|
So the lifegain deck (similar to what was discussed a few pages ago) can get pretty hilarious: Gozzog (2+B, lifedrain 1) 13 Diamond 12 Blood 4 Adamatine Scrivener 4 Righteous Paladin 3 Inner Conflict 4 Eternal Youth 4 Protectorate Defender (+life) 4 Pact of Pain 3 Extinction 3 Murder 2 Atrophy 4 Life Siphon Paladins can get big FAST with Scriveners and charge power alone Combined with the control elements and Eternal Youth it annoys the hell out of most anybody I'm playing around with adding Secret Lab (in place of one of the Pacts) or somehow fitting in some Inquisitors or a real finisher (like Gabriel or Malice Demon) but as it is here it's been fun
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:
I was the one who posted that deck. I actually took out my copies of Gabriel, because he wasn't really useful as a finisher. Whenever I was able to actually play him, I'd have won without him, and drawing him in your opening hand or in one of the early turns usually hurts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 10:31
|
|
|
Tamba posted:I was the one who posted that deck. I actually took out my copies of Gabriel, because he wasn't really useful as a finisher. Whenever I was able to actually play him, I'd have won without him, and drawing him in your opening hand or in one of the early turns usually hurts. I feel like the deciding point for most matches is around the fifth or sixth resource. Cards that require six or more tend to sit in my hand for too long and usually don't get used.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I feel like the deciding point for most matches is around the fifth or sixth resource. Cards that require six or more tend to sit in my hand for too long and usually don't get used. I feel like the deciding factor in most games is whoever gets to play their third "Escalation" spell first edit: misread this - yes a card with 5 or 6 cost is the most you should play unless you're playing a ramp deck or a deep deep control deck
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:I feel like the deciding factor in most games is whoever gets to play their third "Escalation" spell first Do you really run into escalation that much? I haven't had that many games where an escalation card was the deciding factor either. The (good) decks I see people playing recently have been either complex-as-hell artifact decks with Inspiration Engine and Dwarven Turbine, or green ramp decks with fist of brigadoon and other high-cost heavies. Sometimes I'll see a mill or control deck but those tend to not be that bad a problem because they don't have enough offense. I'm only playing a couple games a day or so though so I doubt I'm seeing the overall picture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Do you really run into escalation that much? I haven't had that many games where an escalation card was the deciding factor either. The (good) decks I see people playing recently have been either complex-as-hell artifact decks with Inspiration Engine and Dwarven Turbine, or green ramp decks with fist of brigadoon and other high-cost heavies. Sometimes I'll see a mill or control deck but those tend to not be that bad a problem because they don't have enough offense. I'm only playing a couple games a day or so though so I doubt I'm seeing the overall picture. My Rhino deck often gets three or four Crash of Beasts out. But that's a deck built specifically for it with 4 Cerebral Fulminations, Secret Labs, Bottled Vitaes, and Moon'ariu Senseis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
I've had multiple games playing against someone with a 3 color 75 card deck and they've still cast 3 Clash of Beasts on me by turn 6
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:I've had multiple games playing against someone with a 3 color 75 card deck and they've still cast 3 Clash of Beasts on me by turn 6 I guess the problem isn't so much the average game as that one-in-a-hundred game where your start hand is three ruby sources and four burns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
I'm baffled by the number of people playing Sabotage Mill. The champion only needing two charges is definitely a factor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
As a sabotage mill player, it's because it's hilariously fun. After years of it being completely awful in Magic, mill finally being viable is just the best thing. I run the blood sapphire version, personally. Remove everything forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
I've got a mill deck I play around with but High Tomb Lord is the finisher, sabotage is just window dressing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I've got a mill deck I play around with but High Tomb Lord is the finisher, sabotage is just window dressing. My buddy's first match with me was his mill deck vs my black/green 'mass spawn stuff to graveyard' deck. I had a 67/67 Tomb Lord out and that pretty much ended the game. Mill does look quite fun though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
Am I the only person getting this bug? For some reason it seems to be an utter gamble what deck I get when I press the "quick match" button to start a game vs. other players. I get the deck I choose every time when I'm playing vs. the AI, but in matches against people, it's at most 50/50 odds that I get the deck I select and otherwise I just get whatever deck is at the top of my deck list (usually the default dwarf sample deck). Sometimes I'll get the wrong deck for five or more matches in a row. It makes playing the game really frustrating because I don't want to play the default dwarf deck! There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or pattern or reason to it. I've tried everything I can think of on my end, down to deleting all my decks (other than the default ones) and then rebuilding them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
I have never actually gotten a game through the quick match button, it seems like most people just play via challenge for now. So maybe it was a known bug that everyone has just started working around?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
What might be happening is you getting challenged rather than the automatch finding an opponent The automatch box stays on top of the challenge and hides the deck selector - you need to X out the automatch box to select the deck Its an annoying bug that unless you understand what's going on can seem like its just picking the wrong deck
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:What might be happening is you getting challenged rather than the automatch finding an opponent Thanks, this seems to be the issue. You've solved a huuuge problem for me, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
What does everybody think of the triggered effects not going on the chain? In what I've read, it seems the biggest hangup is players perceive of situations where, if triggered effects went on the chain, there are games that they were able to win that they otherwise would've lost. They don't really consider that there are probably an equal amount of games that they'll play that they'll win because triggered effects don't go on the chain, and both players will make decisions with the rules in mind. People also, in general, dislike change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
On one hand, it definitely makes you different from Magic, where everything goes on the stack. On the other hand, this means that you can never respond to something going on the chain, which does make things a little less complex. Some people like complex. I'm not sure if I'm one of them, I'll have to play and see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
I think the game will be good either way, but I do find it pretty worrying that a rule change that fundamental is being made after Set 1 has already been designed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:What does everybody think of the triggered effects not going on the chain? In what I've read, it seems the biggest hangup is players perceive of situations where, if triggered effects went on the chain, there are games that they were able to win that they otherwise would've lost. They don't really consider that there are probably an equal amount of games that they'll play that they'll win because triggered effects don't go on the chain, and both players will make decisions with the rules in mind. People also, in general, dislike change. I like it. Most triggered abilities are triggered by an activated ability or spell anyway, so you can still respond, you just have to be paying attention to what triggers are going to go off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Go RV! posted:I like it. Most triggered abilities are triggered by an activated ability or spell anyway, so you can still respond, you just have to be paying attention to what triggers are going to go off. That's....that's not how triggered abilities work. If Cerebral Fulmination's triggered ability doesn't go on the chain, then you can't respond it, no matter how much attention you're paying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:What does everybody think of the triggered effects not going on the chain? In what I've read, it seems the biggest hangup is players perceive of situations where, if triggered effects went on the chain, there are games that they were able to win that they otherwise would've lost. They don't really consider that there are probably an equal amount of games that they'll play that they'll win because triggered effects don't go on the chain, and both players will make decisions with the rules in mind. People also, in general, dislike change. I'm sure I'll like the game regardless of this change, but I'll say that my preference is the pre-change behavior as it allows for more complexity. I'm playing a few different electronic TCG's right now, and what Hex has over any of them, even before the PVE goes in, is complexity. It feels like you are losing some of that edge with this change. What WOULD have been a nice alternative is just allowing some kind of per card/per deck optional ability to ignore additions to the stack, as that would get you the benefit you are seeking(less pointless clicking) without reducing complexity for those who want/need it with certain decks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
No strong feelings either way. There have been a couple of cases where it would have been nice to be able to save a burn until a triggered ability was on the stack, but I definitely appreciate being able to run the Mountain God stuff without wanting to cut myself. It does kind of feel like closing off design space to solve issues that could be fixed at the UI level, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:What does everybody think of the triggered effects not going on the chain? In what I've read, it seems the biggest hangup is players perceive of situations where, if triggered effects went on the chain, there are games that they were able to win that they otherwise would've lost. They don't really consider that there are probably an equal amount of games that they'll play that they'll win because triggered effects don't go on the chain, and both players will make decisions with the rules in mind. People also, in general, dislike change. I feel like it's a fundamental change that can affect the balance of power certain cards carry. As mentioned, being able to respond to some triggers with removal is extremely valid, and can make holding onto the right removal card that much more important. Losing this definitely removes complexity from the game, and I can't say I'm altogether supportive of it. Is there some sort of problem setting up auto-yields to certain triggers so that, with triggers like on Mountain God, each player can simply allow the game to automatically resolve the trigger with no response (so it ignores the passing of priority). I know that you see this kind of thing right from kitchen table to professional magic (the most comparable analogue), and it seems like it wouldn't be difficult to implement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:What does everybody think of the triggered effects not going on the chain? In what I've read, it seems the biggest hangup is players perceive of situations where, if triggered effects went on the chain, there are games that they were able to win that they otherwise would've lost. They don't really consider that there are probably an equal amount of games that they'll play that they'll win because triggered effects don't go on the chain, and both players will make decisions with the rules in mind. People also, in general, dislike change. I'm not a big fan of reducing complexity, but this is a minimal reduction of complexity. Ideally there'd be a way to interact with things that happened that didn't require passing priority. How that would work I don't know, but if Hex could come up with a way that integrated smoothly with gameplay flow and the ui it'd be a home run benefit for the game. I've been playing a lot of hearthstone lately and the best part is there is no priority to pass. In hearthstone that comes at a cost, it's designed entirely differently at a result, but there are ways to minimize the amount of times you have to press the "okay" button or otherwise deal with priority. I'd consider this recent change a positive one for Hex. Finding more ways to make priority less of a nuisance without reducing complexity would be nice, too. Khorne fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Blinkman987 posted:What does everybody think of the triggered effects not going on the chain? In what I've read, it seems the biggest hangup is players perceive of situations where, if triggered effects went on the chain, there are games that they were able to win that they otherwise would've lost. They don't really consider that there are probably an equal amount of games that they'll play that they'll win because triggered effects don't go on the chain, and both players will make decisions with the rules in mind. People also, in general, dislike change. I think its a false choice looking for an easy way out to a problem that can be solved other ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Niedar posted:I think its a false choice looking for an easy way out to a problem that can be solved other ways. I think they'll probably revert it once they've implemented more UI features. edit: I can understand the need. Frankly it wouldn't hurt to speed things up even more. I just had a crazy-silly game where I was playing a dwarven artifact deck built to spawn zillions of worker bots vs. an Eternal Youth escalation deck with Demented Demolisher. I eventually won after my opponent got sick of waiting while I constantly untapped/retapped my volcannons. I was whittling him down! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 06:22 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
I can see both sides of the issue and have no strong feelings either way. On the one hand, it makes the game easier and less annoying to play for people unfamiliar with the intricacies of stack rules. That's a good thing, since new players are always good, and this benefits them and should help retention. On the other hand, it reduces the ability of skilled players to pull off tricky plays, such as (to use a MTG example I just saw recently) responding to a Burning Earth dealing damage by continuing to tap more lands for more mana, adding more triggers, then casting a big Sphinx's Revelation to outheal that damage and draw a bunch of cards. Without triggered abilities going on the stack, you can't do that; as soon as you tap enough lands to ping yourself to death, you're dead, because the damage just instantly happens. Personally, I think the game is still complex enough without it to keep veteran players, but I could see other solutions such as an on-by-default toggle for passing triggered abilities being better in most cases. A case where that would fail: config file errors that reset options to default, causing someone to lose an important game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:That's....that's not how triggered abilities work. I stated it poorly. I was talking about, for example, in the case of the guy who is pumped by lifegain, you can still respond to the Eternal Youth or what have you. I don't recall a lot of cards that go off on their own, that it's terribly important to respond to specifically at that trigger, as compared to another time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Niedar posted:I think its a false choice looking for an easy way out to a problem that can be solved other ways. I'm in agreement. If this is a temporary fix, fine. Otherwise you're just making more work for yourselves with the addition of new sets and card interactions. Can you imagine trying to determine what all should go on the stack after set 4 is out? Will you guys start designing less interesting cards just to avoid having lots of triggers to sort out? TCG's don't really have complexity and speed. They are opposite ends of a straight line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
I liked everything going on the stack, as others have said this "problem" could be addressed by changing the UI rather than changing the rules of the game. I don't mind if this change sticks around, but really would prefer if it didn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
Grim posted:I liked everything going on the stack, as others have said this "problem" could be addressed by changing the UI rather than changing the rules of the game. Basically this. I like being able to respond to threats, and in MTG all the really weird and cool stuff happened as a result of dumb poo poo regarding stack rules. But then again, I really like when weird plays happen because it's a nice reprieve from the seriousness of games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
If you expect people to consider your game a serious alternative to Magic(which you do), you're not going to accomplish it by removing complexity because it's less work than making a good UI. If I want to play a non-complicated game, I'll play Hearthstone, since it's presentation is always going to be 50x better than yours or anyone else's. Hex needs to win with depth. I mean seriously, 'we made rules changes because making a good ui is hard'? I'm not sure that's even a game I want to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
I don't think the change really removes "complexity." It just shifts the emphasis from reactive thinking to predictive thinking, slightly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
A while back someone posted a guide on deckmaking; it was for m:tg but had general thoughts about things like when to put four, three, or two of a given card in your deck and so forth. Anyone have any idea where/what that was?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
I don't think there's even a card combo currently in the game that's actually affected by the change. Only the passive "When x, do y" triggers were removed from the stack, and every current type of "x" trigger has a priority response anyways, so the priority passes they took out were redundant. The only instance where I can even see it becoming an issue is when a creature entering the battlefield triggers a passive that is then used to buff that creature (Like "when another creature enters the battlefield, you may give target creature +1/+1"), since you wouldn't be able to use an instant burn to kill it before it's buffed. I actually think it's more of an issue that playing resources doesn't cause a priority pass, since neither Gas Troll's nor Wild Root Dancer's effects can be responded to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
Just when it seemed like the priority bug wasn't an issue anymore - 5/8 games tonight either me or my opponent has no button and end key doesn't work One game it even happened to me before the mulligan window popped up
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Sounds like they just need to add in the "auto-yield" functionality that MTGO has (which I can't believe isn't already in? I don't have alpha yet). I can agree that needing to pass priority a hundred times per match gets quite time consuming, but it sounds like this is an artificial fix to alleviating the priority bug. There'll probably be enough negative feedback on that call for them to reverse it; it's still the beginning of a very long process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Spectral Werewolf posted:Sounds like they just need to add in the "auto-yield" functionality that MTGO has (which I can't believe isn't already in? I don't have alpha yet). I can agree that needing to pass priority a hundred times per match gets quite time consuming, but it sounds like this is an artificial fix to alleviating the priority bug. No, they don't have auto-yielding, which is more than a little annoying. In fact, right now, my biggest issue with the UI is how long everything takes. It takes a couple of seconds for the Pass Priority button to show up and there's no hotkey for passing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
Some Numbers posted:No, they don't have auto-yielding, which is more than a little annoying. Unless I'm thinking of something else, the End key functions as a hotkey for passing priority (and also seems to work even if the button fails to appear.) You can also click on the small "what phase is it" clock-type object in the center left of the UI, and it opens a popup to let you choose which phases you pause on. Seems handy, didn't try it out much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2013 09:03
|
|
