Should one turn wins be a thing?

Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest MtGPQ General Discussion
1

So, coming from the nerf blue / balance cards discussions, it seems like folks like their win buttons.
Now let’s see about how people perceive the consequences.

I’ve got several decks that are capable of winning within one turn. If the board is right, it can be the first turn - but I rarely see turn 4. Interestingly most of these decks are standard, that I only spice up with two or three legacy cards when I’ve got the chance.

Do you think one turn kills are totally okay? This also means in return that it’s totally okay that Greg can wreck you on turn one.

Should one turn wins be a thing?
  • No, never. This is a turn based game!
  • I’ve got no strong opinion
  • I don’t care about legacy, but it shouldn’t happen in standard
  • Sure. More power is always better
  • Mitochondria is the Powerhouse of the Cell
0 voters
2

I have no idea what I voted for.

I think that where events have restrictive objectives (play x vampires, etc.), then Decks that don’t contain playable cards to meet those objectives should not be able to enter.

I don’t care if I get pummeled in one turn by a deck that is designed to meet objectives. Sure it is really annoying. But if I face a deck that has nothing to do with any of the objectives in the entire event and lose in one turn, that’s something else.

3

My opinion is that its ok if its possible, but it should require an absurd amount of luck.

I have coalition mates who run decks that win either turn 1 or 2 90% of the time. That definitely shouldn’t be right.

But I have some decks that have the ability to win turn 1 with an absolutely perfect opening hand and a couple 5 matches, but otherwise won’t. I don’t see the problem with that.

4

Even in Standard?

5

Sure, even in standard. I mean, in the 4 years I’ve been playing this game its happened to me like twice. I have plenty of decks capable of doing it, but its really hard to get the exact sequence of cascade and opening hand to make it happen. I have a lot of turn 2 or 3 wins, for example.

If you can do it more than some percentage of the time in standard I think its a problem (say, 20%?). But if its a once-in-a-blue-moon possibility I don’t see it as an issue

6

I cant respond because it would probably depend on a few other factors.

If the deck contains creatures/supports, the chances of being steamrolled on turn 1 is relatively low, I assume. Of course the AI receiving perfectly elegant cascades is a variable.

As previously mentioned, is a significant AI cascade necessary to fuel the AI turn 1 kill?

Does the combo starting 1-2 card’s mana cost equal more than 1-2 matches worth of mana? (On color or off color?)

Additionally, the AI seems to casts cards based on casting cost. Therefore, the cast sequence in order to achieve that turn 1 win would have to directly correlated to the deck’s cards casting cost. In other words, the cast sequence would have to match an exact descending casting cost sequence. There are a few anomallies Ive seen which is stored cards/rarity possibly skewing the casting order at times by the AI. Ultimately, the turn 1 kill would have to occur with as little hand casting order/exile manipulation by the AI. Is this the case?

Furthermore, the AI would have to be capable of selecting the right choices if it prompts for selections, i.e. digging for cards. Therefore another variable that could hinder the AI side turn 1 kill.

How many combo pieces are required for the AI turn 1 kill?

Can the deck achieve secondary objectives with relative ease? Can it achieve a broad spectrum of objectives like cycling was capable of? Can the deck with a slight modication for objectives achievement still retain an AI turn 1 kill capability?

What is the consistency at which it achieves a turn 1 kill? What is the expected consistency for achieving a turn 1 kill by the AI?

Does the deck have troll characteristics? Similar to Naru-plicate? (Now what constitutes a troll loop deck is sometimes kind of grey.. like the kiora gem conversion, path of discovery, certain sunbird decks. While others like naru-plicate feel a bit more troll-y if its specifically built to enable that combo and if the player purposely leaves that deck for others to fall victim to. It seems kind of weird but if a player used a troll-ish deck and then changed it out so others dont suffer, i would feel a little more inclined to leniency - though it doesnt mean much, as not everyone is inclined to manners.. but i digress).

I dont doubt that you have some terrific decks, including turn 1 kill decks, as you are a great deckbuilder. But, i believe, its a little hard to make a good selection on this topic due to the variables.

Edit: re-read the initial post.. turn 3-4 kill not turn 1 kill**

7

I don’t like the options here. I am OK with particular builds allowing occasional lucky turn one wins as long as they are RISKY and don’t turn out to be super oppressive.

The problem with combos is if they are very easy to build and when the opponent can simply do nothing to prevent them from happening. Baral and cycling lead to that in the past, part the waterveil and huf do this in legacy and djinn of wishes in standard.

I posted after the last b4t part 2 event how I achieved a turn 1 win against azor. I think I still have the screenshot with that. Now that the timer is around the deck needs some tweaking to be faster and may still fizzle. It requires some lucky combination of board state and starting hand but its totally doable. Is this deck a problem? Yes! Sarkhan3 djinn combo is responsible for it.

Is bfz the culprit there? Not really. Rather djinn plus scapeshift and rupture spire in Sarkhan3 is insane!!!

8

I think there should be better testing before release, so broken stuff never sees the light of day in Standard, but once it’s out there (especially easy “win” buttons that Greg has trouble playing right) the nerf stick should be the last resort because people don’t want to give it up.

OTOH, Legacy is so filled with broken one hardly notices another easy win deck… :wink:

9

Thoughts.

If more power is always better, would it be acceptable to print a card with twice as much power as BSZ?

Remember, they’ve already doubled up twice; BSZ produces twice as much mana as BTB, which produces twice as much mana as Days Undoing.

If one turn wins are acceptable, then why aren’t more players asking for more cards to be printed of the power level of BSZ? Is it because they own BSZ, and recognise that they have an unfair advantage over those that don’t?

Are Oktagon aware of the fact that we don’t need to spend money on their latest set because it’s dwarfed in power level by existing cards in Standard? Is that a smart business model to pursue? I’ve already started saving up my boosters/crystals/jewels for War of the Spark.

10

This is not a true pvp turn based game. Therefore I don’t like to waste my time with fake greg.
My approach is different in true pvp card games.
Being 1 turn is not necessarily fast as I would like it to be. I prefer 3 turns faster wins than 1 turns slow wins.

The sad thing is that the game got slower with animations/loadings compared to the period around QB (i used to time it).The actual game play can be faster than the loadings from one game to next. Hardware type does not improve speed (on my devices at least).
The content of the thread Lets do some cards balanding by Myburn7 is really about “How MTGPQ is supposed to be played or should be”.

“If one turn wins are acceptable, then why aren’t more players asking for more cards to be printed of the power level of BSZ? Is it because they own BSZ, and recognise that they have an unfair advantage over those that don’t?”

There is no such thing as an advantage other players that do not really exist. This is not a true pvp game. Picture it as a single player Tetris and you may change your mind.
Therefore, nerfs do not make sense to me. People can always create challenges for themselves.

The real problem with this game is not the power level of cards; It lack creativity. When greg was too strong, powerful cards were OK. But many people complained about Greg’s unfairness so he was tamed down. This is somewhat good because a Greg too strong wont motivate new players to stick around. At the same time, a nerfed Greg displeases people who like challenge.
What octagon should do is add difficulty levels to Greg like most logical games do. Mastery level does not address that.

Despite the game being around for more than 2 years, it still feels like an incomplete/unpolished beta. It would be best for Octagon to polish this turd before anything else

11

There very much is an advantage! The difference in prizes in coalition events can be quite large!

Paper MTG is expansive enough a game that it can be all things to all people; Standard tournaments are well balanced (after a few bans, sometimes) and competitive, whereas EDH is about building nutty combos and doing crazy things like suddenly controlling every permanent on the battlefield.

12

Winning in 5 turns should be a very difficult thing

13

It’s called quality control and it was something we had to do back in the days when I did programming for the air force… none of this put it out there and see what happens crap that is so common in most games (especially this one). If I were hiring programmers for a project and saw they worked for a company I knew put out buggy programs the resume would go to the trash bin.

14

I think part of the problem, at least for Standard, is that the rules that apply to paper magic don’t apply to PQ, but they don’t really address those differences when it comes to how they interpret cards into the game, sometimes making an exact copy of the paper card that ultimately causes problem. The Quisiduplicate + Naru Meha infinite combo is a good example of this. In paper magic, there are multiple backstops keeing this from going infinite, the first being that while Naru is on the stack, she’s not a vaild target for a copy of Quasiduplicate, the other being that you can only have one of any legendary in place.

To deal with this, PQ could have just added onto Quasidupicate that it can’t target a legendary creature, or if programming allowed, not target legendary creatures you control (that way you can still copy your opponent’s legends) Really whoever interprets the cards into this game needs to think about what verbiage needs to change on cards in general to make them relevant to this game. This includes balancing for changes in rules like in the example above, but also things like how much burn spells do. 3 damage from Skewer the Critics is not relevent in a format where you can reinforce your creatures up above 24 toughness and where player life totals are almost always above 100.

15

anyone who voted no, have you ever played a match 3 game like bejeweled or candy crush? games can sometimes end from a mega cascade. This isn’t Magic: The Gathering where mana comes from gem matches, its gem matches with power ups themed from Magic: The Gathering

16

Also one of the most popular turn based mobile games Fire Emblem Heroes has many modes where matches must end in less than 5 turns and often end in 2-3 turns.

First turn kills vs one turn kills is also an important distinction. First turn kills should be 1 in a million or billion. Nobody wants that.

17

Have you ever played Puzzle Quest? It’s far more tactical that bejeweled or candy crush. One of my favorite games, in fact. This isn’t Magic the Gathering: Candy Crush.

18

If the combo for a one-turn win only requires one - two key cards, it’s basically the same.
Take the BSZ/Sunbird combo for example. A BSZ or a Sunbird in your starting hand can win the game on the first turn. Brokhan makes this even more likely, since he can add the one okay converter spell - thunderherd migration and BSZ require just ten mana, so 2 on-color matches to go off. Does it require luck? Sure that. Possible? Regularly; It happens to me every week. It’s even faster and more consistent than Kiora Prism array- and in standard, that surely should not be able to happen.

19

I don’t think Laeuftbeidir meant specifically regarding Greg. Just generally, should a deck possible of that win even exist?

Personally, I don’t think a turn 1 win should ever happen, even with the most ideal conditions. But I know there are a lot that would disagree with that (maybe most) and feel the game is about building your deck and letting it run to see what happens without much involvement in the part of the game with your opponent. I like the back and forth, casting and responding to your opponents threats rather than casting a card that starts a combo you walk away from and come back to a victory screen. It does make for a longer game though, and everybody has different amounts of time to play. Outside of designing different formats, they have to just pick whatever covers as many (paying, which probably happens significantly more when high-powered cards are available) customers as they can.

20

Most of this game is about grinding. I’ll take quick wins.

Thanks