Did that player base have a right to that service in the first place though? I would argue no, seeing as it was freely provided to us.
As someone who actually plays in quite a few events a year online, I am really looking forward to the changes this will bring to the tournament scene. Heck, I would prefer if online decklists weren't published at all. That would really make things interesting.
I am among those that do not believe this can be called censorship, but rather than talking about the emotional baggage attached to that word, I would rather say that having so many arguments as to whether it is censorship or not is diluting the argument for the return of the full results. Even if it was bonafide censorship, I think the main interest of the majority would still be whether the changes are good for the players and/or the game.
As you stated, the argument from WotC that the formats are getting solved too fast apply not to Modern. Worst, I think it can be argued that the lack of data can be detrimental to new players joining the format. It will also not help the general attitude of a lot of pro players (if I can't figure out the format, I'll just play Jund. I'll even add Lingering Souls and call it a revolution.), and pro players' innovation is necessary for a format's development in competitive play. Finally, it can be argued that this is a format that actually needs to be solved if we want it to generate more interest. A wide variety of non-interractive decks that have little advantage over each other except requiring a different hate card does not make for a healthy format over the long term. Modern currently has a lot to offer, but it also has ways to go, and a proper metagame can only help in this regard.
Oh, and also, I hate it when people take things away from me without telling! (yeah, I'm still mad over that)
Yeah, the initial jump from its lowest lows was pre-RtR when Reid Duke popularised the "wolf run blue" variant (with masteries and frost titans) and then epic experiment has kept it reasonably popular post-rotation.
No one is saying we have a "right" to that information.
What people are saying is that we were getting that information and Wizards arbitrarily
decided to take away a sizable chunk of it. No discussion, no vote, no nothing.
But how did people know the eggs deck was a great decision? Did they psychically know which decks were likely to be there? No, they looked at the data to come up with that notion...
Further, we really don't have a RIGHT to any information, Magic or otherwise.
A key difference between "metagaming" and "data analysis" is that one is probability and the other statistics. Metagaming involves (at least at a high level) estimating the rate of appearance for decks, the odds of winning said match-ups where is the analysis is what actually happened. Hence the metagame is ahead of data analysis.
For instance, the eggs deck that won pro tour RTR was a great meta game decision - it's a fragile deck but powerful when the field is unprepared. Data analysis would not have lead to that conclusion, some logic, assumptions, and a essentially a hunch lead to.
I think this change has the potential to decrease the variety of net decks, which I think could have some of the impact they want.
As for "censorship", my biggest qualm with that title is simply that the information they are supposedly censoring isn't information we have a gurantee or right too, it was something they were giving extra
Oh yes, Paul is 100% correct. Self-censorship is a real thing. (The history of World War II is full of examples of self-censorship, just as an example.)
Am I happy that WOTC is censoring the information they are putting out? No, but I suspect that this, like most or all of the decisions they make, is based on what they think is right and not on the wishes of the community.
Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!
Will this fix the underlying problems of solved formats and nerfing people's attempts at data analysis?
Probably not.
I appreciate that Blippy has spoken out on the subject. There are too many WOTC apologists out there.
Remember, don't make excuses for Wizards. They pay flunkies good money to do that.
Don't put a flunkie out of work!
You hint at something I sense to be correct, but few have talked about it in the areas I have visited. The information release is not the actual problem to quick "solving." The true culprit is the extreme power level of recent sets. Your statement about crystal clear bodies of water being easy to "solve" is on the right track. How hard is it to realize you should include a card with just one color requirement, has flash, is a 3/4 flier, AND includes an ability just begging to be abused? How hard is it to realize you should include a card that has just a solitary color requirement, gains you five life upon entering, has five power, AND gives you a creature if your opponent manages to deal with it? Add planeswalkers to the table. Add a slew of dual lands. How hard is it to "solve" these metagames when I can tell from looking at a card in 5 seconds and know it needs to go in my deck?
That is the true problem of quick solution, not information.
I can see how people are getting tired of me shouting "censored!", even though it happens to apply (quite accurately IMO). The emotional baggage attached to that word is apparently too heavy.
Tell ya what. I'll use "redacted" in future censures.
But this fight, futile though it may be, is far from over.
See this is actually incorrect. You can censor yourself. It is called Self-Censorship. Now I understand why people are annoyed by Blippy's usage but does that really change the underlying point? Argue the point/context and leave the semantics for the trolls eh?
It is nice against walkers! since it is a non-tapping effect, it can be slapped down and used immediately. Nice repeatable counter-removal. Almost as much fun as dropping an etched monstrosity down with Melira in play... :)
I am surprised that metagame is not defined in Mirriam-Webster. The wikipedia reference to metagame even uses MtG as an example of metagame, although I first heard the term in the early eighties in reference to the game Diplomacy. In a general sense, metagaming is gaming the game. By knowing the field, MtG becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors-dynamite (dynamite doesn't care about any opponent, it blows everything up).
WotC, by reducing the amount of tourney results posted, is making top tier play more elitist - those with large playtest groups will end up with faster maturing tech, than the average person, something the results posting can alleviate. Will it slow the overall maturation of new tech? Yes, to a small degree, as Wizo's are not the only source of information and decklists
You can only censor a 2nd party, you can't censor yourself, since censoring implies forceful editing of someone's content, or editing that is done with author's consent but is against what he would ideally want, to the point that it compromises his vision. The definition doesn't explicitly say so, but that's why there are examples to show the context in which the word is used.
Examples from Mirriam-Webster:
The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
His report was heavily censored.
It's kind of annoying that you keep using this word.
Hex Parasite could be a thing, I'm not really sure against it's uses against the two aggro decks you listed as I feel like I am a favorite without the parasite against them, but it could be super nice against walkers.
Blood Moons are there for I imagine tron, the deck has a hard time dealing with quick giant idiots.
I like trickbind for the mirror. That's a thought. keeps them from going off if it is timed right. That is a nice idea.
I think torpor orb may be a bit overkill though :D
We're going to try really hard to do a weekly stream from our local shop. The way it is set up now, Will (who is married) has Fridays off and his wife is in class so we can come up with some time to come down and draw more attention to the shop while we stream.
I remember thinking splinter twin would never be anything real, and making fun of my friends that played it in a caw blade format and now I love the deck, it's so much fun to me and caused me to get rid of the rest of modern stuff that was not this one (or storm)
sorry man but my spidery sense tells me it's more than just the expletives of an out of control Timmy. Maybe that makes sense for his first 20 episodes, but with his access to pro opinions and experience being horribly wrong over and over again and his continued insistence that people need to get all the mythics right away it's not a Timmy, it's a shill. Again tis isn't something you can prove beyond all doubt but its just common sense for anyone who has seen a large amount of his media.
I think a lot of you are mistaking Evan Erwin's being a Timmy for being a shill. He loves everything not because his SCG handlers tell him to, but because he loves Magic and everything excites him. We were all like that once, remember? I'm kind of sad I don't still get that rush every time I look at a spoiler anymore. This is why his set reviews always have a pro sitting next to him. Because he knows that he loves terrible cards and he needs Chapin or Nelson to tell it like it is =).
Indeed one of the few early tourneys I played in featured that combo. Along with some aggro pieces that fit nicely. And I remember selling my .15 twins for about 6 tix each so windfall for sure.
Nice to see the daily shop goings on. Reminds me of my old store back in the day. I remember when Bliven731 discovered the absurd combo of Splinter Twin and Pestermite in the early days of Heirloom events. When the deck was finally discovered by "real" magic players those of us who had built the deck for Heirloom got a nice little windfall out of the deal. Sweet to see its still a good modern deck.
I jumped off the Evan Erwin bandwagon a long time ago. I used to enjoy The Magic Show, but he became such a blatant shill for the company that it became too painful to watch. There were just too many crap cards that made Erwin go, "OOOH! I'm gonna get me a playset!" The premium articles become free after a month, but I haven't seen one yet that was good enough to get me to pay to read.
That said, Star City used to be a great site for content. I loved the articles they ran. Now? Not so much. Very little of their stuff is any good, premium or not. Way too much of it seems like they just slapped it together, posted it to the website, and called it good.
Any Evan Erwin content and most of the "innovations" by Patrick Chapin and Co. Just watch Eva's old "The Magic Show" with current knowledge and you'll start to see a pattern, hard pushes for presales of bad mythics with Evan constantly saying, "you'll want to get these now.." ect. Chapin builds bad decks full of mythics for the same reason, he knows he has a following of fans that will go buy whatever deck he's currently playing. See Olvia Voldaren's meteoric price jump for no particular reason after he popularized it with team blue (without any real tournament success). (Worked out for me, I was able to sell the ones I had from draft for a lot more than I would have been able to otherwise).
You'll have to use your own judgment but from th content I've seen from the company I really have nothing nice to say about them. Even Aaron Forsythe openly mocked them in his twitter feed for how aggressively commercial they are. Again use your own judgment as in this kind of thing there is no definitive proof, only common sense. I don't think they act in good faith to their customers and will certainly recommend against using them for much of anything.
Did that player base have a right to that service in the first place though? I would argue no, seeing as it was freely provided to us.
As someone who actually plays in quite a few events a year online, I am really looking forward to the changes this will bring to the tournament scene. Heck, I would prefer if online decklists weren't published at all. That would really make things interesting.
I am among those that do not believe this can be called censorship, but rather than talking about the emotional baggage attached to that word, I would rather say that having so many arguments as to whether it is censorship or not is diluting the argument for the return of the full results. Even if it was bonafide censorship, I think the main interest of the majority would still be whether the changes are good for the players and/or the game.
As you stated, the argument from WotC that the formats are getting solved too fast apply not to Modern. Worst, I think it can be argued that the lack of data can be detrimental to new players joining the format. It will also not help the general attitude of a lot of pro players (if I can't figure out the format, I'll just play Jund. I'll even add Lingering Souls and call it a revolution.), and pro players' innovation is necessary for a format's development in competitive play. Finally, it can be argued that this is a format that actually needs to be solved if we want it to generate more interest. A wide variety of non-interractive decks that have little advantage over each other except requiring a different hate card does not make for a healthy format over the long term. Modern currently has a lot to offer, but it also has ways to go, and a proper metagame can only help in this regard.
Oh, and also, I hate it when people take things away from me without telling! (yeah, I'm still mad over that)
Yeah, the initial jump from its lowest lows was pre-RtR when Reid Duke popularised the "wolf run blue" variant (with masteries and frost titans) and then epic experiment has kept it reasonably popular post-rotation.
Did we have a right to the information about them deciding we had no right to the information?
I'd say yes, on the grounds that the player base has a stakehold in the service no longer being provided.
No one is saying we have a "right" to that information.
What people are saying is that we were getting that information and Wizards arbitrarily
decided to take away a sizable chunk of it. No discussion, no vote, no nothing.
But how did people know the eggs deck was a great decision? Did they psychically know which decks were likely to be there? No, they looked at the data to come up with that notion...
Further, we really don't have a RIGHT to any information, Magic or otherwise.
A key difference between "metagaming" and "data analysis" is that one is probability and the other statistics. Metagaming involves (at least at a high level) estimating the rate of appearance for decks, the odds of winning said match-ups where is the analysis is what actually happened. Hence the metagame is ahead of data analysis.
For instance, the eggs deck that won pro tour RTR was a great meta game decision - it's a fragile deck but powerful when the field is unprepared. Data analysis would not have lead to that conclusion, some logic, assumptions, and a essentially a hunch lead to.
I think this change has the potential to decrease the variety of net decks, which I think could have some of the impact they want.
As for "censorship", my biggest qualm with that title is simply that the information they are supposedly censoring isn't information we have a gurantee or right too, it was something they were giving extra
Oh yes, Paul is 100% correct. Self-censorship is a real thing. (The history of World War II is full of examples of self-censorship, just as an example.)
Am I happy that WOTC is censoring the information they are putting out? No, but I suspect that this, like most or all of the decisions they make, is based on what they think is right and not on the wishes of the community.
Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!
Will this fix the underlying problems of solved formats and nerfing people's attempts at data analysis?
Probably not.
I appreciate that Blippy has spoken out on the subject. There are too many WOTC apologists out there.
Remember, don't make excuses for Wizards. They pay flunkies good money to do that.
Don't put a flunkie out of work!
Nice read. Keep up the good work.
You hint at something I sense to be correct, but few have talked about it in the areas I have visited. The information release is not the actual problem to quick "solving." The true culprit is the extreme power level of recent sets. Your statement about crystal clear bodies of water being easy to "solve" is on the right track. How hard is it to realize you should include a card with just one color requirement, has flash, is a 3/4 flier, AND includes an ability just begging to be abused? How hard is it to realize you should include a card that has just a solitary color requirement, gains you five life upon entering, has five power, AND gives you a creature if your opponent manages to deal with it? Add planeswalkers to the table. Add a slew of dual lands. How hard is it to "solve" these metagames when I can tell from looking at a card in 5 seconds and know it needs to go in my deck?
That is the true problem of quick solution, not information.
I can see how people are getting tired of me shouting "censored!", even though it happens to apply (quite accurately IMO). The emotional baggage attached to that word is apparently too heavy.
Tell ya what. I'll use "redacted" in future censures.
But this fight, futile though it may be, is far from over.
See this is actually incorrect. You can censor yourself. It is called Self-Censorship. Now I understand why people are annoyed by Blippy's usage but does that really change the underlying point? Argue the point/context and leave the semantics for the trolls eh?
It is nice against walkers! since it is a non-tapping effect, it can be slapped down and used immediately. Nice repeatable counter-removal. Almost as much fun as dropping an etched monstrosity down with Melira in play... :)
I am surprised that metagame is not defined in Mirriam-Webster. The wikipedia reference to metagame even uses MtG as an example of metagame, although I first heard the term in the early eighties in reference to the game Diplomacy. In a general sense, metagaming is gaming the game. By knowing the field, MtG becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors-dynamite (dynamite doesn't care about any opponent, it blows everything up).
WotC, by reducing the amount of tourney results posted, is making top tier play more elitist - those with large playtest groups will end up with faster maturing tech, than the average person, something the results posting can alleviate. Will it slow the overall maturation of new tech? Yes, to a small degree, as Wizo's are not the only source of information and decklists
You can only censor a 2nd party, you can't censor yourself, since censoring implies forceful editing of someone's content, or editing that is done with author's consent but is against what he would ideally want, to the point that it compromises his vision. The definition doesn't explicitly say so, but that's why there are examples to show the context in which the word is used.
Examples from Mirriam-Webster:
The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
His report was heavily censored.
It's kind of annoying that you keep using this word.
Hex Parasite could be a thing, I'm not really sure against it's uses against the two aggro decks you listed as I feel like I am a favorite without the parasite against them, but it could be super nice against walkers.
Blood Moons are there for I imagine tron, the deck has a hard time dealing with quick giant idiots.
I like trickbind for the mirror. That's a thought. keeps them from going off if it is timed right. That is a nice idea.
I think torpor orb may be a bit overkill though :D
Thanks!
We're going to try really hard to do a weekly stream from our local shop. The way it is set up now, Will (who is married) has Fridays off and his wife is in class so we can come up with some time to come down and draw more attention to the shop while we stream.
I remember thinking splinter twin would never be anything real, and making fun of my friends that played it in a caw blade format and now I love the deck, it's so much fun to me and caused me to get rid of the rest of modern stuff that was not this one (or storm)
What about the use of Hex Parasite in the board. Seems it would be good against Robots and Soul Sisters (and any random planeswalker)?
Also what match up(s) are the blood moons in there for?
And what about trickbind and torpor orb for the mirror and pod decks?
sorry man but my spidery sense tells me it's more than just the expletives of an out of control Timmy. Maybe that makes sense for his first 20 episodes, but with his access to pro opinions and experience being horribly wrong over and over again and his continued insistence that people need to get all the mythics right away it's not a Timmy, it's a shill. Again tis isn't something you can prove beyond all doubt but its just common sense for anyone who has seen a large amount of his media.
I think a lot of you are mistaking Evan Erwin's being a Timmy for being a shill. He loves everything not because his SCG handlers tell him to, but because he loves Magic and everything excites him. We were all like that once, remember? I'm kind of sad I don't still get that rush every time I look at a spoiler anymore. This is why his set reviews always have a pro sitting next to him. Because he knows that he loves terrible cards and he needs Chapin or Nelson to tell it like it is =).
Indeed one of the few early tourneys I played in featured that combo. Along with some aggro pieces that fit nicely. And I remember selling my .15 twins for about 6 tix each so windfall for sure.
Nice to see the daily shop goings on. Reminds me of my old store back in the day. I remember when Bliven731 discovered the absurd combo of Splinter Twin and Pestermite in the early days of Heirloom events. When the deck was finally discovered by "real" magic players those of us who had built the deck for Heirloom got a nice little windfall out of the deal. Sweet to see its still a good modern deck.
I jumped off the Evan Erwin bandwagon a long time ago. I used to enjoy The Magic Show, but he became such a blatant shill for the company that it became too painful to watch. There were just too many crap cards that made Erwin go, "OOOH! I'm gonna get me a playset!" The premium articles become free after a month, but I haven't seen one yet that was good enough to get me to pay to read.
That said, Star City used to be a great site for content. I loved the articles they ran. Now? Not so much. Very little of their stuff is any good, premium or not. Way too much of it seems like they just slapped it together, posted it to the website, and called it good.
To quote the site : all StarCityGames.com Premium articles are made freely available for the entire community after one month has passed.
Any Evan Erwin content and most of the "innovations" by Patrick Chapin and Co. Just watch Eva's old "The Magic Show" with current knowledge and you'll start to see a pattern, hard pushes for presales of bad mythics with Evan constantly saying, "you'll want to get these now.." ect. Chapin builds bad decks full of mythics for the same reason, he knows he has a following of fans that will go buy whatever deck he's currently playing. See Olvia Voldaren's meteoric price jump for no particular reason after he popularized it with team blue (without any real tournament success). (Worked out for me, I was able to sell the ones I had from draft for a lot more than I would have been able to otherwise).
You'll have to use your own judgment but from th content I've seen from the company I really have nothing nice to say about them. Even Aaron Forsythe openly mocked them in his twitter feed for how aggressively commercial they are. Again use your own judgment as in this kind of thing there is no definitive proof, only common sense. I don't think they act in good faith to their customers and will certainly recommend against using them for much of anything.