- NotMyName
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 11 months, and 13 days
Last active Mon, Sep, 19 2016 04:21:34
- 0 Followers
- 1,836 Total Posts
- 76 Thanks
-
Mar 3, 2012NotMyName posted a message on Werewolf Deck WinsIt depends on what you expect to see. Assuming a generic meta I'd add two more cage. That would also make sideboarding easier with out 4 young wolf in 4 Grafdiggers Cage being a common move.Posted in: ThisIsNotMyActualName Blog
-
Feb 22, 2012NotMyName posted a message on Werewolf Deck WinsThe two full moon's rise in the board is against traditional control which I always face at least one of. I agree with you on the effectiveness of nihil spellbomb, but if I added it, I would splash black. I'm just OCD with my mana bases. I'd love to hear how it worked for you.Posted in: ThisIsNotMyActualName Blog
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My last post already answered this concern. I understand why their were no DFC in AVR, but the Werewolf subtype was brought back to replace the old werewolf typing template, which the Wolfir now use. They could have just gave the Wolfir the werewolf type, since they just brought it back to stop using the Wolfir's current Template. Then one of the block's major themes (a tribal) would continue into the final set without DFC. Easy solution, everyone wins. This is something basic enough (don't drop major themes partway through,) that they already knew better, and it's a solution they already developed for another problem, so it's not like they actually had to come up with it.
If they can't look, and they can't ask (via surveys or whathaveyou,) they have to just pray people volunteer the information. This is the crux of my issue. It's not necassary they do it this way, and worse than if they just asked or looked. If that's how they do it, so be it. I don't like it, and I don't respect it, but in the end it's their choice to make.
I'll be sending a very detailed analysis of werewolf design to Wizards explaining in depth how they could better design them on the next return. I can't believe I never thought to do this before, so thank you for telling me exactly what I need to do. No sarcasm intended. I know it can come across that way in text.
They knew before OG Innistrad we would want a legendary werewolf, but decided it was more important we had planeswalker. This was confirmed in an article by Rosewater. They had five years (six if you count the development year) to figure out what to do. It's not like we magic players don't like complaining. They would have known exactly what players wanted if they looked at a few rants. All they had to do was throw a manasink on the front face and it would have been perfect, and everyone would be happy. As it stands, Duskwatch Recruiter would have made the better legend.
Its understandable how they screwed this up, but I expect more from them. They are the best, and they get paid like the best, so I expect the best. These mistakes are amature mistakes. Or maybe the mistakes of people secure in their positions who have stopped trying.
That said, the Werewolf legend comes off as an afterthought, mediocre for every possible use, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that's true. Just checking off a box on a checklist. I just read an article where Rosewater says they designed Ulrich to be strong in multiplayer. He showed no sign that he's aware the card isn't even that great in the place he intended it to be played.
It just feels like for every thing they could screw up with werewolves (past the initial design, which was amazing and a huge part of why I love the tribe so much,) they not only screwed up, but did so in jaw-dropping ways, like their total absence from the third set of their debut block directly after they did the same thing with allies and said they wouldn't do it in the future. It had already gotten old five years ago.
They don't even know there's a problem though, and I doubt they will figure it out by the next return to Innistrad.
That's an amazing idea. Near perfection. Great job.
They could just ask. I don't know why they feel the need to pretend to exist in a seperate reality, but it gets old fast.
The thing about V:TES was just an fyi. Not a counter to your point. Another fyi though, a tcg is said to be dead if the company with the rights to produce it no longer do. With the high failure rate in the industry it's a useful word to describe if a game is still being made, since it's simple, quick, and intuitive.
---
My theory is that the number of early adopters for a game is the primary factor for success. Every game currently on the top ten (excluding non-ccgs which I can't speak for) had strong support from release, while other games that didn't (Adventure Time Card Wars anyone?) fell off right after the initial interest faded.
How games got that support is another thing. Hearthstone made a super simple game and marketed it very well. Also Blizzard. It's Blizzard. Pokemon, DBZ, and Yugioh got there through the popularity of their source material AND the solidness of the mechanics of their games. You'll notice that the ccgs of other popular media never quite got there, and this can be attributed to either clunky and confusing design or a lack of marketing.
FOW probably got popular initially because people just already knew how to play, I agree with you on that, but it's overall success I believe stems from that early support, not because it's mechanics are so similar to magic's.
Ultimatally people just want to to play, and that means playing the games other's play.
OP is mostly right, and has a great point. I should be able to rolling thunder multiple 'walkers. It would make sense from both a flavor and a gameplay perspective, and deserves a fix.
Note I am only arguing that this should be done. I don't care to get involved in the how's of it, but the resistance I am seeing in this thread compelled me to say at least that much. It upsets me to see good points met with resistance as opposed to effort to improve it. It's a really destructive mindset to have.
V:TES died in 2010 fyi. The game was specifically multiplayer focused, which probably hurt it more than anything conaidering it's intended audience.
The Big Three CCGs all play completely different, putting a little more than a small dent in your theory. The success of a game seems to have little to do with quality and originality, and FAR more with how many early adopters you can get.
Thanks! A little sad we lost some great monsters, but hopefully this opens up room for new monsters to fill the void (no pun intended.)
I finally got my art book. Do you remember what section this is in?
No longer top ten: Future Card Buddyfight and Weiss Schwarz by Bushiroad.
Notes:
Bushiroad's most successful game is higher rose a rank on the chart, but it's other two fell off the top ten. Curious.
Dragonball Z made it into the top ten!
Pathfinder Battles marks the 4th non-ccg to make it to the top ten.
Dicemasters appears to be still losing it's momentum. I wasn't very impressed with the game, but it was a novel idea, and heaven knows the industry needs more of those.
OP, the numbers in Drain Life's post are spot on. You may want to go up to 35 lands thanks to the mulligan rule change, but otherwise follow that exactly and you'll be fine. For the rest of the deck, if you focus on strong etb value zombies and kill spells you will have a respectabke deck, and with a little time you will figure out what works well, what doesn't, and which themes work best for you.
Also, play 3-4 sac outlets. Carrion Feeder, Grim-Grin, and Altar of Dementia are obvious, then one or two more of your choice. They are have a ton of utility in edh.
That said, if you play 4 Kessig Prowler and 6 others I can see it being strong. Any time trample is good too.