PDA

View Full Version : Do players want a metagame dominated by combo decks?



jaxsonbatemanhex
08-23-2013, 11:04 PM
Hey everyone,

I was just having a couple chats with people, and I decided I wanted to ask the community at large - when it comes to competitive PvP in this game we're all very much looking forward to (Hex, of course), do you want a metagame that is dominated by combo? That is to say, there are one, two or even three combos floating around, and if you don't run one of them you simply lose to them? Or do you want a metagame that might have a combo or two doing well, but they're only as good as the aggro and control decks that are doing well?

I for one would like a diverse meta-game with viable aggro, control and combo decks near the top; I actually love combo decks myself, but IMO if that becomes the majority of high level play (combo vs combo), then the game becomes stale and boring, and loses interaction.

Any thoughts?

Chiany
08-23-2013, 11:11 PM
I for one would like a diverse meta-game with viable aggro, control and combo decks near the top; I actually love combo decks myself, but IMO if that becomes the majority of high level play (combo vs combo), then the game becomes stale and boring, and loses interaction.

This, I also different types of deck being "tier 1" .

If one deck or type of deck starts to dominate like you described, it would get boring.

HyenaNipples
08-23-2013, 11:17 PM
Why would anyone NOT want a diverse metagame?

Nicalapegus
08-23-2013, 11:23 PM
This title and post are leading. You could rename it "Do players want a metagame dominated by X decks?" where you sub X for anything.

Combo decks are weak unless you do nothing to mess with their plans. For that reason they will never be top tier decks. This has been shown in MTG and other card games. If they become OP, they get nerfed. This is a non-issue.

Eilinel
08-23-2013, 11:28 PM
Why would anyone NOT want a diverse metagame?

This. Right here. One deck archetype dominating, and it doesn't matter which one, would make the meta very dull to me. I love the idea that I can try out decks of different styles and know that if I make them right, any of them can still be competitive.

LargoLaGrande
08-23-2013, 11:31 PM
This title and post are leading. You could rename it "Do players want a metagame dominated by X decks?" where you sub X for anything.

Combo decks are weak unless you do nothing to mess with their plans. For that reason they will never be top tier decks. This has been shown in MTG and other card games. If they become OP, they get nerfed. This is a non-issue.

Except there are plenty of top teir combo decks in legacy currently. And Combo Winter pushed a lot of people out of MTG, and required two rounds of bannings (and an emergency ban) to fix. It is an issue, although I don't see CZE falling into the same trap that MTG did, the engines we've seen are pretty tame in comparison to Necro and Prosbloom.

Leingod
08-24-2013, 12:33 AM
I'd really wonder if anyone wanted a competitively non-diverse metagame. So far, the spoilered stuff looks pretty good honestly. There's some strong control and some strong agro. Closest thing to combo I have really seen is shin hare + ritualist, eye of creation + chloro, and maybe artidwarf volcannon style stuff. Even then, it isn't "really" that much combo like in many mtg combo decks where you'd simply go infinite or near infinite and win a 1 player game. I'd actually like a bit more combo style stuff from the rest of set 1 but I can understand not really wanting it in the first set since it is generally unfun to fight.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-24-2013, 12:57 AM
Combo decks are weak unless you do nothing to mess with their plans. For that reason they will never be top tier decks. This has been shown in MTG and other card games. If they become OP, they get nerfed. This is a non-issue.
There have been plenty of top/high tier combo decks throughout Magic's history. In standard not too long ago we had Deceiver Twin, and modern even more recently had Eggs. And reanimator has been around for ages, at times doing well enough to make it into the higher tiers.

I mainly wanted to confirm community perspective as we move forward, and it does seem like people want a metagame where each part of the triangle can be represented strongly. Combo has just been a concern of some people due to a few decent combo enabling cards currently known, and not as many decent answers.

keldrin
08-24-2013, 01:48 AM
I would imagine, most decks will have sinergy, if not out right combos in them.
It's part of deck building trying to make the cards work together to be stronger than the face value of the individual cards.

I'm not really wanting way over powered combos dominating the game. But, what if there are combo options that compliment the various deck styles? Would there still be a outcry against the combos then?

Kroan
08-24-2013, 01:56 AM
I think what Jax means are endless combo's to win in one turn or make it impossible for the opponent to win. Think of a deck that can gain infinite life or create a bazillion attackers

Although these decks exist in real life magic, they are not as often seen on MTGO since the nature of online will make them consume more time to play out the combo (i.e. if you have to do three clicks in a row to gain 1 life, getting a 1000 life might take a while). In real life you can take shorcuts (You do it once and then say "and now I repeat this a 1000 times")

The last deck I can remember on magic doing that was the Angel of Glory Rise - Fiendhunter deck. It wasn't really playable online though for the reason I just mentioned.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-24-2013, 02:37 AM
I would imagine, most decks will have sinergy, if not out right combos in them.
It's part of deck building trying to make the cards work together to be stronger than the face value of the individual cards.

I'm not really wanting way over powered combos dominating the game. But, what if there are combo options that compliment the various deck styles? Would there still be a outcry against the combos then?
Synergy is fine. If I want to play Jadiim and Wild Root Dancer so that every card I play gives Jadiim a buff, there's no issue, that's (potentially) good deckbuilding.


I think what Jax means are endless combo's to win in one turn or make it impossible for the opponent to win. Think of a deck that can gain infinite life or create a bazillion attackers
It doesn't have to be infinite. Plenty of the competitive Magic combo decks weren't infinite - reanimator and storm are just two of the commonly known ones where they're just (usually) crazy strong once-only haymakers (like playing 4 surge-mana spells into Dragonstorm, or reanimating an early Iona).

Vengus
08-24-2013, 02:56 AM
The more diverse the metagame is, the better. I don't want this to be like Yu-Gi-Oh was where during the time I played only one type of deck was the best at any one time, which often made tournaments pretty repetitive since every deck was the same.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-24-2013, 02:59 AM
I do want to stress that I don't even know if there's a problem yet. There's just the potential to be one (obvious combo cards having been made, and only being ~350 cards in set 1 far less answers to deal with combo cards than standard-format Magic has, with its minimum of at least 5 sets at any given time (and as such well over 1000 cards)). Just wanted to confirm community opinion if it looks like it might actually be an issue. ^_-

Vengus
08-24-2013, 03:08 AM
I do want to stress that I don't even know if there's a problem yet. There's just the potential to be one (obvious combo cards having been made, and only being ~350 cards in set 1 far less answers to deal with combo cards than standard-format Magic has, with its minimum of at least 5 sets at any given time (and as such well over 1000 cards)). Just wanted to confirm community opinion if it looks like it might actually be an issue. ^_-
The first set isn't going to put certain decks above the rest, the cards are too basic for that to achieve. This was intended because CRZ wanted this set to be an introductory set. Set 2 and beyond will bring in a lot more complex cards though with complex mechanics, so the chances of the set containing something breakable are bigger. :p

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-24-2013, 03:19 AM
The first set isn't going to put certain decks above the rest, the cards are too basic for that to achieve. This was intended because CRZ wanted this set to be an introductory set. Set 2 and beyond will bring in a lot more complex cards though with complex mechanics, so the chances of the set containing something breakable are bigger. :p
Well of course we need the full spoiler and enough testing in alpha so the meta can stabilize, but right now they've spoiled a few combo cards which do have the potential to do very powerful things with very few answers. While the spoiler may offer enough interaction and answers that these cards aren't a problem, with the information we currently have, I don't think it's harmful to gauge what the community wants, so that if decent enough answers aren't within the rest of the spoiler we can say to CZE "please adjust a few cards; the meta is skewed dramatically towards combo" (or aggro or control if that's the case instead).

I don't agree that all the cards are 'too basic' to be abusable or breakable though. They've already spoiled very powerful comboable cards from set 1.

Icepick
08-24-2013, 04:09 AM
I'd want as many different deck types as possible to be competitive. If the meta has only 2 or 3 winning deck types then it becomes pretty boring, especially if you don't like playing those particular decks.

gohan661
08-24-2013, 04:36 AM
If there are only a couple of FoTM decks that always win this game will get boring fast. I'd like there to be hard decks but when you sit and think about it and come up with a new idea on a unique deck you can still win. I don't want it to be like Pokemon where you need EX-pokemon/plasma decks to win

Malicus
08-24-2013, 04:59 AM
...I don't think it's harmful to gauge what the community wants, so that if decent enough answers aren't within the rest of the spoiler we can say to CZE "please adjust a few cards; the meta is skewed dramatically towards combo" (or aggro or control if that's the case instead).
...

TBH I would prefer if it happens that you make the argument - "combo seems to be skewing the meta significantly this is why I think it may be bad ..." rather than "the 'community' would prefer this not be so".

My reasons for this are that even if you get forum consensus and even on the off chance that it is universal it is unnecessary and presumptive when rational argument is stronger.

That said in my opinion I hope a ton of decks are viable including all the archetype hybrids and I imagine that will be their goal.

Stok3d
08-24-2013, 05:06 AM
Function's Interview with Ben Stoll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTJkq0-V7pY#t=354) 7:00 speaks on 'Combo Decks'. While this isn't a recording of Ben's words, it's a "summary of the conversation".

ossuary
08-24-2013, 05:07 AM
Combos can be fun to play at times, but there's nothing more frustrating than getting killed on turn 2 or 3 before you've even really started. It feels like wasted time to be on a the receiving end of a successful combo. I'd much rather that the tournament stream is more diverse and balanced so that every single deck you face is not a combo.

locust
08-24-2013, 05:43 AM
I would like to see a meta game with combo, control and agro. All being viable, good options. You know, the old paper scissor rock

Gulbech
08-24-2013, 10:36 AM
Agree with Locust, think all different styles should be competetive. I just dont hope they make combos that are so powerful that if you get i through i turn 6 it is auto win, if you dont you lose. I rather have some small combos or good synergies then a combo who wins the game if it goes through.

One thing i defently dont want to see, is infinty comboes - i just hate it.

Best regard
Gulbech

LargoLaGrande
08-24-2013, 11:12 AM
I don't agree that all the cards are 'too basic' to be abusable or breakable though. They've already spoiled very powerful comboable cards from set 1.

What combos are you worried about exactly? We don't have a good draw engine, and Hideous Conversion is a pretty inefficient mana engine. The best thing I can see, right now, would be Eyeing for 5-6 on turn 4, or playing a turn 4 Jadim/Uruunaz, which are both strong but hardly degenerate (or consistent).

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-24-2013, 11:57 AM
Comboable cards, not specific combos. A cast Eye of Creation can only really be answered by Countermagic, and while that's true for certain combo decks in MTG (ie. storm is hard to interact with if you aren't playing blue), MTG has more answers given that all their tournaments are either limited, or constructed using at least 5 sets of cards.

Again, it's impossible to say if there'll be an issue until the whole set is out, but I felt it was prudent to get a clear sense from the community if we did or didn't want the high level meta dominated by one archetype, and I think we got that, so if it does end up being an issue we're already prepared to say "hey, look at what we think".

I'm not going to go into specific decklists, but there's currently one that's testing very well. I haven't actually played it myself, and I do have an idea as to how it could possibly get beaten, the issue with this (and another deck with a difficult to deal with card) is that the deck isn't one dimensional and doesn't need the combo to win - but actually getting it off is a much surer thing than the other methods of winning.

Edit: and even if there weren't any comboable cards that had been spoiled yet, the purpose of this thread wasn't to debate that; it was to establish what the community actually wants to see in the high level metagame. >.<

tautologico
08-24-2013, 12:00 PM
I can't see why anyone would want a less diverse metagame, so I don't know how useful is this question.

LargoLaGrande
08-24-2013, 12:07 PM
Edit: and even if there weren't any comboable cards that had been spoiled yet, the purpose of this thread wasn't to debate that; it was to establish what the community actually wants to see in the high level metagame. >.<

No, that's fair. I just wasn't sure if this was motivated by worries about degenerate things happening right now or not because it seems weird to me that anyone would want a degenerate metagame.

Xenavire
08-24-2013, 03:14 PM
I want cards that can combo, but aren't going to break anything. Then they should be on par with aggro and control.

I want to be able to use or play against anything at any time. More fun that way.

stiii
08-24-2013, 04:19 PM
Yes I do want a meta game dominated by combo decks.

Lafoote
08-24-2013, 04:47 PM
I like diversity. Things will flow back and forth occasionally, but overall balance is best. I'm sick to death of the current "all control, all the time" magic meta-game currently in place. I wouldn't be sad to see Snapcaster involved in a hit and run with Mishra's war machine.

Leingod
08-24-2013, 06:50 PM
I do agree that there is definitely very little disruption available atm. With mainly just void leech, countermagic, and omen of oblivion for targeted disruption. I'm only worried about eye of creation if it does in fact allow you to drop every resource it reveals. Otherwise no big deal, though it could probably stand to not reactivate itself for free.

Errantsquire
08-24-2013, 07:13 PM
To answer you Jax, and as someone that has played Combo online I'd prefer if infinite combo decks did not exist. I feel that Cory feels this way too as in may of his interviews he talks about "degenerate" combos. Most of the time this can be changed simply by adding resource costs. I am however ok with combo's that are strong that allow for card advantage. Combo's I've played online in the past include the Kiki-Jiki infinite dudes combo, and the Melira, Kitchen Finks, Viscera Seer combo. Typically combo is kept in check with control however right now there's only one counter in the format. If combo is going to be available there needs to be more counter magic available IMO. This of coarse is another point of contention as a control/denial deck type also makes for a very annoying experience for your opponent.

felmare
08-24-2013, 09:09 PM
No I wouldn't like meta being dominated by combo decks

A_e-n
08-24-2013, 10:04 PM
Why would anyone NOT want a diverse metagame?

This.

lucedes
08-24-2013, 11:06 PM
i don't want any combo decks in the metagame whatsoever
or burn decks, or fast red decks, or draw-go control

just 100% midrange and tempo, fighting one another

Edswor
08-25-2013, 12:51 AM
To answer you Jax, and as someone that has played Combo online I'd prefer if infinite combo decks did not exist ...

Exactly, as long as infinite combos does not exists, combo decks are fine but must be balanced with the other type of decks so the metagame is diverse.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-25-2013, 12:58 AM
To go off track a little bit, why are people against infinite combos but not against combo in general?

I'm just curious, as to me, whether my opponent kills me with a turn 5 Burn to the Ground for 30 via some sort of combotastic means, or he kills me with some sort of infinite combo on turn 5, the end result is the same. :-P Sure, infinite combos usually allow for a stronger position if the opponent doesn't die immediately for whatever reason, but from my perspective, a loss to a combo deck is a loss whether it comes in the form of a massive haymaker or an infinite number of jabs.

Is it a time thing? Or do people not like the power level infinite combos represent?

(Personally, I'm a fan of having infinite combos around, as long as they don't interfere with having a balanced metagame. And I love having janky infinite combos in non-competitive games; 4 or 5 card combos in casual Magic have been fun, as they shouldn't be allowed to go off - needing that many cards your opponent should be able to disrupt you easily - but when they do go off, it's glorious ^^)

funktion
08-25-2013, 01:29 AM
To go off track a little bit, why are people against infinite combos but not against combo in general?


Yeah, I really don't understand this logic either but it seems like a lot of people have strong feelings about it. A loss is a loss in my book. I think combo is fine so long as it's interactive at some point in the game. Whether it's a non-interactive combo but takes multiple turns to assemble or one that is interactive while it's going off.

A healthy meta makes for a healthy game.

Unhurtable
08-25-2013, 04:36 AM
To go off track a little bit, why are people against infinite combos but not against combo in general?

I'm just curious, as to me, whether my opponent kills me with a turn 5 Burn to the Ground for 30 via some sort of combotastic means, or he kills me with some sort of infinite combo on turn 5, the end result is the same. :-P Sure, infinite combos usually allow for a stronger position if the opponent doesn't die immediately for whatever reason, but from my perspective, a loss to a combo deck is a loss whether it comes in the form of a massive haymaker or an infinite number of jabs.

Is it a time thing? Or do people not like the power level infinite combos represent?

(Personally, I'm a fan of having infinite combos around, as long as they don't interfere with having a balanced metagame. And I love having janky infinite combos in non-competitive games; 4 or 5 card combos in casual Magic have been fun, as they shouldn't be allowed to go off - needing that many cards your opponent should be able to disrupt you easily - but when they do go off, it's glorious ^^)

Because infinite combos are harder to proactively prevent. A combo deck has more counters, since it has all the counters of a infinite combo deck + some others since its not infinite.

Personally though, I think its a sign of bad design. One major cornerstone of turn-based games is that there are limits to how much you can do on a turn.

Errantsquire
08-25-2013, 05:13 AM
To go off track a little bit, why are people against infinite combos but not against combo in general?

I'm just curious, as to me, whether my opponent kills me with a turn 5 Burn to the Ground for 30 via some sort of combotastic means, or he kills me with some sort of infinite combo on turn 5, the end result is the same. :-P Sure, infinite combos usually allow for a stronger position if the opponent doesn't die immediately for whatever reason, but from my perspective, a loss to a combo deck is a loss whether it comes in the form of a massive haymaker or an infinite number of jabs.

Is it a time thing? Or do people not like the power level infinite combos represent?

(Personally, I'm a fan of having infinite combos around, as long as they don't interfere with having a balanced metagame. And I love having janky infinite combos in non-competitive games; 4 or 5 card combos in casual Magic have been fun, as they shouldn't be allowed to go off - needing that many cards your opponent should be able to disrupt you easily - but when they do go off, it's glorious ^^)

Typically an unanswered infinite combo wins on the spot whereas a non-infinite combo does not. I have at least 2-3 turns to answer a non-infinite combo and even then it's still a more traditional win than an infinite one. Jax, given your example of graveyard recursion to produce a haymaker ahead of your actual resource curve I can still answer that one creature and typically your card commitment is 2 or 3 to one in order to make that happen. You have given your opponent virtual card advantage in this case and it's still not a sure thing plus the time to deal with it.

The most recent example in MTG standard I would cite follows this formula -

Step 1 - Find a way to put Griselbrand into your graveyard
Step 2 - Get enough mana to cast unburial rights (4 or 5)
Step 3 - Cast unburial rites putting your haymaker into play,
Step 4 - Wait for summoning sickness to wear off
Step 6 - Attack for 3 turns (or so) and hope your opponent doesn't have removal or tons of chump block and win

This example ignores the fact that once Griselbrand is in play he pulls your card advantage back at the cost of life (pay 7 life draw 7 cards activated ability) but even that can be bad if you have removal as a response.

This combo line leaves a lot of room for disruption and gives your opponent typically 7-9 turns to deal with you. The card advantage you give up to play Griselbrand initially is 2-3 depending on if you can cast unburial rites from the graveyard as you don't lose any cards that way.

Lets compare this to the MTG Modern Kiki-Jiki/Splinter Twin combo -

Step 1 - Draw the 2 combo pieces and prepare to cast it on your opponents end of turn by using card drawing/deck manipulation
Step 2 - Play the first piece of the combo on your opponents EOT wait for a response
Step 3 - Decide if you want your combo to go off by looking at your opponents open recourses cards in hand and their poker face
Step 4 - Play the combo of Kiki/Splinter Twin with the other half that's already in play activate the combo 10k times (infinite is not a number you have to pick a number) and win on the spot if it goes unanswered

You could actually reduce these steps down to about 2. This combo also requires much less card committal/card space in your main deck. Also your opponent needs to know how to properly answer this combo which leads me to believe this does not belong in a standard rotation as it would turn off new players.

In summary judgment of combo should be assessed based on how many cards it takes to make it happen, the power level of the combo to win on the spot, the ability your opponent will have to stifle the combo given the current recourses available, and the chances of drawing/not drawing the proper cards in order to play the combo.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-25-2013, 08:44 AM
In summary judgment of combo should be assessed based on how many cards it takes to make it happen, the power level of the combo to win on the spot, the ability your opponent will have to stifle the combo given the current recourses available, and the chances of drawing/not drawing the proper cards in order to play the combo.
Exactly. IMO, it should not be based on infinite/not infinite, but rather the power of the combo itself (with a few different indicators to help determine this), which is why this aversion to combos purely on the basis of them as infinite puzzles me. I'd much rather face a weak infinite combo, than a strong one-shot combo.

But yeah, to touch on something else, there are certainly strong one-hit combos that aren't infinite. I used reanimator as an example as its commonly known; Dragonstorm was one that usually won on the turn it was played, and pretty much needed counterspell/s to stop thanks to winning after resolution via non-combat damage (Bogardan Hellkite). Admittedly, needs more cards than Deceiver Twin, but that combo wasn't exactly resilient either given that removal could also stop it (from my experience, the strongest combos require counterspells to prevent them from doing what they intend).

TheGateKeeper
08-25-2013, 09:16 AM
I want combo to be viable. I do not want it be play combo or lose but I want be to be able to play combo decks. I hate how in Magic Standard is devoid of combo decks and Modern the combo decks get banned.

Nicalapegus
08-25-2013, 09:41 AM
Referencing Combo Winter as a reason to be worried about this is ludicrous. That was 15 years ago. We know a lot more about game design and balance than we did 15 years ago. See: current MTG meta. Combo decks are nonexistant. As I said earlier, combo decks are super weak if you mess with their plans. If you sit there and watch them play their hand out of course they will win. And so will you if the shoe's on the other foot.

Personally, I would like a meta dominated by any kind of deck other than aggro(as it is in the current MTG meta). Control/Combo are more intuitive than simply putting down monsters and attacking(See: Hearthstone).

calisk
08-25-2013, 08:50 PM
if the mtg tournament meta is an example you will usually end up with several variations on a few types of decks, and every new set this will change differently as the blocks cycle out.

I can hope for more then this with hex, but I would settle for at least that much.

4gn0st1x
08-26-2013, 06:58 AM
I wouldn't mind a caw blade format where one deck completely dominates to the point of it being the only deck you should play. Then it forms its own meta by continously changing and morphing itself into different versions to fight the original and other versions springing up. That was some of the most enjoyable magic I've played.

BlackRoger
08-26-2013, 08:33 AM
I don't think crypto should be looking to make combo decks viable.
Even if its fun for you to play its very frustrating for your opponent.

Sure if he ends turn with all lands tapped you should be able to punish him, but winning the game out of nowhere without anything he can do about it seems a bit too much for me.

Also hate how all non-standard formats of MTG consist of a few combo decks (workshop, affinity, oath etc...) and anti-como decks...
non-standard MTG just devolved to a turn 3 or 4 - we know who will win already.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-26-2013, 08:39 AM
I don't think crypto should be looking to make combo decks viable.
Even if its fun for you to play its very frustrating for your opponent.
Personally, I feel that competitive levels of TCG are primarily about winning/losing (ie. power level of decks), rather than fun. When I go into an event and try to win, whether or not my opponent had fun during the game is an afterthought (of course, I hope we all have fun playing, but if someone asks me if I'd rather win matches in a competitive tournament or that my opponents and I have fun matches, I'm definitely opting for winning).


Also hate how all non-standard formats of MTG consist of a few combo decks (workshop, affinity, oath etc...) and anti-como decks...
non-standard MTG just devolved to a turn 3 or 4 - we know who will win already.
This is just not true - at least, not in modern, and I'm pretty sure not in legacy. There are viable non-combo decks in both these formats, and the top 2 modern decks in the recent world championships were UWR control and GW aggro (admittedly not traditional aggro, consisting of hexproof + auras).

BlackRoger
08-26-2013, 09:17 AM
When I go into an event and try to win, whether or not my opponent had fun during the game is an afterthought

I guess we just have different approach then.
If you would tell me that at a certain game the fun factor will go down as I progress, I would steer clear of that game to begin with.


the top 2 modern decks in the recent world championships were UWR control and GW aggro

Went over the modern championship decklists and I have to admit you are right.
I am not an expert on magic, was watching some qualifiers and saw mostly vids of those 3 decks and fish decks with alot of hate.
Possibly I was seeing vintage then, since I remmember alot of Force of will going around (saw non of these on the modern decklists)

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-26-2013, 09:26 AM
Yep, Force of Will isn't modern legal. That's not to say there aren't straight up combo decks or combo-ish decks in modern, but they're far less common due to less cards being available.

But in regards to competitive gaming, this attitude doesn't appeal to everyone, but it's not hand-holding and hoping everyone has a good time at the expense of their potential to win. The bottom line, is to do whatever you legally can to win. This isn't to say be a bad sport, and you'll oftentimes see good sportmanship in Magic games (ie. pros who know each other keeping cards their opponent has seen in their hand face up, because they know their opponent is keeping track anyway, so they're just making it easier on them), but they'll never, ever choose a deck that's weaker than the one they think will do the best, just because they think the best deck is less fun for the opponent. That's more for casual gaming - and I do agree, in terms of casual matches fun should be number one on people's minds (but then, that's controlled by the people having the casual game).

In any case, I would argue that most games with a high competitive ceiling have the potential to 'lose' fun, because players are having to build the most competitive decks possible, which aren't necessarily going to be the most fun decks. If we compare to Starcraft 2, at the highest levels the strategies that are the most successful may not be the most fun. In most games with that competitive scene, you usually have to prioritize between what you're looking for - fun or competitive. And while they're not mutually exclusive, sometimes you may have to give up some of one for more of the other.

Gulbech
08-26-2013, 10:00 AM
Also hate how all non-standard formats of MTG consist of a few combo decks (workshop, affinity, oath etc...) and anti-como decks...
non-standard MTG just devolved to a turn 3 or 4 - we know who will win already.

This is very true in classic (all editions allowed), in competetive decks you know the winner often by turn 2 :( - much better i standard (the newest editions) - not many combo decks either. More control or aggro.

Deathfog
08-26-2013, 12:27 PM
Almost all viable decks will be 'combo' as opposed to a collection of singularly high quality/efficiency cards. Many cards are built around synergy with others.

stiii
08-26-2013, 12:35 PM
In this thread we learn

1: people have no clue what combo means
or
2: combo means different things in different group

Depending on how kind you want to be. Affinty is not a combo deck nor is UG madness (a deck built around card synergy)

4gn0st1x
08-26-2013, 01:14 PM
People need to watch some star city games legacy open coverage and learn what combo is.

ossuary
08-26-2013, 02:00 PM
More importantly, people need to "be excellent to each other."

Party on, dudes. :cool:

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 10:35 PM
The greatest part is when people say combo decks "win out of nowhere."

No, they win when you do nothing to disrupt their plans, apply no pressure and let them set up, etc etc etc.....

Nicalapegus
08-26-2013, 10:55 PM
...Possibly I was seeing vintage then, since I remmember alot of Force of will going around (saw non of these on the modern decklists)

Force of Will is a combo card? Please, if you know nothing about the subject don't post.

FeelNFine
08-27-2013, 12:06 AM
In this thread we learn

1: people have no clue what combo means
or
2: combo means different things in different group

Depending on how kind you want to be. Affinty is not a combo deck nor is UG madness (a deck built around card synergy)

I'm going to go with #2. Even though Hex is 95% Magic, it did bring in people from an assortment of games, and intuitively Combo means 2 or more things that work well together, not necessarily 2 or more things which when combined equals a win (which it has come to mean in Magic).

Back to the origional topic at hand, I would like Combo decks (MTG definition) to slowly become viable. I can't say I want anything to dominate, but the old rush beats combo beats control beats rush would be nice. Infinite combos maybe never. Both because of PvE balance, and because nothing is more disheartening to a new player judging how 'pay to win' the game is then taking a 9999/9999 to the face.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-27-2013, 12:19 AM
Force of Will is a combo card? Please, if you know nothing about the subject don't post.
I'm pretty sure they didn't actually say that. ^^ They were right in that they would've been watching vintage or legacy due to the presence of FoW, and we all know how important it is in those formats as a combo breaker.

Xenavire
08-27-2013, 03:46 AM
For people whining about the difference between synergy and combo, let me use Yugioh as an example. There were plenty of dragon, spellcaster, and zombie decks with amazing synergy, but none of them were combos.

However, many new decks are based on combos and chain summoning synchro or XYZ monsters. It is not synergy when seemingly unrelated cards can be used to create overpowered effects. That is why they have a ban list, and the reason Rescue cat (one of the most unlikely bans) made the ban list in the first place, much like Yatagarasu and Witch of the black forest... Things that were not powerful alone were easy to combo with. And they didn't have to go infinite, it only had to give an advantage that was difficult to deal with.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-27-2013, 04:07 AM
And from a Magic perspective:

Synergy is playing Phantasmal Image and Sun Titan in the same deck, and thus getting multiple Sun Titans when you cast one (due to PI's in the graveyard). Another example would be running Power Conduit and persist/undying creatures in the same deck (as Power Conduit can remove a counter from a creature, allowing easy reuse of the triggers).

Combo is an explosive haymaker designed to go a fair way towards winning, if not outright winning there and then. An example would be reanimator (turn 1 Swamp into Dark Ritual into Entomb (picking something devastating like Iona, Griselbran or Sire of Insanity) + Animate Dead). Another example is Dragonstorm, or storm in general (dragonstorm consists of casting a few ramp spells like Seething Song and Dark Ritual, then casting the 9-mana dragonstorm, usually fetching out 4 Borgardan Hellkites to do 20 damage to the face).

Infinite combo follows on from the above, but the series of actions can be repeated ad infinitum - as an example, Melira-persist (if you have Melira, Sylvok Outcast out, a persist creature like Kitchen Finks and a sacrifice outlet like Viscera Seer, you can gain infinite triggers off the persist creature - so infinite life off the Finks, or infinite damage off of Murderous Redcap). While non-infinite combos like Dragonstorm can often win the game on the spot, infinite combos that actually do as they're intended almost always do, or at least put the game well and truly in their favor (as is the case with infinite life).

I will point out that infinite combos in a digital TCG are actually much slower than in real life given that, at least in Magic, there are rules in the game that allow for 'shortcuts' for actions that can be repeated to infinity, so you go from 20 to 1 million in a few seconds - but in digital TCGs (at least with MTGO) you have to repeat each step of the process. While it's possible for a game to incorporate a shortcutted system when a loop can be demonstrated (and personally, as someone that isn't against to infinite combos I think that'd be a nice feature to make sure the game isn't 'missing out' on something from physical TCGs), I'd imagine most people will settle for relatively small amounts with their infinite combos, given that they'll be against the clock. So maybe 200 life instead of 200 million, or 50 creatures being made instead of 50 million. :-P

Xenavire
08-27-2013, 05:42 AM
And the things boil down to pretty much the same thing. I did omit synergy in Yugioh when not typed or things specifically designed to work together (like your Titan example, Yugioh has a fair share of unorthodox synergies that are not combos.)

Magic does have synergies though, like Affinity and things like Kithkin, or the passive buff like glorious anthem with a white weenie deck. But a combo generally uses two or more parts to get a significant advantage with as small a loss to yourself as possible. Generally they are also using loopholes, like Kiki-Jiki and Intruder alarm (infinite) or Acadamy rector and Omniscience. It doesn't take much to turn those things into win conditions, and both can be done very early in the game (around turn 4/5). But on the other hand, those combos can't win without some kind of support (Kiki-Jiki needs something non-legendary to copy, and you just need things to play off Omniscience.)

Ebynfel
08-27-2013, 07:43 AM
I want to see a metagame where tempo and midrange decks can find success. You speak of a triangle, but there is an "in between" for aggro and control :)

Mindless
08-28-2013, 02:09 PM
I don't want decks that kills someone in 4- turns as I want it to be a brawl and not a rush. Also I want all cards/combos/strategies to be viable to some extent and see diversity as many have said.

EDIT: I would also like for no cards to be banned or cards that will be banned will undergo redesigned.