

EDIT - *Sorry for the back to back posts*. I didn't realize no one had posted and should have put both on one post even though they were unrelated.
By default it's the 1st 2 you attend UNLESS you specifically inform them before the round starts that you do not want this event counted for your points.CurdBros wrote: ↑1 year agoI don't understand. So you have to spike the first two events you play in or decide which events you think you will do well in and let WOTC know that the other events don't count for your points. Isn't this a direct disincentive to go to more than two events? Magic is a grind/marathon not a sprint. I like when the grinders who are committed to attending events are rewarded. Am I reading this incorrectly?True-Name Nemesis wrote: ↑1 year agoSeems like WoTC finding YET another way to screw around with competitive play now for I wanna say the 3rd time since 2019 began?
https://magic.gg/news/2020-grand-prix-player-points-cap
Yikes. Everything about this is low-key, or maybe not so low-key, one of the worst pieces of Magic news I've heard in the last few months. This will have significant, negative impacts on paper Magic and Modern if it goes through.True-Name Nemesis wrote: ↑1 year agoSeems like WoTC finding YET another way to screw around with competitive play now for I wanna say the 3rd time since 2019 began?
https://magic.gg/news/2020-grand-prix-player-points-cap
I have to agree. Your last paragraph in particular seems extremely likely. They have already implemented the "commander zone" or whatever it's called at GP's, sorry Magicfests, to get more players to consider it a gathering rather than a tournament. The name was changed to magicfest for that purpose as well. They have stopped covering paper events and have now disincentivezed people from attending. They can only blame themselves for a drop in paper play. But if that was the plan all along then there is no blame since the plan is working. I just don't know if WOTC really understands or concentrates on the social aspect of magic. Magic is popular first and foremost because it is a great game, maybe the greatest game ever made.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑1 year agoYikes. Everything about this is low-key, or maybe not so low-key, one of the worst pieces of Magic news I've heard in the last few months. This will have significant, negative impacts on paper Magic and Modern if it goes through.True-Name Nemesis wrote: ↑1 year agoSeems like WoTC finding YET another way to screw around with competitive play now for I wanna say the 3rd time since 2019 began?
https://magic.gg/news/2020-grand-prix-player-points-cap
On the surface, Wizards probably wants us to believe this incentivizes playing Magic "for fun," moving the GP scene away from regular grinders who play dozens of events in a year to try and qualify for an MC. It also may disrupt the usual pro scene in favor of Arena and local players, who can't afford/attend all the GP that grinders do, but can have comparable success on Arena. In those regards, this might seem like an okay shift that opens up competitive Magic and allows different players with different backgrounds and experiences to make it big.
Under that surface level, however, this news is a nightmare. First of all, this announcement is the classic, archetypal Wizards communication blunder. They're announcing this 24-48 hours before the first GP of the year? With no context, rationale, or explanation about how player points works? This is a major leap backwards in terms of Wizards communication and bodes very poorly for future communication to come in 2020. Second, this is the kind of announcement that disincentivizes a core group of players from regularly attending paper GP. This will result in lower attendance across the board, especially for formats that top players think can't be solved or gamed. This is where we hit the major, negative Modern impact; even at its absolute healthiest, Modern (indeed, most nonrotating formats) are not the preferred choice for pros. Top players would much rather grind out Standard/Limited on Arena, solve those formats, and then jump into two GP in those formats to try and spike a known metagame. This will significantly disadvantage Modern and Pioneer, formats that are much more open and, more importantly, can't be iterated the same way as Arena Standard. When Pioneer comes to Arena, that leaves Modern in an even worse position.
The final reason this announcement is a disaster (final I'm mentioning now; there are probably many more cons) is that it undermines the long-term optics of Grand Prix. Think GP attendance stinks this year and Wizards is shifting more and more towards digital MTG? Wait until 2021 and Wizards reflects on the last year of GP attendance in 2020, finding even lower attendance than before. This is the sort of self-fulfilling announcement that makes GP worse, justifies further reductions in GP, and justifies further shifts to digital MTG away from large paper events. It's like when Wizards embedded MC streams to artificially inflate viewer count, justifying further investment in Arena-based MTG. Of course, Modern, with no current Arena future, is seriously hurt by this shift. Not to mention paper MTG generally.
I don't often play the "right points" game, but I'm going to call it out here. In late 2018 and early 2019, I and a few others predicted Wizards would seriously commit to Arena-based gameplay with Arena MC events and other high-level Arena play. Many dismissed these predictions as alienating of the core paper demographic, logistically difficult, and too radical even for Wizards. Obviously, we saw lots of 2019 Arena play at high levels in a big way that pushed out paper MTG. We're going to see it again in 2020 and worse, we're going to see it at Worlds. Wizards is going to continue this push and announcements like this are part of their long-term arc to significantly reduce paper MTG events in favor of regular Arena esport grind. I predict we get to a point where Magic Fests are relatively rare, multi-format events that Wizards bills as a "community get together." They will happen once every 1-2 months in a few countries, and the idea will be to consolidate all high-level GP paper play to these scarce events. Everything else will ultimately be Arena. We're not there yet but we are absolutely on that arc.
If the pro's aren't playing in the GP, there's less of a need to watch it, so less of a need to broadcast. Instead they can focus on sponsored streams on Twitch which have a fraction of the broadcasting cost.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑1 year agoThe final reason this announcement is a disaster (final I'm mentioning now; there are probably many more cons) is that it undermines the long-term optics of Grand Prix. Think GP attendance stinks this year and Wizards is shifting more and more towards digital MTG? Wait until 2021 and Wizards reflects on the last year of GP attendance in 2020, finding even lower attendance than before. This is the sort of self-fulfilling announcement that makes GP worse, justifies further reductions in GP, and justifies further shifts to digital MTG away from large paper events. It's like when Wizards embedded MC streams to artificially inflate viewer count, justifying further investment in Arena-based MTG. Of course, Modern, with no current Arena future, is seriously hurt by this shift. Not to mention paper MTG generally.
R&D will also be working on this project, which means even less Modern support as their attention is split. I will try to incorporate this red flag in my Fixing Modern article on Monday, but honestly, this is yet another datapoint that drives me to concluding Modern is a dead duck. Wizards is going to go all in on Pioneer, Arena, esports, and their current trajectory regardless of what enfranchised players want. The only hope is that there's enough support out there to get some kind of commitment to Modern events, and/or a commitment to Modern on Arena. But as it stands, it's looking very bad and I still expect Modern will be in a horrible place by 2021. The Pioneer pressure and deafening Modern silence is overwhelming.State of the Game wrote:We've also added Pioneer Set Remasters onto the in-concept list, which will include the Amonkhet remaster, as well the additional sets we're working in conjunction with Magic R&D to help bring the most relevant Pioneer cards to MTG Arena. And as we continue to expand the available formats and ways to play, we've started to concept out a rework to our play blade to make organizing and finding these events easier.
That definition is a really shallow simplification. Linear decks rely on synergy between a given number of cards and not caring what the other deck does. The key metric is how many pieces it needs and how many redundancy it can achieve. The current problem is that the top linear deck either:Aazadan wrote: ↑1 year agoI disagree here too. If we use the definition provided a while ago that linear is essentially a word for counting the number of decision points, then it stands to reason that a linear deck has very little variation in their cards. All decks are going to run roughly the same number of cards, and the same numbers of different cards, but a linear deck might be evaluating the subtle difference between tutoring for Urza's Mine/Urza's Power Plant, while a non linear deck can be deciding on wanting to win via using Supreme Verdict into finisher or grindy 1 for 1 trades with incremental advantage in any given game.
Thus, since a linear deck will have a lot of similar cards, a deep mulligan doesn't actually significantly alter the decision tree of a game. Where as a deck with a lot of non linear aspects will have their range of potential actions significantly reduced.
That's a definition, but not the one we were talking about a while back before all this current modern on fire ban talk. A linear deck can care about the opponents cards. In not caring what the opponent does you're essentially describing solitaire. This would make prison, primarily linear but something like Lantern has many, many decisions while ultimately guiding those decisions in such a way that it eliminates the opponent from the game. It's non linear, with a lot of synergy, and ultimately seeks to ignore the opponent.pierreb wrote: ↑1 year agoThat definition is a really shallow simplification. Linear decks rely on synergy between a given number of cards and not caring what the other deck does. The key metric is how many pieces it needs and how many redundancy it can achieve. The current problem is that the top linear deck either:Aazadan wrote: ↑1 year agoI disagree here too. If we use the definition provided a while ago that linear is essentially a word for counting the number of decision points, then it stands to reason that a linear deck has very little variation in their cards. All decks are going to run roughly the same number of cards, and the same numbers of different cards, but a linear deck might be evaluating the subtle difference between tutoring for Urza's Mine/Urza's Power Plant, while a non linear deck can be deciding on wanting to win via using Supreme Verdict into finisher or grindy 1 for 1 trades with incremental advantage in any given game.
Thus, since a linear deck will have a lot of similar cards, a deep mulligan doesn't actually significantly alter the decision tree of a game. Where as a deck with a lot of non linear aspects will have their range of potential actions significantly reduced.It has nothing to do with decision points. The actions needed is to tune and reduce these problems via surgical bans.
- Have too much redundancy. (Tron)
- Require too few pieces. (Splinter Twin, Neo)
- Have too many angles of attack. (Urza)
Not really, it just shifts the influencers from pro players to popular streamers. Who are probably a little less skilled, thereby popularizing less competitive decks. That makes the job of being a current pro easier, in that people really good at the game have a huge advantage over everyone else, but you also have to redefine what it means to be a pro, since the money goes to streamers with personalities people like. See the difference between Cuneo when he streamed and Cheon. Cuneo is 1000 times a better player, but Cheon has a more popular personality/following.robertleva wrote: ↑1 year agoThe good news here is we may be finally be able to break free of the cycle where "pros" are the ones who set trends. This is really huge for the meta game in the long run in my opinion. I think this will lead to more attention and thus popularity given to the people actually developing new strats. Agreed, it was really %$#% of them to announce it 2 days before the GP. They should be announcing the changes for NEXT year to give people some time,
I hope roberleva is right that paper magic will never die, because it looks like they are doing everything they can to make it hard on paper magic. From a business standpoint (I am a small business owner) I can see why WOTC would want to concentrate on standard and pioneer and, more specifically, on digital products. It costs far less in the long run to make digital products, the games growth is mainly digital, and they make a lot more by having people constantly updating their decks for the most fresh formats. HOWEVER, they must also concentrate on the foundation of the product (I am a real estate guy). The entire magic home is built on a foundation of a physical card game. In addition, a majority of players are actually kitchen table players (I'm not sure if that is true anymore, but it was). WOTC really has to make sure that they don't disenfranchise these players because the players that have been with the game for a long time;ktkenshinx wrote: ↑1 year agoMore updates, more bad news for Modern:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/a ... 2020-01-10
This article includes zero mention of Modern but some concrete steps towards Pioneer becoming the Arena nonrotating format of choice:R&D will also be working on this project, which means even less Modern support as their attention is split. I will try to incorporate this red flag in my Fixing Modern article on Monday, but honestly, this is yet another datapoint that drives me to concluding Modern is a dead duck. Wizards is going to go all in on Pioneer, Arena, esports, and their current trajectory regardless of what enfranchised players want. The only hope is that there's enough support out there to get some kind of commitment to Modern events, and/or a commitment to Modern on Arena. But as it stands, it's looking very bad and I still expect Modern will be in a horrible place by 2021. The Pioneer pressure and deafening Modern silence is overwhelming.State of the Game wrote:We've also added Pioneer Set Remasters onto the in-concept list, which will include the Amonkhet remaster, as well the additional sets we're working in conjunction with Magic R&D to help bring the most relevant Pioneer cards to MTG Arena. And as we continue to expand the available formats and ways to play, we've started to concept out a rework to our play blade to make organizing and finding these events easier.
I think they've changed the long term view of the game. I've been watching a lot of the moves Wizards has made since their new President stepped into his role a couple years ago now. It seems incredibly clear at this point that they want to kill the paper game. It also seems clear that R&D is getting instructions from the top to take far more risks with the cards (or spend far less time developing them).
I hear something different. What I hear is that I need to cash out of MTGO now, and give up on ever playing it again. If I want to play online it's X-Mage or nothing. It also seems to me like cards that are in the gap between Legacy and Pioneer are about to tank. Not just because of a lack of ability to play them, but because they've also been saturated beyond their original printing levels due to several waves of reprints. When the demand drops here, it's going to drop hard.All i think while reading these posts is '%$#%$#% I gotta sell out of paper, completely.
Look at this link again, they changed it allready again... Unbelievable, lololololTrue-Name Nemesis wrote: ↑1 year agoSeems like WoTC finding YET another way to screw around with competitive play now for I wanna say the 3rd time since 2019 began?
https://magic.gg/news/2020-grand-prix-player-points-cap
Remote consultants are a good addition to the team, as it saves Wizards some money but also puts more veteran eyes on design/development decisions. A+ all around, and I hope we see this hiring/contracting practice used more. I suspect this will directly impact Standard and Limited the most, followed by Pioneer and maybe Modern, but a) that still trickles down to Modern eventually, and b) I'd rather at least a few formats be playable than have a moribund Modern and a bunch of other broken formats too.
I normally like to avoid hyperbole about Wizards social media. At the same time, it's so hard to take them seriously when they make so many bad decisions, particularly in the realm of communication. 2020 is not off to a great start. Wizards is becoming (more) notorious than ever for announcing a decision that is fundamentally boneheaded, receiving significant player outcry, and then rolling back the decision. Between social media outreach that is inconsistent and spotty, organized play decisions that hurt players, Play Design that breaks multiple formats to their foundations after existing solely to not do that, multiple Arena announcements/rollbacks, and other nonsense, it just has me puzzled. The level of multi-department incompetence is just baffling at times.Mtgthewary wrote: ↑1 year agoLook at this link again, they changed it allready again... Unbelievable, lololololTrue-Name Nemesis wrote: ↑1 year agoSeems like WoTC finding YET another way to screw around with competitive play now for I wanna say the 3rd time since 2019 began?
https://magic.gg/news/2020-grand-prix-player-points-cap
Magic has no end to the number of current/former pros who currently work in gaming. Almost all of them have proven themselves to be poor developers/designers. Playing games is a very, very different skill set from making games. I'm not overly familiar with the specifics of Patricks actual work in things he has made but I've listened to enough commentary from him on cards and development decisions that he at least sounds like he knows what he's talking about which is an opinion I've never picked up from several others doing similar work like Kibler, LSV, or Sam Black.ktkenshinx wrote: ↑1 year agoRemote consultants are a good addition to the team, as it saves Wizards some money but also puts more veteran eyes on design/development decisions. A+ all around, and I hope we see this hiring/contracting practice used more. I suspect this will directly impact Standard and Limited the most, followed by Pioneer and maybe Modern, but a) that still trickles down to Modern eventually, and b) I'd rather at least a few formats be playable than have a moribund Modern and a bunch of other broken formats too.
I can name several. In the industry I'm in (VR/AR development for serious games/training), assuming I put my company as competent (without going into specifics, this could really be argued either way), I think I would only label 3 companies in the entire world as competent in the field right now. And everyone else as a joke.Amalgam wrote: ↑1 year agoThis is also a company that released an online game without a friends list then proceeded to take over 1 year to implement it. I can't name one other company that feels as incompetent as wizards does sometimes. How do you make an announcement and then backtrack it within 24 hours because of how bad it was in the first place