|
Author
|
Topic: Suggestions and critique on my plans for a weekly EDH League/Tournament.
|
Sovarius
Member
|
posted October 12, 2014 05:40 PM
       
Tournaments in my area have shown me there is a combo deck at each table, that moves on to the finals, for a total of 4 combos decks that essentially 'goldfish' their decks out. The majority of players have little money invested, running mostly precons, never have a chance against combo, play only one game after their inevitable stomping, and getting zero satisfaction out of any of it. What i see is people joining for fun and not having any fun.The purpose of this league is to culture a balanced environment, that is engineered towards rewarding fun and social play, rather than cutthroat behavior. I want everyone to be able to play more, and to be able to learn about the game. Some principles of the league can be summed up with a few quotes:
"Create games that you’d love to remember, not the ones others would like to forget." - Sheldon
"Build casually, play competitively."
"Play more." To that end i want to make some rules changes, some quite large. As far as league structure, i haven't worked out points system yet, but it is based on Armada League and Sentry Box lists, mingled with my ideas. Generally awards accomplishments and punishes very unfriendly behavior and include a ante system for league points.
Each night will be played for weekly prize support as well, based on placing (not league points).
So far i also plan to have 3 rounds, the first of which is random, the second of which round one pods' first place winners form a pod, second places form a pod, and the rest form random pods. For the third round repeat the method used for round 2. This will prevent the most competitive and skilled players with the best decks from randomly pairing against those with weaker decks or skills the whole three rounds, as well keeping a strong player from totally failing round 1 and then the next two rounds get paired with anyone weaker. Of course it won't be perfect four pods of four every time, and we will have to modify it depending on number of people and pods. Let's start small. I am going to list each rule, then afterwards the explanations and prebuttals (i just made that up) to some issues i've heard about these rules before or issues i anticipate. If you have no response to the rule you can skip time by not reading the explanation, which is the entirety of the second post. -- 0. Additional bans (or, "No Mass Land Destruction Rule"):
Any affect that destroys, exiles, or returns to hand, or otherwise removes from the field ALL lands is banned, as well as any card that specifies a limit of lands to keep and eliminate the rest. (Decree of Annihilation, Armageddon, Jokulhaups, Cataclysm, Razia's Purification, et alia)
* I will eventually compile an actual list of cards that say this, but you and i and potential future league players also know what cards this means already.
* There are no other additional bans currently but will be added to same list. -- 1.a. The five 4-color Nephilim from RAV block are legends and may be used as Commanders. (They are still legends if they are part of the 99-card deck)
-- 1.b. The rare/mythic 5-color creatures are legendary and may be used as Commanders. (This simply includes Maelstrom Archangel and Chromanticore) -- 2. Players roll dice (or equivalent random effect) for who plays first and turn order. (This is opposed to seated however players see fit, or randomly, then rolling for who plays first, and passing play to left) -- 3. 10 card sideboard rule in effect. Players may make 1-for-1 swaps between sideboard and deck, after Commanders are revealed (5 minutes). Sideboard is one and the same as wishboard (Wishes/'outside the game' may only grab cards from sideboard). -- 4. Partial Paris/Brittany mulligans are in effect. Each player may take one free mulligan before diminishing draws. First player in turn order draws a card for turn. -- 5.a. Players may only concede at the beginning of their turn, before they untap.
-- 5.b. In the event a player cannot or does not wait to concede, continuous effects linger until end of the current turn (but not the turn cycle up to conceding player).
-- 5.c. In the event of a concession to prevent an effect from occurring, the event will occur regardless. Any conflicts in what may or may not have happened shall be deliberated by judge.
-- 5.d. Any time a player concedes on his or her turn, undo that turn. Any conflicts shall be deliberated by judge. -- 6.a. Whenever a player leaves the game (wins, loses, concedes) and has permanents controlled by another player, that player will retain a copy.
-- 6.b. Whenever a player leaves the game who has nonpermanents exiled as referenced by ability controlled by another player, that player will retain a copy.
* Permanent copies are nontoken permanents, but effectively function as a token when removed from battlefield to another zone. This simply means they cease to exist. -- 7.a. If an effect causes a player to 'win' the game before the 50 minute time limit, he or she exits the game just as a player who loses or concedes. This happens like a state-based action instead of resolving. This is to include eliminating all other players simultaneously. Gameplay resumes with their place secured. Any points that would have been awarded for this will count.
-- 7.b. If a player can demonstrably, unstoppably, eliminate all other players at the same time (before the 50 minute time limit) through another means (this would generally be combat damage), they may opt to take the first place and leave the game, so players may compete for second. This happens like a state-based action instead of resolving (or resolving combat damage). This is different to rule 7.a. in that this applies to situations where they player could choose not to eliminate all (combat step). -- 8. No infinite combos. Any demonstrably infinite action may only be performed 3 times per turn, any players turn.
[Edited 3 times, lastly by Sovarius on October 13, 2014]
  |
Sovarius
Member
|
posted October 12, 2014 05:47 PM
-- 0. This one is simple: mass land destruction generally prevents players from playing the game, the opposite of what i want to achieve. Also drags games on and on if played improperly (and in a league designed for casual, social play, that may be more likely).-- 1.a. There is no reason not to, and good reasons to. They are unique mechanically as the only five 4-color creatures in the game, and they are unique flavorfully as the only Nephilim in the game (cool note: in Ravnica canon they seen by some as lesser gods because of their size, power, and uniqueness). None of the Nephilim are particularly broken in any regard, and playing one as a Commander allows a player to have an interesting card to build around. The extra color options are no different than playing a 4-color deck with a 5-color legend, or choosing Reaper King and being able to cast him with 2 colorless.
-- 1.b. Chromanticore and Maelstrom Archangel have essentially the same reasoning as the Nephilim. Maelstrom Archangel would require a demonstration before a ban, but for now seems slow enough to be reasonable. Must wait for summoning sickness to go away, must protect her, must land the attack, the spell is cast and can also be countered, etc.
* No other creatures or permanents are unique in this manner, this is not the first step towards allowing any rare creature/permanent being a commander.
* These newly errata'd-to-commanders will be the only exceptions (as well as likely any rare 5-c creature of the future) and will not be the foundation to errata other cards (ex: Karakas is still banned, will not be changed to "Non-commander legend"). This also keeps to my tenet of keeping the rules designed as such to prevent league players from having to switch and swap out cards when they play outside league.
* I do not have any issue with Fusion Elemental or Transguild Courier, however they both literally do nothing and do not add to gameplay and are not rares (which is not really criteria, but also worthy of of note). -- 2. The die roll is random and should determine turn order and seating arrangement. Generally players are seated however they want, or randomly, then the die roll occurs. But if the high roll determines who starts, why not who goes second. I don't think that you should roll second highest and get unlucky because you are to the right of the first highest. It is not unfair to be randomly seated and roll second highest to the person on your left, this is just a little more balanced. I hear "It doesn't even matter in multiplayer who goes first" - ok, so then it can be determined any way and there should be no problem. -- 3. Just a great, fair rule for EDH, and for EDH players to learn more about playing the game. A format designed for fun doesn't preclude the necessary precautions (removal, countermagic, et alia), however, i believe a player should be able to maximize the number of cards that go with the theme or play style of the deck, if they so choose. The sideboard will allow them to make some of that decision when it's most important instead of possibly having a dead card in deck. -- 4. From mtgcommander.net rules: "designed to alleviate mana-light hands without significantly increasing the odds of finding individual cards". With the restriction of combos, this will not significantly alter a player's chance of getting a form of a 'god-hand', and the general purpose of the rules is so that players may play more. I also hope, and expect of players, to figure out if someone is aggressively shuffling away cards until their turn one play is commander Grand Arbiter, then you have to consider what kind of person you are playing against and react accordingly. -- 5.a. This prevents a lot abuse of game rules. I find the ability to concede just a matter of the fact that you can't make someone play, not really a function of game rules and mechanics. In 1v1 it doesn't matter if someone quits, the other wins.
However, this is very different in a multiplayer, where a concession can be abused, rather than used. Such as being attacked for lethal by a Sword of Feast and Famine and scooping so they receive no trigger, being Exsanguinated for 10 at 8 life, or any of the other dozen variations i've seen or hundreds that exist.
-- 5.b. A player cannot be made to play, rules can be broken, and sometimes people just have to leave. In this case, any static effects that effect gameplay owned by leaving player are still in effect. For example, a player has to scoop in the middle of a player's turn but had a Thalia on board - the rest of the turn will still be played as though she is on the field. If a player had intended to do something to remove Thalia and continue casting spells with no tax, they may still do so (in other words, play as if the leaving player was gone but the permanents remained until end of turn). (consider leaving player to be a goldfish who can't be attacked and does not cast spells or use abilities).
This is to prevent the same methods of abuse as above.
-- 5.c. Another subset of the same rule to prevent the same abuse. This will require some judgmental decisions, but i believe it will be very unlikely to ever come up, and if so, easily handled. Example could be Player A has Edric on the field, and is teaming up with Player B (which is totally fine), so Player B attacks Player C to draw some cards off him, and passes turn. Player C goes for the counterattack to get his fair share of draws off the now-open Player B, so then Player A concedes so that Player C is tapped out and does not restock his hand as imagined. The attack and Edric triggers will occur still.
-- 5.d. Just another example of this 'rules abuse'. -- 6.a. This rule is designed regarding both Magic lore and the simple fact that in a 1v1 game the rules do not need to make any adjustments to a players permanents remaining in play. A Planeswalker's (you the magic player) creations are not bound by any law in the lore that suggests after dying (a player losing or conceding) they cease to exist as well. Any summoned creation that was taken by another would, or should, still exist. In a 1v1 game these rules do not matter as the game is simply over. In multiplayer, games are not simply over when a single player loses. EDH is a flavorful, lore and theme driven format where this rule fits in perfectly.
-- 6.b. By example, Praetor's Grasp would still allow the caster to have that spell in reserve even with the target outed. Also in this example, the caster may have to reveal the card as they physically give it to the leaving player, to prevent claiming anything else was exiled instead. -- 7.a. This rule is a product of the nature of the league, wherein players are not only competing for first place. First and foremost to determine pods for later rounds, more than just first place should be determined if able. Secondly, many objectives pay out in a points system that also contributes to earning prize support. I do not want a player winning quickly to punish the rest of the table who do not get to play out the game that 'could have been'. The time limit rules applies so that games over 50 minutes cannot have a player effectively 'win' and drop, letting the match continue.
-- 7.b. This rule differs from 7.a. in that any game state where a player can eliminate all others, but has the option not to, they will not be held to any rule governing their decision. -- 8. Saved the hardest to define and the most controversial for last. Infinite combos are the antithesis to everything i am trying to accomplish with the league structure. They are the bane of casuals, who are the majority of players in my area. Not grounds for banning but certainly of note, the general populace of casuals cannot deal with combos.
The hardest part of this is how to limit or ban this. I cannot possibly ban every card that is part of an infinite combo, nor does that feel like the right answer when most cards are just fine without being infinitely enabled. However, my next best guess is to limit any demonstrably reproducible effect to 3 iterations. This means Power Artifact + Grim Monolith (using untap ability 3 times) can produce 6 mana (ending up tapped). However, is it correct to limit the untap to 3 iterations, or the tap ability? Or both? This is much easier to define with a single permanent that stays put, but what about anything involving Deadeye Navigator? If he blinks Palinchron, is each new Palinchron a new object and therefore each only uses one activation?
This is simply just a start, a work in progress. As anything else it is subject to change but it may better handled by a penalty in points.
|
Volcanon
Member
|
posted October 12, 2014 07:42 PM
If you banned everything that could possibly be unfun you'd have a monster-sized ban list. Armageddon is balanced by the fact that whoever plays it either wins immediately or gets ganged up on. How do you punish ramp without some sort of disruption, like mass LD?If combo is the issue ban the key parts of each of the combo decks. What about actions that can be employed a finite, but large number of times, like storm? I would just ban any storm card. They are basically *all* terrible feel-bad spells.
|
Sovarius
Member
|
posted October 12, 2014 09:07 PM
Thank you for your responsequote:
Originally posted by Volcanon:
If you banned everything that could possibly be unfun you'd have a monster-sized ban list. Armageddon is balanced by the fact that whoever plays it either wins immediately or gets ganged up on. How do you punish ramp without some sort of disruption, like mass LD?
And in the mean time, it just creates undesirable game states that are hard to trudge through.Though it does punish ramp, what you are describing punishes everyone else and yourself too. If you can gang up on the guy who tries to Armageddon your lands before his win (or just as a means of control), you can gang up on the ramping player as well. Maybe not if you keep blowing up everyone's stuff though, multiplayer politics can go any direction. quote:
If combo is the issue ban the key parts of each of the combo decks.
Firstly, why?This, like your first statement, would lead to a 'monster sized ban list'. I am not opposed to more bans on principle (i think everything should be given adequate consideration), but i am not sure if you are contradicting yourself here. What is the difference, to you? Either way, the issue is that a lot of cards involved in infinites are ok on their own and can see legitimate play. I am immediately hesitant of banning for this reason, but i do not rule it out. However, we still talking about a lot of cards here and i probably do not know of all of them. I suppose the start would be the least universal of the cards in the combo?
For starters, Power Artifact can be used 'fair' and 'fun' but is much less universal than the monoliths it gets put on. Palinchron is another example that comes to mind, it almost is only strictly used for infinite mana/etb. It's most legitimate use is not particularly powerful (a 'free creature' that comes with evasion). My other concern is having to maintain a ban list that needs to be updated all the time to keep up with whatever interactions crop up that are bannable under the 'no infinite combos' rule. But what specifically is the problem with limiting repetitions to 3? Do you just not prefer it or was there a specific issue? If there was an issue, not a preference, i would like to see if it can be solved before moving on to extra bans. quote:
What about actions that can be employed a finite, but large number of times, like storm? I would just ban any storm card. They are basically *all* terrible feel-bad spells.
Not every storm card is overpowered, especially if you functionally can't go infinite. If you can do it a large number of times i generally have to believe you deserve it because you worked for it (consider that working up to say... 15 mana, is harder that just going infinite mana combo). You would have to give me an example though because i am not knowledgeable on storm in EDH.
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Sovarius on October 12, 2014]
|
Volcanon
Member
|
posted October 13, 2014 02:09 AM
Quite possibly you should be awarding points based on things other than beating other players. Otherwise you're just going to get people running things that are just shy of any additional rules.Banning infinite combos, for example, nukes not-particularly-broken decks like the lifedeck, which needs to water itself down by playing other colors for it to really be able to do anything with the extra life. On the other hand, it's still A-OK to play sneak attack with cards like eldrazi and terrastrodon, which are themselves one-sided mass LD. It's also OK to ramp into a turn 5 wipe-the-table with exsanguinate.
|
Sovarius
Member
|
posted October 13, 2014 09:58 AM
There will be a point system, as mentioned above. I just do not have a final outline of what i want to happen. I also have this idea that each player also gets 3 randomly selected goals that are secret to them. As a bonus, sometimes they will apply and sometimes they won't, but they would be outside the usual play goals.
Also i linked to Sheldon's SCG article on his Armada League system.So this would ban outright win combos, but not infinite life? Infinite life is borderline winning, unless there is infinite damage. Not a huge number of other ways to deal with that. (mill, infect, "target player loses", "i win", are all less common strategies and not incredibly easy to pull off).
I guess i am not sure what the lifedeck is (is that different than just 'my strategy is to gain life'?) but Test of Endurance and Felidar Sovereign are cards. Serra Ascendant, Divinity of Pride, Ageless Ascetic, and Ajani's Pridemate are all valid ass beaters.
I also don't know what you mean by watering itself down with other colors. Not sure your attitude on the last paragraph. Sneak Attack doesn't cost a lot of mana, but i get the rest of the point. If those cards become a problem for the group, they could be looked at. We are talking about about maybe 1 out of 7-8 players who would even do that, compared to maybe 5-6 out of 8 players who think mass LD is horse crap.
SO you bring up a valid point, but part of it is also what is best for the group. Sneak attacking Eldrazi on turn 3 is not going to be rewarded so should generally be discouraged. The 'social contract' and 'spirit of edh' will hopefully go a decent way (the combo players at tournaments can be found playing just as much jank as new players in friendly games), but some people will just do what they do no matter what. People will learn to gang up on them hopefully because that is some crap.
In this case i could see banning legendary eldrazi, sneak attack, terastodon. I could also see negative points for Annihilating someone before turn 6, for example. Casting or putting a permanent into play with CMC 3 or 4 higher than the turn number.
What do you make of it though when everyone hates mass LD?
Could also allow mass LD but players lose a point every time they eliminate more than one land in a given turn?
|
ryan2754
Member
|
posted October 13, 2014 06:10 PM
At my LGS, the tourney holder created 20 "Achievements," such as 20+ power on field, stopping an infinite combo, killing self (i.e. pestilence), 10+ tokens, etc. etc. Then, what happens is you get a point or two for each achievement, a point for each person you eliminate, and then each player gets 4-5 points to distribute as they see fit to the other players, usually distributed to those who didn't play combo. Then you can cash in 10 points for a standard pack or $4 in singles. There is also a banned list each week and people can nominate cards to be on the ballot. Majority vote gets the card banned. Our bannings include Rhystic Study out of annoyance, and Black Lotus unbanned and can be proxied ha. Each week entry is spending $10 in product. So it's not even really an "entry fee." It works pretty well.
|
Sovarius
Member
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:05 AM
That seems nice, i would like to work out prize support based on league points in some way correlates to store credit. I would prefer this over to 1st, 2nd, etc place overrall by points so that players who do roughly equally well will get roughly equal prize.You don't have any problems where people just try to boost their points? Like collusion, essentially. Alsow ould be intersted in haring about your full list. Any penalties?
|
junichi
Moderator
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:19 AM
Multi-player tournament is just horrible, and there really isn't a way to balance it to make it fair. More often than not, it's just politics and reputation, and the person who most deserves to win will usually die first because he/she is too good, which is not what the game is intended. Banning cards just because they are annoying to play against is also not that great, because now you are limiting deck types and forcing people to play certain strategies. Point system is not a bad idea, but then you are essentially taking away the goal of a tournament game, which is to win. If you really want to have an EDH tournament, I would say French list 1v1 or don't bother. Actually, a well tuned EDH deck can win on turn 0, 1, 2 and 3 easily even if you are using French list. I guess what I am trying to say is, EDH is just not a good tournament format. .02 __________________
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻"The enemy has been destroyed, sir. So have the forest, the city, your palace, your dog . . ."
—Keldon soldier
|
HandicapParking
Member
|
posted October 17, 2014 10:36 AM
I feel like a big problem is that nobody wants to take responsibility and play spot removal, as 1 for 1s are inherently bad in multiplayer.Further it seems like nobody cares if you one-shot somebody as long as you use the combat step, but when you win without using the combat step all of the sudden it's unfair. Another problem is that casual players just want to play sim city and diddle around without anyone threatening them. Half the time nobody is paying attention to what anyone else is doing and then they're all surprised when somebody gets out of control. And yea Rhystic Study... maybe people just need to learn to play magic so you don't have to "annoy" people with the triggers they forget about every single turn. Don't get me wrong, I like EDH, but you need to find a way to separate the spikes who can afford the powerful cards from the noobs. Pauper EDH? As far as collusion, you can play Star EDH: Tables of 5, you can only attack the 2 people across from you, and when both people across from you are dead you win. It won't prevent collusion entirely as you can still target everyone's permanents but it helps.
|
Sovarius
Member
|
posted October 17, 2014 06:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
Multi-player tournament is just horrible
It's not a tournament, and the point of playing EDH for alot of people IS to be multiplayer.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
and there really isn't a way to balance it to make it fair.
I think a lot of people disagree with you and play multiplayer anyway. Armada and Sentry Box have been going on with success. I don't want this thread to be an argument whether it is or isn't though, because this is happening anyway. But, the wonkiness of multiplayer is both something liked about the format and can be played with or around (and i argue that if you are actually a good player you can).
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
More often than not, it's just politics and
Yes, politics are part of multiplayer. This is a huge selling point of this format. No one is being forced to play, only those who like it will.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
reputation, and
Don't play with those kind of people. That's unfortunate though, because i am also of the opinion that you play to win for yourself or team. I hate those kind of players but all you can do is talk to them or not play with them. Or, earn a reputation of a little note and connive players into helping you and in return you will 'take them to second' (which sounds better than, 'ill kill you last'). Any game i am the boogeyman (or the clear winner from the start) i will try to shoehorn people into helping me. It's part of the game.
I will also call out anyone who is just blatantly an asskisser, i don't care. It has an effect on the game, because it's political and psychological.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
the person who most deserves to win will usually die first because he/she is too good, which is not what the game is intended.
As the best player, you need to learn to play even better or differently. Which includes piloting less powerful cards, trying to fly under the radar, make allies, play interesting cards that don't win on spot, less combos, less expensive cards. I adapt. Not saying i'm perfect, but i change things up when people think i'm too far ahead.
While you bring up a good point, people play anyway. Do you have any ideas on how to fix that?
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
Banning cards just because they are annoying to play against is also not that great, because now you are limiting deck types and forcing people to play certain strategies.
Mass land destruction, not 'everything annoying'. You are overreacting a little bit. Also, no one wants to play against mass land destruction. Currently, it is not a problem, but whenever it comes it's this huge thing and there is fair amount of whining. It doesn't come down to just me, but the health and enjoyment of the format, where the majority is not into mass land destruction. It may end up being allowed with some kind of penalty to points for destroying multiple lands. I find this to be more reasonable.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
Point system is not a bad idea, but then you are essentially taking away the goal of a tournament game, which is to win.
It's not a tournament, and the point is not ONLY to win.
Also, you DO get points for winning. I haven't made a list but i'm sure winning is worth a lot of points.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
If you really want to have an EDH tournament, I would say French list 1v1 or don't bother.
Not a tournament and the point is specifically to play multiplayer. It's a social format. No one around here tunes their decks to 1v1 or knows what french is.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
Actually, a well tuned EDH deck can win on turn 0, 1, 2 and 3 easily even if you are using French list.
I just repeat above about being social, fun, multiplayer, etc. This meta is not about that. This event is not about that.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
I guess what I am trying to say is, EDH is just not a good tournament format.
But it's not a tournament, it's a league. The argument "well everyone disagrees so you're wrong" is a cop-out, but if enough people like it (EDH is growing) your playstyle and opinions don't apply to them. People like it, enough people do not think it's a bad format to abandon the idea.
The point you miss is that people want to play multiplayer EDH that's not super cutthroat with less combos and lockdown than already exists, and i am trying to get help in succeeding making a league for the people that do want this.
People who want to play cutthroat 1v1 EDH can do that too. People who want to play vintage, or legacy, or type 4, all can do that too. They can all exist.
Edit:
Replying to you, HandicapParking, soon as i can.
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Sovarius on October 17, 2014]
|
Volcanon
Member
|
posted October 17, 2014 07:36 PM
Jeez why not just have a "game day" instead of a "tournament"?Charge some entry fee and give out random shinies to everybody, and shinier shinies to people who reach some sort of milestone as discussed above. That worked the best for shops running Conspiracy so presumably it will work the best for running this sort of thing.
|
junichi
Moderator
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sovarius:
Stuff
Calling it a league doesn't mean it is not tournament, considered it is a competition with prizes, and it's point based. Politic is always biased in a multi-player game, which is alright if it is purely casual and no prize consideration is in play. When prizes are involved, I can bet you anything that two friends in the same group will gang up on the rest no matter how charming you are, and there really isn't anything you can do about it. It also greatly diminish deck building and playing skill, and emphasize a bit too much on "popularity". IMO, I admire that you are trying to run a league/tournament which everyone will play fairly with a non dick-ish deck, but in reality, that will never happen, no matter how much restrictions you have on card/deck choices. This is just human nature. I play exclusively in a heavily tuned EDH environment, and we never have any problem with people playing dick-ish combo or mass land destruction. Our play group believe that it is up to the players to police the meta game, and there are so many cards out there that can stop those things, the onus is on the deck builder to make sure their deck is versatile and can deal with situations like these. In fact, our meta was so well tuned for mass land destruction, people stopped playing them because they kept running into Boros Charm and Faith's Reward. Our meta game evolves in a monthly basis because everyone is constantly tuning their deck to get better and counter last week's strategy, which actually makes it very exciting. My meta might be a bit cutthroat to a lot of people, but everyone who participated actually had fun. There's a lot of spell/board position interaction, instead of everyone casting their own big spells and not bother stopping each other until it's too late. __________________
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻"The enemy has been destroyed, sir. So have the forest, the city, your palace, your dog . . ."
—Keldon soldier
|
Volcanon
Member
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:28 PM
TBH, because I won fairly often conspiracy draft was quite fun. Mostly because the tourney players did it wrong. Guy did some spells to end up with four air elementals on like turn 5. Everybody kills him. I wall up (sriously, best deck in Conspiracy is U/R wall), then rock them all with a cloned big green dude who damages everybody guy.Not so fun to get hated out because I won the previous game tho.
|
Sovarius
Member
|
posted October 18, 2014 08:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by HandicapParking:
I feel like a big problem is that nobody wants to take responsibility and play spot removal, as 1 for 1s are inherently bad in multiplayer.
They can't be inherently bad, but they can be bad if played incorrectly, even if that happens to be more often than not. They can still be played correctly and contribute to making or breaking the game. I fault people who don't play at least a few ways to prevent an outright loss to a single creature. I see a lot of responses in the form of stealing and cloning though, of course. Not always the correct play either but people can do whatever they want.
Something else i notice though is that a lot of casual players don't want to dedicate slots in their deck to kill spells. They want more slots to be used on what they want to do, not preventing you from doing things. Which is also their choice and fault.
I don't see why it's a 'big problem' as opposed 'their problem'. Part of the purpose of a social league is so players can learn.
quote:
Originally posted by HandicapParking:
Further it seems like nobody cares if you one-shot somebody as long as you use the combat step, but when you win without using the combat step all of the sudden it's unfair.
This is true, mostly if you are not doing this one shot on very early turns. People don't generally like lockdown, extremely excessive counters, board wipe with land destruction, and infinite combos for at least few varied reasons. A major reason is that usually stop you from playing the game once they happen, such that you have one chance to stop it and if you don't have the card at that time, then you don't get a second chance. Casual and any type of anti-lock anti-combo players don't want to start packing more and more cards in their deck that exist to stop obnoxiously aggressive players. They want to play a bunch, get some combat, make a hilarious play, and then if they lose at least they still interacted and their presence mattered.
New players mostly cannot play combo decks or play very well against them (also applies to purposely casual players or decks). Nothing wrong with learning, though, not saying that.quote:
Originally posted by HandicapParking:
Another problem is that casual players just want to play sim city and diddle around without anyone threatening them. Half the time nobody is paying attention to what anyone else is doing and then they're all surprised when somebody gets out of control.
I don't actually see the problem there. This can make them easier targets if anything. Which is something they will learn quickly or keep losing and get paired down with other people who want to diddle around (and there would be a time limit anyway). I mean if that's what they want to do, they will probably win less. You can only help teach them and let them choose how they want to run their deck.
I have not experienced any of this surprise when someone gets out of control because they weren't paying attention. But i know i would tell that person they have to keep up with what's happening. You can talk to people in this game. Try to make them better players, so you better yourself. or, convince them they have no chance of winning and you will curbstomp them if they don't help you win. I don't like people who agree to that necessarily, but sometimes they get a lot further this way.
Personally i say let them diddle. The better players will focus each other first.
quote:
Originally posted by HandicapParking:
And yea Rhystic Study... maybe people just need to learn to play magic so you don't have to "annoy" people with the triggers they forget about every single turn.
You can teach them to play around it or destroy or play that card too. I mean they can't be terrible players forever unless they choose to. If they do then you just won some free cards and became a huge target to players who do understand.quote:
Originally posted by HandicapParking:
Don't get me wrong, I like EDH, but you need to find a way to separate the spikes who can afford the powerful cards from the noobs.
You get paired up/down based on place in rounds (as described in first post).
Generally the second and third rounds should put you against the other people who spent $1500 on their deck.
Can't stop anyone from choosing to be a spike but a casual league environment with a points system that rewards more varied and interesting plays and punishes certain powerful cutthroat behavior should help foster a healthy enough environment.
quote:
Originally posted by HandicapParking:
Pauper EDH?
Not a likely scenario. People already have normal/mainsteam EDH decks, and there a lot of decks flying around that are 70% precons, and there are plenty of players who simply do not have enough commons to try. The spikes will still have access to all vintage commons that are still the most powerful cards relative to the format. It is a slower format but my initial thought is that it wouldn't really fix anything (maybe combos and mass ld would be gone) and there wouldn't be enough interest.
quote:
Originally posted by HandicapParking:
As far as collusion, you can play Star EDH: Tables of 5, you can only attack the 2 people across from you, and when both people across from you are dead you win. It won't prevent collusion entirely as you can still target everyone's permanents but it helps.
Would it though? You could still bargain wit them, and even though you may have less players who would agree to some sort of cheat, you now have less people that can seriously interact and stop it.
Do you think that a penalty in points, escalating to game loss, would serve better?
I do not seriously foresee it as a big problem once it is explained a few times (i think a lot of people will just think it's normal play) and i do not think the points system would be set in such a way it would be particularly viable to.
|
Sovarius
Member
|
posted October 18, 2014 09:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Volcanon:
Jeez why not just have a "game day" instead of a "tournament"?
Charge some entry fee and give out random shinies to everybody, and shinier shinies to people who reach some sort of milestone as discussed above.
That worked the best for shops running Conspiracy so presumably it will work the best for running this sort of thing.
A league is ongoing for a couple or few months. I would like to have nightly prizes based on points, wins, or ranking, but would be relatively mild compared to cheap entry and the end-goal prizes that are the sum of your whole league career.
I'm not familiar with any milestone structure in conspiracy? We did pods of 4, prize packs based on placement, and each player votes for someone who is not them or the winner to receive an additional pack.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
Calling it a league doesn't mean it is not tournament, considered it is a competition with prizes, and it's point based.
It's not exactly a game type that doesn't qualify as a format. But it's not the purpose. I included that as a description/title to make it easier to identify, but i guess now i see the intended differences more and shouldn't have called it that.
The main difference is that a tournament you are only rewarded for winning and there is no punishment or reward based on how you accomplish that. Whereas, this is to foster casual and varied play, and most likely much more light on prises on the weekly basis. I would also to pay prizes out based on points/wins, rather than strictly ranking. You are not wrong about it being a tournament, but you don't at all think this changes people and their playstyles?
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
Politic is always biased in a multi-player game, which is alright if it is purely casual and no prize consideration is in play. When prizes are involved, I can bet you anything that two friends in the same group will gang up on the rest no matter how charming you are, and there really isn't anything you can do about it. It also greatly diminish deck building and playing skill, and emphasize a bit too much on "popularity".
This is true, but there is less than you are imagining. Strictly a meta thing, i suppose. But there is 'enough' fair player choices. If you sit down in a 4 man pod and two people are working together, you should get the 4th on your side. If people make political decisions that make you lose, you need to make better decisions. Or be more popular. It can't ever be perfectly balanced but there aren't these rogue groups of allies ruining EDH games around here.
Players are randomly seated or paired based on rankings, unless everyone has a friend of each skill level or rank, it shouldn't come up so much it's oppressive.
I don't think anyone is totally unbiased, and i think that's a ****ty deal, but that's part of the game. It's something you have to deal with when you choose to play multiplayer EDH. The alternative is to not play, and yet people do. This is what i want to do. I want to make it as best or balanced or fair as possible. There is no option to start playing cutthroat 1v1 with a whole new ban list people aren't even aware of when people already play this format because it is fun multiplayer. You have to accept the nature of the format when you want to play. Like you have to accept that sometimes your deck is randomized outside your control and you draw no lands.
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
IMO, I admire that you are trying to run a league/tournament which everyone will play fairly with a non dick-ish deck, but in reality, that will never happen, no matter how much restrictions you have on card/deck choices. This is just human nature.
You are underestimating the number of people who don't have enough skill or money to play non-dick-ish decks. The top players should end getting podded together.
What i only wanted to strictly limit was that you would be unable or less able to play a deck that just halts the game. Both because i want it to be a format where you can play more, and because no one likes that crap. They can be dickish in other ways. Can't stop attitudes (could potentially change them as i mentioned above), but you could potentially stop certain types of 'game-breaking' plays.
Something i also believe is that players should learn if there is a player like that, they should teach them it's unwelcome behavior and they will fight against it.quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
we never have any problem with people playing dick-ish combo or mass land destruction. Our play group believe that it is up to the players to police the meta game
That's good, that's how it should be and it's something i am trying to foster by teaching players. We don't usually have anyone playing mass ld, and combos are infrequent unless in a tournament.
However it's a big deal when it does happen and as i said, this meta is not huge on players wanting to dedicate slots int heir deck to stop mass ld when they feel pretty strongly that no one should be playing any technique that prevents them playing. These are not people who get upset about losing. Just people who enjoy the game, but not seeing infinite mana on turn 3-4.
Also as i said i would rather modify the points system to punish mass ld or combo wins. Mass ld would not be punished so much it isn't a viable counter to ramp, but punished enough that isn't a strategy and people don't have to prepare for it any more than they already should (basic things like artifact mana or saving land cards in hand if you do not need them on the field are good strategies anyway).
I do think combos should be almost useless. It's not supposed to be played out like a high stakes tournament. We have actual EDH tournaments for that.
I do want to mention you say you guys are responsible for policing the meta, but how does that apply to player attitudes for you? Is this 1v1?
quote:
Originally posted by junichi:
There's a lot of spell/board position interaction, instead of everyone casting their own big spells and not bother stopping each other until it's too late.
And that's where teaching players comes in, so you can foster a better environment, and players capable of policing each other.
There is more than enough board interaction and people stopping other players 'before it's too late'. The most casual players may not, but just like you can't stop everyone from using obscenely cutthroat tactics you can't stop from sitting down at a table and just durdling because they don't want to stop you.
quote:
Originally posted by Volcanon:
Not so fun to get hated out because I won the previous game tho.
I look at each game like a new thing and try to make an even spread on my attacks until someone is more threatening and look like a real good guy when i shift all my movement towards them. If i am playing against a combo player and two relatively nonthreatening players i will go for the throat on the combo. It just depends. If you are a really good player you have to be prepared for that. You could also try to look like you barely won. There's a lot of options.
Sometimes i get a match where i am 3-way focused immediately and i love that too. Not so much if they are purposely doing it because of some wrongly perceived slight, bu that's something you have to be aware of also.
|
junichi
Moderator
|
posted October 18, 2014 01:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Sovarius:
[QUOTE]Stuff
We play both 2HG EDH and multi free for all. It all depends on what people feel like, as we have a pretty big group. Besides mass LD, we actually have a lot of combo players. In fact, I would say everyone's EDH deck has a hidden win/infinite combo inside, but being able to pull it off without anyone stopping it is a whole other story. Usually, the combo deck would do well in the first game or first week, but once people know the tricks behind it, we adapt quite quickly. There was a time where the meta was so fast and everyone was fighting for spells and board position on the first few turns, running Mental Misstep, Spell Snare, and Swan Song is a must for any deck that can run blue. My playgroup really liked intense interaction like these, because most of us used to be vintage players, and starring down each other with a board full of fatties is just not what we considered fun.
__________________
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻"The enemy has been destroyed, sir. So have the forest, the city, your palace, your dog . . ."
—Keldon soldier
| |
Magic Online Trading League Bulletin Board
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
