observations

loroku

After playing several games now, it's interesting to see how the changes that were chosen or required for this game have impacted how it plays.

- Very limited deckbuilding
Part of this is the small card set, but having no dupes means your choices fall into a much more narrow range - combined with (at least the early levels) restrictions on which types of cards you can choose, this makes it much harder to make a bad deck. I really like this! To me, deckbuilding is the hardest part of the game. I feel like restricting it down so much makes the game more accessible. However this also means luck plays a bigger factor. (Unfortunately this also means at least for now you can't save multiple decks for the same Planeswalker.)

- No off-turn actions
I haven't seen any, at least, but this speeds up the game TREMENDOUSLY. It was a huge boon to Hearthstone, too. Great decision (or technical limitation turned into a boon).

- Cascades
Since mana comes from matches and cascades are insanely random (they feel more random than MPQ for some reason?) it makes the game very swingy. If one side gets a great cascade mid-game, they have probably won. It seems like this will only get worse at higher PW levels as well. While I didn't mind more RNG for the sake of easier deckbuilding, I'm not sure I like quite this much RNG in my RNG. Maybe there should be a limit on how much mana you can gain in one turn? (Max = 10 or PW level, whichever is higher? Make your max a stat and raise it with levels?)

- Support shields
At least for me, this is how they function: 1 (easy), 2 (nearly impossible), and 3+ (might as well be infinite). I have broken through a 2-shielder once or twice, but that was because the AI matched its own support shield. The 3+ shields are permanent, or at least that's how it seems to work, and stacking multiple 3+ supports of the same spell is a waste of mana. One thing that might help this is that each time a support is matched, it randomly moves around the board. Or maybe don't make shields so high. Or turn them into countdowns (like a 3 shield would lose one power every 3 turns or something - well that's still too high, actually). Or maybe you intended the 3+ ones to be permanent?

- Balance is even harder
Not just cards, but new mechanics and player powers all have to be balanced. And JC said the AI is constantly improving so that's always changing how the game works as well. MPQ has poor balance and it's only got 1 thing to worry about: character powers. I can't begin to imagine how hard this game must be to balance!

- No VS means you win a lot
I know this aggravates the people who are good at MtG, but I don't mind it. One of the ways Hearthstone failed me was the 50% win-rate goal. That's fun in a paper game but when you're just trying to grind out daily rewards in a video game, that's not fun. Blowing away the AI - while still having a real chance to lose - is pretty rewarding. And not having any penalty (other than time) for losing is spectacular. It seems like they'll have to create a true VS mode eventually as that's the only real end-game, although MMR will be a nightmare (people complain about Hearthstone MMR and it has millions of players), but in the meantime I'm enjoy the feeling of progression - the true heart of any FtP game.


It's got to be hard to compete in a post-Hearthstone world, and the MtG online game track record is abysmal. Good luck getting this license to work! This game definitely feels like a cross between MtG and match-3, so I'd say you're on the right track so far.

Unknown

Deck Building is a little disappointing right now, but I think eventual inclusion of Dual Planeswalkers and more cards will open up strategies other than "Play your rarest cards." I know it's not that bad, but it's close.

Cascades are frustrating when you play for a strategic experience, but I don't think this was ever promised as a pure strategy experience. I think it's just the nature of the game. They may not be more likely than in Marvel (though you could check board size and whether there are more than 6 colors), but I would believe they're more impactful in MtGPQ.

The Support shields appear to be under balancing right now. I think the difficulty in eliminating them is by design. You're spending loads of mana for an effect that isn't as extreme as a single spell. It allows Support destruction to be an important part of the color pie and also allows them to make powerful Rare and Mythic cards. Rarity is the biggest indication of power level and any mechanism that lets them power up rare cards is useful. You'll get used to this.

Unknown

ecoKady wrote:

The Support shields appear to be under balancing right now. I think the difficulty in eliminating them is by design. You're spending loads of mana for an effect that isn't as extreme as a single spell. It allows Support destruction to be an important part of the color pie and also allows them to make powerful Rare and Mythic cards. Rarity is the biggest indication of power level and any mechanism that lets them power up rare cards is useful. You'll get used to this.

This.

I think the rating is more like 2=easy, 3=moderate, 4+=difficult for destruction. I tried to go back to Claustrophobia and it doesn't stay for more than a turn, if that. I'm beginning to see how the AI algorithm chooses its matches and it invariably goes after support over a higher mana-yielding match, even avoiding match-5s.

loroku

That scale is definitely off for me, but I wondered if basically what they were saying was, "3+ = we don't want it to go away," which is how it seems to work.

I also wish there were some way to know what a support spell's shield rating was before seeing it cast.

Unknown

Yeah. Not showing support length in any place is really, really dumb.

They only time I've had a Support die before it played for at least one turn is when I get a 5-match and kill it myself on the extra turn or if it has a destruction functionality that may randomly destroy itself.

Claustrophia is completely OP at anything other than Support 1. It might be a little mana-overcosted right now with Support 1, but disable is generally better than destruction if it sticks around.

Supports also provide a latest tempo advantage, because the opposing player is often forced to make a sub-optimal match to clear the support. This can be anywhere from 0 mana to 3 mana per support length. In a sense, they steal mana and/or Loyalty from your opponent. If you get lucky and drop your Support gem to the bottom, it can stick around for almost the enitre game even at Support 1.

I think they really need to include more utility anti-support cards like Auramancer (I think), because there's no sideboarding. They should only add 2-3 mana to the cost. Cantrip Support kill for 4 mana would also work. Without a potential 2-for-1, you're trading a card slot and the big risk of having a dead card in hand while your opponent is guaranteed to always find it useful. With such limited Support kill options, Supports are much more powerful than they should be.

Unknown

loroku wrote:

I also wish there were some way to know what a support spell's shield rating was before seeing it cast.

This has been suggested a few time by my observation.

Unknown

ecoKady wrote:

Yeah. Not showing support length in any place is really, really dumb.

They only time I've had a Support die before it played for at least one turn is when I get a 5-match and kill it myself on the extra turn or if it has a destruction functionality that may randomly destroy itself.

Claustrophia is completely OP at anything other than Support 1. It might be a little mana-overcosted right now with Support 1, but disable is generally better than destruction if it sticks around.

Supports also provide a latest tempo advantage, because the opposing player is often forced to make a sub-optimal match to clear the support. This can be anywhere from 0 mana to 3 mana per support length. In a sense, they steal mana and/or Loyalty from your opponent. If you get lucky and drop your Support gem to the bottom, it can stick around for almost the enitre game even at Support 1.

I think they really need to include more utility anti-support cards like Auramancer (I think), because there's no sideboarding. They should only add 2-3 mana to the cost. Cantrip Support kill for 4 mana would also work. Without a potential 2-for-1, you're trading a card slot and the big risk of having a dead card in hand while your opponent is guaranteed to always find it useful. With such limited Support kill options, Supports are much more powerful than they should be.

Yet Suppression Bonds is still 6 mana. Here's the problem, they double-nerfed Claustrophobia. They increased the price by 50% and reduced the shield by 50%. They should have done one or the other, not both.

Unknown

kore wrote:

Yet Suppression Bonds is still 6 mana. Here's the problem, they double-nerfed Claustrophobia. They increased the price by 50% and reduced the shield by 50%. They should have done one or the other, not both.

Supression Bonds is Rare. I think that's all we need to say about that.

Unknown

ecoKady wrote:

kore wrote:

Yet Suppression Bonds is still 6 mana. Here's the problem, they double-nerfed Claustrophobia. They increased the price by 50% and reduced the shield by 50%. They should have done one or the other, not both.

Supression Bonds is Rare. I think that's all we need to say about that.

Then make Claustrophobia rare.

paralistalon

I completely agree we need a number somewhere on the support card itself to let you know how many turns/shields the support gem will have, and maybe even a color to let you know which color gems it goes on.

As far as the new Claustrophobia, at 9 mana and one shield, I'm strongly considering dropping it from my Jace deck because I find myself constantly putting it to the bottom of my hand and choosing to play something else instead. Suppression Bonds is still very playable, however.

I find it interesting that they chose to give the same card to white as a rare- ordinarily this would mean that the effect is primary in blue and secondary in white, but in the real-game color pie, this effect is much more in line with white.

EDHdad

In paper Magic, Claustrophobia and Suppression Bonds are both commons. Claustrophobia costs 3 but only affects creatures. Suppression Bonds costs 4 but could disrupt a creature, an artifact, an enchantment, a planeswalker or any non-land permanent with activated abilities.

If they wanted to keep flavor, Suppression Bonds should cost more than Claustrophobia, but it should also be able to take out an enemy support instead of a creature.

The lack of artifact / enchantment removal in this game is extremely frustrating. In paper Magic, Caustic Caterpillars can destroy an artifact or enchantment. Tragic Arrogance can destroy artifacts and enchantments. Suppression Bonds can hose artifacts and enchantments. In the broader game, there's tons of hate in green and white to remove artifacts and enchantments.

It's also annoying that none of the removal can target anything. So even if you do manage to cast a Conclave Naturalists / Demolish / Smash to Smithereens, you can still whiff on the thing you were trying to remove.

Also, darn it, Smash to Smithereens should do damage to the other guy's face, not mine.

Unknown

EDHdad wrote:

In paper Magic, Claustrophobia and Suppression Bonds are both commons. Claustrophobia costs 3 but only affects creatures. Suppression Bonds costs 4 but could disrupt a creature, an artifact, an enchantment, a planeswalker or any non-land permanent with activated abilities.

If they wanted to keep flavor, Suppression Bonds should cost more than Claustrophobia, but it should also be able to take out an enemy support instead of a creature.

The lack of artifact / enchantment removal in this game is extremely frustrating. In paper Magic, Caustic Caterpillars can destroy an artifact or enchantment. Tragic Arrogance can destroy artifacts and enchantments. Suppression Bonds can hose artifacts and enchantments. In the broader game, there's tons of hate in green and white to remove artifacts and enchantments.

It's also annoying that none of the removal can target anything. So even if you do manage to cast a Conclave Naturalists / Demolish / Smash to Smithereens, you can still whiff on the thing you were trying to remove.

Also, darn it, Smash to Smithereens should do damage to the other guy's face, not mine.

Yes, to everything!

Unknown

The problem with having support removal with the color pie (and this is just sort of devils advocate, and they could totally do it) is that supports cover artifacts and enchantments, and only green is allowed to destroy both. Red and green overlap with artifacts and green and white overlap with enchantments. Obviously, red has gotten multiple cards that can kill supports. White should maybe get a few. Or it should be unique to green? It shouldn't be too common.

EDHdad

In paper Magic, white can certainly remove artifacts and enchantments. Disenchant from Alpha removes both. So does Abolish, Aura of Silence, Capashen Unicorn, Devout Witness, Dismantling Blow, Dispeller's Capsule, Kor Sanctifiers, Ray of Distortion, Reliquary Monk, Seal of Cleansing, Seed Spark, Serra's Liturgy, Solemn Offering, Terashi's Grasp.

Those aren't in this particular set, but the ability to destroy both artifacts and enchantments is certainly something which is prevalent in green and white, throughout the history of Magic.

What is in this set is Caustic Caterpillar, which explicitly destroys an artifact or enchantment in paper Magic. It's very disappointing that in Magic Puzzle Quest, Caustic Caterpillar is simply a vanilla 1/1 for 3. I'd love for it to be something like "If an opponent controls a Support, Caustic Caterpillar is destroyed and the Support is destroyed". Maybe it could cost 5 or something.

I'd also love it if Smash to Smithereens cost something like 5, but did the 3 damage to the opponent, rather than the caster.