Cascades

AngelForge
AngelForge Posts: 325 Mover and Shaker
edited May 2017 in MtGPQ General Discussion
I made this poll in the old forums and the data was lost in the transition to the new forum. 
At that time, most players were okay with the cascades as they are.

Now, cascades are again a topic in the thread "AI gem swap" and @Sorin81  made the suggestion to run it again.
So, here it is, but I added some more options. I hope that everyone who wants to vote finds himself in some of these choices.

Happy voting!

Cascades 43 votes

Cascades are fine as they are
67%
Rogan_Joshgruntfacemadwrenspan_argomansjechuaandrewvanmarleVolrakMainloop25speakupaskanswerbabar3355octal9DologanaliasbardPastrySpiderfrostIvoryterribearwinkCiotogTHEMAGICkMANMachine 29 votes
Cascades are okay, but they should have diminished returns
9%
SteemeStormbringer0DsagentThuran 4 votes
Cascades, yes, but it should be limited to one only
0%
Cascades should be limited but one is to little
0%
I think cascades should happen but don't count
0%
No refill of the board during a players turn but after it, cascades that happen there are to no ones advance
9%
WaschechtUweTellkampfFurksstikxs 4 votes
Neutral
13%
Corn_NoodlesAngelForgeaenigmaeffectObseenFroggyDamien 6 votes

Comments

  • Froggy
    Froggy Posts: 511 Critical Contributor
    Neutral
    I'm just not sure what to make of it as I don't have any better suggestion...
  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited May 2017
    Cascades are fine as they are
    I also don't get the point of the poll.

    -> to clarify : the intention behind the demanded question

  • Steeme
    Steeme Posts: 784 Critical Contributor
    Cascades are okay, but they should have diminished returns

    Cascades should have a diminished return.  Perhaps 1 less mana on each chained match.  I think this helps mitigate the "luck" factor in matches in favour of better deckbuilding and gameplay.

    Just to clarify, I'm also Ok with the way it is now.

  • shteev
    shteev Posts: 2,031 Chairperson of the Boards
    I don't like diminishing returns on mana. For one thing, it would mean I'd have to do some maths...unless you're only enforcing diminishing returns on new gems which drop onto the board and not existing onboard cascades that I've cleverly noticed. And for another, well, this is puzzle quest, and cascades are a thing in puzzle quest.

    If I was going to put forward a compromise position, it would be that while I don't want to see mana reduced, it can seem a bit unfair that a big cascade can fill a player up with both mana AND loyalty. We've all had 'that game' against Koth where he gets a big cascade on turn 1 and then has the loyalty to use his first ability every turn for the rest of the game, right?

    I'm not voting yet cos I might be swayed by someone elses argument and I don't think you can change your vote on new forum polls, can you?
  • Sarahschmara
    Sarahschmara Posts: 554 Critical Contributor
    Cascades are fine as they are
    Cascades are great when I trigger them... and less so when the AI does. What next? Nerf landfall?

    Luck is a big part of MtG, whether opening packs to find cards one wants or drawing a hand full of useful cards. Anyone who's played the paper game long enough has seen starting had with no land.

    Sometimes, fortune favors us, sometimes not so much. 
  • shteev
    shteev Posts: 2,031 Chairperson of the Boards
    Cascades are great when I trigger them... and less so when the AI does. What next? Nerf landfall?

    Luck is a big part of MtG, whether opening packs to find cards one wants or drawing a hand full of useful cards. Anyone who's played the paper game long enough has seen starting had with no land.

    Sometimes, fortune favors us, sometimes not so much. 
    Card Balance would really help tho. it's one thing when your opponent cascades and drops an Angel of Invention in a single turn, and quite another when he drops a Sphinx and a Pig at the same time.
  • Sorin81
    Sorin81 Posts: 558 Critical Contributor
    Cascades are fine as they are
    Echoing my opinion in the previous poll.


    I have no problem with cascades. While I sit back in awe when the AI strings together match after match I am equally (and pleasantly) surprised when it happens for me. I think cascades are a vital part of the game now and add more flair to a match.
    I don't feel like any solution is necessary.
  • Dsagent
    Dsagent Posts: 73 Match Maker
    Cascades are okay, but they should have diminished returns
    I keep seeing the ai play every card in their hand way too often. 
    Lucky for me it is so stupid the cards come out in the wrong order.
  • Gormhaus
    Gormhaus Posts: 190 Tile Toppler
    Cascades are fine as they are
    I think cascades are fine. I just feel like the ai gets them a lot more than i do and at more opportune times. Maybe it is just me being grumpy.
  • voodoo_gremlin
    voodoo_gremlin Posts: 61 Match Maker
    edited May 2017
    Cascades are fine as they are
    I don't see people complaining when a series of cascades makes winning too easy for them to win. Luck is part of the game. Yes it sucks when it happens to you, you can't win every time.  Leave it be.
  • Dologan
    Dologan Posts: 145 Tile Toppler
    Cascades are fine as they are
    I'm fine with cascades in principle, but what bugs me is to see landfalls generating subsequent strings of 4+ gems of a colour a bit more frequently than I feel could be expected from chance, and particularly for the opponent in their own colour. I once distinctly remember even seeing a full line of same-coloured gems fall after a landfall, an occurrence than should only happen once every 100,000 times or so. I have played quite a bit, so maybe it was indeed that lucky random occurrence, but I can't shake off the feeling that the gem probabilities might not be always been 100% balanced and random.
  • octal9
    octal9 Posts: 593 Critical Contributor
    Cascades are fine as they are
    I don't so [sic] people complaining when a series of cascades makes winning too easy
    Exactly.
  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,259 Chairperson of the Boards
    Cascades are fine as they are
    EDHdad said:
    I think this game would benefit greatly if the Battle Log contained some sort of box score summary.  How much total mana each player produced, how much loyalty, how many times each card was cast, how much total damage each damage source did, etc..  Whenever I've manually tabulated this, I almost always come out ahead of the opponent playing the same walker.

    I was actually disappointed that this didn't exist when they released the Battle Logo. I would absolutely love a TL;DR version of the Battle Log. While it's nice to see the blow-by-blow, I'd much prefer to see it on the macro scale. "Man, I generated 250 mana that game and my opponent generated 36! Awesome!"

  • Sirchombli
    Sirchombli Posts: 322 Mover and Shaker
    Super wicked cascades feel bad against walkers with good mana gains, but when we cascade into 50 mana on a single turn we don't complain. I think if there is an issue, it's with the rng. I've played a lot of games where the ai gets 30 mana off of a blind cascade where only 3 gems are being replaced. That's not cool, but if they're blowing up the board, I think thems the breaks. Cascades are mostly just part of the game, and therefore fine