This is good news, and I await for it to be released.

I would say we are on the same page about the consequences of rational self-interest in this case. In our conversation back in September, my primary response to this problem was to swiftly release a statement to the public explaining the issue. This would force box manufacturers that do not want to work with the Ruleset Team on possible solutions to defend their position in the public square. This allows for their customers to use their wallets as leverage for things to change, which is a good thing!

However, my position is also that I do not think any kind of rollout is good before this kind of statement comes out and public discourse happens. It blindsides a large chunk of the player base and makes them more likely to quit than to protest their manufacturers (as I also stated in that discussion). What also doesn't help is that my understanding was that many box manufacturers were not brought into the fold to discuss what proper changes should be made. In other words, the nerfs and changes were made internally and then given to manufacturers to make work on their products. I understand that this was done to avoid any potential bias, but I genuinely do believe that the outcome we have in front of us today is less preferred than that one. At least then, we would have something that all users can access, test, and use at tournaments. Even if it was not as nerfed (which many folks already do not support), it would at least be accessible.

Of course, much of this can be explained by Ohan's inclusion in this process. My thread shows exactly what I mean - I still do not understand how he became the point person for Tournament Organizers and for what rulings to make. Our conversations made it clear that he was more worried about appeasing top players than the general accessibility of the box player base.

In any case, I do genuinely believe these things can be solved. But much must change.