|
5 years ago ::
Nov 04, 2008 - 4:07PM
#51
|
|
|
Events would be fine :D
But this thread seems pointless, since Mike doesnt reply.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 10, 2008 - 10:37AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
But this thread seems pointless, since Mike doesnt reply.
Agreed and same is true of the Prismatic thread.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 13, 2008 - 3:02AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2003
|
Agreed and same is true of the Prismatic thread.
I'll PM Mike to chime in, now that the "Hey Mike" thread was shut down he is probably going to start coming to individual threads (like this one) more often.
Ivo.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2008 - 9:08AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jul 18, 2006
|
I'll PM Mike to chime in, now that the "Hey Mike" thread was shut down he is probably going to start coming to individual threads (like this one) more often.
Ivo.
And this is based on what?
He started these threads asking for feedback...
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2008 - 4:46PM
#55
|
|
|
Ok, despite some absence here, i did like to discuss the banning list for 100 Singleton. My first candidate is: Bribery  This card offers an abnormal high power level in 100 Singleton. Many times it gives access to a toolbox of 30 or even more creatures. Besides there is almost nothing non-blue decks can do to fight it. Also it has a nasty preventative effect on deckbuilding just because it is there. I cant think of any other card with such strong impact right now. So yes, i vote for banning.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2008 - 6:31AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jul 11, 2003
|
Ok, despite some absence here, i did like to discuss the banning list for 100 Singleton.
My first candidate is:
Bribery
This card offers an abnormal high power level in 100 Singleton. Many times it gives access to a toolbox of 30 or even more creatures. Besides there is almost nothing non-blue decks can do to fight it. Also it has a nasty preventative effect on deckbuilding just because it is there. I cant think of any other card with such strong impact right now.
So yes, i vote for banning.
Cards get banned or restricted not because they are powerful, but because they are format warping.
When every deck (or almost every deck) in a format is forced to either play a specific card or devote significant resources to nullifying it in order to have a chance at winning, that is considered warping.
Jitte, in Kamagawa Std, was format warping
Flash in Classic was format warping
Bribery does not fall into this category. Not even remotely.
Guess what? Chicken butt.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 18, 2008 - 10:25AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Mar 13, 2004
|
People just don't like getting beat up by their own creatures.
It's the same in the Prismatic forum, everyone wants Bribery banned even though it's not really better than just playing a good 5CC creature.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 20, 2008 - 1:27AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2003
|
People just don't like getting beat up by their own creatures.
It's the same in the Prismatic forum, everyone wants Bribery banned even though it's not really better than just playing a good 5CC creature.
People don't like to lose. Unless the card is too powerful (I don't think Bribery is), it shouldn't be banned based on "people don't like it" IMO. This is a sanctioned format, if they want they can play in casual with "No Bribery".
Ivo.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2008 - 6:05AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 17, 2003
|
Interview with Mike Gills over at pureMTGO. http://puremtgo.com/articledisplay.asp?AID=1331The (only?) relevant part of that to this thread is the following: AU: Will other “niche” formats be getting the same attention? I know a few Prismatic players who need the proverbial hug...
MG: At this time we will be updating Prismatic, 100-Card Singleton, and creating our version of Pauper as our main casual format focus. These are clearly the 3 most popular formats based on the number of Magic Online players who play them and in the size of their communities.
It is our goal to maintain quality support for 3-4 casual formats to go along with our official formats. Every so often we will reevaluate them and if a format starts to lose popularity we may close it down and see what other interesting formats we or the community can come up with.
To be honest that only strengthens my impression that they just included EDH when measuring popularities. I'm still disappointed that they sanctioned 100 instead of 60+15.
Furthermore Prismatic and 100 Singleton are similar in some aspects (big decks, bigger variance), if they are keeping some variety is yet another point in favor of 60+15.
60+15 has serious advantages over 100-singleton as a sanctioned format, and the only justification I see for 100 is "it's more popular in the casual room" - and there are really strong reasons to believe they just counted EDH games for that tally.
Ivo.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2008 - 9:59AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2008
|
To be honest that only strengthens my impression that they just included EDH when measuring popularities. I'm still disappointed that they sanctioned 100 instead of 60+15.
Furthermore Prismatic and 100 Singleton are similar in some aspects (big decks, bigger variance), if they are keeping some variety is yet another point in favor of 60+15.
60+15 has serious advantages over 100-singleton as a sanctioned format, and the only justification I see for 100 is "it's more popular in the casual room" - and there are really strong reasons to believe they just counted EDH games for that tally.
While I agree that 60+15 is a better competitive format than 100 for a variety of reasons, and I also wonder if they are including EDH in their data.... 60+15 is in some ways more similar to prismatic than 100.
Pris alows 250 cards, but 4 of each. That means its pretty similar to a singleton 62.5 card deck.
Of course Pris has the whole 5 color thing going on... but if you're looking just at variance, SNG100 has even more variance than prismatic. SNG100 would compare to a otherwise unrestricted 400 card format.
I think 100 simply has too much variance for a competitive format. Mana bases are atrocious, combo is nigh-impossible (it was hard enough in 60), and the lack of a sideboard changes the whole feel of a match.
|
|
|
