On a more serious note, Sensei, can't you upload the spreadsheet to a Google drive account and make it available to us? That would be much appreciated and would probably make your life so much easier (all that you need to do is to update the spreadsheet afterwards).
I have never seen or used those programs, cgomes. So I don't know how complicated or easy or cheat-proof they are. If there are bugs, etc. I guess they are not checking rules, all is done and observed by the players alone, like playing with paper cards. I know this kind of simulators for boardgames. It is somehow intriguing, but definitely has also disadvantages. The obvious one is, who would play if there are no prizes and you can use any card that you want? I could imagine it would get boring very soon.
At least here on MTGO, all events without prizes died soon.
Why no prizes? Because, why should the sponsor pay for a free tournament for free cards not even related to MTGO and his bots?
I understand your point and it makes a lot of sense, ML_Berlin. I'm just trying to come up with alternatives to our current system, as the money issue is brought up every now and then. I, for one, could care less about the small ticket prize but I understand that some of us might play to win tickets.
Have you guys ever talked about the possibility of using a program other than the official MTGO program for the event series? Every now and then, the money issues is brought up by someone. If that's a big issue, why not use XMage or Cokatrice instead? (I kinda hate cokatrice but XMage is actually pretty good.) Some of those programs even allow you to create a server for the entire event and keep track of everything that's going on. Digital cards would be free then and everyone would have total freedom to build whatever deck they want to play without worrying about spending money on cards. Any thoughts?
I would love to read event reports. The list that Sensei updates after every event is pretty good but an actual report of each event--talking about the decks and matchups--would be even better. I have seen people doing this before and it seems very informative. My only concern is that this would take a lot of your time, STsung, and I would never ask someone who is not being paid to do that. (Instead of making random quizzes that have nothing to do with MTG, it would be so much better if Berlin gave tickets for people who want to promote the format but lack incentive to do so.) Perhaps monthly reports would be more viable than weekly reports. Another option is to create a website where we can upload videos of our games--perhaps a Youtube channele with a shared account, a dropbox account, etc. At least for me, it's not a big deal to record every game and then simply upload them afterwards. It's a shame that the current version of mtgo does not save a replay file though. Overall, I like the idea of event reports.
Hey guys, sorry about my absence in the last two events. I moved to a new apartment last week and I have not had much time left to play magic. Hopefully, I will be able to join you guys next week or so. On a different note, I'm super excited about the new conspiracy cards, as many of them seem relevant to the formats I play, but I'm also really sad that WotC won't release them online any time soon. There's an interesting discussion going on on reddit for anyone interested in this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/51z0x6/an_open_letter_concerning_the_release_date_of_cn2/. See you guys next week!
When will the cards from Eldritch Moon be added to Gatherling.com? It cannot seem to find them right now. Is there a workaround we can use in the meantime?
I think you missed this: However, it is definitely too late to stop it now
The cat is out of the sack, as we say in German, implying she won't go back inside ..
The discussion has started 2 weeks ago, and it makes no sense to stop it or being silent the next month, so we just can go on with it, however, we definitely won't vote in the summer slump.
I agree. So, when are we going to vote exactly? Please post an actual date.
2nd, it looks like you really have problems to put yourself in the position of a new or let's say non-expert player. Even I would have to look up some of the mentioned cards, a new player even more. 5min is a joke!
3rd, the absolutely last thing I want, are voters, that need 5 min to decide on such a complex task! I want a well informed decision, only reading all previous related posts will take an hour or two at least, without spending a second for a thought of his own. If any non-expert player wants to propose a card to be banned, that he does not own or know by name, he must first search it, he must(if he wants to be successful) explain his reasons, which could be quite some effort, especially if he is no native speaker.
If you really want a well-informed decision by the voters, it should be clear that this process will take a few hours for everyone, which I think is not only still acceptable, but the only way in a real democracy. Of course, if someone followed the discussion from the start, the final act of voting may only take 2 min, the considerations definitly shouldn't be only for 2 min.
The process has 3 stages, ML_Berlin, and I get it that the amount of time each player will dedicate to each stage is variable because it depends on several factors that are beyond our control. During the first stage, we will come up with a list of cards (the watchlist) for the current year. I am pretty sure most players can quickly name a few cards that they think should be banned/unbanned because we will often mention a few candidates during events and here on the forum. If someone does not feel that any card should be banned/unbanned, or if someone does not feel comfortable mentioning one or more cards, just don't mention any card at all during this stage. (Just to be clear: naming a card at this stage does not guarantee that the card will be part of the watchlist. There must be many players mentioning the same card in order to add it to the watchlist.) During the second stage, we will have an open discussion about each card that ended up on the current year's watchlist. This is the time to share opinions and to learn about the pros and cons of banning/unbanning each card on the watchlist. Therefore, we should give people plenty of time to do that, so their ratings in the next and last stage of the process are well informed. During the third and last stage of the process, we will let everyone rate each card on a scale from -5 (definitely don’t ban / keep banned) to 0 (indifferent) to +5 (definitely ban / unban). I completely agree with you that we should give people plenty of time to submit their ratings because we want as many players to participate in this stage as possible and as you mentioned, we want their decisions to be well informed. However, we cannot control how much information people will have access to before submitting their ratings, or even if they are willing to learn about the pros and cons of banning/unbanning a card. Some players will have formed opinions about each card by then and will quickly submit their ratings. Also, if someone feels that nothing should be changed, it's just a matter of rating the cards -5. All we can do is set a deadline and encourage people to use good judgment.
4th, I hope that at least some have an eye on the whole thing, too, the big picture. I still think, that first, we should define the goals of the bannings or unbannings. Do we (or a majortiy of us) want an experimental format, easy to ban or unban cards, a kind of trial-and-error method? Do we want complete freedom of choice in bannings or do we want to preserve the old format mainly? Do we think that the format has severe problems and need changes? Or is the majority satisfied with it?
These questions should be answered first.
They have already been defined. The purpose of a banned list is to keep the metagame balanced/diverse/healthy. All those questions have already been answered and there's consensus among the players. We have to move forward with this discussion; not backwards.
cgomes, regarding the card Evolutionary Leap, you are a harsh taskmaster.
Whilst I agree with most of your points, I do not think it is fair to highlight that this enchantment dies to permission and disruption (eg. counterspell, thoughtseize etc). Almost all cards in this format die to permission and disruption, and being at 2 mana and being an enchantment, it has more chances than most cards to sneak under the permission and disruption spells. The fact that it is 2 mana means that if I am on the play and if I want to prioritize resolving it against a control player, then my opponent will need to have by their Turn 1 a Force of Will, Daze, Force Spike, Spell Pierce or Spell Snare, and in the case of Daze and Force Spike, that it is assuming that I did not cast any of my mana dorks on Turn 1. Even if my opponent runs all 5 of these counterspells in their deck and runs 3 spot discard spells, the odds are against them having the relevant permission or disruption card by the time they need it by the end of their Turn 1. It is MUCH easier to resolve an Evolutionary Leap against a control player than it is to resolve an Armageddon, Natural Order or Greater Good for example, because almost all of their counters are online by Turns 3 and 4.
And as to Thoughtseize, well, a Thoughtseize on Turn 1 discards any non-land, so I don't view that as a weakness worth noting (also Thoughtseize is a notoriously bad top-deck to draw late game, whereas my Evolutionary Leap shines at various stages of the game).
I now want to use this card against you in an upcoming chainsaw tournament, so beware!
Oh! When I said that it competes with permission and disruption spells, I was actually referring to the fact that it competes for a card slot in the decklist, as there are other (better, more flexible) spells to protect your board. I very much agree with your overall assessment of the card though. In fact, I have been thinking about making an abzan list to take advantage of leap and other similar cards. Let's see who brings the spiciest brew next weekend!
each player will name 5 cards that should be banned/unbanned; the community will have 2-3 days to submit their votes; then the banned list manager will check the frequency of each card and select the top 5 cards with highest frequency
I'm not sure, but it looks like my English got much worse than I thought. This is practically the opposite of what I'm proposing! First of all, this procedure put enormous pressure on all players to contribute cards, because if they don't, other proposals will have much heigher weight due the fact that at the end a total sum will collected AND even worse, every time there will be 5 changes in ban list! No matter if they make sense at all, the top5 cards will be moving in either direction.
And generally, it makes no sense at all, to have such a short time for voting. Especially if you want a wide participation! Not all players check the forum on a daily base or even play every Saturday, 2 weeks is the lowest period of time, I would accept for such an important voting.
Let me assure you that your concerns about the voting process are unfounded. First, there is no a priori reason to believe that there will be 5 changes to the banned list every voting cycle. In fact, there's not even a priori reason to believe that there will be any change what so ever. Changes to the banned list will depend on the final voting step, which requires players to rate each card on a scale from -5 (definitely don’t ban / keep banned) to 0 (indifferent) to +5 (definitely ban / unban). If the weighted means are reliably higher than 0, action must be taken (ban or unban); otherwise, nothing is done. Therefore, action will only be taken if there's statistical evidence supporting it, which will only happen if a large portion of the community definitely wants to ban/unban a card on the watch list. Second, taking 5 min. to participate in the voting process is not, by any standard, putting an enormous pressure on all players. I am pretty sure we are all very busy but I am also pretty sure we can all find a few minutes to name a few cards and then rate them later on. After all, it's in the best interest of everyone to keep the format healthy/balanced. If someone does not want to participate in this process, then that same person should no complaint about the results of it. We are actually creating an opportunity for everyone's voice to be heard. This is good, ML_Berlin, not something to frown upon.
2 weeks sounds okay but this should be discussed with whoever will be put in charge of the banned list. We need volunteers.
I see no reason to provide URLs to the highlander list because we are not using it in any shape or form. (This, by the way, is the list used by the german highlander community. Other paper highlander communities have different lists and different ban policies--check aussie and canadian, for example. So, again, there's no need to make specific reference to the german highlander banned list. Also, there's no reason believe our process will lead to the same list. What we are doing right now is actually better than anything that has been done in EDH, german, aussie, and canadian highlander because we are making our community part of the process, instead of electing a few individuals to make such decisions. We will be responsible for our own format.)
Per my previous message, we also need a date that we will start discussing changes to the banned list. ML_Berlin, could you please post it here?
I recommend the green enchantment called Evolutionary Leap. There are many players in this chainsaw tournament who like to remove your creatures with spot-removal. When I draw Evolutionary Leap against the control and midrange foes, I smile.
Why no one else use this enchantment?
This enchantment is very good with enter-the-battlefield cards like Thragtusk, netting you a 3-for-1 if your opponent tries to remove the Thragtusk. And if you cycle the white card "Decree of Justice" for 5 tokens for example, then it is a 6-for-1 which cannot be countered (not even taking into account enter-the-battlefield effects of the new creatures found in the library). When you cycle Decree of Justice whilst you have an Evolutionary Leap on the battlefield, it is a good feeling.
It's particularly good with evoke and persist creatures, but the lack of control over what it finds is a major drawback. It's a slow and unreliable engine that does not develop your board--that is, it won't always replace a threat with another threat, you need to leave mana up to activate it, and you will also need mana to cast whatever creature it puts in your hand to break even (because leap effectively removed one of your creatures from the battlefield). If you plan to use it as protection against removals, then it will have a hard time competing against the more flexible permission and disruption spells (e.g., counterspell, thoughtseize, etc.). That said, I don't think it is a bad card--if you can pair it with etb effects and something like séance to recur creatures you sac'ed with leap, your opp will definitely have a hard time playing against you. I wouldn't include it in every deck running green though.
ML_Berlin, thanks for sharing your experience playing MtG. I also started playing MtG when it was first released, so I understand where you are coming from and I can actually relate to it. Even though this discussion is all over the place, I think we are making progress towards a more organized and transparent process for banning/unbanning cards.
Now, you mentioned that this might not be the right time to have this discussion because many players are on vacation and won’t be able to participate in the discussion. This is an important observation that I was not aware of. Thank you for bringing it up. So, to keep this as organized as possible, why don’t we start establishing a date to discuss changes to the banned list? Let’s make this our first priority and post the date here.
The other thing you mentioned is that it would be a good idea to have more people managing the banned list. I think it would be appropriate for the senior members of the S100 community to step up and take on this role. Let’s make this our second priority. (If no one volunteers, I can help with that.)
Again, I don’t think we need a complex process to create the watch list. A straightforward method is to let the community create such a list: on the first day that we will start discussing changes to the banned list, whoever volunteered to manage the banned list will create a poll in which each player will name 5 cards that should be banned/unbanned; the community will have 2-3 days to submit their votes; then the banned list manager will check the frequency of each card and select the top 5 cards with highest frequency. After that, we can simply follow the process I described in my previous messages—that is, open discussion about each card on the watch list, stating pros and cons of banning/unbanning, followed by final voting. For complete transparency, all results should be posted here.
That's it. I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda that favors one archetype over another, or one that favors veterans over newbies. The only thing I want to push is the implementation of an organized process for changing the banned list—and one that reflects our community’s desires; not the desire of whoever is managing the banned list. Just a good old fashioned democratic process. That’s all.
ML_Berlin, does that sound fair? If it does, let's get it rolling.
ML_Berlin, I am not sure if it is a language barrier or something else entirely, but I am having a hard time understanding your position regarding the banned list and what sort of action you are going to take (if any at all). Instead of having discussions about random cards that someone mentions here on occasion, why can’t we start using a formal process for banning and unbanning cards, per my previous suggestion?
Again, make a list of cards and let’s have an organized, structured discussion about the pros and cons of banning/unbanning each card on your list. If you do not feel comfortable making such a list, let the community know about it and we can elect one or two players to take on this responsibility.
It's no coincidence that no new player raised his voice here, neither would I, if I played only a few weeks or a handful of games in a format. You have only a feeling of like or dislike, but no real points or arguments versus the veterans and all their experience. I talked with a few (3), nobody complained about RDW, Michelle:-), but 2 about the 'unfair' decks. You could argue, that this is not representative, ok, but the others just went away. Maybe, because somthing that sounded like a fun format, turned out to be a frustrating two-fisted vintage look-alike.
I also loved the idea to make new decks and concepts from my card pool. A Wasteland for 80 US$(price at that time) was completely crazy and out of my universe, my complete S100 deck wasn't worth 80 bucks. My most expensive card was about 3 or 4 tix. And then we have players, who field the most expensive MTGO cards in dozens into a single deck, from Rishadan Port to Liliana of the Veil, and announce that combo-decks are no problem and easy to beat.
I'm trying the difficult task of doing the splits between Veterans and new players.
I am new to the format and I have voiced my opinion here. I understand that we come from different backgrounds but it is probably not in our best interest to split the community into veterans and newbies. Any player is capable of providing insightful comments that can help us improve the format. Also, if we want the format to flourish, it is fundamental to keep the entire community engaged to any process that concerns changes to the format, so that any changes to it reflect the community’s desire, rather than one player’s desire. This is one reason we should allow every player to participate in the process of changing the banned list, and the process I outlined in post #226 is in agreement with this idea. In addition, the open discussion step of the process I outlined before allows us to take advantage of the experience that some members of the community have playing MtG to inform us about the different views on how each card affects the metagame, thus allowing less experienced players to form their own opinion about each card considered for banning/unbanning.
I have no idea why prices are being mentioned in connection to the banned list discussion. I am fairly new to the S100 format but I am sure it was never supposed to be a budget-oriented format, such as pauper, heirloom, and peasant. Banning cards because they are too expensive for new players is like saying that in vintage, we should ban cards on the reserved list to make the format more accessible to new players. It doesn’t make sense. And by the way, the current S100 environment feels nothing like vintage. It’s a beast of its own, which is why I was first attracted to it.
Not all of us have played with Life from the Loam and Intuition/Gifts for example. Some people do not know how it feels when someone plays Mishra's Workshop -> Trinisphere t1 or Flash -> Hulk t2.
That's my point, too. How could one vote about banning certain cards, if one never played with or against them. And of course a S100 player, that is not playing Vintage would probably not doing the right counter-measures( if there are any at all, given his hand) when a strange card but unknown combo-piece appears. Only a Vintage player, would recognize a threat here. I don't like the idea, of just copying combos from vintage or wherever and negating the S100 format.
I can only repeat, the usage of the Vintage filter is out of practical reasons only( a handful of cards are banned in Legacy that were allowed in official S100 ban list and now so many formats have been stuffed into Legacy folder), and NOT because we wanted a vintage-like environment.
That’s the reason why we should have an open discussion about each card considered for banning/unbanning: more experienced players can provide different views on why a given card should be banned/unbanned, so that new players can read their comments and then form their own opinion about the card. If one does not feel strongly about a card, there should be an option that reflects such a position, which would be 0 on the scale I suggested. Again, the S100 environment is nothing like the vintage environment. I cannot emphasize this enough. In fact, none of the combo strategies that have been mentioned before even see play in competitive vintage. And then again, I feel compelled to repeat what has been said by several members of the community before: there’s nothing wrong with combo strategies, whether it is a dedicated combo list or not. The presence of combo in conjunction with many other archetypes is actually a marker that the format has a healthy metagame.
If one player plays the deck (like the one I attached) everything is fine but if more and more people will start playing it you will see that there is a problem somewhere. In the case of my deck first Natural Order was banned, later Entomb, then Mystical Tutor and in the end it was Necrotic Ooze itself (Dig and Cruise) that was banned. But this does not need to be only the case of combo decks.
Yes, I agree. But, instead of doing it slice by slice, I rather want to find a solution now. The process you described to ban Necrotic Ooze took 2 years! If we make, too, a half-year adjustment to ban list,like the Higlander community for paper.
Their process was described very well in post #222 by c_gomes, I like the extra twist of +/- 1to5. But there seems to be a tendency to search and find reasons to unban cards and raising the powerlevel. Their ban list is much shorter than ours or the last official one. Of course, when they unbanned Demonic Tutor, they had no reason to not un-ban Ponder as well
I guess that the MTG veterans that play all formats( and especially vintage) dominate there, and that they are not so much on the chase of new players than we are.
It is a mistake to try to attract new players to the format by changing what cards are legal. If you want to bring more players to the format, start advertising it. Dawtz’s comment illustrates the lack of visibility. Advertise the events in other forums, write articles about it, such as the one that STsung wrote, make videos about the format, deck techs, gameplays, etc. There are so many ways to bring new blood to the format, but changing the banned list is not one of them.
ML_Berlin, regarding the cards BRAINSTORM and PONDER, your points are good and fair. However, I ask you to note that these two iconic blue cards are good fun to cast (and they are cheap and budget friendly for new players)
That's why I would rather prefer to ban Necrotic Ooze, Helm of Obedience etc. themselves instead. I didn't vote against unbanning BRAINSTORM and PONDER in the first place.
Here’s an example of uninformed decision about which cards to ban, which might come up if you don’t take advantage of the feedback provided by the community: Necrotic Ooze is not a central part of the degenerate combo you want to ban because a player running a dedicated Hermit Druid list would simply replace the Ooze package with the Angel of Glory’s Rise package. ML_Berlin, take advantage of our input. We just want what’s best for the format. Implement a formalized process for banning/unbanning cards instead of this random card discussion. Explain the process in detail and then start using it.
On a more serious note, Sensei, can't you upload the spreadsheet to a Google drive account and make it available to us? That would be much appreciated and would probably make your life so much easier (all that you need to do is to update the spreadsheet afterwards).
I understand your point and it makes a lot of sense, ML_Berlin. I'm just trying to come up with alternatives to our current system, as the money issue is brought up every now and then. I, for one, could care less about the small ticket prize but I understand that some of us might play to win tickets.
According to SenseiRob's message, we should not comment in cards from Eldritch Moon, but I have no idea what "comment in" means.
I agree. So, when are we going to vote exactly? Please post an actual date.
The process has 3 stages, ML_Berlin, and I get it that the amount of time each player will dedicate to each stage is variable because it depends on several factors that are beyond our control. During the first stage, we will come up with a list of cards (the watchlist) for the current year. I am pretty sure most players can quickly name a few cards that they think should be banned/unbanned because we will often mention a few candidates during events and here on the forum. If someone does not feel that any card should be banned/unbanned, or if someone does not feel comfortable mentioning one or more cards, just don't mention any card at all during this stage. (Just to be clear: naming a card at this stage does not guarantee that the card will be part of the watchlist. There must be many players mentioning the same card in order to add it to the watchlist.) During the second stage, we will have an open discussion about each card that ended up on the current year's watchlist. This is the time to share opinions and to learn about the pros and cons of banning/unbanning each card on the watchlist. Therefore, we should give people plenty of time to do that, so their ratings in the next and last stage of the process are well informed. During the third and last stage of the process, we will let everyone rate each card on a scale from -5 (definitely don’t ban / keep banned) to 0 (indifferent) to +5 (definitely ban / unban). I completely agree with you that we should give people plenty of time to submit their ratings because we want as many players to participate in this stage as possible and as you mentioned, we want their decisions to be well informed. However, we cannot control how much information people will have access to before submitting their ratings, or even if they are willing to learn about the pros and cons of banning/unbanning a card. Some players will have formed opinions about each card by then and will quickly submit their ratings. Also, if someone feels that nothing should be changed, it's just a matter of rating the cards -5. All we can do is set a deadline and encourage people to use good judgment.
They have already been defined. The purpose of a banned list is to keep the metagame balanced/diverse/healthy. All those questions have already been answered and there's consensus among the players. We have to move forward with this discussion; not backwards.
Oh! When I said that it competes with permission and disruption spells, I was actually referring to the fact that it competes for a card slot in the decklist, as there are other (better, more flexible) spells to protect your board. I very much agree with your overall assessment of the card though. In fact, I have been thinking about making an abzan list to take advantage of leap and other similar cards. Let's see who brings the spiciest brew next weekend!
Let me assure you that your concerns about the voting process are unfounded. First, there is no a priori reason to believe that there will be 5 changes to the banned list every voting cycle. In fact, there's not even a priori reason to believe that there will be any change what so ever. Changes to the banned list will depend on the final voting step, which requires players to rate each card on a scale from -5 (definitely don’t ban / keep banned) to 0 (indifferent) to +5 (definitely ban / unban). If the weighted means are reliably higher than 0, action must be taken (ban or unban); otherwise, nothing is done. Therefore, action will only be taken if there's statistical evidence supporting it, which will only happen if a large portion of the community definitely wants to ban/unban a card on the watch list. Second, taking 5 min. to participate in the voting process is not, by any standard, putting an enormous pressure on all players. I am pretty sure we are all very busy but I am also pretty sure we can all find a few minutes to name a few cards and then rate them later on. After all, it's in the best interest of everyone to keep the format healthy/balanced. If someone does not want to participate in this process, then that same person should no complaint about the results of it. We are actually creating an opportunity for everyone's voice to be heard. This is good, ML_Berlin, not something to frown upon.
2 weeks sounds okay but this should be discussed with whoever will be put in charge of the banned list. We need volunteers.
I see no reason to provide URLs to the highlander list because we are not using it in any shape or form. (This, by the way, is the list used by the german highlander community. Other paper highlander communities have different lists and different ban policies--check aussie and canadian, for example. So, again, there's no need to make specific reference to the german highlander banned list. Also, there's no reason believe our process will lead to the same list. What we are doing right now is actually better than anything that has been done in EDH, german, aussie, and canadian highlander because we are making our community part of the process, instead of electing a few individuals to make such decisions. We will be responsible for our own format.)
Per my previous message, we also need a date that we will start discussing changes to the banned list. ML_Berlin, could you please post it here?
It's particularly good with evoke and persist creatures, but the lack of control over what it finds is a major drawback. It's a slow and unreliable engine that does not develop your board--that is, it won't always replace a threat with another threat, you need to leave mana up to activate it, and you will also need mana to cast whatever creature it puts in your hand to break even (because leap effectively removed one of your creatures from the battlefield). If you plan to use it as protection against removals, then it will have a hard time competing against the more flexible permission and disruption spells (e.g., counterspell, thoughtseize, etc.). That said, I don't think it is a bad card--if you can pair it with etb effects and something like séance to recur creatures you sac'ed with leap, your opp will definitely have a hard time playing against you. I wouldn't include it in every deck running green though.
Now, you mentioned that this might not be the right time to have this discussion because many players are on vacation and won’t be able to participate in the discussion. This is an important observation that I was not aware of. Thank you for bringing it up. So, to keep this as organized as possible, why don’t we start establishing a date to discuss changes to the banned list? Let’s make this our first priority and post the date here.
The other thing you mentioned is that it would be a good idea to have more people managing the banned list. I think it would be appropriate for the senior members of the S100 community to step up and take on this role. Let’s make this our second priority. (If no one volunteers, I can help with that.)
Again, I don’t think we need a complex process to create the watch list. A straightforward method is to let the community create such a list: on the first day that we will start discussing changes to the banned list, whoever volunteered to manage the banned list will create a poll in which each player will name 5 cards that should be banned/unbanned; the community will have 2-3 days to submit their votes; then the banned list manager will check the frequency of each card and select the top 5 cards with highest frequency. After that, we can simply follow the process I described in my previous messages—that is, open discussion about each card on the watch list, stating pros and cons of banning/unbanning, followed by final voting. For complete transparency, all results should be posted here.
That's it. I'm not trying to push any sort of agenda that favors one archetype over another, or one that favors veterans over newbies. The only thing I want to push is the implementation of an organized process for changing the banned list—and one that reflects our community’s desires; not the desire of whoever is managing the banned list. Just a good old fashioned democratic process. That’s all.
ML_Berlin, does that sound fair? If it does, let's get it rolling.
Again, make a list of cards and let’s have an organized, structured discussion about the pros and cons of banning/unbanning each card on your list. If you do not feel comfortable making such a list, let the community know about it and we can elect one or two players to take on this responsibility.
I am new to the format and I have voiced my opinion here. I understand that we come from different backgrounds but it is probably not in our best interest to split the community into veterans and newbies. Any player is capable of providing insightful comments that can help us improve the format. Also, if we want the format to flourish, it is fundamental to keep the entire community engaged to any process that concerns changes to the format, so that any changes to it reflect the community’s desire, rather than one player’s desire. This is one reason we should allow every player to participate in the process of changing the banned list, and the process I outlined in post #226 is in agreement with this idea. In addition, the open discussion step of the process I outlined before allows us to take advantage of the experience that some members of the community have playing MtG to inform us about the different views on how each card affects the metagame, thus allowing less experienced players to form their own opinion about each card considered for banning/unbanning.
I have no idea why prices are being mentioned in connection to the banned list discussion. I am fairly new to the S100 format but I am sure it was never supposed to be a budget-oriented format, such as pauper, heirloom, and peasant. Banning cards because they are too expensive for new players is like saying that in vintage, we should ban cards on the reserved list to make the format more accessible to new players. It doesn’t make sense. And by the way, the current S100 environment feels nothing like vintage. It’s a beast of its own, which is why I was first attracted to it.
That’s the reason why we should have an open discussion about each card considered for banning/unbanning: more experienced players can provide different views on why a given card should be banned/unbanned, so that new players can read their comments and then form their own opinion about the card. If one does not feel strongly about a card, there should be an option that reflects such a position, which would be 0 on the scale I suggested. Again, the S100 environment is nothing like the vintage environment. I cannot emphasize this enough. In fact, none of the combo strategies that have been mentioned before even see play in competitive vintage. And then again, I feel compelled to repeat what has been said by several members of the community before: there’s nothing wrong with combo strategies, whether it is a dedicated combo list or not. The presence of combo in conjunction with many other archetypes is actually a marker that the format has a healthy metagame.
It is a mistake to try to attract new players to the format by changing what cards are legal. If you want to bring more players to the format, start advertising it. Dawtz’s comment illustrates the lack of visibility. Advertise the events in other forums, write articles about it, such as the one that STsung wrote, make videos about the format, deck techs, gameplays, etc. There are so many ways to bring new blood to the format, but changing the banned list is not one of them.
Here’s an example of uninformed decision about which cards to ban, which might come up if you don’t take advantage of the feedback provided by the community: Necrotic Ooze is not a central part of the degenerate combo you want to ban because a player running a dedicated Hermit Druid list would simply replace the Ooze package with the Angel of Glory’s Rise package. ML_Berlin, take advantage of our input. We just want what’s best for the format. Implement a formalized process for banning/unbanning cards instead of this random card discussion. Explain the process in detail and then start using it.