Cycling

135

Comments

  • JarethLeonin
    JarethLeonin Posts: 6 Just Dropped In
    Well the difference for Baral is that it would do everything by himself. You didn't need to exile/cycle anything. It was probably quicker for the player piloting it. (I haven't purchased it so don't know.)

    A 3 turn match now takes me 4 minutes just because of all the cycling I have do to do. As long as the AI doesn't start cycling you won't be looking at 10 minute loops like you did with Baral. That's the difference.

    Either way they'll probably end up adjusting cycling costs, or the supports enabling all this craziness and I'm all for it.

  • madwren
    madwren Posts: 2,259 Chairperson of the Boards
    wereotter said:
    Cycling may be incredibly powerful, you're absolutely right, but I think this mostly comes from the fact that there is no library restriction here. If you cycled through your 40 cards deck and then would lose the turn your next time you tried to draw, then I don't think people would be so inclined to actually put these kind of decks together.

    However: this isn't nearly so bad as Baral as previously stated, as even playing against decks with large numbers of cards that cycle, I always see the AI casting them. So, unlike Baral, this is more the one-sided eternal loop that only the human player can pull off. You shouldn't ever have to sit through watching your opponent cycle 50 cards before doing a match and attacking, and killing you on turn 2. To that end, I don't think we're going to have the same issues.

    I think you're right on both accounts--yes, the lack of a library restriction limits a lot of the potential interactions with cycling and cards like Mindcensor. Likewise, cycling is a one-sided affair.

    However, to add to that, it does affect the game in two ways:

    1. Facing a cycling AI opponent should result in far easier wins.
    2. Having the "I win" cards does provide a significant easy-mode advantage for those people who can take advantage of it

    While I've definitely advocated against infinite-loop AI decks as a negative player experience, it's interesting that the next broken mechanic only affects other players indirectly. One wonders if the devs knew this and said, "whatever, it's fine."
  • Mburn7
    Mburn7 Posts: 3,427 Chairperson of the Boards
    madwren said:
    wereotter said:
    Cycling may be incredibly powerful, you're absolutely right, but I think this mostly comes from the fact that there is no library restriction here. If you cycled through your 40 cards deck and then would lose the turn your next time you tried to draw, then I don't think people would be so inclined to actually put these kind of decks together.

    However: this isn't nearly so bad as Baral as previously stated, as even playing against decks with large numbers of cards that cycle, I always see the AI casting them. So, unlike Baral, this is more the one-sided eternal loop that only the human player can pull off. You shouldn't ever have to sit through watching your opponent cycle 50 cards before doing a match and attacking, and killing you on turn 2. To that end, I don't think we're going to have the same issues.

    I think you're right on both accounts--yes, the lack of a library restriction limits a lot of the potential interactions with cycling and cards like Mindcensor. Likewise, cycling is a one-sided affair.

    However, to add to that, it does affect the game in two ways:

    1. Facing a cycling AI opponent should result in far easier wins.
    2. Having the "I win" cards does provide a significant easy-mode advantage for those people who can take advantage of it

    While I've definitely advocated against infinite-loop AI decks as a negative player experience, it's interesting that the next broken mechanic only affects other players indirectly. One wonders if the devs knew this and said, "whatever, it's fine."
    You're probably right.  I mean, the AI most likely can't cycle, so the infinity is only as long as you want it to be.  Sure, its an easy win for the player, and its an easy win for anyone who fights your deck.  The only thing really wrong with this is the boredom, and how easy it will be for players with the requisite cards to do well in events.  In terms of broken mechanics and cards, this really isn't that bad
  • wereotter
    wereotter Posts: 2,070 Chairperson of the Boards
    As far as New Perspectives is concerned, the paper card does in fact make all cycling costs 0, but only if you have a full hand.

    So the way it works now isn't that far off. Not sure they were able to adjust cycling costs based off hand size, so they didn't. However they can fix the rest by making the other cards more like their paper counterparts. Drake Haven and Faith of the Devoted will need to drain mana in order to trigger, and if you have no banked mana, maybe they don't. Shadow storm Vizier maybe also should only get a till end of turn buff.

    Thats just if you think it's broken. However, because the AI can't pilot these broken decks, I think fixing this is a much lower priority than fixing things like "if I put mantle of webs on Rhonas, I win"
  • Furks
    Furks Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    edited May 2017
    It's true that it doesn't ruin the game when piloted by the AI. Quite the opposite actually, these decks tend to be easy to beat. The problem as I see it is that they are so boring to play, take so long to complete turns, yet if you want to win, they are the most consistent. It was the same with baral, I hated playing a loop deck, it was so tedious but it was just so good at winning. It just makes the game unfun.

    It really messes with the balance of the game when the AI can't pilot a combo deck like this. 
  • AngelForge
    AngelForge Posts: 325 Mover and Shaker
    I just looked up "New perspective" and it's obviously Baral as a support... No one from D3go can state anymore that they check or playtest any thing they release...?
  • blacklotus
    blacklotus Posts: 589 Critical Contributor
    cycling doesn't need fixing. it's the dev's gift to every player that doesn't have Baral or Season's Past or Rashmi. It's the ultimate playing field leveler since most can get non-mythic cards to do cycling well. :)
  • AngelForge
    AngelForge Posts: 325 Mover and Shaker
    Expect the unlucky ones who will never have that card. ;-)

  • blacklotus
    blacklotus Posts: 589 Critical Contributor
    AngelForge said:
    Expect the unlucky ones who will never have that card. ;-)

    i won my all my cycling games with full points in Ambition by cycling and disposing Shefet Monitor to cast Gaea Revenge. I only have 3 non-mythic cycle cards in my deck: that monitor, floodwaters n illumination. 

    Shefet Monitor is probably the most common rare cycle card. I already have 3 copies in my acct.

    AI doesn't cycle as far as I know. So no annoying infinite loop like Baral for human players. What's there to nerf?

    In terms of unfair brokeness, gatewatch, Pig and Olivia are way in front of this new cycle mechanics. 
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0 Match Maker
    I like it, personally
  • blacklotus
    blacklotus Posts: 589 Critical Contributor
    Drycha said:
    I like it, personally
    Me too. No mythic card needed to chase to implement the cycle mechanic. It's a level playing field for everyone. 

    With New Perspective and Drakes Haven and Curator, one can build a better cycle deck, But it definitely is not necessary. 
  • arNero
    arNero Posts: 358 Mover and Shaker
    Currently I think the main issue with cycling is that the costs are all over the place and wrong.

    Renewed Faith is the biggest example. This card overpowers Healing Hands by at least a mile. Meanwhile, we have cards with expensive Cycling cost but basically no reason to cycle them; Why would you pay 4 mana to cycle the cycling lands when for 2 more you get their abilities to make more mana for you?

    However, there are a few vanilla cards (that Cerodon something, for example) of which its cheap Cycling cost is justified. Card draw is not as strong in this game as in paper Magic, I mean, we have things like Tezzeret's Ambition or what's it called, Discover the Shoreline something that draws you cards for very little mana. It's just that they need to be careful about costing Cycling with effects.
  • blacklotus
    blacklotus Posts: 589 Critical Contributor
    [arNero] said:
    Currently I think the main issue with cycling is that the costs are all over the place and wrong.

    Renewed Faith is the biggest example. This card overpowers Healing Hands by at least a mile. Meanwhile, we have cards with expensive Cycling cost but basically no reason to cycle them; Why would you pay 4 mana to cycle the cycling lands when for 2 more you get their abilities to make more mana for you?

    However, there are a few vanilla cards (that Cerodon something, for example) of which its cheap Cycling cost is justified. Card draw is not as strong in this game as in paper Magic, I mean, we have things like Tezzeret's Ambition or what's it called, Discover the Shoreline something that draws you cards for very little mana. It's just that they need to be careful about costing Cycling with effects.
    I agree with the difficulty in costing this Draw function. Hence we have cards like Prism Array, Tezz Ambition and even the new Hieroglyphics Illumination. 

    I use Hieroglyphics Illumination always to cycle. It costs 4 mana to cast and draw 2 cards, but only 1 mana to cycle and draw 1. yup. best blue draw function card ever. And it's only a common(?) :)
  • Ohboy
    Ohboy Posts: 1,766 Chairperson of the Boards
    Card draw absolutely strong in mtgpq. 

    Think of a deck you hate to see. That deck isn't half as scary without card draw. 

  • morgue427
    morgue427 Posts: 783 Critical Contributor
    unless you consider they are all failry easily accessible so not as bad but tons more people doing it especially if the ai wrecks somebody with a lucky combo showing them how powerful it is.
    What can i say i am a cynic i know i am looking for it now new perspectives now so my chances of getting it just dropped to zero.

  • shteev
    shteev Posts: 2,031 Chairperson of the Boards
    Floodwaters, I think is a card which rather brilliantly illustrates one of the things that went wrong with the design of cycling.

    Floodwaters, when you cast it, is highly situational.

    If it fogged your opponent for a turn, then gerenally it wouldn't be worth the cost of a card, but occasionally you'd want to cast it if, say, you were racing to the finish line with your creatures against his. But Floodwaters doesn't do that: it fogs both his AND your creatures, making it's usage far more niche. Maybe you desperately need 1 extra turn to cast a Fumigate or deal a few more damage with Dynavolt Tower, but chances are it's not going to swing the game.

    So it seems like exactly the type of card you'd want with cycling, in that most of the times you draw it, you want to throw it away and get something new.

    But with cycling costs so low, the primary use of the card becomes not casting it, but cycling it. By filling your deck full of cycling cards, you can practically guarantee that you can find the ultra powerful OP cards in your deck every turn. Or, you could find more Floodwaters and cast it every turn, so it stops being a situational card and becomes a soft lock.


  • Furks
    Furks Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    edited May 2017
    I'm pretty sure new perspectives is the big culprit in all of this. It's the engine that enables endless cycling. It practically reads the same as baral 1.0. It just does too much for its cheap cost. 5 mana, draw 3 AND gain anywhere between 0 and 18 mana on the spot + continuous mana when you draw. 

    My recommendation would be to give it the baral treatment; 'at the start of your turn, each card with cycling in your hand gains cycling 0' also bump its cost to 9ish

    Change the 'on draw' trigger to 'at the start of your turn' this immediately stops looping. Then instead of granting mana, make it closer to paper mtg where it changes 'cycling x' to 'cycling 0'
  • EDHdad
    EDHdad Posts: 609 Critical Contributor
    Why on Earth would anyone insist on Nerfing a card which the AI can't abuse?
  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    Because it makes the game boring, not balanced. That's banana.

Categories