How do you want your Vigilance?

Mburn7

I have a sneaking suspicion the debate over the new Vigilance mechanic is going to get moved to a new thread, so lets jump the gun and make our own!

For those who have not seen the recent Q&A (https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/81668/oktagon-q-a-session-february-2020#latest), Oktagon is planning on changing Vigilance to read:  "This creature blocks opposing creatures with power less than this creature’s toughness"

This is a pretty big change to a staple mechanic, and there are a lot of variables that effect how good it is depending on the card.  And not everyone seems totally on board with it.

So, how do you want Vigilance to work?

NickBKK

As it is now (Vigilance creature blocks everyone, but after Defenders do)

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! 

Go fix bugs and More important issues we have been asking, like node recharging and event ending times that makes playing this game less tedious.

Julie71

As it is now (Vigilance creature blocks everyone, but after Defenders do)

NickBKK said:

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! 

Go fix bugs and More important issues we have been asking, like node recharging and event ending times that makes playing this game less tedious.

Yup you took the words right out of my mouth.  Why do they insist on trying to make something work differently without asking us first if it's what we want ?????

Opperstamper

Other (Comment below!)

I think it's very situational. For example I like Razia and how she works. When I put her in a deck her abilities work how I like them, a solid defensive creature which may be sacrificed if necessary. 
On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy how Questing Beast is handled. He's in a deck where he survives, until he grows big enough to block and nothing gets past him. 
So my actual vote would be to have both, as different mechanics (would need to change the name of the mechanic tho). Then we can choose which we want in which deck.

A change would cause a meta shift (as pointed out a lot already). In itself that's not always bad. And I'm sure most players will find a way to make different but still very viable decks. We will be forced to rethink - as usual many will like it and many won't. 

Mburn7

As Oktagon said, but with exceptions (for first strike, prevent damage...ect)

Opperstamper said:

I think it's very situational. For example I like Razia and how she works. When I put her in a deck her abilities work how I like them, a solid defensive creature which may be sacrificed if necessary. 
On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy how Questing Beast is handled. He's in a deck where he survives, until he grows big enough to block and nothing gets past him. 
So my actual vote would be to have both, as different mechanics (would need to change the name of the mechanic tho). Then we can choose which we want in which deck.

A change would cause a meta shift (as pointed out a lot already). In itself that's not always bad. And I'm sure most players will find a way to make different but still very viable decks. We will be forced to rethink - as usual many will like it and many won't. 

Seems like you like the new implementation, but think some creatures should be switched to Defender.

I couldn't think of a way to put that in the poll without making it overly long and annoying, but I do agree that's the best option for some creatures.Julie71 said:

NickBKK said:

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! 

Go fix bugs and More important issues we have been asking, like node recharging and event ending times that makes playing this game less tedious.

Yup you took the words right out of my mouth.  Why do they insist on trying to make something work differently without asking us first if it's what we want ?????

We have been asking for Vigilance to be less of a penalty for a while now.  And there are a lot of cards that will become much more useful with this change (Djeru and Angel of Condemnation, for starters).  It is definitely weird timing to make such a significant change, though.

Opperstamper

Other (Comment below!)

Seems like you like the new implementation, but think some creatures should be switched to Defender.

Yes, I think you can put it like that. I definitely like that I can now choose between both (although just 4 creatures with "new style"), to adjust to the mood of the day. 

Tilwin90

Something more complex (you decide whether or not the creature blocks each combat)

I wouldn't say that option 4 is necessarily "something more complex". We already have toggles in the game to swap between sides of the same card so I don't see the interaction as necessarily complex to toggle vigilance from its icon. I already mentioned this option in the original topic and am obviously voting for it here. 

Next I would be more okay with Oktagon leaving things as they are rather than go with the "new approach" (I play with none of the cards that have this silly new vigilance). As another alternative to this I would also be okay with changing defender for instance - maybe don't allow creatures with defender to attack but boost their toughness where relevant or allow via specific effects to lose defender where relevant (we already have cards like this anyway...) 

I am strongly opposing option 3 for one simple reason: it's not sustainable long-term, and it adds too much inter-mechanics complexity. I would actually argue it is the most complex of the options that would only cause headaches. MTG and subsequently MTGPQ are hungry for new mechanics, which every new set we end up getting new and new mechanics into the game.
By making vigilance dependent on other potential mechanics every time something new is implemented that would affect combat, you need to wonder how it could interact with vigilance.

Theophilus

Something more complex (you decide whether or not the creature blocks each combat)

We already have interruptions of the attack phase with the flash mechanic. Why can't we choose whether or not a creature with vigilance blocks AND which creature it blocks during the attack phase?
I get it. It's probably too complicated and time consuming/annoying for some folks. But to me, that seems more right.

Mburn7

As Oktagon said, but with exceptions (for first strike, prevent damage...ect)

Tilwin90 said:

I wouldn't say that option 4 is necessarily "something more complex". We already have toggles in the game to swap between sides of the same card so I don't see the interaction as necessarily complex to toggle vigilance from its icon. I already mentioned this option in the original topic and am obviously voting for it here. 

Next I would be more okay with Oktagon leaving things as they are rather than go with the "new approach" (I play with none of the cards that have this silly new vigilance). As another alternative to this I would also be okay with changing defender for instance - maybe don't allow creatures with defender to attack but boost their toughness where relevant or allow via specific effects to lose defender where relevant (we already have cards like this anyway...) 

I am strongly opposing option 3 for one simple reason: it's not sustainable long-term, and it adds too much inter-mechanics complexity. I would actually argue it is the most complex of the options that would only cause headaches. MTG and subsequently MTGPQ are hungry for new mechanics, which every new set we end up getting new and new mechanics into the game.
By making vigilance dependent on other potential mechanics every time something new is implemented that would affect combat, you need to wonder how it could interact with vigilance.

Hmm, you raise some good points.

For the toggle idea, my only concern is that right now the only "toggle" options we have are done before cast, something like this has to be done on a turn-by-turn basis in order to be really effective and that's probably a bit nutty to program (not to mention the lag I'll bet happens when the AI has it out unless it's set to just always block).
I do agree that in a perfect world its the best solution, but with the state of the game right now I just don't see it happening.

As for the conditional ability one, I admit I didn't really think of future mechanics interacting with it.
To me the only relevant abilities right now would be Prevent Damage and First/Double strike, which should be fairly trivial to make exceptions.  Most deathtouch blockers have defender (I think), although I guess if you want to give your blocker deathtouch you won't be able to in certain situations now (huh, this is a lot more complex than it initially looks lol).  I assume if there is a future mechanic that cares about blocking it would be put on a creature with Defender to avoid any issues.

mrixl2520

As it is now (Vigilance creature blocks everyone, but after Defenders do)

NickBKK said:

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! 

Go fix bugs and More important issues we have been asking, like node recharging and event ending times that makes playing this game less tedious.

THIS. If this game came out last week i would have argued to changed vigilance to something different. To suddenly start tinkering with it after the game has been out for almost five years is just going to cause confusion.

Stormcrow

Needs a poll option for "As Oktagon said, but a large percentage of existing Vigilance creatures should be changed to have Defender instead."

Honestly though, this kind of change to the core mechanics, given the overall bugged-as-heck state of this game, is the kind of thing that just makes me wonder if they wouldn't be better off coding a "MTGPQ 2" from scratch.

Bubbles_CS

Something more complex (you decide whether or not the creature blocks each combat)

As I said in the other thread, vigilance should be better differentiated from defender, but it’s unclear to me how best to represent this in MtGPQ since the comparison to combat in paper Magic is pretty thin. I like the idea of choosing when to block, but then why wouldn’t that choice also be available for defender and reach? While I think it is technically possible (we already have hooks for flash when Greg attacks), I don’t think this specifically is a good differentiator for vigilance. So, something else, then?

Bubbles_CS

Something more complex (you decide whether or not the creature blocks each combat)

After some thought, I think a good vigilance would add to the current definition, “If this creature would die as a result of blocking, block only if you would die from combat damage.” “If this creature would die” would need to properly simulate combat and account for first strike, prevent damage, etc. and a big enough berserker should still kill the vigilant creature.

I know this is relatively high on the complexity scale and it would result in tons of bugs, but I am an idealist

TomB

As Oktagon said (Vigilance creature only blocks if it will live, after Defenders block normally)

Like Stormcrow said, "As Oktagon said, but a large percentage of existing Vigilance creatures should be changed to have Defender instead."

This would preserve the original intent for most Vigilance creatures while enabling a much clearer differentiation between Vigilance and Defender going forward.

TheHunter

Other (Comment below!)

This will fix something that has always bothered me - the lack of clear differentiation between Defender and Vigilance.
Two more things on my mind here:
1. What about Reach? Will Reach act more like Defender or more like Vigilance after the change? Should Reach be in the mix here?
2. Walls. I've always loved Walls and all walls have Defender, and thus a Defender icon (a wall!). But Walls can't attack and other creatures with defender can so this would be an opportunity to change the Defender icon to something less...Wall-y? I think this would be less confusing.
 

bk1234

Other (Comment below!)

Vigilant

Mburn7

As Oktagon said, but with exceptions (for first strike, prevent damage...ect)

bken1234 said:

Vigilant

??

FindingHeart8

Something more complex (you decide whether or not the creature blocks each combat)

In paper magic, you always get to choose whether your creatures (normal, defender, or vigilance) get to block.  There are many times I wished my defender/vigilance creatures wouldn't block.

I know the mechanics of paper mtg are ultimately too complicated for mtgpq, but it would still be cool if we had a basic little on/off switch that we could adjust during our turn, determining whether or not our creatures blocked if they could or wouldn't block

bk1234

Other (Comment below!)

Mburn7 said:

bken1234 said:

Vigilant

??

I don’t really care as long as the mechanic works. I’ll adjust my style accordingly. 

ElfNeedsFood

As Oktagon said, but with exceptions (for first strike, prevent damage...ect)

I do think Vigilance should be somehow distinct from Defender in ways more than order in line for blocking...

Morgoth

It should work like it does in paper (well as close as we can in mtgpq anyway).  In paper, vigilance exists so you can attack and still have creatures untapped that you can choose to block with.  If they could make vigilance work like that I would be on board.  I get most people would only choose to block if their vigilance creature would live so automating it like they suggest seems like it would work, but there can be times when you would want to trade by choosing to block so the player needs to be able to choose when to block, not the game.