The question of questions: What is casual?

[DÛke]

Orgg:

...but the point for me is getting from point A to B. The deck building. The tuning of the deck. The study of card synergies for limited. The rules knowledge to make the most of tricky cards. Play testing one deck against another, and one build for another.

If I do that, I should win... but that's just icing on the cake...

Now that's plain self-misunderstanding dear Orgg. You might greatly enjoy the deck-building aspects of the game. Most of us here do, as a matter fact. I can tell you for a fact that I enjoy the deck building sometimes more than playing the game. The fine tuning is another enjoyable aspect of the game, without a doubt. Play testing. Experimenting. It's all in there. You say if you do all that, you should win and it would be the icing on the cake. I say you got your cause and effect reversed. I say you wouldn't do all that you do to begin with if there was no clear objective, that being winning. You wouldn't sit down and spend hours on a deck "just for the hell of it." Unless, even if only in hindsight, you know that the objective is winning, that the deck in question must treat that objective seriously in order to be impressive at all. Let me put it in another way: so you discovered some great interaction and you're dying to have it "get off" in play. You play a game, and luckily, you do "get it off." But then everyone looks at you and tells you "now what Orgg? yeah it's a nice trick but it doesn't really do anything." The only way it can do "something" is if it...did what? If it connected you to the path of victory in one way or another, directly or indirectly. None of the testing and deck building is worth it if it didn't connect you to that path. In fact, there is no "play testing." Play test what?

Winning is both the icing on the cake and the cake itself, and everything in between. When you build a deck, you know that it must win in order to reflect how impressive the combinations and interactions between its cards are; on the other hand, once it's built and once it is discovered to be a not so successful of a project, it still can be fun without the win, but as it presents no real challenge to the opponent or to you, the fun "value" of it slightly dwindles - only because victory for the deck in question is a mission more impossible.

No one ever enjoyed a trick if it didn't connect them to the win in one way or another, or brought them close or something. Anything that doesn't abide by this is unheard of, to my knowledge.

 

[Killer Joe]

Here's one for you DUke:

1. I don't play against competitive decks. I avoid players who play them, and if I play a game against someone who I've never met who turns out to have one, I excuse myself and don't play them again.
2. I instead play against casual players, who almost universally prefer multiplayer.
3. I play mostly against "bad players playing multiplayer with random piles of cards"
4. I play with decks that are in essence "bad decks for playing multiplayer with random piles of cards." I try to make a deck like that as good as it can be.
5. I try to build the best deck I can build, with the restriction that I'm going to build a multiplayer speed deck that makes no effort to win the game fast or establish control fast(such is pointless in a multiplayer game), and instead tries to be stronger in a longer running game. I can do this with no regard for the negative consequences because I know my deck will be facing only decks similar to itself.
6. I play to win, knowing that I'm not going to have to deal with a competitive deck because I have determined in advance the environment I intend to play in and I'm going to stick to it.

I play to win just as much as you do, DUke. Its just a different style, and it doesn't change the fact that I play to win. Playing a deck that actually lets my opponent put his deck into play doesn't mean I'm not playing to win. I plan on letting my opponent put his deck into play and THEN beating the snot out of him because, in the end, I'm playing a superior deck. I'm just not in so much of a hurry about it.

Okay, I get WHAT you're saying, but numbers 1, 2, 3 & 6 seem like you're choosing your environment and making it most optimal for YOU! I know that is NOT your intent, your intent is to have integrity while playing. But let's say that I, too, use numbers 1, 2, 3 & 6 for choosing MY environment because it will give me more 'wins' and I can feel better about myself? Is this a double standard? I would be, in fact, using YOUR points (1,2,3 & 6).

#4 - What IS a bad MP card? Is Wrath of God (a teir 1 card) a bad MP card? Are 'spot removal' cards bad in MP? Please be more descriptive with number 4 so I can respond intelligently.

#5 - I have built a deck that takes control fast in MP games and have won with it. My RGW "Seinfeld" deck (it does "Nothing"). It uses Powerstone Minefield, and some utility like Seal of Cleansing, mass creature removal in the form of Rout and graveyard manipulation like Gaea's Blessing. I took control early and then it took me 10 hrs & 35 min to win with it. Also, I won a 7 man MP game on turn 7 with my uGr 2K4 Elfball: Death to All deck. Both of these games are documented and can be found in my continuous Article "The Road to Tourneyland". Both decks are considered "piles" in tournament formats. So I, too, have followed your #5.

I do have integrity, and I have a plethora of a variety of decks (Some are altered versions of Teir 1 decks and some are of my own creation). However, I do get beat alot because of my reputation of doing well in MP games. So I am a "MUST" to eliminate for the game to proceed "Normally" as you might say.

Is it me or is this post getting smaller? My head is growing at an abnormal speed.............aaaaaaaaack!!!!!!

<BOOM!>

Thought I'd do it before anyone else did.

 

[DÛke]

He has yet to explain to me what a "competitive" deck is, even though I asked him, and even though he already replied once. Maybe he didn't read my question.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

I disagree DUke, three examples:

1. Sometimes you can build a weird deck just to see if you can make it work, with no real consideration of it winning. Things like that combo that goes off and doesn't do anything that you described.

2. I've build decks with really bad old cards from The Dark, Fallen Empires, Ice Age, and Homelands, and the old basic set cards like Cyclopean Mummy. Decks with Purelace in them. The whole point of these decks was to play cards that should never be played. They lost horribly, yet everyone always had a blast seeing them played.

3. All your reasoning goes out the window in multiplayer. I have myself, and seen others build decks with the sole purpose of throwing the game into chaos. Decks which aren't made to win, just to make the game a big mess. Tons of fun.

 

[DÛke]

All your reasoning goes out the window. Let me show you how:

Sometimes you can build a weird deck just to see if you can make it work, with no real consideration of it winning. Things like that combo that goes off and doesn't do anything that you described.

Building weird decks just to see if they work. What do you mean by "work"? You tell me.

Enough said about that subject.

And before I forget, Killer Joe asked you a question, which you've neglected to answer. I asked you a question twice, and this is my third time: what is a competitive deck, to you?

As for multi-player. Of course my "rules" go out the window in multi-player. I didn't need you to tell me that because I understand that different formats, however similar, have their own unique faces. That said, I will have to say it once again: multi-player doesn't define "casual" Magic, whether it is "universally known" that "casual" players are those who enjoy multi-player or not. Multi-player is just another format. It doesn't decide anything. It's not the "casual" format.

 

[Killer Joe]

I disagree DUke, three examples:

1. Sometimes you can build a weird deck just to see if you can make it work, with no real consideration of it winning. Things like that combo that goes off and doesn't do anything that you described.

2. I've build decks with really bad old cards from The Dark, Fallen Empires, Ice Age, and Homelands, and the old basic set cards like Cyclopean Mummy. Decks with Purelace in them. The whole point of these decks was to play cards that should never be played. They lost horribly, yet everyone always had a blast seeing them played.

3. All your reasoning goes out the window in multiplayer. I have myself, and seen others build decks with the sole purpose of throwing the game into chaos. Decks which aren't made to win, just to make the game a big mess. Tons of fun.

#1 - You CAN do anything, but I think what DÛke is saying is that it 'nets' zero points in the 'win' column. And what's the point of that? What if I wanted to see if I can get City of Brass and Ghazbahn Ogre off on turn one? I could do it, but what do I gain? Zip! yeah, it would make my friends laugh and then I'd have to try to make an excuse that I was trying out a combo to see if it works, pfft! Big deal, it works, but I lose a creature (and some respect from my commrades). Okay the Brass/Ogre combo is not a good point to use but it feels like that's what you're saying; build a deck that has a 'cool' combo, but 'winning' with it is not factored into the equation.


#2 - Okay, YOU have, but is this the same from your opponents who you are playing' down' to? (I may have totally mis-read this point of yours and am getting it wrong, LMK)

#3 - Me too. But I label it as "Decks not to lose". My RGW Seinfeld deck is a perfect example. And "YES" it was a lot of fun to play (all 10 hrs. and 35 min of it )

That said, I will have to say it once again: multi-player doesn't define "casual" Magic, whether it is "universally known" that "casual" players are those who enjoy multi-player or not. Multi-player is just another format. It doesn't decide anything. It's not the "casual" format.

AGREED!!!!

Our "Multiplayer Magic League" is a competetive format. And Wiz Co is still trying to figure out a way to make a DCI legit format, too.


DÛke: You too have avoided a question: Are ya over Britney Spears or WHAT!?

 

[Mooseman]

3. All your reasoning goes out the window in multiplayer. I have myself, and seen others build decks with the sole purpose of throwing the game into chaos. Decks which aren't made to win, just to make the game a big mess. Tons of fun.

Do you mean that the decks have absolutely no chance of winning?
That would be a useless endevor, the deck has to have some chance of winning, even if that is very slim.
And yes, it is fun to win with a deck that has little chance to win or see someone else do the same.

I just can't see you point of playing not to win.

 

[DÛke]

LMAO

I just needed a quick name in there, and Britney Spears out of nowhere came to my mind. And so did CSI, a show which I don't watch, don't even know what it's about. Strange how the mind works.

And stop talking too loud about me and the Brit, don't want paparazzi here too.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

He has yet to explain to me what a "competitive" deck is, even though I asked him, and even though he already replied once. Maybe he didn't read my question.

I guess a competitive deck is determined by what you intend to do with it. Is it meant to win and only win, or is it meant to interact with your opponent and play a game.

Kinda like your separation of "casual" and "casually" A competitive deck is not a deck that plays "casually"

#4 - What IS a bad MP card? Is Wrath of God (a teir 1 card) a bad MP card? Are 'spot removal' cards bad in MP? Please be more descriptive with number 4 so I can respond intelligently.

Bad in competitive single player. Its more about the deck being meant for a game that lasts 20-40 turns, and taking 3-5 turns to even get started. As for Wrath of God or spot removal, personally I don't play multiplayer without cards like that.


I stated:

2. I've build decks with really bad old cards from The Dark, Fallen Empires, Ice Age, and Homelands, and the old basic set cards like Cyclopean Mummy. Decks with Purelace in them. The whole point of these decks was to play cards that should never be played. They lost horribly, yet everyone always had a blast seeing them played.

You asked?

#2 - Okay, YOU have, but is this the same from your opponents who you are playing' down' to? (I may have totally mis-read this point of yours and am getting it wrong, LMK)

Those decks(I've done it more than once) were meant to LOSE and to be laughed at. I played anyone with those decks, and lost to them all. The whole point of them was that is was funny how bad they were. "I can't believe you just cast Purelace on your Cyclopean Mummy." The decks were a joke.

EDITED (addition to the last comment)

Those bad joke decks lost every game I've every played with them, except the few times I had more than one and another player and I played two of them head to head in a game that usually lasted at least a half-hour. Me and 3 others once started a 4 player game with 4 of my joke decks. The player who went 4th won when the other three players decked out 3 hours later. Those decks were that bad.

As for multi-player. Of course my "rules" go out the window in multi-player. I didn't need you to tell me that because I understand that different formats, however similar, have their own unique faces. That said, I will have to say it once again: multi-player doesn't define "casual" Magic, whether it is "universally known" that "casual" players are those who enjoy multi-player or not. Multi-player is just another format. It doesn't decide anything. It's not the "casual" format.

I'm sorry here but to an extent, multiplayer does define "casual" for a lot of people. It may not be the case on this board, and may not be on MTG:Online, but I've found that in players I have personally met who I've considered "casual," preference for multiplayer or at least liking multiplayer a whole lot is nearly universal. These same people who prefer it, build mostly every deck they build to do well in multiplayer, since they play it at least half the time, and they could care less if building for multiplayer slows the tempo of a deck down and makes it weaker one-on-one.

The games are indeed different, and different strategies and cards work and don't work depending on which format you are playing. Most of the people I play don't separate them, and when they play 2 player, they play the multiplayer decks they carry, since that is all they carry, and they don't care if they don't work as well.

 

[HOUTS]

"If you're on 30 posts a page, I thought the discussion was going quite well for the first 2 and a half pages. Then it degenerated a bit with HOUTS, CO, and Mooseman, then picked up with DUke and Gizmo, then degenerated a bit again "

Sorry, but this has been a healthy discussion. There are going to be disputes in a debate, otherwise what is the point? This probably has been the most productive thread I've read since I've been on this site (which has been 5 years).

Duke and I helped clarify points where people were lacking. Our points are well thought out. You really should be thanking us for putting forth the time, and energy, into thinking through everything. God forbid we actually make people think on this site...

HOUTS

 

[Mooseman]

Casual = informal
Tournament = formal

Tournaments are competative, casual game can be.

Tournaments (including the MML) have quantifiable results (points, prizes, etc..), casual game do not.

Casual players want to play and have fun, winning is fun.
"non-casual" players play to win and have fun if possible, but winning is the overriding objective.

Can somebody be both? Definately.

 

[Spiderman]

Sorry, but this has been a healthy discussion. There are going to be disputes in a debate, otherwise what is the point? This probably has been the most productive thread I've read since I've been on this site (which has been 5 years).

Duke and I helped clarify points where people were lacking. Our points are well thought out. You really should be thanking us for putting forth the time, and energy, into thinking through everything. God forbid we actually make people think on this site...

Um, no. Stuff like

I'd continue on with this bickering, but you are utterly wrong. Anyone who can read (english required here) will see your nonsensical retorts and falsehoods.

Immature. Please grow up.

Grow up, and learn to seperate your differences.

is NOT a healthy discussion.

 

[Killer Joe]

I have always felt that I walk in a grey twilight ebbing in and out of "casual" play and "tournament" play philosophy.

 

[HOUTS]

Um, no. Stuff like

is NOT a healthy discussion.

Can't handle the truth? If you can't handle such harsh language (insert laughter here) then maybe you might want to find some other site.

If someone keeps stating falsehoods, I will call them on it. He clearly didn't read any of my remarks and replied with remarks as if he did.

I will say what I want, how I want. For CPA, this is as healthy as it gets.

Now stop whining...

HOUTS

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

"If you're on 30 posts a page, I thought the discussion was going quite well for the first 2 and a half pages. Then it degenerated a bit with HOUTS, CO, and Mooseman, then picked up with DUke and Gizmo, then degenerated a bit again "

Sorry, but this has been a healthy discussion. There are going to be disputes in a debate, otherwise what is the point? This probably has been the most productive thread I've read since I've been on this site (which has been 5 years).

Duke and I helped clarify points where people were lacking. Our points are well thought out. You really should be thanking us for putting forth the time, and energy, into thinking through everything. God forbid we actually make people think on this site...

HOUTS

So are you and DUke the only people who have made points here? Is everyone else "lacking" ?

The main point I've seen you two argue is that playing more competitively than the average casual player is still casual. Am I wrong in thinking that's your point, because I must say you guys haven't come anywhere near stating it like I just did. Your second point is about the importance of winning, which I think you guys are way off base on.

Two of the points I summarized before:

1. Interaction with your opponent(giving them a chance to play out their deck, as opposed to grinding them into the dust), whoever it is, either by going easy on them, playing lesser decks, or playing evenly matched stronger decks
2. Some people have seemed to argue that #1 is unnecessary, some people have argued that #1 is required and defines casual

What I am curious to ask is do you think your points are the be all and end all of this discussion. Is playing in the manner you describe "THE" way to play the game, and any other way is less than yours? Are people who disagree with you wrong? Is point #1 above wrong and an insult to the game?

 

[Spiderman]

HOUTS: Obviously you live in a different world if you think the examples I gave are examples of "healthy discussion". They're insults, plain and simple, that do nothing to add to the discussion. I would wager you can't find anyone else here to back you up. Your posts before then: healthy discussion. Your posts right there: not healthy. "Harshness" doesn't even come into the equation.

And no, you can't "say what you want". I'll edit or delete anytime I feel it's out of line, as I did to one of Gizmo's posts. And if you have a problem with that, maybe YOU should find another site

 

[Killer Joe]

As with anyone who writes passionately about any topic you have to, as a reader, have the ability to be able to differentiate the intelligible from the benign. So I wouldn't get too carried away with non-sensical matters such as interpreting what others think about you and or others you associate with.

We're ALL brothers of this Game and as with real brothers some are a pain in the arse and others are not.

Okay, lock arms and sing with me:

"Why can't WEEE be friends, why can't weeeee be friends...."

 

[Mikeymike]

I still refer to my original point.

People keep trying to define "Casual" for everyone else, when the only definition that matters is your own.

 

[HOUTS]

HOUTS: Obviously you live in a different world if you think the examples I gave are examples of "healthy discussion". They're insults, plain and simple, that do nothing to add to the discussion. I would wager you can't find anyone else here to back you up. Your posts before then: healthy discussion. Your posts right there: not healthy. "Harshness" doesn't even come into the equation.

And no, you can't "say what you want". I'll edit or delete anytime I feel it's out of line, as I did to one of Gizmo's posts. And if you have a problem with that, maybe YOU should find another site

hhahahahah

Insulting.

Mr Pot....you look a little 'dark' today.

Have you seen the other replies?

Do what you want. Edit away. I won't be going anywhere you idiot.

Yep, I just called you an idiot.


I want to see if you can handle it....


Meow, I'm sorry you can't meow handle such meow hard language.

Get over it.

As I said---I'll be saying what I want.

Thanks for talking,

please come again


HOUTS

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

still haven't answered my question HOUTS.