Just to be clear I'm not dismissing any of WWK's points, as everything he's said about the trade scenario represents a long lasting problem in online game design. It's very clear that changes to cards can yield negative reactions from the players in various situations or sometimes percentages of the playerbase as a whole, as can changes in nearly any game, some more extreme than others. It's just that I do not think the points made should yield the conclusion that was made. This is not and should not be treated as an ordinary card game, and however cliche it may sound, you cannot allow negativity to imprison the game to a singular tool for adjustment, so long as positive effects shadow or create that negativity.
If everyone had every card, what option sounds the best: [Balance the game for everyone], or [Balance only tournaments, and in a very rigid way].
That is the way it looks to me; that's the choice that's being made from that negativity.
I also fear that Mark Rosewater's 'diversity of power rewards skilled players' segment may soon be taken largely out of context in terms of its justification of imbalances in a game, as it's a self fulfilling cycle that does not need to be created or maintained. He defends himself excellently , but drafting will always reward the most skilled player, even more when the game is perfectly balanced, and 100x more because we play infinity wars. The more diverse the power level, the more luck becomes involved. Sure the 'more skilled' player is going to avoid the 'bad' cards and the other guy grabs them. Cool! That gave an advantage, but the problem with that argument from Rosewater is that you do not design a game around 'pro'>'noob', because you end up with "anything that takes any skill" as an acceptable solution to the problem. Instead you design the game around 'pro'vs.'pro' 'noob'vs'noob' , you make it user friendly but the apex must be extremely solid. And of course the game can never be perfectly balanced, but that becomes especially true without patches!
Infinity wars already grants you the ability to show skill beyond deck management, but even in MTG having landmines for new players in draft is not an acceptable justification for any imbalance, be it a bad card or a good one. If it's a bad card the game is better if it is increased in power and a good card is the opposite, as the game has reached it's apex when the choice between the cards of your draft is the hardest decision you've ever made, so long as your life depends on it and you've mastered the game. This scenario highlights both your own interpretations and the estimated strength of the cards in total. A new player still creates these images of differentiation regardless of how close the power levels of the cards become, because even tiny differences can lose the game in spectacular ways, thereby removing the need for intentional power diversity.
Does anyone see the largest correlation between extreme balancing and extreme success in online gaming today?
(It's not MTGO, and it has no solution)