There's a difference between not liking something and that thing actually having measurable detrimental effects for a product's sales.
Personally, I don't like NWO design. I'd like more commons to be messy tricky cards like Brine Shaman, Pestilence, Phthisis or Exhume. I'd love to commiserate about it with other MtG players over a beer, and trade hits from one another's inhalers and compare the latest trends in highwater pants.
But that's different than claiming at it makes WotC's sales worse. I don't remember the last official statement they made, but for a long time after they talked about designing under the NWO philosophy, they were reporting strings of years of record sales. And in the absence of data, I'd tend to trust Hasbro's market research over results you or I pull out of our asses with our respective sample sizes of 1.
I did check what hasbro has released as far as figures, but the issue with that is they tend put everything into one big pot with their sales. They have an overall profit growth in Q2 which is great for the company, but that is comprised of everything from Nerf to MtG. The reality is they released way too many products too close together and the first layer of response to bad stuff from a company like that is the vendors and store owners.
Sooooooo
You don't actually have anything that backs up your initial claim that Magic is going through a recession.
Reading your posts is like slogging through a swamp made of liquefied baloney.
Public Mod Note
(cryogen):
Infraction for trolling
There's a difference between not liking something and that thing actually having measurable detrimental effects for a product's sales.
Personally, I don't like NWO design. I'd like more commons to be messy tricky cards like Brine Shaman, Pestilence, Phthisis or Exhume. I'd love to commiserate about it with other MtG players over a beer, and trade hits from one another's inhalers and compare the latest trends in highwater pants.
But that's different than claiming at it makes WotC's sales worse. I don't remember the last official statement they made, but for a long time after they talked about designing under the NWO philosophy, they were reporting strings of years of record sales. And in the absence of data, I'd tend to trust Hasbro's market research over results you or I pull out of our asses with our respective sample sizes of 1.
I did check what hasbro has released as far as figures, but the issue with that is they tend put everything into one big pot with their sales. They have an overall profit growth in Q2 which is great for the company, but that is comprised of everything from Nerf to MtG. The reality is they released way too many products too close together and the first layer of response to bad stuff from a company like that is the vendors and store owners.
Sooooooo
You don't actually have anything that backs up your initial claim that Magic is going through a recession.
Reading your posts is like slogging through a swamp made of liquefied baloney.
Okay, thread officially derailed. I guess I tried?
If you want citable evidence of a recent event you're almost always going to run into this kind of issue because drawing a conclusion on something like a recession is based on observations of the market. That's why I'm trying to tell you if you want to draw a conclusion you can look on the net and make your own. I even wrote a previous post pointing to some youtubers as well as a pretty good market watch site for magic singles that can help with that (which does unfortunately require a sub to read the articles).
MTG Salvation is a place where people can come talk about the game they love as well as concerns and interests and I did give help in pointing to resources that may or may not support the point of view I have: That's up to you to determine. What exactly do you want and why is it important to appease you? Are you more important than Arcane7828 who was civil in rebuking the statement on it being a recession? Or the kind moderator who threw his opinion on the actual subject of the thread back on page 1?
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Given the entire recession happening in Magic the Gathering
[citation needed]
The secondary market for magic is very weak and the rate of recovery is not looking too good at the moment. Most of the card prices on secondary sellers has shifted onto commander staples and casual cards because they are safer and right now people are putting more into those cards than standard or modern. Frontier is having a minor impact as well with people picking up cards like Jace, Vryn's Prodigy along with M15 and kahns. It's not officially a recession yet since it's only been happening in the fall quarter, but if it goes through the winter then we can say it is absolutely. Earlier it was sort of weak but holding.
That's not ac citation.
To reiterate: give official numbers and sales figures.
Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
Nearly every day someone is complaining about magic sales going down, or magic somehow dying.
In other words, you have to factually demostrate the there is a problem before trying to fix it.
People ask me for citation on the health of magic when I bring up the word recession and no one asks you for citation on Magic being a healthy place right now?
Yes, because YOUR THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. Burden of evidence is on you.
Besides:
!) Weak commons and powerful rares have ALWAYS been part of the design of magic even while they were designing the alpha set. It's sucky from a consumer viewpoint, but not sucky enough to prevent it's success.
2) NWO is not about power level. It's about complexity. That means they avoid complex cards at common and tend to shove them up in rarity the more complex they are.
Your entire thread assumption is that NWO is somehow responsible for making commons suck. It isn't. NWO was made so that it appeals to beginners so that can easily understand the game when they buy fresh packs or play limited.
totally this.
I don't see a recession. If anything I see fatigue because there are many many products and wallets are stressed. But thats not a recession, just means too many products to blow cash on.
I also do not agree with NWO, and also agree that in general that the power level and creativity of commons and uncommons seems to have been lowered. ... But there are some gems... so its not all terrible... aaannd... thats how magic sets have always been... lots of chaff with a few gems. I also do not like mythics, mostly because it makes it such that I have to buy more product if I want to open them (as opposed to getting singles).. but that is the intention and it has worked beautifully for wotc thus far, not a problem for the company at all If anything mythics seem to have lowered prices for commons unc and rare... i would and do think that it is a good thing for players?
But I guess thats the problem... I hardly care for the value of the cards. Modern prices are languishing at the moment, but thats for other reasons and in fact I think its more of a correction from the heavy speculation (so the low you are seeing is likely more due to over inflated prices due to speculators), again this is a good thing in my eyes at least
You might very well be right as well. Given that the "reprinting" of eternal masters caused a price dip in Eternal masters boxes due to people unloading them in a panic and the massive reprintings of sets this may well be investors and speculators getting the jitters. I tend to feel that there has to be a best solution that works for everyone, but in the case of MtG maybe it isn't really possible and it's more of a pendulum swing between store owners and the players. NWO does seem like a bad move, though, from a player perspective. The over abundance of linear strategies in modern in lower cost builds is likely in part due to the linear nature of power in the commons and uncommons thanks to limiting the mechanics on those cards. Eldrazi Skyspawner may be the best Wind Drake ever printed, but at the end of the day it's still a Wind Drake. Albeit, I think if a newbie saw Dead Ringers or anything with the suspend mechanic the game might slow down a bit as the more experienced guy would have to explain the card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
What exactly do you want and why is it important to appease you? Are you more important than Arcane7828 who was civil in rebuking the statement on it being a recession? Or the kind moderator who threw his opinion on the actual subject of the thread back on page 1?
I want you to support the sweeping claims that you make (you start the OP with: "Given the entire recession happening in Magic the Gathering...") with actual evidence. That has nothing to do with 'appeasing' anyone; it's about having an honest, direct conversation, which is hard enough to do on an internet forum as it is. Starting a thread with the assuption that Magic is in a recession without substantiating your viewpiont in any way is misleading at best.
If you want my opinion on the 'actual subject', it's this: I can't answer the question in the title of this thread because I don't think MTG needs 'fixing'. I think the NWO, in terms of lowering the complexity of lower-rarity cards, is (largely) a good thing. The game is hard enough to learn already. Something like Thraben Inspector is fine for a common.
What exactly do you want and why is it important to appease you? Are you more important than Arcane7828 who was civil in rebuking the statement on it being a recession? Or the kind moderator who threw his opinion on the actual subject of the thread back on page 1?
I want you to support the sweeping claims that you make (you start the OP with: "Given the entire recession happening in Magic the Gathering...") with actual evidence. That has nothing to do with 'appeasing' anyone; it's about having an honest, direct conversation, which is hard enough to do on an internet forum as it is. Starting a thread with the assuption that Magic is in a recession without substantiating your viewpiont in any way is misleading at best.
If you want my opinion on the 'actual subject', it's this: I can't answer the question in the title of this thread because I don't think MTG needs 'fixing'. I think the NWO, in terms of lowering the complexity of lower-rarity cards, is (largely) a good thing. The game is hard enough to learn already. Something like Thraben Inspector is fine for a common.
From my perspective I never really made a sweeping claim, but a statement that reflects the feelings of the time. A common complaint from store owners is that it's really hard to sell uncommon and common cards on the second hand market because of how they designed the sets right now and given the weakness of the market and the long term impact of mythic rarity on costs, it seems like a good a time as any to take a look at the design decisions that brought us to where we are today with magic. My own feeling is that Wizards designers need to close the power gap between common and mythic as well as increase the number of mythics per box, even if it does increase the cost on rares. The last few sets have proven that the designers have a hard time avoiding printing a card that both shows what a set is about and acts as a means to encourage pack openings, and it took them adding inventions and expeditions to the boxes to get enough opened just to keep Gideon, Ally of Zendikar from rocking a price closer to Liliana, Heretical Healer.
Right now with NWO they can boost the strength of commons and uncommons, but because they have to keep the cards mechanics limited to a subset of what is available, that also makes budget builds very linear in nature. Just about all budget aggro decks in standard over the last few years are made up of the strongest commons and uncommons, lead by a spritz of two or three leading rares, with the mana base being the most expensive component overall. Meanwhile, any other build like UW flash requires way deeper pockets because the only cards that support those mechanics are printed at rare and above. That and they really aren't helping new players out by simplifying the commons and uncommons in standard. Those new players are still going to butt heads with players that have more complex cards. Delirium is a pretty good example of a mechanic that just doesn't have the support it needs at the lower rung. Flash is also lacking good cards at those rarities as the best cards for that deck are basically Torrential Gearhulk, Archangel Avacyn, and the regular culprits of Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, Selfless Spirit, and the like.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I don't want to be rid of mythics, or get rid of NWO entirely right now. I started in 2011, so when Mythics were still new and Jace wasn't used to death. Regardless of my thoughts on NWO or Mythics, getting rid of either in one go would be too much to expect right now. I would however like to see a change in how both are done. I feel that every planeswalker and legendary should be mythics, but only them. I don't have an issue with the complicated cards being higher rarity, but the powerful cards being ALMOST exclusively at rare and mythic does bother me. When I started, Doom Blade and Bolt were both in Standard, at common. They are strong cards, but more about utility. Neither is flashy or complicated in the least. This age of 'removal starts at 3cmc uncommons and is mostly unplayable even in Peasant' is driving me crazy. I just wish we could return to the dynamics of 2011-12. Wizards has gotten so timid about Standard, and I don't want to hear 'limited balance in draft' ever again. I don't draft often, but I had more fun with tritriple m12 than any master set
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Project Booster Fun makes it less fun to open a booster.
I don't want to be rid of mythics, or get rid of NWO entirely right now. I started in 2011, so when Mythics were still new and Jace wasn't used to death. Regardless of my thoughts on NWO or Mythics, getting rid of either in one go would be too much to expect right now. I would however like to see a change in how both are done. I feel that every planeswalker and legendary should be mythics, but only them. I don't have an issue with the complicated cards being higher rarity, but the powerful cards being ALMOST exclusively at rare and mythic does bother me. When I started, Doom Blade and Bolt were both in Standard, at common. They are strong cards, but more about utility. Neither is flashy or complicated in the least. This age of 'removal starts at 3cmc uncommons and is mostly unplayable even in Peasant' is driving me crazy. I just wish we could return to the dynamics of 2011-12. Wizards has gotten so timid about Standard, and I don't want to hear 'limited balance in draft' ever again. I don't draft often, but I had more fun with tritriple m12 than any master set
I have to agree on the powerful (and some would say constructed playable) cards all being at mythic and rare these days. Kaladesh did fix this somewhat, as they added fabricate to some uncommons and commons, but the power level of those cards is just so underwhelming.
How many Commons in the deck excluding lands? 1 card. Thraben inspector.
How many Uncommons? 2 cards. Gearshift Ace and Veteran Motorist.
How many rares? 10 different cards. Inventors' Fair, Inspiring Vantage, Needle Spires, Depala, Pilot Exemplar, Bomat Courier, Toolcraft Exemplar, Declaration in Stone, Fleetwheel Cruiser, Smuggler's Copter, and Pia Nalaar.
Thankfully there's only one mythic, but this is just the tip of the iceberg and shows why pack openings are just never going to work with how they made things. If we were under the old system players could get more constructed playable cards than they get now because a good portion of the just playable cards would be pushed to uncommon.
Here is a sample time spiral competitive deck from back in the haydays before NWO and Mythics... Coalition control.
Again, there are some pretty good rares in that listing, but there are far more uncommons and commons in the list than in the RW vehicles list. This is the kind of thing that is increasing the cost of deck building overall in standard. There were some pricy decks back in the day, but there were cheaper alternatives that were more heavily printed and accessible. That's not to say there aren't budget lists in standard at the moment. Here is GR energy for comparison...
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
There was once a bunch of people living in the middle of nowhere. Happily they all played Magic, but they had a complete set of the old Elder Dragon Legends, none of them acceptable in legacy deck and too old for modern or standard.
So they made EDH.
Uncommons and commons have a place and formats: Budget and Pauper. If the gaming shops really wanted to sell all of their chaff, they'd run more tournaments of this type. Some stores sell grabbag packs: a bunch of commons, uncommons, and a single rare, all for just a buck. My local dollar store actually sells these too.
Kakaras was nowhere near as useful before commander. Storm Crow was back in 1996 and still an awful card back there. Jackal Pup was used in championships, while Firedrinker Satyr is even better and was basically never used. Not every common can be Typhoid Rats and not every card will be good outside of its block. Cancel is still used in tournaments when it is arguably the worst counterspell ever printed. A lot of rares and yes, even mythics aren't used.
Lastly, don't forget that Rarity doesn't just designate the power of a card. For quite a while the more complex cards have been rare or even mythic. Can you imagine if Possibility Storm or Eye of the Storm was uncommon? This is why Fireball became an uncommon. I'm still surprised that Consume Spirit was ever printed as a common. Don't get me wrong, I use all of these cards, but if someone at their first draft opened three Possibility Storms they probably would never draft again.
There was once a bunch of people living in the middle of nowhere. Happily they all played Magic, but they had a complete set of the old Elder Dragon Legends, none of them acceptable in legacy deck and too old for modern or standard.
So they made EDH.
Uncommons and commons have a place and formats: Budget and Pauper. If the gaming shops really wanted to sell all of their chaff, they'd run more tournaments of this type. Some stores sell grabbag packs: a bunch of commons, uncommons, and a single rare, all for just a buck. My local dollar store actually sells these too.
Kakaras was nowhere near as useful before commander. Storm Crow was back in 1996 and still an awful card back there. Jackal Pup was used in championships, while Firedrinker Satyr is even better and was basically never used. Not every common can be Typhoid Rats and not every card will be good outside of its block. Cancel is still used in tournaments when it is arguably the worst counterspell ever printed. A lot of rares and yes, even mythics aren't used.
Lastly, don't forget that Rarity doesn't just designate the power of a card. For quite a while the more complex cards have been rare or even mythic. Can you imagine if Possibility Storm or Eye of the Storm was uncommon? This is why Fireball became an uncommon. I'm still surprised that Consume Spirit was ever printed as a common. Don't get me wrong, I use all of these cards, but if someone at their first draft opened three Possibility Storms they probably would never draft again.
Well, on the subject of purely the NWO another reason they should probably revisit it is that the designers have gotten much better with the mechanics. Wizards designers were in the right to remove regeneration, for example, because it confused even people who played the game for a long time, especially when indestructible works better. I think at one point in my youth I thought Regenerate meant that if it died and was in the graveyard you could pay the cost to bring it back into play as long as it was still the same turn. So you could do something janky like a board wipe and then on the next main phase bring it back.
These days the mechanics are way simpler, so they should be able to revise NWO and move some of these more complex mechanics into the lower rungs. The catch is that they need to also stop it with the power gap on commons vs rares. Rarity really should be based on something other than just raw power, but they kind of did it anyway since it's an easy way to sell more packs.
Edit: Also the comment on running more pauper tournaments to sell common cards. The problem with this is that the new commons are not the ones people want to run in pauper decks most of the time. There are a few good filler ones, but the majority of the ones used in true pauper decks are legacy cards because of the limitations from NWO.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Kakaras was nowhere near as useful before commander.
It's also been banned from the format for nearly a decade, and back when it was still legal there was format specific errata to give generals protection from it.
From my perspective I never really made a sweeping claim, but a statement that reflects the feelings of the time.
That sounds like you're shifting words around to change the connotation of what you're saying without really effecting its definition. Let me put it objectively: you believe that MTG is withering, and that the NWO is a primary source of that, no? Yet you've done nothing to convince anyone that you are correct about MTG dying, much less NWO being harmful to the game.
Quote from Colt47 »
A common complaint from store owners is that it's really hard to sell uncommon and common cards on the second hand market because of how they designed the sets right now and given the weakness of the market and the long term impact of mythic rarity on costs, it seems like a good a time as any to take a look at the design decisions that brought us to where we are today with magic.
My store owner says that it's super easy to sell ccmmons. He sells Smoldering Efreets for a hundred bucks each and people line up at the front door to buy them. Oh wait, I'm completely lying. Do you know what our statements have in common? They have no evidence. (Anecdotal Fallacy)
Quote from Colt47 »
My own feeling is that Wizards designers need to close the power gap between common and mythic as well as increase the number of mythics per box, even if it does increase the cost on rares.
This is a reasonable point. Now back it up with argument as to why this should be (why is it bad that mythics are so powerful? why is it bad that commons are so weak?).
Quote from Colt47 »
The last few sets have proven that the designers have a hard time avoiding printing a card that both shows what a set is about and acts as a means to encourage pack openings, and it took them adding inventions and expeditions to the boxes to get enough opened just to keep Gideon, Ally of Zendikar from rocking a price closer to Liliana, Heretical Healer. Right now with NWO they can boost the strength of commons and uncommons, but because they have to keep the cards mechanics limited to a subset of what is available, that also makes budget builds very linear in nature. Just about all budget aggro decks in standard over the last few years are made up of the strongest commons and uncommons, lead by a spritz of two or three leading rares, with the mana base being the most expensive component overall. Meanwhile, any other build like UW flash requires way deeper pockets because the only cards that support those mechanics are printed at rare and above. That and they really aren't helping new players out by simplifying the commons and uncommons in standard. Those new players are still going to butt heads with players that have more complex cards. Delirium is a pretty good example of a mechanic that just doesn't have the support it needs at the lower rung. Flash is also lacking good cards at those rarities as the best cards for that deck are basically Torrential Gearhulk, Archangel Avacyn, and the regular culprits of Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, Selfless Spirit, and the like.
This has nothing to do with the NWO. The NWO is about reducing complexity for commons and uncommons. Complexity is not the same thing as power. Delver of Secrets is a card that was so powerful that it saw extensive play in literally every format it was legal in. It also was a simple common. What the NWO is trying to do is make the game easier to learn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't more mechanically complex cards tend to be almost strictly better because of a greater degree of versatility? The fact that I can perma-exile stuff with oblivion ring and fiend hunter makes those cards better than banishing light and banisher priest.
If you can shift those better cards to higher rarities, you get to sell more boosters.
I would love more powerful commons, and I think NWO is the wrong direction, but new players are the target audience, and I think that WOTC is aiming for a 5th grade reading level(Which is honestly disheartening), at least from what I remember from the article where Maro explains NWO.
I mean, I'm not going to get a hexproof finisher for my UW pauper tron deck ever for the sole reason that new players find hexproof confusing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy
Death and Taxes Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
My own feeling is that Wizards designers need to close the power gap between common and mythic as well as increase the number of mythics per box, even if it does increase the cost on rares.
This is a reasonable point. Now back it up with argument as to why this should be (why is it bad that mythics are so powerful? why is it bad that commons are so weak?).
Quote from Colt47 »
The last few sets have proven that the designers have a hard time avoiding printing a card that both shows what a set is about and acts as a means to encourage pack openings, and it took them adding inventions and expeditions to the boxes to get enough opened just to keep Gideon, Ally of Zendikar from rocking a price closer to Liliana, Heretical Healer. Right now with NWO they can boost the strength of commons and uncommons, but because they have to keep the cards mechanics limited to a subset of what is available, that also makes budget builds very linear in nature. Just about all budget aggro decks in standard over the last few years are made up of the strongest commons and uncommons, lead by a spritz of two or three leading rares, with the mana base being the most expensive component overall. Meanwhile, any other build like UW flash requires way deeper pockets because the only cards that support those mechanics are printed at rare and above. That and they really aren't helping new players out by simplifying the commons and uncommons in standard. Those new players are still going to butt heads with players that have more complex cards. Delirium is a pretty good example of a mechanic that just doesn't have the support it needs at the lower rung. Flash is also lacking good cards at those rarities as the best cards for that deck are basically Torrential Gearhulk, Archangel Avacyn, and the regular culprits of Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, Selfless Spirit, and the like.
This has nothing to do with the NWO. The NWO is about reducing complexity for commons and uncommons. Complexity is not the same thing as power. Delver of Secrets is a card that was so powerful that it saw extensive play in literally every format it was legal in. It also was a simple common. What the NWO is trying to do is make the game easier to learn.
How can you be sure that it isn't related to NWO? Are you saying that the designers could not manage the power level of commons and that they always intended the more complex older designs to be more powerful than the newer ones?
There is some other factors involved here besides NWO that probably are involved with the power level of commons, though. Wizards has been on record to state that they build packs for draft. In order to do this they had to print options for draft play, but at the same time they also needed things to push pack openings as WoTC is probably afraid that if they print cards that could rival the rares and mythics at the draft level it would reduce pack openings later on and hurt profits.
But going down this line of thought, pack openings die after the first couple of months anyway for limited play and the feeling I've been getting from postings elsewhere is that people only casually open a pack or two like a lotto ticket after the limited play ends, so how much do they really lose? There's got to be better ways to deal with this than having draft bulk and the golden ticket.
Also, my apologies for ignoring your first two quotes, but times move forward and so do peoples stances. The point on store owners has turned out to be a rant that originated from a very questionable source. The one truth is that single sellers have a hard time making profits off of singles. That has come from multiple sources on both youtube and market watch so there's no point even trying to deny that one. The point on common lots is a lot harder to figure out at the moment other than the fact major sellers like Channel Fireball and SCG can manage them better than most others due to their size.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Well for me the big gap between rare and even "uncommon" in card strength is just off-putting. Just look at things between sky skiff and smuggler's copter. It would've been so much better if one wasn't just a direct upgrade of the other, without any form of drawback.
These "direct upgrades" should never happen. And smuggler's copter should've had a drawback somewhere that makes in special deck sky skiff better. Maybe one toughness less would've made sense. Or maybe it should enter the battlefield tapped?
The deal is Skyskiff is much stronger than a regular common should be.
If it would have crew 2 the comparision would be less clear.
No matter what, the powerlevel for a card in constructed is much higher than what a "common" should be for limited.
So you put the really strong cards at rare/mythic and it impacts limited much less.
----
That was always the case, but the in-your-face upgrades happen more often in the last bunch of sets (i mean a Snapcaster Mage is much more than what blue would get as a 2 drop for limited, stuff like the Titans are way over the top, while a 6 mana 6/6 vanilla without any abilities is allready playable in limited).
----
WotC also ignores "drawbacks" on cards right now. People dont like that cards have a drawback, so they give cards upsides, having "less" upside is a hidden drawback.
Even black gets almost no real drawback on cards anymore. A random demon gets one for flavour reason mainly, but that more often than not, makes them much worse in constructed, against creatures in other colors that are all upside.
----
Design wise i would like if they avoid the super similiar strictly upgrade card design, especially in the very same set.
Its lazy and feels terrible , even if the common is pretty solid in limited, people will just see it as a terrible version of the rare/mythic.
Basically, it is a concern of how intuitive mechanics are. Regenerate is one of those problematic mechanics they targeted, but some other ones included things like the time spiral blocks suspend and as they post in the article, the original morph cards. It's just that when they did this, they basically went to a philosophy of making the mechanic itself simple, but then make specific cards more complex (i.e. it does more stuff). Kaladesh for example, has Aetherstorm Roc and it has Thriving Ibex. It makes sense that they have to make something at common for draft play, but when would someone play the Ibix over the Rok in a constructed deck? (Well, in this case it might be a bad example since I don't think either sees constructed play because we have Gideon, Ally of Zendikar in the 4 cmc slot, but still). In a sense, they are using the rarity shift itself to justify a power increase on a card, which is probably not necessary if they can make a common that does something important that the roc cannot do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Basically, it is a concern of how intuitive mechanics are. Regenerate is one of those problematic mechanics they targeted, but some other ones included things like the time spiral blocks suspend and as they post in the article, the original morph cards. It's just that when they did this, they basically went to a philosophy of making the mechanic itself simple, but then make specific cards more complex (i.e. it does more stuff). Kaladesh for example, has Aetherstorm Roc and it has Thriving Ibex. It makes sense that they have to make something at common for draft play, but when would someone play the Ibix over the Rok in a constructed deck? (Well, in this case it might be a bad example since I don't think either sees constructed play because we have Gideon, Ally of Zendikar in the 4 cmc slot, but still). In a sense, they are using the rarity shift itself to justify a power increase on a card, which is probably not necessary if they can make a common that does something important that the roc cannot do.
Is it really a bad thing that commons are outclassed (mostly) by rares? If commons and rares had similar power levels and usefulness, then why bother having a rarity at all? Rarity allows for controlled distribution of cards (in limited or financially), which in turn allows WOTC to control their variance. Commons being weaker nowadays can be attributed to cards being less powerful nowadays; gone are the days of cards like Bloodbraid Elf, Batterskull, and Jace, the Mind Sculptor. WOTC still prints power cards, but the average power level is much lower.
Basically, it is a concern of how intuitive mechanics are. Regenerate is one of those problematic mechanics they targeted, but some other ones included things like the time spiral blocks suspend and as they post in the article, the original morph cards. It's just that when they did this, they basically went to a philosophy of making the mechanic itself simple, but then make specific cards more complex (i.e. it does more stuff). Kaladesh for example, has Aetherstorm Roc and it has Thriving Ibex. It makes sense that they have to make something at common for draft play, but when would someone play the Ibix over the Rok in a constructed deck? (Well, in this case it might be a bad example since I don't think either sees constructed play because we have Gideon, Ally of Zendikar in the 4 cmc slot, but still). In a sense, they are using the rarity shift itself to justify a power increase on a card, which is probably not necessary if they can make a common that does something important that the roc cannot do.
Is it really a bad thing that commons are outclassed (mostly) by rares? If commons and rares had similar power levels and usefulness, then why bother having a rarity at all? Rarity allows for controlled distribution of cards (in limited or financially), which in turn allows WOTC to control their variance. Commons being weaker nowadays can be attributed to cards being less powerful nowadays; gone are the days of cards like Bloodbraid Elf, Batterskull, and Jace, the Mind Sculptor. WOTC still prints power cards, but the average power level is much lower.
The issue is more so how they are doing it. A good way to handle a rare vs a common is to attack on the vector of how many strategies can this card fit into. A common can still be a good card that simply has a narrow scope, while a rare could be good, but also flexible enough to slot into other kinds of strategies. An example would be Gauntlet of Might vs Glorious Anthem. If someone is playing a go wide aggro strategy in a respective color is one really better than the other? The point where the first is better is the mana ramping power, but that ends up being more important for a different kind of strategy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
New World Order has nothing to do with the power level of commons. It has to do with the complexity of commons. It doesn't concern itself with power level at all. No, not stuff like Counterspell and Stone Rain either. Both of those cards are OK in the lens of New World Order due to being incredibly simple, but have been removed for other reasons.
Is it really a bad thing that commons are outclassed (mostly) by rares? If commons and rares had similar power levels and usefulness, then why bother having a rarity at all? Rarity allows for controlled distribution of cards (in limited or financially), which in turn allows WOTC to control their variance. Commons being weaker nowadays can be attributed to cards being less powerful nowadays; gone are the days of cards like Bloodbraid Elf, Batterskull, and Jace, the Mind Sculptor. WOTC still prints power cards, but the average power level is much lower.
In other words, is it really a bad thing that Magic is pay-to-win?
That may depend on whether you're Wizards or a financially-limited player.
I remember reading about the Richard Garfield's original card power rarity/power designs in Alpha (kind of relating to why he had ante cards). One gist was he didn't think the game would grow so much that people would be loading their decks with all rares. So, while it is literally true that "Rarity allows for controlled distribution of card (in limited or financially), which in turn allows WOTC to control their variance," that statement is merely an observation of the effect. It doesn't address the adequacy of why that would be a good idea because one consequence of NWO is wider variance in power level of any one card drawn (each booster is more like a lottery ticket than not).
Then what is causing the commons to be nowadays "scritly worse" than rares?
Three reasons I can think of that have nothing to do with complexity.
a) Limited/kitchen table games. Limited is organized in such a way that certain cards would completely flatten other cards if made too available; due to the restricted card availability, you cannot make sure you always have a piece of removal in hand, neither that your curve flows correctly in order to counteract your opponent's board development. Fireball is incredibly powerful in limited, similar is Mind Control, because of the restricted card availability. Fireball is just a universal tool that's really mediocre in standard when you can control your board development properly, but in Limited it can hit and kill anything plus act as a finisher. Mind Control is a two for one that can really wreck the board state, but it's outclassed in constructed games due to needing to be as expensive as it is in Limited. There are a plethora of intricacies that make Limited games ultimately different than constructed games just by the nature of the card pool, it's way more similar to amateur kitchen table games than professional games, just by virtue of limiting the available cards. Particularly the kitchen table similarity is part of why Limited is shaped as it is, because it is kind of a tool for Wizards to make kitchen table games exciting as it's their most direct tool of messing with the kitchen table card pool; this is how they make the game exciting for new players, by carefully constructing a limited/kitchen table format.
b) Sales. You may think this is greed, but understand that it is a business, and as such it cannot sustain itself without sales. Also, the more the game thrives, the more resources they have to improve the game, and the more resources they have to cater to (probably) enfranchised players as yourself. Urza's block was a reason they invested in a development team, for example, the game development has changed A LOT since the beginning of the game, and recently, with more investment, the game seems to do better, so they can hire more people, and so on. The game design and development component is costly, and if it's a game you want to play, it's something you have to pay for. So concentrating power at rare or mythic drives sales more, upping profit and allowing more quality crafted formats.
c) Excitement. This is of course very subjective and for this part, I totally understand if you don't agree. And it's just fine if you don't like it, in fact I can understand if you find it manipulative. Just imagine something. You are an 11-year-old player. You play a black-green intro pack. You play with two of your friends that both play some combination of blue/black/red, but they all think green is kind of cheating and lame because the creatures are so big. However one of them has a Ravenous Demon - it can get even bigger than your Wurms! And can learn to fly! What the hell! So you buy two packs with the coolest images on front and open them... And you shuffle through the cards. What rares did you get? Oh, the first is some kind of land. Oh well. Shuffle through more, and... Wow! What the hell is this thing? And what's up with the red rarity symbol? This thing is insane! Look how big it is! Look at the artwork! Holy butt! And when it dies, you get to draw it again!
Same thing applies for Planeswalkers - they are only at mythic so they're like some weird exotic thing for young players. You know about Toby in sixth grade? He has a planeswalker. "What's a planeswalker?" It's some blue man in a coat, he can steal the best creature of your library and play it. No fair!
Opening packs and the lottery in it is part of the experience, like buying yourself a Christmas present where you have no idea what you're gonna get ... That's an amazing feeling. Of course you can be disappointed or confused by the rare. But purchasing the booster is not just about the fun of playing the cards, it's also about the fun of opening the cards, see what kind of tools you can get, and figuring out how and where use them. If you're a new young player you don't look through the web databases. You probably don't know any of the cards beside those you and your friends play. So every new booster is a new experience.
That said, there has always been power discrepancies between rarities. This is not a new thing. Also you should remember that one of the last cards that broke eternal formats was a commmon - Treasure Cruise. Now a lot of the eternal format breakers have been higher in rarity - probably the most of them - but there's often printed power at common and uncommon.
Oh, and one last thing. WotC Development literally said a few weeks ago that they have ended up making Standard removal too weak, as Smuggler's Copter has went way too rampant. So the pendulum is going to swing back soonish.
They did make NWO to simplify commons and make it easier for new players. It also made commons linear and screwed over pauper without legacy cards to pick up the slack. Proof? Go look at deck lists for pauper and count how many of the cards in pauper are from post NWO and what cards actually make the decks run.
Delver - post NWO common
Gearseeker Serpent - post NWO common with AFFINITY
Galvanic Blast - post NWO common
Sea Gate Oracle - post NWO common
Expedition Map - post NWO common
Ancient Stirrings - post NWO common
Nivix Cyclops/Kiln Fiend - post NWO commons
Gitaxian Probe - post NWO common
NWO is about -limiting- complexity at common, not removing it completely. And saying that NWO has crippled pauper, if you really want, I can keep listing key cards that are from the initiation of NWO to refute that claim.
People are quick to to blame rarity powerlevels on NWO, but rare cards being powerful HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE GAME DESIGN. It's not a "nowadays" thing, nor is it something that will kill the game or cause some sort of recession, because otherwise it would have happened long ago when things like rare duals and moxen were strictly better than basic lands.
They did make NWO to simplify commons and make it easier for new players. It also made commons linear and screwed over pauper without legacy cards to pick up the slack. Proof? Go look at deck lists for pauper and count how many of the cards in pauper are from post NWO and what cards actually make the decks run.
Delver - post NWO common
Gearseeker Serpent - post NWO common with AFFINITY
Galvanic Blast - post NWO common
Sea Gate Oracle - post NWO common
Expedition Map - post NWO common
Ancient Stirrings - post NWO common
Nivix Cyclops/Kiln Fiend - post NWO commons
Gitaxian Probe - post NWO common
NWO is about -limiting- complexity at common, not removing it completely. And saying that NWO has crippled pauper, if you really want, I can keep listing key cards that are from the initiation of NWO to refute that claim.
I'm more interested in gaining insight into the issues of power on commons vs rares and deck construction. NWO looked like it was the problem, but that looks to be wrong because NWO didn't actually touch the parts that are starting to look to be the areas of issue given the conversations.
It's starting to look more like the problem isn't even related to NWO because NWO doesn't actually have anything to do with the issue of the power of the cards. Not that disputing an incorrect earlier presumption lacks merit. Right now after conversing with people in this thread it seems a lot more likely that the problem is with the power level related to rarity itself. However, working things out I don't think the answer is to work on power level of cards at all.
Lets say WoTC wants to sell packs (which they do). To do this, they need something in those packs that are worth getting, such as mythics and rares, and those cards need to be powerful and interesting cards or there isn't any reason to go pack opening after draft events. However, in constructed, what do people do? They look on the secondary market for the best cards at each CMC for a specific deck idea, work out which ones should go in that deck, and then build it. Thus, logically those players are going to go strait to the mythic lots and rare lots for the majority of the cards because those are the more powerful and flexible cards in the set.
Ultimately, the best possible solution to making commons and uncommons worth it in constructed is to have limits on the rares and mythics a deck can have in it legally. This runs into a few issues, though. Namely Wizards doesn't do set design with redundancy in mind, so if a restriction like that comes into play some decks that exist now would no longer exist simply because the strategies require all mythics and rares. Case in point, UW Flash.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
NWO itself isn't the problem, it's the nerfing of staple effects like black removal and burn at common to create the kinds of limited environments they think are desirable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
That was pretty interesting. But dropping a warship on me is cheating. Take it back!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sooooooo
You don't actually have anything that backs up your initial claim that Magic is going through a recession.
Reading your posts is like slogging through a swamp made of liquefied baloney.
Okay, thread officially derailed. I guess I tried?
If you want citable evidence of a recent event you're almost always going to run into this kind of issue because drawing a conclusion on something like a recession is based on observations of the market. That's why I'm trying to tell you if you want to draw a conclusion you can look on the net and make your own. I even wrote a previous post pointing to some youtubers as well as a pretty good market watch site for magic singles that can help with that (which does unfortunately require a sub to read the articles).
MTG Salvation is a place where people can come talk about the game they love as well as concerns and interests and I did give help in pointing to resources that may or may not support the point of view I have: That's up to you to determine. What exactly do you want and why is it important to appease you? Are you more important than Arcane7828 who was civil in rebuking the statement on it being a recession? Or the kind moderator who threw his opinion on the actual subject of the thread back on page 1?
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
You might very well be right as well. Given that the "reprinting" of eternal masters caused a price dip in Eternal masters boxes due to people unloading them in a panic and the massive reprintings of sets this may well be investors and speculators getting the jitters. I tend to feel that there has to be a best solution that works for everyone, but in the case of MtG maybe it isn't really possible and it's more of a pendulum swing between store owners and the players. NWO does seem like a bad move, though, from a player perspective. The over abundance of linear strategies in modern in lower cost builds is likely in part due to the linear nature of power in the commons and uncommons thanks to limiting the mechanics on those cards. Eldrazi Skyspawner may be the best Wind Drake ever printed, but at the end of the day it's still a Wind Drake. Albeit, I think if a newbie saw Dead Ringers or anything with the suspend mechanic the game might slow down a bit as the more experienced guy would have to explain the card.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I want you to support the sweeping claims that you make (you start the OP with: "Given the entire recession happening in Magic the Gathering...") with actual evidence. That has nothing to do with 'appeasing' anyone; it's about having an honest, direct conversation, which is hard enough to do on an internet forum as it is. Starting a thread with the assuption that Magic is in a recession without substantiating your viewpiont in any way is misleading at best.
If you want my opinion on the 'actual subject', it's this: I can't answer the question in the title of this thread because I don't think MTG needs 'fixing'. I think the NWO, in terms of lowering the complexity of lower-rarity cards, is (largely) a good thing. The game is hard enough to learn already. Something like Thraben Inspector is fine for a common.
From my perspective I never really made a sweeping claim, but a statement that reflects the feelings of the time. A common complaint from store owners is that it's really hard to sell uncommon and common cards on the second hand market because of how they designed the sets right now and given the weakness of the market and the long term impact of mythic rarity on costs, it seems like a good a time as any to take a look at the design decisions that brought us to where we are today with magic. My own feeling is that Wizards designers need to close the power gap between common and mythic as well as increase the number of mythics per box, even if it does increase the cost on rares. The last few sets have proven that the designers have a hard time avoiding printing a card that both shows what a set is about and acts as a means to encourage pack openings, and it took them adding inventions and expeditions to the boxes to get enough opened just to keep Gideon, Ally of Zendikar from rocking a price closer to Liliana, Heretical Healer.
Right now with NWO they can boost the strength of commons and uncommons, but because they have to keep the cards mechanics limited to a subset of what is available, that also makes budget builds very linear in nature. Just about all budget aggro decks in standard over the last few years are made up of the strongest commons and uncommons, lead by a spritz of two or three leading rares, with the mana base being the most expensive component overall. Meanwhile, any other build like UW flash requires way deeper pockets because the only cards that support those mechanics are printed at rare and above. That and they really aren't helping new players out by simplifying the commons and uncommons in standard. Those new players are still going to butt heads with players that have more complex cards. Delirium is a pretty good example of a mechanic that just doesn't have the support it needs at the lower rung. Flash is also lacking good cards at those rarities as the best cards for that deck are basically Torrential Gearhulk, Archangel Avacyn, and the regular culprits of Gideon, Ally of Zendikar, Selfless Spirit, and the like.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I have to agree on the powerful (and some would say constructed playable) cards all being at mythic and rare these days. Kaladesh did fix this somewhat, as they added fabricate to some uncommons and commons, but the power level of those cards is just so underwhelming.
Here's a typical Red White Vehicles deck list...
4 Toolcraft Exemplar
4 Gearshift Ace
4 Veteran Motorist
4 Bomat Courier
1 Pia Nalaar
3 Depala, Pilot Exemplar
4 Smuggler's Copter
3 Fleetwheel Cruiser
2 Skysovereign, Consul Flagship
1 Inventors' Fair
4 Inspiring Vantage
4 Needle Spires
5 Mountain
9 Plains
How many Commons in the deck excluding lands? 1 card. Thraben inspector.
How many Uncommons? 2 cards. Gearshift Ace and Veteran Motorist.
How many rares? 10 different cards. Inventors' Fair, Inspiring Vantage, Needle Spires, Depala, Pilot Exemplar, Bomat Courier, Toolcraft Exemplar, Declaration in Stone, Fleetwheel Cruiser, Smuggler's Copter, and Pia Nalaar.
Thankfully there's only one mythic, but this is just the tip of the iceberg and shows why pack openings are just never going to work with how they made things. If we were under the old system players could get more constructed playable cards than they get now because a good portion of the just playable cards would be pushed to uncommon.
Here is a sample time spiral competitive deck from back in the haydays before NWO and Mythics... Coalition control.
1 Bogardan Hellkite
4 Shadowmage Infiltrator
4 Shriekmaw
1 Wydwen, the Biting Gale
3 Island
1 Mountain
1 Plains
1 Swamp
4 River of Tears
4 Terramorphic Expanse
4 Tolaria West
2 Underground River
2 Urza's Factory
1 Academy Ruins
3 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
3 Coalition Relic
4 Prismatic Lens
3 Careful Consideration
1 Haunting Hymn
3 Mystical Teachings
1 Pact of Negation
1 Slaughter Pact
1 Strangling Soot
2 Tendrils of Corruption
4 Damnation
1 Extirpate
1 Imp's Mischief
1 Pact of Negation
2 Pull from Eternity
1 Return to Dust
1 Spell Burst
1 Strangling Soot
4 Thoughtseize
1 Void
Again, there are some pretty good rares in that listing, but there are far more uncommons and commons in the list than in the RW vehicles list. This is the kind of thing that is increasing the cost of deck building overall in standard. There were some pricy decks back in the day, but there were cheaper alternatives that were more heavily printed and accessible. That's not to say there aren't budget lists in standard at the moment. Here is GR energy for comparison...
4 Servant of the Conduit
4 Voltaic Brawler
4 Electrostatic Pummeler
4 Bristling Hydra
4 Attune with Aether
4 Blossoming Defense
1 Built to Smash
3 Rush of Adrenaline
4 Larger Than Life
4 Uncaged Fury
4 Aether Hub
1 Botanical Sanctum
2 Cinder Glade
6 Forest
4 Game Trail
2 Mountain
1 Spirebluff Canal
3 Ceremonious Rejection
4 Galvanic Bombardment
2 Natural State
3 Negate
2 Tears of Valakut
Again, cheap but a lot more linear than Coalition control.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
So they made EDH.
Uncommons and commons have a place and formats: Budget and Pauper. If the gaming shops really wanted to sell all of their chaff, they'd run more tournaments of this type. Some stores sell grabbag packs: a bunch of commons, uncommons, and a single rare, all for just a buck. My local dollar store actually sells these too.
Kakaras was nowhere near as useful before commander. Storm Crow was back in 1996 and still an awful card back there. Jackal Pup was used in championships, while Firedrinker Satyr is even better and was basically never used. Not every common can be Typhoid Rats and not every card will be good outside of its block. Cancel is still used in tournaments when it is arguably the worst counterspell ever printed. A lot of rares and yes, even mythics aren't used.
Lastly, don't forget that Rarity doesn't just designate the power of a card. For quite a while the more complex cards have been rare or even mythic. Can you imagine if Possibility Storm or Eye of the Storm was uncommon? This is why Fireball became an uncommon. I'm still surprised that Consume Spirit was ever printed as a common. Don't get me wrong, I use all of these cards, but if someone at their first draft opened three Possibility Storms they probably would never draft again.
Well, on the subject of purely the NWO another reason they should probably revisit it is that the designers have gotten much better with the mechanics. Wizards designers were in the right to remove regeneration, for example, because it confused even people who played the game for a long time, especially when indestructible works better. I think at one point in my youth I thought Regenerate meant that if it died and was in the graveyard you could pay the cost to bring it back into play as long as it was still the same turn. So you could do something janky like a board wipe and then on the next main phase bring it back.
These days the mechanics are way simpler, so they should be able to revise NWO and move some of these more complex mechanics into the lower rungs. The catch is that they need to also stop it with the power gap on commons vs rares. Rarity really should be based on something other than just raw power, but they kind of did it anyway since it's an easy way to sell more packs.
Edit: Also the comment on running more pauper tournaments to sell common cards. The problem with this is that the new commons are not the ones people want to run in pauper decks most of the time. There are a few good filler ones, but the majority of the ones used in true pauper decks are legacy cards because of the limitations from NWO.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
That sounds like you're shifting words around to change the connotation of what you're saying without really effecting its definition. Let me put it objectively: you believe that MTG is withering, and that the NWO is a primary source of that, no? Yet you've done nothing to convince anyone that you are correct about MTG dying, much less NWO being harmful to the game.
My store owner says that it's super easy to sell ccmmons. He sells Smoldering Efreets for a hundred bucks each and people line up at the front door to buy them. Oh wait, I'm completely lying. Do you know what our statements have in common? They have no evidence. (Anecdotal Fallacy)
This is a reasonable point. Now back it up with argument as to why this should be (why is it bad that mythics are so powerful? why is it bad that commons are so weak?).
This has nothing to do with the NWO. The NWO is about reducing complexity for commons and uncommons. Complexity is not the same thing as power. Delver of Secrets is a card that was so powerful that it saw extensive play in literally every format it was legal in. It also was a simple common. What the NWO is trying to do is make the game easier to learn.
If you can shift those better cards to higher rarities, you get to sell more boosters.
I would love more powerful commons, and I think NWO is the wrong direction, but new players are the target audience, and I think that WOTC is aiming for a 5th grade reading level(Which is honestly disheartening), at least from what I remember from the article where Maro explains NWO.
I mean, I'm not going to get a hexproof finisher for my UW pauper tron deck ever for the sole reason that new players find hexproof confusing.
Death and Taxes
Pauper
UB Teachings
Tortured Existence
Murasa Tron
Modern
Pod (RIP)
Bloom(RIP)
Merfolk
How can you be sure that it isn't related to NWO? Are you saying that the designers could not manage the power level of commons and that they always intended the more complex older designs to be more powerful than the newer ones?
There is some other factors involved here besides NWO that probably are involved with the power level of commons, though. Wizards has been on record to state that they build packs for draft. In order to do this they had to print options for draft play, but at the same time they also needed things to push pack openings as WoTC is probably afraid that if they print cards that could rival the rares and mythics at the draft level it would reduce pack openings later on and hurt profits.
But going down this line of thought, pack openings die after the first couple of months anyway for limited play and the feeling I've been getting from postings elsewhere is that people only casually open a pack or two like a lotto ticket after the limited play ends, so how much do they really lose? There's got to be better ways to deal with this than having draft bulk and the golden ticket.
Also, my apologies for ignoring your first two quotes, but times move forward and so do peoples stances. The point on store owners has turned out to be a rant that originated from a very questionable source. The one truth is that single sellers have a hard time making profits off of singles. That has come from multiple sources on both youtube and market watch so there's no point even trying to deny that one. The point on common lots is a lot harder to figure out at the moment other than the fact major sellers like Channel Fireball and SCG can manage them better than most others due to their size.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
The deal is Skyskiff is much stronger than a regular common should be.
If it would have crew 2 the comparision would be less clear.
No matter what, the powerlevel for a card in constructed is much higher than what a "common" should be for limited.
So you put the really strong cards at rare/mythic and it impacts limited much less.
----
That was always the case, but the in-your-face upgrades happen more often in the last bunch of sets (i mean a Snapcaster Mage is much more than what blue would get as a 2 drop for limited, stuff like the Titans are way over the top, while a 6 mana 6/6 vanilla without any abilities is allready playable in limited).
----
WotC also ignores "drawbacks" on cards right now. People dont like that cards have a drawback, so they give cards upsides, having "less" upside is a hidden drawback.
Even black gets almost no real drawback on cards anymore. A random demon gets one for flavour reason mainly, but that more often than not, makes them much worse in constructed, against creatures in other colors that are all upside.
----
Design wise i would like if they avoid the super similiar strictly upgrade card design, especially in the very same set.
Its lazy and feels terrible , even if the common is pretty solid in limited, people will just see it as a terrible version of the rare/mythic.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Eh. Compare Merseine to Claustrophobia.
Yeah, here is more of an explanation on what NWO actually is about.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/new-world-order-2011-12-02
Basically, it is a concern of how intuitive mechanics are. Regenerate is one of those problematic mechanics they targeted, but some other ones included things like the time spiral blocks suspend and as they post in the article, the original morph cards. It's just that when they did this, they basically went to a philosophy of making the mechanic itself simple, but then make specific cards more complex (i.e. it does more stuff). Kaladesh for example, has Aetherstorm Roc and it has Thriving Ibex. It makes sense that they have to make something at common for draft play, but when would someone play the Ibix over the Rok in a constructed deck? (Well, in this case it might be a bad example since I don't think either sees constructed play because we have Gideon, Ally of Zendikar in the 4 cmc slot, but still). In a sense, they are using the rarity shift itself to justify a power increase on a card, which is probably not necessary if they can make a common that does something important that the roc cannot do.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Is it really a bad thing that commons are outclassed (mostly) by rares? If commons and rares had similar power levels and usefulness, then why bother having a rarity at all? Rarity allows for controlled distribution of cards (in limited or financially), which in turn allows WOTC to control their variance. Commons being weaker nowadays can be attributed to cards being less powerful nowadays; gone are the days of cards like Bloodbraid Elf, Batterskull, and Jace, the Mind Sculptor. WOTC still prints power cards, but the average power level is much lower.
The issue is more so how they are doing it. A good way to handle a rare vs a common is to attack on the vector of how many strategies can this card fit into. A common can still be a good card that simply has a narrow scope, while a rare could be good, but also flexible enough to slot into other kinds of strategies. An example would be Gauntlet of Might vs Glorious Anthem. If someone is playing a go wide aggro strategy in a respective color is one really better than the other? The point where the first is better is the mana ramping power, but that ends up being more important for a different kind of strategy.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
In other words, is it really a bad thing that Magic is pay-to-win?
That may depend on whether you're Wizards or a financially-limited player.
I remember reading about the Richard Garfield's original card power rarity/power designs in Alpha (kind of relating to why he had ante cards). One gist was he didn't think the game would grow so much that people would be loading their decks with all rares. So, while it is literally true that "Rarity allows for controlled distribution of card (in limited or financially), which in turn allows WOTC to control their variance," that statement is merely an observation of the effect. It doesn't address the adequacy of why that would be a good idea because one consequence of NWO is wider variance in power level of any one card drawn (each booster is more like a lottery ticket than not).
Three reasons I can think of that have nothing to do with complexity.
a) Limited/kitchen table games. Limited is organized in such a way that certain cards would completely flatten other cards if made too available; due to the restricted card availability, you cannot make sure you always have a piece of removal in hand, neither that your curve flows correctly in order to counteract your opponent's board development. Fireball is incredibly powerful in limited, similar is Mind Control, because of the restricted card availability. Fireball is just a universal tool that's really mediocre in standard when you can control your board development properly, but in Limited it can hit and kill anything plus act as a finisher. Mind Control is a two for one that can really wreck the board state, but it's outclassed in constructed games due to needing to be as expensive as it is in Limited. There are a plethora of intricacies that make Limited games ultimately different than constructed games just by the nature of the card pool, it's way more similar to amateur kitchen table games than professional games, just by virtue of limiting the available cards. Particularly the kitchen table similarity is part of why Limited is shaped as it is, because it is kind of a tool for Wizards to make kitchen table games exciting as it's their most direct tool of messing with the kitchen table card pool; this is how they make the game exciting for new players, by carefully constructing a limited/kitchen table format.
b) Sales. You may think this is greed, but understand that it is a business, and as such it cannot sustain itself without sales. Also, the more the game thrives, the more resources they have to improve the game, and the more resources they have to cater to (probably) enfranchised players as yourself. Urza's block was a reason they invested in a development team, for example, the game development has changed A LOT since the beginning of the game, and recently, with more investment, the game seems to do better, so they can hire more people, and so on. The game design and development component is costly, and if it's a game you want to play, it's something you have to pay for. So concentrating power at rare or mythic drives sales more, upping profit and allowing more quality crafted formats.
c) Excitement. This is of course very subjective and for this part, I totally understand if you don't agree. And it's just fine if you don't like it, in fact I can understand if you find it manipulative. Just imagine something. You are an 11-year-old player. You play a black-green intro pack. You play with two of your friends that both play some combination of blue/black/red, but they all think green is kind of cheating and lame because the creatures are so big. However one of them has a Ravenous Demon - it can get even bigger than your Wurms! And can learn to fly! What the hell! So you buy two packs with the coolest images on front and open them... And you shuffle through the cards. What rares did you get? Oh, the first is some kind of land. Oh well. Shuffle through more, and... Wow! What the hell is this thing? And what's up with the red rarity symbol? This thing is insane! Look how big it is! Look at the artwork! Holy butt! And when it dies, you get to draw it again!
Same thing applies for Planeswalkers - they are only at mythic so they're like some weird exotic thing for young players. You know about Toby in sixth grade? He has a planeswalker. "What's a planeswalker?" It's some blue man in a coat, he can steal the best creature of your library and play it. No fair!
Opening packs and the lottery in it is part of the experience, like buying yourself a Christmas present where you have no idea what you're gonna get ... That's an amazing feeling. Of course you can be disappointed or confused by the rare. But purchasing the booster is not just about the fun of playing the cards, it's also about the fun of opening the cards, see what kind of tools you can get, and figuring out how and where use them. If you're a new young player you don't look through the web databases. You probably don't know any of the cards beside those you and your friends play. So every new booster is a new experience.
That said, there has always been power discrepancies between rarities. This is not a new thing. Also you should remember that one of the last cards that broke eternal formats was a commmon - Treasure Cruise. Now a lot of the eternal format breakers have been higher in rarity - probably the most of them - but there's often printed power at common and uncommon.
Oh, and one last thing. WotC Development literally said a few weeks ago that they have ended up making Standard removal too weak, as Smuggler's Copter has went way too rampant. So the pendulum is going to swing back soonish.
Delver - post NWO common
Gearseeker Serpent - post NWO common with AFFINITY
Galvanic Blast - post NWO common
Sea Gate Oracle - post NWO common
Expedition Map - post NWO common
Ancient Stirrings - post NWO common
Nivix Cyclops/Kiln Fiend - post NWO commons
Gitaxian Probe - post NWO common
NWO is about -limiting- complexity at common, not removing it completely. And saying that NWO has crippled pauper, if you really want, I can keep listing key cards that are from the initiation of NWO to refute that claim.
See the links on this post, and the italicized quotes:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/creativity/custom-card-creation/358263-rarity-balances-a-card?page=2#c49
People are quick to to blame rarity powerlevels on NWO, but rare cards being powerful HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE GAME DESIGN. It's not a "nowadays" thing, nor is it something that will kill the game or cause some sort of recession, because otherwise it would have happened long ago when things like rare duals and moxen were strictly better than basic lands.
These days, there's also limited to consider.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
I'm more interested in gaining insight into the issues of power on commons vs rares and deck construction. NWO looked like it was the problem, but that looks to be wrong because NWO didn't actually touch the parts that are starting to look to be the areas of issue given the conversations.
It's starting to look more like the problem isn't even related to NWO because NWO doesn't actually have anything to do with the issue of the power of the cards. Not that disputing an incorrect earlier presumption lacks merit. Right now after conversing with people in this thread it seems a lot more likely that the problem is with the power level related to rarity itself. However, working things out I don't think the answer is to work on power level of cards at all.
Lets say WoTC wants to sell packs (which they do). To do this, they need something in those packs that are worth getting, such as mythics and rares, and those cards need to be powerful and interesting cards or there isn't any reason to go pack opening after draft events. However, in constructed, what do people do? They look on the secondary market for the best cards at each CMC for a specific deck idea, work out which ones should go in that deck, and then build it. Thus, logically those players are going to go strait to the mythic lots and rare lots for the majority of the cards because those are the more powerful and flexible cards in the set.
Ultimately, the best possible solution to making commons and uncommons worth it in constructed is to have limits on the rares and mythics a deck can have in it legally. This runs into a few issues, though. Namely Wizards doesn't do set design with redundancy in mind, so if a restriction like that comes into play some decks that exist now would no longer exist simply because the strategies require all mythics and rares. Case in point, UW Flash.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!