Zorakkiller wrote: ↑
1 year ago
decks are winning before turn 4. this conflicts with wotc's stated goal
i wouldnt be surprised if the reality proved to be that the average turns played hasnt decreased much, if at all, in the last few years. rather its that the format 'feels' or is perceived as being faster because of the gameplay. such as the power of the haymaker type plays decks can present leaving little recourse for the player on the losing end to battle back; so the outcome is determined rather abruptly.
similarly a common criticism of the format is that players dont have adequate agency in determining the outcome (ie 'luck'). perhaps with more emphasis on the turning point in a given game it marginalizes the decisions leading up to it in players minds; leaving the impression games are 'nothing. nothing. nothing. wait im way behind or dead'. so the game may end on turn 4 or beyond but it seems quick.
is the stuff about luck actually the truth? i dunno. getting into the nitty gritty of analyzing decision trees in a game like magic is stupidly complex. i remember reading an article written by brian braun duin some time ago where he spoke of one of the biggest barriers that keeps players from breaking through from average/decent to being good is the inability or mis-identification of what decisions actually mattered to the outcome of the game or even realizing there was a decision they could have made. i wholly believe this is true. mtg at its core is based on a series of probabilistic plays. in the abstract there is some 'optimal' path at any given point, and the challenge is getting as close to it as possible. however in a probabilistic system it only means a better chance to gain an advantage/win, which in turn means you can make a correct/better choice and lose because of it or vice versa. people are typically results oriented by nature, and in a game like mtg this can trick them into believing that a favorable outcome for a given play means it was correct or that plays assumed to be good but ended up unfavorable must have been luck.
so for instance in a format like legacy with an emphasis on selection spells like brainstorm and a heavier emphasis on hidden information it stands to reason that this would leave the impression that a lot of meaningful decisions are being made. players get to 'feel' like they played a (slower) game when its entirely plausible that those decisions points were ultimately irrelevant.
anywho, sorta got off topic with this first post of mine here. maybe we're all just flipping coins to get more cardboard with pretty pictures on it.
unrelated note: im totally rooting for jund, with the additions to it and other decks from mh1, to become central in the meta cycle. let the seemingly ageless battle between UWx and GBx for fair deck supremacy continue.