- Pylgrim
- Registered User
-
Member for 18 years, 2 months, and 27 days
Last active Sat, Jul, 28 2018 23:48:19
- 0 Followers
- 5,582 Total Posts
- 197 Thanks
-
Feb 6, 2014Pylgrim posted a message on Launch Giveaway!My favorite card hast to be Venser, the Sojourner. I love flickering effects and Venser was a repeatable, free one. It made unassuming cards like Kor Hookmaster and Glimmerpoint Stag into hard locks, resetted PWs, recovered "mind-controlled creatures and abused things like Titans and Spine. I had more fun than its healthy with that card.Posted in: Announcements
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is... almost as though they were a for-profit company instead of the non-profit charity we were led to believe! Monsters!!!
You may not be far from the truth. After all, the set is not called "Money Masters" nor "Tournament Staple Masters".
Genuine question: Do you usually get $3.50 value from your normal packs?
Yes.
I get what you are saying, I myself don't have high hopes for this new product. However, I don't automatically discount that it may surprise us. Sure, some poor decisions have been made here and there, but it's not as though there have been NO positive, permanent changes at all. It is more constructive to give them credit for recognising when they have screwed up and continuously try to improve/create new things, than keeping a score of only the mistakes.
For example, the scrapping of the Core Sets: They had been continuously trying to fix and improve Core Sets for a while and unarguably they succeeded to a point. However, some "core" issues remained throughout so scrapping the product altogether was not uncalled for. Obviously, they didn't realise that along with that bathwater, an important baby was also thrown away. It /was/ a mistake, but again, not uncalled for and it is is a good thing that they are fixing it now. Hopefully, its removal and subsequent consequences served to emphasise what exactly is good and necessary for a Core Set and the upcoming iteration will be the best ever. That process of trying, failing, iterating and improving is something that I wouldn't blame anybody for, and much prefer it to a company, who afraid to take risks and failing, plays too safe and the status quo never changes.
What you neglect to mention is that for each of those cases and many more you could imagine, it was not a "return to normality" after the "mistake" was acknowledged, but rather, moving towards something different to both the "old" and the "newer", something that comes from the lessons learned through the process. What would you rather they do? Not acknowledge their "mistakes" nor do something better? Or simply never ever changing anything from the old times, never taking risks, never creating new things? Or maybe, doing all that, but somehow, getting it /absolutely perfect/ from the first attempt?
And seriously, would you blame them for changing a product that is over 10 years old? Most /companies/ don't last that long and most non-consumable products are entirely redesigned every few years.
Relax, there are only 45 contraptions in the set and I imagine not many more than that number of cards that care about them. That means that well over half of the set is not about contraptions. They have purposefully been concealing the second main mechanic, too. They just made this week all about contraptions.
I'm guessing it is a little extra something for those who open Vraska and go the odd BG path.
One is tempted to suggest not to add any garbage to your deck. More seriously, though, if your three next cards are garbage, you got them out of the way instead of over three painful turns.
Pretty sure it was Admiral Beckett narrating.
Also, how are you getting "shortchanged"? How is the fact that this card is worse than Overrun rips you off your money while profiting WotC more?
Dude, please stop talking, you know nothing, nothing at all.
1st: Mark Rosewater is the guy at the beginning of the process, who creates /some/ of the cards' first drafts. He's not an overseer of the full process, nor the one to establish and enforce the power level or the creative direction of cards, nor the one to "okay" the whole result at the end. If you actually read his articles you'd notice how he keeps mentioning that cards he or other people designed were changed by development in ways that they could not influence or predict.
2nd: Again, if you read his articles as you said, you'd have picked up that he's barely involved at all in second sets due to his workload.
3rd: this card was clearly not a makeshift patching of refused art and mechanics. It is clearly a card purposefully created by the Creative Department representative to stress how in a world crumbling to bits, the mummies kept dragging along as if nothing. It's not a cutesy joke, it is a world-building statement.
Well, I was not saying either that there are not such things as bad cards Only that even what seems "bad" compared to older, similar cards might actually be good enough for the very different conditions of the meta once it settles. So what seems poorly designed in comparison to older sets that created a different power level scenario, might actually be intentional design adjusting to a modern scenario that will be just as fun (hopefully) as the older one with its comparatively stronger cards were. In fact, over-powered cards have, historically, ruined more Standard formats than under-powered ones.