This thread is for the discussion of Meyou's latest article, Off Topic: Changing the Standard Rotation. Due to technical issues the thread that is normally created when an article is published didn't occur, so I have created this thread to allow you to talk about it. As always, please keep your comments on topic.
This would make it so each set has to be designed completely independently, which would not be good for blocks.
New player retention problems come more from them picking up older cards not in standard, liking them and then being told you can not use that card. Not being told you lose half your deck once a year, but the other players in an area should be warning new players about this, and telling them to focus on the non rotating sets.
I've actually been thinking this for a while as well. It sucks how limited the time is with the last set in a block. I'm Sure R and D could easily work around it and still maintain synergy between blocks.
This is an interesting idea, but I think ultimately it will cause more headaches than is worth the trouble. While its easy to think that when Theros enters, Innistrad leaves, and when Born to the Gods enters, Dark Ascension leaves this will be annoying for deckbuilders with a strong emotional connection to their cards.
Yes right now in the real world you are coming up on not being able to use any Innistrad block cards anymore. But in your example I could have a gimped werewolf-ish deck (Huntmasters but no Reckless Waifs) when Theros hits. That's MORE cards a new player has to consider playing against. Also, it keeps people from investing in the new Fall set, which is a huge driving point against it since that set is used to determine many metrics for a block's success.
Finally, for people like me, it never lets standard get reset to its smallest point, which is my favorite point in standard (I'm a huge fan of block constructed but it's rather difficult to get stores to run block constructed events). I like being constrained by only 1 block and the beginning of a new block (along with whatever M-set). I like the deckbuilding challenge that comes with it, as well as finally being rid of whatever juggernaut the last set had in it (lets say lingering souls here, as it was in Dark Ascension and under your proposed rotation would still be legal with Theros). That feeling of finally being rid of some group of cards/mechanics is nice and one of the things I love about Standard.
There are a few major problems with changing the roation like this:
1. It actually makes it harder to figure out what sets are currently in Standard. Right now, you can compartmentalize things a little more. Instead of having to remember which six sets are in Standard or what order sets came in a block, you only have to remember two blocks and a Core Set (or two Core Sets, which is an odd quirk, but I understand their reasons for that). It's simply easier to group everything from Innistrad block together than to try to remember which parts of your Junk reanimator deck rotated out when Theros came along. Which brings me to my next point.
2. You end up with orphaned mechanics and cards. Did you know that Standard (or Type II as it was called then) used to rotate one set at a time? The reason they stopped rotating that way was because Magic wasn't designed one stand-alone set at a time anymore and you had cards and mechanics that lost some of their support from earlier in the block. When Ice Age rotated out, Alliances was still in Standard. Some of the cards had mechanics based on snow-covered lands which now meant nothing because the snow-covered lands had left Standard. While that didn't have a huge impact on the format, it made them realize rotating sets out this way was an error. The same thing could happen with cards that form the backbone of a deck rotating out before the support cards.
3. They wouldn't be able to play with the number of available sets anymore. Being able to add a fourth set to a block (like Eventide) or a stand-alone set (like Coldsnap) is a tool that would be taken away from Wizards if they were limited to just six sets in Standard. Mark Rosewater said on his Tumblr that they would be open to doing a fourth set if a design needed it and they nearly went with that option with Return to Ravnica block, so that idea isn't so far-fetched.
This is an interesting idea. I know that I quit trading or buying innistrad block cards months ago. On the other hand, I've spent plenty on modern masters. I might not have been able to do that, if I hadn't stopped buying innistrad. WotC does tend to have something special in the summer. Planechase, mma, commander, etc.
I agree with all the advantages lined out in the article, but I'd like to point out a huge disadvantage. Rotating even a small number of cards every 3 months means redesigning your decks every 3 months. For Ravnica, I started with selsnia agro, traded for thragtusk, resto angel, and temple garden. It was a simple and effective deck. With gatectash, I splashed black, and tried junk rites (at that time, craterhoofbehemoth was all the rage). Gatectash provided more b/w land, and obzidet. It was fun, but I eventually dropped behemoth, main boarded AoS, and in drsgon's maze added sin collector. On the local fnm level, it's never lost a match since May.
My point? I enjoy starting with a small, simple deck at rotation, and improving it with each new expansion. I feel that with a rotation 4 times a year, that would be very hard to do.
The one issue I had with this argument was that a lot of the evidence that was used to defend making a change, you could make the reverse logic and defend it in a similar way. I'll break it down point by point:
1. New player retention: the argument was made that because you lose nearly half the cardpool, that it makes newer players upset when they have to go through their first rotation and realize their cards aren't legal anymore. On average their cards will be legal for longer, so they'll be happier. But where you gain new players in happiness, you might lose them again with how confusing the new system is. They would only have to deal with losing a group of cards once a year vs 3-4 times a year.
2. Design Impact: An argument was made that losing 600 cards puts pressure on that first set to be able to balance. Again, I buy the argument that this would certainly make it easier because you basically just have to make sure you replace what is missing. But the argument that could be made for the other side is that there is no balance issue by removing 600 cards. I don't think there has been a standard environment where the fact that a card was missing was the reason a certain card/strategy was so outrageously dominant right after a block rotated out. They usually do a good job at keeping that from happening. Voice of Resurgence isn't going to dominate because they forget to put removal in to stop it.
3. Sales: The argument was made that the longer sets are in Standard, the more packs will be sold from that set. But the same reverse argument could be made to point out that if they aren't buying Innestrad packs since they are rotating... that just means they are buying whatever new set came out. So the profit balances out.
Overall, great article even though I disagree with the argument made. You don't make lazy points, don't come off as condescending, and it doesn't seem like you are trashing Wizards for the way things are now. The tone of the article suggests that this is just an alternate way they could do things. I don't think it would completely ruin the game if they made the switch over, but it's kind of one of those 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' things.
You're idea of a 3 month "soft" rotation is interesting though. In fact, the yugioh card game just implemented a new 3 month banlist(banlist changes in yugioh is basically set rotation). I'll be keeping track of that and it'll be fun to see how players will react to changing their decks every 3 months and whether or not the game will be more balanced.
As a new player of magic starting somewhere in the RTR block, I have to say I wasn't overwhelmed by rotation and legality of cards and sets. The only thing I got confused of was which one was a block and which one was a set, aside from that i knew that it would be easier to create a standard deck next year while starting a mild collection of cards from the RTR block and Ignoring the previous years cards. I did have experienced friends to play with and explain the game to me, I honestly think just about everyone who starts this game will know someone or a place to play at who can explain this to them. I honestly don't think its a hard concept to pick up, granted I was 17 at the time and some players do start young, it shouldn't be that big of an issue. Besides, most of the little kids that I know who play, either play standard and get it, or play casual decks from multiple sets and don't care.
Anyways that's my new player experience, Most of the other issues have been explained above, I can't add much about the inter mingling of multiple sets of mechanics or the fact that having half the cards of a block weaken any theme decks from that block, like vampires were wolves or guilds. My personal preference is, that as a new player I'm excited to see the entire block rotate, as it's full of cards I purposely didn't invest in. Plus a fresh start is funner, I wouldn't want people holding on to the same decks for as long as they can, the thing that makes standard different from modern is the fact that new decks emerge and old decks can't hold onto the meta for long periods of time, making people try new things. Besides that I can see the standpoint of the writers reasons but there not big enough to make it worth while, and I do think things were dramatized over all, but not a bad article, interesting viewpoint at least.
And about the sales, I'm not sure having more time to play with the smaller sets would boost sales that much directly, as there tinier, and build on the other two, and would be awkward without them. My comic store still sells the packs but in limited we draft the most recent set, or in for Dragon's maze the entire block, because it needed the support from the other two sets.
One small point which has not been raised at all (it's rather a corner case) concerns special printings. Say the first set of the block after Theros has just rotated in and RTR has rotated out. I buy a pack of Dragon's Maze and pull a Temple Garden. Can I play it?
I think it's silly to have standard span three different blocks. Even if sets within blocks differ somewhat, the blocks generally have a limited number of connected mechanics. Putting part of three blocks in standard would be a nightmare for Wizards.
Thanks for the article. I am a long time magic player and have built a sizeable collection but have never really engaged in any tournament play. It seems that I just can't keep up with the new sets. Maybe your new suggestion would allow for new players that aren't sold on making the leap of faith investing in this game can be or older players like myself that just can't buy cards like we use to.
If this change were made I might be able to manage some tourney play given the longer life span it would give blocks. Besides magic is nothing if not about change. The core draw of the game for me is that at anytime the whole dynamic of a battle can change to and fro. Keep up the good work. I am excited to see what changes are in store for the future of the game.
In my relatively short time of playing Magic, I have seen cards rotate out of Standard only once (when RtR was released). The idea that it could have happened four times in this time frame and that I would have had to modify my decks each time sounds completely overwhelming....especially in the beginning when they were only works in progress.
The design challenge of having to design the first large set of a new block to maintain a nice competitive environment (despite the loss of a previous block) pales to the advantages offered by being able to treat a block's mechanics as a package deal. It also is a lot easier for new players to learn standard if they aren't dealing with pieces from multiple blocks but are rather focusing on the two most recent.
No system will be universally perfect, but this proposed change offers a lot more problems than it does solutions.
The only change I'd like to see is to have the previous core set rotate immediately when the next one is made legal.
It doesn't make sense the way things are currently set up to have two core sets legal for a few months.
Having individual sets rotate out instead of whole blocks has two major problems:
-It's too confusing as to which sets/cards are legal and which aren't.
-This is too many changes to the format in such a short span of time. Entire archetypes will be created and destroyed every few months instead of just once a year.
The only change I'd like to see is to have the previous core set rotate immediately when the next one is made legal.
It doesn't make sense the way things are currently set up to have two core sets legal for a few months.
Having individual sets rotate out instead of whole blocks has two major problems:
-It's too confusing as to which sets/cards are legal and which aren't. -This is too many changes to the format in such a short span of time. Entire archetypes will be created and destroyed every few months instead of just once a year.
I was looking forward to the responses and we seem to have an interesting variety.
This I find interesting. One of the biggest complaints from players is the environment growing stale; especially nowadays with Magic Online. I get the sense many don't like the proposal because it creates too many changes. I thought when writing the article that a high rotation would be a good thing cause it would keep the format "fresh". Can we have our cake and eat it too?
while the idea of extending any given sets length of time to be available in standard is good in theory, in practice I'm sure it's a nightmare.
Magic is an insanely complex game in any of its formats, as far as standard, the one thing that holds it together would have to be the regularly schedueled rotation, imagine if they had to take into account one set being around for as long as you described, the potential for one card like snapcaster to be run along side another card from another set and potentially become broken, this issue is more easily avoided with the current method of rotation in place.
Dial it back all the way to the design phase and testing phases of new sets and finding all kinds of broken loopholes because too many sets are all standard legal at the same time.
We all respect the ban list, why it exist's and the purpose it serves. That list would be constantly changing with each set release with your projected standard season rotation cycle changes.
I'm not saying I can list concrete proof of broken'ness, but I'd have to assume it would be atleast somewhat similar to what I've described here.
Make FNM modern and leave set and pack design for limited (primarily draft but also sealed, pack wars, magic celebration etc.). With enough modern legal reprints such as Modern Masters and Theros's thoughtseize, new players should be able to find the cards for the decks they want.
On another note, it seems like the core sets are legal in standard for less time than a block, and they should take more risks with them because of that. (Like Thundermaw Hellkite and Thragtusk)
Nicely written article, although I agree with many of the posts that maybe there isn't so much of a problem to solve. One thing I have learned is that people play magic for an amazing number of different reasons. Changing things to rectify an injustice is always good, but changing things to please any one group usually just upsets some other group(s). Let's not forget that type 2 (standard) was originally justified (at least in part) as making the game accessible to new players. That the cards they needed were still 'in print' so to speak. There is only so easy the game can be and still be interesting. Rather than changing the system it seems there is value to keeping it the same so that new players can learn it. Maybe the frustration any individual has for standard is because they need to find there place as extended, modern, legacy, EDH, or limited players.
People are pretty smart, given consistency and time they will find their optimal place in an environment. Optimal by however they judge whatever it is they thought they wanted. Maybe our game can't give them whatever they hoped for, it's up to them.
I'm not sure I like this idea particularly but I like the idea of rethinking std in general. I would suggest trying std as the last 3 blocks instead of 2. Call it std + or something. In any case I think they could hold some tournaments, GP even, and have them be slightly altered formats like this and gauge the popularity or success of these altered formats.
I'm not sure I like this idea particularly but I like the idea of rethinking std in general. I would suggest trying std as the last 3 blocks instead of 2. Call it std + or something. In any case I think they could hold some tournaments, GP even, and have them be slightly altered formats like this and gauge the popularity or success of these altered formats.
They tried something like that with extended. It didn't work out.
I think two years is pretty optimal for Standard. It's big enough that there are usually a variety of viable strategies, but small enough that truely broken decks don't come about too often.
One of the best things about Standard is that in the last decade or so, they have only banned cards three times (Skullclamp, the Affinity bannings, and Jace/Stoneforge). In every other format, banned cards are just a way of life, but since Urza's Saga rotated out, the Standard banned list has almost always been empty. Part of that is because they have gotten better at development, but it's also due to the short rotation time. Problem cards will generally rotate out before they affect tournament attendance too much.
You might only get two years tops to play with your cards in Standard (barring reprints), but you can generally expect to be able to play with them the whole time their set is in the format. Even the cards that did get banned got at least a year in the format (with the exception of Skullclamp, but that card was easily the biggest mistake made in modern Magic development).
The reason why people didn't like ext at 4 years was because it used to be 7 years and cutting it down made it feel like a bigger std format, not an older format like it was supposed to be.
Good point. That the changes in the article make standard more like extended. Which I have to assume is pretty unpopular as it's the only format I don't see any of my local stores running.
Maybe extended will become more popular as the start date for modern legal set retreats further into the past.
It would break up the support for block-specific mechanics and make deck construction weirdly focused.
Imagine having three blocks in use... 2 with varying degrees of partial mechanic support and only one with full mechanic support, aside from the core. It would make non core/non full support themes potentially schizophrenic.
Edit: See #11 above... hooray for agreement...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My Pauper Cube ♤ The Pauper Cube Thread Common Knowledge — 1 2
This would make it so each set has to be designed completely independently, which would not be good for blocks.
New player retention problems come more from them picking up older cards not in standard, liking them and then being told you can not use that card. Not being told you lose half your deck once a year, but the other players in an area should be warning new players about this, and telling them to focus on the non rotating sets.
Follow the link for nice cheap clothing.
Playing:
Death's Shadow Jund
Played:
Kiki Chord, Zoo variants, Goblins, Burn
Yes right now in the real world you are coming up on not being able to use any Innistrad block cards anymore. But in your example I could have a gimped werewolf-ish deck (Huntmasters but no Reckless Waifs) when Theros hits. That's MORE cards a new player has to consider playing against. Also, it keeps people from investing in the new Fall set, which is a huge driving point against it since that set is used to determine many metrics for a block's success.
Finally, for people like me, it never lets standard get reset to its smallest point, which is my favorite point in standard (I'm a huge fan of block constructed but it's rather difficult to get stores to run block constructed events). I like being constrained by only 1 block and the beginning of a new block (along with whatever M-set). I like the deckbuilding challenge that comes with it, as well as finally being rid of whatever juggernaut the last set had in it (lets say lingering souls here, as it was in Dark Ascension and under your proposed rotation would still be legal with Theros). That feeling of finally being rid of some group of cards/mechanics is nice and one of the things I love about Standard.
1. It actually makes it harder to figure out what sets are currently in Standard. Right now, you can compartmentalize things a little more. Instead of having to remember which six sets are in Standard or what order sets came in a block, you only have to remember two blocks and a Core Set (or two Core Sets, which is an odd quirk, but I understand their reasons for that). It's simply easier to group everything from Innistrad block together than to try to remember which parts of your Junk reanimator deck rotated out when Theros came along. Which brings me to my next point.
2. You end up with orphaned mechanics and cards. Did you know that Standard (or Type II as it was called then) used to rotate one set at a time? The reason they stopped rotating that way was because Magic wasn't designed one stand-alone set at a time anymore and you had cards and mechanics that lost some of their support from earlier in the block. When Ice Age rotated out, Alliances was still in Standard. Some of the cards had mechanics based on snow-covered lands which now meant nothing because the snow-covered lands had left Standard. While that didn't have a huge impact on the format, it made them realize rotating sets out this way was an error. The same thing could happen with cards that form the backbone of a deck rotating out before the support cards.
3. They wouldn't be able to play with the number of available sets anymore. Being able to add a fourth set to a block (like Eventide) or a stand-alone set (like Coldsnap) is a tool that would be taken away from Wizards if they were limited to just six sets in Standard. Mark Rosewater said on his Tumblr that they would be open to doing a fourth set if a design needed it and they nearly went with that option with Return to Ravnica block, so that idea isn't so far-fetched.
I agree with all the advantages lined out in the article, but I'd like to point out a huge disadvantage. Rotating even a small number of cards every 3 months means redesigning your decks every 3 months. For Ravnica, I started with selsnia agro, traded for thragtusk, resto angel, and temple garden. It was a simple and effective deck. With gatectash, I splashed black, and tried junk rites (at that time, craterhoofbehemoth was all the rage). Gatectash provided more b/w land, and obzidet. It was fun, but I eventually dropped behemoth, main boarded AoS, and in drsgon's maze added sin collector. On the local fnm level, it's never lost a match since May.
My point? I enjoy starting with a small, simple deck at rotation, and improving it with each new expansion. I feel that with a rotation 4 times a year, that would be very hard to do.
1. New player retention: the argument was made that because you lose nearly half the cardpool, that it makes newer players upset when they have to go through their first rotation and realize their cards aren't legal anymore. On average their cards will be legal for longer, so they'll be happier. But where you gain new players in happiness, you might lose them again with how confusing the new system is. They would only have to deal with losing a group of cards once a year vs 3-4 times a year.
2. Design Impact: An argument was made that losing 600 cards puts pressure on that first set to be able to balance. Again, I buy the argument that this would certainly make it easier because you basically just have to make sure you replace what is missing. But the argument that could be made for the other side is that there is no balance issue by removing 600 cards. I don't think there has been a standard environment where the fact that a card was missing was the reason a certain card/strategy was so outrageously dominant right after a block rotated out. They usually do a good job at keeping that from happening. Voice of Resurgence isn't going to dominate because they forget to put removal in to stop it.
3. Sales: The argument was made that the longer sets are in Standard, the more packs will be sold from that set. But the same reverse argument could be made to point out that if they aren't buying Innestrad packs since they are rotating... that just means they are buying whatever new set came out. So the profit balances out.
Overall, great article even though I disagree with the argument made. You don't make lazy points, don't come off as condescending, and it doesn't seem like you are trashing Wizards for the way things are now. The tone of the article suggests that this is just an alternate way they could do things. I don't think it would completely ruin the game if they made the switch over, but it's kind of one of those 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' things.
You're idea of a 3 month "soft" rotation is interesting though. In fact, the yugioh card game just implemented a new 3 month banlist(banlist changes in yugioh is basically set rotation). I'll be keeping track of that and it'll be fun to see how players will react to changing their decks every 3 months and whether or not the game will be more balanced.
Anyways that's my new player experience, Most of the other issues have been explained above, I can't add much about the inter mingling of multiple sets of mechanics or the fact that having half the cards of a block weaken any theme decks from that block, like vampires were wolves or guilds. My personal preference is, that as a new player I'm excited to see the entire block rotate, as it's full of cards I purposely didn't invest in. Plus a fresh start is funner, I wouldn't want people holding on to the same decks for as long as they can, the thing that makes standard different from modern is the fact that new decks emerge and old decks can't hold onto the meta for long periods of time, making people try new things. Besides that I can see the standpoint of the writers reasons but there not big enough to make it worth while, and I do think things were dramatized over all, but not a bad article, interesting viewpoint at least.
And about the sales, I'm not sure having more time to play with the smaller sets would boost sales that much directly, as there tinier, and build on the other two, and would be awkward without them. My comic store still sells the packs but in limited we draft the most recent set, or in for Dragon's maze the entire block, because it needed the support from the other two sets.
"A Plague on All Your Houses!" - Thespian's Stage Pox
Thanks for the article. I am a long time magic player and have built a sizeable collection but have never really engaged in any tournament play. It seems that I just can't keep up with the new sets. Maybe your new suggestion would allow for new players that aren't sold on making the leap of faith investing in this game can be or older players like myself that just can't buy cards like we use to.
If this change were made I might be able to manage some tourney play given the longer life span it would give blocks. Besides magic is nothing if not about change. The core draw of the game for me is that at anytime the whole dynamic of a battle can change to and fro. Keep up the good work. I am excited to see what changes are in store for the future of the game.
Her Shop on Etsy
THS-KTK: Rabble Red
RTR-THS: Dega Midrange
INN-RTR: Boros Humans
SOM-INN: B/u Control
Modern: Mono-Black Infect
No system will be universally perfect, but this proposed change offers a lot more problems than it does solutions.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
It doesn't make sense the way things are currently set up to have two core sets legal for a few months.
Having individual sets rotate out instead of whole blocks has two major problems:
-It's too confusing as to which sets/cards are legal and which aren't.
-This is too many changes to the format in such a short span of time. Entire archetypes will be created and destroyed every few months instead of just once a year.
I was looking forward to the responses and we seem to have an interesting variety.
This I find interesting. One of the biggest complaints from players is the environment growing stale; especially nowadays with Magic Online. I get the sense many don't like the proposal because it creates too many changes. I thought when writing the article that a high rotation would be a good thing cause it would keep the format "fresh". Can we have our cake and eat it too?
Many good points in the comments by the way.
Magic is an insanely complex game in any of its formats, as far as standard, the one thing that holds it together would have to be the regularly schedueled rotation, imagine if they had to take into account one set being around for as long as you described, the potential for one card like snapcaster to be run along side another card from another set and potentially become broken, this issue is more easily avoided with the current method of rotation in place.
Dial it back all the way to the design phase and testing phases of new sets and finding all kinds of broken loopholes because too many sets are all standard legal at the same time.
We all respect the ban list, why it exist's and the purpose it serves. That list would be constantly changing with each set release with your projected standard season rotation cycle changes.
I'm not saying I can list concrete proof of broken'ness, but I'd have to assume it would be atleast somewhat similar to what I've described here.
Make FNM modern and leave set and pack design for limited (primarily draft but also sealed, pack wars, magic celebration etc.). With enough modern legal reprints such as Modern Masters and Theros's thoughtseize, new players should be able to find the cards for the decks they want.
On another note, it seems like the core sets are legal in standard for less time than a block, and they should take more risks with them because of that. (Like Thundermaw Hellkite and Thragtusk)
People are pretty smart, given consistency and time they will find their optimal place in an environment. Optimal by however they judge whatever it is they thought they wanted. Maybe our game can't give them whatever they hoped for, it's up to them.
They tried something like that with extended. It didn't work out.
I think two years is pretty optimal for Standard. It's big enough that there are usually a variety of viable strategies, but small enough that truely broken decks don't come about too often.
One of the best things about Standard is that in the last decade or so, they have only banned cards three times (Skullclamp, the Affinity bannings, and Jace/Stoneforge). In every other format, banned cards are just a way of life, but since Urza's Saga rotated out, the Standard banned list has almost always been empty. Part of that is because they have gotten better at development, but it's also due to the short rotation time. Problem cards will generally rotate out before they affect tournament attendance too much.
You might only get two years tops to play with your cards in Standard (barring reprints), but you can generally expect to be able to play with them the whole time their set is in the format. Even the cards that did get banned got at least a year in the format (with the exception of Skullclamp, but that card was easily the biggest mistake made in modern Magic development).
Maybe extended will become more popular as the start date for modern legal set retreats further into the past.
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
Imagine having three blocks in use... 2 with varying degrees of partial mechanic support and only one with full mechanic support, aside from the core. It would make non core/non full support themes potentially schizophrenic.
Edit: See #11 above... hooray for agreement...