My personal opinion about last games

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

My personal opinion about last games

Mr.Rouge
Hi everybody,
you know, I love to play this game and I have practically explored every combination or strategy to win a match, like almost all other players I fought against, because upgrades seems to take a lot of time, letting everyone experimenting at will. So, in a good game vs strong players, winning a match is became a matter of luck, to pick right deck at the right moment.

Sadly someone says to me that the way I play is boring, and stuff like "I don't want to play against that shit" and other kind words (quitting matches without waiting for my answer, whatever), just because I use a lot of rare cards (that I have collected after years of gaming) and play strong, working, strategy-based decks.
 
In my opinion, until we will have new cards, we can do few things:
- try new decks with less powerful cards or combos, or theme decks, just for fun;
- try to improve your strong decks, slightly changing one or two cards and play several test matches;
- stop playing and wait for something new.

I don't understand complains like that, because I bought rare cards to play with them, and if you play on purpose a poor deck just for breaking monotony, you know that are better decks around, so it's pointless to discuss about that during a match...

So, what do you think about your last games?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Quintivarium
I think a lot of the long term players share the frustration of a long period without new material to keep the game fresh, and I think you have listed all the viable options.  Hopefully, the Goblins will soon be to a point where new content can flow again.

I also understand the feeling of players when certain decks or approaches to the game ruin the fun of playing.  In some moods, the mere presence of aquamancers makes me want to quit as I find they almost totally hijack the strategy of the game.  But on a deeper level, I think there are three viable strategies for winning the game at present (there are others that I have not found viable with current cards).  And players in the mindset of the first are very likely to be put off by the other two.  The first, what I call the classic strategy, is might vs. might.  With this strategy, players slug it out, with minions, supported by spells and auras, overpowering opposing minions to eventually inflict life damage on the opponent.  This is a very fundamental mechanism of the game; the first most players encounter and use.  But there are two other, very different strategies that can render this classical approach largely irrelevant.

The second approach is what I would call a stranglehold strategy, in which any enemy minion played is almost immediately destroyed at very little or no cost to me.  Decks relying on fire prism, pack attack, law of the jungle, or aquamancers/voltas with energize/overworld elixir are typical examples.

And the third type of strategy is what I term a bypass strategy.  The idea is to bypass some aspect of the classical strategy to win.  Typical bypasses include avoiding the need to keep minions on the board to inflict damage (e.g. quick minions coupled with tornados), avoiding enemy blockers (e.g. with strengthened ghosts, burrowing under, or extremely rapid deployment that cannot be blocked), or inflicting substantial damage without using minion attacks (power dive, spell storm, blood orb, mortality, etc.)

Unfortunately, most classical decks have few options for dealing with the other strategies (indeed, to some degree, the alternative strategies are designed to render classical decks impotent).  And while there are ways to defend against these strategies in classical decks, doing so usually "wastes cards" in a way that render the decks less successful against other classical decks.

I think that is also why "luck" of choosing the right deck at the right time is so important.

I don't know a solution to these issues, but I think the best approach is courtesy and communication.  If I know (and remember) that a certain player hates encountering a certain deck, I avoid playing it.  And as I prefer to avoid decks with aquamancers, I do not use the card and inform opponents who use it against me that I dislike facing the card (and often my reasons why).  And while some people would rather argue than acknowledge a difference in taste, most will try to insure their opponent can enjoy the game as well.  Of course, there is a big difference between requesting avoidance of a few things (such as one card or type of deck) that spoil fun and demanding my opponent play a deck I can defeat!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

markturnergoblin
In the new version of Spell craft (which is almost complete) we have lowered the timer on fire prism to 10. Also Law of the jungle will have a timer. I am still thinking of lowering Aquamancers strength to 0 , or possibly increasing its cost to 3. what do you think?  Having a strength of 0 would mean it would not be able to ignore the likes of even 2/2 minions in front of it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Mr.Rouge
I think limiting aquamancers is a good thing. I suggest to limit also Savage trappers (casting cost 3 or strength reduced by 1), Archmage (strength reduced by 1) and Power Dive (casting cost 2). 

For Quintivarium: Very interesting point of view, as usual ;) As you said, first of all: communication. I play this game for fun and I would like my opponents do the same. Everyone can ask me for some kind of game.. For example no aquamancers, no Fire prism ecc, with good manners.. no problem at all with a previous agreement!  But in a random match from a queue, if nothing in chat appears, I will chose my preferred deck.

Il giorno 05 giu 2016, alle ore 14:16, markturnergoblin [via Spellcraft - Descent into Chaos] <[hidden email]> ha scritto:

In the new version of Spell craft (which is almost complete) we have lowered the timer on fire prism to 10. Also Law of the jungle will have a timer. I am still thinking of lowering Aquamancers strength to 0 , or possibly increasing its cost to 3. what do you think?  Having a strength of 0 would mean it would not be able to ignore the likes of even 2/2 minions in front of it.


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://spellcraft-descent-into-chaos.13652.n7.nabble.com/My-personal-opinion-about-last-games-tp2383p2385.html
To unsubscribe from My personal opinion about last games, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Quintivarium
In reply to this post by markturnergoblin
While I believe my aversion to aquamancers is that they are generally badly overpowered, it is hard for me to objectively judge whether my opinion is swayed by the fact that they are particularly inimical to my playing style.  So not only do I hope other players will respond to Mark’s question, but I would like to begin by restating my case that aquamancers are badly overpowered.

I believe aquamancers are overpowered because:
1.  Their special power through the course of a game is overwhelming:
          A.  1 hit point of damage, turn after turn, is devastating.  I have demonstrated elsewhere, I think indisputably, that the average amount of minion health deployed per turn is well under 3.  Thus a single aquamancer, unenhanced, effectively negates 1/3 of forces I can sustainably deploy.
          B.  The damage done by aquamancers is entirely at the aquamancer’s discretion.  Thus, not only do I lose 1/3 of what I can deploy, it is always the 1/3 that hurts most.
          C.  An aquamancer cannot be temporarily stopped.  Unlike a bone dragon that can be temporarily stopped by throwing cheap junk in its path, an aquamancer can almost always invoke its power to good effect.
          D.  An aquamancers power has virtually no limitations or negative consequences.  Unlike necromancers or primeval flames (which in themselves are extremely powerful), an aquamancer can use its power without limit, even while becoming stronger doing so.
          E.  Aquamancers are easy to use, requiring no support from other cards in a deck.  While aquamancers can become even more devastating with appropriate support (e.g. overworld elixirs), their power requires no effort or support to invoke.  This is unlike pyrohydras whose special power requires a (somewhat) difficult trigger or fireprisms which are useless without power generating cards.  It is also unlike law of the jungle that encourages avoidance of low health minions.  Thus aquamancers require no sacrifices in deck design, and almost every deck is stronger with than without them.
          F.  Not only are aquamancers a very powerful card, they directly contribute very effectively to any stranglehold tactics (as described in my post above).  So aquamancers are both devastating units on their own, and they easily support deck strategy.

2.  Aquamancers are extremely hard to neutralize:
          A.  Relatively few cards can single-handedly handle an aquamancer.  Between an aquamancer’s ability to damage (and often kill) stronger minions, its ability to move out of dangerous situations, and its ability to gain health, there are very few cards in the game that can defeat an aquamancer.  I counted 23 cards in the game able to destroy an existing aquamancer on their own and only 9 of these are effective if the aquamancer has used it power even once.  Even granted that there are card combos that destroy aquamancers, cards that force the aquamancer to move, or things like shadow dragons to effectively copy the aquamancers’ ability, this is really too few options.
          B.  Destruction of aquamancers is time critical.  Because aquamancers gain health rather rapidly, there is almost nothing that destroys an aquamancer three or more rounds after it is deployed.  And as mentioned before, an aquamancer cannot be temporarily stopped – it is destroyed or nothing. Thus, not only must I carry one of very few cards that can handle an aquamancer, I must carry enough such cards that they are in hand when an aquamancer is played.

3.  Aquamancers are exceptionally cheap:
          A.  Aquamancers, even if unused, almost always cost more to destroy than to deploy.  Of the 23 cards able to individually handle an aquamancer, only one (liquefy) is actually cheaper, and one (wall of stalagmites) is the same cost.  If one values cards in hand at 2 power points each (the cost of drawing a card), any card combo to deal with aquamancers has to be at least as expensive as the aquamancer.
          B.  Cost 2 is a very advantageous price point.  A cost 2 card is a great tandem to many useful cost 3 cards (think volta, water elemental, sea snake, siren, floods, or lost at sea), and can generally be considered a supplement rather than the primary play in a given turn.
          C.  Aquamancers are so cheap that they can be deployed in the same turn as many enhancements that render them practically invincible: energize, overworld elixir, astral armor, glade faeries, life force, barkskin, etc.

4.  Beyond (or in part because of) being overpowered, aquamancers hurt the game in other ways:
          A.  They can immediately and permanently change the focus of the game.  I once opposed an aquamancer/energize deck with a copycat (shadow dragons, shadow fiends, darkling snatchers, pilfer, darkling slavers, body swap, etc.) deck.  It was very telling that both players totally focused on building and using aquamancers (or aquamancer imitators) over developing deepspawn, deepsea things, archmages, blood vapours, etc.  Except in cases where the aquamancer can be immediately destroyed or developed to the point of being indestructible, aquamancers hijack all the attention of both players.
          B.  Aquamancers increase the role of luck at the cost of strategy.  Because aquamancers are hard to develop after strong units are deployed in all lanes, they do lose effectiveness unless drawn in the first six to eight turns of a game.  Thus order of the draw becomes highly important.  Moreover, since so few cards are effective against them, the order those cards are drawn (again luck) is critical.

Now I will admit that there is also value in aquamancers as part of the game:

1.  It is important that at low cost cards play a significant role in the game.  Low cost cards playing a critical role in at least some games adds considerable richness to Spellcraft in general.

2.  Aquamancers do lead to many interesting tactical decisions.  In cases where the aquamancer is neither immediately destroyed nor quickly rendered indestructible, the “battle of the aquamancer” can often be quite interesting and enjoyable.  I just don’t like that the entire game typically depends upon it.

3.  The power of aquamancers is somewhat balanced by their initial vulnerability, and their relative uselessness unless played before all lanes are filled.

So I would definitely like to see something done to better balance the aquamancer.  Mark, I think both options you suggest are good.  After either one, the card will retain its essential characteristics.  And its effectiveness will be reduced, but not so much that players will cease to find it very powerful.  In fact, I believe neither goes far enough, but I would agree that it is better to weaken the card too little than too much.

At strength 0, the card does become slightly more vulnerable, but this vulnerability is fairly easily offset by energize type effects, and somewhat by health granting effects.  I have faced many combinations where even a 4/4 dragon placed opposite an aquamancer is destroyed without acting (consider 2 aquamancers in play, or an aquamancer/volta combo with two overworld elixirs).  This change will shift “the battle of the aquamancer” in favor of the player opposing the aquamancer, but it has no effect on the consequences of losing the battle, and very limited effect on what can be used as weapons in it.  This approach basically addresses my argument 2 as to why aquamancers are overpowered.  I think it would have to be tried to see if it does so adequately – and sufficiently to offset my other arguments.

Raising the cost of aquamancers to 3 directly addresses my third argument.  An aquamancer would no longer be a secondary play in the game, could no longer be played with voltas or second aquamancers, and would be a little harder to immediately enhance (e.g. by playing and using overworld elixir in the same turn).  And now several cards that destroy an aquamancer do so at the same cost as playing the aquamancer.  But it does not limit the aquamancer’s effectiveness in any other way, and somewhat sacrifices the nice feature of a cheap (translate cost 2 or less) card significantly impacting the game.

I would like to throw out two more options.  These are not necessarily better, but may be worth considering: 1. give the aquamancer a timer (say 12) that limits it to 5 natural actions before time expires.  2. limit the aquamancer’s power to apply only to minions whose health is at least that that of the aquamancer.  Thus an aquamancer would initially be able to hit anything, but the more its power is used and its health grows, the fewer targets it can affect.  I also think the old suggestion of charging one power point to use the aquamancer’s ability should not be taken off the table.  Keep in mind that the cost to a firewolf for using a much less effective special is one power point.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Quintivarium
In reply to this post by Mr.Rouge
Unfortunately, the problem with in queue chat is that if I am already set to a deck I like (often the case) and I have no real reason to think it inappropriate (such as playing a dragon deck against what appears to be a beginning player who may own no strength 4 minions), I hit play before there is much time for chat.  Perhaps this is a habit I should change.  And if I do change deck, I believe chat does not appear in the deck selection screen, so I am not likely to see requests.  But relying on my memory of opposing player preferences is not really any better!

But otherwise I agree with you totally.  Certainly a player should be able to use the decks he likes and wants to play.  And there is a big difference between quitting a game in a huff and politely expressing an opinion that a certain card or type of deck is ruining the game.

And I really don't understand a player who doesn't want to play you.  I always find your decks interesting, creative, and fair -- even if almost impossible to defeat.  And you are always very pleasant to play.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Quintivarium
In reply to this post by Mr.Rouge
Mr. Rouge,

I have no real problems with savage trappers or archmages as they are.  But you probably have more experience with them against other players.  Can you elaborate on why you find them over-powered?

I am torn on power dive.  While it does make blitz decks almost too strong, I find that without it, most quick minions are over-priced for their effectiveness.  While I agree there is a problem here, I think 2 power points makes the card too costly.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Mr.Rouge
Quintivarium,
Thanks for your kind words!
I always try to behave with others as I would like they behaves with me.
When I play a 2 player match, I also do not wait and I press play keeping the deck that I was playing in single player mode, but during the game anyone can write and ask me anything. And maybe in the next challenge may be more fun for both.

About cards:
Single card's abilities are more effective when played in the right deck combining with other cards.. Savage trappers and Archmage have an "automatic" ability, that allow to inflict damage in every phase of the game, which means that they can be casted with a quick-similar effect, and during the game they can inflict damage in two lines thanks to elusive ability, and to spell immune minions too. Because do not become exhausted, they can moving on the game board or attack, giving the owner a triple advantage: a free to act minion, an automatic damage that manifests playing other cards and the effect of the other cards themselves... and there's a lot of cheap cards (traps or spells) to play with.
So, in example, with only 3 energy points I can cast a flamespike to inflict 3 damages to opposing minion then attack my opponent with my Archmage, causing him lose 3 life points.. or with 2 energy points I can cast a Savage Trapper and 4 zero cost traps, destroying almost every existing minion in the game and and weakening the opponent's game thanks to traps that I placed.

When played in the right decks, they are virtually unbeatables.
Archmage have 3 strength which can handle almost every minion in the game for at least two rounds, giving you the time to cast easily enough spells to kill them.
Savage trappers costs 2 and they give you the chance to cast a pair of them in the same turn.
Both have elusive, which makes them extremely versatile and dangerous. Last but not least, when your opponent have two or three of them on the board, even in combination with cards like Astral Armour, the game is practically lost.

Power dive is slightly different. In a classic strategy deck is a good card, born to avoid a minion waste when facing something bigger and give him an useful death, but with a zero cost it becomes devastating with quick overloaded minions. In combination with a fast card drawing strategy you can cast, attack, overload and sacrifice 3 cheap minions for a 2, max 3 turn-win. Maybe a cost of 2 maybe too much, but at a cost of 1 still too little (better than zero, however), because often can double damage a minion can inflict.

Limiting these cards would lead to a leveling of the playing strategies, because very often you can find opponents who play only decks which are sure to win (those that rely on Aquamancers, Fire Prism, Savage Trappers /Archmage and Power Dive). Therefore, if the goblins decide to limit Mancers and Prisms to avoid the construction of too unbalanced decks, for the same reason should be limited these other.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Srvannor
In reply to this post by markturnergoblin
markturnergoblin wrote
In the new version of Spell craft (which is almost complete) we have lowered the timer on fire prism to 10. Also Law of the jungle will have a timer. I am still thinking of lowering Aquamancers strength to 0 , or possibly increasing its cost to 3. what do you think?  Having a strength of 0 would mean it would not be able to ignore the likes of even 2/2 minions in front of it.
I think having input by two players after a long period of general inactivity isn't the best way to judge whether a card is overpowered or not and may not represent the majority of your player base.

Personally, I dislike playing against several cards. But there are plenty of countering cards for those - many times it just comes down to luck and which deck I've picked.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

luis777garcia
There is a lot of great feedback here guys!

I think that luck should determine the game's card draw but strategy should determine the battle's outcome. Going into a fight and realizing you chosed the wrong deck to kill certain deck lacks strategy. It is very annoying to have players drop fights because of luck or automated decks being played. I've done it too quit when a prism, quick, elixir aquamancer, or blood orb come to play. The savage trappers decks can be fought against sometimes.

Don't we all love those long lasting battles?

My input on some game features & cards that should be modified to allow more strategy & less automation.

Have a penalty of losing rank points if a player manually quits a fight. Having players quit during a battle just isn't fun.

Automate that end turn please.

Blood Orb: Multiples of this card coupled with zombies & bats is a quick automated way to victory. The card could have a timer. 10-15 turns?

Prism: omg don't get me started here... Timer please

Savage trappers: I love this card for it can cause multiple extra damage each turn & it comes with elusive but a single trapper can dominate if not wiped out right away. A cost of 3 is fair.

Archmage: I'm torn over this one because it plays similar to the savage trappers. Reducing its strenght to 2/2 works.

Aquamancers: ........... .... ..
This card is so annoying. A strenght of 0/1 is okay or make the cast cost higher.

Accursed: This aura should not be allowed to punish you the entire battle. A low timer could really work here.

Wild Growth: This aura is the steroids of the game. Multiples of this aura can over power an opponent. A timer is totally fair.

Stranglevines: Not a deal breaker but reducing the timer is cool too.

Power Dive: Now you know you hate losing a battle in less than 5 turns (maybe less if played with jungle) because of quick decks coupled with this 0 cost terror. A cost of 2 will slow down the quick decks & allow for more turns.

Tornado: not sure why the timer on this one is so high.

Over all the game is the best card game hands down. Making some adjustments can allow for more strategy. Good work guys!
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Mr.Rouge
Very good proposals.. some thoughts on that:

In my opinion, abandoning a game have to remain a fair option. There's a lot of good motivation to quit a match: time, accidents, sudden problems, an incoming call etc.. there's no problem if someone have to go, I can understand. Sadly there's no a practicable way to completely avoid bad quitting by rude players.
So I propose A QUIT REQUEST. No one can leave until I accept his request. A kind of button I can quickly press, nothing too complicated or game-slowing, with chat inside, just to have the time to ask why he leaving. It may helps to understand when a game quits itself for bugs or forced by opponent, too. I know that someone who want to quit an unlucky game can pretend anything, but you can see if he quit only when is losing.
To limiting this problem i suggest A FEEDBACK-BASED ACCOUNT SYSTEM. Every player could be voted, warned if reach 5 bad feedbacks, banned if reach 10.

Blood orb is a powerful card, but when you use its power, becomes exhausted. And you need to sacrifice minions, leaving lanes free to be attacked. To manage an Orb-based deck you need a lot of good strategy too. Should have been to work in a different way, in example dealing damage to opponent equal to destroyed minion's casting cost.

Best solution about Savage Trappers or Archmage could be to remove elusive from them.

I think Stranglevines may remain the same, or with a little less timer, but it works like Dreadmarsh Plague. I would like to see a timer on this card too.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

MikeGoblin
Administrator
In reply to this post by luis777garcia
> Automate that end turn please.

We often discuss whether the turn should end automatically after pressing Attack.
There are sometimes some moves you can make after an attack though so it would eliminate those.

But, for simplicity and ease of play, I would tend to prefer it if the turn ended automatically, because I still sometimes forget to press it :)

Would be interested in your views, even if ultimately we keep it (and maybe everyone is used to it now).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

Srvannor
Please don't let attack mark the end of turn.  There are a lot of strategies and combos that rely on attacking first.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: My personal opinion about last games

SteveGoblin
I suspect the experienced players (and/or those with experience of MTG) prefer an after-attack phase. It is more tactical at the expense of a slightly slower game.