Play Style, Deck Colors, Winning Consistency
General forum
Posted on July 21, 2013, 11:58 a.m. by Quick3nd
Hi guys,
In games such as Starcraft 2, a lot of the professional players like to do macro oriented games (longer games) So they emphasize their economy while putting in just enough to defend against the possible early aggression.
Reason being that, cheesy builds like a surprise all-in attack could win against a pro player, but if the game takes longer, the better player often times comes out on top due to better mechanics, better decision making skills, and less mistakes made throughout the game.
Is this also true in MTG? Now, i'm a complete novice when it comes to MTG (planning on signing up on the 24th for the 2014 pre-release) but different color decks offer different play styles... there are the mono-red aggro deck that focus on pure out aggression, and there are mono blue decks that focus on controlling your opponent, etc (from what i read at least)
If two equally skilled player play against each other, the one who plays the all out aggression would probably look to win fast, while the more defensive player would try to take the game into deeper water.... but are some color decks better against other color decks? for example, if a deck is too defensive or it takes too long for the player to set up his plays.... then an all out aggression might have the advantage right? And if it is true that a better player will most often win the longer the game goes on... is it then better to play a deck that just holds off the opponent long in enough in the beginning in order to drag the game longer into later rounds? And will this play style yield more consistent result?
If anyone have time, could someone give me describe a few play styles in this game? as well as the style of each color deck? What color deck is more suited for a player who likes a certain play style?
Sorry for such a length post, and thanks in advance!
Epochalyptik says... #3
Also, to address another point of yours, it's not necessarily true that the better player will win. The decks have a lot to do with victory and defeat; some decks are just naturally weak against others. The randomness associated with each draw also factors into the equation.
July 21, 2013 12:14 p.m.
First off, sorry to disappoint, but the Magic 2014 pre-release was a week ago.
Generally there are four types of decks. Aggro decks are the fast decks you are talking about, trying to ram through enough damage to kill by turn 4 or 5. Midrange/Tempo decks try to slow down the opponent long enough to play 4 or 5 drops that completely change the flow of the game, say Thragtusk or Kalonian Hydra . These expect to win by turn 6-8. Control decks try to basically prevent the opponent from doing anything, winning very late in the game. Finally, there are Combo decks that have just enough cards to hold on until they can play their unbeatable combo which wins the game outright. These usually take a while, but it depends on the specific combo.
Generally, Blue and Black tilt Control, Red tilts Aggro, Green tilts Midrange, White is in the middle, and Combo draws from any color, but their are exceptions. Colors have stereotypes but those are not always the main focus of a particular deck.
Generally speaking, the better player is not necessarily one who plays a longer game. In Magic, the better player is generally the one who wins, regardless of how they won (although some kinds of decks are looked down upon / hated).
There are a couple of differences between Starcraft and Magic, but the three major ones are that Starcraft is a spectator sport, Magic is more random, and Magic is a deckbuilding game.
Starcraft is trying to be an eSport. Blizzard heaviliy pushes that way, and will change things not just to make the game more fun to play, but also more fun to watch. A game that ends or is decided in 10 minutes is generally not as interesting as a half-our or longer game, so Blizzard has put in a number of strategies to guard against rushes dominating the game. This tends to make the games last longer. Wizards has not pushed to make Magic a spectator sport, and so does not care how long games last.
Starcraft is also a highly technical sport. There is almost no randomness inherent to the game, and much of the skill is in managing timing for attacks and keeping everything running at top speed. In theory, you could plan out the perfect set of moves and responses in Starcraft, much like in chess. Magic, on the other hand, embraces randomness, with you not always knowing what your move on the next turn will be until you draw a card for turn.
Finally, Starcraft is set in what you could possibly face. Every Zerg player has the same options as every other Zerg player, so when playing one you don't need to guess what they can do. Magic requires deckbuilding, which means that you never know exactly what you will face, and two decks with the same general strategy or colors may play out very differently.
tl;dr Magic and Starcraft are very different games
July 21, 2013 12:21 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
It should be noted, though, that players who are good at both micro- and macromanaging in Starcraft and other RTS games usually turn out to be pretty decent players because they're more inclined to be aware of board state. I know several RTS players who turned out to be natural control players in Magic because the thought processes and awareness carried over.
July 21, 2013 12:24 p.m.
would it be fair to say that an all aggression deck is more straight forward to play? since you're basically just throwing out attack and trying to damage the opponent as much as you can, as fast as you can..
while, a a player who focus on controlling and looking for a late game requires good timing and perhaps a slightly better decision making skills as to when to disable/disrupt someone, when to nullify an attack, when to deplete an opponent's mana... since the goal is to thoroughly slow down and contain the opponent, so in order to maximize the efficiency, the little details, timing, and execution has to be perfect in order to react to your opponent.
i know you said that in general, aggro beats control by speed.... so what about a hybrid deck... a hybrid of control deck that's not AS slow as the typical control deck, so that it can defend against the aggro deck better in the beginning, so that it might have a better chance for late game?
and eventhough different colors are said to be better at certain things... for example, red better for aggro, blue for control.. etc nothing is set in stone right? since there's also good aggro green deck, etc... as a beginner i thought i could determine what style i want to play and just pick a color... now i have no idea how to pick my style lol :D
July 21, 2013 12:29 p.m.
pre-release was last week?
https://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/other/07102013c#nac
i'm signing up for MTGO on the 24th because on that date the new account will receive a different starter kit.
July 21, 2013 12:32 p.m.
Well ill try to answer your question as best as I can (I am a novice as well). To answer your first question about long games let's say that mtg started of at 100 life decks, like esper control (White blue black control deck that usually tends to win by milling) would dominate since games would take way to long and they would be able to stabalize alot more often. Mono red would do absolutely nothing (they usually tend to win by getting ones life total to zero).
To answer your second question all five colors of magic are basically equals, players can utilize each color to fit diffrent play styles. For example when you were mentioning defensive decks (this is an actual archetype in mtg called control) they usually do tend to make the game longer, while Mono Red decks want to end the game as long as possible. Since mtg starts of at 20 life it lets aggressive decks (aggro) still able to be viable as well as control decks. It is true that it takes more skill to use control decks but that does not make them stronger or less powerful than any other deck. Personally I would find a playstyle that you enjoy.
Styles of colorsGreen- Is heavily creature based and usually very easy to playRed- hyper agressive and is very fast has alot of direct damage spells as well as a lot of creatures with haste Black- has the most "power" but that power usually comes with a price ie sacrificing a creatureBlue- Most controlling color punishes players for misplays but rewards them the most for playing the correct play.White- the most defensive color, many. Creatures with vigilance as well as higher toughness of power.
Blue is the best in control and green and red are best in agro decks. You should base your deck around one color and then add the other colors depending on where you want your deck to go.
July 21, 2013 1:12 p.m.
Different decks are more or less straight forward. Control is usually less forgiving that Aggro, but the other factor to consider is deckbuilding. While it may be fairly easy to play Aggro, it can be difficult to build it well. Sideboarding is also an issue.
Midrange/Tempo is the mix of Aggro and Control.
Archetypes are only so helpful. Try to come up with a theme or win-con for your deck and build around that (fast flyers, ramp up to Eldrazi, Human tribal, for example).
July 21, 2013 1:16 p.m.
Schuesseled says... #11
"Is this also true in MTG?"
Yes, you could say that was true, magic is a game where mistakes are costly, knowing how to avoid making those mistakes can drastically improve your decks performance. However that doesn't necessarily mean that playing "the long" game is the best way to go, a hyper aggressive deck played correctly can actually be better. And then there's always the factor of luck in MTG games, sometimes a great deck, used by a great player, can still get screwed by fate.
"different color decks offer different play styles"
Different colours offer different advantages, and some lead naturally towards other play-styles, magic has the concept of the colour pie chart, each colour has different characteristics but some inevitable overlap. For example most people associate the colour red with hasty, high power low toughness creatures, but you sometimes see these creatures popping up in Green, and Black as well. Although it is certainly more typical for red.
"but are some color decks better against other color decks?"
No, not really, every deck is different and can surprise you.
"And will this play style yield more consistent result?"
Control decks excel when they are successfully able to control the field whilst maintaining card advantage and once their opponents start top-decking (only able to use the one card they draw each turn) they should be able to win. However it can take a great deal of time to achieve this, and is often heavily dependent on what your opponent does. In addition some aggro decks, especially blitz decks are just too damned fast when they get a good starting hand, and they'll kill you before they run out of steam.
One of the easiest ways you can ensure victory against your opponents is to have a great sideboard, this again can just come down to luck, but if you have the right cards to side in to totally dominate your opponents deck, then you'll have a good chance.
Here are some archetypes and the colour combinations that work well:
Control: (Blue), (Blue / White), (Blue / White Red), (Blue / White / Red) (Blue, Red, Black)
Aggro: (Red), (Green), (Black), (White), (And any any colour combo you can come up with)
Midrange: (Green), (Green / Red), (Green, White), (Green / White / Red), (Green, White, Black), (Green, Red, Black)
This list is not definitive, there are a lot of archetypes, and a lot of combinations that defy it. For example, I myself run an Aggro Deck that is Black, Blue and Green, using removal from all colours and hyper aggressive green and black aggro creatures, like Dreg Mangler and Strangleroot Geist whilst using blue to side in control when it becomes necessary.
July 21, 2013 1:45 p.m.
Dalektable says... #12
In my experience, control decks are a lot of times more difficult to build and play than an aggro deck. I play both styles, and playing a control deck is almost like playing a game of chess. It takes a lot of thought, and when you win it is such a satisfying feeling.
But that's not to say aggro has no strategy to it, or deckbuilding is easy. Aggro fails a lot in sideboarding also, it's harder. It's difficult to make a great aggro build that is quick and powerful enough to win consistently. But, actual gameplay is kind of slamming down creatures and swinging with some occasional burn. It takes less thought to play, and it's a good starting build for beginners seeing as they win often and are easy to play. But oh, they are fun to play. A turn 4 or 5 win is a beautiful thing.
July 21, 2013 1:48 p.m.
Winning any game is a combination of:
- deck building skill
- good decision making during play
- luck
- reading opponents (and manipulating them)
deck building skill
This is important for all games which is why there are so many blog sites and communities for discussing this (for MTG). To try to summarize this in detail feels overwhelming to me just because there are so many things to consider here. It would take pages and books to explain the nuances of this and months or years of experience. Some people start with pre-made decks and these are regularly available to purchase from Wizards for a reason. People practice "net-decking" at the competitive levels for similar reasons.
good decision making during play
This involves paying close attention, knowing deck archetypes well, knowing which threats are most critical, and remembering not to tap yourself out (even if it is quite tempting). The longer the game goes, the more decisions there tend to be (and the more complex they become), so I would say that good decision making is more critical to control players than either combo or aggro - but careless mistakes can break anyone.
The existence of decks that are either (a) too fast to survive or (b) literally unbeatable (literally, there are cards that state that a player cannot win or lose unless they are removed - there are some cards with text that reads "if ... then you win", there are combos that actually make it impossible for opponents to cast any more spells, etc.) means that a control player can't just rely on their superior skills and decision-making alone - they may have to take some risks or allow some lack of control in order to keep up or end the game before something they can't deal with happens. Just about the only way to completely control any possible situation would be to play a deck based on counter-spells and these are extremely difficult to run and are generally hated for a reason. If it was actually easy to control a game this way then it wouldn't be fun for a lot of people.
luck
Luck is a part of the game but there are ways to build a deck to reduce the luck factor or amplify it (depending on what you prefer). With mulligan rules like partial paris, aggro players depend a bit less on luck - without such rules, aggro players are completely subject to luck more or less. With the use of tutors, combo players are much less subject to luck, otherwise they are almost stupidly dependent on luck. The luck factor can be hugely altered by deck-building strategies but never eliminated.
reading opponents
This becomes most important when playing as or against control. You can either try to bait the control player into using their control on less important targets or psyche out an opponent as the control player so that they further slow their game for fear of targeted control that you may or may not actually have in your hand at the moment.
In multi-player (something that may be less relevant to you), this is an enormous part of the game - perhaps it is more important than even deck building.
As far as linking colors to win-factors or play-styles goes, it depends on the format. There are different formats like pauper, EDH, standard, modern, legacy, etc. Each format allows different cards and new cards are always in the process of being spoiled, rotated in, and rotated out, etc. There are some strong patterns but some expansions offer new features that allow a color that might traditionally be more controlish to support an aggro style or something like that.
July 21, 2013 2:33 p.m.
GreatSword says... #14
Not sure if you saw this already Quick3nd, but here's a video of Day[9] at the last Pro Tour talking about the differences between SC2 and Magic (start at 4:50).
http://youtu.be/mp3tp6g8qNk?t=4m48s
July 21, 2013 3:21 p.m.
As an avid player of both Magic and Starcraft in the mid 90s it makes my heart warm to see that both are still being discussed ~15 years later.
Starcraft is about a rapid fire pace of constant development, expansion, aggression, scouting, defense, immediate tactics, and long play strategic decisions. It's boom boom boom rapid fire real time go go go.
Magic to me is the long game of deck development to devise a game play to dominate the enemy and then a cat and mouse game of show and tell to ultimately dominate a match. Different feels but both are extremely enjoyable. Both are highly addictive. Starcraft is probably worse. I never bought SC2 because of how addictive SC/BW was years ago. I can back to Magic after 15 years away and it's a different game. As you can read there is a lot more formalized strategy and advice available today and it's a bit more formalized. 15 years ago you never knew exactly what you might face but today in a standard tournament you know 1/2 a game in what you are up against. Part of this is the Internet and the games popularity and The other part is the strategic planning by the developers to maintain an overall game balance between various play styles and approaches.
Epochalyptik says... #2
Monocolored decks tend to be few and far between because multicolored decks offer more flexibility. Mono-red is the most popular single-color build because it is aggressive enough to get wins.
In Magic, we have what we call the "big three" - the three primary archetypes of decks.
These archetypes share a rock-paper-scissors relationship:
That's just a general outline of Magic decks. The situation will vary greatly depending on the decklist, the players, and the draws.
July 21, 2013 12:12 p.m.