|
Niton posted:A private collection, huh? Who do we know that might have access to a Mirran artifact like Mox Opal? Not every Mox Opal is MIrran, just like not every Lotus is from Dominiaria (they occur on Zendikar as well). Those are absolutely beautiful.
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:This is something that is still bugging me after I saw the full set. It is supposed to take place in a plane similar to ancient Greece so someone would expect the artwork to be relevant. Well, it is but only to some extent. Browsing through the cards I noticed a lot of the images depicting Africans, NOT Greeks. Since when my country is in Africa? Greece had regular dealings with Persia, Egypt, and Carthage. If it helps, think of it as depicting "the world at the height of Grecian power" and not "ancient Greece."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This isn't very good. Even if you cast it for 4 or 5 mana it's pretty meh. seems like a potential combo engine, but otherwise I agree
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
JOHN CENA posted:Starter decks helped. Alpha was kind of weird because the game was so new, there wasn't any real complete catalog until beta was already out. They made an effort to keep any set listing a secret initially. Rarities were also a total mystery until print publications like Scrye and Inquest starting printing them (colored rarity symbols wouldn't appear until Exodus years later). Alpha further complicated things by having uneven distribution and mispacks, so you could end up with commons or lands in the slot where a rare was supposed to be. Many of the early expansions had boosters with fewer than 15 cards, so that made it harder to figure out rarity as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:Is there no black planeswalker in this set? We'll probably get Tezzeret at U/B in the next set.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:The island in the rare slot wasn't a mistake - it was actually on the rare sheet. Also worth noting that alpha was missing Volc and CoP: Black so a complete set wasn't actually a complete set. I never said it wasn't deliberate. But it was also well-known that you could get entire boxes of Alpha where all of the rares were replaced by commons because they were total poo poo at printing and packaging the set (and also boxes with multiple rares per pack).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Yeah the price only goes up if the ratio of supply to demand goes down. For a reprint to increase prices it would need to create a ton more demand than was printed. This is a pretty simplistic way of looking at it. Yeah, I mean it's technically correct, and reprints don't increase prices in the short term, but a reprint like this can increase demand at a greater rate in the long term by doing things like attracting new players to Modern, which can increase total demand in excess of the increase in supply. That's Wizards' goal--not just to sell $10 packs, but to also encourage more players to play modern by temporarily lowering the cost barrier for entry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If the card had +1/+1 counters on it, the loss of those counters is permanent. at the time, counters didn't destroy each other mehall posted:Yeah, Shade was super expensive at the time! It was, like, £15! Who can pay that much for a card outside of Vintage? Christ, im sure aome cards, like Black Lotus and the Moxen were even a couple hundred dollars! Since then annual tournament attendance has nearly quadrupled. Crazy to think about how the game has changed since then vvvv they weren't thinking about that when they designed it, either TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:At the time that didn't actually happen. You just had both. It's weird templating because they couldn't figure out how to make it say that if you only targeted 1 guy he got -3/-3./ I suppose the reason it's templated like that is because the text is shorter with the counters version than it is to do it modally*, which would read: Choose one: - Target creature gets -3/-3 until end of turn - Target creature gets -2/2 until end of turn and another target creature gets -2/-2 until end of turn - Three target creatures get -1/-1 until end of turn *NOTE: This way of doing things modally didn't show up until way later. They used to do the modes with in-line text. See: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=25863&type=card Though I think in Ravnica they figured out you could template it like Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn Target creature gets -1/-1 until end of turn They didn't have poo poo down as tight back then when it came to templating stuff TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:Wizards would love if modern and legacy died off so they could focus their efforts on solely Standard and sell $4.99 packs to kids hoping to rip a dope mythic while maybe putting out a commander set now and again Yes they would love that so much they're printing their third modern-only set, which they expect to be a huge financial failure
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:All in all this is a lot more complex a business than you think it is. Also I'm willing to bet the company that does market research year-round and has sales figures from past sets has a better handle on how much to print than "random internet poster who desperately wants prices to come down on specific cards" Like I'm all for cheaper cards but acting like WotC has no idea what they're doing is baffling to me* *except for those twitter posts. Bergeot should have said nothing
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Sickening posted:WOTC has made some staggering moves of incompetence over the years that it is more baffling that people still believe any of this. It's pretty simple: 1. They have access to information that we don't about their sales, profits, and costs 2. Their priorities don't always align with player priorities (profits vs. secondary market costs) 3. Smart companies still make mistakes from time to time. That doesn't make them incompetent PhyrexianLibrarian posted:Sales figures, sure, but the closest thing I've seen to "market research" is that Twitter poll Forsythe or someone else put up asking what people thought of Standard. Which was deleted after most people said it sucked. You haven't been paying attention if you haven't seen this. In addition to "private" research they do, such as focus group testing (that I've personally worked on in the past), they also regularly run consumer surveys on their site, both to test response to new sets and to test user experience on their site. These are both visible, common examples of market research that they regularly do. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:WotC are truly experts in how to do reprint sets, as evidenced by noted roaring success MM15 Honestly this kind of sentiment baffles me. Again, companies make mistakes. MM15 was two years ago and apparently something they learned from, given the frothing enthusiasm over the new set. And like every other company, WotC isn't a monolith. Different teams make decisions on different sets, and the individuals responsible make mistakes from time to time. The entire company isn't "incompetent" or "not experts" because they stumble on a secondary product. Not everything they do is going to be a roaring success or a flawless product. They make a lot of decisions that I don't necessarily agree with, but I'm also not a Hasbro shareholder and so there's no reason for me to desire high secondary market prices for anything. This also doesn't make them incompetent boobs
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Wotc's incompetence in the digital realm makes me think that they are not, in fact, a smart company. It's definitely a clear indicator that the people in charge of their paper products should not have been put in charge of digital products, and that they probably should have just licensed the product to a separate company that knew what they were doing. It was definitely nowhere near their core competency. The only thing I'd say in their defense is that when they started making MtGO, it was completely uncharted territory and it was OK to have a rocky start. 16 years later, there's no excuse for the state of that product. Duels was pretty good for a while there, though Chill la Chill posted:Have you read their Glassdoor reviews? I haven't, but I'll take a deeper look this weekend. A cursory glance looks like a lot of "not enough room for advancement," which doesn't surprise me given how long the execs have hung around there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:Their actions wrt standard, modern, commander, online, tournaments, and I'm sure other areas have been sloppy for years. We're not talking about a bad set or two from an otherwise perfect track record honestly I'm curious as to which sets you think were bad vs good, since you think the last what, 5? 10? years have been a horrible disaster?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:If you grade WOTC on a curve with all other corporations they probably don't come off looking that bad, but this is damning with praise so faint that you have to squint to make it out from a few feet away. I don't envy them, since it doesn't seem like they have a lot of other companies they can emulate or look at when it comes to creating a successful template for things like tournaments/events. It also seems like they fall hard into the "traditional media" problem that I hated dealing with when I worked in TV, where anything they do digitally has to justify/support the traditional product, and never gets to be its own thing (or get the support it needs to be such). Chill la Chill posted:The reason why WOTC is much more successful than GW is that they closed down their physical stores more than a decade ago. If those were still around, I'm sure we'd probably see some of the fun gimmicks like odd hours, one-person stores, and relentless pushing of Also the fact that magic doesn't require nearly the insane investment of money, time, and space that warhammer does, and is somehow still much less socially painful to play. Magic can be played on any kitchen table in 10 minutes. Warhammer takes a 6x4' table and at least 3 loving hours every time you play.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:Their market research should be considered completely flawed, given the amount of panic WotC has shown with regards to how they've handled Standard in the last two years. They don't get to the point they have with their main attraction without having some extremely incorrect assumptions made due to misusing focus group data. Standard was on life support, and they've After the research is done, someone still has to interpret it and make a decision about it, and that won't always be what the research suggests. Additionally, what gamers want may not align with the company's priorities. I'd rather the game not be collectible. That seems counter to their goals of making a profit, though. I'm straight-up not qualified to judge whether standard is healthy, nor whether banning cards in standard is good/bad for the health of the format, so I won't comment there. My general take on tournaments from what I've read (it's been a few years since my tournament regular days) and seen and has been published over the years is that modern players overestimate the popularity of their format and think they're a larger group than Standard players, who overestimate their size, and think they're a larger group than casual/"kitchen table" players, who actually make up the bulk of the game's customers. But it's been a while since I've seen anything approaching numbers on this, so I could be wrong. e: the point is, even if WotC is making the *wrong* decision from their research, they still have that when they make the decision, vs. random person with no insight into their sales/profit numbers or the research quote:Lol what? One of the versions (ios?) literally did not function for weeks, the PC version would routinely disconnect you (no prize for either player) and I stopped playing because I had two of my three missions fail - one went to 5/4 games played with X deck, and the other just didn't count matches played with Y deck. I'm the kind of idiot that would have paid money to them if their poo poo worked and their poo poo did not work. Which version are you talking about? When I said "good for a while," I think it was pretty clear I meant "the first couple iterations." I don't think I picked it up after 2013. Also should have been obvious that I didn't think it was still good. But it was a strong intro product when it came out. I know people who got into Magic playing it, which seems like the ultimate goal of the product. ThePeavstenator posted:I'd say the bigger problem is the sexism I'm not about to leave a review on Glassdoor just to see the second page, but this doesn't surprise me. Though it's not some super-rare occurrence on the West Coast either, unfortunately TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Standard showdown was created because no one was showing up to play standard. I know how app dev works for FTP. Magic complicates things because your "whales" tend to buy singles and think about poo poo like pack EV, while your kitchen table gamers and limited players seem like much bigger drivers of actual product purchases, so I'm not 100% sure how that translates to MTG. Re: Standard Showdown, it's not even clear to me *why* Standard was struggling? Clearly someone at WotC thought bannings would help, and I can see how Standard Showdown might help.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Sickening posted:If you believe standard players are still the larger group you haven't been paying attention to the information we have access to. I'd believe that. I'm pretty sure I typed "I could be wrong" right there in my post e: What would still surprise me though is to find that Modern players were actually a larger group than Standard. I totally believe that EDH players are everywhere, but I tend to think of them as part of the "Kitchen table" group, for whatever reason
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
ThePeavstenator posted:Cards were/are under-powered except for the "super important story cards that we want to see play and are pushed for constructed". You had 2 decks to choose from that built themselves and were also very expensive. I get all that (not out of the loop on Magic, I just don't go to tournaments these days), but then I see Hellsau posted:C) banned cards in standard (bad precedent, especially when we aren't in a Caw-Blade or Affinity one-deck standard situation) and I wonder--is banning cards to open up the format bad, or just setting a bad precedent? If certain cards are killing the format, I'd worry less about whether it's a bad precedent to ban cards in Standard than the health of the format
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
80s James Hetfield posted:Yall gonna really spend 50 dollars to draft? Nah, but I'll buy a box and draft with friends
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Banning cards isn't bad. It makes the format better when they ban stuff. The fact that a card is bannable is bad. This was my feeling on it as well
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:If I could wave my wizard wand and make one change to MtG, it would be bringing back the old frames. I'd go with the Planar Chaos shifted borders, personally. Best mix of the two
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Do they pay you for this, or is this one of those things you're meant to do because it's just so much fun? ahahahahaha
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Jenx posted:Man, those Duel Decks lists... Have they just decided to replace the planeswalker ones with the new intro decks? If so, I wouldn't bet on Duel Decks having a bright future ahead of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Siivola posted:They've only been making Planeswalker Decks since Kaladesh, what're you on about? Half the duel decks were "planeswalker X vs. Planeswalker Y." If they feel like the PW decks are the right avenue to do that type of product, then I could see them just doing the non-PW ones, but I guess we'll see when the next one is announced. I mean, functionally the new PW decks are pretty close to what the PW Duel Decks look like, only with a narrower set scope.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Siivola posted:Oh, I got confused. Thanks for clarifying. Yeah I like the PW Duel Decks but the others are much more miss than hit. I think being able to print new PW-specific cards for the new PW decks gives them a huge advantage in terms of playability, though. Elyv posted:I have to say, a lovely suspend storm combo deck is a new direction for wotc to take with Duel Decks yeah that poo poo makes no sense. Realtalk though, I'd strongly consider playing in a dueldeck constructed format. By that I mean, following their general rarity guidelines. My friends and I played around with dueldeck like deck construction (3 rares, 13 uncommon limit), and it's a pretty fun format to play with. Led to us creating a bunch of internally-balanced decks that we now break out when we want to get in some quick games. Most are based on a theme (we have one deck for every 2-color guild, for example).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Nissa vs. Ob Nixilis was released last autumn. They do the planewalker-themed Duel Decks in autumn and have been for the last five years. Yeah, but wasn't it announced before they announced the PW intro decks? Seems like it's not a big stretch to imagine that one part of WotC wasn't consulting the other but hey I hope I'm wrong so whatever
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Siivola posted:My VtES playgroup did something similar to allow new people to "buy in" with a precon starter without getting dunked by decks with a million rares. It was actually pretty nice, particularly since the game hasn't been in print in ages. Yeah, that's generally what we've done--the set of decks is pretty large now. I should also point out that we tend to max out at 2 copies of a given nonland card as well. Prevents the decks from getting too consistent, which means more diverse games.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I have that Esper Swamp (phone posting but you know the one) in foil, it is v pretty. I mean EDH is pretty popular and it was only printed once two years ago in a smaller print-run, higher-cost product so I could see it I guess
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
So are we just not talking about the potentially leaked Amonkhet split card that surfaced and hasn't been proven fake yet?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:It was talked about and then promptly forgotten because it's not that interesting of a card, and the gimmick doesn't mean much until we see where else they go with it. fair enough, guess I missed it. The split flashback mechanic is interesting to me--it's def powerful enough to have an impact on constructed play--but yeah, the card itself was p blah
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
this guy gets it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:I think the only person in this thread who actually likes Magic is actually mcmagic. I like Magic a lot. Possibly my favorite game. But that's also why I don't post in here that often.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:OK so this one's great and all but This. The Mirage basic lands were gorgeous. Though I have a soft spot for some of the Ice Age Lands, like Wanerstrand's mountains and Maddocks' snow-covered island E: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=2764 http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=184813
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Entropic posted:I definitely have some nostalgia for the Ice Age basics. It was basically the artist's preference on how they wanted to do their lands. I'm not a fan of the Swamps/Plains/Forests from IA, though
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Retromancer posted:I really wish they would reprint the unhinged lands in something because they're just unquestionably the best. art-wise, I like the Unglued lands more
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:this is actually worse then if they had taken the month, cause it means that when they made that tweet they could have always done it this easily welcome to software dev, where simple fixes take weeks or months due to the standard release process
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:the simple fix didn't actually take weeks, and it clearly never needed weeks that's my whole point
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Hellsau posted:It potentially could have needed weeks. It definitely shouldn't have needed weeks, but the MTGO's management is allegedly horrendous and the devs might not have been allowed to implement the easy fix of "add cards to list" and somehow, WotC decided that it was a better PR move to tell their customers that it takes four weeks to add cards to a list than to hire more devs to not be so short handed that they have to leave such an embarassing situation be for four weeks. It's not about hiring more devs; it's about pushing out a fix outside of the standard development cycle. Even a quick/simple fix needs to be tested and QA'ed and pushed live*. *though FWIW, QA is probably where MTGO is the most understaffed
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:23
|
|