Unpopular Opinion: Needs cycling a nerf?
Comments
-
-
both 1 & 2The events do need to be retuned. And that's a good thing. Events where you can use only one strategy gets grindy fast.
Consider firf with its strict parameters leading to only one dominant strategy. I've been basically conceding those events to try fun decks so I don't get bored.1 -
No need to do anything: people will get bored of itI rarely run cycle loop decks unless I'm "forced to" (secondary objective requirement or boss battle in restricted format)0
-
It is perfect as it is
I don't disagree that it is a powerful strategy. I'm sure if you wanted you could cycle your way through the entire ToZ. And I'm sure you could make powerful cycling decks in every PvP node. What I don't think you can do is make powerful cycling decks in PvP and make a perfect score. So if all you're doing is winning matches there's going to be someone out there who's building event decks and will out score you which should be fairly easy if that person is facing cycling decks that the AI can't use effectively. Which again begs the question, what are we complaining about?Ohboy said:Firinmahlazer said:You said it yourself. You don't use cycling. So what's the problem? You're complaining about NOTHING. Personally I only use Drake Haven when the objective calls for cycling cards because you're right, it is an easy win. Cycling is what it is. We get a win either way. Again, what is the problem? If you want to complain about the game there is a few legitimate issues at hand that are worth being discussed. Cycling isn't one of them.
The problem is that it is broken and hence a dominant strategy. As shteev says, it doesn't matter in casual play, but when stakes are high... It forces you to play in that style because to do otherwise is insanely bad value.
Consider runaway carriage that wasn't a big problem until the Saheeli event. Suddenly it was runaway carriage deck or lose Saheeli.0 -
shteev said:
If that was the case, I'd expect the best cycling cards to be mythic... but they're not, they're only rare. It's not just the toxic elite who find it easy to pick up rares these days.madwren said:I have said this before, but one has to wonder if, faced with community outcry against Baral, the developers decided to be more subtle this time around. "Let's just make it an overpowered mechanic the AI can't play, then people won't mind".
People like their easy buttons.
It's true that they aren't mythic, but that might be because so many people realize that mythics are hard to come by these days. Thus, a more effective way to encourage people to spend money is to make them rare, which is perceived as much more accessible. What were we saying the other day? Rare is the new mythic.
Anyway, I'll keep wearing my tinfoil hat. It's just that since so many of the changes have been transparent cash grabs, I'm inclined to be overly suspicious.
1 -
both 1 & 2There are several problems with cycling as it stands, but first I think it's also important to highlight the benefits that would ideally be preserved with any potential changes in the future, because a lot of those understandably but unfortunately tend to be overshadowed by discussion about cycling's polarizing power level:
- Flexible support removal has been sorely needed; cycling cards provide that in 3 colors, and Standard is a more interactive format as a result (especially where Cast Out and Hixus are concerned in PvP).
- Cycling introduces an interesting exploration of the exile mechanic; previously, exiling cards from hand was a very one-dimensional decision, whereas now, there's a potential drawback in cases where the mana lost is more valuable than the card gained. This is easy to ignore with the critical mass of cycling 1 cards and several infinite combo engines, but the dual lands and red- or black-oriented cycling decks tend to bear out this feature more strongly, and that should be closer to the target power level and gameplay experience cycling produces.
- In a similar vein to its role with support removal, cycling when properly implemented allows for some highly situational cards to see play, diversifying the metagame; a few examples of this are Sweltering Suns, Deem Worthy, Censor, Floodwaters, and Lay Claim, all of which are interesting cards in isolation that are made playable by the cycling ability when their effects alone usually wouldn't justify a deck slot.
- Many of the best cycling cards are non-mythic; this means these cards actually show up in non-trivial quantities, have a reasonable chance to be obtained by a wide variety of players, and to some extent can even be targeted with moderate reliability over 2-3 months. Also, it means new players will have a chance to acquaint themselves with the core experience of the most recent set, which (if that core experience is worthwhile) is a great way to generate interest rather than frustration and resentment at encountering a seemingly insurmountable wall too early.
All of these factors create a deeper, healthier meta in the abstract, and if infinite loop decks hypothetically didn't exist, I would have been inclined to consider cycling a resounding success with a lot of room for creative expansion in later sets should WotC decide to reuse the mechanic.
As for the elephant in the room, it's precisely the infinite looping capability that makes cycling a travesty instead of a triumph. Some of the comments defending cycling's current form essentially recommend not playing those decks if someone doesn't like them, but that misses the point; I no longer recall which thread it was in or who posted it, but there was an insightful comment at one point comparing cycling decks to the surge of cheating that occurred late last year and throughout the first few months of this year. "If you don't like cheating because it's boring, don't do it, but don't try to restrict other players' options to do so themselves" wouldn't have been a convincing argument in that case, and it isn't any more persuasive in this case either. As long as PvP competition exists in any form, the (best) options available to some players affect the outcomes for every player, and currently cycling renders winning while accomplishing virtually any objective against virtually any opponent far too trivial from a PvP standpoint.
Likewise, "the AI can't cycle, so it doesn't matter if players do" is another common argument which attempts to discredit the idea that cycling is a systematic rather than individual problem; replace "cycle" with "cheat" and many fewer players would be likely to take that position.
There are countless examples posted in various channels suggesting meaningful parallels between cheating and cycling (with the primary difference being that one is discouraged by the developers and the other is encouraged, but that distinction reflects on community rules, not in-game power level), several of which I'd be happy to try to produce in case that's a point of contention, but below are just a couple of my own games to illustrate that point. If QB were still a prominent mode of competition, it might be fair to point out the exorbitant time demands cycling requires compared to actual cheating as it occurred several months ago, but in events which emphasize win rate with little or no regard for speed, the board states and turn counts are more meaningful indicators, and in those capacities these examples seem essentially indistinguishable from what literal cheating would produce.
While I can't prove this was the case for the Drake Haven game, both of these board states occurred on my first turn, before the AI had any opportunity whatsoever to interact:
Turn 1 vs. Noxious Gearhulk (Fateful Showdown)
Turn 1 in Trial of Ambition (green node)
Post-battle Results for ToA Game
Even after all of that, neither of the loops were terminated by any limitation imposed by intended in-game mechanics; the threat or reality of having the app crash was what eventually ended them, and "RSIcling" is one of only two archetypes I've tried where I have yet to encounter the upper limit of what would be possible if crashes and real time weren't limitations (the other deck being Legacy Kiora, which is approximately equally powerful and could also stand to endure multiple balance adjustments, but that's a separate and less immediate issue due to the infrequency of competitive Legacy events).
As one final point, while New Perspectives, Drake Haven, and Faith of the Devoted are the flagship culprits for cycling's power level, even banning all of them outright wouldn't be sufficient to reign in the most powerful decks to the point that other Standard archetypes could compete on equal ground; both a fundamental change to all engines and a reduction in the quantity of cycling 1 (and maybe even cycling 2) cards to the point that dual PWs couldn't play more than 3-4 total would be needed to balance the mechanic currently.
9 -
both 1 & 2Firinmahlazer said:
I don't disagree that it is a powerful strategy. I'm sure if you wanted you could cycle your way through the entire ToZ. And I'm sure you could make powerful cycling decks in every PvP node. What I don't think you can do is make powerful cycling decks in PvP and make a perfect score. So if all you're doing is winning matches there's going to be someone out there who's building event decks and will out score you which should be fairly easy if that person is facing cycling decks that the AI can't use effectively. Which again begs the question, what are we complaining about?Ohboy said:Firinmahlazer said:You said it yourself. You don't use cycling. So what's the problem? You're complaining about NOTHING. Personally I only use Drake Haven when the objective calls for cycling cards because you're right, it is an easy win. Cycling is what it is. We get a win either way. Again, what is the problem? If you want to complain about the game there is a few legitimate issues at hand that are worth being discussed. Cycling isn't one of them.
The problem is that it is broken and hence a dominant strategy. As shteev says, it doesn't matter in casual play, but when stakes are high... It forces you to play in that style because to do otherwise is insanely bad value.
Consider runaway carriage that wasn't a big problem until the Saheeli event. Suddenly it was runaway carriage deck or lose Saheeli.
Yes your statement does indeed beg the question. The premise is erroneous , which led you down to the wrong conclusion.
You can make powerful pvp cycling decks that outclasses any other deck type you might have otherwise chosen, and go for that perfect score.
Cycling allows you to control the flow of the game to your whim. I could for example in the red node of firf(the one that requires greatest precision of the four) just run 1 vehicle, 1 burn spell and cycling cards. Splash white to lock down opponent with cast out and you can slowly cycle through your deck multiple times to get 5 copies of your chosen vehicle while burning yourself down to 20.
It's the optimal path to a perfect score. Few people would do it because each game would take the better part of an hour, and it's boring as hell. But add in a valuable reward, and everyone starts doing it. Boom 50 way ties with perfect scores again. And we're all held prisoner by it. To not use a cycle deck would be giving up on the reward.
What threw you off I think was all the talk about cycling combos. New Perspectives, drake Haven and their ilk make cycling more efficient and powerful... But they're not necessary to make a potent cycle deck that is flexible enough across 5 colors to meet any objective other than a currently non existent "use less than 2 cycle cards" objective.6 -
both 1 & 2shteev said:
I rate Saheeli lower than EC. 3 day event with 4h refreshes saturated with a broken(unbeatable) deck type was exhausting. EC often required some serious creature acrobatics to meet the objectives in time, and I found the puzzle challenging because I was "using the wrong vampire".0 -
both 1 & 2In paper MtG, cycling generally costs 2 mana. Sometimes it costs 1 coloured mana instead, which is still more than costing 1 colourless. On top of that, 2 mana in paper MtG is equivalent to about 4 mana in MtGPQ, if you look at typical card costs, the range of card costs, and the difficulty to obtain. The end result is that most cycling cards (and specifically as many as any cycling combo deck could need) are 4x cheaper to cycle than they really ought to be.
Now the analogy isn't perfect but I think 4x is actually a pretty good estimate of how much more favourable cycling is in MtGPQ than it ought to be. At 4 mana you:
* Wouldn't be able to use them to gratuitously thin your deck
* Would generally only play cycling cards if you cared about the other text on them
* Could still use synergy cards but they would be providing synergy, not RSI-inducing one-turn-win combos.
Comparing the combo pieces, again you notice something about the costs. Whereas other cards in MtGPQ are typically twice as expensive as their MtG counterparts, the cycling combo cards are the same cost or even cheaper!
That's why everything is busted. You can't take the finely tuned designs in MtG, and make them half the effective cost to set up and four times the engine efficiency and expect it not to be a problem.
If the combo cards weren't so trivial to put into play, then it could be back where it belongs at "janky, specialised combo deck that can work well but needs support", rather than "automatic choice everywhere that the secondaries allow it which you feel guilty about not playing".1 -
It is perfect as it is
I'm not trying to sound **** when I say this so don't take it the wrong way. Then do it. Build your deck and post a video that it can consistently be done without get run over before you can cycle into the needed cards. There's a lot of hypothetical scenarios and "what ifs" being tossed around and I just don't think that cycling is as big of a problem as people seemingly want it to be.Ohboy said:Firinmahlazer said:
I don't disagree that it is a powerful strategy. I'm sure if you wanted you could cycle your way through the entire ToZ. And I'm sure you could make powerful cycling decks in every PvP node. What I don't think you can do is make powerful cycling decks in PvP and make a perfect score. So if all you're doing is winning matches there's going to be someone out there who's building event decks and will out score you which should be fairly easy if that person is facing cycling decks that the AI can't use effectively. Which again begs the question, what are we complaining about?Ohboy said:Firinmahlazer said:You said it yourself. You don't use cycling. So what's the problem? You're complaining about NOTHING. Personally I only use Drake Haven when the objective calls for cycling cards because you're right, it is an easy win. Cycling is what it is. We get a win either way. Again, what is the problem? If you want to complain about the game there is a few legitimate issues at hand that are worth being discussed. Cycling isn't one of them.
The problem is that it is broken and hence a dominant strategy. As shteev says, it doesn't matter in casual play, but when stakes are high... It forces you to play in that style because to do otherwise is insanely bad value.
Consider runaway carriage that wasn't a big problem until the Saheeli event. Suddenly it was runaway carriage deck or lose Saheeli.
Yes your statement does indeed beg the question. The premise is erroneous , which led you down to the wrong conclusion.
You can make powerful pvp cycling decks that outclasses any other deck type you might have otherwise chosen, and go for that perfect score.
Cycling allows you to control the flow of the game to your whim. I could for example in the red node of firf(the one that requires greatest precision of the four) just run 1 vehicle, 1 burn spell and cycling cards. Splash white to lock down opponent with cast out and you can slowly cycle through your deck multiple times to get 5 copies of your chosen vehicle while burning yourself down to 20.
It's the optimal path to a perfect score. Few people would do it because each game would take the better part of an hour, and it's boring as hell. But add in a valuable reward, and everyone starts doing it. Boom 50 way ties with perfect scores again. And we're all held prisoner by it. To not use a cycle deck would be giving up on the reward.
What threw you off I think was all the talk about cycling combos. New Perspectives, drake Haven and their ilk make cycling more efficient and powerful... But they're not necessary to make a potent cycle deck that is flexible enough across 5 colors to meet any objective other than a currently non existent "use less than 2 cycle cards" objective.
Edit* Really? Tinykitty? I didn't realize the forums censored out elementary school "curse words"0 -
both 1 & 2I er... Literally already wrote down the deck for you.
My red node is already locked on Sarkan, but sure I'll make an all cycling deck collection on every node next pvp event if you want. Or you can try out the deck I listed for you above.
0 -
No need to do anything: people will get bored of it[quote="Dodecapod"] I no longer recall which thread it was in or who posted it, but there was an insightful comment at one point comparing cycling decks to the surge of cheating that occurred late last year and throughout the first few months of this year. "If you don't like cheating because it's boring, don't do it, but don't try to restrict other players' options to do so themselves" wouldn't have been a convincing argument in that case, and it isn't any more persuasive in this case either. [/quote]
I think you are referring to the comment I made about a month ago when this topic first came up. Since I don't see them making changes to cycling anytime soon, I've resigned myself to accepting that people will do what it takes to win, and if there was an auto-win button built into the game, people would press it more often than not.3 -
I'm'going to have to correct you on this: cheating and cycling is a faulty comparison on many levels, but lets stick to gameplay. All themultiplayer events wether pvp or pve have secondary objectives, cycling decks dont meet those objectives. so a player may win games but the will LOSE the competition.Dodecapod said:Some of the comments defending cycling's current form essentially recommend not playing those decks if someone doesn't like them, but that misses the point; I no longer recall which thread it was in or who posted it, but there was an insightful comment at one point comparing cycling decks to the surge of cheating that occurred late last year and throughout the first few months of this year. "If you don't like cheating because it's boring, don't do it, but don't try to restrict other players' options to do so themselves" wouldn't have been a convincing argument in that case, and it isn't any more persuasive in this case either. As long as PvP competition exists in any form, the (best) options available to some players affect the outcomes for every player, and currently cycling renders winning while accomplishing virtually any objective against virtually any opponent far too trivial from a PvP standpoint.
Cheating was a problem in QB, where there were no objectives and the winner was the one who got the most points the quickest.cheating won't even work in these formats.
you DO NOT need a cycling deck to be competetive in anyway, you need decks that meet the objectives and requirements of the event.
So yes, if you don't'like cycling, then don't'play a cycling deck. It will not make ANY difference for the competition.0 -
both 1 & 2
Thanks for the reminder about the source, and you're absolutely right; after a little digging, that's exactly the comment I had in mind. I tend to agree with your suspicion about how most will behave as well, and have to admit that at least when it comes to cycling, I'm guilty of this too, having adopted an event lineup that utilizes infinite loops on multiple nodes in multiple events, and often resorting to hybrid cycling/tempo decks even on nodes where I'm not aiming to produce arbitrary board states before winning.Mainloop25 said:I think you are referring to the comment I made about a month ago when this topic first came up. Since I don't see them making changes to cycling anytime soon, I've resigned myself to accepting that people will do what it takes to win, and if there was an auto-win button built into the game, people would press it more often than not.andrewvanmarle said:
I'm'going to have to correct you on this: cheating and cycling is a faulty comparison on many levels, but lets stick to gameplay. All themultiplayer events wether pvp or pve have secondary objectives, cycling decks dont meet those objectives. so a player may win games but the will LOSE the competition.Dodecapod said:Some of the comments defending cycling's current form essentially recommend not playing those decks if someone doesn't like them, but that misses the point; I no longer recall which thread it was in or who posted it, but there was an insightful comment at one point comparing cycling decks to the surge of cheating that occurred late last year and throughout the first few months of this year. "If you don't like cheating because it's boring, don't do it, but don't try to restrict other players' options to do so themselves" wouldn't have been a convincing argument in that case, and it isn't any more persuasive in this case either. As long as PvP competition exists in any form, the (best) options available to some players affect the outcomes for every player, and currently cycling renders winning while accomplishing virtually any objective against virtually any opponent far too trivial from a PvP standpoint.
Cheating was a problem in QB, where there were no objectives and the winner was the one who got the most points the quickest.cheating won't even work in these formats.
you DO NOT need a cycling deck to be competetive in anyway. Anyone telling you that is either ignorant or a liar, you need decks that meet the objectives and requirements of the event.
So yes, if you don't'like cycling, then don't'play a cycling deck. It will not make ANY difference for the competition.
It's fair to point out the limitations of comparing cheating to cycling, and to clarify just in case I gave the wrong impression before, I don't fault anyone for doing what's legally within their power to win, and wouldn't consider it fair to condemn anyone for using cycling or any other valid strategy to whatever extent they deem fit, however much or little that might be in a given instance. The parallel I was trying to draw was limited to the scope of in-game power level, not ethics, toxicity to the culture of a game's community, or a variety of other factors that might be associated with literal cheating in other contexts.
Regarding cheating in QB vs. cheating in events, I disagree strongly that the latter never occurred or wouldn't be effective, but it's not central to the rest of the topic and would be difficult to prove as a bystander either way, so I'm willing to concede that point for the sake of argument.
However, we clearly don't see eye to eye on cycling's power level or its competitive value; I can't speak to everyone's experience, but with my collection at least, it's absolutely been possible to meet any objective currently in rotation with either a hybrid or infinite cycling deck, and it's been almost invariably more efficient from a ribbon % standpoint to prefer an optimal cycling deck to any other optimal Standard deck I'm familiar with.
Also, while this doesn't inherently invalidate the rest of the argument, poisoning the well by suggesting that someone asserting a given view is either "ignorant or a liar" is unnecessary. If you're finding a negligible competitive difference between cycling and non-cycling decks, then it's entirely possible that you've discovered superior non-cycling decks to the ones I'm aware of, which is great; I would love to be wrong about my analysis of cycling as an oppressive strategy on a global scale, and can't categorically dismiss that possibility, but that says nothing about either my overall competence or honesty in assessing the Platinum metagame, and the same would apply to many other players who have expressed concern that cycling constitutes a serious balance problem.
In all honesty, I would welcome a few examples of someone achieving 95% ribbons or better on average across the last several Standard events without using many (or ideally any) cycling cards, since that would suggest a healthier diversity of tier 1 options than I had previously believed to be available. However, I'm not personally familiar with those examples, whereas I am familiar with multiple examples of 95+% scores using cycling cards and/or decks extensively, so right now I have no reason to assume other approaches can keep up with cycling to any meaningful degree.
As it stands, cycling cards make up less than 5% of Standard-legal options available, and at least from the top-tier decks I'm familiar with (which isn't to say all top-tier decks in existence, but neither is my exposure limited to a trivial range of decks either), they're statistically overrepresented by an overwhelming margin compared to that percentage.
That alone would be enough to make it powerful, but not necessarily broken; however, it's screenshots like the ones I posted before (which are merely a fraction of the myriad similar examples I've seen on these forums, Slack, and Discord), the fact that 3 of my 5 total turn 1 PvP wins have come with cycling decks after over 1.5 years of playing this game, the ability to win 10-15 consecutive EmO games with full ribbons on the blue node (5 turns + 5 energy), the ability to achieve perfect scores with dedicated cycling decks on various nodes that I'd struggled with using multiple other options, the ability to achieve 100% win rates and 95+% ribbon rates on cycling nodes in various events (suggesting the "existing objectives counterbalance cycling" argument doesn't hold water), a 12-0 result in a TotP event with an AKH-only deck that included neither New Perspectives nor Drake Haven, and various other actual examples and experiences that lead me to believe that cycling is a much larger problem than just an issue of personal preference and playstyle.
Unfortunately, those results aren't reflective of making no difference in competition; on the contrary, they're reflective of dominating competition to an oppressive degree, at the necessary expense of every other archetype in the format.
3 -
both 1 & 2
I've been doing something similar, which is to say, I've been conceding these events and playing other, less boring games instead, such as [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] on Steam.Ohboy said:
I've been basically conceding those events to try fun decks so I don't get bored.
Well, you can. I can give you some deck building advice if you like, but honestly, it's not too hard; start with Draven, NewPs, and 8 cycling cards, and you shouldn't need to tweak your deck that much.Firinmahlazer said:
What I don't think you can do is make powerful cycling decks in PvP and make a
perfect score.
1 -
No need to do anything: people will get bored of itWhat exactly is the truth of the cycling complaint you have?
1. That cycling brings a flood of lower and newer players competing against the "toxic elite," ( @shteev great moniker by the way) thusly narrowing the odds of reaching the top spot? Seems silly as the D-3lite (pun intended) coalitions always top the charts and everyone knows they abuse whatever power combo is out there and are not about to change that. So in essence, if one player is doing this to gain the ranking spot.... so is another. So either a larger pool of competition is the complaint or the toxic elite are unhappy to share space with the lower riff raff like us.
2. The vs. AI cycle deck non- challenging wins? Okay this seems a bit of a two sided coin issue. I.e. when Baral 1.0 came out... the complaint was not just the time it took for Baral to finish a turn, but it was almost impossible to beat him once he started. Now a cycling deck that the AI can't or programmed not to play comes out and easy wins is the gripe? You can't have both issues to complain about. I'll take over powered nerf because it affects the game negatively in the hands of the AI. The cycling of Drakes of Life/damage does not nor will it impede ones position in the rankings.
3. People. Will. Get. Bored. And move on to the next big mechanic. Except the toxic elite (God I love typing this phrase. Haha) who will inevitably make some nuclear powered legacy deck from it and never, ever, ever, ever change the deck because it is perfect and call it "precioussssss" haha.
4. Relax... it is just a game.0 -
Gunmix25 said:
4. Relax... it is just a game.
Any competitive endeavor that people engage results in passionate engagement by those most invested in it, right? Doesn't matter if it's PQ, paper magic, football, gymnastics, Scrabble tournaments, or dog shows. Just because I don't care about something doesn't mean someone else shouldn't.
Regardless:Gunmix25 said:1. That cycling brings a flood of lower and newer players competing against the "toxic elite," ( @shteev great moniker by the way) thusly narrowing the odds of reaching the top spot? Seems silly as the D-3lite (pun intended) coalitions always top the charts and everyone knows they abuse whatever power combo is out there and are not about to change that. So in essence, if one player is doing this to gain the ranking spot.... so is another. So either a larger pool of competition is the complaint or the toxic elite are unhappy to share space with the lower riff raff like us.
"Toxic elite" is being used somewhat sarcastically.
I don't care who falls where in the leaderboard, and have advocated plenty for benefits to the lower ranks. Game balance exists in a vacuum. It doesn't matter who is using imbalanced mechanics, nor does it matter why those individuals are using them. Cycling is overpowered on its own merits, in that it trivializes gameplay with minimal interaction. Whether ten people are using it, or a thousand people are using it; whether being used in the Training Ground or Trial of Strength, it remains overpowered.Gunmix25 said:The cycling of Drakes of Life/damage does not nor will it impede ones position in the rankings.
..Unless you're one of the newer players that doesn't have all the pieces or has a small collection, in which case it very much impedes one's position in the rankings when those that do have access to all the pieces are guaranteeing perfect scores on nodes.
2 -
It is perfect as it isSince the previous update, lower ranked teams are giving top teams a run from their money in events rankings. Of course that will raise the eyebrows of D3leet who are mostly complaining about cycling being OP. Cycling can be suspected to be the cause of ranking reshuffle. But many top players quit or aren't that active. That's my speculation Prior mechanics were faster and deadlier than cycling. Any deck in which you slap in OP cards will be deadly . Some people add OP cards to cycle to make a case against cycling. Energy with/without OP cards is more efficient than cycling and can also generate creatures with thousands of ATK power in 1 or few turns. Kiora , N2 and N3 have more efficient setups and so on.
There are several broken mechanics/cards/setups prior cycling already.
So why is cycling getting single out?
Is it because the cycle card are at the lower rarity attainable by many?
Envy?
I personally wouldn't be in a business of the telling people how to enjoy or play the game. No one is getting paid for this
All this mess is the result of D3's action. Each new update comes with some brokenness, I'm inclined to believe their actions are intentional for the sake of sales. D3 is not the first card game I played nor the last to pull of such moves.
0 -
First off, you are right. I edited my post to remove the snide comment...Dodecapod said:
... Snip...Also, while this doesn't inherently invalidate the rest of the argument, poisoning the well by suggesting that someone asserting a given view is either "ignorant or a liar" is unnecessary.
...... Snip......
In all honesty, I would welcome a few examples of someone achieving 95% ribbons or better on average across the last several Standard events without using many (or ideally any) cycling cards, since that would suggest a healthier diversity of tier 1 options than I had previously believed to be available. However, I'm not personally familiar with those examples, whereas I am familiar with multiple examples of 95+% scores using cycling cards and/or decks extensively, so right now I have no reason to assume other approaches can keep up with cycling to any meaningful degree.
As it stands, cycling cards make up less than 5% of Standard-legal options available, and at least from the top-tier decks I'm familiar with (which isn't to say all top-tier decks in existence, but neither is my exposure limited to a trivial range of decks either), they're statistically overrepresented by an overwhelming margin compared to that percentage.
And yes i do use some cycling cards in decks where cycling isnt my win condition, support removal for instance.
The "problem" is new perspectives, not tge other cards.
Anyway, i have non cycling decks that are much more reliable.
I rarely play a perpectives cycling deck in ToZ for instance0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.8K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.2K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.6K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 503 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 421 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 298 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements