Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

New playstyle. Volunteers?


Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Magic
Author Message
SoloRenegade



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:20 am    Post subject: New playstyle. Volunteers? Reply with quote

I've been ranting and raving at the game's "luck" factor for years. The game, while fun, has some serious issues with unavoidable inconsistency as well as too few options in game to utilize in order to create a wider margin of skilled and amateur. Sadly I cannot fix the fact that most cards are straight forward and require little thought, but I think I've solved the consistency issue! So I have some ideas on how to fix it and want to know if someone would be willing to play some T2 with me and test out this new playstyle.

The Changes:
  • There is a new RFG pool called "Land Pool".
  • At the start of game you may remove up to 3 BASIC land from your deck and put them into the "Land Pool"
  • Once per turn you may RFG one card in hand to put one card from your "Land Pool" into your hand. This cannot be done in response to a spell or ability and cannot be responded to.
  • Once per turn you may RFG 2 land cards to draw a new card. This cannot be done in response to a spell or ability and cannot be responded to.
  • "Land Pool" counts as part of your library.
  • If a spell or ability asks you to discard, draw, or RFG cards from your library you may only pull from your "Land Pool" after your library is gone. You lose the game if you cannot do this.


What this accomplishes:
This system allows you to always have a good start on land. You are guaranteed 3 land of your color choice without reducing cards in hand or redrawing till something appears good. The game will ALWAYS start off well. If land flooded you have the option to lose 2 cards simply to gain 1, once per turn. The lands are RFG to limit combos that may exploit this. This makes sure you have a much higher chance of always being able to do something with your deck rather than waiting for a reasonable top deck. As well you can utilize the combo of RFGing a card in hand to pull a land from "Land Pool" and then RFGing that with another land to draw a new card. This will help in those late game scenarios when you draw an early game utility card and needs an answer or threat instead.

All in all this game removes the fluke factor. The game still will have random draws and will be hard to abuse with combo, but will put an end to the ridiculous land screws/floods that occur too often (and noooo...it's not MWS's fault).

What we needs to test for:

We need to make sure this can't be exploited by combo. It seems good, but you know how those things can go to hell with enough tinkering. As well we need to make sure the rules are obtaining the objective while not making the game too consistent (it does need some random variable)

One issue is I ONLY play T2 and rarely block so determining if this will work in t1 and 1.5 may be hard.

Any takers?


*sidenote: IF this takes hold and I can push to make a new playstyle, I will be tempted to make a custom set that embraces the concept of decision making cards as well as making sure every card is useful (anyone else irritated with how many crap cards magic has?). I would like to make an appeal to WOTC and post on forums to gain support for the game to shift in these directions.
Back to top
P_P4E



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That sounds like it would work, actually.
Back to top
Thanik



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like getting the occasional free win vs greedy manabases. Play a deck with fewer colors/more cheap card draw/manafixing/a better curve/more manlands/more cycling lands/all of the above. Valakut, eldrazi, or vampires for example rarely miss a beat.

Way too many people complain about being color screwed when they're running specter jund or something. Just have to accept that if you're going to run a greedy manabase you're going to lose games because of it, no matter how good the deck may be otherwise.

I know it's frustrating to drop a game when your mana should be fine, but it happens much less then it does to all the decks around that run 3 to 5 colors and no manafixing/card draw below 3 mana. I like the free wins.
Back to top
SoloRenegade



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanik wrote:
I like getting the occasional free win vs greedy manabases. Play a deck with fewer colors/more cheap card draw/manafixing/a better curve/more manlands/more cycling lands/all of the above. Valakut, eldrazi, or vampires for example rarely miss a beat.

Way too many people complain about being color screwed when they're running specter jund or something. Just have to accept that if you're going to run a greedy manabase you're going to lose games because of it, no matter how good the deck may be otherwise.

I know it's frustrating to drop a game when your mana should be fine, but it happens much less then it does to all the decks around that run 3 to 5 colors and no manafixing/card draw below 3 mana. I like the free wins.
Yes, that logic is fine and all, but why retain a system that is defective over a more efficient one? If my system can by pass the issue, why not embrace it rather than cope with a flawed one (I ask this because I'm constantly puzzled by this behavior in gamer forums. The concept of "deal with it" vs "make it better" should always have an obvious winner, yet sadly gains support on the obviously wrong decision...no offense, simple observation)

Mono colored can still be a victim of too much and too little land. As well, If there's one thing this game needs is variety so enabling multi colored decks simply allows for more builds to flourish since they can become more dependable rather than wasting slots to smooth things out while mono colored can have all game altering spells.

The "free win" should be an obvious defect, not a reward. The point of the game is to have dynamic interactions with another opponent using random circumstance of options to alter game state. If it is common that an opponent be rendered unable to interact with the game and use said options, without influence of the other player, the game has failed.
Back to top
Thanik



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SoloRenegade wrote:
Thanik wrote:
I like getting the occasional free win vs greedy manabases. Play a deck with fewer colors/more cheap card draw/manafixing/a better curve/more manlands/more cycling lands/all of the above. Valakut, eldrazi, or vampires for example rarely miss a beat.

Way too many people complain about being color screwed when they're running specter jund or something. Just have to accept that if you're going to run a greedy manabase you're going to lose games because of it, no matter how good the deck may be otherwise.

I know it's frustrating to drop a game when your mana should be fine, but it happens much less then it does to all the decks around that run 3 to 5 colors and no manafixing/card draw below 3 mana. I like the free wins.
Yes, that logic is fine and all, but why retain a system that is defective over a more efficient one? If my system can by pass the issue, why not embrace it rather than cope with a flawed one (I ask this because I'm constantly puzzled by this behavior in gamer forums. The concept of "deal with it" vs "make it better" should always have an obvious winner, yet sadly gains support on the obviously wrong decision...no offense, simple observation)

Mono colored can still be a victim of too much and too little land. As well, If there's one thing this game needs is variety so enabling multi colored decks simply allows for more builds to flourish since they can become more dependable rather than wasting slots to smooth things out while mono colored can have all game altering spells.

The "free win" should be an obvious defect, not a reward. The point of the game is to have dynamic interactions with another opponent using random circumstance of options to alter game state. If it is common that an opponent be rendered unable to interact with the game and use said options, without influence of the other player, the game has failed.


I guess I wasn't very clear. I enjoy finding a balance between power and reliability. I don't see it as a negative at all if a guy gets color/manascrewed vs me when he is running 3-4 colors, half his deck costs above 3, no cantrips, no draw, and maybe 3-4 fixers at 3+cc. He took a risk and it didn't pay off. If he didn't get screwed, the power level of his cards vs mine would win him the game easily. There has to be a tradeoff for that.

I don't see what it would add. You already have control over how often you get mana/color screwed by choosing what deck you play.

I also enjoy the balance between casting fixers/cantrips and maintaining tempo. An unwieldy juggernaut should be unwieldy. Grabbing any color of mana you want without tapping for a fixer or using etbt seems off, as does reliably 'splashing' broodmates or sorin in a u/w control deck.

That said, each person enjoys different aspects of the game. This is one of mine, which is why I wouldn't want to play that way. I'm sure plenty of people would.

While I'm at it, some other decks that rarely have mana trouble: runeflaretrap, turbofog. MBC might stall on the way to mind sludge mana, but it's not bad in a stall.
Back to top
SoloRenegade



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You still have the issue of drawing too many/too few lands.

Even a properly designed deck, complete with cantrips, land ramp, color fixing, and land milling suffers these problems frequently. This system simply removes the instance of games that are beyond a players control. You still will have decks that use these things, they will not be able to rely on the new mechanics solely. They're their as a tool to prevent bad luck games.

The argument of having saying more colors should be more luck reliant still states this game is more gambling than skill. Shouldn't the deck be about the plays made in game, not IF the deck is going to enable A play. The game develops skill when your options are open. Currently it's often hoping the top deck enables an obvious choice.
Back to top
KeySam



Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 649

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your sysetem is a little flawed because i can now play an aggresive deck with 3 lands be never screwed and draw a ton of gas. This means you change the fundamentals of magic(drawing dead cards later on) i could even continue and build a nice Belcher deck with your rules to kick balls. A lot of people complain about the luck in magic, but the truth is, their enyoing it. You wouldnt play this game if it wasnt for luck, it is what helps you beat better players and be beaten by worse. Its what makes the stories of the game, like the famous lightning helix or the posion kill. If you guys would realy enjoy playing only strategic games you would play an other game. And quite frankly magic has a very good luck/skill % to make both, new players enjoy the game and good players win.

And if you think you make the right play most of the times in magic, you probably didnt think hard enough.


KeySam
Back to top
ywizez



Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3 lands is way too many. With 3 basic lands of the colour that I want, I can probably make a deck with no other land and win.

I understand you want to fix mana screws and flood, but meanwhile, as one of the other posters mentioned, you're destabilizing the entire structure of Magic. Yes, if you have 19 lands in your deck, you might experience mana screw. If you have 26, you will be flooded. That's the point. If you have a reasonable number, let's say 23 in a standard deck with a mana curve that averages at 3, you still could be short/flooded, but it's less _likely_ to happen. The whole point of Magic is to build on probability. Sure, there's luck, but there's also a lot of probability. What that means is, if I build a "good" deck, I can experience mana problems, but I am less likely to do so, and my deck will be more consistent. That's the whole point.

Your idea is not without merit, but I'm sure you've built/can build, many decks that use 3 lands or less and destroy the opponent. Heck, in a deck built around the assurance of getting 3 lands the colour I want in my first 3 rounds, the only thing that could probably ruin its play would be an early Sinkhole.

Maybe you should rework the system to allow for less, like a pool of only 1 land (I consider that if you can't get another land through drawing, your deck is flawed). And mana flood is part of the game, if you want to curb it down, 2 lands to draw a card sounds too easy. Ever thought that if that was a rule, Harrow would be an instant that reads "Sacrifice a land: remove 2 useless cards from your deck and draw a card"? End game, it could almost insure you _never_ run out of steam, which sounds unfair to me.
Back to top
Zeph



Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 100

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You should check The Spoils game mechanics:


http://www.thespoils.com/spoils/view.php?pg=media (you can find the rulings here: basic and comprehensive)

http://thespoilschest.googlepages.com/
Back to top
NahHolmes



Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 738

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being able to draw a land whenever you want is just as dumb as getting mana screwed. I mean like someone said you could make a 3 color stompy deck and be 100% guaranteed to have access to all 3 colors whenever you needed them. For anything like what you are trying to do to work you need to have the drawback for getting a land be significant. For example 2 random cards in your hand rfg and you get 1 land and you have to do it at the beginning of your turn before you draw. Or better yet you could just play Magic and learn to build your deck with the correct amount of land and learn to mull properly and eliminate 90% of the problem. Exchanging the worst card in your hand for a land whenever you want is BROKEN. Bottom line.
Back to top
brimstone



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1 Mountain
1 Forest
1 Plains
4 Woolly Thoctar
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Ranger of Eos
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Birds of Paradise
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Bloodbraid Elf
4 Baneslayer Angel
3 Ajani Vengeant
4 Path to Exile
4 Lightning Bolt
And look, 17 more cards.
Back to top
Tao



Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 864

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, Brimstone, for showing these people just how retarded this idea is. Seriously, knock this crap off. I'm tired of hearing about it, and I've barely been on these forums for the past couple of months.

I should really keep the phrase "Stop whining about Magic" on my ctrl + v at all times.
Back to top
SoloRenegade



Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jonproject wrote:
Thank you, Brimstone, for showing these people just how retarded this idea is. Seriously, knock this crap off. I'm tired of hearing about it, and I've barely been on these forums for the past couple of months.

I should really keep the phrase "Stop whining about Magic" on my ctrl + v at all times.
Your type is completely useless. The whole "stop QQing and deal with a flawed system because no other can possible be found with any brain storming..." crowd...you know counter productive people that generate no beneficial purpose to the world beyond their elitists tones.

The idea is admittedly not perfect and I'm asking people to TEST for potential to develop one with me that will yield results better than whats currently in effect. You know EVOLVING the game to make it better. But mediocrity is just fine with you, eh?

Ideas aren't perfect at first, they need rough drafts. Pull your head out of your ass and add CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Other than that your post is completely retarded offering no input to the OP and ironically bumping the very thing your flaming.

(one can only take so many keyboard enabled 2nd string special olympic tweens before one has to point these things out in a not so very nice tone.)
Back to top
Tao



Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Posts: 864

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

God you suck, I'm not a tween. I'm two years old!

And what is all this drivel about "improving the game"? Is it really you trying to improve the game, or is it you trying to tamper with the luck factor, which are two different things? Casual formats like EDH or Highlander improve the game; they give new life to oddball cards and force you to pay utmost attention to everything that is going on, as your opponents are liable to throw pretty much anything at you.


And enjoy assuming you know everything about me from behind a computer. It'll get you far in life.


Oh, and Stop whining about Magic.
Back to top
Insom



Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 433

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No game would go past turn 4. Each matchup would play out very much the same every time.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy