ElimGarak said: Look up the OGW-pro-tour ... Happens anyway, even if people do know how to play (and develop) the game for over 20 years
wickedwitch74 said: My guess is that programming the AI to cycle would prove way too difficult. It's not simple decision-making, and we've already seen the AI do some pretty hokey things with targeted spells.The game is not in a healthy place right now because of cycling.I freely admit that I abuse the mechanic in an effort to farm as much unobtainium as possible before something gets done.
Laeuftbeidir said: My theory before cycling was a thing: either the AI will cycle every card, always or no card, never.
ElimGarak said: The real offender here is the devs failure to fully implement cycling. The AI can't use it, so it's not fully implemented. No need to NERF anything, just get the job done.
IM_CARLOS said: But MtGPQ is not control oriented. Yes you can have control of the board for the moment but a cascade late control is gone. ...Conclusion: this game needs more control options, but in lack of interrupting effects it is way more limited than paper magic.
MTG_Mage said: There is a really simple solution to fixing cycling. The three cards that are required to be altered are New Perspectives, Drake Haven and Faith of the Devoted. Look at the change that was done to Gonti's Aether Heart, whenever this supports effect is triggered it loses a shield.All of them have 3 shields each and so does the heart. I don't suggest increasing their shield values since cycling causes you to draw so drawing into another one of these low cost supports is high.
rafalele said: It DOES NOT harm any player because IA cannot manage Cycling (if IA could you use it my opinion should be quite different).
rafalele said: I think that this poll is ended. No new ideas.
Volrak said: rafalele said: It DOES NOT harm any player because IA cannot manage Cycling (if IA could you use it my opinion should be quite different). There are different kinds of harm, and I hope I can explain a perspective you may not have appreciated yet.Different players love different things about the games they play. For some, it's the challenge of competition, and their progression in their ability to overcome that.In its current form, cycling removes both the challenge and the progression. It's obvious how it removes the challenge. It removes the progression when new cards don't materially improve your decks' performance, so they become kind of irrelevant.When a game closely resembles "push a button to win" (only more like 100 buttons), such players start questioning why they're spending their time going through the motions of a solved challenge over and over again. Making up their own challenges (e.g. trying to perform as well using a weaker non-cycling deck) could be an option, but that would no longer a challenge of competition; it would be an artificial self-imposed constraint. So the harm is to the motivation of such players to play the game, and in many cases the player base has or will just lose them.
shteev said: rafalele said: I think that this poll is ended. No new ideas. That's the second time recently someone has declared a discussion over.That's not how a forum works.