I don’t mind the larger deck sizes. The uniques are not powerful enough they break the game if one player draws them and the other does not. The only argument I have heard that I cannot refute is “increasing the deck size sounds like they are just trying to sell more cards”. I don’t think that is the case, but you never know.
A 1 in 40 chance is already enough for a unique to not be seen in consecutive plays, in a tournament, etc. An eventual 1 in 60 chance is really going to diminish its own prospects even further, you could realistically go 10+ games and never get to see your favorite card(s). How about making the balance between uniques - ordinaries in check so that by the time we reach expansion set 13 it won't matter that someone has a deck with all uniques... Or do they plan to increase the deck size to 300 by that time?...
@@TheExperienceShare Appreciate that. My point is that we create decks around cards we enjoy. A card game with a one of, two of, etc mechanics already severely limits consistency. Increasing deck size on top of that mechanic just makes deck building whatever and getting to play your favorite cards less often.
I think the deck size increase is fine because the game is so fun, BUT I do believe it means games will ultimately last longer. And for competitive play that is an issue. The bigger hurdle is coming up with a way to run tournaments. Best of 1? 2 game match? Should we even have sideboards? This was already an issue at 40/20.
Best of two sounds interesting to me. That is an option I would want to explore. I will say as people get better playing the game games naturally go faster. Do you have a preferred option?
@@TheExperienceShare I prefer best of 3 with sideboard. That feels "objectively" the most fair. They printed cards like "Boil", which means this was their mindset from the beginning. It's weird to hear they want this to be strictly casual when they print cards like Boil, which is clearly a silver bullet. So they had some dynamic in mind when they printed hosers only good in a specific manner... Again I'm welcoming the higher card pool, because it just seems more fun, and let's not forget that it makes power creep immensely more sustainable. But as far as tournament play, game 1 was often already close to an hour if you weren't an aggressive deck. That's not sustainable for competitive play.
They could counteract this in the future with cards that allow you to call specific cards from the deck. Maybe cards that send a specific amount out of play from the top of the deck just to bring them back into to the field the next turn thus decreasing the delay. There’s no strategy that could hurt the game at this stage of the beginning the slower the better. You don’t want to end up like Yugioh having to create all of this confusing strategies like synchro, link, pendulum because you want to accommodate for the lack of uncertainty.
Man, I find it to be such a disingenuous argument to tell people upset with the change "go play chess!" - nobody wants the game to be chess, they just want to actually see the cards they put in the deck. Variety is great, it's why anyone plays TCGs, the game is about "what's going to happen?!" but you use strategy and deck construction to get there. The chart you showed doesn't suggest that the consistency needs to be watered down, just that going first is just objectively best in the meta that exists right now. That specific meta exists because the card balance favors aggro and control doesn't have a chance unless you're playing Roots, a non-symmetrical effect disguised as one that didn't get the proper testing it's effect deserved. Granted, Roots took a long time for the Community to find, but that's only because the community is small, the game isn't well-understood, and the effect appears symmetrical until you understand the way mana actually works and is generated, and why destroying sites lets you keep their mana. I know they're a small team with a big first set , but the designers should have absolutely spotted roots from a mile away. I'm not totally against 50/30 (50/25 makes way more sense), I'm willing to try it - but it certainly came out of left field, and wasn't properly communicated - like a lot of other things lately, which I think is the actual reason people are upset. 60/40 is so far away from being necessary that I don't think it's even worth the community talking about yet, but I'm happy EC at least openly communicated that desire.
100% a tongue in cheek way to say that I am good with the change. I was not trying to offend anyone with the comment but maybe trying to catch some eyeballs 😅 I always, appreciate your well thought out comments! Communication could have been a bit better on this for sure... I was let down on that part, which was my my initial reaction was negative but I am not going to make a RUclips video while mad about cardboard 😅 I don't think that would age well
they increased the de k size so now you need more expensive cards, they cancelled pre con option so now you need to buy the boosters, they increased the deck size so now you cant rely on youre deck to be consistent bcs how do you know you pull the specifics you actually need ? they notoriously refuse to make a living legend system so players cant create data on whats balanced and whats broken, in reality everything will be broken in sorcery bcs they dont test cards, this is great for eric bcs now he need to develope NEW CARDS in brand new shiny boosters for YOU so you ! can part with your hard earned money even more than you already did. even the collecters might wanna keep your eyes open and treat carefully in sorcery, he can and will rug pull at any time, in whatever way shape or form he likes. you dont know, i dont know. but one thing is sure, things like this, sudden change in rules will happen again.
I don't really agree with your take but that is okay. MTG has to ban cards out of every format with each set release (or at least it felt that way when I used to play). It took about a year for the community to find root and streamline the AoA deck. I think that the EC team did a great job balancing the game. I 100% understand not liking the direction, that was where i was as well. However I know a couple of play testers who care a lot about the game. I am not comfortable agreeing that they do not balance cards. I am sorry that you don't like the new direction, but I hope that you feel like you still have a home in the community of Sorcery!
This video is 💯. In my opinion competitive players will figure it out! Remembering that this game was built for casual first, competitive second.
Thank you I'm glad that you liked it! Can't wait to actually give it a shot when ALL releases
Couldn't agree more, variety is the spice of life
Thank you for watching!
I don’t mind the larger deck sizes. The uniques are not powerful enough they break the game if one player draws them and the other does not. The only argument I have heard that I cannot refute is “increasing the deck size sounds like they are just trying to sell more cards”. I don’t think that is the case, but you never know.
I want a players set anyways...so sign me up for a case 😂😅
A 1 in 40 chance is already enough for a unique to not be seen in consecutive plays, in a tournament, etc.
An eventual 1 in 60 chance is really going to diminish its own prospects even further, you could realistically go 10+ games and never get to see your favorite card(s).
How about making the balance between uniques - ordinaries in check so that by the time we reach expansion set 13 it won't matter that someone has a deck with all uniques... Or do they plan to increase the deck size to 300 by that time?...
I laughed out loud on that one
@@TheExperienceShare Appreciate that. My point is that we create decks around cards we enjoy. A card game with a one of, two of, etc mechanics already severely limits consistency. Increasing deck size on top of that mechanic just makes deck building whatever and getting to play your favorite cards less often.
I never got into commander from MTG for that reason
I think the deck size increase is fine because the game is so fun, BUT I do believe it means games will ultimately last longer. And for competitive play that is an issue. The bigger hurdle is coming up with a way to run tournaments. Best of 1? 2 game match? Should we even have sideboards? This was already an issue at 40/20.
Best of two sounds interesting to me. That is an option I would want to explore. I will say as people get better playing the game games naturally go faster.
Do you have a preferred option?
@@TheExperienceShare I prefer best of 3 with sideboard. That feels "objectively" the most fair. They printed cards like "Boil", which means this was their mindset from the beginning. It's weird to hear they want this to be strictly casual when they print cards like Boil, which is clearly a silver bullet. So they had some dynamic in mind when they printed hosers only good in a specific manner...
Again I'm welcoming the higher card pool, because it just seems more fun, and let's not forget that it makes power creep immensely more sustainable. But as far as tournament play, game 1 was often already close to an hour if you weren't an aggressive deck. That's not sustainable for competitive play.
They could counteract this in the future with cards that allow you to call specific cards from the deck. Maybe cards that send a specific amount out of play from the top of the deck just to bring them back into to the field the next turn thus decreasing the delay. There’s no strategy that could hurt the game at this stage of the beginning the slower the better. You don’t want to end up like Yugioh having to create all of this confusing strategies like synchro, link, pendulum because you want to accommodate for the lack of uncertainty.
Man, I find it to be such a disingenuous argument to tell people upset with the change "go play chess!" - nobody wants the game to be chess, they just want to actually see the cards they put in the deck. Variety is great, it's why anyone plays TCGs, the game is about "what's going to happen?!" but you use strategy and deck construction to get there.
The chart you showed doesn't suggest that the consistency needs to be watered down, just that going first is just objectively best in the meta that exists right now. That specific meta exists because the card balance favors aggro and control doesn't have a chance unless you're playing Roots, a non-symmetrical effect disguised as one that didn't get the proper testing it's effect deserved.
Granted, Roots took a long time for the Community to find, but that's only because the community is small, the game isn't well-understood, and the effect appears symmetrical until you understand the way mana actually works and is generated, and why destroying sites lets you keep their mana. I know they're a small team with a big first set , but the designers should have absolutely spotted roots from a mile away.
I'm not totally against 50/30 (50/25 makes way more sense), I'm willing to try it - but it certainly came out of left field, and wasn't properly communicated - like a lot of other things lately, which I think is the actual reason people are upset. 60/40 is so far away from being necessary that I don't think it's even worth the community talking about yet, but I'm happy EC at least openly communicated that desire.
100% a tongue in cheek way to say that I am good with the change. I was not trying to offend anyone with the comment but maybe trying to catch some eyeballs 😅
I always, appreciate your well thought out comments!
Communication could have been a bit better on this for sure... I was let down on that part, which was my my initial reaction was negative but I am not going to make a RUclips video while mad about cardboard 😅 I don't think that would age well
they increased the de k size so now you need more expensive cards, they cancelled pre con option so now you need to buy the boosters,
they increased the deck size so now you cant rely on youre deck to be consistent bcs how do you know you pull the specifics you actually need ?
they notoriously refuse to make a living legend system so players cant create data on whats balanced and whats broken, in reality everything will be broken in sorcery bcs they dont test cards, this is great for eric bcs now he need to develope NEW CARDS in brand new shiny boosters for YOU so you ! can part with your hard earned money even more than you already did.
even the collecters might wanna keep your eyes open and treat carefully in sorcery, he can and will rug pull at any time, in whatever way shape or form he likes. you dont know, i dont know.
but one thing is sure, things like this, sudden change in rules will happen again.
I don't really agree with your take but that is okay. MTG has to ban cards out of every format with each set release (or at least it felt that way when I used to play). It took about a year for the community to find root and streamline the AoA deck. I think that the EC team did a great job balancing the game.
I 100% understand not liking the direction, that was where i was as well. However I know a couple of play testers who care a lot about the game. I am not comfortable agreeing that they do not balance cards.
I am sorry that you don't like the new direction, but I hope that you feel like you still have a home in the community of Sorcery!