April 23, 2018, 08:18:27 AM

Author Topic: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?  (Read 1507 times)

exid

  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 788
  • Banana Stickers 4
  • The longer the better!
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2018, 11:35:27 AM »
I don't want to take up forum space with more endless debate about it.

I don't agree with you on some points (how could I agree with somebody loving academy? ;D ;D ;D), but I think the forum is here for endless debate too, every one is free to join the thread or not.

fas723

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2018, 02:44:49 PM »
I think you all over analysis the situation.

The crowd isn't as big simply because the game isn't fun enough. Period.

We all in here loves it, but we have to realize it has turned out into a niche game for just a few people. The game have had its golden age already, with nice buzz and good marketing. It just didn't fly in the end.
Yes, the game is here to stay. But not for the big audience.

If this is ever going to occur the game needs a remake of some sort. As it is now original flaws and beginner mistakes in the design are carried from expansion to expansion that AW has to design around every time (most likely why the expansion gets less and less frequent, just because it is hard to take everything into account). The format and game needs to change to attract more people. If not, the player base will stay as it is.

bigfatchef

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 590
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2018, 03:19:10 AM »
I think you all over analysis the situation.

The crowd isn't as big simply because the game isn't fun enough. Period.

We all in here loves it, but we have to realize it has turned out into a niche game for just a few people. The game have had its golden age already, with nice buzz and good marketing. It just didn't fly in the end.
Yes, the game is here to stay. But not for the big audience.

If this is ever going to occur the game needs a remake of some sort. As it is now original flaws and beginner mistakes in the design are carried from expansion to expansion that AW has to design around every time (most likely why the expansion gets less and less frequent, just because it is hard to take everything into account). The format and game needs to change to attract more people. If not, the player base will stay as it is.

Absolutely +1!


From the tools of trade thread:
Quote
The target line for gear up is mage, not friendly mage.  So if you suspect you have a nullify on you, you can cast gear up on the enemy mage and then put up to 3 equipment cards on to your mage.
-   Coshade

Things like this and cards like altar of infernia makes the game completely unplayable and repellent to new players.


I guess the game and it's playerbase will stay as it is for a while. In real life surrounding me it is dead. Worldwide nerds on octgn still play it and even come back to play it. But more new players ... I don't think that's gonna happen without massiv
- errata
- streamlining
- marketing
- new arena releases
- simple new cards (not more new complex mechanics)
... and I don't see that coming to be honest.

EDIT 2 (oh no my first Edit got lost :(  )

Looking at what I wrote above, there are things we as players could do. Obviously the first thing is showing the game to more players.
But what would really help is an unofficial, well thought through supplement with erratas. Arcane duels is kind of doing that with their own rules at ADMW 2. But it should go even deeper to take out all rules exploits (double dragon wtf) and answer ALL questions. For example more detailed steps of what can be revealed when should answer every timing issue and so on. There are many things to cover.

All in all that would be much to read (too much for beginners for sure) BUT it would bring the game back to its initial idea that IT SHOULD FEEL INTUITIV TO PLAY AND SHOULD BEHAVE AD YOU WOULD THINK IT SHOULD BEHAVE. And THAT is easy and fun to teach.

-> if the game can be won (or played fluid) by cards, not by rules, people would much more stick to it.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 03:49:46 AM by bigfatchef »

Beldin

  • The Craziest
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 689
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2018, 07:47:23 PM »
How does Altar of Ifernia make the game repellent to new players?

DevilsVendetta

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2018, 07:49:24 PM »
I don't agree with it, but I would think because it nerfs a lot of buffs you have set-up and planned for your mage or its creatures. It's one card that takes away about 30 different options.

bigfatchef

  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 590
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2018, 08:09:38 PM »
How does Altar of Ifernia make the game repellent to new players?

Because this how a thread here looks like (in my eyes this is the definition of a catastrophe!):
Lost Grimoire volume 1 brings us this beauty from the school of darkness:

Quote
Altar of Infernia
Quick; 0-1; Zone
7 mana; Conjuration - Artifact; Lvl 2 Dark
2 Armor; 6 Health
Zone Exclusive; Epic

All creatures lose, and cannot gain, Melee +X traits. This does not affect Melee -X traits.

Sounds straightforward, right?

...

Or is it?

It turns out, when you look more closely (e.g. see the Codex), Mage Wars deals with adding attack dice in a variety of ways. Sometimes, the cards themselves or the rules and Codex as written state that a creature or creature type or damage type or mage gains "Melee +X", but other times it might say to "roll extra dice" instead. Depending on the wording, it may or may not be affected by Altar of Infernia. In general, you need to see if the trait keyword "Melee +X" is used in the effect of the ability or spell or condition marker, etc.

Here is a list of spells and abilities that are affected by Altar of Infernia, followed by a list that are not affected. Please feel free to post spells and abilities I've missed that you think are interesting.


Alter of Infernia affects:
- buffs that directly add Melee +X (typical examples include Bear Strength, Wolf Fury, Giant Size, Gauntlets of Strength, Paladin's Valor, Blessed Focus, Knight's Courage, Power Strike, Call of the Wild, etc)
- Growth markers (give Melee +1 for each Growth marker; thus Kralathor, The Devourer, Ravenous Ghoul, Shaggoth-Zora won't benefit as much with Infernia in play; each Growth marker still gives Innate Life +3 though)
- Rage +X (similar to Growth; thus Mountain Gorilla is affected)
- Ehren, Enduring Paladin
- Valshalla, Lightning Angel
- Steelclaw Matriarch
- Redclaw, Alpha Male doesn't buff other canines (aside from Armor +1)
- Wychwood Hounds don't buff each other (aside from Armor +1)
- Knight of the Red Helm usually gets Melee +2 when attacking strongest creature
- Azurean Genie (a "wish" can still be used for Healing 2 or Stagger)
- Hand of Bim-Shalla (similar to the Genie)
- Sacrificial Altar (although a creature still gets the Piercing bonus and there is mana refunded)
- Animal Kinship + canine(s)
- Staff of Beasts won't give a melee bonus to a friendly animal (but can still be used for healing)
- "Battle Skill" Mage ability (e.g. Straywood Beastmaster, Arraxian Crown Warlock, Bloodwave Warlord)
- Straywood Beastmaster's "Pet" (no general Melee +1 nor additional Melee +1 when in-zone)
- Bloodwave Warlord's "Veterans" AND command order "On Guard!" (although doesn't affect "Release Volley!" = Ranged +1, or "To Battle!" = Charge +1)
- Malakai Priest's "Holy Avenger" (no Melee +2 for you!)
- Johktari Beastmaster's "Wounded Prey" (no Melee +1 against that creature)
- "Siren's Call" ability wouldn't give a friendly creature Melee +2
- Paladin's "Vengeful Aura" doesn't give Melee +1, but still gives Piercing +2 so might still be worthwhile against heavily armored (but not Resilient) targets
- Aquatic creatures in Shallow Sea don't get Melee +1 (but non-aquatic non-flying still rolls 1 less die as normal...)
- Gate to Hell wouldn't give  Melee +1 buffs to demons
- Bloodfire Helmet wouldn't give  Melee +1 buffs to demons
- Demonic Link wouldn't give  Melee +1 buff to the demon
- Drakas, Imp Overlord wouldn't give  Melee +1 buffs to demons
- Similarly, Unholy Blood Ritual is a bad idea with Altar of Infernia in play!
- Kharne, Horned Demon normally gets Melee +X where X is the number of enemy creatures in its zone. Well, not with this Altar in play!
- Wildfire Imp wouldn't get Melee +2 for attacking an object with a Burn marker
- Wreck of the Viridian Lace would still grant Ranged +1 but not Melee +1 to pirates
- Temple of Meraveran becomes quite useless in Infernia!
- Shoalsdeep Tidecaller drops his Melee +2 bonus in Infernia, but still gets +4 to the effect die in initiative rounds
- Temple High Guard counterstrikes first but doesn't get Melee +2 when Guarding
- Metatron doesn't get bonuses for Temples in play
- Eligor Larington doesn't get a Melee +2 bonus (but does still gain Piercing +1) when counterstriking
- Alandell, the Blue Knight isn't worth putting mana into unless you REALLY need that Daze effect to trigger
- Acolyte of the Bog Queen can't give Melee +1 to zombies (but still reconstructs Skeletons and does Cleric stuff)
- Sentinel of V'Tar wouldn't get Melee +1 when guarding, but would still get all the other bonuses
- Standard Bearer wouldn't give Melee +1 but would still grant Armor +1 to other friendly creatures
- Dawnbreaker Ring would only grant Ranged +1
- Lightning Ring would only grant Ranged +1 (...)
- Deathshroud Staff wouldn't buff undead creatures with Melee +1
- Flank Attack would only grant Piercing +2

But has no effect on:
- Ranged +X (obviously)
- Piercing +X (making it a good alternative against armoured foes when Altar of Infernia is in play)
- Charge +X (!)
- Bloodthirsty +X (!!) <- think zombies, sharks, some demons, Goran, Werewolf Pet, etc
- most melee weapon Equipment's melee attacks (e.g. Arena melee weapons usually roll 4 dice + effects/traits/abilities, rather than having a Melee +X trait, so this is a way to mitigate against Infernia; and Academy melee weapons still roll one more die for Arena-level Mages as usual despite Infernia)
- Arraxian Crown Warlock's "Blood Reaper" (since it gains Bloodthirsty +2, not Melee +2)
- Necromancer's "Eternal Servant" (Piercing +1)
- Adramelech Warlock's "Smoldering Curses" ability (since enemy creatures gain Flame +1)
- Similarly, Malakai's Basilica works as normal (since it gives an enemy creature Light +1)
- Interestingly, unlike the "Wounded Prey" ability, Marked for Death doesn't have anything to do with Melee +X, but rather specifies that enemy creatures each roll one more die when attacking
- Gloranna, Avenging Angel rolls an extra die for each Holy creature in its controller's discard pile (up to a cap)... which isn't technically getting Melee +X!
- Lightning Raptor still charges up as normal (changes the number of dice of the attack directly, not Melee +X)
- Afflicted Demon works as normal; e.g. the Weak tokens are both a bane and a boon as usual
- Ballad of Courage (Charge +2, Fast and can't be Hindered)
- Smite (rolls "2 additional attack dice," not Melee +2)
- Zombie Frenzy is unaffected... as are pretty much all other zombie-related bonuses (aside from Deathshroud Staff)

** I didn't mention it above, but "+X vs. ___" traits will still work as normal (e.g. Tarok, the Skyhunter's "+2 vs. Flying", Samandriel, Angel of Light's "+1 vs Nonliving or Dark", Joseph Trublood's "+2 vs Nonliving and Dark", Kralathor, The Devourer's "+2 vs Undead", Titanodon's and Mountain Ram's "+2 vs Corporeal Conjurations", etc)

Beldin

  • The Craziest
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 689
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2018, 08:43:31 PM »
This is a very good card, a very good control card imo. However to use the words of the group at large any aggressive opponent will wreck this card. There are plenty of cards which deal with this card very easily.

The main questions are this, is it every book? So honestly is it really any more of a threat than any other?

Sure it turns off Melee buffs, but honestly it will just direct play until it can be removed. This game is a game of problems and solutions, it is about using the spellbook points you have to make the best book for your favourite mage. Any player worth their salt will either take  Altar of Ifernia on the chin and play around it or obliterate it with the hatred it deserves, once it is in play.

So I reiterate my question why is this such a problem, and let me answer that too; it is not. You expect these kinds of play during book building and plan accordingly. "I want to do A, I use B and C cards to accomplish this. D and E Mages/cards give these roads to victory problems, do I chalk these up as bad match ups, or can I use F and G cards to counter these problems?" F and G can be Acid Ball, rust, dissolve, the list goes on.

It is also a well known fact in Customisable games that a pool of players will usually have a (group of) best player(s), that(/those) player(s) will win more games than others using a range of books/decks, usually from the tier 1 pool. Players within the group with them will either stay at the same level of play or get better as they strive to beat the best player(s), competition breeds competitive play at all levels; this ranges from causal to tournament level. This is the same with the new players, it is very rarely that they leave said group due to always losing, but normally they fit right in because it is not just about the game, but the people and the experiences made.

If anything this is a weaker example than the swarm hate that is in nearly every book. However this does not drive people from the game, just they adapt.

Puddnhead

  • Member of Arcane Duels; MageCast Co-host
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1421
  • Banana Stickers 7
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2018, 08:49:56 PM »
I think you completely missed the point that bigfatchef was making.

The fact that the interpretation of the card text takes up that much space and has a complicated interaction with a significantly large number of different ways to get the same effective buff is a rules problem.  Yes, it can be learned, yes it can be dealt with, but picture a beginner that wants to use this card.

The beginner most likely thinks that all things that give your creature extra dice on a melee attack are melee buffs or conversely thinks that ONLY "Melee +X" should be affected by the altar and therefore it is garbage.  NEITHER of these face value interpretations is correct.  That, my friend, is the very definition of BAD design if you want to grow a player base.  The simple fact that there are almost a hundred different conditions that each interact in various and sometimes non-intuitive ways are complete turn offs to the game.

Two case studies: How many people actually know what Trample does or the complete set of rules caveats for Tsunami?
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

Obsidian Soul

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2018, 08:54:30 PM »
It was that way when I lived with steelclawgrizzly, we kept getting better because we were playing each other a few times every week.  When we introduced new people to the game, they kept getting better because they played against us and each other until they could beat us.  It was always a moving experience when they got their first victory against either of our major books because they had finally reached our level.  We had a good six people, other than us, who could beat us at least 1 out of every 3 times, which forced us to get even better because we did not like losing.

Beldin

  • The Craziest
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 689
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2018, 09:51:20 PM »
Oh no I got the point, I simply ignored it as it is not a real problem in my eyes. Mainly because of how successful Magic the Gathering (MTG), Hearthstone, Shadowverse, and others are. All with shifting game states, metas, and card pools.

Why is this not a problem?

Lets look at MTG. It has been around for 25 years and has 19,989 cards (as of 1/14/2018), lets call it 20k cards, and is roughly split evenly across the five colours. The new players each year stretch into atleast 10k, if not 100k. Some years get 1 million. One of the most played formats in MTG is Commander or EDH (if you are an older player like me). Popular enough to get its own dedicated set every year since 2009, two sets last year. This makes use of all 20k cards for the card pool and allows a single copy of each in a 100 card deck, with a banned list for the most broken cards. New players buy constructed decks to start with and as long as they are taught correctly in the first place there is no need to memorise all 20k cards, or the near infinite card interactions between them, because they have a good time. Also most of the older cards never see play due to rarity and scarcity. If anything it is the difference in meta pockets for different regions that make it what it is.

If anything you are assuming the knowledge that a new player has. If we ensure that they have the correct knowledge to start with, easy to access and understand card ruling FAQs, and answer questions they go about different things then they will be fine. New players are not as fragile as you think. From here they enter the game on more or less the same level as everyone did. From here it is what I said about before and Obsidian echoed. My own example is I had never played against a Druid at one point. My first game against a Druid was tough and I lost. Did I quit? No. I did however then go away and learn everything I could about a Druid, so that I didn't lose in the same ways against it. I am not alone in this sort of thing.



Puddnhead

  • Member of Arcane Duels; MageCast Co-host
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1421
  • Banana Stickers 7
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2018, 10:26:38 PM »
MTG does not have 20 different ways to gain 1 damage on an attack.  All of its keywords are concisely explained and everything boils down to + or - on the damage/life.  Each card is completely self sufficient in how it interacts with all other cards.  The most complicated rules difference is Exile vs Destroy.  That's it...and that's not even very hard.

Contrast that with mage wars.  Just "healing" alone you have:

Regenerate
Remove Damage
Heal
Reconstruct
Lifebond
Finite Life
Life Gain

All of these have intertwined interaction.  You cannot seriously look me in the eye and say that MTG is as convoluted as this.  The body of rules that governs Mage Wars is far less elegant.  It was supposed to overcome all of its debilitating hairsplitting rules by making all of them intuitive.  I'm sad to say "intuitive" is not the word I would use for Mage Wars anymore.
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

Obsidian Soul

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2018, 11:14:48 PM »
MTG possesses around 1,000 different ways of dealing infinite amounts of damage when you are not using restricted card format.

Puddnhead

  • Member of Arcane Duels; MageCast Co-host
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1421
  • Banana Stickers 7
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #27 on: January 18, 2018, 08:34:53 AM »
MTG possesses around 1,000 different ways of dealing infinite amounts of damage when you are not using restricted card format.

A'ight, I'm done.  We're talking past each other about I don't even know what anymore.  Suffice it to say, I'm in agreement with bigfatchef.
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster

Grimstringer

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 30
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #28 on: January 18, 2018, 10:16:25 AM »
MTG does not have 20 different ways to gain 1 damage on an attack.  All of its keywords are concisely explained and everything boils down to + or - on the damage/life.  Each card is completely self sufficient in how it interacts with all other cards.  The most complicated rules difference is Exile vs Destroy.  That's it...and that's not even very hard.

Contrast that with mage wars.  Just "healing" alone you have:

Regenerate
Remove Damage
Heal
Reconstruct
Lifebond
Finite Life
Life Gain

All of these have intertwined interaction.  You cannot seriously look me in the eye and say that MTG is as convoluted as this.  The body of rules that governs Mage Wars is far less elegant.  It was supposed to overcome all of its debilitating hairsplitting rules by making all of them intuitive.  I'm sad to say "intuitive" is not the word I would use for Mage Wars anymore.

actually it does have a million ways to put +1/+1

the thing is , mage wars because it has another dimension, it tries to add many flavor mechanics,and all those above feel different, and they actually are, you can heal a skeleton,you reconstruct it.

also on the altar topic,maybe i dont get something? it just nullifies melee + dice. no other bonus dice

Puddnhead

  • Member of Arcane Duels; MageCast Co-host
  • Playtester
  • Legendary Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 1421
  • Banana Stickers 7
    • View Profile
Re: How big can we realistically grow the playerbase?
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2018, 10:43:32 AM »

actually it does have a million ways to put +1/+1


My point is that all of the ways to give +1/+1 are functionally the exact same.  Any of the million +1/+1 counters can be removed by any of the million ways to remove +1/+1 counters...they all interact seamlessly.

Charge +1, Bloodthisty+1, Melee +1, Flame +1  all give +1 die, but under certain circumstances AND the cards that remove "+1" die do not all work against them.

"Roll an additional die" is different than "gain [trait] +1" and interacts differently within the rules.  For instance Battlefury lets you attack again without your "Melee +X", but you can still use your "Roll an additional die".

This is the problem with Mage Wars: an extra die should be an extra die and should also be...an extra die. It's not.
  • Favourite Mage: Salenia Forcemaster