a) Bring back core sets
b) Reprint in Core sets any random answer or mechanic that doesn't fit with any storyline, but balance the game, that's what core sets are for.
You shouldn't need core sets. There's no reason any of the recent problem cards couldn't have been better answered using the blocks they where in. Flavour is very flexible and good answers don't usually need to come in a very specific form. The problem is that answers to problem cards need to be designed before it is known what cards are actually problematic, and while doing so you have to consider whether the answer card you are making could be itself problematic. And all the while set files are in flux.
c) stop with Masters set instead
Masters sets don't take up the same resources as a core set because they don't contain ANY new cards and aren't legal in standard. Making this swap would be a big increase in workload. Return of core sets would push back standard set releases.
d) no more bannings
Bans are a necessary evil. You aren't going to avoid ever having to do them. The bans aren't the problem.
As I've undestood it, it has always been required that Pro players retire if they join WOTC's development team. They can no longer play in any tournaments that offer winnings, but I think they still may be able to play in promotional events and other stuff that really falls more under advertising for WOTC. I'm not sure where I learned this, perhaps it was from one of the Drive to Work podcasts.
It's common sense that if they hire someone they can't play in their events. Total digression
Core sets are completely unnecessary, they can print the cards they need in ANY set. Core sets philosophy was an 'easy' set to introduce players. Now it's the intro sets job to do that.
If the sets aren't broken, then we won't have bannings. Solve all the development issues. Design just comes up with things it's the guys in charge who make sure we don't go off the rails... like we have.
Core sets aren't necessary, but if you want to avoid metagames where the powerlevel of the threats makes everything completely miserable you have to powerful and universal enough answers.
Printing Vehicles without enough instant speed removal to handle them was pretty much never going to work well, and I don't know how anyone designs Gideon and thinks good gameplay will come from that. The whole instant speed thing would have been nice for Saheeli as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That was pretty interesting. But dropping a warship on me is cheating. Take it back!
Printing Vehicles without enough instant speed removal to handle them was pretty much never going to work well, and I don't know how anyone designs Gideon and thinks good gameplay will come from that. The whole instant speed thing would have been nice for Saheeli as well.
We know that their plan was to heavily push new mechanics and each new set to 'encourage' players to invest in new cards every set. Add to that their general principal change to 'removal and counters are bad, creatures good' and we get where we are. Everything that has happened has been BY THEIR DESIGN.
This is why outrage and firings become the conversation of the day. Not only did they plan it, but now they're mismanaging it, and I guarantee you they have no idea how much they've damaged their game. HoD will not do enough because just based on their decisions since admitting they've "made mistakes" they are still screwing up.
How can you not realize copycat was oppressive? Because everyone was telling you so and denial is king?
Printing Vehicles without enough instant speed removal to handle them was pretty much never going to work well, and I don't know how anyone designs Gideon and thinks good gameplay will come from that. The whole instant speed thing would have been nice for Saheeli as well.
We know that their plan was to heavily push new mechanics and each new set to 'encourage' players to invest in new cards every set. Add to that their general principal change to 'removal and counters are bad, creatures good'
That's never been their philosophy.
Not only did they plan it, but now they're mismanaging it, and I guarantee you they have no idea how much they've damaged their game.
And of course, you do. Right.
How can you not realize copycat was oppressive? Because everyone was telling you so and denial is king?
Printing Vehicles without enough instant speed removal to handle them was pretty much never going to work well, and I don't know how anyone designs Gideon and thinks good gameplay will come from that. The whole instant speed thing would have been nice for Saheeli as well.
We know that their plan was to heavily push new mechanics and each new set to 'encourage' players to invest in new cards every set. Add to that their general principal change to 'removal and counters are bad, creatures good'
That's never been their philosophy.
Not only did they plan it, but now they're mismanaging it, and I guarantee you they have no idea how much they've damaged their game.
And of course, you do. Right.
How can you not realize copycat was oppressive? Because everyone was telling you so and denial is king?
It's a lot more complicated than that.
You have the inside scoop? Tell us then instead of just being a denier.
What do you know of their design philosophy? What is it exactly if I'm wrong?
I'm saying they've damaged their game based on the evidence we all see. You think Standard is healthy and all good right now with all the decisions they've made in the last 2 years? Explain that, I want to hear it.
Enlighten me how 'complexity' explains away the complete lack of awareness that is NOT banning an ERROR on their part they admitted and the whole mess recently with copycat.
You have the inside scoop? Tell us then instead of just being a denier.
What do you know of their design philosophy? What is it exactly if I'm wrong?
You are shifting the burden of proof.
Pushing new sets is not something they do because it would cause power creep, as they have said.
The current creature/spell imbalance is due to a miscalculation on the developer's part exaggerating a small intentional flux in answers vs threats/
I'm saying they've damaged their game based on the evidence we all see. You think Standard is healthy and all good right now with all the decisions they've made in the last 2 years? Explain that, I want to hear it.
Shifting the burden of proof again.
And you cite totally unspecified evidence. Very convincing.
This response also makes no real attempt to justify the statement you actually made which was a lot more of a claim than 'standard is bad'.
Enlighten me how 'complexity' explains away the complete lack of awareness that is NOT banning an ERROR on their part they admitted and the whole mess recently with copycat.
Evaluating cards is actually fairly complex and banning cards is also a complicated decision. Combined, this means that it's not usually obvious what the correct decision is. Will things change without a ban and become better? Will things change without a ban and become worse? Will a ban make something worse stronger? Will the format become less fun even if it's more diverse because of what kind of decks would be strong? Would banning an unfun card be worth the frustration of making a card unusable to some people? A lot of things to consider.
It was, I believe, a mistake from them to wait this long to ban Felidar Guardian. But it was not unreasonable to wait.
[quote from="DJK3654 »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/775481-felidar-guardian-is-banned?comment=248"]You are shifting the burden of proof.
Pushing new sets is not something they do because it would cause power creep, as they have said.
The current creature/spell imbalance is due to a miscalculation on the developer's part exaggerating a small intentional flux in answers vs threats/[quote]
What do you call Smuggler's Copter if not power creep and a pushed mechanic? Heart of Kiran also falls into that category. The cards are proof in themselves.
Maro has said openly they scaled back counters, sweepers, and removal as an overall design program, he's admitted they went too far and that they will apply 'lessons learned' to HoD and further sets. All of those things are facts and proof that their design intent is the problem here.
They made a lot of excuses for why they wanted to speed up the rotation but what makes you think they'll come out and say, 'our Hasbro overlords said we need to make more money so this is how we're choosing to do it'? The evidence is in their actions and how they've designed the sets.
Just look at the removal in Kaladesh block! Artifact set with minor and overcosted cards to hit artifacts (vehicles).
Look at Amonkhet! Heavy enchantment set with 2 cards (in white) that can deal with enchantments (neutered green to artifact only) and HEAVY artifact hate. If you're not building to burn the previous set in favor of the current one why print SO MUCH artifact hate? Amonkhet was in the can when they realized the error of their ways and started ban, admissions of mistakes, and promising to change their ways.
Proofs in the puddin.
Standard as a 2 deck format. Pros and consumers complaining and standard attendance drop are specific proof. Why do you think they banned? Because everything's going great? They admitted CoCo was too much and they should have acted. Proof from their mouths that standard was not healthy.
As far as your complexity goes I disagree. They had plenty of time once the pros made them aware of the 2 card win condition. It was unintentional and they should have acted much sooner. They made the situation more complicated the longer they waited, again on them. You assume they're taking action behind the scenes and not just observing and collecting data. When they make their ban decisions WEEKS ahead of time instead of 'collecting data' right up to the deadline it's disingenuous of them to make people think they are right on top of the issue.
Use some specifics and proof yourself. "small intentional flux in answers vs threats" is about as general as it gets.
Everyone is hating on WotC for screwing up in one way or another. Stop pointing the finger people. The problem is US. What could have a stopped copycat? A good control deck. Us," I hate control, its no fun to play against!". Okay, how about some better removal in general like bolts and doom blades? Us," then it just becomes modern and everyone has 4 bolts in every deck, and I hate having my bombs get hit by cheap removal!!". Okay, how about a fast aggro deck? "monastery swiftspear was broken, just like goblin guide!! I hate having to wrath the board, especially if I have to pay 5 for it!!. Okay, copycat is a 4 color deck, how about we attack their landbase to slow them down enough to survive? Us," Land destruction is the worst thing that ever existed in magic besides counterspell!! I hate LD, its not fun because I don't get to play my deck perfectly on curve and just net deck everything!!!". Fine!! Then what do you suggest? Us," Ban the DECK, but ban it on my terms when I want or I will tell you all about how incompetent you are!!". Maro was right about giving us exactly what we want; battle cruiser magic. We pretend we want something different, until we get it. And that's why copycat was able to flourish
It's not us, it's Rosewater's slavish devotion to focus testing for decision making. They don't trust the R&D team to make the game the best it can be, so they run endless focus groups and try to appeal to the broadest base possible. The problem is, people don't necessarily know what they like. To paraphrase Malcolm Gladwell, when people are asked what kind of coffee they like, they choose a rich dark roast. When you look at what kind of coffee people actually buy, it's milky and weak. Wizards needs to knock off the focus testing and start letting R&D do their jobs.
This. It's Maro thinking he's smart and going to make the company money and instead tanking everything.
If you don't like to brew and netdeck good for you. Yay, someone else thinks and you do. Yoda would be proud.
Don't judge people who do like to do some work themselves. I brew. If brewing is pointless (copycat legal) then I don't play. Copycat was not fun. It was not good for competitive or casual or FNM play. Just because you bought some Saheelis doesn't mean the whole of standard should continue to be a dumpsterfire and bleed players (oops I mean buyers).
Of course it's not easy to build competitive decks. If the game is designed properly there should be room for you to work within the meta of your area and finegal within the aggro-control-midrange formula to hit the sweet spot. I also don't have the time to play every week and know the meta but that's ok. What's not ok is knowing the copycat and vehicles ARE the meta and the guys who 'just bought the deck and aren't sure how to sideboard' are going to run the field because Maro and friends SCREWED EVERYTHING UP.
They should have banned dirtykitty before it was release when they got feedback it was broke and metawarping. They failed.
They should be concentrating on making a balanced fun game and not making 'cards people like to buy' as Maro put it.
They should STOP LISTENING to people and just make MTG:the Gathering as they have for MANY years and not MTG:the Creaturing as Maro and company think will make them more money because they have broken a perfectly good game.
If your local FNM is dead because copycat is gone it was sick and needed the surgery.
What else needs to go? Vehicles pushed too far are broken. Heart is just the wrong side of not ok but at least BG can make it sad.
Faster rotation was supposed to be in place right now so 2x OP Gideon was not the plan. At least the meta is opened up for a while though right?
I'm not sure if the "brewer" comments were meant for me, but if they were then you completely misunderstood me. I only brew decks, and if I look online and see they the same as an established deck, I tend to immediately change it enough to not be something people can just look up to figure out how to beat it. to the people frustrated about copycat having had dispels and negates ready for your answers, I ask, why don't you also have those things. It's completely reasonable to build a deck that interacts with your opponent instead of being a linear slugfest like mardu vehicles and BG constrictor were. I had no trouble playing against these decks BECAUSE they couldn't just look at the netdecks and have the perfect answer. copycat was a problem because pros knew they couldn't make a BETTER deck. They would have no issues making one that could compete, but pros aren't looking to have a competitive deck; they are looking to have THE BEST deck. I could care less about whether felidar guardian is banned or not; except now the left field home brews that are better than people think will finally start to see the light.
I don't believe Saheeli/Felidar was unintentional at all...
In a grand sense, you are right. Maro loves talking about the 'pendulum' metaphor for design, and how in order to keep the game from getting stale they try to shift the balance between agro and control, or threats and answers or any number of other tiny dials to make sure the same combination doesnt appear too often in a row.
For Khaladesh they recognized very early how, in order to make a parasitic design like Energy counters work, they needed to push strong combos and actively chose to lower the amount of counters and removal that would make playing combo too risky (on top of their already lowered removal due to a push of the pendulum towards threats, this was a mistake), and at the same time, allowed cards that they recognized as having good combo potential go through so the players (us) would have all the tools we need to play around with. That there happened to be a plethora of standard legal infinite combos was, in this sense then, by design. That one of them happened to be a two card combo where the two cards in question are so versatile they arent even dead cards when you cant stick the other? That was unexpected, but not unintentional.
So why not ban them as soon as they crop up? Well, like I said, there were a lot of good combos out there, and if someone could shave a turn or two off of any of them, or find a way to make them more consistent than copycat a whole new meta could have popped up overnight, and with mardu vehicles around to ensure there wasnt just one deck, they had a tough call: Let the players find an answer that only might exist, or actively tell players what is and is not OK to play by denying the combo deck they half-intentionally created?
Should they have listened to pro players when they asked for a swift banning of the combo? Probably. Were they wrong not to? We cant really answer that with any certainty, because they didnt know anything about what answers might exist with any certainty.
[quote from="DJK3654 »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/775481-felidar-guardian-is-banned?comment=248"]You are shifting the burden of proof.
Pushing new sets is not something they do because it would cause power creep, as they have said.
The current creature/spell imbalance is due to a miscalculation on the developer's part exaggerating a small intentional flux in answers vs threats/[quote]
What do you call Smuggler's Copter if not power creep and a pushed mechanic? Heart of Kiran also falls into that category. The cards are proof in themselves.
No they aren't. Smuggler's Copter was banned, so it's exact power level is not good evidence of anything to do with intention.
Heart of Kiran is a fair card, if very strong.
In both cases, these are just individual cards and aren't good evidence of the claims you are making regardless of anything else.
Maro has said openly they scaled back counters, sweepers, and removal as an overall design program, he's admitted they went too far and that they will apply 'lessons learned' to HoD and further sets. All of those things are facts and proof that their design intent is the problem here.
This is development's area.
And the problems were caused largely by miscalculations. The intent was involved, but it should not have gone that far with good testing and failures in testing enhanced the intentional change.
They made a lot of excuses for why they wanted to speed up the rotation but what makes you think they'll come out and say, 'our Hasbro overlords said we need to make more money so this is how we're choosing to do it'? The evidence is in their actions and how they've designed the sets.
Just look at the removal in Kaladesh block! Artifact set with minor and overcosted cards to hit artifacts (vehicles).
That's not very surprising, it's part of how you might push the artifact theme, rather than having more and more powerful artifacts.
Look at Amonkhet! Heavy enchantment set
Amonkhet is not an enchantment set
If you're not building to burn the previous set in favor of the current one why print SO MUCH artifact hate?
For the sake of variation in standard.
Standard as a 2 deck format. Pros and consumers complaining and standard attendance drop are specific proof. Why do you think they banned? Because everything's going great? They admitted CoCo was too much and they should have acted. Proof from their mouths that standard was not healthy.
This is either a strawman or a red herring.
Address my actual statements if you want to argue with them.
As far as your complexity goes I disagree. They had plenty of time once the pros made them aware of the 2 card win condition.
Irrelevant to my argument.
It was unintentional and they should have acted much sooner. They made the situation more complicated the longer they waited, again on them. You assume they're taking action behind the scenes and not just observing and collecting data.
When did I say anything about action behind the scenes?
When they make their ban decisions WEEKS ahead of time instead of 'collecting data' right up to the deadline it's disingenuous of them to make people think they are right on top of the issue.
Where is your evidence for when exactly they make ban decisions, and more specifically or universally than 'generally'?
Clearly, they did NOT make this decision weeks ahead of time, otherwise what possible reason would they have for waiting until after the scheduled ban date?
Use some specifics and proof yourself.
Shifting the burden of proof again.
My statements are mostly aimed at questioning your evidence and reasoning. You need to back up your claims.
"small intentional flux in answers vs threats" is about as general as it gets.
Where is your evidence for when exactly they make ban decisions, and more specifically or universally than 'generally'?
Clearly, they did NOT make this decision weeks ahead of time, otherwise what possible reason would they have for waiting until after the scheduled ban date?
In their statement they said, 'when we met on', and the date was 3 weeks prior to the published ban statement for March. This is fact.
Where is your evidence for when exactly they make ban decisions, and more specifically or universally than 'generally'?
Clearly, they did NOT make this decision weeks ahead of time, otherwise what possible reason would they have for waiting until after the scheduled ban date?
In their statement they said, 'when we met on', and the date was 3 weeks prior to the published ban statement for March. This is fact.
Since the initial announcement, for the first time ever, we pre-released a new card set on Magic Online before the formal release date. This happened on Monday. What we expected to take a few weeks to understand has ended up taking two days to form a clear picture of a metagame unbalanced by the Copy Cat combo
They did not make this decision weeks prior.
Meeting in advance also doesn't necessarily mean a decision was locked in at around that date and not just before the announcement was made.
EDIT: And where did you get 3 weeks specifically from? The original b&r announcement says " R&D met earlier this month". That could be three weeks, or less than two, though probably at least a week.
Also, just a small note - Mark Rosewater has stated that they are planning some form of change to company policy following this Cat-astrophe. (Sorry.) As far as I understand, however, it's not coming to be for a while though due to the long development cycle.
I may have missed that. Where does Maro get into there being a policy change? I know about the intention of making answers better going forward, but is this something else?
While other users reply, I just wanted to give you the actual source.
letsbehonestaboutmagic asked: The biggest issue I have with the banning of felidar is that it is either dishonest or inconsistent with things Wizards has said before. It has been said by Wizards repeatedly that one tournament, or one weekend, or one week is not a good measure of a format, that you have to give it time to adjust. So either the emergency ban was based on level of complaints and not data or you ignored your own rules about letting a format adjust. Either way, this is what hurts my confidence in magic
We made a decision. There was a large outcry from the audience. We then got some strong data pointing out that things weren’t likely going to get better. You would have more faith in us if we just let Standard be horrible for a large number of weeks?
Look, we made a mistake and as a result got ourself into a spot were there was no good answer, so we picked what we thought was the better answer of the choices we had.
I understand that mistakes like this shake the players’ faith in us. I don’t want you all interpreting me explaining why it happened for me dismissing the concern.
We messed up. We’re owning up to it and we’re trying to take steps to learn and ensure we don’t repeat the same mistakes. I promise you behind the scenes we’re taking serious action to change how we do things. (More info on this to come soon.)
Please just remember, due to our reaction time, these changes will take a while to get to all of you.
In short, we screwed up, we’re sorry. We’re working hard to regain your trust.
You would have more faith in us if we just let Standard be horrible for a large number of weeks? -Maro
I know Maro's stating they made 'a mistake' and they are, in their inept fashion, trying to make it better but they've let Standard be horrible for long periods of time over and over again (as they admitted they shouldn't have let CoCo go it's full time in Standard).
The re-poster makes a very valid point about their flip flopping. They are doing a very bad job managing a huge mess they've created with bad design philosophy. He asks for patients and vaguely says they'll fix things. The problem is Maro likes to behave like he's open and sharing yet the specifics are never present. From their fumbling again and again, it seems trusting them to fix things properly with HoD and on may be a slow and mismanaged process.
The only way they can fix it is to go back to the basics of making balanced cards for all strategies, aggro, control, and midrange and stop pushing their new mechanics so hard. Quit with Creatures: the Gathering.
Also, just a small note - Mark Rosewater has stated that they are planning some form of change to company policy following this Cat-astrophe. (Sorry.) As far as I understand, however, it's not coming to be for a while though due to the long development cycle.
I may have missed that. Where does Maro get into there being a policy change? I know about the intention of making answers better going forward, but is this something else?
While other users reply, I just wanted to give you the actual source.
letsbehonestaboutmagic asked: The biggest issue I have with the banning of felidar is that it is either dishonest or inconsistent with things Wizards has said before. It has been said by Wizards repeatedly that one tournament, or one weekend, or one week is not a good measure of a format, that you have to give it time to adjust. So either the emergency ban was based on level of complaints and not data or you ignored your own rules about letting a format adjust. Either way, this is what hurts my confidence in magic
We made a decision. There was a large outcry from the audience. We then got some strong data pointing out that things weren’t likely going to get better. You would have more faith in us if we just let Standard be horrible for a large number of weeks?
Look, we made a mistake and as a result got ourself into a spot were there was no good answer, so we picked what we thought was the better answer of the choices we had.
I understand that mistakes like this shake the players’ faith in us. I don’t want you all interpreting me explaining why it happened for me dismissing the concern.
We messed up. We’re owning up to it and we’re trying to take steps to learn and ensure we don’t repeat the same mistakes. I promise you behind the scenes we’re taking serious action to change how we do things. (More info on this to come soon.)
Please just remember, due to our reaction time, these changes will take a while to get to all of you.
In short, we screwed up, we’re sorry. We’re working hard to regain your trust.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that particular mea culpa. It sounds like they are having a hard time balancing business decisions with game-related R&D. There seems to be this pressure for MTG to be more than it is (either a franchise or Hearthstone, or both; as well as more profitable) and I think the game is on its weakest footing this last decade. I'm not sure what they are going to change, but hopefully they see that this particular model is not working well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Dark Night Cavalier at Heroes of the Plane Studios!
Also, just a small note - Mark Rosewater has stated that they are planning some form of change to company policy following this Cat-astrophe. (Sorry.) As far as I understand, however, it's not coming to be for a while though due to the long development cycle.
I may have missed that. Where does Maro get into there being a policy change? I know about the intention of making answers better going forward, but is this something else?
While other users reply, I just wanted to give you the actual source.
letsbehonestaboutmagic asked: The biggest issue I have with the banning of felidar is that it is either dishonest or inconsistent with things Wizards has said before. It has been said by Wizards repeatedly that one tournament, or one weekend, or one week is not a good measure of a format, that you have to give it time to adjust. So either the emergency ban was based on level of complaints and not data or you ignored your own rules about letting a format adjust. Either way, this is what hurts my confidence in magic
We made a decision. There was a large outcry from the audience. We then got some strong data pointing out that things weren’t likely going to get better. You would have more faith in us if we just let Standard be horrible for a large number of weeks?
Look, we made a mistake and as a result got ourself into a spot were there was no good answer, so we picked what we thought was the better answer of the choices we had.
I understand that mistakes like this shake the players’ faith in us. I don’t want you all interpreting me explaining why it happened for me dismissing the concern.
We messed up. We’re owning up to it and we’re trying to take steps to learn and ensure we don’t repeat the same mistakes. I promise you behind the scenes we’re taking serious action to change how we do things. (More info on this to come soon.)
Please just remember, due to our reaction time, these changes will take a while to get to all of you.
In short, we screwed up, we’re sorry. We’re working hard to regain your trust.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that particular mea culpa. It sounds like they are having a hard time balancing business decisions with game-related R&D. There seems to be this pressure for MTG to be more than it is (either a franchise or Hearthstone, or both; as well as more profitable) and I think the game is on its weakest footing this last decade. I'm not sure what they are going to change, but hopefully they see that this particular model is not working well.
Here's what I think. I think they said somewhere that BFZ was the best selling block or large set of all time when it got released. This is of course surprising seeing how messy the set was mechanics wise. Magic has had a really good run recently in regards to sales. But the upswing has to stop sometime. And I think pretty much everyone at this point agrees that the current design process and philosophy has created some awful standard formats the last year or two. I'm not sure what they're going to do about it business/ban wise (But they're definitely going to change something, as promised), but I'm very sure they're going to create better answers from a design standpoint from now on.
The ironic thing is that the whole idea of making answers worse was to increase interaction (even those that hate creature combat must admit that creatures is where player interaction mostly happens) by making creatures more durable. But instead creatures with too much board impact severely hampered the ability to counter another player's board state. With the board impact of creatures so potent, it has made deck building more one sided, lessening interaction in that respect.
Personally I think that even though it's a horrible business decision, it was much better than not to ban Felidar Guardian as an addendum. I've lost trust in WotC but I'd trust them less if they hadn't. Imagine standard with an even more overpowered copycat combo. Jeeze.
people talking about this shaking their confidence is hilarious to me, because the timing of this ban did the exact opposite for me. I loved it, because the real thing hurting the game and stifling the creativity of any format is the spikes. They contribute nothing to the meta, buy the least product, do the least amount of thinking and testing, and yet they walk into tournaments, fnm's, etc... and walk away with all the prize support. This timing on the ban was perfect; it showed that WotC cares about the health of the game, not the meager one time investment of the net deckers. They fix, or at least give the format a chance to be fixed, with the ban, and by delaying it they caught at least some of the problem players buying into decks they can't use now. You can call me a hater if you like, but the truth is no one likes playing net deckers, no one. Sure some will say it helps you get better, but if that's true then this should have been the best standard ever. You only had two decks to learn how to beat. Right? exactly. everyone hated it. that's how every FNM is because there is always one or two people coming in with the newest busted deck, with an attitude problem, pretending they are better than everyone when they did no work or thinking themselves. Having played across different areas of the US since 1993 it has always been exactly the same. its not one store, or one meta, or one standard. It's us. and our inability to handle even the chance of not winning every game.
Also, just a small note - Mark Rosewater has stated that they are planning some form of change to company policy following this Cat-astrophe. (Sorry.) As far as I understand, however, it's not coming to be for a while though due to the long development cycle.
I may have missed that. Where does Maro get into there being a policy change? I know about the intention of making answers better going forward, but is this something else?
While other users reply, I just wanted to give you the actual source.
letsbehonestaboutmagic asked: The biggest issue I have with the banning of felidar is that it is either dishonest or inconsistent with things Wizards has said before. It has been said by Wizards repeatedly that one tournament, or one weekend, or one week is not a good measure of a format, that you have to give it time to adjust. So either the emergency ban was based on level of complaints and not data or you ignored your own rules about letting a format adjust. Either way, this is what hurts my confidence in magic
We made a decision. There was a large outcry from the audience. We then got some strong data pointing out that things weren’t likely going to get better. You would have more faith in us if we just let Standard be horrible for a large number of weeks?
Look, we made a mistake and as a result got ourself into a spot were there was no good answer, so we picked what we thought was the better answer of the choices we had.
I understand that mistakes like this shake the players’ faith in us. I don’t want you all interpreting me explaining why it happened for me dismissing the concern.
We messed up. We’re owning up to it and we’re trying to take steps to learn and ensure we don’t repeat the same mistakes. I promise you behind the scenes we’re taking serious action to change how we do things. (More info on this to come soon.)
Please just remember, due to our reaction time, these changes will take a while to get to all of you.
In short, we screwed up, we’re sorry. We’re working hard to regain your trust.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that particular mea culpa. It sounds like they are having a hard time balancing business decisions with game-related R&D. There seems to be this pressure for MTG to be more than it is (either a franchise or Hearthstone, or both; as well as more profitable) and I think the game is on its weakest footing this last decade. I'm not sure what they are going to change, but hopefully they see that this particular model is not working well.
Here's what I think. I think they said somewhere that BFZ was the best selling block or large set of all time when it got released. This is of course surprising seeing how messy the set was mechanics wise. Magic has had a really good run recently in regards to sales. But the upswing has to stop sometime. And I think pretty much everyone at this point agrees that the current design process and philosophy has created some awful standard formats the last year or two. I'm not sure what they're going to do about it business/ban wise (But they're definitely going to change something, as promised), but I'm very sure they're going to create better answers from a design standpoint from now on.
The ironic thing is that the whole idea of making answers worse was to increase interaction (even those that hate creature combat must admit that creatures is where player interaction mostly happens) by making creatures more durable. But instead creatures with too much board impact severely hampered the ability to counter another player's board state. With the board impact of creatures so potent, it has made deck building more one sided, lessening interaction in that respect.
Personally I think that even though it's a horrible business decision, it was much better than not to ban Felidar Guardian as an addendum. I've lost trust in WotC but I'd trust them less if they hadn't. Imagine standard with an even more overpowered copycat combo. Jeeze.
Yeah, I agree. The ban needed to happen; I'm still surprised they didn't do it sooner. I'll give WotC this, they are trying and they are listening. This whole MTG thing is a lot more complicated that we sometimes give them credit for. There are only so many things that they can do, and, at a certain point, they just have to wait. I mean, it could be worse, they could always be games workshop. I think GW resents the idea of rules at all in some ways.
That doesn't lessen the frustration of those who bought/traded into copycat on the faith that it was around for a few weeks only to be screwed out of their deck in two days. That, I think, is a fairly unique complaint for MTG, and one that has a lot of weight.
people talking about this shaking their confidence is hilarious to me, because the timing of this ban did the exact opposite for me. I loved it, because the real thing hurting the game and stifling the creativity of any format is the spikes. They contribute nothing to the meta, buy the least product, do the least amount of thinking and testing, and yet they walk into tournaments, fnm's, etc... and walk away with all the prize support. This timing on the ban was perfect; it showed that WotC cares about the health of the game, not the meager one time investment of the net deckers. They fix, or at least give the format a chance to be fixed, with the ban, and by delaying it they caught at least some of the problem players buying into decks they can't use now. You can call me a hater if you like, but the truth is no one likes playing net deckers, no one. Sure some will say it helps you get better, but if that's true then this should have been the best standard ever. You only had two decks to learn how to beat. Right? exactly. everyone hated it. that's how every FNM is because there is always one or two people coming in with the newest busted deck, with an attitude problem, pretending they are better than everyone when they did no work or thinking themselves. Having played across different areas of the US since 1993 it has always been exactly the same. its not one store, or one meta, or one standard. It's us. and our inability to handle even the chance of not winning every game.
Jeez man, calm down. Netdecking is kind of an outmoded term; I mean, how would you stop it? If you did stop it, how does that make things better? At the end of the day, you are just limiting your knowledge of how a system of game pieces work together. I've only been playing since 1996, and people used to copy decks out of inquest, it is just how a thing works. People copy strategies in every game ever made, it is the nature of rule-sets. I get the frustration of having this great original idea and then not being able to implement it because, at the end of the day, it isn't good enough in the current meta. I know a lot of "spikes" who deal with that exact issue. Everyone has to manage their desire for innovation, doing something they like, doing something powerful, and winnning in every MTG metagame. If anything, WotC's current design problems are likely, in part, due to a desire to let less competitive players play big stuff and have it be good. I have never seen a "spike" complain about removal or answers being too good; with my less competitive friends it is an occasional gripe. Also, most competitive players want there to be some variance in the competitive environment; I don't think anyone likes two-deck metas, regardless of what is in it.
I don't consider myself a spike, but I do think you get better playing against those who invest time, money, and resources at being the best in an area. Yeah, some decks are no fun to play against, but that is not always true of "net-decks." I've also seen a lot of people fall flat on their face by bringing high performing decks that don't take into account the local metagame. I will say, I doubt you get better at the game by playing against people who don't care about winning, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Also, I'm going to call you out a bit on the whole ban having "caught at least some of the problem players buying into decks they can't use now." First off, regardless of what you enjoy about MTG, you should be invested in its continued health. Circumstances like the current one are brutally detrimental to the game. It really should shake your confidence in MTG, they said one thing, then did another. I think it was for the right reason, but that is the very definition of an untrustworthy act. Second, you are complaining about "spikes" like they are bad people in some way; have a little empathy for people who enjoy the game differently than you are who got a bit screwed the recent announcement. They are not "problem players" any more than anyone else is. If you really want to play something without netdecking, play a novel format; I promise you, out of any random group of people, someone will care about winning more, "spike" is a relative term.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sig by Dark Night Cavalier at Heroes of the Plane Studios!
It's true that not all Spikes are problem players, but unfortunately my experience is that Spikes do tend to produce the largest number of jerk players among the three psychographics. I think it boils down to a few attitudes the problem Spikes demonstrate:
As long as I win, it doesn't matter if the opponent has a bad time.
I'm just here for the prizes.
Since tournaments are time limited, it's okay to hurry the opponent along, even if they're stressed about their decisions.
I care only about efficiency, not creativity or fun.
And for some reason, the jerk spikes I've run into tend to be men in their late 20s-early 30s.
Granted, I've only been to a handful of local play locations, so I'm aware that my experience pool might be a little limited. But whenever I see players online calling cards "garbage", I can't help but to think the problem mindsets are more widespread. Those attitudes create a toxic environment where more casual and friendly players feel afraid to come forward with their ideas because they feel they'll just be hated out of the room.
I get that some players want to win. Shoot, most players want to win, that's part of playing a game. But some players want to win so badly, they're willing to stomp all over other players just so they can earn their precious prize packs and their precious tournament points. Being a winner doesn't require being a jerk, and I dearly wish casual players could get cards that specifically trump Spikes just so the jerks among them get a taste of their own medicine. Sometimes I've wanted to build my own Spikey deck just to crush the jerk Spikes, but I tell myself that there are better ways to use my time and money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You shouldn't need core sets. There's no reason any of the recent problem cards couldn't have been better answered using the blocks they where in. Flavour is very flexible and good answers don't usually need to come in a very specific form. The problem is that answers to problem cards need to be designed before it is known what cards are actually problematic, and while doing so you have to consider whether the answer card you are making could be itself problematic. And all the while set files are in flux.
Masters sets don't take up the same resources as a core set because they don't contain ANY new cards and aren't legal in standard. Making this swap would be a big increase in workload. Return of core sets would push back standard set releases.
Bans are a necessary evil. You aren't going to avoid ever having to do them. The bans aren't the problem.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Core sets are completely unnecessary, they can print the cards they need in ANY set. Core sets philosophy was an 'easy' set to introduce players. Now it's the intro sets job to do that.
If the sets aren't broken, then we won't have bannings. Solve all the development issues. Design just comes up with things it's the guys in charge who make sure we don't go off the rails... like we have.
Printing Vehicles without enough instant speed removal to handle them was pretty much never going to work well, and I don't know how anyone designs Gideon and thinks good gameplay will come from that. The whole instant speed thing would have been nice for Saheeli as well.
We know that their plan was to heavily push new mechanics and each new set to 'encourage' players to invest in new cards every set. Add to that their general principal change to 'removal and counters are bad, creatures good' and we get where we are. Everything that has happened has been BY THEIR DESIGN.
This is why outrage and firings become the conversation of the day. Not only did they plan it, but now they're mismanaging it, and I guarantee you they have no idea how much they've damaged their game. HoD will not do enough because just based on their decisions since admitting they've "made mistakes" they are still screwing up.
How can you not realize copycat was oppressive? Because everyone was telling you so and denial is king?
That's never been their philosophy.
And of course, you do. Right.
It's a lot more complicated than that.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You have the inside scoop? Tell us then instead of just being a denier.
What do you know of their design philosophy? What is it exactly if I'm wrong?
I'm saying they've damaged their game based on the evidence we all see. You think Standard is healthy and all good right now with all the decisions they've made in the last 2 years? Explain that, I want to hear it.
Enlighten me how 'complexity' explains away the complete lack of awareness that is NOT banning an ERROR on their part they admitted and the whole mess recently with copycat.
You are shifting the burden of proof.
Pushing new sets is not something they do because it would cause power creep, as they have said.
The current creature/spell imbalance is due to a miscalculation on the developer's part exaggerating a small intentional flux in answers vs threats/
Shifting the burden of proof again.
And you cite totally unspecified evidence. Very convincing.
This response also makes no real attempt to justify the statement you actually made which was a lot more of a claim than 'standard is bad'.
Evaluating cards is actually fairly complex and banning cards is also a complicated decision. Combined, this means that it's not usually obvious what the correct decision is. Will things change without a ban and become better? Will things change without a ban and become worse? Will a ban make something worse stronger? Will the format become less fun even if it's more diverse because of what kind of decks would be strong? Would banning an unfun card be worth the frustration of making a card unusable to some people? A lot of things to consider.
It was, I believe, a mistake from them to wait this long to ban Felidar Guardian. But it was not unreasonable to wait.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Gideon should have been in the first wave of bannings - it deserved it more than Refelctor Mage or Smuggler's Copter.
UR Blue-Red Control
Modern:
UBR Grixis Control
UWR Jeskai Control
Pushing new sets is not something they do because it would cause power creep, as they have said.
The current creature/spell imbalance is due to a miscalculation on the developer's part exaggerating a small intentional flux in answers vs threats/[quote]
What do you call Smuggler's Copter if not power creep and a pushed mechanic? Heart of Kiran also falls into that category. The cards are proof in themselves.
Maro has said openly they scaled back counters, sweepers, and removal as an overall design program, he's admitted they went too far and that they will apply 'lessons learned' to HoD and further sets. All of those things are facts and proof that their design intent is the problem here.
They made a lot of excuses for why they wanted to speed up the rotation but what makes you think they'll come out and say, 'our Hasbro overlords said we need to make more money so this is how we're choosing to do it'? The evidence is in their actions and how they've designed the sets.
Just look at the removal in Kaladesh block! Artifact set with minor and overcosted cards to hit artifacts (vehicles).
Look at Amonkhet! Heavy enchantment set with 2 cards (in white) that can deal with enchantments (neutered green to artifact only) and HEAVY artifact hate. If you're not building to burn the previous set in favor of the current one why print SO MUCH artifact hate? Amonkhet was in the can when they realized the error of their ways and started ban, admissions of mistakes, and promising to change their ways.
Proofs in the puddin.
Standard as a 2 deck format. Pros and consumers complaining and standard attendance drop are specific proof. Why do you think they banned? Because everything's going great? They admitted CoCo was too much and they should have acted. Proof from their mouths that standard was not healthy.
As far as your complexity goes I disagree. They had plenty of time once the pros made them aware of the 2 card win condition. It was unintentional and they should have acted much sooner. They made the situation more complicated the longer they waited, again on them. You assume they're taking action behind the scenes and not just observing and collecting data. When they make their ban decisions WEEKS ahead of time instead of 'collecting data' right up to the deadline it's disingenuous of them to make people think they are right on top of the issue.
Use some specifics and proof yourself. "small intentional flux in answers vs threats" is about as general as it gets.
I play Magic: the Gathering, not Magic: the Commandering.
I'm not sure if the "brewer" comments were meant for me, but if they were then you completely misunderstood me. I only brew decks, and if I look online and see they the same as an established deck, I tend to immediately change it enough to not be something people can just look up to figure out how to beat it. to the people frustrated about copycat having had dispels and negates ready for your answers, I ask, why don't you also have those things. It's completely reasonable to build a deck that interacts with your opponent instead of being a linear slugfest like mardu vehicles and BG constrictor were. I had no trouble playing against these decks BECAUSE they couldn't just look at the netdecks and have the perfect answer. copycat was a problem because pros knew they couldn't make a BETTER deck. They would have no issues making one that could compete, but pros aren't looking to have a competitive deck; they are looking to have THE BEST deck. I could care less about whether felidar guardian is banned or not; except now the left field home brews that are better than people think will finally start to see the light.
Thank you. You are the only one I have seen back up my comment rather than arguing against it.
In a grand sense, you are right. Maro loves talking about the 'pendulum' metaphor for design, and how in order to keep the game from getting stale they try to shift the balance between agro and control, or threats and answers or any number of other tiny dials to make sure the same combination doesnt appear too often in a row.
For Khaladesh they recognized very early how, in order to make a parasitic design like Energy counters work, they needed to push strong combos and actively chose to lower the amount of counters and removal that would make playing combo too risky (on top of their already lowered removal due to a push of the pendulum towards threats, this was a mistake), and at the same time, allowed cards that they recognized as having good combo potential go through so the players (us) would have all the tools we need to play around with. That there happened to be a plethora of standard legal infinite combos was, in this sense then, by design. That one of them happened to be a two card combo where the two cards in question are so versatile they arent even dead cards when you cant stick the other? That was unexpected, but not unintentional.
So why not ban them as soon as they crop up? Well, like I said, there were a lot of good combos out there, and if someone could shave a turn or two off of any of them, or find a way to make them more consistent than copycat a whole new meta could have popped up overnight, and with mardu vehicles around to ensure there wasnt just one deck, they had a tough call: Let the players find an answer that only might exist, or actively tell players what is and is not OK to play by denying the combo deck they half-intentionally created?
Should they have listened to pro players when they asked for a swift banning of the combo? Probably. Were they wrong not to? We cant really answer that with any certainty, because they didnt know anything about what answers might exist with any certainty.
No they aren't. Smuggler's Copter was banned, so it's exact power level is not good evidence of anything to do with intention.
Heart of Kiran is a fair card, if very strong.
In both cases, these are just individual cards and aren't good evidence of the claims you are making regardless of anything else.
This is development's area.
And the problems were caused largely by miscalculations. The intent was involved, but it should not have gone that far with good testing and failures in testing enhanced the intentional change.
That's not very surprising, it's part of how you might push the artifact theme, rather than having more and more powerful artifacts.
Amonkhet is not an enchantment set
For the sake of variation in standard.
This is either a strawman or a red herring.
Address my actual statements if you want to argue with them.
Irrelevant to my argument.
When did I say anything about action behind the scenes?
Where is your evidence for when exactly they make ban decisions, and more specifically or universally than 'generally'?
Clearly, they did NOT make this decision weeks ahead of time, otherwise what possible reason would they have for waiting until after the scheduled ban date?
Shifting the burden of proof again.
My statements are mostly aimed at questioning your evidence and reasoning. You need to back up your claims.
General=/=vague
It IS a general point.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
In their statement they said, 'when we met on', and the date was 3 weeks prior to the published ban statement for March. This is fact.
They did not make this decision weeks prior.
Meeting in advance also doesn't necessarily mean a decision was locked in at around that date and not just before the announcement was made.
EDIT: And where did you get 3 weeks specifically from? The original b&r announcement says " R&D met earlier this month". That could be three weeks, or less than two, though probably at least a week.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
March
They met on the Friday after Utrecht even though their statement says 'earlier this month'. "It was concluded" is pretty clear.
While other users reply, I just wanted to give you the actual source.
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/160060487908/the-biggest-issue-i-have-with-the-banning-of
I know Maro's stating they made 'a mistake' and they are, in their inept fashion, trying to make it better but they've let Standard be horrible for long periods of time over and over again (as they admitted they shouldn't have let CoCo go it's full time in Standard).
The re-poster makes a very valid point about their flip flopping. They are doing a very bad job managing a huge mess they've created with bad design philosophy. He asks for patients and vaguely says they'll fix things. The problem is Maro likes to behave like he's open and sharing yet the specifics are never present. From their fumbling again and again, it seems trusting them to fix things properly with HoD and on may be a slow and mismanaged process.
The only way they can fix it is to go back to the basics of making balanced cards for all strategies, aggro, control, and midrange and stop pushing their new mechanics so hard. Quit with Creatures: the Gathering.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that particular mea culpa. It sounds like they are having a hard time balancing business decisions with game-related R&D. There seems to be this pressure for MTG to be more than it is (either a franchise or Hearthstone, or both; as well as more profitable) and I think the game is on its weakest footing this last decade. I'm not sure what they are going to change, but hopefully they see that this particular model is not working well.
Here's what I think. I think they said somewhere that BFZ was the best selling block or large set of all time when it got released. This is of course surprising seeing how messy the set was mechanics wise. Magic has had a really good run recently in regards to sales. But the upswing has to stop sometime. And I think pretty much everyone at this point agrees that the current design process and philosophy has created some awful standard formats the last year or two. I'm not sure what they're going to do about it business/ban wise (But they're definitely going to change something, as promised), but I'm very sure they're going to create better answers from a design standpoint from now on.
The ironic thing is that the whole idea of making answers worse was to increase interaction (even those that hate creature combat must admit that creatures is where player interaction mostly happens) by making creatures more durable. But instead creatures with too much board impact severely hampered the ability to counter another player's board state. With the board impact of creatures so potent, it has made deck building more one sided, lessening interaction in that respect.
Personally I think that even though it's a horrible business decision, it was much better than not to ban Felidar Guardian as an addendum. I've lost trust in WotC but I'd trust them less if they hadn't. Imagine standard with an even more overpowered copycat combo. Jeeze.
Yeah, I agree. The ban needed to happen; I'm still surprised they didn't do it sooner. I'll give WotC this, they are trying and they are listening. This whole MTG thing is a lot more complicated that we sometimes give them credit for. There are only so many things that they can do, and, at a certain point, they just have to wait. I mean, it could be worse, they could always be games workshop. I think GW resents the idea of rules at all in some ways.
That doesn't lessen the frustration of those who bought/traded into copycat on the faith that it was around for a few weeks only to be screwed out of their deck in two days. That, I think, is a fairly unique complaint for MTG, and one that has a lot of weight.
Jeez man, calm down. Netdecking is kind of an outmoded term; I mean, how would you stop it? If you did stop it, how does that make things better? At the end of the day, you are just limiting your knowledge of how a system of game pieces work together. I've only been playing since 1996, and people used to copy decks out of inquest, it is just how a thing works. People copy strategies in every game ever made, it is the nature of rule-sets. I get the frustration of having this great original idea and then not being able to implement it because, at the end of the day, it isn't good enough in the current meta. I know a lot of "spikes" who deal with that exact issue. Everyone has to manage their desire for innovation, doing something they like, doing something powerful, and winnning in every MTG metagame. If anything, WotC's current design problems are likely, in part, due to a desire to let less competitive players play big stuff and have it be good. I have never seen a "spike" complain about removal or answers being too good; with my less competitive friends it is an occasional gripe. Also, most competitive players want there to be some variance in the competitive environment; I don't think anyone likes two-deck metas, regardless of what is in it.
I don't consider myself a spike, but I do think you get better playing against those who invest time, money, and resources at being the best in an area. Yeah, some decks are no fun to play against, but that is not always true of "net-decks." I've also seen a lot of people fall flat on their face by bringing high performing decks that don't take into account the local metagame. I will say, I doubt you get better at the game by playing against people who don't care about winning, not that there is anything wrong with that.
Also, I'm going to call you out a bit on the whole ban having "caught at least some of the problem players buying into decks they can't use now." First off, regardless of what you enjoy about MTG, you should be invested in its continued health. Circumstances like the current one are brutally detrimental to the game. It really should shake your confidence in MTG, they said one thing, then did another. I think it was for the right reason, but that is the very definition of an untrustworthy act. Second, you are complaining about "spikes" like they are bad people in some way; have a little empathy for people who enjoy the game differently than you are who got a bit screwed the recent announcement. They are not "problem players" any more than anyone else is. If you really want to play something without netdecking, play a novel format; I promise you, out of any random group of people, someone will care about winning more, "spike" is a relative term.
As long as I win, it doesn't matter if the opponent has a bad time.
I'm just here for the prizes.
Since tournaments are time limited, it's okay to hurry the opponent along, even if they're stressed about their decisions.
I care only about efficiency, not creativity or fun.
And for some reason, the jerk spikes I've run into tend to be men in their late 20s-early 30s.
Granted, I've only been to a handful of local play locations, so I'm aware that my experience pool might be a little limited. But whenever I see players online calling cards "garbage", I can't help but to think the problem mindsets are more widespread. Those attitudes create a toxic environment where more casual and friendly players feel afraid to come forward with their ideas because they feel they'll just be hated out of the room.
I get that some players want to win. Shoot, most players want to win, that's part of playing a game. But some players want to win so badly, they're willing to stomp all over other players just so they can earn their precious prize packs and their precious tournament points. Being a winner doesn't require being a jerk, and I dearly wish casual players could get cards that specifically trump Spikes just so the jerks among them get a taste of their own medicine. Sometimes I've wanted to build my own Spikey deck just to crush the jerk Spikes, but I tell myself that there are better ways to use my time and money.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.