This site works best with JavaScript enabled. Please enable JavaScript to get the best experience from this site.
Quote from Shiroe The Enchanter »Quote from JaceBluesMaster »Quote from Shiroe The Enchanter »Quote from seilaoque » if they're going to keep improving threats, then they need to bring better answers or else we'll keep having extensive ban lists every time. It looks like Wizard's recent design philosophy is to make bigger threats, so players simply compete on landing bigger threats, rather than using lower-costing answers to take care of those threats. Wizards keeps citing their player satisfaction surveys where new players don't like their threats being countered or neutralized before they can use it. So, really good answers are unlikely to be made for Standard. The better creature removals recently seem to be in black. (Cast Down, Heartless Act) They might scale back on the power creep for creatures, but removal will probably remain not as quick or efficient in Standard. Which has been the biggest problem plaguing Standard for a long time now. The game is far healthier and more vibrant when threats and answers are roughly equal. When threats far outstrip answers, you are left with a shallow game of who can ramp and draw into their threat faster. I don't know if Wizards will ever find the balance needed. Make the answers too good, and nobody wants to play expensive threats. It really depends on how they design Standard. Players won't readily commit to a 6+ mana big monster only to have it taken down by 2-mana removal. It seems Wizards compensates for that scenario by adding ETB or on cast abilities to make those creatures worthwhile to play. Then, you end up with creatures that Mystic_X said previously are "use or lose" in Standard.
Quote from JaceBluesMaster »Quote from Shiroe The Enchanter »Quote from seilaoque » if they're going to keep improving threats, then they need to bring better answers or else we'll keep having extensive ban lists every time. It looks like Wizard's recent design philosophy is to make bigger threats, so players simply compete on landing bigger threats, rather than using lower-costing answers to take care of those threats. Wizards keeps citing their player satisfaction surveys where new players don't like their threats being countered or neutralized before they can use it. So, really good answers are unlikely to be made for Standard. The better creature removals recently seem to be in black. (Cast Down, Heartless Act) They might scale back on the power creep for creatures, but removal will probably remain not as quick or efficient in Standard. Which has been the biggest problem plaguing Standard for a long time now. The game is far healthier and more vibrant when threats and answers are roughly equal. When threats far outstrip answers, you are left with a shallow game of who can ramp and draw into their threat faster.
Quote from Shiroe The Enchanter »Quote from seilaoque » if they're going to keep improving threats, then they need to bring better answers or else we'll keep having extensive ban lists every time. It looks like Wizard's recent design philosophy is to make bigger threats, so players simply compete on landing bigger threats, rather than using lower-costing answers to take care of those threats. Wizards keeps citing their player satisfaction surveys where new players don't like their threats being countered or neutralized before they can use it. So, really good answers are unlikely to be made for Standard. The better creature removals recently seem to be in black. (Cast Down, Heartless Act) They might scale back on the power creep for creatures, but removal will probably remain not as quick or efficient in Standard.
Quote from seilaoque » if they're going to keep improving threats, then they need to bring better answers or else we'll keep having extensive ban lists every time.
Quote from Dontrike »Quote from JinxedIdol »So weird to have multiple bannings and even functional power level errata this early in the release. I mean, did they even test these? This is something I've been wondering. Seems like their new playtest group started strong, but in the past two years there have been more bannings than ever. To companion's credit only two or three are a real issue that could have been solved by different CMC, stats, or prerequisites (to be a companion) on the card(s). If I had to put this on the storm scale I'd be putting this at around a (maybe a 6) 7 or 8, considering how hard it is to balance, but as we see it is possible to make companions that aren't overly oppressive.
Quote from JinxedIdol »So weird to have multiple bannings and even functional power level errata this early in the release. I mean, did they even test these?