Poll: losing the game as a state-based effect.

[jatill]

Right now, the game works that you lose the game when you are 0 or less life only at the end of a phase. The current rules og Magic have you lose immediately when reaching 0 life.

Please vote whether you prefer to leave the rule as-is in manalink, or modernize it.

[mathusalem]

I think there are already plenty of things in your plate fellow coders, with the 2000 card limit to be broken without the game crashing, the avatar supports, the numerous little bugs to be hunted down, the cards that stil crash the game ( Pattern, rector ) , the graphic that we could update.... This aspect of the game while not up to date works, let's leave it for the time being.

[FranAvalon]

that is a request which I did to Mok. I would like to see the lose as a state-base effect. Without it, win the game using the Mirror universe during your upkeep to win is very easy, and combos using fastbond to decking the opponent are insane

[Revan]

Although I started magic during the old rules, I think the new rules are a lot better and make for more fun in playing. So I am in favor of changing the state-based effect rule if it can be implemented without crashing the game.

I also hope the someday someone can tackle the stack, so that I can respond to a spell with brainstorm, find the FoW and stil counter the spell, wich doesn't work under the old rules.

[MageKing17]

Although I started magic during the old rules, I think the new rules are a lot better and make for more fun in playing.

Not to mention actually working. Opalescence and Humility anyone?

In my opinion, if you can make it happen, make it a state-based effect.

[Wally]

I vote leave it as it is. I like to play with the old ruleset and to be able to play with old school combos. For me that's most of the fun of Manalink. I also prefer to play with either one or the other, I don't want more of a mishmash of current and old rulesets. If we play with current rules I want to be able to play with the stack for instance.

[EviL_CLonE]

I voted for the update -If possible to do-, because the game should be the most "real" possible.

[jatill]

As of now, 2/3 of people are in favor of the change, so I put it in.
http://savefile.com/client/file_edit.php?fid=1997761

I can always back it out if it causes problems or the poll numbers change drastically.

[CirothUngol]

I've voted retro-actively on this topic, as the change has already been put in, but I would tend to leave it alone. Not only because I'm old-school about MtG, but because the original card-base of the game expects it. Hopefully the change won't adversely affect the game's operation.
Incidently, can anyone give good, working-card examples of how this change would positively affect gameplay?

[0rion79]

Well, as far as I can see, we are 10 against the change and 12 for the change, so it is very nearby to 45% vs 55%. This means strong undecision, even if majority wins, but I wonder if all players here have seen this poll and given their preference.
The main trouble is that we can't add alternative rules, or we would have tons of different versions, that would be a mess to update.

Personally, I hate new rules and I like much more the old ones but it is only my opinion. In the specific case, the matter of "die instantly when you reach 0" is something that is somehow disturbing me *ONLY* because it makes much more difficult to play some decks as prosper bloom that I hoped to play here on the PC game, because I have never had the cards. New rules are made to prevent players to go under 0 life points and recover in the same phase. Of course, this can be both a good and a bad thing, especially if you want to limiti the power of those comodo deck as the Prosper Bloom, but I also have seen worst changes (as removing interrupts and giving them the same speed of instant spells)..
I'm just ashamed that we don't have such a good knowledge of this game to include both rules set (old and new ones).

In short, I'm not very happy at the idea of Instant death, but if you really are happy with it then go ahead...

[Zeek]

I like it better as a state-based effect, but perhaps you can make it so someone with 0 life immediately concedes or ends the phase? The idea is that I want it to trigger the game's normal win/lose condition. If you lose because of coding in the current release, it just says "You win" or "You lose" and the computer doesn't give that line about having better matches against my toaster. It's not that I live for those lines, but I think it messes up the gauntlet window that would normally tell me what opponent I'm on (aka 3/10) or what deck the opponent is using in advance.

Also, the premature losing thing fails. I mean, the one where I had a chump blocker but probably would have lost next turn without a good draw was one thing, but this?



You can tell I'm a few clicks from winning the game, seeing as all I had to do left was discard a few more cards to Cadaverous Bloom and cast a 22+ mana Drain Life on my opponent. I don't know why it thinks I've lost, but I'm starting to believe it has something to do with assuming mana burn. I've had the same thing happen when I activated Cabal Coffers before to try and cast Drain Life, and in this case, the 16 black mana plus the 2 damage from the potentially unblocked Onulet would kill me. But clearly, not only am I not mana burning myself for 16, but about to gain life even if I cast a non-lethal Drain Life.

[Topdeck]

I vote leave it as it is. I like to play with the old ruleset and to be able to play with old school combos. For me that's most of the fun of Manalink. I also prefer to play with either one or the other, I don't want more of a mishmash of current and old rulesets. If we play with current rules I want to be able to play with the stack for instance.

That's a good point, but we're already working with a mash of old and new. Cards are generally operating under the latest errata, but the game engine runs by the old rules (no stack, etc). I don't think we'll get achieve any sort of purity one way or another without completely moving the rules to the latest versions.

Considering some of the problems with winning and losing in the latest release, I don't know that we have the tech to completely update the rules, in which case we're probably best off leaving it unaltered while focusing attention on the pile of bugs and the 2k card limit.