It was a really good deck, and a lot of fun in block. It just happened to be badly positioned at the last gp of the season. the slideless slide and bad form decks were just so much better than Dawn Elemental.
Love the card and loved the article. 'Teen Girl Squad' was actually the very first actually competitive deck I ever built back in the day. Good memories.
a) Many more people than the few regulars who posted in the MTGO subforums were involved in the wizards forums. That sub forum area was indeed dead by the time you encountered it. Most of us had given up because WOTC staff had very little to say other than corp speak. Not much has changed there in recent times. Words like "monolithic" and "draconian" come to mind which is the exact opposite of how I think of the WOTC staff members I know of. Individually they all seem quite integral and full of positivity. Something weird happens behind closed doors, however.
*****
b) The shuffler is not broken. per se. Famously. (Which is why the claim by H is so hillariously off target.) The engine may be.
I agree with you about the new decks situation but there is no proof to support our shared supposition that the shuffler does not start every deck fully shuffled. Large changes seem to also create this new deck state. "Seem" because there is no proof only what we have experienced.
And we also know about the top of deck problems like with cards that scry. We discussed this a while ago about how the "library" behaves when the player interacts with its top.
The community site was more or less dead right from the beginning. Very few people were using it and that was clear if you just browsed even the most active forums. I think that the number of users was actually quite large because it required a wizards account. So practically anyone having that account would be community site user which doesn't give any info about whether that user even logged in once...
There wasn't much of any kind of feedback from the players. They just weren't there. It was easier to find a respective group on Facebook. WotC tried to make the communities in different countries use it and that completely failed. The support forums was full of locked threads and no good answers. The community site provided many features that were actually good if people used them, but the site was very slow and there wasn't a reason to switch from already created communities elsewhere. (I was very active on the community site and was sad that it is not used by others much...)
As for the shuffler I have the impression that the shuffler is a bit strange when you create a new deck or draft... opposed to a deck you already play for quite a while. I do not see any problem with it though. One of the things I learned is that if a deck survives Magic Online's shuffler you are good for paper play where the shuffling is often not that random usually. MODO does have a problem with handling the top cards of library though. I'm certain of this can't figure out how many scenarios there are...with 4 different cards I got three different outcomes when I was trying that. Many cards having the same effect use a temporary zone or the library to do something with the top card which often results in something not happening and cards being bugged (if the top card of library is involved)
You have some archive of some notification that speaks about number of users? As I recall there never was a satisfactory answer given. I assumed it was the largely negative feedback from mtg and D&DNext (at the time now known as 5th ed). I know A LOT of people who had active accounts on the forums and the only reason more weren't posting was that WOTC staff stopped responding to criticism and suggestions, only posting when it was the most self-serving.
Obviously the shuffler thread was a famous thread that had no bearing on them shutting down the forums but Hearts needed some way to get his dig in and that worked.
I played constructed this week and the shuffler was exactly as random as expected. So pretty sure it works....
We all know that the shuffler has been tested multiple times and that it is random. The terrible shuffles are part of that randomness. It is a cognitive bias to focus on the number of times that you got too few lands.
Also, the forums was not shut down because people complained about the shuffler. It was shut down because of too few users.
So which part of the statement is it that you even kinda agree with?
When I wanted to 'publish' or rather share Magic: The Gathering Collected Stories I was trying to find some information about whether this is possible or not. I bothered several different ORCs about it and most told me 'I'm not a lawyer, I'm not going to help you' but 2 of them in the end linked me to the Fan Content Policy that in theory allows it, but it is not really that clear either. So I bugged them few more times getting the same information.
When I was talking about this to others they also gave me StarCityGames as an example and asked how it is possible they use Wizards trademarked stuff and illustrations etc on their website and there is content behind a paywall... There are actually three as far as I know policies or how to call that regarding the use of trademarked stuff and other things like images etc. and StarCityGames most probably is one under one of them.
Example, as a WPN store owner I was allowed to use more stuff than a normal person. This included the use of Magic: The Gathering logo to promote events. But for example it was not allowed to use that logo on t-shirts for example or in videos. For that a WPN store would have to 'request a permission to use'. You need to submit that through Wizards Customer Support and it can take up to 6 weeks to get an answer. If you don't get it...it means you didn't get the approval and if yes, you can use it for the one specific thing you requested.
EDIT: I also wish some cards would exist in non-foil version (the new legendary creature from Commander).
Honestly I would ban all the FTV cards from tournament play. I understand that this is rather extreme but I can always distinguish those cards and it drives me crazy. I don't play with them because I couldn't stand playing with a card I can immediately find them in any deck while not going through the cards. They are very heavy similarly to the Urza's Saga or Arena basic lands and when I approach some players about their choice of basics they are not really nice to me. It's very difficult to come to someone and try to explain that what they do is in fact cheating.
I've seen many shady things happen when Dryad Arbor was involved. Unfortunately players take advantage of that and try to hide the Arbor even though that the rules prohibit players doing that. I'd ban it so this does not continue happening.
Writing Dryad Arbor on a sleeve is not going to solve the problem either because there is also room for shady things.
The main concern with putting things inside sleeves is that it changes the weight and feel of the card. That creates the potential for cheating, so I'm not sure that Wizards would be willing to mandate it. I would hate to have to determine whether an insert is "too heavy" or "too stiff." But it might be an option.
"...the standard for a DQ is not “innocent unless proven guilty,” but what the preponderance of the evidence shows. So sometimes I issue a DQ and wonder, for a long time afterwards, if I was right."
There is no inherent opposition between not having "innocent unless proven guilty" and any preponderance of evidence. Any judge who doesnt feel reasonably sure about his DQ's should rethink his choice of hobby.
...
Also: Can we see the source of the Standards for DQ's please ? Id like to read that.
thanks!
The decklists managed to get messed up. I generated all of them again. You can use that code and add them to the article.
http://stsungalters.com/temp/state.html
It was a really good deck, and a lot of fun in block. It just happened to be badly positioned at the last gp of the season. the slideless slide and bad form decks were just so much better than Dawn Elemental.
Love the card and loved the article. 'Teen Girl Squad' was actually the very first actually competitive deck I ever built back in the day. Good memories.
a) Many more people than the few regulars who posted in the MTGO subforums were involved in the wizards forums. That sub forum area was indeed dead by the time you encountered it. Most of us had given up because WOTC staff had very little to say other than corp speak. Not much has changed there in recent times. Words like "monolithic" and "draconian" come to mind which is the exact opposite of how I think of the WOTC staff members I know of. Individually they all seem quite integral and full of positivity. Something weird happens behind closed doors, however.
*****
b) The shuffler is not broken. per se. Famously. (Which is why the claim by H is so hillariously off target.) The engine may be.
I agree with you about the new decks situation but there is no proof to support our shared supposition that the shuffler does not start every deck fully shuffled. Large changes seem to also create this new deck state. "Seem" because there is no proof only what we have experienced.
And we also know about the top of deck problems like with cards that scry. We discussed this a while ago about how the "library" behaves when the player interacts with its top.
The community site was more or less dead right from the beginning. Very few people were using it and that was clear if you just browsed even the most active forums. I think that the number of users was actually quite large because it required a wizards account. So practically anyone having that account would be community site user which doesn't give any info about whether that user even logged in once...
There wasn't much of any kind of feedback from the players. They just weren't there. It was easier to find a respective group on Facebook. WotC tried to make the communities in different countries use it and that completely failed. The support forums was full of locked threads and no good answers. The community site provided many features that were actually good if people used them, but the site was very slow and there wasn't a reason to switch from already created communities elsewhere. (I was very active on the community site and was sad that it is not used by others much...)
As for the shuffler I have the impression that the shuffler is a bit strange when you create a new deck or draft... opposed to a deck you already play for quite a while. I do not see any problem with it though. One of the things I learned is that if a deck survives Magic Online's shuffler you are good for paper play where the shuffling is often not that random usually. MODO does have a problem with handling the top cards of library though. I'm certain of this can't figure out how many scenarios there are...with 4 different cards I got three different outcomes when I was trying that. Many cards having the same effect use a temporary zone or the library to do something with the top card which often results in something not happening and cards being bugged (if the top card of library is involved)
Active accounts which are not posting? Sounds like a contradiction.
Here is the official announcement. There are no numbers but the argumentation is very clear that most "active" users are elsewhere:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/wizards-coast-communi...
I did not follow the mtg or DDNEXT forums. But I doubt that they discussed the shuffler much in those forums.
You have some archive of some notification that speaks about number of users? As I recall there never was a satisfactory answer given. I assumed it was the largely negative feedback from mtg and D&DNext (at the time now known as 5th ed). I know A LOT of people who had active accounts on the forums and the only reason more weren't posting was that WOTC staff stopped responding to criticism and suggestions, only posting when it was the most self-serving.
Obviously the shuffler thread was a famous thread that had no bearing on them shutting down the forums but Hearts needed some way to get his dig in and that worked.
Steve has gotten only better over the years. This is reminiscent of Q Hoover and other iconic mtg artists.
I played constructed this week and the shuffler was exactly as random as expected. So pretty sure it works....
We all know that the shuffler has been tested multiple times and that it is random. The terrible shuffles are part of that randomness. It is a cognitive bias to focus on the number of times that you got too few lands.
Also, the forums was not shut down because people complained about the shuffler. It was shut down because of too few users.
So which part of the statement is it that you even kinda agree with?
Good reminiscing.
Wow that art is amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is, I think, the first thing Hearts has ever posted that I even kinda agree with.
Yeah pretty sure the shuffler is terrible. Every draft I have done this week, I got smashed by one or less lands, mulling to four...
They shut down the wotc-web customer forums partly because of criticism about the mtgo shuffler. I too think the shuffler is/was broken.
This a thorough and educational piece. Nicely done!
When I wanted to 'publish' or rather share Magic: The Gathering Collected Stories I was trying to find some information about whether this is possible or not. I bothered several different ORCs about it and most told me 'I'm not a lawyer, I'm not going to help you' but 2 of them in the end linked me to the Fan Content Policy that in theory allows it, but it is not really that clear either. So I bugged them few more times getting the same information.
When I was talking about this to others they also gave me StarCityGames as an example and asked how it is possible they use Wizards trademarked stuff and illustrations etc on their website and there is content behind a paywall... There are actually three as far as I know policies or how to call that regarding the use of trademarked stuff and other things like images etc. and StarCityGames most probably is one under one of them.
Example, as a WPN store owner I was allowed to use more stuff than a normal person. This included the use of Magic: The Gathering logo to promote events. But for example it was not allowed to use that logo on t-shirts for example or in videos. For that a WPN store would have to 'request a permission to use'. You need to submit that through Wizards Customer Support and it can take up to 6 weeks to get an answer. If you don't get it...it means you didn't get the approval and if yes, you can use it for the one specific thing you requested.
EDIT: I also wish some cards would exist in non-foil version (the new legendary creature from Commander).
Honestly I would ban all the FTV cards from tournament play. I understand that this is rather extreme but I can always distinguish those cards and it drives me crazy. I don't play with them because I couldn't stand playing with a card I can immediately find them in any deck while not going through the cards. They are very heavy similarly to the Urza's Saga or Arena basic lands and when I approach some players about their choice of basics they are not really nice to me. It's very difficult to come to someone and try to explain that what they do is in fact cheating.
I've seen many shady things happen when Dryad Arbor was involved. Unfortunately players take advantage of that and try to hide the Arbor even though that the rules prohibit players doing that. I'd ban it so this does not continue happening.
Writing Dryad Arbor on a sleeve is not going to solve the problem either because there is also room for shady things.
How about writing on the sleeve itself? "This is Dryad Arbor", etc
The main concern with putting things inside sleeves is that it changes the weight and feel of the card. That creates the potential for cheating, so I'm not sure that Wizards would be willing to mandate it. I would hate to have to determine whether an insert is "too heavy" or "too stiff." But it might be an option.
Cotton always writes great articles. :D
"...the standard for a DQ is not “innocent unless proven guilty,” but what the preponderance of the evidence shows. So sometimes I issue a DQ and wonder, for a long time afterwards, if I was right."
There is no inherent opposition between not having "innocent unless proven guilty" and any preponderance of evidence. Any judge who doesnt feel reasonably sure about his DQ's should rethink his choice of hobby.
...
Also: Can we see the source of the Standards for DQ's please ? Id like to read that.
The confusing part of that card is the tree symbol. It would have been awesome as a full art card though.
Have a nice vacation!
It took 7 years for someone to say it, but: the Vertigo art depicts a key shot from Hitchcock's Vertigo.