Posted By WotC_Ian on 01/26/2008 10:52 AM
 Krush: I personally think this format will help you. If you only have limited spend then the percentage of viable minis you get in a few boosters will likely be higher in a limited format than a 'play them all' format. I have no idea of you collection size but if it's extensive and you trade well then the Vintage format maybe a competitive outlet. I've tried to offer a format and tournament support identical for both sets of players. Those that want to play with everything and those saying they want a more restricted environment. Therefore we've removed nothing and added something to aid those players asking for it. You can still play competitively as you did if playing with everything was the most desired format. Still play in a championship series and still win prizes the same.

Ian

Posted By Thenameless on 01/26/2008 10:07 PM
Ian, thanks for posting your comments here on Maxminis. It's nice to know that our feelings are being taken into account when company decisions are made. Did you forget the password to your old Talafenix account, or did you just feel the new name would make things clearer?

Posted By Thenameless on 01/26/2008 10:07 PM
Anyway, as Wraithborne has stated above, it is the nomenclature of the new formats that makes me a bit nervous. "What's in a name?" - one might ask. Well, I would have liked it much better if it was the other way around ( i.e. if "vintage" was called "standard", and "standard" was called "current"). I know it's a longshot, but I would rather win the Championship of the format called Standard, rather than win the Championship of the format called Vintage or Current.

Posted By Krush on 01/26/2008 9:39 PM
Ian

Posted By WotC_Ian on 01/26/2008 10:35 PM


Anytime. Can you express what about it upsets you so we gain full understanding?

Ian

Posted By Lord_rock on 01/27/2008 3:30 PM
yes Ian, you have some of our gratitude.

Set rotation only helps new players and people with limited funds; this is both hasbros favorite market and thier worst. 

Ian: Going to be honest and forthright here. That's not in the slightest true of our team. We're motivated and only motivated to offer the best experiences to the largest amount of players and hence we're not limiting formats to just X or Y. Again I ask you to read some of the threads on our boards and see that a significant amount of posters have expressed a call to introduce a more restricted format. These posters are existing players and many with no limited income. The thing is we're all different individuals and all would like different experiences and often a mix of them. Like with eating out. I don't necesarily want to eat steak every time. I like steak and eating steak every night sounds appealing initially but in the end it gets boring. as to your assumption about Hasbro. It is pure assumption as I remarked in the beginning.

Vintage appeals to only long timers who the company doesn't really care for MOST of the time (but that's slowly changing)
 
Ian: Again totally incorrect. If that was true we'd of not talked long and hard with those individuals, we'd of not included a bunch of them in development and feeback. All these things we have done and will continue to do. This has been a feature of D&D for a long long time.

as they already have your $ and to new players with lots of money- their favorite market. It takes time and $ to appease those in vintage and why would they spend more money to come out just above even with that crowd when they can rake it in with the new crowd? That's the rub.

Ian: Sorry I don't see your point. I will run Vintage with the same level of support. Championships, QTs the works. None of the this takes time as it's just a continuence of what we're already doing. Therefore the Vintage player has been looked after since the beginning and will still be looked after in exactly the same way all we've done is add a new format called for by community, stores and newer players themselves.

We also worry about the viability of older pieces in regards to "powercreep". Often a vintage figure isn't played because the new stuff is powered up. As time goes on the company will work to spend less time and money making sure vintage stays balanced and focus on "standard" (which I believe is a horrible choice for the "new" format to be named).

Ian: We can agree to disagree in names. It stops confusion and allows for a tranparancy for all players who already play similar formats to understand that we don't call a format differently due to differentgames. As to balance. I can understand the fear but in the whole time of DDM only 1 piece has been banned and that now will be removed (a scoop for Maxmins *-)). Again it will be pure assumption that we'll spend less time on these. We have even gone as far as to add a team member to focus primarily on designing DDM. Peter Lee, a long time community player and Judge joined us at the beginning of this year and adds to the R&D team working on DDM.

We have worries that a game we love will be treated the same way as other games we have loved are treated when the same company starts doing the same thing to the new game that killed our love for the old one (and lie about it or tell half truths or just havn't thought it out or have not expressed their thoughts clearly enough to the community).

Ian: Since the only game we can compare is Magic I once again say that Magic is Magic and DDM is DDM. They are not the same and nor do the same teams work on them. Every team member is very much focused on bringing you the best expereicne as possible both in OP or the game itself.

I'm in for now but the second it becomes standard only a lot of us are gone.

Ian: That's all I can ask and I'm confident you'll have a lot of fun. Anytime you feel you're not please express that to me directly and we can debate what could make it fun again. I don't always get to read all the boards as often as I am right now due to being in Vegas. My wife had medical reasons to be here and I am spending time while she rests to ensure I'm here answering as many questions as I can day and night. I'll endeavor to do so as often as I can but it's best to contact me directly either via PM on the Wizards boards linking a thread or just email me at wizards.com using my name with a period between.


Ian

Posted By Wraithborne on 01/24/2008 10:45 AM
The Standard format will be used for all 2008 qualifier tournaments leading up to the D&D Miniatures Standard Championship at Gen Con Indy 2008.

Posted By kyrin on 01/28/2008 3:25 PM
As a player, I am quite excited about both 2.0 and set rotation, as it's been getting dull seeing the same strategies and the same warbands over and over.

Posted By XAos on 01/29/2008 9:17 AM

If the standard format is used for the major tournaments. Maybe I'm overly competative, but I see no point in playing Vintage in friendly games or local tournaments. It doesn't let me test a single thing about how a warband will play in the major tournaments.

Since I detest set rotation, as it indiscriminently bans all the good units along with the bad. I'll be voting with my wallet.

Posted By ckissee on 01/30/2008 12:01 PM


6) WotC announced the addition of the Standard format and set rotation for DDM. The people who had paid ungodly amounts for their overpowered minis were outraged that their minis would be worthless, and that in order to be competitive in the new format, they would have to spend tons more money, and not just once, but on a regular basis, in order to play competitively.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



3) No matter what you do to constructed tournaments, DON'T SCREW WITH MY LIMITED FORMAT!!!!!!!!

Posted By Thenameless on 01/31/2008 12:41 AM
Hello Ian and other Fans of DDM,

This is about nomenclature again. If the names aren't yet set in stone, I have the following suggestion. Since our current DCI rankings/ratings for the Constructed format will become the new Vintage format, why don't we just keep the name the same and leave it as Constructed? Call this new format Standard if you want.

You see, I like vintage automobiles, antiques, and art. It just doesn't quite have the same ring to it when refering to supermodels and games.

The above though, is still just a compromise. If I had my way, the formats would have the following names:

Epic (just a nicer sound to it than the old Extreme for 500+ point games)

Standard (Constructed, all pieces allowed)

Limited (this new Constructed format being introduced, as the pieces one chooses from are "limited")

Sealed (what we currently call limited)

Yes, it might be confusing at first (especially the part about changing Limited to Sealed), but it would make the most sense in the long term. And, the names would make sense to new players entering the game. It would make sense if the Epic Champion won the format using epic versions of pieces. It would make sense if the Limited Champion won the format allowing a limited amount of pieces. It would make sense if the Sealed Champion won with a warband created from sealed boosters. And finally, it would make sense if the Standard Champion won a constructed event allowing all pieces.

(steps down from dais hopefully not getting boo'd out of town hall)

Posted By WotC_Ian on 01/30/2008 11:27 PM

Did I miss something here? I want to be perfectly clear, we're ADDING a format. We are still retaining the format you are playing currently, namely you can play with everything. This includes a championship and is called Vintage. Standard is the all new formet with limites sets to consider. This was asked for by retailers, existing long term players and new players alike. I held lengthy talks about these formats and other formats on the Wizards boards gathering input from others that I don't see or hear from at shows or other forums.

If it wasn't clear I'm sorry. Also my email door is always open. Feel free to express what you'd like to see or have in the game. I know I'm always open to suggestions.

Ian

Posted By XAos on 01/31/2008 4:09 AM
Looks like you missed something;
The announcement says the major Tournaments (Gencon & it's qualifiers) will be Standard.
You seem to believe that by "just adding a format" and making it the format for the most imporatant tournaments. That Vintage play will still be viable.
If you do believe that, then axiomatically you should believe that standard play will be viable if you make Vintage the choice for the most important tournaments.
Me I'll be happy if you reverse which you support where. Since I can then play Vintage at major tournaments. And use house rules to play Vintage in friendly games.


 

Posted By greyhaze on 02/01/2008 11:47 AM
If I am reading XAos correctly; the level of support may be the same, but standard format is getting GenCon.

Posted By Krush on 01/31/2008 12:36 AM
Reagarding my post that was apparantly over looked. I take it that no one else is a pissed that we have only set to play with legally in the 2.0 era, well at the moment. Regardless, I still feel that more than 1 set should have been available for the re-stat when the new rules were released.

In my own boat
K 2.1

Posted By Wraithborne on 02/01/2008 4:00 PM
Experience may be the Only D&D exclusive Con, but I don't know that you'll ever shake the feeling among many that GenCon is "The" Con and whatever championship is held there is by default the most important. It's more centrally located and has a long, rich history and nostalgia factor that will take a long time to catch up to. The 2 are close to equidistant from me, but if there's one that I get to go to this year, it'll be GenCon hands down.

Posted By greyhaze on 02/01/2008 11:47 AM
If I am reading XAos correctly; the level of support may be the same, but standard format is getting GenCon.

Posted By WotC_Ian on 02/01/2008 11:17 AM

Maybe I am missing something as both Vintage and Standard get Championships as per the announcement. Both get exactly the same level of support as I announced. There it's not 'the' fomat but just an additional format. An additional format with the same level of support. Therefore there is no need to reverse anything as both get it. Am I addressing your thoughts or am I off base and misreading things? If I am I'm happy to try and clarify the issue as I have been known as dense.

Ian

Posted By Vrecknidj on 01/24/2008 10:23 AM
Note the sentence which says "...inspect the cards."

I hope that they mean that this means that they're going to take suggestions and fix the errors that have been found so far.

The pile of errors is alarmingly huge.

Hordelings Link

Dave