|
While we're on matches from when they did legacy every weekend, here's another great match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26PPRnVCLVA&t=2368s where I've linked features an awesome play that I don't want to spoil, but the entire match is a lesson in resource management by the maverick guy
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
Does RUG Delver ever have 5 mana to play it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Does RUG Delver ever have 5 mana to play it? I didn't play it in RUG for very long. My store was half Miracles, 2-3 D&T, a UWR Delver, and a Painter player who sometimes splashed white, so really my only way to win against most of those decks was to steal some games with Helm. Also you can do it over 2 turns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Looks like that 25% ratio for Amonkhet full arts will apply to http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157568655928/hi-mark-will-the-basic-80-land-pack-in-amonkhet pr0digal fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Looks like that 25% ratio for Amonkhet full arts will apply to Makes sense. Those packs were traditionally split evenly amongst the arts in the set.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Procrastinator posted:Makes sense. Those packs were traditionally split evenly amongst the arts in the set. So basically they have replaced one of the 4 land arts with a full art one? Fine... whatever.. I mean full art is cool but WIzards whole "still making it a bit rare" I do grow tired of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
DoctorOozy posted:So basically they have replaced one of the 4 land arts with a full art one? Fine... whatever.. I mean full art is cool but WIzards whole "still making it a bit rare" I do grow tired of. I mean, if full art land is one of every 4 normal arts, its not actually rarer than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
All basics should be full art. The class of new player who wouldn't understand a textless basic but does get what an oversized mana symbol means would probably quit the game for hearthstone after five minutes anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I keep all of my MtG decks in 19th century silver business card holders:
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Yeah, if it was a player-understanding issue, they should bring back basics with "T: add R to your mana pool" on them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
LOL the MTGO historical standard thing is already cancelled because they didn't test the cards and shocker... poo poo doesn't work
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Firebatgyro posted:LOL the MTGO historical standard thing is already cancelled because they didn't test the cards and shocker... poo poo doesn't work Did they post any specific bugs? I live for MTGO bug reports. It's always the most unfathomable poo poo like "casting Grizzly Bears on a Tuesday causes the round to re-set, but only if it's a white-bordered Grizzly Bears".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Firebatgyro posted:LOL the MTGO historical standard thing is already cancelled because they didn't test the cards and shocker... poo poo doesn't work loving incompetents. There is zero excuse for this garbage - take two coverage accounts, grab the .deks and play one mirror match for each deck. It'll take maybe four hours. In fact, you could have thrown this poo poo up for a test run on the beta. The cards already exist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Did they post any specific bugs? I live for MTGO bug reports. It's always the most unfathomable poo poo like "casting Grizzly Bears on a Tuesday causes the round to re-set, but only if it's a white-bordered Grizzly Bears". Numot had Natural Balance do nothing besides make his opponent sac lands, for one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
wizards ayyyyy lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Firebatgyro posted:LOL the MTGO historical standard thing is already cancelled because they didn't test the cards and shocker... poo poo doesn't work Rinkles posted:Numot had Natural Balance do nothing besides make his opponent sac lands, for one. This is badass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
If I was on the MTGO team I'd be worried about my job security more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:If I was on the MTGO team I'd be worried about my job security more than anything else. wotc refuses to pay competitively for programmers so actually it's the exact opposite situation, there is no-one to replace them if they leave
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Here's another: https://twitter.com/MishrasFotoshop/status/834498929379115008
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:wotc refuses to pay competitively for programmers so actually it's the exact opposite situation, there is no-one to replace them if they leave The upside is that when the MTGO team gets canned they can earn 1.5-2x as much money anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Yeah, if it was a player-understanding issue, they should bring back basics with "T: add R to your mana pool" on them. Well you can't do that because it would help fix the confusion players have when they don't understand the difference between lands and a mana pool. It's part of the reason people call <> "wastes" instead of "colorless mana".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Well you can't do that because it would help fix the confusion players have when they don't understand the difference between lands and a mana pool. It's part of the reason people call <> "wastes" instead of "colorless mana". I don't think I'll ever forget the guy I played against who thought "T: add G to your mana pool", on stuff like Llanowar Elves, meant "create a Forest token" I couldn't even blame him because, as you say, it's the extreme outcome of removing that textual distinction between the mana and the basic-lands-as-entities
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:wotc refuses to pay competitively for programmers so actually it's the exact opposite situation, there is no-one to replace them if they leave Wizards hires people who are willing to work for less than they should because they love Magic and working on Magic is their dream job, and then turns them into bitter shells of people via bad management and insufficient resources to actually change things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:I get that, I just mean that Hasbro is literally making the replacement for MTGO right now. Except they just pointed out they're not, so... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Wizards hires people who are willing to work for less than they should because they love Magic and working on Magic is their dream job, and then turns them into bitter shells of people via bad management and insufficient resources to actually change things. This. I almost interviewed with them before my current job. Then I saw what they paid and withdrew my application.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
It's a pretty easy fix to teach the difference between lands and a mana pool, but if you're going to have the giant text box there in the first place you might as well put the rules text in it, even if it's stylized. Otherwise just do the thing people like and make all lands full-art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I don't think I'll ever forget the guy I played against who thought "T: add G to your mana pool", on stuff like Llanowar Elves, meant "create a Forest token" I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the term "mana pool" goes away, and you just see Llanowar Elves read "T: G"
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
It's not even a recent thing I've seen multiple players of all eras of Magic think that adding a mana to their mana pool meant creating a land token. I'm pretty sure one newer player I played with was playing Dark Ritual under the assumption that it was a 1 mana triple Rampant Growth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
I remember thinking way back when that Force of Nature required you to sacrifice 4 forests each turn to prevent the damage. I still thought it owned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the term "mana pool" goes away, and you just see Llanowar Elves read "T: G" They'll just avoid that by never printing mana dorks again, easy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Ultima66 posted:It's not even a recent thing I've seen multiple players of all eras of Magic think that adding a mana to their mana pool meant creating a land token. I'm pretty sure one newer player I played with was playing Dark Ritual under the assumption that it was a 1 mana triple Rampant Growth. Which, to be fair, it absolutely should be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
They already fudge things w.r.t the mana pool too, like the improvise flavour text. "Each artifact you tap after you're done activating mana abilities pays for {1}" . That would preclude you from getting 2 mana out of an ethereum cell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
BaronVonVaderham posted:This. I almost interviewed with them before my current job. Then I saw what they paid and withdrew my application. Should have done it anyways just to prod them on best practices I wonder if putting MTGO developer in your resume is actually a red flag for recruiters in the know
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Ultima66 posted:It's not even a recent thing I've seen multiple players of all eras of Magic think that adding a mana to their mana pool meant creating a land token. I'm pretty sure one newer player I played with was playing Dark Ritual under the assumption that it was a 1 mana triple Rampant Growth. Yeah, you can't make an utterly idiotproof system, but it was at least closer when basic lands used the same syntax as everything else. If a basic Swamp says "T: Add B to your mana pool" and Ritual says "Add BBB to your mana pool" then there's less room to think they're somehow doing different things. Entropic posted:I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the term "mana pool" goes away, and you just see Llanowar Elves read "T: G" Ironically, that actually would feel like a return to some of the weirder card texts of yesteryear. Like when you'd have card text saying "B: Regenerates", or "R: +1/+0". JerryLee fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
I remember hearing about people who thought Frozen Shade's buff was permanent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Entropic posted:Wizards hires people who are willing to work for less than they should because they love Magic and working on Magic is their dream job, and then turns them into bitter shells of people via bad management and insufficient resources to actually change things. But enough about goons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Familiars STILL do not reduce the cost of Buyback Capsize, which if it worked would have made UW Drake substantially better. This is an interaction I reported back in....June? Same with the stupid Reanimate/Containment Priest interaction that's more than a year old and is still broken and isn't on the "bug list".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I remember hearing about people who thought Frozen Shade's buff was permanent. Giant growth said until end of turn and frozen shade didn't, it made perfect sense 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I remember hearing about people who thought Frozen Shade's buff was permanent. I mean, this is a totally reasonable mistake to make  For comparison, alpha Blessing looked like this:  Luckily someone noticed the inconsistency and they fixed it in time for Revised:  
Elyv fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
It's amazing how long it took them to do basic things like "have consistent templating of rules text between cards" and "not have cards worded like they were hastily typed out by an excited DM at 3am".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 23:38
|
|