Page 10 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 217

Thread: Addressing Titania's Majesty

  1. #91
    Master Theorycrafter
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    790
    I think the most interesting take away from this going forward is that if a pvp card is deemed by a section of the community to be on the OP side and it doesn't get banned, we can be pretty sure the data Hex has available to them shows that it's not too big of a problem.

    Happy to see Hex make this tough decision.

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by HaemishM View Post
    This game's meta could do with "A LOT SLOWER" frankly. I've said it before - the turn 3-5 kill decks are really annoying no matter the variety. They invalidate a good 25% of the entire card set if not more. Majesty was so bad because it was a 3-5 turn kill that had no reliable, consistent counter. Hoping your opponent has an unlucky draw is not an acceptable counter.

    That being said, control decks ARE really irritating.
    Turn 5 is WAY different than Turn 3 when it comes to kills. Turn 5 kills are not especially quick.

  3. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by McCloud68 View Post
    My other thought is why even ban the card? Why not errata it / change it to what it was back in testing or modify it into something else all together? This is a digital game. Changing the text on a card and how a card works is easier than dealing with all the back lash that Hex is now getting from opening the Ban List door. I hope they consider just changing the card in the future so we do not have cards in boosters that we can not deck build with anymore.
    Would be a nice idea as well removing some of the power of the card could be nice increasing treshold or cost or limit the card drawn to must have treshold for the troop you want to play or max cost of 5 or 6

  4. #94
    Infernal Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by KingxOfxThexVoid View Post
    Would be a nice idea as well removing some of the power of the card could be nice increasing treshold or cost or limit the card drawn to must have treshold for the troop you want to play or max cost of 5 or 6
    The answer to your question is here:
    Https://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=45853
    IGN: FinalFantasy

    -The Darkmoon Unfair-

  5. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by gruntwork View Post
    And the other 7 decks were TM. Which of these says more? Variance happens. 7/8 is not just variance. 1/8 is not proof that there was a suitable counterdeck to TM.
    Twice piloted by the same player is not variance. It really just shows how bad netdecking is in this game that people choose to willfully ignore other possibilites.

  6. #96
    Gigantisaur
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Athens Georgia
    Posts
    1,238
    I just want somebody who just started a constructed gauntlet TM match to hold it for about 4 weeks. Maybe hold it for a couple of months. I want to see the potential uproar that comes from a player playing a TM deck in a constructed format 2 months from now.

    The art work for opening the chest is very nice.

  7. #97
    Infernal Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    452
    Quote Originally Posted by Mahes View Post
    I just want somebody who just started a constructed gauntlet TM match to hold it for about 4 weeks. Maybe hold it for a couple of months. I want to see the potential uproar that comes from a player playing a TM deck in a constructed format 2 months from now.

    Well..... This is nothing short of brilliant. Post battle chat after this done
    IGN: FinalFantasy

    -The Darkmoon Unfair-

  8. #98
    Apologies in advance for the impending wall(s) of text, going to try to get all of this into one post.

    Quote Originally Posted by gruntwork View Post
    Firstly, there were plenty of decks that tried to compete with TM, there were plenty of attempts to increase the odds of a win against TM. None of them resulted in a satisfactory change in the dominance of TM.

    You think that there just wasn't enough work done. Fine. The burden of proof still lies with you. If you want anyone to believe that there was something that could have been done against TM you have to prove it. Just claiming that iterating on deck lists would have produced a resulting TM counterdeck is not good enough. You have NO reason to believe that to be the case. There is absolutely no reason to think that a solid TM counterdeck was an inevitability.
    It took approximately 4 months for people to "break" Gore Feast from the time it first became popular towards the end of set 1 until midway through set 2. During that time, an extremely large percentage of decks in the tournaments we had decklists for (VIP) were GF decks, most of them nearly identical. Sound familiar? Even after counter decks started showing up, Gore Feast remained vastly more popular than a lot of the other decks, because it was 1) known, 2) easy to play, and 3) relatively cheap to make work (you could go way more expensive by tricking it out with clouds and vortexes and whatnot, but even without that it was still very viable).

    And that four months was with multiple decklist-available tournaments. This time around, we had ONE tournament with top 8 only decklists available - the last VIP. Fiveshards didn't count because it was set 3 only, and therefore not the "standard" constructed meta. ESL didn't count because none of them had full or even top decklists available. The reason these don't count is very important - without having the decklists available to everyone, only the people who actually ran the deck can iterate on the deck.

    Gwaer, among others, has talked about this at length - how one person iterating on their own design can miss crucial design flaws because they are already stuck down a line of thinking. Having a full community bashing on a deck to make improvements to it is exponentially more powerful than a single user or small group of users iterating on the same deck. This is why I say that running a tournament without decklists is less effective than running it with them. This is why I say there was not sufficient time or effort put into iteration and counter-seeking. I never said it wasn't being done at all, merely that not enough people were doing it and those who were doing it were partially hamstrung by the lack of complete visibility.

    It is impossible for me to prove a lack of something, but this is the reasoning for my statements. We have some supporting evidence that progress was being made - the 2nd place deck in the stress test went 7-1 vs majesty (this is not PROOF, but it is a factor to consider). There are a number of coyotle control decks that have shown very strongly, and the VIP decklists showed us some truly surprising decks that were just beginning to be honed (Kolokee's phenteo / 5th book deck for example).

    If more of the tournaments had had decklists available and the community had been given more time to work on iteration as a result, it's inarguable that better overall quality decks would have resulted - more data + more minds = better results.

    Quote Originally Posted by gruntwork View Post
    The second issue you will not be easier for you. The deck is not fun to play. The deck is not fun to play against. This is something that is subjective, granted, but that doesn't change that it is the overwhelming view of not just the community but now the developers as well. The point of the game is to have fun. If people want to compete, in the absence of the counterdeck you claim could exist, then they must play an unfun deck. This breaks the game at a fundamental level. There is no way they couldn't do something about it. Are you claiming that TM was fun to play or fun to play against? What is the basis of your disagreement with Hex banning the card based on it not being fun?
    This one is going to be impossible to talk about objectively, of course. What is fun to one person is not fun to another, and vise versa. What do we even use to quantify fun? Where do you draw the line? The devs themselves throw around the term "unfun," but this is one of those things that can never be nailed down. "I'll know it when I see it," people say - well, that's still going to differ from person to person.

    However, let's review the terminology from the article itself and try to break down what's going on here, to see if we can make at least an attempt to rationalize it.

    Edit: actually, going to have to split this into two posts, it's too long after all.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

  9. #99
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    125
    For once, a short post from me.

    I am fully in support of this decision, and seeing HexEnt make the brave move to uphold or enhance the enjoyment, interactivity and quality (even challenge?) of the game experience only serves to cement my confidence in them. I do not believe that financial concerns on a collectible level should be a reason to weaken the actual game experience even slightly - the primary draw for new players and the primary enjoyment of existing ones - and so the market effects of this banning do not concern me in the slightest, despite having a set of TMs and Calamitys myself.

    Thank you. I think I've got a bit of theorycrafting to do. Maybe I'll even try out Constructed Gauntlet again.
    TL;DR: Man criticizes things. Rambling ensues.

    http://sigs.enjin.com/sig/enjin-4368...tance-gray.png

  10. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by the_hextcg_article View Post
    This card is frustrating because it does not promote interactivity in the game in order to win.
    You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    This is a pet peeve of mine. People misuse interactive all the time, or rather, they misuse lack of interactivity.

    Split Second from MtG is non-interactive, because you cannot respond to it. A troop that is both spellshielded and cannot be countered is non-interactive, because you can't use an answer card against it at any point (save for board sweeps). Taking away priority from the players is non-interactive, because you reduce their capability of interacting with different stages of the turn. Having powerful effects trigger off of playing a resource is non-interactive, because you can't stop the player from playing them, and they bypass the chain completely. Not having priority on your opponent's turn at all (Hearthstone) is non-interactive, because the players don't interact in any way, they just flail at each others' boards.

    TM is NOT non-interactive; you can respond to it, and there are a number of possible answers to it, both before resolution and after. How many answers you run in the deck, whether or not you have an available answer in hand, whether or not you choose to leave resources open to potentially counter it... this is no different from any other control-style matchup, they are choices you make as part of the cat and mouse, back and forth play. Can I afford to tap out? Does he have it in hand? Did I gain some life to survive a successful hit?

    Quote Originally Posted by the_hextcg_article View Post
    When Majesty successfully hits an Ozawa, Cosmic Elder or a Walking Calamity, most often there is no gameplay after that. The opposing player has very few options once Majesty resolves and successfully hits, which is the opposite of the back and forth feeling we hope to achieve for the best gameplay experience.
    This is no different than any other combo deck. You are sacrificing board presence and the early game strength in the hopes of getting a powerful troop on board or a one-shot big damage effect at some point in the future. The back and forth play vs. a combo deck comes from things like I said before, choosing to hold counters, trying to undercut their ramp, etc. These are things you can do in response to their actions.

    Nevertheless, when a combo deck works and does not get countered, the game SHOULD be over quickly, because the player running the combo has little staying power compared to normal decks, which can build up presence, life, card advantage, etc. over time. It's the ultimate glass cannon gambit. A TM deck that whiffs is likely dead - that's the risk and penalty of running it. People who don't understand that shouldn't be running a combo deck, if that is "unfun" for them, then they failed to recognize the type of game experience their deck was creating. That is their fault, not the designers or the opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by the_hextcg_article View Post
    In order to successfully fight against this deck, a player would have to focus their deck just to beat it, but since Majesty is more about “play this card and that is all you have to do to end the game”, and one of the best ways to fight against it is to just flat out stop them from playing Majesty, which ends up promoting decks that are also somewhat “unfun” to interact with. Either attempting to pick apart the opponents hand with cards like Inquisition or using cards like Countermagic to cancel the card they are playing. Both of these tools can lead to a bad expirence on the receiving end.
    Two points here:

    1. "play this card and that is all you have to do to end the game"

    Untrue. Timing is everything here. You MIGHT win by dumping your ramp cards and snapping down TM, but that is actually a low percent chance to happen given all the required ingredients (5 resource sources by turn 3, plus the TM, then having to hit a killer troop). More likely, you are missing the required ramp in the first place (and have no board state whatsoever, leaving you vulnerable to rush), or your opponent removes your ramp, counters your casting, you whiff, or your opponent hamstrings the troop you do hit.

    Players who ignore what their opponent is doing can be defeated much more easily than those who are careful and smart. This is again part of the cat and mouse. Do I rush it out immediately? Or do I hold back and let my opponent have another turn to possibly use up resources? Do I get Periwinkle out first to increase my chances of a successful hit? Or is he holding a Heat Wave, hoping I'll overextend? Do I TM right now, or is his board too scary and I need to use the crocosaur first? These are all choices and interactions that the wily player will analyze before throwing down the biggest card in their hand.

    There is a much deeper game available to the clever player that may not immediately be apparent to the "slap it down and see if I won" player.

    2. "one of the best ways to fight against it is to just flat out stop them from playing Majesty, which ends up promoting decks that are also somewhat “unfun” to interact with"

    If playing against counter decks is unfun, and one of your supposed reasons for banning Majesty is because it is unfun, then why have counter decks? Why have hand denial at all? You have purposely not printed very much resource destruction, and NO threshold destruction, for the same reason - because it's unfun to play against. And yet we keep getting denial cards and counter cards in every set. Why, if they're "unfun?" Because you recognize that they're necessary - if every card resolved, THEN there would be no interaction, no responses. To allow for healthy back and forth gameplay, some denial is mandatory - therefore, allowing it to exist is more important to the health of the game than some players feeling it is "unfun" to play against or with.

    You already know this, because you print denial and counter cards - therefore, you are already aware that "this is unfun" is not, in itself, a valid argument not to have something.

    Losing games to resource flood or screw (or mulling to 3) is definitely "unfun," but we've all (for the most part! ) agreed that it is necessary for the greater good of the game by having a real resource system, allowing for more balanced costing of cards, power progression, and whatnot. If you wanted to avoid anything being "unfun," then you would not have used the resource system we have. The benefits of having a more robust resource system and better balanced cards outweighs the percentage of games that are unfun because of flood/screw.

    Quote Originally Posted by the_hextcg_article View Post
    Which begs the question, “Who is having fun with this card?”
    The more important question, again taking the individual person's definition of "unfun" into account, is, "Are the percentage of games that are unfun as a result of this card more harmful to the game as a whole than banning this card is?"

    As I have said previously, banning this card at this time sets a bad precedent. Colin has stated in this thread that the decision was not reactionary, and I believe that both he and the developers believe that to be true. However, the fact remains that we have created an environment where loudness and vehemence can be perceived to be getting people what they want. There was a LOT of conversation on this subject, but beyond the first couple of pages, there was not a lot of rationality or new evidence being offered by either side. It devolved into a matter of noise and volume, with a lot of anger and insults being tossed around, rather than structured conversation.

    When a decision like this comes down, the reaction should never be "See? I was right." There are no winners and losers on this issue. The game as a whole is what matters here, and if people feel they can affect change by yelling, or whining, or repetition, the whole community and the quality of the product will both suffer as a result. I fear we are heading down a dark pathway - that is my true concern in all of this.

    I am not angry about this decision. But I do believe very strongly that it was still too soon to make this call, if it should have been made at all. I think it will prove, in the fullness of time, to have been detrimental for the game as a whole.
    --ossuary

    "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
    - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •