On Differing Interests for Casual Magic - Request for Help!

[Spiderman]

LOL. I can't remember anything about what was going on with those games now

 

[Psarketos]

Lol at showing up to a tribal casual game with a Workshop deck I really enjoy multiplayer games for the Diplomacy aspect - people that know me know that I am way more interested in diplomancing the table than anything that actually happens in the game of Magic going on (which does make it hard to diplomance effectively, but thats the challenge!). I think Spiderman nailed the calculation dynamic as well (restated here in subconscious game theoretic terms) - "Oversoul excels at minimizing his maximum loss, which means he makes my inputs feel only marginally impactful...kill him first!"

 

[turgy22]

Hm, I don't think I have the real deck-brewer's sophistication to break this one, but I actually think Psarketos might be able to pull it off. The trick is to design your two decks such that they are about evenly matched, with optimal play patterns that are not intuitively obvious, but familiar to you. If you're tricky enough, then your opponent must be very clever to overcome your advantage in the matchup between your decks, which means the overall matchup is weighted toward you...

I should have expected this from Oversoul. Actually, I had considered the same thing myself. In practice, I was thinking that this would be done as part of a play group, so any hidden advantage would be revealed to the group the first time you try to use it yourself. Then the next time you play, there will be an adjustment in deck valuations.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I did when way back when when we were talking about restrictions and what Tribal Wars should be.

I think when you said when too much when when you posted this.

 

[Oversoul]

Well, no, you just have differing ideas from others... milling is valid.

I don't know how much it comes across in text, but I think the main idea was Psarketos's sense of humor in that he is expected to bring "goblin tribal" as in a deck based around the goblin creature type and cards synergize with goblin-type cards, but he goes and actually builds a powerful, functional deck based around "a tribe of goblins in the lore, specifically the Krark Clan." My lazy version, because I'm lazier than him, would be to go, "Here's my goblin deck" and build a Vintage Goblin Charbelcher deck.

I like mana denial/control which would probably fare poorly in tournaments (at least, the cards I would use) but I like disrupting other people's plans (this is "constructed" play, not a specific format like Tribal). That might not go well with someone who like putting out big creatures and slamming someone. Everyone has their own ideas.

Yeah, pretty much. Hm, mana denial/control? Did you ever have a Nether Void deck?

 

[Spiderman]

I think when you said when too much when when you posted this.

It looks that way, but you have to say it aloud while reading it... then you'll realize there's just the right amount of "when"

 

[Ransac]

Brings to mind the quandary of a more academic argument that took place between Ransac and Al0ysiusHWWW when we were nominating cards for the Casual Card Hall of Fame.

lol. It's hilarious that that argument is being described as "academic."


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Oversoul]

He lives!

lol. It's hilarious that that argument is being described as "academic."

But I...

...find my word choice to be totally appropriate in context and not humorous in any way?

Ah, well, glad you got a kick out of it anyway.

 

[Psarketos]

I am still laughing out loud at the time Oversoul brought a Workshop deck.

 

[Oversoul]

I am still laughing out loud at the time Oversoul brought a Workshop deck.

Yes, yes, that's fair. It was wrong of me to do that.

But really, it strangely made sense to me at the time. I wanted to switch to Legacy and got shot down, so I somehow thought that meant other people would change their deckbuilding patterns. I figured that even with Power 9 being officially/unofficially ruled out, I might see some crazy stuff. I was in a rut on thinking of a new tribe to bring and built an experimental Kor deck based around redirecting damage to Stuffy Doll. But it was slower than my previous concoctions had been and I figured both that people would be bringing "Vintage" decks and that I'd have a target on my head for having won the last three games in a row. So I scrapped the Kor deck. I noticed that Stuffy Doll was a construct and so I did a search for what else might work with Stuffy Doll, which led me to the fact that some powerful old artifact creatures, printed long before artifact creatures always had a type, had been assigned "construct" as their creature type. I was seeing stuff like Metalworker, Su-Chi, Triskelion, and Silent Arbiter. So I went all-in on an artifact-based aggro-combo deck. I tested it a few times and it was explosive, but that same exact thing had happened before without being a problem. If I'd stopped to think about it, I'd have thought better of it. The deck came together nicely and I was probably feeling good about getting my deck ready for the next game so quickly, not anticipating that it'd be over a year before we really played the actual game. Should have just gone with the damn Kor deck.

If that game had been playing out in real life, I'd probably have been sweating bullets looking for someone to stop me. A lesson that I hadn't learned at the time was that when I go into multiplayer, if I have a very controlling deck, I'll sit back and take my time, trying to win but generally playing very conservatively. If my deck doesn't look to be the slowest, most controlling deck at the table, I sort of panic and start trying to take other people down with me. Doesn't come across so much in forum games due to the period of time between plays. But generally I do not like sweeping multiplayer games. I find it to be unfun. I'd rather be the wrecking ball that killed two players and then got shut down than be the jerk who ran the table without anyone being able to stop him. But, without my necessarily consciously realizing it, I tended toward either of those outcomes in preference to just getting killed without doing anything. Now that I've started to become more cognizant of all this, hopefully I'll be better with it (although I also happen not to play as much multiplayer now). But yeah, in the past I should probably have just never played non-control decks in multiplayer. I either kill everyone, suicidally take down an opponent just to make an impact, or die before I can manage to make my suicide-attack, which then motivates me to make more broken decks so that I can kill people faster. I mean, hopefully not anymore. But that was the pattern I used to unwittingly follow, which the CPA saw some of.