First off, you are right. I edited my post to remove the snide comment…
And yes i do use some cycling cards in decks where cycling isnt my win condition, support removal for instance.
The “problem” is new perspectives, not tge other cards.
Anyway, i have non cycling decks that are much more reliable.
I rarely play a perpectives cycling deck in ToZ for instance
would newer players who got good scores still get
them after the cycle mechanics leaves standard?
it’s not about removing a mechanic that allows
newer players to compete. when you include cards
into a cycle deck to make the cycle numbers and
don’t care about the cards uniqueness or about
the gem board or other mechanics. then is the
cycle mechanics part of the game or broken and
don’t really interact with the rest of the game?
my guess is top teams are there because they
have a full team of good and consistent players
who understand how to play the game and
achieve secondary objectives. oh, and they have
the cards/means to do it.
cycle is broken because it allows players to
solitaire.
HH
My hope is they don’t screw up the objectives and have a more stable game for the next ToS. I bet a 200 way tie for first place and 300 jewels will show D3 the need for a cycling nerf.
::raises hand::
My N3 deck has the most cycling cards in it and that’s 3. I am a 90-97% Platinum PVP player. My other decks have 0-2 cycling cards. They all do spectacularly in Platinum.
Also New Persoectives (which I just pulled last night) and Drake Haven are only in my N3 deck.
Anyone from ThePower9 can confirm this.
Cycling has changed FiRF too by making decks smaller.
Even a support that cost 5 and just said “draw three cards” is powerful. I’ve found myself using it just that way with maybe one or two cycling cards in the deck at all
@rafalele : The AI can’t play it, but it is still broken. Why not point something out even if you would have no advantage from a nerf? I do have some of the most powerful mythics and use them - sometimes. Agree on boring objectives.
@Firinmahlazer : I don’t use cycling as the primary strategy, but use it..as already described. I complain about the simple fact, that the concept is not healthy on the long run, even if I do benefit from it.
@Dodecapod : Thanks for pointing this all out - totally agree on your statement.
To the general points heard several times:
No, I don’t have problems with the swift of power, and I don’t think anyone else here has. It is great to have new competition!
The changes in the leaderboards has several reasons - beeing able to gather more points by using cycling surely is one of them. More important is the huge amount of players just beeing tired by ToZ 4 hours. Most important was the introduction of standard IMO, that made many players relying on their huge collection of mythics not being competitive anymore, as well as giving the players who are creative in deck-building a boost up..well, and those who have no problem to cycle until the display breaks.
But what is the incentive to keep on playing, if you are able to get the most effective strategy, making it able to compete in platinum during your first month within the game?
Why should players even buy cards, if they only need some rares to do anything a player who spent a year in the game can do?
Ask yourself: can it be a good thing to be able to gather enough power on the board to beat even the biggest PVE enemy with a turn one kill?
My personal problem related to this are the decks I face in events. Once the AI plays drakes haven, I can calmly prepare my cards in a way that allow me to get all bonus points.
Boring. But this is only a side-effect of the bigger problem already explained.
I totally see several other problems within the game, but I don’t think any of these might be as bad as this one. If you think so: just open a discussion.
On the other hand..the nerf will not be coming, unless the AI learns to cycle. Also, it isn’t really neccessary..
My main goal have already been achieved: a vivid discussion leading to feedback that will at least be able to reach the developers; so thank you all for your feedback until now!
BTW: The idea of an auto-win button for all would be an interesting experiment 8)
Replacing “mechanic” with “game” would capture an actual concern.
I don’t know how to block quotes as you do so here goes.
1st response: there’s nothing wrong with having a passionate discussion, but no matter how you cut the cake, pie, or steak… it’s still a game and not something to get so worked up over. Otherwise you’ve crossed that bridge into the Gabe no longer being fun because one had chosen to fixate upon the issues rather than the intent of the Game. For example, say Poker cards for instance, in this case Texas hold em. There are a million nuances regarding that Game but the moment you begin to focus more on the negative aspects rather than the enjoyable aspects, then you are left with a choice to either return to what brought you not to this Game or move on. And yes, I am aware that there are a select number of people that find enjoyment in passionately dissecting a game for its faults rather than its fun. More power to them…but again it does not change the fact that it is just a game.
2nd response:
If I had a dollar for every time someone said something along these lines since I joined the forum back in December, I would be a MTGPQ whale. Haha. I see this a lot and see most still here threatening to jump ship. I’ve played many app games and joined many forums… this kind if threat exists in every. Single. One. And they still play. Only reason I saw the deaths of a few of these apps were due to server issues, business failure or more often than not … boredom. But not from jumping ship.
Meh… There was more. Don’t care to rewrite it in detail. Essentially it’s this.
Sarcasm… was the point and I chose to compound upon it.
In your 3rd statement it supports my theory that players are not happy about the flood of players in the top spot that “impedes” long term leaders of their “due”
Cheers, I believe you; you were actually one of the few potential exceptions I had in mind, but I wasn’t sure of the overall ribbon rate, only that you were using primarily non-cycling decks. I’m still a little skeptical of how many examples there are of other archetypes matching or exceeding the results of optimal (or nearly optimal) cycling decks, but hopefully more people will weigh in with similar numbers or experiences to corroborate the idea that cycling at its most powerful isn’t alone at the top of the heap.
That would shift the terrain a bit from “cycling is overpowered compared to other strategies” to “the overall power level of the game is high enough to make interaction lower than would be ideal”, the latter of which I believe to be the case as well, but which would be a topic allowing for much broader debate. Ideally, Standard in and of itself is likely to help address the issue of interactivity in the long run given a little time for the devs to work out the kinks (even WotC itself has periodic issues defining the power level and ideal balance in Standard, especially recently, so I can try to be patient in this game as well if the fixes will eventually be on the way after some experimentation and feedback collection).
Part of the long-term concern is that cycling isn’t an anomaly, but that instead it might be reflective of a design philosophy oriented around facilitating one-sided games as long as the AI doesn’t get out of control, given cards like Prism Array (which I honestly thought was a misprint when I first pulled it way back when, and expected an instant nerf that never came), post-buff, pre-nerf Seasons Past, pre-nerf Baral, pre- and even post-nerf Gonti’s Aether Heart, and now New Perspectives, among others. If that’s the case, then in this instance that philosophy has gone too far, to the point that in most games there might as well not even be an opponent, and that dynamic seems likely to recur again with Ixalan or soon after, which would ultimately reduce the essential strategic complexity from chess to tic-tac-toe.
This sums it up perfectly; if everyone enjoys playing with cycling as is, then I can accept being in the minority and either adapt or simply walk away from the game if needed until the pendulum of balance swings in a different direction, but there’s a bigger issue at stake that the game itself might cease to be engaging for most players when winning by turn 5 while accomplishing any objectives becomes trivial, because a lot of the fun is in improving, and 100% ribbons 98% of the time leaves no room for improvement. Not everyone has the collection yet to do that with cycling specifically, but the more time passes and the more strategies drive in that direction in future sets, the closer everyone comes to hitting a point where there’s simply nothing new that seems worth doing, and that’s when players will tend to walk away, or when we’ll get onerous new FiRF-style objectives that paper over the issue without addressing the underlying root causes.
And now that you have finally completed the set of 2 cards that are required for this block, you will immediately convert all decks to full cycles and splash Blue on every node.
Yes, come to the dark side.
I’m not talking about grandstanding or “threats” to leave. I’m talking about actual players actually quietly leaving, which is happening now, and has happened before for a variety reasons. My point is simply that the way cycling totally monopolises the list of viable mechanics in Standard is currently one of those reasons.
It’s somewhat invisible to the players, but the size of the player population has a real impact. The size directly impacts the revenue, which impacts the budget for various things like fixing bugs, adding new content, and potentially engaging with the community (though of course how these priorities would hypothetically be assigned may not match what we think is ideal).
It got to the point where there was never a risk of losing with that other PQ game with the super-hero guys and now I only ever log in to play a match here or there and collect some rewards and quit, but I’m not compelled to even do that any more… They did some things better than the Magic team, but it does get to trivial a bit quicker. If there’s 0 risk of losing then there’s really no challenge to the game…
Good discussion. I could use some more explanation here: I’m not sure I understand the appeal of “both 1 & 2.” It seems to me like new perspectives is the problem (to the degree that there’s a problem at all). Unless I’m missing something, the possibility of a turn-one win without new perspectives is real, but seems like a very rare, very lucky situation not worth nerfing a mechanic to avoid. And I’ve fairly often played a kiora cycling deck with draven and shefet etc. with good results, but nothing approaching 1500+ drakes. I attribute that to the fact that I haven’t drawn new perspectives. If anything is going to be nerfed I’d suggest starting with just that card. That said, I’m in the “leave it alone” camp. Cycling hasn’t taken over the game for me. Could be that’s because I can’t splash blue in every node, and I’m also getting good mileage out of other non-cycling decks; i.e. Nahiri has been my go-to for ToZ 3.*
There have always been people quietly leaving games, but that’s not jumping ship.
Population Density of a player base is always important, I agree. But concerns like Baral… that caused a huge uprising and many did in fact leave because of that fiasco and it WAS a fiasco. While Baral directly competed against the player as well as hindered many players for their ranking. Cycling appears by definition of those complaining to confuse the grouping surrounding ranking because of its relatively easy access to playability includes a player base that normally shouldn’t be able to reach these spots. It’s too powerful a mechanic because while it doesn’t affect against a player vs AI. It does affect when another player reaches the same rank as you and the 100+ others as well vying for the reward spots. Ultimately the complaint surrounds one simple fact. One I can agree… the success rate of a deck utilising cycle in an event is skewed heavily in favor of. Am I correct?
@NiftyC
well, new perspectives is the card making it possible to go infinite, but the base problem are the cards that turn an interesting feature into a win con. 1&2 is the answer that acknowledges how broken and underpriced the mechanic is.
My observation, at least among the top alliances I’m familiar with, is that they feel there’s plenty of room for anyone who wants to put the effort in. Apart from being a friendly bunch, they’re also clear-eyed that it’s not a zero-sum game: there are may be more non-ranked rewards for the taking which cycling can help newer players reach, than ranked ones.
That observation also matches the posts in this thread: if you check, you won’t find a single top player who nominated cycling’s effect on rankings as their concern. You appear to be inferring a desire on their part to “keep those uppity lowbies in their place”, but if people with such a desire exist, this thread has eluded their comments thus far. On the contrary, you will multiple posters (including OP) who, despite acknowledging problems with cycling, explicitly say they don’t mind its effect on rankings, or even say its accessibility for newer players is a benefit, to be weighed alongside its problems.