This post is not about Magic the Gathering. If you normally read my blog to hear about me rant about card values, format changes, draft strategy, constructed failings or other analysis, come back next time. This time i'm going to talk about myself as a person. I expect to get some negative feedback from some of this. Fine. Sometimes you just have to say what you need to say to be honest and open about who you are and what you're about.
Most people who follow me on twitter (or read my blog for that matter; did you know that about 95+% of my closest friends don't even know I have a blog? They know i have a twitter but dont follow because they have no interest in Magic.) haven't met me in real life. Those who have, haven't spent much time with me, and don't know much about who i am as a person. I'm okay with that. I like engaging with people and the experiences and e-friendships gained in the process have been extremely valuable to me, but thats not how it started.
Many of you started following me within a day or two of me joining Twitter. I had only recently branched out from the curious kitchen-table player who was relearning the game after 10+ years away. I had joined StarCityGames premium service, and read Patrick Chapin's, Next Level Magic and at that time was my first realization as to how much strategy there was to the game, and how much high level competition was actually available to gamers. This stage carried on for about a year. I started drafting a ton, and really learned the ropes, spent a lot of time reading, practicing, asking questions, and just straight drafting. Eventually, I felt like I was knowledgable enough to actually get involved in the SCG forums instead of just lurking. I didn't really consider myself "trolling" at the time, and I really don't think I was a troll in general, but Ocassionally i'd leave a snarky remark here or there, usually mixed in with a post that actually had content I thought was relevant. One day, there was an article on SCG about PTQ structure, I believe authored by a PTO. In the forums people were ranting and crying about the profiteering that the PTO's engage in during PTQ seasons. While I don't agree with that stance at all, many did. Steve Menendian maybe didn't take it that extreme, but did go on to rant about a variety of changes that would improve PTQ experience/quality over all (in his opinion). Initially, I disagreed with some of his points, and tried to engage, but i wasn't really getting a response from him. He was focused on picking apart trolls arguments labeling them as Ad Hominem attacks or Straw-man arguments. Eventually some notable pros started chiming in, and before the end of the day, the entire forum was name-calling and essentially shunning Steve and everything he had to say. Someone must have advised him to take the conversation off-site because, to put it bluntly, you shouldn't shit where you eat. Steve picked the conversation back up at salvation, and once i heard about that I followed, and the trolling (see: Bullying) continued. By the end, I had a twitter account, and was rabblerousing people to chime in on the corresponding forum conversations that were going on, and I also was using the same forum posts to promote my newly founded twitter account in the signature. That day, i picked up a handful of followers, and a few of them were influential enough that likely created that chain that is the reason why you follow me now, whether you knew this or not.
From then on, I used twitter as my dump for my commentary on all internet content regarding Magic. As a result, i met some people, and learned that Twitter is really much more than a forum. There was a day after about 6-9 months on twitter, when I was notified i was nominated for some award on some blog i hadn't heard of (and dont remember). There was an "Angriest MtG community perosn on twitter" or something like that. I was nominated, and so was @dr_jeebus. At the time i was shocked. Angriest? Me? and I started looking over my post history. Someone not knowing me readign this thinks i'm an angry troll. It turns out they were right. I see a lot more of my own life than the people on Twitter see, so I didn't really judge myself based on my twitter feed alone. But looking at it objectively, there was no other way to describe me. This also coincided with a time when @marshall_lr (@marshalllrcast at the time) asked me why my real name was not listed on my account. it all kinda struck me at the same time. i was using the internet anonymity to personally separate this awful side of me from myself! As long as I felt other people didn't associate that behavior with the "real me" i didn't associate it that way either. I rationalized it as "I dont want people to find me and see my M:tG obsession out of context." or "Employers might see this..." (Jeebus used this one today) there were plenty of others. At that time, i decided to put my name on my Twitter. And I did. Immediately, my behavior changed. It took little to no effort. The key is: I DIDN'T WANT TO BE THAT GUY! And I didn't think I was. As an anonymous person on the internet, I thought i was filling the void of what people wanted. I thought it was entertaining. While I dont think i was actively /mean/ to anyone, i was behaving in a way I never would in any other context, and that didn't make me feel good. Now, Twitter is a pretty awesome place for me. I've met local players via Twitter, also people globally that i hope to meet at future events, and even total jerks that I just enjoy reading their thoughts. This change happened a long time ago, and i'm comfortable with the fact I made some mistakes, but have moved on.
Separately from all of this, I've been doing a lot of introspection lately. A lot of stressful things have been culminating for me, and also some skeletons are crawling back from my closet, among other things. I've been reading a book about Authenticity and Shame, and it reminds me of the type of behavior I experienced in my early Twitter days. I remember how inauthetic that person was, and how shamed I felt when I realized that I didn't want that behavior associated with myself. I dont know what @Dr_Jeebus is goign through. I've never been a fan of the guy, and I'm not saying whoever outted him was wrong (or right) in doing so. Maybe none of this phases him. Maybe he's really 100% troll all the time, and its not just an anonymous gag. But my gut is telling me that he's either having (or will have) a similar realization now that his "bully/troll schtick" is now associated with his "Real Self." Is he comfortable with that? Maybe he is. I wasn't, and it made me feel like shit. Super shit. Like that most uncomfortable, musta-ate-something-rotten shit. And I feel for him. I feel for him, whether he feels this way or not. I empathize with the realization that anonymous behavior is still something you, as yourself has done. And I empathize with the courage it takes to admit that "I am Chad Havas, and I did things on the internet anonymously that I am not proud of, and would never endorse with my own name." Maybe he's not ready to do that. Maybe he is. But this blog post is about me, and not him. In either case, the internet is a bridge for everyone. I stopped living underneath it like a troll, and used it to connect myself to places that were otherwise unavailable to the real me.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
Cavern of Souls, Ponder, Mana Leak and Snapcaster Mage....
Today there's been quite the stir on my Twitter feed, in response to Master Deveoloper @zdch's article. I chimed in a couple times, but mostly been soaking in the awesome discussion. I do have some thoughts on the matter, and it goes something like this:
"Delver/Snapcaster are not the problem in Standard, it's Ponder/Mana Leak"
This is both true and misleading, in my opinion. Sure, Ponder and Mana Leak may be making Delver and Snapcaster much stronger respectively, and the inherent powerlevel of Ponder specifically is much higher than of Delver of Secrets in most formats. So if we want to solve the Ponder + Delver = Unfair problem (and maybe we don't, but if we did...), you'd need to remove either Ponder or Delver. My contention is while Ponder is the much stronger card, Delver would be the one that can go. Delver can't really function as a card in Standard without Ponder, otherwise we have a 1/1 way too often, and a deck with such a low threat density would never be able to close out a game. Ponder on the other hand, is a very good card for a lot of decks. It itself is not broken, it simply gives you tons of choices and as long as those choices don't interact with Ponder in a broken way, it actually increases the diversity of the format allowing for more deck types to be possible. While at the same time, many decks that play Blue don't even need Ponder. So yes, the power of Ponder is what turns Delver of Secrets from an awful card into a reasonable threat in Standard, but without cards like Ponder, Standard as a format (with such a limited card pool) is extremely boring, slow, inconsistent and unbalanced.
"Mana Leak is too good. Creatures should be resolving, and late game threats are important to force through to be able to go over-the-top of Aggro-Control."
Ugh, this one is a tough one for me. "Too good" is a tough statement to support. Mana Leak is arguably one of the worst cards in all the control decks that play it, but one of the best cards in U/x Delver variants. Mana Leak is a perfectly fair counterspell for control decks. Control decks want the game to go long so they need a flexible answer to a variety of threats from turn 2-5 until they can stabilize via Wrath, at which point their plan is to halt the game with a Planeswalker, Utility Land, or large protectable creature. The drawback, is since they intend to take the game long, there's no doubt these Mana Leaks will lose tons of value when drawn later in the game, and they are also unable to deal with spells cast on Turn 1 (and even Turn 2 when on the draw, or when dealing with awkward manabases that don't allow an untapped land all the time on Turn 2). Aggro Control on the other hand, is trying to do something very different. They want to apply a aggressively costed threat and protect it from the control decks using Mana Leak, forcing the control decks to survive until turn 6 or 7 to safely resolve a Sweeper. At the same time, against all-in aggro decks, they can turn the mana leaks into removal once they have advantage on board to prevent additional threats or problem permanents from hitting the board. Since these decks want to win the game before either play hits 6 mana, these Mana Leaks are always amazing for them. It solves every problem they could face, and it does it for a very low cost. The fact that their main source of damage against a control deck comes down on Turn 1 before Mana Leak, and then can be protected by Mana Leak for at least 3-4 turns from spot removal, and even longer from sweepers is why its such a perfect fit in those decks.
I personally prefer reactive control decks, as a result, I get scared when I hear developers say they want to nerf counterspells and blue style control in general. I understand they have metrics that dictate what types of mechanics to buff/nerf based on sales (among other things), so I have to have some faith that they do these things intelligently. I will say, the more frequently I hear someone from R&D say "We messed that up..." I'm less likely to just blindly trust that this game will still be awesome in a couple years. For quite a while, I never questioned it, but in the last couple years especially, we have Jace, the Mindsculptor, Stoneforge Mystic, Mental Misstep, Mana Leak and Snapcaster Mage all as cards some R&D member has said shouldn't have been printed. Even more so, there's been some reprints that have been mistakes (Titans repeat...) Now, none of these individual "mistakes" are damning to the R&D team (they are obviously awesome), but if it becomes their echoing claim, "Hey we make mistakes, sorry..." I'm going to become a much more skeptical consumer. Especially when you combine that with the fact that they've determined nerfing the major section of the types of spells I personally prefer.... and who knows. I'm not jumping to any radical conclusions, or slipping down any slopes, but it's something to consider. For me personally, if we're going to lose cards like Mana Leak (which already are not that amazing in decks I like to play), I'm hoping I at least continue to get access to the more narrow hard-counters, like Negate. I love Negate. Negate solves tons of problems, yet is extremely efficient. Control decks get sweepers to deal with multiple creatures and they often net huge card advantage. But battling against Planeswalkers is a Control deck's nightmare, and Negate is just the stones against it. Especially with Snapcaster Mage in the format, I'm much happier to have a toolbox off efficient narrow counters that I can use with Forbidden Alchemy/Snapcaster Mage, using other control elements to stop creatures that are "immune" to sweepers (like Primeval Titan or other ETB effects) as there's /tons/ of other ways to build contorl decks to mitigate that power and card advantage.
Who cares?
This is why it matters. If there is no fear of your spells resolving, defining the best deck in the format is just a calculation of which deck can deal 20 damage the fastest. Sure, there will be variance in draws, but ultimately, there's less choices to be made. R&D's Future-Future-League is disadvantaged in the sense they have a limited size to their Developing team. While they are very skilled, the MtG hivemind gets to run through deck iterations at alarming rates, and tuning a deck becomes a consequential detail that a majority of players never even think about. It scares me that if the toughest decision someone has to make is which haymaker to throw, and not how to play around the counterpunch.
Thanks for reading and thanks to everyone who participated in this conversation today.
"Delver/Snapcaster are not the problem in Standard, it's Ponder/Mana Leak"
This is both true and misleading, in my opinion. Sure, Ponder and Mana Leak may be making Delver and Snapcaster much stronger respectively, and the inherent powerlevel of Ponder specifically is much higher than of Delver of Secrets in most formats. So if we want to solve the Ponder + Delver = Unfair problem (and maybe we don't, but if we did...), you'd need to remove either Ponder or Delver. My contention is while Ponder is the much stronger card, Delver would be the one that can go. Delver can't really function as a card in Standard without Ponder, otherwise we have a 1/1 way too often, and a deck with such a low threat density would never be able to close out a game. Ponder on the other hand, is a very good card for a lot of decks. It itself is not broken, it simply gives you tons of choices and as long as those choices don't interact with Ponder in a broken way, it actually increases the diversity of the format allowing for more deck types to be possible. While at the same time, many decks that play Blue don't even need Ponder. So yes, the power of Ponder is what turns Delver of Secrets from an awful card into a reasonable threat in Standard, but without cards like Ponder, Standard as a format (with such a limited card pool) is extremely boring, slow, inconsistent and unbalanced.
"Mana Leak is too good. Creatures should be resolving, and late game threats are important to force through to be able to go over-the-top of Aggro-Control."
Ugh, this one is a tough one for me. "Too good" is a tough statement to support. Mana Leak is arguably one of the worst cards in all the control decks that play it, but one of the best cards in U/x Delver variants. Mana Leak is a perfectly fair counterspell for control decks. Control decks want the game to go long so they need a flexible answer to a variety of threats from turn 2-5 until they can stabilize via Wrath, at which point their plan is to halt the game with a Planeswalker, Utility Land, or large protectable creature. The drawback, is since they intend to take the game long, there's no doubt these Mana Leaks will lose tons of value when drawn later in the game, and they are also unable to deal with spells cast on Turn 1 (and even Turn 2 when on the draw, or when dealing with awkward manabases that don't allow an untapped land all the time on Turn 2). Aggro Control on the other hand, is trying to do something very different. They want to apply a aggressively costed threat and protect it from the control decks using Mana Leak, forcing the control decks to survive until turn 6 or 7 to safely resolve a Sweeper. At the same time, against all-in aggro decks, they can turn the mana leaks into removal once they have advantage on board to prevent additional threats or problem permanents from hitting the board. Since these decks want to win the game before either play hits 6 mana, these Mana Leaks are always amazing for them. It solves every problem they could face, and it does it for a very low cost. The fact that their main source of damage against a control deck comes down on Turn 1 before Mana Leak, and then can be protected by Mana Leak for at least 3-4 turns from spot removal, and even longer from sweepers is why its such a perfect fit in those decks.
I personally prefer reactive control decks, as a result, I get scared when I hear developers say they want to nerf counterspells and blue style control in general. I understand they have metrics that dictate what types of mechanics to buff/nerf based on sales (among other things), so I have to have some faith that they do these things intelligently. I will say, the more frequently I hear someone from R&D say "We messed that up..." I'm less likely to just blindly trust that this game will still be awesome in a couple years. For quite a while, I never questioned it, but in the last couple years especially, we have Jace, the Mindsculptor, Stoneforge Mystic, Mental Misstep, Mana Leak and Snapcaster Mage all as cards some R&D member has said shouldn't have been printed. Even more so, there's been some reprints that have been mistakes (Titans repeat...) Now, none of these individual "mistakes" are damning to the R&D team (they are obviously awesome), but if it becomes their echoing claim, "Hey we make mistakes, sorry..." I'm going to become a much more skeptical consumer. Especially when you combine that with the fact that they've determined nerfing the major section of the types of spells I personally prefer.... and who knows. I'm not jumping to any radical conclusions, or slipping down any slopes, but it's something to consider. For me personally, if we're going to lose cards like Mana Leak (which already are not that amazing in decks I like to play), I'm hoping I at least continue to get access to the more narrow hard-counters, like Negate. I love Negate. Negate solves tons of problems, yet is extremely efficient. Control decks get sweepers to deal with multiple creatures and they often net huge card advantage. But battling against Planeswalkers is a Control deck's nightmare, and Negate is just the stones against it. Especially with Snapcaster Mage in the format, I'm much happier to have a toolbox off efficient narrow counters that I can use with Forbidden Alchemy/Snapcaster Mage, using other control elements to stop creatures that are "immune" to sweepers (like Primeval Titan or other ETB effects) as there's /tons/ of other ways to build contorl decks to mitigate that power and card advantage.
Who cares?
This is why it matters. If there is no fear of your spells resolving, defining the best deck in the format is just a calculation of which deck can deal 20 damage the fastest. Sure, there will be variance in draws, but ultimately, there's less choices to be made. R&D's Future-Future-League is disadvantaged in the sense they have a limited size to their Developing team. While they are very skilled, the MtG hivemind gets to run through deck iterations at alarming rates, and tuning a deck becomes a consequential detail that a majority of players never even think about. It scares me that if the toughest decision someone has to make is which haymaker to throw, and not how to play around the counterpunch.
Thanks for reading and thanks to everyone who participated in this conversation today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)