So, we've ahd the big removal debate, but I'm wondering what people think makes for a good limited format.
In my mind, there are a few that are absolutely essential.
1. Good removal. I've expressed my opinion in the other thread, but it's essential for good game play. There is nothing worse than feeling helpless to your opponents curve out draw, or their dragon, or their voltroned ground guy.
2. Good creatures/threats. This coin cuts both ways. Games that devolve into a bunch of horned turtles staring at each other with on board effects like tappers and healers making combat impossible are also miserable. There need to be good creatures.
3. The ability to remain open. This mostly effects multicolored sets, but it's ruined some good environments. In sets like Gatecras, and Alara block, the gold cards were so much more powerful than the monocolored cards that you really couldn't justify staying open because you would sacrifice too much in power level. YOu just had to hope you didn't cut from your colors, which is not a fun feeling. This can also happen in tribal sets, where your creatures are bad on their own and require critical mass and synergy to be effective.
4. The presence of unique, niche archetypes. Ironically usually found in the form of 3 mana red enchantments. Stuff like Burning Vengeance, Furnace Celebration, Raid Bombardment. But also stuff like mill, spider spawning, ethereal armor. Build around me cards that won't always be open, but you can sometimes pick up late and work with (this is also a big reason why triple large set draft tends to be better than full block, and especially better than Small-Large-Large).
5. Good mana. Again, just a consideration for multicolored. But there is nothing more frustrating than being unable to cast your spells, except perhaps watching your opponent cast T1 Wild Nacatl, T2 Bant Sureblade, turn 3 Wooly Thoctar with no fixing.
6. Not too aggressive. Formats with great aggressive creatures and great combat tricks make games too tempo and die roll dependent. Theros, Gatecrash, and Zendikar are perfect examples of htis, where aggro was the overwhelmingly best strategy. One of the only blights on the otherwise great Innistrad was the Travel Preparations start. You know what I'm talking about: two drop, three drop, swing for 8 on turn 4. Great formats allow for both aggressive and controlling builds, with intersting stuff thrown in between. Part of what made Time Spiral so great was that Suspend is arguably the best limited mechanic of all time design wise (I would say in a dead heat with kicker) in that it supported both aggressive and controlling builds.
My feeling is that the best limited formats of all time are (in no particular order): TPF, RGD (origina), ROE, IPA, and Innistrad (although I don't care for ISD that much, I recognize the overwhelming opinion of the community and will put it here because I realize I'm very much in the minority).
Among the worst limited formats of all time are Masques, Coldsnap, Gatecrash, Avacyn Restored, and Theros.
Another way to phrase the question would be "what were the best limited formats, and what did those formats generally have in common?". My personal favorites are TPF, ROE, LLM and RGD. Formats that other people consider great that I didn't like as much were ISD and MMA. Looking at all those formats together, there are a few general themes you can pick out:
1. Good removal, and more colors have access to removal than normal:
In ROE blue got narcolepsy, and green had abundant fixing to splash for off-color removal. In ISD blue had silent departure (good enough as removal in a tempo oriented format) and claustrophobia, and green got prey upon. In TPF blue had shaper parasite and erratic mutation, and green got utopia vow (admittedly these were only in 1 pack, but the difference between 0 removal spells in a color and 1-2 is quite significant). In RGD the vast majority of decks were 3+ colors, so everyone had access to some sort of removal. MMA and LLM didn't give blue or green any removal, but the removal spells in black, red and white were all efficient and very playable (unlike cards like lash of the whip in THS, which you are only lukewarm about having in your deck).
In summary, in 4 of the best formats ever (ROE, TPF, RGD, ISD) every color had some sort of access to removal, and in the remaining formats the removal that existed was was efficient and playable. This pretty clearly points to access to good removal as a key factor in having a fun format .
2. Varied archetypes to draft (and its corollary - flexible pick orders within each color)
In all the best formats there was a high reward for drafting synergistic decks (spider spawning/burning vengeance in ISD, ramp/spawn/levelers/auras/control in ROE), and/or each color had fully developed aggressive and controlling aspects that rewarded knowing what type of deck you were drafting. In TPF, for example, there weren't as many obvious synergistic archetypes as "eldrazi spawn" or "levelers", but each color was flexible enough to be drafted in either a controlling or aggressive way and could be powerful at either plan. Both of these factors lead to flexible pick orders within each color, where you value cards differently depending on what type of deck you are drafting - which overall leads to a more interesting drafting experience.
3. A good mana smoothing mechanic:
The best formats have ways to reduce the variance of drawing too many or too few lands by allowing you to use your mana effectively at any stage in the game. TPF had suspend and morph - if you were constrained on mana, you could play your morphs face down or suspend your expensive cards, and later in the game if you were flooded you could hardcast your suspend spells for a more immediate effect, or spend mana on unmorphing your creatures. In ROE the level up mechanic scaled perfectly with the amount of mana you had, letting you develop your board by casting levelers early, while being a mana sink later in the game. Flashback cards in ISD were another class of cards whose effect could scale with the amount of mana you had and were useful at any stage in the game.
Variance with regards to mana is one of the biggest culprits in uninteresting/unfun games of magic, and the best formats had mechanics that could mitigate that variance.
4. Few vanilla cards:
Part of the reason TPF is so fun is that every card does something interesting and there are many possible interactions that can come up every game. This level of interaction density is only possible if there are very few vanilla cards in the format (as per RGD, MMA, and LLM). Having too many vanilla cards (traveling philosopher, felhide minotaur in theros) reduces this complexity and makes the gameplay less enjoyable for experienced players (even if it makes it more comprehensible for novices).
5. Medium to slow game speed:
Somewhat of a side effect of #1, but none of the best formats were blazingly fast. They all gave time for both players to make decisions and choices that effected the game, rather than having the outcome of the game being heavily influenced by how the top ten cards of your deck matched up against the top ten cards of your opponent's deck.
The format needs to be slow enough to avoid making the opening hand the main thing that matters. If there's a reliable deck to draft which is successful because of an ability to end the game before turn 7, the format is too fast.
The removal doesn't need to be good, it just needs to be good enough. If the removal doesn't do the job of allowing players to draft decks which can stabilize, then the format isn't interactive enough.
Archetypes should be about more than just color. Archetypes should be about making use of the mechanics of the set to enable interesting gameplay. If an archetype in the set breaks either of the first two rules (like Heroic does), or is a trap (like Inspired is), or is good enough that the mechanic is just pure quality rather than enabling strategic drafting decisions (like Bestow is), then the format isn't deep enough.
tl:dr A good format is not fast, non-interactive, or shallow.
The format needs to be slow enough to avoid making the opening hand the main thing that matters. If there's a reliable deck to draft which is successful because of an ability to end the game before turn 7, the format is too fast.
The removal doesn't need to be good, it just needs to be good enough. If the removal doesn't do the job of allowing players to draft decks which can stabilize, then the format isn't interactive enough.
Archetypes should be about more than just color. Archetypes should be about making use of the mechanics of the set to enable interesting gameplay. If an archetype in the set breaks either of the first two rules (like Heroic does), or is a trap (like Inspired is), or is good enough that the mechanic is just pure quality rather than enabling strategic drafting decisions (like Bestow is), then the format isn't deep enough.
tl:dr A good format is not fast, non-interactive, or shallow.
I like cards that present choices. Kavu Primarch is a card that may look a bit vanilla, but it's always tricky to figure out exactly when and how you want to play it. Dream Stalker is also a cool card that subtly has a lot of play to it. For spells, charms are sweet. Small but useful effects (such as Funeral Charm, Piracy Charm, Evolution Charm, Midnight Charm) make them interesting and fun to play with. So I don't mind bestow, for example. Or cycling. Or landcycling. Or kicker. That's the sort of stuff I like.
Vanilla creatures and even french vanilla (trample, flying, vigilance, etc) are very uninteresting, so I'd like as few as these as possible, though the occasional one is okay. Theros has 8 straight-up vanilla creatures at common, which I feel is way too many - a cycle of them should be plenty. Time Spiral actually had zero vanilla creatures at common!
I also like instants a lot, and things with flash. They promote interactivity.
And slow formats. Slow formats are basically always better than fast ones. Having creatures be far better at attacking than at blocking is the best way to screw up a format in my mind.
Edit: oh, and archetypes is indeed another excellent point. Many of the greatest formats really nailed this one.
I disagree with every poster in this thread--not directly because of the specific points made but because the points are being introduced under the guise of objectivity--while consisting entirely of opinion.
I see no attempt to quantify "good", much less any attempts to discuss how one would go about defining "good". So it seems that the topic is merely a figleaf for "here is what I think Limited should be like"
I disagree with every poster in this thread--not directly because of the specific points made but because the points are being introduced under the guise of objectivity--while consisting entirely of opinion.
This thread starts with a very clear "I'm wondering what people think makes for a good limited format". Not one person in this thread thinks this equals to "what would make a limited format that would sell the most packs to beginners and new players and Vorthoses alike", it's just what we think makes a Limited format we like.
None of us are under the assumption that we can cook up a perfect environment that would suit absolutely everyone, from novice to expert and everything in between. We can only speak for ourselves.
For me personally, I like a format where individual cards can vary from decent to very good depending on the deck you put them in. This was identified very early as a problem with the design of Theros block -- there are practically no "build around me" cards. No cards that elevate the status of other cards and allow for strategic drafting. The vast majority of Theros cards exist in a vacuum. Once you understand how good they are, they never change. That gets boring. I want a format where I can see a few different "faces" of each card and appreciate the complexity of the design.
I disagree with every poster in this thread--not directly because of the specific points made but because the points are being introduced under the guise of objectivity--while consisting entirely of opinion.
I see no attempt to quantify "good", much less any attempts to discuss how one would go about defining "good". So it seems that the topic is merely a figleaf for "here is what I think Limited should be like."
Hardly penetrating analysis.
What's so great about this comment is how you present your opinion under the guise of objectivity, and you make no attempt to quantify "good" nor discuss how one would go about defining "good." It's merely a figleaf (srsly?) for "here is what I think the discussion should be like.
Hardly relevant commentary.
EDIT: Retracting my comment on "figleaf." I guess that's a term people use...who knew?
If it's a common UK expression, then I retract my comment. I can assure you it's not a common US expression though.
Back to the original topic though in an attempt to re-rail -- I think a good format needs a diversity of strategies. Part of why I did not like BTT (and several other historic formats) is that aggressive strategies are supported much more strongly than anything else. Your decks might vary somewhat but the strategies are the same. Play some creatures, make them huge and evasive, and smash face. That is the most basic of all MTG strategies, so when it's pushed, the format becomes stagnant quickly. Take Rise of Eldrazi for example. It wasn't necessarily "balanced" since aggro was pretty terrible. But control is a more complicated strategy, so spending a lot of time and effort on control is more engaging for the player. Hence why ROE is considered a very popular format, it had depth of strategy.
My list of all time best sets to draft in order are, Modern Masters (by far the best limited set ever created), Original Ravnica, ROE, TPF (interesting enough, I didnt like TFP when it first came out, only recently have I realized how good of a set it was to draft) and 3XRTR (did not like what GTC or DMZ brought to the format.)
All of those sets have multiple archetypes, pretty good balance between not only the archetypes, but the colors. Also there is tricks and removal for all the archetypes and all of the colors.
I think the biggest thing about being a good set to draft is balance. Being able to draft multiple ways and still do well is very important.
I disagree with every poster in this thread--not directly because of the specific points made but because the points are being introduced under the guise of objectivity--while consisting entirely of opinion.
I see no attempt to quantify "good", much less any attempts to discuss how one would go about defining "good". So it seems that the topic is merely a figleaf for "here is what I think Limited should be like"
Hardly penetrating analysis.
Yeah actually, what makes a format good was quantified and defined several times throughout this thread. You were just too busy being snarky and condescending to notice. Go back, read the posts, and try again.
2. Varied archetypes to draft (and its corollary - flexible pick orders within each color)
In all the best formats there was a high reward for drafting synergistic decks (spider spawning/burning vengeance in ISD, ramp/spawn/levelers/auras/control in ROE), and/or each color had fully developed aggressive and controlling aspects that rewarded knowing what type of deck you were drafting. In TPF, for example, there weren't as many obvious synergistic archetypes as "eldrazi spawn" or "levelers", but each color was flexible enough to be drafted in either a controlling or aggressive way and could be powerful at either plan. Both of these factors lead to flexible pick orders within each color, where you value cards differently depending on what type of deck you are drafting - which overall leads to a more interesting drafting experience.
I think this gets at the heart of it, and incorporates a lot of other criteria. It's maybe not so important that every color (or guild, shard...) have a control deck and an aggro deck in particular, but it should definitely be the case that there's a tension between making a tempo-focused deck versus a stabilizing-focused deck, which means their power levels should be on the same page. Too many formats are racing formats where the best way to build a deck is clearly aggro and you just fight over the best aggressive cards. There should be mechanisms built in to a set to make hard control decks and slow synergy/ramp-based decks more compelling. Unfortunately, by essentially declaring war on card advantage of any kind at common (not to mention removal) and by pushing hyper-curved creatures, Wizards hasn't made much of an effort to promote that kind of drafting. Racing gameplay isn't the absolute worst, but the aggressive strategies have tended to be so powerful that they've overwhelmed other options, and that's not ideal.
2. Varied archetypes to draft (and its corollary - flexible pick orders within each color)
In all the best formats there was a high reward for drafting synergistic decks (spider spawning/burning vengeance in ISD, ramp/spawn/levelers/auras/control in ROE), and/or each color had fully developed aggressive and controlling aspects that rewarded knowing what type of deck you were drafting. In TPF, for example, there weren't as many obvious synergistic archetypes as "eldrazi spawn" or "levelers", but each color was flexible enough to be drafted in either a controlling or aggressive way and could be powerful at either plan. Both of these factors lead to flexible pick orders within each color, where you value cards differently depending on what type of deck you are drafting - which overall leads to a more interesting drafting experience.
I think this gets at the heart of it, and incorporates a lot of other criteria. It's maybe not so important that every color (or guild, shard...) have a control deck and an aggro deck in particular, but it should definitely be the case that there's a tension between making a tempo-focused deck versus a stabilizing-focused deck, which means their power levels should be on the same page. Too many formats are racing formats where the best way to build a deck is clearly aggro and you just fight over the best aggressive cards. There should be mechanisms built in to a set to make hard control decks and slow synergy/ramp-based decks more compelling. Unfortunately, by essentially declaring war on card advantage of any kind at common (not to mention removal) and by pushing hyper-curved creatures, Wizards hasn't made much of an effort to promote that kind of drafting. Racing gameplay isn't the absolute worst, but the aggressive strategies have tended to be so powerful that they've overwhelmed other options, and that's not ideal.
Indeed. I also don't understand the war on card advantage at common as you so eloquently put it, as those cards are good in both control and aggro. Aggro and control both want Phyrexian Ragers and Compulsive Researches. But only aggro can effectively use a Wingsteed Rider or Favored Hoplite.
I think at the end of the day, they are aiming way too mcuh at new players. New plaeyrs have a tough time winning in slower formats, because their mistakes are exacerbated, and their deck construction errors will be brought to the fold. They can't just luckily curve out and win. The better player will see enough cards that they're going to be able to win.
Yes, new players are important, but there should be products for new players and experts alike, and you should be trying to move your new players up the ladder. Having a video game with just one difficulty mode just sounds like a recipe for stagnation once you've gotten a hang of it at that one mode. This is what the core set should be to me.
And the fact of the matter is, WOTC has shown with Innistrad that the limited formats don't need to be miserably one dimensional and aggressive to attract new players and sell packs. Innistrad is one of hte most beloved limited formats of all time, and one of the best selling sets of all time. They can go hand in hand.
To me, this is why Modern Masters was such a great designed set. It provided road maps for new players to use in limited (Giants, Rebels, Faeries, etc.) but also had enough powerful cards and card advantage spells that you didn't have to go with one of these synergies. Both strategies worked, and it made for a really good format.
They've said that suspend was unpopular because it was difficult to understand, but I"m not sure why that is? It explains itself pretty well in the reminder text, and it's intuitive as to how it works. Okay, i remove a counter every turn and then it comes into play. That makes sense.
They've said that suspend was unpopular because it was difficult to understand, but I"m not sure why that is? It explains itself pretty well in the reminder text, and it's intuitive as to how it works. Okay, i remove a counter every turn and then it comes into play. That makes sense.
I'd say that putting counters on something in exile was really weird, the fact that the creature gained haste permanently bizarre, and the casting of spells during your upkeep a little hard to understand. Remember that things like invisible keywords, exile, and upkeep aren't something that beginning players are totally comfortable with.
The fact that you don't remember how out there suspend was at the time of its introduction means you've forgotten what it's like to be a beginning player. It's really hard to put yourself back in that mindset. It's hard to recognize the player you were at the beginning of a format, let alone when you started playing. For instance, there's nothing quite as sobering as looking at your first draft in a format to remind you what the learning curve in Magic is like.
As for the thread, I think the most interesting formats are the ones where static pick orders fail. If you can line up the cards from best it's probably a less interesting format. That said, even "less interesting" formats have lots of play as cards become appropriately "costed" in everyone else's pick order, the holes in your deck need filling and in the late stages of the environment archetypes get refined and new little edges are needed to keep up with the competition.
It's pretty common in US English. Not something I'd use all the time, but I'd expect folks to know what I was talking about if I used it.
OK. Maybe it's more common in certain circles? I've literally never heard that used as an expression in my American life (of 30+ yrs) including a college education at a top school, god knows how many years participating in message board debates, etc. which is just to say that it's not for lack of intellectual discourse in my life. Maybe it's big in politics? That's one area I try to avoid.
It's rare that I come across an American expression that I've never heard of, which when used in this type of discussion in such a dismissive and condescending message, signals to me that it's the author's intent to try to establish some sort of intellectual high ground. "I'm smarter and more worldly than you because I use relatively obscure referential terms in casual conversation, therefore my argument is also intelligent." That's all I was reacting to.
I'm pretty shocked that you've never heard it used. Like I said, it's not something I hear all the time, but I wouldn't call it extremely rare, either. For example, 15 seconds on google turned up lots of examples of its use in recent news articles all over the country:
And a quick scan of those examples shows that most of them are political in nature, so that's probably why...I actively avoid political articles and debates as a general rule. Of course I concede (and did long ago) that's it's an actual term. Ya learn something new every day...
They've said that suspend was unpopular because it was difficult to understand, but I"m not sure why that is? It explains itself pretty well in the reminder text, and it's intuitive as to how it works. Okay, i remove a counter every turn and then it comes into play. That makes sense.
I'd say that putting counters on something in exile was really weird, the fact that the creature gained haste permanently bizarre, and the casting of spells during your upkeep a little hard to understand. Remember that things like invisible keywords, exile, and upkeep aren't something that beginning players are totally comfortable with.
The fact that you don't remember how out there suspend was at the time of its introduction means you've forgotten what it's like to be a beginning player. It's really hard to put yourself back in that mindset. It's hard to recognize the player you were at the beginning of a format, let alone when you started playing. For instance, there's nothing quite as sobering as looking at your first draft in a format to remind you what the learning curve in Magic is like.
As for the thread, I think the most interesting formats are the ones where static pick orders fail. If you can line up the cards from best it's probably a less interesting format. That said, even "less interesting" formats have lots of play as cards become appropriately "costed" in everyone else's pick order, the holes in your deck need filling and in the late stages of the environment archetypes get refined and new little edges are needed to keep up with the competition.
The aggresive nature of a format is what causes a static pick order. If the pick order is best 2 drop > best 3 drop > best 4 drop > best 5 drop > you aren't casting anything that costs 6 or more so don't sweat it, then you've got a pretty miserable format.
Use of language (I rather like "figleaf") and tone (not so much) aside, there's an interesting question underlying KBH's post: to what extent are the features of a good Limited format a matter of taste?
Lots of people like strong removal (I don't). Some people seem to want all colours pairs to be playable (I don't). Some people seem to like unbalanced cards (last time I complained that overpowered removal only played well because of broken rares a couple of people said they liked broken rares). However, presumably there are some features of a good format which are, if not literally objective, at least fairly universal? Here's a quick attempt at a few:
* The format must be slow enough that Magic's mana system works properly. In particular, missing a land drop after keeping a reasonable hand should not lose the game.
* The format must be fast enough that casting costs remain relevant.
* There must be a wide enough range of viable archetypes that no seat at a draft table is left helpless.
* There should be enough choice in a typical games that it cannot be played entirely on autopilot.
Any more?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Use of language (I rather like "figleaf") and tone (not so much) aside, there's an interesting question underlying KBH's post: to what extent are the features of a good Limited format a matter of taste?
Lots of people like strong removal (I don't). Some people seem to want all colours pairs to be playable (I don't). Some people seem to like unbalanced cards (last time I complained that overpowered removal only played well because of broken rares a couple of people said they liked broken rares). However, presumably there are some features of a good format which are, if not literally objective, at least fairly universal? Here's a quick attempt at a few:
* The format must be slow enough that Magic's mana system works properly. In particular, missing a land drop after keeping a reasonable hand should not lose the game.
* The format must be fast enough that casting costs remain relevant.
* There must be a wide enough range of viable archetypes that no seat at a draft table is left helpless.
* There should be enough choice in a typical games that it cannot be played entirely on autopilot.
Any more?
One of the three best formats of all time was one in which I saw a 15 mana spell hardcast multiple times. So I think you scratch your second point off the list. And #1 is a function of good removal. Three and four are good.
The autopilot comment is very interesting. I think veterans want strategic depth -- plain and simple. Keep engaging my brain or I'm gone. That's why we play games after all, right? There's the social element but also the "makes my brain feel utilized and happy" element. As the strategies available within a format dwindle, the game loses depth and becomes boring quickly.
One of the three best formats of all time was one in which I saw a 15 mana spell hardcast multiple times. So I think you scratch your second point off the list.
I assuming you mean RoE - I loved that too - I don't agree. Casting cost was far from irrelevant there. I picked Green ramp highly. Didn't you?
This is a myth. Playing removal on a creature is no better an answer than blocking it. The problem is when formats contain too many cheap creatures that, for whatever reason, can't be blocked (or removed).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Like I said in the other thread, the question isn't the amount of removal, it's what those removal spells do. Hideous End is better in an aggro deck than in control deck, and as such a format filled with removal like Hideous End and Searing Blaze and whatnot is going to favor aggressive decks. On the other hand, removal like Divine Offering (in an artifact block) and Sensory Deprivation are better in a control deck.
But yeah, more important is the creatures, and whether the format inherently favor attacking creatures rather than blocking creatures. In Zendikar you had landfall, and in Gatecrash you had bloodrush, batallion, evolve and cipher (in particular) all favoring aggro and not at all control. It's not lack of removal that made the formats what they were. It played a part, but a relatively small one, in my opinion.
(though I do like removal)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In my mind, there are a few that are absolutely essential.
1. Good removal. I've expressed my opinion in the other thread, but it's essential for good game play. There is nothing worse than feeling helpless to your opponents curve out draw, or their dragon, or their voltroned ground guy.
2. Good creatures/threats. This coin cuts both ways. Games that devolve into a bunch of horned turtles staring at each other with on board effects like tappers and healers making combat impossible are also miserable. There need to be good creatures.
3. The ability to remain open. This mostly effects multicolored sets, but it's ruined some good environments. In sets like Gatecras, and Alara block, the gold cards were so much more powerful than the monocolored cards that you really couldn't justify staying open because you would sacrifice too much in power level. YOu just had to hope you didn't cut from your colors, which is not a fun feeling. This can also happen in tribal sets, where your creatures are bad on their own and require critical mass and synergy to be effective.
4. The presence of unique, niche archetypes. Ironically usually found in the form of 3 mana red enchantments. Stuff like Burning Vengeance, Furnace Celebration, Raid Bombardment. But also stuff like mill, spider spawning, ethereal armor. Build around me cards that won't always be open, but you can sometimes pick up late and work with (this is also a big reason why triple large set draft tends to be better than full block, and especially better than Small-Large-Large).
5. Good mana. Again, just a consideration for multicolored. But there is nothing more frustrating than being unable to cast your spells, except perhaps watching your opponent cast T1 Wild Nacatl, T2 Bant Sureblade, turn 3 Wooly Thoctar with no fixing.
6. Not too aggressive. Formats with great aggressive creatures and great combat tricks make games too tempo and die roll dependent. Theros, Gatecrash, and Zendikar are perfect examples of htis, where aggro was the overwhelmingly best strategy. One of the only blights on the otherwise great Innistrad was the Travel Preparations start. You know what I'm talking about: two drop, three drop, swing for 8 on turn 4. Great formats allow for both aggressive and controlling builds, with intersting stuff thrown in between. Part of what made Time Spiral so great was that Suspend is arguably the best limited mechanic of all time design wise (I would say in a dead heat with kicker) in that it supported both aggressive and controlling builds.
My feeling is that the best limited formats of all time are (in no particular order): TPF, RGD (origina), ROE, IPA, and Innistrad (although I don't care for ISD that much, I recognize the overwhelming opinion of the community and will put it here because I realize I'm very much in the minority).
Among the worst limited formats of all time are Masques, Coldsnap, Gatecrash, Avacyn Restored, and Theros.
1. Good removal, and more colors have access to removal than normal:
In ROE blue got narcolepsy, and green had abundant fixing to splash for off-color removal. In ISD blue had silent departure (good enough as removal in a tempo oriented format) and claustrophobia, and green got prey upon. In TPF blue had shaper parasite and erratic mutation, and green got utopia vow (admittedly these were only in 1 pack, but the difference between 0 removal spells in a color and 1-2 is quite significant). In RGD the vast majority of decks were 3+ colors, so everyone had access to some sort of removal. MMA and LLM didn't give blue or green any removal, but the removal spells in black, red and white were all efficient and very playable (unlike cards like lash of the whip in THS, which you are only lukewarm about having in your deck).
In summary, in 4 of the best formats ever (ROE, TPF, RGD, ISD) every color had some sort of access to removal, and in the remaining formats the removal that existed was was efficient and playable. This pretty clearly points to access to good removal as a key factor in having a fun format .
2. Varied archetypes to draft (and its corollary - flexible pick orders within each color)
In all the best formats there was a high reward for drafting synergistic decks (spider spawning/burning vengeance in ISD, ramp/spawn/levelers/auras/control in ROE), and/or each color had fully developed aggressive and controlling aspects that rewarded knowing what type of deck you were drafting. In TPF, for example, there weren't as many obvious synergistic archetypes as "eldrazi spawn" or "levelers", but each color was flexible enough to be drafted in either a controlling or aggressive way and could be powerful at either plan. Both of these factors lead to flexible pick orders within each color, where you value cards differently depending on what type of deck you are drafting - which overall leads to a more interesting drafting experience.
3. A good mana smoothing mechanic:
The best formats have ways to reduce the variance of drawing too many or too few lands by allowing you to use your mana effectively at any stage in the game. TPF had suspend and morph - if you were constrained on mana, you could play your morphs face down or suspend your expensive cards, and later in the game if you were flooded you could hardcast your suspend spells for a more immediate effect, or spend mana on unmorphing your creatures. In ROE the level up mechanic scaled perfectly with the amount of mana you had, letting you develop your board by casting levelers early, while being a mana sink later in the game. Flashback cards in ISD were another class of cards whose effect could scale with the amount of mana you had and were useful at any stage in the game.
Variance with regards to mana is one of the biggest culprits in uninteresting/unfun games of magic, and the best formats had mechanics that could mitigate that variance.
4. Few vanilla cards:
Part of the reason TPF is so fun is that every card does something interesting and there are many possible interactions that can come up every game. This level of interaction density is only possible if there are very few vanilla cards in the format (as per RGD, MMA, and LLM). Having too many vanilla cards (traveling philosopher, felhide minotaur in theros) reduces this complexity and makes the gameplay less enjoyable for experienced players (even if it makes it more comprehensible for novices).
5. Medium to slow game speed:
Somewhat of a side effect of #1, but none of the best formats were blazingly fast. They all gave time for both players to make decisions and choices that effected the game, rather than having the outcome of the game being heavily influenced by how the top ten cards of your deck matched up against the top ten cards of your opponent's deck.
Calculate your lifetime MTG match win percentage!: http://kavu.ru/
MTG draft simulator: http://drafts.in/
The removal doesn't need to be good, it just needs to be good enough. If the removal doesn't do the job of allowing players to draft decks which can stabilize, then the format isn't interactive enough.
Archetypes should be about more than just color. Archetypes should be about making use of the mechanics of the set to enable interesting gameplay. If an archetype in the set breaks either of the first two rules (like Heroic does), or is a trap (like Inspired is), or is good enough that the mechanic is just pure quality rather than enabling strategic drafting decisions (like Bestow is), then the format isn't deep enough.
tl:dr A good format is not fast, non-interactive, or shallow.
Agree with all of your points. Well said.
Vanilla creatures and even french vanilla (trample, flying, vigilance, etc) are very uninteresting, so I'd like as few as these as possible, though the occasional one is okay. Theros has 8 straight-up vanilla creatures at common, which I feel is way too many - a cycle of them should be plenty. Time Spiral actually had zero vanilla creatures at common!
I also like instants a lot, and things with flash. They promote interactivity.
And slow formats. Slow formats are basically always better than fast ones. Having creatures be far better at attacking than at blocking is the best way to screw up a format in my mind.
Edit: oh, and archetypes is indeed another excellent point. Many of the greatest formats really nailed this one.
I see no attempt to quantify "good", much less any attempts to discuss how one would go about defining "good". So it seems that the topic is merely a figleaf for "here is what I think Limited should be like"
Hardly penetrating analysis.
Warning issued for flaming/trolling. -Hardened
This thread starts with a very clear "I'm wondering what people think makes for a good limited format". Not one person in this thread thinks this equals to "what would make a limited format that would sell the most packs to beginners and new players and Vorthoses alike", it's just what we think makes a Limited format we like.
None of us are under the assumption that we can cook up a perfect environment that would suit absolutely everyone, from novice to expert and everything in between. We can only speak for ourselves.
What's so great about this comment is how you present your opinion under the guise of objectivity, and you make no attempt to quantify "good" nor discuss how one would go about defining "good." It's merely a figleaf (srsly?) for "here is what I think the discussion should be like.
Hardly relevant commentary.
EDIT: Retracting my comment on "figleaf." I guess that's a term people use...who knew?
Back to the original topic though in an attempt to re-rail -- I think a good format needs a diversity of strategies. Part of why I did not like BTT (and several other historic formats) is that aggressive strategies are supported much more strongly than anything else. Your decks might vary somewhat but the strategies are the same. Play some creatures, make them huge and evasive, and smash face. That is the most basic of all MTG strategies, so when it's pushed, the format becomes stagnant quickly. Take Rise of Eldrazi for example. It wasn't necessarily "balanced" since aggro was pretty terrible. But control is a more complicated strategy, so spending a lot of time and effort on control is more engaging for the player. Hence why ROE is considered a very popular format, it had depth of strategy.
All of those sets have multiple archetypes, pretty good balance between not only the archetypes, but the colors. Also there is tricks and removal for all the archetypes and all of the colors.
I think the biggest thing about being a good set to draft is balance. Being able to draft multiple ways and still do well is very important.
Yeah actually, what makes a format good was quantified and defined several times throughout this thread. You were just too busy being snarky and condescending to notice. Go back, read the posts, and try again.
I think this gets at the heart of it, and incorporates a lot of other criteria. It's maybe not so important that every color (or guild, shard...) have a control deck and an aggro deck in particular, but it should definitely be the case that there's a tension between making a tempo-focused deck versus a stabilizing-focused deck, which means their power levels should be on the same page. Too many formats are racing formats where the best way to build a deck is clearly aggro and you just fight over the best aggressive cards. There should be mechanisms built in to a set to make hard control decks and slow synergy/ramp-based decks more compelling. Unfortunately, by essentially declaring war on card advantage of any kind at common (not to mention removal) and by pushing hyper-curved creatures, Wizards hasn't made much of an effort to promote that kind of drafting. Racing gameplay isn't the absolute worst, but the aggressive strategies have tended to be so powerful that they've overwhelmed other options, and that's not ideal.
Indeed. I also don't understand the war on card advantage at common as you so eloquently put it, as those cards are good in both control and aggro. Aggro and control both want Phyrexian Ragers and Compulsive Researches. But only aggro can effectively use a Wingsteed Rider or Favored Hoplite.
I think at the end of the day, they are aiming way too mcuh at new players. New plaeyrs have a tough time winning in slower formats, because their mistakes are exacerbated, and their deck construction errors will be brought to the fold. They can't just luckily curve out and win. The better player will see enough cards that they're going to be able to win.
Yes, new players are important, but there should be products for new players and experts alike, and you should be trying to move your new players up the ladder. Having a video game with just one difficulty mode just sounds like a recipe for stagnation once you've gotten a hang of it at that one mode. This is what the core set should be to me.
And the fact of the matter is, WOTC has shown with Innistrad that the limited formats don't need to be miserably one dimensional and aggressive to attract new players and sell packs. Innistrad is one of hte most beloved limited formats of all time, and one of the best selling sets of all time. They can go hand in hand.
To me, this is why Modern Masters was such a great designed set. It provided road maps for new players to use in limited (Giants, Rebels, Faeries, etc.) but also had enough powerful cards and card advantage spells that you didn't have to go with one of these synergies. Both strategies worked, and it made for a really good format.
They've said that suspend was unpopular because it was difficult to understand, but I"m not sure why that is? It explains itself pretty well in the reminder text, and it's intuitive as to how it works. Okay, i remove a counter every turn and then it comes into play. That makes sense.
I'd say that putting counters on something in exile was really weird, the fact that the creature gained haste permanently bizarre, and the casting of spells during your upkeep a little hard to understand. Remember that things like invisible keywords, exile, and upkeep aren't something that beginning players are totally comfortable with.
The fact that you don't remember how out there suspend was at the time of its introduction means you've forgotten what it's like to be a beginning player. It's really hard to put yourself back in that mindset. It's hard to recognize the player you were at the beginning of a format, let alone when you started playing. For instance, there's nothing quite as sobering as looking at your first draft in a format to remind you what the learning curve in Magic is like.
As for the thread, I think the most interesting formats are the ones where static pick orders fail. If you can line up the cards from best it's probably a less interesting format. That said, even "less interesting" formats have lots of play as cards become appropriately "costed" in everyone else's pick order, the holes in your deck need filling and in the late stages of the environment archetypes get refined and new little edges are needed to keep up with the competition.
It's pretty common in US English. Not something I'd use all the time, but I'd expect folks to know what I was talking about if I used it.
OK. Maybe it's more common in certain circles? I've literally never heard that used as an expression in my American life (of 30+ yrs) including a college education at a top school, god knows how many years participating in message board debates, etc. which is just to say that it's not for lack of intellectual discourse in my life. Maybe it's big in politics? That's one area I try to avoid.
It's rare that I come across an American expression that I've never heard of, which when used in this type of discussion in such a dismissive and condescending message, signals to me that it's the author's intent to try to establish some sort of intellectual high ground. "I'm smarter and more worldly than you because I use relatively obscure referential terms in casual conversation, therefore my argument is also intelligent." That's all I was reacting to.
https://www.google.com/search?q=fig leaf cnn&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS499US499&oq=fig leaf cnn&aqs=chrome..69i57.2351j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=fig leaf&tbm=nws&tbs=qdr:m
The aggresive nature of a format is what causes a static pick order. If the pick order is best 2 drop > best 3 drop > best 4 drop > best 5 drop > you aren't casting anything that costs 6 or more so don't sweat it, then you've got a pretty miserable format.
Lots of people like strong removal (I don't). Some people seem to want all colours pairs to be playable (I don't). Some people seem to like unbalanced cards (last time I complained that overpowered removal only played well because of broken rares a couple of people said they liked broken rares). However, presumably there are some features of a good format which are, if not literally objective, at least fairly universal? Here's a quick attempt at a few:
* The format must be slow enough that Magic's mana system works properly. In particular, missing a land drop after keeping a reasonable hand should not lose the game.
* The format must be fast enough that casting costs remain relevant.
* There must be a wide enough range of viable archetypes that no seat at a draft table is left helpless.
* There should be enough choice in a typical games that it cannot be played entirely on autopilot.
Any more?
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
One of the three best formats of all time was one in which I saw a 15 mana spell hardcast multiple times. So I think you scratch your second point off the list. And #1 is a function of good removal. Three and four are good.
I assuming you mean RoE - I loved that too - I don't agree. Casting cost was far from irrelevant there. I picked Green ramp highly. Didn't you?
This is a myth. Playing removal on a creature is no better an answer than blocking it. The problem is when formats contain too many cheap creatures that, for whatever reason, can't be blocked (or removed).
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
But yeah, more important is the creatures, and whether the format inherently favor attacking creatures rather than blocking creatures. In Zendikar you had landfall, and in Gatecrash you had bloodrush, batallion, evolve and cipher (in particular) all favoring aggro and not at all control. It's not lack of removal that made the formats what they were. It played a part, but a relatively small one, in my opinion.
(though I do like removal)