|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 11:24AM
#131
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
Possibly. Depends if they go the unique route, but offer other forms of redundancy. So yeah, Lingering Souls is the nuts, so they restrict that card to two copies. Then do they put in 2-4x of Midnight Haunting  ? Do they dig deeper and give the deck Spectral Procession  and Glorious Anthem  ? That's kind of the beauty of it though. Duels of the Planeswalkers is not block constructed and is not limited in card options in theory. The deck designers can use any card in the massive card archive if they really want to, so a counter deck/strategy is probably viable somewhere to help keep things in check. The next question is whether or not they are capable of actually designing the entire format right without letting certain strategies get too powerful. This is kind of where I am at. As Splattercat puts it, I want to see the decks and their contents. To see if they diverge from the design they have used in the past or start pushing the decks in a direction that creates a diverse and open playing environment. It can't be an easy task balancing a bunch of decks like that, especially if they try and push them towards a higher power level.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 11:57AM
#132
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2012
|
I agree, but I can't see the power level getting much lower than Dragon's Roar... I know that balance between the decks is a hard thing to accomplish, but I think Stainless is not even trying to make the decks better.
WotC doesn't care about flavor. Their forum is the only place where an ORC can kill a troll...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 30, 2012 - 1:56PM
#133
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2006
|
We don't know if they made those decks. I think the actual decks were given to them by WotC. They just coded the game logic and added GUIs.
DotP2012 had cards for multiplayer involving more than 2 players in order to promote those formats. The previous game was meant for 1on1.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 4:53AM
#134
|
|
|
We don't know if they made those decks. I think the actual decks were given to them by WotC. They just coded the game logic and added GUIs.
DotP2012 had cards for multiplayer involving more than 2 players in order to promote those formats. The previous game was meant for 1on1.
And ironically DotP '09 decks were better for multiplayer than 2012's are. Probably because not all the decks in '09 were aggro oriented like in 2012, there were more controlling styles, which I prefer.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 11:05AM
#135
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
We don't know if they made those decks. I think the actual decks were given to them by WotC. They just coded the game logic and added GUIs.
DotP2012 had cards for multiplayer involving more than 2 players in order to promote those formats. The previous game was meant for 1on1.
And ironically DotP '09 decks were better for multiplayer than 2012's are. Probably because not all the decks in '09 were aggro oriented like in 2012, there were more controlling styles, which I prefer.
I'll give you that we lost more of the "dedicated" control strategies, but I don't think that's entirely why multiplayer feels "weaker" with 2012 decks compared to the '09 selection. A bigger reason is probably the slower pace of the old format. Those decks had wider curves and a lower average power level thanks to the card selection and deck dilution, so decks just didn't really do anything theatening until turn 3 or even 4 at best. That slow speed is going to help bolster a healthier multiplayer format because every player will get a chance to build up their resources and side and essentially get a chance to play out the match.
A lot of that changed in 2012. Deck lists got better, average power level was higher, and core editing made lists tighter than ever. Some of the decks can do scary stuff and that puts a lot of pressure on the players. In the past, the average threat level was probably at Air Elemental  levels. That kind of threat is managable and could either be blocked or dealt with within a few turns. Now, we have decks summoning Eldrazi  , calling upon Angels  , lining up soldiers  , contracting demons  and so on. Decks were given a wide range of threats and many of them demand answers in a timely manner.
However, we lost, or frankly didn't gain a large set of efficient answers in the process [for multiplayer]. Mass removal left for the most part and is only seen in a few decks. Most removal is straight 1-for-1 trades, and inefficient use of that is going to leave you exhausted and at the mercy of the more passive players. It just doesn't create a fun atmosphere when players are given such big weapons and there isn't a good way to manage them on a large scale.
What's worse is that decks can draw unnecessary hate due to the lack of answers. If players can't readily manage the board in the lategame, the best course of action is just to remove the player completely and as early as possible. No one really wants to see Ancient Depths get going because they have an immensely strong late game, and the best way to deal with them is to make sure they never see that lategame. In a similar manner, an aggro player who drops one and two drops shouldn't feel like he has to sit back on them, but attacking with them early tends to draw early attention making them a higher priority for removal from other players.
In a way, this is why the "multiplayer only" cards they included are kind of useless. Who cares if Ancient Depths ramps  everyone as a friendly gesture, it's still AD, now the others can just kill them quicker. Or having Gravewhispers swing lifetotals  , but not actually interact with the board. Only thing that really changed was the amount of hate it's about to get. These cards either don't do enough, or everyone is already bias against the deck because the deck contents are already known. Everyone knows what the decks can do and will act accordingly.
That's kind of the problem with the limited/restricted deck design though. A majority of players are going to expect most, if not all, of the decks viable for all modes of play. That'll be nearly impossible as each format, from 1v1, 2HG, 4-player FFA, and even Archenemy, can all require drastically different cards between each other. General strategies and design play key roles, like card advantage generation is going to be universally good in all formats, but the way that it's generated can be different. They really need to expand the workable card pool to help support the varying formats while not diluting the pool contents which blatant filler cards that provide no useful applications. In addition, it would be wise to provide a variety of play styles in a manner to create a series of checks and balances for the very least 1v1 play. Multiplayer is going to be much slower where aggro doesn't/shouldn't really exist, but card unlocks could be provided that allow for a slower, midrange-y playstyle.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 2:25PM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2011
|
Yeah in the old format D'09 the pace of all decks was much closer together, and there were little to no turn 1/2/3 game-over cards. Aside from monogreen most decks had at least 4 to 6 creature control cards but because decks varied from 60/70 you wouldn't always draw one/multiple which made for much more interesting duel scenarios cause it would be much easier to bait 1 maybe 2 removal cards then now were you just fill half your deck with removal and win because your opponent runs out of steam. The biggest creature there was the Artisan of Kozilek  which me and my friends found incredibly badass in Eons of Evil, especially if it came out rare turn 4 thanks to zombify and the biggest win-alone threat without even needing to attack were Godsire  and Rampaging Baloth  , but those came out late-game would either be removed or might just swing the game around. Now you have ulamog which is invulnerable to all decks removal save 1 and will basicly end the game just by attacking once. Rite of Replication is a card like that, incredibly fun in commander games. But in 2headed giant this card equels game-over almost all the time, 99% and you are just watching it happen without any way of getting back into the game, I understand why the coincede level is so much higher at 12, in d'09 almost no-one coincedes and even if they don't, they do it when I'm swinging in for the kill. Now that's cool,whatever... But at '12 people coincede because I played this card or they leave because I play that card, or they leave because they mis a landdrop. So much cards now equal instant ragequit and yes offcourse I am partly talking about myself right now but I've always went for winning more then less and have observed alot off bullshit losses and also alot bullshit wins. But anyways back in time , d'09 just got the 3rd expansion with Weapons, Root and Vamps. Weapons save for a few cards was a much worse version of wielding steel. Root was like the 10 times better version of cloudburst that would prove to either smash quick with killing fiends or control long enough to drag almost every deck into the lategame and smash their face in combo'like. But the vampire deck changed the metagame in d'09... Now don't get me wrong, there were people saying that that Master of Shadows would be better then Bloodhunger in this game... Now I understand why people would think that because it is build much more aggro then this deck, 4 NightHawks, 2 Vampire Lacerator  , 2 Pulse Tracker  , Sanguine Bond  and Malakir Bloodwitch  . However I don't think that's the case unless the core deck could be altered but it definetly has the potential to draw much more wicked then BloodHunger, However in reality I've found played correctly that Root of the FireMind and the Heat of Battle deck beat it more often then not because the the core deck contains alot mediocre cards like 3 Mindless Null  , 2 Heartstabber Mosquito  and 3 Bloodrite Invoker  the Butcher of Malakir  floats around somewhere in the deck but most importantly it has decent but much less removal then BloodHunger, only 1 lord even though Nocturnus is even more insane in this deck if you draw him thanks to the 3 disentomb  and I get the reuse of the nighthawks but it has less removal then BloodHunger , no Bloodthirst and you're not proliferating which makes the deck often explosively quick but if slowed down enough will often burn out and it's pretty inconsistent against decks that can start controlling the board from turn 1 with no no-black restricted removal.. Having said that this was still a completely new type of deck cause unlike the earlier Cries of Rage warrior deck which was supposed to be aggro yet was still filled with turn 4, 5, 6 and 7 drop creatures Master of Shadow's lionshare of quality cards were all at a much lower mana-curve then other decks. The Elves deck was pretty quick but and had some crazy shenenigans but was overall still vulnerable to most removal. Master of Shadows deck combo would often already finish by turn 4, 5 or 6. Which against alot of decks that didn't drop down turn 1 and 2 creatures frequently translated into frequently being rewarded with game-overs with 4 or 5 cards into their hand and even if they did survive vampire creatures initial onslaught they were invulnerable against half the deck list removal cards. In dotp12 around 9 decks are aggro like that but have no card fodder, more quality cards, better removal and the decks that don't are either just a collection of cards, or some vague combo decks without enough quality cards at all or at low enough manacost to keep/get your combo in place before getting overrun. Not forgetting that on top of that are the annoying bugs like tapping your 1st mainphase, syncing, stacking incorrectly The dealbreaker are just game-exploiting bugs like squadron hawk not shuffling your deck if you cancel the shuffle while one is still in the deck, same for the Harbingers. Yah. D'09.. I'm having so much more fun playing that cause the odds of a decent game are much better... IMO
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 5:12PM
#137
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 6:41PM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2010
|
You got me.  Although, there is the consistency thing which I was trying to exemplify. You're more likely to run into those power levels on creatures/spells in 2012, whereas in '09 a more accurate representation would be a bunch of these  as opposed to Baneslayers, or fumbling through this  and that  before finding an Artisan, but more likely dropping Archdemon of Unx  and raging if your opponent manipulates his "drawback" against you. The junk we had to slog through until we hit the good stuff, so I certainly appreciate the higher overall power level that came with 2012. I agree that the old decks had a certain amount of character to them by the way. Maybe because they didn't feel entirely bound to a very generic theme or tribe like most of the 2012 decks are, but rather a deck concept or mechanic. When I can label more decks based on what they did, rather than who they were, I feel like that's a good sign. Reanimator, burn, landfall, discard, equipment, counterburn, etc. I'm sure I exaggerate this slightly, as we can use similar labels for 2012 decks. For example, Unquenchable Fire is again burn or Gravewhispers remained discard, but I feel more decks are labeled by their tribe instead of how they control the flow of the game. Knights, vampires, treefolk, elves, zombies, illusions, etc. And this is what I guess is part of the problem, these tribes just get jumbled up together that nothing feels different. We tend to get caught up in the tribal aspects and gloss over what they individually accomplish. Hopefully the strict tribal or generic theme deck design is somewhat avoided in the future. Not completely removed, as tribal is still a nice addition to the game, but I want to see a little more effort in the design. Instead of just forcing a tribe, intiate the design process by going, "Here is a card  , how do we build a deck around it?" Hopefully that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 7:41AM
#139
|
|
|
Couldn't agree more about what you say about the tribal aspect of the game, there's just too much of it. I agree it shouldn't be completely removed as I enjoy some of it, decks like Elves, Zombies and maybe Vampires feel like they should remain tribal, but I certainly prefer the decks to be built around mechanics rather than creature type.
They definately need more creativity in the deck building process for the next iteration, most of the decks people have proposed on this forum (with a bit of tweaking) are better than the most of the decks in the game, I bet there isn't a single person on this forum that couldn't make a better Dragon deck than Dragons Roar, or a better mono green deck than Apex Predators. Does anyone know who builds the decks Wizards or Stainless? Because if it's Wizards they should be ashamed considering the amount of talented deck builders in that company.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 9:47AM
#140
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2006
|
Wizrds tried to do a lot more with the decks in '12 than simply "Magic decks".
1. Make them different from '09
2. Make them thematic to the colour/s.
3. Make them personalized to the Planeswalker.
4. Make them progressive in level of difficulty.
5. Make them tell (somewhat of) a story.
6. Make them variable through unloackable cards.
7. Make them improvable through unlockable cards.
8. Make them balanced.
In all it could have been done better, but that's a lot of points to hit when designing 19 decks.
EDIT: there's more I wanted to add to this post, but time constraints denied me.
|
|
|
. I'll admit the 
