MTG Duel of the Planeswalkers 2013

[Jonathan Meer]

I'm not talking about the video, sweetcheeks

[Rafael]

Meh. Players do their best to eliminate luck, but it will never go away. Sucks when you or your opponent get a garbage hand or two, but back in high school I played with friends using 45 card decks and yeah, boring with no doubt as to what is going to happen(Also, fuck Shadow, hard. Had to make a sacrifice deck just to fight it)

[Pinky]

I'm not talking about the video, sweetcheeks

The video is a guy who is a game designer giving a ppt presentation to a small group other game designers. While you are ignorantly trying to dismiss me criticisms, his overarching point about game development justifies the kind of reforms that I am talking about. You should watch it.

[Kaden]

his overarching point about game development justifies the kind of reforms that I am talking about. You should watch it.

The justification of those reforms assumes that your player-base reaches a critical mass, stagnates, and appealing to a larger audience is no longer profitable for the health of the game.

If you look at the last few sets of MTG, they're actually in the process of pushing more towards the luck end of luck/skill spectrum. They've gotten rid of mechanics like Scry, they're scaling back the power-level of cards pretty significantly, they're adding things that work with luck (Innistrad's emphasis on the graveyard as a resource, I would argue, emphases luck) and they're making cards that are simple, but can all work well together (Soulbond, "flicker" effects, exalted, etc.).

This trend will probably continue for a couple more sets before things get "overpowered" again. They're appealing to a wider audience by trying to scale back the amount of skill "required" to have fun playing the game.

[Jonathan Meer]

The video is a guy who is a game designer giving a ppt presentation to a small group other game designers. While you are ignorantly trying to dismiss me criticisms, his overarching point about game development justifies the kind of reforms that I am talking about. You should watch it.

I watched the video after I wrote my post. My post did not draw from the video.

Your 'reforms' sound like a very boring game and I wouldn't play it.

And frankly, you just seem to be in 'pinky's gonna bitch now' mode, so it's very hard to take you seriously.

[Super Buu]

I am genuinely fascinated at how Pinky was able to make that last reply. With that quote. Right. There.

[Pinky]

The justification of those reforms assumes that your player-base reaches a critical mass, stagnates, and appealing to a larger audience is no longer profitable for the health of the game.

If you look at the last few sets of MTG, they're actually in the process of pushing more towards the luck end of luck/skill spectrum. They've gotten rid of mechanics like Scry, they're scaling back the power-level of cards pretty significantly, they're adding things that work with luck (Innistrad's emphasis on the graveyard as a resource, I would argue, emphases luck) and they're making cards that are simple, but can all work well together (Soulbond, "flicker" effects, exalted, etc.).

This trend will probably continue for a couple more sets before things get "overpowered" again. They're appealing to a wider audience by trying to scale back the amount of skill "required" to have fun playing the game.

If spells' power levels are being flattened, that's a move away from luck -- reduce variable, reduce random luck. Removing some effects and making others more common has the same effect, although removing scry is obviously one instance of less control. (its been removed before, though. it'l be back later)

[Pinky]

I watched the video after I wrote my post. My post did not draw from the video.

Your 'reforms' sound like a very boring game and I wouldn't play it.

And frankly, you just seem to be in 'pinky's gonna bitch now' mode, so it's very hard to take you seriously.

If you didn't watch what I was talking about before you made your post, then your post is irrelevent. You're the one bitching out by A) not responding to content of my post, B) quoting a post of mine about the video when you didn't watch it and C) using a red herring when you said MTG would be boring without luck when nobody said anything about removing all luck.

tl;dr suck a cock, meer

[Kaden]

If spells' power levels are being flattened, that's a move away from luck -- reduce variable, reduce random luck.

I disagree. If most cards are of comparable power level, the person who draws more active spells wins the game.

My point was that instead of keeping cards/mechanics that minimize luck, they're making it so most of your draws are going to actually do something. That's also one of the reasons there's a push towards creatures instead of spells. Creatures will always have an impact on the board-state, so someone can load up their deck with "value" creatures and never feel like they're drawing cards that do absolutely nothing. More active games are just more interesting.

Yeah, with no/minimal luck and cards of consistent power level, skill will win out. With consistent power level and the same issue of having to actually draw cards, whoever draws and casts the most spells is probably just going to win.

[Jonathan Meer]

If you didn't watch what I was talking about before you made your post, then your post is irrelevent. You're the one bitching out by A) not responding to content of my post, B) quoting a post of mine about the video when you didn't watch it and C) using a red herring when you said MTG would be boring without luck when nobody said anything about removing all luck.

tl;dr suck a cock, meer

A + B) I didn't quote any of your posts. I was replying to your argument in general.

C) I didn't say anything about removing all luck either.

tl;dr lolwut

[Pinky]

My post was about the specific comments of a MTG game designer who was using historical references that support the kind of changes that I'm talking about. It upends your argument that I don't know what I' talking about. And you started your post with

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

Implying anyone said anything close to that is stupid. You are being stupid, meer. Stop being stupid.

[Pinky]

Yeah, with no/minimal luck and cards of consistent power level, skill will win out. With consistent power level and the same issue of having to actually draw cards, whoever draws and casts the most spells is probably just going to win.

That gets back to my original criticism that the game is designed to favor whoever has a deck built to control their draws. It's what the best decks have always done, and will always do as long as the mechanics remain stagnant.

[Kaden]

That gets back to my original criticism that the game is designed to favor whoever has a deck built to control their draws. It's what the best decks have always done, and will always do as long as the mechanics remain stagnant.

"Best," in this case meaning the most professionally competitive. Yeah. I... agree with that.

The entire, overarching point of all my comments was that I think luck is both fun and good for the health of the game.

[Jonathan Meer]

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.

None of this solves the problem of having 50% of my land cards packed into the top twenty cards of the library.

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.

[Pinky]

Is that supposed to be me demanding the absense of all luck? Either improve your reading comprehension or put a point on your post. These no-content, no-point posts are when I typically roll my eyes and stop paying attention to you for being dumb and lazy... er, or is that what you call "bitching out?" :/

"Best," in this case meaning the most professionally competitive. Yeah. I... agree with that.

The entire, overarching point of all my comments was that I think luck is both fun and good for the health of the game.

Then the way you play seems to hinge on both players using suboptimal decks, to avoid having the clearest advantage.

[Kaden]

Then the way you play seems to hinge on both players using suboptimal decks, to avoid having the clearest advantage.

The way I play is to have fun. The way I play is to use cards I think are cool in ways I think will be interesting and knowing there is luck involved makes the game fun to me. I think the Miracle mechanic, for example, is one of the coolest things ever.

Does that mean I'm going to get games where I just get to do nothing because I don't draw any land? Yeah. Is that worth the risk to me because of the fun that factor of chance provides? Yup.

EDIT: Besides, it absolutely doesn't matter how "optimal" someone makes their deck. They're playing a game of chance just like I am.

[Jonathan Meer]

Is that supposed to be me demanding the absense of all luck? Either improve your reading comprehension or put a point on your post.

Double irony; I never characterized your posts as demanding the absence of all luck (readcomp fail#1), and I pointed this out a mere two posts ago (readcomp fail#2).

So anyway, seems like there's no pinning you down. You can't even recognize valid responses to your own posts. I leave you with the following quote from Mr. Carroll:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

[Pinky]

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

If you didn't mean what that sentence says, your posts are irrational and stupid. You're ignoring it altogether just to accuse me of doing what you're doing.

The way I play is to have fun. The way I play is to use cards I think are cool in ways I think will be interesting and knowing there is luck involved makes the game fun to me. I think the Miracle mechanic, for example, is one of the coolest things ever.

Does that mean I'm going to get games where I just get to do nothing because I don't draw any land? Yeah. Is that worth the risk to me because of the fun that factor of chance provides? Yup.

EDIT: Besides, it absolutely doesn't matter how "optimal" someone makes their deck. They're playing a game of chance just like I am.

It doesn't matter how optimal someone makes their deck? I'm pretty sure you know that's not true.

[Kaden]

Where have I accused you of anything?

I've been talking about why I like luck being in the game and why I think it's healthy for the game overall. This entire time I've been defending that I like luck. How is that irrational or inconsistent with the stance that I think it would be boring without it?

It doesn't matter how optimal someone makes their deck? I'm pretty sure you know that's not true.

What I was saying is that everyone is playing with an element of chance, which is 100% true. Even the most finely tuned decks in the world get mana screwed sometimes.

[Jonathan Meer]

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

If you didn't mean what that sentence says, your posts are irrational and stupid. You're ignoring it altogether just to accuse me of doing what you're doing. It doesn't matter how optimal someone makes their deck? I'm pretty sure you know that's not true.

The post is indirectly targeted to you (as made plain by the complete lack of any quoted post). It summarizes my basic stance on the game, and the discussion: A certain type/portion (this element was implicit in my original sentence) of luck has value in the game. You do, of course, ignore the follow-up sentence that provides the bounds to the quoted sentence, as it doesn't fit into your schema. I'll quote it here: "The way you lessen luck to emphasize skill is to have more games, not to fundamentally change mechanics."

Lessen luck. Why did Meer switch from speaking of a Magic game without luck, then talk about lessening luck? The proper reader (that is, one lacking in neither honesty/charity, or intelligence; I don't presume to know which it is you're missing) would recognize this shift as an indication that the post as a whole is merely a semi-targeted, rapidfire set of assertions related to the discussion itself.

But if you insist on misunderstanding that post even after this explanation (due to, say, some grasp for blind literalism to defend your desperate ad hominems), then I'll probably keep on discussing this with you (since it's absolutely hilarious to watch you spin around in fluster-circles), but you will have at that point completely divorced yourself with reality with respect to this conversation.