December 02, 2021, 07:24:49 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 - Borg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38
1
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: THE Book.
« on: July 08, 2018, 08:27:11 AM »

I don't think 'no other card can do what Poisoned Blood' can do is the point. It would be bad game design if another card did. 

Rather, I assume the complaint is that because some cards are the 'simple' and 'obvious' answers to some problems, they get chosen because they can be afforded, at the cost of variety and 'thinking outside the box'. Thus countering individual spells become more of a concern in book construction than countering various mages.

THAT is exactly the point I'm trying to get across.
Thank you for putting it in words so precisely, Arkdeniz.

It is EXACTLY because EVERY book can afford Poisoned Blood and Magebane and Chant of Rage and so much more ( the easy solutions ) that everybody uses them instead of trying to find alternative, outside-the-box in-school solutions.

Obviously those in-school alternatives may be less straight forward or effective as the out-of-school staples but may ultimately have the same end result.
That is also why I said that the current situation promotes "lazy deckbuilding".
Because every book has too many sbp's at the outset, the best and simplest approach to bookbuilding is to use all the most effective, proven cards. School-cost really has no impact currently. (Not enough anyway)

2
As we got more expansions, mages got more options and more ways to play, and yet the total variety of the metagame doesn't feel like it's increased all that much correspondingly. Somehow as more tools became available to our toolboxes, the total number and uniqueness of the different possible toolboxes we could make went down.

I agree completely.

The reason for this negative development is 120 starting sbp's. 120 sbp's is simply too much as it leaves far too many sbp's to work with after you've chosen your base strategy cards.
Result : every new "power card" that gets released simply finds its way into nearly every competitive spellbook.

I also tried to explain this in "The book" thread.
I'll copy/paste my post from that threat :

The point of releasing new expansions is, among other things:
- fleshing out certain schools
- balancing out schools
- providing new strategies for different mages.
- other goals ...

HOWEVER, if the starting sbp's total is so high that EVERY mage can simply afford to include every power card, no matter what school it comes from and how much the cost then these expansions increase a certain problem : the new cards then don't simply strengthen a certain school type but rather strengthen EVERY mage from ANY SCHOOL.
Thus the number of staples for every mage simply increases with every expansion which is a bad effect imo.

This is a clear indication imo that there is a balance issue between individual card sbp cost and total sbp's available.
The school cost ( single/double/triple) is not impactful enough and does not work as restricting as it should imo.
The result is : every spellbook looks mostly the same and there's actually only 1 type of book successful : the "toolbox" book. There should be more viable archetypes than that ( cfr aggro vs control vs combo in MtG ).

3
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: THE Book.
« on: July 07, 2018, 06:03:30 AM »
The notion that every book can afford every "power card" is just ridiculous, if only I could afford 4 mage wands and 4 elemental wands in every book!

Keejchen, come on. Read again what you're saying here.
So because you cannot afford 4 mage wands and 4 elemental wands in every book my point is ridiculous ?

Honestly, I don't think this game is designed or meant to be played withh 4 of these in every book.

When I say every book can afford every power card I obviously mean 1 ( or 2 ) copies, not 4 of each ...

4
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: THE Book.
« on: July 07, 2018, 03:20:23 AM »
With 160 points we could make some even crazier books

The problem with 160 sbp's is that now each spellpoint represents only 0.625% of your total spellpoints.
In other words : sbp's are seriously reduced in value and as a consequence you have seriously reduced the impact of single, double and triple cost of a spell which in turn leads to different schools having even less impact in spell choices than they already have.

At 160 sbp's a Pillar of Righteous Flame at triple cost would still only take up 3.75% ( 6 of 160 ) of your sbp total.
If the absolute best cards, at the costliest rate cost you no more than that to include in your book it should be glaring obvious that there is a problem with the single/double/triple cost implementation element in this game because it's reduced to a non-factor.

Think of it like this : if a kid has 1 dollar and he wants a candy he has to make choices.
Does he take a Mars, or a Snicker. A pack of Lays chips or something else ?
If you give that kid 100 dollars. He simply takes the Mars AND the Snickers AND the pack of Lays chips AND a whole lot more. There are no choices to make anymore. Just take all the goodies.


I fail to see how releasing more expansions with good cards are a problem.

The point of releasing new expansions is, among other things:
- fleshing out certain schools
- balancing out schools
- providing new strategies for different mages.
- other goals ...

HOWEVER, if the starting sbp's total is so high that EVERY mage can simply afford to include every power card, no matter what school it comes from and how much the cost then these expansions increase a certain problem : the new cards then don't simply strengthen a certain school type but rather strengthen EVERY mage from ANY SCHOOL.
Thus the number of staples for every mage simply increases with every expansion which is a bad effect imo.

This is a clear indication imo that there is a balance issue between individual card sbp cost and total sbp's available.
The school cost ( single/double/triple) is not impactful enough and does not work as restricting as it should imo.
The result is : every spellbook looks mostly the same and there's actually only 1 type of book successful : the "toolbox" book. There should be more viable archetypes than that ( cfr aggro vs control vs combo in MtG ).
Every healthy game needs a competitive "aggro" variant. MW does not have that.

Therefore, solution : reduce the number of starting sbp's to like 100, let players really make choices about what to put in their book instead of just putting in every power card.


I would still find room for it at 80 points in every book, a single heal can turn the tide of the match from a loss and make it into a win. Lower SBP would not solve this problem, it would change the game.

I understand your argument but it is a personal preference / playing style of yours as other players ( myself included ) find this much less of a "must have" card.
In a fitting book, I may go for a Heal as well but in general I'd rather play a damage spell on the opponent for the same mana.


If anything at double figures we run the risk of having auto-building books, as a single strategy will emerge as optimal for each mage, with a toolbox. 

I think it's much too soon to draw that conclusion. It might be just the other way around as far as I'm concerned. I would rather expect to see much more variety than we have now because people would have to build more "focused" books.

5
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: THE Book.
« on: July 05, 2018, 04:11:56 AM »
Quote from: Beldin link=topic=18742.msg91749#msg91749
I tend to put atleast a single heal in all my books. Even at triple points cost.
A perfect illustration of my point that 120 starting sbp's is way too much.

An added negative effect is shown here : players start playing every mage the same way.
The abundance of sbp's reduces player's inventiveness in trying to find in-school solutions and alternative ways of playing.

Too many sbp's stimulates lazy bookbuilding.

This is not a criticism of you Beldin. It's a general observation.

6
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: THE Book.
« on: July 05, 2018, 04:08:39 AM »
there's always bound to be staples in games.

Yes, but do you find it a good thing that EVERY book can afford ALL the staples ?
I don't.

I have no problem with expecting a Pillar of Righteous Flame in EVERY Holy mage's spellbook but when it starts showing up in just every book, no matter what school, tbere is a problem imo.

The reason for this overpresentation of staples is : too many sbp's to build a book.

Think of it, the game is (theoretically) trying to restrict your spellbookbuilding options by charging double sbp's for out-of-school spells and even triple cost in some instances.

Do you honestly have the impression that these extra costs are effectively preve ting you from building your book optimally ? I don't.
120 sbp's is far too much. It takes the effectiveness out of the double/triple cost.

Lower the starting sbp's and force each mage to find in-school answers to situations and you'll get far more diverse books.

Every book boils down to a toolbox of winning. The main goal is to win or you might as well play something else. So this boils down into offensive, defensive, and solutions to specific problems.
I agree, but does every toolbox have to be nearly identical to your opponent's ?
You might as well play chess then.

7
Spellbook Design and Construction / Re: THE Book.
« on: July 04, 2018, 04:09:45 AM »
This OP is a perfect illustration of one of my main criticisms of MW currently.
Every book just looks the same.
There is not enough variety in spellbookbuilding and every expansion just added more staples and makes books more similar.

Solution : reduce the number of starting SBP's to 100. ( or less ) to make those out-of-training staple spells too costly to maintain and thus force Mages to look for alternatives in-school.

8
New Upkeep Phase:
1) Pay all costs.
     This includes life (sardonyx), Seal tokens (need reword), Upkeep +X
2) Trigger all effects
     All of the triggered effects go on a "stack" per creature. At this time your Deathlink triggers 2 damage on an enemy creature and 2 healing on your mage, you whirlpool triggers damage and your pillar triggers an attack. Here we follow the rule that all effects triggered on your own creatures are resolved in whatever order you choose
3) Remove Dissipates
     This is when Pillar, lullaby, madrigal, etc are destroyed.

This is clear, effective and as simple as possible.
I'd be definitely in favor of this suggestion.

9
Hello Enti,

The order you propose certainly has merit but may have a few drawbacks of its own.

1. If any new effects are released in the future, they need their spot in that order as well which means potential errata, which should be avoided as much as possible imo.

2. Biggest potential problem : by giving a fixed order you may take away many potential tactics. I've always believed good game rules should be as simple as possible and give the players as many choices as possible.
A fixed ranking kind of takes away from the possibilities.

3. Barring any serious problems I'd be in favor to have 1 simple rule for this : Initiative decides the order in ALL situations where there are timing questions. It may not be 100% perfect but hopelly it would take care of nearly all timing problems.

10
General Discussion / Re: The current state of MW
« on: May 24, 2018, 10:08:27 AM »
Other ideas/opinions on keeping the game alive.

1. I think we need to go back to 1 format. Arena and Arena only. There is no player base for Arena + Academy + Domination. All the energy and resources have to go to 1 product : the best = Arena.

2. MW is actually a pretty simple game with simple base rules. Generate mana, choose 2 cards, play tnem and activate. Nothing difficult at all. What makes the game very hard for beginners though is that they don't know a single card at the outset. Every single card in their spellbook is completely knew to them and that is overwhelming. Since MW uses a lot of 1-offs in its books we're often looking at books that contain 30 to 40 different cards. That's just a gigantic hurdle to take for a non-devoted or casual player. That leads me to my third point.

3. I'd like to know if a MW format of 60 SBP's instead of 120 SBP's would improve the game.
This would make new entries easier imo - less new cards to digest at the outset.
Spellbooks would likely be much more focused on a certain strategy and less cookie cutter.
Games could be finished much faster, allowing you to play more games in the same time span and potentially opening the door to a real (Swiss) tournament format that can be played in 1 day without putting time restrictions on the games.
I have personally always felt that 120 SBP's were too much because nearly every book has counters to almost every possible threat. Make books focus more on their strategy by taking away all those bonus SBP's and hoser cards and you might be surprised how entertaining the format could be with all kinds of different strategies clashing with each other and not with a hoser card.

11
General Discussion / Re: The current state of MW
« on: May 24, 2018, 09:22:12 AM »
Since Wise fool brought it up,
Wouldn't Kickstarter be the ideal way to release any future expansions and thus keep the game alive  ?

This way AW can get the funds to release an expansion up front.
All they would have to do is make the cards of the set public to create interest and let the players know what they are getting and set a price.
If so many other game designers do it this way, why can't AW do it too ?

If the new cards and new mages are already designed and all that is missing are the necessary funds then Kickstarter is your answer, yes ? :)

12
General Discussion / Re: The current state of MW
« on: May 23, 2018, 09:55:12 AM »
By Guarding with a Fire Immune creature in Mage Wars you have basically 'blocked' the entire zone from a fire creature.  Seems pretty similar.  The difference being in Magic you'd also get to deal your damage to the fire creature.  The system of guarding vs blocking is what's causing the mismatch, I think.

Correct, 1 pro fire guard in MW can technically block 1000 potential fire attackers.
That's also why I think it should be possible to attack a pro fire creature with a fire creature. It will deal no damage but it might trigger an effect and can take away a guard marker.

That would be different than mtg alright but there's a significant difference here between MW and mtg :
In mtg you always attack your opponent ( or a planeswalker ) . Creatures can block.
In MW you cannot melee attack your opponent if he has guards.

13
General Discussion / Re: The current state of MW
« on: May 23, 2018, 08:56:48 AM »
Replying in honesty as well :)

The examples you're giving are correct.
It's also possible in mtg however for a creature with pro white to block a white creature, deal damage and take no damage in response.

In MW you cannot use a pro fire creature to block an opposing fire creature. That's a real miss imo.

I think this could easily be solved by making "protection from" an OPTIONAL ability.

This way you could play spells that are beneficial ( like friendly fire enchantments )
It would also make it possible to target pro fire creatures with fire attack spells for example but if the target decides to turn on its protection the spell would have no effect.

So the game as it is would lose nothing but only gain from it.
Open for discussion of course.


14
General Discussion / Re: The current state of MW
« on: May 23, 2018, 07:09:10 AM »
It has been 6 years since the 2012 release and we have 6 expansions for the Core Set along with a 4th edition of rules. On average this is one expansion per year. This is incredible support for a boardgame, especially from a small publishing company.

It sounds great if you put it that way but you have to take a somewhat closer look imo :
2012 core game
2013 kumanjaro, FvW, DvN that's the base game with three expansions within the first 1-2 years.
2014 FiF
2016 SvP

Since 2014 we've only had one real Arena expansion ( not counting the promo's release as a real expansion )
That's 1 real expansion in 4 years.

I agree that the average looks ok. I'd settle for 1 expansion per year.
But the last 4 years paint another picture imo.


Of course I'm also for more streamlined and intuitive rules.
Not being able to even target a creature with protection from fire with a fire attack never made sense imo.
The protection should minimize effect or damage, not prevent targeting.

Making currently unplayable cards playable could also be within the realms of the possible.

15
General Discussion / Re: The current state of MW
« on: May 22, 2018, 11:05:06 AM »
Itís real easy to frustrate players who enjoy a game and go on forums for the fans of the game to talk crap.
I'm sorry ?
Where do I talk crap ?
I'm trying to present objective data, for Christ's sake.
You may not like the data but I didn't invent them nor did I talk crap, I just posted what I thought they meant.


to say itís not profitable then I think AW would have stopped releasing expansions long ago. 

You realise you just agreed with me here with Arena no longer being profitable, don't you, because AW actually "stopped releasing (Arena) expansions long ago" ?

Look fellows,
I don't expect you to agree with me nor even like me for that matter.
Just don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things that weren't there ok ?
I tried to have a data based thread going.
It doesn't work here.
That's OK.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 38