May 20, 2018, 01:01:52 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Sailor Vulcan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 204
1
Events / Re: Gen Con 2018
« on: May 18, 2018, 04:16:57 PM »
Personally I'm disappointed. these rules are totally fair but there is a minimum amount of experience with the game to realize that these rules are fair. I didn't realize for the longest time that time limits don't break or unbalance the game unless you have timed wins. And considering previous use of timed wins in tournaments, I bet I'm not the only one.

Now the argument about time limits is about to be rehashed for the umpteenth time. I really wish we had a larger competitive playerbase so that we could get more tournament data more quickly. It's sad that it's taken so many years for us to start to realize that time limits are okay and timed wins are the real source of imbalance in tourneys.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

2
General Discussion / Re: The current state of MW
« on: May 18, 2018, 03:49:26 PM »
@Borg Also your statistics neglects the fact that many of the sets have been replaced by newer editions. Did you look at ratings for both editions of each set? Particularly including the ones before the "Arena" rebranding?

Mage Wars was never as popular as other similar games because it's made by a SMALL COMPANY.

Arcane wonders has never had more than 5 total employees and right now it only has 3. It does not have the ridiculous amount of money to throw around on advertising like wizards of the coast does. Nearly all other customizable strategy games are tcgs, and those are usually produced by bigger companies. Mage Wars was probably more popular when it was new BECAUSE it was new. Now it's no longer a shiny new toy to add to a casual gamer's board game collection and the current popularity probably reflects that.

Mage Wars likely has a low popularity in large part because there are a low number of people who even know about it. That doesn't mean its popularity is consistently going down over time. It could be about stable, neither going up or down much. And even if it is decreasing in popularity, if the rate at which the popularity goes down is also decreasing then you should expect the size of the playerbase to stabilize at some point. Based on what I've seen and heard of OCTGN as well as the German and North Carolina MW communities the game is still thriving in some places.

Mage wars isn't dying, you're just using the wrong standard to measure arcane wonder's and MW's success.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


3


Magic is fun if you do drafts because at least there you can see a certain variation of cards used - because you just don't always draft the cards you need. So by design the decks there vary.
But if you look at standard..  it's fun the first few weeks after the release, but the following month after the pro tour it's dull as heck because everyone who plays seriously (with ambition) is playing the same deck the pros play. You may see some slight variation in the sideboard, but apart from that you know exactly what cards your opponent has as early as in t1 or t2.
You are right, the different decks don't use the same cards but everyone is using the same decks and that it far worse than overlaps in essential cards, what you have in Mage Wars.

It might be the same in Mage Wars if we had a "pro scene" as well, who knows, but since we don't have a pro scene everyone builds there deck as THEY think it is best and not just copying it from the internet. That alone is reason enough for me why I prefer Mage Wars.

Hi Enti,

As you point out, if MW had a "pro scene" I think you'd notice the exact same situation : lots of players bringing the same, latest powerbuild netdeck to a tournament.

However, I can't speak for "Standard" as I only play Legacy.
I think however it may be safe to say that standard may have somewhat less variety & power builds because of its limited card pool.
From my Legacy experience last year I can however say that I'm very pleased with the number and variety of competitive Legacy decks.

The "fantastic time" I'm having with it is because I like to build my own decks and not netdeck.
The challenge here lies of course in the fact that anything you come up with has to be able to stand up against the decks to beat.

I agree that in Magic tournament settings, you likely know what you're up against after your opponents' first two turns.
In MW however I usually know what my opponent has in his book BEFORE we even sit down.
Likely, at least one Dissolve, Dispel, Bear Strength, Force Push, Teleport, Regrowth, Rhino Hide, Surging Wave, Hurl Rock, Pillar of Righteous Flame, Tanglevine etc ...
That's what I dislike in MW by now : every book using too many identical staple cards from all different spell schools.

Apart from that, being able to choose from your whole deck every single turn adds so much more depth to the game.. Makes it so much more important to predict what your enemy might want to do, imho that's something unique no other game has.

That's what I thought as well.
But not anymore.

IMO 120 SBP's is too much. ( at least 20 too much imo )
A book's base strategy cards can usually be built with +/- 60 SBP's.
That leaves way too much SBP's to cherrypick a Toolbox of counter cards especially because you often need only 1 copy of a card due to the non-random draw in MW.
So many extra SBP's also means you can too easily tap into other schools.

This has two very negative results imo
1- games take way too long to play out as card after card can be countered or neutralized until someone eventually runs out of counters.
2- the different schools mean nothing outside the bookbuilding phase as any mage can freely cherrypick and cast any spell he likes ( with some restrictions to some mages alright )

If I compare that with Magic TG
1- Decks are much more refined and tuned because of the random draw.
In magic every card in your deck has to advance your strategy.
If you put a "bad" card in your MW book, you're not necessarily hindered by it. You'll likely find out after a couple of plays that you never play it during a game or that the card doesn't fit but you won't suffer any gameplay consequences right away.
If you put a "bad" card in your Magic deck this can cause you to lose the game.
You can draw it into your hand thereby wasting a turn and giving your opponent one more turn to beat you.

So because of the Random Draw Magic deckbuilding needs more skill imo than MW bookbuilding and it also leads to less ( needlessly ) drawn out games.

2- The different schools actually mean something in Magic.
Figuring out how many and which Lands exactly you need to run in your deck are one of the key aspects of succesful deckbuilding. They also limit what you can play in your deck and whatnot.
In MW this doesn't matter at all. It's too easy for every mage imo to just use any spell from any school in general.
With more expansions (potentially ) coming out and thus more power cards coming out this only leads to spellbooks looking more and more identical as the number of "staples" will only grow.
So, I think MW has a problem here.

There are Toolbox decks in Magic too, like the old Survival of the Fittest decks or the more recent Green Sun's Zenith based decks but in general, most competitive decks are finely tuned decks with a specific strategy and without any "fat" on it.
In MW every spellbook is actually a Toolbox of Counters with a certain Mage and a strategy for him tacked on.
This leads to games taking way too long and becoming too repetitive after a number of games imo.

Out of curiosity, how many competitive mage wars tournaments have you participated in? Speaking for myself, the only "staples" you listed that I actually use in every deck were dissolve, dispel, and teleport. I suspect some of the more aggressive decks are better off using vanpirism and/or heal, rather than regrowth or regrowth belt. And how often do you see necromancer running bear strengths? I am not sure what your local meta looks like, but I dont think the problems you describe quite generalize outside of your local meta.

The metagame on OCTGN is a little stale, but not THAT stale. And part of the reason for that is likely that we don't have a very large number of skilled tournament players, so there is not enough people coming up with new competitive deck ideas in the first place.

It's not because MW competitive deck design space has been fully explored. It hasn't been, ever. We simply don't have a large enough player base to fully explore it.

And the idea that adding more cards to the game would *decrease* the number of competitive strategies, and that the cause for that would be the spell point system, appears to demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the history of the metagames on OCTGN and at big conventions like gen con. In the past, adding more cards to the game has increased the number of competitive spellbooks people could make. Is there some reason for this trend to reverse direction that I don't know of?

People often make the mistake of trying to make a direct comparison between game balance and metagame diversity in mage wars to that of tcgs like magic. But most tcgs don't have a spell point system. In terms of game balance and metagame diversity mage wars just doesn't work the same way as other customizable card games - they're not in the same league.

In magic and other tcgs an overpowered card unbalances gameplay directly. But in mage wars if someone includes an overpowered card in their deck, that drives other players to have to spend even more spell points on putting cards in their deck to counter it.
Back before the wizard and his tower got nerfed, it was still entirely possible to beat a skilled wizard player with a non-wizard deck. But you would have to use more of your spell points to prepare your deck for that particular matchup. And if you did that then your deck would be less able to deal with other mages besides the wizard who did not overcommit themselves to dealing with wizards.

The old wizard wasn't overpowered in the conventional sense. All of his tactics could still be countered. But he overcentralized the metagame, placing a severe limit on the number of tournament-viable strategies. When people were building decks back then, the first question they would have to ask was "how will I deal with the wizard?"

Contrast to mtg or other tcgs where oftentimes an OP card is just broken and leads to decks that use it dominating tournaments, rather than just having an advantage that limits the number of viable decks that can oppose it.

Being able to choose from your whole deck each turn makes a huge difference. If your opponent draws their OP card they could potentially use it right away. But if you draw the counter before they draw the OP card, the counter could be a dead draw until they draw their OP card.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


4
Ugh, this again. The game isn't dying, it's just not as popular because it's made by a three-person company with a corresponding amount of money. And how popular the game is very much varies by location. This year I think we've had more people active on OCTGN then I've ever seen since I first got into the game a year after it first released.

I think it's a shame the game isn't as successful outside the U.S. and I really wish the translators in other countries didn't keep discontinuing their translations of mage wars without any warning or explanation given.

I also wish MW was popular enough to support a competitive domination metagame and a competitive academy metagame.
I doubt either of those things is going to happen any time soon.  Remember, AW has only 3 people in it and they've never had more than 5. This isn't mtg. MW isn't dying, it's just not growing anywhere near as big as we'd like.

Game quality isn't what determines which games become popular, it's just a historical fact of which games became better known earlier. Mtg has a big fan base because it was the first tcg *ever*. And coordination problems make it so that even if a better game comes along afterwards, people will stick to the worse game that came first because that's what their friends play. Probably if mage wars came first and had enough money for some  better advertising it would be more popular.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


5
General Discussion / Re: Questions about OCTGN meta
« on: May 01, 2018, 06:23:23 PM »
@Romeoxero Was that a reply to me or to Werner?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


6
General Discussion / Re: Questions about OCTGN meta
« on: April 29, 2018, 07:17:50 PM »
SIX poisoned bloods and a deathlock? I don't think I've ever seen any competitive warlocks who used that many.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


7
General Discussion / Questions about OCTGN meta
« on: April 29, 2018, 11:43:15 AM »
Hi. Are there any strategies that are viable against a good druid player besides tanking or killing her creatures? And do any such strategies exist which only use two creatures?

I have been having a lot of trouble getting more aggressive decks to work against druid.

Perhaps coincidentally I've also noticed that the OCTGN meta usually tends to use longer game strategies, it seems like nearly every competitive deck I encounter on there uses wands, and nearly everything either uses a spawnpoint or has at least 3-4 creatures.

I'm getting really bored of this and I want more variety, but every time I try to make a deck that doesn't use at least 3-4 creatures or doesn't use a spawnpoint, it fails miserably.

Help or advice would be appreciated.

Thanks!

8
General Discussion / Re: forum name
« on: April 22, 2018, 01:55:03 PM »
Data would very like to feel emotions, but his "rationality" saves the team in a few occasions!

But Data isn't a Vulcan.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

9
General Discussion / Re: forum name
« on: April 22, 2018, 08:44:55 AM »
@Sailor Vulcan: I think the Vulcans are a great example for you to use. Star Trek is very upfront about the fact that Vulcans are not rational or logical beings. They are in fact extremely emotional and just as flawed and prone to mistakes as any other biological creature. However, they subscribe to a philosophy of logic. It's like a non-theistic religion, such as Confucianism or some forms of Buddhism, that believes in the good and usefulness of logic and reason. Basically, they highly value rationality just like you, and like you (since you are human) they are imperfect and struggle to live up to the ideal rational form. So, yeah, they're a great example for demonstrating how much you prize rationality.

If you went with a truly rational character, they're usually mechanical androids or computers and their logic is often shown to be a flaw or short coming rather than something to aspire to.
Oh god no. Trying to be an emotionless robot isn't rationality. If you're completely calm all the time no matter what the circumstances, that is not indicative of any kind of good reasoning skills and it also means that *something is very wrong with you*. Vulcans are not rational.

If people here think that I aspire to be as unreasonable as Spock, then I really should change my username.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

10
General Discussion / Re: forum name
« on: April 21, 2018, 05:15:16 PM »
Sailor Vulcan. Sailor moon is an anime superhero and Vulcan is a planet from star trek whose denizens are known for being "rational". I like anime, want to be a hero, and I highly value rationality. I would have picked a better example of rationality than Vulcans, but unfortunately there aren't many if any examples of actually rational characters that anyone would be likely to recognize. Any truly rational person would recognize that Spock *isn't*. He really isn't.

I'm considering changing my username to something else. Maybe something like "Bayes-Rool" or "Apprentice of the Art of Not Shooting Yourself in the Foot" or "Hero-in-training" or "Envoy of Sanity" or "that Nagging Whispering Doubt" Maybe TNWD for short. or "TellstheTruth".

Or I could go with a joke username of some kind like "Simon says" or "Liar" or "Iamabot".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


11
General Discussion / Re: Itīs 2018 -- Any news?
« on: April 08, 2018, 11:30:15 AM »


I understand that acedemy needs some love right now and the cards are compatible. I mean look at the force master expansion the allowed us to play the force master in a completely new way and was a breath of fresh air. But the there are some things missing that we donít see that we would in a arena expansion. A big one is there has not been any new conjugations since grimore. Also, due to the way acedemy is the majority of the cards are cheap and low leveled. There are some exceptions to this but I doubt we will ever see a dragon that costs 28 mana in a acedemy expansion. If they can do what they did with the force master and put a new spin on a older mage that would be great because I wouldnĒt mind expanding on old ideas. I would really like to see terrain expanded on more.

The big thing is that while you can use the same cards, an acedemy expansion is not the same as a arena expansion.  And while acedemy does need love so does arena because there hasnít been anything out for it for awhile and there hasnít been any news at all. And you can say the reason it is like this now is because they donít want to drop the ball again like they did with PvS. Thatís understandable to a point but to not hear anything for years? If they donít want to add anything new thatís fine but they could also do additions to get some cards that you canít add to acedemy and I thought that was what grimore volumes were going to be but we havenít gotten another volume for some time.

So we haven't gotten any *conjurations* or *level 5 or higher* spells since lost grimoire? That's hardly the same thing as "No new cards for Arena since lost grimoire". Seriously, you guys are acting like the sky is falling here. It hasn't been *that* long since the last set was released. So what if it was an academy set? Those are just as useful for Arena as any other mage wars set. This is nothing like how long we had to wait after forged in fire came out. Arena has not been abandoned. Relax.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


12
I'm not so sure about that. The cost for orb's defense should be paid either before or during the avoid attack step. If it's during the avoid attack step then it is too late because that is when the attack is avoided. If it's before the avoid attack step then you would be able to reveal falcon precision after the cost of the defense has already been paid. I suspect that the cost is paid *during* the step, not before. Though I could be wrong.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


13
General Discussion / Re: Itīs 2018 -- Any news?
« on: April 05, 2018, 12:52:55 PM »
I think the main point for AW is, academy makes more money for them as arena. We, who play only arena buy 2 of the academy expansions.
Did AW say that? Does Academy make AW more money *in general* than Arena? It's been less than two years since PvS was released, and we already know that AW has a slow release schedule. Where did you get this info from?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk


14
Events / Re: Origins 2018 Academy
« on: April 05, 2018, 12:41:45 PM »
I was planning to do arena on Saturday.
Yeah, I know. But most mage wars players prefer arena, and I'm worried even fewer people will participate in academy tournament if it overlaps with their Arena practice time. That's why I tentatively picked Wednesday afternoon. If people don't like that I'll put it at some other time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

15
Events / Re: Origins 2018 Academy
« on: April 04, 2018, 09:08:10 PM »
as a suggestion, perhaps find out when folks will be making it. some may not be able to get there day 1. the Thursday afternoon slot would probably be a better fit. just guessing however. see who responds and what their availability is and go from there.
Maybe. But to be honest I'm worried if I set up for Thursday no Arena players will want to participate because they'll want to practice for arena. Considering that there's only like maybe 10 people on octgn who still play Academy on rare occasion and probably a lot less, I want to make sure it's on a day where it doesn't conflict with Arena practice. And if I pick Sunday people will be too tired and lots of people will be leaving by then. Putting it on the extra day that wasn't part of the con until this year might solve that problem I hope. But if that doesn't work for people I can change it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 204