Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Strategy and Tactics => Topic started by: Talamare on November 11, 2012, 12:07:02 AM
-
Does anyone else feel that the balance between these 2 aspects are off
Wands are insanely OP so you will definitely bring equipment destruction for them, except every other equipment beside Wands are fairly lackluster by comparison
-
Disagree...
Wands are not "insanely OP". IMO Nothing in this game is "OP". Therre are pleanty of other equipment items that I dissolve. It ALWAYS depends on the circumstances. If the enemy is low on health, and victory is in sight, I'll use a dissolve on his regen belt. If I'm going in for a killing melee attack, I might dissolve his armor or his bracers of defense, to make sure I do as much damage as possible. Come to think of it, I've used pleanty of dissolves on the warlocks helmet and lash of fire. The other equipment isnt "lackluster", it is balanced, and does it's job.
-
@paradox: I'm usually the one being abrasive, but...you could have been less abrasive, just then.
@OP:
Because of the nature of equipment, its cost-to-effect ratio is a null-point to the argument, as I see it. Equipment is always going to be more effective than equipment destruction that is singular in design. By that I mean spells like "Dissolve" that exclusively destroy equipment cards. A best-case scenario for a card like Dissolve creates a null-gain for both Mages, where each expended the same amount of resource to have the board exactly as before the equipment was equipped. Except that equipment is proactive, and equipment destruction is reactive. Unless you happen to choose to put a Dissolve in your hand the turn I choose to equip something, I have a full turn with my equipment in place. So the whole "null gain" argument is also kind of out the window. Proactive vs. Reactive.
Now, Cards that have a secondary or inverse-primary effect (like explode) will always be more cost-effective than equipment cards, because they advance game in other ways than simply denying me something for which I paid.
While I feel that, right now, equipment very much trumps equipment destruction, I think it's a minor play on the game, and ultimately doesn't swing balance in one direction or the other too dramatically.
-nihil
-
Wasn't trying to come off as abrasive...sorry if thats how I sounded.
-
@paradox: I'm usually the one being abrasive, but...you could have been less abrasive, just then.
@OP:
Because of the nature of equipment, its cost-to-effect ratio is a null-point to the argument, as I see it. Equipment is always going to be more effective than equipment destruction that is singular in design. By that I mean spells like "Dissolve" that exclusively destroy equipment cards. A best-case scenario for a card like Dissolve creates a null-gain for both Mages, where each expended the same amount of resource to have the board exactly as before the equipment was equipped. Except that equipment is proactive, and equipment destruction is reactive. Unless you happen to choose to put a Dissolve in your hand the turn I choose to equip something, I have a full turn with my equipment in place. So the whole "null gain" argument is also kind of out the window. Proactive vs. Reactive.
Now, Cards that have a secondary or inverse-primary effect (like explode) will always be more cost-effective than equipment cards, because they advance game in other ways than simply denying me something for which I paid.
While I feel that, right now, equipment very much trumps equipment destruction, I think it's a minor play on the game, and ultimately doesn't swing balance in one direction or the other too dramatically.
-nihil
This is pretty much the exact conversation I had with two guys I play with. One of the guys was concerned that equipment destruction was too strong, and my argument was that all it really did was reset the game to a neutral state since both players expended the same rescources. But you bring up a good additional point in your assesment that the player with the equipment actually comes out a bit ahead since they will probably have at least one round of use out of the gear.
-
I don't like how this balance has played out for me, either. However, I don't think it is out of tune; I just haven't figured out what and when to dissolve effectively. Nihil mentioned the proactive/reactive nature of this game. As I play more I'm learning more about what I should react to and what I should ignore.
I kind of think that a quickcast decoy to trigger nullify/reverse magic followed by a dissolve seems OP because there's no way to protect your equipment from it. But since it does require a full turn's worth of actions to pull off it probably balances out. I just see it as something to consider when planning my next spell book.
-
@paradox: I'm usually the one being abrasive, but...you could have been less abrasive, just then.
@OP:
Because of the nature of equipment, its cost-to-effect ratio is a null-point to the argument, as I see it. Equipment is always going to be more effective than equipment destruction that is singular in design. By that I mean spells like "Dissolve" that exclusively destroy equipment cards. A best-case scenario for a card like Dissolve creates a null-gain for both Mages, where each expended the same amount of resource to have the board exactly as before the equipment was equipped. Except that equipment is proactive, and equipment destruction is reactive. Unless you happen to choose to put a Dissolve in your hand the turn I choose to equip something, I have a full turn with my equipment in place. So the whole "null gain" argument is also kind of out the window. Proactive vs. Reactive.
Now, Cards that have a secondary or inverse-primary effect (like explode) will always be more cost-effective than equipment cards, because they advance game in other ways than simply denying me something for which I paid.
While I feel that, right now, equipment very much trumps equipment destruction, I think it's a minor play on the game, and ultimately doesn't swing balance in one direction or the other too dramatically.
-nihil
Nihil is correct at its core it is a proactive reactive game. At most you could have 10 current ways to blow stuff up. Currently I know of 4-5 equips that must be destroyed. Out of my 10 ways to kill them. IF you include 3 copies of your core items then I can not possibly destroy everything I need to. Now say an equip came out that could be destroyed but goes back into your spell book. Would this change the balance of this?
-
@paradox: I'm usually the one being abrasive, but...you could have been less abrasive, just then.
@OP:
Because of the nature of equipment, its cost-to-effect ratio is a null-point to the argument, as I see it. Equipment is always going to be more effective than equipment destruction that is singular in design. By that I mean spells like "Dissolve" that exclusively destroy equipment cards. A best-case scenario for a card like Dissolve creates a null-gain for both Mages, where each expended the same amount of resource to have the board exactly as before the equipment was equipped. Except that equipment is proactive, and equipment destruction is reactive. Unless you happen to choose to put a Dissolve in your hand the turn I choose to equip something, I have a full turn with my equipment in place. So the whole "null gain" argument is also kind of out the window. Proactive vs. Reactive.
Now, Cards that have a secondary or inverse-primary effect (like explode) will always be more cost-effective than equipment cards, because they advance game in other ways than simply denying me something for which I paid.
While I feel that, right now, equipment very much trumps equipment destruction, I think it's a minor play on the game, and ultimately doesn't swing balance in one direction or the other too dramatically.
-nihil
This is pretty much the exact conversation I had with two guys I play with. One of the guys was concerned that equipment destruction was too strong, and my argument was that all it really did was reset the game to a neutral state since both players expended the same rescources. But you bring up a good additional point in your assesment that the player with the equipment actually comes out a bit ahead since they will probably have at least one round of use out of the gear.
This will only b the case sometimes and I think that this is sometimes right, but not in the explicit vs. implicit sense. In the implicit sense, how badly did the gear user need the card? Is it part of a combo for the gear holder? If so the benefit to the dissolve is higher than pro-active/reactive. Also, in the case of a wand, you kill 2 cards not 1. There will always be an implicit cost, it must be accounted for.
Another way to think of this: is killing that card helping my combinations? More implicit value there then.
Additionally, there is no guarantee that you will use the gear immediately. I am about 14 games in now and I VERY often use my Mage to melee attack. So what I often do now is plan 2 cards and use 1 of them.
A reactive and proactive. I meta/remove something if opportunity knocks, or save the quickcast for at the end of the turn if I am stunned.
This is especially true for mage wand. Elemental Wand not as often but still true.
Simple example: You quickcast a wand thinking you can use it on your creature action. I dissolve it on my quickcast and then melee you on my creature action.
Or, you use your full to cast it thinking you can quickcast it after. I dissolve that way too. With my creature or later quickcast if I have initiative.
I am simply arguing that you cast it and use it a lot less than you think. As the mage in the decks often go melee now, it is very common to to use only 1 spell a turn. When I am in that mode--- which is almost every game, I using my planning phase to be flexible. A kill/support card AND a meta card, and use one, whichever fits the moment.
-
Now, Cards that have a secondary or inverse-primary effect (like explode) will always be more cost-effective than equipment cards, because they advance game in other ways than simply denying me something for which I paid.
While I feel that, right now, equipment very much trumps equipment destruction, I think it's a minor play on the game, and ultimately doesn't swing balance in one direction or the other too dramatically.
-nihil
As an additional note, I suppose that you will then make the same argument with dispel? That the caster of the enchantment comes out ahead? It is essentially the same thing.
Based on an implicit cost analysis, it isn't a "very much trumps" situation. Bottom line: Dispel changes the flow of the game and forces a player to reconsider the combination of cards they are attempting to get into play.
Clearly there are situations where casting dispel or dissolve is critical, and therefore the opportunity benefit outweighs the opportunity cost. Therefore in the moments you choose to take the action, you inherently come out ahead.
Holding the dispel/dissolve for just the right moment can completely swing the game in the other direction.
I have seen it repeatedly.
-
Holding the dispel/dissolve for just the right moment can completely swing the game in the other direction.
You are correct. Learning when is the correct time to destroy equips and when to let them stay. Is one of the most important aspects of the game.
-
@ghbell: Your rabbit hole into playstyle and general play strategy was not an address to cost v. effect, and not withstanding to my comments at all. You are factually wrong to say that there is not an implicit advantage to a proactive card over a reactive card. Start debating the actual argument at-hand. All you actually said in those prosaic paragraphs is "there is strategy in the game," which isn't something that was being debated in the first place.
It is, in fact, true that a proactive equipment will yield a greater or equal cost:effect ratio than a purely reactive equipment destruction card, because the best case scenario for the caster of the destruction card is that he/she expended equal resources to destroy the item, and did so prior to any gains from the item coming into play.
You are trying to argue against points that I did not make by utilizing theory that does not apply to my argument.
-nihil
-
Id like to see anti-equipment cards other than just dissolve/explode, rather Id like to see cards actually made for combating an equip focused deck other than just stripping it down one equip at a time.
I think cards/abilities that would be interesting would be things that dealt X direct damage based on the number of equip items the person is wearing, or an equipment version of Steal Enchantment (snatching an opponents wand or stun hammers would be fun), something to give equipment upkeep costs, or things along that line.
Also, this would be a fun anti equip creature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_monster
-
few card idea's instantly came to mind.
heat metal - enchantment - mage takes direct damage equal to enchanted equipments mana cost. my give the option for the targeted mage to destroy the equipment during upkeep to balance the card.
rust monster - put a rust tokens on all equipment cards attached to attacked mage. destroy equipment when rust tokens = mana cost.
as for the steal you could just make it arcane and call it arcane theft, and make it function exactly like steal enchantment except with equipment.
-
hi from germany.
A question about this theme.
We are in the creature action phase. Both mages have action and quickcast marker on.
My opponent cast as quickcast "dispel" on my (e.g.) Warlord and I reveal "Nullify".
Than my opponent cast as a his normal action a "dissolve" and destroy an equipment.
There is nothing I can do for protect or react, to prevent against this equipment loss ?
Who is so, tactics who need the wand/spell, needs 4 copys of the combi. Which can be very expensive.
-
Is equipment that big of a deal?
Most equipment isn't terribly good. The Warlord's hammer and FM's sword are quite good, and that new sword that is part of the DT promo looks good, but by and large I have passed the point of regularly melee-attacking with my mage because it is so risky and mages don't deal that much damage, even with melee skill.
There's good some good situational equips, but in most games I have a lot more pressing concerns than equipment. Like getting crapped on by a group of large creatures that roll more than I could ever hope to with my mage.
-
I don"t mean weapons. I mean Wand/Spell combinations Wand-Sleep, Wand- Teleport or elemental wand with a 3 spellpoint attack. 4 Backup"s will cost about 28 spellpoints for only one wand.
-
The only equip I usually worry too much about is wands, those I either dissolve, explode, or use steal equipment on. Maybe armor in the right situation, but I try to power through that.
As was kind of mentioned it might be fun if there was a mechanic in the game to have armor take damage. As it stands you can be bashed in a breastplate for 30 damage and it comes off without a scuff, you would think it would take some dents at least and eventually lose its effectiveness or get smashed, unless you pay upkeep to repair it. I guess that all sounds a bit too complicated, but something like armor has 10 life and as you get hit the damage is deflected to the armor instead of you would be manageable without too many tokens, etc. Treat a piece of armor like a construct/conjuration you wear essentially.
-
@Baron Isn't there a steal equipment?
-
I think cards/abilities that would be interesting would be things that dealt X direct damage based on the number of equip items the person is wearing, or an equipment version of Steal Enchantment (snatching an opponents wand or stun hammers would be fun), something to give equipment upkeep costs, or things along that line.
You can cast Steal Equipment Incantation to steal people's equipment (similar to Steal Enchantment) so that card already exists Baron. :)