you're trying to argue. Miracle is the worst mechanic ever made because it creates incredibly high variance situation as you described. The card can be awful in your hand or amazing on top of your deck, with the only difference being which turn you draw it. It doesn't dominate standard, but it kind of did when Bonfire saw a lot of play. Way too many games were won from a topdecked miracle, or lost because you were forced to play with them and drew them at bad times. Epic is the worst mechanic ever. "I play an Epic Enchantment! From now on only my opponent gets to play the game!" The only worse mechanic than one that swings the game, is one that completely removes all swing from the game.
Fair. I forgot that keyword even existed.
|
United States5142 Posts
On April 01 2013 03:18 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 03:12 iGrok wrote:On April 01 2013 02:47 Cel.erity wrote:On April 01 2013 02:42 Judicator wrote:
I also have the option of playing with a card down effectively. Does Miracle play towards the extremes? Sure. Are the extremes worth it? For the large part in Standard, no.
Like I said, in the situation you described, Terminus/Bonfire/Entreat could all very easily be in my hand and I would effectively be playing with a card down; if anything you are hoping to miser a properly timed Miracle which isn't any different to top decking. The mana open helps some times, and some times pointless. Not sure what you're trying to argue. Miracle is the worst mechanic ever made because it creates incredibly high variance situation as you described. The card can be awful in your hand or amazing on top of your deck, with the only difference being which turn you draw it. It doesn't dominate standard, but it kind of did when Bonfire saw a lot of play. Way too many games were won from a topdecked miracle, or lost because you were forced to play with them and drew them at bad times. Epic is the worst mechanic ever. "I play an Epic Enchantment! From now on only my opponent gets to play the game!" The only worse mechanic than one that swings the game, is one that completely removes all swing from the game. Fair. I forgot that keyword even existed.
The more and more I see your posts (Here, the SG thread, others), the more I like you. Thanks for being one of those precious few people online who will consider an opinion different than their own!
|
On April 01 2013 03:09 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 03:01 Judicator wrote:
My problems with the complaint of Miracle (namely Bonfire since it was probably the highest impact Miracle card) was that it was always always always "Fuck Miracle, my opponent (or the player) top decked Bonfire and won". I never heard or have heard anyone complaining "Fuck Miracle, this Bonfire was stuck in my hand and I lost". Since for the most part, Bonfire is a pretty shitty card outside of Miracle (5 mana sorcery speed Volcanic Fallout without counter protection), rather than focusing solely on how many games were won on miracle Bonfire, what are the relative numbers of games won and lost due to having Bonfire in the deck (I know that's not easily measurable so pretty sure everyone is going just by "feel").
That's what I am arguing. Yeah but just because it evens out in the long run doesn't mean it isn't horribly designed. Has nothing to do with whether or not the mechanic is too powerful (it's not), people simply don't like the fact that it lets then win games which should be unwinnable, and that sentiment is justified.
Eh, I think people now have something more tangible to blame their luck on rather than just something "abstract" like top deck. Like how many times have you put the opponent on top decking mode and they rip one off the top, or you have baited out their spells and they just happened to draw more despite you playing properly. It happens, people can complain about it all they want, but that's just part of Magic. I find the former (normal top deck) more frustrating than the latter (Miracle) personally, so am I suppose to stop playing Magic then?
It's just a matter of perception at this point, when in reality people really aren't experiencing new in Magic. It's like you can hate a group of people, but when that group of people has a singular face, then that singular face gets a disproportionate amount of hate relative to the actual situation. Miracle just happens to be that, my whole point is that Miracle gets more hatred than it probably deserves, for the most part I think the mechanic is pretty balanced.
|
I agree that it's quite a balanced mechanic. But, to go to the extreme, a game where you flip a coin and win if it comes up heads and lose if it comes up tails is perfectly balanced.
I'm not arguing that Miracle is imbalanced. I'm fully aware that there are games where you have it stuck in your hand, and that costs you the game. That isn't a good thing. Basically, you're saying "It's okay that sometimes you can randomly win games out of nowhere, because you can also lose them out of nowhere as well." That's not okay at all.
Yes, topdecks are a part of Magic. By Magic's very nature, topdecks are a necessary part of the game. Sometimes, you'll rip the Thundermaw Hellkite, and sometimes you'll draw four lands in a row, and that's not a good thing, but you can't get rid of that without destroying the game, which is worth keeping around anyway despite the luck factor. But that doesn't mean we should be making the topdeck an even SWINGIER thing. Ripping a Supreme Verdict off the top is swingy enough without making it cost 1 mana if you do.
Like you said, Miracle is not a "Ha ha I win" mechanic. But it's a mechanic that increases variance in Standard, and I don't think the payoff is at all worth it.
As for your point of Miracle getting more hatred than it deserves, that may be true. My own personal opinion isn't that it's an imbalanced mechanic, and I never thought it was. But if the wider Magic community thinks it is in fact imbalanced, I agree with your sentiment. I still don't think it's a good mechanic, but it doesn't deserve to be called imbalanced. At least in Standard, I don't know about any other formats, as I don't play them.
|
I also agree with the sentiment it's not imbalanced but you also have to remember this is different from a top deck. This is a value top deck.
In the case of Terminus, it's not top decking a board sweeper. It's top decking a board sweeper for a discount. 1 Mana board wipe. This is what irks me, not Bonfire so much. With bonfire you need mana to make it's effect relevant either way. With terminus you can essentially destroy a game with 1 mana.
|
Miracle almost made me quit magic : / Thinking about it, it was a pretty dark time. All the kids were like "dude angels and demons sweet" and flipping random miracles off the top for wins, it was a popular set and that made it even more depressing... sigh
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
