I look at this incident as the cost of gaining wisdom.
I will not play any more tournaments until the client is once again stable. In fact, I don't even have the open client installed; I just play on the closed Beta client. When that becomes stable, I may try another tourney on the main client, but until then MTGO is not getting any more of my $$$.
I speculate that most of the bans were to people rather new to the tournament scene (like I was) with few overall tournaments under their belt.
The problem with "average" is that by definition, there have to be samples that are above it to make an average.
My specific problem was brought on because I did tournaments very rarely until M15. I never had the client crashing, until they changed the client adding in the pop-out graveyard, exiled, revealed zones.
Also: Please actually read the reimbursement page, nowhere does it say that the outcome has to be affected to put in a request for reimbursement; it says that they may (or may not) reimburse you upon review of your claim. It also encourages you to make the request. Obviously, the ORCs grant the reimbursement without reviewing the claim, many times within minutes of making it.
I personally think that it is completely wrong to suspend someone, especially without warning, for following their written policy to the letter because one (or more) of their employees are not doing their job. If they want only requests when the outcome of the event is altered, then why don't they state that in their policy!
I am sure it is VERY hard for WOTC to differentiate between legitimate and fraudulent reimbursement requests considering all the variables with your equipment (PC, Network, ISP, etc...) and their software which has stability issues at times. Therefore, the notion of looking at users which have considerably more requests than the average seems fine to me. The real issue with your case is miscommunication. First your understanding of when to request reimbursement is whenever anything goes wrong at all submit a request and have WOTC decipher the rules and judge its legitimacy. Seems like a fair thought on your part, except I think most people (I could be wrong here) think about it very differently, I think most say (as I do) if I know the issue is with the WOTC software 100% and it impacted the game results then I submit. Not if I was more rushed and had less fun, but the results were not impacted, like your example - I would have never submitted for that.
The second item which I totally agree with you on, is WOTC has to be more effective in communicating early on with potential issues with a user and cannot assume that you are fraudulent all because your reimbursement requests are higher than average. If they were more proactive they should have told you a while ago that either how you interpret the process on when to request reimbursements is not the same as theirs OR tell you that some requests were invalid and if you kept submitting such requests you would be banned for 1 week. Without this communication WOTC is only making you upset and not correcting the underlying issue which was miscommunication.
This is actually disgusting. I use refunds a lot as well but I was never contacted saying I was banned for using it too much. But now I fear for my account and cards.
In the past, I had a bad internet connection so I got several refunds because my opp's clock was running and in the end I was the one losing. Obviously after a while I knew I had to reconnect but having to reconnect every time your opp takes 1 minute is very frustrating and it can still be enough to lose you the game by time. Eventually I asked for a refund and they told me they would refund me one last time as a courtesy but it wasn't mtgo that was down so they couldn't refund me anymore.
After this, when I asked for refund, they would always said they had refunded me several times as a courtesy but mtgo wasn't down so they couldn't refund me. It didn't matter what I wrote, I'd always get the same response. Most of those were actually bugs and I would have to respond back and insist to get the situation looked into.
I don't know when, but eventually they corrected that, and I have been gettin refunds when I ask. Again, I ask many refunds, when I think I have the right to get one I do. Obviously I don't know everything and I might ask one that I don't deserve thinking I do deserve.
A long time ago, I think during v2 still (if not, it was early v3), there was an interaction in a Lorwyn draft that I thought was wrong. I asked for a refund and they explained why it worked that way. I understood and it's like asking a judge when you are not sure. I have the right to ask for one if I think it was wrong. Why should anyone be banned without warning if they don't know they are doing something wrong? Most people will assume that getting a refund means they were correct.
And just because you won the match/game, despite the problems, you still deserve a refund, because it caused you problems, you weren't allowed to play the game like expected.
I still ask refunds often because I encounter problems often and I don't even bother asking refunds when I'm playing cube as I have plenty phantom points.
And the refund system is still broken. For limited tournaments it works fine because getting the entry fee + cards + any prizes is good but for constructed tournaments or high stakes tournaments it's horrible. How is it fair that you get 6 tix back after losing the last round to a bug ending up 2-2? Even worse when playing for high stakes.
If they don't want people asking for too many refunds, make the client better, analyze every refund request, give actual help and improve the refund system for constructed and high stakes tournaments.
I definitely think leagues are coming, they were fun in the incarnation on closed Beta.
My guess is that they have to make sure it is not too similar to a competing product (IMO, it is not, but I'm no lawyer), so legal is having a look-see.
I got a week ban a few months back for "too many reimbursements" because it was higher than the "average" number of claims.
I only filed for a claim if the client crashed, due to the memory leak known error, during an event (in my case drafts), because on the reimbursement page it says:
"If you encounter an issue with Magic Online, we would like to know about it. If were in a Magic Online tournament, we may be able to reimburse your entry fee to your collection after processing your report."
Each time an ORC reimbursed me (usually very quickly) after submitting my request, so I thought my requests very valid, since their policy states "...MAY..."
After a number such reimbursements, I got locked out for a week with no advance warning of any kind.
After a back and forth conversation with the account specialist, the reasoning given, was that the number of reimbursements was higher than the average player for the number of tournaments played, as well as some claims (that were reimbursed) should not have been. The one example cited, was a draft where the client crashed and I was able to finally rejoin it and win the round it crashed in (even though I was stressed out over the remaining clock left by the time I was finally able to get back on).
In a nutshell, I got banned because: A) The ORCs were not doing their jobs and reviewing the claims BEFORE making a reimbursement; B)They expect the player to be aware of the unwritten rule that if the outcome of your match is not affected by the bug, it is an invalid claim.
I disagree with this whole mindset. I am paying for an enjoyable few hours of entertainment (If I went to a movie and the projector broke, I would expect a refund too). IF there is a problem, I report it; it is their prerogative whether to reimburse (a valid claim) or not. It should not be the player who decides (as the current system operates) if it is a valid claim.
To top this while affair: After my ban, I played a few drafts to use up the remaining packs that I had. In one such, the client crashed, but the (now) wiser me did not submit for reimbursement since the outcome was not affected. After the event was over, I noticed that only the R3 replays were saved (R1 and R2 replays were there during the event when I checked; client crashed during sideboarding after R3G1), so I hit the "Report a Bug" button in the client and filled out a proper bug submission (I've been doing Beta since Alara) detailing the steps leading to the error (ie draft, crash, event ends, replays missing). I even stated that I won the round that the client crashed in. Lo and behold, I was reimbursed entry fee even though I made no request for that. Panicked, I call WotC Customer Service to talk the the account specialist (I definitely did not want a permanent ban) - don't bother, can't get hold of them that way, but they did pass on a message to him to read my latest submission, which he did and no penalty to me this time. He suggested that in future, if I had a bug submission that did not need reimbursement for, to use the "Other" category in the contact us page, rather than the combined reimbursement/bug submission category.
Thanks. That was the only thing I could think of. I haven't actually faced a Vintage Dredge deck yet, my only experience is against Legacy dredge decks which aren't as fast.
While I disagree with a startling number of your assessments, people came here to read your opinions, not mine. Regardless, you clearly put a lot of effort into the article.
I did stop by, however, to say that Anafenza can indeed Bolster Manifests, as they aren't tokens and they are creatures.
Dredge has more troubles handling enchantments than artifacts because they maindeck or sideboard 4x Ingot Chewers primarily to handle Graffdiggers Cage and have much less enchant removal. When playing versus Dredge you have one goal - clear their library - if you do that you will win almost assuredly. Rest in Peace (RIP) is very effective in removing the graveyard and since it is an enchantment at 2 mana it is fast yet hard for them to kill, it also clears the existing library unlike many other dredge hate cards. So if you side out yawg will and bring in RIP you may take 1 or 2 turns more to win but versus dredge that is not an issue with RIP most games. That said because you are running black you could consider Leyline in RIP's place, you are taking a little more chance and unless it is in your hand to start it may be hard to cast but I think it is an okay substitute. I guess the question leads versus dredge with either RIP or Leyline what are you taking out? If you take out yawg will for Leyline then it is a wash anyhow.
Thanks, man, and thanks for reading and commenting!
Has anyone figured out why rest in peace is playable in this deck? Can Dredge just not deal with it at all or something? I can imagine going off without Yawgmoth's will in this deck, but all my playing and goldfishing with storm decks show that going off with no will is difficult to the extreme.
I'm glad to see you have a sweet Legacy deck now! Eternal formats are awesome. You've got a deck for life, basically. It feels good to have something powerful, fun, and enduring (meaning that it won't just tank in value because it doesn't rotate).
I completely agree about tiebreakers. Chess has it down as far as pairings go as well. Maybe we need to bring back player ratings for MTG but just not connect them to qualifications or byes?
Sorry to hear it. I have seen a number of authors who specialized in certain formats lose those formats to WOTC's lack of care. You certainly showed enough dedication and interest.
Yeah I feel the same way. Tie breakers are just total bs haha. So many magic tourneys come down to whoever you were luck enough to go up against in the early rounds.
Thanks for the pickup, that makes purge even worse.
Re: exemplars I was talking about a situation where you were trying to save it from removal and trying to think about cheap instants that you might randomly be happy to cast in that situation. In that scenario you DO want him to blink so a defiant strike or other targeted cantrip won't work.
I would agree with Alexis and Casper, but for a couple of things: the pairings are not random and the tie breaker system, IMO, is warped. One would think that the number one tiebreaker wold be overall Game Win %
There use to be a limited review that says the monetary value of cards. Even if you won't play Narset Transcendant every player who see it should pick it up. I am just saying there might be a really naive player that might put it to heart that Narset was only rated 3 in your review and forgot that it is a money card. Still good work I have some cards that i think should be rated higher but we will see how much your rating works when pre-release and release starts. Have another article that will tell how good your rating works on your side after PR and release.
I acknowledge that Anafenza + Norin is a bit of a nonbo, as Norin will never have any use for a +1/+1 counter. My thinking was that you can at least pump your Soul Sisters and other 1 toughness guys. Also, if you have a Genesis Chamber out you can make your Myr tokens into 2/2s instead. Perhaps not the best home for Anafenza but just a thought.
All said, it is what it is.
I look at this incident as the cost of gaining wisdom.
I will not play any more tournaments until the client is once again stable. In fact, I don't even have the open client installed; I just play on the closed Beta client. When that becomes stable, I may try another tourney on the main client, but until then MTGO is not getting any more of my $$$.
I speculate that most of the bans were to people rather new to the tournament scene (like I was) with few overall tournaments under their belt.
The problem with "average" is that by definition, there have to be samples that are above it to make an average.
My specific problem was brought on because I did tournaments very rarely until M15. I never had the client crashing, until they changed the client adding in the pop-out graveyard, exiled, revealed zones.
Also: Please actually read the reimbursement page, nowhere does it say that the outcome has to be affected to put in a request for reimbursement; it says that they may (or may not) reimburse you upon review of your claim. It also encourages you to make the request. Obviously, the ORCs grant the reimbursement without reviewing the claim, many times within minutes of making it.
I personally think that it is completely wrong to suspend someone, especially without warning, for following their written policy to the letter because one (or more) of their employees are not doing their job. If they want only requests when the outcome of the event is altered, then why don't they state that in their policy!
I am sure it is VERY hard for WOTC to differentiate between legitimate and fraudulent reimbursement requests considering all the variables with your equipment (PC, Network, ISP, etc...) and their software which has stability issues at times. Therefore, the notion of looking at users which have considerably more requests than the average seems fine to me. The real issue with your case is miscommunication. First your understanding of when to request reimbursement is whenever anything goes wrong at all submit a request and have WOTC decipher the rules and judge its legitimacy. Seems like a fair thought on your part, except I think most people (I could be wrong here) think about it very differently, I think most say (as I do) if I know the issue is with the WOTC software 100% and it impacted the game results then I submit. Not if I was more rushed and had less fun, but the results were not impacted, like your example - I would have never submitted for that.
The second item which I totally agree with you on, is WOTC has to be more effective in communicating early on with potential issues with a user and cannot assume that you are fraudulent all because your reimbursement requests are higher than average. If they were more proactive they should have told you a while ago that either how you interpret the process on when to request reimbursements is not the same as theirs OR tell you that some requests were invalid and if you kept submitting such requests you would be banned for 1 week. Without this communication WOTC is only making you upset and not correcting the underlying issue which was miscommunication.
This is actually disgusting. I use refunds a lot as well but I was never contacted saying I was banned for using it too much. But now I fear for my account and cards.
In the past, I had a bad internet connection so I got several refunds because my opp's clock was running and in the end I was the one losing. Obviously after a while I knew I had to reconnect but having to reconnect every time your opp takes 1 minute is very frustrating and it can still be enough to lose you the game by time. Eventually I asked for a refund and they told me they would refund me one last time as a courtesy but it wasn't mtgo that was down so they couldn't refund me anymore.
After this, when I asked for refund, they would always said they had refunded me several times as a courtesy but mtgo wasn't down so they couldn't refund me. It didn't matter what I wrote, I'd always get the same response. Most of those were actually bugs and I would have to respond back and insist to get the situation looked into.
I don't know when, but eventually they corrected that, and I have been gettin refunds when I ask. Again, I ask many refunds, when I think I have the right to get one I do. Obviously I don't know everything and I might ask one that I don't deserve thinking I do deserve.
A long time ago, I think during v2 still (if not, it was early v3), there was an interaction in a Lorwyn draft that I thought was wrong. I asked for a refund and they explained why it worked that way. I understood and it's like asking a judge when you are not sure. I have the right to ask for one if I think it was wrong. Why should anyone be banned without warning if they don't know they are doing something wrong? Most people will assume that getting a refund means they were correct.
And just because you won the match/game, despite the problems, you still deserve a refund, because it caused you problems, you weren't allowed to play the game like expected.
I still ask refunds often because I encounter problems often and I don't even bother asking refunds when I'm playing cube as I have plenty phantom points.
And the refund system is still broken. For limited tournaments it works fine because getting the entry fee + cards + any prizes is good but for constructed tournaments or high stakes tournaments it's horrible. How is it fair that you get 6 tix back after losing the last round to a bug ending up 2-2? Even worse when playing for high stakes.
If they don't want people asking for too many refunds, make the client better, analyze every refund request, give actual help and improve the refund system for constructed and high stakes tournaments.
I definitely think leagues are coming, they were fun in the incarnation on closed Beta.
My guess is that they have to make sure it is not too similar to a competing product (IMO, it is not, but I'm no lawyer), so legal is having a look-see.
The link to the promise about leagues now leads to a 404 error :/
I got a week ban a few months back for "too many reimbursements" because it was higher than the "average" number of claims.
I only filed for a claim if the client crashed, due to the memory leak known error, during an event (in my case drafts), because on the reimbursement page it says:
"If you encounter an issue with Magic Online, we would like to know about it. If were in a Magic Online tournament, we may be able to reimburse your entry fee to your collection after processing your report."
Each time an ORC reimbursed me (usually very quickly) after submitting my request, so I thought my requests very valid, since their policy states "...MAY..."
After a number such reimbursements, I got locked out for a week with no advance warning of any kind.
After a back and forth conversation with the account specialist, the reasoning given, was that the number of reimbursements was higher than the average player for the number of tournaments played, as well as some claims (that were reimbursed) should not have been. The one example cited, was a draft where the client crashed and I was able to finally rejoin it and win the round it crashed in (even though I was stressed out over the remaining clock left by the time I was finally able to get back on).
In a nutshell, I got banned because: A) The ORCs were not doing their jobs and reviewing the claims BEFORE making a reimbursement; B)They expect the player to be aware of the unwritten rule that if the outcome of your match is not affected by the bug, it is an invalid claim.
I disagree with this whole mindset. I am paying for an enjoyable few hours of entertainment (If I went to a movie and the projector broke, I would expect a refund too). IF there is a problem, I report it; it is their prerogative whether to reimburse (a valid claim) or not. It should not be the player who decides (as the current system operates) if it is a valid claim.
To top this while affair: After my ban, I played a few drafts to use up the remaining packs that I had. In one such, the client crashed, but the (now) wiser me did not submit for reimbursement since the outcome was not affected. After the event was over, I noticed that only the R3 replays were saved (R1 and R2 replays were there during the event when I checked; client crashed during sideboarding after R3G1), so I hit the "Report a Bug" button in the client and filled out a proper bug submission (I've been doing Beta since Alara) detailing the steps leading to the error (ie draft, crash, event ends, replays missing). I even stated that I won the round that the client crashed in. Lo and behold, I was reimbursed entry fee even though I made no request for that. Panicked, I call WotC Customer Service to talk the the account specialist (I definitely did not want a permanent ban) - don't bother, can't get hold of them that way, but they did pass on a message to him to read my latest submission, which he did and no penalty to me this time. He suggested that in future, if I had a bug submission that did not need reimbursement for, to use the "Other" category in the contact us page, rather than the combined reimbursement/bug submission category.
Thanks. That was the only thing I could think of. I haven't actually faced a Vintage Dredge deck yet, my only experience is against Legacy dredge decks which aren't as fast.
While I disagree with a startling number of your assessments, people came here to read your opinions, not mine. Regardless, you clearly put a lot of effort into the article.
I did stop by, however, to say that Anafenza can indeed Bolster Manifests, as they aren't tokens and they are creatures.
Dredge has more troubles handling enchantments than artifacts because they maindeck or sideboard 4x Ingot Chewers primarily to handle Graffdiggers Cage and have much less enchant removal. When playing versus Dredge you have one goal - clear their library - if you do that you will win almost assuredly. Rest in Peace (RIP) is very effective in removing the graveyard and since it is an enchantment at 2 mana it is fast yet hard for them to kill, it also clears the existing library unlike many other dredge hate cards. So if you side out yawg will and bring in RIP you may take 1 or 2 turns more to win but versus dredge that is not an issue with RIP most games. That said because you are running black you could consider Leyline in RIP's place, you are taking a little more chance and unless it is in your hand to start it may be hard to cast but I think it is an okay substitute. I guess the question leads versus dredge with either RIP or Leyline what are you taking out? If you take out yawg will for Leyline then it is a wash anyhow.
Great cast! I shipped you guys an email regarding cohosting.
Thanks, man, and thanks for reading and commenting!
Has anyone figured out why rest in peace is playable in this deck? Can Dredge just not deal with it at all or something? I can imagine going off without Yawgmoth's will in this deck, but all my playing and goldfishing with storm decks show that going off with no will is difficult to the extreme.
welcome to the Vintage scene Joe! It is great to see the format attracting new players.
I'm glad to see you have a sweet Legacy deck now! Eternal formats are awesome. You've got a deck for life, basically. It feels good to have something powerful, fun, and enduring (meaning that it won't just tank in value because it doesn't rotate).
Nice job, keep it up!
Nice work! I'll see you in Vintage room sometime, so I can get my soul crushed :)
I completely agree about tiebreakers. Chess has it down as far as pairings go as well. Maybe we need to bring back player ratings for MTG but just not connect them to qualifications or byes?
Sorry to hear it. I have seen a number of authors who specialized in certain formats lose those formats to WOTC's lack of care. You certainly showed enough dedication and interest.
Yeah I feel the same way. Tie breakers are just total bs haha. So many magic tourneys come down to whoever you were luck enough to go up against in the early rounds.
Shorecrasher Elemental is great when you have 6 or more mana, flicker and unmorph at once.
Thanks for the pickup, that makes purge even worse.
Re: exemplars I was talking about a situation where you were trying to save it from removal and trying to think about cheap instants that you might randomly be happy to cast in that situation. In that scenario you DO want him to blink so a defiant strike or other targeted cantrip won't work.
Radiant Purge won't hit a planeswalker: Creature or enchantment only.
Exemplars doesn't blink unless you want it to (ie dodge removal).
I would agree with Alexis and Casper, but for a couple of things: the pairings are not random and the tie breaker system, IMO, is warped. One would think that the number one tiebreaker wold be overall Game Win %
There use to be a limited review that says the monetary value of cards. Even if you won't play Narset Transcendant every player who see it should pick it up. I am just saying there might be a really naive player that might put it to heart that Narset was only rated 3 in your review and forgot that it is a money card. Still good work I have some cards that i think should be rated higher but we will see how much your rating works when pre-release and release starts. Have another article that will tell how good your rating works on your side after PR and release.
And apparently I was missing context there. Somehow I was thinking of the 'OLD' Anafenza.
I acknowledge that Anafenza + Norin is a bit of a nonbo, as Norin will never have any use for a +1/+1 counter. My thinking was that you can at least pump your Soul Sisters and other 1 toughness guys. Also, if you have a Genesis Chamber out you can make your Myr tokens into 2/2s instead. Perhaps not the best home for Anafenza but just a thought.