|
On January 31 2014 02:05 Fishgle wrote:
hmm? what do you dislike about the interface? I find it very easy to use. The only thing I'd like is an easier way to manipulate priority stops mid-game.
Ease of play in paper mtg in regards to priority passing when establishing multi-effect stack resolution is one of my favorite parts of magic.
"Player 1: But then I-"
"Player 2: But in response I"
"Player 1: Oh, but I have this too!"
Where you kind of throw cards on the table until you have to resolve the stack *and then* you go through the rules process.
In MTGO you have to be much more meticulous about when you can or can't cast spells because they need to confirm your spells before you can start throwing everything on the table. Its very minor, but it breaks my rhythm.
|
On January 31 2014 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2014 02:05 Fishgle wrote:
hmm? what do you dislike about the interface? I find it very easy to use. The only thing I'd like is an easier way to manipulate priority stops mid-game. Ease of play in paper mtg in regards to priority passing when establishing multi-effect stack resolution is one of my favorite parts of magic. "Player 1: But then I-" "Player 2: But in response I" "Player 1: Oh, but I have this too!" Where you kind of throw cards on the table until you have to resolve the stack *and then* you go through the rules process. In MTGO you have to be much more meticulous about when you can or can't cast spells because they need to confirm your spells before you can start throwing everything on the table. Its very minor, but it breaks my rhythm.
Umm, if you want to 'throw everything on the table" you can just hold Ctrl to not pass priority. And the stack works the same, I feel. Even in paper I always say, "bolt your nighthawk, ok?" and wait for a response, cuz if I don't play like that, triggers and stuff will be missed.
I'm not sure what you mean by going through the rules after resolving the stack. How does that differ from mtgo?
|
On January 31 2014 03:05 Fishgle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2014 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 31 2014 02:05 Fishgle wrote:
hmm? what do you dislike about the interface? I find it very easy to use. The only thing I'd like is an easier way to manipulate priority stops mid-game. Ease of play in paper mtg in regards to priority passing when establishing multi-effect stack resolution is one of my favorite parts of magic. "Player 1: But then I-" "Player 2: But in response I" "Player 1: Oh, but I have this too!" Where you kind of throw cards on the table until you have to resolve the stack *and then* you go through the rules process. In MTGO you have to be much more meticulous about when you can or can't cast spells because they need to confirm your spells before you can start throwing everything on the table. Its very minor, but it breaks my rhythm. Umm, if you want to 'throw everything on the table" you can just hold Ctrl to not pass priority. And the stack works the same, I feel. Even in paper I always say, "bolt your nighthawk, ok?" and wait for a response, cuz if I don't play like that, triggers and stuff will be missed. I'm not sure what you mean by going through the rules after resolving the stack. How does that differ from mtgo?
No no, I'm not talking about holding priority (that's easy)
Its when both players get excited throwing cards at each other.
Chain Lightning him
Pump him
Bolt him
etc...
That exciting "throwing cards at each other" gets slowed down into something more tedious and less natural.
|
On January 31 2014 03:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2014 03:05 Fishgle wrote:On January 31 2014 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 31 2014 02:05 Fishgle wrote:
hmm? what do you dislike about the interface? I find it very easy to use. The only thing I'd like is an easier way to manipulate priority stops mid-game. Ease of play in paper mtg in regards to priority passing when establishing multi-effect stack resolution is one of my favorite parts of magic. "Player 1: But then I-" "Player 2: But in response I" "Player 1: Oh, but I have this too!" Where you kind of throw cards on the table until you have to resolve the stack *and then* you go through the rules process. In MTGO you have to be much more meticulous about when you can or can't cast spells because they need to confirm your spells before you can start throwing everything on the table. Its very minor, but it breaks my rhythm. Umm, if you want to 'throw everything on the table" you can just hold Ctrl to not pass priority. And the stack works the same, I feel. Even in paper I always say, "bolt your nighthawk, ok?" and wait for a response, cuz if I don't play like that, triggers and stuff will be missed. I'm not sure what you mean by going through the rules after resolving the stack. How does that differ from mtgo? No no, I'm not talking about holding priority (that's easy) Its when both players get excited throwing cards at each other. Chain Lightning him Pump him Bolt him etc... That exciting "throwing cards at each other" gets slowed down into something more tedious and less natural.
ah ok. I don't think the actual process is much slower (4clicks: land land manaleak bolt), it's simply the loss of physicality that you're missing, I think. Being able to laugh in someone's face after winning a counter war is nice. 
|
Also there's no option on MtGO to say "I have it" and show them your hand to prompt a concession after they're tanking for 10 minutes debating whether or not you have it.
|
On January 31 2014 03:21 Fishgle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2014 03:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 31 2014 03:05 Fishgle wrote:On January 31 2014 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 31 2014 02:05 Fishgle wrote:
hmm? what do you dislike about the interface? I find it very easy to use. The only thing I'd like is an easier way to manipulate priority stops mid-game. Ease of play in paper mtg in regards to priority passing when establishing multi-effect stack resolution is one of my favorite parts of magic. "Player 1: But then I-" "Player 2: But in response I" "Player 1: Oh, but I have this too!" Where you kind of throw cards on the table until you have to resolve the stack *and then* you go through the rules process. In MTGO you have to be much more meticulous about when you can or can't cast spells because they need to confirm your spells before you can start throwing everything on the table. Its very minor, but it breaks my rhythm. Umm, if you want to 'throw everything on the table" you can just hold Ctrl to not pass priority. And the stack works the same, I feel. Even in paper I always say, "bolt your nighthawk, ok?" and wait for a response, cuz if I don't play like that, triggers and stuff will be missed. I'm not sure what you mean by going through the rules after resolving the stack. How does that differ from mtgo? No no, I'm not talking about holding priority (that's easy) Its when both players get excited throwing cards at each other. Chain Lightning him Pump him Bolt him etc... That exciting "throwing cards at each other" gets slowed down into something more tedious and less natural. ah ok. I don't think the actual process is much slower (4clicks: land land manaleak bolt), it's simply the loss of physicality that you're missing, I think. Being able to laugh in someone's face after winning a counter war is nice.
Yeah
Its a rhythm thing, especially with friends where half the fun is us watching each other's fingers fiddling with lands right before the chaos ensues.
Otherwise its a great system (and the only way to handle an online game that is dependent on priority passing for turn sequences to be executed)
|
United States24664 Posts
On January 31 2014 04:58 deth2munkies wrote:
Also there's no option on MtGO to say "I have it" and show them your hand to prompt a concession after they're tanking for 10 minutes debating whether or not you have it.
If the opponent is in a situation where they will resign "if you have it" and will keep playing "if you don't have it" won't they just play under the assumption that you don't have it (after thinking a bit to make sure they aren't doing anything stupid) and then resign the moment you use the card? I don't really see why they would want to add a reveal hand feature, especially since (I think) they have the option to do it after the game is settled?
edit: btw that mindset of 'being able to laugh in someone's face after winning a counter war,' although hopefully mostly just you guys joking around in the thread, characterizes pretty well why I decided I prefer playing magic online to IRL (competitive... not just casual with friends)... I find the community pretty unfriendly. I'm certainly used to it from online gaming, but it's unlike the other IRL competitive things I've done in the past.
|
oh. yea. the laughing part was talking about casual jesting between friends. I'm not an asshole :/
|
On January 31 2014 05:23 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2014 04:58 deth2munkies wrote:
Also there's no option on MtGO to say "I have it" and show them your hand to prompt a concession after they're tanking for 10 minutes debating whether or not you have it. If the opponent is in a situation where they will resign "if you have it" and will keep playing "if you don't have it" won't they just play under the assumption that you don't have it (after thinking a bit to make sure they aren't doing anything stupid) and then resign the moment you use the card? I don't really see why they would want to add a reveal hand feature, especially since (I think) they have the option to do it after the game is settled? edit: btw that mindset of 'being able to laugh in someone's face after winning a counter war,' although hopefully mostly just you guys joking around in the thread, characterizes pretty well why I decided I prefer playing magic online to IRL (competitive... not just casual with friends)... I find the community pretty unfriendly. I'm certainly used to it from online gaming, but it's unlike the other IRL competitive things I've done in the past.
I've never had any malicious attacks towards me while playing paper mtg.
However...
The butthurt obviously angry seething while staring at his cards making me feel bad for him guy has been very common in later rounds of the lower brackets of tournaments.
|
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On January 30 2014 13:48 slOosh wrote:Ah I see, thanks for all the help! So if it is that good, why do the few Jund decks (mtgtop8.com) only run 3, and most orzhov midrange run 0? edit: Ended up reading a great article on thoughtseize by Reid Duke which answers a lot of my questions: http://www.starcitygames.com/article/26855_Thoughtseize-You.html
I don't play Standard but from an Eternal format perspective:
- In Modern and Legacy you don't rely exclusively on your Shocklands in order to get your mana right. Constantly taking 2 is a big deal, and you don't want to keep shocking yourself because it adds up fast. (See: Conley Woords)
- In Modern and Legacy everyone has super powerful cards. So Thoughtseize scales really well so you almost definitely want one in your opening hand. Games also might be over very quickly so you need to see it fast. Standard you're not on such a timer. For reference, the general rule is 4x if you want to see it in your opening hand, 3x for something you want to see at least once a game, 2x for win conditions or diversified threats, and 1x for tutor targets. (This is a very rough guide.)
- There's less combo decks in Standard (are there any at all right now?) so fighting from that angle is not as important. Being able to hit the board becomes more important as a result.
|
On January 31 2014 07:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2014 05:23 micronesia wrote:On January 31 2014 04:58 deth2munkies wrote:
Also there's no option on MtGO to say "I have it" and show them your hand to prompt a concession after they're tanking for 10 minutes debating whether or not you have it. If the opponent is in a situation where they will resign "if you have it" and will keep playing "if you don't have it" won't they just play under the assumption that you don't have it (after thinking a bit to make sure they aren't doing anything stupid) and then resign the moment you use the card? I don't really see why they would want to add a reveal hand feature, especially since (I think) they have the option to do it after the game is settled? edit: btw that mindset of 'being able to laugh in someone's face after winning a counter war,' although hopefully mostly just you guys joking around in the thread, characterizes pretty well why I decided I prefer playing magic online to IRL (competitive... not just casual with friends)... I find the community pretty unfriendly. I'm certainly used to it from online gaming, but it's unlike the other IRL competitive things I've done in the past. I've never had any malicious attacks towards me while playing paper mtg. However... The butthurt obviously angry seething while staring at his cards making me feel bad for him guy has been very common in later rounds of the lower brackets of tournaments.
I have tilted a couple of players who I know are pretty emotional. Its funny because all I do is keep a straight face the entire time, don't really talk, and then smile when they play into something. It's not about friendly or unfriendly because people take stuff the wrong way. I have purposely told players that I kept a 1 lander or a 7 lander on the play and just crush them, because it sets them up for games 2/3 and it also gives them the wrong impression of me.
It's like cheesing game 1 in SC2/BW where you just do it against certain players (like the IdrA's of mtg) where they just can't accept the variance like our friend who was eventually banned and micronesia when he first started playing. It usually builds up, and it usually results from players who haven't won a whole lot.
|
United States24664 Posts
I'm not sure what you mean by "can't accept the variance." Do you mean get upset that they had bad luck, even though bad luck is part of the game, or do you mean getting upset because of some illusion of extremely bad luck that isn't real?
I should also acknowledge that some of the 'unfriendliness' I've seen or heard about in IRL MTG is inherent to the game and not simply a reflection of the players. I still find that gets minimized somewhat on MTGO since you have so much less interaction with players, and can much more easily ignore BM and the like.
|
On January 31 2014 09:37 micronesia wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "can't accept the variance." Do you mean get upset that they had bad luck, even though bad luck is part of the game, or do you mean getting upset because of some illusion of extremely bad luck that isn't real?
I should also acknowledge that some of the 'unfriendliness' I've seen or heard about in IRL MTG is inherent to the game and not simply a reflection of the players. I still find that gets minimized somewhat on MTGO since you have so much less interaction with players, and can much more easily ignore BM and the like.
I mean can't accept the fact I pulled a perfect curve while keeping a 7 lander, or drew all my colors after keeping a 1 lander in 4 color deck. I just let them know that I did and it tilts them because I know I'll be playing off the top the entire way ahead of time. Like you know those "omg lucker noob" mentality you see in online games where the RNG is very apparent, their partners in crime are people who complain about their own bad luck constantly. You see them online too, the people who draw a trillion cards after the game has ended and if they were in real life, they would tell you "there's my out" X cards down.
I mean I play MtG IRL not for the game any more, but for the people that I hangout with. It's a lot of fun just hanging out with friends once a week to play like even if the format is bad or bland, then its still fun or we find other things to do like play Legacy or Commander in between rounds and/or go hang out afterwards. So even if you aren't doing well, it's not a total wash.
Like to give you an idea, we had friends drop by for picking up cards for SCG events and then stay 1 or 2 hours after the cards were picked up just to play around or whatnot.
It's all a matter of finding the right group of people to play with IRL, otherwise you get jaded and burned out pretty quickly cause honestly the game isn't all that fun after a while.
|
United States24664 Posts
Hahaha I always find it hilarious when people (online, offline, whatever) look to see what card was next in a situation where it no longer matters, and tries to draw some type of a conclusion based on the result... especially when they do what you said and make some kind of a case against your play as a result.
It's almost as bad as the belief that someone flipping a coin and getting heads twice means that tails is more than 50% next time with a fair coin, in my book.
|
I mean I am usually pretty whatever about it, but I understand if you know the guy's a giant jerk, and he's being a giant jerk, all the while face-rolling you, you would want to reach across and punch the guy.
|
On January 31 2014 09:54 micronesia wrote:
Hahaha I always find it hilarious when people (online, offline, whatever) look to see what card was next in a situation where it no longer matters, and tries to draw some type of a conclusion based on the result... especially when they do what you said and make some kind of a case against your play as a result.
It's almost as bad as the belief that someone flipping a coin and getting heads twice means that tails is more than 50% next time with a fair coin, in my book.
It matters sometimes. Sometimes you make a play that changes the amount of turns you get by 1-2 turns for a chance to also possibly win that much earlier. It doesn't matter for the game, but it matters for an understanding of your decision making process with the deck and card choices.
|
Eh, when playing with my brothers I'll flip over the next few cards just for kicks. The context matters and the attitude matters. It's more like aw man, look what could have happened but didn't. Doesn't matter but it's fun because we just share the experience. It also probably matters I would only do this in a limited situation, if you're playing constructed it's kind of dumb. Yes, I would expect you to have outs in your deck somewhere
|
On January 31 2014 09:54 micronesia wrote:
Hahaha I always find it hilarious when people (online, offline, whatever) look to see what card was next in a situation where it no longer matters, and tries to draw some type of a conclusion based on the result... especially when they do what you said and make some kind of a case against your play as a result.
It's almost as bad as the belief that someone flipping a coin and getting heads twice means that tails is more than 50% next time with a fair coin, in my book.
A lot of decisions in Magic come down to guessing what your top deck is. If you're not confident you know exactly what's left in your deck and exactly what ratio of cards call for which play, then actually checking is a good way to make sure you aren't making wrong calls consistently.
|
United States24664 Posts
Darkwhite the only way I can really see that is if there are lots of cases where you are putting cards on the bottom of your library (such as scrying) and want to test how good of a job you did at keeping track of the distribution of unscryed cards to scryed cards.... in which case you should probably go through the whole remaining library to get a better idea. Otherwise, looking at the top card does nothing except to confuse and upset you unless you record what it is each time, paired with carefully recorded estimates of what your odds of various cards were in that situation, and perform a calculation after collecting sufficient data to make statistically valid conclusions about your effectiveness at estimating/predicting odds of drawing different cards in different situations with your given deck. If you have been playing a game where you pretty much win right now if you topdeck your lava axe, draw a mountain, die next turn, and then look to see whether or not your next card was a lava axe, it really doesn't help you. You had (say) 2 lava axes left in your deck, and 44 cards left in your library. It is a 1/22 chance you topdeck a lava axe... whether your next card is a lava axe or not does not in any way say if you screwed up or if your opponent got lucky or anything else.
|
You dont need to look at the top card either if your doing predictions since you know whats in your deck and in your graveyard so you already know the %.
Keeping track of scry is a reason to check but then you check the bottom.
Looking at the top can only make you tilt and almost never provides you with an advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
