Way to take my post out of context, especially the surreptitous attack of accusing me of being a power-happy person when I was a mod helper.
Back in that period, three mod helpers were picked to help with maintaining stability as the forums were restructured. Mod helpers are completely different than actual mods.
Which would you rather have, people breaking the rules and nothing happening, or people breaking the rules, getting reprimanded, and told to follow the rules in the future next time? I know the latter is a slam dunk for me. If people break the rules and they are being punished for doing so, eventually they will get the message, or they're gone.
Given a choice I'd prefer to have the fundamental problems addressed. Failing that, any amount of additional mods would do little, if anything. You can claim that a mod a mod helper don't do the same thing, but really there is little weight to that when you've got people with mod powers meant to help enforce the rules. Whatever you call them, having more might make it easier on our existing mods, but it wouldn't actually solve anything.
Conversely, I am advocating that such a system of separation would be detrimental to the community. And the problem would be just more than a flood of threads in Community Issues.
If the community had inherent value I could agree. However, since the standard section is the largest, most diverse, least coherent, and by extension the most cliquish section devoted to a format, the "community" you're thinking would be damaged simply does not exist. The problems I find with the board are an extension of this. Examplia gratia in the extended section. It is largely self policed by posters, with the mods ONLY dealing with extreme situations and rules violations. Ergo there is a sort of segregation, and it helps make the competitive discussion much more useful and intelligible...If also much slower in pace.
Regardless, the fact that there would be an outpouring of complaints is not a valid argument against implementing a solution along these lines. When the consequences of such an act are the people who aren't capable of contributing to the discussion complaining, then you're getting off relatively light. Especially because there is a SYM thread wheneveranyonefeelsbutthurt.
Look, this isn't January 2005
I get it. You've been posting here for four years. Congratulations.
when this site was a blip on the radar even after the exodus from News. Back then, you could get away with just two full-time mods in T2 because there was a miniscule fraction of people than there are today nearly five years later (though back then I believe it was three full-time mods). The simplest and most effective way of solving a lot of the problems here are simply by having additional mods instead of trying out new rules/stipulations when there is a high risk of having them backfire.
More moderators wouldn't be bad by any means, but they wouldn't be able to address any of the concerns raised in this thread without there being a shift in the fundamental structure of the board.
Just curious, but is there really a reason people to continue to post in this thread? I mean, Elysium's point has been made. From this point, every post falls into one of four categories:
1) Someone posts arguing against Elysium's comments/ideas.
2) Someone posts supporting Elysium completely.
3) Someone posts agreeing with Elysium's assessment of the forums, but disagreeing with his options on how the problem could be resolved.
4) Elysium posts in response to someone else's post (Falling under either number 1, 2, or 3).
The mods have already seen this thread, and I'm sure that they're more than aware of their options. Does arguing about a system that may or may not be implemented really accomplish anything?
Feel free to flame/ignore me. Just figured I'd throw that out there...
I playtest all the time, and I post my results, but lately you see Jund decks packing Vampire Nighthawk, or Runeclaw Bears, and it deters me from posting, because I do not want to be associated. Whats the point in trying to tell people they are wrong, when hundreds of bad players sit down and claim they are right?
Comparing Runeclaw Bears with Nighthawk? Are you smoking crack? Runeclaw is barely worthwhile in limited, while Nighthawk is a mini-Baneslayer and overpowered. Jund has evolved, so which Jund was wrong? Was the old Jund wrong? The current standard Jund must be wrong too, because it will continue to evolve? We must all be stupid because we haven't made "the perfect Jund." I'm sure you made the perfect Jund day one of the Zendikar spoiler and haven't altered your decklist one card since then?
The truth is that Jund is adaptable. Also -- there is no perfect Jund. Jund has to play against itself so much that it can't stay stagnant just because of the mirror factor alone. Some things are stupid to pull, but some aren't -- Jund has room. There are at minimum 5 slots in Jund which are open to meta or preference. Nighthawk is one valid choice for those adaptable slots.
Try toning down the arrogance. Mainly because -- you're wrong.
On the topic of segregation for the Pro Tour section, how do you go about doing that? Do you just pick a select few members, then leave them to their devices? Do you have an application process of sorts? DCI Rating?
While I'd appreciate seeing less spam in a competitive setting (I lurk far more than I post), I don't think there's a feasible way to separate the 'good' users from the 'bad' ones. I'd appreciate some playtesting (real testing, not a made-up %) from those suggesting an offbeat card in a mainstream deck, but there's just no way to enforce such a policy (as far as I can tell). More mod/modhelper supervision might help, but these people don't get paid, and they're subject to their own opinions just the same as the 'bad' posters, I can see situations arising where someone gets their post deleted/infracted when they had a legitimate idea, because the mod/modhelper was hellbent on rejecting the idea.
It's an imperfect system, but I think you just have to weed through threads yourself to read posts from the people that you know you can trust.
And nothing of value would be lost. The community is mixed parts idiotic rambling, worthless spam, and inane arguments about bad cards. Or complaints about the format being too one dimensional...or utter bollocks about multicolour.
The "community" could stand to go through that kind of schism, and I honestly cannot imagine that it would be a bad thing.
And douchebaggery.
You forgot douchebags.
You know, what you pretty much openly admitted to being?
Honestly, how is what he saying any less flaming than what I just said? Because he has a point? Because he said it more elaborately? Whether you acknowledge it or not, he's insulting the majority of the MTGS community. Why is he getting pats on the back?
It's understandable blue control players would be shocked and in denial at the notion of this card, since their decks have been dominating multiple formats for an eternity yet they've curiously never once had to deal with any counter-hosers that weren't ineffectual, narrow CRAP.
Until the moderators start handing out infractions for posting in the wrong Standard sub-forum, this problem will never, ever cease. No amount of moderators enrolled or big, stickied warnings will stop people from talking about whatever they want, wherever they want.
I am all for dropping an iron curtain between the Pro-Tour Circuit and the rest of the Standard forums, but the moderators are looking for every option except that one when it should be clear by now that nothing else will suffice.
Bad players play with good decks. It's just a fact of MTG life. We don't know these players are bad until they make a card suggestion. When they do, they should be shown the door back to FNM. It's the only way.
Amen to that! The problem here, is that the mods can't be everywhere. People should report every posts that's not on topic or not in the right place, but they dont. Even if all those posts where reported, what can the mods do when more then half of the people posting are idiots? Some people think they know what they are talking about when they clearly dont. Even if you tell them, they wont understand because in there heads, winning a FNM with there list makes it "The bomb". MTG community in general is full of idiots and we can't change that. I think we have to accept that our competitive thread is and always will be invaded by morons. The only thing we can do is report the posts and pray that the mods do something.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As a response to the definition of a word he clearly didn't understand
ROFL, you are trying to educate me? just because English is not my first language doesn't mean i am uneducated you prick, when you go study to become a genetic researcher or a brain surgeon amd succeed in it you can come and diss me with how smart you are okay? this is freaking card game forum, not cambridge university.
MTGS....Full of fail all day, everyday. Welcome to Hell!
. I think we have to accept that our competitive thread is and always will be invaded by morons. The only thing we can do is report the posts and pray that the mods do something.
this. otherwise, resorting to some sort of elistest segregation system will just drive people away from MTGsali. I never look at the pro-tour threads admittenly, but if it comes to restricting access to them, I'll gladly be on the first boat out to get as far away from this website as possible.
MTGSali isn't some "gold standard" when it comes to MTG sites. it's not the platinum club that we all have to sign a contract in blood to join. it's just another open forum where everyone can share their opinion, however misguided it might be. pretending it can achieve anything more without emulating websites that are innately more successful*cough* STARCITY!*cough* is just silly.
I'm personally amazed that this mockery of a thread has gone on as long as it has.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks, Heroes of The Planes! You guys are great!
Actual Truth:
"You heard it here folks:
Anyone who disagrees with "Jack from NC" is an idiot."-The Dead Weatherman
Comparing Runeclaw Bears with Nighthawk? Are you smoking crack? Runeclaw is barely worthwhile in limited, while Nighthawk is a mini-Baneslayer and overpowered.
Ok, lets hold on for a few minutes before anymore ego floats. Vampire Nighthawk is not overpowered, nor anywhere near the competitive plane that Baneslayer Angel is. I can sit here and justify this, but I will simply say that the deathtouch on nighthawk is more then useless, It can only trade with creatures. Which is completely against Jund Philosophy of obtaining card advantage. You make it seem like it's ambiguous to most removal spells like a baneslayer and never loses combat and always turns the tide of the game. All of that is incorrect. Why? I have never lost so many games in my time playing VNH. Vampire decks barely run them as it is. Why would Jund take a card which doesn't give it any profit? A turn 3 answer to goblin guide is nowhere near as good as a turn 1.
If you wanna keep talking about this, PM me, don't try and bash my expertise like every other misinterpreted player in that thread.
Jund has evolved, so which Jund was wrong? Was the old Jund wrong? The current standard Jund must be wrong too, because it will continue to evolve? We must all be stupid because we haven't made "the perfect Jund." I'm sure you made the perfect Jund day one of the Zendikar spoiler and haven't altered your decklist one card since then?
Why are you rampaging about what I said, when I never said half of this?
The truth is that Jund is adaptable. Also -- there is no perfect Jund. Jund has to play against itself so much that it can't stay stagnant just because of the mirror factor alone. Some things are stupid to pull, but some aren't -- Jund has room. There are at minimum 5 slots in Jund which are open to meta or preference. Nighthawk is one valid choice for those adaptable slots.
Try toning down the arrogance. Mainly because -- you're wrong.
Jund probably gets the trophy for being the most adaptable aggro-control deck since Apocalypse Rock. That does not mean that we will ever converge on a perfect Jund list, probably a spine of what is required, and a highly suggested list of variance. There are multiple articles already dealing with such a thing, and are quite accurate from my perspective, and the perspective of the Deck Database of states atm.
Vampire Nighthawk is not a good solution towards anything in the environment that the deck is already capable of dealing with. Your only probably argument is that it can chump a bad player swinging with Sphinx of Jwar Isle. Even then isn't Thought Hemorrhage a more versatile, and complete answer to such a threat?
In your perspective all I did was post complete lies, when in reality I am trying to share with you the reasoning and justification to not run specific cards in a deck list that either A) Does not require or B) Does not work fluidly. This is all based off personal experience, exposing myself to such suggested decklists, my playtest groups, reports on states, and various other people with the exact same resources as me.
Your objectiveness about me is quite inaccurate, as well as your blind fact to produce results in some manner. So yes, I will sit down and question, because I want to understand, but responses like yours specifically deal with absolutely nothing about the issue, but is rather a personal attack.
Which is why the T2 forum needs at least two more mods. Problem solved.
I normally respect your posts most of the time, simply because I listen to what you have to say. However I have to disagree on throwing more mods at the problem, its not going to do much. Segregation isn't good answer either, its just asking for more trouble which I definitely agree with.
However Madding has a point here, if there isnt' any other answer that'll fix this problem then we're going to have to suggest that the mods segregate the forums in some form. There is nothing wrong with this and we could install some sort of system that'll allow players into the more competitive threads. If they pass then they've earned it and if not they need to learn a little more instead. If people want to be good they are going to have to make some sort of sacrifice. I would personally not enjoy segregation being the idea but if it's a necessary evil then I'll support it begrudgingly.
Ok, lets hold on for a few minutes before anymore ego floats. Vampire Nighthawk is not overpowered, nor anywhere near the competitive plane that Baneslayer Angel is. I can sit here and justify this, but I will simply say that the deathtouch on nighthawk is more then useless, It can only trade with creatures. Which is completely against Jund Philosophy of obtaining card advantage. You make it seem like it's ambiguous to most removal spells like a baneslayer and never loses combat and always turns the tide of the game. All of that is incorrect. Why? I have never lost so many games in my time playing VNH. Vampire decks barely run them as it is. Why would Jund take a card which doesn't give it any profit? A turn 3 answer to goblin guide is nowhere near as good as a turn 1.
Did you say the same things about Ranger, Master of the Wild Hunt and Rampant Growth?
Look, VNH is not Baneslayer. But it's not Runeclaw either. Lifegain is significant against RDW and Boros.
And you don't post in Jund because you don't want to be associated with people who run VNH?
The people who post in the pro-tour section don't win pro-tours. Pro tour winners keep their decklists secret, test in private, and surprise the competition with an unseen, epic deck. No pro player visits the pro-tour room and thinks netdecking recycled ideas will give them a competitive advantage. Pro players dont want your help and dont want to help you. Therefore, there is no need for a pro room. The entire forum is therefore casually competitive.
To the topic of adding more mods or segregating the rooms, whatever. Seriously neither will do anything beyond making the rooms less pleasant and force traffic to somewhere else. I'm sure the vendors and adverstisers will love that.
Did you say the same things about Ranger, Master of the Wild Hunt and Rampant Growth?
CorpT I've said things about specific cards in the past, I've even played a variety of Jund builds. Whether I like them or not, whether they work or not are different arguments completely.
I personally posted a lot about MotWH, and I even to this day have mixed feelings about it, but I pack a few MD once in a while depending on the meta. RG versions are still among popular, and have a good amount of success. I recently tried Borderland in a build that includes Leech, and found it quite good while on the draw, compared to on the play.
The RDW deck just has to prioritize their bolts. I find that running a few more burst lightning is a more reasonable answer to their early pressure. Siding out stuff like Pulse is mandatory as well. I have specific Jund arguments for deck choices, but when I believe to have valid testing and multiple matches to boot, I have every right to dismiss cards people are posting as 'good' decklists, I ask to play them online in some manner. Never get a response, and the rare occasion when I do, they get swamped, then blame it on luck, calling me a lucky scrub or some kind, when in fact I probably played a few matches in my amounts of spare time beforehand.
How many times did you personally have to post not using cards like Jund Hackblade and gave sound reasoning? Yet people still dismissed everything you said, and tested, and attempted to explain, but the debate lasted pages and pages for no entire reason?
That is why I'd rather not waste efforts, not because of specific cards, those are mere examples where I can be wrong just as anyone else, but I don't see the results. Which is what I am interested in. Whether I contribute to the conversation or not, it sucks having to rummage through fabricated conversation and statistics. So why bother?
CorpT I've said things about specific cards in the past, I've even played a variety of Jund builds. Whether I like them or not, whether they work or not are different arguments completely.
I personally posted a lot about MotWH, and I even to this day have mixed feelings about it, but I pack a few MD once in a while depending on the meta. RG versions are still among popular, and have a good amount of success. I recently tried Borderland in a build that includes Leech, and found it quite good while on the draw, compared to on the play.
The RDW deck just has to prioritize their bolts. I find that running a few more burst lightning is a more reasonable answer to their early pressure. Siding out stuff like Pulse is mandatory as well. I have specific Jund arguments for deck choices, but when I believe to have valid testing and multiple matches to boot, I have every right to dismiss cards people are posting as 'good' decklists, I ask to play them online in some manner. Never get a response, and the rare occasion when I do, they get swamped, then blame it on luck, calling me a lucky scrub or some kind, when in fact I probably played a few matches in my amounts of spare time beforehand.
How many times did you personally have to post not using cards like Jund Hackblade and gave sound reasoning? Yet people still dismissed everything you said, and tested, and attempted to explain, but the debate lasted pages and pages for no entire reason?
That is why I'd rather not waste efforts, not because of specific cards, those are mere examples where I can be wrong just as anyone else, but I don't see the results. Which is what I am interested in. Whether I contribute to the conversation or not, it sucks having to rummage through fabricated conversation and statistics. So why bother?
I can't argue with anything you'd said because it's all true.
However....
There is a very fine line between dismissing because it's trash and trying it out. Now obviously, no one has time to test everything. That's why I can dismiss cards like Jund Hackblade on sight because it's trash and I don't have time to test bad cards.
But cards like Rampant Growth, Ranger, Master, and VNH... they're a lot closer to playable and have crossed into try-it-out. I've done quite a bit of testing with VNH and have been pleasantly surprised. It has definitely turned games around that I was losing and definitely let me win games I shouldn't have.
I think that is the problem. How does anyone sort wheat and chaff? If mods start infracting for bad ideas, do they have to go back an un-infract if the idea turns out to be good? What if it is a bad idea with no results/testing to back it up, but by stroke of luck it works out to be good?
I'm with you. I want results based ideas presented with solid arguments for or against. But, I also want crazy ideas thrown out there for people to test as well. What I don't want are FNM results against scrubs posted as proof that Jund Hackblade is the next big thing. Unfortunately, that blur of requirements is exceedingly hard to define and even harder to enforce.
A segregation does sound extreme but there is an easy way around it as well. There does need to be a test to post in the "higher up" forums but don't make it subjective, just make it based on the forum rules. Simple questions like:
"You have a decklist that you think is a sleeper; it has the potential to knock out Jund! You haven't yet piloted it to a tournament but you want to show everyone how awesome it is. Where do you post this decklist?"
a. Developing Competitive
b. Competitive
c. Budget and Casual Standard Deck Construction
d. The normal Standard forums
And make it to where you have to pass like an 80%. If you don't, you don't get to post in the appropos areas (Competitive). If you do, obviously you've read enough of the rules so you have no excuses so mods won't have to worry abotu being so lenient/worried about infractions and so forth. Additionally, it WILL cut down on the chaff but still allow people to post in Casual.
But otherwise, except for the tone, Elysium is 100% right. Thankfully I was active in a competitive thread (Mono-W Control) that had very little of this to worry about.
nor anywhere near the competitive plane that Baneslayer Angel is.
Baneslayer is completely broken, while Nighthawk is just overly strong. That's not valid reasoning for not running Nighthawk, especially since almost no deck could run both.
Yeah, creatures like 4/4 and 5/5 fliers, etc. While gaining you life. It also eats anything with power 2 or less, like your aforementioned Goblin Guide, annoying little Nissa's Chosen, etc.
Which is completely against Jund Philosophy of obtaining card advantage.
Lightning Bolt doesn't gain you card advantage, why is it in there? How about the 6 or 7 other Jund cards which give no CA, not to mention all the sideboard cards that don't?
Related questions:
- Baneslayer also doesn't gain you card advantage. If Baneslayer were in any of the 3 Jund colors, would you run it?
- What property of Baneslayer primarily causes it to be game-changing?
You make it seem like it's ambiguous to most removal spells like a baneslayer
Baneslayer is hardly immune to most removal, since most removal has to include things which will kill Baneslayer. Jund is popular, and has 6-8 cards to kill Baneslayer. I've never had a problem killing it. Nighthawk is bad just because it also eats bolts? GSS eats bolts, is it bad too? And what happens when you run out of bolts?
I find this hilarious. If there's even a grain of truth to it, it could be due to the fact that Nocturnus already makes vampires fly, which is irrelevant here.
Vampire Nighthawk is not a good solution towards anything in the environment that the deck is already capable of dealing with.
In all of that, were you really just trying to say "Great Sable Stag exists"? If so, I agree.
Instead of falsely attacking the strength of Nighthawk, you could have listed the actual reasons that Nighthawk MAY not be the best choice in any given Jund:
- GSS exists
- Jund already has at least 11 3cc spells
- 1BB may or may not be easy to support, especially if you are running other cards needing GG or RR
I wanted to run the Nighthawks, I think they would have worked in a lot of meta's out there, but one of my main opponents runs Eldrazi green and is in love with Stags. So, I will probably look for something else to fill the slot which can deal with Stags. That's a meta choice, not proof that Nighthawk sucks.
The point of this? You're wrong to say no one should run Nighthawk in Jund, and you're wrong to use it as a basis to prove your own superiority. Nighthawk is strong, it can work in Jund, and the fact that YOU lost with it could be just as much your fault, or the properties of your local meta, as the Nighthawk.
Too much arguing over card slots is also a problem here on MTGSalvation. One or two card slots don't change match-up percentages that much, for the most part. Just like the Putrid Leech or Rampant Growth Jund, you're still playing with or against Jund. Ya know? Your strategy isn't much different, if different at all. There also needs to be more emphasis on sideboarding and overall match-up strategy. Instead it's just "you do/don't play card X, so you're bad!"
And I'd like to weigh in on this one. My jund didn't use as many Broodmate Dragons as other Jund builds, so I was more susceptible to Sphinx of Jwar Isle. Because of this, I considered Nighthawk.
After seeing these results, it's clear VP isn't 1rst place material. MOAR BROODMATE
And I'd like to weigh in on this one. My jund didn't use as many Broodmate Dragons as other Jund builds, so I was more susceptible to Sphinx of Jwar Isle. Because of this, I considered Nighthawk.
After seeing these results, it's clear VP isn't 1rst place material. MOAR BROODMATE
Before Nashville there was 0 Eldrazi on deckcheck. Does that make it bad at the time?
LOL @ searching tcgplayer decklists for absolute proof of whether a card is good. Not saying Nighthawk should or shouldn't be in top decklists, just that people are lemmings.
Also, Nighthawk is not a replacement for Broodmate, regardless of how good it is or isn't. I don't think there is a replacement for Broodmate, and I don't think any number of Broodmates other than 3 is correct. But if someone runs something other than 3 Broodmates, I won't call them an idiot who is destroying the entire forum, I'll just ask for reasoning.
Nighthawk is instantly removed when it hits the board a good 90% of the time. It's fantastic if you can get it to stick, but the existence of Lightning Bolt usually means Nighthawk is a goner within one or two turns.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Banner courtesy of Skizzik_NZ and Maelstrom Graphics
My friend who top 8'ed at States with his Jund deck uses them in the sideboard for the Boros matchup, plus he brings them in against decks that run Jwar Jwar.
It's a solid card, but it's fairly weak with only 2 power and as others have mentioned will generally just eat a Bolt.
This whole VNH convo is hilarious. We seem to have the following statements:
1) Vampire NH is over-powered! (No, it's just better than all the bad creatures in the format)
2) Vampire NH is bad in Jund, therefore it sucks! (BSA is also bad in Jund... I lol'd)
3) Deathtouch on a 2/3 flier with lifelink is teh suxxor! (Yeah, I REALLY lol'd at that one)
4) Vampire NH is a good creature that really doesn't have a place in Jund (Awesome, good reasoning, thank you)
So this is why segregation is a bad idea... a guy who claims to have "expertise" thinks Vampire NH is a bad creature. Right, cute, let's just get back to the real topic at hand.
Segregation is not a good idea (see above). Handing out warnings for ridiculous statements without support may work. I know that the forums are being modified right now, but here's my idea: 4 subforums, "Budget/Casual," "Conceptual Competitive," "Developing Competitive," and "Strictly Competitive." These would work as follows:
1) Budget/Casual: Non-tourney or budget decks
2) Conceptual: Ideas for (non-budget) decks that could have a place in the meta. Testing suggested but unrequired.
3) Developing: For better, more thoroughly tested ideas with solid analysis and logical reasoning. Testing required (minimal)
4) Strictly: For proven deck ideas or those threads the mods deem appropriate to move because of their high merit as potential contenders
There are two types of people in this world: people who think that countermagic is the most powerful effect in the game and people who aren't morons.
My color is Purple. I value diversity, smashed color pies and obsolete Inquest articles. At my best, I can redefine MTG in a new and wonderful way. At my worst, I can end up as an Unhinged joke. My symbol is not defined. My enemies are 5 old and bureaucratic angry colors.
I am going to stop you right here, no one ever and I mean.. ever said "undeserving" that is not the intention of this forum. What my argument, and what I believe the argument of who you call "Elitist" players is that when we try to "dismiss" an argument made for deck choices, people take everything too personally. When I mean people I mean the group you specifically associate yourself with, in comparison to the "Elitist".
There are 10's of examples in my mind, but I'll share some common stories with you:
A) The old Jund Thread had people talking about Jund Hackblade/ Hellspark Elemental and taking out vital cards like Bituminous Blast in replacement. Essentially taking out the card advantage theme entirely, and replacing it for an aggro theme.
This horrible debate lasted pages and days in time. We all tried saying "Sorry, I tried your decklist, it didn't win alot, this is why..."
We got replies such as:
"Oh well your all horrible, you all know nothing"
So in Return we quickly dismissed these players saying:
"Hope we get paired up at States"
Since states, a lot of these similar people posting never posted again.
The people who post here defending who you call "Elitists" generally have the testicles to admit they were wrong. Then try a new decklists, disregarding personal preference or "feel" they went with what works. They have been for a long time, and now they are the wise people a lot of you guys want to be, but fail to understand that accepting change is a big part of being successful.
People have every right to take whatever they want seriously, you have no right to judge character by a basis of arguments made by posters on this forum. Especially after a large level of frustration driven by those posters.
I am not Elysium, but competitive events are for everyone, the competitive, and the fun of the game lovers. Posting and trying to bash the ideas of the competitive people by the game lovers is what is driving this argument and I foresee large separation of the Mtg Sally Community. I personally agree with it. The low level of intellectual and constructive posts has increased ten fold, and in order for this entire website to maintain credibility as a mainstay for competitive talk between players segregation needs to be done.
We never said you can't, infact all we are doing is pointing you to your paradise: go to the casual forums. A properly named section of the forums for people with those specific intentions of doing so.
They can have all the fun they want, but if they warrant bad decisions over good ones, and proclaim it, it cannot be ignored. It should be addressed, so that when new users come and read the forums, they can understand all the good/bad decisions.
I've posted many times before, and I was a newbie once as well, when I thought protection from blue stopped your creature from being countered. I was mad, but it was the rules, and I began to learn how to dodge counterspell, and bait it, and play my spells at opportune times compared to "when I had the mana".
What makes the game un-fun from the so called elitist POV, is that when we try our best to drive more competition and try to teach newer players, they turn their back on you, and tell you your stupid for doing so.
I can understand the arrogance of newbies being dismissed, but I have been to many different FNMs at different stores. At most, I've heard derogatory talk to new(ish) players regarding their decks, even when they were not bringing about discussion regarding their choices.
Such as:
"You could have won the game. You know why you're still bad at this game, because you don't read the f****** cards"
"You're playing jund hackblade!?!?? That might be the worst card in standard right now, you're gauranteed to lose now"
The player who was being chastized never showed up again, surprise. The only group I associate with is the one who is against pretentious jerks. I think you have a different view of elitism than I do. When I say elitist, i am referring to those who would like to only have an elite few be allowed to talk about certain things, or give discussion. This includes disregarding or attacking the ones they do not agree with. They would then regard them as undeserving as they value their opinion as undeserving, that is undeserving of respect.
People do have every right to take whatever they want seriously, but when that seriousness turns into attacking people, escpecially ones who do not deserve to be attacked, especially those who are new to the game, that is uncalled for and disrespectful. I am not in the business of judging people based on their arguments online, though I do understand most do. I'm just labeling the actions I see.
In this forum or not, you have to agree that there is a fair amount of elitist players who are derogatory to new players. If not maybe I just have a very skewed perception of the magic community. Creating a schism might be necessary if you want to distinguish yourselves as elitist, that is wanting to seperate yourself from the rest of the community because you have no respect for what they, worse players, say.
But there is no need for this schism, if you think something is "bad" there is no need to attack it or point it out. My point was that those players can find out for themselves. Cards are good or bad in relation to the way that they play. If you think something is a bad card for that deck, chances are it is because it plays poorly within the confines of that style. The player can figure it out, though if they ask for help and reject your charitable analysis of it, then they do not deserve the respect I am speaking of.
This game is about having fun, a very subjective experience. To try and objectify the value of decks or cards is pointless. Pretend someone has fun losing, what kind of judge are you to tell them to stop. Especially if you value winning. If they begin the disrespect, then they only have asked for what is coming to them I suppose.
My only argument is for people, the worse and better players alike, to stop this type of disrespect and value the game for the level of entertainment it provides. This value can only be enhanced when there are more people in the community. Attacking players and their ideas only disocciates everyone. This game would literally be nothing without the community, as such we need to nurture and value every member of it to ensure a healthy community in the future. The elitism, in the forum or not I have not investigated, is only detrimental to the game as a whole.
I hope I have cleared up what I was saying. I care not for the differentiation of forums, that is pointless as everyone can still post what they want wherever. I'm talking about the level respect being given, or not. If this differentiation of forums is a way to signal that some players do not belong in certain parts of the game, then it is borderline ludicrous. If not, I don't care. But in general, the community this game is surrounded in has seemed to become hostile. Not just the forums, but in events as well. Elysium's post, at first, seemed to me to be conveying the appropriatness of elitism. This may not be the case, but if it is then it is the game will become only elitists and the entertainment value will eventually be destroyed, thus lowering the population and eventually bankrupting the game.
The most fundamental part of magic is the fact that there are millions of possibilities. To reject these possibilities on the basis of stupidity is contradictory to the game itself.
Too much arguing over card slots is also a problem here on MTGSalvation. One or two card slots don't change match-up percentages that much, for the most part. Just like the Putrid Leech or Rampant Growth Jund, you're still playing with or against Jund. Ya know? Your strategy isn't much different, if different at all. There also needs to be more emphasis on sideboarding and overall match-up strategy. Instead it's just "you do/don't play card X, so you're bad!"
I'm going to stamp a QFT here. Deck choice is only one part of winning a tournament. Sideboard strategy and knowing how to play matchups is just as important, and those are topics that are rarely discussed.
Given a choice I'd prefer to have the fundamental problems addressed. Failing that, any amount of additional mods would do little, if anything. You can claim that a mod a mod helper don't do the same thing, but really there is little weight to that when you've got people with mod powers meant to help enforce the rules. Whatever you call them, having more might make it easier on our existing mods, but it wouldn't actually solve anything.
If the community had inherent value I could agree. However, since the standard section is the largest, most diverse, least coherent, and by extension the most cliquish section devoted to a format, the "community" you're thinking would be damaged simply does not exist. The problems I find with the board are an extension of this. Examplia gratia in the extended section. It is largely self policed by posters, with the mods ONLY dealing with extreme situations and rules violations. Ergo there is a sort of segregation, and it helps make the competitive discussion much more useful and intelligible...If also much slower in pace.
Regardless, the fact that there would be an outpouring of complaints is not a valid argument against implementing a solution along these lines. When the consequences of such an act are the people who aren't capable of contributing to the discussion complaining, then you're getting off relatively light. Especially because there is a SYM thread whenever anyone feels butthurt.
I get it. You've been posting here for four years. Congratulations.
More moderators wouldn't be bad by any means, but they wouldn't be able to address any of the concerns raised in this thread without there being a shift in the fundamental structure of the board.
1) Someone posts arguing against Elysium's comments/ideas.
2) Someone posts supporting Elysium completely.
3) Someone posts agreeing with Elysium's assessment of the forums, but disagreeing with his options on how the problem could be resolved.
4) Elysium posts in response to someone else's post (Falling under either number 1, 2, or 3).
The mods have already seen this thread, and I'm sure that they're more than aware of their options. Does arguing about a system that may or may not be implemented really accomplish anything?
Feel free to flame/ignore me. Just figured I'd throw that out there...
Comparing Runeclaw Bears with Nighthawk? Are you smoking crack? Runeclaw is barely worthwhile in limited, while Nighthawk is a mini-Baneslayer and overpowered. Jund has evolved, so which Jund was wrong? Was the old Jund wrong? The current standard Jund must be wrong too, because it will continue to evolve? We must all be stupid because we haven't made "the perfect Jund." I'm sure you made the perfect Jund day one of the Zendikar spoiler and haven't altered your decklist one card since then?
The truth is that Jund is adaptable. Also -- there is no perfect Jund. Jund has to play against itself so much that it can't stay stagnant just because of the mirror factor alone. Some things are stupid to pull, but some aren't -- Jund has room. There are at minimum 5 slots in Jund which are open to meta or preference. Nighthawk is one valid choice for those adaptable slots.
Try toning down the arrogance. Mainly because -- you're wrong.
While I'd appreciate seeing less spam in a competitive setting (I lurk far more than I post), I don't think there's a feasible way to separate the 'good' users from the 'bad' ones. I'd appreciate some playtesting (real testing, not a made-up %) from those suggesting an offbeat card in a mainstream deck, but there's just no way to enforce such a policy (as far as I can tell). More mod/modhelper supervision might help, but these people don't get paid, and they're subject to their own opinions just the same as the 'bad' posters, I can see situations arising where someone gets their post deleted/infracted when they had a legitimate idea, because the mod/modhelper was hellbent on rejecting the idea.
It's an imperfect system, but I think you just have to weed through threads yourself to read posts from the people that you know you can trust.
And douchebaggery.
You forgot douchebags.
You know, what you pretty much openly admitted to being?
Honestly, how is what he saying any less flaming than what I just said? Because he has a point? Because he said it more elaborately? Whether you acknowledge it or not, he's insulting the majority of the MTGS community. Why is he getting pats on the back?
Stop right there.
Your kidding, right?
This thread hasn't amounted to anything, save insulting budget players, calling people idiots of all types left and right for whatever reason.
I'm done here. =/
I am all for dropping an iron curtain between the Pro-Tour Circuit and the rest of the Standard forums, but the moderators are looking for every option except that one when it should be clear by now that nothing else will suffice.
Bad players play with good decks. It's just a fact of MTG life. We don't know these players are bad until they make a card suggestion. When they do, they should be shown the door back to FNM. It's the only way.
MTGS....Full of fail all day, everyday. Welcome to Hell!
this. otherwise, resorting to some sort of elistest segregation system will just drive people away from MTGsali. I never look at the pro-tour threads admittenly, but if it comes to restricting access to them, I'll gladly be on the first boat out to get as far away from this website as possible.
MTGSali isn't some "gold standard" when it comes to MTG sites. it's not the platinum club that we all have to sign a contract in blood to join. it's just another open forum where everyone can share their opinion, however misguided it might be. pretending it can achieve anything more without emulating websites that are innately more successful*cough* STARCITY!*cough* is just silly.
I'm personally amazed that this mockery of a thread has gone on as long as it has.
Thanks, Heroes of The Planes! You guys are great!
Actual Truth:
Ok, lets hold on for a few minutes before anymore ego floats.
Vampire Nighthawk is not overpowered, nor anywhere near the competitive plane that Baneslayer Angel is. I can sit here and justify this, but I will simply say that the deathtouch on nighthawk is more then useless, It can only trade with creatures. Which is completely against Jund Philosophy of obtaining card advantage. You make it seem like it's ambiguous to most removal spells like a baneslayer and never loses combat and always turns the tide of the game. All of that is incorrect. Why? I have never lost so many games in my time playing VNH. Vampire decks barely run them as it is. Why would Jund take a card which doesn't give it any profit? A turn 3 answer to goblin guide is nowhere near as good as a turn 1.
If you wanna keep talking about this, PM me, don't try and bash my expertise like every other misinterpreted player in that thread.
Why are you rampaging about what I said, when I never said half of this?
Jund probably gets the trophy for being the most adaptable aggro-control deck since Apocalypse Rock. That does not mean that we will ever converge on a perfect Jund list, probably a spine of what is required, and a highly suggested list of variance. There are multiple articles already dealing with such a thing, and are quite accurate from my perspective, and the perspective of the Deck Database of states atm.
Vampire Nighthawk is not a good solution towards anything in the environment that the deck is already capable of dealing with. Your only probably argument is that it can chump a bad player swinging with Sphinx of Jwar Isle. Even then isn't Thought Hemorrhage a more versatile, and complete answer to such a threat?
In your perspective all I did was post complete lies, when in reality I am trying to share with you the reasoning and justification to not run specific cards in a deck list that either A) Does not require or B) Does not work fluidly. This is all based off personal experience, exposing myself to such suggested decklists, my playtest groups, reports on states, and various other people with the exact same resources as me.
Your objectiveness about me is quite inaccurate, as well as your blind fact to produce results in some manner. So yes, I will sit down and question, because I want to understand, but responses like yours specifically deal with absolutely nothing about the issue, but is rather a personal attack.
That's why I stopped posting what I could offer.
I normally respect your posts most of the time, simply because I listen to what you have to say. However I have to disagree on throwing more mods at the problem, its not going to do much. Segregation isn't good answer either, its just asking for more trouble which I definitely agree with.
However Madding has a point here, if there isnt' any other answer that'll fix this problem then we're going to have to suggest that the mods segregate the forums in some form. There is nothing wrong with this and we could install some sort of system that'll allow players into the more competitive threads. If they pass then they've earned it and if not they need to learn a little more instead. If people want to be good they are going to have to make some sort of sacrifice. I would personally not enjoy segregation being the idea but if it's a necessary evil then I'll support it begrudgingly.
There was once [The Pack], but no more.
Did you say the same things about Ranger, Master of the Wild Hunt and Rampant Growth?
Look, VNH is not Baneslayer. But it's not Runeclaw either. Lifegain is significant against RDW and Boros.
And you don't post in Jund because you don't want to be associated with people who run VNH?
To the topic of adding more mods or segregating the rooms, whatever. Seriously neither will do anything beyond making the rooms less pleasant and force traffic to somewhere else. I'm sure the vendors and adverstisers will love that.
CorpT I've said things about specific cards in the past, I've even played a variety of Jund builds. Whether I like them or not, whether they work or not are different arguments completely.
I personally posted a lot about MotWH, and I even to this day have mixed feelings about it, but I pack a few MD once in a while depending on the meta. RG versions are still among popular, and have a good amount of success. I recently tried Borderland in a build that includes Leech, and found it quite good while on the draw, compared to on the play.
The RDW deck just has to prioritize their bolts. I find that running a few more burst lightning is a more reasonable answer to their early pressure. Siding out stuff like Pulse is mandatory as well. I have specific Jund arguments for deck choices, but when I believe to have valid testing and multiple matches to boot, I have every right to dismiss cards people are posting as 'good' decklists, I ask to play them online in some manner. Never get a response, and the rare occasion when I do, they get swamped, then blame it on luck, calling me a lucky scrub or some kind, when in fact I probably played a few matches in my amounts of spare time beforehand.
How many times did you personally have to post not using cards like Jund Hackblade and gave sound reasoning? Yet people still dismissed everything you said, and tested, and attempted to explain, but the debate lasted pages and pages for no entire reason?
That is why I'd rather not waste efforts, not because of specific cards, those are mere examples where I can be wrong just as anyone else, but I don't see the results. Which is what I am interested in. Whether I contribute to the conversation or not, it sucks having to rummage through fabricated conversation and statistics. So why bother?
I can't argue with anything you'd said because it's all true.
However....
There is a very fine line between dismissing because it's trash and trying it out. Now obviously, no one has time to test everything. That's why I can dismiss cards like Jund Hackblade on sight because it's trash and I don't have time to test bad cards.
But cards like Rampant Growth, Ranger, Master, and VNH... they're a lot closer to playable and have crossed into try-it-out. I've done quite a bit of testing with VNH and have been pleasantly surprised. It has definitely turned games around that I was losing and definitely let me win games I shouldn't have.
I think that is the problem. How does anyone sort wheat and chaff? If mods start infracting for bad ideas, do they have to go back an un-infract if the idea turns out to be good? What if it is a bad idea with no results/testing to back it up, but by stroke of luck it works out to be good?
I'm with you. I want results based ideas presented with solid arguments for or against. But, I also want crazy ideas thrown out there for people to test as well. What I don't want are FNM results against scrubs posted as proof that Jund Hackblade is the next big thing. Unfortunately, that blur of requirements is exceedingly hard to define and even harder to enforce.
"You have a decklist that you think is a sleeper; it has the potential to knock out Jund! You haven't yet piloted it to a tournament but you want to show everyone how awesome it is. Where do you post this decklist?"
a. Developing Competitive
b. Competitive
c. Budget and Casual Standard Deck Construction
d. The normal Standard forums
And make it to where you have to pass like an 80%. If you don't, you don't get to post in the appropos areas (Competitive). If you do, obviously you've read enough of the rules so you have no excuses so mods won't have to worry abotu being so lenient/worried about infractions and so forth. Additionally, it WILL cut down on the chaff but still allow people to post in Casual.
But otherwise, except for the tone, Elysium is 100% right. Thankfully I was active in a competitive thread (Mono-W Control) that had very little of this to worry about.
Debatable...
Baneslayer is completely broken, while Nighthawk is just overly strong. That's not valid reasoning for not running Nighthawk, especially since almost no deck could run both.
Threats are useless now? Wait... MORE than useless? Deathtouch is actually a liability? I wasn't aware...
Yeah, creatures like 4/4 and 5/5 fliers, etc. While gaining you life. It also eats anything with power 2 or less, like your aforementioned Goblin Guide, annoying little Nissa's Chosen, etc.
Lightning Bolt doesn't gain you card advantage, why is it in there? How about the 6 or 7 other Jund cards which give no CA, not to mention all the sideboard cards that don't?
Related questions:
- Baneslayer also doesn't gain you card advantage. If Baneslayer were in any of the 3 Jund colors, would you run it?
- What property of Baneslayer primarily causes it to be game-changing?
Baneslayer is hardly immune to most removal, since most removal has to include things which will kill Baneslayer. Jund is popular, and has 6-8 cards to kill Baneslayer. I've never had a problem killing it. Nighthawk is bad just because it also eats bolts? GSS eats bolts, is it bad too? And what happens when you run out of bolts?
I find this hilarious. If there's even a grain of truth to it, it could be due to the fact that Nocturnus already makes vampires fly, which is irrelevant here.
So have you been running 2 Burst Lightning MD like I have? Or did you find a turn 1 answer to Guide which also gains you CA? I'd love to hear it.
In all of that, were you really just trying to say "Great Sable Stag exists"? If so, I agree.
Instead of falsely attacking the strength of Nighthawk, you could have listed the actual reasons that Nighthawk MAY not be the best choice in any given Jund:
- GSS exists
- Jund already has at least 11 3cc spells
- 1BB may or may not be easy to support, especially if you are running other cards needing GG or RR
I wanted to run the Nighthawks, I think they would have worked in a lot of meta's out there, but one of my main opponents runs Eldrazi green and is in love with Stags. So, I will probably look for something else to fill the slot which can deal with Stags. That's a meta choice, not proof that Nighthawk sucks.
The point of this? You're wrong to say no one should run Nighthawk in Jund, and you're wrong to use it as a basis to prove your own superiority. Nighthawk is strong, it can work in Jund, and the fact that YOU lost with it could be just as much your fault, or the properties of your local meta, as the Nighthawk.
Results: Not a single 1rst place Jund player used VP.
The highest VP has ever placed in Jund was 2nd and it only happened once: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=490487
And I'd like to weigh in on this one. My jund didn't use as many Broodmate Dragons as other Jund builds, so I was more susceptible to Sphinx of Jwar Isle. Because of this, I considered Nighthawk.
After seeing these results, it's clear VP isn't 1rst place material. MOAR BROODMATE
Before Nashville there was 0 Eldrazi on deckcheck. Does that make it bad at the time?
Also, Nighthawk is not a replacement for Broodmate, regardless of how good it is or isn't. I don't think there is a replacement for Broodmate, and I don't think any number of Broodmates other than 3 is correct. But if someone runs something other than 3 Broodmates, I won't call them an idiot who is destroying the entire forum, I'll just ask for reasoning.
Banner courtesy of Skizzik_NZ and Maelstrom Graphics
Currently Playing:
Anything U in Theogony IX's Cube: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=5794231&postcount=1
Check out our EDH Cube! Constructive discussion welcomed. Hell, just a response would be nice.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=8316611&postcount=1
It's a solid card, but it's fairly weak with only 2 power and as others have mentioned will generally just eat a Bolt.
1) Vampire NH is over-powered! (No, it's just better than all the bad creatures in the format)
2) Vampire NH is bad in Jund, therefore it sucks! (BSA is also bad in Jund... I lol'd)
3) Deathtouch on a 2/3 flier with lifelink is teh suxxor! (Yeah, I REALLY lol'd at that one)
4) Vampire NH is a good creature that really doesn't have a place in Jund (Awesome, good reasoning, thank you)
So this is why segregation is a bad idea... a guy who claims to have "expertise" thinks Vampire NH is a bad creature. Right, cute, let's just get back to the real topic at hand.
Segregation is not a good idea (see above). Handing out warnings for ridiculous statements without support may work. I know that the forums are being modified right now, but here's my idea: 4 subforums, "Budget/Casual," "Conceptual Competitive," "Developing Competitive," and "Strictly Competitive." These would work as follows:
1) Budget/Casual: Non-tourney or budget decks
2) Conceptual: Ideas for (non-budget) decks that could have a place in the meta. Testing suggested but unrequired.
3) Developing: For better, more thoroughly tested ideas with solid analysis and logical reasoning. Testing required (minimal)
4) Strictly: For proven deck ideas or those threads the mods deem appropriate to move because of their high merit as potential contenders
/two cents
I can understand the arrogance of newbies being dismissed, but I have been to many different FNMs at different stores. At most, I've heard derogatory talk to new(ish) players regarding their decks, even when they were not bringing about discussion regarding their choices.
Such as:
"You could have won the game. You know why you're still bad at this game, because you don't read the f****** cards"
"You're playing jund hackblade!?!?? That might be the worst card in standard right now, you're gauranteed to lose now"
The player who was being chastized never showed up again, surprise. The only group I associate with is the one who is against pretentious jerks. I think you have a different view of elitism than I do. When I say elitist, i am referring to those who would like to only have an elite few be allowed to talk about certain things, or give discussion. This includes disregarding or attacking the ones they do not agree with. They would then regard them as undeserving as they value their opinion as undeserving, that is undeserving of respect.
People do have every right to take whatever they want seriously, but when that seriousness turns into attacking people, escpecially ones who do not deserve to be attacked, especially those who are new to the game, that is uncalled for and disrespectful. I am not in the business of judging people based on their arguments online, though I do understand most do. I'm just labeling the actions I see.
In this forum or not, you have to agree that there is a fair amount of elitist players who are derogatory to new players. If not maybe I just have a very skewed perception of the magic community. Creating a schism might be necessary if you want to distinguish yourselves as elitist, that is wanting to seperate yourself from the rest of the community because you have no respect for what they, worse players, say.
But there is no need for this schism, if you think something is "bad" there is no need to attack it or point it out. My point was that those players can find out for themselves. Cards are good or bad in relation to the way that they play. If you think something is a bad card for that deck, chances are it is because it plays poorly within the confines of that style. The player can figure it out, though if they ask for help and reject your charitable analysis of it, then they do not deserve the respect I am speaking of.
This game is about having fun, a very subjective experience. To try and objectify the value of decks or cards is pointless. Pretend someone has fun losing, what kind of judge are you to tell them to stop. Especially if you value winning. If they begin the disrespect, then they only have asked for what is coming to them I suppose.
My only argument is for people, the worse and better players alike, to stop this type of disrespect and value the game for the level of entertainment it provides. This value can only be enhanced when there are more people in the community. Attacking players and their ideas only disocciates everyone. This game would literally be nothing without the community, as such we need to nurture and value every member of it to ensure a healthy community in the future. The elitism, in the forum or not I have not investigated, is only detrimental to the game as a whole.
I hope I have cleared up what I was saying. I care not for the differentiation of forums, that is pointless as everyone can still post what they want wherever. I'm talking about the level respect being given, or not. If this differentiation of forums is a way to signal that some players do not belong in certain parts of the game, then it is borderline ludicrous. If not, I don't care. But in general, the community this game is surrounded in has seemed to become hostile. Not just the forums, but in events as well. Elysium's post, at first, seemed to me to be conveying the appropriatness of elitism. This may not be the case, but if it is then it is the game will become only elitists and the entertainment value will eventually be destroyed, thus lowering the population and eventually bankrupting the game.
The most fundamental part of magic is the fact that there are millions of possibilities. To reject these possibilities on the basis of stupidity is contradictory to the game itself.
I'm going to stamp a QFT here. Deck choice is only one part of winning a tournament. Sideboard strategy and knowing how to play matchups is just as important, and those are topics that are rarely discussed.