Explanation of the recent bannings (and restriction).
- Thread starter Oversoul
- Start date
D
DÛke
Guest
I thought banning the lands would be bad for Standard, as it turns out I don't really care. It's funny looking at the digital binders of people and seeing how some of them are just dying to get rid of their precious Ravagers. It's also funny that...the deck is no more, and that Standard is once again actually challenging and not simply ruled by anyone who happens to own all the cards and copying skills to clone Affinity.
I've heard people say Affinity is hard to play. That's the biggest bull I've ever heard. Out of mere curiosity I played it, just to see how "hard" it is - and I've never ever played any cards with Affinity or that many artifacts before. I won, almost thoughtlessly. It was so easy it didn't feel like winning, but like cheating. The fact that I was so detached from the game and kinda just flipped the cards as they came to me even made me feel like I was cheating myself out of the game. The deck actually perfectly represents the generic nature of the Mirrodin block, perfectly masked as an "artifact" block. Whatever.
Good riddance.
I've heard people say Affinity is hard to play. That's the biggest bull I've ever heard. Out of mere curiosity I played it, just to see how "hard" it is - and I've never ever played any cards with Affinity or that many artifacts before. I won, almost thoughtlessly. It was so easy it didn't feel like winning, but like cheating. The fact that I was so detached from the game and kinda just flipped the cards as they came to me even made me feel like I was cheating myself out of the game. The deck actually perfectly represents the generic nature of the Mirrodin block, perfectly masked as an "artifact" block. Whatever.
Good riddance.
J
jorael
Guest
I have no idea what you really mean by that. Mirrodin doesn't require any skill? You feel like cheating when playing with the cards? The block doesn't require thought?DÛke said:
If you mean anything like that, I have to disagree. Although the power level of mirrodin block may be relatively high, the block rewards good deckbuilding and playing and there a lot of cards that have a lot of potential to create decks with. Sure, the block is more combo-oriented, but that was a good thing after onslaught -tribal- block, if you ask me.
D
DÛke
Guest
Um.
Sigh.
I was talking about Affinity.
It's in there, all in the post, I swear. Look it up!
Sigh.
I was talking about Affinity.
It's in there, all in the post, I swear. Look it up!
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
Now, I can sympathize with them on both changes that were made. It seems that in both formats they were getting a lot of complaints. But I do have some problems with the explanation they gave.
"Was Standard that bad? Was the format actually not diverse enough, and not solvable enough? Looked at purely analytically, the format probably wasn't that bad. Decks emerged that could beat Affinity. You could play something other than Affinity or Tooth and Nail and have a decent chance to succeed. If the DCI attempted to solve every issue as if it were a complicated math problem, we very well might have done nothing again.
After all, banning cards is bad, and we only want to ban cards if a format was lopsided enough to warrant action, which Standard may not have been. The best deck only won X% of the time, was beaten by the second-best deck Y% of the time, and decks #3, 4, and 5 were all played in reasonable numbers. If we like the math, no problem. Just like last time.
But in the past three months R&D and the DCI have been reminded that Magic is not a series of balanced equations, spreadsheets of Top 8 results and data of card frequencies. Magic is a game played by human beings that want to have fun."
In some ways Magic IS a series of balanced equations. It is a game, but everyone already knows that. What they might forget is that it is a very mathematical game. I don't think that they are really saying that what the DCI does should go from being a science to being an art, but that is the direction this line of thought will take us. Magic is a game and the players do want to have fun. Some players were having fun playing Affinity decks (or Trinisphere). They could not have been ignorant of this. They must have made a conscious decision in which they weighed the number of people who had fun under the current Standard environment, and the number of people who would have fun if they banned eight cards. Trying to pretend that nothing about Magic itself or the analysis of tournament data has math involved is pathetic. Is that what they are trying to do? I don't think they want to do that consciously, but what this article seems to indicate is that they had misgivings about their decision. I would be much more comfortable if they would just say, "We have misgivings. We could be horribly wrong, but this seems to be the best move in a delicate situation." But instead they beat around the bush...
"Trinisphere is a nasty card, no bones about it. It does ridiculous things in Vintage, especially combined with Mishra's Workshop. As I've said in a previous column, we almost restricted it before it was even released."
That's the reason? That's a horrible reason. As I've pointed out in the "Trinisphere restricted" thread, restricting Trinisphere does seem to have its advantages (even though I was opposed to the idea and was dissapointed on seeing the announcement, I am able to see this). But none of this was brought up. Instead they say, "That Trinisphere sure is a powerful card. We've decided to restrict it." The "explanation" for restricting Trinisphere and its impact on the environment covered three things: briefly mentioning its effect on combo decks, throwing the card name of "Force of Will" out there as the primary weapon against first-turn Trinisphere, and using the term "non-interactive" which gets thrown around a lot these days in Vintage discussion, but never satisfactorily defined.
They could have have shown us statistics (although apparently those aren't "fun" enough for Magic anymore) from tournaments. They could have gone on about all of this testing that they did before they came to the decision to restrict Trinisphere. They could have mentioned Mana Drain (or Land Grant), which has not been doing as amazingly as usual since Trinisphere gave Workshop decks too much of an edge. They could have discussed Trinisphere's synergy with Crucible of Worlds/Wasteland or Smokestack. They could have demonstrated that this one card's restriction can help to encourage innovation in the format (which it in all likelyhood can). But instead of data, we get "Trinisphere is a nasty card." This is subjective. I would agree that it is a nasty card, but so are Goblin Welder, Mana Drain, Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual, Death Wish, Tendrils of Agony, Oath of Druids, and any number of other unrestricted cards. Are we supposed to assume that they tested this extensively or even analyzed tournament results? If they did, why not show us some real data?
"We aren't making some sort of policy change that will have us banning cards based on perception over reality down the road, so expect business as usual on that front. We made a bold move and can only hope it works out, for our sake and yours."
You aren't? Well good, because it REALLY looks that way. And while I hope it works out, it is simply untrue that Wizards can "only hope it works out, for our sake and yours." They can do a lot more than that, having they position of authority that they do.
"Was Standard that bad? Was the format actually not diverse enough, and not solvable enough? Looked at purely analytically, the format probably wasn't that bad. Decks emerged that could beat Affinity. You could play something other than Affinity or Tooth and Nail and have a decent chance to succeed. If the DCI attempted to solve every issue as if it were a complicated math problem, we very well might have done nothing again.
After all, banning cards is bad, and we only want to ban cards if a format was lopsided enough to warrant action, which Standard may not have been. The best deck only won X% of the time, was beaten by the second-best deck Y% of the time, and decks #3, 4, and 5 were all played in reasonable numbers. If we like the math, no problem. Just like last time.
But in the past three months R&D and the DCI have been reminded that Magic is not a series of balanced equations, spreadsheets of Top 8 results and data of card frequencies. Magic is a game played by human beings that want to have fun."
In some ways Magic IS a series of balanced equations. It is a game, but everyone already knows that. What they might forget is that it is a very mathematical game. I don't think that they are really saying that what the DCI does should go from being a science to being an art, but that is the direction this line of thought will take us. Magic is a game and the players do want to have fun. Some players were having fun playing Affinity decks (or Trinisphere). They could not have been ignorant of this. They must have made a conscious decision in which they weighed the number of people who had fun under the current Standard environment, and the number of people who would have fun if they banned eight cards. Trying to pretend that nothing about Magic itself or the analysis of tournament data has math involved is pathetic. Is that what they are trying to do? I don't think they want to do that consciously, but what this article seems to indicate is that they had misgivings about their decision. I would be much more comfortable if they would just say, "We have misgivings. We could be horribly wrong, but this seems to be the best move in a delicate situation." But instead they beat around the bush...
"Trinisphere is a nasty card, no bones about it. It does ridiculous things in Vintage, especially combined with Mishra's Workshop. As I've said in a previous column, we almost restricted it before it was even released."
That's the reason? That's a horrible reason. As I've pointed out in the "Trinisphere restricted" thread, restricting Trinisphere does seem to have its advantages (even though I was opposed to the idea and was dissapointed on seeing the announcement, I am able to see this). But none of this was brought up. Instead they say, "That Trinisphere sure is a powerful card. We've decided to restrict it." The "explanation" for restricting Trinisphere and its impact on the environment covered three things: briefly mentioning its effect on combo decks, throwing the card name of "Force of Will" out there as the primary weapon against first-turn Trinisphere, and using the term "non-interactive" which gets thrown around a lot these days in Vintage discussion, but never satisfactorily defined.
They could have have shown us statistics (although apparently those aren't "fun" enough for Magic anymore) from tournaments. They could have gone on about all of this testing that they did before they came to the decision to restrict Trinisphere. They could have mentioned Mana Drain (or Land Grant), which has not been doing as amazingly as usual since Trinisphere gave Workshop decks too much of an edge. They could have discussed Trinisphere's synergy with Crucible of Worlds/Wasteland or Smokestack. They could have demonstrated that this one card's restriction can help to encourage innovation in the format (which it in all likelyhood can). But instead of data, we get "Trinisphere is a nasty card." This is subjective. I would agree that it is a nasty card, but so are Goblin Welder, Mana Drain, Mishra's Workshop, Dark Ritual, Death Wish, Tendrils of Agony, Oath of Druids, and any number of other unrestricted cards. Are we supposed to assume that they tested this extensively or even analyzed tournament results? If they did, why not show us some real data?
"We aren't making some sort of policy change that will have us banning cards based on perception over reality down the road, so expect business as usual on that front. We made a bold move and can only hope it works out, for our sake and yours."
You aren't? Well good, because it REALLY looks that way. And while I hope it works out, it is simply untrue that Wizards can "only hope it works out, for our sake and yours." They can do a lot more than that, having they position of authority that they do.
D
DÛke
Guest
Bottomline, there were idiots at R&D who for some reason just couldn't grasp how dangerous Artifact Lands would be. I can excuse Disciple. If I try hard, I might even be able to excuse Ravager. But the Artifact Lands smelt fishy right when they came out in Mirrodin, before anything else. That, plus the entire idea of a Blue-centered mechanic that did the one thing that Blue should not be able to do at all or easily - cheaping it's cards somehow, or accelerating Blue's mana base - is so obviously overpowered that they could have crumbled the idea and left it behind as soon as it was suggested.
It's such a marketing scheme, I swear...
And then they give you Ravager on top of it all. Can you seriously not tell how aweful it can be with Artifact Lands? and I'm supposed to believe that they playtested this stuff? Well, yes - they did. And what did they find out? That it was so broken that it had to be sold to the public, make money, and then ban them. If I didn't know any better I would say that somewhere at good ol'WotC they knew very well that they will ban those cards, they knew that since the dawn of Mirrodin. They just wanted to "milk the cow," if you know what I mean, and milk the cow they did...
It's such a marketing scheme, I swear...
And then they give you Ravager on top of it all. Can you seriously not tell how aweful it can be with Artifact Lands? and I'm supposed to believe that they playtested this stuff? Well, yes - they did. And what did they find out? That it was so broken that it had to be sold to the public, make money, and then ban them. If I didn't know any better I would say that somewhere at good ol'WotC they knew very well that they will ban those cards, they knew that since the dawn of Mirrodin. They just wanted to "milk the cow," if you know what I mean, and milk the cow they did...
C
Captain Caveman
Guest
I was very unhappy with the explaination too. The simple point is that
affinity forces people to main deck artifact hate yet the Ravanger deck
can still overcome this. The Artifact lands look great from a design
stand point but playing with them will show how unfair they are. Ravanger
its self was stupid. Even if it cost 4 mana, like Arcbound Crusher, it may
have been to good. I thought the whole idea of Affinity was great but
Green should have gotten the best affinity creature. That golem is a
joke. They know from experience, Urza's Block, that free stuff and stuff
that is played at a mana discount is a bad idea yet they did it. I'm sure
they were just trying to make us happy. But come on, stick to your own
rules and color wheel guidelines.
Of course, its impossible to make everyone happy and I don't really
expect them to. Johnny, Spike and that other guy all like the same game
but differ in approach. I really shouldn't complain, since I'm a casual
player, but Arcbound Ravanger and Artifact lands were a bad idea and
they had to know that. Disciple of the Vault would have been ok without
the other cards, in my opinion.
affinity forces people to main deck artifact hate yet the Ravanger deck
can still overcome this. The Artifact lands look great from a design
stand point but playing with them will show how unfair they are. Ravanger
its self was stupid. Even if it cost 4 mana, like Arcbound Crusher, it may
have been to good. I thought the whole idea of Affinity was great but
Green should have gotten the best affinity creature. That golem is a
joke. They know from experience, Urza's Block, that free stuff and stuff
that is played at a mana discount is a bad idea yet they did it. I'm sure
they were just trying to make us happy. But come on, stick to your own
rules and color wheel guidelines.
Of course, its impossible to make everyone happy and I don't really
expect them to. Johnny, Spike and that other guy all like the same game
but differ in approach. I really shouldn't complain, since I'm a casual
player, but Arcbound Ravanger and Artifact lands were a bad idea and
they had to know that. Disciple of the Vault would have been ok without
the other cards, in my opinion.
O
orgg
Guest
I've spoken to Mister Forsythe on Magic Online, and he told me that his next article would have some clerification on exactly why more than just the lands were banned.
I'll give you a big hint
$
I'll give you a big hint
$
G
Gizmo
Guest
But he's already written that article, and it's nothing to do with money.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af56
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af56
O
orgg
Guest
If you read between the lines in the article published, it outlines that money was a large factor in going all-out with the "Must Kill Affinity" bannings.
I spoke to him online and asked if I had read it correctly, and was informed that I had, but it was not as clear as was intended.
I spoke to him online and asked if I had read it correctly, and was informed that I had, but it was not as clear as was intended.
G
Gizmo
Guest
Certainly it stopped me playing Standard tournaments.
I
Istanbul
Guest
It didn't help that every set in Mirrodin gave Affinity.dec some psychotic new tool. (And yes, I do consider Cranial Plating to be right up on the razor's edge of being broken. I'd have a hard time disagreeing with either viewpoint.)
G
Gizmo
Guest
Cranial Plating was the card I found hardest to swallow in the entire deck. You can keep the Disciple, I don't care or I'll kill it if I do - Plating was a rude beating, though.
I
Istanbul
Guest
I believe that Ravager and Plating probably should have gotten the axe. Without Ravager, Disciple just isn't that scary anymore. Even WITH Atog.
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
But as we've seen, the intent behind these bannings was not to make the format as balanced and healthy as possible, but to convince all the people that had quit or were thinking about quitting that they made sure there won't be any Affinity problems. It looks like they used similar reasoning with the Trinisphere restriction (which was much less severe).Istanbul said:
In Stanard, although I don't play the format, it seems that they accomplished exactly what they wanted (whether it was the right decision will be debated until people get tired of it). In Vintage, the effects the restriction will have are still not fully known. I think it might improve the format. I am strongly opposed to the reasoning they used for the restriction, but I do understand it...