|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:44AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Mar 18, 2009
|
If you're going to blame someone, blame everyone who cried wolf when Sixth Edition came out. It didn't destroy Magic, despite all the doomsayers, and now the doomsayers' credibility is shot. 
The game has gone through worse. It'll be fine.
here is the difference, this time the people making the noise actually ARE the ones with the spending power.
there are only 2 card shops left in my state ( from around 10 when ravnica came out). I have spoken to the owners of both who watched how fickle the yu-gi-oh crowd is and they both agree this is not going to be good. magic is their bread and butter and already there are players selling their collections and ending playing the game.
today there were 3 players in the store selling off their collections as I watched, saddened. the owners of the one shop actually are worried they wont have people for their saterday tournament, because as it was, the adults with money were getting chased away by the kids that try to get draft sets for $9 instead of $11, or who leave garbage strewn across the play area, and have their parents flip out when a kid gets kicked out of the store for lighting cards on fire.
the flash in the pan younger players are not going to replace adults with jobs and much deeper pockets, especially in this economy.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:44AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2007
|
Except Sixth edition was a step forward and this is one or two back.
Except that players said the exact same thing about Sixth edition.
Credibility shot. Even if you're right, nobody's going to believe you.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:44AM
#33
|
|
|
6th EditionWe made a bigger change to the way creatures deal their combat damage. This change was made so that combat damage fit into the Grand Unified Timing System (AKA the stack). We wanted to allow players to prevent damage after they saw how creature damage was being divided (which is what happens under Fifth Edition rules). We also wanted for spells played during combat to work the same way they do outside of combat. In the end we created a system that has simpler rules but much more complex play strategies.
8th Edition
The other area that we could have changed in this way was the combat damage step. We could have split it into two steps – one for assigning damage and one for dealing it. But we didn’t, mainly because we didn’t want to take away the phrase “damage on the stack”(Here in R&D, we’re big fans of putting damage on the stack – for some people, it’s the highlight of their entire day.)
M10
The intricate system via which combat is currently handled creates many unintuitive gameplay moments. For starters, "the stack" is a difficult concept, even after all these years, so it is no wonder that many players go about combat without invoking it at all. Second, creatures disappearing after damage has been put on the stack leads to a ton of confusion and disbelief: How is that Mogg Fanatic killing two creatures? How did that creature kill mine but make your Nantuko Husk big enough to survive? How can you Unsummon your creature and have it still deal damage? While many of us may be used to the way things are now, it makes no sense in terms of a game metaphor and only a bit more sense as a rule.
So, wait, using the stack has gone from "this makes combat just like the rest of the game and leads to interesting strategic decisions" to "the stack is confusing and some new players don't want to learn to use it for strategy, we'll make combat work completely differently from all other parts of the game, because that definitely won't be confusing for new players."
The end is always nigh.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:45AM
#34
|
|
|
More so than taking away from being able to beat bad players, this will create a divide between the mediocre players and the good players. Both those groups used to have damage on tricks an the like to take advantage of, and the players who are better will have access to more tricks in the coming months, and make better decisions in combat. This is the group that will struggle to adapt or die. They clearly have an idea of what’s going on in the game, but they may not have the depth to compete when their one tried-and-true trick is gone.
This on top8magic.com from an unheard of PT player. This quote is actually the opposite of what will happen because it further blurs the line between good and mediocre players. Now the mediocre players get away with more mistakes because it's harder to punish them. Any semi-legit player with fatties is going to have an advantage over a better player who doesn't have the same bombs in limited because the better player has fewer options to regain the card advantage created by the bomb. This of course is what WOTC is trying to do, focus the game on big critters because it's what kids like.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:46AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2007
|
here is the difference, this time the people making the noise actually ARE the ones with the spending power.
As opposed to Sixth edition when all the players were poor? I don't get it.
Still looks like exactly the same scenario to me.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:47AM
#36
|
|
|
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.
The reason that changes are made to be directed at new players is that they are trying to increase the amount of product sold. Existing players love the game and therefore buy a lot of product. Non-players either haven't played the game, don't understand the game, or don't like the game, and as a result buy zero product. It's easier to get people who don't buy any Magic to buy a lot, than it is to get people who buy a lot to buy more. Put another way, the person I quoted states that he or she has a playset of every card in the Ravnica Block, for instance. What can Wizards do to sell this person more Ravnica Block? They know what they can do to sell non-players more Ravnica block, and the answer is (apparently) these rule changes.
. . . so they dumb down the rules a little bit.
I keep seeing comments like this, and it makes me wonder. What is wrong with "dumbing down" the game?
Magic is a complicated game. Fortunately, it's found its way into the hands of a lot of very intelligent people. Here's the catch though, people with an IQ considered "high average" or above make up only 25% of the population. Now, I don't know what the minimum IQ threshold for enjoying Magic is, but It certainly seems to be above the mean (average) IQ. Every IQ point closer to the mean they can lower this threshold will bring in more players than the last, so there is considerable incentive, from a business standpoint, to make the game more approachable for people of more average IQ.
But what's in it for existing (presumably smarter) players? The simple answer is more opponents. People who have never played before will bring new ways of thinking, and new strategies to the table that experienced players are not used to encountering, which should increase the amount of intellectual stimulation in the game (which is something that becomes more important for people of higher IQs). Although making the rules less complex does decrease intellectual stimulation from the rules, themselves, this is a facet of the game that established players have already mastered, and so the benefits of that stimulation, for us, is marginal at best.
Aside from that, it has been psychologically validated that the vast majority of people (aside from those with rather severe developmental disabilities) tend to derive pleasure from sharing experiences they enjoy. If the number of people likely to enjoy the game increases, so do your odds of being able to share the experience of enjoying the game with others.
But new players are brought in by the old players!
This is an interesting point, because it is an assumption that needs to be examined by the community and WOTC alike. The truth is that people are most likely to be "brought in" if they have an enjoyable time playing the game. Continually losing is not an enjoyable experience. If a new player's only opponents are established players who know the intricacies of Magic, as well as having access to a substantially larger collection, that new player is likely to lose frequently and is not likely to enjoy herself or himself. This is a problem that I feel can only be addressed by the return of the core game, which allowed players to teach themselves how to play, then immediately teach a friend. I know that this is how I learned the game, and it's also how many of my friends did. Players need to be able to teach themselves, now (as other posters have mentioned) you can't even find a rulebook without spending a lot of time on the company website.
"We will all be purified in Wurm.
What is good will be used to heal Wurm, or grow Wurm, or to fuel Wurm's path. What is vile will be extruded, and we will be free of it forever."
--Prophet of the Cult of Wurm
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:48AM
#37
|
|
|
6th Edition
8th Edition
M10
So, wait, using the stack has gone from "this makes combat just like the rest of the game and leads to interesting strategic decisions" to "the stack is confusing and some new players don't want to learn to use it for strategy, we'll make combat work completely differently from all other parts of the game, because that definitely won't be confusing for new players."
Truly sad how much the powers that be at WOTC (bottom line) influence the game. It's hard to expect much more since they are a business, but this doesn't make sense even from a business perspective.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:49AM
#38
|
|
|
It's nice to see Erik Lauer right here,
Wait, what? Eric Lauer works for WotC? And is in this thread? I believe you're mistaken.
One more point. Why does Deathtouch get the "It doesn't work under the new rules" errata, yet Wither gets left on the side of the road to wither (ha) and die? Double Standard much?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:50AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Oct 20, 2003
|
I've been playing Magic on and off for the last 15 years... I was annoyed when my icy manipulators no longer stopped defending creatures from dealing damage. I was very annoyed when my force of nature couldn't trample over just the weakest creature blocking. I was surprised when reading about combat damage using the stack, and how that actually worked. How cards like Mogg Fanatic just became even more Fantastic. How prevent damage cards actually became a bit better. I liked it. It was a good change. I was extremely annoyed when the new card faces change the artifact colors. I read these changes... and I'm just frustrated now... Of all the changes done prior, the part that I actually liked, has just been reversed upon. That really upsets me. No mana burn? How many times have I seen the brokeness of Mana Drain  reigned in by mana burn? at least, at the VERY LEAST, 20 times, but probably much more. At least 10 times in tournaments. What about Mind Slaving someone with infinite mana to kill them? That was so much fun! Friends of mine still talk about that to this day... With so many cards that remove creatures from the game, I know people who MAIN DECK living wish ONLY to get those creatures back.. Now they can't!? This goes on and on.. Over the years playing, many cards were played because of how they interacted with the current rules. Whole decks were designed to utilize the stack to their fullest. Now these players are getting the biggest slap in their face with these rules. Wednesday night, I play big casual multiplayer games at a local card shop. Some are former YuGiOh players, others are old school magic players, some are just newer magic players. When I spent a half hour explaining the rules changes to everyone, and I had a huge crowd because no one else had heard about them yet.... The only people who liked the rules changes were the YuGiOh players. That is it. The tournament players got in their own heated discussions. The old school players, including 2 who had just come back to the game got very upset, claiming they were just going to quit again. The regular players, those who had only been playing for a year or two, wanted further explanations. I gave them more in depth examples. Finally, after going over many scenarios that now change, they unanimously agreed that they didn't like the rules changes. As for myself? Lifelink and DeathTouch as static abilities I can accept. Mana emptying at each step, no problem. Mana burn gone? I dislike it... I wish I had the sense to pick up that play set of mana drains a few weeks ago... New names for territories... Battlefield is a terrible and cheesey name. It should have been called "The Field". Exile is fine, IF WISHES CAN AFFECT THE EXILE AREA! Don't change the functionality of wishes! Don't do it! Allow them to affect this new play area!!!! You changed death touch to use the old rules because under the new rules it was stupid (by the way, it's not just death touch, the new combat damage assignment is stupid for EVERY CREATURE, NOT JUST THOSE WITH DEATH TOUCH) but the point is.. You changed death touch so it gets around a change that would effectively nerf it.. Yet you didn't change wishes the same way!? FAIL! Blockers lining up, and lethal damage having to go through 1 at a time. Don't do it. No. Don't. Seriously.. stop. Don't do it. Combat damage? Keep it how it was. It was better how it was post 6ed. Mulligans? nice change....
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jun 12, 2009 - 9:51AM
#40
|
|
|
The reason that changes are made to be directed at new players is that they are trying to increase the amount of product sold. Existing players love the game and therefore buy a lot of product. Non-players either haven't played the game, don't understand the game, or don't like the game, and as a result buy zero product. It's easier to get people who don't buy any Magic to buy a lot, than it is to get people who buy a lot to buy more. Put another way, the person I quoted states that he or she has a playset of every card in the Ravnica Block, for instance. What can Wizards do to sell this person more Ravnica Block? They know what they can do to sell non-players more Ravnica block, and the answer is (apparently) these rule changes.
This is terrible business logic. It costs, on average, more than twice as much to recruit a new customer than to keep an existing one. Those players who bought a playset of Ravnica will pay for new sets. With these moves, you run a high risk of running off that player for a new customer that might or might nor materialize.
|
|
|
