Phyrexia vs the Multiverse: Recent Activity

Recent updates to Phyrexia vs the Multiverse: (Generated at 2025-05-01 11:02:51)

• 2016-05-20 08:46:35: jameschanlee deleted the card The Planar Drill from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:32: jameschanlee deleted the card The Flesh Singularity from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:30: jameschanlee deleted the card Iron Ligament from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:28: jameschanlee deleted the card Hinged Proboscis from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:26: jameschanlee deleted the card Yawning Chasm from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:24: jameschanlee deleted the card Tongue of Ibbog from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:21: jameschanlee deleted the card Stitcher Entity from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:19: jameschanlee deleted the card Agitator Drone from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:05: jameschanlee deleted the card Signal Drone from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:02: jameschanlee deleted the card Pus Titan from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:46:00: jameschanlee deleted the card Open the Void from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:45:57: jameschanlee deleted the card Nihil Claw from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:45:55: jameschanlee deleted the card Kill Command from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:45:53: jameschanlee deleted the card Incomprehensible Madness from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:45:51: jameschanlee deleted the card Gods Demand Sacrifice from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:45:49: jameschanlee deleted the card Eldrazi Negator from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:45:48: jameschanlee deleted the card Canines and Incisors from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:45:45: jameschanlee deleted the card Cancerous Mass from Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 08:45:27: jameschanlee changed the cardset options for Phyrexia vs the Multiverse
• 2016-05-20 07:31:46: jameschanlee commented on the cardset Phyrexia vs the Multiverse

  Design notes 5/20

  As with everything, the best way to learn how to make something is to iterate rather than start from scratch. It's simply more efficient to learn from other people's mistakes rather than your own. I read Sam's article on how they developed the Hydra deck; I played a bit of horde. I read articles and reviews. Of course, I also played the challenge decks a lot.

  I rank the decks Xenagos > Hydra > Horde.

  All

  • Good: Simple rules.
  • Good: Simple cards. Cards have one or two abilities, and are easy to remember. The number of permanent cards in the deck should also be minimized, since you need to remember what they do at a glance. I THINK the number of sorceries can be increased since they're one-ofs you can read, but this hypothesis is still for testing.
  • Bad: Variable player power decks. Some player decks are just too strong against the challenge decks, and some cards are too strong against the decks. The solution proposed is to use sealed or draft decks instead, to manage the power level of the deck.
  • Interesting: "draw and cast on main phase". Why did they phrase it this way instead of "The enemy untaps and draws as normal, but casts all cards in his hand on the main phase?"
  • Interesting: Cards that would go anywhere othe than the battlefield go to graveyard. This is a limitation due to the PAPER nature of the deck. They would naturally have to limit the number of zones. But if we play in Cockatrice, we're not limited by this issue!

  Hydra

  • Good: Checking winning only at the end step. The heads can only be attacked once. It also has Resistance to Wrath effects.
  • Good: "Flip two cards for every head killed". Makes killing the head a pleasant experience. It triggers anticipation from the player.
  • Good: Variable difficulty curve (when lucky). Good idea with the "reward" system as life, so that life swing can change as a variable.
  • Bad: High variance. Some games ae just short and ends early when the player is lucky, and in some games the Hydra just overruns the player.
  • Bad: Non-increasing difficulty curve. A player's MTG deck's power is limited by mana and is thus linearly increasing in power. However, the hydra's challenge level is flat.
  • Bad: I understand the need for Neck Tangle and Strike the Weak Spot as ways to limit the hydra overruning hte player, but people didn't like how they were essentially "good cards" for the player. Instead of being obvious that it's a "good card", maybe it should just convert one resource type to another, but lessen the impact in doing so. (e.g. destroy all creatures; player loses 1 life for each).
  • Bad: Lack of "interactivity". Yes, he heads

  Horde

  • Good: Artifacts dictating number of cards drawn and played. Really really good. Must think: Is there another way to create this kind of tension other than by increasing the number of cards drawn? Is there any other way to represent aggressive strength than through permanents?
  • Bad: Same as above. Artifacts are a much harder permanent to get rid of than creatures, but a dedidcated artifact destruction deck can easily destroy these totems, negating any challenge from these cards.
  • Bad: Linear plan of attack. Once the hero has a few >5 toughness cards set up, or a vigilance lifelinker, the game is pretty much over. The menace cards can try to break stalemates, but it isn't enough.
  • Bad: The "everyone has haste and attacks if able." It's much more interesting in the Xenagos deck, where you're not sure there are attackers every turn. Here, once you've stabilized, the slow trickle of minnotaurs just isn't enough.
  • Bad: There is an "upper bound" of Hero strength that cannot be broken. Once you have enough cards to continuously attack, you can pretty much "farm" the deck until you win.
  • Bad: Intervention of Keranos. Blows up the whole Minotaur deck. The card that gives everyone +2/+0 and blows them up is much more interesting.
  • Bad: Lack of interactivity. While the hydra deck felt like a wall you were bashing against, here it's a river bashing against you. The best implementation really is the Xenagos deck, where it feels like an actual player.

  Xenagos

  • Good: Very good interactivity. It's the only deck among the three where you actually feel like you're fighting against
  • Good: Attacking when there are 5 guys. One, it's a a sense of tension (Oh shit he almost has 5 guys). But more importantly, since attacking is random (dependent on cards), it's a great way to REGULATE the number of guys on the battlefield. It's easier to fight 5 guys at a time, than having 10 guys build up on the other side and attack you all at the same time.
  • Good: Deathtouch guys. Scales in power.
  • Good: Dance of Flame. This enchantment dealsd damage to a player whenever a Reveler attacks. This is a way of INCREASING the power of the Reveler in the long game without modifying the number of cards Xenagos draws each turn.
  • Bad: Too storng at the start. Without hero powers, there's a very good chance that Xenagos just steamrolls over the player at turn three or four.
  • Interesting: Possible alternate Win con. What if Xenagos instead had "~ can't leave the battlefield unless its library is EMPTY?"

  The limitations we want to overcome are:

  • Hard to make a reward system if some creatures have rewards and some don't. Have to double heck every time.
  • simple ways to scale in power. Deathtouch is one of them.
  • There should be a common gameplay method across all five decks, but only one "gimmick" at any time. This would minimize remembering to do stuff.
  • Minimize stuff which takes a long time in cockatrice (or even in real life).
• 2016-05-20 04:18:11: jameschanlee edited the details page Build a Deck
• 2016-05-20 04:14:10: jameschanlee edited the details page Build a Deck
• 2016-05-20 02:17:11: jameschanlee edited a card
• 2016-05-20 02:16:31: jameschanlee edited a card
• 2016-05-20 02:11:39: jameschanlee commented on the cardset Phyrexia vs the Multiverse

  5/20/16

  Findings: - Initial batch of playtesting is complete. It's more imporant to see whether the general "flow" of the game works well, before introducing the difficulty balance.

  Interesting Findings:

  • the approach to this is very different compared to creating duel decks. Here, it seems like the most imporatnt thing to do is to minimize bookkeeping as much as possible. That means these kinds of cards are out:
  • tokens: Takes too much time to set up on Cockatrice. Rather jyust use the card.s
  • Cards with two or more abilities. Each card should technically just do one thing, since it's very easy to "forget" what a card's secondary ability is.
  • Minimize triggers unless explicit.
  • +1/+1 and other counters, counter manipulation
  • power and toughness manipulation should be kept to a minimum.
  • In a word, all cards should be like commons with regard to board and comprehension complexity, while having variable power levels all the way from common to rare.
  • Interplay / cascading combos: For instance, a card that draws and plays and causes more cards to draw and causes hand to be reshuffled into library... as much as possible, the cards within a deck should attack different zones (one hand, one land, one creature..)

  Good stuff - "one time" effects, or "set and forget" ETBs

  Bad stuff

• 2016-05-19 23:12:16: jameschanlee edited the details page 2: Heart Breaker
• 2016-05-19 23:11:03: jameschanlee edited the details page 2: Heart Breaker
• 2016-05-19 20:59:27: jameschanlee edited the details page 2: Heart Breaker
• 2016-05-19 20:58:21: jameschanlee edited the details page 2: Heart Breaker
• 2016-05-19 20:57:12: jameschanlee edited the details page 2: Heart Breaker