Maybe people feel differently than I do on this point, but I feel like there's a pretty large gap between MTG and SPL, one of the most glaring of which is the base format of the game. It's just hard to equate the two in my mind. SPL has an element of RNG to it which makes it closer to Hearthstone imo. That's a game I haven't played in years, but I remember the debate about Yogg-Saron in a competitive environment and how much RNG can exist in a game before it becomes inherently uncompetitive.
MTG tends to consign a lot of chance based effects to supplemental sets like Un- and Commander prebuilt decks, by contrast HS & SPL rest directly upon these same effects. Obviously, skill trends tend to emerge, which is what makes many players rank consistently high over multiple seasons. It does make me wonder about how much goes into SPL though, how and why bots are perceived to have such an advantage, how much player agency, how much money, how much RNG goes into each match.
Personally, I think the other proposal banning bots is more feasible, but I don't really think either are really possible to implement to a really effective degree. This is really my unprofessional opinion, and I haven't been super involved in the process like some people here, but I haven't even seen a discussion of what type of measures will actually be used to detect bots or what will happen to accounts that are determined to be botting. That should be solidified before we vote on something as bombastic as altering the TOS.
So far, much attention seems to be focused on public facing services that anyone can pick up and get involved with. In light of the amount of cooperation from the dev of one of these services in particular, it's pretty sad that they keep getting targeted like this. Tournaments can already have a flag that disallows battle helper. Modern is already free of the bot. This has all been possible due to the good faith. I'd like that process to receive some recognition.
Can the same be said for private bots though? How will bad faith actors be detected? Does the drive to run bots out of town extend further than this layer, or will it stop once the general public loses their access again? This is a commitment, and I expect it to be treated as such. The reason I have trouble believing that is the timing of this wave; we've had bots for years, but only once anyone can access them has this discussion begun for real. Those of us who fall under the banner of good faith have already divested ourselves of our tools. If this discussion is to continue, it's time to take a serious look beyond that.
Otherwise, this may as well be called the re-privatize bots and helpers proposal.
First I appreciate the thoughtful reply. You cover a lot of topics in it.
You know more than I do about the comparison to other games, so I will defer to you on those points. Many other of your points have been addressed many times on this post, but I will address your conclusion.
This just isn't true. Its how you perceive it maybe, but there has been a core group of players that has steadily watched the number of human players dwindle over the years. It has been an issue for at least 3 years, if not 4. It has nothing to do with whose making the bots/battle helpers and everything to do with the fact that they have ruined the experience for many many players over the years.
Of course, this isn't about targeting any particular group. This proposal is about setting the rules for what the community wants. If you look at the people voting for this, it is not only a high amount of SPS for the proposal, but there are also a massive number of players in favor of this as well.
I realize some people don't understand it, but to assign some ulterior motive for this quantity of players is simply wrong. The fact of the matter is many people want a "game" to play, not a just a defi platform to use their digital assets. While some people think a game is "anything goes", other people want "rules" where its defined what is cheating and what is not.
On top of these points, I would also like to point out that 50% of the rewards go to the players that do use bots and battle helpers. So when you (and others) make a threat to leave if this passes, its basically saying that half the reward pool isn't enough, you want access to it all.
And respectfully, I would assert that many people (including me) disagree with that line of logic. We feel that a human vs human mode with no assistance is just as equal to the survival of the game as botting and automated play (if not more so).
So while I do respect you being polite and giving the vote your attention, I do hope you try to understand the points I'm making as valid (and not as some money grab to steal from the poor legitimate bot services).
Hey Dave, thanks for your reply, I didn't expect it this fast!
I guess I should be clear here that I'm not throwing shade at you personally, and I apologize if I came off that way. You seem pretty above board and I respect your process. I have no doubt at all that there is a lot of legitimate support for this proposal, and if you put this in front of me those couple years ago I absolutely would have voted yes as well. I'm just questioning who else is throwing their support behind this thing and why. Maybe that seems tinfoil hat of me but I still feel it's important to consider.
I'm probably not going to quit the game over these things passing either, I'm not sure how I gave that impression. I've been here for a little bit now (I was playing manually around the time of the pre split Bronze level ghost card bots), and I've been on both sides of the bot issue. I do understand why it's a pain point, and I do understand why people wish for a human to human exclusive environment. I've actually been thinking today that I should give bot-free modern a shot when I have some time to spare!
Ultimately, I just felt I should provide my own perspective on such a large issue. As a smaller SPS holder, I don't have a big swing to provide on that end, but participation is important regardless. In that, I feel I'm doing right with this share, just as you are with yours.
Hey Clucks, I appreciate this message a lot. And I also think you are stating your points in a above board way. Even if we disagree on the process or the effectiveness or even the need for such a rule, I do respect you for taking the time to state your thoughts and to voice your opinion. So thanks for doing so!
I also want to say that I'm glad you are going to stick around regardless of how this vote turns out. My goal is to grow the game by attracting and retaining the most amount of players. I have said it many times to others, I'm not anti-bot but instead pro-human vs human play as well.
I do hope you play manually and get the feel for what that is like. I think you will find its fun to select a good team and win with your own mind. I know its not for everyone and sometimes it takes awhile to win, but from your previous message I think you will enjoy it.
And finally, I think its fine to be suspicious of everyone in life. One thing I would suggest you do to ease that suspicion is to go look at the number of people that voted FOR this proposal. Its a lot. And when you see the names and understand they are all wanting to see this game succeed. then I think you will realize that your fears about this proposal having ulterior motives are unfounded. Put another way, I think in order to get this amount of votes spread across the community, I believe you can see many people are hungry for this mode of play.
Thank you again for the nice reply and even if we vote differently, I'm happy we had the conversation about the issue!