Do you think a nerfing is in order?
Cycling vs. Omniscience
- Nerf cycling
- Nerf Omniscience
- Nerf cycling and Omniscience
- Eliminate cycling
- Eliminate Omniscience
- Eliminate cycling and Omniscience
- Other–Please explain
0
voters
I voted other. I would like to see a new game mechanic added–cards that do not use mana at all to cast. Example:
Sacrificial Lamb
Interrupt (or Instant)
This card does not gain mana and cannot be fetched with another card.
Exile target creature you control with power 10 or greater and destroy target support. Sacrificial Lamb is then exiled.
“Mary had a lamb. It was big.”
Other card option can include exiling cards from your hand and losing life.
ETA: The other card option would be to target a spell. No card option to target creatures.
Cycling is ridiculous. It makes games completely one-sided. Whether or not this could already have been said about matches prior to the arrival of cycling is a different discussion for a different thread, but that’s not the point. The point is that the AI should have as much chance to interact as you do. Think about Baral 1.0 for an example of this kind of one-sided nonsense.
“But Baral didn’t let you interact! He made turns go on forever!”
Precisely my point. As players of a game of chance, we can’t expect to win every single game. Cycling gives you a way to do so, which makes competition ridiculous. It’s why we see disproportionate numbers of perfect scores on events.
As for Omniscience, I don’t actually have the card so I can’t speak much to how it plays in a real person’s hands. But I’ve seen the AI drop it in a few dozen matches now, and I have only ever lost to it twice. And neither of those losses were on the same turn that it hit the board. I think that’s a large enough sample size to say that Omni is not as ridiculous as people claim. However, it still poses a problem because it makes things free (and that is always unhealthy in this game; just look at HUF or Deploy, or hell, both of those cards together, if you need evidence).
I personally don’t like the word “nerf”. I think they should be reworked to be more balanced. 
I wanted to clarify the bit where I mentioned Baral.
Essentially, Baral 1.0 is what cycling in its current form would look like if the AI could use it. People would be up in arms about it if that were the case. And I think it’s ludicrously myopic and at least a little bit selfish to not complain about something just because it doesn’t affect you, especially if that topic has such a broadly-felt impact that it has affected the entire metagame.
The problems are opposite one another. Omni is dangerous in the hands of the ai while Cycling is impotent. Why would anyone assume one solution fits both?
As a platinum player i ran into many battles against Omniscience, still managed to win many of them, lose a bunch of them indeed. I dont have omniscience, but i don’t think it should be nerfed. Powerful cards are necessary, and i NEVER ran into a 10 minutes AI turn abusing omni, people just like to exagerate to make a more valid point. If the AI plays it, man up and deal with it.
I dont really care about cycling, it’s a mechanic that the AI doesnt even use. It’s an easy way we have to win battles and also accomplish some of the requirements in some events, why asking for a nerf? To me it’s just silly. If you don’t like cycling, simple:
DON’T USE CYCLE.
Also, there should be an option like ‘Don’t nerf or eliminate any of them’
The poll is biased.
Hence the “Other” option.
this poll is unnecessary and merely kindle for inciting the heated divides from previous threads. Octagon has stated multiple times that their priorities are releasing new content for the game, with no mention whatsoever to card nerfing. Let’s talk about something else.
Balancing the game will always be a worthwhile topic whether Octagon mentions it or not in blog posts.
i know with my comments in past posts i made clear my point on cycling being ok and omniscence being op. However i know i can deal with both being out there, and think we might just need new content to equalize their power. Lets move on and deal with the future
Having 6 options to vote for nerfing and/or eliminating and not even one option for voting against it, but having a ‘Other’ option doesnt make it biased? Come on xD
It’s already been clearly established in multiple threads that this is a highly divisive topic, discussed and discussed again, with many people weighing in on both sides.
Even if one side weighs slightly heavier than the other in this vote, it would be unlikely to shift Octagon’s directions. We’re merely a sample group relative to the numbers that play this game, and this is not an accurate statistical analysis of that sample.
Perhaps there will be fewer stale, retread discussions when we’re given some new content to discuss…
That is not true. They have in fact mentioned looking into balancing cards just not as of late.
You’re correct about their priorities though.
I’ve only lost to ominscience once. And have defeated it every other time. But that one fight was convincingly enough to know it was broken. I blame the AI for the other times it failed to work correctly.
Cycling… has absolutely nothing to do with how the AI can’t use it. That is a Silly defense. The fact that it provide a <95% success rate for a win is problematic in events.
A fair point. I had forgotten they’d lightly touched base on it in the past. However I maintain that they’ve made it clear their focus is new content and other (non-nerfing) adjustments.
Oh, I agree! But, I personally find it hard to believe that a 30 page blog being devoted entirely to Ixalan though. I’m dying to find out what Oktagon has lined up for us all.
Same. Have nothing to do game-wise today (took a break from story mode)
Yeah I’m very interested in seeing what secrets they’re going to unveil as well. I just hope I don’t have to read their novella to learn it 