The feedback can also be conflicting. I know a lot of Modern and EDH players who are perfectly happy with MtG right now, and see the same online. Standard sets being bad don’t affect them, and even might be beneficial in steering players who would otherwise be playing Standard into their formats.
Oh, if you want to see what is going on the best way is to take a look back before they created mythics and compare the power level of the spells in the first modern border sets vs now. They had a gradual transition from strong spells and moderate creatures -> moderate spells and moderate creatures -> weaker spells and stronger creatures. They also started really messing with the game when they introduced planeswalkers. That was probably the worst thing they ever did from a game perspective, but it was done because of the marketing potential. We're also going through a "fast mana is bad" phase in magic, which is rendering a lot of cards unplayable that otherwise would see more play.
I’ve heard you say this about Planeswalker cards several times, but I don’t see them having a significant negative impact on any current format. They aren’t anywhere near the heart of what’s wrong with Standard, and you barely see them in Legacy, Modern, or EDH. I’m not really sure what the problem you see with them is.
As for the rest, we’ve had almost 10 years of “modern” cards. They don’t seem to be poisoning the Modern format, and if that change was what was ruining MtG it would have done so long before now.
The deal with planeswalkers is that you can build a game successfully around them and that is exactly what WoTC did. It's just that people who played before they were introduced remember the older balance of enchantment vs artifact vs creature vs instant/sorcery/interrupt. When they introduced walkers it added a new layer of complexity to the game and threw the balance out of whack since suddenly we now have a trading post style card that is more fragile than an enchantment, but could put someone behind on a turn if they had to deal with it. So it's not like it made the game worse that they got introduced, it just took the game in a direction that some of the older crowd didn't necessarily like. Others are perfectly happy with the walkers being added. I tend to think of it like some people love strawberry ice cream and others like smores ice cream cones.
So what you’re saying is that MtG is in a bad place right now, and that you prefer the MtG of 10 years ago and before. I don’t see that the two are necessarily connected, and I say this as somebody who has played more pre-“Modern” Magic than I’ve played the new stuff.
I’m not sure I can definitively identify what the issue is, but I think I can say when. This seems to have really begun with Battle For Zendikar and has continued through to the present.
But did the problem come because people didn't like how Standard changed, or because the had gotten tired of the ways it didn't change? BFZ may have been merely the "last straw" for players who were already losing patience with a format devoid of answers.
Even if the problem did only start with BFZ, the backlash might be too much. Popular opinion is like a pendulum. If you push it too hard in one direction (aka, widening the gap in power between creatures and answers), the reaction is typically a strong push back in the other direction.
In other words, maybe MTG could have continues in the style of Theros and Kahns, but that doesn't mean we can go back that way after WotC "took it too far" and players want a change.
So maybe a core design philosophy that wasn't a problem before has become a problem now.
If there is power creep in the creatures, it’s relative to spells. The creatures currently in Standard IMO are weaker than the average for the Modern era.
That's it exactly. The answers are too weak relative to the threats. People are vexed and bored with this I think. But it's anyone's guess if people are newly unhappy with this because it has gotten worse, or if the malcontent has been stewing for longer.
I’m missing some pieces, as I only started playing again during Eldritch Moon, but I’ll try to answer your questions/points as best I can.
1. I call attention to BFZ because I see a major difference in the cards. The cards are weaker than in previous sets, to a significant degree, and this change has continued in subsequent sets. An argument can be made that the three previous blocks led into this somewhat, but there was a more drastic change starting with BFZ. I wasn’t around at the time, so I can’t comment on people’s attitudes at the time, but I look at the cards and there is a difference. BFZ was the break point.
2. There hasn’t been a reaction on WotC’s part. The change in design philosophy I see looking at the cards between earlier Modern era sets and BFZ-present has continued unchanged. As for the reaction of the players, it’s less clear. The problem I hear most often is that there aren’t enough decks in Standard, or that the dominant deck is too dominant. In other words, the biggest complaint is the meta. What I also hear often, and most often in person when talking to the Modern players at the FLGS, is that they don’t like the power level of Standard. This isn’t a specific complaint of the dynamic between creatures and spells, but an overall complaint. Cards and decks are a lot weaker than Modern, and they prefer the power level of Modern. I don’t think the creatures vs spells complaint is as big as you think, because its also true of Modern and the people who like Modern and have made it into the dominant competitive format seem mostly comfortable with it. That issue is more significant in Standard, but it’s not the complaint I’ve been hearing from Modern players, and what I do hear is usually that the answers in Standard are too weak/expensive, and that alone.
3. I’m curious what prompted the change with BFZ-present. I wasn’t part of the community at the time. I would think if BFZ was a response to feedback, that feedback would have to be from 2 years before given the lead in times.
4. Anecdotally, a significant thing I saw was at the Ixalan rotation. A lot of the competitive regulars at the FLGS were still playing Standard during Amonkhet/HoD. When the rotation happened and Ixalan dropped, most of them stopped. I was just starting to play Standard at the time and asked why. The impression I got was that they were playing Standard mostly because they had already made the investment and already had the cards. When the rotation hit and they had to come up with new decks, possibly with new cards they didn’t have, they just didn’t bother.
Oh, if you want to see what is going on the best way is to take a look back before they created mythics and compare the power level of the spells in the first modern border sets vs now. They had a gradual transition from strong spells and moderate creatures -> moderate spells and moderate creatures -> weaker spells and stronger creatures. They also started really messing with the game when they introduced planeswalkers. That was probably the worst thing they ever did from a game perspective, but it was done because of the marketing potential. We're also going through a "fast mana is bad" phase in magic, which is rendering a lot of cards unplayable that otherwise would see more play.
I’ve heard you say this about Planeswalker cards several times, but I don’t see them having a significant negative impact on any current format. They aren’t anywhere near the heart of what’s wrong with Standard, and you barely see them in Legacy, Modern, or EDH. I’m not really sure what the problem you see with them is.
As for the rest, we’ve had almost 10 years of “modern” cards. They don’t seem to be poisoning the Modern format, and if that change was what was ruining MtG it would have done so long before now.
Colt I can see you get it but several posters were talking about power creep and creatures in a general way instead of pointing right at the source of the problem.
That's kind of beggingvthe question, because there is no consensus as to what the source of the problem is. This is all speculation.
I believe it is a possibility that "power creep and creatures In General" (more so the nerfing of everything else) might in fact be the source of the problem. Yes, it worked in the past, but it's not 2013 anymore. The player base is now more established (a lower percentage of the players are new), plus the whole model of a 90%+ midrange meta is no longer fresh.
I’m not sure I can definitively identify what the issue is, but I think I can say when. This seems to have really begun with Battle For Zendikar and has continued through to the present.
If there is power creep in the creatures, it’s relative to spells. The creatures currently in Standard IMO are weaker than the average for the Modern era.
Creeping the power of middle costed creatures and pushing Planeswalkers dates back to Lorwyn block in 2007. Ten years. That’s kind of old news at this point,
True, but they they've been pushing them more and more. And they've been gradually nerfing dorks, sweepers, Mana Leak, and removal all the while. This might have started in 2007, but it has been taken to the extreme.
It's been less than 5 years since WotC have really taken those things away from us. Given that bored players will probably hang in for a while before they jump ship, and that Standard has been having problems for years, I do not think we can rule out their core design philosophies as being part of the problem.
Also WotC were riding an explosive growth in the gaming community 5 years ago. MTG in 2012 may have been popular despite design, not because of it.
They are not pushing creatures necessarily. The creatures dominating Standard right now aren’t seeing modern play on the whole. Creatures might be on top right now, but their power level compared to Modern is down just like everything else.
I didn't intend any hostilities, I apologise if my post came off as such.
I'm not saying 4+ ccs were ever pushed out of standard. Even Geddon and Wrath are 4cc cards. But fair decks curving into 5 and 6 cc cards only happens because WotC stopped supporting multiple play styles which hosed this strategy (as well as seriously creeping the power of middle costed creatures, and inventing PWs as super midrange value engines).
I'm not trying to say that it's a good or bad idea because I don't know. Only that this style of meta was heavily engineered, not the other way around.
As for what's a good idea, that is hard to say. WotC made the choice to bore some players rather than frustrate other players. That seemed to work, but is it possible that bored players are slower to leave than frustrated players; and that too many players have finally had enough of playing on-curve-fair-magic-only? Maybe WotC needs to risk a little more frustration for some players in favour of less boredom for othets?
I honestly don't know, and I'm kind of glad it's not my problem to sort out.
Creeping the power of middle costed creatures and pushing Planeswalkers dates back to Lorwyn block in 2007. Ten years. That’s kind of old news at this point, the game has had ups and downs since then. If it was the cause of what is currently ailing Standard, it would have happened before now. It would also be ruining Modern. What is killing Standard right now is a design change that began with BFZ, which I would describe as a massive, across the board lowering of the power level of all cards resulting in a Standard format dominated by the mistakes.
. You should realize that the speed of these formats is largely not by design but a result of a card pool consisting of dozens of sets and 3-5 color mana bases.
On the flipside, you should realise that the viability of your 4-6 cc cards is by design.
Not too long ago, high cc cards were the exception even in Standard. In order to create the environment you now know and love, WotC has had to nerf LD, counter-spells, sweepers, spot removal, and anything combo; as well as heavily pushing big midrange creatures. Before that MTG was always naturally hostile to higher ccs.
Obviously Standard was never as fast as today's Legacy, but it wasn't nearly as clunky and forgiving as it has been in recent years. That is by design.
No need to get hostile.
I don’t recall a Standard where 4cmc cards were chased out of the format like they are in today’s Modern. I recall not so long ago people complaining about Planeswalkers in Modern, and now you pretty much never see them aside from the ones that cost less than 4. With Legacy, to a bystander like me 3cmc looks like it’s pushing it. I remember a time where cards like Serra Angel and Spiritmonger were premiere threats at 5cmc.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that they are trying to slow the game down by design. Where I disagree is that I think it’s a good idea, they’re just doing a crappy job of implementing it.
It is always dangerous to "fire someone" for several reasons. But, and there is always a but, the direction from the top- i.e. Maro- who was responsible for Energy, let us not forget- is so off where it should be that I could get behind his removal. I would love to have an hour with the guy, with a bunch of decks from Legacy, Modern. I can play a match of Legacy where the game is over t3 in all three games, or effectively so- where the match takes 20-30 mins and each turn is full of decisions-and great fun is had by all, I would like to show him that. If he came back with the "new players don't like x" argument I would give up hope. There is the devil you know argument. I was certainly happy that Stoddard has been taking out of the firing line, his pronouncements made me want to throttle him-and I am concerned that people like Melissa DT are going to want an environment that pros like, which is the other end of the spectrum from designing for casuals/edh. Many a pro whines about Blood Moon and Bridge in Modern, and frankly they can sod off.
If you like the speed of Legacy or Modern, more power to you, but it’s not for everybody. You should realize that the speed of these formats is largely not by design but a result of a card pool consisting of dozens of sets and 3-5 color mana bases. I personally think both formats are way to fast, and prefer a pace where 4-6 cmc cards are viable.
Other than design philosophy (and outrageous prices), I feel there are 2 things really hurting MTG (particularly Standard) right now:
Too big a barrier between Standard and the "next" competitive format.
Too big a barrier between Standard and casual (specifically EDH, which is the lions share of casual).
On point (1), this is pretty obvious. It's too hard for standard players to port their Standard decks into Modern; and there is too little in standard-legal sets which appeals to Modern players. This makes Standard less enticing for everyone. The time span of Modern legal sets has roughly doubled since Modern's inception, and I think the game needs support for Frontier or something similar.
Point (2) is interesting, because we have to look back to the days before EDH when 60 card casual was the go-to casual format.
I worked in a LGS for a few years starting in 2003, and there was a lot of 60 card casual being played. The old guys would be playing a lot of old cards, but right beside them there would be new players with their Elf, Goblin, Myr, or Affinity themed decks built mostly from Standard legal cards. These new players could wet their feet playing casual, and as they got a little better and more into it they could easily convert their casual deck into an FNM Standard deck.
So we have a situation where there is no real bridge between casual and Standard. This wasn't a problem 5+ years ago, because at the time this industry was experiencing such enormous growth that WotC could really do no wrong. But nowadays I think the game needs that bridge.
I would recommend 1 or 2 EDH precons a year that are made from 100% Standard cards and support Standard themes and synergies. This might take a little design (and Marketing) consideration, and it might entail printing extra cards not found in packs (like the Walker decks). Make these decks slightly cheaper than regular EDH products, and you have a situation were new EDH players are automatically being groomed for Standard, and standard players can more easily jump into EDH.
Maybe my proposed solutions are not the best, but I do feel it would help the game and community if Standard were more closely connected to other constructed formats.
EDH and Modern are the premier formats in MtG right now. EDH dominates casual play, and not only has a big barrier between itself and standard, it has a big barrier between itself and all 60 card magic. EDH is more or less an an entirely different game compared to 60 card magic. When it comes to modern, the issue not only is the barrier where your standard deck doesn’t translate to modern, but also that modern is effectively gated towards new players who have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to build a real deck(multiple decks if you want to be competitive long term).
Maybe this is a terrible thing to say but part of the problem is the player base. Net decking is a very evil thing nothing worse than showing up and playing the same 2-3 decks. The last few years I have abandoned standard due to all the net decking. Seems like innistrad and before there was diversity locally with lots of home brews but as the pros dial in how to win the most they limit the options as certain decks push the brews out of competition for all but the best of players.
Net decking existed 20 years ago. It will always be with us. What is now missing to a large degree is 60 card casual and the gentlemen’s agreement that went with it, which invariably included “no net decking, build your own deck”.
What's happened this time is that wotc is being forced to deal with some very vocal and toxic elements on top of the set issues. Force of Will company had an issue like this and nearly pulled out of the united states market entirely, but wotc has no real way to escape the situation.
What I believe you’re talking about is very recent. The problems with Standard go back longer than that.
Most the people I know don't care about the toxic online stuff.
We want a good game.
We want support for our stores and for Standard that makes sense.
WotC needs better management across the brand and especially in promotion/marketing, they are failing utterly right now.
I do care about the toxic online stuff. Right now, I’m not ready to walk away from the investment in both time and money I’ve made over the past year, and I don’t really have anywhere else to be. The online crap has me almost one foot out the door, and Standard continuing to be on life support is eventually going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
The whole situation with standard would just be another Caw Blade era misfire if WoTC actually addressed all the issues people had otherwise, such as the lack of FNM promos, acknowledging judges as employees and compensating them, and addressing criticism in a way that puts themselves on the high ground instead of tumbling into a pit full of horned vipers. The typical corporate way they are handling things is putting themselves in a bad light and they aren't equipped to handle the kind of targeted, spiteful hatred they have wrought on themselves. EA is bad, but their worse situation is no where near this level.
If the judges were happy they'd probably have fewer leaks to say the least.
I was involved in a lot of the drama involved in Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition. When you say WotC is behaving like a corporation, I think back to my experiences in that era, and what I saw is that while the people making the games were mostly geeks, there seemed to be an unusually high number of lawyers involved in everything.
In my opinion, it’s simple. MtG needs Standard to be healthy, and it has never been less healthy.
I have taken many long breaks from this hobby, including most of the modern era, but I can’t recall it ever being this bad when it comes to Standard, not for this long a period of time. People seem to hate and avoid it, where it previously was the dominant format for most of my experience.
What's happened this time is that wotc is being forced to deal with some very vocal and toxic elements on top of the set issues. Force of Will company had an issue like this and nearly pulled out of the united states market entirely, but wotc has no real way to escape the situation.
What I believe you’re talking about is very recent. The problems with Standard go back longer than that.
Most the people I know don't care about the toxic online stuff.
We want a good game.
We want support for our stores and for Standard that makes sense.
WotC needs better management across the brand and especially in promotion/marketing, they are failing utterly right now.
I do care about the toxic online stuff. Right now, I’m not ready to walk away from the investment in both time and money I’ve made over the past year, and I don’t really have anywhere else to be. The online crap has me almost one foot out the door, and Standard continuing to be on life support is eventually going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
I have taken many long breaks from this hobby, including most of the modern era, but I can’t recall it ever being this bad when it comes to Standard, not for this long a period of time. People seem to hate and avoid it, where it previously was the dominant format for most of my experience.
What's happened this time is that wotc is being forced to deal with some very vocal and toxic elements on top of the set issues. Force of Will company had an issue like this and nearly pulled out of the united states market entirely, but wotc has no real way to escape the situation.
What I believe you’re talking about is very recent. The problems with Standard go back longer than that.
I have taken many long breaks from this hobby, including most of the modern era, but I can’t recall it ever being this bad when it comes to Standard, not for this long a period of time. People seem to hate and avoid it, where it previously was the dominant format for most of my experience.
Re. packs: hasn't this always been true? Even when I was originally playing in the late 90s and early 2000s, veteran players knew to buy singles and the casual/new players bought packs. "Getting over" packs is just a lifecycle Magic players go through, so Wizards just has to worry about its sealed products appealing to newer players and drafters. This has been a vulnerability for WotC's business plan since the very beginning, but considering it hasn't hurt them in the past 25 years, there isn't too much reason to think it's a problem now.
That said, the problem with this system is that access to singles isn't universal. I'm fortunate to play at an LGS that always has literally every single card you'd ever need, but lots of players' stores don't have good singles collections. This forces them to shop on TCG, eBay, etc, which hurts their local MtG economies.
Here’s the thing:
You can’t build a Modern collection buying packs. Even with the yearly master sets, not even close. Singles are the best way to build a Standard deck but drafting and buying packs isn’t intolerably far behind, especially if you are building a collection to support building multiple decks instead of just one. I enjoy opening packs and drafting, and combined with buying singles to fill in the blanks and trading the spares for more singles, I have playsets of just about every card in Standard that matters at a cost I’m satisfied with.
Standard is the only format where opening packs isn’t mostly a waste.
So what you’re saying is that MtG is in a bad place right now, and that you prefer the MtG of 10 years ago and before. I don’t see that the two are necessarily connected, and I say this as somebody who has played more pre-“Modern” Magic than I’ve played the new stuff.
I’m missing some pieces, as I only started playing again during Eldritch Moon, but I’ll try to answer your questions/points as best I can.
1. I call attention to BFZ because I see a major difference in the cards. The cards are weaker than in previous sets, to a significant degree, and this change has continued in subsequent sets. An argument can be made that the three previous blocks led into this somewhat, but there was a more drastic change starting with BFZ. I wasn’t around at the time, so I can’t comment on people’s attitudes at the time, but I look at the cards and there is a difference. BFZ was the break point.
2. There hasn’t been a reaction on WotC’s part. The change in design philosophy I see looking at the cards between earlier Modern era sets and BFZ-present has continued unchanged. As for the reaction of the players, it’s less clear. The problem I hear most often is that there aren’t enough decks in Standard, or that the dominant deck is too dominant. In other words, the biggest complaint is the meta. What I also hear often, and most often in person when talking to the Modern players at the FLGS, is that they don’t like the power level of Standard. This isn’t a specific complaint of the dynamic between creatures and spells, but an overall complaint. Cards and decks are a lot weaker than Modern, and they prefer the power level of Modern. I don’t think the creatures vs spells complaint is as big as you think, because its also true of Modern and the people who like Modern and have made it into the dominant competitive format seem mostly comfortable with it. That issue is more significant in Standard, but it’s not the complaint I’ve been hearing from Modern players, and what I do hear is usually that the answers in Standard are too weak/expensive, and that alone.
3. I’m curious what prompted the change with BFZ-present. I wasn’t part of the community at the time. I would think if BFZ was a response to feedback, that feedback would have to be from 2 years before given the lead in times.
4. Anecdotally, a significant thing I saw was at the Ixalan rotation. A lot of the competitive regulars at the FLGS were still playing Standard during Amonkhet/HoD. When the rotation happened and Ixalan dropped, most of them stopped. I was just starting to play Standard at the time and asked why. The impression I got was that they were playing Standard mostly because they had already made the investment and already had the cards. When the rotation hit and they had to come up with new decks, possibly with new cards they didn’t have, they just didn’t bother.
As for the rest, we’ve had almost 10 years of “modern” cards. They don’t seem to be poisoning the Modern format, and if that change was what was ruining MtG it would have done so long before now.
I’m not sure I can definitively identify what the issue is, but I think I can say when. This seems to have really begun with Battle For Zendikar and has continued through to the present.
If there is power creep in the creatures, it’s relative to spells. The creatures currently in Standard IMO are weaker than the average for the Modern era.
They are not pushing creatures necessarily. The creatures dominating Standard right now aren’t seeing modern play on the whole. Creatures might be on top right now, but their power level compared to Modern is down just like everything else.
Creeping the power of middle costed creatures and pushing Planeswalkers dates back to Lorwyn block in 2007. Ten years. That’s kind of old news at this point, the game has had ups and downs since then. If it was the cause of what is currently ailing Standard, it would have happened before now. It would also be ruining Modern. What is killing Standard right now is a design change that began with BFZ, which I would describe as a massive, across the board lowering of the power level of all cards resulting in a Standard format dominated by the mistakes.
No need to get hostile.
I don’t recall a Standard where 4cmc cards were chased out of the format like they are in today’s Modern. I recall not so long ago people complaining about Planeswalkers in Modern, and now you pretty much never see them aside from the ones that cost less than 4. With Legacy, to a bystander like me 3cmc looks like it’s pushing it. I remember a time where cards like Serra Angel and Spiritmonger were premiere threats at 5cmc.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that they are trying to slow the game down by design. Where I disagree is that I think it’s a good idea, they’re just doing a crappy job of implementing it.
EDH and Modern are the premier formats in MtG right now. EDH dominates casual play, and not only has a big barrier between itself and standard, it has a big barrier between itself and all 60 card magic. EDH is more or less an an entirely different game compared to 60 card magic. When it comes to modern, the issue not only is the barrier where your standard deck doesn’t translate to modern, but also that modern is effectively gated towards new players who have to spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars to build a real deck(multiple decks if you want to be competitive long term).
Net decking existed 20 years ago. It will always be with us. What is now missing to a large degree is 60 card casual and the gentlemen’s agreement that went with it, which invariably included “no net decking, build your own deck”.
I was involved in a lot of the drama involved in Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition. When you say WotC is behaving like a corporation, I think back to my experiences in that era, and what I saw is that while the people making the games were mostly geeks, there seemed to be an unusually high number of lawyers involved in everything.
In my opinion, it’s simple. MtG needs Standard to be healthy, and it has never been less healthy.
I do care about the toxic online stuff. Right now, I’m not ready to walk away from the investment in both time and money I’ve made over the past year, and I don’t really have anywhere else to be. The online crap has me almost one foot out the door, and Standard continuing to be on life support is eventually going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
What I believe you’re talking about is very recent. The problems with Standard go back longer than that.
Here’s the thing:
You can’t build a Modern collection buying packs. Even with the yearly master sets, not even close. Singles are the best way to build a Standard deck but drafting and buying packs isn’t intolerably far behind, especially if you are building a collection to support building multiple decks instead of just one. I enjoy opening packs and drafting, and combined with buying singles to fill in the blanks and trading the spares for more singles, I have playsets of just about every card in Standard that matters at a cost I’m satisfied with.
Standard is the only format where opening packs isn’t mostly a waste.