So their role is to do nothing? Well they are doing a good job of that.
Pretty inaccurate statement right there man. I would take some time to go through some of the threads in this subforum and see how often papafunk and Sheldon comment on some of the cards we discuss.
So their role is to do nothing? Well they are doing a good job of that.
No, they don't bother to try pleasing everyone. Because they know its a fool's errand. Your position was they only care about their own group. That is demonstrably false.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Why is no one talking about both WotC and the RCs stubborn refusal to errata the Brothers Yamazaki!? They need partner, and they need to be legal as partners with each other!
Pretty inaccurate statement right there man. I would take some time to go through some of the threads in this subforum and see how often papafunk and Sheldon comment on some of the cards we discuss.
They do comment (on occasion anyhow). It's those comments and the position behind them that bother me. And when that position is "I would rather see the format die then change from my 'vision' even if hypothetically it could be proven that the vast majority want a change." they do have a pretty foolproof response (and one that cemented my disdain for them since then). It's not really worth talking to them anymore at that point. So mission accomplished?
I'm going to have to dig up that quote at some point but 1000 page threads suck to skim through.
No, they don't bother to try pleasing everyone. Because they know its a fool's errand. Your position was they only care about their own group. That is demonstrably false.
It's not so much that they don't try to please everyone, it's that they don't try to please anyone (except those that agree with them). There is a difference. And no it's really not demonstrably false, they have banned/unbanned cards that the community wanted banned/unbanned (and of course not banned/unbanned other cards the community has been vocal about) but there is no way to demonstrate that this was in any way them going along with the community rather than them going along with their own interests/"vision" (and in fact their posts prove that their "vision" is what decides the format, community be damned, so if anything it's proven true).
They do comment (on occasion anyhow). It's those comments and the position behind them that bother me. And when that position is "I would rather see the format die then change from my 'vision' even if hypothetically it could be proven that the vast majority want a change." they do have a pretty foolproof response (and one that cemented my disdain for them since then). It's not really worth talking to them anymore at that point. So mission accomplished?
I don't think their position is as you quoted. If anything, Commander is continuously growing and getting more and more popular over the years with the limited amount of changes they do make. I understand your disdain for them, because there is some shroud of 'mystery' into their organization and their decision making. It would be interesting to see the results/log of their meetings to discuss the banlist and to really gain more insight into their opinions, but that probably won't happen.
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.
Just supplying it since I referenced it a number of times. There are other more concise quotes but this is the most brazen one.
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.
Just supplying it since I referenced it a number of times. There are other more concise quotes but this is the most brazen one.
Yeah that's kind of a weird thing for him to say and all, but for now their vision is working so who cares? If it stops working then we can reevaluate. No need to get our undies twisted up about hypotheticals.
Yeah that's kind of a weird thing for him to say and all, but for now their vision is working so who cares? If it stops working then we can reevaluate. No need to get our undies twisted up about hypotheticals.
And your evidence that their "vision" is working is what? And no "the format is growing" is not proof. You would need to somehow tie that growth to their "vision" which I doubt anyone has the ability to do. For all you or I know the format would grow without their "vision" and heck for all we know it's growing in spite of it. The fact that Wizards/various forums advertise the existence of the format almost assuredly has done more for the growth of the format than the "vision" has (just to give one example of a factor that affects growth). That said, I can't prove it hinders it either. All I know is that their "vision" is all that matters to them, so discussion is pointless unless your view aligns with theirs.
Yeah that's kind of a weird thing for him to say and all, but for now their vision is working so who cares? If it stops working then we can reevaluate. No need to get our undies twisted up about hypotheticals.
And your evidence that their "vision" is working is what? And no "the format is growing" is not proof. You would need to somehow tie that growth to their "vision" which I doubt anyone has the ability to do. For all you or I know the format would grow without their "vision" and heck for all we know it's growing in spite of it. The fact that Wizards/various forums advertise the existence of the format almost assuredly has done more for the growth of the format than the "vision" has (just to give one example of a factor that affects growth). That said, I can't prove it hinders it either. All I know is that their "vision" is all that matters to them, so discussion is pointless unless your view aligns with theirs.
Dude, do you honestly expect a rule set and ban list to actively grow the format? Are there masses of potential players sitting around waiting for the RC to take a more active role in banning cards? "Gosh, if only Sol Ring were banned in this casual format I'd love to get in to Commander!"
Sorry to be snarky, but do you really not see how silly this is? You're basically saying that there's no evidence of a problem, but there's also no evidence that there isn't a problem so we should assume there is a problem and take action since you personally disagree with the RC. Unless someone has a good solid reason, (backed up with facts and not opinions stated as facts) for why control should be taken from the RC this is all just pointless intellectual wankery. Wizards isn't going to do it. There's no demand outside of a few vocal Internet people. Many disagree that it should be taken from them at all. The format is growing. I'm sorry, but you are in the minority here. Try to find a playgroup that aligns with your play style and play with a house rule ban list. That shouldn't be hard if your proposed bannings are as popular as you all think they are.
For me I like the mechanics of the format and the support for extra sets from Wizards. Too be honest I didn't know there was a "vision" behind the format and for that matter probably 98% (that's probably being kind) of the commander players don't either. How many players even know that some individuals outside of Wizards are behind the rules and bannings and that they have their own overall vision? Very few I'd say.
I think the problem stems that they always intended it for friends to sit around a table, drinking and laughing, slapping each others backs and having friendly conversations about adjusting the rules to accommodate whatever people felt was not right within the local playgroup. The problem is however that this is not ALL that people want or need out of it anymore. It has a formal forum as well. Those that are hard-coded into the rules, which is probably something that originally was never thought about. Also where people like to test their deck making and magic skills under the mechanics of the format.
There are aspects we like, but they are aspects we don't like. Hence these topics. To just say, "well its working", is being irresponsible to those who are asking for a voice on problems within the format.
I'll just keep repeating this, because I think its important. EDH (Elder Dragon Highlander) can remain as it is, they can keep their vision, keep their egos intact, whatever floats their boat and those that follow their line of thinking. But Wizards Commander will need to be more monitored in the future to ensure a platform that remains fair and balanced for a broader spectrum of players. Because that is what it is now, a much broader spectrum. Both in players and mediums. Its important to note that its probably a broader spectrum because of Wizards marketing and support, not a few friends "vision". Its not all kitchen tops and friends.
It's not so much that they don't try to please everyone, it's that they don't try to please anyone (except those that agree with them). There is a difference. And no it's really not demonstrably false, they have banned/unbanned cards that the community wanted banned/unbanned (and of course not banned/unbanned other cards the community has been vocal about) but there is no way to demonstrate that this was in any way them going along with the community rather than them going along with their own interests/"vision" (and in fact their posts prove that their "vision" is what decides the format, community be damned, so if anything it's proven true).
Of course there is, they say it. They didnt specifically see an issue with PoK, it was other people bringing it to them. Sheldon LOVES Prime Time, but it was bad for the format. Trade secrets wasn't an issue for them, they don't eliminate two players just for resolving it. Other groups did, and they saw it as an issue. You think YEARS later someone screwed the RC with a flickered Sundering Titan?
Just because they won't change just to fit some group doesn't mean they don't listen. Again, if people actually listened to what they said without agenda it would clear a lot of this up. Yes they have a vision, but its not some closed group making decisions based on only the games they play. Thats the falsehood spread that leads to these sorts of 'WotC would do a MUCH better job' when all that would do is change it into a competitive format. They can't run a non-competitive format because they cave to crying to protect the bottom line.
For me I like the mechanics of the format and the support for extra sets from Wizards. Too be honest I didn't know there was a "vision" behind the format and for that matter probably 98% (that's probably being kind) of the commander players don't either. How many players even know that some individuals outside of Wizards are behind the rules and bannings and that they have their own overall vision? Very few I'd say.
Most that I play with in LGS, because it was a LARGE format before support. Have some evidence for that 98% number or retract it, because its a joke.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Most that I play with in LGS, because it was a LARGE format before support. Have some evidence for that 98% number or retract it, because its a joke.
My question to you is why would anybody know this? Like literally why would any player know this? Give me the reasoning why your average Joe commander player is privy to this information? Realistically its going to be like 99.99999% but I thought I'd throw them a bone. I know tournament level Magic players that I'll explain what Commander is. I think people assume because they know something of the origins of the format that other people must as well.
And I'll just keep repeating this yet again: Wizards justifies decisions for ban lists they currently maintain with tournament data. There is no such data for Commander, and even if a tournament scene were to spring up the data would be far less useable than 60 card format data due to multiplayer factors and the inherent variability of 100 card singleton and the influence of the Commander. So essentially Wizards would either be justifying their ban decisions on a set of values, much like the RC, or they would base them on community feedback. Basing ban decisions on community feedback is a straight up awful idea that would result in a vocal minority getting everything even remotely powerful banned, so let's analyze the other option:
I can't imagine Wizards taking on an extremely hands on approach to banning cards without a solid justification for it. People don't like it when cards get banned, and Wizards has said repeatedly that they try to avoid banning cards whenever possible. Do you really see Wizards banning Sol Ring after including it in every single one of their 20 Commander precon products? Clearly they think it has a place in Commander. Did you ever consider that Wizards has allowed the RC to maintain the official ban list partially because they agree with how it is being handled? Have you ever considered what a nightmare it would be to maintain a meticulous ban list for an eternal competitive multiplayer format? Do they maintain a separate list for 1v1 and multiplayer? What about 4 player games and 8 player games? Different cards are problematic depending on how many players are in the game. Is Sol Ring banned in 4 player free for all but not 8 player free for all? What about 2HG? Do you account for each of these possibilities or do you artificially constrain people to play 4 player free for all in order to maintain the integrity of the ban list? Do you not care about how your banned list affects larger pods or 2HG? Why not? I thought you wanted to keep Commander fun for everyone? What about people who hate combos? etc. etc. etc. I could go on and on, but my point is it really isn't as simple as Wizards taking control and banning a bunch of cards and suddenly Commander is perfect. And I didn't even mention that managing the ban list would cost Wizards money for no good reason and has a very real chance of damaging a format that is currently growing in popularity and therefore harming their profits. There's just so much wrong with this idea.
Not to mention the fact that many people are unhappy with how Wizards handles the Modern ban list and that's a format that they have lots of data for so I'm not sure why you're so confident in them handling Commander better.
And the idea of Wizards actively splitting up the Commander player base and confusing everyone they targeted with their previous 20 Commander products is a complete non-starter. IF, and this is a HUGE if, Wizards were to do anything like this, they would create a new format for competitive play, not shunt casual players off to an unofficial format. Still not gonna happen.
IF, and this is a HUGE if, Wizards were to do anything like this, they would create a new format for competitive play, not shunt casual players off to an unofficial format. Still not gonna happen.
This is the type of healthy talk that needs to be done. Do I think raising a topic like this is going to start a revolution? No. But it's important to express that there are problems within the format and that there is a desire among people for change. Not everybody wants change clearly, but there is a strong voice that does.
As long as people keep raising this concern, then we can keep talking about various avenues to improve the game. What those avenues are, is all up to discussion. If we don't then people just assume the status quo is for everybody.
The reality is that Wizards are priced in to keeping Sol Ring in the format and now Mana Crypt as well. Hence the reprint to keep up with demand. You know what, this is a direct result of RC not identifying problems sooner. If I have to point out faults with RC. This is one of them. Their slow or non-response, has direct effects. People herald it, like they are doing something great. But I personally think its just not being pro-active about how the format could have been formed better. So my argument is that if they are really just leaving it to players to moderate, then why have them doing any decisions for us at all? Unfortunately they do get to make decisions for us, hence the problem.
Do I think Wizards would be the end-all-be-all answer for making a perfect format? No. Do I think it would benefit in making some form of the format better? Yes. This is based on the results of RC non-actions on bannings over the years, and the negative effect its had on the format. My reasoning for Wizards if they were to take it seriously, is that they have experience with handling other formats. There is far more experience and willingness when action-ed to make formats more balanced with hard decisions. RC just seem weak at this.
I do like the idea of a separation happening in the future. Maybe it does need to be a separate format. Commander X. But for me its not about having a separate "competitive" format. Its about having a format which promotes more fair and fun play. I think by being so stand off with bannings, that RC are forcing the format to a kind of ruthless degenerate game. Its becoming a case of "if you can't beat em, join em". Why we have ban lists in the first place, is to moderate things that are clearly making the format unbalanced. There is of course the argument that people like the nature of unbalanced games. Its part and parcel of EDH. However, there is a growing want and need with people that they would like to have consistently closer, at the very least, opening turns to games.
Im just gonna do some math but there are 657 possible commanders. With that in mind say we build 5 decks each 3285 decks. Now lets say 65 percent of each deck featuring a commander is the same. So that leaves 35 cards that are not. From that 35, lets say only 20 are feature once in any deck.
that leaves 65700 cards that only show up once in any give deck. Now say that you only get about 30 cards per game. that means than on average you would need on average 4 games to go through each card. Meaning that you will have to play (say a pod of 4) 8760 games to experience each card. to truly see the value in that card you would have to play at least 10 games featuring that card. meaning you are looking at 262800 games. I doubt you have played that many games. I doubt you are even close to that many games. In fact, given that I play 3-5 games every thursday and have been for a few years, along with playing 3-4 games on weekends for the past few years only recently stopping. I am probably closer to that number than you are. Even I have barely scratched the surface.
Chances are, the community would need to provide input on the banlist. What cards need to be addressed. What impact do cards have in your games? I mean aside form T&N and Iona (Two cards constantly addressed) Derevi should be banned at least as a commander. Yes it is a commander, designed as a commander, but it has too many benefits and almost 0 downside (unless you count a 2/3 flyer as a downside which it is not for only 3 mana.) Does the RC even pay against decks running derevi?
Dude, do you honestly expect a rule set and ban list to actively grow the format?
Uh, yes? That's the entire point of ban lists and rule sets (even the banlist and rule set the RC has implemented is intended to do this). Whether you want to say it's for "balance" or the "health" of the format or some nebulous "vision" of the format, having a good rule set/banlist enhances a format and a bad one detracts from it. A truly terrible one can kill a format, not that I'm saying that's happening here by any means.
Are there masses of potential players sitting around waiting for the RC to take a more active role in banning cards? "Gosh, if only Sol Ring were banned in this casual format I'd love to get in to Commander!"
I hope not because if they are waiting they're doing so in vain. I do know of people who quit or turned away from it because of the ban list. I don't think they are waiting though.
Sorry to be snarky, but do you really not see how silly this is? You're basically saying that there's no evidence of a problem, but there's also no evidence that there isn't a problem so we should assume there is a problem and take action since you personally disagree with the RC.
No, I'm saying I don't give them credit for something I can't actually prove they are responsible for (ie their "vision working" which is what the poster I was responding to said). I at no point said that because I can't prove they are benefiting the format they must be hurting it (in fact I clearly said I could not prove that). I also find it funny you comment on my play group or my feelings on Wizards taking the format. I'm not the one who started this topic, I personally have no expectations of Wizards doing anything (the only thing I said about Wizards at all is that I can trust them to do the profitable thing for them whereas I can't trust the RC to do anything but what they want to do), I'm simply stating my opinions about the RC in response to what I consider unsubstantiated praise directed toward their actions/being attributed to them.
My question to you is why would anybody know this? Like literally why would any player know this? Give me the reasoning why your average Joe commander player is privy to this information? Realistically its going to be like 99.99999% but I thought I'd throw them a bone. I know tournament level Magic players that I'll explain what Commander is. I think people assume because they know something of the origins of the format that other people must as well.
Because people tell them, you know they way most information is related in a community? Your rationale is just wrong. If you know (which you clearly do) that means you have to have know 1000 other players, none of whom do. Its just illogical.
And I think your belief is really fueling this foolish notion that WotC would want to do anything (they wouldn't because they love money), or that they could do anything better. They know they can't.
Not everybody wants change clearly, but there is a strong voice that does.
Uh, yes? That's the entire point of ban lists and rule sets (even the banlist and rule set the RC has implemented is intended to do this). Whether you want to say it's for "balance" or the "health" of the format or some nebulous "vision" of the format, having a good rule set/banlist enhances a format and a bad one detracts from it. A truly terrible one can kill a format, not that I'm saying that's happening here by any means.
Thats completly contradictory to your position they don't care about anyone but themselves. If they didnt care, it would not be "intended" to grow the format.
No, I'm saying I don't give them credit for something I can't actually prove they are responsible for (ie their "vision working" which is what the poster I was responding to said)/
You don't seem to be giving them credit for anything. You paint them as selfish, only caring about their vision, when in fact they actively support this for nothing and ACTIVELY listen to others. Its baffling honestly.
If people are sick of reading about stuff just stop taking part. You have 100% control over what you read. Simic Ascendancy isn't going to get banned just because you didn't tell someone to shut up on the internet.
Because people tell them, you know they way most information is related in a community? Your rationale is just wrong. If you know (which you clearly do) that means you have to have know 1000 other players, none of whom do. Its just illogical.
I think you think that when people tell people and teach Commander that they explain that there is a RC behind the game. No when commander is explained and taught, it's about the mechanics. You will get some people who Google search "commander banlist". Between the WotC website and mtgcommander.net you will get some traffic going to theirs. But even those will probably not spend time exploring what its about, they are simply wanting to find a list.
Thats completly contradictory to your position they don't care about anyone but themselves. If they didn't care, it would not be "intended" to grow the format.
No, it's not. If the format doesn't grow (or at least maintain) then there is no format and thus no RC. So obviously they do want the format to grow, they just have no interest in views that go against their own. And I also never said they only care about themselves, I said they only care about their vision and the group that shares said vision.
You don't seem to be giving them credit for anything. You paint them as selfish, only caring about their vision, when in fact they actively support this for nothing and ACTIVELY listen to others. Its baffling honestly.
What should I be giving them credit for that I am not? I don't remember listing the things I give them credit for. For example, I certainly give them credit for promoting the format and that is something you can objectively tie into the growth of the format. The only thing I explicitly did not give them credit for in this thread was that their "vision is working" as that is an unsubstantiated claim.
And again, it's not me claiming they only care about their vision, these are words from their own mouths (well ok, from Sheldon's mouth specifically). Alongside this is a nice heaping helping of "If you don't like it too bad, go do your own thing/fix it yourself." Again, I don't need to make assumptions or draw conclusions, these are their stated stances. Sure they soften it at times with "The people left out are collateral rather than intentional loses" but it doesn't change anything.
I feel like a large portion of the list is there to make sure people have fun the way the RC says they should. At some point they either need to acknowledge that they are sculpting the format to their own personal definition or they need to understand that "tailor your game with house rules" is not an acceptable fix for a large portion of the EDH population.
Pretty sure we've repeatedly acknowledged we're sculpting the format to our own vision.
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.
It's from when I was criticizing the RC's stance about houserules as a solution to any problem.
Eventually Commander (not EDH, they can keep that format for those that like over-powered/unfair play) will need to be under the same fold of creating a game that is more fair and fun for more players.
So their role is to do nothing? Well they are doing a good job of that.
The more I read from you, the more I have to ask - how long have you played EDH/Commander? You mentioned 12,000 games in the original post, but have those all been in the past couple months, or have you been playing it for years? And finally, have you limited all of your Commander play to online, or have you played in person? The reason I am asking to is get an idea of how you have formed your perspective.
I also now play exclusively in person, either at my LGS or at a friend's house. I used to play online, but I found online play to be too impersonal and anonymous. By taking the face-to-face social aspect away, you are often left with people who care more about winning than having fun. You get the exact situation you have described as "over-powered/unfair play." I find that the game plays better in person, and if players feel things are over-powered or unfair, they work it out among themselves. Any casual format is going to change if you actually see people month after month. And I would certainly argue that we don't need this to become yet another competitive tournament format where everyone only cares about winning.
It's not so much that they don't try to please everyone, it's that they don't try to please anyone (except those that agree with them).
And yet, if they can't please everyone, then how shall they pick which ones to please and which ones not to? Wouldn't pleasing themselves and those who agree with them be the best way to go? Why should they make changes that could alienate that core group in the vain hope of pleasing someone else? Have you ever seen a film or read a book that felt really generic and soulless because its makers tried to please a target market rather than telling a story that they themselves were passionate about? Trying to please one group at the expense of another is not always the best way to go.
Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?
Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.
Just supplying it since I referenced it a number of times. There are other more concise quotes but this is the most brazen one.
I'm actually glad that they are honest about this. Having worked in film, I have to say I wish more people would think like that rather than churning out generic stories just to cash in.
The more I read from you, the more I have to ask - how long have you played EDH/Commander? You mentioned 12,000 games in the original post, but have those all been in the past couple months, or have you been playing it for years? And finally, have you limited all of your Commander play to online, or have you played in person? The reason I am asking to is get an idea of how you have formed your perspective.
I play both paper and online. My friends and I are old school players, all starting in 1993. So we have a lot of the old powerful cards like duel lands. I have been playing Commander for about 4 years. The bulk of those 12k games are online. I have 65 online commander decks, but only 7 paper decks. But we put the decks together in a pool and play randomly most of the time when playing paper anyway, to keep it fresh and fair as possible. I tend to make a complete range of decks, from casual and janky, to super competitive. From casual to competitive, from online or with my friends, its all the same problems. Just not enough being done to balance the game. Such a shame.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
I'm going to have to dig up that quote at some point but 1000 page threads suck to skim through. It's not so much that they don't try to please everyone, it's that they don't try to please anyone (except those that agree with them). There is a difference. And no it's really not demonstrably false, they have banned/unbanned cards that the community wanted banned/unbanned (and of course not banned/unbanned other cards the community has been vocal about) but there is no way to demonstrate that this was in any way them going along with the community rather than them going along with their own interests/"vision" (and in fact their posts prove that their "vision" is what decides the format, community be damned, so if anything it's proven true).
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
Yeah that's kind of a weird thing for him to say and all, but for now their vision is working so who cares? If it stops working then we can reevaluate. No need to get our undies twisted up about hypotheticals.
Dude, do you honestly expect a rule set and ban list to actively grow the format? Are there masses of potential players sitting around waiting for the RC to take a more active role in banning cards? "Gosh, if only Sol Ring were banned in this casual format I'd love to get in to Commander!"
Sorry to be snarky, but do you really not see how silly this is? You're basically saying that there's no evidence of a problem, but there's also no evidence that there isn't a problem so we should assume there is a problem and take action since you personally disagree with the RC. Unless someone has a good solid reason, (backed up with facts and not opinions stated as facts) for why control should be taken from the RC this is all just pointless intellectual wankery. Wizards isn't going to do it. There's no demand outside of a few vocal Internet people. Many disagree that it should be taken from them at all. The format is growing. I'm sorry, but you are in the minority here. Try to find a playgroup that aligns with your play style and play with a house rule ban list. That shouldn't be hard if your proposed bannings are as popular as you all think they are.
I think the problem stems that they always intended it for friends to sit around a table, drinking and laughing, slapping each others backs and having friendly conversations about adjusting the rules to accommodate whatever people felt was not right within the local playgroup. The problem is however that this is not ALL that people want or need out of it anymore. It has a formal forum as well. Those that are hard-coded into the rules, which is probably something that originally was never thought about. Also where people like to test their deck making and magic skills under the mechanics of the format.
There are aspects we like, but they are aspects we don't like. Hence these topics. To just say, "well its working", is being irresponsible to those who are asking for a voice on problems within the format.
I'll just keep repeating this, because I think its important. EDH (Elder Dragon Highlander) can remain as it is, they can keep their vision, keep their egos intact, whatever floats their boat and those that follow their line of thinking. But Wizards Commander will need to be more monitored in the future to ensure a platform that remains fair and balanced for a broader spectrum of players. Because that is what it is now, a much broader spectrum. Both in players and mediums. Its important to note that its probably a broader spectrum because of Wizards marketing and support, not a few friends "vision". Its not all kitchen tops and friends.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Just because they won't change just to fit some group doesn't mean they don't listen. Again, if people actually listened to what they said without agenda it would clear a lot of this up. Yes they have a vision, but its not some closed group making decisions based on only the games they play. Thats the falsehood spread that leads to these sorts of 'WotC would do a MUCH better job' when all that would do is change it into a competitive format. They can't run a non-competitive format because they cave to crying to protect the bottom line.
Most that I play with in LGS, because it was a LARGE format before support. Have some evidence for that 98% number or retract it, because its a joke.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
I can't imagine Wizards taking on an extremely hands on approach to banning cards without a solid justification for it. People don't like it when cards get banned, and Wizards has said repeatedly that they try to avoid banning cards whenever possible. Do you really see Wizards banning Sol Ring after including it in every single one of their 20 Commander precon products? Clearly they think it has a place in Commander. Did you ever consider that Wizards has allowed the RC to maintain the official ban list partially because they agree with how it is being handled? Have you ever considered what a nightmare it would be to maintain a meticulous ban list for an eternal competitive multiplayer format? Do they maintain a separate list for 1v1 and multiplayer? What about 4 player games and 8 player games? Different cards are problematic depending on how many players are in the game. Is Sol Ring banned in 4 player free for all but not 8 player free for all? What about 2HG? Do you account for each of these possibilities or do you artificially constrain people to play 4 player free for all in order to maintain the integrity of the ban list? Do you not care about how your banned list affects larger pods or 2HG? Why not? I thought you wanted to keep Commander fun for everyone? What about people who hate combos? etc. etc. etc. I could go on and on, but my point is it really isn't as simple as Wizards taking control and banning a bunch of cards and suddenly Commander is perfect. And I didn't even mention that managing the ban list would cost Wizards money for no good reason and has a very real chance of damaging a format that is currently growing in popularity and therefore harming their profits. There's just so much wrong with this idea.
Not to mention the fact that many people are unhappy with how Wizards handles the Modern ban list and that's a format that they have lots of data for so I'm not sure why you're so confident in them handling Commander better.
And the idea of Wizards actively splitting up the Commander player base and confusing everyone they targeted with their previous 20 Commander products is a complete non-starter. IF, and this is a HUGE if, Wizards were to do anything like this, they would create a new format for competitive play, not shunt casual players off to an unofficial format. Still not gonna happen.
As long as people keep raising this concern, then we can keep talking about various avenues to improve the game. What those avenues are, is all up to discussion. If we don't then people just assume the status quo is for everybody.
The reality is that Wizards are priced in to keeping Sol Ring in the format and now Mana Crypt as well. Hence the reprint to keep up with demand. You know what, this is a direct result of RC not identifying problems sooner. If I have to point out faults with RC. This is one of them. Their slow or non-response, has direct effects. People herald it, like they are doing something great. But I personally think its just not being pro-active about how the format could have been formed better. So my argument is that if they are really just leaving it to players to moderate, then why have them doing any decisions for us at all? Unfortunately they do get to make decisions for us, hence the problem.
Do I think Wizards would be the end-all-be-all answer for making a perfect format? No. Do I think it would benefit in making some form of the format better? Yes. This is based on the results of RC non-actions on bannings over the years, and the negative effect its had on the format. My reasoning for Wizards if they were to take it seriously, is that they have experience with handling other formats. There is far more experience and willingness when action-ed to make formats more balanced with hard decisions. RC just seem weak at this.
I do like the idea of a separation happening in the future. Maybe it does need to be a separate format. Commander X. But for me its not about having a separate "competitive" format. Its about having a format which promotes more fair and fun play. I think by being so stand off with bannings, that RC are forcing the format to a kind of ruthless degenerate game. Its becoming a case of "if you can't beat em, join em". Why we have ban lists in the first place, is to moderate things that are clearly making the format unbalanced. There is of course the argument that people like the nature of unbalanced games. Its part and parcel of EDH. However, there is a growing want and need with people that they would like to have consistently closer, at the very least, opening turns to games.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
that leaves 65700 cards that only show up once in any give deck. Now say that you only get about 30 cards per game. that means than on average you would need on average 4 games to go through each card. Meaning that you will have to play (say a pod of 4) 8760 games to experience each card. to truly see the value in that card you would have to play at least 10 games featuring that card. meaning you are looking at 262800 games. I doubt you have played that many games. I doubt you are even close to that many games. In fact, given that I play 3-5 games every thursday and have been for a few years, along with playing 3-4 games on weekends for the past few years only recently stopping. I am probably closer to that number than you are. Even I have barely scratched the surface.
Chances are, the community would need to provide input on the banlist. What cards need to be addressed. What impact do cards have in your games? I mean aside form T&N and Iona (Two cards constantly addressed) Derevi should be banned at least as a commander. Yes it is a commander, designed as a commander, but it has too many benefits and almost 0 downside (unless you count a 2/3 flyer as a downside which it is not for only 3 mana.) Does the RC even pay against decks running derevi?
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
And I think your belief is really fueling this foolish notion that WotC would want to do anything (they wouldn't because they love money), or that they could do anything better. They know they can't.
Based on what?
Thats completly contradictory to your position they don't care about anyone but themselves. If they didnt care, it would not be "intended" to grow the format.
You don't seem to be giving them credit for anything. You paint them as selfish, only caring about their vision, when in fact they actively support this for nothing and ACTIVELY listen to others. Its baffling honestly.
Just read through the Sol Ring thread on here http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/commander-edh/commander-rules-discussion-forum/703634-sol-ring
This is just one card, and it's such a hotly debated topic, that you can't deny that there is a strong voice for change.
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
What should I be giving them credit for that I am not? I don't remember listing the things I give them credit for. For example, I certainly give them credit for promoting the format and that is something you can objectively tie into the growth of the format. The only thing I explicitly did not give them credit for in this thread was that their "vision is working" as that is an unsubstantiated claim.
And again, it's not me claiming they only care about their vision, these are words from their own mouths (well ok, from Sheldon's mouth specifically). Alongside this is a nice heaping helping of "If you don't like it too bad, go do your own thing/fix it yourself." Again, I don't need to make assumptions or draw conclusions, these are their stated stances. Sure they soften it at times with "The people left out are collateral rather than intentional loses" but it doesn't change anything.
Here you go:
It's from when I was criticizing the RC's stance about houserules as a solution to any problem.
EDIT: oh, you beat me to it.
I personally have played EDH/Commander for over seven years, which has allowed me to watch and be affected by a number of bannings/unbannings. I have lost Painter's Servant, Primeval Titan, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, Braids, Cabal Minion, Erayo, Sorotami Ascendant, Sylvan Primordial, and Prophet of Kruphix. I have also gained Kokusho, the Evening Star and seen the colored mana production rule change. While I've had mixed feelings about some of these changes, I could understand the reasoning, and I have seen the format flourish under the RC's control. To hear you say they do nothing seems short-sighted at best.
I also now play exclusively in person, either at my LGS or at a friend's house. I used to play online, but I found online play to be too impersonal and anonymous. By taking the face-to-face social aspect away, you are often left with people who care more about winning than having fun. You get the exact situation you have described as "over-powered/unfair play." I find that the game plays better in person, and if players feel things are over-powered or unfair, they work it out among themselves. Any casual format is going to change if you actually see people month after month. And I would certainly argue that we don't need this to become yet another competitive tournament format where everyone only cares about winning.
And yet, if they can't please everyone, then how shall they pick which ones to please and which ones not to? Wouldn't pleasing themselves and those who agree with them be the best way to go? Why should they make changes that could alienate that core group in the vain hope of pleasing someone else? Have you ever seen a film or read a book that felt really generic and soulless because its makers tried to please a target market rather than telling a story that they themselves were passionate about? Trying to please one group at the expense of another is not always the best way to go.
I'm actually glad that they are honest about this. Having worked in film, I have to say I wish more people would think like that rather than churning out generic stories just to cash in.
2023 Average Peasant Cube|and Discussion
Because I have more decks than fit in a signature
Useful Resources:
MTGSalvation tags
EDHREC
ManabaseCrafter
Niv-Mizzet Reborn
Feather, the Redeemed
Estrid, the Masked
Teshar
Tymna/Ravos
Najeela, Blade-Blossom
Firesong & Sunspeaker
Zur the Enchanter
Lazav, the Multifarious
Ishai+Reyhan
Click images for decks->
-Prime Speaker Vannifar
---------------------Will & Rowan Kenrith