All B/R update speculation.

[Lord Seth]

So should we ban things like Sinkhole and anything that can recur a Wasteland because some people don't think it is fun?

I don't think those need bannings, not because they're unfun, but because (in current Legacy) they're not particularly good. Decks with land destruction as the primary focus haven't been viable for quite some time.

[menace13]

So i would suggest we acept that if we go to a tournement we play to win and from this on we can discuss about competetive card power levels which we can prove and not about a fun or unfun score.

Well, to be fair. It's not like any card currently considered not fun is a weak card in power level. Like, no one is saying Chub Toads are not fun. Quite the contrary. Chub Toads are loads of fun. See?

[HrishiQQ]

So i would suggest we acept that if we go to a tournement we play to win and from this on we can discuss about competetive card power levels which we can prove and not about a fun or unfun score.

One could argue that a format where everybody plays the same deck could be the most competitive since variance in lowered (deck choice).

I don't suppose anybody would enjoy such a format, however competitive it might be. This is why you cannot simply look at the competitive aspect and not at other things.

[ESG]

Fun is subjective. I really love LD. Recurring Wastelands, Sinkhole, Vindicate, Stone Rain (in modern) are some of my favorite things to do. That isn't "fun" to most people. So should we ban things like Sinkhole and anything that can recur a Wasteland because some people don't think it is fun?

WOTC basically already did this, which is why Stone Rain is never coming back. If you want to blow up a land, you're going to be paying 4 or more for it.

For Legacy specifically, the best land destruction spell costs U.

[sjmcc13]

Well, to be fair. It's not like any card currently considered not fun is a weak card in power level. Like, no one is saying Chub Toads are not fun. Quite the contrary. Chub Toads are loads of fun. See?

That would be because the cards people complain about under the pretense of being 'unfun' are almost always cards that they do not run and either shut their deck down (as they see it), or help their opponent win in ways they do not like.

It also has a tendency to be used as a scapegoat for a players own failings/weakensses. Counterspell is a classic example of a "unfun" card because to many people can not stand having their spells not resolve, exagerate the effects of it and zero in on it as the "reason" that they lost when they could have won had they played better (I have seen way to many rants over the years about "unfun decks" that "counter everything" when they have 6 or less counters main deck).

One of magic's greatest strengths as a game is that you can make different decks that attack your opponent from different angles and along different axies of play. However too often players complain about decks that do not interact the same way they do (drop creature, turn it sideways) as being "unfun" and "unfair" because those decks tend to have a defense and attack from an angel that they are not prepared to defend against, even when there are ways they could easily defend against those decks.

[bakofried]

Hello,

Tournements are competetive it doesn´t matter if we play a card game like magic poker or L5R or if we play chess or League of Legends or Counter Strike or Streetfighter or throwing a Disk if you paticipate you want to win and you have fun in trying to achive this.



And there we go.
That exactly what I mean. You are totaly right when you are only talking about what you are playing in private circles. When you going to a tournment you are wrong because each tounement is started with the intend of a competition and each player who participates acept that the he want this with all consequences like
playing to win and playing a comeptitive decks.

So i would suggest we acept that if we go to a tournement we play to win and from this on we can discuss about competetive card power levels which we can prove and not about a fun or unfun score.

Best Regards Teveshszat

It seems you missed the second part of my post. Can I interest you in the varied intricacies of the Mono-Black Devotion vs. Mono-Blue Devotion match up?

I don't know where the idea shifted: when the brainstorm supporters were saying that it was fun to them I could respect it, even if I thought otherwise. Now the trend is to say that fun doesn't matter? Jesus H Christ, that's a load of horseshit. Competition isn't at odds with fun. You can have a high powered and diverse meta. If you're really so afraid of tournament variance, go play standard.

[menace13]

That would be because the cards people complain about under the pretense of being 'unfun' are almost always cards that they do not run and either shut their deck down (as they see it), or help their opponent win in ways they do not like.

It also has a tendency to be used as a scapegoat for a players own failings/weakensses.

However too often players complain about decks that do not interact the same way they do (drop creature, turn it sideways) as being "unfun" and "unfair" because those decks tend to have a defense and attack from an angel that they are not prepared to defend against, even when there are ways they could easily defend against those decks.

Could also be that cards people deemed unfun are played because theyre the best slot by far. Polarizing deck lists to answer them, run them, or lose to them. Too many times players crutch on to something dominant because lack of skill to not be hand held by outright stifling design of ubiquitous cards and decks. Fearful of bans because theyll no longer have such a parachute to make up for failing in play skill. Easily defending against a deck doesnt make anything less powerful. The decks and cards in discussion are almost always backed by perpetual blue shells. The fact that the b&r list for legacy has more blue cards banned on it than any other color is telling.

[davelin]

That would be because the cards people complain about under the pretense of being 'unfun' are almost always cards that they do not run and either shut their deck down (as they see it), or help their opponent win in ways they do not like.

It also has a tendency to be used as a scapegoat for a players own failings/weakensses. Counterspell is a classic example of a "unfun" card because to many people can not stand having their spells not resolve, exagerate the effects of it and zero in on it as the "reason" that they lost when they could have won had they played better (I have seen way to many rants over the years about "unfun decks" that "counter everything" when they have 6 or less counters main deck).

One of magic's greatest strengths as a game is that you can make different decks that attack your opponent from different angles and along different axies of play. However too often players complain about decks that do not interact the same way they do (drop creature, turn it sideways) as being "unfun" and "unfair" because those decks tend to have a defense and attack from an angel that they are not prepared to defend against, even when there are ways they could easily defend against those decks.

Is it truly hard to believe that folks can deem a subset of cards as "unfun" without scapegoating? I think you underestimate many players or just play with those who complain a lot. I'm sure there are many delver.dec players who agree that a card such as Wasteland or Hymn could be considered not very enjoyable to play against, even though they are running such cards themselves.

Regarding your argument of different angles of attack, years of design and card choices has narrowed down those viable ways to attack to a smaller subset of cards to even the point where no interaction between the pieces has to be really considered. With cards such as Delver, Stoneforge, Goyf, Wasteland, Bolt, StP, Brainstorm, Force, etc. you can just jam these most efficient and effect threats in a deck and call it a day.

[Dice_Box]

Just a thought, but when I am playing for money, your fun doesn't mean a dam thing to me. On a Tuesday night, yea I will play for fun. But on a Sunday fucking get with it. I am going to play the meanest, most effective thing I can. I don't care if I waste everything you have, Stifle everything and smack you to death with a Goyf, on that day, winning is everything and your just in my way.

So when someone talks about fun in legacy, I tune out, because on a weekday game at your local store I assume we are all there for fun, but at an event, sit down, shut up and play the dam game. Because at that point, fun is not even in this solar system.

[Teveshszat]

Hello

bakofried
I don't know where the idea shifted: when the brainstorm supporters were saying that it was fun to them I could respect it, even if I thought otherwise. Now the trend is to say that fun doesn't matter? Jesus H Christ, that's a load of horseshit. Competition isn't at odds with fun. You can have a high powered and diverse meta. If you're really so afraid of tournament variance, go play standard.

this Idea never shifted for me I just removed the excuses out of it for both sides. Playing Brainstorm for fun is as much as an excuse as saying counterspell is unfun to play against for the lack of a better stratgy against it.
Also I think you don´t want to understand or are not able to do because I allready said that it actually makes fun to play in competition but this requires the right mindset which is not I go with my pet deck their and expect to win, ok if you pet deck is a deck to beat this can happen, but go their to win and play the deck out of the competitive ones which suits yiu the most. This will also prevent whining about the seminlgy to strong card etc.

[QUOTE] menace13
Could also be that cards people deemed unfun are played because theyre the best slot by far. Polarizing deck lists to answer them, run them, or lose to them. Too many times players crutch on to something dominant because lack of skill to not be hand held by outright stifling design of ubiquitous cards and decks. Fearful of bans because theyll no longer have such a parachute to make up for failing. [Quote]

That is simply not right I mean if you play in a cometition there is no fear there is only one thought which decks are the most efficient ones and which of them I can play to the best of my ability to win. That is the reason why you don´t see so much diversity because proven consitensy is higher evaluated.
If someone actually invent a new gvreat deck this would happen before a tournement and the testing too.

Dice_Box
So when someone talks about fun in legacy, I tune out, because on a weekday game at your local store I assume we are all there for fun, but at an event, sit down, shut up and play the dam game. Because at that point, fun is not even in this solar system.

That is totally right and at the local Gamestore event you can just agree to ban so called unfun cards to provide a frame were everybody can have fun but then you would lose one opportunity to test your deck for the real competition. So here you have to descide but when you decide against the ban again don´t come and say the card x is unfun because actually only your deck is lacking at answers and then you shoud solve this problem first instead of making excuses.

Best Regards Teveshszat

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

If your motivation to play Magic is to win money, especially Legacy, you are unfathomably bad at decision making and optimization and you should probably just give someone else power of attorney over everything you do for the rest of your life because it's going to be damn close to impossible for them to do a worse job of it than you.

Winning money is a side effect of being good at Magic that a pretty small number of people enjoy on anything like a regular basis, and a much larger number of people aspire to, usually pretty shittily and grumpily.

But it is a side effect.

There are lots of tournament scenes where you could make money and lots of other more profitable career options for that matter. Try again. You don't play Magic to make money, at any level of competitiveness. So why?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

There's a bunch of posts saying, fun is subjective so we can't do anything with it, so I'll just briefly reply to them all:


So what? What the fuck are you talking about? Everything normative is subjective. It is a subjective opinion that it is better to live than die. "Good" is not less subjective than "fun," but "good" is the guiding principle in personal morality and ethics and decision-making, in state policy, in law. In things a lot more important (in a subjective analysis) than a game of Magic.

And the idea that banned list decisions aren't made on the basis of fun ignores Wizards' stated reasons for every banned list decision ever. Fun is indeed their primary motive (well their primary motive is profit, but to that end our fun is presumed to be our primary motive, correctly.)

HrishiQQ basically demolishes this argument, which is why everyone seems to have ignored his post:

One could argue that a format where everybody plays the same deck could be the most competitive since variance in lowered (deck choice).

I don't suppose anybody would enjoy such a format, however competitive it might be. This is why you cannot simply look at the competitive aspect and not at other things.

[Dice_Box]

I don't play magic to win money, I play for a few reasons. It is good for meeting people, it helps with critical and lateral thinking, it offers me a challenge and I enjoy that challenge. That's why I play Legacy over kitchen table. Because there is real challenge there.

But I separate those two. There is no reason that Legacy itself must be this the pinnacle of all fun. It's a format made for a challenge, made to test you mentally and I guess monetary. It's something that, I can enjoy playing on a Tuesday night with whatever I have at hand, but on Sunday I play for keeps. That's the separation. It's fun when it's social. When you and your mates are hanging out, when the guy that brings SnT gets heckled and everyone else has a great time. That's where the fun is. But when we are playing on a Sunday, your all in my way.

Because on that day, I am there for the challenge, bring your best, bring your toughest. Bring the most broken shit on that day. Because then, we are all playing for keeps and then nothing is sacred. That's what I mean. Yes I am playing for money, but that only heightens the tension. The prize is a goal, but not the ends itself. That challenge, metal, social, that's what it's about. I am not there to make you have fun, I am there to beat you into the floor.

To me, that feeling mixed with the real challenge of it, that's why I play. Because I am happy to throw a game on a weekday. Have fun, enjoy it and all be friends. But that rush, when I can get it, now that's why I play. Fun be dammed. I play to beat you. Your just another body o have to step over, go get out of my way.


Hope I answered your question.

Sent from my mobile, forgive spelling and grammatical errors.

[menace13]

That is simply not right I mean if you play in a cometition there is no fear there is only one thought which decks are the most efficient ones and which of them I can play to the best of my ability to win. That is the reason why you don´t see so much diversity because proven consitensy is higher evaluated.
If someone actually invent a new gvreat deck this would happen before a tournement and the testing too.

It's actually totally right. What the fuck does fear have to do with any of this? Obviously we ARE all going to play the best deck that we can. The reason why we dont see diversity is because of design of certain cards that are just plainly better than counterparts. Some people cannot see this and cling to their crutches because of lack of play skill. They need something that gives free win % points.

That is totally right and at the local Gamestore event you can just agree to ban so called unfun cards to provide a frame were everybody can have fun but then you would lose one opportunity to test your deck for the real competition. So here you have to descide but when you decide against the ban again don´t come and say the card x is unfun because actually only your deck is lacking at answers and then you shoud solve this problem first instead of making excuses

I dont know how you can be more wrong. Maybe you misunderstood because there is a language barrier. No one here is saying we cant beat this so ban it. That is simply false. Very rarely is something so oppressive it must be banned. Even in times of something being so warping people play cards to beat it. This narrows down the deck pool and stifles creativity because it is simply much better than everything else all around. Take Mystical Tutor. It was in the 2 best decks at the time of it's banning. Why was it banned? Think slowly.

Just a thought, but when I am playing for money, your fun doesn't mean a dam thing to me. On a Tuesday night, yea I will play for fun. But on a Sunday fucking get with it. I am going to play the meanest, most effective thing I can. I don't care if I waste everything you have, Stifle everything and smack you to death with a Goyf, on that day, winning is everything and your just in my way.

So when someone talks about fun in legacy, I tune out, because on a weekday game at your local store I assume we are all there for fun, but at an event, sit down, shut up and play the dam game. Because at that point, fun is not even in this solar system.

Many cards are unfun. Misstep to most was unfun and narrowed down the field to mostly blue decks. To me this is great fun, less diversity makes it easier for me to sb, meta against, and test/prepare for. Apparently an entire field of blue decks is unfun for most of our player base, so... Youre lacking insight and clearly spouting off erroneously. Take Flash as another example. Was it banned because it dominated the format. Or did they not allow it and took swift action against turn 1 capable blue decks? Right.

[Dice_Box]

Metal Misstep was banned for converging the colours, flash is broken, as is Black Lotus in this format. I don't see your point.

What I am saying is you can say "Brainstorm is bad for the format because of X" and I will read what you have to say, but if you say "Brainstorm is not fun for me" then I don't care. Because that is subjective and should not be a measuring stick I should have to use. Because I am not you and I likely play the game for different reasons to you. This means saying a card is unfun is to me like saying "All cards in the new boarder should be banned because I don't like it." That's not a valid reason and opinions change dependent on who you ask.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Because on that day, I am there for the challenge, bring your best, bring your toughest. Bring the most broken shit on that day. Because then, we are all playing for keeps and then nothing is sacred. That's what I mean.

I have no doubt you believe this but it isn't true. I know it's not true because there are many games that are more challenging than Magic. No less an authority than Jon Finkel, for instance, observed that one of the prime reasons people play Magic is because of the large luck element, because random scrubs can beat him, whereas a game like chess it's all skill.

Not to mention any number of other games that are about equally skill-testing as Magic, some with much larger EVs in dollar terms for skill.

I know it sounds good to you and to others in this thread to say, "I'm not about having fun, I'm here for some kind of pure raw spirit of abstract competition" or whatever, but no.

I am not there to make you have fun, I am there to beat you into the floor.

It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't throw out internet tough guyisms like this.

Anyway, okay, you get a dopamine rush from serious competition. Hint: That's a form of fun.

There is a competitive vs. casual split in fun, but that is not what anyone itt is talking about. No one has suggested making the format more casual-friendly particularly, so this is a non-sequitor.

The argument is about making the game more fun. And stagnant metagames, while some people might find them comfortable because they don't require testing several areas of skill like adaptability, gauging the meta, creative deck design and sideboarding- are and have generally been viewed historically as "not fun," precisely because they don't test those skills.

You might be right that it maximizes your chances of winning to keep the format stagnant if those are skills you're worse at- but then really you're the one begging for the format to stay less competitive, less skill-testing, in order to give you an advantage.

Also:

Metal Misstep was banned for converging the colours

What? First of all, no, it explicitly wasn't; Wizards was very clear that they thought the card was problematic for increasing blue presence in the meta. Second of all, how would that be problematic in a fun-less perpsective?

flash is broken, as is Black Lotus in this format. I don't see your point.

What the fuck do you mean by "broken"?

[Lord Seth]

One could argue that a format where everybody plays the same deck could be the most competitive since variance in lowered (deck choice).

I don't suppose anybody would enjoy such a format, however competitive it might be. This is why you cannot simply look at the competitive aspect and not at other things.

Actually, quite a number of people loved Caw-Blade Standard for the reasons you just gave.

Granted, a substantially higher number of people didn't like that Standard environment, but the level of skill required in the Caw-Blade mirror was something some players really enjoyed.

[Teveshszat]

Hello,

first I thank you for the great posts because its makes my day better.

But now I have to move to the scond part

menace13
I dont know how you can be more wrong. Maybe you misunderstood because there is a language barrier. No one here is saying we cant beat this so ban it. That is simply false. Very rarely is something so oppressive it must be banned. Even in times of something being so warping people play cards to beat it. This narrows down the deck pool and stifles creativity because it is simply much better than everything else all around. Take Mystical Tutor. It was in the 2 best decks at the time of it's banning. Why was it banned? Think slowly.

Nope I there is no language barrier in understanding but in writing thank for my grammar problem. Ang again I think you don´t get the point I want to make that there is a other mindset for competetive events then for just the dayly duels.

So I explain it this time as clear as possible

Mindest 1 ( Play to Win)

I want to win so I will evaluate each card after their strenght and play the best card in the given slot. Therefore I play the best given deck in my category to be able to
win. This also includes not to blame a card to be to stong but find an answer against it or if it is stronger then most other cards play it myself because the only important thing is the win. This not includes that you will not have fun because if you have this mindset winning=Fun and so are hard strugles against euqal decks.

Mind Set 2 (Play for fun)

this mindset is given to most player which want to play normaly but not regularly on greater events. Here you search for an entertaining way to be with your friends and
get time going. You evaluate cards after their strenght but sometimes decide to not play them because they are to strong or make the game against the decks which are playing them not fair for your current deck you want to play like the Counterspell stopping linear strategys which are based on 1 spell resolving.

So for tournments you will clearly be better of with mindset 1 and then you will have fun again because you now will not have the problem of thinking cards are to strong when they are not.

TheInfamousBearAssassin
I have no doubt you believe this but it isn't true. I know it's not true because there are many games that are more challenging than Magic. No less an authority than Jon Finkel, for instance, observed that one of the prime reasons people play Magic is because of the large luck element, because random scrubs can beat him, whereas a game like chess it's all skill.

I have to ask you not forget the grade of information in your example. Chess is a game with perfect information you can see, if skilled enough, all possible moves of the opponent. Magic in contrast to it is agame with incomplete information and mainly a sytsem were you win through resource management (cards,mana,life etc). What you think is luck is just possibility and is the reason why Recall, Brainstorm, Fetchlands,Top and Jace are so good because they increase consistency reduce variances and help you to play the game in your terms. Luck is hardly the reason you lose but your deck and how you bulided it is and ofcourse how you use the recources you have. Yes I addmit luck is not completly out of the spectrum of reasons why you lose but is not that often this reason as you might think.

what? First of all, no, it explicitly wasn't; Wizards was very clear that they thought the card was problematic for increasing blue presence in the meta.

That is right but not in the way you might thinnk. Yes the blue precence increasded drasticly but because of each deck was able to play Missstep thanks to the Mana cost and this led to the ting that all decks were partly blue even if they would normaly be mono Red Goblins.
That a counter which is able to counter any first turn play and camn played by all deck in addtion to starts like mountain lacky or Island top etc problamatic
is clear and therefore it was a reason to ban Missstep.

Ah for the onyl one deck discussion it was ver cool to play Ravanger back in Mirrodin Type 2 because the mirror was one of the hardest to play I can imagine in Type 2.
Also I don´t like Type 2 at the moment only because of the reason that Wizzards gave in to the no spell based deck whining and is printing not good Control and Counterspells anymore which kicked out the archetype I like to play ( creature less control).

Best Regards Teveshszat

[Dice_Box]

I have no doubt you believe this but it isn't true. I know it's not true because there are many games that are more challenging than Magic. No less an authority than Jon Finkel, for instance, observed that one of the prime reasons people play Magic is because of the large luck element, because random scrubs can beat him, whereas a game like chess it's all skill.

Not to mention any number of other games that are about equally skill-testing as Magic, some with much larger EVs in dollar terms for skill.

I know it sounds good to you and to others in this thread to say, "I'm not about having fun, I'm here for some kind of pure raw spirit of abstract competition" or whatever, but no.

Believe what you will, to me there is Competition and that is what draws to to COMPETITIVE magic over "four mates at a table" magic.



It would be easier to take you seriously if you didn't throw out internet tough guyisms like this.

I am not trying to be tough, I am trying to show what my mindset is. I am not out to fight anyone, be crazy guy whom you all think is going to beat you into the floor literally. I have had no fights since I left school and I am proud of that.

Anyway, okay, you get a dopamine rush from serious competition. Hint: That's a form of fun.

There is a competitive vs. casual split in fun, but that is not what anyone itt is talking about. No one has suggested making the format more casual-friendly particularly, so this is a non-sequitor.

The argument is about making the game more fun. And stagnant metagames, while some people might find them comfortable because they don't require testing several areas of skill like adaptability, gauging the meta, creative deck design and sideboarding- are and have generally been viewed historically as "not fun," precisely because they don't test those skills.

You might be right that it maximizes your chances of winning to keep the format stagnant if those are skills you're worse at- but then really you're the one begging for the format to stay less competitive, less skill-testing, in order to give you an advantage.

This is one of the reasons that having things change up so much when money is on the line is fun. Because people pull out diffrent, more powerful and crazy decks. The Meta changes and no one knows in what direction it will go for that one afternoon. That's part of the thrill.

Also:



What? First of all, no, it explicitly wasn't; Wizards was very clear that they thought the card was problematic for increasing blue presence in the meta. Second of all, how would that be problematic in a fun-less perpsective?

Conversion of the colours, into Blue. As for how is that problematic, because competition gets stifled and the format warps itself around that conversion.


What the fuck do you mean by "broken"?

I have not the faintest clue, why don't you look up the word. I am sure there is a few places where you can Google "Mtg" and "Broken" and you will come up with a sufficient answer.

Anyway, I have said what I wanted to say, I think mostly in my last post before this one. So I will part from this talk here. If you wish to continue this discourse, feel free to PM me.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You know the irony is that when Hulk-Flash was legal, there was a substantial contingent- even after the disaster of GP Columbus- that accused anyone who thought the card should be banned for being, as you say, "busted," of being casual n00bs who should go back to the kitchen table.

Any argument predicated on the notion that a call for banning means that the people involved are only interested in casual Magic can be and should be dismissed out of hand as ignorant straw-manning.