Collectible Card Game Headquarters

Locked cards can't be played in multiplayer, so ....

*fucked*

Being a n00b, I just approached some challenges, and I won the one with the Avatars using an Affinity deck (it's a really broken version that runs 4 skullclamp + 4 disciple of the vault).
After a great deal of games, the idea I have about the challenge system, in the way it is now, is that it's pretty unfair and luck-dependent.
I mean, 1 losed game and you're out, come on ! A point system would be certainly better (let's say you face only 10 opponents, and you must score at lest 8 won games in order to unlock the card, for example).
Also, some challenges seems pretty unbalanced : I understand the point about winning challenges to gain power cards, but if this resemble a race with you on a bicycle and the AI on a Ferrari (I felt this way many times with that damned spawnwrither), the whole idea became simply moronic.

@Jatill: Thanks for giving your perspective, it really helps a lot. Please understand that you can probably end up with 1000+ users because this project has a lot potential and will gain a lot of popularity simply by word of mouth. That is how I first learned about it etc.

I am glad you posted because that is what makes the whole thing more frustrating. Not understanding your philosophy and being new members makes that an even larger barrier. I started a discussion topic because I figured that you were reasonable person who could shed a lot of light on the subject. I guessed that since you are bothering to put forth the effort of posting it for us you do care what we think about playing it.

Obviously I understand and respect your decisions. I think I have made my point about the importance of giving the players the choice to play the challenges on their own terms for the long term acceptance and enjoyment of the game. So if you considered it now or ever then I guess this is still a good avenue for you to get feedback from the people who play the game about how they feel about it. I hope you saw all the mentions of how much people like it, and even if the people leaping to your defense didn't exactly reflect well on you, you at least can realize how many people like playing it in its current incarnation.

Now send me some Ch3@tz0rz d00D!.... I hope its obvious that was a joke. Its hard to get that across in post online.

@ everyone: Sorry about the horrible spelling and grammar earlier. I was posting from my phone and the spell check replaces words while I type and not for the better.

Here's an Idea, but I don't know how difficult it would be to code....

Each time you start a gauntlet you get a number of "continues." This could be implimented in version that allows you to try again if you fail and once you have used all your continues then your out.

Alternatly instead of the continue Idea is it possible for the games in game rules engine could somehow save your deck and position in the current challenge? If you need to tkae off or whatever it could save your last place in the gauntlet and provided the deck you start with next time matches the list it has saved in memory it would re-start the challenge atg the same part you either failed or had to quit out of.

This way people will still have to try with the same deck and the game would be sure that your using the same one.

Well best of 1 is actually the most luck based way to play on earth.

The reasons tournaments almost always use a 2 out of 3 is due to the fact that best of 1 sometimes throws skill out the window since someone topdecking like a fiend and the other person with a lackluster hand always loses.

Crap in high level pro events top 8s are usually best 3 out of 5 with no time limits involved to make skill that much more valuable.

ML is already popular in the niche of unofficial magic software if you check the whole slightlymagic forums so I don't think the 1000+ argument is valid (also because it was the only official game long time ago).

About the difficulty challenge, I don't think it's too much harder than its Shandalar counterpart : I remember random dueling with at startup against a Black Vise or a Hypnotic Specter with only 5 hp and you couldn't switch deck in time...

I love the challenge, I love the cards and think its fair.

What I dont love is being constantly mana-screwed out of the damn win.

Is there a way to 100% avoid mana-screw? Cause I havent found it, cant do with dredge, cant do with affinity, cant do with ramp...

Gargaroz wrote: but if this resemble a race with you on a bicycle and the AI on a Ferrari

I'd still bet on the bicyclist when the person driving the Ferrari has had a lobotomy.

Stroggoii wrote:I love the challenge, I love the cards and think its fair.

What I dont love is being constantly mana-screwed out of the damn win.

Is there a way to 100% avoid mana-screw? Cause I havent found it, cant do with dredge, cant do with affinity, cant do with ramp...

Try the land-ho challenge. I can pretty much guarantee you won't be mana screwed.

For challenges I usually run AT LEAST 28 mana sources, for exactly the reasons you mention.

I'd still bet on the bicyclist when the person driving the Ferrari has had a lobotomy.

Wow... that would be so dangerous in real life...

A few weeks ago, Manalink suddenly stopped working for me, started to crash right after starting a duel.

I could probably try to reinstall it, find all the files again, get it somehow working again.

The challenge mode was the main reason why I didn't. I have very nice memories of playing it. Unfortunately, they are minority. I just shrugged and moved to another program.

Among the Magic programs with AI, Manalink seems to be the only one which is currently capable of implementing things like Sleight of Mind. It assembled impressive crack-team of best cards in game. It implemented Vanguards.

However, this won't last forever. Manalink is heavily weighted by legacy code and old rules engine. This will cause it to lose its edge over competition.

I support challenge mode for, say, Vanguards or alternate play modes, as was already said.

The comparison to ultimate weapons in RPGs etc. is, in my opinion, not quite correct. In RPGs, there is usually a guaranteed way to win - or at least something that you have to try a few times before you acquire the skill, but you can get continually better, and beat it.

Challenges are, at this point, more luck than they are worth.

I think the question should be this: if a player has a deck that is capable of beating the challenge, how many tries should it, on the average, take for him to beat it if he doesn't make play mistakes? One is probably too little - there should be SOME luck. On the other hand, I think that twenty would be too much.

I voted YES because if the challenges are to attract players to Manalink instead of repel them, they need to change. Let's start with this question. How many tries with a good deck are still fun, and how many are too much hassle? This might be a feedback that is actually useful. Once a consensus is reached, there might be talk about how to achieve it.

My vote: 5. More than five tries, and I'm not interested in the unlocking anymore.

I so agree with Marek...

The luck factor is currently to high, take a deck from the strategy discussion, play without mistake (or for the whiners, nearly without.) and still lose a lot because of bad draws.

And like it has been said before, tournaments use best of 3 or 5 to counter the luck factor.

I currently don't see the price cards as a reward for skill, but as a reward for either luck or to much spare time.

Sorry if I offend someone with this.

stassy wrote:ML is already popular in the niche of unofficial magic software if you check the whole slightlymagic forums so I don't think the 1000+ argument is valid (also because it was the only official game long time ago).

I am not sure I follow what you are saying. I am sure that there wasn't an argument. I meant that there is a good chance of it breaking 1000+ users based on word of mouth because it is a really good product. It was just a compliment that implied that based on the unofficial numbers from this poll (as badly worded as it was) a little over half (say 575 of 1000) would say they were dis-satisfied with challenge mode for the reasons they all outlined. That alone isn't any reason to change it. We are a community not a board of directors, and Jatill's benefactors not his project leads.

Mana-screw/Flood is a problem always present in Magic. That is something Richard Garfield is on record saying was important to him as the designer because it allows players of much different skill level to play without the winner being predetermined. You can't really escape it if you are playing Magic. The artificial situations meant to challenge you will put you further in the whole if you get mana issues, or keep the AI in it if they get the mana issues instead. That is just kind of what happens. Your correct it is really really frustrating to fight through 6+ opponents then get screwed by your own deck. That is how Jatill designed it though, kind of like how they way Richard designed it lets you beat Jon Finkle every once in a while.

If ten monkeys at ten computers play ten challenges for ten years... well I don't know if that's an argument for or against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Another alternative idea : Make a list of achievement from each challenge, it's so à la mode those days...though I'd rather have a real reward I can use rather than a pointless title to drag my e-penis on