Everything fine and reasonable - however, despite all this well-thought reasoning I fear the game is slowly dying anyway. Why? Because it's written on the wall: parts of the community are gone, flagging formats are virtually dead or dying, the whole setup in all their tiny fractions render the playing experience much less fun than it's used to be (individual self-enforcing view from someone trying to get into a love affair with the client all day since its invention ), even mtgo positive souls like Pete is coerced by experience to write installments like the one you cited...
Do not get me wrong, I hope my fear is not justified, I appreciate your effort to get on the positive side of matters and hope that the client evolve into a gorgeous bird so that nobody wants to play with real people and paper cards due to all it's gloriousness (not serious with last aspect, of course)- on my side of the screen the joy of logging in decreases day by day and are only left alive due to VMA and the great limited environment.
Kind of like advertising and see who applies for a job ? If someone very qualified (or overqualified) comes along he will be hired making the company run with X+1 employed people.
Its kind of like a bunch of 5 year olds playing in the sand, and if a 7 year old they like comes along he can play with them.
Look, if you are comfortable with how your articles are presented then don't change a thing.
Personally, I dislike the spartan text and lack of visual style, but that may just be my taste. I don't think you need to "pad" an article (who does that??) or even talk about other topics. I do but that's my signature. I've been doing that since I started writing magic articles 16 years ago. And it seems to work for me. *shrugs* But as I said you don't need to do any of that.
On the other hand, it doesn't hurt to be a little artistic with your text or embellish a cold fact in order to make it more palatable. And it certainly does not hurt anything if you break up the text with images which is really easy to do on puremtgo.
[Surround a card name in () parentheses and you will get an autocard effect, add a pic= before the card name inside those parentheses and you get an image. Though the new sets take time to be ready for autocard which is why sometimes you will see something like (Sidisi, Brood Tyrant). Additionally you can add mana symbols with (mana=WRGUB)]
It would not kill the premise to add deck lists or card images. You put one article out that was just one long wall of text. Looked like it took maybe 30 minutes to type up and spell check.
That is one positive to take away. You do that. Some authors hand their text in without even a thought for the typos that are inevitable.
I've given you as much friendly advice as I think is warranted for now and initially only spoke up to soften the blow of the critics a little. People can be harsh here when they feel someone is just putting out bare minimum exertions. Or in some actual cases trash for credits.
Also I guarantee you that the community is not unanimous on this topic. Different folks/different strokes. Though maybe the vocal majority spoke in unison this time which is rare enough. As they say "when the horse speaks, do a double take. Then listen."
Uh, Adam, there's no loophole. EVERY copy effect can't be blocked by shroud/hexproof. It's part of the basic rule of those effects: None of them targets. "You may have Cardname enter the battlefield as a copy of" is the current template for what once was "As Cardname comes into play, you may choose cardtype in play. If you do, Cardname comes into play as a copy of that cardtype." It was always "choose", never "target". Privileged Position never blocked Clone or Copy Enchantment, on both sides.
This said, congratulations on the preview! It's definitely a good one.
"We must move forward. Being stuck in the past is just a huge waste of effort, time, and emotion."
Can we have this framed in the home page, in golden, fiery letters?
"Let those who want grey backgrounds or white backgrounds have them."
This is not just a legitimate request, it should be common commercial sense. There are socioeconomics principles behind this. In short, "Let the users choose their background = $$$"
I don't know that they're really that silent. There are acknowledgments on the forums once in a while. They certainly can't answer every single complaint, as there's about a thousand of them each day, and a good chunk of those are unreasonable or plain wrong, which is something we should fight just as much as the client's flaws, because they indirectly contribute to the client's flaws remaining unsolved.
WotC is the branch of a multi billion dollar corporation, after all. I don't frequent many corporate forums, but I can't imagine Toyota or Philips addressing any customer complaint online on a daily basis (maybe Apple does).
I think V4 is the best thing that happened to MTGO, precisely because it reopened the dialogue. It reopened the option to ask, and to see things fixed. We must face it, V3 was dead. Did I wish there was an invisible mode in V3? Sure I did. But I knew there was no point in asking, since V3 wasn't going to add anything more. Now everything is in play again. It's an opportunity we shouldn't waste.
1) Multiplayer will be discussed in the second part, along with 1v1 play. I've videos ready. In short, I honestly don't get where the complaints about multiplayer come, compared to V3. It's the same or better.
2) "If you play over a certain length of time you have to restart the client." Never happened to me (and I run tournaments so I stay logged in with multiple windows open for many hours in a row), so it can't be an absolute truth. It's of course something related to each user's hardware. Making the software work on lesser machines is a reasonable request, but it's a different request.
3) If you sort by Only My Buddies, it should in theory give you all the tables in that room with your buddies involved, including the ones already running. I didn't check if it gives you only those where both the players are buddies, though. Those filters need work for sure.
Your issue with the length is interesting. I don't feel that there is a problem with it; the articles are as long or as short as they need to be to present the content accurately and thoroughly. The reason my articles are concise is that I use my words efficiently and sparingly and that I usually focus on one specific theme or concept. I don't pad an article or add unnecessary words by tacking on peripheral topics or ideas.
What do you mean by "a lack of sophistication" in presenting the content?
Right!
My first thought was "Why have one Batterskull for five when you can have two for six!"
Also a nice way to counteract an opposing Batterskull on the cheap.
The last few I've seen. Part of the problem with them was the length of the content and part was a lack of sophistication in presenting it. And I would not bother to even comment about them at all but they are apropos to this conversation, because frankly they are water under the bridge.
There are some good things about a short article: In that they allow readers to get on with their day and find other things to do. But that's not really the goal here. It is certainly good to be brief if you have little to say. But I sense the opposite. Your articles hint at a need to tell us more. But then you don't seem to deliver. Well that's my opinion anyway.
I think you have massive room for improvement and potential to be a great draw to the site. I expect to see good things in the future.
It wasn't my intention to indirectly attack other authors, but rather to call attention to a logical inconsistency with the criticism. Still, I could definitely have chosen my phrasing more precisely to avoid that perception. My apologies to anyone who thought I was criticizing them.
You have valid points about the decklist. If I still had the list I would definitely have presented it.
As far as game 1, I agree with your reasoning. I don't remember why I thought it was a mistake, but I was likely incorrect.
With regards to game 2, you are correct that casting the Jet was definitely the correct play if they needed to find lands. If they had lands already, they should have held the Jet, as they clearly didn't have another 2-mana removal spell for my creature. With regards to playing a threat into untapped mana, I don't think it's ever correct in the Jeskai mirror unless you have the ability to cast another relevant spell in the same turn or you have no other option. So no, I definitely wouldn't have made the same play if the positions were reversed.
I have taken the criticism into consideration, and now that more people have commented and the community seems unanimous I will definitely keep my video articles longer than a single match in the future.
You say "articles" plural. Which other articles in particular caught your attention as being "rough, unpolished, and lackadaisical"?
Thanks for the input guys. Joe- I do play a lot of modern on MTGO though mostly Black White. Feel free to say hi anytime you see me online. Zach- Elbinac stated why the Crusader is good, though I will definitely do a tourney report after the GP. If you want to see the deck in action go to youtube and check out some D&T videos.
Yeah it also puts that junk in the JuFF field even if you never joined a draft queue. :) It's been happening since the "fix" update so I expect next fix they may sort it out.
Respectfully Casper, your articles have taken brevity to a new low. I know you have good intent and good ideas but you are delivering articles that feel from my perspective anyway: Rushed, unpolished and lackadaisical. I have refrained from saying anything because as I stated I think you mean well and I hoped for improvement and I don't dislike the bones of your articles for the most part. They just lack a bit of sophistication and meat. The meat missing is what the other guys are mostly objecting to I think.
I don't know that this deserves a * (or even a **) but take the criticism to heart and don't take it as "You suck! Get lost!" because that isn't what it means at all. It just means people have noticed and want you to improve your effort.
"In fact, I offer more in-depth explanation in this video than a lot of people on this site do in entire video series." I can understand defending yourself, but I don't see the need to build yourself up by indirectly attacking other authors.
Even if your decklist is "dated", having it is still useful. It might not see play, but being able to reference it during the video can be handy, especially if one is not intimately familiar with stock lists. Not to mention that everyone learns differently and some are better at interpreting information through one medium than another. That's not to say that you should change your style or anything like that, but rather to realize that here is some value in presenting it.
Regarding your actual video: In Game 1 you say that it might have been a mistake for your opponent to Stoke you rather than let the Goblin token hit you, but the only reason to keep Stoke in hand would be in case you drew a threat, but more than likely it A) has haste and B) opponent doesn't have the mana to stoke you if he attacks (Rabblemaster + 2 lands = 3 mana). In terms of being mana efficient, stoking you is the best play he can make at that spot. He has to end the game as quickly as possible otherwise you will have time to draw burn.
In Game 2 you say that your opponent might have made a mistake by casting Magma Jet during your end step on turn 2, but I don't really see why that is. If he/she needs to find lands, then that's the right play (regardless of whether or not the keep was correct). But if they have lands, you say that might be a mistake because you could play a threat and have it stick. My question is, if they have 3 untapped mana, would you even play a threat? It would seem like a loss of tempo if you play a threat, they kill it and untap and play their own. (You actually state this when they play Rabblemaster on turn 3). At that point, you'd have to use mana on your turn to kill it, and you'd be in the same spot he was in game 1. So why would you say it's a mistake when it feels like you would have done what he did (play a creature into open mana)?
Really excellent exposition of the client's gems and flaws. I can see this took you a lot of work to do and it is painstakingly detailed. Something I had been meaning to get to more thoroughly and yet here you have gone and done the work. So, thank you. And thanks for the shout out.
I truly think we must move forward. Being stuck in the past is just a huge waste of effort, time, and emotion. I do get riled and quickly when the client behaves badly but I have also learned to accept some of the problems as temporary and take a breath before frightening my gf with an utterance of frustration. It really is a divisive issue and people need to put some of this into perspective and stop randomly lashing out at those who disagree with them. (Ala #gamergate.)
And mostly I agree with your assessments. I think for v4 to be acceptable to most people it would need a few major changes and a lot of minor ones.
We could probably debate the exact details of what needs to be done but that is precisely why we need options. Screw "Options Bloat"! I hate when I hear explanations like that (which they supplied when initially criticized for not providing options) for why features are not implemented. As if one particular design guideline is suddenly a gospel for all time. Sure it is a good idea to trim parts of your code that do little and add much mess but this is not that. Clearly the design of V4 needs some rethinking.
Options would solve some of these issues. Let those who want undocked windows have them but not at the expense of the rest of the users. Make that an option. Also make sure the client respects the decision both ways. Let those who want grey backgrounds or white backgrounds have them. Let us choose the styles that we like.
Give us more ways to categorize our contacts as you brilliantly suggested with the Trading partners idea. (I can't believe I didn't think of that. :D) There are a lot of changes just from reading through your article that could be implemented with just a little thought and effort. The question is how do we motivate WOTC to do so? Their monolithic silence on such matters does not help make the situation more scrutable unfortunately.
It is entirely possible that plan will be much cooler than hanging out with Magic geeks in Music City.
I guarantee you would regret missing the opportunity to do Halloween with your son more than you would regret missing the Grand Prix.
Yours was batterskull, whereas mine was the equipment that the new white walker makes, +5/+5 double strike for 1 mana with no equipment cost
Everything fine and reasonable - however, despite all this well-thought reasoning I fear the game is slowly dying anyway. Why? Because it's written on the wall: parts of the community are gone, flagging formats are virtually dead or dying, the whole setup in all their tiny fractions render the playing experience much less fun than it's used to be (individual self-enforcing view from someone trying to get into a love affair with the client all day since its invention ), even mtgo positive souls like Pete is coerced by experience to write installments like the one you cited...
Do not get me wrong, I hope my fear is not justified, I appreciate your effort to get on the positive side of matters and hope that the client evolve into a gorgeous bird so that nobody wants to play with real people and paper cards due to all it's gloriousness (not serious with last aspect, of course)- on my side of the screen the joy of logging in decreases day by day and are only left alive due to VMA and the great limited environment.
Kind of like advertising and see who applies for a job ? If someone very qualified (or overqualified) comes along he will be hired making the company run with X+1 employed people.
Its kind of like a bunch of 5 year olds playing in the sand, and if a 7 year old they like comes along he can play with them.
Look, if you are comfortable with how your articles are presented then don't change a thing.
Personally, I dislike the spartan text and lack of visual style, but that may just be my taste. I don't think you need to "pad" an article (who does that??) or even talk about other topics. I do but that's my signature. I've been doing that since I started writing magic articles 16 years ago. And it seems to work for me. *shrugs* But as I said you don't need to do any of that.
On the other hand, it doesn't hurt to be a little artistic with your text or embellish a cold fact in order to make it more palatable. And it certainly does not hurt anything if you break up the text with images which is really easy to do on puremtgo.
[Surround a card name in () parentheses and you will get an autocard effect, add a pic= before the card name inside those parentheses and you get an image. Though the new sets take time to be ready for autocard which is why sometimes you will see something like (Sidisi, Brood Tyrant). Additionally you can add mana symbols with (mana=WRGUB)]
It would not kill the premise to add deck lists or card images. You put one article out that was just one long wall of text. Looked like it took maybe 30 minutes to type up and spell check.
That is one positive to take away. You do that. Some authors hand their text in without even a thought for the typos that are inevitable.
I've given you as much friendly advice as I think is warranted for now and initially only spoke up to soften the blow of the critics a little. People can be harsh here when they feel someone is just putting out bare minimum exertions. Or in some actual cases trash for credits.
Also I guarantee you that the community is not unanimous on this topic. Different folks/different strokes. Though maybe the vocal majority spoke in unison this time which is rare enough. As they say "when the horse speaks, do a double take. Then listen."
I wish you luck with your future efforts.
Uh, Adam, there's no loophole. EVERY copy effect can't be blocked by shroud/hexproof. It's part of the basic rule of those effects: None of them targets. "You may have Cardname enter the battlefield as a copy of" is the current template for what once was "As Cardname comes into play, you may choose cardtype in play. If you do, Cardname comes into play as a copy of that cardtype." It was always "choose", never "target". Privileged Position never blocked Clone or Copy Enchantment, on both sides.
This said, congratulations on the preview! It's definitely a good one.
"We must move forward. Being stuck in the past is just a huge waste of effort, time, and emotion."
Can we have this framed in the home page, in golden, fiery letters?
"Let those who want grey backgrounds or white backgrounds have them."
This is not just a legitimate request, it should be common commercial sense. There are socioeconomics principles behind this. In short, "Let the users choose their background = $$$"
I don't know that they're really that silent. There are acknowledgments on the forums once in a while. They certainly can't answer every single complaint, as there's about a thousand of them each day, and a good chunk of those are unreasonable or plain wrong, which is something we should fight just as much as the client's flaws, because they indirectly contribute to the client's flaws remaining unsolved.
WotC is the branch of a multi billion dollar corporation, after all. I don't frequent many corporate forums, but I can't imagine Toyota or Philips addressing any customer complaint online on a daily basis (maybe Apple does).
I think V4 is the best thing that happened to MTGO, precisely because it reopened the dialogue. It reopened the option to ask, and to see things fixed. We must face it, V3 was dead. Did I wish there was an invisible mode in V3? Sure I did. But I knew there was no point in asking, since V3 wasn't going to add anything more. Now everything is in play again. It's an opportunity we shouldn't waste.
1) Multiplayer will be discussed in the second part, along with 1v1 play. I've videos ready. In short, I honestly don't get where the complaints about multiplayer come, compared to V3. It's the same or better.
2) "If you play over a certain length of time you have to restart the client." Never happened to me (and I run tournaments so I stay logged in with multiple windows open for many hours in a row), so it can't be an absolute truth. It's of course something related to each user's hardware. Making the software work on lesser machines is a reasonable request, but it's a different request.
3) If you sort by Only My Buddies, it should in theory give you all the tables in that room with your buddies involved, including the ones already running. I didn't check if it gives you only those where both the players are buddies, though. Those filters need work for sure.
Your issue with the length is interesting. I don't feel that there is a problem with it; the articles are as long or as short as they need to be to present the content accurately and thoroughly. The reason my articles are concise is that I use my words efficiently and sparingly and that I usually focus on one specific theme or concept. I don't pad an article or add unnecessary words by tacking on peripheral topics or ideas.
What do you mean by "a lack of sophistication" in presenting the content?
Right!
My first thought was "Why have one Batterskull for five when you can have two for six!"
Also a nice way to counteract an opposing Batterskull on the cheap.
The last few I've seen. Part of the problem with them was the length of the content and part was a lack of sophistication in presenting it. And I would not bother to even comment about them at all but they are apropos to this conversation, because frankly they are water under the bridge.
There are some good things about a short article: In that they allow readers to get on with their day and find other things to do. But that's not really the goal here. It is certainly good to be brief if you have little to say. But I sense the opposite. Your articles hint at a need to tell us more. But then you don't seem to deliver. Well that's my opinion anyway.
I think you have massive room for improvement and potential to be a great draw to the site. I expect to see good things in the future.
Nice card and great review! :D While I am not all that gaga over most equipment I do like the possibilities a clone for them gives.
It wasn't my intention to indirectly attack other authors, but rather to call attention to a logical inconsistency with the criticism. Still, I could definitely have chosen my phrasing more precisely to avoid that perception. My apologies to anyone who thought I was criticizing them.
You have valid points about the decklist. If I still had the list I would definitely have presented it.
As far as game 1, I agree with your reasoning. I don't remember why I thought it was a mistake, but I was likely incorrect.
With regards to game 2, you are correct that casting the Jet was definitely the correct play if they needed to find lands. If they had lands already, they should have held the Jet, as they clearly didn't have another 2-mana removal spell for my creature. With regards to playing a threat into untapped mana, I don't think it's ever correct in the Jeskai mirror unless you have the ability to cast another relevant spell in the same turn or you have no other option. So no, I definitely wouldn't have made the same play if the positions were reversed.
I have taken the criticism into consideration, and now that more people have commented and the community seems unanimous I will definitely keep my video articles longer than a single match in the future.
You say "articles" plural. Which other articles in particular caught your attention as being "rough, unpolished, and lackadaisical"?
Most Notably GP Strasburg which Thomas won and GP DC where Wescoe got a top 8 with it.
Thanks for the input guys. Joe- I do play a lot of modern on MTGO though mostly Black White. Feel free to say hi anytime you see me online. Zach- Elbinac stated why the Crusader is good, though I will definitely do a tourney report after the GP. If you want to see the deck in action go to youtube and check out some D&T videos.
Double Strike a Jitte and/or Sword of Fire and Ice?
Innate protection from two colors SoFaI doesn't cover?
Chumps Tarmo forever?
*shrug*
The only thing that really "sells" it, in my opinion, is the Double Strike with equipment.
Yeah it also puts that junk in the JuFF field even if you never joined a draft queue. :) It's been happening since the "fix" update so I expect next fix they may sort it out.
I thought the same thing the last time I saw that, but they just have a big list of job postings that regularly gets reposted.
Hey man - good write up.
Would love to see some games or a tourney report with it. The only card I really need to be sold on is Mirran Crusader - he looks super mediocre!
Zach
A Comment to give a more accurate rating.
Respectfully Casper, your articles have taken brevity to a new low. I know you have good intent and good ideas but you are delivering articles that feel from my perspective anyway: Rushed, unpolished and lackadaisical. I have refrained from saying anything because as I stated I think you mean well and I hoped for improvement and I don't dislike the bones of your articles for the most part. They just lack a bit of sophistication and meat. The meat missing is what the other guys are mostly objecting to I think.
I don't know that this deserves a * (or even a **) but take the criticism to heart and don't take it as "You suck! Get lost!" because that isn't what it means at all. It just means people have noticed and want you to improve your effort.
"In fact, I offer more in-depth explanation in this video than a lot of people on this site do in entire video series." I can understand defending yourself, but I don't see the need to build yourself up by indirectly attacking other authors.
Even if your decklist is "dated", having it is still useful. It might not see play, but being able to reference it during the video can be handy, especially if one is not intimately familiar with stock lists. Not to mention that everyone learns differently and some are better at interpreting information through one medium than another. That's not to say that you should change your style or anything like that, but rather to realize that here is some value in presenting it.
Regarding your actual video: In Game 1 you say that it might have been a mistake for your opponent to Stoke you rather than let the Goblin token hit you, but the only reason to keep Stoke in hand would be in case you drew a threat, but more than likely it A) has haste and B) opponent doesn't have the mana to stoke you if he attacks (Rabblemaster + 2 lands = 3 mana). In terms of being mana efficient, stoking you is the best play he can make at that spot. He has to end the game as quickly as possible otherwise you will have time to draw burn.
In Game 2 you say that your opponent might have made a mistake by casting Magma Jet during your end step on turn 2, but I don't really see why that is. If he/she needs to find lands, then that's the right play (regardless of whether or not the keep was correct). But if they have lands, you say that might be a mistake because you could play a threat and have it stick. My question is, if they have 3 untapped mana, would you even play a threat? It would seem like a loss of tempo if you play a threat, they kill it and untap and play their own. (You actually state this when they play Rabblemaster on turn 3). At that point, you'd have to use mana on your turn to kill it, and you'd be in the same spot he was in game 1. So why would you say it's a mistake when it feels like you would have done what he did (play a creature into open mana)?
Really excellent exposition of the client's gems and flaws. I can see this took you a lot of work to do and it is painstakingly detailed. Something I had been meaning to get to more thoroughly and yet here you have gone and done the work. So, thank you. And thanks for the shout out.
I truly think we must move forward. Being stuck in the past is just a huge waste of effort, time, and emotion. I do get riled and quickly when the client behaves badly but I have also learned to accept some of the problems as temporary and take a breath before frightening my gf with an utterance of frustration. It really is a divisive issue and people need to put some of this into perspective and stop randomly lashing out at those who disagree with them. (Ala #gamergate.)
And mostly I agree with your assessments. I think for v4 to be acceptable to most people it would need a few major changes and a lot of minor ones.
We could probably debate the exact details of what needs to be done but that is precisely why we need options. Screw "Options Bloat"! I hate when I hear explanations like that (which they supplied when initially criticized for not providing options) for why features are not implemented. As if one particular design guideline is suddenly a gospel for all time. Sure it is a good idea to trim parts of your code that do little and add much mess but this is not that. Clearly the design of V4 needs some rethinking.
Options would solve some of these issues. Let those who want undocked windows have them but not at the expense of the rest of the users. Make that an option. Also make sure the client respects the decision both ways. Let those who want grey backgrounds or white backgrounds have them. Let us choose the styles that we like.
Give us more ways to categorize our contacts as you brilliantly suggested with the Trading partners idea. (I can't believe I didn't think of that. :D) There are a lot of changes just from reading through your article that could be implemented with just a little thought and effort. The question is how do we motivate WOTC to do so? Their monolithic silence on such matters does not help make the situation more scrutable unfortunately.
Definitely for the 300th.
It is entirely possible that plan will be much cooler than hanging out with Magic geeks in Music City.
I guarantee you would regret missing the opportunity to do Halloween with your son more than you would regret missing the Grand Prix.