Peer Regulation

[Just Mick]

I am a very casual MTG player. That doesn't mean I play relaxed or anything, it just means I don't play much / don't have time to play / don't collect or own cards, even though I genuinely like the game. I enjoy playing more than all that other stuff and I enjoy tweaking decks that I like and devising variant rules.

I play other stuff, and I have to admit MTG is way less balanced than stuff I typically enjoy playing. It's solid, but there are way way too many cards that are overpowered and obviously were printed without thoroughly brainstorming their potential, or that have become overpowered with future installations of cards. These are the cards that everyone plays in tournaments and look at you funny if you don't. Personally I'd rather lose with an original deck than win with the same deck/cards everyone else is playing. And if you are in it for the prize cards/money well you have my pity. I've never actually seen anyone playing with all the same cookie cutter decks that are published all over the internet, so I think on some level most players feel this way, and kind of think the go to cards make MTG less fun.

So I like had this idea, which afaik there is no one doing, Wizards or otherwise (please inform me if I'm wrong) to attempt to make a list of banned cards, and call that a new (unofficial of course) MTG format like standard/extended/legacy etc. With the goal of every card being of approximately equal merit in the right situation or otherwise banned. In video games this is called balancing. And it can usually happen after the fact, especially for modern games connected to the internet. The idea is to not mince anything, just keep the card or not, including all cards ever printed according to contemporary rules, every card you're allowed four of, a card not "banned" today may be banned or even unbanned tomorrow.

The best part to me though is to do it outside of Wizards authority, just by the players for the players who want to play that way.

Anyway that's the idea. And I thought Lackey might be a good way to do it. I like how in Lackey you can just hit the Standard filter and only see cards that pass the filter. So I was thinking, wouldn't it be nice if there was a separate filetree that mirrored plugin folder setup where you could stick .txt files that just listed cards to be banned/regulated. Then you could pull up the drop down and find the option with the same name as the ban file and it would only let cards pass that were not banned. I think in rare cases Wizards even bans/restricts cards, so it could serve that function also. I would like anyway for such a feature to be separate from the plugins if ever implemented. And ban/restrict by card name or number.

Of course if anyone would like to setup a committee for banning lame cards / cards we hate that's an idea too.

[Cyrus]

Wouldn't eventually all cards get banned by this logic?

[Just Mick]

Just the overpowered cards. Wizards has a business model that means producing cards which are better than others so people will buy more cards in the hopes of obtaining those, but gameplay wise it ruins the game and makes most cards more or less fodder. Then there are always the cards even Wizards might not have realized would be so abusable either in hindsight or foresight. I think Legacy bans a significant number of cards just to make it playable. I'm not an authority. The idea is the same. All games like this benefit (read: are made more fun) from balancing.

EDITED: Not saying it's not a lot of fun for some to plumb each new expansion for the best cards. It would just be a different format, and probably an obscure mode of play at that.

[Tokimo]

Pauper magic bans all uncommons and rares. That might be a similar low power format that you'd be looking for.

[Alastair]

Wizards used to maintain such a ban/restricted list many years ago, that's evolved today into the different formats (Standard/Extended/Legacy/Etc...) and I don't think trying to bring back such a restriction would garner a wide following. In my personal point of view Magic has come to the point where there are enough ways to counter any combo of the month, that you don't really need to try to police what cards are/aren't allowed outside of the established formats.

[Just Mick]

I wanted I think to just explain the rationale behind why this would be an awesome feature for Lackey. And it would also complete things like the few broken cards Wizards does ban (more so in Legacy) and the long list of cards it restricts in Vintage.

I would not expect a large following, but I think you would end up with a technically superior game in the long run. Especially superior to Vintage. Also playing/building decks online makes this sort of thing more attractive because it's the only way most people would have access to a large pool of (virtual) cards. It would of course be ideal to be able to have a more or less monolithic group for deciding what to ban or not. It would take the emphasis off the cards themselves and put it on how they interact. With balancing a well rounded deck would not have any cards in it you're happy to see at the top of the game or under any old circumstances (versus particular circumstances)

----

Cards I would suggest banning in Standard ATM would be Goblin Guide, Lotus Cobra, Baneslayer Angel, Eldrazi Conscription, all Eldrazi cards both because of Annihilator and absurd cost cards are too easy to play by other means... cards that generate multiple tokens per turn at low cost. Some examples of what not to ban are probably Bloodbraid Elf, Vampire Nighthawk.

The idea is to end up with a less luck oriented pool of cards. Formats like Pauper sacrifice all of the interesting cards. The idea is just to get rid of the crutch cards. Wizards could not do that itself because of the conflict of interest (in making money)

EDITED: I think the Legacy format is the right idea, it just doesn't go nearly far enough to effect the gameplay in terms of balancing things out.

[Trevor]

Pauper magic bans all uncommons and rares. That might be a similar low power format that you'd be looking for.

Some of the most powerful cards are common, like Lightning Bolt.

[Cyrus]

My issue here is that if you did ban those cards in Standard (and extrapolating to mean you'd ban similar cards in other formats) I think you'd find that cards like Bloodbraid Elf and Vampire Nighthawk were now powerhouses. Think about it, without those better cards in the format, Vampire Nighthawk is a total beast, and would probably eventually earn itself a ban once you found that whoever got that guy into play first would be the eventual winner.

I think the problem most people with your outlook on the game have is that they think it should be a different game. Magic is designed to have these powerhouse cards and have much cheaper cards that take them out at instant speed. If you don't build a deck that can deal with these "deal with it now or lose" cards then you, well, lose, but that is part of the design of the game, not a mistake they made by making cards that are too powerful.
I know a lot of casual players that simply do not make good enough decks to compete with these kinds of cards, so they think the game is broken. But you know what takes out most of the Eldrazi and every other card you mentioned? Dark Banishing (heck, even Terror). Oblivion Ring. Path to Exile. And these are just Standard examples. And Eldrazi Conscription only takes a simple Disenchant or Naturalize to be out of the game.
Personally I'd rather play a game designed to force good deck construction and that encourages smart plays (when to use your answers to their threats) than a game toned down so that it lasts longer and so you don't necessarily need to deal with creatures right away.
Next time you build a deck throw in 8 or so "utility" cards. Cards that don't necessarily help you win, but laugh in the face of your opponent's threats. This will be more difficult if you shy away from White and Black in Standard, so maybe try splashing one of these colors to get your toolbox. I think you'll find that these problem cards are not nearly as big as problem as you may have thought. I personally only get to attack with a baneslayer angel maybe once out of three times that I cast it.

/rant, haha

[Just Mick]

L. Bolt is more of a Bloodbraid class card. It's good, but it's not a game winner just because you happened to draw two early in. Btw, I'm assuming the Bolt comment was in reference to the Pauper format. But yeah Bolt is another one of those better than average cards.

My issue here is that if you did ban those cards in Standard (and extrapolating to mean you'd ban similar cards in other formats) I think you'd find that cards like Bloodbraid Elf and Vampire Nighthawk were now powerhouses. Think about it, without those better cards in the format, Vampire Nighthawk is a total beast, and would probably eventually earn itself a ban once you found that whoever got that guy into play first would be the eventual winner.

No way would you want to ban anything in Standard or anything. Wizards is in the business of selling cards after all, and that is their business. If you did it, it would be yet another format, and an unofficial one at that. Bloodbraid and Nighthawk are good, but like you say, they are not as good as other cards. The baseline you balance against isn't the cards you have not yet banned, but the all of the cards, because the whole point is to balance things for the better good of all. Unfortunately with MTG you can't jump in and adjust card attributes (errata aside) the way you can when balancing many games. So your only tool is banning.

If you made a deck out of nothing but better than average cards. Unless they interplayed with one another well, they would not be much better than a well honed deck with cards that played off one another.

I think the problem most people with your outlook on the game have is that they think it should be a different game. Magic is designed to have these powerhouse cards and have much cheaper cards that take them out at instant speed. If you don't build a deck that can deal with these "deal with it now or lose" cards then you, well, lose, but that is part of the design of the game, not a mistake they made by making cards that are too powerful.

It's not anyones' outlook. It's just that it would be more fun if it was balanced... especially in tournament play. The only consolation you might get is you can say, well you won, but your deck cost 30x more than mine. Just because you ban cards, it's still MTG, just with less cards!!

I know a lot of casual players that simply do not make good enough decks to compete with these kinds of cards, so they think the game is broken. But you know what takes out most of the Eldrazi and every other card you mentioned? Dark Banishing (heck, even Terror). Oblivion Ring. Path to Exile. And these are just Standard examples. And Eldrazi Conscription only takes a simple Disenchant or Naturalize to be out of the game.

Yes but at the end of the day at tournaments only a handful of cards are actually played. And realistically MTG is worse for that, but there's no doubt Wizards/Hasbro has worked out which approach is more profitable for them.

I'm not actually trying to raise an argument. I just suggested some players might like to empower themselves and enrich their experience by balancing out the game however they please, and Lackey would be a great tool for doing that. The more unique features Lackey has to offer the more it will distinguish itself as the software of choice in all things CCG or whatever. In house banning of cards is nothing new BTW.

PS: MTG is weak gamewise from the pov that you need to have an answer for everything the opponent throws at you. In real games each player chooses a path to the win, and a strong offense is just as valid a strategy. Every card you toss in to foil your opponent is one less card you have to beat the opponent so to speak. And I'm not saying that is bad. But MTG would be much richer if there were as many ways to win as possible. Then you would see a ton of creativity at tournaments versus everyone plaything the same few soulless strategies. I personally would rather lose with a novel deck than win with a derivative deck. Of course I try to do both. If MTG was a judged event the people playing with the rehashed decks would end up with 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0  (because it's really ****ing boring)

[Cyrus]

PS: MTG is weak gamewise from the pov that you need to have an answer for everything the opponent throws at you. In real games...

I'm assuming you meant to throw in an "in my opinion" here, since so many players seem to disagree with you. Why do all casual type magic player's assume to more about what makes a "real game" than seasoned veterans of the game? I'm not really trying to argue either, it just seems sort of funny to me to state things this way when there is such a market for the game. Maybe more people prefer games done the way magic is done, with only "star cards" being weeded out from the rest and being the backbone of the metagame. Makes it easier to play ahead for a build a deck that'lll throw 'em for a loop and take home the victory. I know I've won using that sort of strategy before at least a handful of times.

[Just Mick]

Yeah I'm not where the 'real' came from. The sentence seems to demand a qualifying adjective and that's just what my subconscious snuck in there. I'm not sure what word or phrase would make sense there. I'm sure what I was thinking is in most games you have your strengths and you just play the game, versus attempting to bring every counter measure you might need to the table.

In MTG there is of course "control" decks, but most decks should suffice to just just play their strategy as aggressively as possible. The irony is Red is the poster child of aggressive play but most of its direct damage cards can also be used effectively for control, of creatures anyway. I don't see anyone seriously playing mono colour anymore, because one colour just can't play the field. But the image of a mono colour wizard is still classic / the basis for the whole colour system. So I think in that respect MTG has somewhat failed. Cards that permanently lock out a colour with no way out like Iona should probably not be printed just because they're not fair against mono / go against the spirit/core dynamics of MTG like so many banned cards.

I am personally just interested in personal empowerment. I like to see people taking things around them and doing whatever they want with it. Not feeling answerable to any authority.