...the format becomes so large people have no idea what to build, and the interactions are too complicated to a standard player. To a certain extent we are starting to see it now with about 6 tier 1 decks and several 1.5 decks nipping at their heels. I doubt modern is going to change except maintenance bans and/or unbans.
You are saying this like it's a bad thing. I think the more choice, the easier it is to build a deck. More decks cater to a broader player base and different play styles.
Complexity should not be a large problem either. It's like with all other (e-)sports. If you play against people of a similar skill level you will enjoy the game. Why should a grandmaster of game mechanics not win against a weak player?
It is not a bad thing at all. It is however unfair to throw a less experienced player into deep waters without training wheels. Modern is close enough in standard at this point to not need them. Also you are coming at this from some terrible game design choices. First the player has the be taught the game humanely. You can't expect them to understand concepts by themselves. Not slowly uping difficulty is punishing, not challenging. Not only that, they need to be given a chance to learn the rules or what they can do to win more games. Play style is not the only choice. Did you know in burn I can shard volley to sac a land at 2 life all, with an eidilon in play, to activate grim lavamancer, maintaining priority at 2 life with trigger on the stack, activate the grim lavamancer with the now second card in the graveyard to kill my opp when we were both at 2. This from one of the "easiest" decks to play in modern. The interactions would baffle a standard player even the best, they can't get the subtle interactions. That, and the format will only have more and more of these as it grows larger not less.
Taking on your second point new players never winning is terrible game design as well. They need to both a) understand why they lost and b) have a low skill move or interaction to be impactful. If new players or weak players never have a chance, they just quit. When they just quit, the game dies an untimely death. At some point we will need to ease players into modern, because with all eternal formats it will be too hard to grasp. Are we there yet, no. When will get there, dunno. Will we get there, YES!!!
...the format becomes so large people have no idea what to build, and the interactions are too complicated to a standard player. To a certain extent we are starting to see it now with about 6 tier 1 decks and several 1.5 decks nipping at their heels. I doubt modern is going to change except maintenance bans and/or unbans.
You are saying this like it's a bad thing. I think the more choice, the easier it is to build a deck. More decks cater to a broader player base and different play styles.
Complexity should not be a large problem either. It's like with all other (e-)sports. If you play against people of a similar skill level you will enjoy the game. Why should a grandmaster of game mechanics not win against a weak player?
It is not a bad thing at all. It is however unfair to throw a less experienced player into deep waters without training wheels. Modern is close enough in standard at this point to not need them. Also you are coming at this from some terrible game design choices. First the player has the be taught the game humanely. You can't expect them to understand concepts by themselves. Not slowly uping difficulty is punishing, not challenging. Not only that, they need to be given a chance to learn the rules or what they can do to win more games. Play style is not the only choice. Did you know in burn I can shard volley to sac a land at 2 life all, with an eidilon in play, to activate grim lavamancer, maintaining priority at 2 life with trigger on the stack, activate the grim lavamancer with the now second card in the graveyard to kill my opp when we were both at 2. This from one of the "easiest" decks to play in modern. The interactions would baffle a standard player even the best, they can't get the subtle interactions. That, and the format will only have more and more of these as it grows larger not less.
Taking on your second point new players never winning is terrible game design as well. They need to both a) understand why they lost and b) have a low skill move or interaction to be impactful. If new players or weak players never have a chance, they just quit. When they just quit, the game dies an untimely death. At some point we will need to ease players into modern, because with all eternal formats it will be too hard to grasp. Are we there yet, no. When will get there, dunno. Will we get there, YES!!!
In a pretty friendly and supportive, yet competitive environment that is my store in Brooklyn, NY I always say the following to new players: 'spend 3 months time losing to your own decisions, spend another 3 months losing to other people's decks--then you get to go play modern'.
Again, we are at the point where people can understand why they lost. Eventually, as with all eternal formats the lines of play will get too complicated. They will not feel like they are making any progress. Newer players to format will win less, that is a given. That being said, they have to understand why they are losing and what they could do better, and still have some chance of winning. Eternal formats increase in subtle interactions as the game goes on. Having friends is great but the game has to help you as well. Remember we are talking about the future of modern not the current state of it.
It is okay if a new player always loses against a very experienced player. Although, some level of chance makes for entertaining games. Three examples of thriving games that will always be lost by a novice: soccer, chess, counte strike (or anything related). However, I do agree with most of your other points, a game should be easy to learn and hard to master. And obviously fun even to the novice.
Except the first two involve clear rules so you know what went wrong. Moreover no one throws in a first time player in professional league for any of these games. In chess you also almost always capture a few pieces against even the best players. This allows you to feel like you did something. In soccer you can kick the ball and still have done something even if you lose. counterstrike is actually proof I am correct. Why do other shooters have a much more active community? Because unless you are very experienced you just get crushed, over and over. This is reason things like the Noob tube exist in CoD. Even a Noob can sometimes kill a Professional player with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is not a bad thing at all. It is however unfair to throw a less experienced player into deep waters without training wheels. Modern is close enough in standard at this point to not need them. Also you are coming at this from some terrible game design choices. First the player has the be taught the game humanely. You can't expect them to understand concepts by themselves. Not slowly uping difficulty is punishing, not challenging. Not only that, they need to be given a chance to learn the rules or what they can do to win more games. Play style is not the only choice. Did you know in burn I can shard volley to sac a land at 2 life all, with an eidilon in play, to activate grim lavamancer, maintaining priority at 2 life with trigger on the stack, activate the grim lavamancer with the now second card in the graveyard to kill my opp when we were both at 2. This from one of the "easiest" decks to play in modern. The interactions would baffle a standard player even the best, they can't get the subtle interactions. That, and the format will only have more and more of these as it grows larger not less.
Taking on your second point new players never winning is terrible game design as well. They need to both a) understand why they lost and b) have a low skill move or interaction to be impactful. If new players or weak players never have a chance, they just quit. When they just quit, the game dies an untimely death. At some point we will need to ease players into modern, because with all eternal formats it will be too hard to grasp. Are we there yet, no. When will get there, dunno. Will we get there, YES!!!
In a pretty friendly and supportive, yet competitive environment that is my store in Brooklyn, NY I always say the following to new players: 'spend 3 months time losing to your own decisions, spend another 3 months losing to other people's decks--then you get to go play modern'.
Except the first two involve clear rules so you know what went wrong. Moreover no one throws in a first time player in professional league for any of these games. In chess you also almost always capture a few pieces against even the best players. This allows you to feel like you did something. In soccer you can kick the ball and still have done something even if you lose. counterstrike is actually proof I am correct. Why do other shooters have a much more active community? Because unless you are very experienced you just get crushed, over and over. This is reason things like the Noob tube exist in CoD. Even a Noob can sometimes kill a Professional player with it.