Intrest in Modern: 4
Agreeableness with the bans: 1 (Turn 4 rule is okay, but clearly nothing else has really helped the format much, as deck strategy variety is at an all time low.)
1. What is the exact threshold you use to determine if a deck wins too consistently on turn 3?
2. At what point do you see a card cease to be a "pillar of the format" and start to "warp the format"?
3. Do you feel prevention is the best way to manage a format?
Interest level in the Modern Format: Used to be High but now its Average/low for competitive building
Agreeableness with the banning method of the format thus far: 1.5
Question 1: If combo decks are such a problem in Modern why don't they print hate for combos or unban things to help combat combo decks rather than ban everything?
Question 2: Modern has offically be allowed to be a sanctioned FNM format of play. Is there any other actions being put in place to make it a more mainstream format?
Q1 Wotc has stated they don't design sets with eternal formats in mind.
Q2 Modern has little to no effect on quantity when it comes to new release since so few cards are deemed playable hence why they don't look at eternal formats when printing sets.
Agreeableness with the banning method of the format thus far: 4
Question 1: How will you address the fears of people that say they won't invest in the format because they are afraid whatever they're going to build will be banned? Personally, this is currently not a worry I have, but I do have multiple friends who told me they are not going to be playing/investing into Modern due to the worry about whatever deck they build will be banned.
Question 2: Landbases in Modern have become extremely greedy due to the lack of effective nonbasic land hosers in the format. The last time I saw landbases this greedy was back when 5 Color Control/Quick n' Toast was the top dog in Standard. Will there be any future cards introduced into Modern to attack decks that rely heavily on greedy landbases?
Agreeableness with the banning method of the format thus far: 4
Question 1: How will you address the fears of people that say they won't invest in the format because they are afraid whatever they're going to build will be banned? Personally, this is currently not a worry I have, but I do have multiple friends who told me they are not going to be playing/investing into Modern due to the worry about whatever deck they build will be banned.
Question 2: Landbases in Modern have become extremely greedy due to the lack of effective nonbasic land hosers in the format. The last time I saw landbases this greedy was back when 5 Color Control/Quick n' Toast was the top dog in Standard. Will there be any future cards introduced into Modern to attack decks that rely heavily on greedy landbases?
Hopefully this isn't too late.
Don't worry I'll still accept before I finish writing up the script of questions
Hopefully even if they don't podcast with you, they will still be willing to answer the questions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Actually, Modern is 100% NOT an Eternal format. An Eternal format is a competitive format that consists of every single set from Alpha forward. Modern is a "non-rotating" format as it starts at Mirrodin block + 8th core.
I guess its perspective I feel non-rotation as eternal because we'll have the cards for all eternity or till wotc decides to ban something.
Just throwing this out there so please don't stone me.
Is it possible that the reason we've heard no response on this yet is simply because WotC wants no part of it? Depending on how "tough" the questions are, they may simply not want to answer them because they either know the answers won't be what we want to hear or they're going to have to lie in order to keep us from pitching a fit.
Let's put it this way. And again, I don't know what the questions are that were decided on, but what does WotC get out of this? How is it in THEIR best interests to answer our questions, especially if they know the answers are not going to be what we want to hear?
If somebody writes to me and asks me to do an interview (I've done many for my business) I get back to them right away with a yes or no.
Do they maybe have to consult with Hasbro? Do they need their approval? Are the big wigs discussing it among each other because they know there can be a potential problem? I mean if there is no risk here, why the delay? Obviously, this isn't something that they're entirely comfortable with.
Of course none of this surprises me. When has WotC EVER done an interview like this? Any public records? I mean it would be like me writing to EA Games and asking them to do an interview explaining why (fill in the blank with your favorite EA screwup) and expecting them to actually answer me.
I'm not holding my breath on this one. It's been more than enough time to respond. That they haven't does not instill confidence in me.
I think it would have been better to send them the actual questions, so they can give go/no-go on particular ones.
As far as the time goes, I wouldn't think its a no-response until about 2 weeks. Sometimes people are just busy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I support WotC's goal of shaping Modern in favor of diversity.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
Well I think the idea is that if he gets no response, then we can start badgering them as a group until they start to give us answers. The lack of any REAL discussion on the official boards regarding this latest announcement was disturbing at best.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Well I think the idea is that if he gets no response, then we can start badgering them as a group until they start to give us answers. The lack of any REAL discussion on the official boards regarding this latest announcement was disturbing at best.
I'm in no rush, but I do agree that submitting some of the questions would be preferable from their end, so I'll do that next email at the end of the day today if no response is had
Yeah, I am all for the full court press to get them to answer some things, just saying that I would not say they are maliciously avoiding the issue yet.
They may have had president's day off.
That puts them at like a day and a half of work from when it was sent.
Aaron's position probably has him getting A LOT of emails both internally and externally.
There's an article somewhere about he and his wife and his search to find a Magic/Life balance, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is a "I'm not going to read emails when I am not working" kind of guy.
Its not unthinkable that he hasn't even seen it yet.
These issues are very important to our community, but exercising a little patience shows we respect Aaron/Eric/WotC have other things going on.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I support WotC's goal of shaping Modern in favor of diversity.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
To be honest, I really didnt think they would answer back. How many emails and such do you think they get on a daily or weekly basis asking such questions? I am going to say the numbers could be quite staggering.
I dont expect too much information from them on the format. They have a set goal in mind and they are moving toward that goal. It would infuriate some to find out that goal and how they plan on getting their. It just wouldnt make good business sense to broadcast those intentions and cause even more tension with in the player base and toward Wotc.
Noble idea, and there is still time they may respond, and maybe by sending the questions they would or could answer a few of them. I just would get any hopes up for anymore then company policy/toe the line answers. They have been doing this for many years and understand how to handle the player base.
it would infuriate more people to not know where they're going and how they're going to get there (see this forum). imagine you see on TV that you need to x, y, and z in preparation for "the coming." you'd want to know what "the coming" is before you actually buy said items. if its not what you want, why bother wasting time and resources on it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
it would infuriate more people to not know where they're going and how they're going to get there (see this forum). imagine you see on TV that you need to x, y, and z in preparation for "the coming." you'd want to know what "the coming" is before you actually buy said items. if its not what you want, why bother wasting time and resources on it?
So you wouldnt play a pre-release unless you see a spoiler? I dont think it would infuriate as many as you think. For every person upset about the bans and such, I hear someone say the bannings were good and hope they keep the format in check. The problem is the different personal visions of what the format is, not Wotc's vision of the format.
You know, we keep hearing about the "vision" of the format like it's something that has been handed down like the holy grail. Visions can change, especially if the vision is not in tune with what the player base really wants.
Maybe right now the vision is close enough that the player base is saying "Okay, I can live with this. It's not perfect, but it's okay."
What happens if that vision eventually causes dissatisfaction with the format? I'm not saying it WILL. I'm saying what if it DOES? What if WotC goes too far? What if they get too heavy handed? What if, as time goes by, players are finding out that decks don't stay intact for more than 6 months max? At that point, the format isn't much better than Standard. Who wants to make new decks every 6 months?
My point is, just because WotC has a "vision" for this format, that doesn't mean the vision can't change, especially if WotC starts to see attendance falling.
What does this have to do with this thread?
If WotC thought for a minute that answering these questions would make players go "Wow, that is so cool. Now I'm REALLY excited about Modern" don't you think that they'd JUMP at the opportunity for the "sales" pitch?
The truth is, they're probably NOT sure. In fact, they're probably concerned that some parts of their "vision" will NOT be popular with a majority of the players. I'm already seeing slight signs of this based on what they've done with Modern up to this point but I'll leave those observations for another thread.
Bottom line: Don't take the word "vision" as set in stone, this is it, never going to change, like it or lump it. Because when a business runs under that kind of absolute, it risks losing market share. In this case, it could mean losing a percentage of the Modern player base or worse. It could lose players permanently because they have no interest in the alternatives.
If WotC is smart (and past history reveals that this hasn't always been the case) they'll closely monitor the wants of the players interested in Modern and adapt to THOSE players and NOT the other way around.
There is a reason we have the saying "The customer is always right."
If they don't like what you're selling, they'll go buy from somebody else.
So you wouldnt play a pre-release unless you see a spoiler? I dont think it would infuriate as many as you think. For every person upset about the bans and such, I hear someone say the bannings were good and hope they keep the format in check. The problem is the different personal visions of what the format is, not Wotc's vision of the format.
so you're going to buy a car because a new race track opened in your town. you can buy a GT-R, or you can buy a prius. but the owners don't tell you if its a go cart track or an actual race track. would you buy into it?
and no, i wouldn't play a prerelease without seeing a spoiler. would you want to play vanilla beater set? i wouldn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I speak in sarcasm because calling people ******* ******** is not allowed.
Mission Accomplished!
FREE STONEFORGE
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
February 11th is the deadline! Submit your post!
PLEASE WE HAVE FOUR PAGES OF SUBMISSIONS, THANK THE FIRST POST TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR ANSWERS FROM WOTC.
Agreeableness with the bans: 1 (Turn 4 rule is okay, but clearly nothing else has really helped the format much, as deck strategy variety is at an all time low.)
1. What is the exact threshold you use to determine if a deck wins too consistently on turn 3?
2. At what point do you see a card cease to be a "pillar of the format" and start to "warp the format"?
3. Do you feel prevention is the best way to manage a format?
Agreeableness with the banning method of the format thus far: 1.5
Question 1: If combo decks are such a problem in Modern why don't they print hate for combos or unban things to help combat combo decks rather than ban everything?
Question 2: Modern has offically be allowed to be a sanctioned FNM format of play. Is there any other actions being put in place to make it a more mainstream format?
For the record, Modern isn't an eternal format.
Agreeableness with the banning method of the format thus far: 4
Question 1: How will you address the fears of people that say they won't invest in the format because they are afraid whatever they're going to build will be banned? Personally, this is currently not a worry I have, but I do have multiple friends who told me they are not going to be playing/investing into Modern due to the worry about whatever deck they build will be banned.
Question 2: Landbases in Modern have become extremely greedy due to the lack of effective nonbasic land hosers in the format. The last time I saw landbases this greedy was back when 5 Color Control/Quick n' Toast was the top dog in Standard. Will there be any future cards introduced into Modern to attack decks that rely heavily on greedy landbases?
Hopefully this isn't too late.
Don't worry I'll still accept before I finish writing up the script of questions
Agreeableness with the banning method of the format thus far: 1
no new question beyond those already written
EDH: Varolz, the Scar-Striped
No response yet, but being the valentines+the pro tour coming up and all I don't expect one till monday.
Thanks for the continued support.
If I don't get a response by tuesday I will resubmit the email
yeah your right i forgot a format where the cards don't rotate isn't eternal how silly of me.... oh wait
Agreeableness with the banning method of the format thus far: 3
Question 1: What is Wizard's plan for keeping Modern a turn 4 format as new cards get released?
I guess its perspective I feel non-rotation as eternal because we'll have the cards for all eternity or till wotc decides to ban something.
Is it possible that the reason we've heard no response on this yet is simply because WotC wants no part of it? Depending on how "tough" the questions are, they may simply not want to answer them because they either know the answers won't be what we want to hear or they're going to have to lie in order to keep us from pitching a fit.
Let's put it this way. And again, I don't know what the questions are that were decided on, but what does WotC get out of this? How is it in THEIR best interests to answer our questions, especially if they know the answers are not going to be what we want to hear?
If somebody writes to me and asks me to do an interview (I've done many for my business) I get back to them right away with a yes or no.
Do they maybe have to consult with Hasbro? Do they need their approval? Are the big wigs discussing it among each other because they know there can be a potential problem? I mean if there is no risk here, why the delay? Obviously, this isn't something that they're entirely comfortable with.
Of course none of this surprises me. When has WotC EVER done an interview like this? Any public records? I mean it would be like me writing to EA Games and asking them to do an interview explaining why (fill in the blank with your favorite EA screwup) and expecting them to actually answer me.
I'm not holding my breath on this one. It's been more than enough time to respond. That they haven't does not instill confidence in me.
What are the opinions of others?
As far as the time goes, I wouldn't think its a no-response until about 2 weeks. Sometimes people are just busy.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog
Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
I'm in no rush, but I do agree that submitting some of the questions would be preferable from their end, so I'll do that next email at the end of the day today if no response is had
They may have had president's day off.
That puts them at like a day and a half of work from when it was sent.
Aaron's position probably has him getting A LOT of emails both internally and externally.
There's an article somewhere about he and his wife and his search to find a Magic/Life balance, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is a "I'm not going to read emails when I am not working" kind of guy.
Its not unthinkable that he hasn't even seen it yet.
These issues are very important to our community, but exercising a little patience shows we respect Aaron/Eric/WotC have other things going on.
I ran a thought experiment on my blog
Modern in a Nuclear Wasteland
of an extreme case of banning 20 more cards to make sure they get everything, then scaling back where appropriate. WotC seems to be on a slowly build up approach. Both ways probably reach similar end points.
The post Gatecrash metagame is proving to be closer to the endpoint than I estimated, so its very possible that few (if any) more cards need to be banned.
I dont expect too much information from them on the format. They have a set goal in mind and they are moving toward that goal. It would infuriate some to find out that goal and how they plan on getting their. It just wouldnt make good business sense to broadcast those intentions and cause even more tension with in the player base and toward Wotc.
Noble idea, and there is still time they may respond, and maybe by sending the questions they would or could answer a few of them. I just would get any hopes up for anymore then company policy/toe the line answers. They have been doing this for many years and understand how to handle the player base.
So you wouldnt play a pre-release unless you see a spoiler? I dont think it would infuriate as many as you think. For every person upset about the bans and such, I hear someone say the bannings were good and hope they keep the format in check. The problem is the different personal visions of what the format is, not Wotc's vision of the format.
Maybe right now the vision is close enough that the player base is saying "Okay, I can live with this. It's not perfect, but it's okay."
What happens if that vision eventually causes dissatisfaction with the format? I'm not saying it WILL. I'm saying what if it DOES? What if WotC goes too far? What if they get too heavy handed? What if, as time goes by, players are finding out that decks don't stay intact for more than 6 months max? At that point, the format isn't much better than Standard. Who wants to make new decks every 6 months?
My point is, just because WotC has a "vision" for this format, that doesn't mean the vision can't change, especially if WotC starts to see attendance falling.
What does this have to do with this thread?
If WotC thought for a minute that answering these questions would make players go "Wow, that is so cool. Now I'm REALLY excited about Modern" don't you think that they'd JUMP at the opportunity for the "sales" pitch?
The truth is, they're probably NOT sure. In fact, they're probably concerned that some parts of their "vision" will NOT be popular with a majority of the players. I'm already seeing slight signs of this based on what they've done with Modern up to this point but I'll leave those observations for another thread.
Bottom line: Don't take the word "vision" as set in stone, this is it, never going to change, like it or lump it. Because when a business runs under that kind of absolute, it risks losing market share. In this case, it could mean losing a percentage of the Modern player base or worse. It could lose players permanently because they have no interest in the alternatives.
If WotC is smart (and past history reveals that this hasn't always been the case) they'll closely monitor the wants of the players interested in Modern and adapt to THOSE players and NOT the other way around.
There is a reason we have the saying "The customer is always right."
If they don't like what you're selling, they'll go buy from somebody else.
so you're going to buy a car because a new race track opened in your town. you can buy a GT-R, or you can buy a prius. but the owners don't tell you if its a go cart track or an actual race track. would you buy into it?
and no, i wouldn't play a prerelease without seeing a spoiler. would you want to play vanilla beater set? i wouldn't.