|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 6:26PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Because, it merely reflects on R&D consistent inability to accept any use for a card than exactly the one intended. Until, of course, something they never really considered ends up mauling a Standard environment and nine cards all get banned at once.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 6:51PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
... okay.
Yes, R&D's love of making things very linear is annoying, but that's the price one pays to play a game made for everyone.
Affinity's problem was lack of forsight, not one of resticting players. I don't see how that's applicable in this situation.
Affinity wasn't made to be a power house, it was made with the assumption that people wouldn't have that many artifacts out early game (I assume this was your point).
But then the crusher doesn't follow that logic.
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 7:01PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2006
|
The "attacks each turn" was put in specifically to tell people they needed to attack with it. Not for flavor reasons.
www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...
It's important to get a sense how people react to the set when they play it for the first time, so we like to hold playtests with fresh eyes and a more casual sensibility. During the first such playtest, we noticed that when players got an Eldrazi out, they wouldn't attack with it. R&D had quickly realized the power of the annihilator mechanic, but the less experienced players didn't seem to feel safe throwing their giant creatures into the fray.
We took notes and talked about it, but changed nothing. The next playtest the same thing happened, and the playtest after that. During one development meetings we had a discussion about what we could do to make less experienced players realize that you should be attacking with the Eldrazi. (Quick aside—Less experienced players: When you get an Eldrazi on the battlefield, attack with it.) How about, I suggested, we take the cheapest common Eldrazi and add the text "CARDNAME attacks each turn if able." Once players saw how much damage the Eldrazi did when they attacked, hopefully that would encourage them to attack with the other Eldrazi. And that is how ..."OpenTip(event, "Ulamog's Crusher")" class="nodec">Ulamog's Crusher got its second line of text.
Nothing wrong with it.
All I did was state what actually happened. I don't have a dog in the fight.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 7:33PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2005
|
Um, it assumes they had several playtests wherein people consistently didn't attack with it. Which they did. So they did something that helped newer players, and which doesn't hurt experienced players in the slightest. Why is this a big deal?
Because Qmark hates himself, most likely.
Making things very linear is something R&D is cautious about, Skibo. They have linearity around because players like it; R&D knows how dangerous linear themes are, and how unfun they can become if they are too powerful. Every tribal block they make is always going to be a tightrope wherein they try their hardest to avoid making all the best decks tribal while still making people care about tribal and play it in constructed. Linear themes can be fun, but too much linearity is frustrating and takes away the fun of building decks.
And let's face it - a lot of players are pretty bad at the game.
Because, it merely reflects on R&D consistent inability to accept any use for a card than exactly the one intended. Until, of course, something they never really considered ends up mauling a Standard environment and nine cards all get banned at once.
That's more than a little unfair, and on two fronts. Firstly, they LIKE it when people use cards for wacky hijinks, like the hilarious point at which people were using One With Nothing to beat Ebony Owls, two cards R&D most likely never thought had any chance of seeing serious constructed play.
Secondly, the cards in ravager affinity did exactly what they expected. What they didn't expect was that the deck would be as stupidly dominant as it was.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 8:01PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
Linearity is a problem, you want to give people alot of options when deck building.
But arguing over including "has to attack" on a card? That's going in the opposite direction.
There's a happy medium where some people get slivers, and some people get proliferate, and everyone can build the decks they want.
The game needs both types of mechanics, removing one or the other would hurt the game as a whole. (And frankly, if given the choice between the two, i'm sure R&D would remove modular mechanics before linear ones)
… and then, the squirrels came.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 8:04PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Because Qmark hates himself, most likely.
What?! How did you discover my secret?!!
I'm melting!!!!! ARRGRHGH!
But really, if someone needs to be explicitly told to attack with something that blows stuff up just by being declared as attacking, maybe more research should have been put into figuring out exactly why instead of forcing it.
Seems to me the unintended result would be casual groups house-banning Crusher because it "has to" destroy three things each turn, instead of just beating up all eleven opponents after three hours of stalling and politics.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 8:18PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2005
|
Linearity is a problem, you want to give people alot of options when deck building.
But arguing over including "has to attack" on a card? That's going in the opposite direction.
There's a happy medium where some people get slivers, and some people get proliferate, and everyone can build the decks they want.
The game needs both types of mechanics, removing one or the other would hurt the game as a whole. (And frankly, if given the choice between the two, i'm sure R&D would remove modular mechanics before linear ones)
I doubt it, actually; its easier to make modular cards act linear than vice-versa I think.
Incidentally, I'd have chosen a more modular mechanic than proliferate; its not exactly linear, but its definitely linear for a modular mechanic.
But really, if someone needs to be explicitly told to attack with something that blows stuff up just by being declared as attacking, maybe more research should have been put into figuring out exactly why instead of forcing it.
I think they already know the answer to this question - basically, people have a tendency to stall rather than go for the throat, and if I have, say, 8 power of creatures out, they feel bad attacking into them with the 8/8 as they'll lose it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 11:29PM
#48
|
|
|
The "attacks each turn" was put in specifically to tell people they needed to attack with it. Not for flavor reasons.
www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...
It's important to get a sense how people react to the set when they play it for the first time, so we like to hold playtests with fresh eyes and a more casual sensibility. During the first such playtest, we noticed that when players got an Eldrazi out, they wouldn't attack with it. R&D had quickly realized the power of the annihilator mechanic, but the less experienced players didn't seem to feel safe throwing their giant creatures into the fray.
We took notes and talked about it, but changed nothing. The next playtest the same thing happened, and the playtest after that. During one development meetings we had a discussion about what we could do to make less experienced players realize that you should be attacking with the Eldrazi. (Quick aside—Less experienced players: When you get an Eldrazi on the battlefield, attack with it.) How about, I suggested, we take the cheapest common Eldrazi and add the text "CARDNAME attacks each turn if able." Once players saw how much damage the Eldrazi did when they attacked, hopefully that would encourage them to attack with the other Eldrazi. And that is how ..."OpenTip(event, "Ulamog's Crusher")" class="nodec">Ulamog's Crusher got its second line of text.
I've not read this article before. If I have, I didn't notice this part. So how am I supposed to know that they put the "attacks each turn if able" line for a reason other than flavor? Most other cards that have to attack each turn seem flavor based so I didn't expect Ulamog's Crusher to be any different. I know that the other cards were either small or non-creature, but that seems beside the point to me. There are plenty of times that attacking with an Eldrazi is a good thing. But other times in which attacking is a mistake.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 19, 2010 - 11:57PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I think they already know the answer to this question - basically, people have a tendency to stall rather than go for the throat, and if I have, say, 8 power of creatures out, they feel bad attacking into them with the 8/8 as they'll lose it.
But, forcing an inexperienced kid to attack into a pile of blockers will exactly cause that kid to "feel bad" when he loses his bigass monster, and he'll likely not even realize the implications of taking out two of the opponent's cards and probably three or four creatures. Eureka moments cannot be forced.
It's a known psychological quirk that people remember bad things ("my crusher got dead") far more strongly than we remember good things ("I took out a pile of his creatures and 'annihilated' a couple other things").
Why are we arguing over Crusher again? I forgot.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Oct 20, 2010 - 12:08AM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2006
|
Looks like that's somehow my fault again. By the time ROE came out I was so far off onto the other fork in the road of design this didn't bother me as much as it might have, say. in 2007. That doesn't mean I didn't say anything at the time. I'll bet I did actually. But if WOTC thinks they need to tell new players to go ahead and attack with that fattie, it make sense that they would put that on one of the cards.
The "attacks each turn" was put in specifically to tell people they needed to attack with it. Not for flavor reasons.
www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.a...
It's important to get a sense how people react to the set when they play it for the first time, so we like to hold playtests with fresh eyes and a more casual sensibility. During the first such playtest, we noticed that when players got an Eldrazi out, they wouldn't attack with it. R&D had quickly realized the power of the annihilator mechanic, but the less experienced players didn't seem to feel safe throwing their giant creatures into the fray.
We took notes and talked about it, but changed nothing. The next playtest the same thing happened, and the playtest after that. During one development meetings we had a discussion about what we could do to make less experienced players realize that you should be attacking with the Eldrazi. (Quick aside—Less experienced players: When you get an Eldrazi on the battlefield, attack with it.) How about, I suggested, we take the cheapest common Eldrazi and add the text "CARDNAME attacks each turn if able." Once players saw how much damage the Eldrazi did when they attacked, hopefully that would encourage them to attack with the other Eldrazi. And that is how ..."OpenTip(event, "Ulamog's Crusher")" class="nodec">Ulamog's Crusher got its second line of text.
I've not read this article before. If I have, I didn't notice this part. So how am I supposed to know that they put the "attacks each turn if able" line for a reason other than flavor? Most other cards that have to attack each turn seem flavor based so I didn't expect Ulamog's Crusher to be any different. I know that the other cards were either small or non-creature, but that seems beside the point to me. There are plenty of times that attacking with an Eldrazi is a good thing. But other times in which attacking is a mistake.
I figured that you hadn't seen this article, otherwise you likely would have remembered it. I'm just giving you the information.
|
|
|
