For the record, before anyone puts words in my mouth as usual, I actually believe Kaldheim will be a good set - especially based on the (albeit limited) visuals we have seen thus far. I am calling it - going to be a visually stunning setting. I love ice worlds, and there is a lot of gorgeous ice geometry, cool color palettes and vibrant aurora displays to take advantage of here. It's the lore I question, because as a plane with gods, I don't want to see PW show up and stomp around like bosses to show them up on their own turf. Which thus far, the track record with gods on planes has been just that. I'm calling the set as promising, and the lore as probably disappointing - but we'll see.
So do you have links / evidence? I'm equally happy to receive them via PM.
Statistics regarding BFZ being a commercial failure would surely qualify, if such a thing exists.
there are damn near countless articles out there pertaining as to why bfz was poorly received. it was even acknolwedged by maro in an article he wrote that they focused on the wrong aspects of zendikar for that set.
additionally, don't forget the block had expeditions. as i've said more and more frequently in recent months, a set can be a commercial success and still be a failure. sales data is not the be all metric for success.
Between the popularity of the first Zendikar block, the mounting anticipation of a more coherent story, exceptional marketing, and the inclusion of the first and best Masterpieces, the commercial success of BFZ likely had very little to do with the set itself.
Exactly. Lots of confounding factors.
Apparently MaRo himself admitting the set was poorly received, and market research, are not valid enough sources.
The article that Xcric shared in fact states that it was poorly designed, but never that the set was poorly received or a market failure. And then MrMoustache turns it around with Maro's post saying that it was the best-selling set as of that point. That's pretty high praise for something so "poorly received".
I feel like actually putting words in your mouth right now might be a charitable upgrade; what we're really doing is using our powers of inference and paraphrasing, an easy feat considering your reputation around here.
So do you have links / evidence? I'm equally happy to receive them via PM.
Statistics regarding BFZ being a commercial failure would surely qualify, if such a thing exists.
there are damn near countless articles out there pertaining as to why bfz was poorly received. it was even acknolwedged by maro in an article he wrote that they focused on the wrong aspects of zendikar for that set.
additionally, don't forget the block had expeditions. as i've said more and more frequently in recent months, a set can be a commercial success and still be a failure. sales data is not the be all metric for success.
Between the popularity of the first Zendikar block, the mounting anticipation of a more coherent story, exceptional marketing, and the inclusion of the first and best Masterpieces, the commercial success of BFZ likely had very little to do with the set itself.
Exactly. Lots of confounding factors.
Apparently MaRo himself admitting the set was poorly received, and market research, are not valid enough sources.
The article that Xcric shared in fact states that it was poorly designed, but never that the set was poorly received or a market failure. And then MrMoustache turns it around with Maro's post saying that it was the best-selling set as of that point. That's pretty high praise for something so "poorly received".
They deemed the design poor because of how it was received in market research. It's not like MaRo intentionally put out a poorly designed product or only realized it in hindsight. They had objective information that indicated that - which he has repeated multiple times on Blogatog, Twitter, and in other places.
So do you have links / evidence? I'm equally happy to receive them via PM.
Statistics regarding BFZ being a commercial failure would surely qualify, if such a thing exists.
there are damn near countless articles out there pertaining as to why bfz was poorly received. it was even acknolwedged by maro in an article he wrote that they focused on the wrong aspects of zendikar for that set.
additionally, don't forget the block had expeditions. as i've said more and more frequently in recent months, a set can be a commercial success and still be a failure. sales data is not the be all metric for success.
Between the popularity of the first Zendikar block, the mounting anticipation of a more coherent story, exceptional marketing, and the inclusion of the first and best Masterpieces, the commercial success of BFZ likely had very little to do with the set itself.
Exactly. Lots of confounding factors.
Apparently MaRo himself admitting the set was poorly received, and market research, are not valid enough sources.
The article that Xcric shared in fact states that it was poorly designed, but never that the set was poorly received or a market failure. And then MrMoustache turns it around with Maro's post saying that it was the best-selling set as of that point. That's pretty high praise for something so "poorly received".
They deemed the design poor because of how it was received in market research. It's not like MaRo intentionally put out a poorly designed product or only realized it in hindsight. They had objective information that indicated that - which he has repeated multiple times on Blogatog, Twitter, and in other places.
Did you read the link that MrMoustache shared?
BFZ was the best-selling Magic set of all time. Maro directly refuted the idea that it was unpopular with:
Battle for Zendikar is the best selling set in the 26-year history of Magic.
It's not like MaRo intentionally put out a poorly designed product or only realized it in hindsight. They had objective information that indicated that - which he has repeated multiple times on Blogatog, Twitter, and in other places.
What are you talking about? All that has been linked in the thread thus far is him saying it was poorly designed but still was "the best selling set in the 26-year history of Magic."
So do you have links / evidence? I'm equally happy to receive them via PM.
Statistics regarding BFZ being a commercial failure would surely qualify, if such a thing exists.
there are damn near countless articles out there pertaining as to why bfz was poorly received. it was even acknolwedged by maro in an article he wrote that they focused on the wrong aspects of zendikar for that set.
additionally, don't forget the block had expeditions. as i've said more and more frequently in recent months, a set can be a commercial success and still be a failure. sales data is not the be all metric for success.
Between the popularity of the first Zendikar block, the mounting anticipation of a more coherent story, exceptional marketing, and the inclusion of the first and best Masterpieces, the commercial success of BFZ likely had very little to do with the set itself.
Exactly. Lots of confounding factors.
Apparently MaRo himself admitting the set was poorly received, and market research, are not valid enough sources.
The article that Xcric shared in fact states that it was poorly designed, but never that the set was poorly received or a market failure. And then MrMoustache turns it around with Maro's post saying that it was the best-selling set as of that point. That's pretty high praise for something so "poorly received".
They deemed the design poor because of how it was received in market research. It's not like MaRo intentionally put out a poorly designed product or only realized it in hindsight. They had objective information that indicated that - which he has repeated multiple times on Blogatog, Twitter, and in other places.
Did you read the link that MrMoustache shared?
BFZ was the best-selling Magic set of all time. Maro directly refuted the idea that it was unpopular with:
Battle for Zendikar is the best selling set in the 26-year history of Magic.
We are not debating the popularity of Zendikar as a plane, but the design and reception of BFZ the set. It has already been demonstrated that sales do not equate to design success, otherwise MaRo would not have been critical of its obvious design shortcomings and compromised reception. In fact, the toned down number of Eldrazi in SOI was a direct lesson from failures in BFZ, which has also been admitted.
We are not debating the popularity of Zendikar as a plane, but the design and reception of BFZ the set. It has already been demonstrated that sales do not equate to design success, otherwise MaRo would not have been critical of its obvious design shortcomings and compromised reception. In fact, the toned down number of Eldrazi in SOI was a direct lesson from failures in BFZ, which has also been admitted.
It's been argued; that argument has not been supported, objectively, let alone proven. I have not yet seen a link between BFZ's perceived shortcomings and your contention that BFZ wasn't a good representation of Zendikar, the plane.
Perhaps you can bring yourself to admit that BFZ is a set that was well received, commercially, because people actually liked it - but struggled to find a foothold in the meta because of more overarching failures within Wizard's new block paradigm.
... your "it is bad because I do not like it" attitude.
I was going to say something to this effect, glad you beat me to it.
It is okay, I had to suffer this person in Storyline for years now. I do not post anymore much, but such outrageous posts make me to break the surface.
I'm not sure the usual suspects declaring yet another set to be 'garbage' qualifies as a preview season speaking to anything, apart from maybe some confirmation bias. As far as market research, do you have links to show how well BFZ has sold or not sold?
He has néthing. Making things up, as usual.
I only wait when he starts to use the favorite new toy of many current social media discussers "I do not have to prove what I say, you have to prove that what I say is not true"...
We are not debating the popularity of Zendikar as a plane, but the design and reception of BFZ the set. It has already been demonstrated that sales do not equate to design success, otherwise MaRo would not have been critical of its obvious design shortcomings and compromised reception. In fact, the toned down number of Eldrazi in SOI was a direct lesson from failures in BFZ, which has also been admitted.
Just sticking my head in here in the hopes I don't get decapitated, but SOI having less Eldrazi has nothing to do with BFZ. The blocks are right next to each other, meaning there's no headroom to change anything with how far ahead Wizards works. Earliest move they could've done to compensate is in Hour of Devastation.
This is the usual progression of very passionate people online: they tear each other to shreds trying to prove they're right. Trying to make them go away at peak anger is like asking someone to stop following Magic's story: the material will make them go away, not you.
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
The article that Xcric shared in fact states that it was poorly designed, but never that the set was poorly received or a market failure. And then MrMoustache turns it around with Maro's post saying that it was the best-selling set as of that point. That's pretty high praise for something so "poorly received".
So, no links then?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
Did you read the link that MrMoustache shared?
BFZ was the best-selling Magic set of all time. Maro directly refuted the idea that it was unpopular with:
What are you talking about? All that has been linked in the thread thus far is him saying it was poorly designed but still was "the best selling set in the 26-year history of Magic."
Does the second amendment cover headcannon?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Only when the grammar police shoot a person of color with it
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
I object to missing periods almost as much as missing Oxford commas!
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
It's been argued; that argument has not been supported, objectively, let alone proven. I have not yet seen a link between BFZ's perceived shortcomings and your contention that BFZ wasn't a good representation of Zendikar, the plane.
Perhaps you can bring yourself to admit that BFZ is a set that was well received, commercially, because people actually liked it - but struggled to find a foothold in the meta because of more overarching failures within Wizard's new block paradigm.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
This is the usual progression of very passionate people online: they tear each other to shreds trying to prove they're right. Trying to make them go away at peak anger is like asking someone to stop following Magic's story: the material will make them go away, not you.