I like the article, and I'd like to see the same for future sets. I play a lot of limited, especially when sets are released. This article didn't teach me anything I didn't find out myself, except for the usefulness of Knowledge Vault. Maybe that's the difference between your amazing limited rating and my decent one. That's one less thing I was using to better my decks. Even though I've seen other people use it effectively I think I convinced myself it was no good. If anything you've taught me to evaluate and reevaluate all the cards in a set before drafting.
I'm sure someone with less limited experience than me who read this got a lot more out of it than I did. Hopefully you will write up another one like this to benefit myself and others again.
yeah!
zendikar looks a interesting set for Pauper and decks like goblins, RDW,a new suicide B and control with new bouncers...
And harrow and river boa cheap!
we love it!
I think you are wrong about Vanguard. That killed the format was the shift to 3.0 followed by only allowing vanguards of cards in std...
The first meant that the format slept for some time, as in a long periode were ppl didnt play vanguard (I belive it would have been fine if they had introduced those weekend challenges abit faster). The second broke the format. Vanguard was pretty fast (as in I think it was faster than ext most of the time). There were more or less a 1-1 between vanguards and decks (Daarkon had more but that was about it). Usually some of the newest + some old stalwarts vanguard were the ones played. Than they removed the old it didnt mean a slow down of the format, but more that the number of decks that could stand a chance in the format went down. That, to me, killed the format - limits breed creativity, but it DOES get less like fun and more like work :/
Now i wont try to assume everyone's budget is moderate. I know until recently my budget kept me playing Pauper for a long time and I have recently started branching out into other formats. Personally I try to avoid spending more than $20 dollars a deck. But I have also recently been able to build a 2hg deck that wins consistently based on the power of some "junk" rares as well as a semi decent standard deck that is more or less waiting for zendikar before i would consider it possibly tourney worthy. A lot of money-issues are unavoidable but can be remedied by smart purchasing. I've seen a lot of players just grab up cards that look fun and then never find a good place for them and now they are out money that could have been used for cards they needed.
As far as dividing up the rooms...well I might not see it the same way. I play almost strictly casual magic with the exception of PRE's. I have no need to ever step foot into tournament practice nor do i have the desire to play with people who are aggresively trying to win. The problem with casual is that I rend to be more of a Johnnh than anything and apparently combo decks really irk some of the people in cas/cas. Im not sure why since in my experience combo tends to be a very risky deck to play at times relying on good draws and almost a "cooperation" from opponents. I think the main thing is people for the most part in cas/cas need to "lighten" up a little. It is just a game and not every match is a winner. I have no problem with someone conceding on me. But to have someone concede and then start flaming you and your deck is just the height of immature.
this one one of the worse comments I saw this month ^^
/cheers
Anyhow, great article, tho I don't really care about this personality stuff that much. Or atleast I don't notice it a lot. For me every game is fun tho I do sometimes see those rich bastards that have promo foiled lands and all cards foiled or promo... -.-
I'd like to take exception to the notion that 100 Card Singleton and K-scope are in a similar place. K-scope's failure is inevitable, as it will go a full year with no new cards and is a poorly conceived format in the first place. By contrast, 100CS has some genuinely compelling aspects, a decent number of articles written about it, and a steady niche following.
I'm glad they dropped the "casual format" label, because it's a misnomer. It applies well to EDH/Commander since there are no tournaments, but it doesn't make sense to offer sanctioned tournaments to a format and call it casual. Even if they have flatter prize structures.
One more thing I'll add is that some of us in 100CS have been making an effort to keep our tournament decks in the tournament practice room, and we have had at least a bit of success. Nowadays you can usually find a match opponent there, whereas before there was hardly ever anybody playing 100CS in TP. Hopefully this effort helps the casual players who just want to have a fun/random/casual game of 100CS. If people are testing tournament 100CS decks, please use the TP room! Thanks!
I liked the article but its unfortunate about the timing.
I do disagree about the abyss, I think it's up there with the rares I'd most like to open. The two times i opened it during the release I went 4-0. I don't think it requires as much support as you claim. Coal golems are easy to kill with 3 toughness, so while you do include them in a a deck with the abyss, they aren't really going to be your win condition. The ideal situation is to have enough burn in the deck (where hasty creatures do qualify as burn) after maybe poking some damage through before the abyss drops. But even without burn, simply having access to a boomerang is good enough for me. The abyss easily stops your opponents developpment immediately and forces the game very long unless your opponent has a ton of burn. In this case you can just patiently set up a good hand for a timely boomerang on your abyss. Otherwise, if its late enough in the game, it can become clear that you can easily deck your opponent. As long as you set up your deck and your play knowing that this is the plan, you are at a huge advantage, since your deck is built around having the abyss, while the opponent's is not. You do however have to be prepared to win without the abyss, because your opponent could side into disenchant or happen to have access to enough burn.
While I definitely think that most of the blame for this falls on the players who play noncasual decks in casual room, alot of the blame can go to wotc too.Cards like planeswalkers that win on their own are one of the biggest problems. Anyone remember them saying how mythics were not going to be tourney rares that you need to win? The difference between the money cards and non money cards, in terms of power level, is so immense that it is really tough to have any chance unless you have the $ in your deck. While its always been like that, since mythics came out the prices for good cards has become ridiculous.
I stand by my decision to keep the title as is. Is it a little edgy yes, but I respect the years and years and years of work that Pete Jahn has put in in regards to magic writing. I will always err on his side, as he in my mind is one of the best.
I am sorry if anyone was offended by the title, but I do want you to know that hours of thought was put in to it before I decided to run it.
Pete Jahn is a fantastic writer and a great person, I know it was not his intent to be harmful or immature in anyway with the title.
Thank you for the comments, now can we please get back to talking about the article itself
Yeah, tribal will always get owned by decks packing something that's actually good (like a random 2 card combo) rather than just a bunch of creatures to attack with. I remember the old Hulk-Flash Slivers, Painter-Grindstone Humans, Dragonstorm Dragons, etc. It's hard for "real" tribal decks to compete.
Pretty lame, and why I don't play tribal anymore. Well, that and changelings. :P
Pete, I have to agree 100% with your assessment that once a format becomes competitive it's nearly impossible for it to return to a more casual state; I think this was also one of the major reasons behind the eventual failure of Prismatic, Rainbow Stairwell, Vanguard, and now K-Scope and 100 Singleton.
My experience is that once "casual" players believe a format has become competitive they stop investing in it and look for something else. And you never get them back.
I really like EDH/Commander, they're now the only formats I play for 'fun' and I can see the writing on the wall for them as well. It's why I hope WotC never sanctions Commander.
Didnt read article. Just skimmed through it and got the gist of what you were implying.
I dont like the title either but whatever.
Anyways- I play a lot of casual decks online and have recently made a deck thats more competitive since I got bored of semi-casual. I played Cascade-Mill which I got bored of. I played Mill which I got bored of. I played an ALA Artifact which got boring. Played Sanguine Bond deck which I made a day after M10 came out and I challeneged some dude last week who copied almost everything about my deck. Which he admitted. I got bored of that deck because its slow and loses too fast. Made a fun deck that just irritates the opponent which I should play more. I think playing against and with LD, Counters, Stasis is quite fun. I was doing it ever since School
I have currently a U/W Exxy Deck which is fun sine I win and am able to compete with all those lame Lorwyn-Shadowmoor lameness. Most of my decks are block oriented. I dont like to mix sets because its so lame. I havent challenged a toury deck recently in the casual room but when I did it was mostly with my Cascade Mill. If they didnt kill me by turn 4 or 5 then theyre in trouble though it was rare to have a good starting hand with good draws. Most of these people didnt complain if they lost. They just 'lol'd' several times.
Just a small kine experience with the casual room.
Excellent take on things, Pete. I've also seen formats wax and wane in popularity over time, both official and unofficial, and there is a correlation as you have described. Another striking example is Kaleidoscope: Massive interest and creativity at the format launch, the refining of the best decks, stagnation and abandonment due to lack of rotation. I see one or two games posted by stalwarts of the format from time to time, but that's it.
Your solution was tried: the end result was the status quo, with no-one using the room between 'Casual' and 'Tournament Practice'. Nonetheless the idea is good on paper, if there is a way to transfer it successfully online.
I read the article and all the comments and I think AJ_Impy is assuming something that isn't necessarily true. Just because someone is getting help from a friend in a PTQ doesn't mean they will win. If someone isn't a skilled enough player to win, who say's that their friend is? And if their friend is wouldn't they just enter the PTQ themselves? I sincerely doubt that people playing as a "team" will alter the outcome of the online PTQs that will be on MOL. A team of mediocre players is still mediocre. The better players will still come out on top.
What I mean is, the solution is right there in MTGO. There is a competitive room, and there is a casual room. Now, in that regard, I'm not too upset about anyone that wants to play competitive or "play to win" in the casual room (really, to me this is a ridiculous observation, because everyone plays to win, if it wasn't so, they'd just concede immediately). Well, anyhow, nice combos, swarms, deck archetypes, player archetypes, nothing like this is really the problem with the argument. The problem with the argument is, casual means you are looking for a fun game that both players can play. Observe, both players should be able to play and both players should be able to have fun win or lose. But there is a predominance of decks that are what I call tournament decks, or to be more clear "masturbatory" decks (sorry for the comment, but nothing makes the point better). These kinds of decks are, "I play my stuff, I don't let you play", in other words, it plays well with itself, and really becomes more of a deck that has no opponent. For example, counterspell heavy decks aren't casual, though I'll admit you can play and have fun against them (but really, it involves a whole lot of sitting around and drawing cards waiting for the right moment, and frankly, it's more fun for the counterspell deck and quite boring for you). Elf Grenade is not casual. RDW is not casual. These decks win in 3 to 4 turns and don't allow anyone to actually get into a groove to play a game. Much less, most that play casual want to play a game in which each person has the time, or has the ability, to play their deck.
Besides, the argument comes down to this. If your deck is a copy of a tourney deck, or is being tested for tourney, well, there is a room right there, called tournament practice, that serves that purpose. In casual, you are far more unlikely to even understand or know how to play a tourney deck against other tourney archetypes, because those decks are not prevalent in casual. My point of view is, if I see you play nothing but counterspells for the first 4 turns, I concede with a "good game". I see a time sieve "I take 5 or 6 turns in a row" deck, I concede. So for me, this argument affects me little, though I can see the point being made by both sides (tourney people say they can never find quality opponents in the tourney room, whatever, its a cope out). Frankly, if I want to play casual, and I play against a non casual deck, I just concede and move on to the next opponent. You have control of conceding, so just concede and move on if you don't like the deck your playing against. What other solution could be simpler. My two mana worth.
I liked the article and I agree with everything you say except about the jungle lion. While it is normally a bad card, in the right deck it can be great. By the right deck I mean anything that plays cinder storm and a couple burn/pump spells. If your jungle lion goes unanswered for even two swings then it has done its job if you can throw damage at the head when your opponents fatties come on line. While I think it is a better card in draft as that format seems to be dominated by RG aggro it can still be decent if you open the right pool in sealed.
@ paul leicht ... I find it really immature (or maybe a better word would be irresponsible) to having to resort to dropping f bombs in the title of what has always seemed to be an all age friendly site.
You grow up, Paul. Don't you have better things to do than hit refresh all day on this site? Also, I'm sick of the amount of writing you do whether it is articles or comments. I'm sure there are people who agree with me. Only if you could block a certain user's comments this site would be spectacular.
While I understand most of your sentiments I can not disagree more with a few. The casual room does have scrubs piloting "Tier 1" decks (though I am guessing they untune them at the first opportunity if they have any Johnny in them) But I have played against fairly good players running the whole gammut from unstoppable combo to go draw. Many of these players are plenty competitive when they feel up to it and sometimes they just play fun decks to relax and enjoy something other than the most cut throat of games. (Personally I find games where the outcome is not really based on good play but on who draws into the easy win first to be abhorrent but I know some people love those kinds of games.)
Also this assertion that casual is for junk seems like an easy dismissal from someone who doesn't enjoy playing anything other than tier 1. I am not saying there isn't a lot of junk floating around as there is but you do see interesting decks out there too, particularly in the 'fringe' formats. But anyway what's the saying? To each their own.
RE: the guys crying about $500 decks...well if the cards you are playing with do cost $500 to put together that does mean something. It isn't merely a matter of liking certain cards more than others that raise costs. The more effective and efficient a card is at winning the higher its cost goes as people demand their own copies. Those who throw money at the game to some extent DO have an advantage over those who don't. That said, creativity, play skill and luck can do wonders to even the playing field of most formats. (Though I maintain that Eternal formats are really not very playable without the big cards unless you are running RDW or something relatively cheaper that just sometimes wins.)
I agree that moderation is in order. No matter whether you netdeck or play rogue, play only the very best decks, or play sub par cards just to win with style, your behavior online should be modeled from your behavior in person. I think bad behavior should meet fitting consequences.
I'm a true Spike in the way that I play to win, and I just can't understand why this would not be the main objective of anyone playing a game (I undestand that there are other objectives, and that everyone is different obviously), and in my experience that really IS true for almost everyone. Yes, even mr. Johnnyscrub McNoob with his 5$ Walls deck prefers winning to losing - this is simply basic human nature. What has amused me the most through my time playing Magic is that "Spikes" generally complain the least, and are generally able to accept that when they lose it is either because of the matchup, bad luck or a difference in playing skill (I remember my good friend getting destroyed by LSV playing Faeries in a game last Extended season - we both had a good laugh there (my friend and I that is)). Most players from the other "demographics" (I feel so stupid using these simpleton terms) tend to get pissed off, and simply blame it on "OMG U SPEND 500$ ON THAT NET DECK!!!1" - something that really pisses me off when I actually never net deck as that is just about the most stupid thing you can do, and no true Spike ever would - or simply luck.
As for Spikes ruining the casual room, I actually think you have a point. I wouldn't call these individuals Spikes, though - failed Spikes perhaps. These individuals that are playing T1 decks in the casual room are either A) pathetic individuals that loves to prey on easy targets, B) normal players that want to test their decks against humans instead of running solitaires (important for control decks) or C) scrubs that don't have the guts to play on an even footing. I've many times played against T1 RDW or Burn decks in the Casual room - piloted by complete scrubs - and when I've confronted them with this, they've almost universally expressed disbelief over my annoyance; to them it's simply normal to pick up an extremely cheap and competitive deck and go out and "own" noobs.
The solution? Divide MTGO in three parts. Casual, competitive decks and tournament practice. Casual is for junk and a place for new players to have fun. Use some moderation to kick out the ones that harass others. Competitive decks for players interested in both diversity and a challenge, and tournament practice for your boring metagame Faeries on Faeries hot action. I truly believe this could help a bit.
The "horrible title" comment was reasonable (as your opinion) even if I disagree but the "grow up" part sounds ridiculous. Peter is a grown man with responsibilities etc and he takes the time to write articles here regularly (to pleasure of many) so give him a little slack if you don't like his Internet meme approach to one article. Did you read the rest of the article? Nothing more critical to comment on than the title?
I like the article, and I'd like to see the same for future sets. I play a lot of limited, especially when sets are released. This article didn't teach me anything I didn't find out myself, except for the usefulness of Knowledge Vault. Maybe that's the difference between your amazing limited rating and my decent one. That's one less thing I was using to better my decks. Even though I've seen other people use it effectively I think I convinced myself it was no good. If anything you've taught me to evaluate and reevaluate all the cards in a set before drafting.
I'm sure someone with less limited experience than me who read this got a lot more out of it than I did. Hopefully you will write up another one like this to benefit myself and others again.
yeah!
zendikar looks a interesting set for Pauper and decks like goblins, RDW,a new suicide B and control with new bouncers...
And harrow and river boa cheap!
we love it!
I think you are wrong about Vanguard. That killed the format was the shift to 3.0 followed by only allowing vanguards of cards in std...
The first meant that the format slept for some time, as in a long periode were ppl didnt play vanguard (I belive it would have been fine if they had introduced those weekend challenges abit faster). The second broke the format. Vanguard was pretty fast (as in I think it was faster than ext most of the time). There were more or less a 1-1 between vanguards and decks (Daarkon had more but that was about it). Usually some of the newest + some old stalwarts vanguard were the ones played. Than they removed the old it didnt mean a slow down of the format, but more that the number of decks that could stand a chance in the format went down. That, to me, killed the format - limits breed creativity, but it DOES get less like fun and more like work :/
Now i wont try to assume everyone's budget is moderate. I know until recently my budget kept me playing Pauper for a long time and I have recently started branching out into other formats. Personally I try to avoid spending more than $20 dollars a deck. But I have also recently been able to build a 2hg deck that wins consistently based on the power of some "junk" rares as well as a semi decent standard deck that is more or less waiting for zendikar before i would consider it possibly tourney worthy. A lot of money-issues are unavoidable but can be remedied by smart purchasing. I've seen a lot of players just grab up cards that look fun and then never find a good place for them and now they are out money that could have been used for cards they needed.
As far as dividing up the rooms...well I might not see it the same way. I play almost strictly casual magic with the exception of PRE's. I have no need to ever step foot into tournament practice nor do i have the desire to play with people who are aggresively trying to win. The problem with casual is that I rend to be more of a Johnnh than anything and apparently combo decks really irk some of the people in cas/cas. Im not sure why since in my experience combo tends to be a very risky deck to play at times relying on good draws and almost a "cooperation" from opponents. I think the main thing is people for the most part in cas/cas need to "lighten" up a little. It is just a game and not every match is a winner. I have no problem with someone conceding on me. But to have someone concede and then start flaming you and your deck is just the height of immature.
this one one of the worse comments I saw this month ^^
/cheers
Anyhow, great article, tho I don't really care about this personality stuff that much. Or atleast I don't notice it a lot. For me every game is fun tho I do sometimes see those rich bastards that have promo foiled lands and all cards foiled or promo... -.-
Was published 2 hours before the MOCS started, I also thought it was next week for some reason.
I'd like to take exception to the notion that 100 Card Singleton and K-scope are in a similar place. K-scope's failure is inevitable, as it will go a full year with no new cards and is a poorly conceived format in the first place. By contrast, 100CS has some genuinely compelling aspects, a decent number of articles written about it, and a steady niche following.
I'm glad they dropped the "casual format" label, because it's a misnomer. It applies well to EDH/Commander since there are no tournaments, but it doesn't make sense to offer sanctioned tournaments to a format and call it casual. Even if they have flatter prize structures.
One more thing I'll add is that some of us in 100CS have been making an effort to keep our tournament decks in the tournament practice room, and we have had at least a bit of success. Nowadays you can usually find a match opponent there, whereas before there was hardly ever anybody playing 100CS in TP. Hopefully this effort helps the casual players who just want to have a fun/random/casual game of 100CS. If people are testing tournament 100CS decks, please use the TP room! Thanks!
I liked the article but its unfortunate about the timing.
I do disagree about the abyss, I think it's up there with the rares I'd most like to open. The two times i opened it during the release I went 4-0. I don't think it requires as much support as you claim. Coal golems are easy to kill with 3 toughness, so while you do include them in a a deck with the abyss, they aren't really going to be your win condition. The ideal situation is to have enough burn in the deck (where hasty creatures do qualify as burn) after maybe poking some damage through before the abyss drops. But even without burn, simply having access to a boomerang is good enough for me. The abyss easily stops your opponents developpment immediately and forces the game very long unless your opponent has a ton of burn. In this case you can just patiently set up a good hand for a timely boomerang on your abyss. Otherwise, if its late enough in the game, it can become clear that you can easily deck your opponent. As long as you set up your deck and your play knowing that this is the plan, you are at a huge advantage, since your deck is built around having the abyss, while the opponent's is not. You do however have to be prepared to win without the abyss, because your opponent could side into disenchant or happen to have access to enough burn.
While I definitely think that most of the blame for this falls on the players who play noncasual decks in casual room, alot of the blame can go to wotc too.Cards like planeswalkers that win on their own are one of the biggest problems. Anyone remember them saying how mythics were not going to be tourney rares that you need to win? The difference between the money cards and non money cards, in terms of power level, is so immense that it is really tough to have any chance unless you have the $ in your deck. While its always been like that, since mythics came out the prices for good cards has become ridiculous.
I stand by my decision to keep the title as is. Is it a little edgy yes, but I respect the years and years and years of work that Pete Jahn has put in in regards to magic writing. I will always err on his side, as he in my mind is one of the best.
I am sorry if anyone was offended by the title, but I do want you to know that hours of thought was put in to it before I decided to run it.
Pete Jahn is a fantastic writer and a great person, I know it was not his intent to be harmful or immature in anyway with the title.
Thank you for the comments, now can we please get back to talking about the article itself
your right its artifacts not lands...though tapping all the attackers is still good. But i would stay in blue in this case now.
Yeah, tribal will always get owned by decks packing something that's actually good (like a random 2 card combo) rather than just a bunch of creatures to attack with. I remember the old Hulk-Flash Slivers, Painter-Grindstone Humans, Dragonstorm Dragons, etc. It's hard for "real" tribal decks to compete.
Pretty lame, and why I don't play tribal anymore. Well, that and changelings. :P
Pete, I have to agree 100% with your assessment that once a format becomes competitive it's nearly impossible for it to return to a more casual state; I think this was also one of the major reasons behind the eventual failure of Prismatic, Rainbow Stairwell, Vanguard, and now K-Scope and 100 Singleton.
My experience is that once "casual" players believe a format has become competitive they stop investing in it and look for something else. And you never get them back.
I really like EDH/Commander, they're now the only formats I play for 'fun' and I can see the writing on the wall for them as well. It's why I hope WotC never sanctions Commander.
Didnt read article. Just skimmed through it and got the gist of what you were implying.
I dont like the title either but whatever.
Anyways- I play a lot of casual decks online and have recently made a deck thats more competitive since I got bored of semi-casual. I played Cascade-Mill which I got bored of. I played Mill which I got bored of. I played an ALA Artifact which got boring. Played Sanguine Bond deck which I made a day after M10 came out and I challeneged some dude last week who copied almost everything about my deck. Which he admitted. I got bored of that deck because its slow and loses too fast. Made a fun deck that just irritates the opponent which I should play more. I think playing against and with LD, Counters, Stasis is quite fun. I was doing it ever since School
I have currently a U/W Exxy Deck which is fun sine I win and am able to compete with all those lame Lorwyn-Shadowmoor lameness. Most of my decks are block oriented. I dont like to mix sets because its so lame. I havent challenged a toury deck recently in the casual room but when I did it was mostly with my Cascade Mill. If they didnt kill me by turn 4 or 5 then theyre in trouble though it was rare to have a good starting hand with good draws. Most of these people didnt complain if they lost. They just 'lol'd' several times.
Just a small kine experience with the casual room.
Excellent take on things, Pete. I've also seen formats wax and wane in popularity over time, both official and unofficial, and there is a correlation as you have described. Another striking example is Kaleidoscope: Massive interest and creativity at the format launch, the refining of the best decks, stagnation and abandonment due to lack of rotation. I see one or two games posted by stalwarts of the format from time to time, but that's it.
Your solution was tried: the end result was the status quo, with no-one using the room between 'Casual' and 'Tournament Practice'. Nonetheless the idea is good on paper, if there is a way to transfer it successfully online.
I read the article and all the comments and I think AJ_Impy is assuming something that isn't necessarily true. Just because someone is getting help from a friend in a PTQ doesn't mean they will win. If someone isn't a skilled enough player to win, who say's that their friend is? And if their friend is wouldn't they just enter the PTQ themselves? I sincerely doubt that people playing as a "team" will alter the outcome of the online PTQs that will be on MOL. A team of mediocre players is still mediocre. The better players will still come out on top.
Glad to see the event went well. Extremely unsurprised to see a 2-card classic kill combo take the crown.
Glare of Subdual can't target lands: Opposition, the same thing in entirely blue, can.
What I mean is, the solution is right there in MTGO. There is a competitive room, and there is a casual room. Now, in that regard, I'm not too upset about anyone that wants to play competitive or "play to win" in the casual room (really, to me this is a ridiculous observation, because everyone plays to win, if it wasn't so, they'd just concede immediately). Well, anyhow, nice combos, swarms, deck archetypes, player archetypes, nothing like this is really the problem with the argument. The problem with the argument is, casual means you are looking for a fun game that both players can play. Observe, both players should be able to play and both players should be able to have fun win or lose. But there is a predominance of decks that are what I call tournament decks, or to be more clear "masturbatory" decks (sorry for the comment, but nothing makes the point better). These kinds of decks are, "I play my stuff, I don't let you play", in other words, it plays well with itself, and really becomes more of a deck that has no opponent. For example, counterspell heavy decks aren't casual, though I'll admit you can play and have fun against them (but really, it involves a whole lot of sitting around and drawing cards waiting for the right moment, and frankly, it's more fun for the counterspell deck and quite boring for you). Elf Grenade is not casual. RDW is not casual. These decks win in 3 to 4 turns and don't allow anyone to actually get into a groove to play a game. Much less, most that play casual want to play a game in which each person has the time, or has the ability, to play their deck.
Besides, the argument comes down to this. If your deck is a copy of a tourney deck, or is being tested for tourney, well, there is a room right there, called tournament practice, that serves that purpose. In casual, you are far more unlikely to even understand or know how to play a tourney deck against other tourney archetypes, because those decks are not prevalent in casual. My point of view is, if I see you play nothing but counterspells for the first 4 turns, I concede with a "good game". I see a time sieve "I take 5 or 6 turns in a row" deck, I concede. So for me, this argument affects me little, though I can see the point being made by both sides (tourney people say they can never find quality opponents in the tourney room, whatever, its a cope out). Frankly, if I want to play casual, and I play against a non casual deck, I just concede and move on to the next opponent. You have control of conceding, so just concede and move on if you don't like the deck your playing against. What other solution could be simpler. My two mana worth.
I liked the article and I agree with everything you say except about the jungle lion. While it is normally a bad card, in the right deck it can be great. By the right deck I mean anything that plays cinder storm and a couple burn/pump spells. If your jungle lion goes unanswered for even two swings then it has done its job if you can throw damage at the head when your opponents fatties come on line. While I think it is a better card in draft as that format seems to be dominated by RG aggro it can still be decent if you open the right pool in sealed.
@ paul leicht ... I find it really immature (or maybe a better word would be irresponsible) to having to resort to dropping f bombs in the title of what has always seemed to be an all age friendly site.
You grow up, Paul. Don't you have better things to do than hit refresh all day on this site? Also, I'm sick of the amount of writing you do whether it is articles or comments. I'm sure there are people who agree with me. Only if you could block a certain user's comments this site would be spectacular.
While I understand most of your sentiments I can not disagree more with a few. The casual room does have scrubs piloting "Tier 1" decks (though I am guessing they untune them at the first opportunity if they have any Johnny in them) But I have played against fairly good players running the whole gammut from unstoppable combo to go draw. Many of these players are plenty competitive when they feel up to it and sometimes they just play fun decks to relax and enjoy something other than the most cut throat of games. (Personally I find games where the outcome is not really based on good play but on who draws into the easy win first to be abhorrent but I know some people love those kinds of games.)
Also this assertion that casual is for junk seems like an easy dismissal from someone who doesn't enjoy playing anything other than tier 1. I am not saying there isn't a lot of junk floating around as there is but you do see interesting decks out there too, particularly in the 'fringe' formats. But anyway what's the saying? To each their own.
RE: the guys crying about $500 decks...well if the cards you are playing with do cost $500 to put together that does mean something. It isn't merely a matter of liking certain cards more than others that raise costs. The more effective and efficient a card is at winning the higher its cost goes as people demand their own copies. Those who throw money at the game to some extent DO have an advantage over those who don't. That said, creativity, play skill and luck can do wonders to even the playing field of most formats. (Though I maintain that Eternal formats are really not very playable without the big cards unless you are running RDW or something relatively cheaper that just sometimes wins.)
I agree that moderation is in order. No matter whether you netdeck or play rogue, play only the very best decks, or play sub par cards just to win with style, your behavior online should be modeled from your behavior in person. I think bad behavior should meet fitting consequences.
I'm a true Spike in the way that I play to win, and I just can't understand why this would not be the main objective of anyone playing a game (I undestand that there are other objectives, and that everyone is different obviously), and in my experience that really IS true for almost everyone. Yes, even mr. Johnnyscrub McNoob with his 5$ Walls deck prefers winning to losing - this is simply basic human nature. What has amused me the most through my time playing Magic is that "Spikes" generally complain the least, and are generally able to accept that when they lose it is either because of the matchup, bad luck or a difference in playing skill (I remember my good friend getting destroyed by LSV playing Faeries in a game last Extended season - we both had a good laugh there (my friend and I that is)). Most players from the other "demographics" (I feel so stupid using these simpleton terms) tend to get pissed off, and simply blame it on "OMG U SPEND 500$ ON THAT NET DECK!!!1" - something that really pisses me off when I actually never net deck as that is just about the most stupid thing you can do, and no true Spike ever would - or simply luck.
As for Spikes ruining the casual room, I actually think you have a point. I wouldn't call these individuals Spikes, though - failed Spikes perhaps. These individuals that are playing T1 decks in the casual room are either A) pathetic individuals that loves to prey on easy targets, B) normal players that want to test their decks against humans instead of running solitaires (important for control decks) or C) scrubs that don't have the guts to play on an even footing. I've many times played against T1 RDW or Burn decks in the Casual room - piloted by complete scrubs - and when I've confronted them with this, they've almost universally expressed disbelief over my annoyance; to them it's simply normal to pick up an extremely cheap and competitive deck and go out and "own" noobs.
The solution? Divide MTGO in three parts. Casual, competitive decks and tournament practice. Casual is for junk and a place for new players to have fun. Use some moderation to kick out the ones that harass others. Competitive decks for players interested in both diversity and a challenge, and tournament practice for your boring metagame Faeries on Faeries hot action. I truly believe this could help a bit.
The "horrible title" comment was reasonable (as your opinion) even if I disagree but the "grow up" part sounds ridiculous. Peter is a grown man with responsibilities etc and he takes the time to write articles here regularly (to pleasure of many) so give him a little slack if you don't like his Internet meme approach to one article. Did you read the rest of the article? Nothing more critical to comment on than the title?