The other possible way of doing it is like it is now except with the server only giving you extra basic domain buildings that you started with. So if you start with Graveyards and Great Oaks as the only way of getting domain. The server will only give you extra graveyards.

Also fixing the problem where it is drawing a card before realizing that a domain source is destroyed. And fixing the pantheon issue.

"Jed: The intent of Autodraw is to allow you to build a deck with out worrying about putting the right amount of domain buildings in. And to prevent things like getting too many or
too little domain cards if they were just random like other cards in your deck."

I hate to be harsh but I don't think autodraw fulfils the intent you keep talking about. I think I speak for more than myself when I say in every deck I build I have to be very aware and careful about the combination and number of domain buildings I put in each deck, or I risk getting the wrong mix of buildings in the first turn, or having domain cards eat up my draws when I really need to see more of my deck rather than get the domain for something I don't want to cast yet.

I'm strongly against a fully automated system for getting domain cards because of the amount of extrapolation that is required on part of the players to even begin to understand what happens in all the varying scenarios. Autodraw is obscuring deckbuilding rather than simplifying it. It is antithetical to what it's supposed to do.

If the intent is to let players get what they need seemlessly on the fly, why do we even need autodraw? Let them decide when they want to replace a draw with a base or other domain cards ("fated" cards). This allows for nuanced decisions such as "I don't need to cast the only 3 domain card in my hand now because the rest of my hand only requires 2 domain which I plan to play the next few turns, so I want to wait until later to draw another domain building - maybe I don't even need it." Is it REALLY intentional for the game to dole out basically irrelevant cards to players when all it's supposed to do is to make domain drawing seamless? It sounds like a bug, not a feature.

Even the opening hand doesn't require automation. Just let players draw 6 cards, and then let them decide whether their 7th card shall be a certain base building or a "fated" card. Or perhaps let them choose before they draw 6.

If we MUST have autodraw. I can only see one solution. And yaron has it.

"yaron: I guess we need an autodraw system that reads minds."

I think autodraw adds an interesting mechanic to the game that is far from eliminating consideration of domain buildings in deck design, but actually increases it and creates a lot of different options. Some combinations of cards work better than others -- that is what deck design is all about.

It also prevents the worst issues of getting bad draws due to needing domain cards. You can't get a full hand of domain cards at the start if you only have a few in the deck, you can't get none because of autodraw.

I think this proposal may be the best, although the question always becomes: Is there a way to break it. If I put one oak and one spring in my deck, would I perpetually draw oaks and springs? (or Bone Fortresses/Dank Pits) Would that be good or bad? Is there a way to abuse it?

For the love of all that is good and kind and sweet and wonderful and pretty and lovely and nice and beautiful and happy in this world... PLEASE implement this new autodraw OR go back to the original one.

Allowing autodraw to ONLY give you buildings that were originally in your deck will make deck building make sense again! It's also more intuitive for the general user to see cards in their deck that they put in their deck.

It's aggravting (and confusing to a new player) to build a deck with only Graveyards, planning on casting other domains with a diplomat, and then drawing a Grove or a Hall that wasn't even in your deck in the first place.

CONSIDER:
Having one of these new methods of autodraw basically gives all domain buildings the ability that Vapor Mahal has (of returning to the bottom of your library when destroyed). What's the benefit of Mahal then? It doesn't have salvage, and loses HP every turn, whereas a Magma chamber has salvage, and can keep coming back and back and back.

In other card games, such as MTG, your land base is extremely important. The game doesn't magically provide you land. I don't feel that an autodraw system that draws extra cards (i.e. more basic buildings) is needed. It should be inherent in deck building to put in bases that you want to draw, to know how many bases you need, and to have spares when they get destroyed.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

I want to say that in MtG about 25-30% of the games are decided by one of the player either getting too many lands or too few, and this got nothing to do with that player not having the right amount of lands in the deck since bith things will happen to the same decks. This is one of MtG biggest faults in my opinion. With the autodraw we got in TFW we dont have this problem. So less luck based games, wich I think is good. Sure there is aloth of luck involved with the maps, but that is another issue.

I like the new autodraw system, since one can manage without having too many buildings in the decks so one dont have to be afrais of getting "building flooded". Less luck - more skill = more fun.

Anecdotal evidence aside, I'd say it's more like 2-5% of MtG games that are decided by one or the other person getting mana screwed when the decks are built correctly.

The original autodraw rule all but eliminated this without causing other issues. The only real issue back then was the ability to destroy all of an opponents domain buildings... That isn't a game mechanics issue, just a possible issue with certain cards and domain destruction should be a valid, but not overpowered strategy.

With any sensible number of options for building destruction and 3 of each in the deck it's trivial to destroy the 5 to 6 domain buildings in the average deck, though. I like this way of balancing it better than I like nerfing every single building destruction option.

Still, this way leads to flooding someone with buildings they don't need in some situations, while encourages the boring "build a building every dang turn" way of holding onto a flux well.

Options for solving the flooding problem:
1) only giving people things of a type they have in the deck, maybe in the same proportions if there's more than one option; restricted to commons I'd hope, to prevent any illicit hadarcking.
2) Being less likely to draw a second of one kind of building, or to draw another building at all when astridian parthenon is in the hand, even if there is a two-of-one-kind card that would require it. Magnetite beacon was a real offender on this one, for example, reducing my effective hand size from 6 to 5.

Options for solving the infinite reusability problem:
1) Salvage. Maybe make the "out of thin air" buildings have less salvage, maybe even adjusting it so that the salvage decreases as more and more buildings are produced by autodraw.
2) Frequency. Maybe don't give them every turn. Maybe only let autodraw add new buildings to the deck every other turn, or once every three turns.
3) Other stats. Decreased health maybe? Probably unnecessary.