There's an original wizards page saying that, to paraphrase, the 5 unfun deck types are prison, fast-combos, draw-go, land destruction and resource advantage. Other people must have read the same thing:
Any deck can become overly dominant, but we've noticed that certain kinds of strategies really damage game play at any level. These tend to be, in descending order of frustration:
"Prison" control decks, which aim to lock players out of the resources to cast their spells, while grinding out a slow, gradual long game
Land destruction decks that never let the opponent get off the ground
Lightning-fast combination decks that end the game as quickly, and noninteractively, as possible
"Draw-Go" style counterspell decks that do nothing except counter the opponent's spells
Resource-advantage decks that aim to make Magic a contest of raw attrition
(And yet they printed Thragtusk, a premier example of #5.)
What does that last one mean, exactly? I can't read it as anything other than Rock-style grinding midrange decks... or are they referring to the 2-for-1-fest that was Jund?
Have to remember, Wotc is looking at tournament attendance and sales when determining what is 'fun'. They want/need more players to spend money on the game. That doesnt happen when the above are strong in the game.
I'm pretty sure that people find losing unfun, and consider any deck they cannot beat to be unfun.
I personally find decks that people build that are so insanely outside the deck construction guidelines to be a bit unfun, especially when the same people complain about decks that are completely legal under the rules.
"Prison" control decks, which aim to lock players out of the resources to cast their spells, while grinding out a slow, gradual long game
Land destruction decks that never let the opponent get off the ground
Lightning-fast combination decks that end the game as quickly, and noninteractively, as possible
"Draw-Go" style counterspell decks that do nothing except counter the opponent's spells
Resource-advantage decks that aim to make Magic a contest of raw attrition
My interpretation of Wizards market research result: players want their powerful rare cards to touch the battlefield. Perfectly understandable.
But if that's the case, then they need to sharply-reduce cards with enter-the-battlefield effects or the damage is done even if I remove it with an instant.
What does that last one mean, exactly? I can't read it as anything other than Rock-style grinding midrange decks... or are they referring to the 2-for-1-fest that was Jund?
Probably has something to do with Cawblade as well.
Basically, any deck that someone does not know how to beat is "unfun".
You play aggro + they play Wrath = unfun.
You play fatties + they play control = unfun.
You play midrange + they play tempo = unfun.
You play werewolves + they play tempo or aggro = unfun.
I think that about covers it. Those who refuse to admit they are spikey in the slightest get bent out of shape against any deck they haven't figure out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern: UR Twinning RU G Venus Fly Trap G U Artifacts Aggro U
WotC publishing lists like this is not encouraging from where I'm sitting. Literally the ONLY competitive archetype that doesn't fall into one of those categories is fast-ish aggro a la RDW. Any successful deck that plays for the long game by definition has to either lock the opponent out(draw-go/prison/LD), or accumulate more resources(#5). Therefore every "fun" deck needs to plan to try to win within the first 5 turns or so. #3 axes one of the two decks that can do this, fast combo; this leaves only bum-rush aggro decks.
It actually makes sense that the average player wouldn't like category #5, since the average player isn't very skilled(average, duh), and thus probably doesn't have a deep understanding of stuff like card quality or card advantage. Thus these decks feel unbeatable. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, as they still allow for interactive games, provided they aren't being backed by broken BS like JTMS.
I think number five isn't really unfun, but I do think that stuff like land destruction, prison, and some combo decks are pretty unfun; because you're not even really playing the game, your opponent is. Been locked down in a bunch of games and it was never enjoyable.
Every deck has bad match-ups against certain archetypes, the sooner people grasp this idea the sooner we can get back to the complex(Read: Fun) game we had a few years ago. Seriously people your going to lose to some things, that's why you have a sideboard. If I recall correctly wizards doesn't want to support these strategies because they are "not interactive", so they want people to play the same aggro deck with little interaction with the opponent outside of combat; because that's what the "average" (read: children) want to play.
Wizards doesn't support vintage or legacy anymore partly for this reason, and also due to barriers to entry, which they can't resolve because of the reserved list(Bad idea from the start).
I think number five isn't really unfun, but I do think that stuff like land destruction, prison, and some combo decks are pretty unfun; because you're not even really playing the game, your opponent is.
I'm sorry, but that's absurd and trivially false. Those decks don't always win, you know? How can you beat a deck without "even really playing"?
Once they've established a lock (and you can't win) then your no longer really playing. But the game's done then by definition because you cannot win. This is no different than being dealt lethal except that the loser has the option to drag the already concluded game out needlessly (and then complain about how "unfun" it was).
On the other hand if you are only mostly locked down (and do have some chance to win) you can no longer argue that you aren't "really playing". You are playing by trying to find your answers.
Been locked down in a bunch of games and it was never enjoyable.
Being dealt lethal damage isn't particularly fun either, but hopefully the game was fun up till that point and the next game will be fun. Games are supposed to be fun while you play them, not once they're finished.
Basically, any deck that someone does not know how to beat is "unfun".
You play aggro + they play Wrath = unfun.
You play fatties + they play control = unfun.
You play midrange + they play tempo = unfun.
You play werewolves + they play tempo or aggro = unfun.
I think that about covers it. Those who refuse to admit they are spikey in the slightest get bent out of shape against any deck they haven't figure out.
I'm pretty sure that people find losing unfun, and consider any deck they cannot beat to be unfun.
This is the mindset of the newer MTG generation. Those of us who played in the 1990s grew up with video games like Frogger and Donkey Kong. These games are hard - one false step and you were dead! We took these defeats as a challenge . Younger MTG players grew up with Banjo-Kazooie and Pikmin - games you could play for hours without ever having to lose and start again.
Too many players now want to "have an interesting narrative pan out" (quoted from the culprit article) akin to their pikmin adventure. When another deck locks them out or crushes them like a barrel in Donkey Kong before the narrative gets off the ground they are unsatisfied. Rather than seeing that as a challenge to overcome, they want a quicker fix.
This is the mindset of the newer MTG generation. Those of us who played in the 1990s grew up with video games like Frogger and Donkey Kong. These games are hard - one false step and you were dead! We took these defeats as a challenge . Younger MTG players grew up with Banjo-Kazooie and Pikmin - games you could play for hours without ever having to lose and start again.
Yes, I do believe that mindset is the problem here, as well as with the "problem with collectors" thread.
Too many people believe they are entitled to:
The cards they want.
A win whenever they play.
Fun, by their definition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern: UR Twinning RU G Venus Fly Trap G U Artifacts Aggro U
This is the mindset of the newer MTG generation. Those of us who played in the 1990s grew up with video games like Frogger and Donkey Kong. These games are hard - one false step and you were dead! We took these defeats as a challenge . Younger MTG players grew up with Banjo-Kazooie and Pikmin - games you could play for hours without ever having to lose and start again.
Then there are some of us who grew up without video games all together and understand change. We went from playing outside, to pong and tanks, to frogger and donkey kong, to commador64 games like pirates by Sid Meyers, to todays games. We understand things change, as Magic has. Always wanting to go back to how it was, will always cause heartache and grief and lead to arguments.
If the game stayed how it was 5 or 10 years ago, it wouldnt be being made any more. It would have become stagnate and old.
This article was written by Zach Hill, and can therefore be disregarded as not being representative of reality. Zach consistently showed through his writing that he lacked any understanding of archetypes, balance, or even what makes magic the game that it is. He showed a consistent bias in favor of aggro, and against control and combo. He infamously stated that an ideal meta would be 25% aggro, 25% midrange (which he narrowed to include only aggro decks that played slightly bigger creatures which would trump "aggro"'s smaller, quicker creatures, and considered decks like Jund and The Rock control decks), 25% combo (which included ramp decks that simply ramp into fatties, which could account for the entire 25%!) and 25% control (which included aggro-control, which could account for all 25%!). He said that mana leak was too powerful. He was wrong nearly every time he wrote a column. His writings reflected his personal biases rather than an understanding of the game. And before anyone says he was merely a representative of R&D, the guy they replaced him with has walked back much of what Zach had said in previous columns, including his dunce-like redefinition of the archetypes.
Zach is gone, and so is the thinking that led to this abomination of an article, which is something that should give us all hope for magic moving forward. It will never be the same game as it was in the 90's, designed exclusively for hardcore strategy gamers, but it will not be the game that Zach Hill envisioned, in which such gamers would have no place. WotC will continue to design cards that will enable strategic play, and I believe that in large part this is due to push back against the type of thinking that this article and Zach Hill typified. Moreover, the printing of cards like Thragtusk and Faith's Reward show that R&D was and is willing to support such archetypes, and that Zach Hill's extreme views were in the minority. Clearly R&D believes these deck types, with the exception possibly of LD, belong in the meta to some degree, but they will not be allowed to dominate. A format dominated by them would be unfun, but a format in which they play a minor role is more fun than one where they don't exist, because their presence increases variety and drives innovation. Even more importantly, perhaps, is that you need a heel in every format. People will find a deck to hate, even if all the decks are "fun" or "fair" in a vacuum. If all the decks were ramp, aggro, and slower, fatter aggro, people would still hate at least one of them. Having an unpopular archetype be viable gives the masses something to hate, and if it is not the top deck it won't show up too much, and when it does it will give people something to fell good about beating. Good riddance to Zach Hill and articles like this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
My definition of fun does not require me winning. And, if I lose, I take stock of what happened, and attempt to figure out alternatives that change the situation. That is called learning the game. I learned the game by getting my clock cleaned 90% of the time for the first year or so.
I still don't win all the time, but I do win a good percentage of the time (about 85% of one-on-one, and about 25% of multiplayer).
Besides, nothing in Magic guarantees you fun. I'm sorry, but it does not. You have the right to your cards that you legally purchase or trade for. You have the right to play your cards. You do not have a right to win. You have the right to TRY to win. You do not have the right to be guaranteed fun. You have the right to TRY to have fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern: UR Twinning RU G Venus Fly Trap G U Artifacts Aggro U
Too many people believe they are entitled to:
The cards they want.
A win whenever they play.
Fun, by their definition.
Is this sarcasm? Who in their right mind would spend money on a game that they didn't consider "fun by their definition". Gee, I hate playing against Caw-Blade, I'm going to waste my weekend and drive for hours so I can play 5 matches against Stoneforge and Jace.
In general, the entire argument seems rather strange. "Nothing in Magic guarantees that players have fun. I'm angry because WotC is nerfing the decks I consider fun."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29392387/?pg=last
http://lttlefootsbudgetworkshop.wordpress.com/
Does anyone have the original source? Thanks a lot!
I would also be interested in reading this article.
peasantcube.blogspot.com
(And yet they printed Thragtusk, a premier example of #5.)
Avatar by Numotflame96 of Maelstrom Graphics
Sig banner thanks to DarkNightCavalier of Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Erebos B | Ghost Council WB | Grimgrin UB | Jhoira UR
Jor Kadeen RW | Melek UR | Mimeoplasm GUB | Rasputin WU
Savra BG | Sisay GW | Teneb BGW | Thada Adel U | Wort BR
I draft and play EDH. If a Standard player can't understand who a card is for, it's probably for me.
I also write things about good films.
I personally find decks that people build that are so insanely outside the deck construction guidelines to be a bit unfun, especially when the same people complain about decks that are completely legal under the rules.
If you like to put 4 Sol Rings and 3 Mana Crypts into a deck to make your Rooftop Storm/Gravecrawler/Diregraf Captain able to go off turn one, don't complain about my casual Eldrazi deck going Spawnsire of Ulamogs ultimate on turn 7. Your argument falls flat with me.
Standard:
WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern:
UR Twinning RU
G Venus Fly Trap G
U Artifacts Aggro U
Legacy:
B Reanimator B
WU Stoneblade UW
EDH
WBGGhave, Guru of SporesGBW
URGRiku of the Two ReflectionsGRU
WUBRGScion of the Ur-DragonGRBUW
Casual
Far too many to list
Thanks a lot for the link!
My interpretation of Wizards market research result: players want their powerful rare cards to touch the battlefield. Perfectly understandable.
But if that's the case, then they need to sharply-reduce cards with enter-the-battlefield effects or the damage is done even if I remove it with an instant.
MTG is no longer designed for hardcore strategy gamers who enjoy being challenged and looking at the game from more than one angel.
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Probably has something to do with Cawblade as well.
That one angel is Baneslayer Angel.
[180 classic cube]
Constructed isn't as much, but you can always Cube or play rogue decks.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
What?
0 Karn
W Darien
U Arcanis
B Geth
R Norin
G Yeva
UW Hanna
RB Olivia
WB Obzedat
UR Melek
BG Glissa
WR Aurelia
GU Kraj
BRU Nicol Bolas
RGB Prossh
BGW Ghave
GUB Mimeoplasm
WUBRG Sliver Overlord
GWU Treva, the Renewer
EDH Spike:
U Azami, Lady of Scrolls
Trades
Basically, any deck that someone does not know how to beat is "unfun".
You play aggro + they play Wrath = unfun.
You play fatties + they play control = unfun.
You play midrange + they play tempo = unfun.
You play werewolves + they play tempo or aggro = unfun.
I think that about covers it. Those who refuse to admit they are spikey in the slightest get bent out of shape against any deck they haven't figure out.
Standard:
WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern:
UR Twinning RU
G Venus Fly Trap G
U Artifacts Aggro U
Legacy:
B Reanimator B
WU Stoneblade UW
EDH
WBGGhave, Guru of SporesGBW
URGRiku of the Two ReflectionsGRU
WUBRGScion of the Ur-DragonGRBUW
Casual
Far too many to list
It actually makes sense that the average player wouldn't like category #5, since the average player isn't very skilled(average, duh), and thus probably doesn't have a deep understanding of stuff like card quality or card advantage. Thus these decks feel unbeatable. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist, as they still allow for interactive games, provided they aren't being backed by broken BS like JTMS.
Wizards doesn't support vintage or legacy anymore partly for this reason, and also due to barriers to entry, which they can't resolve because of the reserved list(Bad idea from the start).
In search of a foil french Dromar, the Banisher, pm me if you have one you want to part with, also foil Stratadon's.
I'm sorry, but that's absurd and trivially false. Those decks don't always win, you know? How can you beat a deck without "even really playing"?
Once they've established a lock (and you can't win) then your no longer really playing. But the game's done then by definition because you cannot win. This is no different than being dealt lethal except that the loser has the option to drag the already concluded game out needlessly (and then complain about how "unfun" it was).
On the other hand if you are only mostly locked down (and do have some chance to win) you can no longer argue that you aren't "really playing". You are playing by trying to find your answers.
Being dealt lethal damage isn't particularly fun either, but hopefully the game was fun up till that point and the next game will be fun. Games are supposed to be fun while you play them, not once they're finished.
This is the mindset of the newer MTG generation. Those of us who played in the 1990s grew up with video games like Frogger and Donkey Kong. These games are hard - one false step and you were dead! We took these defeats as a challenge . Younger MTG players grew up with Banjo-Kazooie and Pikmin - games you could play for hours without ever having to lose and start again.
Too many players now want to "have an interesting narrative pan out" (quoted from the culprit article) akin to their pikmin adventure. When another deck locks them out or crushes them like a barrel in Donkey Kong before the narrative gets off the ground they are unsatisfied. Rather than seeing that as a challenge to overcome, they want a quicker fix.
Amen, brother!
https://fieldmarshalshandbook.wordpress.com/
RUGLegacy Lands.dec
RUGBLegacy Lands.dec
RGLegacy Lands.dec
WUBRG EDH Lands.dec
UBR EDH Artificer Prodigy
B EDH Relentless Rats
Yes, I do believe that mindset is the problem here, as well as with the "problem with collectors" thread.
Too many people believe they are entitled to:
The cards they want.
A win whenever they play.
Fun, by their definition.
Standard:
WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern:
UR Twinning RU
G Venus Fly Trap G
U Artifacts Aggro U
Legacy:
B Reanimator B
WU Stoneblade UW
EDH
WBGGhave, Guru of SporesGBW
URGRiku of the Two ReflectionsGRU
WUBRGScion of the Ur-DragonGRBUW
Casual
Far too many to list
And these attitudes are incredibly toxic to the health of the game.
As opposed to your definition?
Then there are some of us who grew up without video games all together and understand change. We went from playing outside, to pong and tanks, to frogger and donkey kong, to commador64 games like pirates by Sid Meyers, to todays games. We understand things change, as Magic has. Always wanting to go back to how it was, will always cause heartache and grief and lead to arguments.
If the game stayed how it was 5 or 10 years ago, it wouldnt be being made any more. It would have become stagnate and old.
Zach is gone, and so is the thinking that led to this abomination of an article, which is something that should give us all hope for magic moving forward. It will never be the same game as it was in the 90's, designed exclusively for hardcore strategy gamers, but it will not be the game that Zach Hill envisioned, in which such gamers would have no place. WotC will continue to design cards that will enable strategic play, and I believe that in large part this is due to push back against the type of thinking that this article and Zach Hill typified. Moreover, the printing of cards like Thragtusk and Faith's Reward show that R&D was and is willing to support such archetypes, and that Zach Hill's extreme views were in the minority. Clearly R&D believes these deck types, with the exception possibly of LD, belong in the meta to some degree, but they will not be allowed to dominate. A format dominated by them would be unfun, but a format in which they play a minor role is more fun than one where they don't exist, because their presence increases variety and drives innovation. Even more importantly, perhaps, is that you need a heel in every format. People will find a deck to hate, even if all the decks are "fun" or "fair" in a vacuum. If all the decks were ramp, aggro, and slower, fatter aggro, people would still hate at least one of them. Having an unpopular archetype be viable gives the masses something to hate, and if it is not the top deck it won't show up too much, and when it does it will give people something to fell good about beating. Good riddance to Zach Hill and articles like this.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
My definition of fun does not require me winning. And, if I lose, I take stock of what happened, and attempt to figure out alternatives that change the situation. That is called learning the game. I learned the game by getting my clock cleaned 90% of the time for the first year or so.
I still don't win all the time, but I do win a good percentage of the time (about 85% of one-on-one, and about 25% of multiplayer).
Besides, nothing in Magic guarantees you fun. I'm sorry, but it does not. You have the right to your cards that you legally purchase or trade for. You have the right to play your cards. You do not have a right to win. You have the right to TRY to win. You do not have the right to be guaranteed fun. You have the right to TRY to have fun.
Standard:
WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern:
UR Twinning RU
G Venus Fly Trap G
U Artifacts Aggro U
Legacy:
B Reanimator B
WU Stoneblade UW
EDH
WBGGhave, Guru of SporesGBW
URGRiku of the Two ReflectionsGRU
WUBRGScion of the Ur-DragonGRBUW
Casual
Far too many to list
Is this sarcasm? Who in their right mind would spend money on a game that they didn't consider "fun by their definition". Gee, I hate playing against Caw-Blade, I'm going to waste my weekend and drive for hours so I can play 5 matches against Stoneforge and Jace.
In general, the entire argument seems rather strange. "Nothing in Magic guarantees that players have fun. I'm angry because WotC is nerfing the decks I consider fun."