Yeah, the reasoning he posted isn't perfect. But there is a significant difference between the two, that made Port too good for standard wheras mutavault (like Tarmogoyf) may be played everywhere but it's not like it's as format warping as port was.
Mutavault may be playable in a lot of decks in standard (provided your manabase can handle some colorless lands that is) but it is just a 2/2 creature... not that it's completely ineffectual, but in a vacuum I would think that a land that denies mana (well, non-instand mana anyway) all on it's lonesome, with a very cheap investment cost at that has a much larger chance of giving you a seriously unbalanced advantage than an extra critter.
The reasoning I posted is entirely valid. Not every deck in Standard can run Mutavault! Vault has little place in any decks running more than two colors. It's best place remains in tribal decks of two colors or less. WOTC found that Rishadan Port, on the other hand, was showing up in, as I posted earlier, nearly everydeck. Resource denial of this type was not color dependant and, therefore, was found to warp the environment. As Chrome homura said, Vault is just a 2/2 creature...though, one that can dodge sorcery speed removal. If it was as Format warping as Port, then why isn't it found in every Tier One deck in Standard? Because it's not Format warping, that's why. You cannot compare the two lands, since the only thing they have in common is the abiility to tap for colorless mana. Oh, and their ridiculously high price during their respective times in Standard. (Port was selling for almost $20 a pop nearly ten years ago!)
I said it in the other thread and I'm going to repeat it here:
If you don't like the way the game is, nobody is forcing you to play it.
It's really not that hard - just stop playing the game.
It's probably not going to change because this is the way it's been for years now, and Magic as a hobby is thriving. I don't see a need to change much about this game, since whatever Wizards is doing is working fine for me, and apparently for a lot of others as well.
People who ask for advice on winning are given advice that will legitimately help them win. I know you don't like the fact that mtg is a competitive game with a defined metagame, and that playing a competitive archetype in that metagame helps you win, but thats how it is.
Actually, I'm not the one complaining. In fact I was actually giving a valid reason for "some people" (not me) to feel that the Standard metagame has grown stagnate or that some cards need restriction. I personally love the current environment because I know what I am going to be facing on a day-to-day basis because the wiggle room for rogue decks to perform well without a certain set of cards is very dismal. And good catch, yes I meant Head Games.
I am aware and I think it is the best card in type 2. but it only does two things, it costs 4 mana, and none of the things are undercosted.
4 mana counter? sucks. 4 mana bounce? sucks. fog, especially at 4 mana, suckks. 4 mana draw only 1 card? sucks
you get to choose two, so its pretty good. its flexible, so its amazing.
but none of that is format warping, therefore it isnt ban worthy. how was that not clear before?
Ravager, Goyf, were broken because you built around them (i know goyf you could throw in any deck but people played chromatic star and tarfire ONLY because of goyf)
Cryptic command, you throw in a deck that can afford it. you dont build around it
I never said it needs to be banned. Just that you understated its obviously broken power. 4 mana counter? not to bad considering at worst its counter a spell draw a card, which would make it the best counterspell in standard. 4 mana bounce? sounds good to me since im not lossing CA. BLUE FOG sounds offcolor and pretty damn broken to me even at 4 and that doesnt even mention the you cant block i swing for leathal part of the fog. which happens ALOT in esper lark. All in all the cards broken in Type 2. Even when misplayed its a 2-1. Rather then see it banned i would have liked to see it more in balance with the rest of the set. That could go for afew other cards in Type 2 like BB, Lark.
I said it in the other thread and I'm going to repeat it here:
If you don't like the way the game is, nobody is forcing you to play it.
It's really not that hard - just stop playing the game.
It's probably not going to change because this is the way it's been for years now, and Magic as a hobby is thriving. I don't see a need to change much about this game, since whatever Wizards is doing is working fine for me, and apparently for a lot of others as well.
That is so narrow-minded a view it's scary. "I like it, so there's nothing wrong. If you don't agree, stop playing."
Look, no one here is influencing Wizard's decisions in anything, so it's all just debate, which is healthy. Trying to push out people that aren't on your bandwagon is the fastest way to find yourself riding alone.
That aside, there was a point where I thought Bitterblossom or Mistbind Clique should see a banhammer. There was a time, not too long ago, someone on these forums put it very succinctly: t1 Ancestral Vision and t2 Bitterblossom = inevitability. Despite losing Ancestral Vision, faeries was still ridiculously hard to beat, and the apologies we got from Wizards in the forms of Guttural Response, Vexing Shusher, and Raking Canopy had to go one step farther to Volcanic Fallout and Scattershot Archer, due in large part to 5 of the top 8's before Conflux were STILL fae.
Wizards answered the problem with new cards. While I don't necessarily agree with the idea, it solved the stagnation of the meta. Exalted, Boat Brew, 5cc, and RDW are all vying for top spots, and right now the pilot is the biggest determining factor in the win, so I'm with the majority here in agreeing banhammers should stay out of standard.
That said, I see where the guy was coming from. Wizards is constantly telling you about all the options for exciting new decks in the next set. They reveal 8 different things they have going on, then spend the next 6 months reporting people winning tourneys with only 2 of them. Tell me that Treefolk Aggro was ever on power level with Kithkin and Fae, or that Austere Command was made to stand side by side with Profane and Crytpic.
I think what this guy is trying to say is that if there was more balance across the board in these expansions, he wouldn't feel so shafted. He doesn't want to play Faeries. Neither do I. I had a 5cc I was using for a while, and I felt guilty ever time I dropped a Cryptic on a guy, knowing he was screwed because he wasn't in color to do a single thing about it. I'd much rather have, using the previous example, a Treefolk that was 2cc uncounterable/cip destroy target enchantment against fae so I could use the current block's cards without being boxed into a corner and being told what to play, and still be competetive. There used to be Elemental Blasts and White/Black Knights to make sure you always had a foil to whatever you were playing.
Find a competetive rogue, like someone else suggested. I play MimicRock, and I'd truthfully rather be at 3-1 with that than 4-0 with what everyone else in my meta is running.
if anything, the tribal mechanic was worth *****ing about even more pre-alara, and nobody seemed to mind that.
Oh, I was definitely *****ing my heart out when they not only announced it, but then released cards like Mistbind Clique. Block was a joke as well. (and Bitterblossom probably SHOULD have been banned in block)
Regardless, the format is fine. I'll be happy when tribal leaves though, I never liked it's cookie cutter deck building, or it's sheer power over any other mechanics in the surrounding blocks (for it's life in standard anyways).
I hate to say it but right now me and my brother-in-law have been doing some "retrofitting" and updating on some decks. The deck I want to talk about is G/b Elves which have seriously gotten a great gift in Scattershot Archer to make an already strong matchup even stronger and Scepter of Fugue to battle control decks. Of the decks we've been testing alot lately I think G/b Elves has a good chance to regain Teir 1 if not 1.5 status.
I hate to say it but right now me and my brother-in-law have been doing some "retrofitting" and updating on some decks. The deck I want to talk about is G/b Elves which have seriously gotten a great gift in Scattershot Archer to make an already strong matchup even stronger and Scepter of Fugue to battle control decks. Of the decks we've been testing alot lately I think G/b Elves has a good chance to regain Teir 1 if not 1.5 status.
I do not want to see a new banned or restricted list for type 2 play ever. I like playing against the meta with uber power cards i'm not scared.
hey talon we are gonna see a deck list when you get done with G/B elves right
As much as you may want to know the new tech in Standard, this is not the place to ask for it.
That is so narrow-minded a view it's scary. "I like it, so there's nothing wrong. If you don't agree, stop playing."
Look, no one here is influencing Wizard's decisions in anything, so it's all just debate, which is healthy. Trying to push out people that aren't on your bandwagon is the fastest way to find yourself riding alone.
That aside, there was a point where I thought Bitterblossom or Mistbind Clique should see a banhammer. There was a time, not too long ago, someone on these forums put it very succinctly: t1 Ancestral Vision and t2 Bitterblossom = inevitability. Despite losing Ancestral Vision, faeries was still ridiculously hard to beat, and the apologies we got from Wizards in the forms of Guttural Response, Vexing Shusher, and Raking Canopy had to go one step farther to Volcanic Fallout and Scattershot Archer, due in large part to 5 of the top 8's before Conflux were STILL fae.
Wizards answered the problem with new cards. While I don't necessarily agree with the idea, it solved the stagnation of the meta. Exalted, Boat Brew, 5cc, and RDW are all vying for top spots, and right now the pilot is the biggest determining factor in the win, so I'm with the majority here in agreeing banhammers should stay out of standard.
That said, I see where the guy was coming from. Wizards is constantly telling you about all the options for exciting new decks in the next set. They reveal 8 different things they have going on, then spend the next 6 months reporting people winning tourneys with only 2 of them. Tell me that Treefolk Aggro was ever on power level with Kithkin and Fae, or that Austere Command was made to stand side by side with Profane and Crytpic.
I think what this guy is trying to say is that if there was more balance across the board in these expansions, he wouldn't feel so shafted. He doesn't want to play Faeries. Neither do I. I had a 5cc I was using for a while, and I felt guilty ever time I dropped a Cryptic on a guy, knowing he was screwed because he wasn't in color to do a single thing about it. I'd much rather have, using the previous example, a Treefolk that was 2cc uncounterable/cip destroy target enchantment against fae so I could use the current block's cards without being boxed into a corner and being told what to play, and still be competetive. There used to be Elemental Blasts and White/Black Knights to make sure you always had a foil to whatever you were playing.
Find a competetive rogue, like someone else suggested. I play MimicRock, and I'd truthfully rather be at 3-1 with that than 4-0 with what everyone else in my meta is running.
This is sensible.
I still think a healthy list of cards to be banned each set would be a very simple way to keep entire strategies from fading into disuse.
Why are there even cards for milling and graveyard play, or any other various strategies in the game, if only "super mana-efficient creatures that hit hard combined with crippling" is going to seriously be just about the only viable strategy?
Why go through the trouble of making alternate win condition decks a possibility, and then turn around and make cards that kill someone so fast that it is statistically non-viable to even try alt-wins?
The reality: Only a few deck types are viable T1.
The ideal reality: Almost all deck types are viable T1.
That ideal is not an impossibility. Nobody would ever expect that every deck you can dream up would be viable. Nobody is asking for anything magical...
But honestly, why design combos and strategies on cards that might as well have a zippo taken to them?
Simple restrictions, like, "You can only have 1 or 2 bitterblossoms per deck" would have helped long before they invented new cards specifically for dealing with faerie decks... and players that would complain about the developers ACTUALLY TAKING CARE of the game are the "whiners" that need to be worried about far more than the ones who are "whining" that the developers just drop each block like an unwanted loaf and don't look back until the next block.
That's a long time to have deck designs ruled by a handful of ridiculous cards in a 5 viable deck meta.
I'm just saying. Video game devs patch their games when something is out of hand, see any RTS in the past 10 years and even most multiplayer FPS games. Why should Magic's devs just leave it?
The expected response is "Because magic is making money and doing fine!" ... but that's the retort of someone who hasn't even paused to consider whether the game's improvement would earn more money or not, as more players might stick with the game.
That is so narrow-minded a view it's scary. "I like it, so there's nothing wrong. If you don't agree, stop playing."
I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the game - it obviously has its flaws and I know that they're there. I'm just being realistic - I honestly don't think things will change much at all. The system's not perfect, but it works for many people and is likely going to be this way for a while. Why continue complaining when you can just pick up another game?
I still think a healthy list of cards to be banned each set would be a very simple way to keep entire strategies from fading into disuse.
What? No, that's a stupid idea. Why would Wizards even bother printing these cards if they're just going to get banned? Banning and restricting cards is not done to increase diversity so that your terrible rogue deck can compete, it is done to eliminate cards that are problematic to the format. No such cards exist in Standard.
Why are there even cards for milling and graveyard play, or any other various strategies in the game, if only "super mana-efficient creatures that hit hard combined with crippling" is going to seriously be just about the only viable strategy?
Why go through the trouble of making alternate win condition decks a possibility, and then turn around and make cards that kill someone so fast that it is statistically non-viable to even try alt-wins?
Because the game is not made only for those who play in tournaments - Wizards caters to many audiences, including casual kitchen-table players who might not care so much about what is the new hotness in Standard. Perhaps you should consider joining their ranks if you have problems with the way competitive Magic works.
The reality: Only a few deck types are viable T1.
The ideal reality: Almost all deck types are viable T1.
So in your imaginary world, there is no such thing as "tier 1" or tiers at all because every deck is equally good. Hooray! Candy and ice cream for everyone too! And hey, what's the point of trying to make a new type of deck in this world, since no matter what I do, it will only be as good as every other deck and there will be no way to attack the metagame! Joyous! Way to stifle innovative metagaming.
The expected response is "Because magic is making money and doing fine!" ... but that's the retort of someone who hasn't even paused to consider whether the game's improvement would earn more money or not, as more players might stick with the game.
I don't think the improvement would earn more money for Wizards - chase rares are what drive the sale and opening of product. Banning/restricting chase rares that are powerful makes them worth less, and thus less people will want them/less copies will be needed, driving the price down, causing dealers to open less product, and ... well, you get the idea.
Besides, whatever they are doing now seems to be working just fine for them and for a lot of us.
I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the game - it obviously has its flaws and I know that they're there. I'm just being realistic - I honestly don't think things will change much at all. The system's not perfect, but it works for many people and is likely going to be this way for a while. Why continue complaining when you can just pick up another game?
What? No, that's a stupid idea. Why would Wizards even bother printing these cards if they're just going to get banned? Banning and restricting cards is not done to increase diversity so that your terrible rogue deck can compete, it is done to eliminate cards that are problematic to the format. No such cards exist in Standard.
Because the game is not made only for those who play in tournaments - Wizards caters to many audiences, including casual kitchen-table players who might not care so much about what is the new hotness in Standard. Perhaps you should consider joining their ranks if you have problems with the way competitive Magic works.
So in your imaginary world, there is no such thing as "tier 1" or tiers at all because every deck is equally good. Hooray! Candy and ice cream for everyone too! And hey, what's the point of trying to make a new type of deck in this world, since no matter what I do, it will only be as good as every other deck and there will be no way to attack the metagame! Joyous! Way to stifle innovative metagaming.
I don't think the improvement would earn more money for Wizards - chase rares are what drive the sale and opening of product. Banning/restricting chase rares that are powerful makes them worth less, and thus less people will want them/less copies will be needed, driving the price down, causing dealers to open less product, and ... well, you get the idea.
Besides, whatever they are doing now seems to be working just fine for them and for a lot of us.
You apparently missed where I said this:
"That ideal is not an impossibility. Nobody would ever expect that every deck you can dream up would be viable. Nobody is asking for anything magical... " Which is AMAZING because you pretty much quoted the rest of my post, except for the part where I already said the antithesis of your argument. Convenient?
Also, putting words into my mouth doesn't make you correct.
Furthermore, "Wizards caters to all kinds of gamers" argument is old. It's a cop-out for bad design.
"Chase Rares" blah blah blah drive their profits, blah blah blah... that doesn't mean that they have to obviate entire decktypes to still be a good, rare card... plus, what does it matter to wizards if we all buy 25 $8 dollar cards instead of 10 $20 cards? Honestly, they don't cost that much to print, and opening up strategies means people will buy MORE CARDS, thus increasing the value of even commons and uncommons.
It's supply and demand, so the curve of price would be distributed more, there'd be better competition, and instead of having to make up crap about how wizards "designs for multiple types of players" ... "dinner table players" "spikes" "johnnies" as an EXCUSE for bad game design... just be honest.
I still think a healthy list of cards to be banned each set would be a very simple way to keep entire strategies from fading into disuse.
Why are there even cards for milling and graveyard play, or any other various strategies in the game, if only "super mana-efficient creatures that hit hard combined with crippling" is going to seriously be just about the only viable strategy?
Why go through the trouble of making alternate win condition decks a possibility, and then turn around and make cards that kill someone so fast that it is statistically non-viable to even try alt-wins?
Mark rosewater recently stated in a few articles he wrote that one of the things they strive for in creating these sets are cards that will appeal to each of the three types of players they have seen most magic fans fall into. The timmy, johny, and spike. Instead of trying to make the set appeal across the board to one or the other they try to include big fatties for one type of player, nifty combos for another, and as always spike manages to find a way to stomp on johnies and timmies cake. You can keep on ranting judge but no matter if wizards listened to you or not us spikes are going to keep on stomping on your cake.
Ban bitterblossom, go ahead.
Spikes will still shut out the more casual players in the lower rounds.
It's not the quality or price of cards for most players, it's the rediculous amount of time and effort they put into the game and studying the meta.
I also applaud how you believe in any way shape or form that banning cards will encourage sales of the product. I for one know I would love to buy a box and open up a bunch of cards I can't even play with in any tournament environment. Hurray!
But honestly, why design combos and strategies on cards that might as well have a zippo taken to them?
Simple restrictions, like, "You can only have 1 or 2 bitterblossoms per deck" would have helped long before they invented new cards specifically for dealing with faerie decks... and players that would complain about the developers ACTUALLY TAKING CARE of the game are the "whiners" that need to be worried about far more than the ones who are "whining" that the developers just drop each block like an unwanted loaf and don't look back until the next block.
That's a long time to have deck designs ruled by a handful of ridiculous cards in a 5 viable deck meta.
I'm just saying. Video game devs patch their games when something is out of hand, see any RTS in the past 10 years and even most multiplayer FPS games. Why should Magic's devs just leave it?
The expected response is "Because magic is making money and doing fine!" ... but that's the retort of someone who hasn't even paused to consider whether the game's improvement would earn more money or not, as more players might stick with the game. Yesterday 04:10 PM
How about we just start handing out first round bye's to anyone with a 1600 or lower rating huh? Or how about the worse your rating is, the more promo cards you get in the mail? /laugh you're encouraging people to build decks and strategies that do not hinge on their meta or what the current best decks are. You're basically making the same mistake the education system is making by telling everyone you're a special child and if you want to build an all snake deck then by jove you can do it and win with it! Yay! High five everyone!
The amount of work these people put into the sets is beyond your realm of understanding. Whereas video game companies have hordes of people testing on test realms, the ability to moniter all gameplay, make changes at a very short notice, and have a playerbase that reports when others are doing something naughty wotc has none of this.
They have to make sure that none of the new cards they print interact harmfully with older cards printed not just for t2, but all the way back to vintage. They're trying to balance all the sets with each new release, answering problems in both older sets and newer sets. They try as hard as they can to stay away from the banhammer because whether you care to ever believe it or not that would indicate a failure in the set and a severe flaw in the current state of t2.
Disciple of the vault was one such flaw. If anyone was around during that block they can agree it was completely misreable. You played one of two decks and that was it. Your special little flower decks had no chance at all, go home. As such they took appropriate action and layed the banhammer down. Fae has not been even near the same kind of overpowering force in t2. It's difficult to beat, mind numbing in it's repetitive behavior, and very consistent but it's not unbeatable.
That ideal is not an impossibility. Nobody would ever expect that every deck you can dream up would be viable. Nobody is asking for anything magical...
Then what exactly are you stating. There's already 5 decks that all compete for top positions, with another 8ish knocking around and doing some damage at competitive level events. Just how many decks do you think should be competitive then? I mean if right now is not enough (obv hacks) and everything being viable is too much (silly magical people) then what is the required norm? It just sounds like your ranting arguing a dead point here.
It's supply and demand, so the curve of price would be distributed more, there'd be better competition, and instead of having to make up crap about how wizards "designs for multiple types of players" ... "dinner table players" "spikes" "johnnies" as an EXCUSE for bad game design... just be honest.
If you haven't noticed you are of the minority here judge. Most players enjoy these sets, love the card design, and think they are doing a very well job lately. Our points are just as valid as yours judge and the way you repeatedly brush aside opposing views by stating they are cop outs, old arguments, etc is very narrow minded of you. There is no proof that the changes you rant about suggest would help the game. Right now wotc is doing just fine and I've been noticing a growth in the playerbase in my area.
Of course we all want cards for cheaper, but hey, you can't have everything (I put this in here so you can quote it and state I'm coping out and adhering to the herd mentality judge)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing in T2: Esper Control
Currently Playing in Modern: U/W Control
"How about we just start handing out first round bye's to anyone with a 1600 or lower rating huh? Or how about the worse your rating is, the more promo cards you get in the mail? /laugh you're encouraging people to build decks and strategies that do not hinge on their meta or what the current best decks are. You're basically making the same mistake the education system is making by telling everyone you're a special child and if you want to build an all snake deck then by jove you can do it and win with it! Yay! High five everyone!"
How did you wrangle my words into an argument for telling bad players they are good?
That's not even remotely the case.
Maybe I've been too complex. I'll shorten it for you, so that maybe you won't stumble over my argument again, as you have multiple times now.
Here goes:
Proposal to WOTC: Stop making so many sub-optimal cards. (Alternatively: Stop obviating viable cards with new OP cards each block, however you want it)
Reasoning: More flavor to decks that can win instead of clone-deck syndrome. More useful cards and cheaper decks = more players and more fun. Instead of a few expensive cards and 1 $400 deck, you can have 4 decks with a total cost of $400 and they are all competitive with one another, use wholly different strategies, and maybe... just maybe... the top 8 at the next World's would be 8 different decks (hold on, I know that blows your mind and makes the game unplayable for you, but just imagine it for a second)
But you see, that's all fantasycraft, about "how it should be". In reality, if you read the original post, and subsequent ones, that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about banned and restricted lists for T2 as an alternative to WOTC having to make drastic changes to card designs or continuing to design disinteresting (or solved) meta-games. If you disagree that it's needed ... or you think the game is perfect, go play it rather than responding to something that is somehow diametrically opposed to you and the game that you're a raving fan of. Meanwhile, people will vent and talk about the game here in the forum (for discussion!) and since it will obviously have no effect on WOTC, you have nothing to worry about.
"Oops, we didn't think about how that card was going to be abused with that other card, well, maybe we'll make that a 1-of and it won't be a problem" ... if used on bitterblossom, people who didn't want to play faeries last worlds would have been opened up to a bunch of other possibilities, because, as a "Spike"... all you generally get to do is copy other deck ideas (or derive them on your own, it's not rocket science that 2 mana for unlimited 1/1 tokens with an easily reinforced type is a no brainer, it was the first deck I built after glancing over the cards, without even knowing the 2k8 worlds results).
I'm not saying it's the only card that should have had that done to it. I'm not saying it's even an issue now with conflux. I'm just saying that on the current course of "drop a block and walk off and fix it next block" style designing that WOTC is using creates a really stupid and disinteresting top level game, and that top level game reaches into the dining room in bits and pieces that are injurious even to casual play.
Oh, and yes, you are using herd mentality, congratulations. "you're the minority" is a cry most often heard from the lips of those without solid critical thinking abilities. There's a reason for that. I'm afraid it's partially genetic ;).
"The amount of work these people put into the sets is beyond your realm of understanding. Whereas video game companies have hordes of people testing on test realms, the ability to moniter all gameplay, make changes at a very short notice, and have a playerbase that reports when others are doing something naughty wotc has none of this."
How is it beyond my realm of understanding, obviously it is completed sometime between the previous set of cards coming out and the newest, by people who follow a formula for building and costing cards. WOTC can "patch" MTG just as easily as any video game developer can "patch" his or her game. DCI tourney from the smallest to the largest are all they need to look at to see patterns emerging... it's what the players at world's do, anyway... and restricting or banning cards is the equivalent of a patch to a video game. "Oh, the AK-47 does too much damage?, It's obvious because it's all anyone uses now. Let's cut that back %15. Donezo." That's how video games do it. "Oh, every deck is a bitterblossom deck for the past year, let's cut that back by restricting a card" = a more dynamic, living, fun, and honestly competitive game... figuring out a broken strat is pretty easy to do, but figuring out the most optimal unbanned strat in a moderately policed game environment requires more dedication and skill.
One other thing: "Ban bitterblossom, go ahead.
Spikes will still shut out the more casual players in the lower rounds."
Nobody is making this about player types. Get your ego out of the game and put your mind in it for 5 seconds. More competitive players will always win (unless they get mana screwed), yes, but wouldn't it be better if they could win in 20-30 different ways instead of 4-5?
Answer this question before I make an argument, so that I know I'm making the correct argument.
You want Wizards to create cards that are all approximately on the same power level, thus creating a metagame that has even matchups across the board, against all the other "competitive decks"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to a_passer_bye for an incredible signature banner!
How about for a variant format, "Salary Cap"? Each deck has some limit on its book value, maybe $100-150. I'd play that format, it would be a fun and competitive format.
I just want to say that not every deck is a Bitterblossom deck and not all the top decks have the same strategy. Just look at Bant, aggro mid-range control and has a wide varient of lists. Now look at RDW, Blightning, Faeries, Esperlark and R/w Lark, and Jund Ramp, and Jund Tokens and Black/White Tokens.
Maybe I've been too complex. I'll shorten it for you, so that maybe you won't stumble over my argument again, as you have multiple times now.
Your arguments are circular, repetitive, old, and simple judge. There's nothing difficult or complex to comprehend. You would like there to be more viable strategies for competitive deck building.
My viewpoint is that in recent tournament environments wotc actually has made more cards competitive viable thus letting the environment fill with more and more kinds of victorious decks. The fact that many of them play a few key cards (reveilark, cryptic command, bitterblossom, etc.) is negligable since many of the decks have very distinct win conditions/strategies. While I won't say they are each completely different (b/w tokens, kithkin, and r/w lark are all very different decks but all use similar strategies to win) I think this shows that creative thinking is becoming more effective in the format, not less effective.
Reasoning: More flavor to decks that can win instead of clone-deck syndrome. More useful cards and cheaper decks = more players and more fun. Instead of a few expensive cards and 1 $400 deck, you can have 4 decks with a total cost of $400 and they are all competitive with one another, use wholly different strategies, and maybe... just maybe... the top 8 at the next World's would be 8 different decks (hold on, I know that blows your mind and makes the game unplayable for you, but just imagine it for a second)
Pro tour kyoto top 8 decks (in order) - cruel control, b/w tokens, boat brew, dark bant, vengeant weenie, boat brew, b/w tokens, u/b fae.
Maybe that's not eight vibrantly different and distinctive decks. But it is five vibrantly different and distinctive decks. Expecting everyone to play absolutely different decks at a competitive level is unreasonable. Pro's will go with what works best/appeals to them. Usually they will form up into a playtest group and all decide unanimously on a deck to bring to a major level competitive event.
But you see, that's all fantasycraft, about "how it should be". In reality, if you read the original post, and subsequent ones, that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about banned and restricted lists for T2 as an alternative to WOTC having to make drastic changes to card designs or continuing to design disinteresting (or solved) meta-games. If you disagree that it's needed ... or you think the game is perfect, go play it rather than responding to something that is somehow diametrically opposed to you and the game that you're a raving fan of. Meanwhile, people will vent and talk about the game here in the forum (for discussion!) and since it will obviously have no effect on WOTC, you have nothing to worry about.
Okay, and I'm voicing my opinion that banning cards in T2 (as it is right now) is not necessary and would be damaging to the environment. Banning popular tournament staples would only serve to hurt the competitive environment, shake the overall confidence of the players in magic, and while please some players would also drive other players away. Banning cards in T2 only becomes necessary when one single deck or card dominates to the point no other strategies/decks are viable.
If you expect an equal amount of respect (in this discussion) then accusing other people of either A) being ravingfans B) Being a part of the herd or C) lacking intelligence is counterproductive. I have tried to make it a point to not resort to petty insults or inane mocking in thread discussion but I have to admit I've failed in this in previous posts I've had in response to you.
Expecting me to just go away if I don't agree with you however shows that you are not actually seeking intelligent dialogue or discussion. If you want to only discuss with people that completely agree with your viewpoint then opening up a thread on a forum is probobly not the best idea.
"Oops, we didn't think about how that card was going to be abused with that other card, well, maybe we'll make that a 1-of and it won't be a problem" ... if used on bitterblossom, people who didn't want to play faeries last worlds would have been opened up to a bunch of other possibilities, because, as a "Spike"... all you generally get to do is copy other deck ideas (or derive them on your own, it's not rocket science that 2 mana for unlimited 1/1 tokens with an easily reinforced type is a no brainer, it was the first deck I built after glancing over the cards, without even knowing the 2k8 worlds results).
Why is restricting bitterblossom necessary for healthy T2 play. The reasons you state for restricting/banning it is because everyone was playing it yes? No one puts a gun to these people's heads and tells them to play that card or that deck. There are other decks that are competitive viable that are not fae.
With most competitive (non sport) activities there are strategies, equipment, vehicles, etc. that usually place better than others. Expecting total creative freedom while being able to consistently win competitive level events is not realistic. This is true more so in magic and other tcg's because of the limited selection of cards to choose from. In addition you have to factor in rotating formats to encourage new and different strategies and the cards purposely put into sets to appease the casual crowd (8/8 indestructable rawr beasts that will never see competitive play but will make many a kitchen table player very happy).
I'm not saying it's the only card that should have had that done to it. I'm not saying it's even an issue now with conflux. I'm just saying that on the current course of "drop a block and walk off and fix it next block" style designing that WOTC is using creates a really stupid and disinteresting top level game, and that top level game reaches into the dining room in bits and pieces that are injurious even to casual play.
What do you suggest as a solution to this? They are under the gun to produce new sets every three months that interact well with older sets in every format. They have to try their best to make sure there are no Broken cards that will completely dominate the format. In addition they try to create cards and mechanics that appeal to each kind of player. The kitchen table player, fnm kids, and the pro tour people.
Oh, and yes, you are using herd mentality, congratulations. "you're the minority" is a cry most often heard from the lips of those without solid critical thinking abilities. There's a reason for that. I'm afraid it's partially genetic ;).
Being unceasingly hostile towards people with differing opinions isn't actually an admirable trait either. I'm pretty sure it's a clear indication of low tolerance and an inherent inability to compromise and intellectualize outside your normal scope of thinking.
You state you disagree with their
drop a block and walk off and fix it next block
plan but in a following paragraph this is what you post.
How is it beyond my realm of understanding, obviously it is completed sometime between the previous set of cards coming out and the newest, by people who follow a formula for building and costing cards. WOTC can "patch" MTG just as easily as any video game developer can "patch" his or her game. DCI tourney from the smallest to the largest are all they need to look at to see patterns emerging... it's what the players at world's do, anyway... and restricting or banning cards is the equivalent of a patch to a video game. "Oh, the AK-47 does too much damage?, It's obvious because it's all anyone uses now. Let's cut that back %15. Donezo." That's how video games do it. "Oh, every deck is a bitterblossom deck for the past year, let's cut that back by restricting a card" = a more dynamic, living, fun, and honestly competitive game... figuring out a broken strat is pretty easy to do, but figuring out the most optimal unbanned strat in a moderately policed game environment requires more dedication and skill.
The way they have decided to fix problems in standard is by printing answer cards in the next block. WotC strives to keep from banning cards as it hurts the format and discourages players from buying product for fear of it becoming illegal. Instead they just try to balance problems in the following block and usually they do that in the form of easily atttainable commons/uncommons so everyone can have access to these answers. I LIKE this mode of thinking. Because they don't have the philosophy of "screw it, people are complaining just restrict/ban it" they are motivated to higher levels of perfection and balance with each set.
Nobody is making this about player types. Get your ego out of the game and put your mind in it for 5 seconds. More competitive players will always win (unless they get mana screwed), yes, but wouldn't it be better if they could win in 20-30 different ways instead of 4-5?
Go look in the competitive section. There are currently 15 decks listed in there. There are also a couple of decks in the decks for critique section that have recently placed in some high level tournaments. With the card selection available this tells me that the format right now is healthy and varied.
My ego isn't on the line and my mind is in this Discussion. How about you stop resorting to trivializing people's viewpoints if they differ from your own as a method of trying to "win" an argument.
"Your arguments are circular, repetitive, old, and simple judge."
Circular - having the same beginning and end point, check, magic is currently boring with a bunch of lame cards, that's where I'll begin and where I'll end until next block. I accept circular.
Repetitive - If 6 people reply, I will repeat myself 6 different ways to them to reinforce and dismantle counterclaims. Check. I'll take that one too.
Old - Yes, my arguments are nothing new or ground-shattering, neither are your counters...
Simple - Indeed I'm not throwing anything mind-blowing. I am not a crazy genius out to fix an overfunded company's design problem. I'm just a guy who used to think this game was a lot more fun and would like to see some design work put into it that doesn't stink of absolute laziness.
"You state you disagree with their
Quote:
drop a block and walk off and fix it next block
plan but in a following paragraph this is what you post."
The above portion of your previous post coupled with what you said right afterwards does seem to actually indicate that you aren't understanding what I'm saying about the game.
I presented a complete counter to a previous (poorly thought up) argument about "video game designers" having some kind of magical advantage for patching their games. WOTC can answer any format problems with a line on a website, whereas game devs actually have to change scripts and figure out good patch distribution strategies.
Answering poor card design in the next block is terrible. Banning cards, yeah, it sucks that you get a card every now and then and think "well, I can't use this in a tourney deck, or I'm limited to 1..." The benefits, however, outweigh those detriments. It's easy to let your imagination run wild and imagine getting a booster pack with 12 unplayable cards, but that's silly and not what anyone is suggesting.
I think you're confusing my statements with "banning cards would be completely awesome" when in fact, I'm saying that it's a necessary evil to maintain a healthy gamestate.
You ARE aware that you can name 3 decks that comprised over 50% of World's 2008, right? 1/4th of all decks on that field being Faeries? The point of my argument is to present a case that would stop that level of brokenness from continuing unhindered.
You can counter with "it's not broken" all you want, but if you really believe that the game has not been in a declining state, and that the addition of mythic rares and such have not been bad, the only thing I can really say is "let's look back in a couple of years from now."
Then we'll be able to see the impact it had... I'm just saying before the reduction of block size, and before the addition of mythic rares, the game did well for many, many years... and with the current trends, if not reversed or somehow fixed, or more careful card design and/or banning policy, I do not foresee a fun, playable future for the game.
We've seen how a handful of broken cards can push a tourney down to 50% = 3 decks (again if you think that's what the spirit of top level play should be, kudos, but you and I completely disagree on fundamental levels as to what competition and games are/should be, so, yeah).
Sorry if I'm too "circular", "repetitive" etc. Go do something else if that's the case. It can be discussed, but we really need better evidence of health than that copy/paste kyoto top 8 deck list for the health of the game.
So how many viable deck types would you like there to be in that case? You seem to keep stating you want to see this change, but you're unwilling to define what the end result your looking for is. Keep in mind I'm looking for specifics, we've shown that recent top 8's have a least 5 very different styles of deck, so just how varied do you want things to be?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Generation 9: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
Judge, correct me if I'm wrong, what you are really complaining about is the fact that 5 of the top 8 decks from worlds were fae. You are saying the game was stagnant at that point in time, but you don't think it is as bad with the current standard.
Worlds took place just 2 months after the rotation of 4 sets from the environment. Are you expecting one set from the new block to make up for that fact? 250 cards are supposed to make up for nearly 1000? Of course Lorwyn block cards are going to make up the lions share of the Worlds top eight. At that time fae was the strongest known strategy. But many of the new archetypes showed up around or just after that time.
Also, why would they have banned or restricted anything in that standard format when they already knew they had more answers comming in Conflux? Then again there is that thing about 250 cards having to make up for nearly 1000. But you seem to think they are just dropping a block and walking away never to look back. WOTC is always looking at the game and how it is played. This game changes about every 3 months when a new set comes out. Some sets are stronger than others, some strategies are stronger than others. That is the way the game is and has been.
Please stop complaining about a three month period that has already passed.
Pro tour Kyoto - 5 Different decks top 8 (1 fae)
Pro tour hollywood - 7 different decks top 8 (1 fae)
Pro tour copenhagen - 5 different decks top 8 (no fae)
Grand prix buenos aires - 7 different decks top 8 (1 fae)
Grand prix krakow - 5 different decks top 8 (U/G fae! XD)
These are some of the major T2 competitions from the last two years. At these competitions there were only 3 u/b fae top 8's and each time they placed 8th. In addition at these events only B/G elves won more than one competition. At each of the other ones a different deck came out on top. Also taking into account format shift most of these top 8's had vibrantly different decks from each other.
I'm not sure what better examples to give you that the format is healthy and changing. If your local fnm is stale then I feel for you but it seems the highest level of competitive play is alive and well with creative decks.
(These examples (except for one) are all when lorywn/morningtide was alive and legal and fae could have been played)
I'm just saying. Video game devs patch their games when something is out of hand, see any RTS in the past 10 years and even most multiplayer FPS games. Why should Magic's devs just leave it?
presented a complete counter to a previous (poorly thought up) argument about "video game designers" having some kind of magical advantage for patching their games. WOTC can answer any format problems with a line on a website, whereas game devs actually have to change scripts and figure out good patch distribution strategies.
That was your decision to compare magic to video games, not mine.
Answering poor card design in the next block is terrible. Banning cards, yeah, it sucks that you get a card every now and then and think "well, I can't use this in a tourney deck, or I'm limited to 1..." The benefits, however, outweigh those detriments. It's easy to let your imagination run wild and imagine getting a booster pack with 12 unplayable cards, but that's silly and not what anyone is suggesting.
If you want a format where the developers can decide at a moments notice to ban/restrict a card simply because part of the playerbase is unhappy with it then it sounds like you are attempting to squash competitive play rather than encourage it.
Even if you banned all the key cards for Two of the top five decks right now another two would rise up in their place. When that happens people would feel it's a sell out to build those two decks and would refuse to do it. After a while those two decks would start dominating fnm play creating unhappiness in the playerbase. In an attempt to compensate wotc would then restrict/ban cards in Those decks.
The current policy of wotc is to design cards to print in following blocks to compensate for overpowering decks in the format/support other less powerful decks in the process. They also stick with the two year rotation plan to keep the environment from becoming stale or reptitive for any great length of time.
Answering poor card design in the next block is terrible. Banning cards, yeah, it sucks that you get a card every now and then and think "well, I can't use this in a tourney deck, or I'm limited to 1..." The benefits, however, outweigh those detriments. It's easy to let your imagination run wild and imagine getting a booster pack with 12 unplayable cards, but that's silly and not what anyone is suggesting.
Why is it terrible? I think that it's far worse to run the risk of opening obsolete cards in packs rather than having to buy cards from the new set that answer problems I'm having with decks consisting of cards from older sets. One solution (printing new solution cards) encourages myself and other to buy product while the other (banning/restricting cards) discourages people from buying product. If they have the 1 of a certain rare card that is restricted, they have no reason to purchase more product. I don't think you are advocating banning tons of cards, but even the banning/restricting of a few would drive down sales rather than boost them.
I think you're confusing my statements with "banning cards would be completely awesome" when in fact, I'm saying that it's a necessary evil to maintain a healthy gamestate.
It's not a necessary evil. The top 8's I cited prove that the game is alive and changing. If peoples local fnm's is clogged up with cliche decks then that's unfortunate. But I highly doubt banning/restricting cards on a worldwide scale to solve stale local play is an intelligent decision.
You ARE aware that you can name 3 decks that comprised over 50% of World's 2008, right? 1/4th of all decks on that field being Faeries? The point of my argument is to present a case that would stop that level of brokenness from continuing unhindered.
You can counter with "it's not broken" all you want, but if you really believe that the game has not been in a declining state, and that the addition of mythic rares and such have not been bad, the only thing I can really say is "let's look back in a couple of years from now."
Taking a view point of "let's look back in a couple of years from now" is a very passive way to argue your point. A couple of years from now I'll have forgotten all about you and will be playing another new and interesting set from wotc. As far as the here and now is concerned there is no cause for banning/restricting cards and I haven't seen you actually give sufficient proof to argue otherwise. The playerbase is growing, not shrinking.
Besides, I think wotc has learned to compensate for a few disgruntled players deciding to quit after so many years of business.
We've seen how a handful of broken cards can push a tourney down to 50% = 3 decks (again if you think that's what the spirit of top level play should be, kudos, but you and I completely disagree on fundamental levels as to what competition and games are/should be, so, yeah).
Sorry if I'm too "circular", "repetitive" etc. Go do something else if that's the case. It can be discussed, but we really need better evidence of health than that copy/paste kyoto top 8 deck list for the health of the game.
And besides 2008 worlds most high level competitive play has a pretty varied deck base. Taking into account many pro players playtest together and have a limited card pool to choose from it shows how creative top level play is.
As far as the spirit of top level play is concerned I believe that the person that tries the hardest, playtests the most, and exhibits the highest level of skill and deck construction should win. The little changes each pro makes in their decks to try and make their deck more competitive is amazing. It's not the same as running a rogue deck but they rarely give up and just copy a decklist. At least not the good ones.
Once again, are you looking for a healthy discussion or do you just want a bunch of like-minded people to agree with you? I'm getting a little tired of your arguments ending with "if you don't like it go away." Sounds like a cop out to me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing in T2: Esper Control
Currently Playing in Modern: U/W Control
There is a lot of difference between "if you don't like it go away" and "if you think the game is fine, I'm not really addressing you."
The point of the thread wasn't specifically to debate people with wildly different ideas. It was to criticize the game. If you have zero criticisms of the game, that's being a fanboy. If you have criticisms but are unwilling to share them with a criticism thread, and instead would like to argue against other criticisms of the game that you don't agree with, you're starting to border on just being an argumentative troll.
However, the prospect of discussing the criticisms of the game and arguing about them is welcome, too, since it's a forum and I believe in free speech (few compromises, everywhere, etc), I have no problem going back and forth with you on the issue.
Please, though, stop pretending like I'm the only person who criticizes this game. I am the type of person who criticizes even the things I greatly enjoy, in a completely objective manner. I've also played a whole, whole lot of games, and when elements of a game that I play begin to go sour, I generally speak up about it, or ask questions to make sure I don't just misunderstand.
There is no "number of viable deck types that would make the game great" but I know it's more than 6 or 7 when the possibly deck types are in the thousands.
Let's be very clear:
Deck Type - A description of a deck that highlights the core functionality of the deck, with mana color. Example: Mono Black Control.
Viable Deck Type - A description of a deck that has a realistic chance, given the right cards and player, to win Tournaments, up to and including World's.
Sub-Optimal - Used of cards and decks to describe cards and decks that have almost zero probability of appearing on a table at top-level play.
It is my belief that there should be very few sub-optimal cards, and many more viable deck types. I think it's very obvious that this would make the game more enjoyable from deck design to table play. If you disagree with something that simple, I'd need to see a really good/logical/supported argument before I could nod and say "ah, maybe you're right". If you agree with that statement but think banned and restricted lists are bad, that's cool too, but, please, let us in on what you think could be done to help the game.
The point of the thread wasn't specifically to debate people with wildly different ideas. It was to criticize the game. If you have zero criticisms of the game, that's being a fanboy. If you have criticisms but are unwilling to share them with a criticism thread, and instead would like to argue against other criticisms of the game that you don't agree with, you're starting to border on just being an argumentative troll.
Being content with how the game is currently running doesn't make me a fanboy. I'm realistic and I believe right now barring a few minor changes the game is running as well as I could expect it to. They aren't designing magic to make me, dreadedsunset, happy. They are designing magic to make the majority of players happy.
It doesn't make me a troll to have differing opinions than you and to challenge your statements.
Please, though, stop pretending like I'm the only person who criticizes this game. I am the type of person who criticizes even the things I greatly enjoy, in a completely objective manner. I've also played a whole, whole lot of games, and when elements of a game that I play begin to go sour, I generally speak up about it, or ask questions to make sure I don't just misunderstand.
I don't believe you are the only one who criticizes the game. I do believe you are the only one posting so far who I can have an extended debate with and who's idea of how to "solve" said problems I disagree with.
There is no "number of viable deck types that would make the game great" but I know it's more than 6 or 7 when the possibly deck types are in the thousands.
Well, only 8 decks can top 8 obviously so the fact that there are usually 5-7 different decks is pretty awesome.
In this format, T2, the options are pretty limited. There's only so many combinations of cards that have the adequate mana curve, removal, tricks, threats, card advantage, etc. that really make the cut. It's not even necessarily because they are printing sub-optimal cards that cause this. In many instances the cards just don't interact the way you hope they would and you switch to another interaction that works better albeit even if it's more popular. Some card interactions are just inherently better and become popular as a product of this, not the other way around.
Expecting there to be thousands of decks that are competitive viable in an environment with only so many cards isn't realistic.
If you really want to look at top level competitive decks however you could argue that since none are card for card alike that they are all different decks utilizing slightly different strategies to attempt to gain a strategic advantage. In that perspective there are alot of different decks out there.
It is my belief that there should be very few sub-optimal cards, and many more viable deck types. I think it's very obvious that this would make the game more enjoyable from deck design to table play. If you disagree with something that simple, I'd need to see a really good/logical/supported argument before I could nod and say "ah, maybe you're right". If you agree with that statement but think banned and restricted lists are bad, that's cool too, but, please, let us in on what you think could be done to help the game.
Something you have to consider - they are not just gearing these cards for competitive play or for kitchen table play. They are designing these cards for both. Some of these sub-optimal cards are included solely so people who just enjoy casting 7/7 tramplers for 7 will be happy. What you see as printing sub-optimal cards, I see as trying to appease a player base that I am not part of.
Would I like there to be 100% competitive level cards in the environment? sure. But,
1) I think that would make non-competitive players unhappy since usually the most competitive cards are unnapealing flavor-wise and can be boring to play with.
2) Is unrealistic since wotc can not know absolutely all the multitudes of ways that the players will interact with the cards and which cards they eventually will shun as being sub-optimal. They can attempt to anticipate but in the end they try their best.
3) When expected to put out 4 or more sets a year that interact cleanly with every other set printed I just don't think they have the time or manpower to do what your suggesting.
To print more optimal cards in the time frame stated they would most likely end up printing broken combos they didn't anticipate and be forced to issue more card restrictions/banning for t2 and other formats. This would not have a positive effect on the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing in T2: Esper Control
Currently Playing in Modern: U/W Control
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The reasoning I posted is entirely valid. Not every deck in Standard can run Mutavault! Vault has little place in any decks running more than two colors. It's best place remains in tribal decks of two colors or less. WOTC found that Rishadan Port, on the other hand, was showing up in, as I posted earlier, nearly every deck. Resource denial of this type was not color dependant and, therefore, was found to warp the environment. As Chrome homura said, Vault is just a 2/2 creature...though, one that can dodge sorcery speed removal. If it was as Format warping as Port, then why isn't it found in every Tier One deck in Standard? Because it's not Format warping, that's why. You cannot compare the two lands, since the only thing they have in common is the abiility to tap for colorless mana. Oh, and their ridiculously high price during their respective times in Standard. (Port was selling for almost $20 a pop nearly ten years ago!)
Courtesy is contagious. Go out and catch some.
<Sigh> My quest for intelligent life on the internet continues.
If you don't like the way the game is, nobody is forcing you to play it.
It's really not that hard - just stop playing the game.
It's probably not going to change because this is the way it's been for years now, and Magic as a hobby is thriving. I don't see a need to change much about this game, since whatever Wizards is doing is working fine for me, and apparently for a lot of others as well.
"Death - an outmoded concept. We sleep, and we change."
Awesome sig and avatar by Mr. Stuff over at High~Light Studios!
Actually, I'm not the one complaining. In fact I was actually giving a valid reason for "some people" (not me) to feel that the Standard metagame has grown stagnate or that some cards need restriction. I personally love the current environment because I know what I am going to be facing on a day-to-day basis because the wiggle room for rogue decks to perform well without a certain set of cards is very dismal. And good catch, yes I meant Head Games.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=5401186#post5401186
I never said it needs to be banned. Just that you understated its obviously broken power. 4 mana counter? not to bad considering at worst its counter a spell draw a card, which would make it the best counterspell in standard. 4 mana bounce? sounds good to me since im not lossing CA. BLUE FOG sounds offcolor and pretty damn broken to me even at 4 and that doesnt even mention the you cant block i swing for leathal part of the fog. which happens ALOT in esper lark. All in all the cards broken in Type 2. Even when misplayed its a 2-1. Rather then see it banned i would have liked to see it more in balance with the rest of the set. That could go for afew other cards in Type 2 like BB, Lark.
That is so narrow-minded a view it's scary. "I like it, so there's nothing wrong. If you don't agree, stop playing."
Look, no one here is influencing Wizard's decisions in anything, so it's all just debate, which is healthy. Trying to push out people that aren't on your bandwagon is the fastest way to find yourself riding alone.
That aside, there was a point where I thought Bitterblossom or Mistbind Clique should see a banhammer. There was a time, not too long ago, someone on these forums put it very succinctly: t1 Ancestral Vision and t2 Bitterblossom = inevitability. Despite losing Ancestral Vision, faeries was still ridiculously hard to beat, and the apologies we got from Wizards in the forms of Guttural Response, Vexing Shusher, and Raking Canopy had to go one step farther to Volcanic Fallout and Scattershot Archer, due in large part to 5 of the top 8's before Conflux were STILL fae.
Wizards answered the problem with new cards. While I don't necessarily agree with the idea, it solved the stagnation of the meta. Exalted, Boat Brew, 5cc, and RDW are all vying for top spots, and right now the pilot is the biggest determining factor in the win, so I'm with the majority here in agreeing banhammers should stay out of standard.
That said, I see where the guy was coming from. Wizards is constantly telling you about all the options for exciting new decks in the next set. They reveal 8 different things they have going on, then spend the next 6 months reporting people winning tourneys with only 2 of them. Tell me that Treefolk Aggro was ever on power level with Kithkin and Fae, or that Austere Command was made to stand side by side with Profane and Crytpic.
I think what this guy is trying to say is that if there was more balance across the board in these expansions, he wouldn't feel so shafted. He doesn't want to play Faeries. Neither do I. I had a 5cc I was using for a while, and I felt guilty ever time I dropped a Cryptic on a guy, knowing he was screwed because he wasn't in color to do a single thing about it. I'd much rather have, using the previous example, a Treefolk that was 2cc uncounterable/cip destroy target enchantment against fae so I could use the current block's cards without being boxed into a corner and being told what to play, and still be competetive. There used to be Elemental Blasts and White/Black Knights to make sure you always had a foil to whatever you were playing.
Find a competetive rogue, like someone else suggested. I play MimicRock, and I'd truthfully rather be at 3-1 with that than 4-0 with what everyone else in my meta is running.
Oh, I was definitely *****ing my heart out when they not only announced it, but then released cards like Mistbind Clique. Block was a joke as well. (and Bitterblossom probably SHOULD have been banned in block)
Regardless, the format is fine. I'll be happy when tribal leaves though, I never liked it's cookie cutter deck building, or it's sheer power over any other mechanics in the surrounding blocks (for it's life in standard anyways).
Art Page
Alters for sale
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=5401186#post5401186
I do not want to see a new banned or restricted list for type 2 play ever. I like playing against the meta with uber power cards i'm not scared.
hey talon we are gonna see a deck list when you get done with G/B elves right
As much as you may want to know the new tech in Standard, this is not the place to ask for it.
4 Gilt-leaf Palace
4 Llanowar Wastes
4 Mutavault
5 Forest
3 Swamp
3 Treetop Village
Creatures 21
3 Chameleon Colossus
3 Scattershot Archer
3 Elvish Champion
4 Imperious Perfect
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Wren's Run Vanquisher
3 Garruk Wildspeaker
2 Profane Command
4 Thoughtseize
3 Necrogenesis
3 Eyeblight's Ending
1 Nameless Inversion
3 Cloudthresher
3 Infest
4 Kitchen Finks
2 Nameless Inversion
3 Scepter of Fugue
This has nothing to do with the thread at hand.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=5401186#post5401186
This is sensible.
I still think a healthy list of cards to be banned each set would be a very simple way to keep entire strategies from fading into disuse.
Why are there even cards for milling and graveyard play, or any other various strategies in the game, if only "super mana-efficient creatures that hit hard combined with crippling" is going to seriously be just about the only viable strategy?
Why go through the trouble of making alternate win condition decks a possibility, and then turn around and make cards that kill someone so fast that it is statistically non-viable to even try alt-wins?
The reality: Only a few deck types are viable T1.
The ideal reality: Almost all deck types are viable T1.
That ideal is not an impossibility. Nobody would ever expect that every deck you can dream up would be viable. Nobody is asking for anything magical...
But honestly, why design combos and strategies on cards that might as well have a zippo taken to them?
Simple restrictions, like, "You can only have 1 or 2 bitterblossoms per deck" would have helped long before they invented new cards specifically for dealing with faerie decks... and players that would complain about the developers ACTUALLY TAKING CARE of the game are the "whiners" that need to be worried about far more than the ones who are "whining" that the developers just drop each block like an unwanted loaf and don't look back until the next block.
That's a long time to have deck designs ruled by a handful of ridiculous cards in a 5 viable deck meta.
I'm just saying. Video game devs patch their games when something is out of hand, see any RTS in the past 10 years and even most multiplayer FPS games. Why should Magic's devs just leave it?
The expected response is "Because magic is making money and doing fine!" ... but that's the retort of someone who hasn't even paused to consider whether the game's improvement would earn more money or not, as more players might stick with the game.
I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with the game - it obviously has its flaws and I know that they're there. I'm just being realistic - I honestly don't think things will change much at all. The system's not perfect, but it works for many people and is likely going to be this way for a while. Why continue complaining when you can just pick up another game?
What? No, that's a stupid idea. Why would Wizards even bother printing these cards if they're just going to get banned? Banning and restricting cards is not done to increase diversity so that your terrible rogue deck can compete, it is done to eliminate cards that are problematic to the format. No such cards exist in Standard.
Because the game is not made only for those who play in tournaments - Wizards caters to many audiences, including casual kitchen-table players who might not care so much about what is the new hotness in Standard. Perhaps you should consider joining their ranks if you have problems with the way competitive Magic works.
So in your imaginary world, there is no such thing as "tier 1" or tiers at all because every deck is equally good. Hooray! Candy and ice cream for everyone too! And hey, what's the point of trying to make a new type of deck in this world, since no matter what I do, it will only be as good as every other deck and there will be no way to attack the metagame! Joyous! Way to stifle innovative metagaming.
I don't think the improvement would earn more money for Wizards - chase rares are what drive the sale and opening of product. Banning/restricting chase rares that are powerful makes them worth less, and thus less people will want them/less copies will be needed, driving the price down, causing dealers to open less product, and ... well, you get the idea.
Besides, whatever they are doing now seems to be working just fine for them and for a lot of us.
"Death - an outmoded concept. We sleep, and we change."
Awesome sig and avatar by Mr. Stuff over at High~Light Studios!
You apparently missed where I said this:
"That ideal is not an impossibility. Nobody would ever expect that every deck you can dream up would be viable. Nobody is asking for anything magical... " Which is AMAZING because you pretty much quoted the rest of my post, except for the part where I already said the antithesis of your argument. Convenient?
Also, putting words into my mouth doesn't make you correct.
Furthermore, "Wizards caters to all kinds of gamers" argument is old. It's a cop-out for bad design.
"Chase Rares" blah blah blah drive their profits, blah blah blah... that doesn't mean that they have to obviate entire decktypes to still be a good, rare card... plus, what does it matter to wizards if we all buy 25 $8 dollar cards instead of 10 $20 cards? Honestly, they don't cost that much to print, and opening up strategies means people will buy MORE CARDS, thus increasing the value of even commons and uncommons.
It's supply and demand, so the curve of price would be distributed more, there'd be better competition, and instead of having to make up crap about how wizards "designs for multiple types of players" ... "dinner table players" "spikes" "johnnies" as an EXCUSE for bad game design... just be honest.
Mark rosewater recently stated in a few articles he wrote that one of the things they strive for in creating these sets are cards that will appeal to each of the three types of players they have seen most magic fans fall into. The timmy, johny, and spike. Instead of trying to make the set appeal across the board to one or the other they try to include big fatties for one type of player, nifty combos for another, and as always spike manages to find a way to stomp on johnies and timmies cake. You can keep on ranting judge but no matter if wizards listened to you or not us spikes are going to keep on stomping on your cake.
Ban bitterblossom, go ahead.
Spikes will still shut out the more casual players in the lower rounds.
It's not the quality or price of cards for most players, it's the rediculous amount of time and effort they put into the game and studying the meta.
I also applaud how you believe in any way shape or form that banning cards will encourage sales of the product. I for one know I would love to buy a box and open up a bunch of cards I can't even play with in any tournament environment. Hurray!
How about we just start handing out first round bye's to anyone with a 1600 or lower rating huh? Or how about the worse your rating is, the more promo cards you get in the mail? /laugh you're encouraging people to build decks and strategies that do not hinge on their meta or what the current best decks are. You're basically making the same mistake the education system is making by telling everyone you're a special child and if you want to build an all snake deck then by jove you can do it and win with it! Yay! High five everyone!
The amount of work these people put into the sets is beyond your realm of understanding. Whereas video game companies have hordes of people testing on test realms, the ability to moniter all gameplay, make changes at a very short notice, and have a playerbase that reports when others are doing something naughty wotc has none of this.
They have to make sure that none of the new cards they print interact harmfully with older cards printed not just for t2, but all the way back to vintage. They're trying to balance all the sets with each new release, answering problems in both older sets and newer sets. They try as hard as they can to stay away from the banhammer because whether you care to ever believe it or not that would indicate a failure in the set and a severe flaw in the current state of t2.
Disciple of the vault was one such flaw. If anyone was around during that block they can agree it was completely misreable. You played one of two decks and that was it. Your special little flower decks had no chance at all, go home. As such they took appropriate action and layed the banhammer down. Fae has not been even near the same kind of overpowering force in t2. It's difficult to beat, mind numbing in it's repetitive behavior, and very consistent but it's not unbeatable.
Then what exactly are you stating. There's already 5 decks that all compete for top positions, with another 8ish knocking around and doing some damage at competitive level events. Just how many decks do you think should be competitive then? I mean if right now is not enough (obv hacks) and everything being viable is too much (silly magical people) then what is the required norm? It just sounds like your
rantingarguing a dead point here.If you haven't noticed you are of the minority here judge. Most players enjoy these sets, love the card design, and think they are doing a very well job lately. Our points are just as valid as yours judge and the way you repeatedly brush aside opposing views by stating they are cop outs, old arguments, etc is very narrow minded of you. There is no proof that the changes you
rant aboutsuggest would help the game. Right now wotc is doing just fine and I've been noticing a growth in the playerbase in my area.Of course we all want cards for cheaper, but hey, you can't have everything (I put this in here so you can quote it and state I'm coping out and adhering to the herd mentality judge)
Currently Playing in Modern: U/W Control
How did you wrangle my words into an argument for telling bad players they are good?
That's not even remotely the case.
Maybe I've been too complex. I'll shorten it for you, so that maybe you won't stumble over my argument again, as you have multiple times now.
Here goes:
Proposal to WOTC: Stop making so many sub-optimal cards. (Alternatively: Stop obviating viable cards with new OP cards each block, however you want it)
Reasoning: More flavor to decks that can win instead of clone-deck syndrome. More useful cards and cheaper decks = more players and more fun. Instead of a few expensive cards and 1 $400 deck, you can have 4 decks with a total cost of $400 and they are all competitive with one another, use wholly different strategies, and maybe... just maybe... the top 8 at the next World's would be 8 different decks (hold on, I know that blows your mind and makes the game unplayable for you, but just imagine it for a second)
But you see, that's all fantasycraft, about "how it should be". In reality, if you read the original post, and subsequent ones, that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about banned and restricted lists for T2 as an alternative to WOTC having to make drastic changes to card designs or continuing to design disinteresting (or solved) meta-games. If you disagree that it's needed ... or you think the game is perfect, go play it rather than responding to something that is somehow diametrically opposed to you and the game that you're a raving fan of. Meanwhile, people will vent and talk about the game here in the forum (for discussion!) and since it will obviously have no effect on WOTC, you have nothing to worry about.
"Oops, we didn't think about how that card was going to be abused with that other card, well, maybe we'll make that a 1-of and it won't be a problem" ... if used on bitterblossom, people who didn't want to play faeries last worlds would have been opened up to a bunch of other possibilities, because, as a "Spike"... all you generally get to do is copy other deck ideas (or derive them on your own, it's not rocket science that 2 mana for unlimited 1/1 tokens with an easily reinforced type is a no brainer, it was the first deck I built after glancing over the cards, without even knowing the 2k8 worlds results).
I'm not saying it's the only card that should have had that done to it. I'm not saying it's even an issue now with conflux. I'm just saying that on the current course of "drop a block and walk off and fix it next block" style designing that WOTC is using creates a really stupid and disinteresting top level game, and that top level game reaches into the dining room in bits and pieces that are injurious even to casual play.
Oh, and yes, you are using herd mentality, congratulations. "you're the minority" is a cry most often heard from the lips of those without solid critical thinking abilities. There's a reason for that. I'm afraid it's partially genetic ;).
"The amount of work these people put into the sets is beyond your realm of understanding. Whereas video game companies have hordes of people testing on test realms, the ability to moniter all gameplay, make changes at a very short notice, and have a playerbase that reports when others are doing something naughty wotc has none of this."
How is it beyond my realm of understanding, obviously it is completed sometime between the previous set of cards coming out and the newest, by people who follow a formula for building and costing cards. WOTC can "patch" MTG just as easily as any video game developer can "patch" his or her game. DCI tourney from the smallest to the largest are all they need to look at to see patterns emerging... it's what the players at world's do, anyway... and restricting or banning cards is the equivalent of a patch to a video game. "Oh, the AK-47 does too much damage?, It's obvious because it's all anyone uses now. Let's cut that back %15. Donezo." That's how video games do it. "Oh, every deck is a bitterblossom deck for the past year, let's cut that back by restricting a card" = a more dynamic, living, fun, and honestly competitive game... figuring out a broken strat is pretty easy to do, but figuring out the most optimal unbanned strat in a moderately policed game environment requires more dedication and skill.
One other thing: "Ban bitterblossom, go ahead.
Spikes will still shut out the more casual players in the lower rounds."
Nobody is making this about player types. Get your ego out of the game and put your mind in it for 5 seconds. More competitive players will always win (unless they get mana screwed), yes, but wouldn't it be better if they could win in 20-30 different ways instead of 4-5?
You want Wizards to create cards that are all approximately on the same power level, thus creating a metagame that has even matchups across the board, against all the other "competitive decks"?
Thanks to a_passer_bye for an incredible signature banner!
Trade with me!
I just want to say that not every deck is a Bitterblossom deck and not all the top decks have the same strategy. Just look at Bant, aggro mid-range control and has a wide varient of lists. Now look at RDW, Blightning, Faeries, Esperlark and R/w Lark, and Jund Ramp, and Jund Tokens and Black/White Tokens.
:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o:o
****!!!!! ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THOSE DECKS ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT LARK!!!!!!
STOP COMPLAINING!!!!
Firstly, a load of caps doesn't make you seem cool or anything. Secondly, don't try to evade the censor - you'll get caught eventually.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=5401186#post5401186
My viewpoint is that in recent tournament environments wotc actually has made more cards competitive viable thus letting the environment fill with more and more kinds of victorious decks. The fact that many of them play a few key cards (reveilark, cryptic command, bitterblossom, etc.) is negligable since many of the decks have very distinct win conditions/strategies. While I won't say they are each completely different (b/w tokens, kithkin, and r/w lark are all very different decks but all use similar strategies to win) I think this shows that creative thinking is becoming more effective in the format, not less effective.
Pro tour kyoto top 8 decks (in order) - cruel control, b/w tokens, boat brew, dark bant, vengeant weenie, boat brew, b/w tokens, u/b fae.
Maybe that's not eight vibrantly different and distinctive decks. But it is five vibrantly different and distinctive decks. Expecting everyone to play absolutely different decks at a competitive level is unreasonable. Pro's will go with what works best/appeals to them. Usually they will form up into a playtest group and all decide unanimously on a deck to bring to a major level competitive event.
Okay, and I'm voicing my opinion that banning cards in T2 (as it is right now) is not necessary and would be damaging to the environment. Banning popular tournament staples would only serve to hurt the competitive environment, shake the overall confidence of the players in magic, and while please some players would also drive other players away. Banning cards in T2 only becomes necessary when one single deck or card dominates to the point no other strategies/decks are viable.
If you expect an equal amount of respect (in this discussion) then accusing other people of either A) being ravingfans B) Being a part of the herd or C) lacking intelligence is counterproductive. I have tried to make it a point to not resort to petty insults or inane mocking in thread discussion but I have to admit I've failed in this in previous posts I've had in response to you.
Expecting me to just go away if I don't agree with you however shows that you are not actually seeking intelligent dialogue or discussion. If you want to only discuss with people that completely agree with your viewpoint then opening up a thread on a forum is probobly not the best idea.
Why is restricting bitterblossom necessary for healthy T2 play. The reasons you state for restricting/banning it is because everyone was playing it yes? No one puts a gun to these people's heads and tells them to play that card or that deck. There are other decks that are competitive viable that are not fae.
With most competitive (non sport) activities there are strategies, equipment, vehicles, etc. that usually place better than others. Expecting total creative freedom while being able to consistently win competitive level events is not realistic. This is true more so in magic and other tcg's because of the limited selection of cards to choose from. In addition you have to factor in rotating formats to encourage new and different strategies and the cards purposely put into sets to appease the casual crowd (8/8 indestructable rawr beasts that will never see competitive play but will make many a kitchen table player very happy).
What do you suggest as a solution to this? They are under the gun to produce new sets every three months that interact well with older sets in every format. They have to try their best to make sure there are no Broken cards that will completely dominate the format. In addition they try to create cards and mechanics that appeal to each kind of player. The kitchen table player, fnm kids, and the pro tour people.
Being unceasingly hostile towards people with differing opinions isn't actually an admirable trait either. I'm pretty sure it's a clear indication of low tolerance and an inherent inability to compromise and intellectualize outside your normal scope of thinking.
You state you disagree with their plan but in a following paragraph this is what you post.
The way they have decided to fix problems in standard is by printing answer cards in the next block. WotC strives to keep from banning cards as it hurts the format and discourages players from buying product for fear of it becoming illegal. Instead they just try to balance problems in the following block and usually they do that in the form of easily atttainable commons/uncommons so everyone can have access to these answers. I LIKE this mode of thinking. Because they don't have the philosophy of "screw it, people are complaining just restrict/ban it" they are motivated to higher levels of perfection and balance with each set.
Go look in the competitive section. There are currently 15 decks listed in there. There are also a couple of decks in the decks for critique section that have recently placed in some high level tournaments. With the card selection available this tells me that the format right now is healthy and varied.
My ego isn't on the line and my mind is in this Discussion. How about you stop resorting to trivializing people's viewpoints if they differ from your own as a method of trying to "win" an argument.
Currently Playing in Modern: U/W Control
Circular - having the same beginning and end point, check, magic is currently boring with a bunch of lame cards, that's where I'll begin and where I'll end until next block. I accept circular.
Repetitive - If 6 people reply, I will repeat myself 6 different ways to them to reinforce and dismantle counterclaims. Check. I'll take that one too.
Old - Yes, my arguments are nothing new or ground-shattering, neither are your counters...
Simple - Indeed I'm not throwing anything mind-blowing. I am not a crazy genius out to fix an overfunded company's design problem. I'm just a guy who used to think this game was a lot more fun and would like to see some design work put into it that doesn't stink of absolute laziness.
"You state you disagree with their
Quote:
drop a block and walk off and fix it next block
plan but in a following paragraph this is what you post."
The above portion of your previous post coupled with what you said right afterwards does seem to actually indicate that you aren't understanding what I'm saying about the game.
I presented a complete counter to a previous (poorly thought up) argument about "video game designers" having some kind of magical advantage for patching their games. WOTC can answer any format problems with a line on a website, whereas game devs actually have to change scripts and figure out good patch distribution strategies.
Answering poor card design in the next block is terrible. Banning cards, yeah, it sucks that you get a card every now and then and think "well, I can't use this in a tourney deck, or I'm limited to 1..." The benefits, however, outweigh those detriments. It's easy to let your imagination run wild and imagine getting a booster pack with 12 unplayable cards, but that's silly and not what anyone is suggesting.
I think you're confusing my statements with "banning cards would be completely awesome" when in fact, I'm saying that it's a necessary evil to maintain a healthy gamestate.
You ARE aware that you can name 3 decks that comprised over 50% of World's 2008, right? 1/4th of all decks on that field being Faeries? The point of my argument is to present a case that would stop that level of brokenness from continuing unhindered.
You can counter with "it's not broken" all you want, but if you really believe that the game has not been in a declining state, and that the addition of mythic rares and such have not been bad, the only thing I can really say is "let's look back in a couple of years from now."
Then we'll be able to see the impact it had... I'm just saying before the reduction of block size, and before the addition of mythic rares, the game did well for many, many years... and with the current trends, if not reversed or somehow fixed, or more careful card design and/or banning policy, I do not foresee a fun, playable future for the game.
We've seen how a handful of broken cards can push a tourney down to 50% = 3 decks (again if you think that's what the spirit of top level play should be, kudos, but you and I completely disagree on fundamental levels as to what competition and games are/should be, so, yeah).
Sorry if I'm too "circular", "repetitive" etc. Go do something else if that's the case. It can be discussed, but we really need better evidence of health than that copy/paste kyoto top 8 deck list for the health of the game.
Worlds took place just 2 months after the rotation of 4 sets from the environment. Are you expecting one set from the new block to make up for that fact? 250 cards are supposed to make up for nearly 1000? Of course Lorwyn block cards are going to make up the lions share of the Worlds top eight. At that time fae was the strongest known strategy. But many of the new archetypes showed up around or just after that time.
Also, why would they have banned or restricted anything in that standard format when they already knew they had more answers comming in Conflux? Then again there is that thing about 250 cards having to make up for nearly 1000. But you seem to think they are just dropping a block and walking away never to look back. WOTC is always looking at the game and how it is played. This game changes about every 3 months when a new set comes out. Some sets are stronger than others, some strategies are stronger than others. That is the way the game is and has been.
Please stop complaining about a three month period that has already passed.
Pro tour hollywood - 7 different decks top 8 (1 fae)
Pro tour copenhagen - 5 different decks top 8 (no fae)
Grand prix buenos aires - 7 different decks top 8 (1 fae)
Grand prix krakow - 5 different decks top 8 (U/G fae! XD)
These are some of the major T2 competitions from the last two years. At these competitions there were only 3 u/b fae top 8's and each time they placed 8th. In addition at these events only B/G elves won more than one competition. At each of the other ones a different deck came out on top. Also taking into account format shift most of these top 8's had vibrantly different decks from each other.
I'm not sure what better examples to give you that the format is healthy and changing. If your local fnm is stale then I feel for you but it seems the highest level of competitive play is alive and well with creative decks.
(These examples (except for one) are all when lorywn/morningtide was alive and legal and fae could have been played)
That was your decision to compare magic to video games, not mine.
If you want a format where the developers can decide at a moments notice to ban/restrict a card simply because part of the playerbase is unhappy with it then it sounds like you are attempting to squash competitive play rather than encourage it.
Even if you banned all the key cards for Two of the top five decks right now another two would rise up in their place. When that happens people would feel it's a sell out to build those two decks and would refuse to do it. After a while those two decks would start dominating fnm play creating unhappiness in the playerbase. In an attempt to compensate wotc would then restrict/ban cards in Those decks.
The current policy of wotc is to design cards to print in following blocks to compensate for overpowering decks in the format/support other less powerful decks in the process. They also stick with the two year rotation plan to keep the environment from becoming stale or reptitive for any great length of time.
Why is it terrible? I think that it's far worse to run the risk of opening obsolete cards in packs rather than having to buy cards from the new set that answer problems I'm having with decks consisting of cards from older sets. One solution (printing new solution cards) encourages myself and other to buy product while the other (banning/restricting cards) discourages people from buying product. If they have the 1 of a certain rare card that is restricted, they have no reason to purchase more product. I don't think you are advocating banning tons of cards, but even the banning/restricting of a few would drive down sales rather than boost them.
It's not a necessary evil. The top 8's I cited prove that the game is alive and changing. If peoples local fnm's is clogged up with cliche decks then that's unfortunate. But I highly doubt banning/restricting cards on a worldwide scale to solve stale local play is an intelligent decision.
Taking a view point of "let's look back in a couple of years from now" is a very passive way to argue your point. A couple of years from now I'll have forgotten all about you and will be playing another new and interesting set from wotc. As far as the here and now is concerned there is no cause for banning/restricting cards and I haven't seen you actually give sufficient proof to argue otherwise. The playerbase is growing, not shrinking.
Besides, I think wotc has learned to compensate for a few disgruntled players deciding to quit after so many years of business.
And besides 2008 worlds most high level competitive play has a pretty varied deck base. Taking into account many pro players playtest together and have a limited card pool to choose from it shows how creative top level play is.
As far as the spirit of top level play is concerned I believe that the person that tries the hardest, playtests the most, and exhibits the highest level of skill and deck construction should win. The little changes each pro makes in their decks to try and make their deck more competitive is amazing. It's not the same as running a rogue deck but they rarely give up and just copy a decklist. At least not the good ones.
Once again, are you looking for a healthy discussion or do you just want a bunch of like-minded people to agree with you? I'm getting a little tired of your arguments ending with "if you don't like it go away." Sounds like a cop out to me.
Currently Playing in Modern: U/W Control
The point of the thread wasn't specifically to debate people with wildly different ideas. It was to criticize the game. If you have zero criticisms of the game, that's being a fanboy. If you have criticisms but are unwilling to share them with a criticism thread, and instead would like to argue against other criticisms of the game that you don't agree with, you're starting to border on just being an argumentative troll.
However, the prospect of discussing the criticisms of the game and arguing about them is welcome, too, since it's a forum and I believe in free speech (few compromises, everywhere, etc), I have no problem going back and forth with you on the issue.
Please, though, stop pretending like I'm the only person who criticizes this game. I am the type of person who criticizes even the things I greatly enjoy, in a completely objective manner. I've also played a whole, whole lot of games, and when elements of a game that I play begin to go sour, I generally speak up about it, or ask questions to make sure I don't just misunderstand.
There is no "number of viable deck types that would make the game great" but I know it's more than 6 or 7 when the possibly deck types are in the thousands.
Let's be very clear:
Deck Type - A description of a deck that highlights the core functionality of the deck, with mana color. Example: Mono Black Control.
Viable Deck Type - A description of a deck that has a realistic chance, given the right cards and player, to win Tournaments, up to and including World's.
Sub-Optimal - Used of cards and decks to describe cards and decks that have almost zero probability of appearing on a table at top-level play.
It is my belief that there should be very few sub-optimal cards, and many more viable deck types. I think it's very obvious that this would make the game more enjoyable from deck design to table play. If you disagree with something that simple, I'd need to see a really good/logical/supported argument before I could nod and say "ah, maybe you're right". If you agree with that statement but think banned and restricted lists are bad, that's cool too, but, please, let us in on what you think could be done to help the game.
Great. I can stop wasting my time here then.
Troll infraction.
"Death - an outmoded concept. We sleep, and we change."
Awesome sig and avatar by Mr. Stuff over at High~Light Studios!
Being content with how the game is currently running doesn't make me a fanboy. I'm realistic and I believe right now barring a few minor changes the game is running as well as I could expect it to. They aren't designing magic to make me, dreadedsunset, happy. They are designing magic to make the majority of players happy.
It doesn't make me a troll to have differing opinions than you and to challenge your statements.
I don't believe you are the only one who criticizes the game. I do believe you are the only one posting so far who I can have an extended debate with and who's idea of how to "solve" said problems I disagree with.
Well, only 8 decks can top 8 obviously so the fact that there are usually 5-7 different decks is pretty awesome.
In this format, T2, the options are pretty limited. There's only so many combinations of cards that have the adequate mana curve, removal, tricks, threats, card advantage, etc. that really make the cut. It's not even necessarily because they are printing sub-optimal cards that cause this. In many instances the cards just don't interact the way you hope they would and you switch to another interaction that works better albeit even if it's more popular. Some card interactions are just inherently better and become popular as a product of this, not the other way around.
Expecting there to be thousands of decks that are competitive viable in an environment with only so many cards isn't realistic.
If you really want to look at top level competitive decks however you could argue that since none are card for card alike that they are all different decks utilizing slightly different strategies to attempt to gain a strategic advantage. In that perspective there are alot of different decks out there.
Something you have to consider - they are not just gearing these cards for competitive play or for kitchen table play. They are designing these cards for both. Some of these sub-optimal cards are included solely so people who just enjoy casting 7/7 tramplers for 7 will be happy. What you see as printing sub-optimal cards, I see as trying to appease a player base that I am not part of.
Would I like there to be 100% competitive level cards in the environment? sure. But,
1) I think that would make non-competitive players unhappy since usually the most competitive cards are unnapealing flavor-wise and can be boring to play with.
2) Is unrealistic since wotc can not know absolutely all the multitudes of ways that the players will interact with the cards and which cards they eventually will shun as being sub-optimal. They can attempt to anticipate but in the end they try their best.
3) When expected to put out 4 or more sets a year that interact cleanly with every other set printed I just don't think they have the time or manpower to do what your suggesting.
To print more optimal cards in the time frame stated they would most likely end up printing broken combos they didn't anticipate and be forced to issue more card restrictions/banning for t2 and other formats. This would not have a positive effect on the format.
Currently Playing in Modern: U/W Control