September 28, 2024, 05:12:13 AM

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 - DeckBuilder

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34
481
General Discussion / Re: Promo cards
« on: August 14, 2013, 06:05:12 AM »
Thank you for being so honest about you loving playing your promos, sIKE. I would love playing them too.

Look guys. I know I'm having a bit of a moan because I can't buy these promo cards normally from a retailer. But I can't be the only one who feels this way, surely? Doesn't anyone see the 2-tier play that this will create?

I only have a vague idea what these cards do from references (Ballista is like Akiro's Hammer for every mage, I assume?) but when I am strategising (book-building), I just feel frustratingly restricted because I do not have, say, any Ballista to build zonal control better.

As for them not being overpowered, maybe so but they are pivotal. Out of the available-to-buy cards, Sectarus sticks out as a once-promo card. There may be others but there isn't an official list let alone description of them out there (so we mortals can anticipate them in play). Now I contend a Curse-focused Warlock strategy 100% needs Sectarus. Ballista for zonal control. Seems to me these promo cards are pretty important "pieces" when assembling certain strategies.

That's what's galling. You feel handicapped when strategising. The solution you say is to insist no Promo cards. But then you are crippling the opponent's build who relied on those cards when building their book.

So what happens then is you get formats, like the multiple formats in Magic. You get "Promo cards allowed" format and "No promo cards" format. This is mentioned by sIKE who has books in both formats.

There is also the assumption of play balance. With each release, there will be new threats where current spells are insufficient counters but also new counters to those new threats. We assume that these timed releases are playtested so that cards remain balanced. But with the preview cards, we get these cards early without their counter. Cards are released in bursts because they shake up the meta in combination. But a promo card breaks that paradigm. It's out-of-place, early without its counter cards.

Here's a hypothetical example. If Bridge Troll was a promo card and available before Circle of Fire (staple in Warlock, Fire Wizard and many other builds), it would obviously be stronger during that period of time. Because it was not released in its proper timing. A card's strength is influenced by the meta so early releases imbalance.

I appreciate the AW forum is where there will be the totally die-hard fans who would never criticise aspects of the game (even if it is meant as constructive criticism). Also the active base who benefit most from promotion  marketing. But I ran the gauntlet here as this is the one place where maybe your voice may be heard by AW and your thoughts considered.

I suspect there may be a silent consumer base out there who feel second class. I suspect that if you compare units sold (core sets) vs. maximum promo cards of 1 type out there x2 (assumes everyone with 1 copy of most common promo card has 2 core sets on average), you will find the second class players are the majority. As the game rockets up in popularity (it will as it is a very good product), assuming the same penetration of promo cards out there, this majority will only widen.

What is happening here is that the very sensible promotion marketing strategy to excite and reward activists and advocates will backfire by creating more resentment than evangelism. You see it everyday when you see offers "unavailable to existing customers". All I am advising here (with the best intentions as none of my local meta have promos either) is AW reconsider the current "competitive unavailable preview cards" strategy that works really well when small but, as the game grows bigger, they have to transition out because there are diminishing returns in the trade-off of exciting activists vs. outsider resentment. Just make these promo cards less pivotal to the competitive strategies (e.g. the same level as Sunfire Amulet, a cool card albeit prolonging games moving against tournament format, certainly not a "sideboard" card like Eagleclaw Boots which can be key in certain match-ups). Apparently promos are already foil so this must continue. But I certainly think foil/embossed versions of existing cards will still be valued ("bling") without creating an uneven playing field.

This isn't an attack on the game, just sound advice from someone who is paid to consult on company marketing strategies. Because, let's make it clear. I really love this fun (yet deep) game. The value-for-money components of the core set and forcemaster expansion made me a big fan of Arcane Wonders. I wish them every success for shaking up the gaming industry's cost-component expectations (they could have pitched at FFG level which was the gold standard after Eagle Games ended). That's why I'm spending time explaining why their current "small company" promotion marketing strategy needs to be phased out to just cools cards, not strategy-pivotal cards.

Finally, thank you AW for hours of entertainment. I hope the game goes ballistic.

482
General Discussion / Re: Promo cards
« on: August 13, 2013, 02:28:25 PM »
Exactly. People do play Gravikor. While others wish they had one.

How many tournaments are there? Now compare it to the competitive games played (is there any other type?).

In 99.999% of games played, promos cause imbalance. Some players have an advantage that all others don't.

This is worse if a card is just sprung on you. What? All my angels lose flying? Where is the skill if you can't even anticipate what your opponent could play?

I have not faced a promo-only card yet. I know what every spell distributed does, its cost, quick/full action and range. I can gaze at my opponent's mana and anticipate. But I know nothing about promo cards really beyond what I surmise from references. When I finally face a promo card (rare in the UK), I think I will feel hard done by.

Maybe I'm too competitive for my own good. Blessed with more disposal income than my peers, I try to curb my wallet advantage. But I guess I can always trawl E-Bay to get these cards that others could play against me?

This game is not the same as say promo cards in (great fun) Spartacus. There exist powerful promo gladiators but they may never appear at auction and if they do, they can be gained by any player. Here we are talking about allowing an uneven playing field in the overwhelming majority of games played. How can that be fair? A better paradigm is Magic because it has 2 opposing competitive builds. Magic promo cards are usually very good cards (some unplayably too big in tournament but loved by casuals) with new artwork and foil or embossed. But they were never cards that did not already exist.

As a marketing consultant, I would advise a client thus: because these unique promo cards are so competitive, this is not a good idea in the long run...

I say this because I love the game and want it to thrive.

483
General Discussion / Promo cards
« on: August 13, 2013, 08:01:53 AM »
I keep seeing card names I don't have, despite buying all expansions (available in the UK).
Ballista
Meditation Amulet
Gravikor

I then realised these were promo cards and I read that they will be released eventually.
Sectarus (which is so out of place in that expansion) is evidence this is being carried out.

Now I realise "Kickstarter" donations are deserving of special unique rewards.
I certainly don't begrudge anyone who donates to the gaming hobby like that.

But these promo cards seem to be everywhere.
I don't know what people have done to deserve them.
But they have access to abilities that none of us mere mortals have access to.

I am a huge fan of AW and wish them every success with this game.
Just like FFG revised expectations of component quality (from AH!), AW have raised the bar further.
Unfortunately CoK costing me than FvW seemed odd (by all means move to paper boxing).
But overall, I am constantly singing the praises of "this independent games company called AW".
I hope AW shame FFG to similar Return On Investment (I doubt it as FFG is like Apple, once the upstart etc).

However, their decision to give access to cards with competitive abilities only to limited sources (outside of their Kickstarter base who deserve it) may possibly create a two-tier community...

I do appreciate that Tom Vassel's weighty recommendation is worthy of a "thank you" gesture at Dice Tower so AW are simply being nice, rewarding their advocates/evangelists and what they perceive to be the most active base (US games convention goers). As a marketing professional, I appreciate this is simply sensible promotion marketing.

However, this does create a bit of annoyance from the others. Is it really fair some players can cast spells that others simply can't? This is in a LCG where every expansion is bought by fans.

I would have no problem if these rewards (exc. Kickstarters who deserve all they get) were special artwork foil cards signed by the artist or Bryan Pope himself. The marketing promotion rewards should be "collector" cards and certainly not competitive cards that I've got and you haven't because I paid a donation to Dice Tower.

I really want Mage Wars to become as big as Magic (more accessible and fun, Magic is more cerebral). That is why I'd urge the Arcane Wars Marketing Department to think twice before releasing competitive spells to a very limited base. Why not just stick to foils, hallmarks, different artwork, signed etc? Or if it has to be a brand new spell (which then takes up space in a later expansion out-of-place), at least make it for some niche casual play strategy and not competitive.

Just to reiterate: I am a huge fan and will continue purchasing the product (barring further significant value erosion beyond CoK compared to FvW) no matter what AW do on this subject. But as a marketing consultant by profession, I can see the hole they are potentially digging by not promoting a "level playing field" when it comes to access to spells.

Keep up the good work in all other areas (well, apart from the GenCon tiebreaker and ToL pre-emptive errata to allow for more temples). The product is very good, very accessible and just ticks the Ameritrash "fun" box. So well done guys for providing so much fun to all of us.



484
Custom Cards / Re: The Magician: a very different mage
« on: July 24, 2013, 08:44:11 PM »
Oh dear... (ninja'd - this is addressed at Reddawn)

I did not say the Warlock is inferior to Beastmaster. I brought this discussion up (which was between Koz and Piousflea on BGG) because it opened my mind to a factor that the protagonist of that opinion did not include in his evalaution of the  2 mages: the synergies in the school training and opposition.

Yes, I do believe the Warlord's Arcane school weakness makes him more predictable. I don't believe this is an original view. If required, I will source others who share this view. How well is the Warlord doing in results? He may be undeservingly maligned.

I'm a bit flabbergasted at this response when I have only shown due deference to your opinions, as shown by my prior post addressed to you.

If I recall right, you were the poster who was so dismissive of Charmyna's Push-Rush post. It is so very easy to be dismissive of other people's ideas, to pooh-pooh and destroy. Try to create. Maybe even foster good will?

I find it difficult to understand why someone like you, who is so disinterested in "theorycrafting", would be at all interested in reading posts in this section! This is the CREATIVE CUSTOM CARDS section. And you have a go at me for theorycrafting. you are truly a shameless misanthrope. What a bundle of fun you are!


(I am going to be offline on holiday abroad for a bit so do not take my silence to your post as me being a wilting flower: be assured that any further replies to match your charming reply above will be responded in kind.)

485
Rules Discussion / Re: Your ideas for a tournament tie-breaker
« on: July 24, 2013, 08:19:50 PM »
I can't help but feel a bit of a fraud: we are both so obviously fans of control (although I totally respect aggro, I just suck at rolling dice). So we are hardly unbiased in our opinions! :)

I am bit disappointed nobody else has ventured any better ideas. However, I think I will proudly plant my flag on a principle that you touched on...

"If an aggro book has failed to beat a control book within c.65mins, because aggro diminishes in potency with time while control increases with time, the aggro book must be prepared to demonstrate that he is still a lethal threat to claim the win, Else by definition of control, the aggro book should not be surprised if tournament guidelines favour the control game which by definition over-takes the aggro book going forward."

I do not think this principle is anyway biased, just common sense definitions of Aggro and Control.

If we assume persistent threats early to mid game are far more threat efficient than burst plays, then healing incantations (even if more efficient than attack spells) is just an inefficient counter because it is a burst play, not persistent like a Regrowth.

Maybe the issue is Regen 2 on your high life mage: is it too good? Because the mathematician in me just can't see how spending your mana on burst heal spells can be better than swarming or buff then fury on champions.

Or am I very wrong here? Is burst healing really that distorting to tournament play?

486
Custom Cards / Re: The Magician: a very different mage
« on: July 24, 2013, 06:33:25 PM »
Hi reddawn

I totally understand where you are coming from. The Magician is currently like the 3 generic character concepts in D&D/D20 system (warrior/adept/specialist); he is just too flexible and has no distinctive feel to him (easily corrected with his unusual Versatile power that makes him far too good).

I think I was trying to evaluate a simple part of the game very few players acknowledge: access to spells. Because there is a simple truth to the game: not all schools are made equal. Give me a mage with training in Arcane and Mind and I couldn't care less what's on his card (slight exaggeration).

When I started playing this awesome game (later than my local meta, still unbeaten), I thoroughly researched the game, reading articles, basing my views by modifying my confident understanding of Magic (sadly the card game, not the art) and realising the important areas where they diverged: I'm sadly OCD analytical and far too competitive for my own good.

Apart from the high-theory low-detail very thought-provoking but also abstract articles by The Dude (who has helped this hobby most by his incredible friendliness IMO), the 2 articles that resonated the most with me were:

(a) Piousflea's thread on persistent benefits vs. burst benefits, truly the crux of the game

(b) Koz's discussion with Piousflea (on BGG) about Warlock being inferior to Beastmaster comparative to another Dark Mage

What I could appreciate from just Core set cards was that a Warlock is indeed inferior to Beastmaster based on abilities and access to mage-specific cards (not school-specific). However what Koz was not counting was the synergetic value of Dark + Fire (opposed Holy) vs. Nature (opposed Fire).

I confess what I was slyly trying to do with my Magician post is to focus players on a 2nd game axis (Versatility vs. Focus) that nobody (not even The Dude) has mentioned yet, apart from Piousflea arguing with Koz that the Warlock's 2 schools Training was the balancing factor between the 2 mages. To demonstrate the brokenness of full versatility, I hypothetised this mage with the worst possible stats except for his access to dabble (not focus) in any spell.

I guess what I was trying to demonstrate is the bleeding obvious: access (and opposition) to schools is a major part of a mage's stats, maybe the most important element. Because some schools are more equal than others. This is why access to Arcane and Mind are so highly valued (and Warlord's opposition to Arcane is so crippling).

I'm most cautious and wary facing a wizard book. This is because of his versatility: Purge Magic, Destroy Magic, swarm over-commitment. champion (aka few big) over-commitment etc. The pensioner has an answer to them all.

His damage soak, rarely used zap. even his 10 channel, they aren't why I feel tense when playing a wizard. It's because he is so damn unpredictable! Will he jet stream/force push me through conjurations like the Push-Rush/ Fentum build? Or blue gremlin attack? Or gorgon-basilisk control? Or wand of charging on those walking walls called golems? Maybe he is a route 1 elemental wand build and I have misread his strategy all along!

Think about it, guys. Good players only lose to either (a) horrendous dice rolls (try 9 blanks, though still won via a same round Battle Fury) or (b) being totally blindsided by unexpected play. If you play against a non-wizard, you are playing against variants of expected builds. Oh, he's a curse-control slow poison warlock but that other warlock is a fire wizard with a Blood Reaper, the third summons Lord of Fire etc.

Recognising what you are up against and playing optimally knowing this is crucial IMO. I remember my first ever build (Beastmaster) had Idol of Pestilence. My thinking was thus: it's there for the mirror, I go Champion and he goes Swam which normally beats Champion - except I got Pestilence Idol (also Sleep defence) to mess up this presumption. I still contend that spending 6 spell points for Purge Magic is worth it - because nobody expects it outside of Wizard so they over-stack buffs/curses. It is a game-winning surprise.

That sense of surprise is what The Magician is trying to re-create. To discuss a part of the game that I've yet to see discussed: how much is unpredictability worth?

I contend the OP no-powers poor stats mage is grossly overpowered in any meta of good players. In a meta of less skilled players. he is not. Because you can't bluff a player who can't appreciate the threat he poses. Those players are playing a far more tunnel-vision game, a mono strategy that does not readily react and adapt to the opponent's expected capabilities.

I don't want to take any credit in The Magician concept. The same named magic-dabbling character existed in an ancient Avalon Hill game called Magic Realm. And the training mechanic is shamelessly stolen from the new Professor identity in Netrunner. I just used it to as a mechanic to discuss a dimension rarely discussed: how much do you value access to a versatile spell list that can react and counter opposing strategies?

This reply has (as usual) become far longer than I planned. But think about it please. I think I may be making a valuable point here (it happens occasionally). If so, someone (Dude?) please write an article on this rarely discussed aspect of the game: unpredictability,

487
Custom Cards / Re: The Magician: a very different mage
« on: July 23, 2013, 01:30:24 PM »
Thanks for feedback (and lack of derision).

@cblain. Yes, it means exactly that: the first copy costs 1x spell level. All other cards cost 2x spell level.
Your joke rabbit serves no purpose as a pest (unless buffed). Because of activation and condition markers, Mage Wars is unlikely to go down the Magic creature token route - a good thing in my book.

I gave the Magician the worst possible stats as a start point. I take your point that this feels too generic, that a mage needs a distinct flavour. So if he was to have a special ability, it will be something to promote his special benefit and play style, something like:

"Versatile: during Planning, your mage chooses 3 spells instead of 2"

1 more spell than you can cast. This would be an ability that promotes reactive play rather than proactive play. But I think that may be pushing the concept over the edge. I was trying to find out how much other players will value pure versatility. That is why I chose lower channel plus lower life plus no powers as this is the base case.

His main advantage may seem like diverse creature Toolbox but actually you just can't predict what he/she will have in his/her spell book. You're pretty safe to stack enchantments vs. non-wizards but not him. The opponent can't suit up against a particular damage type. Each of the Epic control conjurations are available at lesser cost, as well as damage barriers, Vampirism, Battle Forge, Teleport, Enfeeble, Wands (for that perfect single copy incantation / attack), all those level 2+ spells that eat into your book when you are paying double.

But it comes at a price: by fully leveraging his sole benefit to grab a full Toolbox of spells (1 copy of each except utilities Dispel/Dissolve etc), you lack focus. The skill will be to adapt your play to beat your opponent's strategy. But you lack depth in a particular strategy so no strategy you adopt will survive determined attrition. He's just a box of tricks, unpredictable but also unfocused.

The idea of piloting such a mage, pure seat-of-the-pants reactive on-the-fly play, thrills me.

488
Custom Cards / Re: The Magician: a very different mage
« on: July 22, 2013, 05:28:08 PM »
No, "Mage X only" is surely exactly that?

But she could have Lord of Fire vs. Warlock, Angel of Light vs. Holy etc. I see huge value being so utterly versatile and unpredictable. Not to mention incredible fun. In order to fully leverage the training, you find yourself tempted to not focus on particular strategies but rather react with the rock to the opponent's scissors. It promotes highly improvisational seat-of-the-pants duelling.

I actually think the concept may be deceptively too powerful. I wonder if they have play-tested a similar idea...

489
League / Tournament Play / Re: UK interest
« on: July 22, 2013, 05:02:01 PM »
Hi

There are 7 of us playing MW here in Brighton and growing in number. Friendly, GSOH, enthusiastic, WLTM similar. Oh, wrong forum.

Seriously, we really should organise a London pub games day as most can get there easily?

Will help with any costs but too busy to organise, sorry.

Hope something good happens out of this.

490
Custom Cards / The Magician: a very different mage
« on: July 22, 2013, 04:37:06 PM »
Is the following hypothetical  mage too powerful or too weak?

The Magician
The Magician dabbles in all schools of magic. You never know what you are up against when facing the Magician.

Spell Points: 120
Life: 32
Channelling: 9
Training: the Magician is trained in the first copy only of each spell in his spell book.
Blank (no powers)


So, because of his unpredictability, the weird and wonderful different combos that he can repeatedly cast and always having just the right spell for any situation, I suspect this mage with such weak stats (no powers even) would be very playable (and great fun to play). I may even proxy him to test him. He is the ultimate Toolbox, the extreme of Versatility vs. Focus, what I believe to be the 2nd axis in this game (Aggro vs. Control is the other obvious axis).

So... would anyone else play him?

491
Rules Discussion / Re: Your ideas for a tournament tie-breaker
« on: July 22, 2013, 03:45:44 PM »
You misunderstand, I like your method, it's a big improvement. I think it may favour Control more but that may be a good bias to address the current imbalance of being able to win tournaments with quick win Aggro decks whilst Control will often have to run the gauntlet of your End Game method to scrape a win.

As for the current clunky extra housekeeping method, I just wonder why they didn't instead rule thus:

"In Tournament play, if a mage heals from any source, a mage increases his life by the healed amount instead of reducing damage. If a game ends unresolved, the mage who has suffered more damage loses and his opponent wins. If tied on damage, the mage with higher life wins."

Now that executes the current tie-breaker (which I don't agree with on so many levels) in a far more elegant fashion that does not slow play with extra housekeeping and possibility of honest error. Of course, it doesn't solve its shameless promotion of Aggro spell books. Both of us are trying to address this imbalance by evaluating the Control "tipping point" in different ways.

I think it's the inelegance of their tie breaker that irks me most: it's a crime against the intuitive elegance of this game!

492
Rules Discussion / Re: Your ideas for a tournament tie-breaker
« on: July 22, 2013, 03:07:42 AM »
Hi kingrichard

After sleeping on it, I've concluded whatever mechanic you apply to make a tournament game fit 60-90 minutes, this will distort play if the game looks to be ending in a draw.

You have a great idea there. I love the concept of "it's actually your most recent damage output" in the delayed control game vs. "last chance to finish off mage" in the diminishing aggro game.

However, would this not lead to saving your 3 Battle Furies (and 3 Retaliate vs. Aggro Melee Mage) until this End Game phase? Not to mention the Control mage accumulating mana to Banish threats for most of this window. Although both distortions come at a price of opportunity and tempo loss.

Also, I think I've demonstrated you need a tie-breaker for all games in a large tourney, not just a decider to turn draws into win or lose.

You approached this as trying to find a winner in a draw because Control does not have enough time to win. How I approached it is with making the game length long enough for Control to win. Then players will always gain 2, 1 or 0 points. All the position/aggression tie-breaker does is rank you among equal cumulative scored opponents in the Swiss tournament.

So how long does it take for Control to win? I suggest your Control strategy should be possible to win in 80 minutes (10 minutes between rounds ) as long as Planning is timed and slow play is monitored (as with Magic).

Planning on timers is how we play using phone stopwatches: 90 seconds to prevent AP. If you have insufficient cards picked, tough. With this rule, you find players looking through spell books (not allowed to pick) during the opponent actions. "Unforced" errors creep in. It's the only way to fit in Control games in a reasonable time limit.

Having 90 minute rounds means less rounds in an all-day tournament which means tie-breakers become more important (assuming the game goes ballistic after its Origins award win hopefully).

I think the secondary nature of my tie-breakers (win 2, draw 1 or lose 0 is primary result) will be less distorting. Effectively, all I advocate is longer game times and a tie-breaker system for ranking equal tournament points.

The key difference between our approaches is I accept a draw as a valid result (my Magic background), try to accommodate Control via game length and Planning timing and only aim to provide a method for ranking players on equal scores. You are trying to adjudicate a draw game into a win game to either player. That's dangerous as it may foster ill-will.

I am a big fan of your method. It is so much better than the horribly inelegant GenCon method, even with the burst spells end play distortion.

I just think a paradigm shift into 3 results possible, with draws less common than the other 2 but prevalent (as in Magic) with max. game length extended and Planning AP appropriately regimented, may be the way forward.

Yes, it means Aggro players who win quickly will end up playing a short other game between 90 minute round starts This happens in Magic tournaments all the time.

Whatever Arcane Wonders chooses, they have to plan for large tournaments where tie-breakers decide who is in the showcase "The Final".



So, anybody else got a solution to the tournament tie-breaker issue? C'mon, I'm sure there are great ideas out there...

493
Rules Discussion / Re: Your ideas for a tournament tie-breaker
« on: July 21, 2013, 10:19:14 PM »
Hey, I have now edited my formula to 2x level with an extra paragraph about it.

Your 3-round tie-breaker is indeed a radical idea!
I like the thinking behind it: end game threat level is all that matters.

I don't understand why you don't go straight to a sum though.
Unless there is some tactical significance.
As I am adopting an escalating damage approach.
You are adopting a flat damage approach,
Whose approach proved superior for that crucial middle round?

Your great idea still only deals with drawn games.
I highlighted that you are going to need tie-breakers for all matches.
What happens when you have 3 players with 100% wins in the final round?

Anyone else got ideas?

Remember: the First Rule of Brainstorm Club is "no idea is a bad idea"...

 

494
Rules Discussion / Your ideas for a tournament tie-breaker
« on: July 21, 2013, 08:57:01 PM »
[Significant edits on original post]

I shall assume everyone reading this knows the GenCon tie-breaker rule change implemented. If not, it's on the main site front page. This is an attempt to get everyone to contribute ideas on how to make Mage Wars into a tournament game which generates fair results.

So... what to do with a game of variable length based on strategy match-up?

I don't profess to have a definitive answer. I'm hoping this post will provoke a brainstorm that will generate the best idea. However, I will set the ball rolling with my (current) take on this predicament.

My qualifications to start this thread are poor: a tournament organiser (way back in the last millennium) and a pseudo-statistician (the heavily lifting done by stats programs) so I am in no way qualified to come up with the breakthrough concept, I am hoping however that the loyal fan base will jump at the opportunity to put their own stamp on the game by coming up with a better one to mine.



A Starting Idea

So Mage Wars is to be played in a Swiss tournament.
The number of rounds in the tournament = N (based on Con timetable scheduling)
If players > 2^N, we may get more than 2 players in the final round with 100% wins.
So there needs to be tie-breakers not just for draws but for all scores to decide who is in the final.

The result of a game is either
(a) a win = 2 points
(b) a draw = 1 point
(c) a loss = 0 points

Why no win premium? Because to get to "The Final", you have to win all your matches anyway.
And to get in the top half, you will have to win more than you lose.
Tournament players are not newbies turtling; they enter the tournament to play to win.
Half points for a draw is to salve the sting of only getting a draw due to defensive play.

We should strive for the same elegant single tie-breaker used for any match result.
There really is no need to have 3 levels of tie-breakers like in Magic tournaments.
This game does not warrant complicated mechanisms against a "Swiss gambit" etc.
After all, Magic has a $1 million Pro Tour; that is why it has algorithmic tie-breakers.

Let us assume every mage (package of spell points + life + channel + training + powers) is made equal.
(The nerfed Priestess may moan that some are made more equal than others, to paraphrase Orwell.)
In which case a lower life mage has traded "loss resilience" for other benefits (often greater channel).
Therefore any tie breaker that looks at "remaining life left" (life - damage) would be intrinsically flawed.

Let us assume the spell level of every object (any permanent in play) is indicative of its power.
Is this fair? Probably not. But it's elegantly simple and investment is definitely correlated to level.
And we can see that investment is also correlated to a spell's power, benefit or utility (exc. HoB).



The Tie-Breaker Formula

At the end of every game, win, lose or draw, the following calculation must be made.

My positional score = 2x total of the levels of all objects I own (not control) in play at game end
My aggression score = damage inflicted on opponent at game end (may not exceed total life)

My tie-breaker score for this game =
my positional score + my aggression score - opponent's positional score - opponent's aggression score

Check: my tie-breaker score = my opponent's tie-breaker score x -1

My tournament tie-breaker score is the average of every round where I have an opponent who plays legally.
You do not count rounds where I have a bye or where my opponent does not show or is DQ'd.

One final rule: "The Final" has double the normal time limit to ensure it rarely ends in a draw.



Some Objections (preemptively discussed)

Why 2x levels for positional score?
Well, for a start, 1x level would be far too little to make any difference in most game ends.
Attack and healing is roughly equal to 4x level as a one-shot benefit to aggression scores.
But objects have persistence; their existence helps gain more board control, removing enemy objects.
I wish I can demo a half-life formula or binomial infinite series to prove that 2x is a good approximation.
I confess it's based on intuition and some scenario testing of hypothetical board positions and damage.

So what about damage or conditions on objects?
Well, remember that if you win with 1 life left, you still win = 2 points, kerchingg!
So having objects with 1 hit point left follows the same threshold include/exclude approach.
As for weakness, rot etc. shame on you for not finishing off those objects that can hinder etc.
It would be needlessly complicated defining non-temporary conditions, applying minuses etc.

So what about upkeep costs?
Control spells with upkeep costs (because of the points swing) are nerfed by the "own" rule.
For enchantments with upkeep costs (for either player), its owner gets points for its benefits.
We assume that any owner upkeep cost is a persistent part of the cost of casting that spell.

What about channel mana advantage in a drawn game?
Ah, remember the mage package means you traded loss resilience for more channel etc.
If you built up greater channel, those conjurations, enchantments and equipment are objects,
So they are contributing to your positional score over your opponent.

What about healing being more efficient than attack spells?
Ah, the big one. Healing does not need to penetrate armour.
Group Heal is selective while Firestorm, Ring of Fire etc isn't.
I contend a tournament format where draws don't win you tournaments solves this,
Healing may not need to penetrate armour but it heals no conditions.
Damage spells often impose advantageous effects for that game state.
Both have an opportunity cost and are very short-term burst plays.
But healing only maintains the status quo, excess healing is wasted.
Excess damage is also wasted but that object is no longer in existence.
As for Ring of Asrya and Divine Reward, these are "Priestess package" benefits.
Because we don't look at remaining life, Divine Reward will only help avoid loss.
Also every mana spent on healing yourself is not improving your position
Meantime the opponent is improving board position and has a chance to win.
Why would a good player over-commit to a healing strategy if it only avoids a loss?
These are not newbies turtling, these are tournament players wanting to win.

The bottom line is: to win a tournament, you will need to win every round.
Healing does not help you do that. It just helps you potentially avoid a loss, at a cost.
If you want to aim for mid-table mediocrity with good tie-breaks, go healing for draws.
Healing will be used for board control by saving assets, only at a pinch to avoid a loss.

The reasons behind what I tentatively propose should be obvious,
It is designed so a mage who trades life for board control, who should win if it continued, is rewarded,
It is designed for transparency, simple addition and subtraction maths, not some mysterious algorithm.
But most of all, it is designed so that the margin of victory of all matches becomes cumulatively relevant.
It does add a small bit of simple maths at game end, both players checking to see they reconcile totals.
The current horrible solution is extra admin throughout a game of keeping track of total damage taken!

[See post below on 80min game length and Planning timers for more on this approach]



So there you have it: a "thought-starter" in Brainstorm Facilitator-speak,
It's by no means a fully-formed idea, It's just out there to be shot down.
However, I'd really like to start a discussion on possible tie breaker mechanisms.
The game designers are reading this so why not put YOUR IDEA out there too?
Who knows, you may get the thrill of boasting "that was my idea, you know"...

So come on, people, what tournament tie-breaker would you use for Mage Wars?

495
Rules Discussion / Re: ERRATA - Temple of Light
« on: July 21, 2013, 06:05:40 PM »
In our playtesting, Temple of Light was not getting used by control, but rather by aggressive books.

In all seriousness, these nerfs seem aimed at agro, not control. Yes, Temple of Light was played in Priestess control, but it was also played in Priest agro and Hand Solo Forcemaster, and that really nasty Hand + Blue Gremlin Wizard book could probably have run it along side its Wizard's Tower. Temple of Light became an agro card, not a control card as intended, which is why it got nerfed.

Whatever the outcome of upcoming tournaments (and I share your concern about the tiebreakers) these nerfs help the control plan, not hinder it.

Priestess lost the temple plan, temporarily. This may or may not knock Priestess out of tournaments, but other control books like positional Wizards and Damage Over Time curse builds and attrition Beastmaster and Warlord were going to be driven out of the environment by these agro temples.

Oh dear. Time to eat humble pie...

I hadn't even considered ToL being played outside faction. As a result, I viewed HoB as aggro and ToL as control due to its stationary ranged nature (needing investment in actions/mana for temple support, a "set-up" common in many control builds). Of course ToL also helped Aggro Priestess but I viewed it as a Priestess cutting edge benefit.

HoB (often in multiples) in almost every book is testament to its need to be errata'd. There will still be 1 in almost all books. Is this ubiquity a problem? I don't think so. When Skullclamps became almost ubiquitous in Magic decks (playable in any deck as an artifact), it was banned. That was because the luck of drawing it and your opponent not drawing it was often a deciding a factor in games. That luck factor is elegantly removed in Mage Wars. Now the question is on tactical timing; when (tempo cost) and where (zone exclusive, fragile) do you cast it? There is great tactical nuance in its play. And the card itself is designed to add an extra decision node to potentially every creature action. Do I over-commit melee to ensure I destroy a target? Or heal my vulnerable wounded asset? Or armour a restrained asset about to be swarmed? Oh my god, so many options, AP setting in... my brain's gonna explode!

I find it hard to believe Aggro spellbooks outside Priestess are running ToL. More fool me for never considering it (I'm the main innovator in my local meta). The 14 investment with 1 HoB seems steep tempo loss to gain a stationary tent pole (to use a Heroclix term) that can be worked around (we all pack measures against it). Obviously it works great in Aggro-Priestess where each 5 mana cumulatively pumps both her Lighthouse and her Staff. But it seems ToL is being used by other mages. To such effect that it warrants this (inelegant) nerf. I really should try to find these net decks and catch-up with the world meta instead of being embarrassingly blind-sided like this...

With all due respect (oh look at me, stuffed full of humble pie), the argument by the above play-tester (heavily hinting, sorry "speculation") and in the explanation thread that ToL was nerfed so as to pave the way for future cheap Temples does not hold water. As I argued above, that would be a premature nerfing which only creates a vacuum where once there was a pretty High Elf religious fanatic. If that was the reason (as many seem to feel the HoB nerf was sufficient on ToL), the new ToL could have been released with the new Temples (I assume the Priest does not have any. designed some time ago).

But if ToL is being used by too many Aggro builds (outside of Priestess Aggro, her in-house benefit), making mid-range builds unplayable, then this was indeed the correct decision. Although the elegance of this ToL errata is reminiscent of a hippopotamus attempting ballet....

So apologies for sounding off at the ToL errata. My thinking was clouded by the dismay I felt upon reading the (unbelievably inelegant and misguided) GenCon tie-breaker announcement preceding it. It all seemed like a vendetta against the Priestess! I dread to think how players who invested heavily (both in cost for copies and practice time resource) reacted to this announcement so close to the tournament. I read there was a delay before announcing the rationale behind it. Hmmm....

It is a shame the Priestess has been so heavily nerfed as a result, selflessly making the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the game. I expect she will evolve with the new aggressive Priest cards to become playable again in an aggro-heal strategy (similar to the Warlock Poison/Regen aggro-control build).

Thanks to the OP for being so restrained in your reply. I remain unhappy with the new tie-breaker (please take this constructively, not as moaning fault-finding) but this is the wrong place to discuss it. I will start a new post (my first) trying to leverage the wisdom of your fan base in helping designers come up with a better tournament tie-breaker (almost any tie-breaker would be better than the current one so it shouldn't be too hard...).

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34