quote:
Maradon! got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
I can't understand what happened here
I don't think Waisz had any ocotopus creature types in his graveyard. Or his deck, for that matter.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about pies:
Wait. . .people hang out with Waisz on purpose?
UH OH GUYS LOOK OUT BIGGEST BURN EVER
Also I no longer use jitte nem-x fucked around with this message on 02-17-2007 at 07:49 PM.
quote:
Inferno-Spirit's account was hax0red to write:
Jittes ruined MTGO for a long time. Like Skullclamp.
Jitte's ruined Magic for a long time.
quote:
Malbi stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
there were answers for them, they never dominated the standard scene that bad, biggest thing they did was everyone had to use them in aggro decks or die
The reason they ruined MTG was because the best answer to the Jitte was to play the Jitte. Running shatter was stupid when you could just use the jitte instead, assuming your deck had ANY creatures whatsoever
Because if you have shatter and your opponent has no jitte, it is a dead card. But if you have a jitte and your opponent doesn't, good game. And if you both had Jittes? Well, your jitte is now a shatter.
If your deck had creatures, there was pretty much zero reason NOT to run the jitte Vorago fucked around with this message on 02-18-2007 at 04:05 AM.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when nem-x said:
Me, Waisz, and Batty have started playing again.
Yeah I played with Batty last night. Soldiers ftw.
quote:
Your words are as empty as your soul! Mankind ill needs a savior such as Malbi!
there were answers for them
This is never a reason to not call a broken card broken.
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about Punky Brewster:
This is never a reason to not call a broken card broken.
Except when you're the one abusing the piss out of it. 
quote:
Densetsu wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
This is never a reason to not call a broken card broken.
Control Decks never ran Jitte, and for most of Kamigawa's lifespan in Standard Control decks dominated. It was nowhere near as abusable as the Skullclamp was.
quote:
Malbi wrote this stupid crap:
I ran a monoblack Death cloud deck in the Mirrodin-Kamigawa era standard and never lost a game to the Jitte.
You've shown that boring decks don't mind the Jitte as much as other, more interesting decks.
The point is that Jitte took variety and creativity away from MTG during it's lifespan, and beyond. Cards that are so effective that they become necessary to a huge percentage of decks should never exist.
quote:
This one time, at Inferno-Spirit camp:
You've shown that boring decks don't mind the Jitte as much as other, more interesting decks.The point is that Jitte took variety and creativity away from MTG during it's lifespan, and beyond. Cards that are so effective that they become necessary to a huge percentage of decks should never exist.
excuse me? I think you need to define what you think is boring before you continue sir.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Malbi wrote:
excuse me? I think you need to define what you think is boring before you continue sir.
All heavy control/denial decks. Decks that are not fun to play against.
Believe it or not, there are more people who play MTG for fun than people who play MTG for serious competition, and if a deck isn't fun to both play and play against it makes for shitty games.
Land destruction, counterspell decks, black creature control. Anything that puts your opponent in a situation where they might as well not cast spells because it won't make a difference unless they are playing a tournament-quality deck.
It's pretty much useless to argue this with you, I'm sure. People who enjoy control decks almost never understand why people who don't like them don't want to play against them. The response is always "go get a better deck then", or something equally asinine.
I don't know that you're a rabid control fiend, and I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you. But I'm not misrepresenting the small portion of MTG players who don't give a shit whether their opponent is having fun too.
[edit]rephrased for clarity[/edit] Inferno-Spirit fucked around with this message on 02-18-2007 at 11:06 PM.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Inferno-Spirit wrote:
All heavy control/denial decks. Decks that are not fun to play against.Believe it or not, there are more people who play MTG for fun than people who play MTG for serious competition, and if a deck isn't fun to both play and play against it makes for shitty games.
Land destruction, counterspell decks, black creature control. Anything that puts your opponent in a situation where they might as well not cast spells because it won't make a difference unless they are playing a tournament-quality deck.
It's pretty much useless to argue this with you, I'm sure. People who enjoy control decks almost never understand why people who don't like them don't want to play against them. The response is always "go get a better deck then", or something equally asinine.
I don't know that you're a rabid control fiend, and I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you. But I'm not misrepresenting the small portion of MTG players who don't give a shit whether their opponent is having fun too.
[edit]rephrased for clarity[/edit]
Aright lets break this down.
You don't have fun playing against control decks, fine thats your opinion, others may disagree.
I play Magic for fun first, though I prefer to build decks that don't get stomped by more serious players.
Land Destruction decks are not fun Ill agree there, because the stop you from doing anything and theres very little you can generally do to stop it even in the best circumstances.
On the other hand Counterspells especially in recent sets has been scaled back in power so that most counters spells either a) bounce it back to your hand or have limitations on what it can affect or(Examples Remand for the first type and Spell snare or Muddle the Mixture for the second, b) have some cost you can pay to let your spell through(Example Mana leak)Flat out counterspells are becoming the exception to the rule and pretty much start at 3CC and go up.
Now lets move onto Black creature control which is also becoming more narrow things like Terror for 2CC are gone. Flat out kill is rapidly becoming specific like Strangling Soot with its 3 toughness or less restriction and can't be regenerated is also becoming less frequent(though regeneration is also less commonly seen)Or things like last gasp (admittedly maybe undercosted IMHO) that give creatures -/- until end or turn generally never exceeding -4/-4. the flat out kills are generally found at best at 4cc and going up.
Now as far as not having fun playing aggro against these things, well heres a though have anti control elements in your deck invest in creatures with abilities that can save them. If your playing green you have untargetable creatures and pump cards that complement your aggro strategy and protect against black creature kill and red burn. If your playing white, my god you have some of the best weenies in the game that can get in and do serious damage before control has the mana for its elements, make use of that 2-3 turn window you have against control. If your playing blue...well your not aggro with blue generally. Red aggro...red turning control focused, black aggro. well black creatures are hard to insta kill since most insta kill says nonblack plus black has discard, graveyard recursion and regeneration.
Magic like most strategy games requires thinking. You can't just think what does my deck need to do to win. You have to think what will my opponent try to do to stop me from winning and plan accordingly. Yes if you just slap some cards that look cool together slap in some land and play you may have fun but someone who's put serious thought into his deck be it aggro or control, especially control which requires a large degree of forethought to play well, will run over you like a freight train.
If your curious and are familiar with the the magic players mental archetype terms Im a Johnny with a dash of Spike.
To close I have a question for you, when you lose against someone do you complain about how their deck is too powerful control decks suck and so on or do you think about why you lost and think of ways to improve your deck and/or gameplay?
Edit: Oh Im also alway ready to offer help with deckbuilding suggestions if you want them. Malbi fucked around with this message on 02-19-2007 at 02:07 AM.
Whether or not a pariticular card is broken is irrelevant to such snivelling idiocy.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this stupid crap:
Wait. . .did someone just whine about not being able to win with their fun deck against people who are seriously competitive, and blame the competitive people for exploiting "broken" things? Welcome to life, dude: if you don't like losing, don't adopt losing strategies.Whether or not a pariticular card is broken is irrelevant to such snivelling idiocy.
Did you have to go to school to become this big of a faggot?
quote:
Bloodsage enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Wait. . .did someone just whine about not being able to win with their fun deck against people who are seriously competitive, and blame the competitive people for exploiting "broken" things? Welcome to life, dude: if you don't like losing, don't adopt losing strategies.Whether or not a pariticular card is broken is irrelevant to such snivelling idiocy.
Umezawa's Jitte probably would have been banned if the standard environment had been able to exploit it like Affinty decks in Mirrodin could break Skullclamp. But the Kamigawa block was more Control friendly with its big impressive legends. The Jitte was ironically the only thing that gave any aggro decks in that period enough oomph to have a chance. Guildpacts rotation in changed that as the Gruul Guild was very strongly Aggro and are still doing fairly well even with out Jitte in current standard.
and there was one significant factor differant between Skullclamp and The Jitte Malbi fucked around with this message on 02-19-2007 at 10:18 AM.
The Jitte was a legendary artifact, and subject to the new legend rules.
quote:
Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Wait. . .did someone just whine about not being able to win with their fun deck against people who are seriously competitive, and blame the competitive people for exploiting "broken" things? Welcome to life, dude: if you don't like losing, don't adopt losing strategies.Whether or not a pariticular card is broken is irrelevant to such snivelling idiocy.
Dude. It's a game. Games are for fun. Relax.
quote:
Quoth nem-x:
he doesnt understand a word that is coming out of your mouth
That's true. The good news is, it's not relevant to what I said, as I pointed out at the end.
Whether or not one card is broken is irrelevant to the stupid idea that any random idiot should be able to throw together a "fun" deck and be competitive against people who actually care about winning and losing. It's the standard tactic for whiners who claim they care more about fun than wins or losses. . .but complain about losing anyway.
It's not broken rules or overly competitive people who are the problem, but rather poor sports whose only reaction to losing is to insist that everyone else be nerfed.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I'll sum things up:
I don't mind losing, I do enjoy winning. Yet, I would much rather lose a fun, interesting game with a lot of interaction than win a one-sided game with little interaction. I don't have a problem with the existance of control decks, I simply avoid them when possible. To me, a deck with several mass-creature wipe spells is about as fun to play against as a land destruction deck.
I don't make bad decks in the sense of random cards shoved together. But I refuse to make decks that involve slow-paced lockdown of any kind.
Most of the time I make decks that change heavily based on the style of deck my opponent is using. It makes each game new and interesting.
quote:
Quoth Inferno-Spirit:
Dude. It's a game. Games are for fun. Relax.
Seems hypocritical to whine about losing and then claim that others need to relax. If you can only have fun if you've got a good chance of winning, don't try to nerf others--take appropriate measures to be competitive. If you lose, it's no one's fault but yours.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
That's true. The good news is, it's not relevant to what I said, as I pointed out at the end.Whether or not one card is broken is irrelevant to the stupid idea that any random idiot should be able to throw together a "fun" deck and be competitive against people who actually care about winning and losing. It's the standard tactic for whiners who claim they care more about fun than wins or losses. . .but complain about losing anyway.
It's not broken rules or overly competitive people who are the problem, but rather poor sports whose only reaction to losing is to insist that everyone else be nerfed.
One, I never said anyone fun decks should be competitive. They can be, but usually not on the level of "tournament decks". As it turns out, Magic Online has rooms dedicated specifically for people who want to play those kinds of decks, and they are used.
Two, I do care more about fun than winning and losing. I don't mind losing to a tournament quality deck, or any other deck for that matter. I mind playing against decks that are designed to take away my ability to do anything. Malbi himself stated that land-destruction decks are boring and effective. There are a few decks that run on this principle, and I simply avoid them. I don't think they shouldn't exist. I don't think they should be nerfed. I simply don't like them. I never made claims about the rules, I never made claims about nerfing everything that beats me. I did make a claim that one specific card was inappropriately effective.
You're running off on a spastic tangent with no basis for any of your claims.
quote:
Bloodsage stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
Seems hypocritical to whine about losing and then claim that others need to relax. If you can only have fun if you've got a good chance of winning, don't try to nerf others--take appropriate measures to be competitive. If you lose, it's no one's fault but yours.
I don't understand where you're coming from. I did not imply that everything else should be nerfed. I did not whine about losing. I did not state that I can only have fun if I've got a good chance at winning. I did not blame anyone else for one of my losses.
