Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Player Feedback and Suggestions => Topic started by: Biblofilter on January 17, 2018, 11:27:08 AM
-
I actually like long games but I also like playing live.
But for live event it would be nice if more games could end in 90 minutes.
I had a simple suggestion in another tread, but no one pick-up on it.
How about changing the starting position of the Mages?
So that we start the game in the 2 center zones.
If anyone tries this out in real life or on OCTGN I would like to hear how it vent.
It should give faster games, shouldn't it? :P
-
I actually like long games but I also like playing live.
But for live event it would be nice if more games could end in 90 minutes.
I had a simple suggestion in another tread, but no one pick-up on it.
How about changing the starting position of the Mages?
So that we start the game in the 2 center zones.
If anyone tries this out in real life or on OCTGN I would like to hear how it vent.
It should give faster games, shouldn't it? :P
I think it is a good idea other than the fact that is punishes late game builds if they are facing an aggro book.
-
Not sure how balanced this is. I suppose you can try it
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
-
Most rushes hit you turn 2 and late ones 3. So starting in the danger zone would change a lot. I wonder how initiative would be balance wise.
Maybe first QC you cannot target your opponent would be my only suggestion to this sweet idea..
-
Exactly how slow are your games that you need to speed them up? I generally finish my games in less than an hour, so I think that any slowness may come from a lack of familiarity with the spellbook in question rather than the slowness of the game. Back in NC, we could get a new player to do point where they could finish games in an hour within a month, though that generally represented 10-20 games with the same spellbook.
-
What takes the most time is thinking. Something like a chessclock would reduce time a lot in my eyes.
The other huge timeproblem comes from turteling (your idea would stop that) and defensive beta.
I would not like to start in the center. That changes more or less every beta. And I guess you would find most games ending up in fast and raw brutal beatdown.
-
Faster game?
Change the rules in your own Arena.
For instance, any or all of:
Enter the Arena with 3 rounds worth of static and personal spells already cast - step in already with some equipment and enchantments, with your familiar.
Have a hard limit on the number of creatures allowed in a spellbook.
Outlaw enchantments.
Reduce alll mage starting life by 25%
Start closer together.
Have a turn limit. If nobody wins by then the crowd boos and you both get the thumbs down from the emperor.
Use chess clocks for the planning phase.
There are all sorts of options. Try some and see how it goes.
-
Exactly how slow are your games that you need to speed them up? I generally finish my games in less than an hour, so I think that any slowness may come from a lack of familiarity with the spellbook in question rather than the slowness of the game. Back in NC, we could get a new player to do point where they could finish games in an hour within a month, though that generally represented 10-20 games with the same spellbook.
Well my last game we didn't finish. We stopped after 2 hours or so (we did chit chat a lot, not a lot of thinking going on) I think there was about 2 hours left or so.
I played a Straywood BM book I've been playing for around 2 years now. Improved a lot :)
I played vs a book not unlike the book you just posted. A Priest that hardcasted GA´s and had a GA HA and a big Angel as well. Tuff to kill fast, even if I did a good job of ignoring the angels.
But I think most of our games in my meta, could go on longer than 90 min.
Wizard, Druid, any holy mage but even other mages with high defence and a lot of regen etc.
-
I personally would not like starting in the middle. I love the positioning game. The tactical maneuvering. When you start next to each other you destroy the part of the game I love. Would be hard pressed to get me to try it.
-
The problem with starting in the center two squares is that there is nothing stopping each Mage from retreating to the corner squares (it just makes it more unpredictable which corner square they end up in).
-
I personally would not like starting in the middle. I love the positioning game. The tactical maneuvering. When you start next to each other you destroy the part of the game I love. Would be hard pressed to get me to try it.
I love the position and the tactical maneuvering as well.
Still id like to try it out. Should make games faster.
4+ hour long games can be a bit to much, especially if you have other stuff going on in your life.
-
I still do not know how anyone has a four hour game. I think my longest game ever was two hours, and that was only because we were still realitively new to the game. I generally play as if I am in a tournament and will concede the game after an hour if it looks that I am losing, as there is no need to draw things out, especially since I will rarely have anything left in my spellbook after twenty turns of play.
-
I still do not know how anyone has a four hour game. I think my longest game ever was two hours, and that was only because we were still realitively new to the game. I generally play as if I am in a tournament and will concede the game after an hour if it looks that I am losing, as there is no need to draw things out, especially since I will rarely have anything left in my spellbook after twenty turns of play.
Games where both mages have late game builds (priestess, druids, wizards, and necros are the main culprits) tend to go very long.
This is likely the longest game I've ever seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgFsjWkd5_E
-
I wouldn't be about that. It definitely tips the scales too much. With 20 mana no mater where the enemy tries to run to nothing can stop immediate attacks. Just by the math r1 is 14 dice, folowed by 14 more? In fact this will widen the gap between 10 chanel and 9 chanel mages. Cuz a 10 channel can throw 2 boulders r1 AND r2. A 9 chanel mage cant. Not a fan.
-
It does become more about dice luck than it does about strategy.
-
Faster game?
Change the rules in your own Arena.
For instance, any or all of:
Enter the Arena with 3 rounds worth of static and personal spells already cast - step in already with some equipment and enchantments, with your familiar.
Love this idea.
Have a hard limit on the number of creatures allowed in a spellbook.
Hate this idea as someone who likes running armies.
Outlaw enchantments.
Don't get this one at all.
Reduce alll mage starting life by 25%
Not a horrible idea just to speed a game up.
Start closer together.
As others have said, this really takes a way a lot of strategy[/quote]
Have a turn limit. If nobody wins by then the crowd boos and you both get the thumbs down from the emperor.
This is basically domination, which probably should have a bigger place in the community but its tough to divide your focus.
Use chess clocks for the planning phase.
I really haven't seen a lot of issues with specific phases taking too long. There might be a round or 2 near the mid or late game that take a bit longer to figure out the best play but nothing that would need a clock to monitor it.
There are all sorts of options. Try some and see how it goes.
-
Play worse. You'll lose faster.
-
Play worse. You'll lose faster.
Spoken by a true expert. 8)
-
Actually, even a ten channeling mage can't cast 2 boulder per round for two rounds. That costs 32 mana, and they have only channeled 30 by round 3.
What if people start in zones A2 and C3, or B1 and B4? Three zones away instead of one? Most spells dont have a max range higher than 2. This at least gives time to set up a bit. It would involve a lot of prediction though I think. Decisions in your opening will be really important, and you would need to use a variety of different opening moves depending on what your opponent is doing. I suspect this would also open up a lot of interesting and otherwise bad tactics for the early game into viablity. Should I rush my opponent with boulders? Or should I stay back and summon a creature? Or should I force crush or stranglevine my opponent then run away? Eye for an eye plus healing and a spawnpoint would be a good counter to boulder rush in this format. Reverse attack would be shine too. If opponent stays still and summons a creature, you can do the same or summon a spawnpoint. If they restrain you and run away, you could try teleporting out of it. You could also put on cloak of shadows or blur then restrain the enemy mage. Etc etc etc
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
-
@FevilsVendetta
That list was not meant to be definitive, or indeed necessarily practical. Just a brain dump of thoughts that struck me at the time.
I guess the thinking about enchantments was basically that they add a level of complication, thinking and ‘surprise!’ moments that can serve to extend the game. But it probably isnot practical.
As far as the OP goes, you might as well play Academy as start Arena in adjacent zones.
-
I actually like long games but I also like playing live.
But for live event it would be nice if more games could end in 90 minutes.
I had a simple suggestion in another tread, but no one pick-up on it.
How about changing the starting position of the Mages?
So that we start the game in the 2 center zones.
If anyone tries this out in real life or on OCTGN I would like to hear how it vent.
It should give faster games, shouldn't it? :P
i did pick up it and did not like it at all. like others i have not been part of long games you mention. you can make it shorter by being more agressive. force contact earlier. the long games are generally because both players are avoiding each other. if you want super fast games, play academy.
if you must change things dramaticly dictate finite life with no way around it. but even that should not be needed. another way is to ask the opponent what kind of game they want to play. fast, medium, or slow. then you play to match speed. that is something i used to do back in mtg days. i had several decks and asked how fast their decks were and played similar speed. made for even matches and a good time for both players. it was always awful when you bring out a fun casual slow theme deck and get wrecked in three turns by a competition deck. you can always tell the other player you do not have time for a long game and to play something other than a slow build.
-
I wouldn't be about that. It definitely tips the scales too much. With 20 mana no mater where the enemy tries to run to nothing can stop immediate attacks. Just by the math r1 is 14 dice, folowed by 14 more? In fact this will widen the gap between 10 chanel and 9 chanel mages. Cuz a 10 channel can throw 2 boulders r1 AND r2. A 9 chanel mage cant. Not a fan.
I personally would not like starting in the middle. I love the positioning game. The tactical maneuvering. When you start next to each other you destroy the part of the game I love. Would be hard pressed to get me to try it.
I would love to test this. A well timed reverse attack (among others like Eye for an Eye, block, divine reversal, etc) could really screw with that attack plan. I am not going to give an opinion one way or the other about whether it would definitely be "less strategic", but I'm hesitant to agree with that assertion. I think the tactical movement would be just as important, there would just be a little less of an opportunity to hide in a corner for 5 turns turtling. I find that to be a good thing for the game, however that's just my opinion at this point based on theory.
Edit - Sharkbait was wrong, alert the internet.
I was misinterpreting the original idea. I was imagining starting in the middle zone of the two edges instead of the OP's middle centers. So, in my head, it would be interesting if one mage starts in the left column, middle row. The other mage would start right column, middle row. Still 3 zone separation, still room for tactical movement, and still a bit of build up room, though less pronounced than before.
-
I just feel that theres quite a few players who complains over long games.
My suggestion to start closer is just wonderfully simply - no need for rule changes etc.
@Zot
I don´t like Academy.
Just played Domination Battleground today with Galaxxus and only 9 vtar point needed for a win.
Both games where over in ~5 rounds :)
So if you have the need for fast games I recommend Domination. Seems unpopular?
-
Maybe domination is the way to go for tournaments to?
At the end of the time the player with the most vtar point wins.
-
Actually, even a ten channeling mage can't cast 2 boulder per round for two rounds. That costs 32 mana, and they have only channeled 30 by round 3.
What if people start in zones A2 and C3, or B1 and B4? Three zones away instead of one? Most spells dont have a max range higher than 2. This at least gives time to set up a bit. It would involve a lot of prediction though I think. Decisions in your opening will be really important, and you would need to use a variety of different opening moves depending on what your opponent is doing. I suspect this would also open up a lot of interesting and otherwise bad tactics for the early game into viablity. Should I rush my opponent with boulders? Or should I stay back and summon a creature? Or should I force crush or stranglevine my opponent then run away? Eye for an eye plus healing and a spawnpoint would be a good counter to boulder rush in this format. Reverse attack would be shine too. If opponent stays still and summons a creature, you can do the same or summon a spawnpoint. If they restrain you and run away, you could try teleporting out of it. You could also put on cloak of shadows or blur then restrain the enemy mage. Etc etc etc
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
I wouldn't be about that. It definitely tips the scales too much. With 20 mana no mater where the enemy tries to run to nothing can stop immediate attacks. Just by the math r1 is 14 dice, folowed by 14 more? In fact this will widen the gap between 10 chanel and 9 chanel mages. Cuz a 10 channel can throw 2 boulders r1 AND r2. A 9 chanel mage cant. Not a fan.
I personally would not like starting in the middle. I love the positioning game. The tactical maneuvering. When you start next to each other you destroy the part of the game I love. Would be hard pressed to get me to try it.
I would love to test this. A well timed reverse attack (among others like Eye for an Eye, block, divine reversal, etc) could really screw with that attack plan. I am not going to give an opinion one way or the other about whether it would definitely be "less strategic", but I'm hesitant to agree with that assertion. I think the tactical movement would be just as important, there would just be a little less of an opportunity to hide in a corner for 5 turns turtling. I find that to be a good thing for the game, however that's just my opinion at this point based on theory.
Edit - Sharkbait was wrong, alert the internet.
I was misinterpreting the original idea. I was imagining starting in the middle zone of the two edges instead of the OP's middle centers. So, in my head, it would be interesting if one mage starts in the left column, middle row. The other mage would start right column, middle row. Still 3 zone separation, still room for tactical movement, and still a bit of build up room, though less pronounced than before.
Sharkbait, I had exactly the same thought. Have the mages start three zones away from each other. Would be interesting to test that.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk
-
Doesn't "Lesser Teleport" already make the game extremely faster?
-
Doesn't "Lesser Teleport" already make the game extremely faster?
I'm not convinced rushing with lesser teleport is that used or viable as of yet.
-
Doesn't "Lesser Teleport" already make the game extremely faster?
I'm not convinced rushing with lesser teleport is that used or viable as of yet.
Perhaps, but faster... Definitely. (3) in all my decks at all times.
-
Doesn't "Lesser Teleport" already make the game extremely faster?
I'm not convinced rushing with lesser teleport is that used or viable as of yet.
Agreed. I'd rather be fast.
-
Taken together Fast and Lesser Teleport can be effective. A Lesser Teleport on a buffed Cervere as a fairly early rush was something of a surprise to me one time as I was not within two zones of it, but ended up with quite a lot of damage pretty quickly.
-
Taken together Fast and Lesser Teleport can be effective. A Lesser Teleport on a buffed Cervere as a fairly early rush was something of a surprise to me one time as I was not within two zones of it, but ended up with quite a lot of damage pretty quickly.
Shouldn't have been too bad a surprise - Lesser Teleport is only 1 mana cheaper than Force Push that should be in every book. It's so much more versatile than Lesser Teleport too.
-
It was a surprise for me due to my lack of playing time/experience with the spells. I tend to learn from experiences, rather than envision what may be... it's just the way I learn.