See, it's threads like this that remind me why it was a good idea to resign from moderating.
I've always enjoyed reading Tom's articles and the the insight they've provided into the development process. And for what it's worth, the "get off the forums" article is one of my favorite Latest Developments articles of all time. Because when you spend time having to clean up the piles of refuse that collect here you quickly come to realize that when you spend too much time just talking about Magic (on the internet or in person) as opposed to actually playing you really start to lose perspective. "Stop complaining about DFCs until you've had a chance to actually use them" was absolutely correct. And the same thing happens every single time there's any change or new addition to the game of any sort. The number of times the game has been declared to be irreparable ruined immediately after some announcement or other is staggering.
Anyway, I'm happy to see that Tom is following where his passion takes him. I wish him well and hope he finds that he has made the best decision for himself. And congratulations to Zac Hill, now returning to regularly scheduled Chattering.
Because when you spend time having to clean up the piles of refuse that collect here you quickly come to realize that when you spend too much time just talking about Magic (on the internet or in person) as opposed to actually playing you really start to lose perspective.
But doesn't this apply to them as well?
I think developers get less effective as the time since they last played professionally increases. Sure they do their own playtesting, but that's not the same as a GP/PT.
He does acknowledge in that article that R&D can fall into the same traps of too much theorycraft versus actual testing. The fact that they're aware of it is a good thing, even if it does still happen (it always will).
He does acknowledge in that article that R&D can fall into the same traps of too much theorycraft versus actual testing. The fact that they're aware of it is a good thing, even if it does still happen (it always will).
It's a good thing to acknowledge it, but that doesn't actually fix the problem if they don't also do something about it. They should find some way to allow R&D to play in high-level events without it being unfair to other players.
I loved his articles about the process of development, but as a player I always found his explanations to be condescending, presumptuous, and paternalistic.
They should find some way to allow R&D to play in high-level events without it being unfair to other players.
The problem is... how do you do that?
The only thing I can think of is some kind of "bounty" tournament where there is a top prize that the R&D people can play for, but each time they lose the person who beat them gets to take a set portion from the prize. or something like that.
The only thing I can think of is some kind of "bounty" tournament where there is a top prize that the R&D people can play for, but each time they lose the person who beat them gets to take a set portion from the prize. or something like that.
The only thing I can think of is some kind of "bounty" tournament where there is a top prize that the R&D people can play for, but each time they lose the person who beat them gets to take a set portion from the prize. or something like that.
The thing with D&D is that something like caw-blade can't exist... because its not competitive
But still the classes need to be generally balanced so that one doesn't overshadow the other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You've got a rat in your walls, and cheese won't solve anything.
I thought D&D was pretty dead and everyone jumped over to Pathfinder after 4.0 killed D&D? Not that I peruse the universe of roleplayers a lot, but my grounp plays 3.0, every group I know of plays 3.5 or Pathfinder, and I haven't seen a posting in an LGS asking for people to play D&D in years. There are at least 15 Pathfinder groups posting for new players on our local corkboard.
Anyway, any change to the current design/R&D is welcome for me. The past 5 years have changed the game into something I barely recognize and rarely enjoy playing.
Was LaPille the one who it always seemed like he went out of his way to nerf combo decks? If so, I'm very interested to see what new directions some of the upcoming blocks take. If not.. well, I dunno, it's very difficult for us outsiders to quantify how much input any one person has in the design and development of a given block. Although I will agree that some of the things he said about the dominance of CawBlade seemed ludicrous.
I have heard vague rumors of a moustache-dispensing vending machine in a distant laundromat, across the street from a tattoo parlor. However, this information is shaky, and time is of the essence.
The only thing I can think of is some kind of "bounty" tournament where there is a top prize that the R&D people can play for, but each time they lose the person who beat them gets to take a set portion from the prize. or something like that.
A couple ideas:
1. Rotate them. You spend a couple years on Magic development then a couple years on something non-Magic related inside the company. You're allowed to play in high-level events at the proper times.
2. Let (in fact, require) developers play in high-level events. Add a round to these events and change the pairing algorithm so that no player plays a developer more than once. One round for each player (the round they play a developer, if they ever do) is considered an exhibition round and doesn't count towards the standings, but there is a separate prize for beating a developer. The developers aren't eligible for prizes themselves, but get bonuses (not from the tournament prize pool) for doing well.
I thought D&D was pretty dead and everyone jumped over to Pathfinder after 4.0 killed D&D? Not that I peruse the universe of roleplayers a lot, but my grounp plays 3.0, every group I know of plays 3.5 or Pathfinder, and I haven't seen a posting in an LGS asking for people to play D&D in years. There are at least 15 Pathfinder groups posting for new players on our local corkboard.
Anyway, any change to the current design/R&D is welcome for me. The past 5 years have changed the game into something I barely recognize and rarely enjoy playing.
Pretty close. WotC implemented a bunch of changes that didn't go over well with players. They took a "Well you'll just have to learn to like it, there isn't any other alternative!" approach to the community complaints (sound familiar guys?) and then Pathfinder came out and people flooded into that game. For almost a year now it's outsold 4E and now WotC is busy playing catch up. They tried to make an "Essentials" product which was basically an attempt to get 4E to be as similar to 3.5 as possible to draw back pathfinder fans but it didn't, it just alienated the people who liked 4E. So now they are really in a bind, they've barely released any products in the last six months, and there is a new edition coming down the pipes.
So yeah. As much as MTG has its problems right now, D&D has it worse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You've got a rat in your walls, and cheese won't solve anything.
They took a "Well you'll just have to learn to like it, there isn't any other alternative!" approach to the community complaints (sound familiar guys?)
Yeah, that seems to be the standard WoTC approach to games design these days. They can afford to do that with MTG because there aren't many viable competitors and the frictional costs of moving from one CCG to another are pretty high. Roleplaying games have to be the easiet genre to switch systems there is. Glad to see thier high horse attitude bit them in the ass.
1. Rotate them. You spend a couple years on Magic development then a couple years on something non-Magic related inside the company. You're allowed to play in high-level events at the proper times.
2. Let (in fact, require) developers play in high-level events. Add a round to these events and change the pairing algorithm so that no player plays a developer more than once. One round for each player (the round they play a developer, if they ever do) is considered an exhibition round and doesn't count towards the standings, but there is a separate prize for beating a developer. The developers aren't eligible for prizes themselves, but get bonuses (not from the tournament prize pool) for doing well.
Back when SWCCG was still running, I played in a local tournament for charity. The entry fee was $35.00 and the prizes were pretty significant (all donated, so entry fees went straight to chairty). But the neat part was the TO pulled aside myself, and about 5 other of the top local players before the tournament and told us he was going to make an announcement.
Each of use would start the tournament with a stack of booster packs from a set not among the prizes. Whenever we lost a round (other than to one of us), we were to give a pack from our stack to the person who beat us. The pack could be kept or traded in for significantly more packs of an older set at the players choice. At the end we got to keep whatever packs we had left.
Effectively, the TO put a bounty on the top 6 players at the tournament. I'm proud to say that of the 6 of us, only one pack was given out.
Doing something similar with R&D people could also function pretty well. It would even work without screwing up ratings now because you just make the points from it not count for your professional total. Bam, nobodies rankings are screwed up.
Yeah, that seems to be the standard WoTC approach to games design these days. They can afford to do that with MTG because there aren't many viable competitors and the frictional costs of moving from one CCG to another are pretty high. Roleplaying games have to be the easiet genre to switch systems there is. Glad to see thier high horse attitude bit them in the ass.
As a player. As a GM its significantly harder to switch (as I learned trying to start a shadowrun campaign. Which is awesome but I know jack all about the rules which made it fail :()
As a player. As a GM its significantly harder to switch (as I learned trying to start a shadowrun campaign. Which is awesome but I know jack all about the rules which made it fail :()
Thats more a comment on how dadly written Shadowrun was than anything
But that's the beauty of d20. Once you understand the basic rules concepts which are so simple a 5th grader could master them, you are free to wrap any environment you want around it. You could play D&D/generic fantasy, horror, steampunk, modern, superhero, out space, shadowrun, star wars, any environment you cared, and all you needed to do were learn the few small tweaks the system used.
d20 really was the final word in RPG game design. That's the reason my playgroup never even glanced at 4.0. d20 works beautifully.
Each of use would start the tournament with a stack of booster packs from a set not among the prizes. Whenever we lost a round (other than to one of us), we were to give a pack from our stack to the person who beat us. The pack could be kept or traded in for significantly more packs of an older set at the players choice. At the end we got to keep whatever packs we had left.
We do this every year at are local champs, I was that guy last year also only losing 1 pack, its a fun side thing to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Learn from my mistakes least you reapeat them" - Qoute ME
Thanks to PurpleD from Left Play Designs for the banner:D
Personally I'm happy to see him go. Anyone who thinks relatively non-interactive combo decks like Dredge and Storm shouldn't be a part of Magic is not someone I want in R&D. Maybe once he's gone Standard will start getting back to it's roots. By this I mean slow combo decks, blue control decks with very little in the way of card advantage engines, weenie aggro decks, and a limited number of relatively unimpressive large creatures.
I loves me some combo, but I'm not a fan of the fatties
Personally I'm happy to see him go. Anyone who thinks relatively non-interactive combo decks like Dredge and Storm shouldn't be a part of Magic is not someone I want in R&D. Maybe once he's gone Standard will start getting back to it's roots. By this I mean slow combo decks, blue control decks with very little in the way of card advantage engines, weenie aggro decks, and a limited number of relatively unimpressive large creatures.
I loves me some combo, but I'm not a fan of the fatties
I'm pretty sure that at least Aaron Forsythe shares a dislike for "solitaire" decks. So don't hold your breath.
I've always enjoyed reading Tom's articles and the the insight they've provided into the development process. And for what it's worth, the "get off the forums" article is one of my favorite Latest Developments articles of all time. Because when you spend time having to clean up the piles of refuse that collect here you quickly come to realize that when you spend too much time just talking about Magic (on the internet or in person) as opposed to actually playing you really start to lose perspective. "Stop complaining about DFCs until you've had a chance to actually use them" was absolutely correct. And the same thing happens every single time there's any change or new addition to the game of any sort. The number of times the game has been declared to be irreparable ruined immediately after some announcement or other is staggering.
Anyway, I'm happy to see that Tom is following where his passion takes him. I wish him well and hope he finds that he has made the best decision for himself. And congratulations to Zac Hill, now returning to regularly scheduled Chattering.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
But doesn't this apply to them as well?
I think developers get less effective as the time since they last played professionally increases. Sure they do their own playtesting, but that's not the same as a GP/PT.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
It's a good thing to acknowledge it, but that doesn't actually fix the problem if they don't also do something about it. They should find some way to allow R&D to play in high-level events without it being unfair to other players.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Oh sure. But if that's their answer they also need to force the old blood out.
Though it's possible that is what happened and Tom's statement is just him putting a spin on it.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
The problem is... how do you do that?
The only thing I can think of is some kind of "bounty" tournament where there is a top prize that the R&D people can play for, but each time they lose the person who beat them gets to take a set portion from the prize. or something like that.
The thing with D&D is that something like caw-blade can't exist... because its not competitive
Make Developers into tournament "end-bosses"?
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
And they're able to play decks outside the format. Also banned/un-cards too.
I like this idea more than you'd ever know nor understand.
But still the classes need to be generally balanced so that one doesn't overshadow the other.
Anyway, any change to the current design/R&D is welcome for me. The past 5 years have changed the game into something I barely recognize and rarely enjoy playing.
Not entirely true. Mirage-Tempest was pretty amazing.
A couple ideas:
1. Rotate them. You spend a couple years on Magic development then a couple years on something non-Magic related inside the company. You're allowed to play in high-level events at the proper times.
2. Let (in fact, require) developers play in high-level events. Add a round to these events and change the pairing algorithm so that no player plays a developer more than once. One round for each player (the round they play a developer, if they ever do) is considered an exhibition round and doesn't count towards the standings, but there is a separate prize for beating a developer. The developers aren't eligible for prizes themselves, but get bonuses (not from the tournament prize pool) for doing well.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Pretty close. WotC implemented a bunch of changes that didn't go over well with players. They took a "Well you'll just have to learn to like it, there isn't any other alternative!" approach to the community complaints (sound familiar guys?) and then Pathfinder came out and people flooded into that game. For almost a year now it's outsold 4E and now WotC is busy playing catch up. They tried to make an "Essentials" product which was basically an attempt to get 4E to be as similar to 3.5 as possible to draw back pathfinder fans but it didn't, it just alienated the people who liked 4E. So now they are really in a bind, they've barely released any products in the last six months, and there is a new edition coming down the pipes.
So yeah. As much as MTG has its problems right now, D&D has it worse.
Yeah, that seems to be the standard WoTC approach to games design these days. They can afford to do that with MTG because there aren't many viable competitors and the frictional costs of moving from one CCG to another are pretty high. Roleplaying games have to be the easiet genre to switch systems there is. Glad to see thier high horse attitude bit them in the ass.
Back when SWCCG was still running, I played in a local tournament for charity. The entry fee was $35.00 and the prizes were pretty significant (all donated, so entry fees went straight to chairty). But the neat part was the TO pulled aside myself, and about 5 other of the top local players before the tournament and told us he was going to make an announcement.
Each of use would start the tournament with a stack of booster packs from a set not among the prizes. Whenever we lost a round (other than to one of us), we were to give a pack from our stack to the person who beat us. The pack could be kept or traded in for significantly more packs of an older set at the players choice. At the end we got to keep whatever packs we had left.
Effectively, the TO put a bounty on the top 6 players at the tournament. I'm proud to say that of the 6 of us, only one pack was given out.
Doing something similar with R&D people could also function pretty well. It would even work without screwing up ratings now because you just make the points from it not count for your professional total. Bam, nobodies rankings are screwed up.
As a player. As a GM its significantly harder to switch (as I learned trying to start a shadowrun campaign. Which is awesome but I know jack all about the rules which made it fail :()
Thats more a comment on how dadly written Shadowrun was than anything
But that's the beauty of d20. Once you understand the basic rules concepts which are so simple a 5th grader could master them, you are free to wrap any environment you want around it. You could play D&D/generic fantasy, horror, steampunk, modern, superhero, out space, shadowrun, star wars, any environment you cared, and all you needed to do were learn the few small tweaks the system used.
d20 really was the final word in RPG game design. That's the reason my playgroup never even glanced at 4.0. d20 works beautifully.
We do this every year at are local champs, I was that guy last year also only losing 1 pack, its a fun side thing to do.
Thanks to PurpleD from Left Play Designs for the banner:D
(U/B)(U/B)(U/B) JUMP IN THE LINE, ROCK YOUR BODY IN TIME
(R/W)(R/W)(R/W) RISING FROM THE NEON GLOOM, SHINING LIKE A CRAZY MOON
(U/R)(R/G)(G/U) STEALIN' WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUYIN'
Tom and others have said multiple times that they didn't see Caw-Blade coming.
I loves me some combo, but I'm not a fan of the fatties
I'm pretty sure that at least Aaron Forsythe shares a dislike for "solitaire" decks. So don't hold your breath.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Strong Creature :symg::symg:
Trample (Trample is really good.)
3/1
Tricky Creature
Flash (Your opponents will never suspect this!)
1/1
Sign up for League of Legends!