PDA

View Full Version : Can someone explain blue control decks to me.



zilverdael
04-05-2015, 10:42 AM
I've just played a match against a blue control deck and it's reminded me of why I despise TGC's in a competitive setting, but more importantly it reminded me of a question I've had ever since I first did anything with TGC's: Why are (blue) control decks considered non-toxic?

Now I'm not asking why they're balanced, though I'd be damned if I could think of a truly effective counter against them since it mostly just seems to come down to being lucky enough that they don't draw what they need to completly stop you in your tracks. I'm asking why they're not considered toxic to play against because they're simply no fun at all to face.

The reason I'm asking is because of the following. The first game in this match was fairly boring because appearantly he did not pull what he needed so I more or less steamrolled him, which took ages but at no point was he providing any real opposition, he basicly just delayed the inevitable slightly. But during both the second and third match he drew something usefull quite quickly, and I ended up with more than half my deck in the graveyard, but without ever actually really being threatened in any way. In the third match I would even have been winning if it wasn't for the fact that everything even remotely usefull had been banished to the graveyard by turn 10 without me drawing it (it ended with me giving up because all I had was an army of battle hoppers but nothing to make em pack a punch, despite him having less than 10 health and me not even being hit once yet).

Now none of these matches was even remotely fun. During the first I didn't feel like I was playing better since he didn't provide any real resistance, all he did was postpone the inevitable by dragging out the match. On the other hand during the 2nd and 3th match I didn't feel like he was playing better, he just had a lucky start and ended up denying me anything remotely usefull by making me discard half my deck, which again didn't feel like he provided any real resistance, just like I was now playing with a deck consisting solely of shards and battle hoppers which just isn't very productive.

Which leads me to my question, how is such a deck not considered toxic? On the one hand when it fails it is a drag to play against because it just postpones the inevitable, and on the other when it does succeed it's just annoying because at no point is it a real threat, you just never get to attempt to do anything because everything gets immeadiatly voided/discared/negated/etc. if it even makes it into your hand at all. So how is this considered interesting in any way and not just really annoying?

MaximumSquid
04-05-2015, 11:05 AM
Most of the sapphire cards that are used competitively are relativity weak by themselves. . .
Or are actually useless until a very specific opportunity presents itself (and then they are amazing)

Normally you would have a large number of losing games running mono sapphire just due to random card draw
To get around this though sapphire is given utility and support cards to make their decks less random

On the flip side of things: PvE sapphire decks actually are fueled by random events, but I won't waste time on that now

---

You're wondering about mono sapphire in competitive?
Here is a deck list I grabbed in 5 seconds off of a fansite: http://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=7877

Tempo-wise the deck is incredibly weak at the start of the game and due to this actually needs to wrestle back control during midgame. . . once late game hits (turn 5+) the deck has almost total control of the board from that point on

The obvious counter to this deck would be to run something fast that tries to win by turn 4 consistently along with having at least 1 alternative win condition. . . you'll notice the deck can't gain life so burn seems like an obvious choice, but there are many options

A less obvious choice is to run interference; if that deck does not hit 5 resource (or even 4) they are 100% screwed!

Sinistarlol
04-05-2015, 11:07 AM
I'm inclined to agree, this type of behavior when playing against opponents with the amount of 4x murders, 4x bounce backs in every way possible, repels, there's just too many for sapphire. time ripple, then the ability to make endless copies with scheme; exhaustion if your troops do somehow make it out on the field; plenty of other things.

Worse part is; if you play competitively, you have to have at least 10-16 cards devoted to destroy void or bounce; because you can bet your opponent will do the same EVERYTIME.

Although, I've had opponents run 4x bucaneers, 4x time ripple; 4x yesterday, a bunch of discard and mill backups; cards that come in play to exhaust troops; 4x mirror blade for the bucanner; etc. it's just super repetitive and built on the purpose to watch you be tormented by the deck.

Vorpal
04-05-2015, 11:10 AM
It sounds like you faced a mill deck not so much a control deck.

A lot of people find mill frustrating to play against.

Mahes
04-05-2015, 11:13 AM
Most of the sapphire cards that are used competitively are relativity weak by themselves. . .
Or are actually useless until a very specific opportunity presents itself (and then they are amazing)

Normally you would have a large number of losing games running mono sapphire just due to random card draw
To get around this though sapphire is given utility and support cards to make their decks less random

On the flip side of things: PvE sapphire decks actually are fueled by random events, but I won't waste time on that now

---

You're wondering about mono sapphire in competitive?
Here is a deck list I grabbed in 5 seconds off of a fansite: http://hex.tcgbrowser.com/#!/deck=7877

Tempo-wise the deck is incredibly weak at the start of the game and due to this actually needs to wrestle back control during midgame. . . once late game hits (turn 5+) the deck has almost total control of the board from that point on

The obvious counter to this deck would be to run something fast that tries to win by turn 4 consistently along with having at least 1 alternative win condition. . . you'll notice the deck can't gain life so burn seems like an obvious choice, but there are many options

A less obvious choice is to run interference; if that deck does not hit 5 resource (or even 4) they are 100% screwed!

Mirror Knights and Reese make that deck a lot more powerful. That is the cheaper variant of mono-blue.

asdf2000
04-05-2015, 11:26 AM
I am sorry you didn't have fun. Maybe you should play a different game. It sounds like the deck you were up against did what it was built to do.

You complain in the 2nd and 3rd game "you feel like he wasn't playing better, just lucky", but out of all decks sapphire control/tempo decks are probably one of the most skill based in the game. You are basically complaining about playing against "control" which is half of the decks in this type of game.

Honestly, your attitude makes it sound like you are most likely just annoyed and very dismissive of the thought/skill your opponent has to put into their play.



All this said, blue probably is a little too strong right now, it's tempo really is a little overpowered. But you gotta have a good attitude about it.

MaximumSquid
04-05-2015, 11:35 AM
More powerful against what? Certainly not a fast deck. . .

I saw Reese pop once in the last month and he died the next turn to a 1-drop that I tossed Ruby Aura onto

I also 100% disagree with M-Knight being better in that list. . .
(get him into a two-color deck where he belongs!)

zilverdael
04-05-2015, 01:29 PM
O no, I like TGC's quite a lot, I do however not like to play competivly because people have a tendency to abuse the crap out of any mechanic that works which leads to annoying games like this where the victory/loss just feels increadibly cheap. So I tend to avoid playing with people who use these kind of decks.

Anyway yes it did what it was supposed to do, but my question is why is it acceptable to have a deck that is supposed to do this? It's utterly unfun. As for the skill, it appears to solely be luck of the draw given the vast difference in succes for his deck in the first and the second or third game. First game he doesn't draw something usefull hence he goes down without any real fight, second and third he does draw something usefull and essentially chances my deck into a graveyard. It's not like he carefully blocked everything I did, hell in the third match I had a significant lead until he took out the one usefull card I managed to get on the field, at which point I gave up as my remaining deck now basicly consisted of only shards. Had I drawn an onslaught or virtually anything remotely usefull at any point I'd have won by a massive margin as literally the only thing he had done up till that point was make me discard stuff.

And even if it is one of the more skill based decks (seriously how?), it doesn't appear that way. It just feels cheap. And if you're going to reply that the skill is in building the deck, well while I'd agree that building the deck requires some thought there's two problems with that. 1) Chances are the vast majority of people just googled the deck (or at least the core of it) kind of negating the skill of it and 2) The actual game isn't supposed to be about deck building, of course the meta game is important and whatnot, but if that's where all/most of the skill goes to I'd wager something's gone wrong...

Hence my question why are these kind of playstyles deemed in any way healthy. I'm genuinly curious as they appear to be rather a staple of the genre, which I find weird given how utterly annoying and unfun they are. I'm not calling them overpowered (haven't faced enough of them in HEX to say if they are or not), I'm just really curious how this became such a staple while being so freaking annoying to play against.

sukebe
04-05-2015, 01:46 PM
O no, I like TGC's quite a lot, I do however not like to play competivly because people have a tendency to abuse the crap out of any mechanic that works which leads to annoying games like this where the victory/loss just feels increadibly cheap. So I tend to avoid playing with people who use these kind of decks.

Anyway yes it did what it was supposed to do, but my question is why is it acceptable to have a deck that is supposed to do this? It's utterly unfun. As for the skill, it appears to solely be luck of the draw given the vast difference in succes for his deck in the first and the second or third game. First game he doesn't draw something usefull hence he goes down without any real fight, second and third he does draw something usefull and essentially chances my deck into a graveyard. It's not like he carefully blocked everything I did, hell in the third match I had a significant lead until he took out the one usefull card I managed to get on the field, at which point I gave up as my remaining deck now basicly consisted of only shards. Had I drawn an onslaught or virtually anything remotely usefull at any point I'd have won by a massive margin as literally the only thing he had done up till that point was make me discard stuff.

And even if it is one of the more skill based decks (seriously how?), it doesn't appear that way. It just feels cheap. And if you're going to reply that the skill is in building the deck, well while I'd agree that building the deck requires some thought there's two problems with that. 1) Chances are the vast majority of people just googled the deck (or at least the core of it) kind of negating the skill of it and 2) The actual game isn't supposed to be about deck building, of course the meta game is important and whatnot, but if that's where all/most of the skill goes to I'd wager something's gone wrong...

Hence my question why are these kind of playstyles deemed in any way healthy. I'm genuinly curious as they appear to be rather a staple of the genre, which I find weird given how utterly annoying and unfun they are. I'm not calling them overpowered (haven't faced enough of them in HEX to say if they are or not), I'm just really curious how this became such a staple while being so freaking annoying to play against.

If you can find any deck that can win when it "does not draw anything useful" I will concede that decks like the one you described are "entirely luck based". Honestly though, what you just described is any TCG deck :-)

I think it is important to remember/understand that what is fun for you is not necessarily fun for others. The opposite is also true. This game is not designed for just a small subset of people, it is designed to appeal to as many people as possible and that includes having as many play styles as possible.

zilverdael
04-05-2015, 02:03 PM
If you can find any deck that can win when it "does not draw anything useful" I will concede that decks like the one you described are "entirely luck based". Honestly though, what you just described is any TCG deck :-)

I think it is important to remember/understand that what is fun for you is not necessarily fun for others. The opposite is also true. This game is not designed for just a small subset of people, it is designed to appeal to as many people as possible and that includes having as many play styles as possible.

Well let me rephrase it, decks like this seem to revolve around a handfull of cards, if those are not drawn in time they are awefull and do not work, if those are drawn quickly enough they utterly demolish an opponent while allowing basicly no oppertunity for retaliation. The decks I usually like tend to have multiple ways to victory instead of just 3-4 cards that are absolutly mandatory to actually gain an advantage. The first I deem mostly luckbased as not drawing those 3-4 cards at the correct moment during a match is entirely plausible. Whereas if you have say 20 cards that can make a significant impact you're quite likely to at least draw something usefull over the course of a match. (also, arbitrary numbers are arbitrary, but you get the point hopefully...). And yes, a lot of competive decks seem to suffer from this which always annoyed me about TGC's, decks that revolve around spells like control decks just tend to have it be clearer as they won't be doing anything without the correct cards, while decks revolving around monsters will generally at least get something going even if they require that specific card to actually win.

As for everyone liking something else, who likes playing against these kind of decks and why? That's essentially the question I've been asking all along. I get why people use these decks, annoying you're opponent is frequently fun, but what's the fun of being on the recieving end? Is the type of deck that specificly counters this so immensly popular that somehow the toxic aspect of these kind of controlling/milling decks is effectivly reduced to a handfull of matches?

israel.kendall
04-05-2015, 02:11 PM
Control and mill really suck to play against. But they are also really fun to play. That is why we have them. They are they only decks with ragequit as a viable wincon.

asdf2000
04-05-2015, 02:13 PM
No one likes to lose, and sapphire tempo/control is probably the strongest deck type right now. Have you played against gorefeast decks? It is extremely common against those decks to lose and feel like there is nothing you could do. That isn't something that only happens against control. It's the nature of the game, sometimes there really is nothing you can do.

Aradon
04-05-2015, 02:24 PM
The word 'toxic' is somewhat useless here. It is poor behavior to verbally abuse your opponent, but you're completely entitled to play whatever deck you want. We can't decree a deck unacceptable just because some people don't like playing against it, and calling a play style 'toxic' doesn't make much sense. We're supposed to win however we can, so playing a good strategy makes sense. Just because you don't enjoy playing against this deck doesn't mean a) nobody else does, b) he shouldn't be able to play it. Calling behavior 'toxic' usually amounts to calling it unacceptable or somehow morally void, but it's pretty clear that our rights extend to playing the decks we want, and are limited to not verbally abusing other players. One is toxic, and the other is not.

Rant about your terminology aside, I don't see the problem here. You're saying that players shouldn't be able to play combo decks if they don't have good odds of drawing their pieces? Maybe they're having fun just trying to make their combo work at least once. If you don't enjoy it, you can either take your easy win against an inconsistent deck in a tournament, or if you're not in a tournament, move on to another player if you don't find that matchup fun. Or if you're losing to the deck that relies too much on a single card, you should be able to adapt your deck to counter it if you're running into it that often.

And I highly doubt that people are running decks just to annoy their opponents. People enjoy various cards for various reasons, and will play any deck if they think they can win with it, and lots of them even if they think they'll lose. I enjoy playing against all variety of decks, including the sort you've described (which sounds more like a mill deck than any true control) because it tests my deck's ability to take on a variety of threats. Many players consider playing the card game to be the challenge of a tcg, but I enjoy the deckbuilding process a lot more than the actual playing, so decks like these pose an interesting challenge to overcome.

And finally, you claim that his deck relied on certain key cards too much that, if he didn't get them, he couldn't win, but then you said that he essentially milled your deck and you were in the position of not being able to win because your key cards were gone. Doesn't that seem contradictory? It sounds to me more like you had a few landslide games in both directions rather than sustained testing & observation.

IronPheasant
04-05-2015, 04:29 PM
They exist so that you can play 6+ mana spells in decks that don't contain green.

ForgedSol
04-05-2015, 05:21 PM
To the OP, have you heard of Mark Rosewater's player-type classifications? Timmy, Johnny, and Spike?

Here's the first article (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b).

Here's the follow up (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b).

The reason why control decks exist is because the game is designed to have aspects of it that attract a wide variety of players. These players find different things fun. But not everyone will find every aspect fun, which is why it's important to have the game variety also be variable. The various formats, from Draft and Constructed to Arena.

Another possible reason, although I'm not familiar with the competitive scene just yet, and old Magic generalization was that Aggro decks beat Control decks. Control decks beat Combo decks. And Combo Decks beat Aggro decks. (Edit: To make sense) Purposefully designing cards for all three types of decks allowed for having a more diverse competitive scene, with various viable competitive decks to be chosen by all different kinds of player types. Like I said I don't know the competitive scene of Hex just yet. Still trying to catch up with all the changes since Alpha, but that could be another reason.

Tachi_The_Lion
04-05-2015, 09:42 PM
"... and old Magic generalization was that Aggro decks beat Control decks. Control decks beat Combo decks. And Combo Decks beat Control decks...."


Umm... Aggro FTW then?

Assassine
04-05-2015, 09:55 PM
Yeah he messed that up. It was supposed to be a triangle of aggro > control > midrange > aggro

Aradon
04-05-2015, 10:28 PM
The cycle is best understood in terms of tempo: a deck will generally lose to a deck that is slightly slower than it, but beat a deck it is much faster than. Therefore, aggro beats control, control beats midrange, and midrange beats aggro. Combo falls in wherever it will in terms of tempo. Some combo decks are very fast :P

This method of thinking about it encompasses decks of varying speed within their broad category as well. For example, two aggro decks facing each other will tend towards the slightly slower one being the winner,

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 12:51 AM
The word 'toxic' is somewhat useless here. It is poor behavior to verbally abuse your opponent, but you're completely entitled to play whatever deck you want. We can't decree a deck unacceptable just because some people don't like playing against it, and calling a play style 'toxic' doesn't make much sense. We're supposed to win however we can, so playing a good strategy makes sense. Just because you don't enjoy playing against this deck doesn't mean a) nobody else does, b) he shouldn't be able to play it. Calling behavior 'toxic' usually amounts to calling it unacceptable or somehow morally void, but it's pretty clear that our rights extend to playing the decks we want, and are limited to not verbally abusing other players. One is toxic, and the other is not.

Yes you're supposed to win however you can, it's why I generally don't enjoy PvP focussed games as they have the tendency to have some viable strategy that is increadibly obnoxious to deal with, but is ridiculously effective when it isn't stopped in its tracks. I find those kind of strategies cheap and at least bordering on toxic and as such am always wondering why they are allowed in the game. To give an example of a strategy that's usually considered toxic, in most games you're not allowed to simply stall for time to run out when you're ahead, you actually have to be doing something despite that being a very effective way to keep your lead. Also for clarity, I'm not calling the player toxic, I'm calling the strategy



Rant about your terminology aside, I don't see the problem here. You're saying that players shouldn't be able to play combo decks if they don't have good odds of drawing their pieces? Maybe they're having fun just trying to make their combo work at least once. If you don't enjoy it, you can either take your easy win against an inconsistent deck in a tournament, or if you're not in a tournament, move on to another player if you don't find that matchup fun. Or if you're losing to the deck that relies too much on a single card, you should be able to adapt your deck to counter it if you're running into it that often.

Issue here is that I can't predict ahead of time who I will be facing, it's why I generally don't play competitivly but with friends as I can just ask them to not use the annoying deck constantly.



And I highly doubt that people are running decks just to annoy their opponents. People enjoy various cards for various reasons, and will play any deck if they think they can win with it, and lots of them even if they think they'll lose. I enjoy playing against all variety of decks, including the sort you've described (which sounds more like a mill deck than any true control) because it tests my deck's ability to take on a variety of threats. Many players consider playing the card game to be the challenge of a tcg, but I enjoy the deckbuilding process a lot more than the actual playing, so decks like these pose an interesting challenge to overcome.

Well the main appeal behind control/milling decks is essentially to ruin your opponents day by making it impossible for him to do anything. It's simply one of the possible powerfantasies that you can express via the game, other being for example swarming your enemies with a horde, or having that one big creature crush everything in its path. As for deck building, yes it's an important part of the game, however, countering the deck that I faced would not be possible outside of just having a bunch of "negate that spell" and "remove that thing from the board" cards ready for whenever he plays them. As I said, during the 2nd and 3th match he pretty much immeadiatly pulled what he needed and I ended up with say 30 cards in my graveyad and maybe 10 cards that actually made it into my hand. Unless I have an ungodly amount of luck with pulling the correct counter-cards even a specificly tailored counter deck isn't going to perform well in that situation.



And finally, you claim that his deck relied on certain key cards too much that, if he didn't get them, he couldn't win, but then you said that he essentially milled your deck and you were in the position of not being able to win because your key cards were gone. Doesn't that seem contradictory? It sounds to me more like you had a few landslide games in both directions rather than sustained testing & observation.

You misunderstand, I wasn't complaining because I lost say the 3 key-cards that could've won me the game I was complaining because I lost a minimum of 15 different cards that each would've guarenteed the win should they have been played at pretty much any stage during the game. To give an example, the third match ended with me having about 8 minor shin'hare (mostly battle hoppers at this stage) and him having about 8 health and 2 units of his own to block with (since I mostly had battle hoppers I could no longer actually damage him), had I had say a bucktooth commander, a command tower or even a single cottontail ronin come through at any stage of the game I'd have won decisivly and those are some pretty minor cards to win with. That's not taking into account my own control cards or my bigger creatures that simply never made it into my hand.

Also, yes I haven't done extensive testing within hex, it's just something I've been reminded of finding increadibly annoying over the years of playing TGC's.

Gwaer
04-06-2015, 01:01 AM
No, no one can explain it to you in the context you're presenting. These decks win games so people play them. They're one of the harder decks to pilot, so people practice with them. They're not unassailable by any means, but at this point in the meta they're on the upswing. Early in set 3 constructed I'm sure it'll fall out of favor a bit and be more aggro focused for a time, thats usually how these things work.

hacky
04-06-2015, 01:56 AM
Issue here is that I can't predict ahead of time who I will be facing, it's why I generally don't play competitivly but with friends as I can just ask them to not use the annoying deck constantly.

Here's your problem, stated yourself.

You can't predict who you will face. You cannot guarantee your next opponent will or won't be playing a deck you do not want to face.

And ultimately, you cannot win every game.

The only thing you can guarantee is your own deck and your own play. If your deck and play is at a disadvantage against sapphire control, and you do not take steps to play a deck that is better against sapphire control, you can't really complain about sapphire control...it won't change for you.

Most of us adapt to the metagame. If sapphire control becomes more prevalent, we choose what deck we play based on it.

-----

EDIT: My advice to you, is to face that which you find annoying. Play against decks you don't like. Understand how they work. Figure out if your experience is bad luck, or if your deck has a bad matchup (less than 50% winrate) against it. Single out the cards the deck uses to take control and ultimately win the game.

If you do the above, you'll likely figure out what to do with your own deck and play.

wolzarg
04-06-2015, 03:18 AM
I'm fairly confident as a mediocre deck builder i could make a deck that consistently stomps mono sapphire control. That said the deck would be pure garbage against a lot of other decks and they could possibly adapt to it but the control deck isn't the problem. The problem if there is one is the meta.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 03:45 AM
Here's your problem, stated yourself.

You can't predict who you will face. You cannot guarantee your next opponent will or won't be playing a deck you do not want to face.

And ultimately, you cannot win every game.

The only thing you can guarantee is your own deck and your own play. If your deck and play is at a disadvantage against sapphire control, and you do not take steps to play a deck that is better against sapphire control, you can't really complain about sapphire control...it won't change for you.

Most of us adapt to the metagame. If sapphire control becomes more prevalent, we choose what deck we play based on it.

-----

EDIT: My advice to you, is to face that which you find annoying. Play against decks you don't like. Understand how they work. Figure out if your experience is bad luck, or if your deck has a bad matchup (less than 50% winrate) against it. Single out the cards the deck uses to take control and ultimately win the game.

If you do the above, you'll likely figure out what to do with your own deck and play.

Sigh, you'd think my point would be easier to get across. I'm not complaining about not understanding how the deck works, or being unable to figure out a strategy that works against should I put some effort into it (though unless there are some very specific flaws in the deck to abuse I'd still suspect they'd always stay annoying to deal with). Hell, he only barely won both of those matches, had anything usefull managed to slip through I'd probably had won as I've stated before.

I'm complaining that they're just not fun to deal with, and wondering why despite that they are such a staple of TGC's. There are rules in place to prevent you from abusing a single powerfull card by limiting the amount of copies you may use, so why are there for example no rules to prevent you abusing a single mechanic, for example saying you can only have a limited amount of cards in your deck that have a certain effect? Or instead of having cards that simply say "discard the top X cards of your opponents deck" have them for example say "look at the top X parts, opponent discards Y and plays Z", at least that way there'd be a risk to just indiscriminatly making your opponent discard stuff. Outside of a deck that somehow benefits from having lots of cards in the graveyard there's simply no real drawback involved with just spamming these kind of abilities. This goes for most effects that force your opponent to do something, effects like crush are considerably less of a problem.

Banquetto
04-06-2015, 04:00 AM
What are these "TGC"s that you keep talking about?

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 04:05 AM
for some reason I keep mixing up the G and the C, no idea why.

Assassine
04-06-2015, 04:15 AM
Outside of a deck that somehow benefits from having lots of cards in the graveyard there's simply no real drawback involved with just spamming these kind of abilities.

Except for the fact that your opponent just used up one of his cards for something that doesnt directly affect the boardstate, causing card disadvantage for himself?

Erukk
04-06-2015, 05:09 AM
I'm complaining that they're just not fun to deal with, and wondering why despite that they are such a staple of TGC's.

That is a matter of personal opinion and preference really, but as mentioned earlier in the thread, it's because it is a playstyle that some people enjoy using and building their deck around. Control is no different that aggro, midrange, or combo in that way. Each style has their own pros and cons, and they all have their own haters for different reasons as well.

The creators put these different playstyles in the game to add depth to their own gameplay, and it allows players the option to play how they want and to test out different playstyles. Plus, if TCGs didn't add in some type of "control" to their games, the gameplay would just boil down to different shades of aggro and midrange. Whoever can get out the biggest monsters or the most out fastest wins!

poizonous
04-06-2015, 06:04 AM
Mono Sapphire decks are currently the top of the tiers right now, some decks cant compete with it, if you are playing a deck that cant compete against it, odds are your loss wasn't due to "Bad luck". as Hacky stated, adjust your deck to better play against it.

You keep shooting down everyone's comments to you and continue to say the same thing we are all telling you that you are wrong about, either accept that you are clearly wrong and adjust your deck or find a game that better suits your playstyle

Slaeer
04-06-2015, 06:14 AM
That is a matter of personal opinion and preference really, but as mentioned earlier in the thread, it's because it is a playstyle that some people enjoy using and building their deck around. Control is no different that aggro, midrange, or combo in that way. Each style has their own pros and cons, and they all have their own haters for different reasons as well.

The creators put these different playstyles in the game to add depth to their own gameplay, and it allows players the option to play how they want and to test out different playstyles. Plus, if TCGs didn't add in some type of "control" to their games, the gameplay would just boil down to different shades of aggro and midrange. Whoever can get out the biggest monsters or the most out fastest wins!

Well he (or she) doesn't like it and since he/she speaks for the ENTIRE TCG playerbase, it must be changed. End of discussion.

Bmon
04-06-2015, 07:31 AM
I think there is some confusion in this thread because OP and responders are talking about two different archetypes.

Zilverdael, your post specifically mentions blue control decks, but you talk about a mill deck which tries to win by putting your library into your graveyard. Do you mean blue control decks in general or mill decks specifically? These are two very different issues, and I am going to assume your main point is that mill decks are not fun to play against.

The thing is, 20 years of TCG market research agrees with you. Mill decks are a type of non-interactive deck in which you really can't interact with your opponent, and they are not trying to interact with you. Many people find this isn't fun. If you want to play solitaire, play it on your own time.

A serious goal of design and development is to print a few of these types of cards while making sure these types of decks aren't too good. That way people who really like to play mill can play that archetype, but the vast majority of players will not play it and will not have to play against it often. So far I would say HexEnt has done a good job with this. You had a bad experience playing a mill deck, but for the most part it is a bad strategy that few people play. Hopefully you will not play against it for a long time, and matches are short enough to just accept the unfun match and move on to more and exciting things afterwards. If you do keep playing against mill decks, it is likely that you just keep playing the one person who really likes that archetype. Try to avoid playing them and you should not see it often.

Most people have given you arguments about general mono-blue control decks because you phrased your title and first paragraph about the general case. That is a completely different type of deck to what you described in the rest of your post. That deck does interact with your deck in that they try to win with troops, and they have to try to deal with your troops. It is a very powerful deck, but it is interactive enough to feel like you are playing a two person game.

darkwonders
04-06-2015, 07:33 AM
If a certain card/combo becomes too powerful to the effect that it cannot be beaten, that's what bans are for. For the entire history of TCGs, cards will always be banned because there will end up being a certain combination that is just too powerful.

Right now that is not the case.

Plus there's always set rotations to keep the game fresh.

Vorpal
04-06-2015, 07:58 AM
What are these "TGC"s that you keep talking about?

Tollectible Gard Cames

BigRiceMan
04-06-2015, 08:04 AM
Ok so I’m going to try to assess this situation based on my play style and guessing yours. If you would like to give us more information on what you view as non-toxic, and how you generally like to play I think it would be beneficial to understanding your point of view.

I myself am a huge fan of TCGs and my favorite way of winning is not playing a single creature, or winning with one creature. I have always been fascinated with this and always have the most fun with this playstyle. I hate using this comparison but as a long time tournament player in Magic it’s easier for me to use Magic as an example. When I build a deck I usually like to have efficient draw spells and what are also called “answers”. Answers are your bounce spell, removal spells, and counter spells. This way I can stall long enough to get my huge “efficient” creature to beat face. If I am running mill I do this so I can kill you without swinging into you once.

As you know removal spells are a big part of the meta. Going back to Hex you have Murder, Repel, Solitary Confinement, Time Ripple, Extinction, etc. This is mostly considering mid-range and beyond decks. What is the best way to counteract these cards? There are four answers, Tunneling, Quick Creatures, Spellshield, or not running creatures. Now if you are running no creatures, or a very few amount, you force your opponent to draw “dead” cards against you. They have a higher chance of drawing these removal spells and not enough ways to counter-act you.

At this point I may be rambling, but the last paragraph was guided to what you can do against your opponent. Spellshield is a fantastic way of wrecking your opponent. If they cannot target, they will have a rough time playing around you, especially in mono sapphire. Quick creatures, tunneling, and haste are problematic for them as well. How do you fit all these in without ruining your deck? Easy, you have a reserve that you can stick cards in after game one. Knowing what cards to include in your sideboard and how to properly side is key in every TCG.

Now back to your deck. From estimation you are running a Shin’hare deck Fuzziko deck, I am just guessing here. Unfortunately this deck is not currently strong in the meta because Shin’hare has not been fully utilized in the meta. But you can ruin mono-sapphire’s day by running a very scary card for them. Dandelion Sprite. This little guy has so much evasion it’s stupid. Not only that, but if you’re running buff spells or running Bunoshi this guy can get out of hand. If you don’t want to change your deck just cram 4 in your reserve and switch out when needed.

I hope this helps as a start. Sorry this is long, but you called my favorite deck type “toxic”, as I find “play a creature, swing with the creature, buff the creature,” horribly boring.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 09:02 AM
I think there is some confusion in this thread because OP and responders are talking about two different archetypes.

Essentially yes. I am talking about control decks in general, though mill decks specificly I'd view as one of the more annoying versions of a control deck. Essentially control-type playstyles revolve around blocking your opponent from doing anything worthwhile, being it by literally blocking/removing things or just outright sending everything to the graveyard without even bothering to let the opponent play them in the first place like a mill-deck does. Now milldecks are especially annoying because you never even get to use the card, at least regular control decks allow you to attempt something, even if everything you attempt ultimatly gets shot down. And if mill and control decks are truly viewed as seperate things then I'd like to know why mill decks aren't viewed as a subclass of control as they're still completly about controlling your opponent.

Anyway, the reason I view control-based playstyles as (borderline) toxic in virtually any game is because it frequently means the player on the recieving end never gets to try much, if anything at all, when the style work. And just sitting there for 20 minutes while essentially nothing's really happens kind of sucks, especially if the actual control is so lackluster that should a single thing get through the balance immeadiatly swings against the control style. Similarly just steamrolling an opponent because his control never picks up isn't exactly fun either.

Now of course there is a way to make this playstyle "fun" by making sure that the two players interact throughout the match and everything isn't just simply shot down but the control deck actually has to lay traps and meet his opponent blow for blow to counter every action taken, but it seems to be rather a thin line and usually it ends up being increadibly onesided as you end up with moves that are either extremely powerfull (e.g. wasting entire turns, make him discard more than 5+ cards at once, remove all of his stuff from the board) and thus frustrating to deal with, or extremely weak to the point where it just doesn't do much if they don't pull the correct stuff at the correct time.

Anyway, again, I'm not asking why people enjoy playing the deck, or why it's considered balanced, I'm asking why it's considered a reasonable playstyle to play against. TCG's are one of the few things where these kind of tactics that essentially just focus on ruinning your opponents day by stalling the game by ensuring nothing truly happens until time runs out is somehow viewed as acceptable, which intrigues me. O and for clarity, cards can be seen as as time in this analogy as the remaining cards in your deck define how many turns you have left, mill decks on top of that even speed up time which is another obnoxious aspect of them.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 09:11 AM
Now back to your deck. From estimation you are running a Shin’hare deck Fuzziko deck, I am just guessing here. Unfortunately this deck is not currently strong in the meta because Shin’hare has not been fully utilized in the meta. But you can ruin mono-sapphire’s day by running a very scary card for them. Dandelion Sprite. This little guy has so much evasion it’s stupid. Not only that, but if you’re running buff spells or running Bunoshi this guy can get out of hand. If you don’t want to change your deck just cram 4 in your reserve and switch out when needed.

I have plenty of cards that could ruin his day, during the first match I eventually had an onslaught make it through and my 8 or so shin'hare at the time just ran over him. Similarly during the last match if anything other than stuff spawning battlehoppers and a single killblade of the milkeye had made it through I'd have won as the game eventually ended when that killblade finally got removed and I no longer had anything that could get past his one defensive creature which he didn't want to lose because it helped his milling. At this point he had 8 health left and I had about 8 minor shin'hare on the field. If I had had an onslaught, bucktooth commander, rune ear commander, command tower, one of the handfull of removal cards like murder that float around in my own deck, basicly if literally anything even remotely usefull would've made it through I'd have won. Which just feels increadibly cheap and luckbased.

Diesbudt
04-06-2015, 09:30 AM
The only thing I got from this thread:
OP: I don't like control because it blocks people from doing things.

Basically is a dumb reason to complain because the point of competitive games is blow and counter blow to try and do the best you can while stopping your opponent in all he does. It isn't control specific. Complaining about being stopped in a game where the ebb and flow of battle requires ways to stop is just asinine.

schild
04-06-2015, 09:35 AM
Why are (blue) control decks considered non-toxic?

Because they don't feature The Killipede.

Malakili
04-06-2015, 09:36 AM
The only thing I got from this thread:
OP: I don't like control because it blocks people from doing things.

Basically is a dumb reason to complain because the point of competitive games is blow and counter blow to try and do the best you can while stopping your opponent in all he does. It isn't control specific. Complaining about being stopped in a game where the ebb and flow of battle requires ways to stop is just asinine.

Yep. Might as well complain about being tackled in football.

Malakili
04-06-2015, 09:36 AM
Because they don't feature The Killipede.

Heyyyoooooo

wolzarg
04-06-2015, 09:46 AM
Yep. Might as well complain about being tackled in football.
They do constantly in the european leagues, just saying.

regomar
04-06-2015, 09:47 AM
Might as well complain about Murder and burn spells while you're at it.

'Heeeey, I just got out my fun creature and you didn't let me attack or anything, you just keep killing my cards. Such toxic!'

It's part of the game. Mill and control have been parts of TCGs for over two decades now. If you only want to play against certain decks, just play your friends.

BigRiceMan
04-06-2015, 09:55 AM
Anything that has you randomly drawing a card from your deck is luck based. The reason why you include specific cards is to improve your odds and increase your luck. I'm sorry you didn't draw the right card at the right time, but that's what a TCG is. That's why there are terms like "shard screwed" and "flooded". I've lost a ton of games because I didn't draw the right card at the right time, and quite a few tournaments because I drew exactly the card I needed at the right time. At that point you go back and optimize your deck.

To go back to your question "why it's considered a reasonable playstyle to play against." is because it's a strategy. There are cards that counteract this and champions that counteract this. If they lower your time as you state find cards that are faster. Onslaught is a terribly slow card for decks like this so after game 1 go to your reserves and fit in lower cost cards. This is why decks like Gore Feast work. Also considering your question, this is not only a strategy in TCGs this is also a strategy in board games and quite a few games.

Sorry you don't like this type of deck, but honestly if they removed this strategy from the game I would quit because I get bored of decks that are just a "ton of creatures, deal with it".

Also, you are completely forgetting the mono ruby decks that are straight burn, and if built correctly would do exactly the same as the control deck minus the mill.

negativeZer0
04-06-2015, 10:00 AM
Competitive play is not for everyone. /end thread

95% of the MTG player base isn't competitive. This game will have your non competitive, play for fun, players especially as we get more of those types of elements (pve campaign) added to the game to draw them in. Guilds when introduces will help you find these like minded players to enjoy the game with. In the mean time just have to be patient. We all know Hex is way far behind on this games development but they show no signs of stopping so we will see all these things eventually.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 10:10 AM
Yep. Might as well complain about being tackled in football.
Except that if all you're doing is tackling the opponent you're liable to eventually annoy the referee enough to get fouls against you, and at the very least it's considered rather unsportsmanlike and virtually anyone will tell you so. Plus, if they kick the ball around you're likely to make a foul anyway because you tackled someone who didn't have the ball. So by your analogy, why is it considered fair game here to constantly tackle everything and everyone in a TGC?

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 10:16 AM
To go back to your question "why it's considered a reasonable playstyle to play against." is because it's a strategy. There are cards that counteract this and champions that counteract this. If they lower your time as you state find cards that are faster. Onslaught is a terribly slow card for decks like this so after game 1 go to your reserves and fit in lower cost cards. This is why decks like Gore Feast work. Also considering your question, this is not only a strategy in TCGs this is also a strategy in board games and quite a few games.


As I've stated before, onslaught wasn't the only thing that would've won me the game, something as cheap as a cottontail ronin would've won it for me. Also it took at least 10 turns or so before I lost in both cases so even an onslaught would've been fast enough if they thing actually made it trough instead of an endless stream of shards and battle hoppers.


Anyway, if all that's needed to make the playstyle reasonable is that there exists some counter somewhere then you're rather quickly satisfied and virtually nothing would ever be toxic or OP since pretty much everything has at least some counter floating around somewhere in the meta that'd work.... So that's rather an unsatisfying anwser. Anyway, I'm not asking for them to remove it, I'l avoid them for the most part anyway, just asking why they are considered reasonable to be on the recieving end of one.

As for other games having the same strategy, I've never seen it quite as extreme or annoying as in TGC's in anything else. Though there are equally cheap options to pick in other games they're rarely as good at preventing your opponent from doing anything significant at all.

As for other decks with the same effect, yup equally annoying and bad, blue's just the colour that generally goes with the style.

DoctorJoe
04-06-2015, 10:24 AM
I happen to enjoy playing against control decks of any flavor. The game does not feel different to me just because my opponent is playing a denial strategy. It all essentially boils down to figuring out your opponent's strategy and determining how best to employ your resources to beat that strategy. It's beatable by taking reasonable measures, so I don't consider it toxic.

Now that I have answered your original question, I would like to pose one to you. You've made it clear that you don't like this strategy, but what makes a game/match enjoyable for you?

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 10:29 AM
Competitive play is not for everyone. /end thread

95% of the MTG player base isn't competitive. This game will have your non competitive, play for fun, players especially as we get more of those types of elements (pve campaign) added to the game to draw them in. Guilds when introduces will help you find these like minded players to enjoy the game with. In the mean time just have to be patient. We all know Hex is way far behind on this games development but they show no signs of stopping so we will see all these things eventually.

I will eventually, just curiousity that made me ask the question. Though to be honest a lot of "competitive" game tends to have a great deal of unfun elements in their gameplay as optimalisation tends to favor anything that prevents your opponent from doing anything remotely interesting, which in turn also reduces the need for you to do anything interesting which is just a bit sad. Suppose TGC's and videogames still lack the polish of hundreds of generations playing it that say chess or physical sports have gotten.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 10:41 AM
I happen to enjoy playing against control decks of any flavor. The game does not feel different to me just because my opponent is playing a denial strategy. It all essentially boils down to figuring out your opponent's strategy and determining how best to employ your resources to beat that strategy. It's beatable by taking reasonable measures, so I don't consider it toxic.

Now that I have answered your original question, I would like to pose one to you. You've made it clear that you don't like this strategy, but what makes a game/match enjoyable for you?

Any reason as to why you like them? Or are you essentially indifferent as to what kind of deck your opponent uses?

I prefer games where there is a bit of a back and forth going on. Trouncing an opponent is occasionally fun, but if he's never a real threat it quickly gets boring. So essentially games where stuff is going on and both players are doing interesting things that actually threaten the other with the balance swaying back and forth. Also, interaction is a big part of it. If someone is just negating everything you're doing it's just frustrating. Similarly if you can't respond to anything the opponent is doing it's equally bad (for example facing a deck with only unblockable units I find rather annoying as again I don't have that many options). For this reason I also dislike hard counters, in theory I'd like every possible meta-strategy to stand a viable chance against every other meta-strategy. A (severe) disadvantage is fine, but losing the game before it has really started because the opponent happened to use a hardcounter is just not interesting.

Also, I prefer building up to a win/loss. Winning/losing based on a single card I usually find boring/frustrating. Of course there'l always be these matches where you just happened to draw an card that could clear the entire board when your opponent has 20 monsters, but if that's the only significant thing you did the entire match then it just feels cheap.

negativeZer0
04-06-2015, 10:52 AM
Playing against a control deck has more back and forth play than any other deck in the game. Just most of that play happens in the players hands not on the board itself. I suspect the fact you don't understand this distinction is why you struggle against these types of decks.

DoctorJoe
04-06-2015, 10:57 AM
Control decks present a different set of decisions than other deck types. Interesting decisions make the game enjoyable. Playing around reactive strategies is different from playing around proactive strategies. I find the variety enjoyable.

Playing against control also involves the balance swaying back and forth. They play the first part of the game to "not lose" and try to leverage their strategy to sway that to a position where they can win. Even after they have stabilized the game state, a series of threats from you or a series of bad draws from them can still see them overrun.

I'm not sure that there are any hard counters in the game right now, the way you are describing them.

I agree that removing the threat of losing removes the fun.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 11:09 AM
There is a back and forth, but the threat from at least one player is minimal. Either the control deck works and achieves control, in which case the opponent never manages to do much of significance unless there's a series of really lucky/unlucky draws on either side, or the control deck fails to block its opponent in which case it rapidly loses because there's now a rampaging 8/8 or something pummeling it into the ground and it has nothing available to oppose it with. The fact that a considerable amount of it never makes it to the board doesn't help either as it further hides the significance of what's going on, making it feel even more onesided than it already is. Also, try having two control decks face eachother, you just get this weird situation where nothing appears to be happening anywhere.

Don't know if hard counters already exist in Hex, just don't like them in any game. "Here go face this opponent you have essentially 0 chance of beating, have fun"....

Bmon
04-06-2015, 11:09 AM
Essentially yes. I am talking about control decks in general, though mill decks specificly I'd view as one of the more annoying versions of a control deck. Essentially control-type playstyles revolve around blocking your opponent from doing anything worthwhile, being it by literally blocking/removing things or just outright sending everything to the graveyard without even bothering to let the opponent play them in the first place like a mill-deck does. ...

Three points; the first about mill, the second about permission decks, and the third about people playing these types of decks.

Mill in this game uses control to survive long enough to achieve its goal, but the general archetype does not require control. For example, mill decks in MTG during combo winter would mill your entire deck on turn 1-2 (Tolarian academy decks) or turns 2.5-4 (high tide decks). While they included force of will just in case, they could win without relying on control elements. This is what I meant when I said mill is considered a non-interactive deck rather than a control deck. They don't necessarily need control elements, and outside of including more cards in your deck during deck building, you do not directly interact with their plan to win the game. This is considered bad design, and it is design / development's job to make sure it is not a competitive strategy. Design / development have achieved this so far in Hex as mill is a terrible strategy that does not see much general play. If you face similar non-interactive decks, just move on knowing that you shouldn't see them often if design / development do their job well.

The second point you talked about is general permission decks which revolve around countering every single spell you try to cast. A good example of this is Andrew Cuneo's "Draw, Go" deck, also known as "CMU blue" which included 29 interrupts, a few draw spells, and like 1-2 win conditions. Once again, 20 years of TCG market research shows you are right -- these are not fun to play against and are generally considered bad for the health of a TCG. Once again, it is research & development's job to restrict the total number of interrupts/countermagics available in the standard constructed environment. And, once again, HexEnt design and development have done a decent job with this. So far there are only two real permission spells - countermagic and verdict - leading to a total of 8 maximum copies of permission in a deck. There are literally not enough permission spells in the game for your opponent to interrupt every card you play. Because of this, the permission player has to at some point spend their resources to play threats. This gives you the chance to play a two sided game against your opponent, as they can't counter your threats when they don't have any mana left. You can either play more threats than the permission player can deal with, or you can play multiple cheap threats per turn so that the permission player can't spend their resources fast enough to stop your threats. The only thing holding you back at this point is your own deck design. If you design a deck that can't play enough threats, then you probably won't win against the permission player.

The third point is why is it considered acceptible to play these types of decks? The answer is that is what TCGs are about. People are encouraged to play whatever style deck they can dream up with the cards available. If you want to play non-interactive decks with cool combinations, play those decks. If you want to run 29 interrupts in your deck - try that too. The burden is on HexEnt's design and development teams to prevent those unfun strategies from becoming too prevalent in the game so that other players don't constantly have to deal with that.

BlackRoger
04-06-2015, 11:14 AM
As I've stated before, onslaught wasn't the only thing that would've won me the game, something as cheap as a cottontail ronin would've won it for me. Also it took at least 10 turns or so before I lost in both cases so even an onslaught would've been fast enough if they thing actually made it trough instead of an endless stream of shards and battle hoppers.


It sounds like you're playing a midrange shinhare synergy deck.
I understand why you would find playing against control annoying, since synergy decks need to draw both parts of their synergies to be effective, and it's easy for control to only have to deal with half your cards and win.

However, if control wasn't there, synergy decks would be all over the place and there will be no place for other archtypes like aggro.
So yea, playing against control may be a little frustrating, but it's existance allows the rock-paper-scissors that is a TCG:
control beats midrange who beat aggro who beat control (Well usually, there is still alot of variance).

If you were playing a rock-paper-scissors without rock it wouldn't be very interesting would it? everyone would only be using scissors.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 11:33 AM
If you were playing a rock-paper-scissors without rock it wouldn't be very interesting would it? everyone would only be using scissors.

Fair enough if that's the general idea, though it still leaves me wondering why it has to be so increadibly oppressive. Why not instead of a control deck have guiding decks that merely affect what your opponent can and can't do, but aren't capable of shooting down nearly everything that happens. E.g. I mentioned earlier instead of a " opponent discards X cards from the top of his deck" have a "opponent draws X cards, plays Y of these for free and discards Z cards", at least it'd guarentee the player on the recieving end gets to do something of significance at some point.

Also why not go for soft counters instead of hard counters? So rock doesn't necesairly lose from scissors, it's just as a significant disadvantage.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 11:38 AM
Mill in this game uses control to survive long enough to achieve its goal, but the general archetype does not require control. For example, mill decks in MTG during combo winter would mill your entire deck on turn 1-2 (Tolarian academy decks) or turns 2.5-4 (high tide decks). While they included force of will just in case, they could win without relying on control elements. This is what I meant when I said mill is considered a non-interactive deck rather than a control deck. They don't necessarily need control elements, and outside of including more cards in your deck during deck building, you do not directly interact with their plan to win the game. This is considered bad design, and it is design / development's job to make sure it is not a competitive strategy. Design / development have achieved this so far in Hex as mill is a terrible strategy that does not see much general play. If you face similar non-interactive decks, just move on knowing that you shouldn't see them often if design / development do their job well.


Well that's just stupid.. rather assumed that mill decks at least required some time to actually "win" and thus would always require a certain degree of control. But fine can see why they are considered different then. Though I'd still argue they're not truly seperate entities, but not really what we're discussing here.



The third point is why is it considered acceptible to play these types of decks? The answer is that is what TCGs are about. People are encouraged to play whatever style deck they can dream up with the cards available. If you want to play non-interactive decks with cool combinations, play those decks. If you want to run 29 interrupts in your deck - try that too. The burden is on HexEnt's design and development teams to prevent those unfun strategies from becoming too prevalent in the game so that other players don't constantly have to deal with that.

So why are they encouraged to if the general concensus is that they're unfun? In virtually any other game it'd at the very least give you the reputation of being unsportsman-like, if it isn't outright banished by the rules. So why are TGC's such an exception? The only other medium that has a similar issue appears to be pvp videogames, which again tend to encourage relativly toxic playstyles as long as they are viable and the developers for whatever reason can't/won't fix them.

sukebe
04-06-2015, 11:54 AM
As has been stated in thread already, if you truly hate control then all you have to do is play a good aggro deck as if it is built and played right it will almost always beat good control decks. Also as others have stated it seems you are playing midrange, which tends to consistently lose to control, which seems to only be feeding your hate of control :-)

Again, this is the way it will usually work: Aggro > Control > Midrange > Aggro (combo's position varies according to the combo in question).

The newest set has been out for a fair while now so control decks are starting to become more popular as people figure out how the sets we have work. Once set 3 comes out you will likely see control mostly disappear for a while as aggro becomes the most popular deck style for a while. this almost always happens as aggro is easier to build and pilot in an unfamiliar meta.

If you hate a deck style, just play the deck style that usually beats it. If you are not willing to do that you might as well play a game of rock paper scissors and complain about losing because you always play rock and keep losing to those who play paper...

And again, control decks are allowed and not considered "toxic" because of 4 reasons:

1: there are many people who enjoy playing such decks
2: they can be very effective in the right meta (midrange decks are dominating)
3: there are many people who enjoy crushing such decks
4: they can be very ineffective in the right meta (aggro decks are dominating)

BlackRoger
04-06-2015, 12:00 PM
Fair enough if that's the general idea, though it still leaves me wondering why it has to be so increadibly oppressive. Why not instead of a control deck have guiding decks that merely affect what your opponent can and can't do, but aren't capable of shooting down nearly everything that happens. E.g. I mentioned earlier instead of a " opponent discards X cards from the top of his deck" have a "opponent draws X cards, plays Y of these for free and discards Z cards", at least it'd guarentee the player on the recieving end gets to do something of significance at some point.

Well, even if CZE printed a card like that, will people actually play it?
Competitive people want to win, playing cards that "give your opponent more chance to do something significant" isn't something that gives you an edge.
People will always play cards that bring THEM closer to victory, and its up to you to play cards that interupt them, or bring you to victory faster then them.

The fact is, there are powerfull decks like gorefeast out there, and if control doesn't have a way to stop them from doing their plan, then controll will die out.

As for soft counters... what would that be like? can you elaborate a little?
I know in MTG there are counters that only stop you from casting a card for a turn, but don't make you discard it (Remand), but the decks that tend to play those are combo decks, which I consider even worse then control.

Malakili
04-06-2015, 12:03 PM
Except that if all you're doing is tackling the opponent you're liable to eventually annoy the referee enough to get fouls against you, and at the very least it's considered rather unsportsmanlike and virtually anyone will tell you so. Plus, if they kick the ball around you're likely to make a foul anyway because you tackled someone who didn't have the ball. So by your analogy, why is it considered fair game here to constantly tackle everything and everyone in a TGC?

If your opponent played a card and you countered it or killed it then they DID have the ball....

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 12:07 PM
Again, this is the way it will usually work: Aggro > Control > Midrange > Aggro (combo's position varies according to the combo in question).And again, control decks are allowed and not considered "toxic" because of 4 reasons:

1: there are many people who enjoy playing such decks
2: they can be very effective in the right meta (midrange decks are dominating)
3: there are many people who enjoy crushing such decks
4: they can be very ineffective in the right meta (aggro decks are dominating)

1: Many people enjoy utterly crushing the enemy, doesn't mean it is particulary healthy for a game to allow them to.
3: Many people enjoy winning against unfavorable odds, again, doesn't mean that it is healthy for a game.
2 & 4: I'm not asking if they're balanced, I'm asking why the are deemed acceptable. Plus, even as an argument for being balanced the argument "counters exists" is a cop out at best... Also, there is more than one way to deal with a dominant playstyle decks: instead of having hard counters use soft counters, use more than 3 archetyps so it's less likely one will dominate, have each archetype have mechanics that can reverse the rock < paper < scissor < rock circle... and so on.

Malakili
04-06-2015, 12:10 PM
Where is the line for you? What exactly would be ok. Why, specifically, is it a problem to stop your opponent from doing what they are trying to do? That seems like par of any head to head competitive game.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 12:23 PM
Well, even if CZE printed a card like that, will people actually play it?
Competitive people want to win, playing cards that "give your opponent more chance to do something significant" isn't something that gives you an edge.
People will always play cards that bring THEM closer to victory, and its up to you to play cards that interupt them, or bring you to victory faster then them.

The fact is, there are powerfull decks like gorefeast out there, and if control doesn't have a way to stop them from doing their plan, then controll will die out.

As for soft counters... what would that be like? can you elaborate a little?
I know in MTG there are counters that only stop you from casting a card for a turn, but don't make you discard it (Remand), but the decks that tend to play those are combo decks, which I consider even worse then control.

Depends, if the card has say play 1 card, discard 5 people might as they're quite likely to force you to lose something of value. Plus, even if that one card is quite good you can always follow it up with something that then kills that card again so on the whole it could work. It's just an example of something that'd turn it from utterly oppressive into something that allows for at least some response.

A lot of the cards on their own usually aren't too bad, but when put together they tend to be oppressive. For example control cards are in essence fine, however a deck full with them that just block everything that happens is oppressive. So a limit on the amount of cards with certain effects, or say quick actions, and so on could help keep it in check.

A remand would be a relativly soft counter yes. Another example would be tectonic break, it's an excellent card to clear out a board, but there's a reasonable chance at least something will survive, plus at least it's indiscriminate and hurts both of you. Adding drawbacks to potentially oppresive cards; that big monster eats your little monsters or he's gone, the example of discarding I mentioned earlier, every 3th burn in 3 turns causes you to overheat and burn your own fingers, mechanics that reverse the rock, paper, scissor aspect of the game, are just some example that could help keep certain aspects in check. The virtual nature of the Hex could actually work wonders here as you can make mechanics that normally wouldn't be possible.

As for other powerfull decks, of course those need to be countered in some way, but as I've said I'd prefere soft counters, and if they in turn become oppresive then they need to be dealed with.

DoctorJoe
04-06-2015, 12:25 PM
I think the real remedy here might be for you to actually play and master a control deck. They aren't my first choice, but they are occasionally the best choice for an expected metagame. In playing a control deck under these circumstances I learned a few things that tempered similar feelings to what you seem to be having.

1) It's not as easy as it looks.
2) Knowing what you're afraid of when playing the deck/archetype helps when playing against it.
3) It will tighten up your play on both sides of the issue.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 12:28 PM
Where is the line for you? What exactly would be ok. Why, specifically, is it a problem to stop your opponent from doing what they are trying to do? That seems like par of any head to head competitive game.

You're opponent needs to be able to do something of some significance throughout the match. If all that ends up on the board is say just shards and nothing else makes it out of his hands then whatever tactic you're using is oppresive. Basicly if by the end of the match your health is untouched it's bad. Of course there are exception depending on what kind of tactic he is using, but hopefully this makes it clear.

Also yes, of course everyone is ultimatly attempting to prevent stop the opponent (or at least defeat him quicker than he defeats you) but as long as you are of even remotely similar skill level you should not be able to just steamroll him in a average match.

nicosharp
04-06-2015, 12:32 PM
So why are they encouraged to if the general concensus is that they're unfun? In virtually any other game it'd at the very least give you the reputation of being unsportsman-like, if it isn't outright banished by the rules. So why are TGC's such an exception? The only other medium that has a similar issue appears to be pvp videogames, which again tend to encourage relativly toxic playstyles as long as they are viable and the developers for whatever reason can't/won't fix them.
They are not un-fun. They allow you to have unconventional answers to combat-heavy conventional play.

The whole point of HEX, as it was designed as this particular TCG, so that it allows two-way interaction during each players turn, is to build cards that allow that interaction to take place.

If you want spells and troop play that avoid these types of interactions, your game of choice is obviously Hearthstone.

Mill is another interaction that allows increased strategy and design space to the game. Typically, Mill provides the user with a flimsy deck, prone to rush, yet the ability to win through other means vs. slower control heavy decks.

When someone plays a card, they anticipate the card will always have a value. What Mill and Interrupt decks do, is they blank a cards value by not playing traditional threats. When you make several cards in your opponents deck useless, you allow your deck to focus on true threats.

This ultimately brings folks back to Paper, Rock, Scissors:
Aggro beats Control
Mid-Range beats Aggro
Control beats Mid-Range

The wheel has additional spokes:
Interrupt Heavy Control vs. Troop Removal Heavy Control
Combo Heavy Mid-Range(Mill can fit here) vs. Troop Heavy Mid-Range
Spell Heavy Aggro vs. Troop Heavy Aggro

Players need to adapt to the Wheel not being as rudimentary as it is in games like Hearthstone. If they don't they are playing the wrong game. It's really that cut and dry.
Sideboard/Reserves in Constructed HEX, are what really open decks up to be versatile and have a shot vs. all contenders.

BigRiceMan
04-06-2015, 12:43 PM
Depends, if the card has say play 1 card, discard 5 people might as they're quite likely to force you to lose something of value. Plus, even if that one card is quite good you can always follow it up with something that then kills that card again so on the whole it could work. It's just an example of something that'd turn it from utterly oppressive into something that allows for at least some response.

A lot of the cards on their own usually aren't too bad, but when put together they tend to be oppressive. For example control cards are in essence fine, however a deck full with them that just block everything that happens is oppressive. So a limit on the amount of cards with certain effects, or say quick actions, and so on could help keep it in check.

A remand would be a relativly soft counter yes. Another example would be tectonic break, it's an excellent card to clear out a board, but there's a reasonable chance at least something will survive, plus at least it's indiscriminate and hurts both of you. Adding drawbacks to potentially oppresive cards; that big monster eats your little monsters or he's gone, the example of discarding I mentioned earlier, every 3th burn in 3 turns causes you to overheat and burn your own fingers, are just some example that could help keep certain aspects in check.

As for other powerfull decks, of course those need to be countered in some way, but as I've said I'd prefere soft counters, and if they in turn become oppresive then they need to be dealed with.

That would be awful. If someone used all their resources and the opponent gets to play a Wrathwood Colossus, Fist of Brigadoom, or even an Argus it's GG. I would hate to play a card to hit my opponent and lose to my own card.

I don't understand why soft counters should exist when there is only one hard counter(I don't consider the other one since it only hits non-troops). So currently there is a 6% chance at the start of the game they can have a hard counter. I honestly have no idea what your argument is. You simply state I want to play my deck and I'm mad people made oppressive decks to completely shut me out. I'm not having fun and refuse to change my deck to adapt to their playstyle. They must change to my point of view because them playing those type of cards are not fun.

It seems all you want to do is play creatures, then they play creatures, now the creatures fight and we see who wins! That seems really stale to be honest. If that was the only thing you could do everyone would run one of two decks, between the fattest creatures or the most swarm.

Sorry that you don't enjoy these type of interactions, but I love them. I feel that counterspells, quick actions, and other spot removal gives me more interaction than here's my big creature deal with it.

Someone earlier around page two posted the different play types of players. You have the Johnnys, Timmys, and Spikes.

For a quick synopsis-
Timmy - Likes to play big spells/creatures. Loves a huge board presence and hates disruption.
Johnny - Likes interactions between cards. Loves combos and doing "interesting" things in the game.
Spike - Loves to win. If this player is not winning they are not having fun.

I would check that article out, it is pretty insightful to see how people play and why people play the way they do:

From ForgedSol-

To the OP, have you heard of Mark Rosewater's player-type classifications? Timmy, Johnny, and Spike?

Here's the first article (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b).

Here's the follow up (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b).

Piecetinker
04-06-2015, 12:57 PM
I completely agree with Nicosharp here.

Are you trying to beat mono-Sapphire over and over again with the same deck? Do you consistently lose to mono-Sapphire regardless of what deck you use? Does this deck that you use lose to other decks that are not mono-Sapphire?

You need to be asking yourself these questions in order to find out the root problem. I honestly doubt it is the issue of Control being unfair or too overpowered. That same issue was brought up a couple of weeks back (Gorefeast mid-range being too strong). Mono-Sapphire has only risen in popularity recently.

If one deck isn't the strongest, the next best deck will be complained about. "Well that Ruby deck is too fast and doesn't give you the option to counter it at all, no one can even respond to that deck."

...and the Wheel continues.

Malakili
04-06-2015, 12:59 PM
You're opponent needs to be able to do something of some significance throughout the match. If all that ends up on the board is say just shards and nothing else makes it out of his hands then whatever tactic you're using is oppresive. Basicly if by the end of the match your health is untouched it's bad. Of course there are exception depending on what kind of tactic he is using, but hopefully this makes it clear.

Also yes, of course everyone is ultimatly attempting to prevent stop the opponent (or at least defeat him quicker than he defeats you) but as long as you are of even remotely similar skill level you should not be able to just steamroll him in a average match.

This seems like a failure on your part to actually understand game states. I have lost games with my opponent at 20 life that I was actually very close to winning and I have won games at 1 life that my opponent had essentially no chancchance to win. one sided games happen, but life total isn't really the key piece of info. At the end of the day, there are many factors for determining how close a game was, let alone how close a best of 3 was. Variance also matters. No one game is guaranteed to be close. That is why best of 3 is the standard format for games that matter.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 12:59 PM
That would be awful. If someone used all their resources and the opponent gets to play a Wrathwood Colossus, Fist of Brigadoom, or even an Argus it's GG. I would hate to play a card to hit my opponent and lose to my own card.

It's an example, there are other ways you can think of to make them not as oppresive as they are now and to make them balanced you'd need to put in considerably more thought than the couple of minutes it took me to come up with those examples. Especially mechanics that would reverse the counter would probably work fairly well (so rock now loses to scissors so to speak)



I don't understand why soft counters should exist when there is only one hard counter(I don't consider the other one since it only hits non-troops). So currently there is a 6% chance at the start of the game they can have a hard counter. I honestly have no idea what your argument is. You simply state I want to play my deck and I'm mad people made oppressive decks to completely shut me out. I'm not having fun and refuse to change my deck to adapt to their playstyle. They must change to my point of view because them playing those type of cards are not fun.


I find hard counters boring and favor soft counters because soft counters are considerably less oppresive. Instead of basicly being completly screwed from the start of the game you're at least left with a fighting chance. Also I do adapt my playstyle, though I'm unlikely to ever do much in a competitive scene as long as these kind of styles are relativly common, and I'm not saying they have to agree with me, I'm explicitly asking as to why people find these playstyles not utterly annoying.



It seems all you want to do is play creatures, then they play creatures, now the creatures fight and we see who wins! That seems really stale to be honest. If that was the only thing you could do everyone would run one of two decks, between the fattest creatures or the most swarm.

Sorry that you don't enjoy these type of interactions, but I love them. I feel that counterspells, quick actions, and other spot removal gives me more interaction than here's my big creature deal with it.


You misunderstand, I'm fine with those interactions, at least in theory practise tends to get a bit more difficult. However control based playstyles have a tendency of quickly become oppresive because by their nature they take control of the game. Nothing is quite as annoying in a game as being forced to constantly do stuff you do not want, be it discarding cards, drawing them, using them, whatever. If you're not allowed to dictate your own tempo on a regular basis the game quickly becomes frustrating and stale as you get the idea that whatever you do, it doesn't matter. In the end you don't feel like you've been beaten by a better opponent but like you were never even given the oppertunity to even try to set up anything, let alone mount an actual offense.




Someone earlier around page two posted the different play types of players. You have the Johnnys, Timmys, and Spikes.

For a quick synopsis-
Timmy - Likes to play big spells/creatures. Loves a huge board presence and hates disruption.
Johnny - Likes interactions between cards. Loves combos and doing "interesting" things in the game.
Spike - Loves to win. If this player is not winning they are not having fun.

I would check that article out.

Already read that, I'm basicly timmy and johny along with that fourth one that doesn't fit in. But I also find a lot of "interesting" things to be utterly uninteresting, which rather messes it up.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 01:00 PM
I completely agree with Nicosharp here.

Are you trying to beat mono-Sapphire over and over again with the same deck? Do you consistently lose to mono-Sapphire regardless of what deck you use? Does this deck that you use lose to other decks that are not mono-Sapphire?

You need to be asking yourself these questions in order to find out the root problem. I honestly doubt it is the issue of Control being unfair or too overpowered. That same issue was brought up a couple of weeks back (Gorefeast mid-range being too strong). Mono-Sapphire has only risen in popularity recently.

If one deck isn't the strongest, the next best deck will be complained about. "Well that Ruby deck is too fast and doesn't give you the option to counter it at all, no one can even respond to that deck."

...and the Wheel continues.


Again, not asking if it's balanced or overpowered, simply why the style as a whole is deemed acceptable to the point of being a staple of the medium as opposed to unfun/toxic/annoying etc.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 01:04 PM
This seems like a failure on your part to actually understand game states. I have lost games with my opponent at 20 life that I was actually very close to winning and I have won games at 1 life that my opponent had essentially no chancchance to win. one sided games happen, but life total isn't really the key piece of info. At the end of the day, there are many factors for determining how close a game was, let alone how close a best of 3 was. Variance also matters. No one game is guaranteed to be close. That is why best of 3 is the standard format for games that matter.

As I said, exceptions exist depending on what type of strategy someone is actually using, having your life be completly untouched (as in no attack ever even hit you) is merely a reasonable rule of thumb as to how onesided it was.

Also, really curious about those games where you had 1 life left and still claim your opponent had no change to win as to how those went, because that seems rather a bold statement to make. (similarly having 1 card left in your deck, or 1 counter until some card declares you lose, or whatever other win condition an opponent got that close to)

israel.kendall
04-06-2015, 01:04 PM
Depends, if the card has say play 1 card, discard 5 people might as they're quite likely to force you to lose something of value. Plus, even if that one card is quite good you can always follow it up with something that then kills that card again so on the whole it could work. It's just an example of something that'd turn it from utterly oppressive into something that allows for at least some response.

A lot of the cards on their own usually aren't too bad, but when put together they tend to be oppressive. For example control cards are in essence fine, however a deck full with them that just block everything that happens is oppressive. So a limit on the amount of cards with certain effects, or say quick actions, and so on could help keep it in check.

A remand would be a relativly soft counter yes. Another example would be tectonic break, it's an excellent card to clear out a board, but there's a reasonable chance at least something will survive, plus at least it's indiscriminate and hurts both of you. Adding drawbacks to potentially oppresive cards; that big monster eats your little monsters or he's gone, the example of discarding I mentioned earlier, every 3th burn in 3 turns causes you to overheat and burn your own fingers, mechanics that reverse the rock, paper, scissor aspect of the game, are just some example that could help keep certain aspects in check. The virtual nature of the Hex could actually work wonders here as you can make mechanics that normally wouldn't be possible.

As for other powerfull decks, of course those need to be countered in some way, but as I've said I'd prefere soft counters, and if they in turn become oppresive then they need to be dealed with.

I'd play the card probably either holding resources to counter the card you played, or even to make you overextend into extinction in sapphire/blood control.

Piecetinker
04-06-2015, 01:15 PM
Again, not asking if it's balanced or overpowered, simply why the style as a whole is deemed acceptable to the point of being a staple of the medium as opposed to unfun/toxic/annoying etc.

I suppose it depends on your opinion, right? Something that is not fun is subjective to the player that states it. Something could be fun to someone else and not to another player. You can't use "unfun" as a fact. Because that's definitely not true.

To me, I feel like control games require extra thought. I have to take an extra look at the current board state.

-What are their resources at?
-How can I bait a Verdict or a Countermagic because I know they have one?
-Which card is less important to me?
-Let's wait until they use their resources and respond to their threat accordingly.

This is strategy. There is nothing (at least in my opinion) that represents "toxic" (ugh I hate that word) behavior. The player is legitimately trying to win as much as you are, except in a different way. They aren't using any bad manners, they aren't gloating about your inability to do anything (because you definitely can).

Once again "annoying" is subjective. "Oh lame, he bounced me, that's annoying. Oh, great now he's holding a Countermagic and now I can't do anything, well that's fun. Let's just wait another 30 turns for the inevitable because I lost."

Yes, if they controlled you, you definitely did lose, especially if you don't have a way to put constant threats on the board. This is where you need to figure out what you can do to stop it. If your idea of strategy is "annoying", then yes, according to your first write-up, you do not enjoy the strategy of TCGs.

nicosharp
04-06-2015, 01:20 PM
Should definitely read the article that was linked about Timmy, Johnny, and Spike on page 2 of this thread.

Turns out I am a Johnny.
Zilverdael sounds like a Timmy.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 01:23 PM
I suppose it depends on your opinion, right? Something that is not fun is subjective to the player that states it. Something could be fun to someone else and not to another player. You can't use "unfun" as a fact. Because that's definitely not true.

To me, I feel like control games require extra thought. I have to take an extra look at the current board state.

-What are there resources at?
-How can I bait a Verdict or a Countermagic because I know they have one?
-Which card is less important to me?
-Let's wait until they use their resources and respond to their threat accordingly.

This is strategy. There is nothing (at least in my opinion) that represents "toxic" (ugh I hate that word) behavior. The player is legitimately trying to win as much as you are, except in a different way. They aren't using any bad manners, they aren't gloating about your inability to do anything (because you definitely can).

Once again "annoying" is subjective. "Oh lame, he bounced me, that's annoying. Oh, great now he's holding a Countermagic and now I can't do anything, well that's fun. Let's just wait another 30 turns for the inevitable because I lost."

Yes, if they controlled you, you definitely did lose, especially if you don't have a way to put constant threats on the board. This is where you need to figure out what you can do to stop it. If your idea of strategy is "annoying", then yes, according to your first write-up, you do not enjoy the strategy of TCGs.


Yes it is quite subjective hence why I'm asking. Anyway, the reason why I tend to view this not so much as being defeated is because it tends to be increadibly hit and miss. Either that one usefull card gets through and the deck fails, or it blocks everything and succeeds. Either way it doesn't feel like you as the the opponent had much of a say in it and it was just a coincidence of happening to draw the correct set of cards to win as opposed to actually using your deck as a whole in such a way to win. Generally playstyles that create the feeling that whatever you're doing is irrelevant because you're solely dependend on luck or your opponent screwing up is what I'd consider toxic. But yes, it isn't toxic in so much that he's acitivly gloating or being rude.

And again, since this doesn't seem to come across, the actual essence behind the style of guiding your opponent I'm fine with it's the core of any strategy game. However outright forcing your opponent to do something again and again and again, I'm not. At least not in a game....

magic_gazz
04-06-2015, 01:25 PM
OP you seem confused.

To compare control decks to stalling/being unsportsman like/running out the clock etc, just shows you do not understand what you are trying to discuss.

Control decks are not oppressive, they just beat certain styles of deck more often.

Just because you don't find it fun to play against does not mean others do not. I love to play control decks against control decks, in my opinion that is the most fun you can have.

I could be like you and say aggro decks are oppressive and unfun. How can it be fair that my opponent can kill me on turn 4? All I did was play 3 resources and 1 spell. I never got a chance to even play the game.

There are different types of decks for different people. If you find playing against a certain type of deck unfun, the request games where people are not playing that deck. I would say stay away from tournaments but it sounds like you are not a competitive player anyway.

There is nothing wrong with you not liking something, that is up to you. But don't expect others not to play it just because you deem it unfun. You do not get to decide what is fun for everyone.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 01:26 PM
Should definitely read the article that was linked about Timmy, Johnny, and Spike on page 2 of this thread.

Turns out I am a Johnny.
Zilverdael sounds like a Timmy.

As I said earlier in the way too many posts I'm writing today, I'm a mix of Johnny and Timmy, but with the addition that I tend to find a different things "interesting" than what that group usually finds "interesting", which occasionally makes for a weird mix like here. Also that fourth catagory that doesn't fit in that's mentioned in the follow up article.

magic_gazz
04-06-2015, 01:26 PM
Also you keep saying if you drew X you would have won.

You are probably wrong. If your opponent had any cards in hand, they probably had an answer to whatever magical card you think was going to win the game.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 01:30 PM
OP you seem confused.

To compare control decks to stalling/being unsportsman like/running out the clock etc, just shows you do not understand what you are trying to discuss.

Control decks are not oppressive, they just beat certain styles of deck more often.

Just because you don't find it fun to play against does not mean others do not. I love to play control decks against control decks, in my opinion that is the most fun you can have.

I could be like you and say aggro decks are oppressive and unfun. How can it be fair that my opponent can kill me on turn 4? All I did was play 3 resources and 1 spell. I never got a chance to even play the game.

There are different types of decks for different people. If you find playing against a certain type of deck unfun, the request games where people are not playing that deck. I would say stay away from tournaments but it sounds like you are not a competitive player anyway.

There is nothing wrong with you not liking something, that is up to you. But don't expect others not to play it just because you deem it unfun. You do not get to decide what is fun for everyone.

Being completly forced to play according to what my opponent wants I find quite oppressive. And sadly since control decks are aiming to do that this frequently ends up being the case outside of lucky draws. Also, control deck versus control deck is pretty much the only situation I can think of where it's sort of interesting to be on the recieving end as you should both have tools to respond to eachother.

Also, yes I don't really like playstyles that win in a handfull of turns interesting either, though I rarely encounter those.

Also, others dont need to agree with me, I just want to know why since a control style that ends up working just feels utterly annoying when on the recieving end, while it's also utterly meaningless when it fails (outside of maybe that control versus control situation which is weird enough to be interesting) which just doesn't strike me as interesting in any way.

nicosharp
04-06-2015, 01:32 PM
As I said earlier in the way too many posts I'm writing today, I'm a mix of Johnny and Timmy, but with the addition that I tend to find a different things "interesting" than what that group usually finds "interesting", which occasionally makes for a weird mix like here. Also that fourth catagory that doesn't fit in that's mentioned in the follow up article.

I think your arguments focus on the gameplay being unfun/toxic/annoying has less to do with any cards in the game, but rather the social aspects of ethics in deck-building. Which is hilarious to even think about let alone write.

If your frustration begins with ethical play... you are overlooking the frustration shouted from the rooftops about RNG and Screw/Flood and poor mulligan systems. Beat that Horse, because it exists, and is not a Unicorn.

magic_gazz
04-06-2015, 01:33 PM
which just doesn't strike me as interesting in any way.

And it doesn't have to.

As long as some people think it is interesting it deserves a spot.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 01:34 PM
Also you keep saying if you drew X you would have won.

You are probably wrong. If your opponent had any cards in hand, they probably had an answer to whatever magical card you think was going to win the game.

Except he didn't have anything in his hand, he was constantly burning everything in order to prevent me from doing anything. Also as I've said, there were at least 15 cards in my graveyard that could've turned the game not just 1 magical card. Also it was exactly what happened in the first match out of those 3. A couple of usefull things got through and he ended up just burning away his cards in an effort to remove them again while I brought him down until finally I could play an onslaught for the final blow (frankly a bit overkill.. but hey)

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 01:36 PM
And it doesn't have to.

As long as some people think it is interesting it deserves a spot.


Except that people are kind of idiots on the whole... if that was all it took for things to deserve a spot we'd be thoroughly screwed as a species.. Democracy in that respect is rather flawed.

BigRiceMan
04-06-2015, 01:36 PM
Yes it is quite subjective hence why I'm asking. Anyway, the reason why I tend to view this not so much as being defeated is because it tends to be increadibly hit and miss. Either that one usefull card gets through and the deck fails, or it blocks everything and succeeds. Either way it doesn't feel like you as the the opponent had much of a say in it and it was just a coincidence of happening to draw the correct set of cards to win as opposed to actually using your deck as a whole in such a way to win. Generally playstyles that create the feeling that whatever you're doing is irrelevant because you're solely dependend on luck or your opponent screwing up is what I'd consider toxic. But yes, it isn't toxic in so much that he's acitivly gloating or being rude.

And again, since this doesn't seem to come across, the actual essence behind the style of guiding your opponent I'm fine with it's the core of any strategy game. However outright forcing your opponent to do something again and again and again, I'm not. At least not in a game....

Ok I kind of see what you're coming from. Coming from a person that plays a control deck it's actually not that random. Control players typically hold their bombs until the right moment. They essentially then try to counter you or slow you down in order to play their win con. Often times they are not fishing, but is not always the case.

magic_gazz
04-06-2015, 01:38 PM
Except that people are kind of idiots on the whole... if that was all it took for things to deserve a spot we'd be thoroughly screwed as a species.. Democracy in that respect is rather flawed.

Ok, guess there is no point carrying on here.

zilverdael
04-06-2015, 01:40 PM
I think your arguments focus on the gameplay being unfun/toxic/annoying has less to do with any cards in the game, but rather the social aspects of ethics in deck-building. Which is hilarious to even think about let alone write.

If your frustration begins with ethical play... you are overlooking the frustration shouted from the rooftops about RNG and Screw/Flood and poor mulligan systems. Beat that Horse, because it exists, and is not a Unicorn.

Not really, though ethics could be argued to be a part of it as I find winning at the cost of fun to be detrimental to the game. And yes winning is part of the fun and so on.. Anyways those other things have their own issues, though RNG is one of the few things I actually don't mind as much as most people seem to as long as I have the oppertunity to respond to it in a meaningfull way.

NOBLEStarshield
04-06-2015, 01:40 PM
This conversation seems to have reached it's end, closing thread.