Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Player Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: piousflea on June 08, 2013, 12:40:45 PM
-
Most people seem to agree that slow builds (those that accumulate lots of mana generation and spawnpoints/familiars) are generally underpowered compared to fast builds ("rush", "beatdown"). I certainly agree with this; my experience in playing a "rush" mage against high-mana-income mages is that your superior number of damage-dice-per-round will usually overwhelm whatever the other guy plays.
So I was thinking about basic game mechanics and deck-building rules and suddenly realized:
In general, a level-X card costs around 4*X mana.
The converse of this is that if you have 40 mana to spend, you will use 10 spell levels from your spellbook.
This means that a Mage with 16 total Mana income: 13 channeling and a 3-channeling Spawnpoint, will burn through an average of 4 spell levels per round. Meanwhile, a Mage with 9 total Mana income will only burn through 2 spell levels per round. This is a striking disadvantage for a high-income build. Even though you are supposedly a "lategame" buld, you are far more likely to run out of cards in the lategame.
=====
I think it would be really helpful to "lategame" builds if there were cards that had disproportionately high power compared to their spell level. These could come in three flavors:
---
1) Trade mana-efficiency for level-efficiency: Straight up efficiency trade
Phase Door: Level 1 Arcane
X+2 Mana, 0-2 range, Zone
Identical to Teleport but costs 2 more mana and 1 less spell level.
Novice Dispel: Level 1 Arcane, Novice
X+1 Mana, Quick, 0-2 range, Enchantment
Identical to Dispel but costs 1 more mana and is a Novice spell.
---
2) Trade timing for level-efficiency: Delayed action effects
Steelclaw Cub: Level 2 Nature
10 Mana, Full, 0-0 range
1 Armor, 9 Health, Frost -3
Quick Melee 2 dice, Piercing +1
Full Melee 4 dice, Piercing +1
During every Upkeep phase Steelclaw Cub gains 1 Age token. At 3 Age tokens it matures into a Steelclaw Grizzly. Gain Level +2, Melee +3, Armor +2, and Health +6.
Mithril Forge, Level 1 War Conjuration
8 Mana, Quick, 0-1 range
4 Armor, 6 Health, Unique
During every Upkeep phase Mithril Forge gains 1 Blade token, up to a maximum of 4. For every 2 Blade tokens on Mithril Forge, all friendly Soldier creatures gain Piercing +1. Once per round, immediately before a friendly action phase, you may remove 3 Blade tokens from Mithril Forge to give a Soldier creature Melee +2 and Piercing +2 until the end of the round.
---
3) Trade prerequisites for level-efficiency: Combo type effects
Wailing Revenant: Level 2 Dark creature
12 Mana, Full, 0-0 Range
0 Armor, 14 Health
Fast
Quick Melee 4 dice, 7+ Tainted
Full Melee 3 dice, 9+ Tainted, Sweeping
Wailing Revenant may only be summoned if you control 2 or more Dark Conjurations and 2 or more Curses. During the Reset phase, if you do not control 2 or more Dark Conjurations, Wailing Revenant's action marker remains inactive. When Wailing Revenant is activated, if you do not control 2 or more Curses it loses Fast and gains Slow.
Temple Guard: Level 1 Holy creature
10 Mana, Full, 0-0 Range
1 Armor, 8 Health, 11+ Defense (1x)
Quick Melee 4 Dice
Defense Rolls +1 for every Temple you control.
Armor +1 for every Cleric you control.
Gains Regenerate 2 if in the same zone as a Temple or Angel.
Boiling Oil: Level 1 War Incantation
7 Mana, Quick, 0-2 Range, Friendly Non-Flying Soldier Creature
Quick Melee, Fire, 6 Dice, 4+ Burn, 9+ 2 Burn
Target creature may make the above attack as a free action, so long as it is in the same zone as a friendly Outpost. Destroy this incantation after one attack, or at the end of the round, whichever comes first.
-
An interesting idea. I'd personally find it irritating if they introduced that level of duplication into the game.
-
The other thing that benefits agro books is that the agro mage is frequently directly in melee, and not casting 2 spells a round. If he gets low on spells he usually has a solid plan B to beat with a lash or Galvitar.
If cards need to be printed to adjust this, I think I would prefer defensive mages with spellbooks above 120 points, or trained in extra schools.
Wands are supposed to help with this problem: they're slower and cost more, but don't run out. Unfortunately, Dissolve is so good that most agro decks run it in high multiples, and wands frequently have difficulty paying back. We'll see what Wizard's Tower and Armor Ward do to this situation.
The Necromancer will probably have some sort of recursion, which should help, too.
-
if you assume 4 mana per spell lvl and lets assume half your spells are out of school spells that means you would have
60 in school lvls = 60 spell lvls
60 out of school lvls = 30 spell lvls
90 spell lvls would consume 360 mana, assuming a high mana regeneration is 14 (practically i haven't seen much more then this). this would give you enough mana to last for 25 turns. an aggro deck far more likely to kill you before 25 turns then after it so running out of cards isn't a problem. from memory aggro decks try to kill you in under 10 turns.
i have found i have never run out of a complete spell book, i have however run out of the cards i needed/want. thats the best part about this game is every game you have you know exactly what you would change in you spell book for the next game.
-
Wands are supposed to help with this problem: they're slower and cost more, but don't run out.
When a Wand is dissolved you lose both the Wand and the bound spell, while your opponent only pays for a level-1 Dissolve.
an aggro deck far more likely to kill you before 25 turns then after it so running out of cards isn't a problem
You run out of options LONG before you are even close to "out of cards".
An aggro deck who only plans to cast 1 spell per round can easily run 2 copies of multiple "situational" spells, and even run multiple different aggro styles (such as a large number of creatures + a battleforge and beatdown-centric equipment).
A high-income deck that plans to cast 2-3 spells per round (or high level spells) cannot carry the same number of "extra options" and "situational cards". If he does, he will have few enough copies that he is much more likely to run out than his aggro counterpart.
-
Most people seem to agree that slow builds (those that accumulate lots of mana generation and spawnpoints/familiars) are generally underpowered compared to fast builds ("rush", "beatdown"). I certainly agree with this; my experience in playing a "rush" mage against high-mana-income mages is that your superior number of damage-dice-per-round will usually overwhelm whatever the other guy plays.
Really? Most people? I think that is a generalization. Having more mana than your opponent is a great advantage. Just ask mana drain Wizard when he is playing the Beastmater. Fast builds can be just as underpowered because they can be predictable and easy to deal with. Sure, you might think spending mana on mana flowers, mana crystals, and spawnpoints is a waste of time, but I think there are a fair amount of people who are smart about playing these types of cards and can pull it off.
I think it would be really helpful to "lategame" builds if there were cards that had disproportionately high power compared to their spell level.
hever comes first.
That is what we call breaking the game. Spell level, mana cost, and spell power should ALL be directly proportional. Once you mess with that proportionality, you get broken cards.
-
An aggro deck who only plans to cast 1 spell per round can easily run 2 copies of multiple "situational" spells, and even run multiple different aggro styles (such as a large number of creatures + a battleforge and beatdown-centric equipment).
A high-income deck that plans to cast 2-3 spells per round (or high level spells) cannot carry the same number of "extra options" and "situational cards". If he does, he will have few enough copies that he is much more likely to run out than his aggro counterpart.
Non aggro decks can also easily run 2 copies of situational spells. Non aggro decks can also adapt and use different methods of winning. Not all non aggro decks rely on casting 2-3 spells per round. If anybody actually does this, they are not spending their mana correctly... aggro or not. Good non aggro players realize this. You can easily say that an aggro deck that needs to put all of its resources into its creatures OR a solo deck that needs to put all of its resources into its mage. Therefore, both run the same risk of not being able to carry enough situational, extra options cards. The problems you are attributing to playing non aggro are shared by ALL styles of builds. Aggro builds are not exempt.
-
Sauce, you know who you're implying is playing badly, right? I mean, PF isn't unquestioned lord and master of the forums, but he did do pretty well at bashcon.
-
That is what we call breaking the game. Spell level, mana cost, and spell power should ALL be directly proportional. Once you mess with that proportionality, you get broken cards.
I'm not sure why you think that separating the currencies would break the game? If they're pegged in lockstep it's just like having only one currency. What's your thinking here? Starcraft, for example, is a carefully balanced game with several different currencies that scale at different rates.
-
When a Wand is dissolved you lose both the Wand and the bound spell, while your opponent only pays for a level-1 Dissolve.
I'm agreeing with you. I think wands are too easily hated out, which hurts control books.
-
Sauce, you know who you're implying is playing badly, right? I mean, PF isn't unquestioned lord and master of the forums, but he did do pretty well at bashcon.
I am not saying he is playing badly at all. I just don't entirely agree with him. I think it would be a shame if everyone started playing only aggro swarm and beatdown spellbooks just because competitive players deemed them better than other types of builds. And I don't think they are inherently better than all the other build types.
-
That is what we call breaking the game. Spell level, mana cost, and spell power should ALL be directly proportional. Once you mess with that proportionality, you get broken cards.
I'm not sure why you think that separating the currencies would break the game? If they're pegged in lockstep it's just like having only one currency. What's your thinking here? Starcraft, for example, is a carefully balanced game with several different currencies that scale at different rates.
What do you mean precisely by "separating the currencies" ?
btw, I don't play Starcraft at all, so that didn't help me understand your point.
-
He shouldn't have to explain himself, it's pretty self explanatory, even if you don't play Starcraft. I don't, and I can tell he means that making the currencies scale differently does not affect the balance of the game whatsoever.
Piousflea is one person of many, and although he has some amazing ideas, and he is an incredible player, he is also looking at what past games have done in order to fully evaluate the meta for the best chance to win. And what past has said is that aggro decks (in almost any card game) outrun control decks. While this is true to some extent in Mage Wars, the advantage of NOT having card advantage I think gives the control player a little more of an edge than in previous games, as well as a "static" resource generation, rather than the varied draw resource generation that other games promote.
If you are going to disagree with someone, have a good explanation. Trying to flame him with non-logical counter arguments and then, rather harshly implying that he is a bad player is never the way to go.
-
He shouldn't have to explain himself, it's pretty self explanatory...
If you are going to disagree with someone, have a good explanation. Trying to flame him with non-logical counter arguments and then, rather harshly implying that he is a bad player is never the way to go.
Woah. Woah. I clearly didn't understand his whole message. You could've explained it but instead you chose to be condescending. I wasn't trying to "flame" him and I wasn't "harshly implying" that he is a bad player. I am sure he is an excellent player and that he would kick my butt as this game. I was trying to be critical of his ideas, not trying to personally attack him. Jeesh. Are you trying to be inflammatory? Because I definitely wasn't. I was trying to be as logical as possible. By disagreeing with somebody you aren't automatically calling them inexperienced and stupid. Stop taking everything so seriously. This is so supposed to be an open environment where you can throw ideas around. Excuse me.
-
Note you didn't choose to quote the rest of the message which does explain what he meant. If you wanted to be critical, instead of saying things like "good non aggro players know this", or "If anybody is actually doing this, they are playing their spells incorrectly". Whether you meant to or not, it did seem to be that you were implying him to be a novice.
I was a little too harsh by saying you were flaming him, and I do apologize for that sincerely. And I'm not sure how I was condescending, but if you took it the wrong way, my fault man.
This:
By disagreeing with somebody you aren't automatically calling them inexperience and stupid. Stop taking everything so seriously.
I'm not sure what this is, but it's definitely not true. I'm incredibly open on these forums, and almost none of it is serious. I respect everyone on here for their ideas and their openness to critical feedback. I just don't see how your arguments were critical as much as just disagreement. I've seen your responses on other threads, and you haven't been exactly "open" to feedback.
I like your ideas, and think you bring up great points, and I don't want this laughable argument to hinder further community involvement in Mage Wars. I do apologize if you felt I was trying to attack you in any way with this or my previous post, I was simply stating my opinion. Cheers man!
-
Note you didn't choose to quote the rest of the message which does explain what he meant. If you wanted to be critical, instead of saying things like "good non aggro players know this", or "If anybody is actually doing this, they are playing their spells incorrectly". Whether you meant to or not, it did seem to be that you were implying him to be a novice.
I was a little too harsh by saying you were flaming him, and I do apologize for that sincerely. And I'm not sure how I was condescending, but if you took it the wrong way, my fault man.
This:
By disagreeing with somebody you aren't automatically calling them inexperience and stupid. Stop taking everything so seriously.
I'm not sure what this is, but it's definitely not true. I'm incredibly open on these forums, and almost none of it is serious. I respect everyone on here for their ideas and their openness to critical feedback. I just don't see how your arguments were critical as much as just disagreement. I've seen your responses on other threads, and you haven't been exactly "open" to feedback.
I like your ideas, and think you bring up great points, and I don't want this laughable argument to hinder further community involvement in Mage Wars. I do apologize if you felt I was trying to attack you in any way with this or my previous post, I was simply stating my opinion. Cheers man!
Okay I understand. I have learned to be much more "open" to feedback. The situation you are referring to where I was acting like a dick had more to do with the fact that I hadn't slept in two days and was studying for finals. Apart from that ONE time where I snapped, I have been very open and have taken advice from others. And I owned up to the fact that I had acted like an a**hole, so what is done is done. You don't need to bring it up anymore.
I didn't feel like I was implying him to be a novice. I was completely agreeing with him about the fact that relying on casting 2 spells per turn is a bad move. I agree that move actions are just as valuable a resource as mana. That must have gotten lost in the translation.
"I just don't see how your arguments were critical as much as just disagreement."
Well, if I am completely agreeing with an idea, I don't see how I could be critical of that idea at the same time. I was communicating my criticisms. My criticisms, arguments, whatever you want to call him were never meant to be more than my thoughts on the matter. I believe you should question everything, so that is what I was doing. Arguments are stronger if they can hold up to scrutiny.
These forums bring up a lot of interesting analysis. If I thought anybody was a novice, I wouldn't be posting in their thread in the first place.
-
They are always welcome man! Seriously, all thoughts are amazing on here, as it doesn't seem like we get enough new content on here as it is. I shouldn't have accused you of implications without knowing the entirety of the situation. I take full responsibility, and hope you accept that and keep coming back.
-
Wands are supposed to help with this problem: they're slower and cost more, but don't run out.
When a Wand is dissolved you lose both the Wand and the bound spell, while your opponent only pays for a level-1 Dissolve.
I've seen people make this statement before but it's only partially true. If you cast a Fireball what happens to the spell after you cast it? It goes to your discard. If the Fireball is on a Wand and the Wand gets Dissolved where does the Fireball go? Into the Discard where it would have been had you never played the Wand in the first place. Either way, the Fireball ends up in the same place.
You only come out behind if you bind a spell and then the Wand gets Dissolved before you cast it. If your Wand gets Dissolved in that situation, you lose two cards for your opponents one play (that sucks). If you did cast the bound spell at least once, you are only really losing the Wand, because the bound spell should already be in the discard at that point anyway. As long as you've cast the bound spell at least once and your opponent Dissolves the Wand, you are breaking even with him as far as actions and mana cost are concerned.
With all that said, I don't really play Wands anymore. I can't remember the last time I did. However, if you are going to play one, make sure you cast the bound spell ASAP so that if the Wand gets Dissolved you don't get hit with the "double whammy".
My 2 cents.
-
I agree with Koz, if you are a Wizard and you spam lightning bolt or fireball, expect you wand to get melted just like a Warlock should expect that his LOH to get dissolved.
If you get your wand out and are able to use it 3-4 times (at least) then you have more than broken even from a Spell Point cost in your Spell book. That is what I am looking for from a Wand or Helm. Something that lets me put a bit more power spell wise, in at cheaper spell book point cost with a trade off of cost in more Mana and actions. Now the math also needs to add in the cost of the counter measures. At a point it gets too expensive from a mana/action/point cost then you need to look at a different path.
I really have not played mages that spam these kind of spells. The only wand I have had dissolved is one I bound Minor Heal on and used 3-4 times before it was taken out of play...
With all of that said, if you are able to use it only twice and it gets dissolved, then you have forced an action cost upon your rival who should be trying to kill you and not your equipment, after all it is Mage Wars not Equipment Wars.
-
Wands are supposed to help with this problem: they're slower and cost more, but don't run out.
When a Wand is dissolved you lose both the Wand and the bound spell, while your opponent only pays for a level-1 Dissolve.
I've seen people make this statement before but it's only partially true. If you cast a Fireball what happens to the spell after you cast it? It goes to your discard. If the Fireball is on a Wand and the Wand gets Dissolved where does the Fireball go? Into the Discard where it would have been had you never played the Wand in the first place. Either way, the Fireball ends up in the same place.
You only come out behind if you bind a spell and then the Wand gets Dissolved before you cast it. If your Wand gets Dissolved in that situation, you lose two cards for your opponents one play (that sucks). If you did cast the bound spell at least once, you are only really losing the Wand, because the bound spell should already be in the discard at that point anyway. As long as you've cast the bound spell at least once and your opponent Dissolves the Wand, you are breaking even with him as far as actions and mana cost are concerned.
With all that said, I don't really play Wands anymore. I can't remember the last time I did. However, if you are going to play one, make sure you cast the bound spell ASAP so that if the Wand gets Dissolved you don't get hit with the "double whammy".
My 2 cents.
Some really good points here. I tend to run any Wand as a last resort. For example, if I am on my last type of a certain attack spell, call it attack spell X, I bind X to my Elemental wand. Likewise, if I am on my last type of a certain incantation, incantation Y, I will bind Y to a Mage Wand. Playing this way also means you will bring out your Wand a little later than usual, which might decrease the odds of it being dissolved in the first place.
-
I really have not played mages that spam these kind of spells. The only wand I have had dissolved is one I bound Minor Heal on and used 3-4 times before it was taken out of play...
With all of that said, if you are able to use it only twice and it gets dissolved, then you have forced an action cost upon your rival who should be trying to kill you and not your equipment, after all it is Mage Wars not Equipment Wars.
I feel like I use dissolve against enemy Wands more than anything else. When an enemy is dissolving your equipment, this can, like you said, mean you are winning by dictating the play and forcing the opponent to respond to you. There is also an advantage to playing with a lot of equipment because if something gets dissolved it probably won't be that big of a deal.
-
Usually if I run wands, I run two. I will place a not as powerful spell that I have more than one of, expecting to get it dissolved. The reason I love wands especially with battle forge is that for no actions, I am scaring the opponent to dissolve my wand. It's a small tempo gain, but incredibly worth it, especially in the end game.
-
Those three very valid options pious
@1) Lower spell book cost, even at a high cost, is ideal for mages like the warlord who need access to the basic counters in the game. Dispel as a novice card fills a big hole in that archetype right now!
It is also that almost all of the control spells in this game are quick actions and all the creatures are full round. So the quick attack, mitigate defensive creature build can easily do 36 damage to your mage while disrupting your defense. The best defense is a better offense and I think that hurts the "tactical" strategy in Mage Wars.
In 15 rounds you know who is going to win the game (if it is not already over), it is the mage who has had the best action efficiency. Action efficiency is too good right now to even begin looking at 25 turns into the game. What this game needs to help make long term a viable strategy is a way to turn off (even temporarily) the cards that make the agro builds possible so you have time to grow a long term strategy.
For example, There are some killer conjurations that only support few to zero creature spell books, that are easily cast, and effect the entire arena. With one card I have created an archetype disrupting situation that your opponent has to run all the way across the board to stop if his deck wants to get going. (poor poor beastmaster)