Did Maro bust mtg.com?

B

BigBlue

Guest
I haven't been able to get therre at all today, now I get a server error 500 every time I try to visit.

There must be something good in his column, but I haven't gotten to read it yet. Anyone else having the same trouble?
 
R

rkoelsch

Guest
I was able to get on it okay this morning but juts now I could bring up the main page but the links weren't working. Here is a brief synopsis. He admits to not being current in the format. He explains the history of Type one. He list reasons for lack of support, 1- not popular enough listing number of sanctioned tournaments as his proof, 2-expensive to get into(can't disagree with him there). He then deals with possible changes to make it less expensive. Reprinting- no they will not because of colectors, Use of Proxies- they are afraid it will start a trend away from people buying cards(a weak argument at best). He then had a vote for whether there should be a type 1 championship. I voted Hell Yes. All in all he writes an entertaining article. I will be very interested to see how the vote turns out.
 
B

BigBlue

Guest
Thanks. See what he/WotC fail to do is acknowledge the casual players, who don't give a hooey about tournies, no matter the type.

I'd bet there are more players NOT playing in tourneys than there are players who do. I have plenty of friends who play, still purchase cards, and yet have no DCI number and no desire to get one.

If MtG had to live on tournament players only, it wouldn't have gotten even this far.

So, if WotC and Maro strictly think of Type 1 in terms of Tourneys, they are sadly mistaken. And as for a championship, what a crock that would be. And Proxies? Oh My Goodness, "we won't reprint the Power 9, because it will affect the collectors, but you can proxy them." What's worse: Extreme rare chasers (reprinted power 9 as ultra rares >think 1 in a case maximum< - not playable in T2) or letting people proxy the P9. Which would have a more dramatic effect on owners of the originals? And which would be negative? If they reprinted P9 in a very limited basis, it would only increase interest in the originals.

Here's an idea. For 9th edition, to comemmorate 10 years of MtG, they could print 100 of each of the Power 9 and include them in the first Print run. No one plays limited base sets anymore, that I know of, so they wouldn't have to worry there. Wouldn't 9th edition about coincide with 2004? Of course I'd be more interested in some of the other cards, like Ice Storm, Berserk, Sinkhole, Khabal Ghoul, Stone Throwing Devils, ... Fun stuff. Not worth the money they're "worth", but would be fun to own.
 
N

Notepad

Guest
@rkoelsch~ You're right, it was an entertaining article, with some weak arguments here and there.

Hopefully, we can get rasko's opinion on the whole thing soon. I'll be looking forward to a retort of his on Star City. He'll have some good supporting things to say on behalf of T1 players. :D
 
A

Alabaster Hoagie

Guest
They should just reprint the "Collector's Edition" decks from a few years back that had the power nine among other things, but give them ordinary Magic card backs, cut the corners normally, and make them specially stamped so no one could get away with using them in tournaments.
 
N

Notepad

Guest
That would be a little too hard to do, since all that would differ those cards from tournament legal ones are the gold borders. For all intended purposes, they would be reprints and subject to much firestorming from the people who hold real versions of those cards.

Though, I'd really like to hold a Mox or even a Berserk in my hand...so I think Rasko's suggestion of World's-style reprints would work better. Casual players would still use them, since it seems the majority of T1 players are casual using T1 as a basis for deckbuilding. So, those black-back cards could just be put into sleeves and everyone would be fine. :D
 
R

rkoelsch

Guest
I think it was 1995 or 96 and I had an opportunity to buy a Black Lotus for $50. I thought why would I spend $50 for a piece of cardboard for a game? Now look at the price of a Lotus. I don't have any regrets though. I still feel stupid when I spent $18 for a Foil Iridescent Angel. I just don't think the cards should be that expensive. It's only a game. It could be dead in ten years. It is bad enough Wizards charges an arm and a leg for cards but the secondary market is crazy.
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
You gotta remember it's worth only what other people think it is (well, and scarcity). I think the same thing of people collecting baseball cards, stamps, or Beanie Babies :)
 
N

Notepad

Guest
Have you tried the actual address?

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom

If that ain't working, try visiting just the basic site of www.wizards.com, because it might be a problem with getting into the server. If the above addy works, maybe its just a problem with the rediect thing.

Then again, I'm bad at anything computer related, so I'm pretty bad at troubleshooting. ;)
 
S

Sammy Dead-O

Guest
I've had the same problem with Wizards' site before. I dunno if it's the server getting jammed or what, but it usually is okay if I just try it again immediately or come back a bit later and try. Hasn't done it for the past couple weeks, though.


Well, I didn't help at all...
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
You sure it's not your connection, Apollo? Two sites that seem open to others seems awfully suspicious...
 
I

Istanbul

Guest
Perhaps WotC simply hates you.

Sorry...works for me, I have no idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top