Spzi

I mean, both could be brainwashed. Or neither. It's funny, but rationally pretty moot.

Just because many people say the same thing does not mean it's false. And just because you're the only who disagrees does not mean you're right.

Or maybe it's rather a matter of taste and opinion.

Though I don't see many communist paradises where people try to migrate in masses. While many non-communist countries exist which have such a pull. Ah, silly me, that's probably due to all the propaganda only.

the design crime with Nadu was the fear of shipping a bad card after nerfing the card.

That's an excellent point. Because, put that way, what's so bad about shipping a bad card? People will read it once and never look at it again. Like most cards in a set. So what? On the other hand, making it too strong has grave consequences.

I think the feature creep is caused mostly by greed on both sides; company and players. Company wants to make more money, so needs incentive for players to keep buying. Players want ever stronger cards, and company delivers. Like you can't make the new set weaker than the previous, because of sales.

“stop printing undercosted legends with as many abilities as you can jam into a text box”

So much this. So often I come across a card. Start to read. Nice! Continue reading. Whoa, nice! And then I'm only half through.

I then like to ask myself if this card would still be nice if it had less/weaker features. And then I'm shaking my head again, going AngryVideoGameNerd "What were they thinking!?".

Examples:

• [The End]. Exiling any number of copies is strong on it's own, doesn't have to become cheaper at low life.
• [Ocelot Pride]. Not sure if it needs first strike. It definitely does not need the extra with the City's Blessing.

I feel there are much better examples, but I wanted to stop thinking about it.

this just misses every one of the complaints for me. He’s basically saying “this is hard, I’ve been doing this for 30 years, trust us”

I don't know what exactly these complaints are, but I also stumbled over this passage. Sure, making magic is hard and you cannot test everything in such a complex system.

It's also clear that there has to be a last day for the changes, and thus some changes will be late. Although, I argue, if you keep making changes in the last 5 minutes, that probably hints at your testing period being too short.

It's not a given that "we only have so much time". It's an economic decision made by management; how much they value testing. They surely try to strike a balance between testing enough and making the most profit. Which is the whole point of this comment.

Despite him claiming otherwise, of course a different, more qualtiy-focussed approach is possible. For example, one rather extreme version would be "we only release a set after we found nothing worth changing for 3 consecutive months in testing", just to illustrate the range of possibilities. One can move fast and break things, or be very cautios but move slower.

Though I'd rather have a profit-oriented MTG with too little testing than a bankrupt; or no MTG at all, although that's probably a false dichotomy.

Quality comment, well said.

I'm not sure (take that literally, please) wether both causes deserve to be treated as equals, but I can very much vibe with the general spirit of your comment. That's what I had in mind when writing the last paragraph of my previous comment.

Reading the article, it somehow baffled me how much work and thought they actually put into this. Like it mentions meetings, wow.

For many new cards, I get the feeling they really don't mind making them too strong. Similar thoughts when I look at the fanbase.

I (also) enjoyed the game when playing a 3/3 bear on turn 3 was nice. Now you sort of have to expect an indestructible hexproof creature with maybe even more abilities, for 2 mana, to be deemed playable.

Rambling off, sorry thanks.

By which criterias/standards do they make these cards, and evaluate later wether they need to be banned or not?

Haha, true! I had a similar thought:

"together strong" can be said by any group. Especially fascists, who very much value a sense of community and strength internally.

But really, it can apply to all kinds of governments ("Together for the king!") and economies (like corporation, which is pretty much 'together strong' in capitalist speak).

So I think if one wants to make a point why their system is favorable over other systems, they should not emphasize the one point they all have in common, but highlight where and how it makes a difference.

I'll just assume OP did that IRL. Memes are undercomplex.

Hey, I know a pretty similar bus stop in Hamburg, Germany: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SMa5unXew4uAfVtPA

Can confirm, it sucks to wait there. Hard to reach (always tempting to risk your life for catching the bus), noisy, stinky, plus ours has bicyclists zooming through the isle.

To optimize the intersection for car traffic. Or maybe rather to minimize signal wait times.

If pedestrians could take the shortest path, it would roughly double the size of the intersection in both width and height. Which then requires clearing times on each signal pass to be longer. Which ultimately makes everybody wait longer at the intersection, including pedestrians.

So, that is one possible explanation. I guess you didn't really ask for one, and maybe I should also add that it's just that; an explanation, not a justification.

This is like if Hezbollah bombed Yoav Gallant in Tel Aviv. And then Hezbollah starts bombing israeli airports “pre-emptively” because “an israeli attack” (retaliation) is coming.

Yes, exactly. They had good reasons to assume the other side is angry and might do something violent, because they themselves just did something very violent to them! So to protect themselves, they deprive their opponents of means of retaliation. Pre-empting the retaliation.

Hitting someone and then hitting them again because you expect them to hit back does not seem very " self defensy" or “pre-emptive” te me.

I get you. I would totally agree if this was about a school dispute. However in war, there are a number of things which can be done in self defense or to pre-empt an enemy attack which might seem counterintuitive at first, like for example destroying your own infrastructure, or investing in weapons with the intent to never use them.

In war, an attacker can very well attack again to defend themselves and/or to pre-empt the enemy reaction.

If you could hire one of two generals to protect your country; one which considers pre-emptive follow-up attacks and one who would rather let the other side strike back because it seems fair, who would you hire?

You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?

Because, the enemy "is defending itself"?

I'd love to hear that rally speech with which you would motivate your soldiers to just eat incoming rockets without using the tools they have to prevent being attacked.

The strikes are only pre-emptive if we put on white-nationalism glasses and take away Lebanon’s right to defend itself. Israel attacked Beirut first.

I guess as always with language, there are many possible interpretations. Yours is one, that's right.

To me, it came somewhat surprising to see you connected "pre-emptive" to moral judgements, or to the question who attacked "first" (which is a controversial and potentially infinite topic to track the actual honest true 'first' origin).

Another interpretation is just military doctrine. The best defense is a good offense. Who cares who started the fight.

In this interpretation, the IDF felt there might be an attack incoming, and prevented it's adversary from doing so by striking first.

Much like Hezbollah (or any other military force) would gladly pre-emptively strike their foe to protect their own troops. Doesn't say anything about who started the overall conflict or even who's right.

You still have a point; by highlighting the reasons behind the strike, and painting it as a protective measure, it probably makes it easier for the reader to sympathize.