|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 4:48PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2011
|
Yeah... casual play isn't all that much fun for a huge variety of reasons. That is, of course, opinion, but it destroys your entire argument. Voila.
You sir, are painting with large brush strokes. You just lumped the entire category of "casual" into "not fun." If it's not fun, why does the category exist? Furthermore, your opinion destroys an entire argument? voila? ok.... Edit: I see your signature says you are not a nice person... well that explains why casual is no fun for you. Usually, casual is done with friends, see... and you laugh, make jokes, and sometimes laugh and joke about how your friend just kicked your butt. All in good fun. At least, that's how my casual rolls.
"Rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, scissors beat paper, rock beats scissors..." I'm not interested in what card beats what. That's a circular discussion.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 5:05PM
#52
|
|
|
I'm very happy that resonance is beginning to take a leading role.
One thing that has struck me as being very difficult to understand is why it has taken so long to come to the realisation that "resonance" or "flavour" actually matters. Why do you think people even play Magic to begin with? When I first started playing it was the time of Unlimited, Revised, The Dark, etc. These were flavourful times, even if the cards weren't actually great. Fantasy was my favourite genre and I had played some D&D but that can be difficult to setup since you need a group of people, a DM, some thought put into things, etc. Then here was Magic, a game in which I'm bascially a wizard and I'm dueling one or more other wizards. My deck is the equivalent of my character sheet, and off I go. Sweet. I then left Magic and came back many years later during Time Spiral block to find I had no idea what was going on. The cards were difficult to understand...and in recent sets there were robots! Huh?Why are there robots in my fantasy setting!?
Anyway, resonance seems pretty important to game creation to me, even if it's not the most compelling factor to the game's designers. I don't believe that Civilizations was popular because of the game mechanics, but rather because it felt like you were re-building an ancient civilization according to your own vision. Of course, the mechanics matter when it comes to ensuring that game play is fun and interesting and has depth, etc. But I feel like the metaphor, which is the flavour, is actually the most important thing - at least to me as the player.
Also, I find it interesting that Avacyn Restored sold so many packs. Personally, I have been buying booster boxes recently, but after reveiwing the spoiler for AVR I decided that the set was not worthy of that level of investment. I went to the pre-release, but it wasn't great. I'm looking forward to RTR but I need to see the cards first!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 5:38PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 29, 2007
|
I am curious as to what you would suggest? Its a game, where you are trying to win. Thus if you have competitive people around they are going to push to win. I am a competitive person and its just in my nature. I want to win and be good/great at everything I do. The only way to keep me from being competitive is for me to check and control myself before I even start playing. They are supplying a game and thus at that point nothing they can do to change the psychy of competitive people. They can create product for casual but will also so to all, but there really isn't anything they can do to stop net-decking or anything else you are worried about.
The specifics could be any of a range of things, which are difficult to get into now. The point is that there is a difference between the object of the game, which is to win, and the point of the game, which is to play. Or at least, in an ideal world it would be. You are correct to state that competitiveness is part of some people's nature, and some other posts in this topic illustrate that a lot more would need to change before Magic can be appreciated in the way it always should have been.
Wizards can't do it all, but they can certainly do a lot more to emphasize the point of a game and not just its object.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 5:39PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2005
|
The fact that MaRo considers miracles a success tells me that I should quit magic now before they ruin it any worse.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 5:47PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2010
|
I hate how maro doesn't even mention how janky werewolves are to play with. Also, snapcaster was a huge mistake -_-
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 5:49PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2011
|
I am curious as to what you would suggest? Its a game, where you are trying to win. Thus if you have competitive people around they are going to push to win. I am a competitive person and its just in my nature. I want to win and be good/great at everything I do. The only way to keep me from being competitive is for me to check and control myself before I even start playing. They are supplying a game and thus at that point nothing they can do to change the psychy of competitive people. They can create product for casual but will also so to all, but there really isn't anything they can do to stop net-decking or anything else you are worried about.
The specifics could be any of a range of things, which are difficult to get into now. The point is that there is a difference between the object of the game, which is to win, and the point of the game, which is to play. Or at least, in an ideal world it would be. You are correct to state that competitiveness is part of some people's nature, and some other posts in this topic illustrate that a lot more would need to change before Magic can be appreciated in the way it always should have been.
Wizards can't do it all, but they can certainly do a lot more to emphasize the point of a game and not just its object.
Certainly some sense in your words! If Magic wasn't about fun (read: play), than there are certainly other activities in life that someone could do to win at something. Try video lottery, you lose about the same amount of money with little or no return! I certainly don't want to play a casual game with my friends where it is just me winning all the time. That's not fun for them and neither for me.
"Rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, scissors beat paper, rock beats scissors..." I'm not interested in what card beats what. That's a circular discussion.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 6:44PM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2008
|
The problem with double-faced cards was that they caused some minor mechanical inconvenience to the players; this was very largely addressed with the checklist cards.
However, since there is not a continuing supply of checklist cards, there will be a problem with the usability of these cards in formats such as Legacy and Modern.
Coming up with weird ideas to make everyone happy since 2008! I have now started a blog as an appropriate place to put my crazy ideas.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 8:13PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2010
|
I haven't bought any paper packs/cards for the entire INN block after being a hardcore weekly paper drafter/FNMer from SoM block. Good to know that Magic doesn't need my money to do so well.
I think the game is just going to have to deal with a huge injection of cash from me (and others!) for RtR block, regardless of how I feel about DSCs and mythic rares.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 8:40PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2011
|
The problem with double-faced cards was that they caused some minor mechanical inconvenience to the players; this was very largely addressed with the checklist cards.
However, since there is not a continuing supply of checklist cards, there will be a problem with the usability of these cards in formats such as Legacy and Modern.
Something I don't understand about double-faced cards: have people really found it to be more convenient to use the checklist cards in sleeved decks (like you would be required to use in a format like Legacy anyway) rather than just putting the actual card in instead? I do see people use the checklist cards so the answer must be yes, but for the life of me I can't figure out why.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 9:48PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
1) Perhaps I would feel better if the lead designer said, “feedback from AVR surveys has been outstanding”, rather than “sales were outstanding”. Sales are important. But aggregate sales are not a great indicator of design success. Why? Because, if you went back in time, and replaced the Mythic slots in AVR with the power nines, sales of AVR would definitely increase. But no one would say that AVR was now better-designed. Right? So you have to separate design-quality from power level from sales. We know this; we think you know this. AVR *seemed* to have a lot of chase rares and mythics, and the design was not great and sales were high. That is not a good combo. Do you factor in the power of chase mythics and rares (and overall power in general) when you measure set quality? 2) Bringing back rancor is great. I never got to play with it the first time. 3) Miracles are not a success. Topdecking the card you need is a reward in itself that is already built into the game. You don’t need to reduce the cost to encourage this behavior.
|
|
|
