The current state of MW

[Borg]

My point is if you don't have a solution and don't pose a question in your initial post, what is the point of it? It's like saying the murderer is going to strike again and not trying to stop him, without a solution to the stated problem, stating the problem isn't useful.

So any opening post without a solution or question should not be posted ?
I'm sorry my post doesn't fit your requirements.
I suggest you just further ignore it.

At this point I'd say you're just trolling.

[farkas1]

Last thing Borg and then I’m done with this post because we will just continue to differ on opinions here.  It’s real easy to frustrate players who enjoy a game and go on forums for the fans of the game to talk crap.  Your observation of numbers is just numbers and I don’t agree your assessment of those games lead to anything except for rattling the cage of MW fandom. 

We know the issues and this has been repeated over years of mage wars fans and critics.   

There are solutions to solve the “problem”.  Change in company commitment and rejuvenatation of a product is enevitable if the company wants to grow the product.  magic has done this, tons of CCGs and LCGs games do this.  Even board games do this.  You can not change my optimism about MW and you can not change my feelings about MTG. 

 I don’t think everyone is committed to rate or give a rating to suggest the actual numbers.  It maybe a decent option to see popularity.  Not everyone knows about BGG and not everyone rates games on the site.  to say it’s not profitable then I think AW would have stopped releasing expansions long ago. 

Again last thing this is my math and I know we disagree here. 

Mage Wars > MTG


Also I don’t think reddice has been trolling.  the only one trolling here is you Borg.  Wish you the best maybe your heart will change about the game, but if not that is fine you are entitled to your opinions.  😀

[Borg]

It’s real easy to frustrate players who enjoy a game and go on forums for the fans of the game to talk crap.

I'm sorry ?
Where do I talk crap ?
I'm trying to present objective data, for Christ's sake.
You may not like the data but I didn't invent them nor did I talk crap, I just posted what I thought they meant.

to say it’s not profitable then I think AW would have stopped releasing expansions long ago. 

You realise you just agreed with me here with Arena no longer being profitable, don't you, because AW actually "stopped releasing (Arena) expansions long ago" ?

Look fellows,
I don't expect you to agree with me nor even like me for that matter.
Just don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of things that weren't there ok ?
I tried to have a data based thread going.
It doesn't work here.
That's OK.

[farkas1]

Sorry Borg if I am putting words in your mouth and I really mean that.  My words may come out harsh but in no way do I dislike you.  I just don’t agree with your posts. 

Your other posts about MTG and saying it is a better game is more annoying to hear on MW forums.  You have the right to your opinion and that is fine but I feel your observation and the love of MTG and dismay for MW is basically the “crap” I refer to.  If you don’t see it that is fine. 

I did not say it was not profitable you misunderstood me.  We have had two academy releases last year.  And PVS two years with lost grimore ect.  There is four academy sets in the pipeline.  I do not have answers when and where they will be released.  The years I refer to means many years ago.  I’m talking pre domination or academy.  For 6-7 year old game with support and current support I would not say it’s not profitable.  AW are a smaller company with less overhead so the profit margin maybe better.  I honestly don’t know.

Again if I misinterpreted your bias and I am reflecting these things differently then you I am officially sorry.  We can agree to disagree and that is fine.  I will try and phrase my words in a less Aggro matter.  Again I do wish you the best. 

[SharkBait]

I think everyone is taking everything here a bit too personally. Borg's trying to present data that indicates something. Whether you agree with what the data points to, or not, IS the discussion here. I think the data brings up a good point and a good chance to reflect on how we, as a community, act from here out.

So that is what it comes down to. Are we going to sit around and let the game die out because AW isn't/hasn't/can't/didn't release some new content? Is this really how we want to be remembered, as a bunch of bitter people clinging to (what I consider to be) one of the best games I've played but claiming we couldn't do anything about it?


Or, perhaps there's another way.

Perhaps we could address the issues (inconsistency of the rules interactions, irregular live play, falling popularity on high profile websites, etc) with honest discussions and ideas about what we can do. I'm not personally opposed to making a new, community built/tested rule set that simplifies some of the abnormalities. As Arcane Duels, we tinker with the rules for tournaments all the time! I'm also thinking it's going to take a massive effort on the community at large's part to make it worth AW's time again to invest in this game. Borg's right, the numbers are AN indicator of a larger popularity/income problem. So what are we going to do about it?

[farkas1]

Ok Shark I do love the idea of getting some things right rules wise or card recorrection to allow those cards that never see the light of day some new polish or errata.  Ar least for tourny play or an unofficial errata.  I Love what you guys (Arcane duels) have done for the community and greatly appreciate what you guys have done for the community. 

If at all possible I would like to be a part of that development or idea generation for cards that need some tweaks.  I could start working on a list.  Anyways I am super pumped for this idea Shark. Good job!

That being said our community in Champaign IL will be getting a new addition very soon one my buddies just moved back into town.  He is eager to start training.   

[wtcannonjr]

As a life long boardgamer, I look at the expansion numbers for Arena and see a very well supported game. It has been 6 years since the 2012 release and we have 6 expansions for the Core Set along with a 4th edition of rules. On average this is one expansion per year. This is incredible support for a boardgame, especially from a small publishing company.

I never 'bought into' CCG or LCG business models that delivered multiple expansion packs within a year. For players who enjoy this pace of new content along with the associated marketing buzz and store-driven tournament system I can see why Arena might feel like it is not a competitive product. However, I find incredible depth of game play and strategy across the various game play modes, mages, and spell card pool we currently have.

I am all in with helping create a streamlined, community ruleset. I think a clean set of clear player aids would help in this area as well.

[Borg]

It has been 6 years since the 2012 release and we have 6 expansions for the Core Set along with a 4th edition of rules. On average this is one expansion per year. This is incredible support for a boardgame, especially from a small publishing company.

It sounds great if you put it that way but you have to take a somewhat closer look imo :
2012 core game
2013 kumanjaro, FvW, DvN that's the base game with three expansions within the first 1-2 years.
2014 FiF
2016 SvP

Since 2014 we've only had one real Arena expansion ( not counting the promo's release as a real expansion )
That's 1 real expansion in 4 years.

I agree that the average looks ok. I'd settle for 1 expansion per year.
But the last 4 years paint another picture imo.


Of course I'm also for more streamlined and intuitive rules.
Not being able to even target a creature with protection from fire with a fire attack never made sense imo.
The protection should minimize effect or damage, not prevent targeting.

Making currently unplayable cards playable could also be within the realms of the possible.

[RomeoXero]

The targeting thing makes sense to me though. Protection and immunity are long standing concepts across many games. A la MtG, if a creature has protection from white, a white creature cannot block it or target it, and a white spell can't target it, enchant it, or damage it in any way. Flame immune creatures are completely immune to fire. Why should the rule be different here?
Im honestly asking for the issue you have here. I am not trolling in any way.

[Borg]

Replying in honesty as well

The examples you're giving are correct.
It's also possible in mtg however for a creature with pro white to block a white creature, deal damage and take no damage in response.

In MW you cannot use a pro fire creature to block an opposing fire creature. That's a real miss imo.

I think this could easily be solved by making "protection from" an OPTIONAL ability.

This way you could play spells that are beneficial ( like friendly fire enchantments )
It would also make it possible to target pro fire creatures with fire attack spells for example but if the target decides to turn on its protection the spell would have no effect.

So the game as it is would lose nothing but only gain from it.
Open for discussion of course.

[Puddnhead]

Replying in honesty as well

The examples you're giving are correct.
It's also possible in mtg however for a creature with pro white to block a white creature, deal damage and take no damage in response.

In MW you cannot use a pro fire creature to block an opposing fire creature. That's a real miss imo.

By Guarding with a Fire Immune creature in Mage Wars you have basically 'blocked' the entire zone from a fire creature.  Seems pretty similar.  The difference being in Magic you'd also get to deal your damage to the fire creature.  The system of guarding vs blocking is what's causing the mismatch, I think.

Immunity is an interesting puzzle to solve in current Mage Wars.  Other simplifications I'd be in favor of are conditions and targeting.

[exid]

imunity is a heavy file... i think at a fire imune creature that can't intercept a fire attack.
but it seems normal that a fire imune creature can't get fire spells! (a poison imune creature with a poison curse would be too powerfull!).
I think that making the imunity otpionnal would make the game more complex, it's the wrong direction.

another file I see is the conditions: too many conditions to have a bad injury (bleed, rot, burn,...), too many conditions to lose capacities (daze, stun, sleep, slam,...)

[Borg]

By Guarding with a Fire Immune creature in Mage Wars you have basically 'blocked' the entire zone from a fire creature.  Seems pretty similar.  The difference being in Magic you'd also get to deal your damage to the fire creature.  The system of guarding vs blocking is what's causing the mismatch, I think.

Correct, 1 pro fire guard in MW can technically block 1000 potential fire attackers.
That's also why I think it should be possible to attack a pro fire creature with a fire creature. It will deal no damage but it might trigger an effect and can take away a guard marker.

That would be different than mtg alright but there's a significant difference here between MW and mtg :
In mtg you always attack your opponent ( or a planeswalker ) . Creatures can block.
In MW you cannot melee attack your opponent if he has guards.

[Obsidian Soul]

Well, you can if you restrain the guards or have an elusive creature.  Alternatively, you can have a creature that does not deal fire damage attack.  This is the weakness of theme decks.  A fire themed warlock is going to have problems against another fire themed warlock, since you can actually make a deck that deals only fire damage and every creature with flame immunity.  A hydro themed siren is going to have problem against a druid, since plants are hydro immune.  The key is to keep some diversity in a spellbook to deal with any such unpleasantness.

[Puddnhead]

Well, you can if you restrain the guards or have an elusive creature.  Alternatively, you can have a creature that does not deal fire damage attack.  This is the weakness of theme decks.  A fire themed warlock is going to have problems against another fire themed warlock, since you can actually make a deck that deals only fire damage and every creature with flame immunity.  A hydro themed siren is going to have problem against a druid, since plants are hydro immune.  The key is to keep some diversity in a spellbook to deal with any such unpleasantness.

This is why Mage Wars is so fun to me.  Even if you've got a horde of fire damage creatures in your book, all you have to do is displace or restrain a guarding creature and your problem is solved.  Another reason why I like Forcemaster so much...displacement is her game!  The opponent also has a lot of counter measures to your plan as well so it's a back and forth, guess and figure until someone comes out on top.