Should MTGPQ "Decks" behave like paper decks?

Options
chillyerrmac
chillyerrmac Posts: 16
edited January 2017 in MtGPQ General Discussion
Should the MTGPQ deck have more paper-like qualities?

Reason would be to prevent decks built on seemingly endless card draw to cycle through their whole library to easily get what they want much easier.

If Devs don't see a current possibility for having a graveyard, then there could be more limitations on the deck itself.

Since traditional MTG is 60 card decks, but MTGPQ is max 10, then there should be a maximum of 6 duplicate cards in a deck, and if you cast one card six times, then its GONE. Additionally , if you have a card too heavily focused on card draw, you would eventually run out of cards. Also like other E-card games, some have penalties for when you run out of cards, making a match shorter.

Please share your thoughts and vote!
Failed to load the poll.

Comments

  • SeditiousCanary
    SeditiousCanary Posts: 76 Match Maker
    Options
    I'd say if you honed this to be 4 copies, it would be more like Magic, since 10 slots times 4 is 40, and there are usually about 20 lands in a deck. Lots of people run more, and some decks run less lands, but 20 is a pretty good place without getting into some rather advanced decktech. And ten slots seems about right too. More would water down your draws, and fewer would be too easy to build a Insta-Win! condition.

    That said, I like the endless loop nature of this game, and I've been a paper Magic player since 2004. There are many things I do not think have been translated well, or are not "in the spirit of the game", but the endless loop draw is one of the things I think they did right. I think this would not be fun, or translate well if mill, or Cranial Extraction/Lobotomy/Quash type cards that exile your deck were options.

    The thing I like about this game, is that in nearly any situation, you can have a crazy cascade, and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in ways that do not translate well between this game, and paper Magic.
  • wereotter
    wereotter Posts: 2,064 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Limiting cards would be a step in the right direction to address issues caused by Arlinn, Kiora, and Deploy decks running only one creature and tutoring up 7 copies of it each match. Definitely something to consider.

    Additionally while a graveyard exists, it would be handy to be able to see what's in it.
  • rathedon
    rathedon Posts: 17 Just Dropped In
    Options
    wereotter wrote:
    Limiting cards would be a step in the right direction to address issues caused by Arlinn, Kiora, and Deploy decks running only one creature and tutoring up 7 copies of it each match. Definitely something to consider.

    Additionally while a graveyard exists, it would be handy to be able to see what's in it.

    I so agree with your point of the graveyard. I think you need limits, but I like the 4 idea rather than the 6.
  • rathedon
    rathedon Posts: 17 Just Dropped In
    Options
    SeditiousCanary wrote:
    I'd say if you honed this to be 4 copies, it would be more like Magic, since 10 slots times 4 is 40, and there are usually about 20 lands in a deck. Lots of people run more, and some decks run less lands, but 20 is a pretty good place without getting into some rather advanced decktech. And ten slots seems about right too. More would water down your draws, and fewer would be too easy to build a Insta-Win! condition.

    That said, I like the endless loop nature of this game, and I've been a paper Magic player since 2004. There are many things I do not think have been translated well, or are not "in the spirit of the game", but the endless loop draw is one of the things I think they did right. I think this would not be fun, or translate well if mill, or Cranial Extraction/Lobotomy/Quash type cards that exile your deck were options.

    The thing I like about this game, is that in nearly any situation, you can have a crazy cascade, and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in ways that do not translate well between this game, and paper Magic.

    Ditto. Nice analysis.
  • SpaceDuck
    SpaceDuck Posts: 85 Match Maker
    Options
    Nope.

    If I wanted more traditional MtG or a more fixed card environment I'd just play Duels, Hearthstone, Clash, PvZ, etc.

    I like the MtGPQ formula just the way it is. It's supposed to be a fun, crazy match 3 based on lore and cards I love. There happens to be a surprisingly deep and crunchy strategy element too, but I'd hate to see them sacrifice the crazy boards to be more "serious".
  • MTG_Mage
    MTG_Mage Posts: 224 Tile Toppler
    Options
    SeditiousCanary wrote:
    I'd say if you honed this to be 4 copies, it would be more like Magic, since 10 slots times 4 is 40, and there are usually about 20 lands in a deck. Lots of people run more, and some decks run less lands, but 20 is a pretty good place without getting into some rather advanced decktech. And ten slots seems about right too. More would water down your draws, and fewer would be too easy to build a Insta-Win! condition.

    No. Paper MTG decks should run 24 +/-2 lands (so 22-26 lands) in a 60 card constructed deck. I typically stay to the lower side of that, so about 23.
    In sealed or draft, which is 40 cards, you should run 16-18 lands and 22-24 cards.

    As for 10 card deck slots, it is a good number but I have mentioned in other threads that it would be better if it was a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 12, with those 2 extra slots purchasable with runes or crystals (and to be able to purchase multiple deck slots per planeswalker as well).

    All numbers in mtgpq seems to be buffed up by 50% when compared to mtg (for example a 4/4 creature in mtg is 6/6 in mtgpq). This is not always the case but it is most of the time. With 4 cards being the limit in mtg, 6 would make sense in mtgpq. Once reason being that mana generation is not comparable mtg and cascades only make that gap bigger, so more cards to work with is needed. It would be great if they fixed their RNG so getting 4 of the same card in a row happens less.

    Adding a graveyard that is viewable is also something that has been mentioned many times, but that may be hard to program and thats why it hasnt been done. It would be nice to have.

    As for a hard 60 card limit (if they go that direction) I suggest that fetches must stay in your 60 card pool until your 60th card is drawn, and at that point, before drawing your 61st card, your graveyard and hand are shuffled into your library, and you take 6 damage, then you draw your 61st card. Any creatures in play that are from the previous shuffle get 'marked' by the computer and will be exiled when destroyed (if reinforced, only the new shuffle versions get put into graveyard/hand/library).
  • SeditiousCanary
    SeditiousCanary Posts: 76 Match Maker
    edited January 2017
    Options
    MTG_Mage wrote:
    SeditiousCanary wrote:
    I'd say if you honed this to be 4 copies, it would be more like Magic, since 10 slots times 4 is 40, and there are usually about 20 lands in a deck. Lots of people run more, and some decks run less lands, but 20 is a pretty good place without getting into some rather advanced decktech. And ten slots seems about right too. More would water down your draws, and fewer would be too easy to build a Insta-Win! condition.
    No. Paper MTG decks should run 24 +/-2 lands (so 22-26 lands) in a 60 card constructed deck. I typically stay to the lower side of that, so about 23.
    In sealed or draft, which is 40 cards, you should run 16-18 lands and 22-24 cards.

    I did say "usually", call out the reasoning about it as far as needless decktech, and how that translates to the game here. While I generally agree that you usually want more than 20 lands in a deck, it is the mean for deck building in constructed (No Land Dredge and 43 Land as examples). And generally, 1-2 ratio is fine for people leaning how to play without getting into the finer details of manabase construction, or competitive decks which need a well tuned manabase. My Mirrodin/Kamigawa Standard legal spritbelcher deck was pretty good with only 19 lands, and less consistent with 22-24, which was suggested to me over and over again. Modern Fish, and Legacy/Vintage Fish never break 20 land, and of those, 4 are usually Cavern of Souls (because Cavern of Souls), and/or 4 of those are Mutavault (because Mutavalut). There are plenty of decks running fewer than 22. I think its just a simplification that they needed to make the game work, and be balanced.

    I think you could make a stronger case for limiting the number of mythics, rares, and uncommons draw frequency to being 1M/2R/3U in hand/on board/in deck/in graveyard at a time. Being able to activate Saheeli Rai's 3rd ability, or Deploy the Gatewatch when the only creature you have in deck is Boomship. I think it should comeback, but after it dies, or is discarded.
  • bk1234
    bk1234 Posts: 2,924 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    wereotter wrote:
    Limiting cards would be a step in the right direction to address issues caused by Arlinn, Kiora, and Deploy decks running only one creature and tutoring up 7 copies of it each match. Definitely something to consider.

    You can only deploy 4 copies of a creature in a one-creature Deploy deck.
  • buscemi
    buscemi Posts: 673 Critical Contributor
    Options
    bken1234 wrote:
    wereotter wrote:
    Limiting cards would be a step in the right direction to address issues caused by Arlinn, Kiora, and Deploy decks running only one creature and tutoring up 7 copies of it each match. Definitely something to consider.

    You can only deploy 4 copies of a creature in a one-creature Deploy deck.

    That's a bug, surely? I mean it's not consistent, sometimes you can Deploy more than 4 creatures, and sometimes you can't. Surely this shouldn't be happening:

    16299857_10210029378484011_7438268888927202082_o.jpg?oh=9ac2eefbc5a81ee8c52265b910c81754&oe=59220228

Categories