Yes Snapcaster Mage turned out a little better than expected, and it has affected the existence of very cheap spells since Dark Ascension. It is a mistake and R&D has said it.At least they care and try not to break it even more until he's gone from Standard.
192884403 wrote:surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
I feel "1RW: 3 dmg, 3 life" could have been the balancing point.Was this ever playtested?Was there fear of the reaction printing a strictly worse lightning helix would have caused?
I feel "1RW: 3 dmg, 3 life" could have been the balancing point.Was this ever playtested?Was there fear of the reaction printing a strictly worse lightning helix would have caused?They did in fact playtest this; he said so. And ar . Once again, the reason Helix couldn't be printed even at three mana is because of Snappy.
"Yes, we did this stupid thing, but we did it because that made things more fun!"And if you don't think that it made things more fun? Well, then it obviously wasn't made for you.I really don't get how they can not see that this can be used to justify anything. Or maybe they do know, and that's why so many of them say it all the time. Sigh.
The article said they tried variations of 4 damage + 4 life along with briefly considering 4 damage + 2 life. He didn't say 3 damage + 3 life. However, I imagine that it was tried as well.
Read the article. They want the sum of fun of a game to be as close to 2 as possible. With this helix it's closer than with the Lightning one.
Read the article. They want the sum of fun of a game to be as close to 2 as possible. With this helix it's closer than with the Lightning one.Because fun is a reliable mathematical concept that can be measured effectively.
The 1, 0 and -1 are a metaphor, not something mathematical.
I am aware, but the fact that he needed to put numbers in there is a weak attempt at making it sound like more than it is. "The total fun factor should be 2" instead of just "We want both players to have fun". I find it quite stupid.
0.2 + 0.2 = 0.41 + -0.1 = 0.9The first is more desirable following your guidelines, the second is more desirable following Wizards' guidelines. That makes a difference and why it's not stupid to frame it that way.
Nothing against you personally, but you're one of those people who always have to disagree with any kind of statement, and it's kinda boring compared to someone who actually seems to have an opinion on a subject.
I appreciate you saying that upfront. I can keep it short then, hopefully adding something meaningful for people who do want to broaden their horizon.
But honestly, I doubt the writer's intent was anywhere near as deep as that.
There's nothing really deep to it, it's common game design theory really:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero%E2%80%93sum_g...
In less dry terms, it's related to one of MaRo's maxims, which paraphrased is something like "A game that is liked by everyone is loved by no one" or "It's better to create a card that is loved by some and hated by others than a card that is hated by none but loved by none".
The idea is that the 0.4 game isn't negative for either player, but neither loves it. The 0.9 game was slightly negative for one player but the other loved it. If 10 games are played, and both players win a fair share of games, that means they'll enjoy the second game more than the first.
This is a design philosophy Wizards adheres to, and part of what makes them as succesful as they are.
Now the big problem with things like land destruction and counterspells is that the negative is huge. The losing player might feel a straight -1. That makes it hard to come up with a high combined number, which is why those things have been costed such as to not be played too much.
PS: saying a writer, who is a game designer, does not have any deep intents on the topic of game design, is just silly in the first place.
EDIT: I'm not saying this is the best/only/true way to approach game design or make Magic. If Wizards had chosen a different target audience, a different goal, for their game they could easily end up with a game where counterspells were still the bee's knees. But they have chosen a different direction. To paraphrase Aaron Forsythe this time, they rather make a Hollywood blockbuster than win Cannes. To put it bluntly, they're in it for the money, not the art. It is perfectly fine to disagree with Wizards' choice. It is perfectly fine to say Magic could be a different but better game (for you). You can berate the direction Wizards has chosen, but you can't berate the methods they're using to go in said direction. That's why I'm defending here. Somebody doesn't see merit in a technique used, and I explain why it's useful to reach the intended goals, whether you personally see those goals as desirable or not.
Judging by my experience, I don't think TobyornotToby is that kinda user. I've found him/her to be always on wotc side though, no matter what. And also quick to jump to defense of anything that hurts control and helps aggro strategies. Which is why I almost never agree with them.
As for Lightning Helix not being fun, we only really have their word for it, don't we? That's what bothers me about this.
But there's also plenty of players that enjoy playing control and find it fun. Players who don't wanna turn stuff sideways all day. Is there a place for their decks? Yes, there is. But it's not equal.
I can appreciate that they're trying to put aggro and control, creatures and spells, at the same level of power. However, that's not really what is happening. What is happening is that they're just reversing how it used to be - spells are incredibly weak compared to what they once were, and creatures are incredibly strong.
Come join me at No Goblins Allowed
Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.
Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.
In less dry terms, it's related to one of MaRo's maxims, which paraphrased is something like "A game that is liked by everyone is loved by no one" or "It's better to create a card that is loved by some and hated by others than a card that is hated by none but loved by none".The idea is that the 0.4 game isn't negative for either player, but neither loves it. The 0.9 game was slightly negative for one player but the other loved it. If 10 games are played, and both players win a fair share of games, that means they'll enjoy the second game more than the first.This is a design philosophy Wizards adheres to, and part of what makes them as succesful as they are.
The problem here is Rosewaters whole "you need bad card argument", he says you cant have an entirely balanced set, which i think is complete BS. More likely if they made all cards viable theyd run out of easily designable cards quick and they would be forced to come up with more original concepts faster tham they could to fill a set. In short it would make too much work for them, admit it Mark.
The problem here is this leads them to believing they get to decide which cards/decks will be good/competitive. Then they do stupid things like push their pet cards without realizing their true power level.
Two things. One, they can't make a completely balanced set. It's just not plausible. There are far too many moving parts, and the mana cost system is limited to whole-number values, and to be completely frank, the color pie is just plain not balanced.Two, they wouldn't run out of designs if they tried to make the whole set balanced. Truth be told, they do that every set already: they cost things to be as roughly equal as possible, so that raw power level isn't a factor in their early design tests. Now obviously, due to point one above, the set isn't truly completely balanced, but the fact remains that they go into every design, at least at first, with an "all cards equal" mindset. And they haven't run out of ideas yet.
Yes Snapcaster Mage turned out a little better than expected, and it has affected the existence of very cheap spells since Dark Ascension. It is a mistake and R&D has said it.At least they care and try not to break it even more until he's gone from Standard. Then why don't they just ban snapcaster? There are so many cards that are grossly overpowered. Just look at sphinx revelation, look at Angel of serenity, geist of Saint draft and Thragtusk.I wager to say: Thragtusk is more a problem that helix could ever have been.Why do they make cards that aren't just good or very good, but just absurd, and then let the format suffer for 2 years.Why not get the ban-hammer, take them out, and think the next time a bit more - the cards I mean are quite obvious to see for their overpoweredness.If you just took out those few totally overpowered cards, the format could allow so much more decks and fun.Instead if you don't have sphinx revelation you can either try the fastest beatdown deck in town - or stop playing standard/block.So you made a guild block? Sadly nobody cares for that theme in standard or block. All they want to do is a big revelation, because that is game..
Yes, creatures are bonkers compared to what they once were. And yes, spells are terrible compared to what they once were. But creatures now compared to spells now? I'd say they're fairly even--certainly in the same ballpark.
zammm - but what about the decks with mostly creatures and then just a few copies of Searing Spear or Rancor or Domri Rade? We don't see many "creatures only" decks but we see a lot of decks that are at least 80% creatures.
Yes, you are right that spells on the whole used to be overpowered compared to creatures. And that creatures are just catching up now. However, I'd still say that they're taking it too far with the depowering of spells. Again, look at the Modern format. It's mostly just aggro, midrange and combo. Control is pretty much non-existant, because good control cards simply haven't been printed in the quantities that good creature cards have since that format's timeframe cutoff. Banlist aside, if spells and creatures are really at the same level, shouldn't the archetypes in that format be somewhat balanced?
Would you play a Doom Blade,gain 3 life? Or Journey to Nowhere, gain 3 life? Cuz Helix isn't even that good.
It's not about broadening horizons - I've just been arguing on the Internet for years and years. It's nice to write out things, and I don't think I'd mind if it was just you, but I don't like discussions as a spectator sport. It only leads to frustrations. I'll gladly continue it in private messages, but I prefer to avoid getting too far into anything in threads.
You have to be careful comparing these two points, though. MaRo is talking about how someone likes to play with a card, not playing against a card. It is perfectly fine for 90%+ of the players to hate playing with a given card as long as that card has real fans or otherwise serves an imporant role. But it is not okay for the majority to hate playing against that card.
Not gonna get into the blue thing at this point, but I have an incredibly difficult time believing they are attempting to make the whole set balanced.