Removal and counters are definately the most interactive cards in the game. New players just like executing their plan unhindered and do not understand that threats can just get there while an answer can sometimes be the wrong answer. They do do understand the concepts of mana efficiency, time advantage, and tempo advantage which can be used to fight these attrition decks.
Removal and counters are? I suppose Strip Mine is a highly interactive card that promotes great games, too? After all, it's a straight 1-for-1 trade, right? "Interactive" isn't a criteria for Wizards. Complaining that a specific card is interactive or not is a red herring: you can use interactive cards in uninteractive strategies, all of which have a single goal: goldfish a win against a helpless opponent.
So, is the single Aetherling that a lot of control decks run as a win condition interactive?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Playing against a control deck is like the advanced level of magic.
A new player just doesn't know how to handle it. "I am playing my creatures and they just keep dying or getting countered" nothing is happening in this game... oh now I am top decking how does he have an answer to everything??"
then they play a bit more and realise that they have to put doom blades in their decks because other creature decks are sometimes bigger than theirs... then they play against control and all they have in hand is doom blades with no targets.
They get frustrated "what? how? I can't deal with this I am not actually playing anything?, you are just countering all my stuff how am I meant to play?".
Then they realize magic is paper-scissors-rock, and that they have to netdeck a deck that is designed to win against your control deck to stand a realistic chance to win, and then -- you have to google what to change to beat his deck, because there's 10 000 cards and only a handful of effective counters among them.
And, of course, ~35% of games are decided by the amount of lands in either players' hands when both decks capable of actually goldfishing a win if the opponent doesn't manage to interact in a good manner.
I'm a lvl1 judge, and a teacher at my local high school. I run the gaming club, where a lot of kids play magic. I have been playing off and on since Beta, so I've been playing longer than all these kids have been alive. Makes me feel old.
That being said, they want me to look through their decks. Some of them seem good, others of them are "if I play this creature, then put these 4 specific enchantments on it, 3 turns later I'll win", and when I ask "what happens if I terror your guy", they look at me dumbfounded.
Every good deck (almost) has to have SOME element of control in it. That is what makes good players different from worse players; the good players understand what they need to do, what their opponent needs to do, and what they can do to stop their opponent from doing what they need to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I basically only play EDH:
Damia, Jenara, Xiahou Dun, Mareth, Nekusar, Oloro, Kresh, Deretti
Then they realize magic is paper-scissors-rock, and that they have to netdeck a deck that is designed to win against your control deck to stand a realistic chance to win, and then -- you have to google what to change to beat his deck, because there's 10 000 cards and only a handful of effective counters among them.
And, of course, ~35% of games are decided by the amount of lands in either players' hands when both decks capable of actually goldfishing a win if the opponent doesn't manage to interact in a good manner.
Have you ever encountered a level in a game you couldn't work out how to beat?.... did you google it to find out how to get past it? that seems like normal behaviour to me. There are people that will help him build his deck to be better against a control deck as in actual people.
What I meant is that he has to play differently, in a counter intuative way to beat control. I can't counter anything before turn 3 most of the time, so he has to get his most important cards into play early.. he has lots of regenerating creatures which once he has the mana open I can't kill. Its not that he doesn't have the tools its that he hasn't learnt to use them. perhaps I should give him some autumn viels so he can feel the rush of countering things.
I still feel just from experience, that some players just don't want to think strategically. I don't know why either. It's like some adversaries honestly think you should be able to do whatever they wish while I sit there and die to whatever. The game is competitive. This isn't about control, combo or aggro. This is about thinking about what you do before you do it, sequencing, baiting and advantage. I know, there is always variance, but that happens to everyone. Whats the point in blaming disruptive elements of the game when you know that you can try and play better, and just do your best. The fault isn't upon disruption, or the definition of fun or even interaction. Think, learn from mistakes, play to your outs and don't give up.
People don't like control especially when they are new or casual players. Because when you first start playing you are usually attracted to powerful creatures and planeswalkers. Control players (decent ones) can stop most threats and it seems unfair if you don't know how to pay against control or if you're deck is very poorly balanced to handle different decks.
As you play more competitively you'll come to respect control more as a vital part of Magic the Gathering. Sometimes I like playing against it (Kibler Gruul), sometimes I like to use it Faeries, Esper.
Then they realize magic is paper-scissors-rock, and that they have to netdeck a deck that is designed to win against your control deck to stand a realistic chance to win, and then -- you have to google what to change to beat his deck, because there's 10 000 cards and only a handful of effective counters among them.
And, of course, ~35% of games are decided by the amount of lands in either players' hands when both decks capable of actually goldfishing a win if the opponent doesn't manage to interact in a good manner.
Have you ever encountered a level in a game you couldn't work out how to beat?.... did you google it to find out how to get past it? that seems like normal behaviour to me. There are people that will help him build his deck to be better against a control deck as in actual people.
Never in my life.
I was blessed, growing up in the 80s and early 90s -- when developers created balanced games.
I remember reconstructing half the manual for Prince of Persia from trial and error, because of the authentication check -- at the age of 8, without english as my native language in a time where we didn't learn english in school.
But then, playing magic... I was overwhelmed.
Completely, and I admit I have asked for help, a few times.
But the answer is always "remove the core of your deck and all the cool cards you want to play, and play these tried and tested 50$ rare staples instead".
What I meant is that he has to play differently, in a counter intuative way to beat control. I can't counter anything before turn 3 most of the time, so he has to get his most important cards into play early.. he has lots of regenerating creatures which once he has the mana open I can't kill. Its not that he doesn't have the tools its that he hasn't learnt to use them. perhaps I should give him some autumn viels so he can feel the rush of countering things.
But I can guarantee you that
a) he does not always have it in hand,
b) does not always have enough or the right mana
c) has to predict wheter or not you have the killspell or counterspell in hand and EITHER;
1-cast bait randomly, spending so much mana he can't cast the real threat, and hope you counter it or cast a killspell
2-cast the real thing and hope you don't counter it and don't kill it
The right thing is always number two, but problem is, homebrew aggro does not win against established control decks -- established aggro decks wins against established control decks, and option 1 is in fact right in 35% of the cases, and merely wrong in 65% of the cases -- because sometimes the non-threat is threat enough ensure removal, ensuring the winning of the game because of mana flood or screw exploited by baiting, wheras casting the threat first would lead to a loss because of tempo disadvantage.
For the non-control player, it's completely random.
The control-player is like a dungeon master with a bad temper, and the player is the person with the character sheet on the board, awaiting random bad stuff to happen while he's trying to kill the goblin.
I've never got the sense that new players hate control more than the other basic strategies.
In-fact, I've found that their enemy number 1 is combo. I also suspect that they're not going to be too happy when you play a true aggro or burn deck and attack them with a goblin lackey, goblin warchief, and 3 goblin piledrivers on turn 3.
People just don't like playing against decks that outclass theirs. Try bringing your starter deck to a SCGO or something, and you'll understand. It's probably a lot more fun to play against another starter deck.
The problem isn't that it's too complex for them. It's the opposite.
The problem is that they understand why they're losing. It's because you countered all their spells, or because you assembled your combo
When you play a deck like jund, and you just grind them out, they don't understand as much, and they still feel as though the game's not over yet.
"There are also those who play games for something known as “fun.” That subject will not be covered here. I believe there is a great deal more of this “fun” to be had while playing to win than while only playing casually, but there is no use in entering that debate now. This “fun” is a subjective thing, hard to pin down, but winning is not. That’s what we have on our side: winning is clear and absolute. When you are playing to win, you have a perfectly clear goal and an objective measure of your progress. Is the master chef really the best in his field? Who can say without bias? The situation is different for the competitive gamer: either he can consistently defeat all of his opponents—or he cannot."
Sirlin makes it clear early on that he is talking about competitive, often cutthroat play, and that having fun, or other people having fun, simply isn't a factor in what his guide was meant to do: teach people what it takes to win in a competitive environment. It's a great guide, but the focus is explicitly on winning in a competitive, zero-sum game. Tournament magic fits the criteria, but casual, kitchen-table magic isn't the place to apply the guide unless you're playing exclusively with like-minded individuals.
Then again, if this is the style you and your opponents prefer, by all means do it. There's a lot to be said for games where you and your opponent both know that you're playing serious, tournament-quality decks and are both trying to win. just remember that not everyone enjoys that, or enjoys every game being that.
But he also explicitly says that he believes that there is a great deal more of this "fun" to be had while playing to win than while only playing casually
I still feel just from experience, that some players just don't want to think strategically. I don't know why either. It's like some adversaries honestly think you should be able to do whatever they wish while I sit there and die to whatever. The game is competitive. This isn't about control, combo or aggro. This is about thinking about what you do before you do it, sequencing, baiting and advantage. I know, there is always variance, but that happens to everyone. Whats the point in blaming disruptive elements of the game when you know that you can try and play better, and just do your best. The fault isn't upon disruption, or the definition of fun or even interaction. Think, learn from mistakes, play to your outs and don't give up.
Sometimes I think people don't realize that guessing and randomness doesn't allow for learning of strategies, and that playing based on percentages makes a bad game with skewed perceptions among players and opinions in the playerbase not supported by math.
You don't become better at poker by playing poker.
You become better at poker by studying the mathematical foundations and choosing a strategy that works.
The same applies to magic:
You don't become better at magic by playing, because even if you play 50 games -- your experience cannot be used to analyze what you did wrong.
10 instances of lack of blue mana is enough to convince the average player that he needs to add more blue sources, when he NEEDED to analyze 10 000 hands to evaluate the manabase, because -- he has enough blue sources, he just was among the 10 out of 100 people that got screwed by their manabase repeatedly without there being anything wrong with it,
The same applies to card evaluation: You cannot replace a single card in your deck after playing 10 games versus another player, losing 10 times.
The deck may still be better:
3 cases of 35% mana-screws, actually completely within the expected ratio -- this is normal.
3 cases of the opponent having one-in-five lucky opening hand that wins the game with his deck.
3 cases of you not drawing the right cards to answer the threats he played.
1 case of you making a mistake.
You become better by analyzing probabilities and choosing, mostly, boring uninteractive cards with high success rates (read card avantage, tempo or synergy) -- or creatures that cost 1, 2 or 3 mana with high power and random card-advantage effects or tempo-advantage.
When I create a deck, I never netdeck.
Ever.
I start out with cards *I* like, and try to build around them, failing miserably -- except when I find synergies, and find other players playing the exact same deck as I do, except they play some better cards that I did not know about at the time or avoided because of the lack of flavor / bad art.
... Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon -- fails because there is not enough support for infect midrange in modern; it is IMPOSSIBLE to make him work, for the lack of support within infect around him, forcing you to dropping the Blight Dragon himself, one of the most flavorful cards I possess, for a low cmc creature combo deck with flavorless critters that you've got to navigate to victory before turn 4, often mulliganning once or twice to get the correct pieces in hand.
Demonlord of Ashmouth -- another of my eternal favorite cards, fails because he dies to Path to Exile, and because there's no good undying or persist creatures in black costing 2 or 1 mana, and only one costing 3, but that is BBB, making the GG and G alternatives useless. You MUST HAVE two undying/persist creatures in play to be able to cast him safely, or else you get two-for-oned.
He was useful in block constructed for about three days, just before the power of Falkenrath Aristocrat was released, with pretty much the exact same powers as Demonlord of Ashmouth: Sack one creature to have it survive.
I loathe Geralf's Messenger and Gravecrawler, but have been forced to use them in order to be able to play black.
Because "becoming a better player" always involves using strictly better cards than the ones in the original deck, in addition to learning what cards exists in the metagame and what staples your opponents will play in their archetypes.
First, boring is subjective, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If you knowingly admit that cards you select by your own choice are cards you think are suboptimal, then why complain? That makes no sense. I never stated that all cards are equal. I also never said you couldn't choose to play what you want to play with either. What I did say is that to become a better player, one should play more strategically and apply the best knowledge you can in any given match. Both players must use these tools, as well as guess and be subject to variance. It is ebb and flow.
Also, realizing that all cards aren't equal in power is part of the game. Disrupting someone's game plan is part of the game, as is randomness. I don't know why some people refuse to adapt.
I really think my comparison to Street Fighter is perfect. Some people just want to jump at Ryu players whenever they want to, and complain about getting Dragon Punched, because they want to jump at me. Fine, then get dragon punched.
Note to anyone dealing with noobies: The easiest way to explain to players how to deal with having Control take away their toys is to explain the Card Advantage involved. You can do it without even explaining Card Advantage.
Noobies generally assosiate permanents going to the graveyard as losing, it's easy to explain that it's more like a draw, because it cost me a doom blade and i don't have many.
First, boring is subjective, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If you knowingly admit that cards you select by your own choice are cards you think are suboptimal, then why complain? That makes no sense.
This is really a separate issue from playing vs. control, but it absolutely does make sense. As you said, boring is subjective. Magic is a CCG, and part of the allure of the cards is the design/theme of the cards (the art, creature/type of card, etc). For some, perhaps many, the ability to use the cards they find attractive is important to their "fun". These players are more likely the "Timmy" type players.
That being said, such players don't want to ALWAYS lose. Unfortunately, the way the game is played, especially at higher levels, lends itself to they type of play that justifies only winning, and thus, only a limited selection of cards is viable. As Frostraven mentioned, learning to build "better" decks frequently consists of advice consisting of, "throw away your deck and make this deck consisting of only XZY competitive cards."
This is why, as a player recently returning to the game after an (approximately) 17 year hiatus, I am much more likely to stick to strictly casual and limited play. That way I can play the way I want (within reason), and yet still not have a 0% win rate. I can netdeck as well as the next person, and if I chose, acquire playsets of all the best cards, but what's the point? Of course, your opinion may differ, and that's perfectly fine.
As for playing against control, it certainly can be frustrating, mainly because certain decks are much better equipped to deal with control decks. For example, a low-cost creature deck (aggro is the correct term?) has a much greater chance of beating out a control deck than a deck that specializes in fewer, larger creatures and/or spells, even if both decks are well-designed in their own rights. There is no way around it, and it will aggravate some people. No way around that either, others will have to adapt to that fact as well.
That being said, I find that in my older age (compared to when I played magic as a teenager), I find it easier to deal with control decks, and have more willingness to put a few contingency cards in place, and am more willing to play patiently, waiting for an opportunity to take back control of the game. Of course, there are still situations with control decks where, unless your deck is made in just the right way, you really have no chance. (although this could be said for numerous other types of deck as well)
Good decks have disruption of some sort, either mainboard or in the sideboard. Thats magic. Disruptive elements is one of the major differences between it and other card games. As well as attrition. There is no way to get around it. And I feel any competitive game worth its salt contains disruptive elements. Its not a do what you want, however you want and no you cant stop me gaming world. So, there is no point in complaining. Face it, if the game was simply a race without disruption, it would be terrible. Thats for childish people who feel like the world owes them something. Take your I want it now attitude whomever they are and change it, or get demolished.
Good decks have disruption of some sort, either mainboard or in the sideboard. Thats magic. Disruptive elements is one of the major differences between it and other card games. As well as attrition. There is no way to get around it. And I feel any competitive game worth its salt contains disruptive elements. Its not a do what you want, however you want and no you cant stop me gaming world. So, there is no point in complaining. Face it, if the game was simply a race without disruption, it would be terrible. Thats for childish people who feel like the world owes them something. Take your I want it now attitude whomever they are and change it, or get demolished.
I'm not sure if you were replying to my post above, but if you were, you're making assumptions that are not there.
I happen to agree that decks do need disruption, and it's certainly part of the game. However, pure control decks can be irritating because, when you win, it's 1/4 luck (mana draws, etc), and 3/4 either having a deck that is able to overrun all the counterspells and disruption, or managing to outmaneuver your opponent. The latter being up to player skill, certainly, and the former simply highlights the inherent imbalances between certain deck types. Subjectively, even a win in said situation is not as fun, as you generally are abandoning any specially designed mechanics of your deck and just managing to get SOMETHING out on the board. Your opinion differs, but is no more valid. It has to do with personalities and preferences, and unfortunately, the differing viewpoints will likely have to agree to disagree as it were.
As for using what "I" want when "I" want it - well, that's part of the game toO. Obviously there will be tradeoffs and one can choose to play what one likes but will have to understand that sometimes it will get beaten. However, there is a difference between losing sometimes and all the time. It's an unfortunate side-effect of competitive play that only the "best" cards are considered useful. Some of us don't want a game where there is no disruption/interaction, but would rather be able to use the cards we find interesting. That doesn't make us scrubs or Noobs or anything but, well, casual players really. Where this becomes a problem is trying to play at FNM or similar event a store where others are trying to hone their competitive decks. As I said, building a netdeck and learning to use it isn't any harder for me than anyone else, just not as interesting.
Sorry if this was rambling, I'm on break at work and my attention was skewed. Basically, don't make the assumption that just because not everyone likes to play in the same manner you do, does not make them wrong, nor whiny and self-entitled (not more than anyone else with an opinion).
I wasn't attacking you or anyone specifically lol. My bad. I was reiterating that it is childish and pointless to complain about disruption. I'm sorry, but I actually do think it is wrong to be like that, because it is immature. Competitive hobbies in general typically have some way to stop or interact with the adversary. No one just lets you do things because you want to, that's just imaginary. I don't see how anyone (not you) can possibly coexist in the realm of competitive things and have a mentality like a two year old, "because I want to" wah wah etc. How is that healthy? How does it foster personal strength, positive traits and qualities or even nurture good social skills? It doesn't, and comparatively, that same demeanor and attitude doesn't foster good sportsmanship either. Simply put, the inability to handle something as simple as disruption in a card game, or any game for that matter and the refusal to adapt is just immature, and why should I respect or tolerate such nonsense?
The thing is, you can turn that argument right around: complaining about fast aggro decks that attempt to kill before T4 is childish and immature, it's a part of the game and people should just get over it and learn to play against aggro better? How about saying that the inability of someone to handle something as simple as a fast aggro deck in a card game, and the refusal to adapt to them, is just immature and I won't tolerate or respect the opinions of those who dislike it?
See how condescending and ridiculous that sounds?
See, this thread opened by asking why some players hate the disruption strategy. Which, I think, we answered. Now we're arguing about whether disruption is necessary or desirable, and I don't think anyone in the thread is saying it needs to be removed from the game. At worst, I personally claimed that it needs to be watched carefully, because it is powerful enough to completely take over the meta, but that that balance hasn't been breached. Remember, last time we got a meta heavy with tempo and a few powerful counters, Wizards decided we needed Cavern of Souls to counter it. I like the card, like that it exists, but even I'll admit that it's... not the best card ever made. it's too powerful and specifically targets one archetype and seems hamhanded, a sledgehammer of a card.
At any rate, though, the answer remains that different people have different goals. Different reasons to play. Disruption is something you should expect and prepare for if your goal is to win each game, but not everyone plays highly competitive decks. If your group plays them and enjoys the games that result, then there's nothing at all wrong with that. if the people you play with aren't in that competitive mindset, though, you run into friction. Even if someone's goal isn't to win each game, they are playing for some reason. Disruption in that environment just leaves hard feelings when Timmy gets his Stormtide Leviathan stripped away or countered every single game.
Finding opponents who share your goals goes a long way toward eliminating that friction. And yes, the answer is social, not mechanical. There is nothing you can do with the cards or the rules or the game to fix this: you just have to find players whose goals and expectations match your own.
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Its purely psychological. I have a friend who flips ***** when you break plans with him because the day will not go as he planned. Apply that logic to any game of magic. Its not about being a scrub. Its about putting your personal wants aside for the better of the format. I hate combo but I realize why its needed in Legacy. A turm 1 ancient tomb almost always makes me sigh the same way a turn 1 island might make another person upset. But we deal, tinker, play tight and prepare for our decks weakness because its the basic fundamental of ******* competitive magic. The entitled cry babies are in every game but in MTG they seem to be the loudest. I do not understand why losing to a board sweeper you stupidly over extended in to is any different than getting blitzed by aggro early on because you kept a slow hand light on removal. Its your fault and it goes both ways. Standard should be seen as a gateway to real magic and nothing more. Too bad real magic is insanely expensive and standard is the best option to people who make less tham 20k a year or lack the basic ability to save money and plan ahead. Its like eating mcdonalds 7 days a week. You will spend a little more than buying and preparing your own food and while its bad for your health its convenient and satisfying enough to please you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
Mhjames: mtgsalvation: I DON'T SEE HOW THIS CARD IS GOOD. I KNOW PATRICK CHAPIN USED IT AND WENT 8-0, BUT THAT WAS A SMALL TOURNAMENT. THE CARD IS TOO SLOW. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE OPPONENT HAS A SPELL IN THE GRAVEYARD
I would like to see stronger land destruction. I think wizards should push LD and all the named strategies in the OP and turn the dial down on creatures.
I would like to see stronger land destruction. I think wizards should push LD and all the named strategies in the OP and turn the dial down on creatures.
THIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSS
/snake
I'm still laughing my ass off that they advertised theros as an enchantment block and all they did was slap the enchantment type on creatures.
wizards- "LOOK AT ALL THE ENCHANTMENTS!"
Everyone else- "dude, those are creatures."
wizards- "But they turn sideways! That's way more bad ass then something that just chills off on the side of your play mat!"
I hate to say this, as the only constructed format I play is edh, but I think that format is part of the problem. "Magic should be fun and this and that and this other thing aren't fun."
It's well known that wizard's biggest market is the kitchen table, and EDH is the ultimate Kitchen table format. Sadly, because most EDH players are babies (don't believe me, go to the EDH forum and read the tear drenched threads of complaining) who don't like any interaction besides creatures doing stuff to other creatures. There's also the other huge market, drafting.
Land destruction, control, etc don't work in limited or EDH or casual so they just don't print that stuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The EDH stax primer When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
Its called being bitter about losing. MTG straddles the line between a silly, fun game and a competitive, serious game. As such, some people see less of a reason for sportsmanship. Contrast with actual sports like football or basketball, where it is engrained in you from a young age to always be a good sport, don't whine, suck it up, and tell your opponent "good game" when you lose even if you hate your opponent and his tactics.
When people lose certain ways, they get frustrated and complain. But mostly they are complaining because they're losing. If you play a ton of removal and countermagic, then they win the game, I bet you don't hear as much complaining, do you? In my experience, you may see that very same person playing a removal-heavy or counter-heavy deck the next week, and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
The thing is, you can turn that argument right around: complaining about fast aggro decks that attempt to kill before T4 is childish and immature, it's a part of the game and people should just get over it and learn to play against aggro better? How about saying that the inability of someone to handle something as simple as a fast aggro deck in a card game, and the refusal to adapt to them, is just immature and I won't tolerate or respect the opinions of those who dislike it?
See how condescending and ridiculous that sounds?
See, this thread opened by asking why some players hate the disruption strategy. Which, I think, we answered. Now we're arguing about whether disruption is necessary or desirable, and I don't think anyone in the thread is saying it needs to be removed from the game. At worst, I personally claimed that it needs to be watched carefully, because it is powerful enough to completely take over the meta, but that that balance hasn't been breached. Remember, last time we got a meta heavy with tempo and a few powerful counters, Wizards decided we needed Cavern of Souls to counter it. I like the card, like that it exists, but even I'll admit that it's... not the best card ever made. it's too powerful and specifically targets one archetype and seems hamhanded, a sledgehammer of a card.
At any rate, though, the answer remains that different people have different goals. Different reasons to play. Disruption is something you should expect and prepare for if your goal is to win each game, but not everyone plays highly competitive decks. If your group plays them and enjoys the games that result, then there's nothing at all wrong with that. if the people you play with aren't in that competitive mindset, though, you run into friction. Even if someone's goal isn't to win each game, they are playing for some reason. Disruption in that environment just leaves hard feelings when Timmy gets his Stormtide Leviathan stripped away or countered every single game.
Finding opponents who share your goals goes a long way toward eliminating that friction. And yes, the answer is social, not mechanical. There is nothing you can do with the cards or the rules or the game to fix this: you just have to find players whose goals and expectations match your own.
It would have merit if you saw anywhere near the amount of complaining about creatures as you did about disruption.
No, it really wouldn't. The argument is based on dismissing the other player's goals and reasons for playing. Of course, without the other player, you don't have a game. Repeating a bad argument doesn't magically turn it into a good one, no matter how many people repeat it.
And how many posts complain about "mindless turn guys sideways" already? I see them every day.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cards are game pieces, and should be treated as such, easily replaceable.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Oh yeah, here is a fun fact that I think relates to this topic.
Recently (about 5 days ago) I started playing Mono Black Devotion in standard on MTGO. I don't have much experience with the deck, so I have been jamming tons of matches in the tournament practice room. Here, (for those that don't know) you play matches of MTG that are competitive but nothing is on the line.
There has been a very noticeable rise in the amount of opponents that will concede the WHOLE MATCH after I win only the first game. This is generally a sign of sour grapes. But seriously, it has been a noticeable rise in whole match concessions after only 1 game. Contrast with, for example, when I used to play Mono Blue Devotion which packs hardly any removal. Back then, players hardly ever conceded the whole match after 1 game.
Oh yeah, here is a fun fact that I think relates to this topic.
Recently (about 5 days ago) I started playing Mono Black Devotion in standard on MTGO. I don't have much experience with the deck, so I have been jamming tons of matches in the tournament practice room. Here, (for those that don't know) you play matches of MTG that are competitive but nothing is on the line.
There has been a very noticeable rise in the amount of opponents that will concede the WHOLE MATCH after I win only the first game. This is generally a sign of sour grapes. But seriously, it has been a noticeable rise in whole match concessions after only 1 game. Contrast with, for example, when I used to play Mono Blue Devotion which packs hardly any removal. Back then, players hardly ever conceded the whole match after 1 game.
nothing new. Even in EDH games, I will turn 1 Duress. They will say no thanks and leave.
Removal and counters are? I suppose Strip Mine is a highly interactive card that promotes great games, too? After all, it's a straight 1-for-1 trade, right? "Interactive" isn't a criteria for Wizards. Complaining that a specific card is interactive or not is a red herring: you can use interactive cards in uninteractive strategies, all of which have a single goal: goldfish a win against a helpless opponent.
So, is the single Aetherling that a lot of control decks run as a win condition interactive?
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Then they realize magic is paper-scissors-rock, and that they have to netdeck a deck that is designed to win against your control deck to stand a realistic chance to win, and then -- you have to google what to change to beat his deck, because there's 10 000 cards and only a handful of effective counters among them.
And, of course, ~35% of games are decided by the amount of lands in either players' hands when both decks capable of actually goldfishing a win if the opponent doesn't manage to interact in a good manner.
That being said, they want me to look through their decks. Some of them seem good, others of them are "if I play this creature, then put these 4 specific enchantments on it, 3 turns later I'll win", and when I ask "what happens if I terror your guy", they look at me dumbfounded.
Every good deck (almost) has to have SOME element of control in it. That is what makes good players different from worse players; the good players understand what they need to do, what their opponent needs to do, and what they can do to stop their opponent from doing what they need to do.
Damia, Jenara, Xiahou Dun, Mareth, Nekusar, Oloro, Kresh, Deretti
Have you ever encountered a level in a game you couldn't work out how to beat?.... did you google it to find out how to get past it? that seems like normal behaviour to me. There are people that will help him build his deck to be better against a control deck as in actual people.
What I meant is that he has to play differently, in a counter intuative way to beat control. I can't counter anything before turn 3 most of the time, so he has to get his most important cards into play early.. he has lots of regenerating creatures which once he has the mana open I can't kill. Its not that he doesn't have the tools its that he hasn't learnt to use them. perhaps I should give him some autumn viels so he can feel the rush of countering things.
Pioneer:UR Pheonix
Modern:U Mono U Tron
EDH
GB Glissa, the traitor: Army of Cans
UW Dragonlord Ojutai: Dragonlord NOjutai
UWGDerevi, Empyrial Tactician "you cannot fight the storm"
R Zirilan of the claw. The solution to every problem is dragons
UB Etrata, the Silencer Cloning assassination
Peasant cube: Cards I own
As you play more competitively you'll come to respect control more as a vital part of Magic the Gathering. Sometimes I like playing against it (Kibler Gruul), sometimes I like to use it Faeries, Esper.
Never in my life.
I was blessed, growing up in the 80s and early 90s -- when developers created balanced games.
I remember reconstructing half the manual for Prince of Persia from trial and error, because of the authentication check -- at the age of 8, without english as my native language in a time where we didn't learn english in school.
But then, playing magic... I was overwhelmed.
Completely, and I admit I have asked for help, a few times.
But the answer is always "remove the core of your deck and all the cool cards you want to play, and play these tried and tested 50$ rare staples instead".
But I can guarantee you that
a) he does not always have it in hand,
b) does not always have enough or the right mana
c) has to predict wheter or not you have the killspell or counterspell in hand and EITHER;
1-cast bait randomly, spending so much mana he can't cast the real threat, and hope you counter it or cast a killspell
2-cast the real thing and hope you don't counter it and don't kill it
The right thing is always number two, but problem is, homebrew aggro does not win against established control decks -- established aggro decks wins against established control decks, and option 1 is in fact right in 35% of the cases, and merely wrong in 65% of the cases -- because sometimes the non-threat is threat enough ensure removal, ensuring the winning of the game because of mana flood or screw exploited by baiting, wheras casting the threat first would lead to a loss because of tempo disadvantage.
For the non-control player, it's completely random.
The control-player is like a dungeon master with a bad temper, and the player is the person with the character sheet on the board, awaiting random bad stuff to happen while he's trying to kill the goblin.
In-fact, I've found that their enemy number 1 is combo. I also suspect that they're not going to be too happy when you play a true aggro or burn deck and attack them with a goblin lackey, goblin warchief, and 3 goblin piledrivers on turn 3.
People just don't like playing against decks that outclass theirs. Try bringing your starter deck to a SCGO or something, and you'll understand. It's probably a lot more fun to play against another starter deck.
The problem isn't that it's too complex for them. It's the opposite.
The problem is that they understand why they're losing. It's because you countered all their spells, or because you assembled your combo
When you play a deck like jund, and you just grind them out, they don't understand as much, and they still feel as though the game's not over yet.
But he also explicitly says that he believes that there is a great deal more of this "fun" to be had while playing to win than while only playing casually
Sometimes I think people don't realize that guessing and randomness doesn't allow for learning of strategies, and that playing based on percentages makes a bad game with skewed perceptions among players and opinions in the playerbase not supported by math.
You don't become better at poker by playing poker.
You become better at poker by studying the mathematical foundations and choosing a strategy that works.
The same applies to magic:
You don't become better at magic by playing, because even if you play 50 games -- your experience cannot be used to analyze what you did wrong.
10 instances of lack of blue mana is enough to convince the average player that he needs to add more blue sources, when he NEEDED to analyze 10 000 hands to evaluate the manabase, because -- he has enough blue sources, he just was among the 10 out of 100 people that got screwed by their manabase repeatedly without there being anything wrong with it,
The same applies to card evaluation: You cannot replace a single card in your deck after playing 10 games versus another player, losing 10 times.
The deck may still be better:
3 cases of 35% mana-screws, actually completely within the expected ratio -- this is normal.
3 cases of the opponent having one-in-five lucky opening hand that wins the game with his deck.
3 cases of you not drawing the right cards to answer the threats he played.
1 case of you making a mistake.
You become better by analyzing probabilities and choosing, mostly, boring uninteractive cards with high success rates (read card avantage, tempo or synergy) -- or creatures that cost 1, 2 or 3 mana with high power and random card-advantage effects or tempo-advantage.
When I create a deck, I never netdeck.
Ever.
I start out with cards *I* like, and try to build around them, failing miserably -- except when I find synergies, and find other players playing the exact same deck as I do, except they play some better cards that I did not know about at the time or avoided because of the lack of flavor / bad art.
...
Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon -- fails because there is not enough support for infect midrange in modern; it is IMPOSSIBLE to make him work, for the lack of support within infect around him, forcing you to dropping the Blight Dragon himself, one of the most flavorful cards I possess, for a low cmc creature combo deck with flavorless critters that you've got to navigate to victory before turn 4, often mulliganning once or twice to get the correct pieces in hand.
Demonlord of Ashmouth -- another of my eternal favorite cards, fails because he dies to Path to Exile, and because there's no good undying or persist creatures in black costing 2 or 1 mana, and only one costing 3, but that is BBB, making the GG and G alternatives useless. You MUST HAVE two undying/persist creatures in play to be able to cast him safely, or else you get two-for-oned.
He was useful in block constructed for about three days, just before the power of Falkenrath Aristocrat was released, with pretty much the exact same powers as Demonlord of Ashmouth: Sack one creature to have it survive.
I loathe Geralf's Messenger and Gravecrawler, but have been forced to use them in order to be able to play black.
Because "becoming a better player" always involves using strictly better cards than the ones in the original deck, in addition to learning what cards exists in the metagame and what staples your opponents will play in their archetypes.
Also, realizing that all cards aren't equal in power is part of the game. Disrupting someone's game plan is part of the game, as is randomness. I don't know why some people refuse to adapt.
I really think my comparison to Street Fighter is perfect. Some people just want to jump at Ryu players whenever they want to, and complain about getting Dragon Punched, because they want to jump at me. Fine, then get dragon punched.
Noobies generally assosiate permanents going to the graveyard as losing, it's easy to explain that it's more like a draw, because it cost me a doom blade and i don't have many.
This is really a separate issue from playing vs. control, but it absolutely does make sense. As you said, boring is subjective. Magic is a CCG, and part of the allure of the cards is the design/theme of the cards (the art, creature/type of card, etc). For some, perhaps many, the ability to use the cards they find attractive is important to their "fun". These players are more likely the "Timmy" type players.
That being said, such players don't want to ALWAYS lose. Unfortunately, the way the game is played, especially at higher levels, lends itself to they type of play that justifies only winning, and thus, only a limited selection of cards is viable. As Frostraven mentioned, learning to build "better" decks frequently consists of advice consisting of, "throw away your deck and make this deck consisting of only XZY competitive cards."
This is why, as a player recently returning to the game after an (approximately) 17 year hiatus, I am much more likely to stick to strictly casual and limited play. That way I can play the way I want (within reason), and yet still not have a 0% win rate. I can netdeck as well as the next person, and if I chose, acquire playsets of all the best cards, but what's the point? Of course, your opinion may differ, and that's perfectly fine.
As for playing against control, it certainly can be frustrating, mainly because certain decks are much better equipped to deal with control decks. For example, a low-cost creature deck (aggro is the correct term?) has a much greater chance of beating out a control deck than a deck that specializes in fewer, larger creatures and/or spells, even if both decks are well-designed in their own rights. There is no way around it, and it will aggravate some people. No way around that either, others will have to adapt to that fact as well.
That being said, I find that in my older age (compared to when I played magic as a teenager), I find it easier to deal with control decks, and have more willingness to put a few contingency cards in place, and am more willing to play patiently, waiting for an opportunity to take back control of the game. Of course, there are still situations with control decks where, unless your deck is made in just the right way, you really have no chance. (although this could be said for numerous other types of deck as well)
I'm not sure if you were replying to my post above, but if you were, you're making assumptions that are not there.
I happen to agree that decks do need disruption, and it's certainly part of the game. However, pure control decks can be irritating because, when you win, it's 1/4 luck (mana draws, etc), and 3/4 either having a deck that is able to overrun all the counterspells and disruption, or managing to outmaneuver your opponent. The latter being up to player skill, certainly, and the former simply highlights the inherent imbalances between certain deck types. Subjectively, even a win in said situation is not as fun, as you generally are abandoning any specially designed mechanics of your deck and just managing to get SOMETHING out on the board. Your opinion differs, but is no more valid. It has to do with personalities and preferences, and unfortunately, the differing viewpoints will likely have to agree to disagree as it were.
As for using what "I" want when "I" want it - well, that's part of the game toO. Obviously there will be tradeoffs and one can choose to play what one likes but will have to understand that sometimes it will get beaten. However, there is a difference between losing sometimes and all the time. It's an unfortunate side-effect of competitive play that only the "best" cards are considered useful. Some of us don't want a game where there is no disruption/interaction, but would rather be able to use the cards we find interesting. That doesn't make us scrubs or Noobs or anything but, well, casual players really. Where this becomes a problem is trying to play at FNM or similar event a store where others are trying to hone their competitive decks. As I said, building a netdeck and learning to use it isn't any harder for me than anyone else, just not as interesting.
Sorry if this was rambling, I'm on break at work and my attention was skewed. Basically, don't make the assumption that just because not everyone likes to play in the same manner you do, does not make them wrong, nor whiny and self-entitled (not more than anyone else with an opinion).
See how condescending and ridiculous that sounds?
See, this thread opened by asking why some players hate the disruption strategy. Which, I think, we answered. Now we're arguing about whether disruption is necessary or desirable, and I don't think anyone in the thread is saying it needs to be removed from the game. At worst, I personally claimed that it needs to be watched carefully, because it is powerful enough to completely take over the meta, but that that balance hasn't been breached. Remember, last time we got a meta heavy with tempo and a few powerful counters, Wizards decided we needed Cavern of Souls to counter it. I like the card, like that it exists, but even I'll admit that it's... not the best card ever made. it's too powerful and specifically targets one archetype and seems hamhanded, a sledgehammer of a card.
At any rate, though, the answer remains that different people have different goals. Different reasons to play. Disruption is something you should expect and prepare for if your goal is to win each game, but not everyone plays highly competitive decks. If your group plays them and enjoys the games that result, then there's nothing at all wrong with that. if the people you play with aren't in that competitive mindset, though, you run into friction. Even if someone's goal isn't to win each game, they are playing for some reason. Disruption in that environment just leaves hard feelings when Timmy gets his Stormtide Leviathan stripped away or countered every single game.
Finding opponents who share your goals goes a long way toward eliminating that friction. And yes, the answer is social, not mechanical. There is nothing you can do with the cards or the rules or the game to fix this: you just have to find players whose goals and expectations match your own.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
By: ol MISAKA lo
Cockatrice: Infallible
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
THIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSS
/snake
I'm still laughing my ass off that they advertised theros as an enchantment block and all they did was slap the enchantment type on creatures.
wizards- "LOOK AT ALL THE ENCHANTMENTS!"
Everyone else- "dude, those are creatures."
wizards- "But they turn sideways! That's way more bad ass then something that just chills off on the side of your play mat!"
I hate to say this, as the only constructed format I play is edh, but I think that format is part of the problem. "Magic should be fun and this and that and this other thing aren't fun."
It's well known that wizard's biggest market is the kitchen table, and EDH is the ultimate Kitchen table format. Sadly, because most EDH players are babies (don't believe me, go to the EDH forum and read the tear drenched threads of complaining) who don't like any interaction besides creatures doing stuff to other creatures. There's also the other huge market, drafting.
Land destruction, control, etc don't work in limited or EDH or casual so they just don't print that stuff.
The EDH stax primer
When you absolutely, positively got to kill every permanent in the room, accept no substitutes.
When people lose certain ways, they get frustrated and complain. But mostly they are complaining because they're losing. If you play a ton of removal and countermagic, then they win the game, I bet you don't hear as much complaining, do you? In my experience, you may see that very same person playing a removal-heavy or counter-heavy deck the next week, and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
It would have merit if you saw anywhere near the amount of complaining about creatures as you did about disruption.
And how many posts complain about "mindless turn guys sideways" already? I see them every day.
Cards are not money, investments, or a retirement fund, and should never have been treated as such.
Wizards made a mistake caving to speculators once, and we still pay for that mistake 2 decades later.
"Entitled:" the entire ad hominem fallacy condensed into a single word. It doesn't strengthen your argument to attack motivations, it just makes you look like you don't understand the argument.
Recently (about 5 days ago) I started playing Mono Black Devotion in standard on MTGO. I don't have much experience with the deck, so I have been jamming tons of matches in the tournament practice room. Here, (for those that don't know) you play matches of MTG that are competitive but nothing is on the line.
There has been a very noticeable rise in the amount of opponents that will concede the WHOLE MATCH after I win only the first game. This is generally a sign of sour grapes. But seriously, it has been a noticeable rise in whole match concessions after only 1 game. Contrast with, for example, when I used to play Mono Blue Devotion which packs hardly any removal. Back then, players hardly ever conceded the whole match after 1 game.
nothing new. Even in EDH games, I will turn 1 Duress. They will say no thanks and leave.
I buy HP and Damaged cards!
Only EDH:
Sigarda, Host of Herons: Enchantress' Enchantments
Jenara, Asura of War: ETB Value Town
Purphoros, God of the Forge: Global Punishment
Xenagos, God of Revels: Ramp, Sneak, & Heavy Hitters
Ghave, Guru of Spores: Dies_to_Doom_Blade's stax list
Edric, Spymaster of Trest: Donald's list