Please Nerf cycling

1356789

Comments

  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    naphomci said:
    Houdin said:

    These three cards create two combo decks that give the player a 99% guaranteed win rate.

    This implies that other strategies don't give similar win rates. This game is not hard - the AI simply does not play well.

    What I fail to see with cycling, is how is this different than pre-legacy when half (or some amount) of the meta was Olivia + Piggy? The very nature of this game, and the limited card options (10 different per deck) means there will always be some absurdly powerful option that offers 99%+ win rates with half-decent play. 
    Nyx lockdown, HUF Deploy or gem changers or Approach, Saheeli or Bolas ID, all same win rate as cycling. 

    Thanks for pointing this out. 
  • Coilbox
    Coilbox Posts: 202 Tile Toppler
    Gideon said:
    You can choose not to cycle. The AI does.
    That's the best answer ever xD Why nerfing something that the AI doesnt even use against you or cause any troubles? As Gideon says, if you dont like it, you can choose not to use it, just as Greg does.
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    ZW2007- said:
    julianus said:
    I'll add in here that the Magic designers obviously intended for cycling to be a full game mechanic, not just a niche gimmick or a way to draw a few cards here and there, and any hypothetical rebalancing should be based on that principle.

    I don't play the paper game, but if you look at those cards you'll see they're not too different from our versions.


     
    I think something you are missing here is that in paper, the actual game play is very different. You can only play one land per turn as your source of mana which restricts what you can do. You can't get lucky in paper and cast Drake Haven and New Perspectives on turn 1. Even if you could, you are still limited by Drake Haven's activation cost. In paper, you can't even cast NP until turn 6 which is an eternity. In a perfect scenario though, you wouldn't even want New Perspectives because by the time you could finally cast it, you'd already have enough drakes to kill your opponent. I can't imagine anyone playing New Perspectives in a game of paper, ever. Paper prices seem to support this since it costs as low as 5¢. Cycling itself is a very strong mechanic in paper because drawing cards is a very strong thing to do. However, these enchantments are not very strong in paper.

    As for people "seeing less and less cycling decks", that's confirmation bias if I ever saw it. I feel like I still see it all the time but that proves nothing. Only the devs can know how much or how little cycling is used.

    Saying that cycling doesn't need nerfed because the AI can't beat you with it is absurd. If Greg could beat you with it, would you want it nerfed or would you be fine with it? Suppose the devs decided to teach Greg how to properly utilize NP and Drake Haven, how would that make you feel? I think it's safe to assume you would hate it more than anything else you've ever hated in this game, especially since Greg would just cycle infinitely and keep making a larger and larger drake stack that would never attack.

    Nerfing it does help everyone because it removes the crutch and forces people into new strategies. Also, there isn't an objective in the game that a cycling deck can't complete perfectly.

    I personally used a cycling deck for the 10 or less damage node. I only missed 2 points on that node and that was due to bad luck/gem boards for me. Both times the AI got 20+ mana over three turns and cast haste creatures that hit me for at least 10 before my 4th turn and in both cases I won on my 4th turn.
    your paragraph 1: "You can't even cast NP until turn 6."  You actually play paper magic right, and aren't just bluffing?  There are plenty of ways to get NP out before turn 6.  I've seen NP drop in paper magic as early as turn 3, and combo out as early as turn 4.

    "Paper prices seem to support this since it costs as low as 5 cents."  Paper mtg prices are like playing the stock market.  Arcum Dagson was a $0.50 card until the 4 color artifact commander deck was released, now it's ~$12.  I bought my Karakas for $2, then some dude won with it in a grand tournament and it went up to $100+ in value, and has gone down in price since they re-released it in the master's set.  You can't use the current value of a card to justify its play-ability, especially with many card values fluctuating daily.

    your 2nd paragraph (single sentence):  Maybe we're seeing cycling more, maybe we're seeing it less.  Personally I hope to face more cycling decks, because against us they don't work.  "Yes AI, please spend your mana to drop Drake Haven, it's a dead support to you.  I'll take my victory now, please." lol.

    your 3rd paragraph:  What motivation would the devs have to teach Greg to cycle?  They've already stated they're working on new sets and moving forward with mtgpq.  Tinkering with an old mechanic from previous sets would be a setback.  Additionally (while I do see a handful of people dissatisfied with the cycling mechanic), the dissatisfaction with Omniscience and the 10-minute combo-to-victory potential that the AI can actually use is very popular right now.  It would not take the developers long to realize that allowing Greg to combo would have a similar result to playing a Omniscience deck, which is a good cause for them to leave the ability as is.  Everything else here is just argumentum ad passiones.

    4th: Taking away strategies from players to force them to try new ones is not an appealing way to run a game, and would not follow the pattern Octagon has been pursuing to this point.  Introducing new cards and new events that allow players to expand into new strategies is a much more solid strategy for player retention and satisfaction.

    Last:  I have all of the cycling cards, and I never use cycling...because it's boring as tinykitty to use.  A sentiment shared by many on these threads.  Cycling is it's own deterrent, but taking it away from new players as a unappealing but solid route to victory is just, frankly in my opinion, very unfair.
  • Gunmix25
    Gunmix25 Posts: 1,442 Chairperson of the Boards
    bken1234 said:
    [....Saheeli or Bolas ID.....] 

    @bken1234 A little confused as to what exactly is an "ID?" Could you clear this up for me please.

  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    Imminent Doom
  • Gunmix25
    Gunmix25 Posts: 1,442 Chairperson of the Boards
    Matthew said:
    Imminent Doom
    @Matthew thanks. That makes more sense. 
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    ZW2007- said:

    You: Yes, you can ramp into NP early and combo out with it. What is the win percentage of this combo deck? Will it win games at a 99% rate like it does in this game? I'd imagine if it was that good in paper, it wouldn't be a 5¢ bulk rare.

    Arcum Dagsson is an 11.5 year old card that jumped up in price with a product released in the past 2 years, hardly a relevant comparison. Karakas is a 23.5 year old card that people found a use for years later, again I don't see how this is relevant.

    Me: Yes, if MTG was built in the same format as MTGPQ where you could have more than 4 of the same cards in a deck, unlimited deck size, with a 10 card cap, it could easily combo out.

    The age of a card is irrelevant, considering many old cards are still used in tournaments, and a main cause in the increase or decrease of a card's value is the attention placed on it via tournaments.


    You: It was actually three sentences, thanks for noticing. What you are saying here is that not only is it an easy win for you if you are playing it, but it is also an easy win if you play against it. How curious that some don't want it nerfed.

    Me:  You got me there lol, it was 3 sentences; was more focused on drawing your attention to the shorter section and the content.  And yeah "some" don't want it nerfed.  Most on these threads I've discussed this with usually come around to appreciating the imbalance vs. the AI as most of us do enjoy an easy victory once and a while. 
     It would not take the developers long to realize that allowing Greg to combo would have a similar result to playing a Omniscience deck, which is a good cause for them to leave the ability as is.  Everything else here is just argumentum ad passiones.
    You: That was purely a hypothetical. I bolded your sentence for emphasis. You came to the exact realization of what I was implying. That cycling is just as powerful or op as Omni... except the AI isn't smart enough to play it so everyone should be ok with cycling being broken but not Omni. Right?

    Me: If I was actually facing another player and they were using cycling I'd be more salty about it.  But I'm playing an AI that can't use it.  So cycling players are using cycling for almost-guaranteed victories, not having fun doing it, and leaving easy-to-beat decks behind for an easy victory to fight it.  I don't see how this is a problem here.

    The difference is the AI can (and does) abuse the Omni combo, making an actual barrier for even some of the best players.  I'll take more victories for everyone over more defeats for everyone any day, but maybe you're a bit more masochistic about this game than I am lol.

    You: Paper magic takes away strategies constantly by banning cards that warp the format. The game still seems appealing after 25 years...

    Me: Yes, because overall WotC has good R&D team, marketing strategies, and a strong hold in the market for complex board games, not because they don't occasionally make unappealing choices.  Wizards has even admitted to this before.
    Last:  I have all of the cycling cards, and I never use cycling...because it's boring as tinykitty to use.  A sentiment shared by many on these threads.  Cycling is it's own deterrent, but taking it away from new players as a unappealing but solid route to victory is just, frankly in my opinion, very unfair.
    You: Saying you never use them proves nothing to me. Saying cycling is it's own deterrent proves why it shouldn't be here. Games are supposed to be fun, playing cycling isn't fun. Also, new players shouldn't have such a solid route to victory, that completely undermines the concept of progression that nearly all games rely on.

    Me: Meh, it was more me throwing my personal experience with the cards in, since you had thrown yours in.

    Actually cycling being its own deterrent is exactly the reason why it should be there.  New players hardly have a leg to stand on right now entering this game.  Being able to actually beat the elites in some way is a refreshing relief to the continuous stream of losses they would encounter otherwise; and the monotony of cycling means that they'll eventually tire of that method and seek alternative ways to win, but with renewed confidence that they actually can win.  And they still have to get the cards, you don't begin this game with anything.

    But you know what isn't fun?  Always losing and feeling powerless to do anything about it.



  • Furordraco
    Furordraco Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    edited January 2018
    I agree with @FindingHeart8 you can't simply Nerf a mechanic just because it helps players beat the elites. The deck is easy to make but still requires core cards you either need to craft (and if  youre a new player that WILL take some time unless you're so lucky to craft all you need in the first tries) or find by hopelessly opening packs and we all know how long that can take (again uberluckers aside). You need to motivate a player not show them that you're hopelessly underpowered unless you play for months to barely reach some mediumish players. As I said before, IF Greg could cycle then God please Nerf that ****. But until this happens I don't see why it would need a Nerf as cycling is boring as hell even though you get easy wins. And once again...now that I'm in plat I finally see what these Omni loop decks are...and if our beloved and quite often idiotic greg can use it well....it's much more threatening. 
  • babar3355
    babar3355 Posts: 1,128 Chairperson of the Boards
    bken1234 said:
    naphomci said:
    Houdin said:

    These three cards create two combo decks that give the player a 99% guaranteed win rate.

    This implies that other strategies don't give similar win rates. This game is not hard - the AI simply does not play well.

    What I fail to see with cycling, is how is this different than pre-legacy when half (or some amount) of the meta was Olivia + Piggy? The very nature of this game, and the limited card options (10 different per deck) means there will always be some absurdly powerful option that offers 99%+ win rates with half-decent play. 
    Nyx lockdown, HUF Deploy or gem changers or Approach, Saheeli or Bolas ID, all same win rate as cycling. 

    Thanks for pointing this out. 
    I disagree that any of these decks is as consistent as cycling.  I have lost with HuF Deploy when the opponent cascaded quickly and I couldn't draw HuF in time.  I have lost with my Bolas ID deck when I stall out and the opponent can destroy my supports.  And Nyx lockdown is very susceptible to a lot of cards including white our and great aurora. I have never lost with any cycling deck I have used.... ever...

    Of course there are some really great decks.  Of course cards like HuF should ALSO be nerfed.  

    The question to ask for whether cycling needs a nerf is "If the AI cycled, would we demand a nerf?"  Absolutely!  Because a deck with nothing better than a rare would consistently go off and often times give you 1 or less turns to respond before the game was finished.  That is not balanced. 

    The best parallels I can draw to this are:
     Baral 1.0.  The AI piloted him marginally well... the community screamed for a nerf. 
    Omniscience - The AI pilots it marginally well... many people are screaming for nerfs... but if it was a "for sale" card that was and we faced it in every other game, it would have been nerfed by now.

    Other OP cards available does not mean cycling is balanced.  A really shoddy AI where lots of decks can get 99% win rates does not mean cycling is balanced.  The question is whether it gives an out sized unfair advantage compared to other strategies with similar quality cards.  

    My answer is unquestionably yes.
  • ILikePancakes
    ILikePancakes Posts: 101 Tile Toppler
    There are plenty enough cards to destroy supports and drain mana from your opponent. Cycling does NOT need a nerf. Cards that cause endless loops where it is impossible to counter or interact at all need nerfed. One is game-breaking and the other (cycling) is not. 
  • khurram
    khurram Posts: 1,090 Chairperson of the Boards
    ILikePancakes said:
    Cycling does NOT need a nerf. Cards that cause endless loops where it is impossible to counter or interact at all need nerfed. One is game-breaking and the other (cycling) is not. 
    Looked up the definition of oxymoron. Found this as an example.  :|
  • Furordraco
    Furordraco Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    edited January 2018
    I think you really must hate cycling decks. Anyone who can play cycling will want to try new decks, especially veteran players. And of course new players who can rely on this mechanic will.use it until.they have better cards to try out. I don't see why you need to take away something so simple that doesn't harm anyone in pratic but just morally. And what you said about getting these cards early, if a player gets omniscence early on in bronze level he will still dominate other players. With cycle those players can try to win versus those other op cards. Remember that it's a games based on finding cards, and rnjesus will always be involved to either help or depress players. I like to win with cycle, as you do with omniscence, everyone likes easy wins sometimes and to deny it is denying human nature
  • morgue427
    morgue427 Posts: 783 Critical Contributor
    i think dropping np to give one mana would be a reasonable solution it would still work on a few but not all of the cards make them earn the extra mana to cycle cards, i dont cycle any more to fast wins unless their is no other ways, just because it is such a long boring process, but i got np and curator and drake the first day it came out. most og hou needs at least 2 mana to cycle cards only a annoying few in amk only need one to cycle.
  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    Increasing NP to 15 would be in line with paper cost and help here too. Sure you can still cheat it out, but it would take more effort and slow things down (which is all you want).
    It shouldn't be putting mana on cards _ever_, it should reduce cycling costs to 1 (or by 1) instead. The adding mana is part of the broken part.

    The other 2 show the other side of the problem... If those 2 cards drained 1 mana each time they were used it would help a lot!

    (N3 is just plain broken, but the _entire_ implementation of cycling was not thought or tested.)
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    @ZW2007-

    I'm still pretty baffled at how you could come to these conclusions.  You reference Amonkhet as an old set but it'll probably be in standard with events for another year in this game, probably longer because it will probably stay attached with HOU, which is still are newest set.

    I do enjoy my easy wins (which is why I defend DtG for legacy events), but as I mentioned multiple times on previous posts, I don't play cycling.  I did once though, for a bit when the cards originally came out.  And I found it to be a very empowering experience (especially when facing off against 400+hp Bolas, when most players didn't have the overpowered cards necessary to even get close to beating him).  I've heard similar experiences from other players.  Players don't generally continue to play cycling long-term, it's like a stepping stone, and a confidence booster. 

    The point is, if you don't like cycling then don't play it.  Unlike Omni, it won't effect you at all except you'll get a few easy victories here and there when you face an AI failing to utilize a cycling deck.  But don't ruin the experience for the rest of us.

  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    ILikePancakes said:
    There are plenty enough cards to destroy supports and drain mana from your opponent. Cycling does NOT need a nerf. Cards that cause endless loops where it is impossible to counter or interact at all need nerfed. One is game-breaking and the other (cycling) is not. 
    A good point, I didn't even consider the fact that you could just remove it with support destruction.  Unlike Omni that can combo off as soon as it hits the battlefield, even if the AI could abuse cycling, it wouldn't be until the next turn because you have to cycle at the beginning of your main phase, and you don't get a 2nd main phase in this game.

    Also, epic name by the way.  Now I'm craving breakfast. :)
  • ZW2007-
    ZW2007- Posts: 812 Critical Contributor
    @Furordraco I don't hate cycling decks, I hate the way cycling effects the game. You guys refuse to see that it does harm people in practice. Any new players that do have the good cycling cards have massive advantage over those that don't. They can easily sit in Bronze or Silver tier and soak up all the top event placements without tiering up because they don't need to master new cards. Omniscience being in broken in Bronze or Silver is unlikely to happen because it needs lots of mythics to make it broken. Yes, it is very powerful but it won't be doing the endless loops that everyone hates.

    I know I like easy wins, but I don't think I deserve them. I like using Omniscience as it exists now and will continue to use it but I won't run around shouting it doesn't need to be nerfed. It does need to be nerfed. That's the difference here, anyone against cycling getting nerfed wants it to stay OP so they can continue to use it.
    FindingHeart8 said:
    @ZW2007-

    I'm still pretty baffled at how you could come to these conclusions.  You reference Amonkhet as an old set but it'll probably be in standard with events for another year in this game, probably longer because it will probably stay attached with HOU, which is still are newest set.

    I do enjoy my easy wins (which is why I defend DtG for legacy events), but as I mentioned multiple times on previous posts, I don't play cycling.  I did once though, for a bit when the cards originally came out.  And I found it to be a very empowering experience (especially when facing off against 400+hp Bolas, when most players didn't have the overpowered cards necessary to even get close to beating him).  I've heard similar experiences from other players.  Players don't generally continue to play cycling long-term, it's like a stepping stone, and a confidence booster. 

    The point is, if you don't like cycling then don't play it.  Unlike Omni, it won't effect you at all except you'll get a few easy victories here and there when you face an AI failing to utilize a cycling deck.  But don't ruin the experience for the rest of us.

    Well, I mean... it's been in the game for 8 months now. The game is a little over two years old. I wouldn't exactly call that new content. The fact that it will be in the game for another year goes hand in hand with my previous post. If the new set comes out and doesn't have another easily obtainable OP strategy like cycling, the incentive is there for newer players to still go after the cycling cards and skip the new set. What happens when cycling does rotate out and they are left with Origins, XLN, and RIX as the only sets besides Dominaria and they don't have many cards from XLN or RIX because they invested on cycling since it was obviously the most powerful strategy?
    I do enjoy my easy wins (which is why I defend DtG for legacy events), but as I mentioned multiple times on previous posts, I don't play cycling.  I did once though, for a bit when the cards originally came out.  And I found it to be a very empowering experience (especially when facing off against 400+hp Bolas, when most players didn't have the overpowered cards necessary to even get close to beating him).  I've heard similar experiences from other players.  Players don't generally continue to play cycling long-term, it's like a stepping stone, and a confidence booster.  

    The point is, if you don't like cycling then don't play it.  Unlike Omni, it won't effect you at all except you'll get a few easy victories here and there when you face an AI failing to utilize a cycling deck.  But don't ruin the experience for the rest of us.

    I already admitted that I enjoy my easy wins but I won't defend them. They shouldn't exist. The true difference between Omni and cycling isn't the power level at all, it's the ease of acquisition. Cycling requires 1 rare, 1 uncommon, and 8 commons to be lethal. Omni requires 1 mp, countless mythics, and a few rares to create those dreaded looping decks. I'm not defending Omni because its hard to get the cards to break it, I still think it needs to be nerfed. I think cycling is even worse because everyone can have it and abuse it. It's just like Baral 1.0, anyone could buy him and break him, and a ton of people did. Then he got nerfed because he was everywhere. People wanted Baral nerfed because they didn't like losing to him, same reason they want Omni nerfed. The argument against nerfing cycling is the other side of the same coin. It's equally as powerful but they don't lose to it, therefore it is fine the way it is.
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    @ZW2007-

    Okay look, in an attempt to simplify this here...correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like overall our disagreement comes down to a differing opinion in the theoretical philosophies of how new players will utilize cycling.

    Again, correct me if I'm wrong with this, but to simplify: You've explained how you see cycling cards as too easy to obtain, and basically being the other side of the coin to Omni but in a one that only benefits players which you don't think is fair.  You think players will get cycling combos fairly easy and either use them endlessly or use them until they get tired of it or until it shifts to legacy and quit, overall hurting player retention.

    I (to simplify) think cycling cards will empower new players who have trouble competing with players who have higher-level cards (I've seen a lot of lower tier players rocking top-tier cards) and will overall help with player satisfaction and retention (players will get sick of the extra work required for cycling and will move to other methods of victory, as the satisfaction of knowing they are capable of winning will keep them playing, even if they lose when trying new cards post-cycling).  I see no harm in the easier victories, as it isn't actually PvP and the AI has no feelings, and it's a balance as those players are using cycling for easy wins...should we not also have an easy win against them?  Also, as it was pointed out earlier, if the AI could abuse cycling there would be a 1-turn delay before the combo could be activated, as there's no 2nd main phase to cycle.

Categories