Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: Discussion: Raising the Limited Deck-Size Minimum to 45+

  1. #81
    221 flashback is inevitable.
    --ossuary

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

  2. #82
    because a flashback event might happen is no reason not to move forward with different sets. We've seen a number of changes that affect sets 1 and 2. But they still made those changes because it was the best move.
    ----
    http://i.imgur.com/I1MZpF8.png
    HexEnt is too long to type, They're HXE now.
    I am currently trading my unused GK code for a new Tesla Model S P85D
    Feel free to contact me for where you can have it shipped.

  3. #83
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Gwaer View Post
    because a flashback event might happen is no reason not to move forward with different sets. We've seen a number of changes that affect sets 1 and 2. But they still made those changes because it was the best move.
    Oh my god, guys, it was just a silly joke.

  4. #84
    Just finished my first draft with the 17 card packs and immediately won the whole thing. Yeah, I'm a big fan of the change

  5. #85
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    125
    I'll avoid making a long post for once, especially since the OP explained it very concisely and effectively.

    As a heavy drafter, and following 8 or so drafts since the core rules changes, I would strongly be in favor of decreasing the minimum deck size for all of the reasons discussed. I feel like niche strategies are too easy to force, signalling is all over the place (or rather, people are reacting to signals to a much lesser degree) and overall the difficulty of the format has decreased dramatically, which pushes more people to a roughly equivalent level in terms of deck power/consistency.

    Pushing more people by default to a rather common power level means that skill differences are shrunk in significance, which means games are somewhat more likely to be down to randomness/luck in draws and the like.

    With all that said and done, I don't expect this to be changed, mostly because of the statement that "there will be no further core rules changes" statement. It's possible this will impact card design - notably of commons and uncommons - in future sets, however. Here's hoping for that, at least.
    TL;DR: Man criticizes things. Rambling ensues.

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

  6. #86
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Yewstance View Post
    I'll avoid making a long post for once, especially since the OP explained it very concisely and effectively.

    As a heavy drafter, and following 8 or so drafts since the core rules changes, I would strongly be in favor of decreasing the minimum deck size for all of the reasons discussed. I feel like niche strategies are too easy to force, signalling is all over the place (or rather, people are reacting to signals to a much lesser degree) and overall the difficulty of the format has decreased dramatically, which pushes more people to a roughly equivalent level in terms of deck power/consistency.

    Pushing more people by default to a rather common power level means that skill differences are shrunk in significance, which means games are somewhat more likely to be down to randomness/luck in draws and the like.

    With all that said and done, I don't expect this to be changed, mostly because of the statement that "there will be no further core rules changes" statement. It's possible this will impact card design - notably of commons and uncommons - in future sets, however. Here's hoping for that, at least.
    I've definitely seen this. I'm a pretty decent, regular drafter and have done maybe four or five drafts since the changes. Every single one of my matches has felt like it's swung more on resource/threshold issues than any other factor. Could be a small sample size, but the feeling is definitely there. That said, was talking about it with some folks in my guild and I think that knowing what to cull from your pool in any given draft is harder than it had been before the changes. I usually have 30 pretty good, playable cards now. Figuring out what's maindeck and what's reserves for certain matchups is its own skill. It's been fun to play around with the varying champion health totals. I just chose Sagebrush over Cressida in my current draft in a spot where I'd have gone with Cressida had their life totals been equal. (I was able to draft a ton of ramp cards, plus "battle other troops" stuff, and I figured the buff might provide more utility in the long game than the ramp will give me in the short game.)
    Last edited by Dorkelvania; 12-13-2015 at 03:23 PM.

  7. #87
    Personally I'd like the minimum deck size to be low enough for people to have to actually made decisions about how many cards to use: do away with the minimum altogether I say! (except for Jank I suppose)
    Currently Most Wanted HEX development: AH overhaul

    http://i633.photobucket.com/albums/u...psee8e7213.png

    Our CzE Recruitment Thread: http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=24252

  8. #88
    Just make minimaster a format already!
    Member of The Unnamed Council - the Hex TCG PvE Guild
    Twice as nice as i seem and ten times as friendly.

Posting Permissions

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