استریم

برچسب: why

  • Why are enemy color pairs less "cohesive"?


    It seems to be common knowledge that enemy color pairs in Magic have less synergy than allied pairs. As an example, the highest score question on the site, What are the names for Magic's different colour combinations?, asserts without explanation that allied color pairs have "higher deck cohesion". Then it repeats this claim in explaining why wedges are generally less often seen than shards. But I don’t really understand why. It seems to me that every color pair offers something different, and many enemy color pairs seem very cohesive to me. The current meta in multiple formats seems to support this.

    In standard the most popular deck right now according to MTG Goldfish is Izzet Prowess. And the 2 most popular modern decks are Boros Energy and Izzet Prowess.

    I haven’t played much Canadian Highlander, but watching LRR’s North 100 podcast, it seems Jeskai is the most powerful color combination in that format.

    It doesn’t seem like an outlier when multiple formats of varying power levels are dominated by enemy color pairs and wedges. Izzet Prowess seems like a very synergistic deck built off the payoff for slinging a lot of cheap spells. Boros Energy in Modern seems built off the back of several very powerful cards some of which happen to have Energy. But to me, Red and White offer a lot to each other. Red provides reach in the form of direct damage and card selection with rummage/impulse draw effects, while White is a better at going wide and gives non-damage based removal to deal with high toughness or non-creature threats.

    Perhaps I am somewhat conflating power and cohesion, as my examples rely on high performing decks. And I do want to acknowledge that there is a bit of a bias with my examples, perhaps Boros and especially Izzet are just particularly well suited to each other among enemy pairs. However, other color pairs seem similarly synergistic to me. Simic pairs the card draw of Blue with the ramp of Green for a powerful big mana deck. Orzhov pairs the go wide power of White with the sacrifice theme of Black to be the backbone of many aristocrats builds. Golgari pairs the powerful mill and graveyard effects of Green and Black giving a powerful, recursive engine. All the enemy color pairs have a very solid synergy built in, in my opinion.

    So can someone please explain where this seemingly common conception that allied pairs are more "cohesive" comes from?



    Source link

  • In MTG, why aren’t mono-color decks optimal?


    If you were to take a naive approach to theory-crafting and deck-building in MTG, mono-colored decks would always be the optimal way to play. Adding more colors (again, thinking naively) only introduces problems:

    • Not drawing the right mana-source type or enough of them (especially in the first turn).
    • Needing to balance the ratio of cards-per-color rather than not having to worry about it if they’re all one color.
    • Hypothetically having less access to the cards you want to draw (not necessarily always the case but in mono-decks it’s easier to stack more of the same cards or types of cards).
    • Being stuck with cards you can’t play in your hand (more often than in mono-decks).
    • Higher constraint on total mana cost, especially when a card costs multiple colored mana.
    • Et cetera.

    In practice, it’s obvious that mono-decks are not optimal as multi-color decks are extremely popular. People will debate how good they are, ranging from "can’t be competitive" to "red burn is the best deck in the game", even in the past year or so.

    So my question is: what are the abstract; theory-crafting advantages to multi-colored decks that off-set the many and obvious advantages monos have? If possible, I’d appreciate not relying heavily on MTG examples as I feel this question has value for game-design and theory-crafting beyond MTG, as other games and genres also have mix-and-match mechanics. (Of course all answers are well-come, just explaining where I’m personally coming from)!

    I focused on colors and didn’t mention artifacts as they can have great utility either way.
    Let’s also assume ample access to cards to the extent building a strong deck isn’t an issue.



    Source link

  • Why you should Tabletop Simulator — The Treehouse

    Why you should Tabletop Simulator — The Treehouse



    How about as a social experience?

    Here we come to a few ways TTS differs from a real table experience. The lack of visible social cues can, if you’re not already a close-knit group, lead to people talking over one another, as you have no way of telling when someone’s about to speak.

    You’ll also need a separate piece of software to talk to your fellow gamers. I highly recommend Discord as it’s straightforward to use and is available on PC, Android & iOS. If you already use Skype, Messenger or something else then you can also continue to use that. 

    I’ve used TTS to socialise. I’ve met new friends and used it to connect with old ones. Whilst TTS will never replace a “real” tabletop experience, it’s something different, not less. I think I’ll end up continuing to use it after all this is over as a way to play games from my own home with players I can’t normally get together with. It’s honestly better than I ever expected. 

    Who would you recommend it for?

    Really, almost anyone who is comfortable using a computer or is happy to learn. it’s quick and easy to learn if you have any level of competency using a PC and a breeze for anyone who would call themselves a “gamer”. I found my way around it in a few minutes and the community is always willing to offer any help or assistance you might need. 

    Find out more about Tabletop Simulator here.

    If you’ve enjoyed this content, you can show your appreciation with a small contribution here, which would be a big help to The Treehouse in this time of limited cash flow.



    Source link

  • why card games rock — The Treehouse

    why card games rock — The Treehouse



    Pick a Dog

    Pick-a-Dog (1-5 players) (and its virtually identical sibling games, Pick-a-Pig, Pick-a-Seal and Pick-a-Polar-Bear) rely on high-speed matching, but with storytelling added in. You start by laying out a grid of cards that may match, but mostly don’t quite match exactly. Each player turns over their own starting card, which sets off a round of looking for matches in the grid. Though there are some exact matches, all the pictures are similar – they feature a dog who can be depicted with a number of binary qualities: looking pale or having a tan, holding popcorn or not, wearing sunglasses or not, standing near to you or far away, and using one hand or two hands.

    The twist in the matching portion of the game is that you can only match cards that are either exact, or follow a sequence where there is only ONE change per card (you can go from sunglasses to no sunglasses, for example, but not from far to near at the same time). The free-for-all ends when there are no more matches to make (but watch out – if you call it and there are still more matches available, you forfeit your hand and can’t score any points that round, while the other players can resume).

    Scoring is fun and unusual (or at least it is the way we teach it at The Treehouse!): to prove you’ve made a true sequence with only one difference on each card, you have to tell a story about your buddy the dog that reflects the pictures as you reveal them. It’s very cute indeed. If you discover mistakes in anyone’s sequence, those cards go straight into the discard pile. The players earn the cards they’ve proven are in a sequence each round, and at the end of the game, the winner is the one who has the most cards.



    Source link