|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 5:15AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2005
|
So there's been a couple topics on this forum lately (The Land Destruction one and the one about creatures as a focus are the ones that made me decide specifically to make this topic) about how Magic is worse now because of the growing trend of focusing on creatures rather than instants and sorceries. A large number of ostensibly intelligent players chime in saying that Magic is doomed (Or at least less fun and requires less skill) because it is being reduced to nothing but creature based decks. And I have to wonder why? Why do people believe creatures to require less skill? What is it about instants and sorceries that makes them superior in terms of skill level? Quite simply, it takes no more skill to cast Lightning Bolt  than it does to cast Spark Elemental  . I think a lot of players are letting the flavor blind them to actual game mechanics: In terms of actual gameplay, the physical act of playing a card requires the same amount of skill (IE: None) regardless of type. Simply being able to cast Mana Leak  does not make you any more or less skilled than being able to cast Runeclaw Bear  . Hopefully this point at least is inarguable. (Beyond nitpicky semantic complaints) So if the actual card type itself lends no extra skill, then it must come from gameplay itself. Here the argument begins revolving around the number of choices available. For this I figured I'd go back to the 'good old days' when creatures were allegedly unimportant by design. Where better to start than with Alpha? In Alpha, 29 cards included the words "target creature" and 10 (5 of which were Laces  ) included the words "target spell". Immediately we can see that there were more options for interacting with creatures than there were for interacting with spells even in the first sets. But there's another problem here: In standard right now there are 16 cards that include 'target spell' in their rules text (Compared to 301 with 'target creature') and all but one  are blue. So if an instant & sorcery only deck came to exist, everybody would have to play decks that were at least partly blue to fight it. More arguments later when I have time. Point being: I like starting topics I know will cause nothing but rational and friendly debate. I am sure I won't be called a 'scrub' or a 'noob' at all.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 5:38AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2001
|
They view the world through rose tinted glasses and so they believe that losing to a landlock Stasis deck or Nether Void was more fun than getting face stomped by a big fatty. Or even better, getting killed by the Cadaverous Bloom Mike Long special. That sort of thing.
It's pretty much nonsense. Creatures are a means to an end, no worse than sorceries, instants, enchantments or artifacts.
Cards are generally much more powerful these days. Even instants and sorceries are usually better. Only the top 0.5% of old cards are powerful enough to hold a candle to the cards nowadays.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 5:56AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2003
|
Creatureless decks started out as a novelty. Later, they became viable. Now? Eternal formats they are still viable in, but not in Standard or Extended. But this is mostly a function of the card pool available.
I don't bemoan a greater emphasis on creatures, I just am disappointed that as time goes on there have been fewer and fewer new cards to consider using to update my old decks.
I'm not living in some crazy, half-imagined past. And I'm not about to tell people they're having fun the wrong way. Hell, I love playing land destruction and control decks. But I don't play them that often, because I know I'm in the minority. I know decks like that are tough to play against, and that most people I play against don't have contingencies for these things in their decks.
Scope my YouTube channel!The U.S. Army: The best job in the world, working with some of the best people in the world, for one of the worst employers you could ever imagine. Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS! | Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994. | Billy Goat Gruff in the House of Trolls. |
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 6:00AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2001
|
Creatureless decks started out as a novelty. Later, they became viable. Now? Eternal formats they are still viable in, but not in Standard or Extended. But this is mostly a function of the card pool available.
I don't bemoan a greater emphasis on creatures, I just am disappointed that as time goes on there have been fewer and fewer new cards to consider using to update my old decks.
I'm not living in some crazy, half-imagined past. And I'm not about to tell people they're having fun the wrong way. Hell, I love playing land destruction and control decks. But I don't play them that often, because I know I'm in the minority. I know decks like that are tough to play against, and that most people I play against don't have contingencies for these things in their decks.
I really wasn't targeting my rant at you, man. I know you are perfectly reasonable. Sorry if you took it that way.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 6:07AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2003
|
I really wasn't targeting my rant at you, man. I know you are perfectly reasonable. Sorry if you took it that way.
I didn't think you were targeting me. Hell, the most recent thread on land destruction I've largely stayed out of, I said pretty much all I had to say in the last land destruction thread (which wasn't that long ago). And the thread asking about why the emphasis on creatures? I haven't even looked at it.
Be kind of silly of me to assume you were targeting me, wouldn't it? 
Scope my YouTube channel!The U.S. Army: The best job in the world, working with some of the best people in the world, for one of the worst employers you could ever imagine. Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS! | Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994. | Billy Goat Gruff in the House of Trolls. |
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 6:53AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2011
|
I don't hate creatures, nor do I think they require less skill. From almost day one my favorite deckstyle has been R/G aggro and I eagerly await this fall when I can brew up a Golgari deck filled with nice scavange critters and the LolTroll. What I do dislike is how the recent strong push towards creatures seems to be having the effect of making most decks play out very similarly. The appeal of Magic to me is how modular and flexible it is due to the massive cardpool. Decks like Seismic Swans or Ghost Dad that can upend conventions using clever interactions are great for the game. Heck, even take Manaless Dredge; it certainly shouldn't be allowed to dominate tournaments but the mere existence of that deck is a beautiful testament to innovative deckbuilding. Now however, we are getting fewer and fewer of the non-creature tools that can be used to make out-of-the box decks like these. More spell effects are being stapled onto creatures, while cards like the new Dryad, Graffdiggers Cage  and this new uncounterable cycle are potent hosers for every strategy other than creatures. This isn't bad on it's own, but as of late is forming a trend that appears to be reaching critical mass. Modern Development views the game as being Aggro, mid-range (but not slow card advantage mid-range, bigger aggro mid-range), ramp (totally counts as combo, right?), and disruptive aggro/control (which "typically...end the game with the very same threats midrange or ramp decks use"). www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazin...g/daily/... Those decks can be skill-testing and challenging, but the game's getting a bit too homogenous for my taste.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 6:59AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2004
|
I had this discussion with a friend the other day. We came to the conclusion a lot of veteran players feel it takes more skill to win with decks that are light on creatures than full out aggro decks. "All you do is turn creatures sideways lulz!" This is really not true.
Combo decks are by far the easiest to play. You pretty much ignore your opponent until you are ready to go off. The two decisions you make are 1) can I go off now? and 2) is there any way my opponent can stop me? And generally only number 1 is relevant. The skill with a combo deck is building the deck not actually playing it.
With an aggro deck you have to decide: what creature to play right now, attempt to not over extend, bait counterspells and removal, whether to cast a threat or removal, when to attack and when to hold off, decide what to attack if your opponent has a planeswalker, use combat tricks to force your opponent to make bad decisions in the attacking and blocking phase. Aggro decks tend to be easy to build in standard because you just throw in the best available creatures.
Then you have control: decide wether something is a real threat and counter it or cast removal on it, know when to play creatures so you don't end up tapped out and the opponent sneaks stuff under your counters, keep drawing cards. Control decks take a lot of skill to build because you must understand the metagame. With no grasp on the decks you will be facing you are just playing a deck with a bunch of counters instead of a matchup destroyer.
So in the end I think players get deckbuilding and playing confused. Combo and control decks take more skill to build than aggro decks. I think most people would agree in general with that statement. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but for the most part I think this is true.
In terms of actually playing combo is the easiest because you ignore your opponent until you are ready to win. Control is the second easiest with one big caveat, experience.
Control is easy to play but very difficult to master. Knowing when to play your spells and when to play threats is critical to success. That and understanding what is actually a threat and what is trash.
Aggro decks are similar to control by being easy to play but hard to master, but I feel they are actually the the hardest because they are presented with the most mechanical part of the game, creatures. The game is centered around creatures and combat, so by default many decisions are made each turn for an aggro deck. Aggro decks depend a lot on outsmarting a control player by baiting counters or being able to forcing them to remove a threat which really is that big of a deal. Against other aggro decks it comes down to who can force the opponent to make mistakes in the attacking phase. The use of instants and darned if you do darned if you don't situations is key to securing a victory. Also analyzing whether to use your removal at the cost of playing a threat is a huge decision that can make or break a game.
True post count: 9,900
Thanks Wotc for not counting archived posts.
If I post without capital letters than means I'm posting from my phone. For some reason it hates typing capital letters.
Go_Texans on MTGO.
Texans 12-4
Wildcard: W Texans 19 Bengals 13
Divisional: L Texans 28 Patriots 41
Another awesome season!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 7:02AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2012
|
TL;DR= creatures are cool with me, but are dumbing down the game due to new lazy players.
personally as someone who started back in late '93 i enjoy creatures, thats what won games back then aside from channel/fireball, it was this way until legends came out with all its wacky powerful enchants and spells, but mainly enchants, nether void, abyss, all hallows eve,chains of metaphistales(the card that helped restrict balance).
my beef is that everything creature has gotten more silly powerful for cheaper while non-creatures power have stayed static with the exception of ever raising casting costs. i think one of the problems older players have with this is we remember when you sat at a table for a tournament you had to be prepared to face a much more diverse and challenging field of opponents where your creature kill maindeck might be dead cards, or you might not run any creature kill and you get spun by a big fattie. you just never knew you had to think ahead and prepare for many possibilities(hence the creation of the sideboard, they werent always legal). now days you can main deck creature kill in every deck and know it will get some use. every deck now has to have some sort of creature in it, whether it is performing the function of what used to be an enchantment, or artifact, or if they just took an older spell ability and put it on a new creature. if you want interaction between your cards in standard deck you better have creatures in it.
to me it is the newer player base of little bastards that were raised getting trophies just for showing up that has led to this state. the game isnt any harder from when i was a teenager people aren't any less intelligent(debatable) but the fact the newest generation doesnt actually like to have to put serious thought or time into something to figure out how to make it useful. they would much rather have something tongue and cheek spoonfed to them with neon lights that says this creature and this card wins game. most of them wouldn't have the patients to try and figure out how to shutdown hardcore combo/LD without building decks to specifically to hose them or to build their own deck without hitting up every mtg forum/lab to have someone else build their deck this is why all the top decks are variations of the same theme in each standard rotation.
Magic the Drinking Game rules
Show
here are the rules for MtDG:
1.at the beginning of each players turn that player takes a drink.
2.whenever a permanent you control is placed in a graveyard from play, drink.
3. whenever a spell you play is countered, drink. if the countered spells caster attempts to counter the counter, the loser of the counter battle must drink for a number of seconds for each counterspell that went on the stack.
4. whenever a player "loses life" that player must drink for a number of seconds equal to amount of life lost. (a) if a player would gain life, that player may make another player drink for a number of seconds equal to amount of life gained.
5. if a player puts a card from their library into their graveyard that player drinks for a number of seconds equal to the number of cards placed in graveyard.
6.if a player would discard a card that player drinks for a number of seconds equal to cards discarded.
7. on any coinflip the loser must drink.
8. at the end of each game all players must finish their drink.
9. loser must fetch all drinks/refills for the next game. if playing multiplayer use a**hole heirarchy(president,vp,secretary,treasurer,a**hole)
10. a player who wins 3 consecutive matches may add a "world effect" that affects all players and can not be removed without winning 3 consecutive matches and negating effect. multiple effects stack i.e if person wins 3 games then wins another 3 games both effects that player created stack.
11. ALL cards are legal, including ante cards.
Mono Blue legacy
Show
Mono White legacy
Show
R/U The Izzet ShIzzet
Show
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 7:04AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 29, 2012
|
I had this discussion with a friend the other day. We came to the conclusion a lot of veteran players feel it takes more skill to win with decks that are light on creatures than full out aggro decks. "All you do is turn creatures sideways lulz!" This is really not true.
Combo decks are by far the easiest to play. You pretty much ignore your opponent until you are ready to go off. The two decisions you make are 1) can I go off now? and 2) is there any way my opponent can stop me? And generally only number 1 is relevant. The skill with a combo deck is building the deck not actually playing it.
With an aggro deck you have to decide: what creature to play right now, attempt to not over extend, bait counterspells and removal, whether to cast a threat or removal, when to attack and when to hold off, decide what to attack if your opponent has a planeswalker, use combat tricks to force your opponent to make bad decisions in the attacking and blocking phase. Aggro decks tend to be easy to build in standard because you just throw in the best available creatures.
Then you have control: decide wether something is a real threat and counter it or cast removal on it, know when to play creatures so you don't end up tapped out and the opponent sneaks stuff under your counters, keep drawing cards. Control decks take a lot of skill to build because you must understand the metagame. With no grasp on the decks you will be facing you are just playing a deck with a bunch of counters instead of a matchup destroyer.
So in the end I think players get deckbuilding and playing confused. Combo and control decks take more skill to build than aggro decks. I think most people would agree in general with that statement. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but for the most part I think this is true.
In terms of actually playing combo is the easiest because you ignore your opponent until you are ready to win. Control is the second easiest with one big caveat, experience.
Control is easy to play but very difficult to master. Knowing when to play your spells and when to play threats is critical to success. That and understanding what is actually a threat and what is trash.
Aggro decks are similar to control by being easy to play but hard to master, but I feel they are actually the the hardest because they are presented with the most mechanical part of the game, creatures. The game is centered around creatures and combat, so by default many decisions are made each turn for an aggro deck. Aggro decks depend a lot on outsmarting a control player by baiting counters or being able to forcing them to remove a threat which really is that big of a deal. Against other aggro decks it comes down to who can force the opponent to make mistakes in the attacking phase. The use of instants and darned if you do darned if you don't situations is key to securing a victory. Also analyzing whether to use your removal at the cost of playing a threat is a huge decision that can make or break a game.
well said! i thnik decks that just follow their own plan without minding the opponent are very one-sided and there isnt much fun for any player in a match like this.
even if you take a look at the most popular and hated deck right now, delver/snapcaster, you see that creature-driven decks tend to react to every turn the game takes and they require a lot of skill to play well. i like the creature focus more than old and cheap one-turn-combo decks.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 07, 2012 - 7:26AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2001
|
TL;DR= creatures are cool with me, but are dumbing down the game due to new lazy players.
personally as someone who started back in late '93 i enjoy creatures, thats what won games back then aside from channel/fireball, it was this way until legends came out with all its wacky powerful enchants and spells, but mainly enchants, nether void, abyss, all hallows eve,chains of metaphistales(the card that helped restrict balance).
my beef is that everything creature has gotten more silly powerful for cheaper while non-creatures power have stayed static with the exception of ever raising casting costs. i think one of the problems older players have with this is we remember when you sat at a table for a tournament you had to be prepared to face a much more diverse and challenging field of opponents where your creature kill maindeck might be dead cards, or you might not run any creature kill and you get spun by a big fattie. you just never knew you had to think ahead and prepare for many possibilities(hence the creation of the sideboard, they werent always legal). now days you can main deck creature kill in every deck and know it will get some use. every deck now has to have some sort of creature in it, whether it is performing the function of what used to be an enchantment, or artifact, or if they just took an older spell ability and put it on a new creature. if you want interaction between your cards in standard deck you better have creatures in it.
to me it is the newer player base of little bastards that were raised getting trophies just for showing up that has led to this state. the game isnt any harder from when i was a teenager people aren't any less intelligent(debatable) but the fact the newest generation doesnt actually like to have to put serious thought or time into something to figure out how to make it useful. they would much rather have something tongue and cheek spoonfed to them with neon lights that says this creature and this card wins game. most of them wouldn't have the patients to try and figure out how to shutdown hardcore combo/LD without building decks to specifically to hose them or to build their own deck without hitting up every mtg forum/lab to have someone else build their deck this is why all the top decks are variations of the same theme in each standard rotation.
There's been a revelation in Magic design: mtg creatures can break the mold for effeciency as long as good removal and attack disruption is present in the format also. I mean, a 1 mana 7/7 wouldn't be fair, but a 3 mana 4/4 vanillia would be fine.
|
|
|
