Please Nerf cycling

hawkyh1

whether or not cycling gets nerfed has nothing to do with
whether omni gets nerfed or not.
I've not seen a valid argument stating why omni should
not be nerfed. omni is broken, not op. similar to how sww
errors are broken. omniloop comes out and causes a loss.
sww occurs and causes a loss. how the game was going
before hand is irrelevant.
cycling is broken.
omni is broken.
people are discussing whether there are any merits of
keeping cycling broken.(for players that are new/stuck)
players have by and large stopped discussing the merits
of keeping omni broken. most of what I'm hearing is: it's
not fair if cycling doesn't get nerfed and omni gets nerfed.
games are played. in this regard omni is a worse offender
than cycling.

HH

ILikePancakes

khurram said:

ILikePancakes said:

khurram said:

Sirchombli said:nice

Plus, with how much people want certain masterpieces nerfed, asking for more of them in circulation would not help community morale. I'd love to be able to chase masterpieces. I'm also not one of the myriad of people crying about them being op. Be careful what you wish for. 

Not certain masterpieces... Just the one. And let's be honest, 90+% of people posting to get Omniscience nerfed don't have it and aside from their exaggerated claims that it's making them quit 9 out of 10 games every day, the real reason is that they don't like the idea of potentially losing to a deck they can't  make for themselves. Not really because it's broken and they want the game to be "balanced".

PS: a little off topic rant. Sorry. I blame the delay in release of Ixalan. 

Any card or combo that does not allow the player to interact at all with the ai is broken and needs balanced. Still waiting for anyone to give a sensible explanation as to why the ai going into a 10 minute loop with zero way for the human to counter is acceptable. I don't want to waste my time watching what essentially amounts to a video. There's YouTube for that. Games are supposed to be interactive.

And there's nothing more interactive than cycling, right?  It allows the players to interact and interact and interact..... and then interact some more. Very healthy for the game. More please.

I don't know if you are pro-cycling or not but Its the same argument all over again. No one is saying Omniscience is not OP and doesn't need to be reworked. Sure, it does. But It's the hypocrisy of some players that's laughable, when one broken thing is dubbed very fair and the other broken thing is a disaster for the game.

And 10 minutes loops due to Omni, people claiming to quit matches every day due to this? Please there is a fair amount of exaggeration going on or we are not playing the same game.

And if it's because people are newer and might be having a different experience than me while facing Omniscience than it may not be just that one card or deck type that's giving them trouble. They still have ways to go.

I'm not a fan of whataboutism, but I'll play. Are there cards to destroy supports? Do you use them in your decks so a cycling deck becomes weak or even inefficient for the human using it? There's even a card to troll cycling decks! Where are the cards a human can play when the ai goes into an omniscience loop? 

I'm pretty confident the complaints about np and dh are overblown. The only one that has the data, however, is Octagon. If they believe cycling needs balanced, they should do it, but balancing a broken card like omniscience should be a priority.

khurram

ILikePancakes said:

khurram said:

ILikePancakes said:

khurram said:

Sirchombli said:nice

Plus, with how much people want certain masterpieces nerfed, asking for more of them in circulation would not help community morale. I'd love to be able to chase masterpieces. I'm also not one of the myriad of people crying about them being op. Be careful what you wish for. 

Not certain masterpieces... Just the one. And let's be honest, 90+% of people posting to get Omniscience nerfed don't have it and aside from their exaggerated claims that it's making them quit 9 out of 10 games every day, the real reason is that they don't like the idea of potentially losing to a deck they can't  make for themselves. Not really because it's broken and they want the game to be "balanced".

PS: a little off topic rant. Sorry. I blame the delay in release of Ixalan. 

Any card or combo that does not allow the player to interact at all with the ai is broken and needs balanced. Still waiting for anyone to give a sensible explanation as to why the ai going into a 10 minute loop with zero way for the human to counter is acceptable. I don't want to waste my time watching what essentially amounts to a video. There's YouTube for that. Games are supposed to be interactive.

And there's nothing more interactive than cycling, right?  It allows the players to interact and interact and interact..... and then interact some more. Very healthy for the game. More please.

I don't know if you are pro-cycling or not but Its the same argument all over again. No one is saying Omniscience is not OP and doesn't need to be reworked. Sure, it does. But It's the hypocrisy of some players that's laughable, when one broken thing is dubbed very fair and the other broken thing is a disaster for the game.

And 10 minutes loops due to Omni, people claiming to quit matches every day due to this? Please there is a fair amount of exaggeration going on or we are not playing the same game.

And if it's because people are newer and might be having a different experience than me while facing Omniscience than it may not be just that one card or deck type that's giving them trouble. They still have ways to go.

I'm not a fan of whataboutism, but I'll play. Are there cards to destroy supports? Do you use them in your decks so a cycling deck becomes weak or even inefficient for the human using it? There's even a card to troll cycling decks! Where are the cards a human can play when the ai goes into an omniscience loop? 

I'm pretty confident the complaints about np and dh are overblown. The only one that has the data, however, is Octagon. If they believe cycling needs balanced, they should do it, but balancing a broken card like omniscience should be a priority.

- The cards that destroy supports also destroy Omniscience you know, if it does not fizzle. It does that, but confirmation bias would have you believe otherwise. So yeah, I use support destruction in my decks to deal with ALL pesky supports including omniscience, and NP. And guess what? It has worked and help me overcome. Surprise.

- Cards that make cycling inefficient and a card to troll cycling decks? If you think Solemnity makes any serious dent to a player piloting a cycling deck you have yet to realise the potential of Curator of Mysteries and Alhammeret's Archive, they are a popular choice and a great success in cycling decks. And if you are still annoyed by those so called troll cards (i sometimes get annoyed too when a fly is buzzing around my head, so I get where you are coming from) you can cycle through your deck until you draw support destruction. Who would have thought?
The opponent has cast support destruction on your NP and DH? That's why you save one copy of each in your hand so you are always ready to go, and repeat. After all, you draw so many. Mind blown.

- Complaints about DH and NP are overblown? You got me there. Yes, summoning 12/12 flyer for 3 Mana is the epitome of balance and not broken at all. And that's when NP is not even in the picture. Get that one on the board too and summon all the drakes you can for free of cost until you can swing for lethal. Or you can go above, just for the laughs. I did a few times.

- Well, I am pretty confident that the horror stories and the frequency of such encounters people claim to be having with omniscience are overblown. Give me an honest account and number of the battles lost against Omni and I'll give you accounts of hundred+ matches where cycling made me coast through events in god mode. 

I have faced somewhere around 25 to 30 omniscience decks and lost to 3 of them. The one I faced yesterday got me down to 30 HP. 3 turns later I won with full health points. One of the encounters was on take less damage node. Opponent cast Omni along with Starfield of Nyx and iWill. I won with full points. Just 2 examples of matches I won against it that came to mind.

Since you mentioned support destruction as solution and Solemnity as "troll" card against cycling decks. I'll also play along and suggest the half dozen types of support destruction currently present in the game as a solution for Omniscience. As a deterrent there is Overwhelming Splendor, Quarantine Field, Emrakul, Alhammeret's High Arbiter, Sphinx's Tutelage. I hear the last one of these works wonders with cycling.

Thuran

You forgot to mention how cycling gives you infinite extra swaps thanks to shefet monitor

You cannot just cast omni and win, you need to set up your hand to loop. 

Cycling is just win on the spot, due to the ability to sculpt any hand you want in the game. Once cycling starts, it might as well just pop up a prompt:

- how big a creature do you want?
- which cards should be in your hand?
- do you want them to have full mana?
- how many extra swaps do you want?
- do you want to drain their first card?
-would you like to cast insidious will to ensure they can't counterplay?

Cycling needs to go. You cannot have a mechanic in any game that ensures automatic 100% winrate!

It would be like Dark souls having a prompt before each boss: would you like to watch them dance for 20 minutes and then fall over dead?

Yes it would be boring, so after a while people would stop using it, just to try to have some fun

Now assume dark souls had a leaderboard that counted dance kills as equal to real kills

Such an option should not exist!!

khurram

Before the mods descend on us, I'd request @bken1234 to probably move these comments to the thread about Omniscience or cycling. Since it is getting a bit off topic here.

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: 400 Purple Crystal Elite Pack Discussion.

Houdin

This argument is really coming down to false equivalency. 

Omni is bad because the AI can beat you with it sometimes with no chance of response.

Just as an aside. This type of deck requires numerous other mythic cards being played in exactly the right order.

Cycling is not bad because only the player can beat the AI almost every time with a perfect score.

This deck requires some rares and a bunch of commons.

The truth is. They are both bad. They should both be adjusted. 

Which one is worse?

Hmmm. The deck with a masterpiece you can't craft and a bunch of mythics that very few players will have, or the deck with cards almost everyone has.

Is this really a question? 

The argument to keep cycling is really the same as someone thinking they should be allowed to take a modern deck to a standard tournament and only they are allowed to play it because it wouldn't be fair to them if their opponents could play one against them.

hawkyh1

Houdin said:

This argument is really coming down to false equivalency. 

Omni is bad because the AI can beat you with it sometimes with no chance of response.

Just as an aside. This type of deck requires numerous other mythic cards being played in exactly the right order.

actually you only need the one mythic, deploy. whir and
totem heartebeast are not mythics. also play is either
cast omni/whir followed by omni/whir as the 2nd card.
once you have 6 shields on omni it starts getting loopy
assuming you have some card draw.

khurram said:

ILikePancakes said:

khurram said:

ILikePancakes said:

khurram said:

Sirchombli said:nice

Plus, with how much people want certain masterpieces nerfed, asking for more of them in circulation would not help community morale. I'd love to be able to chase masterpieces. I'm also not one of the myriad of people crying about them being op. Be careful what you wish for. 

Not certain masterpieces... Just the one. And let's be honest, 90+% of people posting to get Omniscience nerfed don't have it and aside from their exaggerated claims that it's making them quit 9 out of 10 games every day, the real reason is that they don't like the idea of potentially losing to a deck they can't  make for themselves. Not really because it's broken and they want the game to be "balanced".

PS: a little off topic rant. Sorry. I blame the delay in release of Ixalan. 

Any card or combo that does not allow the player to interact at all with the ai is broken and needs balanced. Still waiting for anyone to give a sensible explanation as to why the ai going into a 10 minute loop with zero way for the human to counter is acceptable. I don't want to waste my time watching what essentially amounts to a video. There's YouTube for that. Games are supposed to be interactive.

And there's nothing more interactive than cycling, right?  It allows the players to interact and interact and interact..... and then interact some more. Very healthy for the game. More please.

I don't know if you are pro-cycling or not but Its the same argument all over again. No one is saying Omniscience is not OP and doesn't need to be reworked. Sure, it does. But It's the hypocrisy of some players that's laughable, when one broken thing is dubbed very fair and the other broken thing is a disaster for the game.

And 10 minutes loops due to Omni, people claiming to quit matches every day due to this? Please there is a fair amount of exaggeration going on or we are not playing the same game.

And if it's because people are newer and might be having a different experience than me while facing Omniscience than it may not be just that one card or deck type that's giving them trouble. They still have ways to go.

I'm not a fan of whataboutism, but I'll play. Are there cards to destroy supports? Do you use them in your decks so a cycling deck becomes weak or even inefficient for the human using it? There's even a card to troll cycling decks! Where are the cards a human can play when the ai goes into an omniscience loop? 

I'm pretty confident the complaints about np and dh are overblown. The only one that has the data, however, is Octagon. If they believe cycling needs balanced, they should do it, but balancing a broken card like omniscience should be a priority.

- The cards that destroy supports also destroy Omniscience you know, if it does not fizzle. It does that, but confirmation bias would have you believe otherwise. So yeah, I use support destruction in my decks to deal with ALL pesky supports including omniscience, and NP. And guess what? It has worked and help me overcome. Surprise.

- Cards that make cycling inefficient and a card to troll cycling decks? If you think Solemnity makes any serious dent to a player piloting a cycling deck you have yet to realise the potential of Curator of Mysteries and Alhammeret's Archive, they are a popular choice and a great success in cycling decks. And if you are still annoyed by those so called troll cards (i sometimes get annoyed too when a fly is buzzing around my head, so I get where you are coming from) you can cycle through your deck until you draw support destruction. Who would have thought?
The opponent has cast support destruction on your NP and DH? That's why you save one copy of each in your hand so you are always ready to go, and repeat. After all, you draw so many. Mind blown.

- Complaints about DH and NP are overblown? You got me there. Yes, summoning 12/12 flyer for 3 Mana is the epitome of balance and not broken at all. And that's when NP is not even in the picture. Get that one on the board too and summon all the drakes you can for free of cost until you can swing for lethal. Or you can go above, just for the laughs. I did a few times.

- Well, I am pretty confident that the horror stories and the frequency of such encounters people claim to be having with omniscience are overblown. Give me an honest account and number of the battles lost against Omni and I'll give you accounts of hundred+ matches where cycling made me coast through events in god mode. 

I have faced somewhere around 25 to 30 omniscience decks and lost to 3 of them. The one I faced yesterday got me down to 30 HP. 3 turns later I won with full health points. One of the encounters was on take less damage node. Opponent cast Omni along with Starfield of Nyx and iWill. I won with full points. Just 2 examples of matches I won against it that came to mind.

Since you mentioned support destruction as solution and Solemnity as "troll" card against cycling decks. I'll also play along and suggest the half dozen types of support destruction currently present in the game as a solution for Omniscience. As a deterrent there is Overwhelming Splendor, Quarantine Field, Emrakul, Alhammeret's High Arbiter, Sphinx's Tutelage. I hear the last one of these works wonders with cycling.

support destruction assumes you have a chance to play
after your opponent plays omni.

cards like overwhelming splendor does nothing but delay
the casting of the first omni/whir. cards like pact of negation
or insidious will could work if you knew omni was coming.

also having an x/x flyer is not so threatening as it's yet to
deal you any damage. there's always gideon's defeat,
authority of the consuls if it does manage to obtain haste.
if it doesn't gain trample there's always reach blockers.
I'm not suggesting cycling is not broken. I'm just saying
that you're not being as thorough when claiming how broken
cycling is. imo you're exaggerating how effective cycling is
without np. creatures are a lot easier to deal with than
looping direct damage.

HH

khurram

@hawkyh1 You do have a chance to play support destruction. I repeat, not every Omniscience being cast ends in a non stop loop, or even a loop. Majority of the time it just casts 3 cards and fizzles. Not every Omniscience deck is running with Approach when it does manage to loop. People need to stop blowing their encounters out of proportion.
I would like you to give here an honest account of how many Omni decks you've encountered, how many of them managed to loop and defeat you the moment they were cast. You may also want to factor in the time since you may have been playing the game; there are a lot of cards that give players with smaller collections a hard time when they face those. 

- I think you haven't been thorough when analysing the effect of overwhelming splendor or cards like that on omniscience. When splendor is on the field opponent's cards will remain costing 6, doesn't matter if they cast their first Omni or the thousandth. Their cards will not be free. So no, it is not just a delaying tactic. Its a valid deterrent to omni. 

- Gideon's defeat? Sure. That's a real solution to the drake... and the thousand more that I can summon if I feel the need. Like when one of them is exiled by Gideon's defeat, you know.
AoC? Sure. It's not like cycling decks have any cheap support destruction spells. Oh wait, there are THREE of them. You may have to, you know cycle a few cards and draw one when there is a support that's annoying you. Like I said, swatting a fly. Such an annoyance.

- Cycling is effective without NP. It's bonkers with NP.

- Imo you are the one exaggerating your experiences with omniscience. How much of it is theory. I really love your hartebeast deploy Omni deck though. What is the win condition? And how do you plan to draw or fetch cards that will keep the loop going? Don't say Rashmi or baral now because you only need just one mythic (deploy) + Omni +  rares or lower tiered cards to create a loop that will instantly kill the opponent without giving them a chance to respond... right? 

Theros

Thuran said:

Cycling needs to go. You cannot have a mechanic in any game that ensures automatic 100% winrate!

I'm not disagreeing with you but the argument for 100% winrate has some flaws. Someone who is pro cycling may argue that gold or platinum players have at least 97% winrate which is no different than 100% winrate. Other arguments made were:

-easier objectives/unfair advantage
-low ranked/new players outperforming vets.
-too much power for low rarity.
-no economic benefit fo D3; people wont buy power cards. Also reason why hybernum was fired
-too much power at low cost
-no challenge in facing a cycling deck
-Skewed rankings in event
-not ethically correct
-and so on.

People in favor of cycling made their arguments against points made above. People in favor of cycling nerf  are views as:
-toxic elite
-do not want competition
-jealous
-and so on

I'm indifferent when it comes to cycling not because it doesn't affect me or I don't care. Its hard for me to find which action (nerf or leave unchanged) brings the greatest benefit to the community and the game.
People will be mad no matter what actions are taken.

Removing the whole set from standard like some suggested including myself is not a good idea cause of so many interesting/useful cycle cards in that set. 

ILikePancakes

Solution to make everyone happy--introduce interrupt cards where you can sacrifice cards, creatures or life instead of using mana to destroy/exile a support or spell.

hawkyh1

khurram said:

@hawkyh1 You do have a chance to play support destruction. I repeat, not every Omniscience being cast ends in a non stop loop, or even a loop. Majority of the time it just casts 3 cards and fizzles. Not every Omniscience deck is running with Approach when it does manage to loop. People need to stop blowing their encounters out of proportion.
I would like you to give here an honest account of how many Omni decks you've encountered, how many of them managed to loop and defeat you the moment they were cast. You may also want to factor in the time since you may have been playing the game; there are a lot of cards that give players with smaller collections a hard time when they face those. 

- I think you haven't been thorough when analysing the effect of overwhelming splendor or cards like that on omniscience. When splendor is on the field opponent's cards will remain costing 6, doesn't matter if they cast their first Omni or the thousandth. Their cards will not be free. So no, it is not just a delaying tactic. Its a valid deterrent to omni. 

- Gideon's defeat? Sure. That's a real solution to the drake... and the thousand more that I can summon if I feel the need. Like when one of them is exiled by Gideon's defeat, you know.
AoC? Sure. It's not like cycling decks have any cheap support destruction spells. Oh wait, there are THREE of them. You may have to, you know cycle a few cards and draw one when there is a support that's annoying you. Like I said, swatting a fly. Such an annoyance.

- Cycling is effective without NP. It's bonkers with NP.

- Imo you are the one exaggerating your experiences with omniscience. How much of it is theory. I really love your hartebeast deploy Omni deck though. What is the win condition? And how do you plan to draw or fetch cards that will keep the loop going? Don't say Rashmi or baral now because you only need just one mythic (deploy) + Omni +  rares or lower tiered cards to create a loop that will instantly kill the opponent without giving them a chance to respond... right? 

it is not theory. omni, deploy, whir, heartebeast can create a
looping deck. the victory condition is approach. blue has
never had problems with draw cards. you shouldn't be so
quick to discredit other players experiences just because
you have never experienced it yourself. also it doesn't need
to create an infinite loop, just loop enough approaches to
win.

with cards like unsummon it might cost as little as 4 mana to
kill a drake that cost 3 mana to summon? without np cycling
is not as powerful as you are claiming it is. match 5's aside
you will always have a chance to support destroy drake
haven before any drakes can be produced. cycling requires
a board set up(be it only one support) but that is enough to
give opponents a chance to respond.

HH

khurram

@hawkyh1 hartebeast + deploy + whir + Omni won't create a loop by themselves unless there is a draw engine in play. Since you have already dismissed the need for more mythics I want you to specifically tell which cards will be used. Just saying blue has draw does not prove your claim of a one turn kill deck.
(I can think of one card btw but even that will struggle to keep the loop going)

You need to draw all those Approaches to kill the opponent the same turn you cast Omni or hartebeast or whir ... or the opponent will have a chance to respond; something that never happens, remember? (If your experience is to be believed and one is not unkind enough to discredit it)
They may nuke the support if they get a chance to respond, a strategy that has been claimed to be the great weakness of cycling decks in this very thread. DH costs 4 Mana to recast. Omniscience needs 17 or 11 to recast. No less than 10.

I am saying one turn kill deck because in all your previous posts you've been on about omniscience not giving a chance to the player to even respond whenever it hits the board. Time to prove your claim.

Unsummon a drake and I'll summon a dozen more, what else you got?
Cycling requires a setup, what makes you think Omniscience doesn't? How much of what you are claiming above is based on what you heard or what you assumed would happen if you faced an omniscience deck and how much is based on your actual experience. Have you tested it yourself? How many times have you played against it and whats the percentage of games you played where it killed you the turn it was cast?

I have described my experience in detail, which is contrary to all these overblown accounts. Tell me your actual experience and I won't disregard it.

 

Theros

What if New Perspectives loses 1 shield each time you cycle a card?
This approach would require the user multiple setups and get her/him more involved/strategic.

TomB

Since you guys have expressed your arguments fully and have thoroughly explained your positions I think someone should make a poll and see what the rest of us think overall, then allow the game's masters to decide if action is needed...

FindingHeart8

jesus...a super intense debate and me not at the center of it. 

I'm just going to leave this hear from a previous thread, as a metaphor for cycling.

TheDragonHermit said:

@ZW2007- said: (sorry my UI keeps derping from the snips I wanted to do)
Snip...
That should never happen. That is like starting an RPG, getting one new sword, and then skipping right to the end boss and beating it with ease. That doesn't sound like a game anyone would want to play.
Snip...

Oddly enough I recently watched a week long charity marathon of people doing more or less that, or similar. No real point being made there, just wanted to make that very off topics comment.

"Yeah, I'd say it's more like getting a cursed sword.  Yeah it gives you a ton of power and puts you much further ahead than what you anticipated...but at the hidden cost of tedious repetitive gameplay that eventually leads you to using it only as an absolute last resort.  Hopefully the monsters you slayed during the time it took you to realize this dropped some cool weapons you can use to branch away from cycling.  Eventually you leave the sword behind, but appreciate what it allowed you to accomplish, and that you're a better player overall."

hawkyh1

'Cycling requires a setup, what makes you think Omniscience doesn't?'

a card that allows you to play any cards that follow it
for free does not require a set up? it starts as soon as
it's played?

'Tell me your actual experience and I won't disregard it.'

I played against an omniloop dovin deck. it had no
set up what so ever. opponent cast omni, it played
for free a second omni and looped until it won with
approach. I cannot prove it, recreate etc. I can't
pick and choose my opponents, pick the cards my
opponent draws etc. 

'Not every Omniscience deck is running with Approach when it does manage to loop.'

you already recognise that omni can loop?

HH

khurram

Again... you are basing how an Omni deck works on assumptions. Every loop requires a setup. Omniscience makes cards free, it doesn't draw them. It goes like this. Omniscience is cast. The next three cards are cast for free. The support fizzles. The right cards need to be in hand for it to do something further and yes that is a setup which requires pieces and strategy to work. And not just mindless exiling of cards after cards till you ride the drakes to victory. Or ping them to death with Faith. Whatever you prefer. (I personally liked to cycle shefet to create cascades and cast a **** of woodland bellowers. They often fetch another shefet to keep it going.)

I mean you just described casting a single DH as some sort of great setup in defence of cycling for crying out loud. But at the same time you are describing a deck that requires omni, whir, hartebeast, deploy, approach + (rest of the decklist I am still waiting on btw).

You lost one match. How many Omniscience decks have you faced and what would you say is the percentage of matches that you lose?
I am pretty sure that everyone has lost to decks featuring cycling cards too. (the trick is to use cards that bring something else to the table too for the AI and not just cycling. Mana drain, support destruction, gem changing, Mana gain, card draw etc and slip in cards like baral, GR or SWC. Greg can have a field day)

Of course, I recognise Omniscience can loop. 
Where did I say otherwise? 
It's the false implications that it always loops and you never have the chance to respond as soon as it hits the board. Those are just plain exaggerations.

hawkyh1

'It's the false implications that it always loops and you never have the chance to respond as soon as it hits the board. Those are just plain exaggerations.'

I never said it always loops. notice how I always say that
if omni loops then... what a great argument to a broken card.
it's not always broken. sww error, don't worry it doesn't
always have sww errors.

'(rest of the decklist I am still waiting on btw)'
I might not have been very clear, it's not my deck.

HH

Mainloop25

It's a pretty simple formula to get omni to go near perpetually. Omni, Whir of Invention, a bunch of fetching/draw cards, and Totem Guide. I can make it go as long as I want it to with a little luck, but I have a brain so I know which cards to prioritize. To get stuck against an Omni loop is extremely rare but it has happened to me, and I have been told I've made it happen to a bunch of people.