General CBS

[Laz]

http://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/co...lient_disabled_permanently_on_july_16/cihd4hj

Salty.

I was going to say something like 'The core engine seems fine...', but that isn't the case, and is likely the root of the problem. It would be very very difficult to ensure compatibility between the existing engine and one that was re-written, since even minor implementation differences could likely lead to radically disjoint game states. Hence, as Wizards, you can't simply go 'this engine needs re-writing, it has some pretty crippling performance limitations' without also going 'everyone out of the old client! New client coming through!'. Trying to ensure that the new version is backwards compatible with the old client makes it very difficult to fix the problems of the older client (which are mostly engine related, as opposed to UI related I feel).

 

[Changling Bob]

No-one will stop playing, if they were playing on v3 despite it's bullshitness.

 

[Changling Bob]

The core engine is fine. There are, to my knowledge, no gameplay bugs that aren't individual card texts that do weird things (will of the council notwithstanding).

The user interface is Hot Garbage. It's always been Hot Garbage, largely because Wizards seems to have a horrible case of Not Invented Here, and so built their own rendering system, which is the 'engine' you're complaining about. If MODO had an API that people could use, people would build front ends that were better than the official client, using built in Windows windowing calls and it would be fine, but due to NIH, Wizards build their own front end system, and it's rubbish. This is also why it sort of doesn't follow a lot of accepted computer shorthand/verb systems; menus being weirdly laggy/quick to close, the right click menu being a bit janky, the confusion between OK/Cancel and Yes/No and them being the opposite way around.

This is then made worse by, from all accounts, Wizards paying under market value for developers, because hey, you get to work at Wizards which is great, right!? and by executive meddling and declarations of 'add this now' or 'users will prefer this' (against any kind of usability testing or common sense (see also: the new website redesign)) which, if you're willing to be underpaid for your services, you're probably going to go with because you don't a) have any option, or b) aren't good enough at what you do to know otherwise. If their coding team isn't largely fresh graduates working their 'dream job' I'll be very surprised.

 

[Eric Chan]

I will say that I generally don't mind the new client, except for two major caveats:

• The responsiveness of the UI has taken a nosedive compared to V3, such that all your clicks and actions take a hair longer than they used to. This adds up enough that you end up dangerously close to timing out a lot more often than you did before, even if you're not a particularly slow player.
• Memory usage. MY GOD memory usage. One time, very early in the beta, I wanted to double check what my remaining reanimator targets were, so I tried to flip from the Game tab to the Collection. Everything.. seized up for nearly sixty seconds. I waited it out, but while it was happening, I had no idea if my connection had dropped or it was just the front end behaving badly. Every time I go to the Windows Task Manager to check the memory footprint, it seems to be over 1 GB, shortly after starting up.

I don't know if either of those two things are a priority for the MTGO team, but they're kinda deal breakers for me. On the other hand, if they can fix both of these, I think I'd start playing MTGO again.

 

[Jason Waddell]

The amount of redundancy needed to make the Storm deck "kinda work" in Vintage Masters is insane.

 

[VibeBox]

i watched my friend stream 3 or 4 VM drafts, and wow that "format" at that price is a slap in the face.
i'm amazed people continue to put up with this continued level of bs from wizards, but hey i guess when you have too much money and not much of a life...

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

Yeah, when I saw that storm was an archetype in VM I got excited that it might actually be both viable and fun, especially after the general failure of storm in MMA draft. Sadly, they managed to make an even narrower, archetype driven format than before, where the storm cards exist on their own isolated axis.

The really strange thing is that it looks like they gave zero thought into how it would be fun: if in the unlikely event you assemble a good storm deck, it’s just going to be an uninteractive blowout for your opponent.

 

[Onderzeeboot]

The really strange thing is that it looks like they gave zero thought into how it would be fun: if in the unlikely event you assemble a good storm deck, it’s just going to be an uninteractive blowout for your opponent.

So... It closely resembles vintage storm decks then? I've honestly enjoyed watching the many VMA drafts I've seen so far, and I've definitely seen some of the common (by rarity) storm pieces slot into other archetypes. Frantic Search goes into madness, Temporal Fissure is a potential 2-for-1 if you have a 'free' spell already, and Dark Ritual is perfectly fine in black aggro. All of the other pieces are at uncommon or higher. Honestly the goblins theme is pushed a lot harder at common, and those are way less likely to appear in other archetypes than the common storm cards. At uncommon it's admittedly the other way around, but hey, uncommon.

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

So... It closely resembles vintage storm decks then? I've honestly enjoyed watching the many VMA drafts I've seen so far, and I've definitely seen some of the common (by rarity) storm pieces slot into other archetypes. Frantic Search goes into madness, Temporal Fissure is a potential 2-for-1 if you have a 'free' spell already, and Dark Ritual is perfectly fine in black aggro. All of the other pieces are at uncommon or higher. Honestly the goblins theme is pushed a lot harder at common, and those are way less likely to appear in other archetypes than the common storm cards. At uncommon it's admittedly the other way around, but hey, uncommon.

I think it’s more that with MMA you would have reasonable overlap with the storm cards themselves. The G/R suspend deck was a reasonable deck on its own, but suspend as a mechanic worked very well with storm and you could run a grapeshot or empty the warrens in it and it was fine. Similarly, you could run empty the warrens and grinning ignus in the B/R goblins deck and it was fine. Brain freeze and tendrils feel like traps: they are pure storm cards that suck you into an archetype that lacks the consistency of vintage storm decks due to a lack of tutors, and just tends to draw cards and fold under any real pressure due to the level of redundancy it requires.

Though admittedly, I’m being flavored by disappointment that this draft didn't go better. /sigh

 

[CML]

i watched my friend stream 3 or 4 VM drafts, and wow that "format" at that price is a slap in the face.
i'm amazed people continue to put up with this continued level of bs from wizards, but hey i guess when you have too much money and not much of a life...

cut it out with your hateful opinions

So... It closely resembles vintage storm decks then? I've honestly enjoyed watching the many VMA drafts I've seen so far, and I've definitely seen some of the common (by rarity) storm pieces slot into other archetypes. Frantic Search goes into madness, Temporal Fissure is a potential 2-for-1 if you have a 'free' spell already, and Dark Ritual is perfectly fine in black aggro. All of the other pieces are at uncommon or higher. Honestly the goblins theme is pushed a lot harder at common, and those are way less likely to appear in other archetypes than the common storm cards. At uncommon it's admittedly the other way around, but hey, uncommon.

i hate the black aggro cards they are just terrible. playing carnophage vs. beetleback chief or whatever is just insulting. check out these links here

http://www.mtggoldfish.com/limited/analysis/draft/vma_vma_vma
http://www.mtggoldfish.com/limited/cards/draft/vma_vma_vma

now there are a lot of confounding variables here (STP at 51%!) but uhhhh:

Battle Screech -- Mythic Common

 

[Onderzeeboot]

Yeah, Battle Screech at common is probably the worst rarity shift in the set as far as a balanced limited environment is concerned.

 

[Changling Bob]

I dunno, the format seems wide open if you can get exclusive access to goblins, battle screeches or UG madness, or can open recurring nightmare or power, or get some storm pull cards early enough that you can try and force brainstorms and dark rituals and you continue to get storm finishers. Wide open!

 

[Changling Bob]

With that said, I don't know what fair non-linear decks look like in VMA, and I believe there's something to think about with regards to our cubes and linear (but non-poisonous) strategies; cf: gravecrawlers, pods.

 

[Changling Bob]

Oh or if you can draft like 6 tyrant's choice because it's garbage until you just kill them with it.

 

[VibeBox]

cut it out with your hateful opinions

 

[CML]

 

[Dom Harvey]

I haven't seen an adult use 'Male Tears' before

 

[CML]

I haven't seen an adult use 'Male Tears' before

nor a dude

 

[anotak]

can people share some insight into the differences between 1v1 and multiplayer cube? I've never played the latter.

Grillo is the only poster here i know for sure that plays multiplayer cube with any frequency, if you're around, any thoughts?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

We do 3-4 players and have always done free-for-all. So this is all written from that perspective.

The biggest difference is that when you design the cube you have to look at the cube very holistically: i.e. a rock-paper-scissors matchup approach can't ever be balanced if rock is always present in the game.

The games naturally go longer, and with that the evaluations of certain cards has to change as well. Cards like stromkirk noble and reckless waif become better than they would in single player, since you can reliably count on there being at least one durdle player for them to punish. Cards like Armageddon and upheaval become essential uncubable, because of the extent they drag out games. You have to think about how much decision density you want, since it’s all going to be amplified by three or four times, and you don't want 10 minute turns with everyone going into the tank.

Due to the amount of pour over disruption from other players, people are going to be naturally drawn to solutions rather than threats. As a result, if you take a traditional roshambo approach, players will have a preference for control or midrange strategies, which will in turn completely oppress blitzkrieg aggro strategies: decks have to be much more flexible, evolving and shifting roles with the changing game state, and those decks are too narrow. My list is designed to promote games that encourage early aggressive interaction, shifting to a stabilized board state in the mid-game, which the players than overcome using the best threats and synergy in the late game. That holistic approach has worked much better for me than trying to design for control or aggro or midrange.

Also, planeswalkers become much much worse to the point where their inclusion is questionable. If they are reasonably powerful they generally come down, everyone gangs up on that player, and the walker dies a turn or two later--having accomplished nothing more than extending the game. Conversely, if the walker is a token maker, such as elspeth or sorin, they can just steal entire games if they come down after an opponent’s-or your own-boardsweeper.

All-in-all it works pretty well over here. With this list our games are pretty reasonable 20-30 minute affairs. There also isn't the problem of getting mana/color screwed and just losing, which is something I really like for the casual players—though I think my decision density might be a bit too high.

Hope that helps

 

[anotak]

for 4ish people do y'all just do a regular draft or do you grid draft or do something else?

interesting that you don't do any non-free-for-all variants.

how does gameplay politics affect the draft and the game itself?

do you just play 1 game or several?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

We've always just done a regular draft, with the effect that the packs go much deeper than they otherwise would. I've considered doing more packs with less cards per pack, but never done it. Other than being able to be a bit greedier than you otherwise would, the drafts themselves play out the same as a single player draft. We've never gotten into politics in the draft itself: everyone is pretty much just reading signals and trying to draft the best deck.

We play several games. With the current list we usually do something like 5 games in a night, though with the old--slower--cube it would be more like 3 in a night.

Gameplay politics are most apparent in the early game here. If you are just durdling, someone (or everyone) is going to be going for you, and trying to tempo you out. That’s a function of a lot of things: the cube running cards like stromkirk noble/waif, the traditional dominate role of midrange/control that has people paranoid, and the chance for gaining an easy edge over a durdle player before they stabilize. If you are mana screwed/color screwed, usually you get left alone, since you are simply not a threat, and it’s more important to address active boards and the threats they are deploying. If your deck has been winning games, you will probably be a bit more of a target off the bat.

One of the things that I've managed to largely avoid with this current list, is the "wait on the wings strategy" where one player doesn’t really interact, than swoops in circa late game with resource and life superiority to win. The cube is so active, that life drops quickly; with life loss usually pretty even in its dispersal, since everyone is running threats and basing their strategy on card synergy.

Players will of course gang-up on someone they think is going to take over the game, at least until the elimination of the threat that player is presenting. This usually results in some tension and bluffing over who can do what to address the threat. The way that dynamic plays out has changed somewhat with the cube. In the old cube things felt more swingy since it was based more around playing powerful cards, and the games really were (though not obviously so) coming down to “can you deal with this or no” situations with the decks winning or folding based on the outcome. With the new cube, it’s more about presenting a powerful synergistic strategy that takes over the game, making both reading the board and alliance forming much more subtle and complex.

 

[anotak]

thanks for the insight!

have you tried any of the voting cards from conspiracy?

 

[Grillo_Parlante]

No, i've not tried any of those cards, though I may in the future. Since the cube is still relatively new, and I have a good idea how I want my games to play out, right now i'm more focused on making sure it has everything it needs to ensure that its consistant. Once I have it tuned better, than I plan to add in non-critical "spice" cards, such as planeswalkers or voting cards.

 

[Jason Waddell]

CML has always made spurious "data backed" claims re: the advantage of being on the play or on the draw, and I never really engaged them, but this comment from a CFB article is pretty relevant:

I've always wondered why Win% on the play is lower than Win% on the draw for every draft format you have posted stats on. I just had an epiphany that the numbers are like this because the losing deck is more likely to choose to be on the play in sideboarded games. Is there a way we can change this stat to only account for game 1s? I believe this would be a much more accurate representation of true win% on the draw vs. play.

I'm still pretty skeptical of these data collection things, particularly when the output produces tables like these:

I have no idea how this table was sorted but the lack of sorting by either Games Played or Win% make it much more difficult to meaningfully process. Not to take anything away from the article, but I've yet to really see Magic analysis anywhere that I trust to be statistically valid.