One exception - No way does WW have that % over U/R based decks, quite the reverse, as with slivers. Having played hundreds of matches of both of these, I can say that WW hates nothing more than Slivers and Island & Friends.
To me it means playing deck A until I think the metagame is going to shift, then playing deck B, which has no cards in common with deck A. If I artificially limit myself by rarity or other handicaps under a format, then I am not playing the game in all it's glory.
I crave competition. Show me the pauper, peasant, or heirloom pro tour, and I'll sign up. Until then, if I can not play the game in all it's glory, I won't play, because I don't settle for 2nd best.
More what it says about the players you played against. They were obviously not running enough enchant or search hate to be able to readily stop you. I remember when BoW decks were everywhere in casual. Made me run at least 4x disenchant type cards in every deck possible. They were as ubiquitous at that time as 'elves' are in general.
Yeah the official b&r page seems to never be quite right. Not sure why. However you can tell definitively by checking the client under the stats pull down/Formats. This lists every card current banned online and in what formats.
I am pretty new to this drafting. I think I said that. When I read a draft like this I try to make the pick for myself before I go on to see what the writer did. That is all I am trying to do. I am not trying to build tension. I am acknowledging mistakes in some cases.
1/2 I know that Assassinate is a 2nd-tier removal spell. At the time, I undervalued Jace's Ingenuity. The thief is also good. I just remember being drawn to the juggernaught, and couldn't tell you what I was thinking about the thief other than I would rather have the 5/3 beater.
1/3 I was not ready to commit to black and get the specter. For my first three picks I have committed to nothing and can still go in many directions. You would have the Baloth, Juggernaught, and Specter. That is definately better than what I drafted for my first three picks, but you are already in two colors.
1/7 I completely agree with you. I should have taken the Barony Vampire.
1/8 I already said that this was a stupid pick
2/7 I said that I wish I had gone with the Skeleton, and I guess I didn't explain the pick very well but I had a fist full of removal and I could have a 4/2 beater with clear paths or a 1/1 wall with nothing to block assuming that my removal was coming through. The only reason that I wish that I had the skeleton in hind sight is because I had enough horrors by the time the draft was through. I still like my decision at the time.
2/8 I am not going to argue Unholy Strength over Blood Tithe. I think they are both so bad that it isn't worth pausing over. I did find a use for the Unholy Strengths and would not have brought in Blood Tithe in my later two matches.
2/10 To this I will say, "no thanks." I have seen the Seer, Skeleton combo in action. It is a nice late game trick when you have lots of mana to burn. In the early game you have to have both cards in play. I don't want the Seer in this deck. Maybe with two skeletons and some bombs. I didn't have bombs.
Do you know how to make the deck lists graphic? I would like to do it that way. It looks like it comes from magic.tcgplayer. I agree that I overdrafted control and missed some good creatures for my deck. No question.
I have a feeling that you come at this from a big creatures, big spells perspective. Your definition of "fun" seems to be "let everyone show off what they want to do", in which case of course the big splashy effects are going to win. Let me give you my point of view as an aggro player. Denial IS interaction, be it resource denial as you define it or otherwise. It's interesting that you list only lands, cards in hand and spells on the stack as resources, whereas you leave out cards in play. If I'm playing an aggro deck, a Wrath of God is denial. It's creature denial, but my creatures are a form of capital in which I've invested, and will over the next few turns reap dividends in terms of damage to the opponent. It is not "fun" for me to have my creatures/capital/resource destroyed, so I fight back with disruption. Sometimes that's in the form of Gaddock Teeg/Meddling Mage, and sometimes it's Stone Rain/Duress/Counterspell. However, all of these cards, including what they're designed to disrupt (creature removal) are interactive. It's a metagaming choice that you chose to put in Wrath of God to interact with me, and it's a metagaming choice I chose to put in disruption to interact with your Wraths. Just because your spell didn't get to resolve doesn't mean that I'm the one who's not interactive, if anything I'm more interactive since I went outside of our single game and designed my deck to interact with potential problem cards I foresaw in my future matchups.
On combo/burn playstyles, yes that actually qualifies as solitaire Magic, but your role as their opponent is to interact with them and stop them from doing what they want. This seems to go against your belief of "fun is letting people do what they want", but I bet you can sleep soundly at night whilst shuffling Wraths and Doom Blades into your latest deck. So if you're happy to disrupt creatures, why not disrupt their spells, whether they're pieces of a combo or pieces of burn? It's OKAY to not let them do what they want, that's half the definition of interaction. There's this reverence surrounding the casual room that games should be slow and every spell should be allowed to resolve, but if you really believe that, then you're not playing Magic as Richard Garfield imagined it, you're playing a different game with your own rules.
Finally, on blocking - I'm an avid fan of the block button, for one and one reason only: segregation. In education, we divide a student population into different tiers and classes to be taught separately, because we understand that some students perform better with accelerated teaching, whilst others require more hands-on support. The MTGO player base is much the same - certain players simply aren't well suited to be matched up against other players. I've played and watched games in which casual players complain their opponents to be too competitive, and competitive players complain their opponents to be too casual. That is a clear sign of player mismatch. The best way we can combat that is to divide up the player base, and Wizards have already done that very well with the Cas-Cas Room and the TP room, but if we want further distinctions we're going to have to do it ourselves. Every day I see a whole bunch of games with all kinds of weird and wonderful game descriptions, from "No Eldrazi" to "No mono-coloured decks". Some of them may seem absurd, I mean personally I'd never play the seemingly popular "40/10" variant, but I can understand that others may enjoy it. We all have our own definitions of fun, of casual, of social contracts, but the best way we can maximise the fun for everyone is to explicitly spell out what they are, and that benefits all parties involved. Going a step further beyond game descriptions is blocking, which really stops you from interacting with that player once and for all, but it's beneficial in the long term to both players. Of course there are drawbacks such as not being able to trade with each other, and the "once before, never again" situation you mentioned in your article, but all in all I consider blocking to be a very useful, if final way of splitting up the player base. People shouldn't take it so personally, all it suggests is that "we are not a good match for each other". To use the age-old break-up line, "it's not you, it's me".
It'd be more helpful if you included your deck list so it's easier to read then the picture, and I have to agree I would have gone baloth and jug.. I've been caught where I overdrafted control and thought I'd be set, but really the stronger decks are creature heavy with a few tricks
there are some cards you missed in your list ("now added to the banned list"). Namely Frantic Search, Gush, Vampiric Tutor. Those were not banned in Classic Tribal Wars.
I want so bad to be able to play in the finale this weekend, but I have tickets to a football game and a concert so there's no way I'll be online and I've very disappointed...
I do say I'm often impressed by your deck building for these events, I've personally only put together one deck that I feel matches the criteria of creative and successful lol and if I was able to be around I'd def be running my IAX Coatl Control deck, which got me first and second the two times I ran it (actually the first time I ran it I went 2-0 in round one and disconnected and couldn't log back in lol)
I really hope this PRE continues, I'm incredibly busy these days and can't make a majority of the weeks, but when I can I have a lot of fun.. this format is so fantastic because it is as you show a deck builder's paradise and you see some of the most creative things, the time I ran my Battle of Wits deck I got I think second... now what does that say about a format when you can run Battle of Wits and be successful haha
I was brewing some Tribal Classic not too long ago and considered picking up Extinctions because they weren't on the above linked banned list. Does this mean that the B&R page on that site isn't updated regularly? =/ Confused.
Irrational yep. Considering the nature of Cas Cas, it isn't unreasonable to double check to see if your op did in fact regard your note. And I don't get the ungrateful part. Are you doing them a favor? Why?
A little constructive criticism on the article: I really wish you had more detail about your rationale behind your picks. Also, the "I could take X, but .... I take y" fails to build tension and is overused (once in a while, is fine, but it feels like your trying to fool the reader or something, which is annoying).
Now on to discussions about your picks. I am going through your draft one by one, so I have no idea what the next picks will hold (i.e., no hindsight was used to evaluate your picks).
1/1 - I would have taken the Baloth, but I understand taking the Wild Griffin.
1/2 - I would have taken the Juggernaut, but would have stared long and hard at Jace's Ingenuity and Scroll Thief, but you didn't seem to consider either blue spell. If I was in the mood to push green, I might have taken the Elf with a realistic shot at having the Plummer circle the table.
1/3 - Lilianna's Specter has always been nice to me in draft and I think is the better black card in the pack.
1/7 - You really need some creatures and Barony Vampire is extremely playable in black, I would really like to understand your decision for Stabbing Pain over a good creature. White is not flowing to you at all, so what makes you think that you are going to have a good shot at a white creature base?
1/8 - I have seen Blood Tithe used very effectively, but it is not an automatic selection. It is, however, better than Cancel. So far you are building a removal heavy deck, with minimal threats of your own. Blood Tithe could help you stay alive long enough to actually draw into the needed removal.
2/7 - I would have taken the Skeleton. I wish instead of identifying that you were low on 2 drops and then taking the 4 drop Horror, you had explained a bit about why you wanted the Horror.
2/8 - Seroiusly? Unholy Strength over Blood Tithe? Neither is a main deck card, but Blood Tithe could come in from the sideboard in certain matchups. And yes, Unholy Strength on Ornithopter is terrible (as in a Charles Barkley, 'terrible')
2/10 - Viscera Seer would have been a good pick if you had taken the Skeleton.
That's pretty silly. I guess you didn't have much to read. I don't want to commit to green on the first pick here. Instead I get evasion in a possible secondary or splashable color. I wouldn't change that pick, although I did consider it at the time. As it turned out, neither would have made the deck.
Even if someday there is a universally accepted definition of casual then players will still find things to be upset about :) Here's mine: when I join a game where the host has stipulated standard pauper and then asks 'standard?' before continuing the game, I get irrationally angry and want to lash out with sarcasm at this ungrateful wretch who thinks I can't read. Interestingly I have noticed a high correlation between non-standard format requirements and conceding when even slightly behind. I save myself a lot of stress by avoiding those games.
As much as I feel for your loss and hope you find a way to get justice I don't think it is just for you to make that claim yet. You don't KNOW what happened. Wait for the investigation to complete. If you get the run around and can't get a straight answer after a few months then you have a right to moan.
I realize that you are stressed about this and am not trying to stress you further but perspective is key here. It may be that Wizards buys gold plated chairs etc (though I have seen nothing to indicate that) but they seem to me to at least put some thought into security and customer service. The bad interface is slowly being improved but I agree that is the most heinous of their inactions.
Meantime sit tight and perhaps give yourself some distance from this by doing something else that is enjoyable. You said you are a bit shy and introverted. Maybe now is the time to try and break out of that rut and socialize irl with people. Also stop thinking of yourself as special (Nerd) as everyone is, in their own way. Start thinking of yourself as you relate to those around you not to how they relate to you. (I like music for example so many of my friends are musicians who know nothing about games.)
Sometimes I wish I had the sticktoitiveness to play these nonofficial tourney formats. The problem for me with BYOS is the building aspect and the testing aspect. In both cases I feel underwhelmed by the tools at my disposal and also it is tough for me to build up steam enough to go full-on spike enough to bring the win. (One reason I don't play in the TA pre every weekend these days.) But your articles definitely bring an interesting light to this format and between you and flippers_giraffe it seems both competitive and fun. I may have to give it another chance at some point if I can find the patience and stamina.
I will just say that blocking people for playing Armageddon in the multiplayer room is the same as blocking them for stone rain in 1-vs-1. If you are concerned about your own hypocrisy don't do it. I only block people for rudeness and abuse or for scamming in the classifieds. Otherwise I just don't because while I may dislike being subjected to a particular strategy it is valid within the game context. In multiplayer if you don't want geddon style decks joining your games say so. Then a joiner is being rude if they bring it anyway and you have a legitimate reason to block them. Also afaik the block limit still exists sadly so you have to be choosy about your blocks still.
Honestly I think even in an attempt to start a discussion, your opinions do not hit near the mark for me largely. Casual is indeed undefinable as my old friend theFerret once wrote. That said I admire the attempt (yet again) to find a median consensus. Where we go wrong is in our expectations of others. We can only share what we want to see and hope we find likeminded players. But you know what? Even though I dislike being countered when I have goofy.dec it is not my opponent's fault if I don't ask for a non counter deck. MOST players I have met will oblige as best they can with requests like this. Some I have noticed still bring the best deck they can manage for the format even knowing you dislike facing tier 1-1.5 strategies with your goofy nontiered deck. This happened the other day in a new format and I said to myself. Hey, I can say something or I can resent it. I said something. The person didn't quite get it but I had my say. And you know what? They were not 100% wrong. Just because my deck was less than optimal for a tourney build did not make it any more fun to play against. Took me time to reason that bit out. And this is the crux of it.
Everyone has their own litmus about what is fun and what isn't. Some people love the challenge of facing ld and counter decks with their decks so that they can find strategies to deal with those problems. (Living Death after 8 counters vs creatures is quite the awesome payout for example. And I guarantee you that the person who isn't benefiting much from the death doesn't think it is a fun card. Wrath of God + I get my guys back? Ouch.) So my suggestion is to not worry about it. Let everyone play their game. Make your games more personal by conversing with your op and adjusting to their level occasionally while requesting they do the same for you.
You're still raging. You need to calm down and think clearly. You don't know what Wizard's customer service workload looks like, maybe they're undermanned and very busy. When they get around to handling your complaint the important thing is they get their response right, not how quickly they do it. All your collection exists as data in the system, it's not like a paper card which would be gone forever, they can reinstate everything once they have all the facts.
A similar thing happened to my son on Runescape. His account was raided. After some soul searching we determined that he'd been letting a friend log on, and that friend was responsible for the security theft, whether himself or by telling a 3rd party the login details we won't know. It's a hard lesson to learn, but we must be careful with our privacy. Use different strong passwords for all your accounts, and never share them. If I was to bet money on what happened to you I'd guess that someone looked over your shoulder while you typed your password in; far more likely than some wire hack.
ymmv
One exception - No way does WW have that % over U/R based decks, quite the reverse, as with slivers. Having played hundreds of matches of both of these, I can say that WW hates nothing more than Slivers and Island & Friends.
Expert pauper or novice, this is the best one-stop article available.
http://jamuraa.com/pure/deck_new.php welcome to the neighborhood. :)
I love the game.
I love the game is *all* it's glory.
To me it means playing deck A until I think the metagame is going to shift, then playing deck B, which has no cards in common with deck A. If I artificially limit myself by rarity or other handicaps under a format, then I am not playing the game in all it's glory.
I crave competition. Show me the pauper, peasant, or heirloom pro tour, and I'll sign up. Until then, if I can not play the game in all it's glory, I won't play, because I don't settle for 2nd best.
More what it says about the players you played against. They were obviously not running enough enchant or search hate to be able to readily stop you. I remember when BoW decks were everywhere in casual. Made me run at least 4x disenchant type cards in every deck possible. They were as ubiquitous at that time as 'elves' are in general.
Yes Vampiric Tutor has been on the Banned list for TWC for a long time now.
Frantic Search and Gush are new to the list.
Yeah the official b&r page seems to never be quite right. Not sure why. However you can tell definitively by checking the client under the stats pull down/Formats. This lists every card current banned online and in what formats.
Fun is many things to many people, but not being able to play your cards is unfun for anyone.
Thanks for the thoughtful and helpful comments.
I am pretty new to this drafting. I think I said that. When I read a draft like this I try to make the pick for myself before I go on to see what the writer did. That is all I am trying to do. I am not trying to build tension. I am acknowledging mistakes in some cases.
1/2 I know that Assassinate is a 2nd-tier removal spell. At the time, I undervalued Jace's Ingenuity. The thief is also good. I just remember being drawn to the juggernaught, and couldn't tell you what I was thinking about the thief other than I would rather have the 5/3 beater.
1/3 I was not ready to commit to black and get the specter. For my first three picks I have committed to nothing and can still go in many directions. You would have the Baloth, Juggernaught, and Specter. That is definately better than what I drafted for my first three picks, but you are already in two colors.
1/7 I completely agree with you. I should have taken the Barony Vampire.
1/8 I already said that this was a stupid pick
2/7 I said that I wish I had gone with the Skeleton, and I guess I didn't explain the pick very well but I had a fist full of removal and I could have a 4/2 beater with clear paths or a 1/1 wall with nothing to block assuming that my removal was coming through. The only reason that I wish that I had the skeleton in hind sight is because I had enough horrors by the time the draft was through. I still like my decision at the time.
2/8 I am not going to argue Unholy Strength over Blood Tithe. I think they are both so bad that it isn't worth pausing over. I did find a use for the Unholy Strengths and would not have brought in Blood Tithe in my later two matches.
2/10 To this I will say, "no thanks." I have seen the Seer, Skeleton combo in action. It is a nice late game trick when you have lots of mana to burn. In the early game you have to have both cards in play. I don't want the Seer in this deck. Maybe with two skeletons and some bombs. I didn't have bombs.
Do you know how to make the deck lists graphic? I would like to do it that way. It looks like it comes from magic.tcgplayer. I agree that I overdrafted control and missed some good creatures for my deck. No question.
I have a feeling that you come at this from a big creatures, big spells perspective. Your definition of "fun" seems to be "let everyone show off what they want to do", in which case of course the big splashy effects are going to win. Let me give you my point of view as an aggro player. Denial IS interaction, be it resource denial as you define it or otherwise. It's interesting that you list only lands, cards in hand and spells on the stack as resources, whereas you leave out cards in play. If I'm playing an aggro deck, a Wrath of God is denial. It's creature denial, but my creatures are a form of capital in which I've invested, and will over the next few turns reap dividends in terms of damage to the opponent. It is not "fun" for me to have my creatures/capital/resource destroyed, so I fight back with disruption. Sometimes that's in the form of Gaddock Teeg/Meddling Mage, and sometimes it's Stone Rain/Duress/Counterspell. However, all of these cards, including what they're designed to disrupt (creature removal) are interactive. It's a metagaming choice that you chose to put in Wrath of God to interact with me, and it's a metagaming choice I chose to put in disruption to interact with your Wraths. Just because your spell didn't get to resolve doesn't mean that I'm the one who's not interactive, if anything I'm more interactive since I went outside of our single game and designed my deck to interact with potential problem cards I foresaw in my future matchups.
On combo/burn playstyles, yes that actually qualifies as solitaire Magic, but your role as their opponent is to interact with them and stop them from doing what they want. This seems to go against your belief of "fun is letting people do what they want", but I bet you can sleep soundly at night whilst shuffling Wraths and Doom Blades into your latest deck. So if you're happy to disrupt creatures, why not disrupt their spells, whether they're pieces of a combo or pieces of burn? It's OKAY to not let them do what they want, that's half the definition of interaction. There's this reverence surrounding the casual room that games should be slow and every spell should be allowed to resolve, but if you really believe that, then you're not playing Magic as Richard Garfield imagined it, you're playing a different game with your own rules.
Finally, on blocking - I'm an avid fan of the block button, for one and one reason only: segregation. In education, we divide a student population into different tiers and classes to be taught separately, because we understand that some students perform better with accelerated teaching, whilst others require more hands-on support. The MTGO player base is much the same - certain players simply aren't well suited to be matched up against other players. I've played and watched games in which casual players complain their opponents to be too competitive, and competitive players complain their opponents to be too casual. That is a clear sign of player mismatch. The best way we can combat that is to divide up the player base, and Wizards have already done that very well with the Cas-Cas Room and the TP room, but if we want further distinctions we're going to have to do it ourselves. Every day I see a whole bunch of games with all kinds of weird and wonderful game descriptions, from "No Eldrazi" to "No mono-coloured decks". Some of them may seem absurd, I mean personally I'd never play the seemingly popular "40/10" variant, but I can understand that others may enjoy it. We all have our own definitions of fun, of casual, of social contracts, but the best way we can maximise the fun for everyone is to explicitly spell out what they are, and that benefits all parties involved. Going a step further beyond game descriptions is blocking, which really stops you from interacting with that player once and for all, but it's beneficial in the long term to both players. Of course there are drawbacks such as not being able to trade with each other, and the "once before, never again" situation you mentioned in your article, but all in all I consider blocking to be a very useful, if final way of splitting up the player base. People shouldn't take it so personally, all it suggests is that "we are not a good match for each other". To use the age-old break-up line, "it's not you, it's me".
It'd be more helpful if you included your deck list so it's easier to read then the picture, and I have to agree I would have gone baloth and jug.. I've been caught where I overdrafted control and thought I'd be set, but really the stronger decks are creature heavy with a few tricks
Hi there,
there are some cards you missed in your list ("now added to the banned list"). Namely Frantic Search, Gush, Vampiric Tutor. Those were not banned in Classic Tribal Wars.
--T.
I want so bad to be able to play in the finale this weekend, but I have tickets to a football game and a concert so there's no way I'll be online and I've very disappointed...
I do say I'm often impressed by your deck building for these events, I've personally only put together one deck that I feel matches the criteria of creative and successful lol and if I was able to be around I'd def be running my IAX Coatl Control deck, which got me first and second the two times I ran it (actually the first time I ran it I went 2-0 in round one and disconnected and couldn't log back in lol)
I really hope this PRE continues, I'm incredibly busy these days and can't make a majority of the weeks, but when I can I have a lot of fun.. this format is so fantastic because it is as you show a deck builder's paradise and you see some of the most creative things, the time I ran my Battle of Wits deck I got I think second... now what does that say about a format when you can run Battle of Wits and be successful haha
http://community.wizards.com/magiconline/blog/2010/02/20/magic_online_br...
That blog entry shows when Extinction was banned for Classic Tribal Wars. No idea about the update of the official B & R list.
Extinction was on the banned list? Is there a location that is more definitive than Wizards' banned and restricted page?
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Resources.aspx?x=magic/rules/tribal
I was brewing some Tribal Classic not too long ago and considered picking up Extinctions because they weren't on the above linked banned list. Does this mean that the B&R page on that site isn't updated regularly? =/ Confused.
Irrational yep. Considering the nature of Cas Cas, it isn't unreasonable to double check to see if your op did in fact regard your note. And I don't get the ungrateful part. Are you doing them a favor? Why?
A little constructive criticism on the article: I really wish you had more detail about your rationale behind your picks. Also, the "I could take X, but .... I take y" fails to build tension and is overused (once in a while, is fine, but it feels like your trying to fool the reader or something, which is annoying).
Now on to discussions about your picks. I am going through your draft one by one, so I have no idea what the next picks will hold (i.e., no hindsight was used to evaluate your picks).
1/1 - I would have taken the Baloth, but I understand taking the Wild Griffin.
1/2 - I would have taken the Juggernaut, but would have stared long and hard at Jace's Ingenuity and Scroll Thief, but you didn't seem to consider either blue spell. If I was in the mood to push green, I might have taken the Elf with a realistic shot at having the Plummer circle the table.
1/3 - Lilianna's Specter has always been nice to me in draft and I think is the better black card in the pack.
1/7 - You really need some creatures and Barony Vampire is extremely playable in black, I would really like to understand your decision for Stabbing Pain over a good creature. White is not flowing to you at all, so what makes you think that you are going to have a good shot at a white creature base?
1/8 - I have seen Blood Tithe used very effectively, but it is not an automatic selection. It is, however, better than Cancel. So far you are building a removal heavy deck, with minimal threats of your own. Blood Tithe could help you stay alive long enough to actually draw into the needed removal.
2/7 - I would have taken the Skeleton. I wish instead of identifying that you were low on 2 drops and then taking the 4 drop Horror, you had explained a bit about why you wanted the Horror.
2/8 - Seroiusly? Unholy Strength over Blood Tithe? Neither is a main deck card, but Blood Tithe could come in from the sideboard in certain matchups. And yes, Unholy Strength on Ornithopter is terrible (as in a Charles Barkley, 'terrible')
2/10 - Viscera Seer would have been a good pick if you had taken the Skeleton.
That's pretty silly. I guess you didn't have much to read. I don't want to commit to green on the first pick here. Instead I get evasion in a possible secondary or splashable color. I wouldn't change that pick, although I did consider it at the time. As it turned out, neither would have made the deck.
I stopped reading after i saw you pass a baloth pick 1.
Even if someday there is a universally accepted definition of casual then players will still find things to be upset about :) Here's mine: when I join a game where the host has stipulated standard pauper and then asks 'standard?' before continuing the game, I get irrationally angry and want to lash out with sarcasm at this ungrateful wretch who thinks I can't read. Interestingly I have noticed a high correlation between non-standard format requirements and conceding when even slightly behind. I save myself a lot of stress by avoiding those games.
As much as I feel for your loss and hope you find a way to get justice I don't think it is just for you to make that claim yet. You don't KNOW what happened. Wait for the investigation to complete. If you get the run around and can't get a straight answer after a few months then you have a right to moan.
I realize that you are stressed about this and am not trying to stress you further but perspective is key here. It may be that Wizards buys gold plated chairs etc (though I have seen nothing to indicate that) but they seem to me to at least put some thought into security and customer service. The bad interface is slowly being improved but I agree that is the most heinous of their inactions.
Meantime sit tight and perhaps give yourself some distance from this by doing something else that is enjoyable. You said you are a bit shy and introverted. Maybe now is the time to try and break out of that rut and socialize irl with people. Also stop thinking of yourself as special (Nerd) as everyone is, in their own way. Start thinking of yourself as you relate to those around you not to how they relate to you. (I like music for example so many of my friends are musicians who know nothing about games.)
Hope this helps a little,
Regards.
Sometimes I wish I had the sticktoitiveness to play these nonofficial tourney formats. The problem for me with BYOS is the building aspect and the testing aspect. In both cases I feel underwhelmed by the tools at my disposal and also it is tough for me to build up steam enough to go full-on spike enough to bring the win. (One reason I don't play in the TA pre every weekend these days.) But your articles definitely bring an interesting light to this format and between you and flippers_giraffe it seems both competitive and fun. I may have to give it another chance at some point if I can find the patience and stamina.
I will just say that blocking people for playing Armageddon in the multiplayer room is the same as blocking them for stone rain in 1-vs-1. If you are concerned about your own hypocrisy don't do it. I only block people for rudeness and abuse or for scamming in the classifieds. Otherwise I just don't because while I may dislike being subjected to a particular strategy it is valid within the game context. In multiplayer if you don't want geddon style decks joining your games say so. Then a joiner is being rude if they bring it anyway and you have a legitimate reason to block them. Also afaik the block limit still exists sadly so you have to be choosy about your blocks still.
Honestly I think even in an attempt to start a discussion, your opinions do not hit near the mark for me largely. Casual is indeed undefinable as my old friend theFerret once wrote. That said I admire the attempt (yet again) to find a median consensus. Where we go wrong is in our expectations of others. We can only share what we want to see and hope we find likeminded players. But you know what? Even though I dislike being countered when I have goofy.dec it is not my opponent's fault if I don't ask for a non counter deck. MOST players I have met will oblige as best they can with requests like this. Some I have noticed still bring the best deck they can manage for the format even knowing you dislike facing tier 1-1.5 strategies with your goofy nontiered deck. This happened the other day in a new format and I said to myself. Hey, I can say something or I can resent it. I said something. The person didn't quite get it but I had my say. And you know what? They were not 100% wrong. Just because my deck was less than optimal for a tourney build did not make it any more fun to play against. Took me time to reason that bit out. And this is the crux of it.
Everyone has their own litmus about what is fun and what isn't. Some people love the challenge of facing ld and counter decks with their decks so that they can find strategies to deal with those problems. (Living Death after 8 counters vs creatures is quite the awesome payout for example. And I guarantee you that the person who isn't benefiting much from the death doesn't think it is a fun card. Wrath of God + I get my guys back? Ouch.) So my suggestion is to not worry about it. Let everyone play their game. Make your games more personal by conversing with your op and adjusting to their level occasionally while requesting they do the same for you.
You're still raging. You need to calm down and think clearly. You don't know what Wizard's customer service workload looks like, maybe they're undermanned and very busy. When they get around to handling your complaint the important thing is they get their response right, not how quickly they do it. All your collection exists as data in the system, it's not like a paper card which would be gone forever, they can reinstate everything once they have all the facts.
A similar thing happened to my son on Runescape. His account was raided. After some soul searching we determined that he'd been letting a friend log on, and that friend was responsible for the security theft, whether himself or by telling a 3rd party the login details we won't know. It's a hard lesson to learn, but we must be careful with our privacy. Use different strong passwords for all your accounts, and never share them. If I was to bet money on what happened to you I'd guess that someone looked over your shoulder while you typed your password in; far more likely than some wire hack.
ymmv