|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:33AM
#1041
|
|
|
If you want to throw your toys out of the pram, be our guest. But since I'm not a jerk I'm going to keep playing and encouraging people to try the game. They're the only ones who can decide if they like it or not. I don't think they should be presented an ill-informed opinion as fact.
Your just a saint, propping up WOTC to the very end. HOLD THE LINE.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:33AM
#1042
|
Date Joined:
Jun 12, 2009
|
I just want it to be on record to Wizards staff-
I have been playing this game since the release of "Ice Age." There have been ups and downs in the game, but overall I feel like the money I invested in the game was well worth it. That being said, I don't understand why Wizards would discount me as a potential profit source and customer when they make changes to MTG. Every change made in recent history has been openly broadcasted as being directed at new players to bring in a younger audience. I have purchased playsets of every card printed since ravnica (including some foil playsets) because I enjoy both the collecting aspect and the gameplay. My buying doesn't stop at that though, as I usually buy the fat packs for their d20's and nice box art. I purchase booster packs for my 9 year old brother who has an excellent grasp on the game and the stack/timing.
Wizards thinks that these new players are just going to go out and buy a pack and try to learn on their own so they dumb down the rules a little bit. But new players are brought in by the old players! So Wizards, please stop alienating players like me who are the backbone of your business.
I was worried when planeswalkers came out.... I could care less about mythic rarity. But why on earth would you make these rule changes. Mana burn teaches resource management and is flavorful to the game. Allowing me to assign my combat damage as I see fit encourages forethought and mathematics. If you wanted to have new rules, why not release another portal set and see what kind of response you got from players like me and new customers alike- then evaluate your results and go from there. The fact that these changes have been implemented without giving your customers a voice to vote is just disrespectful.
I don't believe this is the end of magic- you will get new customers im sure, but they will be to replace alienated players such as myself. I will not be buying any cards from m10, and will not purchase new cards until mana burn and the prior combat rules (or some acceptable semblance of them) return. I do not leave magic out of anger, but out of disappointment.
Agreed. I've been playing Magic since Revised and also have a pretty large MTGO account. These changes are going to lose me as a customer, after over a decade. I was looking forward to teaching my kids how to play Magic, but this isn't my Magic, and it's not going to be. I REFUSE to play a dumbed down version of the game designed to pander to idiots. This isn't for 'casual' players, it's for players who can't understand the rules. I'm a casual player, and I get by just fine. If people aren't willing to spend the time to learn the rules to play the game, then they shouldn't be playing Magic.
Games like Magic should NOT be dumbed down to attract new players. Dumb players are what ruin the game and the experience. If we wanted to be playing Yu-Gi-oh, we would be. This is not only poor decision making in marketing, but it's damned insulting as well.
You're basically telling me you'd rather have the input and money from a bunch of people who don't play with all their heart, don't love Magic but only like it, and who aren't capable of learning the complexities of the game. THOSE are the people you value? I guarantee you that I spend WAY more money on my hobbies than these casual cast-aways you want to pander to.
Well, at least I used to... I'm not going to spend any money on this crap.
The game has been solid for a long time now. While there have been some rules adjustments, there hasn't been anything really game-breaking or weird that's come out to screw it totally up. This will change that.
I don't want to have creatures 'enter the battlefield' - that's just stupid. It sounds stupid and childish.
The combat changes are horrible. Damage doesn't stack but everything else does? Deathtouch gets special damage options? What the hell, did you guys get the team from D&D 4.0 come over and show you how to ruin a game?
This does upset me - I have thousands and thousands of cards at home and thousands more in MTGO. While the physical cards can't be changed, I know my MTGO account will be screwed immediately.
I hate to say it, but if these changes go through I will be quitting Magic forever and selling it all off. I refuse to have the game I've loved for years be ruined by the same company that ruined D&D and turned into some crap version of magic geared towards idiots. So, if alienating your older, more financially sound customers that have supported you for years is your objective, you're doing a fine job.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:34AM
#1043
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Indeed. Someone on the first thread posted a link to some emails written to Wizards at the time of the 6th edition changes. I wish I bookmarked it, but I forgot.
The emails mirror the current complaints almost exactly, with people claiming that stacking damage is unintuitive and dumbing down the game. Really, the similarity is spooky. I hope that dude sees this and reposts it.
Yes, there was a big uproar back then, yes many People Quit because of the changes, yes MAGIC DID NOT DIE !
Why didn't it ? because many of those who quit realized that the new way was better, many new people came in an age where the alternative had only games with damage without Stack.
Today they try to undo the changes to the combat damage step and make it even worse because now you don't even have the damage prevention step after combat damage is dealt that you had pre 6th edition rules.
Lets take another look at those 6th edition rules vs M10 Changes. Back then it did not render hundreds of Cards either completly useless or less useful , yes a few were hit back then but not very many in a devastating way.
The M10 Rules render hundreds of Cards useless for many players that believed wizards knew what they were doing when they designed those Cards over a period of 10 Years. Turns out They didn't ....
So you claim that making the game better involves going back to rules proven years ago to be obsolete , confusing and found to be better replaced by something logical (The Stack) ?
They even stated in the 8th edition Core Set That they cosnidered changing the combat damage step but decided against it. NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN GAME-PLAY WISE !
Get it in your head that this is not a Decision made by People who care about the Game, it is a Upper Management Decision in a feeble attempt to get more money. And i truly believe it will fail.
Will it be the End of Magic ? NO
Will Players Quit ? Yes
Will it hurt the game ? YES
Will enough new Players join the Game to make up in the long run for the Players lost ? We will see , i assume their research shows yes, my gut tells me considering the economy . the preferences of younger people towards digital Games, The failed marketing attempts of WotC to reach those in the past, NO.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:34AM
#1044
|
|
|
We DO have a voice to vote.
Do not buy any Magic 2010 cards.
Encourage your local community to play by the current rules.
Don't speak about the announcement unless it is to lead people away from buying M2010 cards.
Don't teach the new rules to people.
Don't abide by the forces of "bringing in new players!"
My advice is this not only to stop buying cards, but stop also giving Magic sites clicks, including this one. Just walk away completely, even if you intend to come back some day.
You'll be better off without the frustration of "fighting the power" and it's probably not going to do anything anyhow. After all, the last paragraph of the article was pretty much, "You're all a bunch of loud-mouthed idiots who are bound to complain, but since we're so much smarter, these changes are happening regardless of what you say and we're not going to listen to your complaints."
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:36AM
#1045
|
|
|
Agreed. I've been playing Magic since Revised and also have a pretty large MTGO account. These changes are going to lose me as a customer, after over a decade. I was looking forward to teaching my kids how to play Magic, but this isn't my Magic, and it's not going to be. I REFUSE to play a dumbed down version of the game designed to pander to idiots. This isn't for 'casual' players, it's for players who can't understand the rules. I'm a casual player, and I get by just fine. If people aren't willing to spend the time to learn the rules to play the game, then they shouldn't be playing Magic.
Games like Magic should NOT be dumbed down to attract new players. Dumb players are what ruin the game and the experience. If we wanted to be playing Yu-Gi-oh, we would be. This is not only poor decision making in marketing, but it's damned insulting as well.
You're basically telling me you'd rather have the input and money from a bunch of people who don't play with all their heart, don't love Magic but only like it, and who aren't capable of learning the complexities of the game. THOSE are the people you value? I guarantee you that I spend WAY more money on my hobbies than these casual cast-aways you want to pander to.
Well, at least I used to... I'm not going to spend any money on this crap.
The game has been solid for a long time now. While there have been some rules adjustments, there hasn't been anything really game-breaking or weird that's come out to screw it totally up. This will change that.
I don't want to have creatures 'enter the battlefield' - that's just stupid. It sounds stupid and childish.
The combat changes are horrible. Damage doesn't stack but everything else does? Deathtouch gets special damage options? What the hell, did you guys get the team from D&D 4.0 come over and show you how to ruin a game?
This does upset me - I have thousands and thousands of cards at home and thousands more in MTGO. While the physical cards can't be changed, I know my MTGO account will be screwed immediately.
I hate to say it, but if these changes go through I will be quitting Magic forever and selling it all off. I refuse to have the game I've loved for years be ruined by the same company that ruined D&D and turned into some crap version of magic geared towards idiots. So, if alienating your older, more financially sound customers that have supported you for years is your objective, you're doing a fine job.
You'd think WOTC would care more about this player rather than the unknown, ambiguous "new player" who the rules are allegedly more "intuitive" for. These players have put themselves into the game for 10 years, the new player who might or might not be attracted might or might not buy a pack and might or might not play the game for years.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:37AM
#1046
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2007
|
So once players figure out what the new "optimal" option is and start to do that (which will 90% of the time be block, sac before damage) will WOTC remove that to encourage more options?
Is it always optimal? If you're given the choice between blocking and killing a threatening creature or sacrificing and destroying a threatening enchantment for instance, neither one is always going to be more correct.
There will always be an optimal way of doing something, this does very little to change that. It just hurts a large number of cards (and players) created in the last 10 years. That's a lot of history to toss you for a few younger players.
The optimal way of doing things will always exist, but it should be based on knowledge of your own particular game situation.
Even if this all devolves into simple rules like "If you're playing aggro, always go for combat damage, if you're playing control always go for sacrifice or bounce effects to stall." it's still requires some knowledge of the game state and your deck's long term and short term goals.
The fact that there's always one single optimal play is not bad. But the more skill and experience a player requires to KNOW that it's the optimal play, the better the game will be. If I find that there is only one optimal removal spell for my Red/Green aggro deck, that's fine. But is that because I've carefully analyzed all the possibilities available, or because one particular spell is obviously strictly superior to all others? Shock vs. Flame Javelin vs. Incinerate is a good strategic choice. Shock vs. Lightning Bolt is not.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:40AM
#1047
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
Your just a saint, propping up WOTC to the very end. HOLD THE LINE.
I'm just not the kind of person to have a kneejerk reaction (with emphasis on the jerk) and try to destroy the hobby for other potential players who may actually love the game the way its going to be. And why shouldn't I help WotC? They've given me years of fun, and the changes might improve the game even more.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:40AM
#1048
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2007
|
We DO have a voice to vote.
Do not buy any Magic 2010 cards.
Encourage your local community to play by the current rules.
Don't speak about the announcement unless it is to lead people away from buying M2010 cards.
Don't teach the new rules to people.
Don't abide by the forces of "bringing in new players!"
WE MUST DESTROY MAGIC IN ORDER TO SAVE IT!
Foolish.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:41AM
#1049
|
|
|
Is it always optimal? If you're given the choice between blocking and killing a threatening creature or sacrificing and destroying a threatening enchantment for instance, neither one is always going to be more correct.
The optimal way of doing things will always exist, but it should be based on knowledge of your own particular game situation.
Even if this all devolves into simple rules like "If you're playing aggro, always go for combat damage, if you're playing control always go for sacrifice or bounce effects to stall." it's still requires some knowledge of the game state and your deck's long term and short term goals.
The fact that there's always one single optimal play is not bad. But the more skill and experience a player requires to KNOW that it's the optimal play, the better the game will be. If I find that there is only one optimal removal spell for my Red/Green aggro deck, that's fine. But is that because I've carefully analyzed all the possibilities available, or because one particular spell is obviously strictly superior to all others? Shock vs. Flame Javelin vs. Incinerate is a good strategic choice. Shock vs. Lightning Bolt is not.
How is this different than the game is now? It's often, but not ALWAYS, optimal to put damage on and then sac. While it creates more choices in how to play your creature (which is what WOTC is trying to push so they can be yugioh/pokemon) is completely removes any post damage choices previously available.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 8:41AM
#1050
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2007
|
The "trick" is based on the stack, the CORE of Magic. The changes create MORE rules for new players, not less.
[FONT="Tahoma"]Then why isn't the CORE of Magic used on the other phases of the game?[/FONT]
\o>
|
|
|
