8/02/2010 MM: "Feedback To Basics"

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's Making Magic, which goes live Monday morning on magicthegathering.com.
What? No mention of PureMTGO? 

Actually, I think that list of notable sites at the bottom was an excellent idea. It gives people the chance to check out Magic sites that they may not have heard of before. 
Also www.puremtgo.com (the world's premier Magic Online article site) and www.classicquarter.com (the only source for tournament-level info on the Magic Online format Classic, and for the last four months or so, the online Legacy metagame).

I check those sites often, and I check your articles out every Moday, Mr. Rosewater. 

I also want to echo puremtgo and classicquarter.   mtgoacademy.com has also been making a solid effort to step up as an magic online-centered mtg resource.


Also, Magic Lampoon is as link-worthy as GoodGamery, in my humble opinion.  In fact I go there first because it links to GG.


 


Anyway, my takeaway from this is that clearly Mark's email is far too positive.

If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.

Other games you should try:
DC Universe Online - action-based MMO.  Free to play.  Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.

Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.
Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.

I've long wondered whether the email response links on old, no-longer-running columns are kept functional; I guess this means that they are, at least for the folks within Wizards. But what about for the people who have left Wizards (eg. Randy Buehler) or who were outside columnists but no longer have columns? (eg. The Ferret) Are those links still active, too? (I suspect not, but there's always a chance.)


Another question: Why not have an email link directory to make replying via email easier? A large chunk of R&D's members have written at least one column at some point in the extensive history of the site. For example, Elaine Chase and Del Laugel have both written articles--they may be seven years old, but they're there. If all those links are going to be kept active, then players can already look up and email many of the major folks in R&D if they so desire. (I believe I've made use of this trick myself at least once.) So why not make it easier for players to do by giving them direct links, rather than force them to search them out manually? (R&D members who don't wish to receive direct feedback mail should be able to opt out, naturally.)



Anyway, my takeaway from this is that clearly Mark's email is far too positive.

Just watch, he's probably already gotten an email saying that clearly the message boards threads are far too negative. ;)

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

Heh. Well, it's not necessarily a bad thing, either, if the two balance out :J

Mark, two questions:

1. I think this is one of the most important things I can ask here:
Out of e-mail, boards, snail mail, twitter, etc. which do you prefer?

2. I read articles older than one week (sometimes much older) sometimes.  If I resond to those, do you read those?  Is there a kind of notification?

These are my two most important questions, Mark.  By the way:  You've helped me as a writer as well as a designer.  I can't ever thank you enough for that.  Thank you.

Mark, two questions:

1. I think this is one of the most important things I can ask here:
Out of e-mail, boards, snail mail, twitter, etc. which do you prefer?

2. I read articles older than one week (sometimes much older) sometimes.  If I resond to those, do you read those?  Is there a kind of notification?

These are my two most important questions, Mark.  By the way:  You've helped me as a writer as well as a designer.  I can't ever thank you enough for that.  Thank you.


Since you asked so nicely,

1. The best feedback tends to come in email as it is one on one and people feel the most comfortable to say what they want to say.  If you want to get a job in R&D though, writing articles has much more upside. I do find value in all forms of feedback.  This thread, for example, definitely keeps me honest. I know I've written something good when my thread likes it.

2. I read the letters no matter how old the article is, and I very often get letters on articles written years ago.  Every once in a while I'll have to go back and reread them to remember what I said.  The ones people tend to respond to many years later tend to be my personal ones.  The current top mail getter is my two-part wedding column (called "Cosmic Encounter, Parts I & II") I wrote back in October of 2008.
Mark, I'm smiling REAL big right now:-)

Thank you:-)
Mark, i'm wondering, as a casual player with a competitive side, i read all kinds of articles on various magic related websites to sharpen my theoretical skills and deckbuilding skills.
Often i see all kinds of complaints by magic players and they point to you as the the source of great evil, additionally there were and are several web comics even that depict you as a servant of satan: www.ugmadness.net/index.php, mtgcolorpie.com/2010/06/06/lotus-cobra-i...

My first question is about that: How do you see this negative criticism of yourself and people joking that you're the right hand of satan?

I'll admit, sometimes i think WotC is making grande mistakes with regards to rules changes, cards in sets, bannings of cards in formats, new rarities, etc.
But overall, i think you and others at WotC are doing a good job with regards to making MtG a better game.
Other players i know online and offline have varying opinions and experiences with regards to the game and thus respond differently to changes in it.

My question regarding this: How do you respond to all the complaints from players you see online and get via all the various channels of communication and with regards to writers on other websites, how serious do you take their assessments and critiques of changes?

And there's another thing that is bothering me for years now.
As previously said, i'm a casual player with a competitive side that likes to play mulitplayer games and the few tournaments i go to, i take seriously enough to want to play the best and most consistent deck, even though i might be going there to have some fun doing so.
I've got no problem with netdecking if necessary, but itis not an auto-include unless my time is too limited and/or i have no good ideas for a deck.

What i do encounter is that a large portion of casual players wants to pertake in FNM tourneys with self-made decks and absolutely hates netdecking and if it were up to them, they'd ban it.
The reason they make their own decks is in most cases primarily caused by a lack of funds rather than the desire to build one's own deck.
Secondly, even with their homebrews, they lose a lot to the dominating netdecks that abound in tournaments, FNM included.
So they cry that there is a lack of originality due to netdecking, all the while their core problem is that they want to compete with subpar resources and they want to solve the problem by restricting other people's legal choices.

My three questions: What is your stance on this phenomenon of netdecking itself?

What do you think of the clamour of casual players wanting to see netdecking banned?

Is there ever a point where you would consider netdecking and what is the motivation for your answer?

Thanks for your time.
What do you think of the clamour of casual players wanting to see netdecking banned?

I don't know about MaRo, but I'd say, "All right, sure. How do you plan on doing that, exactly?"

It's impossible for a tournament organizer to tell for certain whether someone is netdecking or not. Even if their list exactly matches a PT-wining list, it's still possible they built it themselves, without ever looking at the 'net. Maybe not likely, but possible. If you classify entire pro archetypes as netdecks, you're really going to be catching some dolphins in that tuna net. And where would you draw the line between 'net' decks and 'original' decks, anyway? I bet I could find a janky Mirror of Fate combo deck online, and copy it card for card--is that a netdeck? If so, how would you ever know?

So yeah. In a practical sense, there's nothing anyone can do about netdecking.

Come join me at No Goblins Allowed


Because frankly, being here depresses me these days.

What do you think of the clamour of casual players wanting to see netdecking banned?

I don't know about MaRo, but I'd say, "All right, sure. How do you plan on doing that, exactly?"

It's impossible for a tournament organizer to tell for certain whether someone is netdecking or not. Even if their list exactly matches a PT-wining list, it's still possible they built it themselves, without ever looking at the 'net. Maybe not likely, but possible. If you classify entire pro archetypes as netdecks, you're really going to be catching some dolphins in that tuna net. And where would you draw the line between 'net' decks and 'original' decks, anyway? I bet I could find a janky Mirror of Fate combo deck online, and copy it card for card--is that a netdeck? If so, how would you ever know?

So yeah. In a practical sense, there's nothing anyone can do about netdecking.

Banning netdecks = impossible, and possibly unfair to people who happened to design a similar deck to one popular online (or, for that matter, the person who designed the original!).

Slightly more feasible would be applying a handicap (life point penalty?) based on similarities to successful decks, or the number of top cards in a deck (scaled by how popular those cards actually are).  So running Lightning Bolts and Jace, the Mind Sculptor will cause you to start with a few less life than your opponent who has Giant Growth and Sarkhan Vol in her deck.  Wizards could post an application on their website that would update each week, and calculate the current penalty for running a specific deck or combination of cards.  That would motivate everyone to innovate, and keep innovating as the most successful decks changed.


Not that I think that would be a good idea, but it would be interesting, and a twist on supply/demand that would tend to naturally balance the environment.  Probably way too much bookkeeping, though.  Do you trust people to calculate their own handicaps for low-profile events?

Thanks to everyone who helped with the design of the plane of Golamo in the Great Designer Search 2!
My Decks
These are the decks I have assembled at the moment:
Tournament Decks (4)
Kicker Aggro (Invasion Block) Sunforger/Izzet Guildmage Midrange (Ravnica/Time Spiral/Xth Standard) Dragonstorm Combo (Time Spiral/Lorwyn/Xth Standard) Bant Midrange (Lorwyn/Shards/M10 Standard)
Casual Multiplayer Decks (50)
Angel Resurrection Casual Soul Sisters Sindbad's Adventures with Djinn of Wishes Sphinx-Bone Wand Buyback Morph (No Instants or Sorceries) Cabal Coffers Control Zombie Aggro Hungry, Hungry Greater Gargadon/War Elemental Flashfires/Boil/Ruination - Boom! Call of the Wild Teysa, Orzhov Scion with Twilight Drover, Sun Titan, and Hivestone Slivers Rebels Cairn Wanderer Knights Only Gold and () Spells Captain Sisay Toolbox Spellweaver Helix Combo Merfolk Wizards Izzet Guildmage/The Unspeakable Arcane Combo Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind and his Wizards Creatureless Wild Research/Reins of Power Madness Creatureless Pyromancer Ascension Anarchist Living Death Anvil of Bogardan Madness Shamen with Goblin Game/Wound Reflection Combo Mass damage Quest for Pure Flame Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle/Clear the Land with 40+ Lands Doubling Season Thallids Juniper Order Ranger Graft/Tokens Elf Archer Druids Equilibrium/Aluren Combo Experiment Kraj Combo Reap Combo False Cure/Kavu Predator Combo Savra, Queen of the Golgari Sacrifice/Dredge Elf Warriors Eight-Post Sneak Attack Where Ancients Tread Zur the Enchanter with Opal creatures Tamanoa/Kavu Predator/Collapsing Borders Esper Aggro Mishra, Artificer Prodigy and his Darksteel Reactor Theft and Control Unearth Aggro Soul's Fire Vampires Devour Tokens Phytohydra with Powerstone Minefield Treefolk Friendly? Questing Phelddagrif Slivers Dragon Arch Fun I'm probably forgetting a few...
"This is one of the oldest Magic web sites. Its content leans towards strategy and tournament play but many different topics get covered. Star City has premium content, meaning some articles on the site cannot be read unless you have a subscription, but there are free articles every day including Even Erwin's "The Magic Show" (Magic's premier video column) every Friday."

Poor Evan... Gets plugged on the mother ship, but his name is misspelled.
MTG Rules Advisor Autocarding helps a lot -> [c]Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas[/c] = Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas "But keep in mind when the internet dies with the electrical system in 2012, you can still play paper magic, while digital cards will have gone the way of the dodo. In the post apocalyptic world, magic cards will be our currency!" - Samot, explaining to someone the ramifications of switching to MTGO!
I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
I registered here just to say this.

MTG Salvation.


What do you think of the clamour of casual players wanting to see netdecking banned?


Thanks for your time.



I'm not Mark (obviously) but this seems more like a question that anyone can discuss rather than a Mark specific question (plus you've used the forum rather than email).

I know I've seen this complaint (netdecking) from various players. It used to be a regular topic of discussion on these boards however, it has been quite awhile since I've seen this "clamouring" you speak of. I just want to add my two cents here because in my experience it isn't the "casual" players who have a problem with netdecking. You're confusing "budget" players and "casual" players. I would agree with you that in some cases it is the "budget" players who have the most complaints about netdecking however, there are many top level players are somewhat disgusted with the "hive mind" as they called it on the magic show.
Don't be too smart to have fun
A pretty nice column, Mr. Rosewater. It's nice to be reassured you guys try to keep in touch with the players.

Plus, I do agree that message boards do tend to be a bit on the negative side, regardless of the topic. I think that some people believe it makes them cooler if they criticise _insert_object_here_.
Manaug.gif | Manawu.gif | Manau.gif | Manaub.gif | Manaur.gif
A pretty nice column, Mr. Rosewater. It's nice to be reassured you guys try to keep in touch with the players.

Plus, I do agree that message boards do tend to be a bit on the negative side, regardless of the topic. I think that some people believe it makes them cooler if they criticise _insert_object_here_.



I think it has more to do with the fact that it is much easier to have a discussion about what is bad and needs fixed than it is to have a love fest where everyone gushes about the reasons they read these articles each week. Really, if I wanted to compliment someone or tell them how awesome they are I'd do it in the email not a discussion forum.
Don't be too smart to have fun
lightly more feasible would be applying a handicap (life point penalty?) based on similarities to successful decks, or the number of top cards in a deck (scaled by how popular those cards actually are).  So running Lightning Bolts and Jace, the Mind Sculptor will cause you to start with a few less life than your opponent who has Giant Growth and Sarkhan Vol in her deck.  Wizards could post an application on their website that would update each week, and calculate the current penalty for running a specific deck or combination of cards.  That would motivate everyone to innovate, and keep innovating as the most successful decks changed.

So... a Success Tax?

Netdecking happens for one simple reason: Roughly 95% of all cards printed are garbage.
It's inevitable that the tiny handful of cards that aren't limited filler and/or timmybait end up gravitating towards each other, as various players in various locations independently come to realize the same good cards and the same great interactions, and attempt to work out decks to leverage those cards.

If you have a local shop or someplace that wants to try to fight netdecking, there's a format called "Look at me, I'm the DCI!"  You ask each player in attendance for one (or two) cards they want to see banned.  Then that list is announced, and the next week those cards are not allowed.  Repeat as desired for a potentially changing environment that can keep out the dominant "netdecks", or at least throw them off-base.

If you're on MTGO check out the Free Events via PDCMagic and Gatherling.

Other games you should try:
DC Universe Online - action-based MMO.  Free to play.  Surprisingly well-designed combat and classes.

Planetside 2 - Free to play MMO-meets-FPS and the first shooter I've liked in ages.
Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.

Repeat as desired for a potentially changing environment that can keep out the dominant "netdecks", or at least throw them off-base.

or more likely lead to rapidly declining attendance, as last week's deck is no longer playable.

This may seem like a good idea on paper (or a computer screen), but all it does is immediately get the obvious banned, then bans the next big thing, then the next next big thing, etc. etc. as the "unfair" cards get banned only to reveal a whole new generation of "unfair" cards.  Eventually, everyone gets bored and/or frustrated when the winner is explicitly punished and everyone coincidentally using some of the same cards (with rather innocently "fun" intentions) are caught in the collateral damage.

There is always going to be players out there playing the "best".  Ban the best, and they'll merely start playing the 2nd best.
Wait, people are acting like netdecking is a new thing?
It has been around pushing 10 years.
Pat Chapin and others have recently been pushing back against it, labeling it 'the hivemind' and encouraging people to make decks for themselves.
Punishing people who won't is silly.
They are only hurting themselves. Deckbuilding is part of the fun of the game, and part of why I love EDH so much.

Its good to know that you are keeping your ear to the ground, Mr. Rosewater. The internet has some great feedback, once you shovel away all the insanity.
"Stop *****ing, start brewing" -YoMTGTaps Trying to talk Magic players off ledges since 2001. Sharing my knowledge of rumor history, and how to discuss rumors effectively.
I registered here just to say this.

MTG Salvation.



Very noticeably conspicuous by its absence. 


----------------------------------------------------------


I've long felt sorta guilty that I don't use the email function more often, but I like to think that I do put my positives* into the forum threads in addition to my criticisms. I guess I just prefer the give and take that a forum allows, where you can work through an issue via different people approaching it from their different viewpoints.  


* Edit to add: in fact, let me throw out a positive. It's good to see an occasional house keeping article like this. Lets us know they're thinking about us. 

Though now the conspiracy theorist in me is wondering if this is some sort of weird corporate directive thing to push the community in a different direction... 
Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals "...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009. "While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013

It was very noticable that MTG Salvation was not mentioned and other, less popular, sights were.  Is this just MTG Salvation hate?

And where would you draw the line between 'net' decks and 'original' decks, anyway?


The popular answer among "Spike Douchebags" would be 'draw the line between good decks and bad decks.'
But then, one would see a dramatic drop-off in tourneys since the 'tournament rats' won't want to play with and against the same piles of Doubling Season, Gilder Bairn, and a bunch of cards that have either 'token' or 'counters' in their text.

I bet I could find a janky Mirror of Fate combo deck online, and copy it card for card--is that a netdeck? If so, how would you ever know?


Actually, I wouldn't know. I would just think, "damn, that n00b had a terrible deck," but I as a player, nor you as a judge, would bother investigating card for card if there's a replica of it on the 'net.

Also, all of a sudden anyone who wins with spells and creatures with converted mana cost less than 8 will be the object of a witch hunt.

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.
Netdecking happens for one simple reason: Roughly 95% of all cards printed are garbage.


That theory doesn't seem at all plausible to me.  You think that if fewer "garbage" cards were printed, there would be less netdecking?  What's the connection?

I would say that netdecking happens for one simple reason: People want to succeed, and netdecking is an effective and relatively easy way to do so.
Netdecking happens for one simple reason: Roughly 95% of all cards printed are garbage.


That theory doesn't seem at all plausible to me.  You think that if fewer "garbage" cards were printed, there would be less netdecking?  What's the connection?



He's basically saying that if I were to delete the internet right now, then go to a tournament in a few months after more cards are released, I will still be invariably bound to see a handful of decks being the best. As there are only a few good cards, they will be used in (most likely) eerily similar combinations.

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.
The message boards have pros and cons. On the plus side, it allows other players to react to what you have to say with opinions of their own. This allows for some discussions that would be impossible in other formats. On the minus side, the nature of the internet makes people a little less civil and the message boards have the ability to drift towards what I'll call the constructive criticism side of the spectrum. It's a running joke that if I want to see what went right with my column, I check my email and if I want to see what went wrong, I check the message thread.


I must agree with this. The amount of aggressive and negative feedback in the boards is somewhat disturbing sometimes. I really don't understand why, I believe that people think that being in forum gives them a free pass for being rude.
OMG click HERE! OMG! How to autocard and use decklist format
--->
For autocarding, write [c][/c] with the name of the card inside it. [c]Island[/c] = Island For linking a card to Gatherer without writting the name of said card for readers, use the autocard brackets together with and equal sign and right the name of the real card. Then put the message you want inside the tags, like you would do with autocarding. Like this: [c=Curse of the Cabal]Captain Never-resolves[/c] = Captain Never-resolves For using the decklist format, follow this: [deck] 4* Terramorphic Expanse 4* Evolving Wilds ... [/deck] It equals:
Real signature, Sblocked for space:
57817638 wrote:
I like storm crow because I really like crows in real life, as an animal, and the card isn't terribly stupid, but packs a good deal of nostalgia and also a chunck of the game's history. So it's perhaps one of the cards I have most affection to, but not because "lol storm crow is bad hurr hurr durr".
Listen to my SoundCloud while you read my signature. The Island, Come And See, The Landlord's Daughter, You'll Not Feel The Drowning - The Decemberists by vimschy IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/rkvR.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/L3es.gif) IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/m71H.gif)
Quotes
56747598 wrote:
57295478 wrote:
Although I do assume you deliberately refer to them (DCI) as The Grand Imperial Convocation of Evil just for the purposes of making them sound like an ancient and terrible conspiracy.
Now, now. 1994 doesn't quite qualify as "ancient".
56734518 wrote:
Oh, it's a brilliant plan. You see, Bolas was travelling through shadowmoor, causing trouble, when he saw a Wickerbough Elder with its stylin' dead scarecrow hat. Now, Bolas being Bolas took the awesome hat and he put it on his head, but even with all his titanic powers of magic he couldn't make it fit. He grabbed some more scarecrows, but then a little kithkin girl asked if he was trying to build a toupee. "BY ALL THE POWERS IN THE MULTIVERSE!" he roared, "I WILL HAVE A HAT WORTHY OF MY GLORY." and so he went through his Dark Lore of Doom (tm) looking for something he could make into a hat that would look as stylish on him as a scarecrow does on a treefolk. He thought about the Phyrexians, but they were covered in goopy oil that would make his nonexistant hair greasy. He Tried out angels for a while but they didn't sit quite right. Then, he looked under "e" (because in the Elder Draconic alphabet, "e" for Eldrazi is right next to "h" for Hat) in his Dark Lore of Doom and saw depictions of the Eldrazi, and all their forms. "THIS SHALL BE MY HAT!" he declared, poking a picture of Emrakul, "AND WITH IT I WILL USHER IN A NEW AGE OF DARKNESS -- ER, I MEAN A NEW AGE OF FASHION!" And so Nicol Bolas masterminded the release of the Eldrazi.
57864098 wrote:
Rhox War Monk just flips pancakes, and if games have told us anything, it's that food = life.
56747598 wrote:
76973988 wrote:
This thread has gotten creepy. XP
Really? Really? The last couple days have been roughly every perverse fetish imaginable, but it only got "creepy" when speculation on Mother of Runes's mob affiliation came up?
76672808 wrote:
57864098 wrote:
57531048 wrote:
Nice mana base. Not really.
Yeah, really. If my deck was going to cost $1000+, I'd at least make it good.
99812049 wrote:
I like to think up what I consider clever names for my decks, only later to be laughed at by my wife. It kills me a little on the inside, but thats what marriage is about.
56816728 wrote:
56854588 wrote:
Of course, the best use [of tolaria west] is transmuting for the real Tolaria. ;)
Absolutely. I used to loose to my buddy's Banding deck for ages, it was then that I found out about Tolaria, and I was finally able win my first game.
70246459 wrote:
WOAH wait wait wait
56957928 wrote:
You know, being shallow and jusdgmental aside, "I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people"
56957928 wrote:
"I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people"
56957928 wrote:
Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates
56957928 wrote:
OH MY GOD
109874309 wrote:
The only way I'd cast this card is into a bonfire.
82032421 wrote:
The short answer is that there's no rule barring annoying people from posting, but there a rule barring us from harassing them about it.
56747598 wrote:
Browbeat is a card that is an appropriate deck choice when there's no better idea available. "No better idea available" was pretty much the running theme of Odyssey era.
56874518 wrote:
Or perhaps it was a more straightforward comment indicating a wish for you to be bitten (Perhaps repeatedly) by a small yet highly venomous arachnid.
70246459 wrote:
58280208 wrote:
You're an idiot, and I'm in no mood for silliness.
57817638 wrote:
57145078 wrote:
You just... Vektor it.
That's the answer to everything.
70246459 wrote:
58347268 wrote:
I think the problem is that you don't exist.
This would sound great out of context!
56965458 wrote:
Modern is like playing a new tournament every time : you build a deck, you win with it, don't bother keeping it. Just build another, its key pieces will get banned.
57864098 wrote:
57309598 wrote:
I specifically remember posting a thread when I was just a witty bitty noob.
You make it sound like that's still not the case.
58325628 wrote:
Rap is what happens when the c from crap is taken away.
Doug Beyer:
But sometimes it's also challenging. Because sometimes OH MY GOD, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS THING?
141434757 wrote:
Flashforward five thousand years (Click for atmosphere) :
57927608 wrote:
to paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, Vektor finds a way.
58347268 wrote:
when in rome **** AND PILLAGE
143229641 wrote:
I always find it helpful when im angry to dress up in an owl costume and rub pennies all over my body in front of a full body mirror next to the window.
Dymecoar:
Playing Magic without Blue is like sleeping without any sheets or blankets. You can do it...but why?
Omega137:
Me: "I love the moment when a control deck stabilizes. It feels so... right." Omega137: "I like the life drop part until you get there, it's the MtG variant of bungee jumping"
Zigeif777:
Just do it like Yu-Gi-Oh or monkeys: throw all the crap you got at them and hope it works or else the by-standers (or opponents) just get dirty and pissed.
57471038 wrote:
58258708 wrote:
It's true that Alpha and Beta didn't contain any cards like Tarmogoyf, Darksteel Colossus, or Platinum Angel. It just contained weak, insignificant cards like Black Lotus, Mox Sapphire, and Time Walk.
Normally it's difficult to pick up on your jokes/sarcasm. But this one's pretty much out there. Good progress. You have moved up to Humanoid. You'll be Human in no time.
91893448 wrote:
94618431 wrote:
I didn't know Samurai were known to be able to cut down whole armies...
They can when they're using lightsabers!
57129358 wrote:
97980259 wrote:
My wife brought home a baby black squirrel they found on a horse track and cared for it for a few days. We named it Grixis, but it died.
Unearth it!
70246459 wrote:
[/spoiler] And I'm on Magic Arcana. How about you? Oh, by the way, I'm also on From the Lab now. Twice, actually. And now with my own submited decklist!
The message boards have pros and cons. On the plus side, it allows other players to react to what you have to say with opinions of their own. This allows for some discussions that would be impossible in other formats. On the minus side, the nature of the internet makes people a little less civil and the message boards have the ability to drift towards what I'll call the constructive criticism side of the spectrum. It's a running joke that if I want to see what went right with my column, I check my email and if I want to see what went wrong, I check the message thread.


I must agree with this. The amount of aggressive and negative feedback in the boards is somewhat disturbing sometimes. I really don't understand why, I believe that people think that being in forum gives them a free pass for being rude.


Your comment sucks.

Anyway, people do see it that way. Most people, in general, aren't as forthcoming as they would like to be. Provided anonyminitinimity (I can't spell right now) they feel as if "anything goes".

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.

It was very noticable that MTG Salvation was not mentioned and other, less popular, sights were.  Is this just MTG Salvation hate?




Besides the fact that they host spoilers to WoTC's chagrin? (Main reason they won't get 'the maro bump')

There aren't many articles there anymore.
There isn't much content, ready for digestion, being pushed out of there anymore.
The quality of posts, on average, has been on the decline as well.

That said, I did expect him to list it, but understood why he didn't.

WoTC reads and notices things on MTGS, I think everyone knows that by now.
"Stop *****ing, start brewing" -YoMTGTaps Trying to talk Magic players off ledges since 2001. Sharing my knowledge of rumor history, and how to discuss rumors effectively.
He's basically saying that if I were to delete the internet right now, then go to a tournament in a few months after more cards are released, I will still be invariably bound to see a handful of decks being the best. As there are only a few good cards, they will be used in (most likely) eerily similar combinations.

Well, that's not netdecking. Netdecking is when a player finds a deck online and plays it in a tournament with no or minimal changes.

Either way, the decks are going to more or less be the same, even more so with a smaller card pool. Whether it's the dictionary definition of netdecking or simply "you know, people keep playing a red, black and green Alara-based deck all the time and they all use pretty much the same cards to win," casual players will see the same problem at Friday Night Magic or whatever other small tournament. That doesn't mean I think netdecks should be banned. (Sorry, anti-netdeckers, but what you want is completely unrealistic and you should stop asking for it.) The game is what it is. I agree with Qmark that the solution lies more with R&D and less with "player creativity." We can spin an entire topic about this, and if we've probably already done that. But my stance is simple: stop giving players such obvious choices and you will see more decks out there, at least at the FNM level. At the higher levels things there will always be fewer decks.

On topic: I have to admit it is satisfying seeing something I mention to a member of WOTC actually happen. Whether it is actually a member of R&D or someone from the MTGO side that I emailed, saw at a prerelease or spoke to in these forums, various comments I have made over the years have been heard. And I am sure it is not just me, either. Obviously a bunch of people are writing, posting, or speaking, and saying similar things. The comments do get heard and while they have some things that override individual wants, you can see action from time to time. Some examples that come to mind that came from public commentary are the rehiring of Rebecca Guay to do Magic cards and more recently, the 40-card intro packs being abolished. I am sure sales probably had something to do with the latter, but aside from a very small minority of posters, no one said anything good about the small intro packs.

So, if something bothers you or you have a suggestion, reach out.

Hahaha, I'm imagining how much MaRo is laughing at this thread right now. His whole article was about how to communicate well with WotC, and now half the comments are about why we can't ban netdecking.
Huh?

On Topic:
I'm interested in some recent examples as to how you have integrated feedback from emails and boards. Maybe Hacimen has some in mind?

It's good to know you listen, but feedback feels less futile when we see its previous effects.
the 40-card intro packs being abolished. I am sure sales probably had something to do with the latter, but aside from a very small minority of posters, no one said anything good about the small intro packs

You mean those 40 card precons in which players had a high probability of playing with a Rod of Ruin? As if that was somehow offset by "Rare Foil Monster That You Get"?
I think it was both player disinterest (how many times could you bear losing at your own kitchen table with something you didn't build yourself, but something that you went out and bought and was somehow assured it was a "deck"?) and lack of sales due to older players ignoring them and newer players not buying them anymore because they "suck" or just stop playing the game altogether.

Orzhova Witness

Restarting Quotes Block
58086748 wrote:
58335208 wrote:
Disregard women acquire chase rares.
There are a lot of dudes for whom this is not optional.
97820278 wrote:
144532521 wrote:
How;s a 2 drop 1/2, Flying broken? What am I missing?
You're missing it because *turns Storm Crows sideways* all your base are belong to Chuck Norris and every other overused meme ever.

Hahaha, I'm imagining how much MaRo is laughing at this thread right now. His whole article was about how to communicate well with WotC, and now half the comments are about why we can't ban netdecking.
Huh?

On Topic:
I'm interested in some recent examples as to how you have integrated feedback from emails and boards. Maybe Hacimen has some in mind?

It's good to know you listen, but feedback feels less futile when we see its previous effects.




That's a good point. He really should have brought up the changes that were made because of our feedback. Maybe a later article will address this. My brain is not functioning well today, or I might have some more examples of big changes that came from customer feedback. I can say this, though. Most of the cards I lobbied on the forums to appear in Master's Edition expansions showed up in MED II, and after some emails exchanged with Mark Gottleib, some of my pet cards have had their rulings restored to printed text. It's not just me. I doubt I personally made any of that happen. But I added my voice to however many others. When one of my pet cards was changed, MaGo said, "I think I get more email about this card than any other card."

the 40-card intro packs being abolished. I am sure sales probably had something to do with the latter, but aside from a very small minority of posters, no one said anything good about the small intro packs

You mean those 40 card precons in which players had a high probability of playing with a Rod of Ruin? As if that was somehow offset by "Rare Foil Monster That You Get"? I think it was both player disinterest (how many times could you bear losing at your own kitchen table with something you didn't build yourself, but something that you went out and bought and was somehow assured it was a "deck"?) and lack of sales due to older players ignoring them and newer players not buying them anymore because they "suck" or just stop playing the game altogether.



Sales probably spoke as much as anything. We don't necessarily know how they did. But people liked the precons when they were 60 cards. They were considered to be a very good product. The community came down hard on those 40-card quasi-decks, and it started when they weren't even out yet. The commentary continued until Aaron's announcement earlier this year. I could hijack this thread if I wanted to just by saying something about how great the 40-card packs were because they encouraged new players to spend more money. (Well maybe if I got a MUP. Most people that know me here also know I hated them.)
He's basically saying that if I were to delete the internet right now, then go to a tournament in a few months after more cards are released, I will still be invariably bound to see a handful of decks being the best. As there are only a few good cards, they will be used in (most likely) eerily similar combinations.

Well, that's not netdecking. Netdecking is when a player finds a deck online and plays it in a tournament with no or minimal changes.

And those netdecks exist exactly because the "playable" pool in any given format is very tiny relative to the total pool.  Remove the internet from the equation, and we'd have players whining about "magazine decks" instead.  Remove any form of wide-area communication, and local competitive environments would simply become near-clones of whatever guy's deck is winning the most.
Mark, i'm wondering, as a casual player with a competitive side, i read all kinds of articles on various magic related websites to sharpen my theoretical skills and deckbuilding skills.
Often i see all kinds of complaints by magic players and they point to you as the the source of great evil, additionally there were and are several web comics even that depict you as a servant of satan: www.ugmadness.net/index.php, mtgcolorpie.com/2010/06/06/lotus-cobra-i...

My first question is about that: How do you see this negative criticism of yourself and people joking that you're the right hand of satan?

I'll admit, sometimes i think WotC is making grande mistakes with regards to rules changes, cards in sets, bannings of cards in formats, new rarities, etc.
But overall, i think you and others at WotC are doing a good job with regards to making MtG a better game.
Other players i know online and offline have varying opinions and experiences with regards to the game and thus respond differently to changes in it.

My question regarding this: How do you respond to all the complaints from players you see online and get via all the various channels of communication and with regards to writers on other websites, how serious do you take their assessments and critiques of changes?

And there's another thing that is bothering me for years now.
As previously said, i'm a casual player with a competitive side that likes to play mulitplayer games and the few tournaments i go to, i take seriously enough to want to play the best and most consistent deck, even though i might be going there to have some fun doing so.
I've got no problem with netdecking if necessary, but itis not an auto-include unless my time is too limited and/or i have no good ideas for a deck.

What i do encounter is that a large portion of casual players wants to pertake in FNM tourneys with self-made decks and absolutely hates netdecking and if it were up to them, they'd ban it.
The reason they make their own decks is in most cases primarily caused by a lack of funds rather than the desire to build one's own deck.
Secondly, even with their homebrews, they lose a lot to the dominating netdecks that abound in tournaments, FNM included.
So they cry that there is a lack of originality due to netdecking, all the while their core problem is that they want to compete with subpar resources and they want to solve the problem by restricting other people's legal choices.

My three questions: What is your stance on this phenomenon of netdecking itself?

What do you think of the clamour of casual players wanting to see netdecking banned?

Is there ever a point where you would consider netdecking and what is the motivation for your answer?

Thanks for your time.

RE: Negative Criticism

It's something that comes with the territory.  Over the years I've gotten a pretty think skin and have come to find the over the top stuff humorous. The writer of ugmadness talked with me and I told him I thought my character was funny and told him he had my blessing. (I was a winged minion of Satan if you've never seen the comic in question - it stopped last year). My friends and family seem to take the negative things harder than I do as I deal with it a lot more.  I try to look past how people are saying something to see if what they are saying has relevance.  Some very mean posts sometimes have important truths behind them. I will stress that saying something in a more polite manner does increase the response it generates.

The other thing that has to be kept in mind is that what the players want and what they need are not the same thing.  Part of game design is making sure the game has what it needs even if some of those things get a negative reaction from the playerbase.  Magic would not be a better game if we just did what the majority asked for.

Re: Netdecking

While I understand the frustration you are talking about I can just as easily capture the wind than stop information in this day and age.  Our data shows that as players play longer that they tend to gravitate towards limited formats, especially drafting.  I believe one of the reasons for this is that drafting removes most of the frustrations of netdecking.  Players have to build their own decks and cannot just rely on deck lists being handed to them.

My suggestion for casual groups who get frustrated with netdecking is to make weird deck restrictions for themselves forcing their group to build their own decks.  For example, I had a blast back in the day playing alphabet decks where you play twenty-six cards plus fourteen basic land. Each card (other than the land) must start with a different letter of the alphabet.  I'd probably play with the Vintage and Legacy banned lists.  Creating a subgame for your casual group helps offset this netdeck issue.  

As far as tournaments go, I think netdecking is just part of the environment.  There's just no reasonable way to remove it. Do I netdeck?  Most of my constructed playing is at events and I seldom build those decks so maybe I'm netdecking, I honestly don't know.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

 
Really, if netdecking is a problem in a Casual group, just ostracize the netdecker. 
Blatantly refuse to play against netdecks.  This does run the risk of getting oneself labeled a "whiner" (or worse), but it also has the chance of nudging Mr. Netdecker away from his beloved netdecks.

If netdecking is a problem in a competitive group, then that's just too damn bad.  Deal with it.
Thanks for the link to GG, Mark. It looks like I had you pegged all wrong...

... or is this just your latest sinister maneuver upon the dark chessboard betwixt us?

;0
Am I the only one who found the first half of that very condescending?   It just seemed like MaRo was writing to a bunch of 8 year olds.
Am I the only one who found the first half of that very condescending?   It just seemed like MaRo was writing to a bunch of 8 year olds.

Can you be more specific?

The message boards have pros and cons. On the plus side, it allows other players to react to what you have to say with opinions of their own. This allows for some discussions that would be impossible in other formats. On the minus side, the nature of the internet makes people a little less civil and the message boards have the ability to drift towards what I'll call the constructive criticism side of the spectrum. It's a running joke that if I want to see what went right with my column, I check my email and if I want to see what went wrong, I check the message thread.


I must agree with this. The amount of aggressive and negative feedback in the boards is somewhat disturbing sometimes. I really don't understand why, I believe that people think that being in forum gives them a free pass for being rude.


Your comment sucks.

Anyway, people do see it that way. Most people, in general, aren't as forthcoming as they would like to be. Provided anonyminitinimity (I can't spell right now) they feel as if "anything goes".



OMG click HERE! OMG! How to autocard and use decklist format
--->
For autocarding, write [c][/c] with the name of the card inside it. [c]Island[/c] = Island For linking a card to Gatherer without writting the name of said card for readers, use the autocard brackets together with and equal sign and right the name of the real card. Then put the message you want inside the tags, like you would do with autocarding. Like this: [c=Curse of the Cabal]Captain Never-resolves[/c] = Captain Never-resolves For using the decklist format, follow this: [deck] 4* Terramorphic Expanse 4* Evolving Wilds ... [/deck] It equals:
Real signature, Sblocked for space:
57817638 wrote:
I like storm crow because I really like crows in real life, as an animal, and the card isn't terribly stupid, but packs a good deal of nostalgia and also a chunck of the game's history. So it's perhaps one of the cards I have most affection to, but not because "lol storm crow is bad hurr hurr durr".
Listen to my SoundCloud while you read my signature. The Island, Come And See, The Landlord's Daughter, You'll Not Feel The Drowning - The Decemberists by vimschy IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/rkvR.gif)IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/L3es.gif) IMAGE(http://dragcave.net/image/m71H.gif)
Quotes
56747598 wrote:
57295478 wrote:
Although I do assume you deliberately refer to them (DCI) as The Grand Imperial Convocation of Evil just for the purposes of making them sound like an ancient and terrible conspiracy.
Now, now. 1994 doesn't quite qualify as "ancient".
56734518 wrote:
Oh, it's a brilliant plan. You see, Bolas was travelling through shadowmoor, causing trouble, when he saw a Wickerbough Elder with its stylin' dead scarecrow hat. Now, Bolas being Bolas took the awesome hat and he put it on his head, but even with all his titanic powers of magic he couldn't make it fit. He grabbed some more scarecrows, but then a little kithkin girl asked if he was trying to build a toupee. "BY ALL THE POWERS IN THE MULTIVERSE!" he roared, "I WILL HAVE A HAT WORTHY OF MY GLORY." and so he went through his Dark Lore of Doom (tm) looking for something he could make into a hat that would look as stylish on him as a scarecrow does on a treefolk. He thought about the Phyrexians, but they were covered in goopy oil that would make his nonexistant hair greasy. He Tried out angels for a while but they didn't sit quite right. Then, he looked under "e" (because in the Elder Draconic alphabet, "e" for Eldrazi is right next to "h" for Hat) in his Dark Lore of Doom and saw depictions of the Eldrazi, and all their forms. "THIS SHALL BE MY HAT!" he declared, poking a picture of Emrakul, "AND WITH IT I WILL USHER IN A NEW AGE OF DARKNESS -- ER, I MEAN A NEW AGE OF FASHION!" And so Nicol Bolas masterminded the release of the Eldrazi.
57864098 wrote:
Rhox War Monk just flips pancakes, and if games have told us anything, it's that food = life.
56747598 wrote:
76973988 wrote:
This thread has gotten creepy. XP
Really? Really? The last couple days have been roughly every perverse fetish imaginable, but it only got "creepy" when speculation on Mother of Runes's mob affiliation came up?
76672808 wrote:
57864098 wrote:
57531048 wrote:
Nice mana base. Not really.
Yeah, really. If my deck was going to cost $1000+, I'd at least make it good.
99812049 wrote:
I like to think up what I consider clever names for my decks, only later to be laughed at by my wife. It kills me a little on the inside, but thats what marriage is about.
56816728 wrote:
56854588 wrote:
Of course, the best use [of tolaria west] is transmuting for the real Tolaria. ;)
Absolutely. I used to loose to my buddy's Banding deck for ages, it was then that I found out about Tolaria, and I was finally able win my first game.
70246459 wrote:
WOAH wait wait wait
56957928 wrote:
You know, being shallow and jusdgmental aside, "I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people"
56957928 wrote:
"I later found out that Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people"
56957928 wrote:
Jon infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates
56957928 wrote:
OH MY GOD
109874309 wrote:
The only way I'd cast this card is into a bonfire.
82032421 wrote:
The short answer is that there's no rule barring annoying people from posting, but there a rule barring us from harassing them about it.
56747598 wrote:
Browbeat is a card that is an appropriate deck choice when there's no better idea available. "No better idea available" was pretty much the running theme of Odyssey era.
56874518 wrote:
Or perhaps it was a more straightforward comment indicating a wish for you to be bitten (Perhaps repeatedly) by a small yet highly venomous arachnid.
70246459 wrote:
58280208 wrote:
You're an idiot, and I'm in no mood for silliness.
57817638 wrote:
57145078 wrote:
You just... Vektor it.
That's the answer to everything.
70246459 wrote:
58347268 wrote:
I think the problem is that you don't exist.
This would sound great out of context!
56965458 wrote:
Modern is like playing a new tournament every time : you build a deck, you win with it, don't bother keeping it. Just build another, its key pieces will get banned.
57864098 wrote:
57309598 wrote:
I specifically remember posting a thread when I was just a witty bitty noob.
You make it sound like that's still not the case.
58325628 wrote:
Rap is what happens when the c from crap is taken away.
Doug Beyer:
But sometimes it's also challenging. Because sometimes OH MY GOD, WHAT THE HELL IS THIS THING?
141434757 wrote:
Flashforward five thousand years (Click for atmosphere) :
57927608 wrote:
to paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, Vektor finds a way.
58347268 wrote:
when in rome **** AND PILLAGE
143229641 wrote:
I always find it helpful when im angry to dress up in an owl costume and rub pennies all over my body in front of a full body mirror next to the window.
Dymecoar:
Playing Magic without Blue is like sleeping without any sheets or blankets. You can do it...but why?
Omega137:
Me: "I love the moment when a control deck stabilizes. It feels so... right." Omega137: "I like the life drop part until you get there, it's the MtG variant of bungee jumping"
Zigeif777:
Just do it like Yu-Gi-Oh or monkeys: throw all the crap you got at them and hope it works or else the by-standers (or opponents) just get dirty and pissed.
57471038 wrote:
58258708 wrote:
It's true that Alpha and Beta didn't contain any cards like Tarmogoyf, Darksteel Colossus, or Platinum Angel. It just contained weak, insignificant cards like Black Lotus, Mox Sapphire, and Time Walk.
Normally it's difficult to pick up on your jokes/sarcasm. But this one's pretty much out there. Good progress. You have moved up to Humanoid. You'll be Human in no time.
91893448 wrote:
94618431 wrote:
I didn't know Samurai were known to be able to cut down whole armies...
They can when they're using lightsabers!
57129358 wrote:
97980259 wrote:
My wife brought home a baby black squirrel they found on a horse track and cared for it for a few days. We named it Grixis, but it died.
Unearth it!
70246459 wrote:
[/spoiler] And I'm on Magic Arcana. How about you? Oh, by the way, I'm also on From the Lab now. Twice, actually. And now with my own submited decklist!
Sign In to post comments