Page 41 of 69 FirstFirst ... 3137383940414243444551 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 820 of 1373

Thread: The current state of Magic

  1. #801

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce View Post
    No, it isn't; it's a free card that flashback Firebolts your opponent every turn if you control a Desert once you reach turn 5 if you found the card in the top 12–13 cards in your deck and you've found Deserts enough to expend them on each of those turns. But explain to me how that's the card that's torpedoing the format and why the deck's competitors should exist, either, if they die to that.
    So, the thing with Ruins - and Hazoret, while we're on the subject - is not the efficiency of the cards themselves, it what they do to the play pattern of RDW vs. Durdle Control. Normally, historically, the way these matchups work is that RDW is on a timer, and that timer is the first sweeper control can resolve. Once control resolves a sweeper, chances are pretty good you don't have enough cards to force the remaining damage through control's one-for-ones, and you just kind of lose from there.

    Pre-ban RDW was actually about as resilient against Durdle Control as you can get. Hazoret and Ruins both meant that even if you're ripping lands, you're still able to convert them into damage, so control can't just automatically assume that X% of your deck doesn't dome them and decide whether to make risky plays to consolidate their position. Because you're mono-color, there's little opportunity cost to running a small pile of colorless deserts to fuel Ruins, and one of those deserts (Sunscorched Desert) is a damage source itself. This is also on top of the haste guys the deck runs and the Eternalize bear that domes the opponent as an ETB effect. All of those together means the first sweeper very often doesn't stabilize you, unless it exiles (Settle the Wreckage), because there still so many ways to convert lackluster topdecks into damage.

    I think Hazoret would have been a better ban than Ruins if that was actually their logic, but there's also more ways in Standard right now to exile a creature than get rid of a land, so...

  2. #802

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Deuce View Post
    This gets to the heart of my question; if there are other red cards that are turning everything else on its head, why ban the card that happens to be good in certain matchups when they go long instead of the one that's so unfair? Morgan_coke pointed out how problematic Ferocidon was, so I'll concede that maybe that card deserved a hit. But we're effectively in agreement here—that cards are good or bad because of the cards that surround them. (It also sounds like we feel the same way about Workshop, though I don't play Vintage, either because...I bought a yacht yesterday...I swear...it even had a minibar stocked with, uh, Naragansett....) So my point was that I think design is in a really bad place when, to quote you, "a free leyline that Lava Axes your opponent's face" (not that I agree with that characterization) is the card that gets banned for pushing a deck over the top.
    You seem to have a philosophy that 'If a deck is too good then the only appropriate solution is to ban the strongest card in it.' This is silly. The point of the bans is to create a diverse metagame. If you ban the strongest card in red instead (Hazoret) then the deck basically becomes unplayable and then there is 1 less viable deck available for players. (Not banning expensive mythics is also probably better from a player retention point of view but that's a different argument).

    OK, that's fair that Marvel decks and Longtusk decks are different enough not to be considered the same. But my point still stands: they banned 12 energy cards out of 60 from the same deck. After they already banned the heavy-hitter energy card in the block. That's not balancing; that's eliminating a mechanic. There once was a time when that was the last thing they wanted to do, like when they banned Sensei's Top in Legacy, y'know, last year.
    Energy is definitely not 'eliminated', I played in a 50+ player PPTQ 3 days ago and at least 2 decks in top 8 (including the winner) were playing Glimmer and Siphoner and Hub and Virtuoso. Even if it was the case that no energy cards were competitive in standard anymore your statement (the bolded part) doesn't really have any meaning. Whats the difference if they eliminate a mechanic or a deck or a card as long as it achieves the stated goal of 'balancing' metagame diversity? Maybe you could elaborate here more because I don't understand the comparison to the Top ban at all

    It means exactly what you said; Aggro_zombies said that the new ban philosophy (assuming that's what it is) is much closer in line with the method used by digital-platform companies, when they ban things because of player outrage on a regular basis to provide "balance."
    Nearly every time wotc has banned something historically it has been because of "player outrage". What other reason is there to ban a card? Maybe 'outrage' is too emotive of a word (and some of these decisions have been more controversial than others e.g. the Twin ban in modern) but when things like Affinity, Cawblade etc were dominating standard, people didn't enjoy the format so they didn't play. Usually when this happens people are unhappy because that deck makes up too much of the metagame / other strategies aren't competitive. The data shows that this is the case for energy as well.

    I was pointing out that they're not just banning the single design mistake that's making everything else go fully degenerate; they're banning as much of an entire aspect of design as they can get their hands on
    What is the single design mistake? Is it a particular card you have identified? Or do you think they should have just got rid of every card that uses the energy mechanic? If it's the former then please make a case for whatever card you are thinking of, and it can't be the latter because then you wouldn't complain that currently "they're banning as much of an entire aspect of design as they can get their hands on" by only banning three energy cards. "As much as they can get their hands on" is a meaningless phrase, they are literally the company that controls the game and could have said "in Standard, players cannot get energy counters" or "every card with {E} in the textbox is illegal" if they wanted to.

    and the people who play with those decks have to bend over backwards for the people who don't.
    So no card should ever be banned because the people who play that card have to "bend over backwards?"

    Bans used to be minimally invasive; this is maximally invasive.
    This is another meaningless statement. Be specific. Do you mean:
    a) Standard was fine and didn't need changes
    b) Banning either only Attune or only Refiner was correct, nothing else
    c) Both Refiner and Attune bans were correct but banning the red cards was unnecessary
    d) Both Refiner and Attune bans were correct and the Ferocidon ban was also correct but banning Ramunap was unnecessary
    e) Actually wotc is barking up the wrong tree with these 4 bans, they should have banned something else entirely
    f) All the bans were correct and I'm frustrated that WotC can't design cards in a way that doesn't require standard bans

    If it's anything A through E then actually make a clear case for whatever one of these positions you support and if it's option F then fine, I'm also relatively disappointed in the frequency of bans (I still think that every recent ban from copter onwards has made the format more enjoyable) but in that case it makes no sense for your take on this situation to be "OH my GOD all it takes for my cards to be BANNED is for random John Doe to TWEET at Mark Rosewater" or whatever it is that you seem to be trying to say

  3. #803
    Member

    Join Date

    Aug 2015
    Location

    The woods again
    Posts

    1,096

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Aggro_zombies View Post
    So, the thing with Ruins - and Hazoret, while we're on the subject - is not the efficiency of the cards themselves, it what they do to the play pattern of RDW vs. Durdle Control. Normally, historically, the way these matchups work is that RDW is on a timer, and that timer is the first sweeper control can resolve. Once control resolves a sweeper, chances are pretty good you don't have enough cards to force the remaining damage through control's one-for-ones . . . . I think Hazoret would have been a better ban than Ruins if that was actually their logic, but there's also more ways in Standard right now to exile a creature than get rid of a land, so...
    Largely, I think you're right, though I'd also mention that having access to a strong finisher is the other way control decks often take the game. I played Standard back when Aetherling was around, and miserable though that was, it allowed decks running overcosted Nu Control cards to succeed. I don't think that's a bad thing. I question whether what the recent bans have done is anything but prop up a mediocre archetype to maintain the illusion of "balance" in the format, when the deck upon which those control decks ostensibly would prey was (is?) still beating most other things and the control build wasn't a major contender for the top slots. [EDIT: For the sake of clarity, was the control build that Wizards claims would've had a stronger matchup against Ramunap Red without the Ruins performing well in the field otherwise? If so, why was Ramunap Red a problem?]

    Quote Originally Posted by kombatkiwi View Post
    You seem to have a philosophy that 'If a deck is too good then the only appropriate solution is to ban the strongest card in it.' This is silly. The point of the bans is to create a diverse metagame.
    My point isn't that you should ban "the strongest card;" it's that I can't get behind the argument that an overcosted long-game effect was the reason for the deck's dominance. Posters are citing cards that make/made Ramunap Red inordinately good, and only one of those cards appears to have been Ruins, and only in niche matchups.

    Quote Originally Posted by kombatkiwi View Post
    Energy is definitely not 'eliminated', I played in a 50+ player PPTQ 3 days ago and at least 2 decks in top 8 (including the winner) were playing Glimmer and Siphoner and Hub and Virtuoso. Even if it was the case that no energy cards were competitive in standard anymore your statement (the bolded part) doesn't really have any meaning. Whats the difference if they eliminate a mechanic or a deck or a card as long as it achieves the stated goal of 'balancing' metagame diversity? Maybe you could elaborate here more because I don't understand the comparison to the Top ban at all
    Energy's still viable? Good. I'm a bit surprised, but good. I don't see why my bold text was meaningless; again, 20% of the dominant deck was banned. That's extreme. Maybe it was necessary, and that would speak to my point, but it's still extreme, and I don't think it bodes well for the future of the game if that's the kind of solution to which Wizards is becoming accustomed.

    Quote Originally Posted by kombatkiwi View Post
    Nearly every time wotc has banned something historically it has been because of "player outrage". What other reason is there to ban a card?
    Perhaps my choice of words was poor.

    There's a threshold certain decks cross whereby their dominance cannot be answered. I don't see a problem with banning something when that happens, but the last two rounds of Standard bans strike me as being very impulsive and slipshod. Maybe because I principally play Legacy I'm used to the idea that pain is fleeting and life is long, and maybe that's not the case with Standard. But I think that these bans are an admission that the current Standard environment was poorly designed. Even in the Mirrodin days, when there was at least as distinct a precipice off which anything that wasn't Affinity or EchoingRuin.dec would fall, people adapted to that with Elf and Nail. My point is that today, if the tools aren't there, that speaks ill of Standard and of the last several sets' designers.

    Quote Originally Posted by kombatkiwi View Post
    What is the single design mistake? Is it a particular card you have identified? Or do you think they should have just got rid of every card that uses the energy mechanic? If it's the former then please make a case for whatever card you are thinking of, and it can't be the latter because then you wouldn't complain that currently "they're banning as much of an entire aspect of design as they can get their hands on" by only banning three energy cards.
    Indeed, what is the single design mistake? Is it Ramunap Ruins? Is it Captain ETB? When it's both, plus five other cards, that's symptomatic of bad design, and solving that problem this way will drive people away from the game.

    I think I already answered the rest of what you asked, but by all means, debate me. I'm not trying to needle anyone with this stuff; I'm concerned that the philosophy governing bans these days has taken a left turn, and I don't think banning this many cards without re-examining the current approach to game design is defensible.
    All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
    PM me if you want to contribute!
    Quote Originally Posted by TsumiBand View Post
    Just in time for Valentines Day 💝

    Roses are red, violets are blue
    Omae wa mou shindeiru
    Quote Originally Posted by FourDogsinaHorseSuit View Post
    Quick question, are you also still waiting for the great pumpkin it did you finally pick it in once December hit?
    Quote Originally Posted by iatee View Post
    I am tired of malicious top 8s and it is time to put an end to the practice.

  4. #804

    Re: The current state of Magic

    I'm glad that you're willing to discuss this because I think it's an interesting topic

    Largely, I think you're right, though I'd also mention that having access to a strong finisher is the other way control decks often take the game. I played Standard back when Aetherling was around, and miserable though that was, it allowed decks running overcosted Nu Control cards to succeed. I don't think that's a bad thing.
    You might also recall in that format control decks had access to both Sphinx's Revelation and Snapcaster Mage

    I question whether what the recent bans have done is anything but prop up a mediocre archetype to maintain the illusion of "balance" in the format, when the deck upon which those control decks ostensibly would prey was (is?) still beating most other things and the control build wasn't a major contender for the top slots. [EDIT: For the sake of clarity, was the control build that Wizards claims would've had a stronger matchup against Ramunap Red without the Ruins performing well in the field otherwise? If so, why was Ramunap Red a problem?]...My point isn't that you should ban "the strongest card;" it's that I can't get behind the argument that an overcosted long-game effect was the reason for the deck's dominance. Posters are citing cards that make/made Ramunap Red inordinately good, and only one of those cards appears to have been Ruins, and only in niche matchups.
    The argument from Wizards' position is this
    1) Energy is too good
    2) Control decks should in theory have a favored matchup vs Energy (and this is the case G1, as shown by the data), but they are not favored in a full match (as shown by the data), because Energy is too good
    3) We have to ban something from Energy, because energy is too good
    4) When we make Energy worse, a deck which previously had a bad matchup against Energy (Red) will become stronger vs Energy
    5) Red already has a favoured matchup vs control
    6) Due to point 4 and 5, if we only nerf energy then we are simply installing Red as the new default top deck
    7) To prevent point 6 from happening, we will also nerf Red in a way that makes it worse against control decks

    Nobody is arguing Ramunap "was" the reason for Red's "dominance", nobody is even saying Red was dominant at all. In the format where Attune and Refiner were legal Red was not dominant, Energy was. Hitting Ramunap is a pre-emptive measure because they expect that with the Energy bans alone, Red decks become the obvious best deck and then the standard metagame is basically back to square 1 in a bad situation again.

    Energy's still viable? Good. I'm a bit surprised, but good. I don't see why my bold text was meaningless;
    The bolded text ("That's not balancing; that's eliminating a mechanic") is meaningless because there is no argument from your end for why eliminating a mechanic doesn't count as 'balancing', or why eliminating a mechanic is necessarily bad. (Assuming that energy even was 'eliminated', which it doesn't seem to have been). To understand your position on this I wanted you to explain what you meant about the Top ban, because I don't understand that comparison at all.

    again, 20% of the dominant deck was banned. That's extreme. Maybe it was necessary, and that would speak to my point, but it's still extreme, and I don't think it bodes well for the future of the game if that's the kind of solution to which Wizards is becoming accustomed.
    So if banning multiple cards is still 'extreme' even when it is 'necessary', you believe that if Standard sucks they should just leave it alone and wait for the cards to rotate out? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but you are being so vague about what the problems and solutions are that you're forcing me to read between the lines here

    There's a threshold certain decks cross whereby their dominance cannot be answered. I don't see a problem with banning something when that happens, but the last two rounds of Standard bans strike me as being very impulsive and slipshod. Maybe because I principally play Legacy I'm used to the idea that pain is fleeting and life is long, and maybe that's not the case with Standard. But I think that these bans are an admission that the current Standard environment was poorly designed. Even in the Mirrodin days, when there was at least as distinct a precipice off which anything that wasn't Affinity or EchoingRuin.dec would fall, people adapted to that with Elf and Nail. My point is that today, if the tools aren't there, that speaks ill of Standard and of the last several sets' designers.
    A ban, by default, is an admission that something was poorly designed. That's not an interesting or alarming or novel thought.

    Indeed, what is the single design mistake? Is it Ramunap Ruins? Is it Captain ETB? When it's both, plus five other cards, that's symptomatic of bad design, and solving that problem this way will drive people away from the game.
    Not banning anything and leaving standard as a battleground of Attune mirrors for at least the next few months will also drive people away from the game. It would be great if the cards that put the players and WotC in this situation weren't printed in the first place but R&D can't just hop in a time machine and go and retroactively fix them all, so maybe some things need to be banned.

    I think I already answered the rest of what you asked, but by all means, debate me. I'm not trying to needle anyone with this stuff; I'm concerned that the philosophy governing bans these days has taken a left turn, and I don't think banning this many cards without re-examining the current approach to game design is defensible.
    My problem with what you are saying is that it seems to boil down to "bans suck, wizards should just design their cards better", which is not an attitude that helps us decide what to do in an environment where the problematic cards have already been printed. We all want wizards to make great sets of new cards, that goes without saying. The hard part is deciding what to do when they make a mistake.

    Obviously they are re-examining their approach to design. Even without any evidence to support this assertion, after this amount of standard bans you would have to assume R&D totally have their heads in the sand to believe otherwise. In fact there is concrete evidence that they have made changes in development to improve balance i.e. the introduction of the Play Design team
    Last edited by kombatkiwi; 01-31-2018 at 02:44 AM.

  5. #805
    Site Contributor

    Join Date

    Jul 2009
    Location

    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts

    108

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Perhaps we ask R&D to do too much:
    • Design new ‘worlds’
    • Try and not regurgitate the same cards over and over
    • Create new mechanics
    • Have the new cards interact well with existing cards
    • Have it all make sense together in a coherent story
    • Do all this with limited time and resources
    • O yea and keep all of it secret.

    (And I’m sure I’m missing a handful)

    I really wonder if they threw away the story aspect completely how much better the card design could be. (Strictly from a game-play angle)

  6. #806
    Member

    Join Date

    Aug 2010
    Location

    Seattle, WA
    Posts

    182

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Story sells packs, they can't throw it away, it would actively hurt their sales.

  7. #807

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Moosedog View Post
    Perhaps we ask R&D to do too much:
    • Design new ‘worlds’
    • Try and not regurgitate the same cards over and over
    • Create new mechanics
    • Have the new cards interact well with existing cards
    • Have it all make sense together in a coherent story
    • Do all this with limited time and resources
    • O yea and keep all of it secret.

    (And I’m sure I’m missing a handful)

    I really wonder if they threw away the story aspect completely how much better the card design could be. (Strictly from a game-play angle)
    Not too much, story-meaningful characters have been around since forever. What changed is that they decided story-relevant characters should actually be competitively playable, which has caused a few headaches in recent years.
    Lands, MUD, Stax, and Miracles.

  8. #808

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Barachai View Post
    Not too much, story-meaningful characters have been around since forever. What changed is that they decided story-relevant characters should actually be competitively playable, which has caused a few headaches in recent years.
    Competitive viable story cards like Eron the Relentless and Ihsan's Shade made Homelands a successful set, right?

    They don't just want them to be competitively playable, they want them to be format driving. Though I do wonder how much of it is them pushing the chase cards, and how much of it is them cutting back on the other stuff.

    Regardless of how lame I think their current story push is, they're always going to have pushed cards, and competitive players don't really care whether every third card has Jace, Chandra or Bolas in the name. Rather, I think their fundamental mistake vis-a-vis standard has been making consistent cards too strong relative to the power level they want the format to have. (Originally I thought it was 'strong threats/weak answers' but the discussion about Rampaging Ferocidon made me think the issue was a bit different than that.)

  9. #809
    Member
    Barook's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany, Germering, Munich
    Posts

    7,491

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Moosedog View Post
    Perhaps we ask R&D to do too much:
    • Design new ‘worlds’
    • Try and not regurgitate the same cards over and over
    • Create new mechanics
    • Have the new cards interact well with existing cards
    • Have it all make sense together in a coherent story
    • Do all this with limited time and resources
    • O yea and keep all of it secret.

    (And I’m sure I’m missing a handful)

    I really wonder if they threw away the story aspect completely how much better the card design could be. (Strictly from a game-play angle)
    A few points:

    - We don't need new worlds for every set. See the hype around Dominaria. Plus, they're going to change that anyway and stay on a plane as long as necessary in the future.
    - But they're already regurgitating cards over and over again. They just slap or extra cost on many cards and just call it a day. This is also a reason why Standard sucks so much - old cards, just with more suck added.
    - I could pass on alot of crap they shit out, e.g. Devoid or Ingest. Like Lemnear would say, most new mechanics are just kicker with a fancy name. And they don't get most old mechanics right either since they're so nerfed to the ground. When the best Landfall card (Tireless Tracker) is not in the Landfall block, you're doing it wrong.

  10. #810
    Some dipshit of a Moderator.
    Dice_Box's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2013
    Location

    A Tabernacle in some random Valley.
    Posts

    4,843

    Re: The current state of Magic

    My issue is they keyword everything and then don't use the fucking Keywords. Tireless Tracker and Inventors Fair come to mind.
    It is better to ask and look stupid then keep your mouth shut and remain so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spam View Post
    Do not make fun of lands masters, they've spent many years mastering the punishing fire technique in the secret loam monastery. Do not mistake them with the miracles masters, eternal rivals, they won't like it.
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthVicious View Post
    I hope your afterlife is filled with eternal torment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dice_Box View Post
    Fuck. Which one of my quotes do I drop for this?
    Quote Originally Posted by DarthVicious View Post
    Something about how fun it is pulling the wings off flies and microwaving the neighbors cat?

  11. #811

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Dice_Box View Post
    My issue is they keyword everything and then don't use the fucking Keywords. Tireless Tracker and Inventors Fair come to mind.
    I don't think they have a clear idea of what they want keywords to do in the game and that the inconsistent application of keywords is a consequence. There are many examples of WotC going back and forth with keywords in the history of the game.

    If WotC thinks that putting 'metalcraft' and 'landfall' on cards in the first place was a mistake, then putting those words on new cards might be seen as compounding that mistake.

  12. #812

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    Competitive viable story cards like Eron the Relentless and Ihsan's Shade made Homelands a successful set, right?

    They don't just want them to be competitively playable, they want them to be format driving. Though I do wonder how much of it is them pushing the chase cards, and how much of it is them cutting back on the other stuff.

    Regardless of how lame I think their current story push is, they're always going to have pushed cards, and competitive players don't really care whether every third card has Jace, Chandra or Bolas in the name. Rather, I think their fundamental mistake vis-a-vis standard has been making consistent cards too strong relative to the power level they want the format to have. (Originally I thought it was 'strong threats/weak answers' but the discussion about Rampaging Ferocidon made me think the issue was a bit different than that.)
    I'd like to point out that in a world where removal consisted solely of Terror variants, Lightning Bolt, and Swords to Plowshares, Ihsan's Shade was actually a very good finisher because nothing except Wrath of God back then could kill it.

  13. #813

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by rufus View Post
    I don't think they have a clear idea of what they want keywords to do in the game and that the inconsistent application of keywords is a consequence. There are many examples of WotC going back and forth with keywords in the history of the game.

    If WotC thinks that putting 'metalcraft' and 'landfall' on cards in the first place was a mistake, then putting those words on new cards might be seen as compounding that mistake.
    They won't use keywords outside of the set the keyword was used in to avoid "confusion" for new players. I'm pretty sure this is the real reason "Tribal" died instead of being something cool and useful. Either that or they realized making 40% of new creatures "Human" broke the entire Tribal concept in half.

  14. #814
    Member
    Barook's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany, Germering, Munich
    Posts

    7,491

    Re: The current state of Magic

    ZOMG, MAGIC IS DYING!

    Kidding aside, that's the first yearly revenue drop in ages. Looks like the fat years are actually over. Makes you wonder if they're going to cut tournament support again in reaction to this.

  15. #815
    Greatness awaits!
    Lemnear's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2010
    Location

    Berlin, Germany
    Posts

    6,998

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Barook View Post
    ZOMG, MAGIC IS DYING!

    Kidding aside, that's the first yearly revenue drop in ages. Looks like the fat years are actually over. Makes you wonder if they're going to cut tournament support again in reaction to this.
    Assuming that their proclaimed yearly growth isn't pure bollocks to begin with. Them handing out contradicting infos in regards to that growth and active playerbase let me think so for a while
    www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!

    Join us at Facebook!

    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon View Post
    Lemnear sounds harsh at times, but he means well. Or to destroy, but that's when he starts rapping.

    Architect by day, rapstar by night. He's pretty much the German Hannah Montana. Sometimes he even comes in like a wrecking ball.

  16. #816
    Member
    Barook's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany, Germering, Munich
    Posts

    7,491

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemnear View Post
    Assuming that their proclaimed yearly growth isn't pure bollocks to begin with. Them handing out contradicting infos in regards to that growth and active playerbase let me think so for a while
    I don't think Hasbro lying regarding their revenue numbers (wouldn't that also be illegal?). WotC has significantly increased the number of products per year to keep the revenue growth going, to the point where they shat out 4 sets in 4 months (EMA, Eldritch Moon, Conspiracy 2, KLD) or the general flood of Masters sets.

    The contradicting player numbers also don't come from WotC alone - we do know from Hasbro that they had 12 million active players in 2012. The 20 million number in 2015 is only educated guess work based on their record revenue growth in the following years since it's very unlikely that the average Joe suddenly spends 67% more money on Magic. The only thing that's actual bollocks is that haven't lost a metric shitton of players since their record years - stable 12 million player numbers my ass.

  17. #817

    Re: The current state of Magic

    There are many things which are necessary for a stable and interactive game like Magic which Timmy hates. They killed all of those, and they've been completely unable to create balanced formats ever since. This, combined with the absolute shitshow that is their digital department, has done more than anything else to hurt the game long term.

  18. #818
    Greatness awaits!
    Lemnear's Avatar
    Join Date

    Oct 2010
    Location

    Berlin, Germany
    Posts

    6,998

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by Barook View Post
    The contradicting player numbers also don't come from WotC alone - we do know from Hasbro that they had 12 million active players in 2012. The 20 million number in 2015 is only educated guess work based on their record revenue growth in the following years since it's very unlikely that the average Joe suddenly spends 67% more money on Magic. The only thing that's actual bollocks is that haven't lost a metric shitton of players since their record years - stable 12 million player numbers my ass.
    Makes sense. Thanks for pointing out.
    www.theepicstorm.com - Your Source for The Epic Storm - Articles, Reports, Decktech and more!

    Join us at Facebook!

    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon View Post
    Lemnear sounds harsh at times, but he means well. Or to destroy, but that's when he starts rapping.

    Architect by day, rapstar by night. He's pretty much the German Hannah Montana. Sometimes he even comes in like a wrecking ball.

  19. #819
    Member
    Barook's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany, Germering, Munich
    Posts

    7,491

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_coke View Post
    There are many things which are necessary for a stable and interactive game like Magic which Timmy hates. They killed all of those, and they've been completely unable to create balanced formats ever since. This, combined with the absolute shitshow that is their digital department, has done more than anything else to hurt the game long term.
    Their current card stock being a bending nightmare certainly doesn't help the case, either. Nobody likes cards that self-destruct.

    As for balancing, I loathe them for abandoning 1 CMC mana dorks. It worked for the game for 20+ years and suddenly it's broken? Maybe the game around it changed too much into garbage instead.

    It's rather telling that they have to ban cards in Standard left and right while neither of those cards make a big splash in Eternal formats because they're too weak. Compare that to stuff like SFM or JMS which are Eternal staples.

  20. #820
    Member
    Barook's Avatar
    Join Date

    Mar 2007
    Location

    Germany, Germering, Munich
    Posts

    7,491

    Re: The current state of Magic

    Sorry for the double post, but this is a rather interesting post that might explain why card quality went to hell recently.

    Summary without all the off-topic shit in the OP

    tl;dr: WotC can't have access to their old paper anymore and tariffs prevent them getting cheap quality paper from China, so they've apparently settled with cheapest garbage paper from the US, which also explains the increased number of misprints.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)