My issue was the use of the phrase "real state of the meta." If you assume disagreement (i.e., subjectivity) as to the current meta, it's hard to say what is the real (objective) meta. I agree that there'll be a gap between changes expected and changes made for all parties involved, but that's fine.WiseMarsellus wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 3:06 pmi think it is the case that many people will look at the meta as it exists now and conclude that there are problems. and then they will imagine solutions to these problems. so when they say, oh i want to see changes, what they often mean is, i want to see my imagined solutions.Wokling wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 2:16 pmThought I was following along until that last sentence. Were you not stating that there will be disagreement between players as to both (1) the meta as it exists now and (2) the imagined changes that will address the meta as each individual player conceptualizes it?WiseMarsellus wrote: ↑October 3rd, 2019, 9:55 amone thing to keep in mind.
right now, all respondents have a definite idea of what the meta is as it exists right now. they also have an idea of what they would like either the reset, or a collection of card changes, to look like. now, those ideas will conflict with the ideas of other community members and presumably will conflict with the changes or reset as implemented. i suspect that many people answering that they would like change are doing so with the idea that it would be the changes they would like to see implemented. this pits the real state of the meta against an idealized future of the game
but player b may not like player a's solutions. they may not address player b's concerns, or may change something player b likes. player a and player b may be both looking at the same cardpool and saying, yes, change something, but that doesn't mean that they agree.
not responsive to eric, but responsive to the thread as a whole: i personally would be interested in doing fairly regular (annual?) small tweaks, kind of like we did in the period between 2007 and 2009. if that were an option on the poll it is how i would have voted. such an approach is less vulnerable to the issue i bring up here, as the changes will be less major
As to your suggestion. I think Joe envisioned option 2 as embracing that idea. Option 1 is a full reset (everything goes except a select few), Option 3 is no change, and Option 2 is somewhere between the two poles. We'd then drill down and see where the community wishes to end up on that spectrum (for example, change 10-15 cards or change 100-150).