All B/R update speculation.

[Arsenal]

Letting non-Wizards persons vote on what to ban/unban is probably the dumbest thing I've read on these forums in nearly 10 years. Jesus Christ we've hit a new low.

[Zombie]

Letting non-Wizards persons vote on what to ban/unban is probably the dumbest thing I've read on these forums in nearly 10 years. Jesus Christ we've hit a new low.

Worse than unbanning Balance or Workshop?

[Lord_Mcdonalds]

No one was serious about those.

[Spam]

Worse than unbanning Balance or Workshop?

Those will make you smile at least for a second.

Inviato dal mio LG-D605 utilizzando Tapatalk

[sdematt]

You fucking hope.

I'm not excited to see a Lodestone restriction. I'll be honest and say I haven't played a ton of Vintage, but when I did, I was on Shops. The deck is very good, but you still have problems against Oath and other decks, and there are a ton of cards that blow you out, and many times you do lose to yourself.

In Vintage tournaments in paper that I played in both Canada, the States, and Europe, Shops was very good, but people packing hate still fucked up your shit.

Real question, though: If Lodestone had been a 4/3, would that have mattered enough?

[HSCK]

That's because those clowns were playing decks with 4x Mental Misstep, flusterstorms, etc... They all played decks that shops fucking crushes then instead of adapting, bitched about it.

Or maybe they're just right about Shops being too powerful? I mean it's a group of all plat pros and HoFers, but they're all dumb right?

I keep thinking that maybe one day this forum will get better but the last few pages and the Brainstorm Show thread have been so bad it's probably time to stop.

[ramanujan]

Letting non-Wizards persons vote on what to ban/unban is probably the dumbest thing I've read on these forums in nearly 10 years. Jesus Christ we've hit a new low.

I completely agree. If players had this kind of control, it would be a complete unmitigated disaster.

Although there have obviously been both design mistakes and inappropriate banning/unbanning in the past, they are oddities. It is pretty easy to cherry pick through the history of the game and find the accidents made by WOTC/Hasbro. I think they have done a spectacular job, on the whole.

The strategy within the game, tournament attendance, and collectability of their products have all been on a constant upswing for almost two decades. It is really hard to argue with that level of consistent success, given the competition from other similar products and video game industries over that time.

Suggesting that there is something so wrong with the current decision making process for the banned/restricted lists that it needs a major overhaul is supremely ridiculous.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

So there are two types of people responding to my idea. 1 group is just blatantly suggesting that my idea is stupid and giving no evidence as to why. The other group is giving constructive cristicism that I will debunk. The other isn't even a group, it is one person.

So by popularity contest I am assuming that you mean that you are afraid that if the voting percentage to pass a change is say 66%, a deck might get to 50% of the metagame and now 50% of people are not voting against a deck that clearly needs to be banned. Well in order to solve that problem an automatic ban metagame percentage can be issued. If a deck is 1/4th of the metagame it is automatically banned in the next announcement.
Also, why would people who don't play a format want to vote on its changes? What, you think a group would want to ruin a format for people who play it so those people move to the group's format? Well countermeasures can be taken against this issue as well. Only allowing people who play in a format's tournament a certain amount of times to vote for that format is a fix for this problem.

A democracy still has rulers.

[ramanujan]

So there are two types of people responding to my idea. 1 group is just blatantly suggesting that my idea is stupid and giving no evidence as to why. The other group is giving constructive cristicism that I will debunk. The other isn't even a group, it is one person.

So by popularity contest I am assuming that you mean that you are afraid that if the voting percentage to pass a change is say 66%, a deck might get to 50% of the metagame and now 50% of people are not voting against a deck that clearly needs to be banned. Well in order to solve that problem an automatic ban metagame percentage can be issued. If a deck is 1/4th of the metagame it is automatically banned in the next announcement.
Also, why would people who don't play a format want to vote on its changes? What, you think a group would want to ruin a format for people who play it so those people move to the group's format? Well countermeasures can be taken against this issue as well. Only allowing people who play in a format's tournament a certain amount of times to vote for that format is a fix for this problem.

A democracy still has rulers.

I am happy that you are confident in your proposal. However, these are my questions to you.

It appears like your proposal is not well thought out, it is more of a general idea. I don't expect an overly specific set of rules, but some set of actual rules would be needed. What are they?

How do you intend on monitoring the vote? By that I mean how do you ensure that only "Players" can vote?

What is a Player?

How would you know whether a deck is disliked (Lantern Control, Stasis) or whether the cards are too good?

What do you think the expected turn out would be? Could a small subset of players, however you have defined that, force something to get banned simply because they vote?

Would any cards be unbannable? Dual lands, Island, FOW? Whats to stop a bunch of people who think it is funny to ban all Magic Cards. Teenagers think that type of stuff is pretty hilarious, so it would probably pass.

Could you explain why there is a need for this system?

What do you think the system will cost to maintain?

Will the voting system increase profits to Hasbro, explain how?

How will you keep the system simple enough that a new players can use it?

How will you ensure that the bans by voting benefit the tournament environment?

How will your system be able to be compared, in a qualitative or numerical way, to the one that you feel is in need of changing?

[Gheizen64]

Guys the ignore list exist for a reason, there's no need to drag the shit around and smear all the room.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

If they ban Brainstorm I'm selling out.

So by popularity contest I am assuming that you mean that you are afraid that if the voting percentage to pass a change is say 66%, a deck might get to 50% of the metagame and now 50% of people are not voting against a deck that clearly needs to be banned. Well in order to solve that problem an automatic ban metagame percentage can be issued. If a deck is 1/4th of the metagame it is automatically banned in the next announcement.

Yep, checks out.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

Yep, checks out.

Just popping in to say that I meant deck not card. Brainstorm isn't a deck that is 1/4 of the meta.

I'll respond to the long post later.

[alphastryk]

Or maybe they're just right about Shops being too powerful? I mean it's a group of all plat pros and HoFers, but they're all dumb right?

I keep thinking that maybe one day this forum will get better but the last few pages and the Brainstorm Show thread have been so bad it's probably time to stop.

And how much vintage have you played? You can build good blue decks that don't easily lose to shops. Yes, you have to give up percentage points in the blue mirror. That's a normal metagaming trade-off. Or play dredge, there are lists that are naturally favored vs shop FFS. There are shops decks that beat the mirror but are worse against the blue decks. Oath is good vs shops. If you keep jamming the same blue cantrip pile and complaining, I don't think you have tried.

[HSCK]

I play pretty regularly, and Oath at that. Making it beatable doesn't change the fact that Shops is still too strong and that it took up way too much of the meta for Wizards' taste. All I've been able to gather besides this ridiculous poster saying we should vote on bans is that the B/R list must make blue suffer or it's a total waste and magic is dying and will be dead because of blue every 3 months. Prison decks on the other hand are the epitome of Magic and should be pushed more.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

I am happy that you are confident in your proposal. However, these are my questions to you.

It appears like your proposal is not well thought out, it is more of a general idea. I don't expect an overly specific set of rules, but some set of actual rules would be needed. What are they?

Before each ban announcement, WotC collects the votes and counts them up. Any card that 2/3 or more of the voters want banned is banned. Any deck that has achieved 25% or higher dominance of the metagame has a piece banned by WotC if a piece has not already been given 2/3+ of votes.

How do you intend on monitoring the vote? By that I mean how do you ensure that only "Players" can vote?

Only those who play in a format's tournaments can vote on the format's banlist. For example, if I played in the legacy GP, I can vote on legacy changes. If I got 3-2 or better in at least 2 of a format's leagues I get to vote for that format's banlist.

What is a Player?

I don't understand what you want to know from this question.

How would you know whether a deck is disliked (Lantern Control, Stasis) or whether the cards are too good?

Why would you need to know? If 2/3 of the voters want to vote a deck out it is probably miserable to play against(eggs) and it's for the greater good that that deck is no longer there. If the voting community regrets this decision, they can always vote a card back in.

What do you think the expected turn out would be? Could a small subset of players, however you have defined that, force something to get banned simply because they vote?

Well, a rule could be made where at least 2/3 of those who can vote for a format's banlist must vote for the results of the vote to take place.

Would any cards be unbannable? Dual lands, Island, FOW? Whats to stop a bunch of people who think it is funny to ban all Magic Cards. Teenagers think that type of stuff is pretty hilarious, so it would probably pass.

If something ridiculous happens like that(not that it would happen because why would 2/3 vote on a card that if banned makes the format they play worse?) WotC can always step in and change things back to normal. I'm not suggesting an anarchy, I am suggesting a democracy.

Could you explain why there is a need for this system?

Because WotC makes very unpopular and questionable changes and makes changes only when they have to(see black vise unbanning and Splinter Twin banning)

What do you think the system will cost to maintain?

I have no idea. Doesn't seem like much if it is all done online utilizing modern day technology. Also, this change will probably end up causing more people to play these eternal formats so it'd probably be worth it in the long run.

Will the voting system increase profits to Hasbro, explain how?

I am thinking that this idea will bring more players into these eternal formats which will end up increasing profits.


How will you keep the system simple enough that a new players can use it?

"Please list the cards you want banned or unbanned below"

How will you ensure that the bans by voting benefit the tournament environment?

I can't ensure. But I know that people like having a say in the game they have invested a lot on and play regularly. If this ide doesn't work WotC can always change back.

How will your system be able to be compared, in a qualitative or numerical way, to the one that you feel is in need of changing?

My system will make it so those who play and test the eternal formats have more power in the banlist than WotC who doesn't test the eternal formats. Also the majority decision is usually better than a small group's decision. Democracy>Dictatorship

Edit: I forgot to mention that yes, players would be able to unban cards just as they would be able to ban cards.

[Megadeus]

Or maybe they're just right about Shops being too powerful? I mean it's a group of all plat pros and HoFers, but they're all dumb right?

I keep thinking that maybe one day this forum will get better but the last few pages and the Brainstorm Show thread have been so bad it's probably time to stop.

The meta of the VSL is inbred. As alphastryk said in a FB group, saying that shops is over powered because of the vsl is like saying Delver is unplayable in legacy because our LGS is like 50% chalice/blood moon decks on any given night.

[Ace/Homebrew]

If they ban Brainstorm I'm selling out.

So by popularity contest I am assuming that you mean that you are afraid that if the voting percentage to pass a change is say 66%, a deck might get to 50% of the metagame and now 50% of people are not voting against a deck that clearly needs to be banned. Well in order to solve that problem an automatic ban metagame percentage can be issued. If a deck is 1/4th of the metagame it is automatically banned in the next announcement.

Yep, checks out.

Hah!



If you can filter out all the crap about B&R list suffrage, there's a pretty good conversation about Vintage going on.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

Hah!



If you can filter out all the crap about B&R list suffrage, there's a pretty good conversation about Vintage going on.

With my rule in place, I highly doubt that neither the community or WotC(25%+ rule) would ban Brainstorm

[iatee]

So in your new democracy, surely we have the ability to vote away our right to make changes and assign them back to Wizards?

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

So in your new democracy, surely we have the ability to vote away our right to make changes and assign them back to Wizards?

Why not to add such an option for voters?