Cascades

Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest MtGPQ General Discussion
1

I made this poll in the old forums and the data was lost in the transition to the new forum.
At that time, most players were okay with the cascades as they are.

Now, cascades are again a topic in the thread “AI gem swap” and @Sorin81 made the suggestion to run it again.
So, here it is, but I added some more options. I hope that everyone who wants to vote finds himself in some of these choices.

Happy voting!

Cascades
  • Cascades are fine as they are
  • Cascades are okay, but they should have diminished returns
  • Cascades, yes, but it should be limited to one only
  • Cascades should be limited but one is to little
  • I think cascades should happen but don’t count
  • No refill of the board during a players turn but after it, cascades that happen there are to no ones advance
  • Neutral
0 voters
2

I’m just not sure what to make of it as I don’t have any better suggestion…

3

I also don’t get the point of the poll.

→ to clarify : the intention behind the demanded question

4

Cascades should have a diminished return. Perhaps 1 less mana on each chained match. I think this helps mitigate the “luck” factor in matches in favour of better deckbuilding and gameplay.

Just to clarify, I’m also Ok with the way it is now.

5

I don’t like diminishing returns on mana. For one thing, it would mean I’d have to do some maths…unless you’re only enforcing diminishing returns on new gems which drop onto the board and not existing onboard cascades that I’ve cleverly noticed. And for another, well, this is puzzle quest, and cascades are a thing in puzzle quest.

If I was going to put forward a compromise position, it would be that while I don’t want to see mana reduced, it can seem a bit unfair that a big cascade can fill a player up with both mana AND loyalty. We’ve all had ‘that game’ against Koth where he gets a big cascade on turn 1 and then has the loyalty to use his first ability every turn for the rest of the game, right?

I’m not voting yet cos I might be swayed by someone elses argument and I don’t think you can change your vote on new forum polls, can you?

6

Cascades are great when I trigger them… and less so when the AI does. What next? Nerf landfall?

Luck is a big part of MtG, whether opening packs to find cards one wants or drawing a hand full of useful cards. Anyone who’s played the paper game long enough has seen starting had with no land.

Sometimes, fortune favors us, sometimes not so much.

7

Card Balance would really help tho. it’s one thing when your opponent cascades and drops an Angel of Invention in a single turn, and quite another when he drops a Sphinx and a Pig at the same time.

8

Echoing my opinion in the previous poll.

I have no problem with cascades. While I sit back in awe when the AI strings together match after match I am equally (and pleasantly) surprised when it happens for me. I think cascades are a vital part of the game now and add more flair to a match.
I don’t feel like any solution is necessary.

9

I keep seeing the ai play every card in their hand way too often.
Lucky for me it is so stupid the cards come out in the wrong order.

10

I think cascades are fine. I just feel like the ai gets them a lot more than i do and at more opportune times. Maybe it is just me being grumpy.

11

I don’t see people complaining when a series of cascades makes winning too easy for them to win. Luck is part of the game. Yes it sucks when it happens to you, you can’t win every time. Leave it be.

12

I think this game would benefit greatly if the Battle Log contained some sort of box score summary. How much total mana each player produced, how much loyalty, how many times each card was cast, how much total damage each damage source did, etc.. Whenever I’ve manually tabulated this, I almost always come out ahead of the opponent playing the same walker.

For example, my average Koth generated 14.46 mana per inning played, while the opposing Koth players averaged 12.53 mana per inning. So, my mana production averaged 15% higher for the same walker. But when my Gideon I faced a Koth, Koth averaged more than twice as much mana per inning, because that’s what Koth does. Solution? Play Koth over Gideon I if winning is your goal.

The only time cascading really gets out of hand is when the opponent has something like: Part the Waterveil, Ulvenwald Hydra, something that draws cards when spells are cast (Prism Array, Rashmi, Baral), and a bunch of spells which turn 15/20/30 gems green.

Some planeswalkers also cascade more than others because their first ability can change gems to their color or destroy gems that aren’t their color (Nissa I, Nissa II, and especially Koth. Chandra I used to cascade a lot when her 1st ability cost 3. Now it costs 6 and you rarely even see her played.)

I haven’t seen any evidence that the opponent cascades more than I do, on average, other than those decks which are designed to do nothing but cascade (which I would play if I didn’t lack certain key cards). Overall, I averaged 13.1 mana per inning tabulated, while the opponent averaged 8.8 per inning they played. This means I averaged about 48% more mana per inning played (largely due to Planeswalker selection).

Of 288 full innings tabulated (that is innings where my opponent and I both had a turn at bat), I produced 65 mana one time (Nissa II), 40 or more mana 5 times (Nissa II, Chandra II, Nahiri, Koth, Sorin), 20 or more 38 times, 10 or more 128 times.

My opponent got 69 mana 1 time (Koth), 40 or more mana 4 times (Koth x3, Nahiri), 20 or more 19 times (50% as many as me), 10 or more 82 times.

The Battle Log doesn’t state how much mana is generated from cards like Drownyard Temple, Behold the Beyond or from abilities like Dovin Baan’s 1st ability, but I do believe that, statistically, I am cascading at least as much as my opponent, if I am playing the same walker and using the same deck.

13

I’m fine with cascades in principle, but what bugs me is to see landfalls generating subsequent strings of 4+ gems of a colour a bit more frequently than I feel could be expected from chance, and particularly for the opponent in their own colour. I once distinctly remember even seeing a full line of same-coloured gems fall after a landfall, an occurrence than should only happen once every 100,000 times or so. I have played quite a bit, so maybe it was indeed that lucky random occurrence, but I can’t shake off the feeling that the gem probabilities might not be always been 100% balanced and random.

14

Exactly.

15

I was actually disappointed that this didn’t exist when they released the Battle Logo. I would absolutely love a TL;DR version of the Battle Log. While it’s nice to see the blow-by-blow, I’d much prefer to see it on the macro scale. “Man, I generated 250 mana that game and my opponent generated 36! Awesome!”

16

Super wicked cascades feel bad against walkers with good mana gains, but when we cascade into 50 mana on a single turn we don’t complain. I think if there is an issue, it’s with the rng. I’ve played a lot of games where the ai gets 30 mana off of a blind cascade where only 3 gems are being replaced. That’s not cool, but if they’re blowing up the board, I think thems the breaks. Cascades are mostly just part of the game, and therefore fine