DumasAG said: Think cycling is actively bad for the game BECAUSE the AI can't utilize it. When I'm matched against a cycle deck, it's basically an auto win for me. If cycling becomes prominent, it's basically just going to be a game where everyone goldfishes their favorite deck. They need to do a lot to the AI, but having a way for you to choose priorities for the AI for each deck would be good. Like, "always cycle"
shteev said: I'll thank you to take your personal vendetta against OP elsewhere.
andrewvanmarle said: shteev said: I'll thank you to take your personal vendetta against OP elsewhere. Actually not a personal vendetta, though you may have one?Im just stating a simple fact....
shteev said: Just to be clear, I'm using 'broken' in the way that it's most often used by MTG players. So I'm not saying that cycling doesn't work, in any respect; I'm saying that it's ludicrously overpowered, and it's far too facile a way to win your games, and therefore top the leaderboards and win the best prizes.
Sure, you can build a cycle-dependent deck that wins your matches, but then you yourself are such an easy opponent that anyone playing your deck gets a full perfect score auto-win.
I'm nowhere near that competitive level, ie. I don't try to build a deck to make other players lose, but it seems like the best players in the event will be able to build decks that both win with perfect scores and also create a challenge for their opposition. Try doing that with cycling (hint: you can't).
On the other hand, now that there is no more tie-breaking, I guess it's Ok for there to be a 50-way tie for top score.
Steeme said: shteev said: Just to be clear, I'm using 'broken' in the way that it's most often used by MTG players. So I'm not saying that cycling doesn't work, in any respect; I'm saying that it's ludicrously overpowered, and it's far too facile a way to win your games, and therefore top the leaderboards and win the best prizes. Sure, you can build a cycle-dependent deck that wins your matches, but then you yourself are such an easy opponent that anyone playing your deck gets a full perfect score auto-win.I'm nowhere near that competitive level, ie. I don't try to build a deck to make other players lose, but it seems like the best players in the event will be able to build decks that both win with perfect scores and also create a challenge for their opposition.
I'm nowhere near that competitive level, ie. I don't try to build a deck to make other players lose, but it seems like the best players in the event will be able to build decks that both win with perfect scores and also create a challenge for their opposition.
tfg76 said: E.g. the best "Zombie deck" in standard (the one I played to a perfect record in Trial of Strength) is probably Dovin Baan cycling with 2 cheap zombies in it. Deck is so good that you can throw in some chaff and still win by a comfortable margin.I agree with the previous statement that the main problem here is that the deck is so easy to build and so bad in the hands of the AI that the entire event becomes stupid.
wereotter said: shteev said: Just to be clear, I'm using 'broken' in the way that it's most often used by MTG players. So I'm not saying that cycling doesn't work, in any respect; I'm saying that it's ludicrously overpowered, and it's far too facile a way to win your games, and therefore top the leaderboards and win the best prizes. Except it's not. Not arguing its power, it's definitely ridiculously powerful, but I tried it out for one early event where I just placed a Drake Haven, New Perspective deck onto every node. I won every match, but because the decks didn't always allow for the completion of secondary objectives (I think the white node had the requirement to cast no supports) it was impossible to get a perfect score, and I did not finish top of the leader board.So.... I guess if they keep with the "cast 1 or no supports" as an objective, it will reduce cycling's ability to get to the top of the leader boards.
shteev said: wereotter said: shteev said: Just to be clear, I'm using 'broken' in the way that it's most often used by MTG players. So I'm not saying that cycling doesn't work, in any respect; I'm saying that it's ludicrously overpowered, and it's far too facile a way to win your games, and therefore top the leaderboards and win the best prizes. Except it's not. Not arguing its power, it's definitely ridiculously powerful, but I tried it out for one early event where I just placed a Drake Haven, New Perspective deck onto every node. I won every match, but because the decks didn't always allow for the completion of secondary objectives (I think the white node had the requirement to cast no supports) it was impossible to get a perfect score, and I did not finish top of the leader board.So.... I guess if they keep with the "cast 1 or no supports" as an objective, it will reduce cycling's ability to get to the top of the leader boards. Well, I'd question whether you were using the right builds. I haven't played MTGPQ in 2 weeks, reinstalled this weekend to see what things were like, and I had a go at tinykitty. It was a Legacy event, I could have played Kiora Combo with Rishkar's Expertise, I could have played oldschool Creatureless Ob or T2 with BTB, but I played 3 cycling decks and got a perfect score.I would have played ToS but I reinstalled a day too late and missed the start. So, I leapt in at the last moment and managed to get 34th place by playing just 11 games and not even bothering to buy G3. You know, in the same way that people did for Rishkar's Expertise when that event ran. You'd think they'd have closed that loophole.The fact that you can design objectives to reign in some of the worst excesses of Cycling a tiny little bit doesn't mean it isn't broken, any more than the fact that the AI can't play it for toffee doesn't.