I did respond earlier, but in case anybody missed my reply to this topic, you can find the post HERE.
No, we caught that.
So that's the sum of it? One forum reply, and a tweet?
I think we were expecting something a little more "formal" as a follow-up. Oh, well. Par for the course.
I disagree srongly with the change in policy.
And the timing (two weeks after the fact) stinks to high heaven of corporate image self-preservation.
Please understand that this should in no way be taken as an attack on you, personally. (Unless, of course, you had a hand in the policy change) The people that sign your check, yes. The people that made this decision, yes. You, personally, no. You're just doing your job.
With all that said, I plan on continuing my campaign for "All results! All the time!" with the same verve and don't-give-a-[expletive deleted] style I've been showing. You have been warned.
No, we caught that. So that's the sum of it? One forum reply, and a tweet?I think we were expecting something a little more "formal" as a follow-up. Oh, well. Par for the course.I disagree srongly with the change in policy.And the timing (two weeks a
So is anyone official going to make this announcement? Why is this being handled so poorly?
I did respond earlier, but in case anybody missed my reply to this topic, you can find the post HERE.
Sorry, Sean, your job is to present yourself for a public flogging on the main site. I realize you're not to blame for the poor decision-making, (Well, maybe you are and this job is just a cover,) but you did sign up to communicate.
Probably should hurry before The Mouse accidently squishes you all by assuming you were part of the wrapping paper.
I did respond earlier, but in case anybody missed my reply to this topic, you can find the post HERE. [/quote]Sorry, Sean, your job is to present yourself for a public flogging on the main site. I realize you're not to blame for the poor decision-ma
All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship. - George Bernard Shaw
Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship. - Bruce Coville
Censorship of anything, at any time, in any place, on whatever pretense, has always been and always will be the last resort of the boob and the bigot. - Eugene O'Neil
Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and from others. - Charles Bukowski
All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition
So is anyone official going to make this announcement? Why is this being handled so poorly?
I did respond earlier, but in case anybody missed my reply to this topic, you can find the post HERE.
If that's your idea of making this official.... well, that's kind of what I'm talking about when I say this is being handled poorly. I guess it's par for the course when lead event organizers are posting incorrect addresses for GPs and major changes to policy are announced in forums that no one reads.
If that's your idea of making this official.... well, that's kind of what I'm talking about when I say this is being handled poorly. I guess it's par for the course when lead event organizers are posting incorrect addresses for GPs and major changes
This is so sad. Why even bother running a Decks of the Week series when all you're doing is regurgitating censored data?
(Content Removed)
(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Hate Speech / Explicit Images are against the Code of Conduct)
This is so sad. Why even bother running a Decks of the Week series when all you're doing is regurgitating censored data?(Content Removed) (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Hate Speech / Explicit Images are against the Code of Conduct)
I appreciate that some players are upset at this change and will completely acknowledge that we did not message this change as well as we could have.
Reducing the number of decklists is a change that R&D feels strongly about and was thoroughly discussed with the Magic Online Business Team before it was enacted. In the long term, we believe this is a change that will be better for Magic as a whole. As with everything Magic Online, we will monitor the effects of the change and if we don't like the results, we will change them again.
While this may not be the answer some of you want, it is how we will be moving forward at this time.
Hey everyone,I appreciate that some players are upset at this change and will completely acknowledge that we did not message this change as well as we could have.Reducing the number of decklists is a change that R&D feels strongly about and was thoro
H As with everything Magic Online, we will monitor the effects of the change and if we don't like the results, we will change them again.
Well Blippy expect that after this change does infact change nothing with the Meta ,to see that they quit posting any results at all in another failed attempt to "fix" things.
Well Blippy expect that after this change does infact change nothing with the Meta ,to see that they quit posting any results at all in another failed attempt to "fix" things.
Talk about treating the symptom instead of the disease.
WOTC purposely starts making a small percentage of cards far more powerful than other stuff at the same cost and then wonder why formats get "solved".
Talk about treating the symptom instead of the disease.WOTC purposely starts making a small percentage of cards far more powerful than other stuff at the same cost and then wonder why formats get "solved".
Blippy, it's a card game. Calm down the rhetoric a bit.
Agreed.
Censorship sticks in my craw in a big way. Especially blatant nonsense like this. Am I overreacting? Probably. Is it still censorship? Yes. Does it still tick me off? Obviously.
All results. All the time.
Soory, WotC. Your explanation and reasoning for this blatant censorship doesn't cut it, IMO.
Agreed.[/quote]Censorship sticks in my craw in a big way. Especially blatant nonsense like this. Am I overreacting? Probably. Is it still censorship? Yes. Does it still tick me off? Obviously.All results. All the time.Soory, WotC. Your explanation an
I agree with releasing all the data. But WotC is censoring their own data; let's not even imply that this has some similarity to censoring other people's speech, especially in a political context.
I agree with releasing all the data. But WotC is censoring their own data; let's not even imply that this has some similarity to censoring other people's speech, especially in a political context.
... let's not even imply that this has some similarity to censoring other people's speech, especially in a political context.
I'm not implying it, I'm flat out stating it. Restricting access to previously publicly available (and IMO vital) information is censorship. This is the obverse of the same coin as censoring speech.
I will, however, try to keep the politically inflammatory content out of it in the future.
I'm not implying it, I'm flat out stating it. Restricting access to previously publicly available (and IMO vital) information is censorship. This is the obverse of the same coin as censoring speech. I will, however, try to keep the politically inflam
... let's not even imply that this has some similarity to censoring other people's speech, especially in a political context.
I'm not implying it, I'm flat out stating it. Restricting access to previously publicly available (and IMO vital) information is censorship. This is the obverse of the same coin as censoring speech.
I will, however, try to keep the politically inflammatory content out of it in the future.
No, not really, but here is not the place to debate it.
I'm not implying it, I'm flat out stating it. Restricting access to previously publicly available (and IMO vital) information is censorship. This is the obverse of the same coin as censoring speech. I will, however, try to keep the politically inflam
... let's not even imply that this has some similarity to censoring other people's speech, especially in a political context.
I'm not implying it, I'm flat out stating it. Restricting access to previously publicly available (and IMO vital) information is censorship. This is the obverse of the same coin as censoring speech.
I will, however, try to keep the politically inflammatory content out of it in the future.
No, not really, but here is not the place to debate it.
Then where is the place to debate/discuss/rant/etc about it to let the ptb know what the community thinks and feels??
I think the forums are the perfect place for it as long as we are civil and adult about it.
I'm not implying it, I'm flat out stating it. Restricting access to previously publicly available (and IMO vital) information is censorship. This is the obverse of the same coin as censoring speech. I will, however, try to keep the politically inflam
Then where is the place to debate/discuss/rant/etc about it to let the ptb know what the community thinks and feels??
I think the forums are the perfect place for it as long as we are civil and adult about it.
This isn't the place to discuss why this type of censorship is different than, say, restrictions on speech by government. This is certainly the place to (continue) complaining and discussing this decklist issue.
This isn't the place to discuss why this type of censorship is different than, say, restrictions on speech by government. This is certainly the place to (continue) complaining and discussing this decklist issue.
Wow, talk about something that wont work at all. Your not helping not solve a format by blanking out and omiting data. Your staggnating it. You are perposely not showing off inivative ideas and allowing a meta to form.
Is there a petition I can sign? I rarely post here, but I would like to at least voice my concern and support the best slug I know.
Wow, talk about something that wont work at all. Your not helping not solve a format by blanking out and omiting data. Your staggnating it. You are perposely not showing off inivative ideas and allowing a meta to form.Is there a petition I can si
I can not imangine many people care about this do they? I can see where bot owners would really hate this. I could also see where semi to serious turny players might hate this if they rely on this for their own decklists. From an outsider looking in I like this change. Its such a copy cat game, I like the idea of maybe not knowing what your opponent is playing. I wish they would also take away replays in limited games while the turny is still in play.
I can not imangine many people care about this do they? I can see where bot owners would really hate this. I could also see where semi to serious turny players might hate this if they rely on this for their own decklists. From an outsider looking
I stopped playing constructed a few years ago to concentrate on limited. I don't have time to create/test/tune decks these days. If I'm going to ever try to get into constructed again, I'm going to start with a deck that someone else has already invested time developing. Perhaps I'd make sideboard adjustments or something. By greatly diminishing the amount information available to me for making a deck selection, I'm less inclined to try constructed in the first place. Perhaps Wizards would prefer I play limited, I expect they make more money from me that way. I guess discouraging me from playing constructed might be considered a "better" business decision.
I stopped playing constructed a few years ago to concentrate on limited. I don't have time to create/test/tune decks these days. If I'm going to ever try to get into constructed again, I'm going to start with a deck that someone else has already inve
I disagree with this decision on the grounds that denial of useful, non-proprietary information is generally a bad idea and definitely a bad precedent. There are other, more difficult sources for this and similar data: This puts more power into the hands of those who go to the effort, and you have no control over how they choose to use it. Other data, such as how many events fired, was also of use for examining the relative strength of formats. This decision makes little sense for eternal formats.
I am disappointed with how this information became made known to the community. With eyes all over the world watching, being quiet and hoping it will pass by unnoticed, or acting in such a way that gives the impression that that is your modus operandi, is a bad idea. We live in an age of rapid information spread: This backlash appears to have been unanticipated.
I disagree with this decision on the grounds that denial of useful, non-proprietary information is generally a bad idea and definitely a bad precedent. There are other, more difficult sources for this and similar data: This puts more power into the h
I come to the forum after a few weeks again, I post something, I check for threads, notice this and read it. My first thought? "Not again."
I am not happy with this, I didn't write articles for a long while, but I can imagine how everyone who actually has to work with this very little information is going to be unhappy. Not to mention anyone who actually considers to start playing in tournaments and likes to do research beforehand. We *do* have more of an intelectual player base here on the forums then anywhere else. Communication failures are unfortunally nothing new.. and I am very much against this decision, the way it came to light and the official answers.
Longtime players opinions of the people who make the descisions ? Not good.
I come to the forum after a few weeks again, I post something, I check for threads, notice this and read it.My first thought?"Not again."I am not happy with this, I didn't write articles for a long while, but I can imagine how everyone who actually h
And also, as I've just reread the last 4 pages: how much of a ruckus do we have to make in the forums and in community articles before some kind of official annoucement is made? How can we be expected to believe that this a sane, well-based and well-thought business decision, when no one on MTG Daily wants to even discuss it? And seriously guys, 2 weeks after the community cup, we can see how much the community matters to you...
And also, as I've just reread the last 4 pages: how much of a ruckus do we have to make in the forums and in community articles before some kind of official annoucement is made? How can we be expected to believe that this a sane, well-based and well-
I can not imangine many people care about this do they? I can see where bot owners would really hate this. I could also see where semi to serious turny players might hate this if they rely on this for their own decklists. From an outsider looking in I like this change. Its such a copy cat game, I like the idea of maybe not knowing what your opponent is playing. I wish they would also take away replays in limited games while the turny is still in play.
I play in "just for fun". I build my own decks based off of the cards I encounter on a regular basis using the if it's new and hits me and I get all irritated and upset and wanna hit that ragequit button I buy it instead technique. The only thing I can see this change doing to my play is increasing the likelyhood of encountering a copy of a deck that took first place in one or several tournaments. By omitting any or all of the decklists and their results it only stands to reason that the decks ranking 1rst and 2cnd place will be the main ones copied (like they always will be) without the lesser decks that might have done better with some tweaking.
The way I see it instead of causing players to explore the meta it will cause them to stick to safeground. I could and hope I'm wrong but in the until time passes and the + or - revenue is shown people will probably just continue to get upset about the changes they had to find out about thru their own research as opposed to being sent an inclient message upon logging in saying "Hey you player person, we here at HQ want to try this and see how it goes for a bit. Be sure to tell us what you think at this-decision-stinks-or-not-dotcom." -.-
I play in "just for fun". I build my own decks based off of the cards I encounter on a regular basis using the if it's new and hits me and I get all irritated and upset and wanna hit that ragequit button I buy it instead technique. The only thing I
Ironically, now Wizards are into number crunching as well. From now on they will a series articles analyzing Standard on a monthly basis, with rudimentary statistical analysis. The "Standard Compendium." I wonder whether the decision not to publish all MTGO decklists is connected to this.
I can't help but observe all this is making the responsible people at WotC look very hypocritical.
Ironically, now Wizards are into number crunching as well. From now on they will a series articles analyzing Standard on a monthly basis, with rudimentary statistical analysis. The "Standard Compendium." I wonder whether the decision not to publish a
Nah, that makes perfect sense, it's called sweetening the deal. Of course, WotC metagame articles tend to be a lot less informative than those of the community (I assume they're stuck having to censore themselves, as they were playing the current standard a year ago), so it'll do little to alleviate the frustration.
Nah, that makes perfect sense, it's called sweetening the deal. Of course, WotC metagame articles tend to be a lot less informative than those of the community (I assume they're stuck having to censore themselves, as they were playing the current sta
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." - George Orwell, 1984
All results. All the time.
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." - George Orwell, 1984All results. All the time.
Ironically, now Wizards are into number crunching as well. From now on they will a series articles analyzing Standard on a monthly basis, with rudimentary statistical analysis. The "Standard Compendium." I wonder whether the decision not to publish all MTGO decklists is connected to this.
I can't help but observe all this is making the responsible people at WotC look very hypocritical.
And here is the quote of the last paragraph of that article (which really smacks of the hypocritcalness):
I hope you enjoyed this in-depth look at the current state of Standard. There's enough information here for you to make an educated deck choice for the upcoming week's Standard events. Be sure to tune in to coverage of Grand Prix Charleston this weekend to watch all the exciting Standard action unfold if you're unable to make it to the event. Hit the forums to give your thoughts on the current state of Standard. What do you think is the best deck? What do you think will be the most played deck at the Grand Prix this weekend?
Knowledge is Power!
Let me fix that last line for you: "Censored Knowledge in the hands of a privileged few is REALLY POWERFUL!"
Now this change didn't really affect me much but I have to be on the side of: Any previously available information that is now being censored/filtered but is still available to certain unknown and/or known persons who could also disseminate this information to only a personal chosen group IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GAME.
And here is the quote of the last paragraph of that article (which really smacks of the hypocritcalness):I hope you enjoyed this in-depth look at the current state of Standard. There's enough information here for you to make an educated deck choice
I had not read the article before, and now that I have, I think I will stop reading stories related to this matter for a little while, the whole thing is making me sick. Yes, indeed, the whole article is highly hypocritical, and fairly disgustingly so at that. They take the info away, they feed that info back to us in a way they see fit, and then tell us we are fine now, we have enough info. Thank you Wizard for telling me your article is good enough for me to an educated deck choice (and so I guess I should stop complaining about the info you took away). It's insulting. It's deeply insulting. I can't believe a company of that size is that incapable of developing some basic PR skills. I'm gonna take a time off now.
I had not read the article before, and now that I have, I think I will stop reading stories related to this matter for a little while, the whole thing is making me sick. Yes, indeed, the whole article is highly hypocritical, and fairly disgustingly s
LOL - so the information age finally caught up with WoTC... or rather they caught on to it.
News Flash, WoTC. Your formats were being "solved" long before you were posting every decklist. It's like the concussion issue in sports. There really aren't that many more concussions than there were then - they are just reported more now.
The really amusing thing is that no one seems to have blamed the real culprit... WoTC R&D
If WoTC doesn't want people to solve their format, maybe they should be doing a better job of making their formats "unsolvable". Impossible? Won't know until they really try. They are PURPOSEFULLY making their formats "solvable" by keywording and shoehorning every card into ever more frightfully narrow playstyles and then have the balls to blame the information age as the source of the problem. Indeed - Orwell is shifting in his grave a little.
LOL - so the information age finally caught up with WoTC... or rather they caught on to it.News Flash, WoTC. Your formats were being "solved" long before you were posting every decklist. It's like the concussion issue in sports. There really aren'
Of course, WotC metagame articles tend to be a lot less informative than those of the community (I assume they're stuck having to censore themselves, as they were playing the current standard a year ago), so it'll do little to alleviate the frustration.
Jacob Van Lunen is not a Wizards employee, so the only Standard that he has played is the same one you have.
And here is the quote of the last paragraph of that article (which really smacks of the hypocritcalness):
I hope you enjoyed this in-depth look at the current state of Standard. There's enough information here for you to make an educated deck choice for the upcoming week's Standard events. Be sure to tune in to coverage of Grand Prix Charleston this weekend to watch all the exciting Standard action unfold if you're unable to make it to the event. Hit the forums to give your thoughts on the current state of Standard. What do you think is the best deck? What do you think will be the most played deck at the Grand Prix this weekend?
Knowledge is Power!
Those are Jacob's words. They are not hypocritical, since Jacob did not have anything to do with the decision. He may not even know that Wizards stopped posting deck lists.
Jacob Van Lunen is not a Wizards employee, so the only Standard that he has played is the same one you have.Those are Jacob's words. They are not hypocritical, since Jacob did not have anything to do with the decision. He may not even know that Wizar
Of course, WotC metagame articles tend to be a lot less informative than those of the community (I assume they're stuck having to censore themselves, as they were playing the current standard a year ago), so it'll do little to alleviate the frustration.
Jacob Van Lunen is not a Wizards employee, so the only Standard that he has played is the same one you have.
And here is the quote of the last paragraph of that article (which really smacks of the hypocritcalness):
I hope you enjoyed this in-depth look at the current state of Standard. There's enough information here for you to make an educated deck choice for the upcoming week's Standard events. Be sure to tune in to coverage of Grand Prix Charleston this weekend to watch all the exciting Standard action unfold if you're unable to make it to the event. Hit the forums to give your thoughts on the current state of Standard. What do you think is the best deck? What do you think will be the most played deck at the Grand Prix this weekend?
Knowledge is Power!
Those are Jacob's words. They is not hypocritical, since Jacob did not have anything to do with the decision. He may not even know that Wizards stopped posting deck lists.
The problem here is the way and where the article is posted sure gives the appearance of JVL being a WotC employee or directly associated with them somehow. And I am sure this article is edited and approved by WotC so I don't think we can excuse them from the whole picture.
I understand what you are saying and don't blame JVL that the article results in a hypocritcal point (or arrogant in a way, by saying that I have been now provided enough information to make a decision) since the article was probably written with no thought of the recent decision to not post all deck lists. But, again, i will fall back on where this was published and the editorial control WotC has on this site. I have read it enough to know they use it push their viewpoints.
Besides, even if I totally agree with your points, the fact now that a non-WotC employee has access to data that the rest of the player base doesn't, we now don't know who else has this information, but we do know it is not equally distributed.
The non-transparancy of this is NOT GOOD FOR THE GAME.
Jacob Van Lunen is not a Wizards employee, so the only Standard that he has played is the same one you have.Those are Jacob's words. They is not hypocritical, since Jacob did not have anything to do with the decision. He may not even know that Wizard
First of all I'd be really interested in finding out how the people at Wizards that discussed making this change came to the conclusion that ommiting deck lists for help to slow down the solving of the metagame and improve MTG metagame as a whole. There seems to be a glaring hole in the reasoning so from my point of view it won't make much of a difference in that sense so I have to assume there are other reasons that are being withheld (probably because it would make them look even worse).
While it does upset and annoy me that a good explanation is not being given ("we did this because it will help" is NOT a good explanation), I think the actual consequence of just publishing one result per format per day isn't a big issue since, as I mentioned, it won't make a big difference. Most of the dailies are very repetitive and while analysts such as Blippy and JustSin will have less information to base their studies on, the final result will probably be very close to what they had before. I definitely wouldn't call it censorship, I'd go more along the lines of lazyness.
I think this is more of an issue because we were just used to having the information that we shouldn't necessarily have. I find the fact that only decklists and final standings are given to be insufficient and would actually like to know what decks each deck won and lost to so that we could find out actual win percentages for a given archetype. However, we don't have that information and yet nobody cries CENSORSHIP! even though it would be quite feasable to Wizards to publish this, simply because we've just never had it. In fact, we've never had ALL RESULTS since we don't get the people who went 2-2 and less or the results from 8-player and 2-player queues, and yet this has never caused such outrage. This is why I don't think the "All Results, All the time" demand has any grounds to stick.
The bottom line is that its bad press for them to make a change to a service their custumers are used to without a satisfying explanation, but at the end of the day, the consequence of the change is irrelevant and everyone will adapt to it quite quickly.
Here's what I think, if I may...First of all I'd be really interested in finding out how the people at Wizards that discussed making this change came to the conclusion that ommiting deck lists for help to slow down the solving of the metagame and imp
Formats become solved when one deck archetype (such as control) gets a lot of pieces while other decks do not. It is the height of stupidity to assume that online lists are the problem in solving formats. I don't even know where to find these lists half the time, and when I'm looking for information, I have go on a bug hunt for them. It takes a while. I suspect many players won't even go that far. Rather, I try to understand what each deck does than to see how prevalent it is. I would rather have answers for the worst matchup for whatever I'm playing than try to stop everything I can.
I am honestly baffled by how little Wizards of the Coast seems to value my business in this regard.
Formats become solved when one deck archetype (such as control) gets a lot of pieces while other decks do not. It is the height of stupidity to assume that online lists are the problem in solving formats. I don't even know where to find these lists h
LOL - so the information age finally caught up with WoTC... or rather they caught on to it.
News Flash, WoTC. Your formats were being "solved" long before you were posting every decklist. It's like the concussion issue in sports. There really aren't that many more concussions than there were then - they are just reported more now.
The really amusing thing is that no one seems to have blamed the real culprit... WoTC R&D
If WoTC doesn't want people to solve their format, maybe they should be doing a better job of making their formats "unsolvable". Impossible? Won't know until they really try. They are PURPOSEFULLY making their formats "solvable" by keywording and shoehorning every card into ever more frightfully narrow playstyles and then have the balls to blame the information age as the source of the problem. Indeed - Orwell is shifting in his grave a little.
Yup, I've been saying this all along.
I think the issue is that they don't know how to make a format limited-playable without making most of the cards useless in constructed.
Yup, I've been saying this all along. I think the issue is that they don't know how to make a format limited-playable without making most of the cards useless in constructed.
First of all I'd be really interested in finding out how the people at Wizards that discussed making this change came to the conclusion that ommiting deck lists for help to slow down the solving of the metagame and improve MTG metagame as a whole...
I think that many people are assuming that the only reason for this change was what has been publicly stated by Sean. There might be other reasons that they aren't willing to share with us. Perhaps this was the one they felt most comfortable making public?
I think that many people are assuming that the only reason for this change was what has been publicly stated by Sean. There might be other reasons that they aren't willing to share with us. Perhaps this was the one they felt most comfortable making p
First of all I'd be really interested in finding out how the people at Wizards that discussed making this change came to the conclusion that ommiting deck lists for help to slow down the solving of the metagame and improve MTG metagame as a whole...
I think that many people are assuming that the only reason for this change was what has been publicly stated by Sean. There might be other reasons that they aren't willing to share with us. Perhaps this was the one they felt most comfortable making public?
That's the thing. There is a huge logical leap that bypasses a lot here. The information that was given was just the conclusion: "Ultimately, we feel that publishing every deck list leads to solving constructed formats far too efficiently, resulting in early stagnation that’s not fun for anybody"
So the leap is: Publishing all decks -> Constructed formats solved too quickly.
That is as valid as an explanation as me saying: Eating sandwhiches -> Makes you feel better than in absolute happiness.
There is a series of logical statements that need to be explained for it to actually be a proper explanation and the fact that its missing is what annoys me (not the actual result since, I repeat, I don't think its that much of a deal).
What I would like is the equivalent of this:
Lets assume its a given that eating a sandwhich is generally better than nothing
Lets assume that nothing is better than absolute happiness
Therofore eating a sandwhich is actually better than absolute happiness
Yes, I know this example is actually a joke (a logical fallacy), but I would like to have a few of those shorter logical leaps because under my logiccal reasoning printing a daily sample of daily deck lists will "solve" the format just as quickly as printing them all because the format "solving" decks usually bubble to the top quite quickly and with a sample as small as a week (7 events) it should be possible to see what decks are consistently winning since there are usually only a handful of (literally, around 5) decks that become the top tier, but in a week's worth of events you get to see many times this amount, which I believe is sufficient to figure out the metagame.
There, I just used a little bit of logic to explain why I don't think this will affect anything. Many posters in this thread have shown similar logic in trying to explain that it might even stagnate the format more. There may be some logical innacuracies in my thinking and the result may be wrong but puting it out there allows for people to discuss. That is the kind of explanation I would like to see.
I think that many people are assuming that the only reason for this change was what has been publicly stated by Sean. There might be other reasons that they aren't willing to share with us. Perhaps this was the one they felt most comfortable making p
Are the two Modern TNMOs I have records of. I believe one happened at beginning of September, as well. I was on vacation at that time and not keeping track. Since I don't care (data tracking wise) about other formats, I don't have the links to other TNMO decks published, but they have been published in the past.
I guess we'll see with tomorrow's listings if they cut this portion entirely or not. It was not discussed in the "announcement", so am going under the assumption that at least one will be published.
Although, in theory, it should be one from 11/15, and the last one, which would be dated as 11/16 since it finished after midnight Eastern. (Events are dated by when they finish, not when they start)
I don't think they ever did, but I could certainly be wrong.[/quote]I checked my records:Modern TNMO 5/3www.wizards.com/Magic/Digital/MagicOnlin...www.wizards.com/Magic/Digital/MagicOnlin...www.wizards.com/Magic/Digital/MagicOnlin...www.wizards.com/M
First of all I'd be really interested in finding out how the people at Wizards that discussed making this change came to the conclusion that ommiting deck lists for help to slow down the solving of the metagame and improve MTG metagame as a whole...
I think that many people are assuming that the only reason for this change was what has been publicly stated by Sean. There might be other reasons that they aren't willing to share with us. Perhaps this was the one they felt most comfortable making public?
WotC has become very good at explaining in details a lot of their decisions. Daily MTG has been an incredible source of information on just about every aspect of the game, from card designs to players bans. So yeah, why did we not get a nice blurb on the subject of the daily results? On the other hand, I just can't think of any evil reason NOT to communicate on this. Maybe I don't have the right twisted mind.
I think that many people are assuming that the only reason for this change was what has been publicly stated by Sean. There might be other reasons that they aren't willing to share with us. Perhaps this was the one they felt most comfortable making p
I wouldn't think that the full reason is evil, just either not PR friendly (but necessary) or they just don't have time or they consider the explanation they did give out good enough and that's that. That's the usual reasoning in a company.
I wouldn't think that the full reason is evil, just either not PR friendly (but necessary) or they just don't have time or they consider the explanation they did give out good enough and that's that. That's the usual reasoning in a company.
How can one play fantasy football if over half the scores/stats aren't published?
One must know the metagame before one can prepare for it.
All results. All the time.
How can one play fantasy football if over half the scores/stats aren't published? One must know the metagame before one can prepare for it. All results. All the time.
Hey everyone, while it's fine to discuss the deck lists and metagame in the forum and I don't mind threads that vent frustration (within reason and without flaming/harassing anyone), I don't want this to turn into a series of "bumps", reposts, and images simply to keep a thread alive past the point of active discussion. In other words please don't post unless you have an on-topic contribution that you haven't already stated.
Hey everyone, while it's fine to discuss the deck lists and metagame in the forum and I don't mind threads that vent frustration (within reason and without flaming/harassing anyone), I don't want this to turn into a series of "bumps", reposts, and im
Hey everyone, while it's fine to discuss the deck lists and metagame in the forum and I don't mind threads that vent frustration (within reason and without flaming/harassing anyone), I don't want this to turn into a series of "bumps", reposts, and images simply to keep a thread alive past the point of active discussion. In other words please don't post unless you have an on-topic contribution that you haven't already stated.
Sean, respectfully (I hope) why not? I mean people are still waiting to hear an indepth explanation for a baffling policy that on the surface makes no sense at all. The forum replies we did get were as byzantine and murky as any we have seen on these forums. I think it is reasonable to bump in waiting for a legitimate response. Not to say we don't appreciate the limited info you posted yourself but it wasn't sufficient to explain anything whatsoever.
You want something that hasn't been said yet? It feels like we are being treated like Mushrooms...
Sean, respectfully (I hope) why not? I mean people are still waiting to hear an indepth explanation for a baffling policy that on the surface makes no sense at all. The forum replies we did get were as byzantine and murky as any we have seen on these
I second this 100%. There has been so little information concerning the new policy, I think it is understandable we try to keep this thread in the limelight. Note by the way that this is the only place someone wondering what the policy on MTGO results actually is can look to. It could almost be considered for a sticky...
I second this 100%. There has been so little information concerning the new policy, I think it is understandable we try to keep this thread in the limelight. Note by the way that this is the only place someone wondering what the policy on MTGO result
Hey everyone, while it's fine to discuss the deck lists and metagame in the forum and I don't mind threads that vent frustration (within reason and without flaming/harassing anyone), I don't want this to turn into a series of "bumps", reposts, and images simply to keep a thread alive past the point of active discussion. In other words please don't post unless you have an on-topic contribution that you haven't already stated.
Sean, respectfully (I hope) why not? I mean people are still waiting to hear an indepth explanation for a baffling policy that on the surface makes no sense at all. The forum replies we did get were as byzantine and murky as any we have seen on these forums. I think it is reasonable to bump in waiting for a legitimate response. Not to say we don't appreciate the limited info you posted yourself but it wasn't sufficient to explain anything whatsoever.
You want something that hasn't been said yet? It feels like we are being treated like Mushrooms...
Unfortunately I don't have anything to pass on from the Wizards team that I haven't already posted in the thread. You're free to continue discussing the topic and I'll pass your feedback on to the team as I have been, but like I said I don't want it devolving into ad nauseam "bumps" and image links.
Sean, respectfully (I hope) why not? I mean people are still waiting to hear an indepth explanation for a baffling policy that on the surface makes no sense at all. The forum replies we did get were as byzantine and murky as any we have seen on these
Unfortunately I don't have anything to pass on from the Wizards team that I haven't already posted in the thread. You're free to continue discussing the topic and I'll pass your feedback on to the team as I have been, but like I said I don't want it devolving into ad nauseam "bumps" and image links.
As I see it there are two problems being complained about in this thread. 1) You got rid of most of the deck information. This doesn't affect me so I'll let others argue about it. 2) The change has never officially been announced. This is my problem.
You have a great website for announcements on the main wizards site. They announce all sorts of things there, from pro tour formats and dates, to next months fnm card, to jobs available at wotc. This information about the reduced number of deck lists and how you where selecting them could quite easily been a couple of paragraphs at the end of one of the metagame articles or at the top of last months deck lists page or even an arcana topic.
In my opinion forum posts and twitter posts do not count as announcements. They are great for offering clarification on announcements or as a way of updating people on fast moving events and generally letting us know you are listening to us. But changes in policy shouldn't be one of their uses.
As I see it there are two problems being complained about in this thread.1) You got rid of most of the deck information. This doesn't affect me so I'll let others argue about it.2) The change has never officially been announced. This is my problem.Yo
.... You're free to continue discussing the topic and I'll pass your feedback on to the team as I have been, but like I said I don't want it devolving into ad nauseam "bumps" and image links.
After looking at the Modern meta online with redacted results for over a month now, Modern seems to be devolving into "nothing but the latest PT/GP/PTQ top decks". Plus Lifegain Aggro, which I'm shocked hasn't "placed in the lists" on paper.
While these top decks from the latest pro events have always had their (rightful) place at the top of the lists, it's the other stuff I'm seeing less and less of. Those quirky decks like Sonic Boom, or MBC, or Elves, or Vampires, etc. Decks that tweak an existing archetype with a unique "twist", like Dryad Militant instead of Aven Mindcensor in Soul Sisters. Decks that showed how vibrant and wide open the Modern format was. I used to see 'em almost every day. Now I'm lucky if I see one a week.
From my point of view, the Modern meta has narrowed considerabley from what it was at the end of Q3.
That's not a random image up there, it's the actual redacted Modern meta. Read it and weep. Weep as I do daily with frustration of this seemingly useless change, and it's attendant silence.
I find it much easier to just go "Blarg!" in these forums, because it really does feel useless to type out a more thought out response. I know it's not your fault, Sean, but I really feel like wizzo's just don't give a (insert expletive of your choice here). So why should I put out energy banging my head against the wall?
In the meantime, all I hear about Standard is Thragtusk and Angels, with a sprinkling of Zombies.
After looking at the Modern meta online with redacted results for over a month now, Modern seems to be devolving into "nothing but the latest PT/GP/PTQ top decks". Plus Lifegain Aggro, which I'm shocked hasn't "placed in the lists" on paper. While th
Hey everyone, while it's fine to discuss the deck lists and metagame in the forum and I don't mind threads that vent frustration (within reason and without flaming/harassing anyone), I don't want this to turn into a series of "bumps", reposts, and images simply to keep a thread alive past the point of active discussion. In other words please don't post unless you have an on-topic contribution that you haven't already stated.
Sean, respectfully (I hope) why not?? I mean people are still waiting to hear an indepth explanation for a baffling policy that on the surface makes no sense at all. The forum replies we did get were as byzantine and murky as any we have seen on these forums. I think it is reasonable to bump in waiting for a legitimate response. Not to say we don't appreciate the limited info you posted yourself but it wasn't sufficient to explain anything whatsoever.
You want something that hasn't been said yet? It feels like we are being treated like Mushrooms...
Wouldn't want this incredibly active forum getting clogged up.
Sean, respectfully (I hope) why not?? I mean people are still waiting to hear an indepth explanation for a baffling policy that on the surface makes no sense at all. The forum replies we did get were as byzantine and murky as any we have seen on thes
3-1'ed a daily today, just hoping it will get "selected" for publishing for bragging rights. Yeah, I know, it's pretty vain, especially for only a 3-1, but isn't getting your name up there part of the appeal of competitive play? It's really not the thing that bothers me most with this whole mess, but it DOES bother me.
3-1'ed a daily today, just hoping it will get "selected" for publishing for bragging rights. Yeah, I know, it's pretty vain, especially for only a 3-1, but isn't getting your name up there part of the appeal of competitive play? It's really not the t
Attacking the messenger of bad news is ill advised. His job is to comunicate with us and not telling us only the stuff we want to hear. I would also be suprised if he personaly had anything to do with any of the dessision you resent him.
Edit: Disregard my post since the post I am refering to a post that has been removed.
Attacking the messenger of bad news is ill advised. His job is to comunicate with us and not telling us only the stuff we want to hear. I would also be suprised if he personaly had anything to do with any of the dessision you resent him.Edit: Disrega
He didn't communicate it in a timely manner (and that's not going away)...
Perhaps he communicated it as quickly as Wizards approved his response. Its not his fault if he's had a muzzle placed on him and can't communicate everything that he'd like as quickly as he likes. He doesn't work for you or I.
I would be surprised if he had something to do with the censorship. If I were in his position, I wouldn't want to have to deal with all the grief it would cause.
Perhaps he communicated it as quickly as Wizards approved his response. Its not his fault if he's had a muzzle placed on him and can't communicate everything that he'd like as quickly as he likes. He doesn't work for you or I.I would be surprised if
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
I’ve removed content from this thread because Harrasment and Personal attacks are a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conductPlease keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from m
'He didn't communicate it in a timely manner (and that's not going away) and he seems to have little interest in actually representing us to his co-workers, instead, he "passes it along" (which is pretty indicative, he's not fighting on our behalf, he's saying "Yea, they're still whining about it.")
I would not be surprised if he had something to do with it, given how pathetic his performance has been so far.
I believe this is not the case.
I believe he communicated my original concerns to the powers that be soon after my voicing of them, but wasn't informed of the policy change, or possibly muzzled ("You can't tell them that yet!"), until after the CCC.
I also believe the decision to hold off on announcing this change in policy was was held off until after the CCC purposefully, for fear of public outrage and vitriol spoiling an otherwise pleasant event. Also so the Community players wouldn't have a chance to question WotC face to face.
This past CCC is forever tainted in my heart, a malignant tumor on my (up to that point) growing admiration of how WotC had been going and growing with MTGO. I was so happy with wizzo's. Then they pulled this [expletive deleted]. Now I'm back to where I think they don't give a [expletive deleted] about us, and can't communicate their way out of a paper bag.
Anyway, shooting the messenger isn't a good idea.
We'll see what happens when I hit 'em up for prizes for Ham on Wry II (Sat 5/4/13) and Modern's Second (Sat 8/24/13).
I believe this is not the case. I believe he communicated my original concerns to the powers that be soon after my voicing of them, but wasn't informed of the policy change, or possibly muzzled ("You can't tell them that yet!"), until after the CCC.I
This is why I take meta analysis articles from WotC with several grains of salt.
"Tron is the only deck that's currently outperforming Jund." This does not match what I see. The only aspect Tron is "outperforming" Jund (currently) is the (4-0) vs (3-1) finish ratio, and that is due to a recent event having 2 (4-0) Tron decks. Numbers-wise, Tron has fewer appearances. Tron has also consistently underperformed over the past year, typically showing Tier 1.5 performance, while continuing to be called a Tier 1 deck. Perhaps you have access to information I don't - which has only become the case recently.
Pod is Pod. There are two distinct versions thereof currently performing reasonably well: Blue Naya and GBW (Melira). There are also Naya (no blue) and Realm Razer variants, but they don't show up much.
"White Weenie may seem like a sword at a gun fight, but the deck is surprisingly well-positioned in the current format." Uh.... what? There is no White Weenie currently in the Modern meta. Lifegain Aggro (Soul Sisters, Martyr Proc, et al) is not White Weenie. I understand that it can be argued that the creatures are all small and white, but this is not White Weenie. Kithkin is White Weenie.
"Modern is an extraordinarily diverse format that handsomely rewards players for innovation." Best sentence. However, I have seen the Modern meta devolving in the past month. I no longer see as much "innovation" as was once present. This may be simply because I'm not seeing all the results. The decision to redact over half of the Modern results appears to have hurt, rather than helped, this format.
Please re-consider this policy change, at least in regards to non-rotating formats.
All results. All the time.
This is why I take meta analysis articles from WotC with several grains of salt. "Tron is the only deck that's currently outperforming Jund." This does not match what I see. The only aspect Tron is "outperforming" Jund (currently) is the (4-0) vs (3-
... Oh wow. This is just plain hilariously absurd. Formats getting solved quickly? Whoa, what a surprise when the sets are smaller and the lower rarities are designed for Limited more and more, and just generally made increasingly simple due to NWO? When there's ever more retardedly stupid hard-to-answer bombs being printed, oftentimes completely at odds with the colour pie? And then simple limiters like Mana Leak are said to be too strong?
Yes, I think it absolutely is the information that is the problem. Time Spiral / Lorwyn / Coldsnap Standard absolutely wasn't ridiculously diverse while being the biggest Standard format ever. With lots of powerful cards across all colours and combinations while not being genericly powerful "goodstuff" or outright retarded "Lol I Win" cards. I remember wrong, naturally. I mean, my poor brain tries to tell me that there used to be a GR ramp deck that wasn't utterly brainless. It speaks of unfathomable things like interesting cards in black and red, and of a strange thing called combo. It keeps insisting that interesting commons like Blink and Teachings were printed, and entire archetypes ran primarily off uncommons.
Can anyone get me my fever medicine, please? I think I am seeing things. While I am at it, can I please have some Thragtusks, Delvers, Prime Times and Karns? I think I need to build a deck that I can go operate the next event so I can see who topdecks better.
... Oh wow. This is just plain hilariously absurd. Formats getting solved quickly? Whoa, what a surprise when the sets are smaller and the lower rarities are designed for Limited more and more, and just generally made increasingly simple due to NWO?
Yep, it's an insane bad dream. Right up your alley!
I'm not a standard player, but I have heard quite a few complaints like yours. I have to say the argument that the New World Order might be one of the reasons the format gets solved too quickly actually makes sense. Alas, considering how Wizards considers the NWO to be essential to new players joining the game, I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Yep, it's an insane bad dream. Right up your alley! I'm not a standard player, but I have heard quite a few complaints like yours. I have to say the argument that the New World Order might be one of the reasons the format gets solved too quickly act
Ok, I would have a couple of questions for Wizards (not that I'm hoping for much of an answer): are we ever going to get feedback on whether the redacted results are producing the expected results or not? Wizards like to say "we try things, if they don't work, we roll back". Ok, cool, if you actually mean it and do not say that just to get angry people of your back. But how long would it take for this "experiment" to be considered as having yielded positive or negative results? Is there even an actual measurable goal?
Ok, I would have a couple of questions for Wizards (not that I'm hoping for much of an answer): are we ever going to get feedback on whether the redacted results are producing the expected results or not? Wizards like to say "we try things, if they d
Ok, I would have a couple of questions for Wizards (not that I'm hoping for much of an answer): are we ever going to get feedback on whether the redacted results are producing the expected results or not? Wizards like to say "we try things, if they don't work, we roll back". Ok, cool, if you actually mean it and do not say that just to get angry people of your back. But how long would it take for this "experiment" to be considered as having yielded positive or negative results? Is there even an actual measurable goal?
Probably a lowered frequency of complaints of harassment with a basis in ratings. That's the type of thing that only WotC can measure.
Probably a lowered frequency of complaints of harassment with a basis in ratings. That's the type of thing that only WotC can measure.
Ok, I would have a couple of questions for Wizards (not that I'm hoping for much of an answer): are we ever going to get feedback on whether the redacted results are producing the expected results or not? Wizards like to say "we try things, if they don't work, we roll back". Ok, cool, if you actually mean it and do not say that just to get angry people of your back. But how long would it take for this "experiment" to be considered as having yielded positive or negative results? Is there even an actual measurable goal?
Probably a lowered frequency of complaints of harassment with a basis in ratings. That's the type of thing that only WotC can measure.
I think you're in the wrong thread. This one is about reporting decklists and the effect on the metagame.
Probably a lowered frequency of complaints of harassment with a basis in ratings. That's the type of thing that only WotC can measure.[/quote]I think you're in the wrong thread. This one is about reporting decklists and the effect on the metagame.
Ok, I would have a couple of questions for Wizards (not that I'm hoping for much of an answer): are we ever going to get feedback on whether the redacted results are producing the expected results or not? Wizards like to say "we try things, if they don't work, we roll back". Ok, cool, if you actually mean it and do not say that just to get angry people of your back. But how long would it take for this "experiment" to be considered as having yielded positive or negative results? Is there even an actual measurable goal?
Probably a lowered frequency of complaints of harassment with a basis in ratings. That's the type of thing that only WotC can measure.
I think you're in the wrong thread. This one is about reporting decklists and the effect on the metagame.
Yeah, I must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque......
Probably a lowered frequency of complaints of harassment with a basis in ratings. That's the type of thing that only WotC can measure.[/quote]I think you're in the wrong thread. This one is about reporting decklists and the effect on the metagame.[/
... are we ever going to get feedback on whether the redacted results are producing the expected results or not? ... how long would it take for this "experiment" to be considered as having yielded positive or negative results? ...
These are still valid questions. The "word on the street" is that this redaction of results has had no impact whatsoever, other than general ill will all around. Constructed formats with smaller card pools still appear to be being "solved" just as quickly. Constructed formats with deeper card pools are just as far from being "solved".
We're going on two months now. Are we going to hear from the other side of the fence?
These are still valid questions. The "word on the street" is that this redaction of results has had no impact whatsoever, other than general ill will all around. Constructed formats with smaller card pools still appear to be being "solved" just as qu
... are we ever going to get feedback on whether the redacted results are producing the expected results or not? ... how long would it take for this "experiment" to be considered as having yielded positive or negative results? ...
These are still valid questions. The "word on the street" is that this redaction of results has had no impact whatsoever, other than general ill will all around. Constructed formats with smaller card pools still appear to be being "solved" just as quickly. Constructed formats with deeper card pools are just as far from being "solved".
We're going on two months now. Are we going to hear from the other side of the fence?
I'd say the time to check would be about a month after the release of gatecrash. That way you can compare how quickly the formats get "solved" after the addition of a new set. Rather than just looking at the rate of churn of an already more or less "solved" format
These are still valid questions. The "word on the street" is that this redaction of results has had no impact whatsoever, other than general ill will all around. Constructed formats with smaller card pools still appear to be being "solved" just as qu
The impact is hard to measure, especially after so little time since the change in decklist reporting. The goal of delaying “solutions” to new card sets is what prompted the change, and according to many commentators Return to Ravnica remains fairly diverse compared to previous sets. For example, Patrick Chapin recently wrote on the variety in builds that have been considered public enemy number one since release. The list is not only diverse, but is also expected to keep changing as we get closer to Gatecrash. The recent MOCS Season 11 coverage shows a fairly wide spectrum as well, with the top 3 each in different guild colors, beating out popular Jund and Bant variations.
As far as RTR is concerned, new answers are still being discovered by players. Whether that’s due to the decklist change is debatable, but because of the nature of the game, the results of that change are almost impossible to quantify after a single set release.
The impact is hard to measure, especially after so little time since the change in decklist reporting. The goal of delaying “solutions” to new card sets is what prompted the change, and according to many commentators Return to Ravnica rem
If you are intending to stir the secondary market allowing paid authors like Chapin to sell players on cards to combat certain decks, I am not pleased. The building on a budget of old used to do the same to a smaller degree.
What I miss from scouring the mtgo tournament results of old are the rogue decks. Far and wide, the players and that silly deck would become my hero if only for twenty minutes, and when I see them post results, I'm actually right there cheering for them. And then I would log in to see if I could watch any portion of their games. Because damn if I don't mind interrupting my day to see how some battle of wits deck posted a 4-0.
I dislike the change away from reporting all results but I will live with it. Now I can believe it when an ORC says typing in chat is no indicator as if lagging, because neither is playing a full tournament now. :P
If you are intending to stir the secondary market allowing paid authors like Chapin to sell players on cards to combat certain decks, I am not pleased. The building on a budget of old used to do the same to a smaller degree. What I miss from scouring
The goal of delaying “solutions” to new card sets is what prompted the change
I think what irritates me most about this assertion is the implication that it's OK for the elite players to know the solution as long as the unwashed masses don't get to find out too soon, which is pretty much what you're saying. I hope and trust that the internet will thwart you in this undemocratic design.
I think what irritates me most about this assertion is the implication that it's OK for the elite players to know the solution as long as the unwashed masses don't get to find out too soon, which is pretty much what you're saying. I hope and trust th
The goal of delaying “solutions” to new card sets is what prompted the change
I think what irritates me most about this assertion is the implication that it's OK for the elite players to know the solution as long as the unwashed masses don't get to find out too soon, which is pretty much what you're saying. I hope and trust that the internet will thwart you in this undemocratic design.
Wow I never thought I would entirely agree with you on a single point but I do. Well done.
I think what irritates me most about this assertion is the implication that it's OK for the elite players to know the solution as long as the unwashed masses don't get to find out too soon, which is pretty much what you're saying. I hope and trust th
The goal of delaying “solutions” to new card sets is what prompted the change
I think what irritates me most about this assertion is the implication that it's OK for the elite players to know the solution as long as the unwashed masses don't get to find out too soon, which is pretty much what you're saying. I hope and trust that the internet will thwart you in this undemocratic design.
Wow I never thought I would entirely agree with you on a single point but I do. Well done.
But "elite" players don't know. Nobody does. That's what I was implying.
I think what irritates me most about this assertion is the implication that it's OK for the elite players to know the solution as long as the unwashed masses don't get to find out too soon, which is pretty much what you're saying. I hope and trust th
But "elite" players don't know. Nobody does. That's what I was implying.
But they do. That's why they're the best. In the paper world the pro tour players all belong to playtesting networks of between 5-40 players and they invest as many hours as possible into breaking the format prior to any event. In the past WotC have even leaked set lists early to some of these players, so they even get more time to work on it than the amateurs do. The only thing you achieve by not reporting the best decks is slowing down their adoption and that's favouritism.
But they do. That's why they're the best. In the paper world the pro tour players all belong to playtesting networks of between 5-40 players and they invest as many hours as possible into breaking the format prior to any event. In the past WotC have
But "elite" players don't know. Nobody does. That's what I was implying.
But they do. That's why they're the best. In the paper world the pro tour players all belong to playtesting networks of between 5-40 players and they invest as many hours as possible into breaking the format prior to any event. In the past WotC have even leaked set lists early to some of these players, so they even get more time to work on it than the amateurs do. The only thing you achieve by not reporting the best decks is slowing down their adoption and that's favouritism.
The decks that are reported are those that go 3-1 and 4-0 in events. The recent MOCS Season 11 coverage also showed the top 32 decklists which you can find here.
But they do. That's why they're the best. In the paper world the pro tour players all belong to playtesting networks of between 5-40 players and they invest as many hours as possible into breaking the format prior to any event. In the past WotC have
There's something really screwed up with the Decks of the Week published today - all published events link to the same legacy event (#4703585).
Apparently this is low on their list of priorities, cuz 2 days later it's still borked.
It is a weekend.... Remember some, if not all, of wotc only wrks half days on friday
Apparently this is low on their list of priorities, cuz 2 days later it's still borked.[/quote]It is a weekend....Remember some, if not all, of wotc only wrks half days on friday
There's something really screwed up with the Decks of the Week published today - all published events link to the same legacy event (#4703585).
Apparently this is low on their list of priorities, cuz 2 days later it's still borked.
It is a weekend.... Remember some, if not all, of wotc only wrks half days on friday
Actually, most of them are now on a much longer break for the holiday. But I bet this still gets fixed before then.
Apparently this is low on their list of priorities, cuz 2 days later it's still borked.[/quote]It is a weekend....Remember some, if not all, of wotc only wrks half days on friday[/quote]Actually, most of them are now on a much longer break for the ho
No results at all have been posted since the 12/19 results. I'm assuming since everyone's on holiday we're SOL on results til they get back?
Or has the policy been changed to posting results once a week instead of every day with the downtime?
No results at all have been posted since the 12/19 results. I'm assuming since everyone's on holiday we're SOL on results til they get back? Or has the policy been changed to posting results once a week instead of every day with the downtime?
There was a technical issue with the coverage script. I have resolved the issue, and backfilled event coverage over the past few days that were missed. Apologies for the delays in updating event coverage.
There was a technical issue with the coverage script. I have resolved the issue, and backfilled event coverage over the past few days that were missed. Apologies for the delays in updating event coverage.
Spent 1 good hour thinking really hard about the sideboard of my Modern deck. Then realized it's useless: without more data, what can I do except toss in a few cards for each of the usual suspects? Is that good for the game? Meh...
Spent 1 good hour thinking really hard about the sideboard of my Modern deck. Then realized it's useless: without more data, what can I do except toss in a few cards for each of the usual suspects? Is that good for the game? Meh...
Spent 1 good hour thinking really hard about the sideboard of my Modern deck. Then realized it's useless: without more data, what can I do except toss in a few cards for each of the usual suspects? Is that good for the game? Meh...
I suspect (due to a lack of explicit information) that this is precisely what is desired by tptb. Non professional players swimming around in the dark and then giving up and or drowning. Good luck and do not give up hope.
I suspect (due to a lack of explicit information) that this is precisely what is desired by tptb. Non professional players swimming around in the dark and then giving up and or drowning. Good luck and do not give up hope.
While this huge attendance spike caused by the "Race for FoW" is wonderful for data mining purposes, I am still angry at the lack the of reults being posted. Since this slipped off the main page, it's a new year, a new quarter, and it's coming up on 3 months. I'm bumping this back up.
I realize that WotC has no real way to evaluate this change in policy until a few months after GTC comes out, and will probably fiddle-fart with that data, call it inconclusive, and blah blah blah, here we are back at square one.
I still believe that this policy was meant as a solution to slow down "solving" the two most played (and with smallest card pool) formats on MTGO: Standard & Block. These formats rotate.
The non-rotating formats, which have had their results published daily "forever", are/were nowhere near being "solved". I am sure R&D is aware of this. (Or has other info I don't know about - which is possible)
I'd like to propose separating the rotating and non-rotating format results, and bringing back "Alll results, all the time" for non-rotating formats. You can continue your experiment on "solving formats" on Standard and Block, while the Classic (soon to be Vintage?), Legacy, Modern, and Pauper players can see what's what again - which I believe to be very important in non-rotating format meta decisions.
While this huge attendance spike caused by the "Race for FoW" is wonderful for data mining purposes, I am still angry at the lack the of reults being posted. Since this slipped off the main page, it's a new year, a new quarter, and it's coming up on
Forget something? All the brouhaha around the office keeping you too busy? Cute office personnel distracting you? Too bad. This cranky old fart can multitask quite well. Why can't you? If you're gonna promise to deliver "one a day", we expect to see that one a day. Every day. Quit slacking!
Forget something? All the brouhaha around the office keeping you too busy? Cute office personnel distracting you? Too bad. This cranky old fart can multitask quite well. Why can't you? If you're gonna promise to deliver "one a day", we expect to see
"Ultimately, we feel that publishing every deck list leads to solving constructed formats far too efficiently, resulting in early stagnation that’s not fun for anybody."
"Having complete knowledge of the current Standard format gives you a big advantage over less-informed opponents." and "Knowledge is Power!"
On one side of your neck you're saying we're getting too much information, while on the other side of your neck you're saying we need more information to stay competitive?
And again, we're talking about one of the two formats that (I believe) this redaction policy was created for.
All results. All the time.
How do you reconcile this (published 10/26/12) :"Ultimately, we feel that publishing every deck list leads to solving constructed formats far too efficiently, resulting in early stagnation that’s not fun for anybody."with this (published 1/17/1
So here we are, 2 weeks into GTC. Looking at all the deck tech vids, articles, blogs, posts, and tweets about Standard, I don't see this redaction policy slowing down the "solve for x" at any appreciable rate. But, I don't have all the data. And who's fault is that?
As I read so often on Daily MTG, Knowledge is power. Yet WotC insists on keeping us ignorant.
All results. All the time.
EDIT: I told you many, many pages ago I will not let this die!
So here we are, 2 weeks into GTC. Looking at all the deck tech vids, articles, blogs, posts, and tweets about Standard, I don't see this redaction policy slowing down the "solve for x" at any appreciable rate. But, I don't have all the data. And who'
So. It's been 6 months now. Has the "solving" of Standard and Block slowed down any? Has your experiment yielded concrete results?
By what I can see, no it hasn't. From where I'm sitting and what I'm seeing, all this decision has done is keep information from people who need/want it. Every day for the past six months I've gone to the What's Happening page to get Modern meta information, and every day for the past six months I've gone away angry.
So. Take a moment. Rethink this. And let the results flow freely once more.
All results. All the time.
So. It's been 6 months now. Has the "solving" of Standard and Block slowed down any? Has your experiment yielded concrete results? By what I can see, no it hasn't. From where I'm sitting and what I'm seeing, all this decision has done is keep informa
This is a problem better solved by development. As pointed out earlier in this very thread, the real culprit here is mythic rarity and the corresponding decrease in set sizes, along with borked cards that slip through testing and warp the meta. I don't need to autocard Snapcaster, Thragtusk, or Primeval Titan for them to come to mind here.
In addition, the solution to a "solved" format is to collect info and analyze it for weaknesses. Not sweep it under the rug and hope no one notices.
2. Full disclosure of decklists reduces deckbuilding to number-crunching
Deckbuilding was already largely an exercise in number-crunching. Wizards' not publishing decklists on their site will not keep them secret; it will instead create an elite group of players with complete access to the information and a group of morlock/proles/have-nots who are reliant on Wizards' inferior information. Remember when that happened before? Wizards banned the players involved. Now Wizards is recreating the situation and giving it their blessing.
A very likely effect of this policy is fattening Ben Bleiweiss's pockets via Starcity premium subscriptions. Deckbuilding will require just as much number-crunching as before. Since I know you google your name, Mr. B, you're welcome to chime in with how making information scarcer will make it harder for you to charge for it.
3. Wizards' discussed this policy at great length; it is a reasoned decision.
Why, then, was there no announcement of the policy change until long after the community noticed and asked what the heck is going on? If it is a good decision, with clear benefits, why not trumpet it from the rooftops and collect your accolades? The way this policy was implemented suggests that its crafters knew it was a bad idea and unlikely to be well-received.
4. Stop embarrassing Wizards by posting pie graphs of all the data they are witholding.
I would like to contribute this idea that I haven't expressed before: I find BlippyTheSlug's images to be timely, informative, and much more concise than stating the information they contain using mere words. Maybe if Blippy waited two weeks and waited for someone to ask him why he stopped posting images it would be more acceptable to Wizards?
1. Formats are being solved too quickly.This is a problem better solved by development. As pointed out earlier in this very thread, the real culprit here is mythic rarity and the corresponding decrease in set sizes, along with borked cards that slip
However, I have seen the Modern meta devolving in the past month. I no longer see as much "innovation" as was once present. This may be simply because I'm not seeing all the results. The decision to redact over half of the Modern results appears to have hurt, rather than helped, this format.
