Well guys, see you all back in MTGO...
https://www.daybreakgames.com/news/d...agreement-mtgo
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/co..._publish_mtgo/
I just had to throw a game because this shitpile calling itself Magic doesn't have a fucking chat function, and infants don't do things on a schedule.
FUCK.
To my opponent, should you see this, I apologize for the poor sportsmanship.
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
WOTC just tweeted that if you have Dracula lands in your deck; you can't sideboard.
So, alchemy, that breath of fresh air, that saviour of the metagame, herald of a new standard, cannot operate as intended because... pros cannot adapt quickly to metagame changes...
https://www.reddit.com/r/MagicArena/..._state_of_pro/
In short, to introduce something new that nobody asked for, you piss a lot of people, get a really bad rep and then... you cannot make it work as intended and advertised because... reasons.
This guys touches on it more in detail than I could (TL;DR: He agrees that rental services are snookering MTGO's economy and details how, including relation with MTGA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdBdCWCjhZM
For those that had any doubts about the future direction of MTG, here's an admission that play preferences in Arena are now driving set design (in this instance Bo1 vs Bo3).
https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/co...est_of_one_on/
I've worked with some software that was full of technical debt. When programmers make bad decisions, over time this builds up and becomes a complicated nest of mistakes that would take a huge effort to sort out. Now, with the new management of MTGO, a new organization managing the programming at least, there can be some hope that the new managing organization has more competence on dealing with this situation. At wizards, I can imagine programming MTGO was very low on programmers' wish lists. For the new organization, it's what they do. That doesn't mean they can sort out all old sins of this program, but they can slowly start improving things by having good processes and perhaps more dedicated programmers. I'm speculating, of course.
IMHO, as good as the detail may be, the principle is pernicious from the POV of a table-top game.
Putting my design hat on, it will become increasingly difficult for them to conciliate those two realities since the two are based on totally different premises. The reason a lot of people play Bo1 has very little to do with MTG the game , and all with Arena the economy. In short, as time goes by, I think they will try that old mistake of trying to be everything to everyone and failing to please anyone.
Second thought for free, it starts to give credence to those that think MTG is moving from a table-top driven game, to a digitally driven game, ie, you previously had a digital model trying to re-create the table-top experience, in the future, you may have a table-top experience that is whatever is allowed by the digital experience.
From my very limited experience it seems programming nowadays is very different than in the past. There are many more tools available but programmers learn less about the math/algorithmic side of things. Given that available computing resources are so much more abundant, there is also little need to optimize.
Paired with constant deadline pressure that gives us constantly rushed out quick'n'dirty programming which rapidly falls apart.
I'm not exclusively blaming the programmers, I'm blaming the ecosystem they exist in.
Side rant: Given that so many things are now no longer coded but just trained neural networks, it really grinds my gears when people talk about algorithms in the media. Like facial recognicion algorithms being racist and what not. However, giving that this will become more and more important in training a NN and hiding it behind a UI, I don't expect the quality of programming in the industry to increase.
It is a good thing but for very wrong reasons.
Again, Arena should have never been a 1-to-1 port of MtG but something else with the IP.
MtG is not designed for Bo1 with 60 cards and 4of's.
I understand your POV more now, thank you for clarifying.
The economy for Arena is dog shit, but I'm not sure it is driving the preference for Bo1 over Bo3. I'm not aware of any polling that has been done, so both of us are speaking anecdotally. The biggest appeal Arena has for ME is convenience and speed. The past few months of playing Arena has almost certainly allowed me to fire more games of Magic than 15+ years of paper MtG. Having young children means I may only have 10-15 minutes to myself at any given moment, and playing Bo1 lets me get my fix without any real concern that I'll have to drop out of a game I might have otherwise won.
Bo1 is also a good way to get in reps to make sure your main deck is where you want it. When I test in paper, it's normally several 'game 1s' followed by 1 or 2 'sideboard' games.
Outside of tournament Magic, Bo3 can be fairly cumbersome. If I'm paired against a bad matchup, I'd rather lose and move onto the next game than suffer through a sideboard game that doesn't significantly change my chances of winning.
Finally, I assume many Arena players log in to complete their quests for gold and XP and then log off. Bo1 accomplishes this just as well and possibly better than Bo3. So I get your grievance and the idea that Bo1 isn't 'really' Magic, but I'd challenge that it's popularity is mostly due to Arena's dog shit economy. (Edit - Although this may actually be an argument in support of your claim since the quests are directly related to gaining gold which is tied to the game's economy...)
I've also had to personally lower my pitchfork and walk back doomsday talk enough times that I've stopped rushing to judgement when I hear something that initially sounds bad to me. Personal examples are DFC and losing black borders. Turns out with the benefit of time and seeing how the changes ACTUALLY affect the game, I'm neutral on those matters and happy for additional design space to keep modifying the Kicker mechanic. If digital is driving design, and it results in designs I like... I'm okay with that.
Edit - Actually, reading through the replies to the message from MaRo, it supports that the popularity of Bo1 is driven by the lack of commitment of time required for traditional Bo3 gameplay. Still anecdotal, but at least it's not just my anecdotes.
Won't argue anything but would make one point, Bo1 is a vastly different game from Bo3 and if digital and design becomes centred on Bo1, then something must give for paper that is strictly Bo3.
Quite honestly, this all boils down 100% to personal preferences. I hate with a passion these cards that totally break any colour pie and throw random effect on top of random effect, decreasing costs of 'invisible' cards and so on. I ended up loathing Heartsone due to this. So I fully accept this entirely taints my view of their decision making. If that's the digital game they want then so be it, it's not my game and I'll happily leave it to those that like it.
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
Holy f*^&, it's not just new set releases look at the size of the bloody change list for alchemied cards:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/article...anuary-27-2022
I'm certain all historic players will be delighted to see mini teferi back.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)