|
Post by seeker on Apr 27, 2011 16:08:56 GMT -5
He also operates under the incorrect assumption that all players want to and should spend time becoming as good at a game as possible. He's missing something that most gamers and game enthusiasts having been missing from the dawn of modern gaming, and that the games industry is only beginning to understand: Casual. Sorry to say, guys, but casual is the future of gaming and we're going to have to deal with it. I don't think he assumes anything. iirc, his main point is that there are two kinds of players: Those that play to win, and those that don't. While I don't spend every waking moment (or anything close to it) improving my skills in MTG, when I sit down to play a game my goal is to win. Whether I'm playing Ad Nauseam Tendrils in Legacy, Momir Basic, or pack wars, I'm playing the game to win. So then, how do you define "casual"? Is it valuing creativity over winning? Is it trying to do something "fun" instead "trying to win at all costs"? In that case, Sirlin isn't missing anything, he's just a different type of player than you are. For me personally, I don't think either kind of player is "better" in a moral or philosophical sense, but somebody playing to win is going to be better at the game the vast majority of the time.
|
|
|
Post by lightspvp on Apr 27, 2011 16:16:20 GMT -5
People who value trying to be creative over the overall goal of the game should not be banning cards just so "creative" decks stand a chance simply because winning should not matter so much to them. I've seen plenty of trade binders/boxes and people have the cards to build substatial decks. Even bray Ben who builds the most random piles of cards as decks (know for sure he doesn't take offense to this) has the cards available to trade for and create a deck that could compete consistently.
Of course, not everyone is forced to make a deck like this, but people who don't shouldn't expect to win/change the rules so that they would win. Ben does not expect to win with his random card decks so he doesn't push to change the game so that he does. Play to be creative or play to win, but if you play for the sake of trying to be creative, don't expect to beat people who want to actually win the game.
Nasan Ben has an actually somewhat competitive rhys deck. Untouched, he makes an exponential amount of tokens that all get buffed up. Of course his deck has weaknesses such as repeated board wipes/easy to kill general as my decks have their own weaknesses such as null rod and graveyard hate. I don't see many other freshmen decks to stand up to rhys unless teamed together, and should expect a lower win chance vs this deck and should not complain about how overpowered certain cards/combos are in his deck.
|
|
Kiki
Will A
none
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Kiki on Apr 27, 2011 16:46:26 GMT -5
Here are the things I enjoy that other people don't enjoy:
Non red-zone interaction: I enjoy interaction outside of combat and creatures. If I wanted to play with creature combat as the only route to victory for both players, I would probably just play limitted or standard. And yes, legacy has a lot of creature combat, but it also has interesting aggro Versus combo matchups and the like.
I should be able to have fun whether or not any given card has been cast: the idea here is that I like to build my decks so that I don't just stop having fun once someone played a single card that they find fun. Now, most of my decks have some difficulty against humility, but all of them have at least one answer to it/ way to go around it. Milling as a win condition: Everyone of my decks is built with the ability to win the game through milling someone.
Thats how I like to build my decks. I realize that making sure i have infinite recursion and can win with: 704.5b If a player attempted to draw a card from an empty library since the last time state-based actions were checked, he or she loses the game.
Is sort of scrubish. I accept that. I don't design my decks to be competitive. But I try to design them to so that I can have fun in a given solution. Additionally, I try to build my decks so that I don't snipe someone out of the game. I would enjoy playing games that start at infinite life so that we play the game until all possible options have been exhausted and the game is over due to all players having exhausted all possible options.
|
|
|
Post by tehwerr on Apr 27, 2011 17:45:13 GMT -5
It's recursive exsanguinate. It is generally easy to recur a creature through various means (recurring nightmare for instance, especially in black) than to recur exsanguinate. Even then, most posts I've read from people from various other MTG forums say kokusho is the most unbanworthy card on the ban list. I have no fun vs null rod. This does not mean I should stop people from playing it. Life gain + hurricane effect ban? do you really hate null rod so much you keep bringing this up. also do you really think I want to ban these cards out of spite because I can't deal with them. (I can deal with them by the way)
|
|
|
Post by tehwerr on Apr 27, 2011 18:12:09 GMT -5
this is getting us nowhere I'm starting a new thread.
|
|
Mike
Mike
Gwafa Hazid, Profiteer: Mike; Draft Master
yo
Posts: 1,776
|
Post by Mike on Apr 28, 2011 12:39:59 GMT -5
I played some multiplayer edh games last night and it reminded me that there is no problem. It's multiplayer- just 4v1 the guy with the deck you don't like. If they don't like dying so fast they won't play that deck, simple.
|
|
|
Post by vultanphase on Apr 28, 2011 13:18:11 GMT -5
Wait, were people ignoring threats? Was that the whole problem?
Oh goddamnit.
Don't help the threat! What are you, new?
|
|