Aggro, Combo, Control & Hybrid Archtypes

[wtcannonjr]

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.

[Tacullu64]

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.

[Shad0w]

Mike's post was a great post with lots of insight but people tend to forget what he talks about is when a build is close but not a perfect mirror then the player must figure out what role to take in the match. He also still refers back to the aggro and control archetypes.

Who's The Beatdown?
Mike Flores
1/01
Another classic from the Dojo

" The most common (yet subtle, yet disastrous) mistake I see in tournament Magic is the misassignment of who is the beatdown deck and who is the control deck in a similar deck vs. similar deck matchup. The player who misassigns himself is inevitably the loser.

You see, in similar deck vs. similar deck matchups, unless the decks are really symmetrical (i.e. the true Mirror match), one deck has to play the role of beatdown, and the other deck has to play the role of control. This can be a very serious dilemma, if, say, both are playing aggressive decks. "

I do like the fact that we are having a well thought and intelligent discussion. I just do not see a need to break away from what has become the standard for naming build archetypes. Being able to change a builds play-style is called tempo. This not to say that at each builds core it does not favors one line of play over another. The only way this would be true, would be to put an even number of cards from each archetype then it would have no classification.



PS: If you want to learn more about tempo check these out

Article: Understanding Tempo  By WhiteLotus

Better Deckbuilding 101 – Understanding Tempo with Ghost Dad

[Tacullu64]

The most important section of that post by Mike Flores is often forgotten.

Who's The Beatdown?
Mike Flores
1/01
Another classic from the Dojo

" The most common (yet subtle, yet disastrous) mistake I see in tournament Magic is the misassignment of who is the beatdown deck and who is the control deck in a similar deck vs. similar deck matchup. The player who misassigns himself is inevitably the loser.

You see, in similar deck vs. similar deck matchups, unless the decks are really symmetrical (i.e. the true Mirror match), one deck has to play the role of beatdown, and the other deck has to play the role of control. This can be a very serious dilemma, if, say, both are playing aggressive decks. "

This is a great post with lots of insight but people tend to forget what he talks about is when a build is close but not a perfect mirror then the player must figure out what role to take in the match. He also still refers back to the aggro and control archetypes.

I do like the fact that we are having a well thought and intelligent discussion. I just do not see a need to break away from what has become the standard for naming build archetypes.

You may have been able to tell that this is my all time favorite article on magic strategy. It is close to 13 years old and still relevant today.

He most certainly does reference aggro and control, I chalk that up to it being an article about magic. I mentioned the article because I think it offers insight into many games including MW. Plus it is about match ups and the previous post mentions match ups.

I built a priestess book the other day. I constructed it by selecting the cards I felt I needed to advance my strategy along my chosen path of victory. Then I selected the cards I thought would be useful in disrupting and countering my opponents game plan(I am using opponent generically here, I didn't have a specific person in mind).  I had 126 points in my book (that's pretty low for me, I used to end up with 160 plus) so I trimmed the cards I thought I was least likely to need to get to 120. For the first time ever I then proceed to count my proactive cards which I consider to be cards that advance my strategy and/or don't require my opponent to do anything in order to be useful and my reactive cards I use to disrupt my opponent or remove his threats. The ratio was 62 points proactive to 58 points reactive. I was surprised to see how balanced it was. I didn't have a preconceived notion of what the ratio should be but when I was building it I was thinking of it as a control build. With almost 50% dedicated to countering my opponent it is fairly controlish. I counted my damage dealers and found there to be 39 points worth of them. Almost 1/3 of my book is offense, this seems high for a control deck and just a little bit low for an aggro deck. If I so chose I could start off playing threats and continue to do so for turns to come. With all that  firepower and the ability to get any card i want from my spellbook on turn 1, forget that defense lets go beat up the opposing mage. In all fairness my creatures aren't the type I would use to pressure my opponent early. I guess in magic terms I had built a mid range control book.

I looked at the ratios of the other books I had built and none of them had much more than 70 points dedicated to proactive or reactive. It seems most of the books I build are pretty balanced. I don't know if this is more my nature or the nature of building spellbooks in Mage Wars. I'm thinking its more an indication of MW. This being the case it would seem if you apply magic terms to describe spellbooks almost all would be classified as control or mid range control. And yet mage wars does not feel like a never ending series of control vs control match ups (which would get boring pretty fast) every game so far has been exiting, it just feels different.

Mage Wars just plays so different from magic that my attempts to impose magic style classification has seemed inadequate. I suppose I might be trying to import the classifications too literally.

[Shad0w]

The point of what I am getting at is these terms are use beyond magic. Just like Mark Rosewater's Timmy, Johnny, and Spike and Timmy, Johnny, and Spike Revisited. They have grown to encompass more than just MTG and are used in other games.

Just run a search on the web and you will find aggro, combo and control in other games.
 
Like I said these terms have extended well beyond MTG and have become a standard across several aspects of gaming. Depending on the style of game other terms have then developed from these. Tanking, Mitigation, Crowd Control, Evasion I could go on but I think this is a good place to stop.

[Tacullu64]

So what would determine if something is aggo or control?

A )  The contents of the spellbook.
B )  The way the player plays it.
C )  A combination of A & B.
D )  Other.

Edit: Not sure why the face is where the letter B should be.

[HeatStryke]

Typically these classifications are used for the deck design. If the player takes an aggro deck and attempts to control that's his choice, it's still an aggro deck.

[Shad0w]

So what would determine if something is aggo or control?

A )  The contents of the spellbook.
B )  The way the player plays it.
C )  A combination of A & B.
D )  Other.

Edit: Not sure why the face is where the letter B should be.

I fixed it for you. B followed by a ) is this emote B)

[Tacullu64]

So what would determine if something is aggo or control?

A )  The contents of the spellbook.
B )  The way the player plays it.
C )  A combination of A & B.
D )  Other.

Edit: Not sure why the face is where the letter B should be.

Thanks. Who da thunk?


I fixed it for you. B followed by a ) is this emote B)

[wtcannonjr]

I read the articles on Tempo and find them similar to the military strategy term Momentum. The ability to deploy threats at an operational and strategic level. However, the articles seem to relate this back to the mana supply as the limited resource each opponent is seeking to optimize.

In Mage Wars I find that Momentum/Tempo has additional nuisances as many types of threats introduced into the arena provide additional non-mana consuming opportunities to attack or create new threats. The prime example are creatures who, once in the arena, can manuever and use their own abilities to create new threats. i.e. Actions become an additional resource in addition to optimizing the flow of mana.

Archtypes for deck designs don't seem very useful to me unless we add the element of which specific mage we are discussing. This is one aspect that makes Mage Wars interesting for me, while MTG was not. The unique abilities and training of each Mage is what forces players to have unique deck designs. Even if two mages wanted to have the same spellbook I believe the spellpoints costs for different schools of magic would make this impossible. I haven't validated this premise, but it seems likely.

I can see the archtypes described above have meaning in the world of MTG, but players do not have the unique mage abilities and training limitations imposed on them when designing a deck. At least I do not believe they do. For me it would be more interesting to develop archtypes for Mage Wars around schools of magic and mage abilities rather than existing archtypes from MTG.

For example, has anyone done an analysis of each school of magic by spell type (or threat type) to see if this offers insights into strategies that are more efficient for a given mage? As the schools of magic evolve with new spells, the builds for each mage will be influenced in certain directions as the cost of spells in trained schools are cheaper.

[shapeshifter]

i would also agree that the game eliminates alot of definition of the term combo deck.
normally Combo decks are a combination of 2 or 3 cards that when put together instantly win you the game such as granting infinite damage/extra turns/mill. In whatever case, in mage wars you have the limitation of multiple instances of identical effects plus the spell book search for the answer to said combo.

i would instead suggest there that the deck archetypes are more "war game" like:

1) Assasination as Aggro: Your spell book is designed to take out one target and that is the opposing mage. As examples, An animal horde rush from the beastmaster, and a geared up warlock with fireballs.

2) Denial as Control: Your spell book is designed to stop opposing strategies. As examples, A metamagic mana draining wizard, and a healing priestess with despel or disolve on a wand.

3) Attrition as Combo: Your spell book is designed to trade well with my opponents spells in my favour. For example my enchanted angel kills your demon, my block was cheaper than your Lightning bolt, or i teleport you into my hydra killbox.

[Shad0w]

I want to respond to this but. Currently a bit tired from the con and had to be at work by 7am. I will read your post sometime this week and respond.

[Adam Wells]

I'm actually a fan of the idea of moving away from TCG-Style classifications.  I think they're limiting, and don't get close to describing what's going on with a spellbook.  Honestly? I'd lump the entire game into the 'toolbox' style of decks and call it a day.

One of the big things i've noticed in Mage Wars is that you have to consider a lot of what-ifs when building a spellbook.  We've pointed out a bunch of them already in this thread: What if my swarm of puppies gets hit by an AOE? What if my one big creature gets hit with a Purge Magic? What if X happens to my Y?

So, i think considering the entire spellbook is a bad idea.  There's going to be a lot of points (My number is usually 25-35) dedicated to toolbox situations - countering specific strategies that you see often.

To that end, I think if we must have classification, we need to start with the Mages, then split them into their various strategies.  I actually want to call them 'Specializations' since that seems to be a very accurate representation of what's going on; you have one big focus for your mage, and then the tools to protect them.

So, the 'basic' Beast Master strategies to me are Pack Lord, Master Tamer, and Shape Shifter.  I consider the basic spell book a mix between Pack Lord and Master Tamer.

Pack Lord builds focus on many small creatures to make multiple attacks in a round via Lair and the Beast Master’s quick summon ability.  He uses more creatures than enchantments, and likes using arena-wide benefitting conjurations.
Master Tamer builds focus on making one to two legendary creatures absolutely devastating to your opponent, then running up and smashing them. He stays away from spawnpoints since he only needs one or two creatures to make his plan work, and has a massive number of enchantments.

Shape Shifter builds focus on the Beast Master himself, using incantations, ferrets, and enchantments to turn himself into an avatar of nature’s wrath.  While it does require your mage to go onto the front lines, he can deal some serious damage while doing so, and take some hits if he’s set up right.
This can be repeated for each of the other mages, but I slipped and busted up my arm, so this is just an example of the beastmaster, and a kind of thematic way to talk about the different strategies.

[piousflea]

I think one major difference between MW and typical CCGs is that you can play the same deck in very different ways.

For example - let's focus on a very specific BM deck - the Lair based swarm deck. You have a lair, a ton of small creatures, and things like Sacred Ground, Rajans Fury, Call of the Wild that are designed to boost swarms. Then you have a small but powerful core of Equipment, usually some armor plus a mage staff or staff of beasts, and a couple of Teleports for utility.

============
It is quite possible (and effective) to play this deck as a Beatdown (aggro) deck, moving aggressively toward your opponent while summoning hordes of Bobcats and Falcons, and frequently using Guard or melee attacks to support your creatures.

It is also quite possible (and effective) to play this deck as a critical-mass (combo) deck, waiting until you have a very large number of Wolves and Redclaw before attacking with call of the wild and rolling a truly frightening amount of dice.

It is also quite possible (and effective) to play this deck as a sniper (control) deck, keeping your creatures a few spaces back and using teleports and/or tanglevines to isolate and kill large enemy creatures until your army is much stronger than theirs.

[MrSaucy]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but I can offer how I think of the game. At any time, a player will be playing one of 3 ways: aggressive, defensive, MIX. Let's call these Aggro, Control, and Combo. A player will shift between these playstyles in response to the opponent.

If you are playing Aggro, you are doing some mix of the following:
-Attacking nearly every turn with an attack spell
-Summoning tons of cheap creatures and swaming the enemy (charging relentlessly, caring little for which ones survive)
-Ignoring enemy enchantments
-Ignoring enemy equipment
-Using only offensive incantations (like Battle Fury)

If you are playing Control, you are doing some mix of the following:
-Utilizing one powerful creature on the board
-Denying the enemy access to mana (really only applies to The Wizard)
-Heavily favoring defensive enchantments like Block and Nullify
-Heavily favoring de-buff incantations like Dispel, Seeking Dispel, and Dissolve/Explode

If you are playing Combo, you are doing some mix of the following:
-Attacking only when the enemy has their defenses down
-Using 2 or 3 medium costly creatures, buffing them up when you feel like it
-Using defensive enchantments only when you feel they are absolutely necessary
-Using incantations like Dispel, Seeking Dispel, and Dissolve only when you feel like you need to

MTG theory states the following: Aggro > Control > Combo > Aggro > ... etc.
Aggro beats Control because Aggro doesn't give Control time to get a stable footing
Control beats Combo because it gives Control enough time to set up
Combo beats Aggro because it can start fast if needed be

So I guess I am trying to say this:
1) If your enemy is trying to swarm you with creatures, try to fend them off with a couple medium powerful creatures. Keep your creatures buffed, heal them when necessary. Don't try to solo against a swarm.
2) If your enemy is focusing on dispeling your enchatments, dissolving your armor, denying you mana, etc. you should try to swarm them with creatures or surprise them by going on the offensive.
3) If your enemy is not falling into either Aggro or Control, try playing the Control game against them. Disrupt their combos. Dissolve their equipment. Dispel their enchantments.

I hope some of this made sense to somebody.