Paul, good thing, then, that you can keep playing Hearthstone without paying a dime! Lol. Kidding aside, I still check here, hoping that MtGO will be fixed, but I haven't spent a dime on it since the change. The software is just horrible and the issues are just too numerous to continue to pay to play. I was their favorite kind of player, I stink at it but enjoy playing, so I spent a ton of money on the game. Unfortunately for them, I have been playing Hearthstone now (it's ok) and have been spending my hobby money now on bow hunting and outdoor activities (even bought a new rifle and bow with my MtGO money). Not sure I'm coming back at this point, the online interest is low.
Well, it wasn't stated explicitly, but there was no reason why a Vintage Tribal Wars format wouldn't use the Tribal Wars part of the DCI bans, even if some of those bans, as we know, are silly. But some are inherent in the format, like the ones you mention. :)
This has already happened: I purchased my deck based on the rules set out in last week's article, namely no banned list except the spooky hosers. Fortunately, Tsabo's decrees, Extinctions and Engineered Plagues are cheap, so no biggie. ;)
And now to stir things up again, lol. Please read this with the thought in mind that I am responding to your links and suppositions. And please pardon the ramble as I skip around a bit.
Cultural Marxism (and politics)...
OK I have read through the links and a wiki entry on "Cultural Marxism" and I'd still say that was a slur. As it says in the article on that subject, the extreme right have been using that term for many decades (before I was born) to try and discredit their political opposition. The same people who stood against civil rights, voting rights, rights to freedom from segregation and discrimination, these are the people slurring the "left". A little salt with that gum...
Personally I don't go as far left as some but I am probably further left than the majority of Democrats and that is one reason I became an Independent in the 90s. I felt that the Democratic party served an unconscionable master in Corporate America, the same as their counter parts in the GOP. Not voting isn't an option imho, unless you think that opting out is better than doing your civic duty. I do mine partially due to culture (I was raised that way) and partially due to conscience.
I am wary of those who use politically charged terms to argue their agendas because it seems like it is easy to just c/p stuff from the T-Party or Greenpeace or other blatantly manipulative sources to justify a position. I don't know that is what you meant but I think it is pretty obvious your passion allowed you to go places you shouldn't have gone. But it is alright.
Fairness in the media...
Your point about fairness is well taken. I don't engage in most modern "news" media because it is just a dog and pony show which I saw plenty of growing up. No need for indoctrination procedures, I've become immune to them. So CNN, CBS whatever can go to hell and I'll never know it because I don't turn on the TV. In fact I don't even have a TV anymore. (Threw our last one out a few years ago.)
I agree with the basic idea that ethics in journalism is an issue. I don't think it is a good enough excuse to engage in the kind of warfare seen here. On either side.
Calmness is important...
And I think the self-righteousness in those links you posted points to part of the problem. Indignation, ad hominum attacks, misinformation, and indiscriminate behaviors bordering (if not always crossing into) the criminal are all justified by being self-righteous and "injured". My advice to those who feel "injured": step back and take a breather. Then drink something soothing and try reading it again.
I read an article recently on "Taste Privilege" and it got me to thinking. Perhaps what is going on is that people who don't feel privileged at all (young, white male gamers for example) feel they are being told "Bad Dog!!" and having their noses rubbed in shit that isn't even theirs.
The facts vs the Opinions...
But the over the top misogyny did take place. It was not a lie and it continues to this day and targets people who had no stake in the issue prior to this. Talk about making people choose sides...
Anita and others...
Also despite her annoying presentation methods, Anita Sarkeesian has some interesting and important things to say on the subjects of feminism in gaming and women's role in games. And I think because the presentations are uncomfortable and she is challenging personality-wise (my first gut reaction was "stfu!" on an emotional level before my mind kicked into gear and clamped down on that response so I could actually process what she was saying), and bombastic, people feel attacked by her. So I can see why there were personal attacks on her despite the fact that she deserved 0 of them.
The crimes...
(The guy saying he was standing outside her apartment waiting to shoot her as she leaves should be in jail imho.) And this goes to what Pete was talking about. If someone attacks your point of view or your very cultural identity if your response is violent, unthinking and crude no one is going to credit you with any rights or points or even validity. In fact just the opposite, you get ostracized and put down as "that guy".
The points missed...
You (the male stereotyped gamer) might have interesting things to say such as "Guys are still the majority of gamers, we need/want scantily clad feminine objects as part of our fantasies because it gives us a safe way to channel feelings we aren't comfortable dealing with irl."
or "Hey it is art, leave it be! I like seeing this stuff." (with no further insights needed as to why.) And that has some validity. It might be detracted by some as infantile, and chauvinist but you aren't talking about hiring hookers here. There is some moral middle-ground. And a discussion can occur.
The victims...
Also, sure sure there is some misandry despite what some feminists may claim. (I am a feminist by upbringing but I am not blind.) But that may be a problem that is quite overblown when guys egos get involved. "How dare she not like me! I am smart, funny and attractive! She must hate men!" for example...(A common chauvinist claim in the mid 70s if you were wondering where I'd heard that.) Leaving out the idea that the subject may have taste issues, hygiene concerns, a current lover, be a lesbian even if she adores her 3 brothers, find you unattractive through no fault of your own, have no interest in love at all, been a victim of harassment, rape, death threats or known someone in that position that has made her wary of strangers, etc.
Back full circle...News flash...it ain't news!
And yes this goes quite far a field from the original complaint. "Gamer reviewers are unfair to some games because they have a bias" which I totally get. The thing about a review is it isn't news. It isn't journalism. There is no integrity inherent in writing one. It is merely one person's (hopefully) informed opinion. (Or maybe its just rubbish as is sometimes (often?) the case.)
And that reflects much of the problem with modern media today anyway. With a billion+ (? no idea what the real number is) blogs out there, who is to say what is "Truth" and what isn't? Not me. I go with my gut in cases where there isn't enough supporting evidence to decide otherwise. It is fat but it is usually dead on.
Is it real? Is it just?
As far as gamergate goes I still think the facts lean toward it being a hugely disproportionate response to something rather banal. Uninteresting even. I would not give a flying fig if someone unrelatedly told me about the "incident" that supposedly sparked the furor that created this mass of death threats to famous females.
Assuming there were no death threats, doxxing, hacking, misogyny. I'd be inclined to shrug and think "so what else is new? that's why I don't take 'pro-journalist' reviews/reports too seriously."
I even know a game reviewer for the much hated NY Times who is the last person to take himself seriously. (He writes very funny songs that he performs in the local NYC scene occasionally and is otherwise a fairly jocular personage.)
Wot I think...
My point being, the issue that supposedly is so important to gamer gaters still does not strike me as important enough to be enraged by. And then you add a clear cultural war on top and I am like "Calm down already. Be civil or be gone."
Why can't we all just get along?
What is so hard about being civil? Clearly you manage it and I manage it. Also the guy who coined the tag, Adam Baldwin? I expect this is the most fame he has gotten to date and I say that as a fan of the sometimes overly touted (but not overrated) show Firefly. Not saying there is any ulterior motive to his initial posts but it seems like he isn't exactly suffering from all this attention.
That said I wouldn't lay the blame for all this hissy fitting at his feet. Clearly both sides did reprehensible and possibly prosecutable things. I hope Law Enforcement takes an interest and follows up on the worst cases. In particularly harassment that ended up costing jobs.
Though I will say if you have a job sensitive enough that an internet interaction may cost you that job, maybe hiding behind a false identity online isn't the safest/sanest idea. But not to blame the victim they shouldn't have been fired.
In conclusion, thanks for giving me some more of the puzzle. Most of what I was getting, was just the aGG side of things and occasionally independent (and probably disinterested) reports. It is good to see what it is, authentic ggers are saying. Even if I disagree with their ideas, they deserve a forum. But perhaps GG isn't the way to get it done.
Having riled the worst elements in your midst, it may be time to divest yourself of them in order to more fully and earnestly engage in an adult conversation with those who oppose your ideas.
I am not disagreeing with your premise, though the facts don't entirely support it.
A friend who has spent thousands of dollars on MTGO has recently sold off her immense and pretty much complete foil collection in order to safely hedge her bets. She is a Gamer not a Gambler in that she does not playing in Tourney. Her big joy in the game is/was playing with powerful cards in a casual environment.
I myself have spent a bit of money on the game though not THIS year or last. In fact soon after the wide beta spotlights began I put more money into the game than I have ever done in the past. (I had an already decent collection from writing and careful trading + a few gifts here and there. But I felt like I was missing important elements so I put real money in when I had the opportunity. Heck I want WOTC to do well as much anyone.)
I know this is anecdotal but many many casual players I know walk the line between budget and expense sometimes putting in more money than the average drafter. Now a lot of those Gamers have pulled out and sold their collections. Leaving gamblers with less of an outlet for their draft leavings.
And I know that many casual gamers cross over into gambling eventually if they are encouraged to by a friendly collectable environment. Now would be a poor example of that.
Also welcome back Marcus, I hope this means you will be writing again soon. :D
As for Hearthstone, Blizzard will never get another dime from me after their D3/Battle.net login fiasco. Paying good money for a game should mean you get to actually play it. Not be shut out by a lousy DRM.
You're right, the game is heavily skewed towards gamblers over gamers.
The reason why WotC caters to gamblers in this way is simple. The underlying architecture of magic online can't support that many players without crashing.
Drafts and large tournaments bring in real revenue. Players that draft 5-10 times a week bring in real revenue. Casual players are just taking up limited server capacity without producing much profit. Sure, those casual players may occasionally enter a draft or spend a little money on the game, but WotC doesn't have the resources to do much to support casual gamers. If they did more to support casual players, they would attract more casual players, which would crash the game, which would drive away the profitable players.
Hearthstone on the other hand has the server capacity to support casual gamers that aren't spending much money. That would probably explain why Hearthstone can attract many more players with a game that is about the complexity equivalent of one Magic set.
They don't refund those. Once I lost a match that I was winning the following turn to something like that and I reported it. They said the usual thing about reports that they will look into it but they can't tell you if they're gonna act or not (and if they do what was the punishment). I replied that that was fine but I wanted to be refunded because I lost prizes thanks to those actions and they said they couldn't refund for things caused by other players.
However I somewhat disagree with the dredge part. Do I want to play against dredge every other round? Certainly not. But once in a while it's fine. I do have 6 slots against it and I have won more than I have lost. Dredge is also a way cheaper Vintage deck for people who wanna try it out while not spending too much money.
I know Dredge is very powerful but it's easily hateble and once you start banning/restricting stuff, that opens up a lot more bans/restrictions.
I think Shops is similar to dredge but instead of killing you in a way no other deck does, it makes you not play any spells and kills with some creatures. They are pretty different but both try to make you not play magic. And shops should be part of the meta as well. Those decks keep the format from being a bunch of blue decks (which I also like but not if every single deck is a blue deck).
From what I've played on mtgo, neither shops or dredge have showed up too much.
I was playing against a guy last night, won the game and he messaged me afterwards basically saying 'gg' and 'i was going to say neat deck and good match but you left without saying anything'
I replied back basically saying sorry and that people just don't talk in the game anymore since v4 so i don't pay attention to it anymore.
I used to talk all the time in v3... but I don't do it anymore in v4. The removal of the right-click quick text really destroyed it. V4 looks horrible with the chat window up, and I've gone to the end of matches and only notice then that someone said hello at the start.
I also used to just hang out in the just-for-fun area and chat with other players until the orcs would squash our fun. I don't even think I know where to look for common chat room if it still exists.
I guess I'm getting what I want out of the game, and that's quick games of magic in my undies, but I watch videos of paper players talking to one another during games, and in between and wonder why there is no option for voice chat if both parties want to?
V4 has definitely taken away the social part of the game for me, and now that I'm talking about it, I kinda miss it.
i made an account to write this comment. i read this website daily, and maybe i'm bad at reading comments but i have never seen anything this critical of anyone else. this surprised me, because i have been thinking, at least lately, that the perfect game series was the only reason i've been checking this at all lately (other than the hopes of catching the insights of the always informative alex ullman). the articles on magic theory are among the best on the site, and his videos, while brief, are so detailed and informative. they're high quality, his voice and speech are clear, and he goes over a replay to better pace it and reduce dead time, instead of recording a live stream that is often prone to errors or long pauses of thought without explanation.
i guess i understand the "wall of text" criticism, as well as that of brevity (at least in this particular instance). but this is among the more informative text on the site, so maybe we could forgive a lack of artificial embellishment. i'd personally much rather read something clean and organized than the colorful nonsense that slug oozes out every week about tribal.
this is a rather detailed analysis of one of the more important matchups in standard right now. this is immediately applicable to a lot of players on a practical level, and helps inform us all of mana dynamics when you have a lot of play-tapped lands and aggressive early threats. it could, and i would like it to be, longer, and seeing the whole event would be ideal. but again this kind of theoretical detail is awesome in videos like this. i'd love to see more of it.
and i would always rather continue to see excellent content than mediocre content propped by fluffy writing and extreme use of graphics. that's not to say excellent content can't be pretty as well, but rather that this criticism is hilarious given the massively casual nature of the site. here's one dood trying to put out real theory and not 45 previews of the KTK commons for a format relatively few people play. let him play, coach, let him play.
I would disagree that it is the Blue Mana Drain decks that keep people away from Vintage. True control (boring draw-go with a ton of counters) does not really exist as a thing in Vintage because Combo-Control is so much more broken. Most of the control lists only run 6 nonconditional hard counters (4x FoW and 2x Drain) and a smattering of other permission (5 or 6 copies of Misstep/Flusterstorm/ReB). In my opinion those are the decks that draw people to Vintage rather than scare them off (because those big blue lists are really the only decks that take full advantage of 8 pieces of power and a good chunk of the restricted list now that Storm is no longer a major player).
I would much rather point toward Dredge as the unfun culprit there, as even Vintage enthusiasts loathe playing the matchup (it is basically a glorified coin flip regardless of skill level) and having to spend 1/2 your SB to have any chance against a deck that makes up less than 10% of the field has ripple consequences for the rest of the meta as well. If you removed dredge (would anybody miss it?) it would weaken shops and combo by opening up SB slots with which to fight those decks.
I think you mean to say that redemption of ISD, DKA, and AVR are being taken down next week. You haven't been able to buy packs of ISD block for about a year.
We didn't ban them last year (or the year before).
Besides, it's too late, I've been rightfully criticized in the past for doing last-minute rule changes, so I won't do it again.
I won my Chaos Orb through playing in one of their championships qualifiers. Part of the big reason behind five color's decline was Hahn's disorganization and lackluster follow-up. A buddy of mine, Mike Esau, also won a qualifier and was supposed to get a Chaos Orb for it, and to this day doesn't have it. Never got my Mox Crystal (remember those? still not sure they didn't violate copyright somehow).
You didn't need all the fetches and duals to be 5-competitive. You didn't even need power. What you absolutely needed were 4 Contract from Below and cheap tutors to get and rebuy your contracts like Demonic Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Deja Vu, Regrowth, Personal Tutor, and towards the end of the format the transmute cards in the first Ravnica block. My five color deck had no big money in it (remember.. an ante format!) and still got there on the back of maximizing Contract From Below with beatdown. Did have 4 Sensei's Tops (back then they were a $2 uncommon) and a full set of Mirage fetch lands though. Forget Derelor and Nettletooth... Blastoderm was my big guy, and he was backed by Hull Breaches and Thran Foundries to stop combo. It worked surprisingly well. 1st turn sol ring, 2nd turn fires of yavimaya, 3rd turn Blastoderm once won me a money card (wasn't power, but was worth like ~$55) and I still remember that triumphant feeling (but not the name of the card, because it was traded back to its owner. Keeping ante with no recourse was looked at as a jerk move).
While Pete doesn't mention it, the OTHER big barrier to five-color was people were scared to risk their power in ante, and the general (incorrect) impression was you had to play power to win. I stopped playing the format due to organizational issues, though power-based deck domination may have become the case as more and more tutors and fetch lands were printed, reducing variance and raising combo percentages. I met some of the guys on the five-color banning council, and they had pet cards which they protected from bans or adamantly kept banned (yeah, those cards were in their decks or beat those decks). Like you could use Gifts Ungiven x4 for a ridiculously long time and I'd be willing to bet Holistic Wisdom is still on the banned list today.
Yep consider that nail hammered. Pete, I played with Kurt and some Colorado players (Mary Frane and her friends) in this crazy pre Planechase style chaos pick up game at PTNY 2001. He seemed pretty nice. And it was a fun time which tragically was overshadowed a few days later by 911.
I remember looking up 5 color rules after and thinking...what a mess! I'd perused Brian Kibler's 5c deck and then a few other people's decks at the PT but I couldn't really grasp it. I don't think 5c had any sort of focus at that point. I do remember some decks were fully sleeved. So was that a rule or merely a custom?
Of course this is ancient history now and I guess Prismatic on MTGO is the surviving heir to that variant. Niche formats come and go all the time though. Vintage should NOT be a niche format by anyone's definition. I mean why bother bringing it to Online at all if you are going to pull the plug a mere half a year later? That isn't sensible, imho. Which leads to the point you made that I most want to address and did so a little in response to Enderfall's commentary.
Chat is vital to the health of the Online game. I don't agree with you that MTGO is comprised mostly of Gamblers. I think many players are waiting in the wings for things like Leagues (an inherently social idea imho) and for stuff like TWL to be fixed (yet again...) and for chat to become useful again and clans to become a not joke (I think Beta was the last time being in a clan meant anything to me and I am currently clanless for about a year or 2 now.)
Thanks for once again putting your opinion out there for us to read, dissect and learn from.
Oh and for the record I am probably 99% Gamer/1% Gambler from your definition of player types so I may be the odd man out here. I stopped drafting after ALA block and never really felt the urge since then. I hate burning tix. :)
CF: my last article's main point. Chat sucks and needs to be improved. Will it happen? No idea but based on past performance, not soon. Because the v4 shell was stripped down, we lost much of the limited functionality we had in v3 and then because someone nitwit decided that the only possible future has every household with multiple screens, chat was degraded to pretty much nil. This needs fixing or as I said WOTC may face a crisis of confidence that goes beyond whether the client is comfortable to use, playable, good at some things, etc. There will always be detractors anyway but the lack of chat = no community.
Thanks Alex and Xavier, I did mention Brimaz I used to him have main but he may be making his way back in due the amount of burn and UR delver I am expecting. Council's Judgement is more so a concession to True-name but he may be losing popularity. Also Kor Firewalker maybe me getting a spot in my board. Once again thank you both for your input. I only wish I could test the deck out on MTGO but alas I only have it built in paper :)
Some time ago Pete Jahn wrote that WotC had said the following (not exact quote);
It is unacceptable (and reportable) that a player pointlessly activates a 0:ability
multiple times in order to try lessen opponents' clock (possibly timing out
and loosing the match).
This jerk-move is especially effectful against newer players that not yet have
learnt to use F2/4/6/etc.
So the question is; will these players that face such jerks get reimbursed ?
And should the mtgo team dig up old reports of such behaviour and reimburse them
even if the reimbursement requests are several years old ?
My personal experience (once as a new player) is that these reimbursement requests
did not get approved by wotc (simply received a blanco reply that suggested I look
at my internet connections/isp).
Edit; oh yes, there were some matches/drafts that I would have won with just 10-30 seconds extra time on the clock facing such jerks. I remember one of them doing it for many turns towards the end of match.
I have to admit, adding "chat" to events is not fixing the inherent broken nature of communication on the client as a whole. If there is something as unfunctional and useless as chat is on the client, I have yet to find it, which is saying something.
Currently, there is no benefit to being in a clan. What does it even offer?
Also, communicating with friends on MTGO is more difficult than dialing into AOL and using IM back in 1999. Seriously, chat is completely useless on MTGO. Why can't we do basic things like ship someone a decklist that we are working on (decks are saved server side afterall...)? Why can't we have the option to voice chat? There are some many things that WotC could be doing to fix how we communicate with each other on MTGO, but it's being ignored, completely.
People complain that MTGO looks dated or lacks UI functionality that has been around for 10 years or so, yet from a communication standpoint, MTGO is worse than rotary telephones.
Paul, good thing, then, that you can keep playing Hearthstone without paying a dime! Lol. Kidding aside, I still check here, hoping that MtGO will be fixed, but I haven't spent a dime on it since the change. The software is just horrible and the issues are just too numerous to continue to pay to play. I was their favorite kind of player, I stink at it but enjoy playing, so I spent a ton of money on the game. Unfortunately for them, I have been playing Hearthstone now (it's ok) and have been spending my hobby money now on bow hunting and outdoor activities (even bought a new rifle and bow with my MtGO money). Not sure I'm coming back at this point, the online interest is low.
Well, it wasn't stated explicitly, but there was no reason why a Vintage Tribal Wars format wouldn't use the Tribal Wars part of the DCI bans, even if some of those bans, as we know, are silly. But some are inherent in the format, like the ones you mention. :)
This has already happened: I purchased my deck based on the rules set out in last week's article, namely no banned list except the spooky hosers. Fortunately, Tsabo's decrees, Extinctions and Engineered Plagues are cheap, so no biggie. ;)
And now to stir things up again, lol. Please read this with the thought in mind that I am responding to your links and suppositions. And please pardon the ramble as I skip around a bit.
Cultural Marxism (and politics)...
OK I have read through the links and a wiki entry on "Cultural Marxism" and I'd still say that was a slur. As it says in the article on that subject, the extreme right have been using that term for many decades (before I was born) to try and discredit their political opposition. The same people who stood against civil rights, voting rights, rights to freedom from segregation and discrimination, these are the people slurring the "left". A little salt with that gum...
Personally I don't go as far left as some but I am probably further left than the majority of Democrats and that is one reason I became an Independent in the 90s. I felt that the Democratic party served an unconscionable master in Corporate America, the same as their counter parts in the GOP. Not voting isn't an option imho, unless you think that opting out is better than doing your civic duty. I do mine partially due to culture (I was raised that way) and partially due to conscience.
I am wary of those who use politically charged terms to argue their agendas because it seems like it is easy to just c/p stuff from the T-Party or Greenpeace or other blatantly manipulative sources to justify a position. I don't know that is what you meant but I think it is pretty obvious your passion allowed you to go places you shouldn't have gone. But it is alright.
Fairness in the media...
Your point about fairness is well taken. I don't engage in most modern "news" media because it is just a dog and pony show which I saw plenty of growing up. No need for indoctrination procedures, I've become immune to them. So CNN, CBS whatever can go to hell and I'll never know it because I don't turn on the TV. In fact I don't even have a TV anymore. (Threw our last one out a few years ago.)
I agree with the basic idea that ethics in journalism is an issue. I don't think it is a good enough excuse to engage in the kind of warfare seen here. On either side.
Calmness is important...
And I think the self-righteousness in those links you posted points to part of the problem. Indignation, ad hominum attacks, misinformation, and indiscriminate behaviors bordering (if not always crossing into) the criminal are all justified by being self-righteous and "injured". My advice to those who feel "injured": step back and take a breather. Then drink something soothing and try reading it again.
I read an article recently on "Taste Privilege" and it got me to thinking. Perhaps what is going on is that people who don't feel privileged at all (young, white male gamers for example) feel they are being told "Bad Dog!!" and having their noses rubbed in shit that isn't even theirs.
The facts vs the Opinions...
But the over the top misogyny did take place. It was not a lie and it continues to this day and targets people who had no stake in the issue prior to this. Talk about making people choose sides...
Anita and others...
Also despite her annoying presentation methods, Anita Sarkeesian has some interesting and important things to say on the subjects of feminism in gaming and women's role in games. And I think because the presentations are uncomfortable and she is challenging personality-wise (my first gut reaction was "stfu!" on an emotional level before my mind kicked into gear and clamped down on that response so I could actually process what she was saying), and bombastic, people feel attacked by her. So I can see why there were personal attacks on her despite the fact that she deserved 0 of them.
The crimes...
(The guy saying he was standing outside her apartment waiting to shoot her as she leaves should be in jail imho.) And this goes to what Pete was talking about. If someone attacks your point of view or your very cultural identity if your response is violent, unthinking and crude no one is going to credit you with any rights or points or even validity. In fact just the opposite, you get ostracized and put down as "that guy".
The points missed...
You (the male stereotyped gamer) might have interesting things to say such as "Guys are still the majority of gamers, we need/want scantily clad feminine objects as part of our fantasies because it gives us a safe way to channel feelings we aren't comfortable dealing with irl."
or "Hey it is art, leave it be! I like seeing this stuff." (with no further insights needed as to why.) And that has some validity. It might be detracted by some as infantile, and chauvinist but you aren't talking about hiring hookers here. There is some moral middle-ground. And a discussion can occur.
The victims...
Also, sure sure there is some misandry despite what some feminists may claim. (I am a feminist by upbringing but I am not blind.) But that may be a problem that is quite overblown when guys egos get involved. "How dare she not like me! I am smart, funny and attractive! She must hate men!" for example...(A common chauvinist claim in the mid 70s if you were wondering where I'd heard that.) Leaving out the idea that the subject may have taste issues, hygiene concerns, a current lover, be a lesbian even if she adores her 3 brothers, find you unattractive through no fault of your own, have no interest in love at all, been a victim of harassment, rape, death threats or known someone in that position that has made her wary of strangers, etc.
Back full circle...News flash...it ain't news!
And yes this goes quite far a field from the original complaint. "Gamer reviewers are unfair to some games because they have a bias" which I totally get. The thing about a review is it isn't news. It isn't journalism. There is no integrity inherent in writing one. It is merely one person's (hopefully) informed opinion. (Or maybe its just rubbish as is sometimes (often?) the case.)
And that reflects much of the problem with modern media today anyway. With a billion+ (? no idea what the real number is) blogs out there, who is to say what is "Truth" and what isn't? Not me. I go with my gut in cases where there isn't enough supporting evidence to decide otherwise. It is fat but it is usually dead on.
Is it real? Is it just?
As far as gamergate goes I still think the facts lean toward it being a hugely disproportionate response to something rather banal. Uninteresting even. I would not give a flying fig if someone unrelatedly told me about the "incident" that supposedly sparked the furor that created this mass of death threats to famous females.
Assuming there were no death threats, doxxing, hacking, misogyny. I'd be inclined to shrug and think "so what else is new? that's why I don't take 'pro-journalist' reviews/reports too seriously."
I even know a game reviewer for the much hated NY Times who is the last person to take himself seriously. (He writes very funny songs that he performs in the local NYC scene occasionally and is otherwise a fairly jocular personage.)
Wot I think...
My point being, the issue that supposedly is so important to gamer gaters still does not strike me as important enough to be enraged by. And then you add a clear cultural war on top and I am like "Calm down already. Be civil or be gone."
Why can't we all just get along?
What is so hard about being civil? Clearly you manage it and I manage it. Also the guy who coined the tag, Adam Baldwin? I expect this is the most fame he has gotten to date and I say that as a fan of the sometimes overly touted (but not overrated) show Firefly. Not saying there is any ulterior motive to his initial posts but it seems like he isn't exactly suffering from all this attention.
That said I wouldn't lay the blame for all this hissy fitting at his feet. Clearly both sides did reprehensible and possibly prosecutable things. I hope Law Enforcement takes an interest and follows up on the worst cases. In particularly harassment that ended up costing jobs.
Though I will say if you have a job sensitive enough that an internet interaction may cost you that job, maybe hiding behind a false identity online isn't the safest/sanest idea. But not to blame the victim they shouldn't have been fired.
In conclusion, thanks for giving me some more of the puzzle. Most of what I was getting, was just the aGG side of things and occasionally independent (and probably disinterested) reports. It is good to see what it is, authentic ggers are saying. Even if I disagree with their ideas, they deserve a forum. But perhaps GG isn't the way to get it done.
Having riled the worst elements in your midst, it may be time to divest yourself of them in order to more fully and earnestly engage in an adult conversation with those who oppose your ideas.
I am not disagreeing with your premise, though the facts don't entirely support it.
A friend who has spent thousands of dollars on MTGO has recently sold off her immense and pretty much complete foil collection in order to safely hedge her bets. She is a Gamer not a Gambler in that she does not playing in Tourney. Her big joy in the game is/was playing with powerful cards in a casual environment.
I myself have spent a bit of money on the game though not THIS year or last. In fact soon after the wide beta spotlights began I put more money into the game than I have ever done in the past. (I had an already decent collection from writing and careful trading + a few gifts here and there. But I felt like I was missing important elements so I put real money in when I had the opportunity. Heck I want WOTC to do well as much anyone.)
I know this is anecdotal but many many casual players I know walk the line between budget and expense sometimes putting in more money than the average drafter. Now a lot of those Gamers have pulled out and sold their collections. Leaving gamblers with less of an outlet for their draft leavings.
And I know that many casual gamers cross over into gambling eventually if they are encouraged to by a friendly collectable environment. Now would be a poor example of that.
Also welcome back Marcus, I hope this means you will be writing again soon. :D
As for Hearthstone, Blizzard will never get another dime from me after their D3/Battle.net login fiasco. Paying good money for a game should mean you get to actually play it. Not be shut out by a lousy DRM.
I can not agree with you more.
You're right, the game is heavily skewed towards gamblers over gamers.
The reason why WotC caters to gamblers in this way is simple. The underlying architecture of magic online can't support that many players without crashing.
Drafts and large tournaments bring in real revenue. Players that draft 5-10 times a week bring in real revenue. Casual players are just taking up limited server capacity without producing much profit. Sure, those casual players may occasionally enter a draft or spend a little money on the game, but WotC doesn't have the resources to do much to support casual gamers. If they did more to support casual players, they would attract more casual players, which would crash the game, which would drive away the profitable players.
Hearthstone on the other hand has the server capacity to support casual gamers that aren't spending much money. That would probably explain why Hearthstone can attract many more players with a game that is about the complexity equivalent of one Magic set.
They don't refund those. Once I lost a match that I was winning the following turn to something like that and I reported it. They said the usual thing about reports that they will look into it but they can't tell you if they're gonna act or not (and if they do what was the punishment). I replied that that was fine but I wanted to be refunded because I lost prizes thanks to those actions and they said they couldn't refund for things caused by other players.
I agree with you on the blue mana drain decks.
However I somewhat disagree with the dredge part. Do I want to play against dredge every other round? Certainly not. But once in a while it's fine. I do have 6 slots against it and I have won more than I have lost. Dredge is also a way cheaper Vintage deck for people who wanna try it out while not spending too much money.
I know Dredge is very powerful but it's easily hateble and once you start banning/restricting stuff, that opens up a lot more bans/restrictions.
I think Shops is similar to dredge but instead of killing you in a way no other deck does, it makes you not play any spells and kills with some creatures. They are pretty different but both try to make you not play magic. And shops should be part of the meta as well. Those decks keep the format from being a bunch of blue decks (which I also like but not if every single deck is a blue deck).
From what I've played on mtgo, neither shops or dredge have showed up too much.
I apologize for my harsh tone, I get fairly passionate about the topics I care deeply for. In hindsight I should have just supplied the links lol
I was playing against a guy last night, won the game and he messaged me afterwards basically saying 'gg' and 'i was going to say neat deck and good match but you left without saying anything'
I replied back basically saying sorry and that people just don't talk in the game anymore since v4 so i don't pay attention to it anymore.
I used to talk all the time in v3... but I don't do it anymore in v4. The removal of the right-click quick text really destroyed it. V4 looks horrible with the chat window up, and I've gone to the end of matches and only notice then that someone said hello at the start.
I also used to just hang out in the just-for-fun area and chat with other players until the orcs would squash our fun. I don't even think I know where to look for common chat room if it still exists.
I guess I'm getting what I want out of the game, and that's quick games of magic in my undies, but I watch videos of paper players talking to one another during games, and in between and wonder why there is no option for voice chat if both parties want to?
V4 has definitely taken away the social part of the game for me, and now that I'm talking about it, I kinda miss it.
i made an account to write this comment. i read this website daily, and maybe i'm bad at reading comments but i have never seen anything this critical of anyone else. this surprised me, because i have been thinking, at least lately, that the perfect game series was the only reason i've been checking this at all lately (other than the hopes of catching the insights of the always informative alex ullman). the articles on magic theory are among the best on the site, and his videos, while brief, are so detailed and informative. they're high quality, his voice and speech are clear, and he goes over a replay to better pace it and reduce dead time, instead of recording a live stream that is often prone to errors or long pauses of thought without explanation.
i guess i understand the "wall of text" criticism, as well as that of brevity (at least in this particular instance). but this is among the more informative text on the site, so maybe we could forgive a lack of artificial embellishment. i'd personally much rather read something clean and organized than the colorful nonsense that slug oozes out every week about tribal.
this is a rather detailed analysis of one of the more important matchups in standard right now. this is immediately applicable to a lot of players on a practical level, and helps inform us all of mana dynamics when you have a lot of play-tapped lands and aggressive early threats. it could, and i would like it to be, longer, and seeing the whole event would be ideal. but again this kind of theoretical detail is awesome in videos like this. i'd love to see more of it.
and i would always rather continue to see excellent content than mediocre content propped by fluffy writing and extreme use of graphics. that's not to say excellent content can't be pretty as well, but rather that this criticism is hilarious given the massively casual nature of the site. here's one dood trying to put out real theory and not 45 previews of the KTK commons for a format relatively few people play. let him play, coach, let him play.
I would disagree that it is the Blue Mana Drain decks that keep people away from Vintage. True control (boring draw-go with a ton of counters) does not really exist as a thing in Vintage because Combo-Control is so much more broken. Most of the control lists only run 6 nonconditional hard counters (4x FoW and 2x Drain) and a smattering of other permission (5 or 6 copies of Misstep/Flusterstorm/ReB). In my opinion those are the decks that draw people to Vintage rather than scare them off (because those big blue lists are really the only decks that take full advantage of 8 pieces of power and a good chunk of the restricted list now that Storm is no longer a major player).
I would much rather point toward Dredge as the unfun culprit there, as even Vintage enthusiasts loathe playing the matchup (it is basically a glorified coin flip regardless of skill level) and having to spend 1/2 your SB to have any chance against a deck that makes up less than 10% of the field has ripple consequences for the rest of the meta as well. If you removed dredge (would anybody miss it?) it would weaken shops and combo by opening up SB slots with which to fight those decks.
I think you mean to say that redemption of ISD, DKA, and AVR are being taken down next week. You haven't been able to buy packs of ISD block for about a year.
We didn't ban them last year (or the year before).
Besides, it's too late, I've been rightfully criticized in the past for doing last-minute rule changes, so I won't do it again.
How about the Swords? Light and Shadow or Feast and Famine would be perfect for hosing the spooky.
I won my Chaos Orb through playing in one of their championships qualifiers. Part of the big reason behind five color's decline was Hahn's disorganization and lackluster follow-up. A buddy of mine, Mike Esau, also won a qualifier and was supposed to get a Chaos Orb for it, and to this day doesn't have it. Never got my Mox Crystal (remember those? still not sure they didn't violate copyright somehow).
You didn't need all the fetches and duals to be 5-competitive. You didn't even need power. What you absolutely needed were 4 Contract from Below and cheap tutors to get and rebuy your contracts like Demonic Tutor, Mystical Tutor, Deja Vu, Regrowth, Personal Tutor, and towards the end of the format the transmute cards in the first Ravnica block. My five color deck had no big money in it (remember.. an ante format!) and still got there on the back of maximizing Contract From Below with beatdown. Did have 4 Sensei's Tops (back then they were a $2 uncommon) and a full set of Mirage fetch lands though. Forget Derelor and Nettletooth... Blastoderm was my big guy, and he was backed by Hull Breaches and Thran Foundries to stop combo. It worked surprisingly well. 1st turn sol ring, 2nd turn fires of yavimaya, 3rd turn Blastoderm once won me a money card (wasn't power, but was worth like ~$55) and I still remember that triumphant feeling (but not the name of the card, because it was traded back to its owner. Keeping ante with no recourse was looked at as a jerk move).
While Pete doesn't mention it, the OTHER big barrier to five-color was people were scared to risk their power in ante, and the general (incorrect) impression was you had to play power to win. I stopped playing the format due to organizational issues, though power-based deck domination may have become the case as more and more tutors and fetch lands were printed, reducing variance and raising combo percentages. I met some of the guys on the five-color banning council, and they had pet cards which they protected from bans or adamantly kept banned (yeah, those cards were in their decks or beat those decks). Like you could use Gifts Ungiven x4 for a ridiculously long time and I'd be willing to bet Holistic Wisdom is still on the banned list today.
Yep consider that nail hammered. Pete, I played with Kurt and some Colorado players (Mary Frane and her friends) in this crazy pre Planechase style chaos pick up game at PTNY 2001. He seemed pretty nice. And it was a fun time which tragically was overshadowed a few days later by 911.
I remember looking up 5 color rules after and thinking...what a mess! I'd perused Brian Kibler's 5c deck and then a few other people's decks at the PT but I couldn't really grasp it. I don't think 5c had any sort of focus at that point. I do remember some decks were fully sleeved. So was that a rule or merely a custom?
Of course this is ancient history now and I guess Prismatic on MTGO is the surviving heir to that variant. Niche formats come and go all the time though. Vintage should NOT be a niche format by anyone's definition. I mean why bother bringing it to Online at all if you are going to pull the plug a mere half a year later? That isn't sensible, imho. Which leads to the point you made that I most want to address and did so a little in response to Enderfall's commentary.
Chat is vital to the health of the Online game. I don't agree with you that MTGO is comprised mostly of Gamblers. I think many players are waiting in the wings for things like Leagues (an inherently social idea imho) and for stuff like TWL to be fixed (yet again...) and for chat to become useful again and clans to become a not joke (I think Beta was the last time being in a clan meant anything to me and I am currently clanless for about a year or 2 now.)
Thanks for once again putting your opinion out there for us to read, dissect and learn from.
Oh and for the record I am probably 99% Gamer/1% Gambler from your definition of player types so I may be the odd man out here. I stopped drafting after ALA block and never really felt the urge since then. I hate burning tix. :)
CF: my last article's main point. Chat sucks and needs to be improved. Will it happen? No idea but based on past performance, not soon. Because the v4 shell was stripped down, we lost much of the limited functionality we had in v3 and then because someone nitwit decided that the only possible future has every household with multiple screens, chat was degraded to pretty much nil. This needs fixing or as I said WOTC may face a crisis of confidence that goes beyond whether the client is comfortable to use, playable, good at some things, etc. There will always be detractors anyway but the lack of chat = no community.
Thanks Alex and Xavier, I did mention Brimaz I used to him have main but he may be making his way back in due the amount of burn and UR delver I am expecting. Council's Judgement is more so a concession to True-name but he may be losing popularity. Also Kor Firewalker maybe me getting a spot in my board. Once again thank you both for your input. I only wish I could test the deck out on MTGO but alas I only have it built in paper :)
Some time ago Pete Jahn wrote that WotC had said the following (not exact quote);
It is unacceptable (and reportable) that a player pointlessly activates a 0:ability
multiple times in order to try lessen opponents' clock (possibly timing out
and loosing the match).
This jerk-move is especially effectful against newer players that not yet have
learnt to use F2/4/6/etc.
So the question is; will these players that face such jerks get reimbursed ?
And should the mtgo team dig up old reports of such behaviour and reimburse them
even if the reimbursement requests are several years old ?
My personal experience (once as a new player) is that these reimbursement requests
did not get approved by wotc (simply received a blanco reply that suggested I look
at my internet connections/isp).
Edit; oh yes, there were some matches/drafts that I would have won with just 10-30 seconds extra time on the clock facing such jerks. I remember one of them doing it for many turns towards the end of match.
I have to admit, adding "chat" to events is not fixing the inherent broken nature of communication on the client as a whole. If there is something as unfunctional and useless as chat is on the client, I have yet to find it, which is saying something.
Currently, there is no benefit to being in a clan. What does it even offer?
Also, communicating with friends on MTGO is more difficult than dialing into AOL and using IM back in 1999. Seriously, chat is completely useless on MTGO. Why can't we do basic things like ship someone a decklist that we are working on (decks are saved server side afterall...)? Why can't we have the option to voice chat? There are some many things that WotC could be doing to fix how we communicate with each other on MTGO, but it's being ignored, completely.
People complain that MTGO looks dated or lacks UI functionality that has been around for 10 years or so, yet from a communication standpoint, MTGO is worse than rotary telephones.
Great job by romellos, I had the idea of infect elves before but was too lazy to put them together and already had a fine elf deck.
opinion section really hitting the nail today - tx, for your ongoing efforts!
I think Invigorate is Ok to be purified in the future. Any Infect themed decks can still operate without it.
Maybe this way, infect decks will be more fair without Invigorate, as it makes T2 or T3 kills quite common.