MTG Duel of the Planeswalkers 2013

[Pinky]

So, I haven't played MTG since Urza's Legacy in the late 90's. But now that the internet makes things cheap and easy, I played a demo and thought it was worth $10 to get the full game on PS3.

It's just MTG in videogame format, not some wonky combat game. There are ten thematic decks, mostly mono types based on a Planeswalker. For instance, Chandra's red deck is full of creatures that gain Power from tapping mountains, pheonixes and elementals, plus offensive fire spells. Jace's blue deck mostly causes excess card draws and discard-from-library effects, with unsummoning and counter spells. They all start with 35-36 spells, 24-25 lands, and you unlock 30 additional cards for each deck by winning matches. Depending on how many exrta spells you add, the game will automatically insert lands at a 2:1 ratio.

MTG lore has always been the bigger draw for me over the game itself. The campaign mode uses an ancient Planeswalker, a 20k year old golden dragon, as the final boss. It's likely that this is the mysterious being that originally created Phyrexia, as that person is only known to prefer taking the form of a dragon. It was fun to learn about the new characters as I played through the campaign.

The game also has a good online multiplayer mode, with 2-4 head to head, 2 vs 2 team, and 4-player Planechase. I don't like Planechase. What I understand is that they're trying to spice up a really old game, but the complete chaos it inflicts significantly harms deck strategy.

[Kaden]

Anyone who's interested in playing MTG pretty casually will probably like this. The unlockable cards actually add a lot to the variety of the decks, much much much moreso than the previous versions of Duels.

The challenges are pretty crazy this time around, too, involving some cool tricks. Planechase is alright, but the AI does some really weird stuff in it.

Definitely got $10 out of the game, though.

[Pinky]

Yeah, it's not too intense. One of my friends from a previous job is a huge MTG nerd and offered to help me build a cheap deck, but with hundreds of cards made in the last few years I didn't want to bother.

At first I was upset at DotP tight card restrictions. It would be better to just put a limited variety of cards into the game and let players build a deck. But it always comes down to a theme anyway, dictated by the card limitations, and the decks are fun if less than optimal.

[Pinky]

Arg, playing this game has reminded me of the crippling flaw in the MTG game theory: optimal land draw rates. When I draw too many or not enough lands, A) it's not my fault and B) I can't do anything about it. The best decks have cards that draw other cards, but a strategy that draws either lands or spells only solves half the problem. Few themes or even colors can do both well.

And a solution isn't that hard, either. Just shuffle and cut the spell cards seperately, and have a seperate land library (topograph?) that you draw from every third turn. Crisis averted, and players can have a library that consistently performs.

[Kaden]

It's not a "flaw" in the game, it's an intentional balancing mechanic. If you absolutely knew at what rate you would be hitting your land drops, every single mana curve and most decks would look exactly the same. You would never see decks like Red Wins and Eldrazi ramp in the same format. There's a risk to playing expensive spells because of that random element and there are entire decks that work really well because they either sidestep that element entirely (Birthing Pod) or use the cards that are printed to smooth out their lands (almost any ramp deck).

Yeah, getting mana screwed happens. You always notice that more often than you curve out perfectly, though. You also notice that more often than you do when your opponent gets screwed and you walk away with a completely free win.

Minimizing the impact of too many/too little lands is part of building your decks. Red and White are great for keeping your curve super low so you can actually win a game with only two of three lands, while Green can actually do something game-changing when you draw that sixth land in a row.

I really wish Duels let you tweak the number of lands in your deck, though. I want to be able to tune Chandra's deck to be super aggressive, for example, and I'd love to run just 20 land for that. I understand why they did it that way, but it would be a nice advanced option.

Honestly, I like how deck construction (and, as a result, performance) works in Magic and, very likely, wouldn't play if it were different. The WoW CCG had a resource mechanic that let you have a perfect curve every game and I did not find that at all interesting. The DBZ CCG completely eschewed resources as they exist in Magic and, while I greatly enjoyed the game (mostly because of how Main Personalities were used as a defining mechanic of a deck) that lead to a lot of scenarios where half the cards I own don't get played because the other half are strictly better.

I kind of rambled, but my point was: I disagree that it's a flaw in their design. I agree that it can lead to some un-fun scenarios. Ultimately, though, I find that the fun it provides greatly outweighs un-fun-ness.

[Kaden]

Separate post because I can.

Having just finished playing M13 for the past twelve hours (opened 6 mythics and 4 planeswalkers, btw) I have to say that Duels feels a lot like the limited format right now. I mean, M13 is definitely a bit faster than Duels, but if all you'd played was Duels 13 and you walked into a sealed event, you'd have a really good idea of how each color is supposed to function.

That is due, in no small part, to there being quite a few M13 cards in the game, but if you're at all interested in getting into Magic or have been away from it for a while and want to jump into an event, I would absolutely recommend Duels. The game will cost you less than a draft event, provide significantly more play-time if desired, and be a good prep for playing the actual game (oh hey, Thragtusk is always good, shocker).

Exalted was a great mechanic for them to bring back. Whoever is responsible from bringing back Rancor and Vampire Nighthawk can go to hell. They did a good job of toning down power-level without just gutting cards across the board (poor Doom Blade). While maybe not as exciting a format as Innistrad or Rise of the Eldrazi, it's a core set I'm actually interested in drafting again (for reasons other than hoping to open Titans).

[Super Buu]

I eyed the last DotP but eventually didn't get it for some reason; this one I probably will get because I know I'm never the guy to actually spend loads on a game like Magic but it's the kind of thing I really enjoy playing, and it's been a while since I scratched that itch (though the combat mechanics in Endless Space tickled me a bit).

[Pinky]

It's not a "flaw" in the game, it's an intentional balancing mechanic. If you absolutely knew at what rate you would be hitting your land drops, every single mana curve and most decks would look exactly the same. You would never see decks like Red Wins and Eldrazi ramp in the same format. There's a risk to playing expensive spells because of that random element and there are entire decks that work really well because they either sidestep that element entirely (Birthing Pod) or use the cards that are printed to smooth out their lands (almost any ramp deck).

Yeah, getting mana screwed happens. You always notice that more often than you curve out perfectly, though. You also notice that more often than you do when your opponent gets screwed and you walk away with a completely free win.

Minimizing the impact of too many/too little lands is part of building your decks. Red and White are great for keeping your curve super low so you can actually win a game with only two of three lands, while Green can actually do something game-changing when you draw that sixth land in a row.

None of this solves the problem of having 50% of my land cards packed into the top twenty cards of the library. I play white or red mono to deal with mana starvation, but a library of cheap spells does nothing to cure me of excess mana.

I've been looking through tournament winners' builds. The revolve around land-effect spells (draw or destruction), mana-producing creatures and artifacts, or generic extra card draws. That's how people used to win more than ten years ago and I think there is a lesson to be learned from that.

[Anzekay]

Just wanna say

Fuck Eldrazi cards

that's all

[Kaden]

None of this solves the problem of having 50% of my land cards packed into the top twenty cards of the library. I play white or red mono to deal with mana starvation, but a library of cheap spells does nothing to cure me of excess mana.

To be fair, I wasn't trying to solve it. Just explaining why I think it's fine.

I've been looking through tournament winners' builds. The revolve around land-effect spells (draw or destruction), mana-producing creatures and artifacts, or generic extra card draws. That's how people used to win more than ten years ago and I think there is a lesson to be learned from that.

Most of the top level players will tell you that blue is the best color in mana for two reasons: card draw and, more importantly, card selection/filtering. When you can use cards like Ponder, Preordain, Augury Owl, Merfolk Looter, and Thought Scour to adjust your draws, it gives you a huge advantage.

Non-basic lands with spell-like effects are a pretty big deal in the game. The man-lands from Zendikar (Celestial Colonade, Raging Ravine, Creeping Tar-Pit, etc.) were huge because they act like summoning spells. The new effect lands from Innistrad (Kessig Wolf-Run, Isolated Lighthouse, Vault of the Archangel, etc.) are going to see a fair amount of play as well.

I'll be really interested to see what happens in the Standard format when Ponder, Gitaxian Probe, and Mana Leak rotate out. Red is going to end up with the best card filtering, but not the draw and blue is basically the opposite. Should be interesting.

[Pinky]

I thought you said my idea was bad because it would reduce value of some cards? The current mechanics mean that a winning deck must be built to override those mechanics, meaning all other *strategies* are de facto inferior. I've always thought the game would open up if the draw system was more stable.

Back to DotP 2013.

Finally unlocked all of the cards for Peacekeepers. I'm stuck at fighting this deck in the Revenge campaign mode (the Revenge decks are granted four copies of a lot of good cards, where you are limited to one or two) but I think now I have a decent strategy to take it head on. Just have to beat the draw system...

Creature:
2 Doomed Traveler
3 Elite Vanguard
1 Loyal Sentry
2 Master Decoy
3 Crusader of Odric
2 Fiend Hunter
2 Nightguard Patrol
1 Odric, Master Tactician
2 Archon of Justice
2 Captain of the Watch

Sorcery:
3 Captain's Call

Instant:
2 Call to Arms
1 Guardian's Pledge

Enchantment:
2 Journey to Nowhere
2 Pacifism
1 Honor of the Pure
2 Glorious Anthem
2 Oblivion Ring

Land:
25 basic Plains

The overall strategy is to summon a legion, and buff them with enchantments and creature auras. All creatures are soldiers, except for Fiend Hunter (human cleric) and Archon of Justice (archon), included for their ability to Exile targets. Victory comes down to three major creatures:

Crusader of Odric - gains +1/+1 for every creature under my control.

Odric, Master Tactician - attacks with him and three others gives me control of the opponent's defense.

Captain of the Watch - summons three 1/1 white Soldier tokens when it enters the field, and grants +1/+1 and Vigilance to other soldiers (excludes itself, but may affect another Captain of the Watch).

If I can get one out I'm good, with two I usually have the advantage, but if I can get all three then I win in two turns or less. My build is vulnerable to offensive sorcery and fliers. That's why I included eight cards with Exile effects, four creatures and four enchantments. The four cheap ones can target creatures, while the four expensive ones will affect target nonland permanent or any permanent, respectively.

[Jonathan Meer]

got a grave titan out of a booster, slapped it in my otherwise vanilla black-red intro deck, laughed as my roommate (with his vanilla blue-green intro deck) qq-ed all game long

edit: technically not duels related. whatever

[Kaden]

Grave Titan is absurd.

I beat the Revenge campaign with Chandra's deck. Tweaked it to have, like, 12 creatures and otherwise just played control with burn. Having firebreathing is a great way to keep from wasting mana and it's pretty hard race against that. Against Odric, anything with board sweepers is quite good. The AI overcommits to the board on a pretty regular basis and can be completely blown out by Earthquake.

[Pinky]

Odric kept running me over with fliers. That's why Earthquake and Flamebreak weren't helping. The revenge Peacekeepers deck has four Squadron Hawks and plenty of +1/+1 enchants, so whenever he summoned one the next turn would have two more and they'd usually be at 2/2 or better.

Beat him with sheer pressure and a good opening hand. By the time his hawks were out he had to throw them under my soldier ball. Switched back to Chandra's deck for the Goblins, they would wreck my soldiers before I could get the ball rolling.

[Ashe]

Decks that are built to smooth consistency have a higher win rate in high ranked tournaments? I'm appalled.

[Pinky]

That's missing the forest for the trees. My frustration is that winning strategies combat the poor fundamentals rather than the opponent. Your deck must cause either: draw lands and thereby raise spell draw rates, or draw spell cards, or general card draws to beat the odds by volume.

Maybe it could be excused at first when TCGs were new, but it's been decades. The game itself is displaying what the problem is. Addressing the problem with two seperate libraries for the two card types would revolutionize the game on a number of levels.

[Kaden]

http://www.channelfireball.com/home/magi...uise-2012/

Amusing that this was posted while talking about the whole mana screwed/flooded issue. Should be of interest.

EDIT: The lecture lasts ~30 minutes and then he takes questions for the last ~20.

[Pinky]

He kind of jumps around, but it's a good powerpoint display and he made a coherent argument. His defense of the luck element -- that it will increase the player base, ie commercial success -- does not justify MTG's ruleset for tournament settings. And it doesn't need to be casual vs expert.

There are plenty of rulsets in MTG, mostly about card legality (standard, legacy, etc) but also game mechanics (2headed giant, planechase). What I'm talking about is just the next step in mechanics. If casual players are attracted by a certain amount of luck then kept those rules, but have something else for tournaments. Really, if the next set's cards didn't allow people to play against the rules and they had to play with them, the scene would implode.

[Jonathan Meer]

Magic would be boring as fuck if there weren't an element of luck.

The way you lessen luck to emphasize skill is to have more games, not to fundamentally change mechanics.

The game has been a roaring success for almost twenty years, and very intelligent people shape the game as their full-time job.

All of which to say, you're wrong, NEXT

[Pinky]

Did you even watch the thing? The guy uses modern and historic references to prove that as players become more serious they modify the game for less luck to promote skill, and that luck is mainly attractive to low skilled and immature (fragile ego) players.

He also justified the imbalance caused by Black Lotus in that there likely weren't enough of them around in any one place to cause a major issue, or if people bought enough to cause a problem it would be a okay due to commercial success. And none of that refutes my criticism of the game.

Then there's the issue that the limitations imposed by the mechanics doesn't broaden options, but reduces them. So, his luck-promotes-innovators vs skill-promotes-honnors paradigm doesn't fit into this context because the luck element is stiffling innovation.

tl;dr shut up, meer