Login | Register


All times are UTC - 7 hours


It is currently 2019-May-20 10:01 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-27 8:14 am 

Joined: 2014-Jul-26 11:35 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Sid the Chicken wrote:
sir squab wrote:
I propose that you be the one to bring it up every time you sit down with people you don't usually play with.

This. When you sit down with new people, the onus is on you to be sure you're on the same page. If you're not willing to do that, you have a lot less room to get mad when they do things you detest (unless they lied about it - "No, we don't play MLD" as he taps his mana for Armageddon).


I 100% agree, and I do generally ask. I forget sometimes so I am hoping that other people can be aware of the effects of their cards on a broader scale. Id still blame myself for not asking if it happened, but that wont change the fact that I'm going to be grabbing a beer and not playing for a while, till the game reaches its natural end

Quote:
Is Ajani Vengeant considered OK? I mean, his ult is kinda a dick move, but in most situations, you should see it coming from miles away.


You have really said it yourself, unless they are playing doubling season, you are going to know that the Ajani ult is coming and you should either put all your resources into stopping it or prepare for it. Additionally the fact that it's "kind of a dick move" means it's generally not going to be considered ok.

_________________
Favourite Deck:
Ghost Council of Orzhova

Playing Online:
Noyan Darr & Sedris Zombie Guy


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-27 11:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
crokaycete wrote:
Kaervek is a good example of a red ramp punisher.

No it isn't. You're punishing everyone for every spell that they cast, not just ramp. Sure, ramp will have more mana available, but doesn't mean they're using more mana.

So if your example can miss your classification, why can't mine? Also, why does a red punisher card need to fall into your classifications?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-27 11:24 am 

Joined: 2013-Aug-20 4:37 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Boston
MRHblue wrote:
Swmystery wrote:
As a bit of an aside, I'd much prefer it if someone running Soulscour warned people about it first, too, as against most decks it's very close to MLD.
I am sure you would so you can prepare. Make sure you tell them what your finisher is so they can hold up countermagic for it.

You say that like it is a bad thing, but a conversation where people figure out whether you should expect a game that ends with cards like Tooth and Nail or cards like Hellkite Overlord is a good thing.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-27 1:26 pm 

Joined: 2012-Jun-07 5:38 pm
Age: Drake
JJackson wrote:
You say that like it is a bad thing, but a conversation where people figure out whether you should expect a game that ends with cards like Tooth and Nail or cards like Hellkite Overlord is a good thing.


Expecting others to out their win condition(s) before you play the game is ridiculous. It's one thing to run MLD, which is always going to be a dick move; Decree of Annihilation and co. can return to the fiery pit from whence they were conceived. To out each and every win combo or condition before a game starts to give people "a fair shot" or whatever it is you're implying doesn't make any sense. After a game or two people would get an idea for what your deck wants to do anyway.

I'm with you on the whole, MLD is a dick move regardless. Ajani Vengeant's ultimate being the exception because you can see it coming from a mile away. A player running Exquisite Blood + Sanguine Bond shouldn't have to notify everyone of potentially resolving a 2 card win combo. The same goes for other combos. If people don't have answers when problematic spells resolve, then it's a lesson learned to hold answers and not over extend.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-27 3:22 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
crimsonwings3689 wrote:
JJackson wrote:
You say that like it is a bad thing, but a conversation where people figure out whether you should expect a game that ends with cards like Tooth and Nail or cards like Hellkite Overlord is a good thing.


Expecting others to out their win condition(s) before you play the game is ridiculous.

There's a difference between outing their specific win-cons and finding out what is considered fair play.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-27 4:45 pm 

Joined: 2012-Apr-11 7:17 am
Age: Elder Dragon
JJackson wrote:
You say that like it is a bad thing, but a conversation where people figure out whether you should expect a game that ends with cards like Tooth and Nail or cards like Hellkite Overlord is a good thing.
Emphasis mine. The type of card, absolutely. The EXACT card no.

_________________
sir squab wrote:
My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>
niheloim wrote:
No, I think he's right. I'm just all butt-hurt over prophet.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-27 7:43 pm 

Joined: 2008-Aug-08 6:34 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: Rouen, France
MRHblue wrote:
JJackson wrote:
You say that like it is a bad thing, but a conversation where people figure out whether you should expect a game that ends with cards like Tooth and Nail or cards like Hellkite Overlord is a good thing.
Emphasis mine. The type of card, absolutely. The EXACT card no.



"Hey guy, I have very big swingy spells that allow me to end the game in short order, but that's no reason to target me first, eh?! guys? GUYS!?" *arrgghh* [/dies]

_________________
Current decks:
Sydri's random pile of cards with "Artifact" on them
Scarab God Zombie Horde
Atraxa Superfriends
Yidris Eldrazi (4C Devoid)
Sissay Angel Oath
Wort's Goblin Conspiracy
Gonti's Mega-Bouncy Castle


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-27 11:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
zimagic wrote:
"Hey guy, I have very big swingy spells that allow me to end the game in short order, but that's no reason to target me first, eh?! guys? GUYS!?" *arrgghh* [/dies]

Again, the idea is to find out ahead of time whether you're about to participate in a game that is going to get you uninvited from future games. If you have big swing spells that end the game and they're OK with that, chances are that they ALSO have big swingy spells that end the game, or are just so combo-oriented that you'll never get a chance to cast said spells before someone wins. So no, by having an up-front discussion, you are not inviting everyone to kill you first.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-28 1:28 am 

Joined: 2011-Sep-30 6:08 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
No it isn't. You're punishing everyone for every spell that they cast, not just ramp. Sure, ramp will have more mana available, but doesn't mean they're using more mana.

So if your example can miss your classification, why can't mine? Also, why does a red punisher card need to fall into your classifications?
Wait a second... you're saying that the ramp deck is generating a ton of mana... but then not using it? That is not how ramp decks work.

In the abstract, Kaervek punishes "everyone for every spell." But that's not reality. If my plan is to win with Stoneforge Mystic suiting up my Kemba, Kaervek is awful against me. If my plan is to cast giant Hydras with X in the cost, Kaervek is going to be a real problem. And, because Kaervek costs 7, it is normally only going to interact with the sorts of expensive, late-game spells that are typical of ramp decks.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. There is a design that goes beyond just the printed text. I'm not talking about creating special classifications. I'm talking about understanding what a card is meant to accomplish and letting the form follow that intended function. If there is no coherent design intent, it doesn't matter what you can or can't print on a card because there is no objective to meet or fall short of as a basis for understanding if the implementation was a success.

This is a fundamental design principle (for game design and in general.) You don't want to just make a thing. You want to accomplish a design goal, and the thing's success is measured by how well it meets the goal.

_________________
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
Cryocerete (sp?)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-28 3:25 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
crokaycete wrote:
Wait a second... you're saying that the ramp deck is generating a ton of mana... but then not using it? That is not how ramp decks work.

That's not how they intend to work, no. But sometimes it does happen. Or they have a big expensive spell they can cast, but don't want to for various reasons (lack of targets, waiting for a bigger effect once more permanents are around, etc.)

crokaycete wrote:
In the abstract, Kaervek punishes "everyone for every spell." But that's not reality. If my plan is to win with Stoneforge Mystic suiting up my Kemba, Kaervek is awful against me. If my plan is to cast giant Hydras with X in the cost, Kaervek is going to be a real problem. And, because Kaervek costs 7, it is normally only going to interact with the sorts of expensive, late-game spells that are typical of ramp decks.

No, he's typically going to interact with all sorts of expensive, late-game spells that any deck can run because he doesn't come out until late, and isn't in any easy ramp colours. There's nothing about him targeting ramp decks from his design, and those late-game spells aren't only cast by ramp decks. Ramp decks just get to cast them earlier (in which Kaervek likely isn't out.)

crokaycete wrote:
There is a design that goes beyond just the printed text. I'm not talking about creating special classifications. I'm talking about understanding what a card is meant to accomplish and letting the form follow that intended function.

Except your own examples don't always fall into your own classifications. And, collateral damage happens, so a card doesn't have to only work for that "intent." Also, you seem to be disregarding that just because the intent isn't specific "hate on X" in this case, that the card/intent is wrong.

What's wrong* with "Hate on people getting more than 1 mana out of a permanent"? (*I understand the issue with it not affecting stuff like mana granted from Gauntlet of Power, and I agree it's non-intuitive which would make it a real issue for printing such a card.)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-28 4:04 am 

Joined: 2011-Sep-30 6:08 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
Except your own examples don't always fall into your own classifications.
You have failed to demonstrate this. It's also immaterial. There are no "classifications." There is design intent and implementation.

Yes, collateral damage happens. (Yes, sometimes I'm going to take 1 damage from casting Brainstorm that ends up mattering more than you taking 15 from Genesis Wave from a Kaervek. But that's an exception.)
Carthain wrote:
What's wrong* with "Hate on people getting more than 1 mana out of a permanent"?
Because that isn't sensible design intent. That's like saying "I want to design a bicycle with 3 wheels." Why would want that? Instead, the better goal is "I want to design a bicycle that children will feel safe and comfortable riding." Then you implement that with a tricycle.

So, yes, you could absolutely print a card that does the thing you have described. Yes, it would be a red card. But why would you? What is the overall goal that the card is trying to achieve, and is this actually a good way to accomplish that goal?

_________________
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
Cryocerete (sp?)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-28 4:59 am 

Joined: 2012-Jun-07 5:38 pm
Age: Drake
Sid the Chicken wrote:
zimagic wrote:
"Hey guy, I have very big swingy spells that allow me to end the game in short order, but that's no reason to target me first, eh?! guys? GUYS!?" *arrgghh* [/dies]

Again, the idea is to find out ahead of time whether you're about to participate in a game that is going to get you uninvited from future games. If you have big swing spells that end the game and they're OK with that, chances are that they ALSO have big swingy spells that end the game, or are just so combo-oriented that you'll never get a chance to cast said spells before someone wins. So no, by having an up-front discussion, you are not inviting everyone to kill you first.


More often than not, a commander is going to give away what the deck wants to do. You see Kemba? Boom, they're running equipments. Uril? Aura voltron beatdown. Melek? Copy all the spells. Narset? Get anything of value for free on hiting successfully. Kaalia? Some combination of angels, demons and/or dragons being cheated into play. It's not really so farfetched to assume these things when the format is based off building decks off commanders and their abilities/effects. Every now and again you find someone just running a generic commander for good stuff in the colors, but the majority of the time a person can ballpark a strategy based off seeing the commander.

Now there are some staple cards for the format and for certain commanders/color combinations so outside of assuming that they might be there, every deck is going to be built a bit differently. Outside of supremely douche cards like decree of annihilation and co., most other things that aren't banned are fair game.

Outing one's self with what your deck wants to do, let alone the method of it doing so isn't going to help anyone. You play a game and if someone plays a card like Armageddon that no one wants to see played, you talk to the person running it. If after letting someone know that they decide to keep it in there, then just opt not to play with them until the group's desired change is made. Otherwise play with them, gang up on them and if they complain as to why they get focus-fired, tell them it's because you don't want to see that card resolve.

If I'm running a creature focused deck and most others in the play group do as well, we can't just make a rule for no boardwipes...

I shouldn't have to tell someone that by running Kaalia, my goal is to grief people and cheat into play/beat them down with some of the most expensive (cmc), biggest, baddest, most impactful creatures in MTG. That should be self explanatory by my choice of commander.

TLDR: outing how the deck wants to win isn't necessarily going to draw you aggro out the gate. Some things can be inferred from the choice of commander. Mentioning the ability to go from zero to hero and win before the game starts is unnecessary as the social rules that govern and usually police play choices should sort each situation out on an as needed basis. If that happens after a game or 2, then so be it. You're there to play a game, compete and have fun; you shouldn't expect to get free reign to develop your board unchecked.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-28 6:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2009-Aug-20 7:49 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
Location: New Hampshire
crimsonwings3689 wrote:
You're there to play a game, compete and have fun; you shouldn't expect to get free reign to develop your board unchecked.

No one claimed you should expect free reign. But we're talking about pick-up games here, and some of us don't enjoy wasting our time on games we don't have fun playing. You say you can infer likely strategy from general choice, and that's true - but that doesn't tell the whole story. Some people will play Kaalia just to drop all sorts of Mardu fat on your face. Others will cheat Avacyn in to play turn 3 then play landwipes and WoG until you want to vomit. And don't start in with "just answer Avacyn in response" type replies, because that's entirely missing the point. The point is you should find out what the social contract is when joining a new group before you play with them. You wouldn't want to join what you think is a game of touch football and discover it's really the NFL.

_________________
"The President's job - and if someone sufficiently vain and stupid is picked he won't realize this - is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide tot he Galaxy Radio Transcripts predicting the future.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-28 7:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: 2006-Dec-31 12:26 pm
Age: Elder Dragon
crokaycete wrote:
Because that isn't sensible design intent. That's like saying "I want to design a bicycle with 3 wheels." Why would want that? Instead, the better goal is "I want to design a bicycle that children will feel safe and comfortable riding." Then you implement that with a tricycle.

What is wrong with a bicycle with 3 wheels? Just because you can't think of why you'd want that doesn't mean it's a bad design to start with. If you start from a different place and end up in the same place as the one that is safe for children, what does it matter what the original intent behind it was?

Also, starting from a different point can come up with different end results - which is a good thing. It brings variety to the cards, and is something that MaRo says he does so as to keep getting different card designs.

Why would we want a mechanic focused on lands? That was one of the challenges that MaRo had to overcome -- and ended up the seed for a block that people were clamoring for a return to.

Just because you don't agree with the original premise doesn't mean it's a wrong place to start.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: For the good of the Format
AgePosted: 2015-Oct-28 7:50 am 

Joined: 2011-Sep-30 6:08 am
Age: Elder Dragon
Carthain wrote:
What is wrong with a bicycle with 3 wheels?
There is nothing wrong with a bicycle with 3 wheels. It's a perfectly valid implementation. It's just a terrible design goal.
Carthain wrote:
Why would we want a mechanic focused on lands?
Because it creates a different dynamic in gameplay than people are accustomed to. The design goal was, "Make drawing lands as exciting as drawing spells." Landfall was one of a huge number of mechanics that they tried out to implement that goal.

Design goal is about creating some user experience. Implementation is about how you achieve that. I don't know why you're fighting this so hard. It's really not that difficult or controversial a concept.

_________________
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
Cryocerete (sp?)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: