I'm Very Tired of Storm the Vault

1356

Comments

  • DumasAG
    DumasAG Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    FindingHeart8 said:
    MarvinFine said:
    FindingHeart8 said:

    If you play paper mtg, you know that artifacts are insanely easier to cast there than in mtgpq.
    This is not true.
    Yes.  Yes it is true.  Affinity. Tinker, Chief Engineer, Golbin Welder. Arcum Dagson. Grim Monolith. Master Transmuter, Metal Worker. I can go on...

    Honestly you just cannot equate paper mtg and mtgpq in the way you are doing here. To attempt to do so shows a poor understanding of both games, and of game design in general.

    First off, Octagon has openly declared they are trying to design cards to model paper mtg.  Secondly, it's been discussed by many players throughout threads in these forums.  Lastly, I hope in your future responses, you can disagree with me without resorting to an ad hominem; regardless of your opinion, I do have a thorough understanding of both games.


    The Tolarian Academy effect on paper StV is hidden on the flip side of the card, and will not be active until the late game. At that point, in a paper game, the effect is powerful, but not what you'd describe as broken. Tolarian Academy is broken when you can drop it on turn 1 or 2 and play a bunch of artifacts that cost roughly 0 mana.

    It is CONSIDERABLY harder to flip StV in paper than it is in mtgpq. Not just because (as you fail to mention) paper StV only produces one treasure a turn instead of two, but also (as you fail to mention) for the fundamental reason that creatures can block in paper. Your opponent has far, far more options to stop your creatures dealing combat damage to him.

    ln paper magic, I can generally flip StV by turn 3 or 4.  That isn't late game by any player's standpoint..

    MarvinFine said:

    Furthermore: It is nothing short of ludicrous to suggest that Oktagon's hands were tied by the WOTCs design of the card, and were forced to make an overpowered, broken card because StV in paper looks a little like Tolarian Academy. Of course Oktagon have the ability to make cards which are balanced within their own game. Exactly what is it about the paper version of StV which means that an mtgpq version MUST convert 2 gems to blue for each nonland support you have in play?
    I never said their hands were tied in card design.  As Octagon has stated, they have aimed to make cards in mtgpq more similar to mtg.

    I pull about 30 mana from StV per turn in paper mtg, that generally exceeds what I get in mtgpq.
    I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say that one player is speaking from a constructed/standard/limited perspective, and the other is coming from a commander perspective, which is why paper experiences with StV are differing significantly.

    My own thoughts on the paper to digital translation are that paper StV is generally trash, and the MTGPQ version is obviously treasure. Just worried there's going to be an argument here about the paper version of the card when you're essentially playing with different versions of the card because the format you play in differs significantly. 
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    DumasAG said:
    I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and say that one player is speaking from a constructed/standard/limited perspective, and the other is coming from a commander perspective, which is why paper experiences with StV are differing significantly.

    My own thoughts on the paper to digital translation are that paper StV is generally trash, and the MTGPQ version is obviously treasure. Just worried there's going to be an argument here about the paper version of the card when you're essentially playing with different versions of the card because the format you play in differs significantly. 
    I agree it would be slower in commander, but then again, most things are slower in commander, that's why it was a casual format until recent years lol.
  • Bil
    Bil Posts: 831 Critical Contributor

    I pull about 30 mana from StV per turn in paper mtg.

    Wait a minute ... How many turns does it take you to setup enough artifacts to get to this point ... It's obviously not on turn 5 but that makes me curious. 
  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    edited August 2018
    I'm noticing a trend here. The arguments in favor of leaving StV alone seem to fall into a few categories:
    1. I just really like playing with broken cards.
    2. I like StV a lot, but I can't quite put my finger on why...def'ly not cuz it's broken though.
    3. This card, while not nearly as overt a culprit as Cycling, is a serious meta-warper.
    4. I don't use it, either because I don't care to, I don't have it, or I have Blue Sun's Zenith.
    5. Admittedly, this one is me, Matthew, reading between the lines, but I still think it's accurate: Hey, remember Cycling? That was an awesome, totally non-warping effect. I wish we could have it back, un-nerfed. Why did they even bother to change it anyway?
    Number 1, I get. Who doesn't like playing with easy buttons? Who doesn't like the idea of regularly dumping their hand onto the table?

    Number 2, I also get, but only to a certain degree. As others in this thread have mentioned, Oktagon have quite deliberately steered the game away from the mass-conversion standards of previous sets. That is pretty obvious simply by the lack of rare or mythic green conversion spells. So to say that it's ok for blue as a color to have a very non-traditional blue effect is an indication of a misunderstanding of traditional color strengths, a disregard for the health of the competitive aspect of the game, or just plain ignorance (willful or otherwise).

    Number 3, to me at least, is the most logical view on the list. This card is in almost every blue deck I use. In fact, the only ones it's not in are the ones where I use Blue Sun's Zenith (let's not even get started on this one here; make a different thread if you wanna debate this please). And even in those decks, I will often still run both. The reason is quite simple: the card skews the game heavily in my favor. As I want to win, and with full points, this is a solid strategy for me to employ. Note though that this does not change my view of StV being broke as hell. Just because I abuse it doesn't mean I think it's fine as-is. I say it needs a nerf because it makes the game much too easy for me, as I'm sure it does for many others who use it as frequently as I do.

    Response number 4 is what it is. If you don't have a horse in the race, then obviously your ability to discuss the issue would be hampered. And if you have literally the best horse in any race ever (looking at you BSZ...), then it makes sense for you to use that one instead. It even makes sense for you to use both of them, for that matter.

    Now, number 5 is gonna be a bit controversial, I can admit that. Like I said in my list above, it's probably mostly me just trying to interpret the subtext here. But I'm noticing a trend, either in the style of argument, or those presenting the argument, that is very similar to how the "Leave Cycling Alone" movement went. Comments like "Greg can't use it correctly, so why are we having this discussion"; or very poorly thought-out arguments like "All it takes is one Demolish" come to mind on this one. There have been plenty of those thoughts voiced in this thread, as there were in the Cycling debates. To me, this one is perhaps the most egregious because it's a much more overt statement of willful ignorance than the second point on my list. It's an argument skewed towards self-interest, with little thought or concern for the overall health of the game.

    The game should be balanced, as much as possible. Oktagon are still working out kinks, but it looks like they're making much better efforts than Hibernum ever did. So when cards like this one are left untouched, it worries me and others because it harkens back to the days of Hibernum's attempt to implement Cycling. And we all know how that went.
  • gogol666
    gogol666 Posts: 316 Mover and Shaker
    edited August 2018
    I recently lost to a deck using both StV and BSZ. My reaction was: finally, something I have to be prepared against. Finally, something I want to get (BSZ, because I have StV)
    The game is becoming boring, if our best ramp is dragon's hoard, matches will become longer and longer.
    You know what really makes StV more difficult to deal with? The mess oktagon did with supports, treasures and support-token. This is something you have to ask to be fixed.
    Edit: I just read the cycling comparison. To me cycling had to be changed not because it was a free win when you use, but because it was a free lose for greg when he used it. I like StV because greg can and use it and, thus, makes the game more interesting
  • Aeroplane
    Aeroplane Posts: 314 Mover and Shaker
     StV is fine. The problem is that Oktagon has really screwed up support destruction with the last update and hasn't tweaked it to work better.

     Demolish will destroy treasures(they might have fixed this one) , but treasures don't activate Blightcaster anymore. Vraska's "Loot is good" doesn't target highest support anymore. Supports are bugged all over this game. Dang! HUF won't cast when its the only card in your hand after the latest update. Yes , its a spell , but Oktagon just releases a set, maybe an update then let's things be. They nerfed cycling after it left standard.Huh?
     
     Support destruction should always target card supports then token supports or go even further that it targets the highest support. StV will enter the void of legacy and be forgotten sooner or later.

    You can mention balancing, however, the game is unstable to begin with. I'm more worried about double tapping a card than StV coming out. If anything StV creates more of a challenge to an already easy game. 


  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited August 2018
    MarvinFine said:
    FindingHeart8 said:
    MarvinFine said:
    FindingHeart8 said:

    If you play paper mtg, you know that artifacts are insanely easier to cast there than in mtgpq.
    This is not true.
    Yes.  Yes it is true.  Affinity. Tinker, Chief Engineer, Golbin Welder. Arcum Dagson. Grim Monolith. Master Transmuter, Metal Worker. I can go on...
    This list is some pretty conclusive evidence that you don't understand what goes into balancing MTGPQ for a Standard environment.

    Tinker, Grim Monolith, Metal Worker, and Goblin Welder are all playable cards in Vintage.. WOTC would never allow anything like these to be printed in a Standard legal set again. Tinker is *restricted* in Vintage which puts it in the same category as Black Lotus and the Moxen. Affinity is lower down the power scale than these cards but it's had to have it's key mana accelerators banned in Modern to stop it running rampant.

    This is the power level of card you are invoking to justify StV going unchanged in Standard MTGPQ?

    On the other hand.... Master Transmuter, Arcum Dagson, Chief Engineer...  These cards are not tournament playable. Have a google around and see if you can find anyone performing well in a Grand Prix or Pro Tour with them. People play Master Transmuter and Arcum Dagson in EDH, but if they were genuinely powerful cards, then they'd be available for sale for as much as Tier 1 cards in their respective sets, like Dark Depths or Noble Hierarch, and they aren't. Chief Engineer retails for junk rare prices.



    Look, I get it, I really do. StV is 'fun' for a lot of players. Low/mid tier players like the fact that it can cast a ton of cards in their turn repeatedly; way more than any other card. They don't care about balance, they just want to play cards. And some high level players... well, they don't care about balance either, they just want to win games.

    By all means, argue that broken cards like StV should exist in the game because the majority of players want to play with them. It puts my hackles up, but I know I'm in a minority about that.

    But StV in MTGPQ IS a broken, unbalanced, format warping card.
    My point (if you take a moment to reread my original comment that you were replying to) is was that these were cards designed for mtg that make artifacts easier to cast than those released in mtgpq, and some made recently enough to not just be dismissed by a claim of "butbutbut it's not in standard."

    I'm glad that you recognize that it's a fun card to play.  It's also a card that can be dealt with before it flips.  It's not Omniscience, it's not Cycling, you have an answer for it.  You know the colors of the opponent you are going to face before you start your match, if it's blue or red then run support removal.

    The card has been around for a while now and is just recently getting hate, so I doubt anything is going to actually happen to it.  But hey, who knows, maybe Octagon will adjust it when it shifts to legacy ;)
  • DumasAG
    DumasAG Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    boopers said:
    The only reason we see StV all the time is because there almost nothing else for efficient mana ramp unless you jam a deck full of smaller converters (which I do often).  If we had more green gem converters, or good mana gain supports, or whatever, StV wouldn't be "warping the meta" like so many people keep saying.  The Meta has changed to be slower paced, and StV is still here as a legacy to a time when there were a lot of big mana ramp options.

    The issue is that Octagon has clearly decided that they aren't going to produce as many big mana ramp cards.  And frankly, following this pattern, when StV rotates out, we won't get a "replacement".  You'll get your wish by attrition at that time.

    And... let's just think forward a bit.  Assuming StV get's nerfed, what will happen?
    1) matches will take longer
    2) being mana screwed will become more real in this game
    3) players will start losing more (and then complain about it here)
    4) something ELSE will pop up as the goto combo for ramp and we'll see that all the time
    5) We'll start the nerf discussion all over again for whatever pops up

    I'm with @gogol666 I WANT to see Greg with good competitive decks.  I WANT to be challenged.  It seems to me the primary argument for nerfing StV is that it makes matches harder to win.  I'm sorry you lost some matches because greg out ramped you... but the answer is to get better at deck-building, and be prepared to see StV whenever you see blue.  Adjust to the game, don't ask the game to adjust to you.

    Also, IT IS OK TO LOSE NOW AND THEN.  Cycling ruined this game, it made winning an expectation rather than an accomplishment.  It seems to me the community is still of the mindset that everyone should win every match rather than it being POSSIBLE to win most matches, and expecting to lose some.

    But don't ask for the devs to make the game easier... go find a different game if you can't hack it.  I hear candy crush is nice.

    And I'm done with this topic.  y'all can go outside and duke it out.  I hope octagon is smart and ignores this insanity.
    *slow clap*
  • FindingHeart8
    FindingHeart8 Posts: 2,731 Chairperson of the Boards
    DumasAG said:
    boopers said:
    The only reason we see StV all the time is because there almost nothing else for efficient mana ramp unless you jam a deck full of smaller converters (which I do often).  If we had more green gem converters, or good mana gain supports, or whatever, StV wouldn't be "warping the meta" like so many people keep saying.  The Meta has changed to be slower paced, and StV is still here as a legacy to a time when there were a lot of big mana ramp options.

    The issue is that Octagon has clearly decided that they aren't going to produce as many big mana ramp cards.  And frankly, following this pattern, when StV rotates out, we won't get a "replacement".  You'll get your wish by attrition at that time.

    And... let's just think forward a bit.  Assuming StV get's nerfed, what will happen?
    1) matches will take longer
    2) being mana screwed will become more real in this game
    3) players will start losing more (and then complain about it here)
    4) something ELSE will pop up as the goto combo for ramp and we'll see that all the time
    5) We'll start the nerf discussion all over again for whatever pops up

    I'm with @gogol666 I WANT to see Greg with good competitive decks.  I WANT to be challenged.  It seems to me the primary argument for nerfing StV is that it makes matches harder to win.  I'm sorry you lost some matches because greg out ramped you... but the answer is to get better at deck-building, and be prepared to see StV whenever you see blue.  Adjust to the game, don't ask the game to adjust to you.

    Also, IT IS OK TO LOSE NOW AND THEN.  Cycling ruined this game, it made winning an expectation rather than an accomplishment.  It seems to me the community is still of the mindset that everyone should win every match rather than it being POSSIBLE to win most matches, and expecting to lose some.

    But don't ask for the devs to make the game easier... go find a different game if you can't hack it.  I hear candy crush is nice.

    And I'm done with this topic.  y'all can go outside and duke it out.  I hope octagon is smart and ignores this insanity.
    *slow clap*
    *second the slow clap, but a fraction of a second after so it's out of sync*
  • khurram
    khurram Posts: 1,090 Chairperson of the Boards
    boopers said:

     IT IS OK TO LOSE NOW AND THEN.
    Having StV at my disposal really makes the games nail biters. 

    *frantic claps*
  • Stormcrow
    Stormcrow Posts: 462 Mover and Shaker
    edited August 2018
    Yeah, put me down as someone who doesn't really get the argument that StV makes it so Greg can possibly win, therefore it's a good card. Greg can possibly win, when? When Greg plays StV before you play yours? Yeah great, I love games that are basically a coinflip of "who plays the Win Button first", that's really some deep gameplay there. Or Greg can possibly win, when Greg's running StV and you're not? Okay, sure, but in that case you're handicapping yourself (or the game handicapped you by not letting you pull StV) - there are plenty of ways you can choose to handicap yourself so that Greg has a shot at winning, what makes that particular choice of self-inflicted handicap better than others? You can just run pauper decks all the time, if you want more of a challenge. Or use only mono-color PWs, or whatever other gimmick you can think up. If you think the game's too easy, make it harder for yourself. You have the power! Wanting the game to be harder for everyone because it's too easy for you is just straight-up solipsistic nonsense though.
  • ZW2007-
    ZW2007- Posts: 812 Critical Contributor
    I have lost to StV exactly once, ever. 

    I have won with StV in almost every single game I've played since I got StV.

    If Rule #1 is "play blue", then Rule #2 is "play StV".

    I have been following these rules very closely and honestly haven't noticed that the game has "slowed down a lot" because by playing StV, and only playing PWs with blue in their colors, it hasn't.

    I agree completely with Stormcrow that StV is better than Omni.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Matthew
    Matthew Posts: 605 Critical Contributor
    MarvinFine said:
    boopers said:

    IT IS OK TO LOSE NOW AND THEN.
    Once again: I don't lose, because I own StV, and that's what the problem is.
    Yeah, @boopers I think you're missing the point here man. It's not about losing matches being the problem here. It's about not losing them. StV is an easy button. It's not quite an "I win" button, like Cycling. But it definitely levels out the competition curve a fair amount. That is the real argument here.

    I can't understand why people have such a hard time understanding that cards or mechanics like this are actually a bad thing.
  • SinisterOne
    SinisterOne Posts: 47 Just Dropped In
    I think the problem with StV isn't necessarily the card but the fact that a lot of people auto include it even when it is a subpar choice.

    Having it in a Bolas1 or 2 deck, a Saheeli deck, a Jaya deck or basically any blue walker and it can be insane ramp, but running it in a Angrath deck is suboptimal verses Dragon's Hoard or the Memorials best suited for his colors. I played a TG match earlier and my Angrath opponent ran StV that helped me dominate him. I was playing a Jaya Dragon deck running:

    Lathliss, Dragon Queen 
    Volcanic Dragon
    Scab-Clan Berserker*

    Fiery Finish

    Memorial to Genius 
    Memorial to War
    Dragon's Hoard 
    Dragon Egg
    Sarkhan's Unsealing 
    Sulfur Falls 

    Their StV was either a) leaving me solid blue matches before my supports triggered at the start of my turn, b) setting up big cascades for me once my converters filled in a few gaps, or c) blowing up my supports that were benefiting me more than him.

    His mana gains from the blue matches were okay but running Dragon's Hoard or the Memorials would of been way better.

    I've even seen a Koth running StV and he too was a cakewalk. 

    In the right deck StV is a powerful card but if someone is not playing it right it is detrimental to their game and is sad.

    In paper Tolarian Academy was broken because of cheap or free artifacts (Moxen, Petal, Lotus, Voltaic Key etc.) 
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • SinisterOne
    SinisterOne Posts: 47 Just Dropped In
    MarvinFine said:
    SinisterOne said:
    I think the problem with StV isn't necessarily the card but the fact that a lot of people auto include it even when it is a subpar choice.

    ...

    In the right deck StV is a powerful card but if someone is not playing it right it is detrimental to their game and is sad.
    Other people building decks which aren't as good as yours or mine is hardly a problem.
    To me it is and I know that sounds strange but I've always been one to assist in deck building when it comes to paper. I've played paper since the days of Tempest and my first rare in paper was Verdant Force (oddly it was also my first DOM rare in MTGPQ). In my 20 years of playing Magic I've taught several people how to play and I always stressed the fundamentals of solid deck building. It always bugs me to suboptimal choices in a deck (I understand all to well that sometimes you just don't have the best cards).

    I remember back in my earlier days of playing a friend had a red deck and he for no real reason ran 4 Shock over 4 Lightning Bolt. That always bugged me and I told him numerous times he needed to either run both or just Bolts (I knew he had both because he had like a dozen Bolts in his collection, he even gave me my first play set when I started playing). 

    StV being in a deck as a suboptimal choice is on the same vein. It just bothers the deckbuilder in me I guess but that's my only problem with it. It's a strong card but it's not warping the format.

Categories