Reigning in the Power of Omniscience

FindingHeart8

Just lost another match to Omni.  Opponent had 35hp.  I had full life Ajani and a full board of creatures, one of them being a 95/95 defender/flying/beserker.  Opponent dropped Omni and after a 11min 34 second turn killed me in 1 hit that same turn.

Bil

DBJones said:

Actually, wouldn't making it impossible to reduce the mana cost of Omniscience fix most of the problems? It'd still give you three (four?) free cards of anything else, but couldn't loop itself. Plus Whir could still fetch it, but you'd still have to charge it up.

The idea of making omniscience cost unable to be reduced is good but it would have almost no effect on game play if Omni still can be fetched. When you use whir or refurbish, it's not omniscience that gives mana to the support, it's the fetching card that puts it directly into play (it doesn't even enter the players hand).  I think making it "unfetchable" would probably have more effect on game play. 

ManiiNames

I vote for unfetchable.  

FindingHeart8

my vote is for unfetchable as well.  I don't want to ruin the general concept of Omniscience for the people that have it (where they basically get to play their entire hand for free, which would still make it one of the most powerful cards in the game), but with fetch it's easily the most abuse-able card in the game and could definitely use a tune down.

Navgoose

Where do you guys keep seeing Omni decks? Admittedly I have only been Platinum since booster crafting but cannot recall ever seeing an Omni cast against me.

Maybe AI has been favoring other less useful strategies and it was still in their hand.

julianus

I think I've faced Omniscience about 6-8 times in total, and about half the time, once it comes out I lose. While that is a small sample, I can't think of any other card that correlates so strongly with losses.

Totally subjective, of course. But I'm in Platinum as well, and it's unusual to lose. With all the advantages players have over the AI, it generally requires a combination of bad luck factors to actually lose a match.

Navgoose

julianus said:

With all the advantages players have over the AI, it generally requires a combination of bad luck factors to actually lose a match.

I am missing the majority of OP cards but do have enough strong cards to be competitive. What you said here is absolutely true. It takes some level of combo of bad draw, unfavorable board, good computer draw, and a computer cascade.

FindingHeart8

Navgoose said:

I am missing the majority of OP cards but do have enough strong cards to be competitive. What you said here is absolutely true. It takes some level of combo of bad draw, unfavorable board, good computer draw, and a computer cascade.

I would disagree with that when it comes to Omni.  I've (unfortunately) faced 30+ matches against Omni decks and it's easy to set up a deck that can combo until whatever board state you had before is now irrelevant (see my post at the top as an example, though I've lost 4 more Omni battles since then with a favorable board state).

While I would agree with you that bad draw may play a factor in delaying the combo from going off, the difference I've seen is the AI going combo-until-win on turn 5 or 6 instead of turn 3 or 4.

Rhasget

Omni is one part of the problem. But I see looping decks that selfplay as the main issue. TotP is just an endless show of variations on this and often it's a cointoss if you get the right cards in hand to stop it before the AI hits a combo.
I face an Omni deck almost every day in TotP and it's about 50/50 W/L. 
And the loosing isn't the problem. It's the fact that you can't do anything.

Before booster crafting this wasn't an issue since not many had the cards to combo this. And I hadn't quit a match before it actually ended. 
Now I am forced to quit games since I don't know when the loop ends (one freak loop actually went on through my whole breakfast break at work for 20 mins before I shut it down) and I actually ragequit when staring down an inevitable turn 2 stomping.
HUF, Omni, Swarm, Whir in various combos are the main culprits and I really hope they think cards through to avoid these types of possibilites.
Im not pro-nerf and hope it will dwindle down when people tire of watching the decks autoplay (which I doubt though).

Bil

   The problem is many players like the "godmode" feeling and there will always be someone using those game breaking combos because it means easy and/or fast victory.
 The only way to avoid it is to apply some restrictions to the cards. 
   

Houdin

My biggest issue with this entire thread is the fact that desire to nerf omni or in other threads HUF. Is the simple fact that players lose games to them. The entire point of magic as a game is to struggle to defeat your opponents. That fact is 5he basis for card bans in paper. When a deck is simply unbeatable if played it ruins the meta of the game.
I would be more willing to entertain the idea that omni was an issue if the player base was putting as much effort into banning cycling. 
The NP/DH combo or NP/FotD combo is far more of an Insta win then omni or huf is. This cards are low cost and because of the nature if cycling far easier to drop on the board.
Once they have dropped it's nearly impossible to lose the match.
Having those kinds of decks readily available as the two cards are rare only rather than masterpiece like omni is far more damaging to the game meta.
The only reason their isn't as much complaint in my opinion is it seems the problem isn't having cards that auto win games, it's only cards that greg can win with that is the issue. Which really makes all of this seem simply petulant.
As Greg hasn't been programmed to utilize cycling no one complains.
The truth is those cards are one of the most predominant reasons behind the ridiculous standings in events. Anyone can run those decks. It takes no thought at all to build the decks. Two cards and 8 cheap cycling cards. All of which are common or uncommon.
Unless D3 is going to nerf cycling in its entirety from the game their is no reason to nerf any other cards.

GrizzoMtGPQ

@Houdin I'd welcome a nerf to Drake Haven and New Perspectives too. Why not start a thread on that?

khurram

GrizzoMtGPQ said:

@Houdin I'd welcome a nerf to Drake Haven and New Perspectives too. Why not start a thread on that?

Why haven't you... They let you win more consistently and reliably then Omniscience does, and they have been around longer but I don't see any vehement campaigns like this to nerf those.

Omniscience is a card that everyone wants to get and understandably. But it's a masterpiece and knowing that one most likely won't ever get the card that just gave them a run for their money instead of the usual easy pickings from the dumb AI makes people want to scream even louder for a "nerf".

hawkyh1

Houdin said:

My biggest issue with this entire thread is the fact that desire to nerf omni or in other threads HUF. Is the simple fact that players lose games to them. The entire point of magic as a game is to struggle to defeat your opponents. That fact is 5he basis for card bans in paper. When a deck is simply unbeatable if played it ruins the meta of the game.
I would be more willing to entertain the idea that omni was an issue if the player base was putting as much effort into banning cycling. 
The NP/DH combo or NP/FotD combo is far more of an Insta win then omni or huf is. This cards are low cost and because of the nature if cycling far easier to drop on the board.
Once they have dropped it's nearly impossible to lose the match.
Having those kinds of decks readily available as the two cards are rare only rather than masterpiece like omni is far more damaging to the game meta.
The only reason their isn't as much complaint in my opinion is it seems the problem isn't having cards that auto win games, it's only cards that greg can win with that is the issue. Which really makes all of this seem simply petulant.
As Greg hasn't been programmed to utilize cycling no one complains.
The truth is those cards are one of the most predominant reasons behind the ridiculous standings in events. Anyone can run those decks. It takes no thought at all to build the decks. Two cards and 8 cheap cycling cards. All of which are common or uncommon.
Unless D3 is going to nerf cycling in its entirety from the game their is no reason to nerf any other cards.

the problem I have with omni is it can cause an 'instant' win
on the turn it was played. ie imagine you were doing ok
with full health, blocking creatures etc and then 'pause', and
then you were defeated. I also hate long loops but some
might still be acceptable. cycling takes 2 turns to win. in
theory if your opponent was able to cycle and they cast
new perspectives you can still destroy the support before
they actually started to cycle their cards. cycling is broken.
but in a different way. if omni should not be nerfed, would it
be acceptable to have it craftable? it doesn't break the meta
so theoretically wouldn't break the game if everyone had it?
this has nothing to do with winning or losing games. pre
nerf baral had a similar problem that it did not allow players
to play the game. if it starts looping you might as well quit
the battle.

HH

Houdin

Ahh but that's the point I'm trying to make. We are talking about the difference between one card, masterpiece level, not craftable, that a limited number of players has, which breaks a match once in a while based on card order. Versus cards of rare level, craftable, that almost every player has or could have easily, that breaks the game every time they are played.

Just because it's the player that can only utilize those cards and not Greg does not mean they do not break the meta.

Gunmix25

I think the following ideas may work if a nerf run were to occur.... (Oktagon has been hinting at making some changes)

New Perspectives:

Cost change: No

Text change: Yes

"While this support is on the board, when you draw a card with cycling that card gains 2 mana. When this support enters the board, each card with cycling in your hand gains 3 mana." 

Shield count: No change

Omniscience:

Cost change: No

Text change: Yes

"Each card in your hand costs 0 mana to cast. When you cast a creature, spell or support, this support loses one shield. This support cannot cast other copies of Omniscience or be fetched from the library."

Shield: No change

Whir of Invention:

Cost change: No

Text Change: Yes

"Fetch the first support costing 12 or less mana in your library and place it on the battlefield."

Swarm Intelligence:

Cost change: No

Text Change: (If the above change for Whir was to occur, then No) Yes

When you cast a spell, the next spell in your hand gains full mana then this support loses 1 shield. This card cannot be fetched from the library."

Shield: No Change

Hazoret's Undying Fury:

Cost change: No

Text Change: Yes

change existing text "This card cannot fetch other copies of itself" to "This card cannot be fetched from the library."

Houdin

I actually agree with the above. However I would add text changes to drake haven and faith of the devoted to add "when you cycle a card this support loses one shield "
A 12/12 drake for 8 mana or 15 damage and 15 life for the same are still well beyond the realms of a rare card.

Navgoose

I think new perspectives should apply mana when splashed, then at beginning of turn to cycling cards at 0 mana. The on draw instant mana seems like the problematic part.

Gilesclone

Why does cycling need to be nerfed?  Because it allows people with small collections to actually win a few games?  

Bil

   It seems that players that defend omniscience base their argumentation on two main points that makes me quite doubtfully.
          
First, they explain it is OK to loose a game in 1 or 2 turns without any way to avoid it because it finally brings difficulty to an easy game. (which is untrue..  it makes it random if not boring). 

 Then they explain the ones who called for nerfs don't like to loose and would like an easy to win game. 

But... Isn't playing Omniloop the climax of the easy to win attitude? 
 
 Considering the effect of Omniloop or HUF+deploy combos (0 game play nor strategy for both the player and his opponent), the single fact of entering a pvp event with one of those combos means... "Hey, I 'm here for easy wins, I don't care about game play or challenge". 
  
  Since Then...How can the player who use OP combos talk about the game being positively harder when he chooses deliberately to play it easy when he could choose harder (but funnier) options?

Cycling is a different problem. It is abusive too, but player never suffers from it, as Greg can't play it.
As long as the players have fun playing, it's OK for the sake of a game. If a player doesn't want to play cycle because it's too easy to win, he's free to choose another build.