1) My thoughtS: lots of people grided (ground? grid? I don't know) to achieve paltinum, expecting a certain payout. Telling those people "sorry, we'll pay you less" is unfair. They should respect these years players' payouts.
2) I think there are two effects: on the one hand, you wont invest as much time perfecting strategy, because the benefit from achieving palatinum is less. On the other hand, if you Top 24, you get a better payout. In other words, the road is less friendly, but the destination is more friendly. What will this ultimately imply about the quality of those choosing to walk the road (and,by implication, those who get to the final destination) is unclear, and will depend on each pros attitude towards risk.
3) No, this will not end magic not will it end "professional" magic. Selling cards is a huge business. And pro players are one of the best way big card reailers (Channel fireball, SCG, TCGgames, etc) get us to buy cards. They wont let the "goose that lays the golden eggs" die easily. My prediction is that these big retailers will foot some of the bill, so that our beloved players keep attenidng events, and keep investing time in figuring out the best decks. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because that's how they make money.
TL;DR: this is wizard's way of telling big card retailers: the players in your teams go to our events, get fans excited about their decks, and make YOU sell lots of cards. So you should help us foot a higher % of the bill.
Although it would most likely never happen (due to MTGO secondary market) I wish there was a platform that allowed you to play competitive magic constructive events online without having to "invest" in a secondary digital deck.
If something like that were to be implemented, Magic as a whole would benefit.
The online Pokemon TCG, at least according to my understanding, actually has sort of implemented this in that if you buy a real world booster pack, it will include a code you can redeem for the online version to get a free booster pack there.
Although it would most likely never happen (due to MTGO secondary market) I wish there was a platform that allowed you to play competitive magic constructive events online without having to "invest" in a secondary digital deck.
If something like that were to be implemented, Magic as a whole would benefit.
The online Pokemon TCG, to my knowledge, actually has sort of implemented this in that if you buy a real world booster pack, it will include a code you can redeem for the online version to get a free booster pack there.
Honestly... I have a feeling that the appearence fees were cut so they could invest in something else (like a brand new digital platform).
Wizard's is notorious for making "bad decisions" that turn out to be "ok decisions" but poorly communicated.
1) I think WotC is trying to differentiate itself away from the players. WotC will be a stand-alone supplier of MtG cards and its sole responsibility will be as such. This can be observed from the latest 2 decisions about Pro tours and Pro players. I am assuming the management of Pro players and Judges will be push to the other tournament organizers, SCG etc and will excuse WotC from further HR nightmares. The testing of judges should be still WotC's responsibility but it can also be automated.
2) WotC will not reduce the prices of Modern Masters and Eternal Masters. However, for profits, EM and MM may have much deserved reprints within them based on MM1 and MM2. More sets within a year can be expected, basing on the sets of 2016. Buy them all and go broke!
3) How will the secondary market manage these changes while maintaining its profit margins? Probably moving the extra costs onto the customers (players) which means more expensive cards, decks and tournaments entries. More new niche formats and speculation spikes to increase the profitability of even the commons.
4) In view of these factors, counterfeits may have the right environment to thrive. Will the capability to differentiate real cards from counterfeits be a good business?
WotC is reducing its marketing costs in using players to prompt its brand as MtG is already an established brand and process and will be more focus on Standard. Next, I will like to see the decisions about MTGO from this new CEO who was previously in Microsoft. How will he tap into the online market for future growth? How will MTGO affect the consumers and consumers' confidence in paper MtG?
Maybe.. Just maybe.. WotC was not that profitable in the previous years.. Otherwise, why a change in corporate management? Is there a need to change WotC processes and priorities with a new CEO if everything was fine?
A lot of the top pros are just good players with strong support networks. In Taiwan the top players, who often went to Pro Tours and such were just the rich guys with lots of time on their hands who would beg people to scoop and then it was understood they would get "hooked up" afterward.
I was sitting next to a Korean pro in my last GP, last round and he spend 15 minutes of the round begging his opponent to concede (opponent kept refusing). A lot of these pros aren't much better than the grinder that you've never heard of.
1) As these are the decisions of the new CEO, I think he is trying to differentiate WotC away from the players. WotC will be a stand-alone supplier of MtG cards and its sole responsibility will be as such. This can be observed from the latest 2 decisions about Pro tours and Pro players. I am assuming the management of Pro players and Judges will be push to the other tournament organizers, SCG etc and will excuse WotC from further HR nightmares. The testing of judges should be still WotC's responsibility but it can also be automated.
2) WotC will not reduce the prices of Modern Masters and Eternal Masters. However, for profits, EM and MM may have much deserved reprints within them based on MM1 and MM2. More sets within a year can be expected, basing on the sets of 2016. Buy them all and go broke!
3) How will the secondary market manage these changes while maintaining its profit margins? Probably moving the extra costs onto the customers (players) which means more expensive cards, decks and tournaments entries. More new niche formats and speculation spikes to increase the profitability of even the commons.
4) In view of these factors, counterfeits may have the right environment to thrive. Will the capability to differentiate real cards from counterfeits be a good business?
WotC is reducing its marketing costs in using players to prompt its brand as MtG is already an established brand and process and will be more focus on Standard. Next, I will like to see the decisions about MTGO from this new CEO who was previously in Microsoft. How will he tap into the online market for future growth? How will MTGO affect the consumers and consumers' confidence in paper MtG?
Maybe.. Just maybe.. WotC was not that profitable in the previous years.. Otherwise, why a change in corporate management? Is there a need to change WotC processes and priorities with a new CEO if everything was fine?
A) New CEO hasn't even started yet (to my knowledge?) Fairly certain the decisions to cut appearance fees was made prior to his employment. Depending on what they do with that money saved... will determine it's impact. For example, if they increased the winnings of GPs/PTs eventually I would consider that a win. Also if they used the money to implement a new online service where pros could play (and make money) I would also consider that a win.
A) New CEO hasn't even started yet (to my knowledge?) Fairly certain the decisions to cut appearance fees was made prior to his employment. Depending on what they do with that money saved... will determine it's impact. For example, if they increased the winnings of GPs/PTs eventually I would consider that a win. Also if they used the money to implement a new online service where pros could play (and make money) I would also consider that a win.
You are right about the current CEO is still Greg Leeds. Usually a company does not cut its operational costs to invest in the same year. I can assumed this cost cut is independent of your 2 suggestions. In all, I simply assumed the cost cut is to improve profitability.
A) New CEO hasn't even started yet (to my knowledge?) Fairly certain the decisions to cut appearance fees was made prior to his employment. Depending on what they do with that money saved... will determine it's impact. For example, if they increased the winnings of GPs/PTs eventually I would consider that a win. Also if they used the money to implement a new online service where pros could play (and make money) I would also consider that a win.
You are right about the current CEO is still Greg Leeds. Usually a company does not cut its operational costs to invest in the same year. I can assumed this cost cut is independent of your 2 suggestions. In all, I simply assumed the cost cut is to improve profitability.
There have already been "whispers" of the Wizards team looking into developing/investing into a new digital platform. We know no details yet; however, they stated they wanted to create a program that was a cross between MTGO (caters to people that want to play in competitive events) and duels (caters to casuals).
I was sitting next to a Korean pro in my last GP, last round and he spend 15 minutes of the round begging his opponent to concede (opponent kept refusing). A lot of these pros aren't much better than the grinder that you've never heard of.
Just some advice for anyone reading this who may find themselves in a similar situation: If your opponent repeatedly asks you to concede (or draw or whatever) after you've made it clear you're not interested in doing so, call a judge. Judges don't take kindly to people haranguing their opponents like that. And if there's even a whisper of compensation for doing so, that'll get them disqualified (and if it somehow doesn't, bring it up with Wizards).
There have already been "whispers" of the Wizards team looking into developing/investing into a new digital platform. We know no details yet; however, they stated they wanted to create a program that was a cross between MTGO (caters to people that want to play in competitive events) and duels (caters to casuals).
That is correct. But what I am saying is that WotC is not sacrificing the benefits of Pro players for this digital platform. They are independent of each other.
1) Decrease benefits of Pro players to increase profitability.
2) Increase investments in MTGO to increase profitability.
There have already been "whispers" of the Wizards team looking into developing/investing into a new digital platform. We know no details yet; however, they stated they wanted to create a program that was a cross between MTGO (caters to people that want to play in competitive events) and duels (caters to casuals).
That is correct. But what I am saying is that WotC is not sacrificing the benefits of Pro players for this digital platform. They are independent of each other.
1) Decrease benefits of Pro players to increase profitability.
2) Increase investments in MTGO to increase profitability.
except a better MTGO would benefit pros (streaming).
except a better MTGO would benefit pros (streaming).
SCG and CFB etc did MTGO streaming and it was not that much difference from Hearthstone (in my opinion).
How much better does MTGO need to be to benefit pros?
With no basis, I am afraid it maybe wishful thinking.
I do know that there are some Pro players in MTGS. Hope to have their feedback.
This would really make those who have invested much into the game mad. But I think it is inevitable because of the reasons stated in the article and because of counterfeiters getting better and better in their practice.
I think if you limited the scope of the discussion to the digital world then everything in that would be fair. MTG faces big hurdles in that space.
But IMO that author seems to have a huge blindspot in the sense that he ignores the fact that paper MTG isn't really competing with digital card games as it offers a very different experience. The "real life" experience paper Magic offers isn't even close to being duplicated online. I think it is akin to many other activities, where the live form of the entertainment is thriving despite the presence of seemingly better or more convenient online alternatives. Currently there just isn't a replacement for the experience of actually interacting face to face with other humans.
As for the PT changes, I'm not a fan of the reduction in platinum rewards. Ultimately just makes the prize structure more top heavy, which I think is unhealthy in a game with this much variance. At least if you want actual "pros" to be able to exist.
I understand the HoF changes. The program needs to be sustainable in the long run with 3 players a year added.
I think the change to platinum is terrible. The argument that the appearance fee does not contribute to player's lifestyle is nonsense. The appearance fee is a steady source of reliable income that the platinum players have earned. Pro players can't rely on spiking the world championship to pay their bills. The platinum players invest a lot and make sacrifices to be the best at the game at the current time and I think they should legitimately be able to make a decent living from it. Being a pro player isn't glamorous or lavish, it is a grind a lot of the time. Drastically cutting appearance fees makes the grind not worthwhile for a lot of pros and aspiring pros.
First and foremost, another *****ty thing Wizards has done. It would not have taken much to make this announcement a year in advance, whether to come into effect this year or next year.
Second, I play competitive magic. I started playing because I thought, "Oh pro tour - neat, I'll try to see if I can make it." Without that impetus, I would have stuck with FNM level magic. That impetus no longer drives me, but it's what got me started.
Third, this will be a boost to local casuals. Without filthy netdecks from the PT, I expect to see more homebrewers showing up. That's great and all, but the grinders are what drove single purchases. Without them, people think cards like Gitrog Toad are worth a lot.
The pro tour was already sort of a joke. Grind hard to enter a tournament to win..maybe 40k? Not a whole lot, not when you have to battle the world's best to get it. The try-hards at local shops are generally the worst of the worst in terms of people you want to hang with. Homebrewers/casuals are a different sort of "don't want to hang with", but at least they're generally friendlier. Magic becoming soft and family friendly (i.e. made so dummies can play/win and totally inoffensive) is not a Magic I want to play. But that's where we're going and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Magic is not here to be fun. Magic is here to sell more packs and that means expanding the playerbase, your wishes be damned. They could cater to you or to billions of people who don't play Magic yet. Which do you think they're going to choose.
Online petitions accomplish only one thing: Making money for the hosting site. That's it.
If you think it's bad for the game, send them an e-mail or a tweet. Probably won't accomplish much, but it's still infinitely more than any online petition will.
Its all been downhill since they KO'd the classic National Championships. Every few years the tinker with the pro player welfare or whatever they call it. I don't think the Pro Tour Hell that Jeff Cunningham described years ago will ever go away and there will always only be a small handful of players who can actually make a living at the game.
I was sitting next to a Korean pro in my last GP, last round and he spend 15 minutes of the round begging his opponent to concede (opponent kept refusing). A lot of these pros aren't much better than the grinder that you've never heard of.
Just some advice for anyone reading this who may find themselves in a similar situation: If your opponent repeatedly asks you to concede (or draw or whatever) after you've made it clear you're not interested in doing so, call a judge. Judges don't take kindly to people haranguing their opponents like that. And if there's even a whisper of compensation for doing so, that'll get them disqualified (and if it somehow doesn't, bring it up with Wizards).
Didn't we see Mengucci, on camera and in front of at least one judge, argue for a few minutes for his teammate to concede? He most likely did not offer compensation, but he was visibly bullying him and getting very agitated.
I was sitting next to a Korean pro in my last GP, last round and he spend 15 minutes of the round begging his opponent to concede (opponent kept refusing). A lot of these pros aren't much better than the grinder that you've never heard of.
Just some advice for anyone reading this who may find themselves in a similar situation: If your opponent repeatedly asks you to concede (or draw or whatever) after you've made it clear you're not interested in doing so, call a judge. Judges don't take kindly to people haranguing their opponents like that. And if there's even a whisper of compensation for doing so, that'll get them disqualified (and if it somehow doesn't, bring it up with Wizards).
Didn't we see Mengucci, on camera and in front of at least one judge, argue for a few minutes for his teammate to concede? He most likely did not offer compensation, but he was visibly bullying him and getting very agitated.
I can see where you would think this but actually he was trying to come to the rational agreement that A) A draw there is unacceptable and that the Japanese player had used all of his answers to Dragonlord Dromoka (they were teammates playing the exact same 75 so Mengucci knew all the cards in the deck).
He successfully convinced him that yes he would be the winner through a natural conclusion and I assure you the Japanese player wouldn't have felt bullied at all. Scooping your teammate in this type of situation is normal.
This whole begging for concessions thing (which is different from intentional draws) is pretty lame. In 2015, the New York Jets had a win-and-in for the NFL playoffs against the Buffalo Bills. If the Jets won, they were in. If the Bills won, the Pittsburgh Steelers were in: the Bills were eliminated at that point. Imagine quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick of the New York Jets begging Stephon Gilmore of the Buffalo Bills to let them get a touchdown so the Jets can make the playoffs. The Bills stomped the Jets and the Steelers made the playoffs.
Obviously, MTG is not a perfect analogy to football, but you would never, ever see anything like this in many other sports.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
I can see where you would think this but actually he was trying to come to the rational agreement that A) A draw there is unacceptable and that the Japanese player had used all of his answers to Dragonlord Dromoka (they were teammates playing the exact same 75 so Mengucci knew all the cards in the deck).
This may be getting off topic, but why exactly was a draw unacceptable? That was the outcome of the match.
He successfully convinced him that yes he would be the winner through a natural conclusion and I assure you the Japanese player wouldn't have felt bullied at all. Scooping your teammate in this type of situation is normal.
The natural conclusion was a draw. Mori losing wasn't the natural conclusion - it's because he decided to concede.
People arguing that "Well, without time of course Mori would've lost." are arguing to literally ignore a rule of the game. Time limits are a thing. Play within them.
I can see where you would think this but actually he was trying to come to the rational agreement that A) A draw there is unacceptable and that the Japanese player had used all of his answers to Dragonlord Dromoka (they were teammates playing the exact same 75 so Mengucci knew all the cards in the deck).
This may be getting off topic, but why exactly was a draw unacceptable? That was the outcome of the match.
I would assume that by "unacceptable" it means that both of the players would miss the top eight. Seeing as they were teammates, they probably wanted at least one of them to get into the top eight, but needed to decide which it was, and tournament rules explicitly forbid any sort of randomization to determine the winner. So Mengucci arguing that he would have 'eventually' won the game strikes me as a reasonable way to decide a situation where they both wanted the other to concede.
I can see where you would think this but actually he was trying to come to the rational agreement that A) A draw there is unacceptable and that the Japanese player had used all of his answers to Dragonlord Dromoka (they were teammates playing the exact same 75 so Mengucci knew all the cards in the deck).
This may be getting off topic, but why exactly was a draw unacceptable? That was the outcome of the match.
He successfully convinced him that yes he would be the winner through a natural conclusion and I assure you the Japanese player wouldn't have felt bullied at all. Scooping your teammate in this type of situation is normal.
The natural conclusion was a draw. Mori losing wasn't the natural conclusion - it's because he decided to concede.
People arguing that "Well, without time of course Mori would've lost." are arguing to literally ignore a rule of the game. Time limits are a thing. Play within them.
Yes!! 100 times this. The rules are the rules. They don't state "if a player would have won, then that player wins the match". They state that after 5 turns, it;s a tie. I get that a concession so your team-mate makes top 8 is legal, but that has to originate form the loosing player, not the player who seeks to win. And if you request a concession, it has to be respectful and calm (Mengucci's request was way over the top in my opinion), I know it's not the same, but some time ago I was playing for win-and-in at a large local tournament. I was playing UW control, my opponent pases the last turn with no board (except for lands), 0 cards in hand, and I had 9 Elspeth tokens and a lethal attack literally next turn. It wasn't an "eventually I win" issue. It was literally an "I win as soon as I untap" situation. I told him this calmly "if i could get a turn 6, I utlimate elspeth, swing with the team, and win the match. Would you consider conceding?" He said "you should have thought about time before picking up a control dec, and taking so much time to think in some turns". Sure, he was salty because he was a one of those "I hate control and everyone who plays control" players (he said so as soon as he realized what i was playing), but his argument has logic. When you play a grindy deck (and CoCo can be very grindy), you have to be aware that itme constraints are real, and they matter.
2) I think there are two effects: on the one hand, you wont invest as much time perfecting strategy, because the benefit from achieving palatinum is less. On the other hand, if you Top 24, you get a better payout. In other words, the road is less friendly, but the destination is more friendly. What will this ultimately imply about the quality of those choosing to walk the road (and,by implication, those who get to the final destination) is unclear, and will depend on each pros attitude towards risk.
3) No, this will not end magic not will it end "professional" magic. Selling cards is a huge business. And pro players are one of the best way big card reailers (Channel fireball, SCG, TCGgames, etc) get us to buy cards. They wont let the "goose that lays the golden eggs" die easily. My prediction is that these big retailers will foot some of the bill, so that our beloved players keep attenidng events, and keep investing time in figuring out the best decks. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because that's how they make money.
TL;DR: this is wizard's way of telling big card retailers: the players in your teams go to our events, get fans excited about their decks, and make YOU sell lots of cards. So you should help us foot a higher % of the bill.
Honestly... I have a feeling that the appearence fees were cut so they could invest in something else (like a brand new digital platform).
Wizard's is notorious for making "bad decisions" that turn out to be "ok decisions" but poorly communicated.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
1) I think WotC is trying to differentiate itself away from the players. WotC will be a stand-alone supplier of MtG cards and its sole responsibility will be as such. This can be observed from the latest 2 decisions about Pro tours and Pro players. I am assuming the management of Pro players and Judges will be push to the other tournament organizers, SCG etc and will excuse WotC from further HR nightmares. The testing of judges should be still WotC's responsibility but it can also be automated.
2) WotC will not reduce the prices of Modern Masters and Eternal Masters. However, for profits, EM and MM may have much deserved reprints within them based on MM1 and MM2. More sets within a year can be expected, basing on the sets of 2016. Buy them all and go broke!
3) How will the secondary market manage these changes while maintaining its profit margins? Probably moving the extra costs onto the customers (players) which means more expensive cards, decks and tournaments entries. More new niche formats and speculation spikes to increase the profitability of even the commons.
4) In view of these factors, counterfeits may have the right environment to thrive. Will the capability to differentiate real cards from counterfeits be a good business?
WotC is reducing its marketing costs in using players to prompt its brand as MtG is already an established brand and process and will be more focus on Standard. Next, I will like to see the decisions about MTGO from this new CEO who was previously in Microsoft. How will he tap into the online market for future growth? How will MTGO affect the consumers and consumers' confidence in paper MtG?
Maybe.. Just maybe.. WotC was not that profitable in the previous years.. Otherwise, why a change in corporate management? Is there a need to change WotC processes and priorities with a new CEO if everything was fine?
I was sitting next to a Korean pro in my last GP, last round and he spend 15 minutes of the round begging his opponent to concede (opponent kept refusing). A lot of these pros aren't much better than the grinder that you've never heard of.
Good riddance!
A) New CEO hasn't even started yet (to my knowledge?) Fairly certain the decisions to cut appearance fees was made prior to his employment. Depending on what they do with that money saved... will determine it's impact. For example, if they increased the winnings of GPs/PTs eventually I would consider that a win. Also if they used the money to implement a new online service where pros could play (and make money) I would also consider that a win.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
You are right about the current CEO is still Greg Leeds. Usually a company does not cut its operational costs to invest in the same year. I can assumed this cost cut is independent of your 2 suggestions. In all, I simply assumed the cost cut is to improve profitability.
There have already been "whispers" of the Wizards team looking into developing/investing into a new digital platform. We know no details yet; however, they stated they wanted to create a program that was a cross between MTGO (caters to people that want to play in competitive events) and duels (caters to casuals).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Just some advice for anyone reading this who may find themselves in a similar situation: If your opponent repeatedly asks you to concede (or draw or whatever) after you've made it clear you're not interested in doing so, call a judge. Judges don't take kindly to people haranguing their opponents like that. And if there's even a whisper of compensation for doing so, that'll get them disqualified (and if it somehow doesn't, bring it up with Wizards).
That is correct. But what I am saying is that WotC is not sacrificing the benefits of Pro players for this digital platform. They are independent of each other.
1) Decrease benefits of Pro players to increase profitability.
2) Increase investments in MTGO to increase profitability.
except a better MTGO would benefit pros (streaming).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
SCG and CFB etc did MTGO streaming and it was not that much difference from Hearthstone (in my opinion).
How much better does MTGO need to be to benefit pros?
With no basis, I am afraid it maybe wishful thinking.
I do know that there are some Pro players in MTGS. Hope to have their feedback.
I think if you limited the scope of the discussion to the digital world then everything in that would be fair. MTG faces big hurdles in that space.
But IMO that author seems to have a huge blindspot in the sense that he ignores the fact that paper MTG isn't really competing with digital card games as it offers a very different experience. The "real life" experience paper Magic offers isn't even close to being duplicated online. I think it is akin to many other activities, where the live form of the entertainment is thriving despite the presence of seemingly better or more convenient online alternatives. Currently there just isn't a replacement for the experience of actually interacting face to face with other humans.
As for the PT changes, I'm not a fan of the reduction in platinum rewards. Ultimately just makes the prize structure more top heavy, which I think is unhealthy in a game with this much variance. At least if you want actual "pros" to be able to exist.
I think the change to platinum is terrible. The argument that the appearance fee does not contribute to player's lifestyle is nonsense. The appearance fee is a steady source of reliable income that the platinum players have earned. Pro players can't rely on spiking the world championship to pay their bills. The platinum players invest a lot and make sacrifices to be the best at the game at the current time and I think they should legitimately be able to make a decent living from it. Being a pro player isn't glamorous or lavish, it is a grind a lot of the time. Drastically cutting appearance fees makes the grind not worthwhile for a lot of pros and aspiring pros.
Second, I play competitive magic. I started playing because I thought, "Oh pro tour - neat, I'll try to see if I can make it." Without that impetus, I would have stuck with FNM level magic. That impetus no longer drives me, but it's what got me started.
Third, this will be a boost to local casuals. Without filthy netdecks from the PT, I expect to see more homebrewers showing up. That's great and all, but the grinders are what drove single purchases. Without them, people think cards like Gitrog Toad are worth a lot.
The pro tour was already sort of a joke. Grind hard to enter a tournament to win..maybe 40k? Not a whole lot, not when you have to battle the world's best to get it. The try-hards at local shops are generally the worst of the worst in terms of people you want to hang with. Homebrewers/casuals are a different sort of "don't want to hang with", but at least they're generally friendlier. Magic becoming soft and family friendly (i.e. made so dummies can play/win and totally inoffensive) is not a Magic I want to play. But that's where we're going and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Magic is not here to be fun. Magic is here to sell more packs and that means expanding the playerbase, your wishes be damned. They could cater to you or to billions of people who don't play Magic yet. Which do you think they're going to choose.
But if you are on the side that these changes are bad for the game then there is a petition started on Change.org
https://www.change.org/p/helene-bergeot-asking-wotc-to-reconsider-their-2016-and-2017-premier-play-updates-announced-at-ptsoi?recruiter=59981975&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
If you think it's bad for the game, send them an e-mail or a tweet. Probably won't accomplish much, but it's still infinitely more than any online petition will.
In Progress
GBIshkanah, Grafwidow ~ BWGRTymna the Weaver & Tana, the Bloodsower ~ UGRashmi, Eternities Crafter ~ RGAtarka, World Render
Didn't we see Mengucci, on camera and in front of at least one judge, argue for a few minutes for his teammate to concede? He most likely did not offer compensation, but he was visibly bullying him and getting very agitated.
I can see where you would think this but actually he was trying to come to the rational agreement that A) A draw there is unacceptable and that the Japanese player had used all of his answers to Dragonlord Dromoka (they were teammates playing the exact same 75 so Mengucci knew all the cards in the deck).
He successfully convinced him that yes he would be the winner through a natural conclusion and I assure you the Japanese player wouldn't have felt bullied at all. Scooping your teammate in this type of situation is normal.
Obviously, MTG is not a perfect analogy to football, but you would never, ever see anything like this in many other sports.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
This may be getting off topic, but why exactly was a draw unacceptable? That was the outcome of the match.
The natural conclusion was a draw. Mori losing wasn't the natural conclusion - it's because he decided to concede.
People arguing that "Well, without time of course Mori would've lost." are arguing to literally ignore a rule of the game. Time limits are a thing. Play within them.
Yes!! 100 times this. The rules are the rules. They don't state "if a player would have won, then that player wins the match". They state that after 5 turns, it;s a tie. I get that a concession so your team-mate makes top 8 is legal, but that has to originate form the loosing player, not the player who seeks to win. And if you request a concession, it has to be respectful and calm (Mengucci's request was way over the top in my opinion), I know it's not the same, but some time ago I was playing for win-and-in at a large local tournament. I was playing UW control, my opponent pases the last turn with no board (except for lands), 0 cards in hand, and I had 9 Elspeth tokens and a lethal attack literally next turn. It wasn't an "eventually I win" issue. It was literally an "I win as soon as I untap" situation. I told him this calmly "if i could get a turn 6, I utlimate elspeth, swing with the team, and win the match. Would you consider conceding?" He said "you should have thought about time before picking up a control dec, and taking so much time to think in some turns". Sure, he was salty because he was a one of those "I hate control and everyone who plays control" players (he said so as soon as he realized what i was playing), but his argument has logic. When you play a grindy deck (and CoCo can be very grindy), you have to be aware that itme constraints are real, and they matter.