I recall original Ravnica - Time Spiral Standard as being the most balanced and diverse format, with a typical top8 consisting of 8 entirely different deck types! This could be attributed to the "old" design principles the topicstarter outlined above, and to the special "Timeshifted" sub-set that increased the cardpool by a significant amount of old beloved cards, not tied to some set-special mechanics.
Wasn't this exactly how they had set up rotation but people rioted because it was too confusing and because decks fell out of favor more quickly?
No, they wanted Standard to contain 5-6 sets (3 blocks), and blocks would rotate faster. The proposal is to actually prolong the life of Spring an Summer sets so the Standard would contain 7-8 sets (4 blocks), but to rotate sets in smaller chunks.
Thanks for a long and thoughtful answer, Lord Seth!
Your (and thememan's) point on the bannings is completely reasonable, so I remove the argument of the bans from my original post. Nonetheless, the arguments of the decreased value of Summer set and of diversity still stand. 7-8 Standard will be at any moment at least 2 sets more diverse than the current 5-8 sets Standard. And a player's deck will have to change more often because of twice a year rotation, but every deck that was possible under 5-8 rotation would be possible under 7-8. And the format and meta will change more often but the tools (the cards!) will stay longer. That means that the card will have more opportunity to interact within different metas and within a wider cardpool. Therefore, players would be incentivized to gather useful cards for Standard (as the game name implies), and not to just buy into the best deck, then dump it, then buy another best deck, etc. (like they do now)
And all people I know who wanted to drop from Standard, wanted to do this because of smaller lifespan of their cards. They simply can't afford to spend so much on pieces of cardboard on a regular basis. The same argument goes for lesser lifespan of Summer sets. There are many people with lower income who play Magic, and they care of such things, even if you are not aware of it.
Besides, at the time of Standard inception there were Classic sets that provided a strong basis for players. Cards from those sets stayed legal for 2 years until the next Classic set was available. And that set reprinted the most vital parts of the last one. We knew that such things as the Painlands, Wrath of God, Llanowar Elves and others would always stay with us. Now we don't.
We need something to rely on.
Thanks for you support, hoser2!
Initially I thought about the rotation in single sets too. However, some problems became apparent with the scheme:
The sets would become unlinked in flavor and mechanics.
It would be harder for R&D to balance mechanics between sets with regard to this schedule.
That would really be too much for the players to follow what cards are out.
This scheme will provide a much more stable and diverse format, but it could become a logistic nightmare for everybody.
So I would stand for 7-8 rotation 2 times a year.
Your point on the bannings is true. Perhaps faster rotation really would not lessen the probability of bans.
However, the following line makes me think you haven't understood the proposal correctly:
1. Bottled decks that become unplayable when key pieces from a different set rotate out. This is just plain unpleasant. It's not that he format becomes harsher to the deck's existence, but rather that pieces were removed. That's not actual diversity, nor is it particularly fun.
2. Decreased deck diversity due to a lower card pool available. Simply put, the wider the pool, the more options you have available. The smaller the pool, the fewer options available.
Probably you thought that the proposal is to return to the hated 5-6 sets (3 blocks) scheme. That would obviously cause the problems you described.
But the proposal is to move to 7-8 sets rotation scheme! It will actually increase the lifetime of the cards and average cardpool over the current 5-8 scheme. The whole idea of proposal is to prolong the life of Spring blocks to achieve the symmetry between the blocks, not to cut something!
However, the point that the "player fatigue" from the more frequent rotations was the primary reason to abandon the new rotation format is not correct. This was the official reason WoTC gave us. They did it to cover the real reason, that was players quiting because their Standard card investments were to became junk in 15-18 months (instead of 15-24 months as before). Simply put, there were no more option to buy a deck from an Autumn set and enjoy it for 2 years. There is an eternal antagonism between WoTC and players in the regard of cards lifespan. WoTC's marketing department would always try to force players to buy cards more often. Every player I know who was complaining about the new rotation scheme actually complained about how Standard becoming financially unbearable, not about "rotation scheme becoming too complicated and hard to follow". Magic is a very complicated game, and it's players are more than capable to understand the new rotation rules, which are quite simple in comparison to actual Magic rules.
Let's make Standard always contain at least 7 sets and rotate 2 times a year.
Traditional Standard rotation happens once per year, at release of an autumn block. This schedule was devised at the epoch of 3-set blocks. At the time, all 3 sets of a block were linked together thematically and mechanically, so there was perfect sense for them to leave Standard in one move. The last (spring) set of a traditional 3-set block typically contained the most powerful and sophisticated cards and mechanics. This at least partially compensated the fact that its cards would have 6 month shorter Standard lifetime than those of the autumn set.
Nowadays, in combination with the new block schedule, the old rotation scheme poses at least 2 big problems:
The "once-per-year" rotation have catastrophic effect on Standard decklists and players. Players and decks momentarily lose half of the cardpool. For many newer players this is enough to stop playing at all! Each such rotation is akin to a giant asteroid hitting the Earth, killing 90% of species and totally destroying the ecosystem and eliminating biodiversity.
The later the set comes in a Standard year schedule, the less value it has, because its cards Standard lifetimes are shorter than those of cards from earlier sets. The Summer set has only 15 month of lifetime in contrast to the Autumn set that has full 24! This gives players far less incentive to buy Summer product. There was no such problem for Classic and Core Sets because they either rotated once in two years, or had to last until the next one was printed.
WoTC's initial reasoning of making Standard rotate twice a year was right, but the greed forced them to reduce the lifetime of the cards in the process. They tried to achieve both a good goal (make Standard more dynamic and balanced) and a bad one (make more money by forcing players to buy cards more often), and the community ditched them. Then they backed off and returned to the old scheme, that don't fit well with the new "2 blocks, 2 sets" paradigm.
We, the community, can make them fix their mistake!
Let's make Standard rotate 2 times per year, by a single block, but let there always remain at least 7 sets in Standard! This will increase the lifetime of a 2nd block by half a year. This change will achieve the following goals:
The Standard will become a healthier format, because now it will "shake up" twice per year. The rotation will become less catastrophic. Our favorite cards lifetime will increase, but the decks will have to change more often and in smaller bits. Instead of catastrophic revolutionary change we will have gradual evolution and transition.
The cards from Spring and Summer set will stop feeling like underdogs because they had far shorter Standard lifetime. These will now be on par with Autumn and Winter sets in value. As a side effect, the Standard card prices will drop, because the value will be more evenly spread between Autumn and Spring blocks. No more $50 Standard mythics at release!
There will be more cards in standard on average at any moment.
The average lifetime of a card in Standard will increase (see Reason 2).
This is a win/win change for everybody, including WoTC! They would have greater predictability of the sales and higher conversion rates for new players.
Here is an example of what this rotation scheme would look like apllied to current Standard. When the 1st set of Atlazan block goes in, Battle for Zendikar and Oath of Gatewatch goes out. The
Standard will consist of 7 sets:
SOI-EMN, KLD-AER, AKH-HOU, Atlazan.
Than, after the release of Atlazan Set2:
SOI-EMN, KLD-AER, AKH-HOU, Atlazan-Atl_set2.
Than, after the release of MysteryBlockThatComesAfterAtlazan:
KLD-AER, AKH-HOU, Atlazan-Atl_set2, MystBlockSet1.
et cetera.
It is easy to see that Standard will fluctuate between 7-8 sets (instead of 5-8 sets like now). The transitions in these scheme would be far less catastrophic.
There was an argument that 7-8 rotation would lessen the need to ban. This was proven wrong by some commentators.
Wizards showed us they listen. Let's make them hear us again! Due to the adoption of a State of Standard thread that includes this subject matter, this thread is locked. -hoser2
Hello, fellow mages!
Wizards post best decks for daily events in MTGO, but they do not provide the decklists of the decks that lost to the winning decks.
Is there any way to get exact results of matches for decks in MTGO, or somehow recover this information from any public sources?
This kind of information (the outcome of a game of two decklists) would make automated matchup analysis possible.
The Grapple is good, but 2cmc slot is overcrowded already, and we really don't want to mill Mysteries accidentally. Vessel of Nascency is for this purpose exactly. Traverse the Ulvenwald is a questionable card in this list, but it allows us to play some relevant singletons. Lost Legacy could be really switched to some other removal.
The problem with the deck is still the lack of creature sac outlets.
The synergy is to aggressively attack and trade real recurring creatures like Amalgam, Scrounger, Scourge, Haunted Dead (or sac them to something like Voldaren Pariah) to get clues from Mysteries. And the Trafficker works great with both plans, playing like a good 2-drop in aggro plan. It adds a second, clue/token/abbey plan to zombies strategy.
Original Clues can't press the opponent early and consistently, and need some time to come back online after disruption. Scrounger/Scourge makes one part of the combo (creatures) recurring.
We're still working out the numbers but the main idea is to abuse Eternal Scourge // Scrapheap Scrounger // Prized Amalgam // Haunted Dead synergy with Traverse the Ulvenwald and any sac outlet.
The deck is very aggressive and resilent to all kinds of removal and control, yet features a good late game against other creature decks. The only problem is to find the balance between all the combo pieces, and still have some space for essential removal.
Maindeck Lost Legacy is a meta call to foil zombies and Eldrazi, and stil can be played at our own Scourges for card advantage.
After rotation there seem to be no good gravehate in standard, and no 4cc mass-removal (we just lost Languish). This seems to be the perfect environment for UB zombies decks to run rampant. Here is an example of a post-rotation Zombies decklist:
It seems to be almost impossible for control/midrange decks like BW to beat this list. It has everything to make the midrange player cringe: flash creatures aggro, stable recursion, efficient discard, cheap counterspells, powerful late game, efficient removal, etc. The worst of all, there seem to be no good sideboard options against the deck.
So, I would like to pose a question:
how one's going to beat zombies in current standard (aside from trivial "burn to the face" plan)?
I can't see how can Veteran Explorer help cast Aluren turn two (save for Gut Shot shenanigans). But in Legacy one can always use something like Hickory Woodlot and Ancient Tomb to consistently have 2GG at the second turn.
This is laughable in comparison with, say, Show and Tell game plan, but speeds up the deck nonetheless.
But what exactly make the deck Tier 2? Bad meta? Abrupt Decays everywhere?
Aluren's creature/disruption package is pretty strong and matches that of best control decks (FoW, Cabal Therapy, etc.), so it should be able to adapt to almost any situation.
What exactly makes stops it from going Tier 1?
Some time ago I acquired a playset of Aluren.
Should I trade for Recruiter of the Guard now, considering I've already got duals, FoW, et cetera?
Would Guard Aluren ever become at least tier 1.5 deck?
No, they wanted Standard to contain 5-6 sets (3 blocks), and blocks would rotate faster. The proposal is to actually prolong the life of Spring an Summer sets so the Standard would contain 7-8 sets (4 blocks), but to rotate sets in smaller chunks.
Your (and thememan's) point on the bannings is completely reasonable, so I remove the argument of the bans from my original post. Nonetheless, the arguments of the decreased value of Summer set and of diversity still stand. 7-8 Standard will be at any moment at least 2 sets more diverse than the current 5-8 sets Standard. And a player's deck will have to change more often because of twice a year rotation, but every deck that was possible under 5-8 rotation would be possible under 7-8. And the format and meta will change more often but the tools (the cards!) will stay longer. That means that the card will have more opportunity to interact within different metas and within a wider cardpool. Therefore, players would be incentivized to gather useful cards for Standard (as the game name implies), and not to just buy into the best deck, then dump it, then buy another best deck, etc. (like they do now)
And all people I know who wanted to drop from Standard, wanted to do this because of smaller lifespan of their cards. They simply can't afford to spend so much on pieces of cardboard on a regular basis. The same argument goes for lesser lifespan of Summer sets. There are many people with lower income who play Magic, and they care of such things, even if you are not aware of it.
Besides, at the time of Standard inception there were Classic sets that provided a strong basis for players. Cards from those sets stayed legal for 2 years until the next Classic set was available. And that set reprinted the most vital parts of the last one. We knew that such things as the Painlands, Wrath of God, Llanowar Elves and others would always stay with us. Now we don't.
We need something to rely on.
Initially I thought about the rotation in single sets too. However, some problems became apparent with the scheme:
- The sets would become unlinked in flavor and mechanics.
- It would be harder for R&D to balance mechanics between sets with regard to this schedule.
- That would really be too much for the players to follow what cards are out.
This scheme will provide a much more stable and diverse format, but it could become a logistic nightmare for everybody.So I would stand for 7-8 rotation 2 times a year.
However, the following line makes me think you haven't understood the proposal correctly:
Probably you thought that the proposal is to return to the hated 5-6 sets (3 blocks) scheme. That would obviously cause the problems you described.
But the proposal is to move to 7-8 sets rotation scheme! It will actually increase the lifetime of the cards and average cardpool over the current 5-8 scheme. The whole idea of proposal is to prolong the life of Spring blocks to achieve the symmetry between the blocks, not to cut something!
However, the point that the "player fatigue" from the more frequent rotations was the primary reason to abandon the new rotation format is not correct. This was the official reason WoTC gave us. They did it to cover the real reason, that was players quiting because their Standard card investments were to became junk in 15-18 months (instead of 15-24 months as before). Simply put, there were no more option to buy a deck from an Autumn set and enjoy it for 2 years. There is an eternal antagonism between WoTC and players in the regard of cards lifespan. WoTC's marketing department would always try to force players to buy cards more often. Every player I know who was complaining about the new rotation scheme actually complained about how Standard becoming financially unbearable, not about "rotation scheme becoming too complicated and hard to follow". Magic is a very complicated game, and it's players are more than capable to understand the new rotation rules, which are quite simple in comparison to actual Magic rules.
Let's make Standard always contain at least 7 sets and rotate 2 times a year.
Traditional Standard rotation happens once per year, at release of an autumn block. This schedule was devised at the epoch of 3-set blocks. At the time, all 3 sets of a block were linked together thematically and mechanically, so there was perfect sense for them to leave Standard in one move. The last (spring) set of a traditional 3-set block typically contained the most powerful and sophisticated cards and mechanics. This at least partially compensated the fact that its cards would have 6 month shorter Standard lifetime than those of the autumn set.
Nowadays, in combination with the new block schedule, the old rotation scheme poses at least 2 big problems:
- The "once-per-year" rotation have catastrophic effect on Standard decklists and players. Players and decks momentarily lose half of the cardpool. For many newer players this is enough to stop playing at all! Each such rotation is akin to a giant asteroid hitting the Earth, killing 90% of species and totally destroying the ecosystem and eliminating biodiversity.
- The later the set comes in a Standard year schedule, the less value it has, because its cards Standard lifetimes are shorter than those of cards from earlier sets. The Summer set has only 15 month of lifetime in contrast to the Autumn set that has full 24! This gives players far less incentive to buy Summer product. There was no such problem for Classic and Core Sets because they either rotated once in two years, or had to last until the next one was printed.
WoTC's initial reasoning of making Standard rotate twice a year was right, but the greed forced them to reduce the lifetime of the cards in the process. They tried to achieve both a good goal (make Standard more dynamic and balanced) and a bad one (make more money by forcing players to buy cards more often), and the community ditched them. Then they backed off and returned to the old scheme, that don't fit well with the new "2 blocks, 2 sets" paradigm.We, the community, can make them fix their mistake!
Let's make Standard rotate 2 times per year, by a single block, but let there always remain at least 7 sets in Standard! This will increase the lifetime of a 2nd block by half a year. This change will achieve the following goals:
This is a win/win change for everybody, including WoTC! They would have greater predictability of the sales and higher conversion rates for new players.
Here is an example of what this rotation scheme would look like apllied to current Standard. When the 1st set of Atlazan block goes in, Battle for Zendikar and Oath of Gatewatch goes out. The
Standard will consist of 7 sets:
SOI-EMN, KLD-AER, AKH-HOU, Atlazan.
Than, after the release of Atlazan Set2:
SOI-EMN, KLD-AER, AKH-HOU, Atlazan-Atl_set2.
Than, after the release of MysteryBlockThatComesAfterAtlazan:
KLD-AER, AKH-HOU, Atlazan-Atl_set2, MystBlockSet1.
et cetera.
It is easy to see that Standard will fluctuate between 7-8 sets (instead of 5-8 sets like now). The transitions in these scheme would be far less catastrophic.
There was an argument that 7-8 rotation would lessen the need to ban. This was proven wrong by some commentators.
Wizards showed us they listen. Let's make them hear us again!
Due to the adoption of a State of Standard thread that includes this subject matter, this thread is locked. -hoser2
Wizards post best decks for daily events in MTGO, but they do not provide the decklists of the decks that lost to the winning decks.
Is there any way to get exact results of matches for decks in MTGO, or somehow recover this information from any public sources?
This kind of information (the outcome of a game of two decklists) would make automated matchup analysis possible.
The problem with the deck is still the lack of creature sac outlets.
Original Clues can't press the opponent early and consistently, and need some time to come back online after disruption. Scrounger/Scourge makes one part of the combo (creatures) recurring.
3 Westvale Abbey
21 other lands
4 Syndicate Trafficker
4 Scrapheap Scrounger
4 Eternal Scourge
1 Graf Mole
1 Marionette Master
1 Abolisher of Bloodlines
1 Zulaport Cutthroat
2 Tireless Tracker
4 Noose Constrictor
4 Haunted Dead
4 Prized Amalgam
4 Ulvenwald Mysteries
3 Traverse the Ulvenwald
4 Vessel of Nascency
3 Lost Legacy
We're still working out the numbers but the main idea is to abuse Eternal Scourge // Scrapheap Scrounger // Prized Amalgam // Haunted Dead synergy with Traverse the Ulvenwald and any sac outlet.
The deck is very aggressive and resilent to all kinds of removal and control, yet features a good late game against other creature decks. The only problem is to find the balance between all the combo pieces, and still have some space for essential removal.
Maindeck Lost Legacy is a meta call to foil zombies and Eldrazi, and stil can be played at our own Scourges for card advantage.
After rotation there seem to be no good gravehate in standard, and no 4cc mass-removal (we just lost Languish). This seems to be the perfect environment for UB zombies decks to run rampant. Here is an example of a post-rotation Zombies decklist:
2 Submerged Boneyard
4 Sunken Hollow
4 Choked Estuary
2 Sanctum of Ugin
2 Island
10 Swamp
Creatures:
3 Cryptbreaker
4 Haunted Dead
2 Diregraf Colossus
4 Prized Amalgam
4 Relentless Dead
2 Distended Mindbender
3 Voldaren Pariah/Abolisher of Bloodlines
2 Liliana, the Last Hope
3 Collective Brutality
3 Dark Salvation
2 Ruinous Path
4 Grasp of Darkness
1 Liliana, the Last Hope
1 Distended Mindbender
2 Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet
2 Negate
3 Ceremonious Rejection
2 Transgress the Mind
3 Lost Legacy
1 Revolutionary Rebuff
It seems to be almost impossible for control/midrange decks like BW to beat this list. It has everything to make the midrange player cringe: flash creatures aggro, stable recursion, efficient discard, cheap counterspells, powerful late game, efficient removal, etc. The worst of all, there seem to be no good sideboard options against the deck.
So, I would like to pose a question:
how one's going to beat zombies in current standard (aside from trivial "burn to the face" plan)?
This is laughable in comparison with, say, Show and Tell game plan, but speeds up the deck nonetheless.
Aluren's creature/disruption package is pretty strong and matches that of best control decks (FoW, Cabal Therapy, etc.), so it should be able to adapt to almost any situation.
What exactly makes stops it from going Tier 1?
Should I trade for Recruiter of the Guard now, considering I've already got duals, FoW, et cetera?
Would Guard Aluren ever become at least tier 1.5 deck?