Resource destruction: a garunteed way to suck the fun out of a game

[Narziss]

I don't think HBM is that excessive. However, I do think Sandra is a bit too powerful.

A moderate solution would be to raise the minimum deck size to 40 and make Sandra unique.



As for the fun factor, I think resource destruction should stay in SE. I see moderate resource destruction as a means of preventing opponents from dropping down their big cards. I like to destroy at least one resource to slow down the appearance of a big weapon/armor or ally like Aeon.

However, excessive resource destruction is not fun at all. Nevertheless, there is a huge difference between SE and MTG in that you can use any card as a resource in SE but in MTG if they destroy all your lands, you are screwed because you can't use other cards as lands.

So my main push would be to slightly reduce the power of resource destruction but not eliminate it altogether.

[yaemon]

I don't have big "fun" issues with resource destruction.
It will punish decks with ridiculous high average casting cost, and that is good in my opinion. Be sure to have enough cards with a casting cost lower than 4 and you can easily play around it. Also it will give an advantage only to certain decks... The only thing I agree is that in general, for all cards, it is too easy to play them in a row, increasing the deck minimum size to 40 would make the game more unpredictable.

[Dir3kt]

Well I think HBM and Sandra are annoying because most of the cards in Shadowera cost 4-5. This is the real problem, the overall 'curve' of the card pool is very bad. With time I do believe we will see more low cost cards which will make resource destruction less viable.

[BAMF]

I tend to agree with the main post.

Where's the skill or deck strategy when almost all decks would run hbm or Sandra?

The person starting first and using 2 of these would LIKELY win. And the most well thought out strategy would turn to nothing when your opponent is at 4 resource and you are at 1.
If you are starting first, and holding hbm, is it even a choice whether you want to cast it or not?

Tweaking resource destruction would also solve a big chunk of the 1st turn advantage.

Most decks need about 4 resource to function, so the earlier suggestion to increase the cost of hbm and Sandra by 1 might work. I might or might not then include these cards in deck depending on Deck STRATEGY. Now it's a no brainer. Hmmm, playing human, let's see, 4 sandras and let's see what else.

If resource destruction is tweaked, it will most likely be an exciting game, a battle between 2 different deck strategy. Rather then, DAMN I lost because I started 2nd got hit by 2 hbm and can't do sXXX.

[Quadrasonic]

Not many would claim that Sandra is not a good card. It is one card doing the work of two while costing you a little more resources to play than either the resource destruction or ally would on their own. This is called "card advantage", and I think she could cost another resource or even two more to play, and people would still include her in most every human deck.

But with HBM you use three resources to discard a single card to cancel something your opponent played for free. Of course there is the limit of one resource brought in per turn so this can give you resource advantage in the early game. HBM is all but useless though in the late game when both players are generally well equipped resource-wise. And do not forget that good players will make sure to have a high number of low cost allies in their decks so they have something to play every turn. This is referred to as the deck's "curve". In a game like this where early ally (creature) count is perhaps more important than late game ally size, I have welcomed with open arms my opponents' HBMs while I gained the field advantage. I would not recommend making HBM any cheaper, but I do not feel either that it is a game breaker.

In short, I believe resource destruction should remain part of the game but should never become an auto-win deck type. HBM is a long way from Portal type overpowered, but Sandra could and perhaps should be tweaked.

[Intrigger]

I'm agree with you, but i think the effect is mainly focused because there aren't so much cards, and thus good human allies are very few. So Sandra is in nearly all human decks (and mine). I play hunter, and i have begin to bet on stealth allies, but they are too expensive, i needed cheaper and more useful allies, so i put Sandra and 2 ressource allies, and now my deck turns better.

I also played priests, and Sandra in combination with 3 ressource loss is powerful. But... it's no real fun to play, when you win or when you lose. the game is just longer, heavier. I played that type of deck because of using what priest abities offer to me, but changed to have more fun.

Shadow Era has a incredible potential, but Kyle's team is taking weird choices on card making. Maybe experience from legacy (Magic) can bring more wishdom to the cards. I hope you'll be heard, because if users are listeners for creating new cards, they should be listened for the game logic also.

[BadKarma]

We don't need yet another thread about this. For the records, Sandra is the only problem because you can (and you should chain at least four per game if you have the upper hand). It's anti-fun and a snowball effect (because you can lock the opponent out).

[pigek]

I quit immediately whenever an enemy plays sandra on turn 4. I hate that card, it ruins the game for me. I don't even care about the rating drop, but quitting on turn 4 means they don't get anything for their 'win'. I can handle one sandra being played, but the problem is if I wait any longer then the people who would then play another and another would get experience for me leaving. I feel bad for the people who just play her because that's what they have in their hand, but not bad enough to make me not quit.

I play this game to have fun, and sandra is simply not fun to play against. To put this in a little perspective, I do not quit just because I'm losing. I tend to have fun even, and sometimes especially, when I'm losing. I recently played a game where my opponent got 3 sparks out by turn 2, followed by a shard of power on turn 3, the fourth spark on turn four plus a bloodlust. I had no chance whatsoever, but it was genuinely fun to see that happen. Sure it also had very little to do with skill (and in a tournament or something I might be annoyed), but the guy got ridiculously lucky with his hand - but that can always happen in a card game. With Sandra, on the other hand, you pretty much have to be unlucky not to draw at least 2 sandras by turn 5.

Make her unique or more expensive, solve the problem.

[Vomitlord]

I could not agree more with OP. Land destruction is the epitome of un-fun ( if we take that to be a term). Hearing that mtg is moving away from that only moves me closer to going back to said game.

I can only imagine the kind of player that enjoys the LD deck, probably future parking attendants. Take sandra's and HBM out of the game and this could be fantastic.

I HATE RESOURCE DESTRUCTION!

[Drakkon]

MTG isn't moving away from land distraction.