|
Having paper redemption sets of online stuff is incredibly dumb nowadays. Imagine if Topps had one for their online collection apps. It'd be insane.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Have the numbers been crunched on what sort of Path/Push split you want in Junk? I figure you want at least two each, I may even end up with more Pushes than Paths since my meta trends a little more low-CMC aggro (Affinity, Merfolk etc.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
empathe posted:All of the value is either in redemption for paper which they only do for the new sets or secondary market. If their new thing kills either, value of digital cards will crater and go bye bye. do you have more information on "the new thing"? I realize WoTC has been braindead about MTGO for years, but if they really replaced MTGO with MTGO 2.0, and did not port over the collections of existing users to the new app, it seems like they would instantly lose a lot of their heaviest users. Unless the new app is really standard-oriented only and doesn't have the legacy/vintage card set, in which case they would lose a lot of those people anyway. that said, despite having probably a couple K in e-cards at this point, I have always thought of magic as disposed income. I'd never put money into MTGO that I am not prepared to burn in a fire... and magic is pretty much my only expensive hobby (and is not really expensive compared to lots of other hobbies).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I think it's only been referred to in investor calls and business reporting stuff. They don't want to worry people like you who have money in MTGO. I think if they just make the new thing run on both Windows and Mac, they'll likely pull in plenty of new users to cover any losses from people who leave and stay gone if they don't port collections over. I know I'd use it a lot more if I could do it on my Macbook Air instead of firing up my old pc upstairs anytime I wanted to draft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:do you have more information on "the new thing"? I realize WoTC has been braindead about MTGO for years, but if they really replaced MTGO with MTGO 2.0, and did not port over the collections of existing users to the new app, it seems like they would instantly lose a lot of their heaviest users. Unless the new app is really standard-oriented only and doesn't have the legacy/vintage card set, in which case they would lose a lot of those people anyway. They'd certainly port over collections or something like that. The issue is economics: do those "new" collections have a similar value to the old ones, based on how they change up the way it all works. You've got to have a feel for why they have value in the first place and what might change. And a lot of the value is based on redemption, and that requires linking the online prices to real-world prices. So, to begin with, what's the primary way that all of those major bots make actual money? It's on set redemptions. Churning through trades with people generates the bots tickets, tickets can be used to purchase full sets of currently redeemable cards (both full regular sets and full premium sets - and I'd guess the full premium sets are a bigger moneymaker because foils are discounted on mtgo because nobody likes them), and you can then sell those physical cards for actual cash. That creates an inherent demand for standard-legal cards (the ones you can redeem) that supports the price of everything else that's worth anything, because there's people making actual money on it who will push the price up until it's high enough that it's only worth it for the bigger players to be doing this arbitrage. How? Well, any good cards can be used to win play points/boosters/other good cards through the other tournaments (mostly the treasure boxes). Play points can be used to enter standard drafts, getting you cards to sell (both through the draft and through the prize boosters which get recycled into new drafts). The boosters, obviously, translate into cards. The good cards, well, they can be sold to other people trying to win. All of that supports the value of non-standard stuff and sets a price baseline for the part of the ecosystem that can't be directly translated into cardboard. Given that price baseline, stuff that's not directly or indirectly translatable into value has a price support based on the people who don't really care about trying to make money or whatever, but who are just looking to have fun and making decisions on what virtual cards to buy: they'll push the fun but not translatable into actual money cards up in value because they'll tend towards those cards. Plus, everything has a certain amount of "value" because people paid money for it and they're reluctant to accept much of a loss on it, even if it has no real inherent value. That makes prices a little stickier than they would be without that bit of human irrationality. A lot of the "make MTGO more like hearthstone" stuff is based on the extremely reasonable idea that when you charge people less, you'll make up for it in quantity. Any new entrant is going to go that way because the economics make so much more sense. But Magic has two problems: first, they make most of their money on cardboard, and there they probably have the economics exactly correct. Because they're selling people a physical object people will pay more for it, because they're selling a physical object they have much higher costs (both the actual printing, shipping, and profit for the people in the distribution chain) and there's a more limited market they can target compared to a digital game so it makes more sense to milk that market compared to trying to go cheaper and wider. So, you've got that golden goose and you have no interest in killing it. Making MTGO much cheaper than actual magic starts posing a problem because people are a little irrational about physical objects, but they'll quickly start asking themselves "why the gently caress am I doing this" when physical magic is like 2-10x as expensive as digital magic. That'll crater interest in paper magic, crater prices of physical magic (pissing people off for the reasons I'll go into next), and lose them a lot of money and goodwill they may not be able to get back. Second, people loving hate losing things. Especially money. Even money they were never really going to get. People with magic collections, either physical or online, know that those have "value". They spent money to get it, and they theoretically (even if they never will) could sell them and get the money back. So even if 99% of MTGO players are never, ever going to cash out into actual money, a lot more than 1% will be very, very pissed if the theoretical value of their collection is cut in half, or more. Pissed enough they're not going to spend more money, and just quit entirely. And like I alluded to before, that might also crater prices of actual magic cards, killing off stores holding cardboard and pissing off longtime players (who, again, 99% will never convert to money but like to think that they could). And those long-time invested players also generate stability for the game, because either they keep playing or they write off all that time and money they spent on it. So, then, what the gently caress do you do with MTGO? You can redo the program, make it much better and not suck. That doesn't really change the economics so the payoff from the investment isn't all that big. A few more players, a little better player retention. It's maintenance, it's not really a significant change. And I think people underestimate just how hard it is to keep the program running: doing a card game where the designers add arbitrary rules every few months that have to be tracked forever and ever and each individual card can have its own unique mechanic means that you're in a constant state of throwing new code in and potentially breaking old code. I'm actually sort of surprised they manage it. So you've got to do this new ground-up program while still spending all that money keeping the old one and the new one up to date. Alternatively you can end set redemptions and try to transition it to something with broader market appeal. That seems to be what they allude to in their digital next stuff: stuff like duels, where the initial entry is much lower and they're much more surreptitious about pulling money out of your pocket. But those sort of free-to-play games can't have any way to pull value out of the ecosystem or you can't do the rewards to keep people in without risking botfarms trying to generate value to pull out of the system for money without paying any money in return. That requires fundamentally reworking the economics of the whole thing, and that is hard as balls because if you gently caress up, you're going to destroy an ongoing cash cow for good. Hell, it's not clear it's possible to do it without seriously hurting that cash cow and you've got to hit a home run. I don't know how much Blizzard makes with Hearthstone but I suspect it's not as much money as Magic and it certainly doesn't have the demonstrated longevity. It's a hard, hard problem and while it seems easy in the abstract, once you start really going down that rabbit hole it's not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:do you have more information on "the new thing"? I realize WoTC has been braindead about MTGO for years, but if they really replaced MTGO with MTGO 2.0, and did not port over the collections of existing users to the new app, it seems like they would instantly lose a lot of their heaviest users. Unless the new app is really standard-oriented only and doesn't have the legacy/vintage card set, in which case they would lose a lot of those people anyway. Basically everything that evilweasel said. I had like 5.5k in the system and sell price and while I'm happy to sink cost in to play, I'm way happier to be able to cash out and get that money back while WotC figures out what the gently caress it wants to do. Again, if they don't gently caress it up, I can always buy back in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
thanks a lot for the long analysis and thoughts, that is interesting. I think I've got about 2K in e-cards. Perhaps I will at least cash out stuff that I am not playing with constantly. Evilweasel posted:So, then, what the gently caress do you do with MTGO? You can redo the program, make it much better and not suck. That doesn't really change the economics so the payoff from the investment isn't all that big. A few more players, a little better player retention. It's maintenance, it's not really a significant change. And I think people underestimate just how hard it is to keep the program running: doing a card game where the designers add arbitrary rules every few months that have to be tracked forever and ever and each individual card can have its own unique mechanic means that you're in a constant state of throwing new code in and potentially breaking old code. I'm actually sort of surprised they manage it. So you've got to do this new ground-up program while still spending all that money keeping the old one and the new one up to date. On the other hand, XMage works nearly as well as MTGO as far as game & card logic resolution goes -- and that's a pet project that doesn't, as far as I know, make any money. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:thanks a lot for the long analysis and thoughts, that is interesting. Yeah I think keeping 1 deck in the format's you play is probably fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:I think it's only been referred to in investor calls and business reporting stuff. They don't want to worry people like you who have money in MTGO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I hear there are these newfangled phone things that all of the kids are using to play games. Can't wait to play 4 player EDH on my 4.5 inch screen phone
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:thanks a lot for the long analysis and thoughts, that is interesting. I'm in the same boat, around 2k in my digital collection....I have a Legacy deck, 2 Modern, and a Standard together on there, plus assorted Fetchlands and stuff from past decks (goal was to eventually just have all the staples, especially manabase, and be able to be more adaptable to meta changes). I've sold out of the game twice over the last few years, both times to fund cross-country moves, and both times bought back in eventually (in the interim, I just popped in whenever cube was around). As a programmer, I'll pile onto the sentiment that critics of MTGO are generally really ignorant of just how complex the system has to be. Any time outrage begins with "can't you just..." it's time to tune out as a developer, as these people think computers are magic and can do anything. But like you said, XMage works. I think the big problem, especially after seeing their job postings somewhat recently, is they are stuck on horrific choices of technologies for this thing. It wasn't designed with this level of complexity and longevity in mind, and they just keep stacking more and more cards on top of the existing house. We saw back with the "oh poo poo big events don't work anymore" debacle that at some point you can't just keep putting band-aids on bullet wounds, you need to shut down and rethink your design. Unfortunately, they weren't willing to take that to its logical conclusion and instead just upgraded to a pressure dressing and gutted the scheduled events and got rid of dailies entirely. It's a shortsighted but inevitable policy to see this and think it's not worth the investment to redesign. There's no immediate tangible benefit, but that's only if you're thinking about your bottom line for your department at the next quarterly or annual review. More long-term, the savings in terms of maintenance and potential lost revenue from glitches and down-time is huge.....it's exactly why at my company right now we're rebuilding our flagship product from scratch. It wasn't designed to scale this large, it's slow, it's bloated, and it keeps crashing and glitching and going down at inconvenient times. It's more expensive short-term to spend 6 months rebuilding it, and people are a little annoyed when we tell them, "Sorry, we won't be fixing that bug you reported, we're rebuilding the whole thing and that's wasted effort that just slows down the replacement." But 2-3 years from now, we reach the crossover point where we spent less time and money rebuilding than we would have trying to bail water for that same time period. I hope their new management in digital will depart from that way of thinking, but I doubt it. It's a huge issue anywhere you have technology in an isolated branch of a more traditional company. They try to run digital products the same way they run everything else, and refuse to adapt their model to accommodate a completely different paradigm (see also: music and movie industries' refusal to adapt to digital distribution). But the root of the problem is that they expect all line items to correspond to a demonstrable ROI, which is virtually impossible in digital products, especially when the expense in question is maintenance. It's very hard to say rebuilding an already "working" system resulted directly in $XXX,XXX in generated revenue, or directly prevented what would have been ### customers leaving, when that expense's real purpose is just to prevent further expenses and problems in some vague future. I work in nonprofit now, and I've worked in corporate.....proposal meetings are loving awful for those reasons and more. It always comes down to, "You can't tell me a precise ROI on this maintenance project? Sounds fishy. Research it more and try again when you have hard numbers." And I'd be willing to bet quite a bit that that's exactly how the management at WOTC/Hasbro has been thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:I think it's only been referred to in investor calls and business reporting stuff. They don't want to worry people like you who have money in MTGO. Apple laptops have a 7.1% share of the laptop market and not running on mac is an exceedingly minor thing compared to not running on android/ipads/browsers. Mac users have not been a meaningful segment of any gaming market for ages. Hell, if they ported MTGO to work in a browser, that would be huge and solve the mac issue as part of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Hell, if they ported MTGO to work in a browser, that would be huge and solve the mac issue as part of it. It's also way easier to maintain. Managing a front-end with javascript and poo poo is so much simpler than coding installable GUI clients.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Apple laptops have a 7.1% share of the laptop market and not running on mac is an exceedingly minor thing compared to not running on android/ipads/browsers. Mac users have not been a meaningful segment of any gaming market for ages. Fair enough, though we can still both be correct as the amount of people burned hard enough by a complete drop of MTGO to not migrate could still be a drop compared to opening up the digital side of the business to more users overall. I would probably prefer your solution of a browser-based app, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Soul Glo posted:as the amount of people burned hard enough by a complete drop of MTGO to not migrate could still be a drop compared to opening up the digital side of the business to more users overall. I disagree only because of the optics. When they eventually unveil whatever new thing is, they will need people to feel okay about buying boosters and buying into a collection. If they burn their bridges with people already invested in the current platform, I would assume that consumer confidence in the viability and wisdom of "investing" in the new app would be hurt significantly. Quotes used because I think people who seriously treat any kind of Magic as an actual long-term investment strategy have a couple screws loose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:I disagree only because of the optics. When they eventually unveil whatever new thing is, they will need people to feel okay about buying boosters and buying into a collection. If they burn their bridges with people already invested in the current platform, I would assume that consumer confidence in the viability and wisdom of "investing" in the new app would be hurt significantly. That assumes that the new platform/game/version would have a secondary market. Hearthstone doesn't. All the money in that game goes straight to Blizzard. I would tend to agree that they shouldn't end up doing a scorched Earth move, but they are also trying to make the most money possible and there's probably some lovely Excel doc somewhere that decides if they are going to burn everyone or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
I went 3-0 at the local modern event playing BW tokens, but in my 2nd match I played the strangest deck. It was turbofog but with a really strange wincon. This was quite the brew, and none of it very good. The deck played 4 Forbidden Orchard, City of Brass, and Scrylands, no basics. The other utility lands were a Mikokoro, Center of the Sea, and the one from Eldritch Moon where if you discard cards you can put them on top of your library. No creatures, the only non-fogs were Scribbling Claws, Leyline of Sanctity, Jace Beleren, and Days Undoing. So his plan was to draw 2-3 cards a turn, fog every turn, while exiling your cards one at a time with the Claws. Then he would Days Undoing, getting a full set of fogs while you had less cards in your library next go around. Then mill you out. He was playing the old Timetwister lock...but in Modern. In every other match this guy got destroyed but it took me a really long time to finally beat him games 1-2. The only enchantment removal I had in the entire deck was 1 Anguished Unmaking and 1 SoM Elspeth so every time he had a Days I would need to keep waiting until I drew my Unmaking again to get rid of stuff. Against any deck with Burn, it was too slow. Against any deck with more discard, it was too slow. Against any decks with counterspells, it was too slow. But you gotta give an A for effort.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
BaronVonVaderham posted:As a programmer, I'll pile onto the sentiment that critics of MTGO are generally really ignorant of just how complex the system has to be. Any time outrage begins with "can't you just..." it's time to tune out as a developer, as these people think computers are magic and can do anything. Yea I don't envy the programming team, they built an incredibly complex system of rules and constantly have to implement cards that add new rules while breaking some of the old ones. That's a recipie for spaghetti and they don't have time to clean or ix anything because they have to do it all over again every 3 months. That said, I was getting an error today that would not let me add new cards to my trade binder. Upon inspection, it was because I had 59,999 copies of some random common from 10 years ago in my "want" list. As a programmer myself, that's not something that should happen on it's own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
little munchkin posted:Yea I don't envy the programming team, they built an incredibly complex system of rules and constantly have to implement cards that add new rules while breaking some of the old ones. That's a recipie for spaghetti and they don't have time to clean or ix anything because they have to do it all over again every 3 months. That's why I advocate rebuilding. There are newer technologies that make it much easier to build a system like this (as a side project I've been tinkering with how I'd design a new rules engine). Rules are complicated, but in a sane, modular design there shouldn't be cards breaking in a flashback draft that worked 3 years ago just fine. That error is hosed up, though. Sounds like someone broke a loop somewhere. Also probably referencing binders by an index so they can gently caress up where things get added, otherwise why would it ever interact with that binder. I think their developers could make this thing great....just a matter of management allowing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
For me the stand out stuff is different printings of the same card behaving differently. Like that means the code for giant growth takes 5 times the amount of space as titanic growth which is real silly and a recipe for bad scaling. Like it also means that a lot of effects are hard-coded per card? Which would contribute a lot to their lives being difficult in terms of coding new cards
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Allstone posted:For me the stand out stuff is different printings of the same card behaving differently. Like that means the code for giant growth takes 5 times the amount of space as titanic growth which is real silly and a recipe for bad scaling. Like it also means that a lot of effects are hard-coded per card? Which would contribute a lot to their lives being difficult in terms of coding new cards I imagine they did it that way because of city in a bottle style effects?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:I imagine they did it that way because of city in a bottle style effects? Those work on all versions of the card.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Those work on all versions of the card. If this were true it would hit mountains.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:Those work on all versions of the card. There was a point in time where they didn't, although I don't remember whether those cards were added to MTGO before or after the errata that made them work like they do now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:If this were true it would hit mountains. The oracle text reads 'originally printed'. Mountains were originally printed in Alpha, so they're not affected. Fourth Edition Brass Man was originally printed in Arabian Nights, so it gets hit. E: Even then, it is true you still need to track edition for art/collections/etc., but that's still very easily surmountable with modern software design principles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Allstone posted:The oracle text reads 'originally printed'. Mountains were originally printed in Alpha, so they're not affected. Fourth Edition Brass Man was originally printed in Arabian Nights, so it gets hit. Yes, this is what I'm saying, if it hit all versions of the card it would hit mountains. The card does not function that way, it works in the way you described.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Someone turned the Breakfast Burrito into some sort of dadaist art piece making it 10x more moving parts and inefficient while having the dubious upside of letting it work in multiplayer(????) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:Yes, this is what I'm saying, if it hit all versions of the card it would hit mountains. The card does not function that way, it works in the way you described. Every printing of every card works exactly the same way as every other printing of the same card in regards in city in a bottle. There is absolutely nothing there that would cause you to need to code different printings separately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Anil Dasharez0ne posted:There was a point in time where they didn't, although I don't remember whether those cards were added to MTGO before or after the errata that made them work like they do now. So I went and checked this and City in a Bottle had its current wording already by the time it was brought online with Vintage Masters. It worked off of expansion symbol instead of original printing up through the M14 update.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Cactrot posted:If this were true it would hit mountains. ...no it wouldn't? Cactrot posted:Yes, this is what I'm saying, if it hit all versions of the card it would hit mountains. The card does not function that way, it works in the way you described. It hits all versions of all cards originally printed in the specified set. I didn't think I needed to specify that the card only does the thing that the oracle text says it does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:Someone turned the Breakfast Burrito into some sort of dadaist art piece making it 10x more moving parts and inefficient while having the dubious upside of letting it work in multiplayer(????) I am really, really tempted to throw this together, mostly because my scene has a lot of curious players who would definitely sit and watch the combo play out at least once and I want to see the look on their faces when they realize what the Door is for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
What is the difference between playing Banishing Light over Oblivion Ring? Oblivion Ring has the avenue of exiling a card for good with bounce effects, but in a deck that doesn't utilize that strategy, then I can't see a difference between the two. Is it just a matter of taste at that point?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Banishing Light can't ever be forced to target your own thing. So it's probably better if you don't have a way to abuse the separate triggers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Played my first RL magic in ages, 3-0-1 at fnm with modern coco.  Lots of tense games, a few moments where I felt I misplayed (but didn't really get punished for it), and a few where I think I was correct to roll the dice and I got rewarded.R1 vs. Eldrazi Tron (2-1), and this lucky dude has turn 3 tron every game. Not that it seemed to help him much. Game 1 he assembles tron off a map and just steamrollers me with big dudes, culminating in an ulamog. Fiend hunter buys me a turn but ends up having to chump block, which is a bit unfortunate. Game 2 he has natural tron, leaving a turn 1 map unused while playing out two relics of progenitus. His only big spell is a turn 4 Karn though, and with a companied-up spellskite protecting me from his first activation I get there with some small dudes and a township. Game 3 he again has natural tron and this time has a bit of pressure in the form of eldrazi, but I'm able to combo for life and he doesn't have any disruption to stop me scrying into a win. I was feeling pretty dead to an O-stone or Ugin at any point there, but I suppose "not always having it" is the downside to not playing Ancient Stirrings or any other sort of filtering. R2 vs. Bogles (2-1), and I get run over by a scout with pro-creatures and ethereal armor and keen sense. My company doesn't hit any enchantment-removing guys. The next couple of games I'm able to keep his enchantments to a manageable number and my bigger creatures end up doing the job, though in game three especially I would have been dead to a lucky topdeck. R3 vs. Eldrazi Taxes (1-1). I mull to 5 and keep a no-lander on the draw ... And that's the game I won! He doesn't kill my bird immediately, and running lands keep me going through his leonin arbiters and ghost quarters/paths, while a stream of cocos off the top mostly whiffs on real action but gives me a lot of bodies. Eventually he trades off the arbiters, and I build up to double-Township, growing my mass of mana dorks to really threatening levels. He makes a hail-mary attack that leaves me at 1 with the obvious blocks, then scoops when I work it out and start figuring out if sacrificing a reveillark can help me survive a trick. Game 2 he dominates me with Thalia and arbiter/double ghost quarter, leaving me dead with uncastable cards in hand. With less than five minutes on the round clock we decide to take a draw instead of stressing over game 3. R4 vs. Abzan (2-1) Game 1 is really back and forth, but I eventually stick an anafenza and then chord for redcap, which cleans up his board. Game 2 he plays a big goyf then 1-for-1s all my guys before dropping a Grafdiggers Cage, leaving me with 3 dead cards in hand and unable to refill. Game 3 he keeps a 1 lander with a cage and four pieces of 1-mana interaction, but bricks on a second land for five or six turns, which is kind of unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:Someone turned the Breakfast Burrito into some sort of dadaist art piece making it 10x more moving parts and inefficient while having the dubious upside of letting it work in multiplayer(????) I can't even tell what the combo actually is here. Repeated triggers of Door?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Archenteron posted:Someone turned the Breakfast Burrito into some sort of dadaist art piece making it 10x more moving parts and inefficient while having the dubious upside of letting it work in multiplayer(????) I have spoken with God, and He has abandoned us
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
edit: long since beaten
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I can't even tell what the combo actually is here. Repeated triggers of Door? in this beautiful and amazing thing you keep giving the opponent a door to nothingness with infinite mana and make him kill himself with it. if he tries to kill you you reset the battlefield and do it again until he kills himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
and it's not a four horseman situation since you can actually get rid of the door to nothingness trigger, so you just choose to change phases once the stack is clear, end your turn, and your opponent has to draw from a nonexistent library
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
There was a rare white 2 drop in origins that searched for an equipment when it got Renowned. There was a promo version if that card, also for origins. Those two cards behaved differently (the promo failed to search, if I remember correctly). The programming problems are not necessarily the programmers being BAD. It's them being inexperienced. Which is what happens when you pay below going rate in a highly competitive technical area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 01:24
|
|
