MTG Salvation

I was thinking about how they could do colors and one game that had a system like that that comes to mind is Quest 64. In that game you found spirits in the overworld that you would spend in one of the elemental categories: Air, Earth, Fire, Water. You would then get different spells based off your totals in each. You could adapt that to Magic pretty easily, changing elements to colors and having significant landmarks of the proper color give the proper color mana. Quest 64 even had a pretty decent semi-turn based tactical battle system.

Quote from Dinomiah »

As an MMO, it has to be in real time.

Not really. There have been a number of MMOs which have been turn based. Doofus (full on turn based strategy game), Wizard101 (turn based card battle system), ect... Not to say they will go that route but it isn't impossible.

Well since the article pretty much killed the idea of a card based battle system (ala Shandalar), I guess I'm hoping for a rather epic in scale battle system. Summoning multiple gigantic creatures (Krosan Cloudscraper size), creating enchantments/artifacts that drastically alter how battles work (Ensnaring Bridge, Rule of Law, Form of the Dragon, ect...). Heck, somehow working lands into the equation would be important to me (either having some magic work better in some environments, Blue being better in or around water, or actual card effects like Glacial Chasm). It would be a true waste if the characters just cast bog standard "Fire Attack" type spells at each other. Free use Planeswalking (rather than only at certain locations/zone boarders) would also be interesting.

At least we know the lore/environments they could be working with have the potential to be captivating if done well. Kamigawa, Ravnica, Mirrodin, Innistrad, ect... all could be amazing. We'll have to see.

I can certainly see this showing up in Modern to deal with the fast creature based combo decks like Devoted Druid or Reliquary Knight (not to mention blunting Affinity, Boggles, or Infect). Legacy and other unusual formats (Commander and the like) have Toxic Deluge though and I don't see this taking that card's spot.

Playing this on turn three means on turn four you can still drop a land and playing a one mana spell (Bolt, Push, Path, Visions, Thoughtseize, ect...) or a threat (Tasigur). Not ideal but workable, especially when it was Wrath turn three or die. Or you have the unlucky situation of not having an untapped land to play or didn't draw enough lands for a four mana wrath, ect...

I'm not saying this will appear everywhere by any means but I can easily see this replacing Damnation in some Modern decks/sideboards.

Quote from cyberium_neo »

I don't like the new Tezz. Making Lotus Petal each turn while turning them into 5/5 seems big, but if Tezz happens to die, you'd be forced to turn everything else into creature each turn, adding to their vulnerability. Imagine Nissa's ultimate turning your lands into creatures ONE at a time and cannot be stopped.

The second ability however maintains a lot of pressure on the board, which I like. I guess my only issue is with the ultimate.

Well if the artifact you turned into a 5/5 last turn survives then you can always just target it again next turn if you don't want to turn another artifact into a creature.

Not amazing but also not as punishing.

Quote from MRHblue »

This is such a cop out. There isn't some requirement that people play EDH to do anything. Its not part of a Pro tour or anything else they would need to do. People can choose to play or not, but they need to take some personal responsibility, either play with the rules provided or make their own.

And again, that is not an option for many players. The argument that "You should change things for yourselves" is the cop out, not the other way around. The "official" banlist for the format should never rely on house rules or community policing, because just as you said, if that's an option then anyone can do that for themselves, they don't need a RC to do it for them. The "official" banlist is there for people who cannot use house rules for whatever reason.

And indeed, people have the option to simply not play (and there are those that do) but at that point you're simply getting back to the original issue I have with them. They would rather have everyone quit (hypothetically) than change their vision. Again, sure that's "respectable" (if self-destructive) for an individual to say, it's not nearly as admirable for a governing body to say, in my opinion of course.

Quote from MRHblue »

The community was instrumental in getting Metalworker unbanned, and Prophet banned. Thats taking actual responsibility for your fun.

Instrumental you say? How so? I was around for both of those events and in neither case do I remember anything especially instrumental happening on the community end. Of course this is simply dragging things off onto tangents. There is no argument that the community isn't instrumental, the RC has literally said as much. Literally. The RC's "vision" is instrumental, the community is secondary. I'm honestly not sure why you're arguing that when they've said as such multiple times.

Quote from FunkyDragon »

Quote from TSRD »

It's not so much that they don't try to please everyone, it's that they don't try to please anyone (except those that agree with them).

And yet, if they can't please everyone, then how shall they pick which ones to please and which ones not to? Wouldn't pleasing themselves and those who agree with them be the best way to go? Why should they make changes that could alienate that core group in the vain hope of pleasing someone else? Have you ever seen a film or read a book that felt really generic and soulless because its makers tried to please a target market rather than telling a story that they themselves were passionate about? Trying to please one group at the expense of another is not always the best way to go.

Sure, I've also seen movies that catered so strongly to the director's "vision" that it failed to please even the small audience it was aimed at. While I can respect an artist's drive to create what they want to create I don't have the same respect when it comes to a body that is governing a wide and varied group (many of whom have little alternative).

Quote from FunkyDragon »

Quote from TSRD »

Here is the quote (yay, search feature):

Quote from Sheldon »

Quote from atlas_hugged »

Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?

Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.

Just supplying it since I referenced it a number of times. There are other more concise quotes but this is the most brazen one.

I'm actually glad that they are honest about this. Having worked in film, I have to say I wish more people would think like that rather than churning out generic stories just to cash in.

Well I can at least agree that I'm glade they are honest about it. It sets a very clear line as to what one can expect from them and lets you know when your efforts are fruitless.

Quote from ProfessorWhen »

EDIT: oh, you beat me to it.

Thank you for taking the time to do it anyway. And as a plus you've provided the more complete string of quotes which I did not.

Quote from MRHblue »

Thats completly contradictory to your position they don't care about anyone but themselves. If they didn't care, it would not be "intended" to grow the format.

No, it's not. If the format doesn't grow (or at least maintain) then there is no format and thus no RC. So obviously they do want the format to grow, they just have no interest in views that go against their own. And I also never said they only care about themselves, I said they only care about their vision and the group that shares said vision.

Quote from MRHblue »

You don't seem to be giving them credit for anything. You paint them as selfish, only caring about their vision, when in fact they actively support this for nothing and ACTIVELY listen to others. Its baffling honestly.

What should I be giving them credit for that I am not? I don't remember listing the things I give them credit for. For example, I certainly give them credit for promoting the format and that is something you can objectively tie into the growth of the format. The only thing I explicitly did not give them credit for in this thread was that their "vision is working" as that is an unsubstantiated claim.

And again, it's not me claiming they only care about their vision, these are words from their own mouths (well ok, from Sheldon's mouth specifically). Alongside this is a nice heaping helping of "If you don't like it too bad, go do your own thing/fix it yourself." Again, I don't need to make assumptions or draw conclusions, these are their stated stances. Sure they soften it at times with "The people left out are collateral rather than intentional loses" but it doesn't change anything.

Quote from Fiveod »

Dude, do you honestly expect a rule set and ban list to actively grow the format?

Uh, yes? That's the entire point of ban lists and rule sets (even the banlist and rule set the RC has implemented is intended to do this). Whether you want to say it's for "balance" or the "health" of the format or some nebulous "vision" of the format, having a good rule set/banlist enhances a format and a bad one detracts from it. A truly terrible one can kill a format, not that I'm saying that's happening here by any means.

Quote from Fiveod »

Are there masses of potential players sitting around waiting for the RC to take a more active role in banning cards? "Gosh, if only Sol Ring were banned in this casual format I'd love to get in to Commander!"

I hope not because if they are waiting they're doing so in vain. I do know of people who quit or turned away from it because of the ban list. I don't think they are waiting though.

Quote from Fiveod »

Sorry to be snarky, but do you really not see how silly this is? You're basically saying that there's no evidence of a problem, but there's also no evidence that there isn't a problem so we should assume there is a problem and take action since you personally disagree with the RC.

No, I'm saying I don't give them credit for something I can't actually prove they are responsible for (ie their "vision working" which is what the poster I was responding to said). I at no point said that because I can't prove they are benefiting the format they must be hurting it (in fact I clearly said I could not prove that). I also find it funny you comment on my play group or my feelings on Wizards taking the format. I'm not the one who started this topic, I personally have no expectations of Wizards doing anything (the only thing I said about Wizards at all is that I can trust them to do the profitable thing for them whereas I can't trust the RC to do anything but what they want to do), I'm simply stating my opinions about the RC in response to what I consider unsubstantiated praise directed toward their actions/being attributed to them.

Quote from Fiveod »

Yeah that's kind of a weird thing for him to say and all, but for now their vision is working so who cares? If it stops working then we can reevaluate. No need to get our undies twisted up about hypotheticals.

And your evidence that their "vision" is working is what? And no "the format is growing" is not proof. You would need to somehow tie that growth to their "vision" which I doubt anyone has the ability to do. For all you or I know the format would grow without their "vision" and heck for all we know it's growing in spite of it. The fact that Wizards/various forums advertise the existence of the format almost assuredly has done more for the growth of the format than the "vision" has (just to give one example of a factor that affects growth). That said, I can't prove it hinders it either. All I know is that their "vision" is all that matters to them, so discussion is pointless unless your view aligns with theirs.

Here is the quote (yay, search feature):

Quote from Sheldon »

Quote from atlas_hugged »

Hypothetical: if you ever felt that your vision was no longer desired by the majority of the players in the format, would you change the direction you're taking with the format?

Majority? No. Overwhelming majority? Still pretty much no. I'll draw an analogy to a TV show, like maybe Arrested Development. From the beginning the show had a particular vision of the kind of comedy it was going to do. When the masses didn't like it, the producers continued with their vision, even if in the end, the ratings got so low they were cancelled. For them, the important part was the vision, not the popularity. It's kind of the same with us. We want to make the format accessible to a broad audience, but since there's no way that audience ever includes everyone, raw populism is just a path to destruction. We never want to a be a least common denominator thing (and unlike a TV show, don't need to worry about money). Our message the whole time is "this is the direction we're going, we hope you follow along," understanding that YMMV. If our vision leads to the death of the format as we know it (which we have pretty good evidence won't happen), then so be it. I'd rather die as myself than live as someone else.

Just supplying it since I referenced it a number of times. There are other more concise quotes but this is the most brazen one.

Quote from VashBismark »

Pretty inaccurate statement right there man. I would take some time to go through some of the threads in this subforum and see how often papafunk and Sheldon comment on some of the cards we discuss.

They do comment (on occasion anyhow). It's those comments and the position behind them that bother me. And when that position is "I would rather see the format die then change from my 'vision' even if hypothetically it could be proven that the vast majority want a change." they do have a pretty foolproof response (and one that cemented my disdain for them since then). It's not really worth talking to them anymore at that point. So mission accomplished?

I'm going to have to dig up that quote at some point but 1000 page threads suck to skim through.

Quote from MRHblue »

No, they don't bother to try pleasing everyone. Because they know its a fool's errand. Your position was they only care about their own group. That is demonstrably false.

It's not so much that they don't try to please everyone, it's that they don't try to please anyone (except those that agree with them). There is a difference. And no it's really not demonstrably false, they have banned/unbanned cards that the community wanted banned/unbanned (and of course not banned/unbanned other cards the community has been vocal about) but there is no way to demonstrate that this was in any way them going along with the community rather than them going along with their own interests/"vision" (and in fact their posts prove that their "vision" is what decides the format, community be damned, so if anything it's proven true).

Quote from FeralNSFW »

The RC's attitude if you don't like it is to convince your playgroup to implement a house rule. The easy analogy here is open source software: if you don't like the canonical version, modify it yourself.

And this arguement falls flat on its face (even in a "casual" setting) when you play on MtGO, or in a neutral location like a card shop, and you don't get to change the rules. You're forced to use the "official" banlist/rules, like it or not. As such, I would very much prefer the banlist to be handled by people who actually care about people as a whole, rather than foisting the issues on others to handle for themselves. If they don't want to handle it then why should they be the ones allowed to?

Quote from Onering »

Counterpoint: The Modern Banlist.

I trust the RC more than WotC not to make egregious mistakes. And to admit them quickly and fix them when they do.

Counterpoint: The laughable list of cards that are not banned in Commander (of which Sol Ring is the obvious poster child). Compared to that the Modern Banlist is a masterpiece.

And no, the RC is not and has never been interested in changing nor admitting mistakes. They've outright said that they do not care what the majority of the community wants and would rather see the format die than change their philosophy (it's buried in one of the banlist discussion threads, forgive me if I don't dig it up to quote here). I can trust WotC to at least do the profitable thing, I can't trust RC to do anything but what they want to do.