Please DONT nerf cycling or 5 reasons why cycling is great

TheExaminer
TheExaminer Posts: 94 Match Maker
in MtGPQ General Discussion
Okay, so here we are; I saw a lot of posts asking developers to nerf cycling, which triggered me hard enough to make me register on this forum and create this thread. About me: I have been playing this game for around 5 months after a very long pause, caused by nonfun and boring experience during playing this game on starting level. Right now I am barely keeping myself out of gold tier, because i don't feel confident enough to compete with those broken "orange decks".


[ABOUT CYCLING] Okay, so what is cycling? It is a mechanic, reminiscent of the "paper world" cycling, where you get to essentially bin a card and get a fresh one from the top of your deck in return. Of course, this costs some amount of mana, and in order to not break the mechanic, the developers made the cycled cards go into exile instead of the graveyard, which is understandable. The cards connected with cycling might be divided into 3 basic categories: enablers, payoffs and cyclers.
  • There are two enablers (not counting nissa soe emblem): New perspectives (the single best card in this archetype, absolutely necessary to build a tier 1 cycling deck, Rare); and Curator of Mysteries (pretty optional, makes your deck slower and less explosive in return for giving you huge a boost in consistency and inevitability, Mythic). Some people also use Monuments instead of New Perspectives, but I am not convinced that it is a good idea.

  • There are 9 payoff cards (the ones that actually win you a game, also not counting PWs' ultimates), which can be broken down into 3 categories:

  1. -Best of the best: Drake Haven (gives you a 4/4 with flying for each card you cycle, Rare); and Faith of the Devoted (deals 5 damage and gains you 5 life for every card you cycle; the fastest and most explosive of the bunch, in conjunction with New Perspectives lets you win the game on your 3rd swap, Uncommon)
  2. -Not good, but serviceable: Shadowstorm vizier (Uncommon), Stir the Sands (also cycles, Uncommon), Flameblade Adept (Uncommon).
  3. -You better not play these: Horror of the Broken Lands (also cycles,Common), Cunning Survivor (Common), Hekma Sentinels (Common), Grisly Survivor (Common)
From my experience, good cycling deck should consist of New Perspectives, one payoff card and 8 cards which cycle for less than 3 mana (to synergize with New Perspectives). On average, this configuration lets you cycle 5 times per card with cycling you have in your hand before comboing off (before fizzling). Assuming you start your combo with 5 cards in hand, you are expected to cycle 25 times until you are left with all non-cyclers in hand. Drake Haven gives you a 100/100 flying creature, Faith of the Devoted deals 125 dmg to your opponent and gains you 125 life, Shadowstorm Vizier/Flameblade Adept grow up to 26/28 power. Curator of Mysteries, if being cast, lets you cycle almost infinite number of times.

As you see, these are incredibly powerful things to do for total investment of 9-30 mana. Therefore, here comes the question: why isn't it nerfworthy?

  • First of all, AI is not able to cycle. This means, that this kind of combo will NEVER make you sit for 30 minutes, waiting for a combo to fizzle. You are absolutely free of misery of getting combo'd off out of nowhere. Even in silver tier, where I currently am, it is not that rare to see some turn 1 craziness like HUF into that 12 damage spell, or Hour of Devastation/any other mythic gem converter + card draw loops. Those things are annoying, no one likes to play against that kind of combo. Cycling combo piloted by AI, on the other hand, is just a good deck with some powerful spells (lay claim, striped riverwinder etc. are all okay cards on their front side, even when not being cycled).
  • It is big effort-big payoff kind of deck. Everyone who tried this kind of deck, knows how boring it is to cycle over and over again. This is a kind of built-in protection from this deck becoming overdominant in the meta. Having a contender like this is imo necessary for every game. You can achieve great results, but you have to pay a steep price -- considerable chunk your time and sanity.
  • Accessibility. Most of the people complaining how OP cycling is, tend to be platinum players with almost complete collections, who apparently forgot about this thing, which is called "new players". Yeah, you heard it right, there exists a group of players who just got into this game and happen to not own many powerful mythics/masterpieces, and they really struggle putting together a decent deck to be able to compete in PVE events. When I just started playing mtgpq, cycling was one of the first 'powerful' decks I had. You wont believe how excited I was to play this single rare deck, being able to defeat some of the most badass PVE bosses (not Nicol Bolas tho, Shadowstorm Vizier was too slow against him). Right now my optimal cycling build still has only one rare in it, and consists mostly of commons. Seriously, this is THE best kind of a budget deck. It reminds me of mono-red in paper magic: experienced players hate to admit that, but mono-red tends to be one of the most powerful archetypes in most of the formats, while using common cards, which no other decks care about. Mono-red is the most popular deck choice for novices to bring to FNM, it is easy to play, however it gets boring very quickly, it requires minimal amount of decision-making and does not lead to interactive games. See any similarities? ;)
  • There exist turn 1 kill decks. When you think about whether to nerf or not to nerf any specific card/deck, you have to compare it to other things, which exist in the format. Omniscience, Hazoret Undying Fury, Deploy the Gatewatch, Imminent Doom etc. All of these cards are extremely unhealthy for the game: not only they make your opponent feel miserable when playing against 'em, they also are mythics/not accessible in packs mythics/masterpieces, which makes the game both degenerate and pay-to-win. Powerful stuff should not just cost a lot of cash, it should reward some skill in deck-building, effort put in the game process and quality of one's play. That is why, while aforementioned cards exist in mtgpq, nerfing of cycling would just look silly. 
  • Cycling does not warp the meta. This one derives from the first point: AI cannot cycle. I heard stories about that card, pre-nerf Runaway Carriage. It used to be so busted, that you could not build a deck, that didnt have an answer to that beast. Now ask yourself a question: when building a deck, do you EVER consider how it plays against cycling? Welp, I hope that exact answer is now how you would answer a question "would you nerf cycling?"
Thanks for your attention; apologies for my poor grammar, I hope it wasn't too hurtful to read.
«13

Comments

  • Furks
    Furks Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    I'm not too invested either way, but here's my 2 cents~

    Regarding meta warping. It does warp the meta, it creates a state where decks are really powerful when piloted by a player and abysmally poor when piloted by the ai. This in turn makes pvp events really easy (and in my opinion boring) Personally, I'd rather see a change made to the ai so that it can actually use cycling.

    My biggest issue with it is more of a game design philosophy than balance. Take this as a personal opinion: Turns shouldn't last long in this game, you order your cards, make a match. Done. If you're lucky or skilled you might get another match. Any mechanic that makes turns last longer than a few seconds should really be considered carefully. It breaks the flow of the game - back and forth interaction between your opponent and turns it into a game of solitaire. There's no reaction to what your opponent does. If the game had actual pvp it would be totally unplayable in the current state. Secondly, when designing a game mechanic, the developers should ALWAYS consider the ai. If a mechanic is just too complex for the ai to use, then don't have it in the game.

    I feel like the latest expansion was trying too hard to mimic paper magic, when instead it should have taken more liberties. If you compare the origins set to paper magic it's actually very different. The entire mechanics of mtg had to be redesigned to work as a match-three game. A lot of mechanics that work in paper but not here were left behind while new things were invented. ~ enchantments/supports, reinforcement, auto attacking...  Meanwhile other mechanics were changed to fit in this context. Defender, for instance is very different in both versions.

    My point is, more thought should have been put into cycling and what effect it had on gameplay. In my opinion it was implemented without a 'vision'

    Now don't get me wrong, from a players perspective its fun to combine cards to make combos. It's kind of the point of the game. Its just the developers task to make sure this is possible while keeping the core game fun and balanced. If the strongest decks require you to play the game in a 'boring' way, then you don't really have a choice if you want to stay competitive. 
  • TheExaminer
    TheExaminer Posts: 94 Match Maker
    1) I dont say this is not powerful, I say it is not oppressive 
    2) Tomato-tomahto
    3) So basically what you say is that in order to win at final encounters you should be playing for 2 years? Come on, this is a game, not Shao Lin monastery. There should be a way for new players. Just like a new paper mtg player is able to win fnm with his burn deck.
    4) It is not all about power-level, it is also about unfun-ness to play against. 

    Referring to "old times" is inappropriate, the game should be moving forward, not being stupid conservative.
    Also, relegating stupid cards to legacy is not a solution. Most of the events are currently legacy.
  • Theros
    Theros Posts: 490 Mover and Shaker
    The best action for cycling is to let rotate out. No one will complain when that happens.
     Nerfing it at this point  is probably too complicated and something octagon may not want to tinker with.
  • Furordraco
    Furordraco Posts: 142 Tile Toppler
    +1 for this post. Leave cycling alone and concentrate on higher priorities
  • morgue427
    morgue427 Posts: 783 Critical Contributor
    let it rotate out it is annoying but with the ai running it, it is just a free win. although my dovin uses it i have curator with drakes and np and a few other cyclers but i find the past of negation is the game winner for me just because the ai alsways wants to cast any creatures it has.
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    @TheExaminer

    Welcome to the forums.  I'm glad to see you were passionate enough about cycling to join us :)

    +1 from me too.
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    edited January 2018
    +1 too ( but that's a risky topic... You might be considered unworthy players just because you don't care about cycle being nerfed... ).  

    Anyway, as no player has ever lost a match in front of a cycle deck it means that when a player misses the top tiers its because he lost some points elsewhere... 

    On the contrary, if the top tiers are full of newcomers that abuse of cycling (I doubt it is so widespread but...), it just means an increased difficulty for other players to reach them. As the game is considered too easy already... That shouldn't be a problem. 

    Or maybe the problem is that some players have worked hard to get there and hate the players "that don't deserve to win" because they like to be part of an elite...

    I'll never get why being angry at newcomers that have a chance to win, in particular because playing cycle is so boring that they already pay the price in terms of fun. 


    Anyway, in a few months it will rotate out... Let's hope oktagon will get rid of the mechanic after that so everyone gets happy again... 
  • Martin
    Martin Posts: 31 Just Dropped In
    Terrible post from start to finish. How do I downvote it?
  • Fiddler
    Fiddler Posts: 251 Mover and Shaker

    I've been in the game for quite a while, but have not posted often or recently. But this post has drawn me out from the shadows. Excellent post, with great points. Well done @TheExaminer.


  • babar3355
    babar3355 Posts: 1,128 Chairperson of the Boards
    Bil said:

    I'll never get why being angry at newcomers that have a chance to win, in particular because playing cycle is so boring that they already pay the price in terms of fun. 

    Literally no one is saying anything remotely like this.  Demagoguery does nothing positive for the game or the community.
  • Houdin
    Houdin Posts: 182 Tile Toppler
    I have to say the above comment is so true.

    I wasn't going to make any further comments on this topic. Even though I authored the latest call to nerf cycling.

    However as this post is specific to keeping it I feel the need to give my rebuttal. 

    1. My belief that cycling needs to be removed or changed significantly in this game has nothing whatsoever to do with "screwing over the new players". Nor is it a sense of entitlement as a so called "elite" player.

    2. The power level of omni decks and cycling decks are exactly the same. Both decks require multiple cards to create an instant win situation.
    Both decks have a very high win rate. Cycling is higher in my opinion simply due to card cost requirements.

    3. Neither deck breaks the meta, they both however do warp it. A broken meta is something like pre nerf barril. That deck could actually create an infinite loop. Whereas yes absolutely omni can create a very long loop in the exact right situation it is by no means infinite. Just as a point of interest. Months ago just for curiosity I once spent over an hour seeing just how high I could ouch a cycling drake deck. I finally got bored with a 2000/2000 drake.

    4. By definition a meta is bent when a strategy produces a nearly perfect win rate every time without fail. 

    5. The only argument here seems to be that omni and certain other mythic or masterpiece combos should be nerfed because Greg can pilot the decks which causes losses to the players.

    Cycling should be kept because Greg can't use it and it allows brand new players to instantly beat the top players in the game.

    How is this not a ridiculous standpoint?
    No game or contest should allow a strategy that guarantees victory without effort.

    Can you imagine if wotc released a prepack deck that allowed any person to pay 20 bucks and win the grandmaster tournament with ease?

    That's just silly. 

    I am not saying nor have I ever said that omni shouldn't be balanced as well. It's just my opinion that cycling is worse because of prevalence in the game. Which honestly the entire argument that new players can use it to auto win makes the case for me.

    If anything I don't believe that Oktagon will do anything about cycling. They will just let it die in legacy. Which really is fine. If a new player wants to spend 4 hours cycling wins that a veteran player can pull in 5 minutes in legacy that has some of the most overpowered cards in the game well all the power to you.

    I think my biggest hope here is that Oktagon will see this entire discussion as a reason to change the tier system.

    If new players only faced other new players until they had the strategy and collection to move up, their win rates would be higher and their really wouldn't be any reason to complain about beating veteran decks. 
    End game players would have more fun as well pairing off against better collections. 

    Believe me. At this point in the game for myself I take much more pleasure in beating a well crafted deck than one that isn't playable by greg. 
  • ZW2007-
    ZW2007- Posts: 812 Critical Contributor
    TheExaminer said:
    1) I dont say this is not powerful, I say it is not oppressive 
    2) Tomato-tomahto
    3) So basically what you say is that in order to win at final encounters you should be playing for 2 years? Come on, this is a game, not Shao Lin monastery. There should be a way for new players. Just like a new paper mtg player is able to win fnm with his burn deck.
    4) It is not all about power-level, it is also about unfun-ness to play against. 

    Referring to "old times" is inappropriate, the game should be moving forward, not being stupid conservative.
    Also, relegating stupid cards to legacy is not a solution. Most of the events are currently legacy.
    1) My point was that just because it's not oppressive does not mean it isn't too powerful.
    2) What you said.
    3) What I'm saying is you shouldn't be able to step up and beat the final encounters the very first time you try an event. It should take trial and error by failing with decks that just didn't cut it. Getting new cards and trying new strategies. Paper mtg isn't comparable here because there aren't insanely OP boss fights in paper mtg.
    4) I think the unfun-ness to play against comes directly from the power level being too high.

    My reference to old times was just to show that it was called as being OP before it was even in the game, like many other cards that were/are OP. One (Baral) got nerfed, the rest are still OP. I agree that relegating them to legacy is a bad strategy but so far it has kept most satisfied as a sort of middle ground between nerfing or not nerfing.

    My final point here, and then I'll stop on these threads, is that cycling needs a nerf because it creates game imbalance. I have nothing against new players doing well. I want them to do well. I want that to come in a different way though. @babar3355 summed it up quite nicely. There needs to be better balance across all cards of a rarity. Paper mtg can have "bad" cards because the sets are designed with multiple formats in mind. Some of the "bad" cards are made to be good in draft but not in constructed. Some are made to be played in formats like Commander. In puzzle quest, all the cards should be made to be good in puzzle quest. There are countless rares in AKH and HOU that do next to nothing in their current form and should be buffed. Nerfing cycling and buffing those **** rares (and mythics) should go hand in hand. That would create a better environment for everyone, not just the lucky ones that have the OP cycling cards. If all the cards are equally good, then it comes down to play skill and deck building strategy. A new soccer player doesn't get to take a penalty kick on an open goal just because he/she is new. There still needs to be a goalie. Cycling removes the goalie and still leaves it up to the player to make the shot.
  • Navgoose
    Navgoose Posts: 10 Just Dropped In
    I'm on the side of nerf New Perspectives.

    The things a cycle deck can accomplish with new perspectives is way beyond the scope of anything else of its given rarity.

    I get that's it is not required and also that the AI can't abuse it, but those factors don't directly speak to it's base power.
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor
    To be honest, I didn't mean to use demagoguery when I used the word angry (if it's the one that sounds like this). 
    My lack of English vocabulary led me to use it and it may be inapropriate. As I agree with your point on demagoguery I apologize for it. 
    On the other hand, being on an English speaking forum without mastering correctly the subtlety of this language is an issue by itself, and not the wiser thing to do. 
    Anyway, as I might have been  clumsy before, I apologize for it too and make sure it won't happen again. 



  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    Bil said:
    To be honest, I didn't mean to use demagoguery when I used the word angry (if it's the one that sounds like this). 
    My lack of English vocabulary led me to use it and it may be inapropriate. As I agree with your point on demagoguery I apologize for it. 
    On the other hand, being on an English speaking forum without mastering correctly the subtlety of this language is an issue by itself, and not the wiser thing to do. 
    Anyway, as I might have been  clumsy before, I apologize for it too and make sure it won't happen again. 



    don't worry about it Bil, we're all mature individuals here.  Just try and explain the best you can and clarify if there's a misunderstanding :)
  • babar3355
    babar3355 Posts: 1,128 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yeah, no hard feelings @Bil.  Apologize for taking it the wrong way if that's not what you meant. 

    But honestly, most veteran "toxic elite" players really like and appreciate the new players because that is the only way the game will continue to thrive or even exist.  We don't want to have a hoard of new players who hate the game and will never reach elite status.  Quite the opposite.  I hope we can all just agree that we have different perspective on cards like new perspectives, yet we should all want what is best for the game long term.
  • Furks
    Furks Posts: 149 Tile Toppler
    I think the cycling mechanic should have been different straight out of the box. Not weaker, just different. The current implementation inherently allows for infinite loops because its not tied to making a match.

    Take energize for instance. It has an effect when you make a match.  Fabricate has an effect when you attack. Cycling, especially cycling with side effects, allows you to do things outside of the turn order.

    Maybe a better version of cycling would create 'investigate' tokens rather than drawing the card immediately. It would force the player to make a match to reap the benefits of cycling. It's too late to make a change like that now and as others have mentioned, it's probably best to just let it rotate naturally.

    Another change that could be made which would probably shut off all looping decks (including future ones) is to change how drawing cards is done. Whenever you draw a card, instead of drawing it immediately, you draw it at the start of your next turn. Though it's a pretty fundamental change and I haven't really considered any side effects it may have. 
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    babar3355 said:
     I hope we can all just agree that we have different perspective on cards like new perspectives, yet we should all want what is best for the game long term.
    The different perspectives debate over the card named New Perspectives is a bit ironic. :D

Categories