I appreciate you point of view and your responses to specifically the points I've brought up. However, I'd like for you to check out when you've said "they don't" or "they can't" with regard to Wizards. This is much of the free pass that I am referring to. They don't restrict cards in standard. They can't reduce lead time etc.. Why not? They can do whatever they want apparently. And with the exception of changes to their reserved list policy, they've pretty much displayed that.
Frankly, Wizards doesn't do something, until is convenient or necessary for them to do so. Changing they way they print sets is something that is both POSSIBLE and NECESSARY. Wizards has had to deal with a myriad of issues over the last decade from forgeries to leaks to increased tournament costs. In each instance they made CHANGES to further their best interests.
In this case both Wizards and player interests align, if only indirectly. And they weren't up to the task of changing to protect that interest. If this incident has told us anything is that Wizards will make changes if the volume is high enough on the criticism and they can feel it in their bottom line. I'm saying don't let this slide. Don't make excuses for them. Don't knock other people's suggestions as if they aren't viable. In most cases there's more than one solution to solve a problem, and in this case, it's as if Wizards didn't even really try.
I have no confidence in them because I don't see any reason to believe that we will have a better Standard environment once the next set comes out. What are the chances that another card will have to be banned in Standard months from now?
I play ANT and belcher as my pet decks in legacy (I have dredge (mana/manaless), ops all spells , BUG, Grixis, Candian, landstill, miracles). I know that sucks to shove in green mana for decay but I still don't see why you have such grudge against Miracles. I can't find a good reason to kill a deck instead of banning other cards of the deck.
A terminus ban would make a better matchup for agro/midrange, tilting the scales. Now with top gone the deck got neutered, maverick and other decks got shafted, and terminus will not be used by anyone. Killing a deck is a resource that should only be used when something is really broken (hulk flash winning T0 during upkeep).
Think that our decks can be the next "Oh noes... we really have to shove in flutterstorm and mind break trap in our sideboard? That is way too much unfun!"
tbh, she should have been axed when AR went live imo. Wizards was clearly worried about Reflector Mage shenanigans, so they removed it from the format, but had they removed her instead, then Standard likely has several more playable archetypes as a result. Sadly, their need to push constantly push Planeswalkers above all else won out and the format has suffered because of it.
Felidar Guardian would be completely unplayable in competitive Standard decks without Saheeli. The reverse isn't true. Banning the cat makes the most sense.
The data they were getting from Magic Online must have been pretty bleak for them to make this ban now. Copycat decks were doing VERY well in the leagues, but the leagues were also fairly unpopular considering that a new set just came out. Wizards probably decided that they couldn't allow another season of ruined standard to crush interest in the format.
I'm still amazed they didn't catch the combo in the first place. Seems like the community noticed it within minutes of seeing Felidar Guardian.
I've been pretty forgiving of wizards in this thread, but yeah I'm surprised by this.
Any time, ANY TIME, there is a "copy something" effect on a permanent, one of the things I think is "can this be broken in the format?"
It's important to remember that cards change during development. Missing it was a huge mistake, but I suspect that one of the cards was tweaked later in the development cycle or something.
All these alternatives and in the end THIS is how the chose to handle it.
*with one alternative
And even three alternatives hardly seems like 'all these alternatives'.
But yes, they could have done this better- by simply banning the card on the announcement day. This decision is basically an admission of that.
I could list *more* alternatives. The problem is that suggestions that I may make will come under more scrutiny than what Wizards chooses to do. And rightly so? I'm an individual and they are the company. But, the problem I have is when we give them a free pass too many times and dismiss the critics of their actions as simply people whining.
There are a TON of alternatives.
Restrict the Cat
Ban the Planeswalker
Reduce your lead time for sets (so you can print things you need)
Anticipate possible problems and give your set a flex slot in the event something needs to be printed to solve a problem.
Make an Announcement that the Cat will be banned IN THE FUTURE (look guys, we messed up, but we honor your purchases and plans. Play with the combo for a month, but after that it's gone)
Wait for more than two days worth of data (if it's truly oppressive, let us see a week or two of data, instead of JUST two days. Even if they make the same decision, it would sound more "scientific")
The reason they needed to get rid of this combo in standard, is the same reason they need to be more consistent with their decision making. It costs them players.
They succeeded in banning the card, but they also made a poor decision in how they did it, as well as the explanation for it. They are still losing players.
So, how would a flex slot work? You'd have to decide on rarity and color before you even knew what the problem was and then you'd have to cram a really powerful card into the set without as much testing as normal. You'd also have to be able to get art for it and either make the card blue/white or risk the color not being able to answer the problem at all. The other option is to just bump a card out at the last minute which might wreck limited strategies/balance or axe a neat card that might not fit into any other sets.
Reducing lead time also wouldn't work that well because it would reduce the time to test things and they'd probably have to play safer. Do you really want another Battle for Zendikar?
Saheeli combo was going to be ABSURD in new standard. Nuff said, it needed a card to shore up it's 1 bad match up and Manglehorn changed things along with Glorybringer. Thank god this cancer is gone. You know what happened when my LGS announced the ban?
We cheered and rushed the counter to ask about Amonkhet/ standard cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard Arena: Eh? Gruul or Die
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now: G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record) C Eldrazi Tron (9-5) UG Infect RW Burn
They openly state that they have taken player feedback into account. The obvious reasons to take into account 2 days of MODO data are two:
Best case scenario is that no ban is necessary.
MODO probably produces reliable as well as easily accessible and processed data at a rate one or more magnitudes higher than anything that needs to be compiled from offline games and/or sources not under their direct control.
Is it silly to schedule the B/R announcement in a way that they cannot process the data first? Yeah. Does reality sometimes get into the way of our best-laid plans? Yeah. I think there will be reasonable voices welcoming the flexibility in solving matters. They took exactly the time they thought they needed and the end result is the same.
So, how would a flex slot work? You'd have to decide on rarity and color before you even knew what the problem was and then you'd have to cram a really powerful card into the set without as much testing as normal. You'd also have to be able to get art for it and either make the card blue/white or risk the color not being able to answer the problem at all. The other option is to just bump a card out at the last minute which might wreck limited strategies/balance or axe a neat card that might not fit into any other sets.
Good question.
Uncommon... they've done it with Rakdos Charm, Volcanic Fallout, and Raking Canopy in the past
Print specific removal as answers. Creatures have been the target of the majority of bans we've seen in Standard. Risk printing more removal vs printing strong creatures/permanents.
They have all they art they need. They've paid for more art than they actually use. Much of the final product isn't the greatest, and it doesn't have to be.
Standard > Limited for Wizards, but i doubt uncommon removal will be format warping the way creatures have been.
May not fit vs. Format Warping Emergency Ban. Take your pick.
The onus really isn't on me to explain it/figure it out. I don't get paid to do it. It's not my job, but it's very possible. To say it's not is just defeatist. There has been a recurring problem with standard and Wizards printing problematic cards. They should expect it. Don't be surprised when it happens. Plan for it, and come up with contingencies.
If this specific suggestion isn't viable for them, fine. It's just an idea among many.
Proof that enough vitriol is enough to change Wizards' minds. They may cite data but I'm positive the massive negativity surrounding their inaction had its fair share of influence.
That said, about time. Let's see what happens now.
This is a poor attitude to have. Why? Because many times vitriol will be produced with no warranted (or at least sufficient) causes. I hope I don't need to spell out why it would be a bad thing if Wizards surrendered factual, data-backed exploration of an issue to bending over at every juncture where a mob of loud, angry fans is formed. This time the vitriolic mob was right, yes, but since the issue was real and would evidently be exposed by data-gathering, feedback needn't be vitriolic to do its thing.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
I'm still amazed they didn't catch the combo in the first place. Seems like the community noticed it within minutes of seeing Felidar Guardian.
I've been pretty forgiving of wizards in this thread, but yeah I'm surprised by this.
Any time, ANY TIME, there is a "copy something" effect on a permanent, one of the things I think is "can this be broken in the format?"
It's important to remember that cards change during development. Missing it was a huge mistake, but I suspect that one of the cards was tweaked later in the development cycle or something.
The thing that makes this mistake egregious, is it wasn't corrected long after it was found. If something is broken in a new set, I'm fine with not banning it, let it shine in its awful broken-ness as it takes down all challengers in a pro tour.
Copycat had its fun, we all had our delightful discovery that wizards F'd up,but now we're past that. We're done with copycat, it has terrorized standard long enough, they should have banned it already before today.
Make an Announcement that the Cat will be banned IN THE FUTURE (look guys, we messed up, but we honor your purchases and plans. Play with the combo for a month, but after that it's gone)
This should probably be policy for any non-scheduled change. Either the original B/R announcement comes with a warning that a card is put on a watchlist for an emergency ban (with enough detail to inform players which will need to be prepared to change their deck on short notice), or any emergency ban comes with a lead time of no less than a week (so that the immediately upcoming weekend-tournament etc. is not affected). EDIT: Or a combination of both.
So I know they won't, but it occurs to me that Wizards should refund all purchases of Saheeli that can be proven between the official announcement and this garbage. 100% sure that people were putting it off until Monday and it was safe
There's no way that could ever logistically happen even if it was in WotC's interest excluding such problems.
I acknowledged that it would never happen in my post. The logistics would be fairly simple, if daunting in scale, people would submit a time stamped (such as ebay purchase confirmation) order and be compensated to the amount that they paid. As I understand it, Wizards already has a similar policy if you can prove your pack had no rare.
The difference is that Wizards does trade in packs and guaranteeing the contents of the packs is just rectifying a packaging error on their part, but Wizards does not trade in singles and does not guarantee secondary market value of those cards. And Saheeli is not even the banned card to beginn with. Reimbursing cards that are collateral damage of an emergency ban is even more out there than asking e. g. for reimbursement of your Cat purchases.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Apparently, community-wide outrage, pro included, is not considered "sufficient data" to correct a mistake.
The reality is that this MTGO thing is horsecrap. They're navigating in dense fog and they only have one lantern left.
Until they seriously shake up their development/design processes, and distract us with Masters sets whic are not standard legal, Standard will always be boring.
The biggest problem I have with the ban, is not the ban itself (I don't even play Copy Cat), it's the way they approached it, we went through 3-4 months of Wizards literally telling us "Shut up, we know better. Temur Tower is actually good" only to have them go "Whoops we dunfuktup. Our Bad" 2 days after the official announcement straight up Yu Gi Oh style -a game I quit playing because of random "emergency" bans, some of them even happening in the middle of the equivalent of PT weekends.
I guess i'll probably stick to modern/legacy/edh (although the Top ban actually stung quite a bit).
I appreciate you point of view and your responses to specifically the points I've brought up. However, I'd like for you to check out when you've said "they don't" or "they can't" with regard to Wizards. This is much of the free pass that I am referring to. They don't restrict cards in standard. They can't reduce lead time etc.. Why not?
As I explained- because restrictions increase variance of play in a bad way. To elaborate, because it's not reliable to draw one specific card, unless you use tutors which are fairly restricted in power and quantity in modern magic and therefore not very good at doing so. And if you are restricting a card- that implies it is a key card that is quite powerful for top decks, and therefore whether or not you happen to draw your one copy of that card becomes a large factor in games and not a fun one. And in a number of cases, restrictions would just kill the decks using the card anyway.
I don't see any reasons why Felidar Guardian should be an exception.
And for lead time- because that lead is a result of the processes of releasing the set. It's not a decision to do it that long- it's more of a necessity. While they probably could reduce the lead time- it would probably cost them a lot of money to do it to any significant amount so it's just not going to be worth it. Lead time is only going to go down if they figure out a faster, but similarly efficient way to do it- not for the sake of it. There's simply not enough benefit to outweigh the costs.
I'm not giving them a free pass- I'm acknowledging human fallibility. We all make mistakes. It's easy to sit there and complain about them, it's usually much much harder to fix them. I will always give the developers credit for trying, because it's their job to do this- of course they are trying. Of all the businesses out there WotC strikes me as fairly harmless compared to the regular litany of deception and dishonesty that many companies engage in to sell product, sometimes causing very direct and very real harm to consumers. So I can't see why we should give them so little credit as some people do.
Frankly, Wizards doesn't do something, until is convenient or necessary for them to do so.
They are business. So yes. This should be our expectation. Fortunately for us, what is in their interest is often what is in our interest as well- they want to make a game players will buy and we players want to buy a game that we like. WotC doesn't need to do anything nefarious to make a good profit, even if it's never perfectly ideal for the players.
Changing they way they print sets is something that is both POSSIBLE and NECESSARY. Wizards has had to deal with a myriad of issues over the last decade from forgeries to leaks to increased tournament costs. In each instance they made CHANGES to further their best interests.
In this case both Wizards and player interests align, if only indirectly. And they weren't up to the task of changing to protect that interest. If this incident has told us anything is that Wizards will make changes if the volume is high enough on the criticism and they can feel it in their bottom line. I'm saying don't let this slide. Don't make excuses for them. Don't knock other people's suggestions as if they aren't viable.
But do criticise WotC without experiencing the workload and processes for yourself?
No, I don't accept that I shouldn't criticise other people's criticisms. It is not viable to do a number of the things you suggested. Take that as you will, but I am going to say it.
In most cases there's more than one solution to solve a problem, and in this case, it's as if Wizards didn't even really try.
Easy to say. Why should we think this? Why do you think this? Because you can think of alternatives that you think are better?
Well, that's the significance of your alternatives not being viable.
This has been a failure- but everybody seems to think they could have done better even though most people would probably do worse. Instead of people giving the development team credit and thinking the fault might have been carried over from design, was due to a lack of resources or something like that- the default seems to be that the individual developers must be incompetent. And this is something I see all the time on these forums. It's pretty unfair. Especially when the people saying it have no experience doing the job.
There's a line between constructive criticism and malice. Let's keep well away from the wrong side and not risk crossing it. And I say this because I think it's necessary to be said- I don't like saying it as often as I do. Uncritical support just tends to be quieter than careless opposition I suppose.
I have no confidence in them because I don't see any reason to believe that we will have a better Standard environment once the next set comes out.
What are the chances that another card will have to be banned in Standard months from now?
Confidence in the problem being corrected sooner rather than later should be separate from confidence in the developers generally.
And for all we know, with this banning and the release of Amonkhet, standard could get much better. It will surely get better eventually. I think this is a demonstration that development probably needs a little more resources to help prevent future incidents than a demonstration that standard balance is somehow doomed.
So I know they won't, but it occurs to me that Wizards should refund all purchases of Saheeli that can be proven between the official announcement and this garbage. 100% sure that people were putting it off until Monday and it was safe
There's no way that could ever logistically happen even if it was in WotC's interest excluding such problems.
I acknowledged that it would never happen in my post. The logistics would be fairly simple, if daunting in scale, people would submit a time stamped (such as ebay purchase confirmation) order and be compensated to the amount that they paid. As I understand it, Wizards already has a similar policy if you can prove your pack had no rare. Not many people would bother with that, but a playset of Saheeli would be more than a pack obviously. I just feel that its cheating and theft to do what they did, and if someone were to be so inclined, a lawsuit on those grounds would have at least as much ground to stand on (imho quite a bit more) than any Reserved list violation suits. In the absence of any new ruined events or statistically relevant data, Wizards could not justify an emergency ban. I'm not advocating it because again the hassle would be extreme for a small reward, but I fail to see how this does not amount to theft, although only for those couple dozen hours.
No guarantee is made by WotC about the legality of cards in formats, and they are clear that bans do occur. They can do whatever they want with format legality and you still got exactly what they sold you. There is no grounds for any charge about this, let alone theft which cannot, by definition, apply.
As I explained- because restrictions increase variance of play in a bad way. To elaborate, because it's not reliable to draw one specific card, unless you use tutors which are fairly restricted in power and quantity in modern magic and therefore not very good at doing so. And if you are restricting a card- that implies it is a key card that is quite powerful for top decks, and therefore whether or not you happen to draw your one copy of that card becomes a large factor in games and not a fun one. And in a number of cases, restrictions would just kill the decks using the card anyway.
I don't see any reasons why Felidar Guardian should be an exception.
We know this. The deterioration of play with restricted cards as a negative assumes that the play was kosher/fair/healthy to begin with. Wizards and the community believe it wasn't any of these things pre-ban. A Degenerate Format < Restricted Card Format. The original suggestion to restrict the card was predicated on the idea that people should be able to play with their cards. It isn't an ideal solution, it's just undeniably better than the status quo. Restricted Cat is more fun than the current standard, and to your point, if it would kill the deck all the same then it serves the same purpose as a late ban while allowing that kid who opened the pack play with the card.
And for lead time- because that lead is a result of the processes of releasing the set. It's not a decision to do it that long- it's more of a necessity. While they probably could reduce the lead time- it would probably cost them a lot of money to do it to any significant amount so it's just not going to be worth it. Lead time is only going to go down if they figure out a faster, but similarly efficient way to do it- not for the sake of it. There's simply not enough benefit to outweigh the costs.
I'm glad you concede that they PROBABLY could reduce the lead time. I also hope you would agree that they've done so over the last decade. Great... let's take it a little further. Saying that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs is pure conjecture on your part. What are the costs associated? How do we measure them? Is it money? How much? Is it customer satisfaction? How much money are they losing now because of the decline of standard? All good questions which neither you or I have the answer to. Don't answer it for us definitively as if you know. I doubt Wizard's knows, but they should explore it themselves for the betterment of their product.
I'm not giving them a free pass- I'm acknowledging human fallibility. We all make mistakes. It's easy to sit there and complain about them, it's usually much much harder to fix them.
How many cards have they banned in Standard the last year? How does that compare to the year before that? And then the previous 5 years?
Mistakes are fine. The same mistake with increasing frequency is problematic.
WotC doesn't need to do anything nefarious to make a good profit, even if it's never perfectly ideal for the players.
I don't think the company is evil. I just think their decisions are more suspect than in the past.
But do criticise WotC without experiencing the workload and processes for yourself?
No, I don't accept that I shouldn't criticise other people's criticisms. It is not viable to do a number of the things you suggested. Take that as you will, but I am going to say it.
The reason you rejected some of the things I proposed was, as you say, because it was easy to do so. Example: you questioned my suggestion to ban the planeswalker over the cat. Banning the Planeswalker would be the better choice, and is backed by Wizard's own precedent. They banned Splinter Twin. They Banned Jace TMS. I contend that players would be less averse to the banning of the walker. It would accomplish the same goal for Organized Play, and make less players upset (due to expectation). But they didn't do that.
Easy to say. Why should we think this? Why do you think this? Because you can think of alternatives that you think are better?
Well, that's the significance of your alternatives not being viable.
Who has to propose a solution for you to believe that it's better than what Wizards did? Clearly I'm not going to convince you, which is fine.
To say Wizards couldn't have done anything TODAY but what they chose to do comes of as disingenuous.
This has been a failure- but everybody seems to think they could have done better even though most people would probably do worse. Instead of people giving the development team credit and thinking the fault might have been carried over from design, was due to a lack of resources or something like that- the default seems to be that the individual developers must be incompetent. And this is something I see all the time on these forums. It's pretty unfair. Especially when the people saying it have no experience doing the job.
Don't punish some of us for what you see all the time on the forums. It's pretty unfair. Myself and many others have concisely expressed why Today was piss poor and what could have been done, and would can still be done about it. I don't have to work for Wizards to know business. I run one. Also, you're essentially saying that the only people qualified to way in with a meaningful and accurate viewpoint on the subject is Wizards employees themselves. That's a bit ironic don't you think?
There's a line between constructive criticism and malice. Let's keep well away from the wrong side and not risk crossing it.
I don't see any malice in my posts. It wasn't my intention when I started typing. Point out anything that seems below the belt here.
Confidence in the problem being corrected sooner rather than later should be separate from confidence in the developers generally.
And for all we know, with this banning and the release of Amonkhet, standard could get much better.
You don't sound too confident about what you wrote in that last sentence. At least from my perspective it sounds more of a hope you have, than something you can point to with anything substantive.
It will surely get better eventually. I think this is a demonstration that development probably needs a little more resources to help prevent future incidents than a demonstration that standard balance is somehow doomed.
The resources you speak of, will they be made available for development to use in the future... or do the costs outweigh the benefits?
I probably would have banned Saheeli. She's kind of a useless card by herself. Guardian had the potential to be edge case fun in random decks. I could see people using guardian in jank decks at FNM. Nobody was using Saheeli before guardian was printed at mine. She was binder fodder.
Whenever I see Wizards screw up with their inept decisions, I always think of Reparations.
"Sorry I burned down your village.
Here's some gold."
The backlash wouldn't be that bad if the prices of some cards weren't so expensive IMO. It all traces back to the mythic rarity decision. You pressure yourself to create a flashy card, hoping to make you tons of money. Then when the pressure comes back, you don't know how to handle it.
And who are the ones making banning decisions anyways. IMO, whenever they wanna make a conscious decision to ban a card for Standard, they should consult at least a QUARTER of the top 25 ranked players in the world. Let them give you an opinion. They're are pros, they are spikes. What spikes love first and foremost is to win. But I'm pretty sure they want a level playing field and let their talents make the difference. CONSULT THEM, it's practically free.
Lastly, some personnel changes should be made @ R&D. This is just one of the many gaffes they made in the last 2 years. From marketing to branding to design to development to Creative to Organized Play. It's a pattern that many cannot ignore. Shake those people involved.
I also wanna highlight the issue of testing cards. If you ask me, this gaffe is one big reason to keep the apologists quiet. It's pretty clear Wizards don't test enough. If you're understaffed, you're understaffed. Perhaps they're overstaffed, but they sure aren't doing their jobs if that's the case. You cannot make the excuse. You're making magic for millions, the responsibility is on your shoulders.
Make magic for the community, not for your pockets. If you make the community happy, the rewards will come.
So, how would a flex slot work? You'd have to decide on rarity and color before you even knew what the problem was and then you'd have to cram a really powerful card into the set without as much testing as normal. You'd also have to be able to get art for it and either make the card blue/white or risk the color not being able to answer the problem at all. The other option is to just bump a card out at the last minute which might wreck limited strategies/balance or axe a neat card that might not fit into any other sets.
Good question.
Uncommon... they've done it with Rakdos Charm, Volcanic Fallout, and Raking Canopy in the past
Print specific removal as answers. Creatures have been the target of the majority of bans we've seen in Standard. Risk printing more removal vs printing strong creatures/permanents.
They have all they art they need. They've paid for more art than they actually use. Much of the final product isn't the greatest, and it doesn't have to be.
Standard > Limited for Wizards, but i doubt uncommon removal will be format warping the way creatures have been.
May not fit vs. Format Warping Emergency Ban. Take your pick.
The onus really isn't on me to explain it/figure it out. I don't get paid to do it. It's not my job, but it's very possible. To say it's not is just defeatist. There has been a recurring problem with standard and Wizards printing problematic cards. They should expect it. Don't be surprised when it happens. Plan for it, and come up with contingencies.
If this specific suggestion isn't viable for them, fine. It's just an idea among many.
Well, they can print really strong answers, but if they're too broad, they do splash damage to anything else in the format that it can hit as well and if the deck turns out to not be super insane, it might even discourage people from even bothering with it if there's a backbreaking sideboard card for it. They already tried printing super strong answers between Alara and Theros. During that period, we saw a lot of the strongest answer cards ever printed in the history of the game other than Swords to Plowshares. We even saw far stronger answers than ever for some cards like Relic of Progenitus, Grafdigger's Cage, Back to Nature, Phyrexian Revoker, Ratchet Bomb, Pithing Needle reprint, Abrupt Decay, Smother reprint, Path to Exile, Lightning Bolt reprint, Doom Blade/Go for the Throat/Ultimate Price, Flame Slash, Stony Silence, etc. Serveral of those potentially even gutted deck possibilities before they even got off the ground. Sure, you could reprint Stony Silence in Kaladesh, Tormod's Crypt in Amonkhet, Back to Nature in Theros, or whatever, but it's pretty disheartening when you print hate so strong you just auto lose against one card unless you have an answer on hand.
I'm SO SICK of the "too strong for Standard" argument. It's the new "Dies to removal". We can have a two mana 4/4 with a zillion abilities, but we can't just have Accumulated Knowledge. Makes sense.
As I explained- because restrictions increase variance of play in a bad way. To elaborate, because it's not reliable to draw one specific card, unless you use tutors which are fairly restricted in power and quantity in modern magic and therefore not very good at doing so. And if you are restricting a card- that implies it is a key card that is quite powerful for top decks, and therefore whether or not you happen to draw your one copy of that card becomes a large factor in games and not a fun one. And in a number of cases, restrictions would just kill the decks using the card anyway.
I don't see any reasons why Felidar Guardian should be an exception.
We know this. The deterioration of play with restricted cards as a negative assumes that the play was kosher/fair/healthy to begin with. Wizards and the community believe it wasn't any of these things pre-ban. A Degenerate Format < Restricted Card Format. The original suggestion to restrict the card was predicated on the idea that people should be able to play with their cards. It isn't an ideal solution, it's just undeniably better than the status quo. Restricted Cat is more fun than the current standard, and to your point, if it would kill the deck all the same then it serves the same purpose as a late ban while allowing that kid who opened the pack play with the card.
Just because restricting the card would likely be better than not doesn't mean it's a good solution.
And a very large amount of players are unaffected by a standard ban- because they play limited, casual or eternal formats. So it's not a big deal at all that people can't play it fairly because they still can.
And for lead time- because that lead is a result of the processes of releasing the set. It's not a decision to do it that long- it's more of a necessity. While they probably could reduce the lead time- it would probably cost them a lot of money to do it to any significant amount so it's just not going to be worth it. Lead time is only going to go down if they figure out a faster, but similarly efficient way to do it- not for the sake of it. There's simply not enough benefit to outweigh the costs.
I'm glad you concede that they PROBABLY could reduce the lead time. I also hope you would agree that they've done so over the last decade. Great... let's take it a little further. Saying that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs is pure conjecture on your part. What are the costs associated? How do we measure them? Is it money? How much? Is it customer satisfaction? How much money are they losing now because of the decline of standard? All good questions which neither you or I have the answer to. Don't answer it for us definitively as if you know. I doubt Wizard's knows, but they should explore it themselves for the betterment of their product.
WotC has made comments about the lead time before. It's not something that's easy to change. It it was in their benefit, they probably would have done it already.
I'm not giving them a free pass- I'm acknowledging human fallibility. We all make mistakes. It's easy to sit there and complain about them, it's usually much much harder to fix them.
How many cards have they banned in Standard the last year? How does that compare to the year before that? And then the previous 5 years?
Mistakes are fine. The same mistake with increasing frequency is problematic.
You seem to be ignoring the possibility those mistakes are connected in origin- which they very likely are. Or that they are only as bad as they are because they are together.
I'm not saying it's only one simple mistake anyway.
WotC doesn't need to do anything nefarious to make a good profit, even if it's never perfectly ideal for the players.
I don't think the company is evil. I just think their decisions are more suspect than in the past.
They have gone through a bad phase of standard. They are working their way out of it. This has happened before, and really much worse in the past.
But do criticise WotC without experiencing the workload and processes for yourself?
No, I don't accept that I shouldn't criticise other people's criticisms. It is not viable to do a number of the things you suggested. Take that as you will, but I am going to say it.
The reason you rejected some of the things I proposed was, as you say, because it was easy to do so. Example: you questioned my suggestion to ban the planeswalker over the cat.[/quote]
I asked for justification. That was not presentation of evidence because it's not my burden of proof.
Banning the Planeswalker would be the better choice, and is backed by Wizard's own precedent. They banned Splinter Twin. They Banned Jace TMS. I contend that players would be less averse to the banning of the walker. It would accomplish the same goal for Organized Play, and make less players upset (due to expectation). But they didn't do that.
Splinter Twin and Jace were different situations. In this case, the reason to ban Felidar Guardian is because it has more potential to still be problematic, because the card is less expensive due to rarity, and because Saheeli is a more iconic card due to character and unique in effect.
Easy to say. Why should we think this? Why do you think this? Because you can think of alternatives that you think are better?
Well, that's the significance of your alternatives not being viable.
Who has to propose a solution for you to believe that it's better than what Wizards did?
Nothing to do with who.
Clearly I'm not going to convince you, which is fine.
To say Wizards couldn't have done anything TODAY but what they chose to do comes of as disingenuous.
They could have done all sorts of things, but none of them would be good decisions. This was the correct move, if for no reason than the terrible publicity.
This has been a failure- but everybody seems to think they could have done better even though most people would probably do worse. Instead of people giving the development team credit and thinking the fault might have been carried over from design, was due to a lack of resources or something like that- the default seems to be that the individual developers must be incompetent. And this is something I see all the time on these forums. It's pretty unfair. Especially when the people saying it have no experience doing the job.
Don't punish some of us for what you see all the time on the forums. It's pretty unfair.[/quote]
I am making a general point about the relevant issue, not directing it to you specifically.
Myself and many others have concisely expressed why Today was piss poor and what could have been done, and would can still be done about it.
Concisely doesn't mean it's very good.
All I am saying is I think this was a good decision, they didn't have many viable options and that we should give the development team some credit and not take this as them being evil or just incompetent.
I appreciate that your argument has been more restrained than some.
I don't have to work for Wizards to know business. I run one. Also, you're essentially saying that the only people qualified to way in with a meaningful and accurate viewpoint on the subject is Wizards employees themselves. That's a bit ironic don't you think?
I never said you can't criticise them. I am criticising them about this. I have already said I think they should have banned it on the official date or even the last announcement before that. What I am saying is if you aren't an experienced developer, that does affect what you can justifiably say. One of those things is about whether or not the people who are experienced developers actually know what they are doing. You need more evidence of other kinds if you don't have the experience yourself and there's not really ANY evidence that points towards the individual developers' abilities being responsible over other factors. People talk like they are experienced developers and they would know just what to do but they aren't and they wouldn't.
There's a line between constructive criticism and malice. Let's keep well away from the wrong side and not risk crossing it.
I don't see any malice in my posts. It wasn't my intention when I started typing. Point out anything that seems below the belt here.
'Wizards decision making is just inept'
'They also could have chosen to not let the combo slip through the cracks' (implication, unintentional or not, that they didn't care to fix the problem)
'and in this case, it's as if Wizards didn't even really try'
I'm not saying these are based on malice. But they are too close in how they throw around the blame. And I was speaking partly of others making similar comments, as I was trying to imply by not using any language that directed the point specifically to you but spoke of a larger group.
Confidence in the problem being corrected sooner rather than later should be separate from confidence in the developers generally.
And for all we know, with this banning and the release of Amonkhet, standard could get much better.
You don't sound too confident about what you wrote in that last sentence. At least from my perspective it sounds more of a hope you have, than something you can point to with anything substantive.
I'm not. I think Amonkhet standard will likely be somewhat better, but it may take longer before all the damage is undone.
It will surely get better eventually. I think this is a demonstration that development probably needs a little more resources to help prevent future incidents than a demonstration that standard balance is somehow doomed.
The resources you speak of, will they be made available for development to use in the future... or do the costs outweigh the benefits?
Getting more developers has a very clear continuous benefit and I don't think the costs would be very much. They have increased the number of people in a number of areas recently so do so for the development team has high precedent, and something that would almost certainly happen anyway if the company continues to grow in success. This is similarly true for other possible resource increases. Compared to changing lead time which would require working with other companies and groups and trying to make major logistical changes to ambiguous benefit (wouldn't necessarily improve anything in the end, let alone in proportion to cost), and has no known precedent of doing so for development's benefit. A much more dubious proposal for WotC.
I appreciate you point of view and your responses to specifically the points I've brought up. However, I'd like for you to check out when you've said "they don't" or "they can't" with regard to Wizards. This is much of the free pass that I am referring to. They don't restrict cards in standard. They can't reduce lead time etc.. Why not? They can do whatever they want apparently. And with the exception of changes to their reserved list policy, they've pretty much displayed that.
Frankly, Wizards doesn't do something, until is convenient or necessary for them to do so. Changing they way they print sets is something that is both POSSIBLE and NECESSARY. Wizards has had to deal with a myriad of issues over the last decade from forgeries to leaks to increased tournament costs. In each instance they made CHANGES to further their best interests.
In this case both Wizards and player interests align, if only indirectly. And they weren't up to the task of changing to protect that interest. If this incident has told us anything is that Wizards will make changes if the volume is high enough on the criticism and they can feel it in their bottom line. I'm saying don't let this slide. Don't make excuses for them. Don't knock other people's suggestions as if they aren't viable. In most cases there's more than one solution to solve a problem, and in this case, it's as if Wizards didn't even really try.
I have no confidence in them because I don't see any reason to believe that we will have a better Standard environment once the next set comes out. What are the chances that another card will have to be banned in Standard months from now?
I play ANT and belcher as my pet decks in legacy (I have dredge (mana/manaless), ops all spells , BUG, Grixis, Candian, landstill, miracles). I know that sucks to shove in green mana for decay but I still don't see why you have such grudge against Miracles. I can't find a good reason to kill a deck instead of banning other cards of the deck.
A terminus ban would make a better matchup for agro/midrange, tilting the scales. Now with top gone the deck got neutered, maverick and other decks got shafted, and terminus will not be used by anyone. Killing a deck is a resource that should only be used when something is really broken (hulk flash winning T0 during upkeep).
Think that our decks can be the next "Oh noes... we really have to shove in flutterstorm and mind break trap in our sideboard? That is way too much unfun!"
Reducing lead time also wouldn't work that well because it would reduce the time to test things and they'd probably have to play safer. Do you really want another Battle for Zendikar?
AND:
Saheeli combo was going to be ABSURD in new standard. Nuff said, it needed a card to shore up it's 1 bad match up and Manglehorn changed things along with Glorybringer. Thank god this cancer is gone. You know what happened when my LGS announced the ban?
We cheered and rushed the counter to ask about Amonkhet/ standard cards.
Modern: Decks I'm playing right now:
G Mono Green Tron (34-10-3 paper record, only SCG/Regionals/PPTQ record)
C Eldrazi Tron (9-5)
UG Infect
RW Burn
Just my thought. They doubled the number of B/R announcements and still set themselves up for an emergency ban (or whatever a retroban is).
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Good question.
Uncommon... they've done it with Rakdos Charm, Volcanic Fallout, and Raking Canopy in the past
Print specific removal as answers. Creatures have been the target of the majority of bans we've seen in Standard. Risk printing more removal vs printing strong creatures/permanents.
They have all they art they need. They've paid for more art than they actually use. Much of the final product isn't the greatest, and it doesn't have to be.
Standard > Limited for Wizards, but i doubt uncommon removal will be format warping the way creatures have been.
May not fit vs. Format Warping Emergency Ban. Take your pick.
The onus really isn't on me to explain it/figure it out. I don't get paid to do it. It's not my job, but it's very possible. To say it's not is just defeatist. There has been a recurring problem with standard and Wizards printing problematic cards. They should expect it. Don't be surprised when it happens. Plan for it, and come up with contingencies.
If this specific suggestion isn't viable for them, fine. It's just an idea among many.
This is a poor attitude to have. Why? Because many times vitriol will be produced with no warranted (or at least sufficient) causes. I hope I don't need to spell out why it would be a bad thing if Wizards surrendered factual, data-backed exploration of an issue to bending over at every juncture where a mob of loud, angry fans is formed. This time the vitriolic mob was right, yes, but since the issue was real and would evidently be exposed by data-gathering, feedback needn't be vitriolic to do its thing.
The thing that makes this mistake egregious, is it wasn't corrected long after it was found. If something is broken in a new set, I'm fine with not banning it, let it shine in its awful broken-ness as it takes down all challengers in a pro tour.
Copycat had its fun, we all had our delightful discovery that wizards F'd up,but now we're past that. We're done with copycat, it has terrorized standard long enough, they should have banned it already before today.
This should probably be policy for any non-scheduled change. Either the original B/R announcement comes with a warning that a card is put on a watchlist for an emergency ban (with enough detail to inform players which will need to be prepared to change their deck on short notice), or any emergency ban comes with a lead time of no less than a week (so that the immediately upcoming weekend-tournament etc. is not affected). EDIT: Or a combination of both.
The difference is that Wizards does trade in packs and guaranteeing the contents of the packs is just rectifying a packaging error on their part, but Wizards does not trade in singles and does not guarantee secondary market value of those cards. And Saheeli is not even the banned card to beginn with. Reimbursing cards that are collateral damage of an emergency ban is even more out there than asking e. g. for reimbursement of your Cat purchases.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
The reality is that this MTGO thing is horsecrap. They're navigating in dense fog and they only have one lantern left.
Until they seriously shake up their development/design processes, and distract us with Masters sets whic are not standard legal, Standard will always be boring.
I guess i'll probably stick to modern/legacy/edh (although the Top ban actually stung quite a bit).
As I explained- because restrictions increase variance of play in a bad way. To elaborate, because it's not reliable to draw one specific card, unless you use tutors which are fairly restricted in power and quantity in modern magic and therefore not very good at doing so. And if you are restricting a card- that implies it is a key card that is quite powerful for top decks, and therefore whether or not you happen to draw your one copy of that card becomes a large factor in games and not a fun one. And in a number of cases, restrictions would just kill the decks using the card anyway.
I don't see any reasons why Felidar Guardian should be an exception.
And for lead time- because that lead is a result of the processes of releasing the set. It's not a decision to do it that long- it's more of a necessity. While they probably could reduce the lead time- it would probably cost them a lot of money to do it to any significant amount so it's just not going to be worth it. Lead time is only going to go down if they figure out a faster, but similarly efficient way to do it- not for the sake of it. There's simply not enough benefit to outweigh the costs.
I'm not giving them a free pass- I'm acknowledging human fallibility. We all make mistakes. It's easy to sit there and complain about them, it's usually much much harder to fix them. I will always give the developers credit for trying, because it's their job to do this- of course they are trying. Of all the businesses out there WotC strikes me as fairly harmless compared to the regular litany of deception and dishonesty that many companies engage in to sell product, sometimes causing very direct and very real harm to consumers. So I can't see why we should give them so little credit as some people do.
They are business. So yes. This should be our expectation. Fortunately for us, what is in their interest is often what is in our interest as well- they want to make a game players will buy and we players want to buy a game that we like. WotC doesn't need to do anything nefarious to make a good profit, even if it's never perfectly ideal for the players.
But do criticise WotC without experiencing the workload and processes for yourself?
No, I don't accept that I shouldn't criticise other people's criticisms. It is not viable to do a number of the things you suggested. Take that as you will, but I am going to say it.
Easy to say. Why should we think this? Why do you think this? Because you can think of alternatives that you think are better?
Well, that's the significance of your alternatives not being viable.
This has been a failure- but everybody seems to think they could have done better even though most people would probably do worse. Instead of people giving the development team credit and thinking the fault might have been carried over from design, was due to a lack of resources or something like that- the default seems to be that the individual developers must be incompetent. And this is something I see all the time on these forums. It's pretty unfair. Especially when the people saying it have no experience doing the job.
There's a line between constructive criticism and malice. Let's keep well away from the wrong side and not risk crossing it. And I say this because I think it's necessary to be said- I don't like saying it as often as I do. Uncritical support just tends to be quieter than careless opposition I suppose.
Confidence in the problem being corrected sooner rather than later should be separate from confidence in the developers generally.
And for all we know, with this banning and the release of Amonkhet, standard could get much better. It will surely get better eventually. I think this is a demonstration that development probably needs a little more resources to help prevent future incidents than a demonstration that standard balance is somehow doomed.
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
No guarantee is made by WotC about the legality of cards in formats, and they are clear that bans do occur. They can do whatever they want with format legality and you still got exactly what they sold you. There is no grounds for any charge about this, let alone theft which cannot, by definition, apply.
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
Its WOTC, expecting competence and time management is kinda out of the question here.
We know this. The deterioration of play with restricted cards as a negative assumes that the play was kosher/fair/healthy to begin with. Wizards and the community believe it wasn't any of these things pre-ban. A Degenerate Format < Restricted Card Format. The original suggestion to restrict the card was predicated on the idea that people should be able to play with their cards. It isn't an ideal solution, it's just undeniably better than the status quo. Restricted Cat is more fun than the current standard, and to your point, if it would kill the deck all the same then it serves the same purpose as a late ban while allowing that kid who opened the pack play with the card.
I'm glad you concede that they PROBABLY could reduce the lead time. I also hope you would agree that they've done so over the last decade. Great... let's take it a little further. Saying that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs is pure conjecture on your part. What are the costs associated? How do we measure them? Is it money? How much? Is it customer satisfaction? How much money are they losing now because of the decline of standard? All good questions which neither you or I have the answer to. Don't answer it for us definitively as if you know. I doubt Wizard's knows, but they should explore it themselves for the betterment of their product.
How many cards have they banned in Standard the last year? How does that compare to the year before that? And then the previous 5 years?
Mistakes are fine. The same mistake with increasing frequency is problematic.
I don't think the company is evil. I just think their decisions are more suspect than in the past.
The reason you rejected some of the things I proposed was, as you say, because it was easy to do so. Example: you questioned my suggestion to ban the planeswalker over the cat. Banning the Planeswalker would be the better choice, and is backed by Wizard's own precedent. They banned Splinter Twin. They Banned Jace TMS. I contend that players would be less averse to the banning of the walker. It would accomplish the same goal for Organized Play, and make less players upset (due to expectation). But they didn't do that.
Who has to propose a solution for you to believe that it's better than what Wizards did? Clearly I'm not going to convince you, which is fine.
To say Wizards couldn't have done anything TODAY but what they chose to do comes of as disingenuous.
Don't punish some of us for what you see all the time on the forums. It's pretty unfair. Myself and many others have concisely expressed why Today was piss poor and what could have been done, and would can still be done about it. I don't have to work for Wizards to know business. I run one. Also, you're essentially saying that the only people qualified to way in with a meaningful and accurate viewpoint on the subject is Wizards employees themselves. That's a bit ironic don't you think?
I don't see any malice in my posts. It wasn't my intention when I started typing. Point out anything that seems below the belt here.
You don't sound too confident about what you wrote in that last sentence. At least from my perspective it sounds more of a hope you have, than something you can point to with anything substantive.
The resources you speak of, will they be made available for development to use in the future... or do the costs outweigh the benefits?
Modern:R 8Whack R|W White Knights W
"Sorry I burned down your village.
Here's some gold."
The backlash wouldn't be that bad if the prices of some cards weren't so expensive IMO. It all traces back to the mythic rarity decision. You pressure yourself to create a flashy card, hoping to make you tons of money. Then when the pressure comes back, you don't know how to handle it.
And who are the ones making banning decisions anyways. IMO, whenever they wanna make a conscious decision to ban a card for Standard, they should consult at least a QUARTER of the top 25 ranked players in the world. Let them give you an opinion. They're are pros, they are spikes. What spikes love first and foremost is to win. But I'm pretty sure they want a level playing field and let their talents make the difference. CONSULT THEM, it's practically free.
Lastly, some personnel changes should be made @ R&D. This is just one of the many gaffes they made in the last 2 years. From marketing to branding to design to development to Creative to Organized Play. It's a pattern that many cannot ignore. Shake those people involved.
I also wanna highlight the issue of testing cards. If you ask me, this gaffe is one big reason to keep the apologists quiet. It's pretty clear Wizards don't test enough. If you're understaffed, you're understaffed. Perhaps they're overstaffed, but they sure aren't doing their jobs if that's the case. You cannot make the excuse. You're making magic for millions, the responsibility is on your shoulders.
Make magic for the community, not for your pockets. If you make the community happy, the rewards will come.
UR Melek, Izzet ParagonUR, B Shirei, Shizo's CaretakerB, R Jaya Ballard, Task MageR,RW Tajic, Blade of the LegionRW, UB Lazav, Dimir MastermindUB, UB Circu, Dimir LobotomistUB, RWU Zedruu the GreatheartedRWU, GUBThe MimeoplasmGUB, UGExperiment Kraj UG, WDarien, King of KjeldorW, BMarrow-GnawerB, WBGKarador, Ghost ChieftainWBG, UTeferi, Temporal ArchmageU, GWUDerevi, Empyrial TacticianGWU, RDaretti, Scrap SavantR, UTalrand, Sky SummonerU, GEzuri, Renegade LeaderG, WUBRGReaper KingWUBRG, RGXenagos, God of RevelsRG, CKozilek, Butcher of TruthC, WUBRGGeneral TazriWUBRG, GTitania, Protector of ArgothG
I think it always results in Angry mob, no matter what wizards does.
Just because restricting the card would likely be better than not doesn't mean it's a good solution.
And a very large amount of players are unaffected by a standard ban- because they play limited, casual or eternal formats. So it's not a big deal at all that people can't play it fairly because they still can.
WotC has made comments about the lead time before. It's not something that's easy to change. It it was in their benefit, they probably would have done it already.
You seem to be ignoring the possibility those mistakes are connected in origin- which they very likely are. Or that they are only as bad as they are because they are together.
I'm not saying it's only one simple mistake anyway.
They have gone through a bad phase of standard. They are working their way out of it. This has happened before, and really much worse in the past.
The reason you rejected some of the things I proposed was, as you say, because it was easy to do so. Example: you questioned my suggestion to ban the planeswalker over the cat.[/quote]
I asked for justification. That was not presentation of evidence because it's not my burden of proof.
Splinter Twin and Jace were different situations. In this case, the reason to ban Felidar Guardian is because it has more potential to still be problematic, because the card is less expensive due to rarity, and because Saheeli is a more iconic card due to character and unique in effect.
Nothing to do with who.
They could have done all sorts of things, but none of them would be good decisions. This was the correct move, if for no reason than the terrible publicity.
Don't punish some of us for what you see all the time on the forums. It's pretty unfair.[/quote]
I am making a general point about the relevant issue, not directing it to you specifically.
Concisely doesn't mean it's very good.
All I am saying is I think this was a good decision, they didn't have many viable options and that we should give the development team some credit and not take this as them being evil or just incompetent.
I appreciate that your argument has been more restrained than some.
I never said you can't criticise them. I am criticising them about this. I have already said I think they should have banned it on the official date or even the last announcement before that. What I am saying is if you aren't an experienced developer, that does affect what you can justifiably say. One of those things is about whether or not the people who are experienced developers actually know what they are doing. You need more evidence of other kinds if you don't have the experience yourself and there's not really ANY evidence that points towards the individual developers' abilities being responsible over other factors. People talk like they are experienced developers and they would know just what to do but they aren't and they wouldn't.
'Wizards decision making is just inept'
'They also could have chosen to not let the combo slip through the cracks' (implication, unintentional or not, that they didn't care to fix the problem)
'and in this case, it's as if Wizards didn't even really try'
I'm not saying these are based on malice. But they are too close in how they throw around the blame. And I was speaking partly of others making similar comments, as I was trying to imply by not using any language that directed the point specifically to you but spoke of a larger group.
I'm not. I think Amonkhet standard will likely be somewhat better, but it may take longer before all the damage is undone.
Getting more developers has a very clear continuous benefit and I don't think the costs would be very much. They have increased the number of people in a number of areas recently so do so for the development team has high precedent, and something that would almost certainly happen anyway if the company continues to grow in success. This is similarly true for other possible resource increases. Compared to changing lead time which would require working with other companies and groups and trying to make major logistical changes to ambiguous benefit (wouldn't necessarily improve anything in the end, let alone in proportion to cost), and has no known precedent of doing so for development's benefit. A much more dubious proposal for WotC.
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