I think they have already made very sound decisions, that put them to this point. Disagreeing with their 1v1 ban list decisions and how it was built does not mean I think they have by and large made poor decisions across the board.
I think for every 10 great decisions, there is a bad one that either gets walked back or not.
You think the game should/would have been in a (very) different place today if wotc had made sounder/better decisions through the years ? And that wotc would have made significantly more money on mtg this way ?
So, my understanding is that when MTGO replays a game, it is attempting to recover from a fatal error. Essentially, it reboots the game in an attempt to prevent its complete loss. Now, if that is triggered with undo, there is something fishy going on.
To my mind this is SOLELY about patching the formats for WOTC's benefit. And I am sure it is a benefit to them if only to obfuscate what is really going on so that they don't have to account for the format the way it is. - Leicht
Amen.
Unbalanced formats, mythic buildarounds, only so many cards may fit together with them, and so on.
Behind that we have the phenomenon of wotc constantly diminishing the pilot factor of the game, a gazillion small things, eroding and eroding, cant even announce combat now and activate things before attackers. Outside those gazillion small things players have two things that can jump on them any time; the oracle that can make random rulings between (two) cards, and judges that can pick and choose between documents in almost whatever situation they choose creating differing outcomes as it suits them.
When will they attack the pen trick ?
MTR 3section4; If a player whose turn it isn't touches his pen during combat he can no longer use priority unless it is to respond to something the opponent does.
Let me just state unequivocally and emphatically I disagree with your premise. That said, I like that you put it out there for discussion. Why do I disagree? As you said yourself, people will netdeck. The netdecking will occur regardless of how analyzed the meta gets. What will end up happening is there will be less risk taken by the majority of players because there will be no incentives to try fringe strategies without understanding more clearly how they are affected by the meta. (And how consequently they would fit into that meta.)
Also there is no such thing as saving someone from not "having fun" in tournaments. People who regularly attend tourneys do so to win. That's not to say they don't have fun but it isn't their primary objective. While there is a certain amount of "fun" to be had at local stores during FNM, I suspect the home brewers will avoid the narrower and less interesting mix resulting from lowering the data out there for the common person to engage with.
I lived through the "dark ages" of magic and as a non-pro with lots of pro acquaintances I hated being in the dark, especially when everyone else seemed to be "in on it". Sometimes a kind soul would take pity and throw a few pointers my way (For example, Zvi talked to me once about counter spell ratios in control decks (in the Standard of the moment) as a way to help improve my brewing. It did help a little.) But for the most part I struggled until we started getting more access to data from being on the internet. I am not a statistician or even really that interested in the minutia that make up "best of show" analyses of deck performances. I do find it interesting to see how those conclusions are arrived at sometimes (through articles for example) but I lack the patience to really delve into it the way say Matt Watkins does.
Those who thrive off of stats and information are merely at best leveling the playing field a little and the pros will still come out ahead enough that it isn't really about the competition. To my mind this is SOLELY about patching the formats for WOTC's benefit. And I am sure it is a benefit to them if only to obfuscate what is really going on so that they don't have to account for the format the way it is.
It is possible you might not remember when they cut the deck stats down from nearly full information to what it was before this last change, but BlippyTheSlug had a series of articles (which I highly recommend) where he basically documented the changes to the modern meta and how this change affected that and how solved the format became despite this "tactic". Withholding information certainly does help the pros a little but imho the cost to the rest of the player populace makes it a bad move not a good one.
"After that fiasco I couldn't afford losing. I couldn't let my fellow Danish player down." this line confused me a bit.
On to the rest, first of all grats. Second, stop saying you're not a good player. You're a great player. Better than most I know. You tilt like everyone. OK. No News there. You probably shouldn't play tired but you do and still win. You win whilst in pain. I'd say that's proof enough.
Shops is an interesting deck. Particular Ravager Shops and the new additions of Precursor and Balista make it more interesting. You made good decisions based on being cold to the deck, imho. Thanks for sharing the blow by blows.
Ok, we've reached that point to where I ask you very nicely to stop, because you have no sources, you have nothing, and I am not going to let you drag a good persons name through the mud because you for some reason feel personally wronged.
Under the SB tab I put my sb guide for when I share the results with friends, we also talk about what we think we should do. As far a template I just copy from the old one. I don't have a saved template just use the old one over and over again.
I think they have already made very sound decisions, that put them to this point. Disagreeing with their 1v1 ban list decisions and how it was built does not mean I think they have by and large made poor decisions across the board.
I think for every 10 great decisions, there is a bad one that either gets walked back or not.
You think the game should/would have been in a (very) different place today if wotc had made sounder/better decisions through the years ? And that wotc would have made significantly more money on mtg this way ?
If you were familiar with my work you'd find that was not the first time I have been critical of Wizards, but hey, thanks for reading!
"...all this change does is serve as another example of Wizards of the Coast being tone-deaf and out of touch with the end consumer."
Are you questioning Wotc's expertise ?
Thanks for the run down.
"will be live" = "have been live since"
So, my understanding is that when MTGO replays a game, it is attempting to recover from a fatal error. Essentially, it reboots the game in an attempt to prevent its complete loss. Now, if that is triggered with undo, there is something fishy going on.
That's not a rule. Looking at the MTR right now, and 3.4 talks about proxy cards.
To my mind this is SOLELY about patching the formats for WOTC's benefit. And I am sure it is a benefit to them if only to obfuscate what is really going on so that they don't have to account for the format the way it is. - Leicht
Amen.
Unbalanced formats, mythic buildarounds, only so many cards may fit together with them, and so on.
Behind that we have the phenomenon of wotc constantly diminishing the pilot factor of the game, a gazillion small things, eroding and eroding, cant even announce combat now and activate things before attackers. Outside those gazillion small things players have two things that can jump on them any time; the oracle that can make random rulings between (two) cards, and judges that can pick and choose between documents in almost whatever situation they choose creating differing outcomes as it suits them.
When will they attack the pen trick ?
MTR 3section4; If a player whose turn it isn't touches his pen during combat he can no longer use priority unless it is to respond to something the opponent does.
Let me just state unequivocally and emphatically I disagree with your premise. That said, I like that you put it out there for discussion. Why do I disagree? As you said yourself, people will netdeck. The netdecking will occur regardless of how analyzed the meta gets. What will end up happening is there will be less risk taken by the majority of players because there will be no incentives to try fringe strategies without understanding more clearly how they are affected by the meta. (And how consequently they would fit into that meta.)
Also there is no such thing as saving someone from not "having fun" in tournaments. People who regularly attend tourneys do so to win. That's not to say they don't have fun but it isn't their primary objective. While there is a certain amount of "fun" to be had at local stores during FNM, I suspect the home brewers will avoid the narrower and less interesting mix resulting from lowering the data out there for the common person to engage with.
I lived through the "dark ages" of magic and as a non-pro with lots of pro acquaintances I hated being in the dark, especially when everyone else seemed to be "in on it". Sometimes a kind soul would take pity and throw a few pointers my way (For example, Zvi talked to me once about counter spell ratios in control decks (in the Standard of the moment) as a way to help improve my brewing. It did help a little.) But for the most part I struggled until we started getting more access to data from being on the internet. I am not a statistician or even really that interested in the minutia that make up "best of show" analyses of deck performances. I do find it interesting to see how those conclusions are arrived at sometimes (through articles for example) but I lack the patience to really delve into it the way say Matt Watkins does.
Those who thrive off of stats and information are merely at best leveling the playing field a little and the pros will still come out ahead enough that it isn't really about the competition. To my mind this is SOLELY about patching the formats for WOTC's benefit. And I am sure it is a benefit to them if only to obfuscate what is really going on so that they don't have to account for the format the way it is.
It is possible you might not remember when they cut the deck stats down from nearly full information to what it was before this last change, but BlippyTheSlug had a series of articles (which I highly recommend) where he basically documented the changes to the modern meta and how this change affected that and how solved the format became despite this "tactic". Withholding information certainly does help the pros a little but imho the cost to the rest of the player populace makes it a bad move not a good one.
"After that fiasco I couldn't afford losing. I couldn't let my fellow Danish player down." this line confused me a bit.
On to the rest, first of all grats. Second, stop saying you're not a good player. You're a great player. Better than most I know. You tilt like everyone. OK. No News there. You probably shouldn't play tired but you do and still win. You win whilst in pain. I'd say that's proof enough.
Shops is an interesting deck. Particular Ravager Shops and the new additions of Precursor and Balista make it more interesting. You made good decisions based on being cold to the deck, imho. Thanks for sharing the blow by blows.
We must not drag someone through the mud.
Ok, we've reached that point to where I ask you very nicely to stop, because you have no sources, you have nothing, and I am not going to let you drag a good persons name through the mud because you for some reason feel personally wronged.
What no spine in transmuter deck?
No.
Jon's thread is totally accurate without saying anything about your topic. Did you post it as a non-sequitur?
Menery, Tessitori, Van Buiken, Bergeot, Brian David Marshall, Hagon.
Also, mtg was much tougher and harder before;
https://twitter.com/Jonnymagic00/status/882312047349968900
To describe it; there were more John Wayne's in our hobby before.
Under the SB tab I put my sb guide for when I share the results with friends, we also talk about what we think we should do. As far a template I just copy from the old one. I don't have a saved template just use the old one over and over again.
It is hard to dive into conclusions. One has to try it. - Phillip Elden
The metal weapon is good. It is actually the best. - Phillip Elden
One has to know the point. That would be hard then. - Phillip Elden
There is a need to hush. As long as the game is getting hard. - Steven C Wyer
One has to bloom all over. That is what the system requires. - Steven C Wyer
It is hard to have fears. Most especially in the game. - Steven C Wyer
Standards has to be followed. That would be of the best. - Mark Zokle