May 14, 2024, 12:22:13 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tacullu64

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27
376
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Aggro, Combo, Control & Hybrid Archtypes
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:36:20 PM »
Quote from: "wtcannonjr" post=6770
It may be worth the time to research Roman gladiator combat to see how strategies were categorized in those arena battles. Or modern boxing, kickboxing, mixed martial arts, etc.

Mage Wars is an enhanced model of arena combat to the death. The spellbook design discussions just feel like evaluations of different starting sets of resources. Perhaps comparing them against opponent spellbooks would be more effective. i.e. match ups between opposing scenarios. Think of Ali versus Frasier or Spartucus versus a Lion den.


Interesting , this makes me think about an old magic article written by Mike Flores called "Who Is The Beatdown Deck" or something close to that. He discusses the ability to discern whether you should take the beatdown or control role when two similar decks face off. One off the most profound articles ever written about magic and a fascinating read since the concepts are generic enough to apply to many games.

Your statement seems to touch upon the concept of being flexible enough in your stratagy to adapt your tactics based on your opponent, indicating the key is in analyzing the various match ups as opposed to classifying spellbooks. Unless I'm misinterpreting your point.

377
General Discussion / Re: Mage Wars Flyers?
« on: January 27, 2013, 11:17:05 PM »
No need to do that on my account. I wasn't complaining. Well maybe a little bit, but only about my shoddy memory.

378
General Discussion / Re: Mage Wars Flyers?
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:36:01 PM »
I swear, every time this thread pops up I come here expecting to read about angels, birds and bats.

379
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Aggro, Combo, Control & Hybrid Archtypes
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:32:29 PM »
What you are calling rush sounds suspiciously like what we would call "solo" mage, although sometimes not technically solo, a very lonely mage who does most of the heavy lifting himself with little or no creature support. If that is not what you mean then I guess solo would be another strategy.

Control seems a little generic. The way the spellbooks are constructed pretty much every one has some control elements.

This game is still in its infancy, at least as far as its exposure to the community at large. I think classifying spellbooks is a work in progress that's going to evolve as we log more games and think up new strategies to try.

380
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Aggro, Combo, Control & Hybrid Archtypes
« on: January 25, 2013, 01:32:08 PM »
Quote from: "residualshade" post=6746
i agree i dont think magic classification fit too well. since a well built book can and will be a little bit of everything.

i think books are better classified by their strategy.

i also think opening plays are even more valuable to examine then the books themselves. for example we have aggro openings, attrition openings, and things in between.


I have thought a simple one word descriptor of the content of the spell book might be an appropriate place too start. Perhaps something along the lines of proactive, balanced, or reactive based on whether a spellbook was heavy in proactive or reactive spells or fairly balanced between the two.

Add in the Mage used as a second descriptor.

And most importantly the strategy/tactics employed as you suggest.

So a particular spellbook might be described as Proactive/Beastmaster Wolfpack Swarm or a Balanced/Beastmaster Wolfpack Swarm.

I think opening moves is a fascinating subject that probably deserves its own discussion.

381
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A Dream: All the Cards easily acquired
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:59:36 AM »
Quote from: "pixelgeek" post=6743
Quote from: "mitkosim" post=6411
Actually he is not. I had raised this exact same question in a thread long, long ago. When you are doing a card game with multiples of cards allowed, there will be a certain subset of your customers (let's call them hardcore gamers for ease) who would want to have all the options.


I understand that. There are several issues at play here

1) For every gamer that wants to complete the entire set of spells there are numerous games who don't.
2) One person's idea of complete is not necessarily some other person's idea of complete.
3) A product needs to hit the store at a price point that it will sell at. Adding 100s of cards to the base set would make it too expensive
4) Adding new products increases the number of SKUs that owners need to stock, sell and be aware of. Retailers have a lot of SKUs already and are notoriously shy about adding new ones unless it is critically important

As a producer I don't know that Arcane Wonders can afford to dedicate their product development to a narrow segment of their play base when that player base wants, effectively, a specialized and more expensive version of the game.

The aim of a producer is to get a product in as many hands and as many stores as possible. When you are a new company with a new game you need to make the decision to buy and the decision to stock as simple as possible. A more expensive game with more cards would not sell as well.

Adding more products for a new game would also not be a great draw for retailers who don't want to have to stock multiple SKUs for a product that they may have just recently got into stores.

If AW has extra time to produce more material I would rather see them come out with more promo material and more OP kits and stuff to help promote the game in stores rather than trying to come out with completist products that aren't going to be as beneficial to the expansion of the game.


I wholeheartedly agree which is why I keep suggesting AW offer singles in their online store.

382
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Aggro, Combo, Control & Hybrid Archtypes
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:45:29 AM »
This thread has been sitting idle for months now. I don't know if people don't like the idea of classifying spellbooks or just felt they didn't have anything to add. Personally I like this subject but felt I didn't have anything to add.

A few have posted that they thought the combo classification in the magic sense did not apply to mage wars and I agree completely. In fact I wonder if the magic system of classifying decks translates to MW spellbooks at all.

I don't really want hijack the thread into a discussion of MW vs magic but I need to go there briefly to explain my point. Even before MW was released I thought it would replace magic for me and it has but not for the reason I thought it would. I thought it would be a "fixed" version of magic containing all the good stuff magic offers with none of the bad. Imagine playing magic without getting mana screwed or mana flooded, not to mention never having to top deck an answer. After playing MW I realized that any similarities to magic are superficial and the two games are very different experiences. Mana ratios and card draw are not weakness's but an integral part of the magic experience, love them or leave them. A game of Mage Wars just feels different to me than a game of magic. The reason I gave up magic isn't because MW is an improved version of magic, it's because it is the game I've been looking for all these years.

Ok, back to the topic. The point I'm trying to make is that if I am correct and mage wars and magic are two very different experiences, maybe the community should create a new system of classifying spellbooks instead if trying to fit them into categories conceived to describe magic decks.

383
Spells / Re: Banish!
« on: January 25, 2013, 07:50:57 AM »
Quote from: "klempad" post=6727
Another potential 'problem' with Force Hold would be an opponent the uses teleport to move the held creature around (my wizard often has teleport bound to his Mage Wand).  :)


Good point.

Another consideration I didn't mention is the cost to put it in your spellbook. Wizards can put in banish for 3 spell points and force hold for 4. All other known mages put banish in their book for 6 and force hold for 4 (except for the forcemaster for whom it cost 2).

384
Spells / Re: Banish!
« on: January 24, 2013, 09:34:46 PM »
What I like about banish is you pay your 14 mana and then you get a three turn vacation from some baddie. I think force hold would be the closest you could get to the benefits you get from banish but for a cheaper cost. The problem is how much you get out of it is situational. A creature with a ranged attack could still attack you if you come in range. It's an enchantment and therefore subject to dispell. However under the right circumstances you could get the same 3 turn vacation for 10 mana with the option to continue paying the upkeep to extend the effect even longer.

I think AW has done a fine job costing the spells so I guess it comes down to the sure bet of banish vs the potential to get the same benefits cheaper with force hold.

385
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Harassing the Mana Crystal - Why?
« on: January 22, 2013, 10:47:53 AM »
Quote from: "Dre2Dee2" post=6587
I dont think it's worth it at the moment, at least not with creatures. It just takes too long.


I'm hoping the Warlord will be a bit more viable in this strat, his catapult conjuration should hopefully be more effective in blowing up people's bases  :cheer:


I tend to agree with your conclusion but for a different reason.

I like to build redundancy into my spellbook. That said, I definately consider mana production a key system. If I was playing a wizard and decided I needed a channeling value of 12 to run my strategy I would add 2-3 mana crystals, 1 moonglow amulet, and 2-3 harmonize to my spellbook. I also would include other equipment that would be high value targets that would make targeting the amulet a tough decision. We can't forget the nullifys in the spell book to protect the equipment. I will likely be running a spawn point too.

The bottom line is that I would offer little resistance to an opponent who thought it was a good idea destroy my mana crystals, perhaps just enough to make him feel they were vital to my strategy. An opponent would need to be dedicated to reducing all my mana production to hinder my strategy that way. Mana denial would probably be a key strategy of that opponent and he would double down with mana denial that doesn't require the destruction of conjurations and equipment.

I think that casual destruction of mana crystals probably isn't worth doing, however if your strategy is mana denial you will want to get around to destroying them sooner or later.

386
General Discussion / Re: Best way to buy/start MW if you're into comp/OP
« on: January 22, 2013, 09:50:29 AM »
I bought a second core set with no regret. In addition to the cards I was happy to get the extra spellbooks, dice, and markers. This still seemed a fair enough value to me.

I also bought a single copy of both core spell tomes.

While I am a few cards short of a complete play set, I have been able to build any spellbook I desired.

387
Strategy and Tactics / Re: Harassing the Mana Crystal - Why?
« on: January 21, 2013, 06:37:14 PM »
Two question come to mind when I consider harassing the mana crystal.

How important is it to my strategy to deny my opponent mana?

If I am playing a wizard employing a mana denial strategy then the answer is very important. My goal is to disrupt my opponents strategy through resource denial. If I am playing a beastmaster attempting to swarm my opponent with creatures then it's not very important.

Are those mana crystals important enough to my opponent's strategy to make destroying them worth my effort as opposed to furthering my own strategy?

That is obviously the more difficult question as it is dependent on the situation at hand. To make the right choice requires keen insight into your opponents strategy, or maybe just some good luck.

I believe that the efficiency with which you can destroy the mana crystal, while important is of secondary concern to the necessity of doing it.

388
General Discussion / Re: Cards from the core set in the expansion?
« on: January 21, 2013, 11:29:18 AM »
I believe they are putting playable spell books for the force master and warlord into the expansion, making some cards from the core set a necessity. This might be undesirable for some, but others will welcome it because they will have spell books built for each mage and need the extra core cards to complete their spell books.

389
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: Soft play board (arena)
« on: January 18, 2013, 09:44:05 AM »
I like the game board that came with the core set but, if AW put out a high quality play mat I would definitely buy it.

390
Player Feedback and Suggestions / Re: A Dream: All the Cards easily acquired
« on: January 17, 2013, 03:14:41 PM »
theduke850's idea is perfect for me. I can't help but think it wouldn't work for everybody. I think if Arcane Wonders adopted that model for expansions and started selling singles in their online store almost everyone would be satisfied. I would guess some people will want extra copies but only of very specific cards. For example one might only want to play the priestess and therefore only want the extra copies of the cards for their various priestess builds. I doubt they would want to buy 2 forcemaster vs warlord sets for a handful of holy cards.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27