I just found out.
| theFarWilds.com http://redmine.mygui.info/forum/ | |
| deck building suggestion http://redmine.mygui.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1872 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | cuttingedge99 [ Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | deck building suggestion |
decks should not allow more than 1 basic building in a domain. since autodraw creates basic buildings in the game, i see no reason to have more than 1 basic domain building. i think this hurts newbies deck building skills. i suggest on the army save screen, making a message saying only 1 basic building per domain allowed. and not allow more than 1 basic building per domain. |
|
| Author: | Atahualpa [ Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: deck building suggestion |
True that, for the longest time, I had had multiple basic buildings in my deck. PS. Shame on those vets that looked at my deck and didn't tell me I only needed one... stop looking at my deck! |
|
| Author: | Psyclone [ Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: deck building suggestion |
I just found out.
|
|
| Author: | Ugly_Pug [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: deck building suggestion |
I disagree. I admit it is a waste of deck space to have 4 basic buildings of a given domain... probably even 3. But there are reasons to have more than 1 basic building in a deck. For example... Suppose I am playing CI and I have 1 Keep, 1 Trade Routes, and 1 Diplomat. I will draw the Keep, then Trade Routes and the Diplomat for 3 domain. Autodraw will give me no more Keeps, but I unless have non-domain giving buildins in my deck I will be unable to expand. You can repeat the exercise with Chaos and Faceless Lord/Vessel of Cathil, Elemental and Weathervane, and MF and Hardack's Throne. Maybe others, but that is enough to illustrate my point. |
|
| Author: | cuttingedge99 [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: deck building suggestion |
Pug, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. The situation you are describing would be applicable a very very small percent of the time. True, you can use a basic building to expand. However, every domain has common buildings which are better options. Most of the time, a new player gets frustrated drawing a basic building when they dont need one. Also, forcing a new player to only be allowed one basic building per domain would teach them about autodraw. |
|
| Author: | queeshai [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: deck building suggestion |
I'm with Pug on this one -- there are several strategic reasons I can think of for having more than one basic (of a type) in a deck. probably 10-20 percent of my decks have this, and often for different reasons. I do think this is a valid issue though. my suggestion would be to rework the three default decks to have only one basic of each type. those are essentially the prototype decks that new players should be learning from. |
|
| Author: | Sunyaku [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: deck building suggestion |
I also agree with Pug. When the feature was first implemented, I continued to keep some "extra" buildings in my deck, and I was one of the people who didn't complain about the implementation of the changes... because they didn't really affect me. |
|
| Author: | Psyclone [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: deck building suggestion |
I'm with Pug too. I got burnt twice tonight in Free Sealed because I didn't have enough other buildings. Once was definitely because I had Weather Vane and Diplomat, which happened in both of my sealed losses for that tournament. Another time I had a ton of 1 and 1X domain cards in my hand so I wasn't drawing buildings because I had all the domain I needed to play the cards currently in my hand. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |