Who tf defends how mana is handled in MTG in the first place? Certainly not Richard Garfield.
I get the point you’re trying to make, but it’s the incorrect point to make in the context of this conversation. Hearthstone handles mana way better than MTG ever did.
I’m presently unaware of anything Cramer has said or done that would be “eye-roll level” blatant trollish. He raises an eyebrow from me when he implies he’s immune to psycho-social conditioning, but that’s not even “offensive” in my mind. It’s just unorthodox. A curiosity, if you will.
That’s not to say he isn’t or never was or could never be a troll in truth, but I feel like that judgment is somewhat premature based on the empirical evidence put before me. I wouldn’t even consider Berserker81 a troll even though I called him out in this same post, and Cramer’s nowhere near his level, sooooo
Cant wait for your analysis of how apples are better than oranges.
Mtg has 100 times more depth between its 5 colors than hearthstones 11 classes ever did or will have. Yes every game has its flaws. What else is new?
Point is you dont need 24 lands for hardly anything because you get to find the lands anyway. And if you do run 24 lands you habe 16 actual cards to kill opponent with. Which may not be enough. Used to be in nicol bolas meta because youd just counter and discard your opponents deck. Not so much anymore.
Yes, archetypes, the ever so rare stuff. HS could never have a class that gets board clears, heals and large HP minions, or a class that get big creatures and mana ramp, or a class that gets winnies and damage from hand, or a class that sacrifices HP and creatures for more efficient removal. And imagine their variations!
Only MTG can achieve such.
I’m not discussing the specific intricacies of the current meta, lmao. Fact is, decks in MTG can have up to 60 cards, and you can have 24, 25, and even 30 land cards in yur deck and get a completely bricked hand at the start. It’s quite a common experience.
You’re either missing the point I’m making, or willfully ignoring it, and I don’t care enough about you to suss out the difference. Congratulations, you won this thread. Have a nice day.
This ^ fine on a personal level. After all, gaming is about having fun.
I can have lot of fun experimenting with a tier 4 or 5 mage deck while attempting to get it to perform like a tier 2 deck, but if I determine that I cannot make the deck good enough to achieve a good win percent, then I’m done with the deck, because the experimental amusement is over, because I crave a deck that is both enjoyable to play and it wins a lot. I like winning, but coin-flip wins feel shallow rather than gratifying.
In a CCG, I want skill to be greater determining fact than luck.
I will say that under certain circumstances, I can still have fun while losing. For instance, I just finished a Rogue-DK Arena draft that went 1-3, but I had fun trying to make the deck work.
/Agree
At least, the MtG that I experienced while playing the game between 1994 and 2013 felt this way for me.
After having 2-3 productive conversations with him, I’m pretty sure he’s legit
He has damage in memory functions which impact his reward sensitivity - basically, it’s like that joke about Alzheimer, where they laugh so much because they can hear the same joke forever and always laugh at it
So if anyone is immune to psycho-social conditioning, it’s him. He’ll just forget the reward and punishment.
Ofc, even though it’s easy to find examples like those where his condition is helpful, it’s also easy to find those where it hurts him - his learning is basically neutralized, which is why he’s stuck in silver/gold forever.
He just can’t learn if his life depended on it. And he doesn’t care!
I do not click on youtube links at all from here. The only reason i knew what your clip to me consisted of is because ive seen that episode of south park. so it isnt a selfish reading of only relating to me that is at fault here, it is your dependence on someone clicking your youtube links to make context. Thats a you type of storytelling that I do not engage in. So without any context outside of your given links, it is a natural and logical conclusion i came to.
So by your definition of losing, people that choose not reproduce are losing? By that same logic then unplanned teen pregnancies are winners? What about people that breed animals against the animal’s will? Are those poor mothers also winners by default of passing on their genes against any will of their own?
Or would merely passing on genetic material being the bar of winning or losing too simplistic a bar to have?
Um I can learn, it just isnt the instantly made memory that others benefit from. I will have to encounter it many times to be able to commit it to memory. Or something so jarring or drastic, such a hot stove = ouch or turning into a blind corner = totalled car. But if its something super minor such a how to play a game, its gonna be a long process and I’m gonna fall to the same pitfalls for a very long time. My best example I can give is Mario 1. World 8-1. I cannot pass it on my own to this day as I cannot commit to memory the upcoming area whether or not i need highspeed or precision in the jumps, etc. I lack the memeory of how i died last time by the time I reach where I died again. SO im just as unaware of the upcoming area that gave me issue as I was the first time. To this day that game remains unbeatable to me. As do most games Ive ever played. The only ones I can claim to have beaten are Pokemon titles, and with cheat codes, some blizzard titles like StarCraft 1 and 2, Warcraft 3. Without codes… Diablo 3 on the easiest mode?
But I am able to learn, it just wont be a simple process.
I can see that point, but I’d argue its no longer a game if you are being paid to do it. Its a job. Or career. Just the same as if you were hired to officiate them as an umpire or ref. Now that game has become a profession field and not a game field.
Me too, It always a blast to lose to the Sword of a Thousand Truths. Or to someone’s C’thun. Hilarious times. Never a bad one.
Truth. If anyone who is reading this has ever, even once, been unironically angry about losing to the Sword of a Thousand Truths, then it is physically impossible for me to respect you, and I hope I never interact with you again.
Jeezus guys, I was just venting some frustrations about my games. Don’t even have the time to read all y’all’s replies. I hope you found a common thought or two and then moved on. Wish you all the best
You forgot about the 3rd camp: those who understand that the two camps exist for a reason and that we shouldn’t all be in the same camp, because it’s dangerous for our future.
The only thing we have to really care for is who we’re talking to about the game - to someone from camp 1 or someone from camp 2, because it’s empathetic to accept our differences and behave accordingly.
I like winning, but noone can win all the time, hence, it’s important to accept defeats. Besides, without the defeats, the wins would be less fun, while without wins, we wouldn’t get the dopamine rewards to get us hooked in the first place (because that’s how brain works for those of us who have relatively untouched reward systems xD)
P.S. Bro, for someone not forming new memories, you nailed that recap pretty nicely xD
The camp that says gaming is more fun when winning is always the valid one, because you CAN WIN BY LOSING TOO; I mean you may do it to gain fun or to learn while losing; that’s a form of winning.
My point is they all do it to “WIN a benefit”; yes there people with psychoses who literally push themselves to misery and destruction; but science treats those people as in need of treatment.
