Lou summed it up perfectly: you are our MaRo. You may not have created the format, and you are only one of the people in charge of it, but you are the face and mouthpiece of it (as you knoe). So when you run Hermit Druid in Karador because it's value, the people who encounter Druid in LabMan decks complain that you won't ban it because you run it, or that your playgroup decided Hulk was still too strong which is why it's still banned. And of course this is nothing new, and of course these same people conveniently ignore every time you've said you love Recurring Nightmare and Primeval Titan.
And truthfully, there isn't anything you can do about people who hold onto half formed opinions, so I don't really know how to address it. Although I think Sol Ring loosely falls into this category as a "pet card" of threads RC despite how broken it is.
To speak on the balance issue, I think that the goal of the ban list should be "public balance", rather than competitive balance. In other words, spikes are still gonna spike so trying to balance the game around them is a folly, but the game is huge now and playing public games in an LGS where it isn't realistic to expect everyone to have discussions and agree on the type of game they'd like and house bans. So for me, "balance" is trying to figure out what types of games you guys would enjoy against random strangers would be if the only pregame talk was "hey want to play some edh?"
I am sniping your question to him to voice an interest of my own, but it would be interesting to get more transparency (not that you guys are doing bad at that) on votes/discussions of the banlist, specifically for cards to come on/off. The polarizing cards for this subforum, such as Iona, P. Hulk, T&N would be interesting to see the details on how the discussions go and how many are for/against with the majority/minority opinion being reflected more.
I think with more details so that people can have a better understanding of why, there could be better dialogue to address the issues you as a group may have. Then maybe posts wouldn't just warp into an angry, nerd-rage, conversation and the community could be more involved in a proactive way?
I don't see how that would reduce nerd-rage. It would only shift it to specific codicils of the RC's decision-making. If they show who voted for what or who holds what opinions in the decision-making, then people are going to go after those members of the RC. If they say they tested a banned card for four weeks and decided to keep it on the banlist, someone is going to demand they test for six weeks. People are going to say the RC missed some data in their decisions, people will say the RC has personal bias for/against certain play styles, people are going to argue to "play devil's advocate."
Adding more transparency isn't going to stop people from arguing about the banlist and/or the RC's decisions. It's just going to change what they argue about.
I am sniping your question to him to voice an interest of my own, but it would be interesting to get more transparency (not that you guys are doing bad at that) on votes/discussions of the banlist, specifically for cards to come on/off. The polarizing cards for this subforum, such as Iona, P. Hulk, T&N would be interesting to see the details on how the discussions go and how many are for/against with the majority/minority opinion being reflected more.
I think with more details so that people can have a better understanding of why, there could be better dialogue to address the issues you as a group may have. Then maybe posts wouldn't just warp into an angry, nerd-rage, conversation and the community could be more involved in a proactive way?
I don't see how that would reduce nerd-rage. It would only shift it to specific codicils of the RC's decision-making. If they show who voted for what or who holds what opinions in the decision-making, then people are going to go after those members of the RC. If they say they tested a banned card for four weeks and decided to keep it on the banlist, someone is going to demand they test for six weeks. People are going to say the RC missed some data in their decisions, people will say the RC has personal bias for/against certain play styles, people are going to argue to "play devil's advocate."
Adding more transparency isn't going to stop people from arguing about the banlist and/or the RC's decisions. It's just going to change what they argue about.
Some may demand more, but I stand by the fact more transparency would probably curb some of the less desirable discussions that happen in this sub-forum.
The majority of the cards currently on the banlist could be safely removed without damaging the format. You'd have cards like Gifts Ungiven and recurring Nightmare, which are playable without being terribly strong. You'd even get a few totally unplayable cards like Coalition Victory and Worldfire. However, there are a few cards that the format simply couldn't handle. Things like Tolarian Academy and Tinker: cards that turn games into coin flips. or the Moxen, which heavily punish anything less than 5C decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Instead of building a fast car to win the race, you fill the race track with manure and drive your tractor to victory.
That is stax."
~cmv_lawyer, 2016
Some stuff needs to be banned to preserve the integrity of the format.
This is coming from someone who enjoys just about every archetype magic has to offer.
There will always be highly tuned decks, but if we don't keep a leash on them commander will become an unwelcoming place for new players.
New players mean more revenue and more precons/commander based cards. Without these the format becomes stagnant and interest dwindles.
There will always be highly tuned decks, but if we don't keep a leash on them commander will become an unwelcoming place for new players.
What does this mean? The banlist isn't there to close the gap between optimal-cutthroat decks and construct-lifegain tribal, it's there to remove cards guilty of taking something away from the format.
Now, the Social Contract on the other hand is there to discourage Mr Doomsday combo from joining a group of PreCons and without telling them combo off on turn 3.
I hate the social contract. It's just an excuse for a lot of people to act like middle schoolers and bully people to get their way imo. If you really hate a certain play style then you shouldn't have to play against it, but people who get all emotional/passive aggressive because someone played something they didn't like drive me up the wall.
People say "I already play other competitive formats. I don't want commander to be serious," but not everyone plays other formats. The other thing they never seem to realize is how widely taste vary when it comes to this game. I have been cussed out just for killing someone with COMMANDER damage on Cockatrice. I mean, the game is called COMMANDER.
The social contract fails because it relies on the hive mind of collective magic players to be consistent/impartial. One table doesn't like MLD but is fine with combo. The next is ok with Stax, but doesn't want to play against storm. The table at the very end has original duals banned and also doesn't like Bribery, but forgot to tell you about it.
Once more, the Social Contract is never enforced consistently. Sometimes people are polite and tell you up front, but other times you just randomly get ganged up on or are told to leave. I wish that everyone would just accept that sometimes you will play against things that you don't like. Scoop against the stax player if you hate stax, and let them know politely that you're decks aren't built to play against it. You are just prolonging a negative experience by playing it out, and chances are they aren't having very much fun themselves. Same with the combo player; let them combo out then politely start a new game. People understand that not every deck is built to play against competitive decks, and those that do generally don't want to play a game against those who aren't prepared.
While new players bring in revenue and keep wizards pumping out precons, a lot of those players eventually move on to more competitive decks. A small ban list keeps the game interesting for these players, and they then spend money on the secondary market. I think it would be interesting to see data on secondary sales since commander became popular. I'm betting that it has had a fairly significant impact, and I'd also bet that people have made a lot of money off of competitive cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If combo should die before I wake I'll slide a Smokestack in every deck I play, roll in every shop wreck the Spirit of EDH.
Politely letting people know that there are deck styles you'd rather not play against is part of the social contract. Having the discussion and working out the kind of game you'd all like together is definitely part of the social contract.
Lou summed it up perfectly: you are our MaRo. You may not have created the format, and you are only one of the people in charge of it, but you are the face and mouthpiece of it (as you knoe). So when you run Hermit Druid in Karador because it's value, the people who encounter Druid in LabMan decks complain that you won't ban it because you run it, or that your playgroup decided Hulk was still too strong which is why it's still banned. And of course this is nothing new, and of course these same people conveniently ignore every time you've said you love Recurring Nightmare and Primeval Titan.
And truthfully, there isn't anything you can do about people who hold onto half formed opinions, so I don't really know how to address it. Although I think Sol Ring loosely falls into this category as a "pet card" of threads RC despite how broken it is.
To speak on the balance issue, I think that the goal of the ban list should be "public balance", rather than competitive balance. In other words, spikes are still gonna spike so trying to balance the game around them is a folly, but the game is huge now and playing public games in an LGS where it isn't realistic to expect everyone to have discussions and agree on the type of game they'd like and house bans. So for me, "balance" is trying to figure out what types of games you guys would enjoy against random strangers would be if the only pregame talk was "hey want to play some edh?"
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I don't see how that would reduce nerd-rage. It would only shift it to specific codicils of the RC's decision-making. If they show who voted for what or who holds what opinions in the decision-making, then people are going to go after those members of the RC. If they say they tested a banned card for four weeks and decided to keep it on the banlist, someone is going to demand they test for six weeks. People are going to say the RC missed some data in their decisions, people will say the RC has personal bias for/against certain play styles, people are going to argue to "play devil's advocate."
Adding more transparency isn't going to stop people from arguing about the banlist and/or the RC's decisions. It's just going to change what they argue about.
Banner by Traproot Graphics
[RETIRED Primers]:
RW Aurelia, The Warleader --- R Daretti, Scrap Savant --- RUB Thraximundar
That is stax."
~cmv_lawyer, 2016
WUI Don't Mean to Brago, But... RWBI'll Kaalia Back Later GBWKaradora the Graveyard Explorer BRGLive Long and Prosshper
BGUMuscle Plasm URGImperial Animarch BGLemon Meren Pie GWStop Being Such a Sisay UTefearsome RGWMarath of the Titans
UBRNow Watch me Trai Trai RWBAleshstax GWUPrison Can Roon Your Life BRGrenzo: Your Doom UArcum's Asylum of Stax
BGFeel the Ground Croak GThe All New 2016 Yisan Wanderer URFo Rizzle Mah Mizzle UBRA Game of Marchess
This is coming from someone who enjoys just about every archetype magic has to offer.
There will always be highly tuned decks, but if we don't keep a leash on them commander will become an unwelcoming place for new players.
New players mean more revenue and more precons/commander based cards. Without these the format becomes stagnant and interest dwindles.
I would love to play Griselbrand, Recurring Nightmare, or Prophet of Kruphix, but I understand that part of having a ban list is not always being able to use the cards I like.
WBRG Saskia the Unyielding
WUB Sharuum the Hegemon
RWU Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
RG Wort, the Raidmother
WU Brago, King Eternal
B Chainer, Dementia Master
What does this mean? The banlist isn't there to close the gap between optimal-cutthroat decks and construct-lifegain tribal, it's there to remove cards guilty of taking something away from the format.
Now, the Social Contract on the other hand is there to discourage Mr Doomsday combo from joining a group of PreCons and without telling them combo off on turn 3.
People say "I already play other competitive formats. I don't want commander to be serious," but not everyone plays other formats. The other thing they never seem to realize is how widely taste vary when it comes to this game. I have been cussed out just for killing someone with COMMANDER damage on Cockatrice. I mean, the game is called COMMANDER.
The social contract fails because it relies on the hive mind of collective magic players to be consistent/impartial. One table doesn't like MLD but is fine with combo. The next is ok with Stax, but doesn't want to play against storm. The table at the very end has original duals banned and also doesn't like Bribery, but forgot to tell you about it.
Once more, the Social Contract is never enforced consistently. Sometimes people are polite and tell you up front, but other times you just randomly get ganged up on or are told to leave. I wish that everyone would just accept that sometimes you will play against things that you don't like. Scoop against the stax player if you hate stax, and let them know politely that you're decks aren't built to play against it. You are just prolonging a negative experience by playing it out, and chances are they aren't having very much fun themselves. Same with the combo player; let them combo out then politely start a new game. People understand that not every deck is built to play against competitive decks, and those that do generally don't want to play a game against those who aren't prepared.
While new players bring in revenue and keep wizards pumping out precons, a lot of those players eventually move on to more competitive decks. A small ban list keeps the game interesting for these players, and they then spend money on the secondary market. I think it would be interesting to see data on secondary sales since commander became popular. I'm betting that it has had a fairly significant impact, and I'd also bet that people have made a lot of money off of competitive cards.
WBRG Saskia the Unyielding
WUB Sharuum the Hegemon
RWU Shu Yun, the Silent Tempest
RG Wort, the Raidmother
WU Brago, King Eternal
B Chainer, Dementia Master
Is it not also polite to let other players know you're playing a stax deck before everyone shuffles up?