The current state of Magic

[Barook]

First, this isn't a "the sky is falling, Magic is dead" thread. But there are quite a few things going that are worth discussing imho.

Chris Cocks is the CEO of WotC now, leading to a stronger (and much necessary) focus on the digital department. Right now, MTGO is getting its ass kicked by several competitors (http://venturebeat.com/2017/01/28/superdata-hearthstone-trumps-all-comers-in-card-market-that-will-hit-1-4-billion-in-2017/). I don't think the 20 million $ number is accurate and should be higher, given rough estimates calculated from league runs and trophies, but it also shouldn't be anyway near the often quoted 100 million $ mark by the community.

Now why is that a problem for WotC? Maro has stated on his blog that Magic Duels is nowadays their main way to get new people into (paper) Magic. But with their competition being not crap like Wizards' digital department, it will significantly cut down the rate of new players. And we're seeing already the effects of this, as Magic's growth has slowed down to single digit numbers.

What certainly doesn't help the case for Wizards is that their R&D went to shit as well: Their cash cow Standard has been plagued by massive problems for several years in a row now - be it Siege Rhino, Collected Company, Dual/Fetchland mana bases that costs 500$+ for half a year of Standard and now the recent bannings plus the change of B&R announcements. Looking at the results of PT Aether Revolt, it has 8/8 aggro decks in the Top 8, with 6 of them being Mardu Vehicles. But they, at least the Neo Twin combo (which they completely missed, btw) isn't destroying the format. Balanced format is balanced. Scrapheap Scrounger was a 31/32 in that Top 8. It's puzzling how they don't include safety valves like Rest in Peace anymore.

It seems that WotC has entered full panic mode due dropping tournament attendance, considering how quickly they've revoked the accelerated rotation schedule, the introduction of Masterpieces to make "normal" Magic cards cheaper and the new B&R schedule. Yet they still don't know how to fix their stuff.

[ramanujan]

Magic just isn't on the right path these days. I think the cards that get printed reflect what the players want, but not what is good for the game.

Players want cards that are always useful, old cards valuable cards reprinted, packs and specific singles to be available everywhere, and for the cards they buy to be powerful in comparison to all previous cards printed. Players don't want powerful hate cards, to be told no by their opponents too much, to be color or mana screwed, to have their lands destroyed, or to lose before they get their chance to play cards.

So, Wizards tries to do it all, with each concession in design for players resulting in a hit to brand and future of the game.

Narrow powerful cards are much less common. Some valueable old cards become less valuable to entice people to buy the new set. Every set is printed so much that collectibility is not a relevant word; the best cards are worth little and the other cards are worth nothing. Standard has overpowered cards, and they dominate the tournament scene while they are in print. Control as an archetype has been on a steady downturn for a decade. Control was preceded in the death by combo. Combo needs effective counter spells in the environment for it to be healthy, and people hate effective counter spells being played against them. Every couple years there is a not terrible combo deck, but it rarely lasts. Combo was preceded in death by land kill, which will really never return.

This is probably just a 2 am rant, but I am just a little bit disappointed with the way this game has developed recently. Magic isn't in a space where it can double the returns to Hasbro again by some trick. I get the feeling that high double digit growth year after year after year set the bar too high. When reality set in that saturation happened, small money grabs that players were clammoring for became the norm to boost profits. That is a slippery slope that leads to significantly diminished perception of value of their products.

I'm not saying the sky is falling either, but I would like to see a big left turn coming up ahead.

I'm also not trying to say that magic good old days were perfect either. Losing to cuneo blue and sinkhole decks wasn't fun. However, those mechanics need to be somewhat playable, in my opinion.

[Wanderlust]

Can't speak about standard, but from both a limited and a Legacy perspective, I've really enjoyed both Kaladesh and Aether Revolt.

[Dice_Box]

Neo Twin combo (which they completely missed, btw) Authority of the Consuls begs to differ. I do not think they missed that combo. While they have a lot to fix, they are not that inept.

[Spam]

They're also trying to be like Hearthstone without understanding what makes that game good.
I'll guess people will never be happy, but five years ago we would've been here claming the fall of the game for other reasons, with the good old days still being better. Yes, they're having some big problems right now, but I'll argue it was all for improving the game and moving to, you know, the new century. I won't claim to like and defend all their shots, but the "good old days" brought them to bee just another name owned by Asbro, which tell us a lot. About the price of old and new card I don't know how to put it, but here in Italy politicians from the 60/70 used to say: "Give a communist a house and a piece of land and you'll have a perfect conservative."

Enviado desde mi Moto G (4) mediante Tapatalk

[Lemnear]

Can't speak about standard, but from both a limited and a Legacy perspective, I've really enjoyed both Kaladesh and Aether Revolt.

It would help, if the last 8 years of sets didn't all feel the same for standard or if pices are artificially driven by the 4th rarity and WotC Co-Op with vendors. All that is paired with the inability to deliver an Online Platform to recruit new players within a season mode tied to Standard. It baffles me that there are successful cardgames popping up left and right in AppStores while WotC/Hasbro are unable to even release MTGO for non-Windows platforms

[Barook]

Authority of the Consuls begs to differ. I do not think they missed that combo. While they have a lot to fix, they are not that inept.
They said so themselves. (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/m-files-aether-revolt-part-1-2017-02-03)


We did miss the interaction with Saheeli, however, and that has led to some . . . interesting decks in Standard. While we were pushing for more combo decks in Standard with Aether Revolt, this is not the kind of deck we would intentionally take a risk with. In hindsight, Felidar Guardian definitely should've said "creature or artifact." Pro Tour Aether Revolt is this weekend, and we'll be watching to see how these decks do.


It would help, if the last 8 years of sets didn't all feel the same for standard or if pices are artificially driven by the 4th rarity and WotC Co-Op with vendors. All that is paired with the inability to deliver an Online Platform to recruit new players within a season mode tied to Standard. It baffles me that there are successful cardgames popping up left and right in AppStores while WotC/Hasbro are unable to even release MTGO for non-Windows platforms
It can't run on non-Windows OS without starting to code it from scratch due to their reliance on Windows-only programs. The responsible people just didn't care enough until Hearthstone took over the market.

[Lemnear]

It can't run on non-Windows OS without starting to code it from scratch due to their reliance on Windows-only programs. The responsible people just didn't care enough until Hearthstone took over the market.

They still don't care or why is MtG 2015 the only App I can find in the Google Playstore? They need to deliver a common platform for the game on iOS, Android, Windows and Mac even if it ONLY includes Standard in Seasons.

[Dice_Box]

They said so themselves. (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/m-files-aether-revolt-part-1-2017-02-03)
Well fuck. That changes my views a fair amount.

[Phoenix Ignition]

At this point I'm not that worried. Standard sucking might funnel more people into Modern, Legacy, Vintage, and other formats that actually have deck diversity (except Legacy, unless you really like brainstorm). Standard has been overpriced for so long that I'm surprised people wouldn't just jump into something that holds value for the same initial investment (Modern). If online or other video games were what got people into Magic maybe this will finally force WotC to make an online Magic platform that isn't complete horseshit.

That or make an interesting standard format, but as others have said, they pander to what people think they want and then end up with these overpowered and uninteresting standards. Problem is it takes a long time for the current Standard sets to rotate, so if they print a less powerful set no one will want to buy the cards until the powerful ones have rotated.

[Lemnear]

At this point I'm not that worried. Standard sucking might funnel more people into Modern, Legacy, Vintage, and other formats that actually have deck diversity (except Legacy, unless you really like brainstorm). Standard has been overpriced for so long that I'm surprised people wouldn't just jump into something that holds value for the same initial investment (Modern). If online or other video games were what got people into Magic maybe this will finally force WotC to make an online Magic platform that isn't complete horseshit.

That or make an interesting standard format, but as others have said, they pander to what people think they want and then end up with these overpowered and uninteresting standards. Problem is it takes a long time for the current Standard sets to rotate, so if they print a less powerful set no one will want to buy the cards until the powerful ones have rotated.

There is no platform to suck people into the game which is pretty much the iOS/Android/Mac/Windows base we talk about. Its just WorC being unwilling to admit that MTGO, the client and the absurd prices for their digital goods are a massive fail. I mean, who the hell do they think to attract if a digital copy of Rishadan Port is 120$? Have they ever taken a look at the price for decks in heartstone or Gwent or for micro-transactions in other successful AppStore games? How the fuck do you want to suck Kids into the MtG brand with such paywalls?

If they had balls, they just close down MTGO and develop a cross plattform app to play season-based standard format with some 0.99$ inApp-Purchase for boosters and tje option to grind for them.

[Julian23]

Closing MTGO would make the Chronicles reprints look like less than a tiny hiccup in the customer trust into WotC. Lots of people standing to probably lose hundredsof thousands of $. Altogether, their customers are likely holding millions of dollars in product on MTGO.

The tragedy of the situation is that closing down MTGO and releasing a state of the art, free to play multiplatform client is the only way I see MtG having a future in the digitial age.

[twndomn]

The biggest problem about Magic as a whole is Not about Balance or Card Design or pricing. It's Hearthstone, it's All About Hearthstone. PSully has mentioned it several times on Cedtalk. When you watch Pro Tour on Twitch, you can barely see which card is which in each player's hand, broadcasting the game is a nightmare. If you show both MtGO and Hearthstone to a new player who doesn't understand the interface of both games, there's no competition, the new players would pick Hearthstone inevitably.

[Julian23]

In another way, Hearthstone is also the single-greatest thing to happen to Magic, quality-wise. One has to undoubtedly say that both MTGO and Paper Coverage is way better today than what it was back when HS was released. I just wish WotC had already started working on all the general problems way earlier.

[Phoenix Ignition]

In another way, Hearthstone is also the single-greatest thing to happen to Magic, quality-wise. One has to undoubtedly say that both MTGO and Paper Coverage is way better today than what it was back when HS was released. I just wish WotC had already started working on all the general problems way earlier.

Are they even working on them now? I've been waiting for a long time now to actually be able to play MTG online without dumping in over a thousand dollars. I was playing it before and sold out, but for that much money I couldn't believe the amount of bugs and general shittyness of the program.

I've never been a standard player so can't say much about how that format is or isn't changing for the better.

[Lemnear]

Closing MTGO would make the Chronicles reprints look like less than a tiny hiccup in the customer trust into WotC. Lots of people standing to probably lose hundredsof thousands of $. Altogether, their customers are likely holding millions of dollars in product on MTGO.

The tragedy of the situation is that closing down MTGO and releasing a state of the art, free to play multiplatform client is the only way I see MtG having a future in the digitial age.

Jup. WotC amazingly managed to repeat the colossal fail of an uncontrolled secondary market instead of fucking binding cards to accounts once pulled, like every damn MMO does for its virtual property of value since the beginning of the Millenium.

And here comes the joke:

Some people WILL lose thousands of dollars at the inevitable server shutdown or whenever the people just quit this bugged shit.

[nedleeds]

It can't run on non-Windows OS without starting to code it from scratch due to their reliance on Windows-only programs. The responsible people just didn't care enough until Hearthstone took over the market.

You'd never design a computer game like Garfield designed Magic: the Gathering. The complexity of shared turns, the massive swath of card types, many other rules minutia from a game programming perspective make it far more complex. That being said, WotC has utterly butchered Magic Online, but stuff like Hearthstone was ground up digital only and the mechanics are designed as such.

[btm10]

You'd never design a computer game like Garfield designed Magic: the Gathering. The complexity of shared turns, the massive swath of card types, many other rules minutia from a game programming perspective make it far more complex. That being said, WotC has utterly butchered Magic Online, but stuff like Hearthstone was ground up digital only and the mechanics are designed as such.


Jup. WotC amazingly managed to repeat the colossal fail of an uncontrolled secondary market instead of fucking binding cards to accounts once pulled, like every damn MMO does for its virtual property of value since the beginning of the Millenium.

And here comes the joke:

Some people WILL lose thousands of dollars at the inevitable server shutdown or whenever the people just quit this bugged shit.

nedleeds is right, and not just from a programming perspective. The MODO business model was designed in the early aughts (the MODO beta went live in 2001 IIRC), when having the online game work as closely to the paper one, especially in terms of how your cards worked in the market, was a key selling point (hence the Digital Objects piece of the name and redeemability of online cards for paper ones). MODO was indended as an adjunct, and quite possibly was intended as much to create an approved alternative to Apprentice as it was to stake out a meaningful space in competitive Magic or be its e-commerce arm. The client (and a lot of its implementation) leaves a ton to be desired, but short of blowing the whole thing up and starting from scratch, they're stuck with the thing as it was created 15 years ago.

[Lord Seth]

Now why is that a problem for WotC? Maro has stated on his blog that Magic Duels is nowadays their main way to get new people into (paper) Magic. But with their competition being not crap like Wizards' digital department, it will significantly cut down the rate of new players. And we're seeing already the effects of this, as Magic's growth has slowed down to single digit numbers.
Source for its growth being only single digit numbers? I'm not sure I've seen data on its growth before and I'm curious about it.


What certainly doesn't help the case for Wizards is that their R&D went to shit as well: Their cash cow Standard has been plagued by massive problems for several years in a row now - be it Siege Rhino, Collected Company, Dual/Fetchland mana bases that costs 500$+ for half a year of Standard and now the recent bannings plus the change of B&R announcements.
Siege Rhino was annoying, but I don't think it was any worse than the usual Standard screw-ups. The dual/fetchland was a catastrophically bad idea to the point I'm baffled they did it. I don't even think dual/fetchland is inherently a bad idea for Standard (you do have to be cautious with it, though), but to do it while having no hate whatsoever for it? That's a terrible idea. Lack of hate for it resulted in the awkward fact you'd end up with better mana in a 3-color deck than a 2-color deck.

What is especially odd is the order they did it in. It was fetchlands, then battlelands. Here's the problem. With that kind of manabase, the fetchlands will be more in demand, because you'll be running more of them than the battlelands. But the fetchlands were from the older set no longer being opened as frequently. So with that order, they made all the demand be for the older set rather than the current one. This meant the expense was greater than if the fetchlands were in Battle for Zendikar. If it had been the other way around, players might not have been driven off as much as the fetchlands would be cheaper. But even from their own perspective, it also meant that Wizards of the Coast benefitted less because the greater desire for fetchlands wasn't causing increased interest in the current set they were pushing, but the older set.


Looking at the results of PT Aether Revolt, it has 8/8 aggro decks in the Top 8, with 6 of them being Mardu Vehicles. But they, at least the Neo Twin combo (which they completely missed, btw) isn't destroying the format. Balanced format is balanced. Scrapheap Scrounger was a 31/32 in that Top 8. It's puzzling how they don't include safety valves like Rest in Peace anymore.
I seem to remember some complaints here back when Rest In Peace was spoiled about how the graveyard hate was becoming too powerful or something. That said, Rest In Peace would've been a good card to have around; if it had been legal Emrakul probably wouldn't have gotten banned. But as you note, it's puzzling they didn't do that... normally they always followed up a block by printing some stuff to hate on the previous block's mechanics to ensure they didn't stay too powerful. Stony Silence after Scars, Rest In Piece after Innistrad, Burning Earth after Return to Ravnica, Back to Nature after Theros.


It seems that WotC has entered full panic mode due dropping tournament attendance, considering how quickly they've revoked the accelerated rotation schedule, the introduction of Masterpieces to make "normal" Magic cards cheaper and the new B&R schedule. Yet they still don't know how to fix their stuff.
Well the accelerated rotation schedule was a pretty bad idea from the get-go. Two-set blocks was a reasonable idea, but I don't know why they decided they had to accelerate rotation at the same time. Maybe they were just stuck on the "let's rotate after each block" mentality.

I don't think Masterpieces are really panic mode. I think they would've done that regardless, as expeditions were apparently popular on the whole. There's a big difference between doing something, then quickly reversing on it (rotation) compared to doing something, then deciding to keep doing it (Expeditions/Masterpieces). The former can be a sign of "panic," but not so much the latter.

[Barook]

Closing MTGO would make the Chronicles reprints look like less than a tiny hiccup in the customer trust into WotC. Lots of people standing to probably lose hundredsof thousands of $. Altogether, their customers are likely holding millions of dollars in product on MTGO.

The tragedy of the situation is that closing down MTGO and releasing a state of the art, free to play multiplatform client is the only way I see MtG having a future in the digitial age.
Realistically, they're going for their typical tactics of making "thing" so undesirable that pretty much all support is gone before they kill it.

Worked for Extended.
Worked for Modern PT.
Will work for MTGO.

Once Magic Digital Next releases, they're most likely going to completely cut redemption, nuking the market. Collection value will continously go down as people naturally quit/switch over while no fresh blood comes in. At the point where collections are extremely low value, they'll pull the plug. Crisis averted, while people still got fucked over.

@Lord Seth: Quarterly earning reports from Hasbro iirc. We'll get the report for 2016 this week, which might contain new info.

The accelerated rotation model was a clear sign of greed that backfired terribly. They thought they could milk the userbase even more while being less concerned with R&D ("If it's broken, it's going to rotate in 6 months anyway, who cares!"), which resulted in dumb shit like a dual/fetchland manabases without hate in Standard.

[CptHaddock]

If SaffronOlive's article (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/the-complete-history-of-magic-online) is anything to go by it seems like MTGO was initially created to prove that MTG could be played online. It seems like the problems that it has had have been because Wizards really isn't a software company and have no idea how to manage software. Not sure what the reasons were but it seems like their online client was probably one of the lowest items on their list of concerns which leads us to the state of MTGO now. I think that they could have easily have let the company that developed the original program maintain it or contracted out if they wanted to come up with a brand new client. I don't know if it's a direct result of their new management but it seems like someone light a fire underneath the MTGO team in order to improve whatever they can about the program.

Fwiw, I think the most impressive part of MTGO how the MTG ruleset (for the most part, minus all the dumb bugs that show up every now and then) have been implemented online.

[colo]

Fwiw, I think the most impressive part of MTGO how the MTG ruleset (for the most part, minus all the dumb bugs that show up every now and then) have been implemented online.

It's been a while since I've last seen the MODO client (played my last games on it in 2011 or so, I think), but unless things have massively improved, that is also the ONLY (mildly) impressive part of it.

[rufus]

...

I don't think Masterpieces are really panic mode. I think they would've done that regardless, as expeditions were apparently popular on the whole. There's a big difference between doing something, then quickly reversing on it (rotation) compared to doing something, then deciding to keep doing it (Expeditions/Masterpieces). The former can be a sign of "panic," but not so much the latter.

I'm not a fan of masterpieces since they look like a pretty blatant cash grab, but they're not a 'state of the game' problem.

I think R&D went off the rails a bit with the whole 'creatures are powerful' new world order thing. Part of that is that planeswalkers seem to have displaced creatures as efficient victory conditions, so creatures have been shifted more toward splashy immediate effects that were once more the domain of non-creature spells.

I also feel like R&D screwed up the current standard environment because they wanted to ensure that vehicles and graveyard synergies were strong in constructed.

[Warden]

If the numbers from OP's article are accurate, it's just more writing on the wall. Gamers continue to see a substantial shift with what interests them. For all the strengths MTG has, playing the game in person cannot compete with digital games moving forward (meaning both digital collectible games and "esport" video games).

I'm equating Magic's situation to video rental stores being overtaken by Netflix (or digital media in general). Magic/Hasbro may financially stable today, but I honestly question its future --- especially as young gamers grow up with digital apps/digital ccgs in place of Magic. That has already happened with university students not understanding Blockbuster. You could also equate the situation to Millennials cutting out traditional cable television.

Magic's online client was designed in the late 90s and implemented in the early 00's. It hasn't adjusted to a marketplace centered around iOS/Android/free-to-play games. IMO everyone is glossing over Magic's Achilles's heel: complex rules and economics. Magic has so many cards, numerous phases with sub-rules to remember during a turn, "the stack", and keywords on basically every card. Sometimes competitive rules or card errata change. That's daunting for new players. I've tried playing different board games and card games with similar amounts of verbiage and just shut down.

By contrast, I've dabbled in Hearthstone. It's a bit too straightforward when you come from competitive legacy play, but I no doubt see its appeal. It has a slick interface, is simpler to play, and cost me $0 for several hours. Unlike MTG, Hearthstone can adjust errata, numbers, and create complicated-to-do-by-hand mechanics because it is digital. Economically, if I wanted to put money into Hearthstone (or a digital game), $100 goes a lot further than it does in MTG (paper or online).

This part of the article resonates with me the most as to why I believe Magic is in trouble moving forward:

SuperData also noted that 7.6 percent of digital card game players in the U.S. buy in-game content. Many digital card games, including Hearthstone, are free-to-play, and buying digital packs is usually the fastest way to get new cards.

Also, 86 percent of digital card game players watch online videos of other people playing digital card games. This includes influencers who broadcast and upload their play sessions on sites like Twitch and YouTube as well as esports tournaments. Many watch as a way to learn new strategies.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no "grind" for Magic Online. The client is just a digital representation of the paper game. IIRC, there's no free-to-play aspect. You're paying full retail for a business model created in the 90s (boosters, theme decks, etc). The appeal of watching someone play Magic on a stream is prohibited by 1) the client looking like crap and 2) the game being complicated.

So is the sky falling? I was under the impression we're beyond peak-MTG. It began its slow decent years ago. Can't exactly put my finger on when, but the game has felt stale to me since Modern became a thing.

[Barook]

Shareholder earnings remarks (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/HAS/3759168124x0x926576/6176F09D-81B9-413B-AC73-F89D4BC3F4C5/Hasbro_Q4_FY_2016_Earnings_Management_Remarks.pdf)

Go to Page 7.

Game category up my 9%, led by PIE-FACE (the fuck is this? :eyebrow: ) and then MtG as the fastest growing games.

I've also looked through the other shareholder papers. Nothing disproves the slowed down growth of Magic, especially how certain categories are lumped together.

[Warden]

Shareholder earnings remarks (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/HAS/3759168124x0x926576/6176F09D-81B9-413B-AC73-F89D4BC3F4C5/Hasbro_Q4_FY_2016_Earnings_Management_Remarks.pdf)

Go to Page 7.

Game category up my 9%, led by PIE-FACE (the fuck is this? :eyebrow: ) and then MtG as the fastest growing games.

I've also looked through the other shareholder papers. Nothing disproves the slowed down growth of Magic, especially how certain categories are lumped together.

This is pie face: http://www.hasbrotoyshop.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/en/htsusa/pie-face-game-b70630000?gclsrc=aw.ds&langId=-1&gclid=Cj0KEQiA2uDEBRDxurOO77Cp-7kBEiQAOUgKV-6mtuuyEQJUm7ssnRq8XKGMRnPhF4nWCv53BTy4q9UaAqPp8P8HAQ&storeId=10151&krypto=SEeL4NThHjrEHVAY50WmSTOvuhx9gnPkfNKJ92uZyf65a3Hm7QmVeVVz5QY2cSRnMkC3r5tzujweHVltTkwSh5c945qc6W0SmtNdtWieo%2Fv0s3wAx44dDZ7CgBobBmS3fohQvfFAqjL6OvYkLJIGxz446kD7HMfQjpp3w38lS10%3D&ddkey=http%3Aen%2Fhtsusa%2Fpie-face-game-b70630000

As for their numbers, there's a lot of noise within their data. Nothing concrete for MTG aside "the 8th straight year of growth
in MAGIC: THE GATHERING". There are veiled references to Magic doing well, but there's number distortion and spin as Hasbro is a giant with a "$1.4 billion gaming portfolio". Internationally their franchise brand revenues are up 3% (MTG lumped in there).

From what I've glanced, Hasbro increased its profit margins but "...had higher expenses associated with investments to profitably grow Hasbro for the long term. These include investments in MAGIC: THE GATHERING and our consumer products teams; higher depreciation from our investment in IT systems; and higher compensation expense associated with our stronger performance." I can't parse out how much of the MTGO factors into said IT investment.

[Lemnear]

@ Warden

There is literally ZERO need for WotC to create a client being able to cover all the complicated mechanics from more than 2 decades.

They can focus on a client with the mechanical niveau the MTG 2013 platform (PSN) introduced. Basic mechanics and interface worked fine, but the game had no lasting appeal as the game was very limited in terms of deckbuilding, collecting and compeditive play. Why not create a cross platform client able to handle current T2 mechanics and rules for a season and then add the mechanics and cards of the next one paired with a ranking/reward system just like Hearthstone?

[maharis]

@ Warden

There is literally ZERO need for WotC to create a client being able to cover all the complicated mechanics from more than 2 decades.

They can focus on a client with the mechanical niveau the MTG 2013 platform (PSN) introduced. Basic mechanics and interface worked fine, but the game had no lasting appeal as the game was very limited in terms of deckbuilding, collecting and compeditive play. Why not create a cross platform client able to handle current T2 mechanics and rules for a season and then add the mechanics and cards of the next one paired with a ranking/reward system just like Hearthstone?

You answered your own question. If MTG started in Theros, there's really not enough separating it from Hearthstone or other competitors to make it worth it. MTG's greatest competitive advantage is its depth in card pool, rules, and history. Anything that separates players from that is simply not the same game. They could do anything they want with the IP and the rule set. But if they made a living card game version of MTG where they didn't have to worry about development mistakes burning off months of revenue, it wouldn't be backwards-compatible, and wouldn't be able to leverage 20 years of established players.

Wizards' original sin is the reserved list. Many of their poor/vexing decisions can be traced back to it. By artificially cutting itself off from many of its most powerful tools, they are unable to create a product for that segment of its audience. That means they have to double- and triple-down on finding customers that aren't influenced by it. But in doing that, they have to compete in a market against games that weren't developed before Netscape was founded.

Magic is also heavily dependent on the LGS to distribute and rationalize its product. But it's 2017. Leaning on a brick-and-mortar experience is harder than ever. Blockbuster is the perfect example. Both Wizards and the LGSes need a vibrant tournament scene to survive. We are seeing that that isn't a guarantee with Wizards R&D right now. This explains why in the past several years there's been a big shift in the profile of limited/draft, which sells a booster box every time it fires. Plus it's easier to curate.

But it's not the same game and doesn't retain customers the same way. Constructed drives the conversation. See this board.

One thing I've noticed over the past couple years is the increased profile of board games. A store I went to for months loyally, spent hundreds on cards, decided to switch to a heavier board game strategy. "They'll die without the MTG community," we said. Two years later, still in business. The LGS in my town has marginalized comics, offers few other card games -- just a big emphasis on board game nights and selling board games, and running MTG drafts. (Can't find any singles there but there are stacks of draft chaff EVERYWHERE). The store I go to most regularly doesn't even sell any comics or other card games -- just MTG, MTG supplies, and board games. MTG is surviving on its history and loyal fan base, but even when it comes to the in-store/in-person experience, the cheaper and lighter (from a rules perspective) board games are encroaching on that market. For deeper games and even competitive play, the digital games are eating MTG's lunch.

Sky's not falling, but there are cracks in the ceiling for sure.

[Lemnear]

I have no idea how "the game is completely unable to attract any new players" isn't a fundamental problem in your eyes

[iatee]

I hate the reserved list as much as anyone, but I think it's a little too convenient to put the blame on the thing that makes magic worse for legacy players. They cut themselves off from selling the same cards again and again - but you don't make money by selling the same cards again and again. ABU duals are not actually very interesting cards, they merely serve as an upper bar of 'what a dual land could be', vintage-power stuff has no place in tournament magic, and the only other relevant cards on the reserved list are some junk for commander or a few key legacy rares. Hearthstone didn't rise because of the reserved list. There is a ceiling on the amount of people in America who were ever going to be interested in playing a game with 'Flusterstorm your Flusterstorm' complexity. (That includes current Magic players.)

I feel like a lot of the problems for the company are ultimately due to how conservative they are when it comes to pushing any sort of boundaries with the structure of the game. Sets still come out in blocks, limited means draft and sealed, decks always have 40 or 60 cards, tournaments have a t8, etc. etc. A lot of these things are accidents of history and were never the result of top down planning or a long-term strategic plan - it's all just path dependency. There are a lot of directions you could go with all of these structures, some of which could lead to really new and engaging tournament experiences.

[H]

I feel like a lot of the problems for the company are ultimately due to how conservative they are when it comes to pushing any sort of boundaries with the structure of the game. Sets still come out in blocks, limited means draft and sealed, decks always have 40 or 60 cards, tournaments have a t8, etc. etc. A lot of these things are accidents of history and were never the result of top down planning or a long-term strategic plan - it's all just path dependency. There are a lot of directions you could go with all of these structures, some of which could lead to really new and engaging tournament experiences.

Well, I think the real "original sin" of the game is the distribution model. It's positively antediluvian at this point. Why are people looking at things like LCGs and board games? In no small part because it's all there in the box. No need to waste money on packs, play the lottery with boxes, or hunt down singles. Getting kids into the game where you are pitching spending several hundred dollars on a deck that the metagame might obsolesce in 6 months or even less and at best you can play for 2 years is a pretty tough sell, really and that's just for Standard. It's even worse when you pitch it at a thousand for Modern, or two thousand for Legacy.

We have to realize that we, as Legacy enthusiasts, or Vintage or whatever, actually have something wrong with us. We are not the average consumer, by any stretch of the imagination.

[iatee]

I think there is some genius in the distribution model - people like collecting things, that becomes a game in itself and it's easier to spend large amounts of money on Magic when you do it over tons of small purchases. Opening up packs is a more socially acceptable way to play the lottery.

But I agree that it's important to realize how far we are from average consumers. This forum has a dedicated thread where people show off their $20,000 Japanese foil decks and then other people insult them for not spending enough money on their deck.

[Barook]

I feel like a lot of the problems for the company are ultimately due to how conservative they are when it comes to pushing any sort of boundaries with the structure of the game. Sets still come out in blocks, limited means draft and sealed, decks always have 40 or 60 cards, tournaments have a t8, etc. etc. A lot of these things are accidents of history and were never the result of top down planning or a long-term strategic plan - it's all just path dependency. There are a lot of directions you could go with all of these structures, some of which could lead to really new and engaging tournament experiences.
One thing I've seen from a couple of online games, even those who try to emulate Magic, is fixing one of Magic's most glaring problems gameplaywise: Non-games, especially due to resources.

We've accepted getting fucked over by manaflood/manascrew because we're veterans, but what about players new to the game? They've removed Stone Rain and any other decent attempt at LD from the game forever due to how negatively received the inability to play your cards is (some reason why counters were nerfed to hell). Yet WotC sees getting screwed by RNG as the Holy Grail of game design since it's "awesome" when Jonny Spike loses one game out of hundred to Casual Mc Nooblord due to screw/flood. :eyebrow:

I do wonder how Magic would change (aside form mana denial getting significantly worse) if we had a "land library" and a "non-land library". Whenever you draw a card, you could choose from which pile you draw your stuff. Same goes for search, reveal effects, etc.; this would basically prevent you from ever getting manascrewed/flooded. I'm well aware that it would need safety measures (like a minimum library size to prevent T1ing every turn because a too small non-land library would allow to draw combos every starter hand) and would fundamentally change how certain cards work in terms of power level (e.g. Brainstorm, Bob, etc.), but it's just a silly thought experiement.


We have to realize that we, as Legacy enthusiasts, or Vintage or whatever, actually have something wrong with us. We are not the average consumer, by any stretch of the imagination.
Anybody right in their mind would put up with MTGO, either.

[iatee]

Everything that decreases RNG is ultimately a gift to highly competitive players. I don't think that the system is perfect or anything, but I would be surprised if the mana system is really is the thing that keeps new players out of the game, since as you mentioned, having good luck (opening up a bomb in limited, opponent getting mana-screwed, etc) is generally how they get their signature wins.

[Lemnear]

I am pretty sure a whole Generation of Legacy Players got to enjoy "ensure your opponent is manascrewed" in Legacy

[maharis]

I hate the reserved list as much as anyone, but I think it's a little too convenient to put the blame on the thing that makes magic worse for legacy players. They cut themselves off from selling the same cards again and again - but you don't make money by selling the same cards again and again. ABU duals are not actually very interesting cards, they merely serve as an upper bar of 'what a dual land could be', vintage-power stuff has no place in tournament magic, and the only other relevant cards on the reserved list are some junk for commander or a few key legacy rares. Hearthstone didn't rise because of the reserved list. There is a ceiling on the amount of people in America who were ever going to be interested in playing a game with 'Flusterstorm your Flusterstorm' complexity. (That includes current Magic players.)

Well, in making this point it's a little oversimplified, but... The point is that there is a place where things like duals and power are balanced. Those formats are the ones we play (Legacy and Vintage) which have safety valves built in like Force and Wasteland. But because Wizards is unable to support these formats, they cut themselves off from being able to serve the component of their market that doesn't want to keep up with Standard rotation. They know this, which is why Modern exists. But Modern, of course, has its other issues, which I'm not going to go through here because the point is about customer retention, not whether or not the format is good.

Of course, without the RL, the necessity to invent Standard never would've existed. Like I said, I have to oversimplify the point a bit. But I do think a game company promising to never print certain game pieces ever again was a clear miscalculation, because who knows what utility something could have down the road, either in game play or in reprint equity? (Imagine you were around when the RL was announced and asked people which card they thought would be worth more in 20 years if the game was still being played: Cadaverous Bloom or Lion's Eye Diamond.) I give the company a pass for not thinking 20 years out in 1996, because who would, but I still think every year that passes reinforces the folly of the list.


Well, I think the real "original sin" of the game is the distribution model. It's positively antediluvian at this point. Why are people looking at things like LCGs and board games? In no small part because it's all there in the box. No need to waste money on packs, play the lottery with boxes, or hunt down singles. Getting kids into the game where you are pitching spending several hundred dollars on a deck that the metagame might obsolesce in 6 months or even less and at best you can play for 2 years is a pretty tough sell, really and that's just for Standard. It's even worse when you pitch it at a thousand for Modern, or two thousand for Legacy.

We have to realize that we, as Legacy enthusiasts, or Vintage or whatever, actually have something wrong with us. We are not the average consumer, by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree with this. But the difference between this and the RL is that no one in 1994 knew how the internet was going to upend business models. E-commerce has drastically changed MTG by removing the barrier of card availability (assuming unlimited financial resources). That's not even to discuss the very concept of a living card game. Hell they were still issuing straight-up errata that you had to track down in the mid-90s. They had no concept of the potential audience for this game or how the economy would grow around it. So I wouldn't call it an original sin just because it wasn't an unforced error like the RL. If anything, it's amazing that this game and the LGS model has survived to this point when titans like Borders, Tower Records, and Blockbuster, that were similarly dependent on their roles as distributors of leisure content, have been relegated to the dustbin of history.


One thing I've seen from a couple of online games, even those who try to emulate Magic, is fixing one of Magic's most glaring problems gameplaywise: Non-games, especially due to resources.

This and the rest of your post, and some other posts ITT, talk about the gameplay of MTG relative to competitors, and while there are definitely valid criticisms, I think it has to be noted that Magic is a fundamentally solid game, and many of its so-called competitors are just aping the "good" parts and cutting out the "bad" (for better or for worse). Hex: Shards of Fate is basically a fanfic where MTG was invented in 2013 instead of 1993.

The thing is that you can't look at MTG's gameplay in a vacuum. All the other issues we're discussing are part and parcel to the MTG experience. If the ruleset was different from the start, who knows whether the game would've resonated for a generation. And while growth may be slowing, it's certainly not stopping. But no property can really be invincible from market forces. The most accurate view of MTG, I guess, would be that it has an quickly narrowing margin for error as the market evolves, and disasters like what happened to Standard over the past couple rotations have downstream effects that are concerning. (I would've immediately fired Sam Stoddard and Mark Rosewater when the Standard bannings were announced, since that was the pure implementation of their vision of what standard should look like in order to avoid bannings like JTMS and SFM, and they clearly misjudged what to do.)

[iatee]

Well, in making this point it's a little oversimplified, but... The point is that there is a place where things like duals and power are balanced. Those formats are the ones we play (Legacy and Vintage) which have safety valves built in like Force and Wasteland. But because Wizards is unable to support these formats, they cut themselves off from being able to serve the component of their market that doesn't want to keep up with Standard rotation. They know this, which is why Modern exists. But Modern, of course, has its other issues, which I'm not going to go through here because the point is about customer retention, not whether or not the format is good.

Of course, without the RL, the necessity to invent Standard never would've existed. Like I said, I have to oversimplify the point a bit. But I do think a game company promising to never print certain game pieces ever again was a clear miscalculation, because who knows what utility something could have down the road, either in game play or in reprint equity? (Imagine you were around when the RL was announced and asked people which card they thought would be worth more in 20 years if the game was still being played: Cadaverous Bloom or Lion's Eye Diamond.) I give the company a pass for not thinking 20 years out in 1996, because who would, but I still think every year that passes reinforces the folly of the list.


Wasteland/FoW/Brainstorm are indeed the key distinction between modern and legacy. They're also not on the reserved list. If Wizards wants to print powerful safety valves in the format, they mostly just need to be willing to print new modern cards that skip standard. And beyond already-reprintable Wasteland/FoW/Brainstorm, 'the reserved list' is a drop in the bucket of the set of all possible magic cards. Wizards can print whatever the hell they want. We care about these existing old cards for nostalgic reasons, not because they actually represent some pinnacle of magic design. Outside of the duals, most of the relevant reserved list cards for legacy are design fuckups like LED.

Reserved list was obviously not part of some long-term strategic plan and nobody at Wizards loves it. But if all the modern players right now were playing legacy instead, does that change anything for the business? Modern masters is just called legacy masters and has duals in it instead of goyfs.

Modern is also, despite its flaws, extremely popular, the most successful non-standard constructed format of all time. It might even be more popular because of its flaws - these days it's a better pet deck format than legacy and non-rotating players are a little more casual.

In short:
- If they want modern to have the 'fair' aspects of legacy, they can just print them.
- Maybe people would be having more fun if they were playing legacy instead of modern, but I doubt the total number of people in this group would be substantially different.

[Richard Cheese]

@ Warden

There is literally ZERO need for WotC to create a client being able to cover all the complicated mechanics from more than 2 decades.

They can focus on a client with the mechanical niveau the MTG 2013 platform (PSN) introduced. Basic mechanics and interface worked fine, but the game had no lasting appeal as the game was very limited in terms of deckbuilding, collecting and compeditive play. Why not create a cross platform client able to handle current T2 mechanics and rules for a season and then add the mechanics and cards of the next one paired with a ranking/reward system just like Hearthstone?

Have you played the current iteration of Duels of the Planeswalkers? It's on Steam, iOS, Android, and I'm pretty sure PSN/XBL too. Definitely got off to a rocky start, but most of the bugs have been ironed out at this point, Stainless is getting better at communicating, and updates are showing up on time. Has seasons, has rankings, can grind for cards or spend real money. Pretty decent IMO.

I just don't think a digital version of MtG is ever going to be as good as something that was designed to be digital. Duels does a pretty good job, but they've definitely had to drop some of the more subtle/obscure rules interactions, and you still end up with an awkward "response window" timer and something that just doesn't flow as well as Hearthstone. Hopefully I'm wrong and they'll find some really talented game designers who can come up with really elegant solutions for things like that.

Personally I think they should be leveraging the solid product they already have. Not that a digital counterpart is bad, but I always thought a big part of what makes Magic fun is getting to hang out with other people that have similar nerdy interests and I hardly ever see them pushing that aspect. Their marketing is either some weird ego trip shit like "Here I rule!" and "power up your deck with more mythic bullshit to crush your opponents!", or it's completely focused on plotlines and main characters.

Meanwhile, they exercise no quality control over stores or venues, have fair to mediocre coverage of large events, and seem to be on an active crusade to make those big events as unappealing as possible to physically attend. They're also moving at a snail's pace in response to fairly widespread coverage of buyouts and counterfeiting.

To their credit, they are pushing multiplayer products pretty hard, and getting some reprints in at the same time with the draft-only sets. I just wish they'd put some effort into showing that the game is a social activity. A bunch of kids gathered around a table losing their shit when a player top decks their only out, people laughing and comparing sealed pools, handshakes after a hard-fought match, marathon gaming sessions in the basement with movies and snacks and shit. That's what Magic has that Hearthstone doesn't, and I think it is (or should be) a large part of the appeal of the game.

[maharis]

Wasteland/FoW/Brainstorm are indeed the key distinction between modern and legacy. They're also not on the reserved list. If Wizards wants to print powerful safety valves in the format, they mostly just need to be willing to print new modern cards that skip standard. And beyond already-reprintable Wasteland/FoW/Brainstorm, 'the reserved list' is a drop in the bucket of the set of all possible magic cards. Wizards can print whatever the hell they want. We care about these existing old cards for nostalgic reasons, not because they actually represent some pinnacle of magic design. Outside of the duals, most of the relevant reserved list cards for legacy are design fuckups like LED.

Reserved list was obviously not part of some long-term strategic plan and nobody at Wizards loves it. But if all the modern players right now were playing legacy instead, does that change anything for the business? Modern masters is just called legacy masters and has duals in it instead of goyfs.

Modern is also, despite its flaws, extremely popular, the most successful non-standard constructed format of all time. It might even be more popular because of its flaws - these days it's a better pet deck format than legacy and non-rotating players are a little more casual.

In short:
- If they want modern to have the 'fair' aspects of legacy, they can just print them.
- Maybe people would be having more fun if they were playing legacy instead of modern, but I doubt the total number of people in this group would be substantially different.

Sorry -- my point was that Wasteland is balanced in a world where your duals come in for no life -- you couldn't put such a thing in a shockland format because it would severely pressure mana instead of strategically pressuring it. Whether or not Wasteland is on the reserved list is immaterial -- it is too powerful in a world where the duals are anything worse than the ABUR editions. There are similar arguments for Force and several other cards in Legacy.

I agree with you about Modern. In fact the amount of time and energy expended on Modern indicates that what the most vocal and enfranchised players want to do with this game is strategic, competetive constructed, but this is at odds with Wizards' goal of perpetual expansion. What feeds that goal is things like limited and standard, but those don't appeal to the same feelings.

So you have a game whose depth is a key reason that people get invested and stay involved, but that depth also makes perpetual profitability and customer acquisition incredibly difficult. It's not a great equation.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

I think that the only way Magic can die is if card design continues to get worse, I think that as long as card design is good magic will continue to grow. I disagree with those who say that Hearthstone and other online card games will kill magic, the reason why is that the experience of face to face gameplay where you can feel your cards and talk with your friends in real life is a very significant part of magic that online card games will never be able to replicate. I think that Magic can definitely exist as an online game in the form of an improved MTGO software, but trying to convert the game to an online-only, watered-down, direct competitor to Hearthstone will probably kill the game. I also dont think that Magic is continuing to get harder to play and learn complexity-wise. I think that once you know the fundamental aspects/basics of the game the only thing you have to do to play whatever format or deck you want is the ability to read the cards. MTG's learning difficulty is lessening if anything.

[Lord Seth]

I do wonder how Magic would change (aside form mana denial getting significantly worse) if we had a "land library" and a "non-land library". Whenever you draw a card, you could choose from which pile you draw your stuff. Same goes for search, reveal effects, etc.; this would basically prevent you from ever getting manascrewed/flooded. I'm well aware that it would need safety measures (like a minimum library size to prevent T1ing every turn because a too small non-land library would allow to draw combos every starter hand) and would fundamentally change how certain cards work in terms of power level (e.g. Brainstorm, Bob, etc.), but it's just a silly thought experiement.
Depends on what you mean. If you mean trying to implement that into the game now... I just don't think it would work. For better or for worse, the game's cards have all been made with an attempt at balancing them around mana screw; you can't just throw that out without screwing everything up.

If the game were designed with this idea from the outset, though, that would be a different thing. In fact, there is a TCG out there that very similar Magic but with something akin to what you describe called Force of Will. It's not exactly what you describe (you don't really "draw" from your land deck, you tap your Ruler--sort of like a Commander--to put the top card of it into play) but it carries the same general idea. I thought it was actually a pretty darn good game, but unfortunately some bad decisions cost the game a lot of popularity last year, which is a shame because it was actually growing in popularity at a pretty fast rate beforehand. I've heard the game has been regaining a little popularity over the last few months but it's hard for me to judge because it wasn't popular in my area even at the height of its popularity. Still, for whatever flaws there were in the execution of the game, I think the basic rules were basically just a better version of Magic.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

Depends on what you mean. If you mean trying to implement that into the game now... I just don't think it would work. For better or for worse, the game's cards have all been made with an attempt at balancing them around mana screw; you can't just throw that out without screwing everything up.

If the game were designed with this idea from the outset, though, that would be a different thing. In fact, there is a TCG out there that very similar Magic but with something akin to what you describe called Force of Will. It's not exactly what you describe (you don't really "draw" from your land deck, you tap your Ruler--sort of like a Commander--to put the top card of it into play) but it carries the same general idea. I thought it was actually a pretty darn good game, but unfortunately some bad decisions cost the game a lot of popularity last year, which is a shame because it was actually growing in popularity at a pretty fast rate beforehand. I've heard the game has been regaining a little popularity over the last few months but it's hard for me to judge because it wasn't popular in my area even at the height of its popularity. Still, for whatever flaws there were in the execution of the game, I think the basic rules were basically just a better version of Magic.

Or you could just change the mulligan rule to something like this: Once you decide to keep your opening hand, subtract the number of cards in your hand from 7, and scry x where x is that number. For example, if I mulligan to 3 I'd be able to scry 4.

[iatee]

Sorry -- my point was that Wasteland is balanced in a world where your duals come in for no life -- you couldn't put such a thing in a shockland format because it would severely pressure mana instead of strategically pressuring it. Whether or not Wasteland is on the reserved list is immaterial -- it is too powerful in a world where the duals are anything worse than the ABUR editions. There are similar arguments for Force and several other cards in Legacy.

I agree with you about Modern. In fact the amount of time and energy expended on Modern indicates that what the most vocal and enfranchised players want to do with this game is strategic, competetive constructed, but this is at odds with Wizards' goal of perpetual expansion. What feeds that goal is things like limited and standard, but those don't appeal to the same feelings.

So you have a game whose depth is a key reason that people get invested and stay involved, but that depth also makes perpetual profitability and customer acquisition incredibly difficult. It's not a great equation.

I agree, I don't think Wasteland+Shocks would make a fun dynamic, but Wizards is not limited to the cards currently printed. They can print land-hate stronger than Ghost Quarter but weaker than Wasteland and duals stronger than Shocks but weaker than ABU. Similarly, FoW is also not necessarily the only way you can print playable t0 interaction, Brainstorm+fetches not the only way to design a tool that gives decks card selection / profitable ways to trade off dead cards in hand.

If they want this format they can have it. Modern could conceivably be *better* than legacy. I just don't think they really care - if anything, it's bad for business if formats that don't require constantly spending money are way more fun than formats that do. That sounds kinda conspiratorial and I don't think they purposely make modern bad, but they also really don't spend that much energy finding ways to make it better.

[iatee]

Have you played the current iteration of Duels of the Planeswalkers? It's on Steam, iOS, Android, and I'm pretty sure PSN/XBL too. Definitely got off to a rocky start, but most of the bugs have been ironed out at this point, Stainless is getting better at communicating, and updates are showing up on time. Has seasons, has rankings, can grind for cards or spend real money. Pretty decent IMO.

I just don't think a digital version of MtG is ever going to be as good as something that was designed to be digital. Duels does a pretty good job, but they've definitely had to drop some of the more subtle/obscure rules interactions, and you still end up with an awkward "response window" timer and something that just doesn't flow as well as Hearthstone. Hopefully I'm wrong and they'll find some really talented game designers who can come up with really elegant solutions for things like that.

Personally I think they should be leveraging the solid product they already have. Not that a digital counterpart is bad, but I always thought a big part of what makes Magic fun is getting to hang out with other people that have similar nerdy interests and I hardly ever see them pushing that aspect. Their marketing is either some weird ego trip shit like "Here I rule!" and "power up your deck with more mythic bullshit to crush your opponents!", or it's completely focused on plotlines and main characters.

Meanwhile, they exercise no quality control over stores or venues, have fair to mediocre coverage of large events, and seem to be on an active crusade to make those big events as unappealing as possible to physically attend. They're also moving at a snail's pace in response to fairly widespread coverage of buyouts and counterfeiting.

To their credit, they are pushing multiplayer products pretty hard, and getting some reprints in at the same time with the draft-only sets. I just wish they'd put some effort into showing that the game is a social activity. A bunch of kids gathered around a table losing their shit when a player top decks their only out, people laughing and comparing sealed pools, handshakes after a hard-fought match, marathon gaming sessions in the basement with movies and snacks and shit. That's what Magic has that Hearthstone doesn't, and I think it is (or should be) a large part of the appeal of the game.

Yeah I agree with all of this 100%. There is some low hanging fruit when it comes to making MTGO less crappy, but MTGO will always serve the role as 'something you're doing because you can't play magic in real life right now'. The idea that real life games will fully be 'disrupted' by digital is silly, they are different markets. Hearthstone might make exponentially more money than MTGO, but so does Uber, doesn't mean Wizards is a failure if it doesn't conquer the taxi industry.

There are so many things that could be done to make paper tournament magic better. Some of them are super easy - text people their matches. Some of them might be harder and more expensive - ensure that larger tournaments have bathrooms that are regularly cleaned and not-food options, stuff to do beyond buy cards. And some of them are kinda abstract, like improve LGS environments and ensure that the ones that really are 'magic stores' are economically viable in the long-term.

[LegacyIsAnEternalFormat]

Yeah I agree with all of this 100%. There is some low hanging fruit when it comes to making MTGO less crappy, but MTGO will always serve the role as 'something you're doing because you can't play magic in real life right now'. The idea that real life games will fully be 'disrupted' by digital is silly, they are different markets. Hearthstone might make exponentially more money than MTGO, but so does Uber, doesn't mean Wizards is a failure if it doesn't conquer the taxi industry.

There are so many things that could be done to make paper tournament magic better. Some of them are super easy - text people their matches. Some of them might be harder and more expensive - ensure that larger tournaments have bathrooms that are regularly cleaned and not-food options, stuff to do beyond buy cards. And some of them are kinda abstract, like improve LGS environments and ensure that the ones that really are 'magic stores' are economically viable in the long-term.

talking about making MTGO better, I think that there are a few things that could be done to immensely boost the popularity of it. first of all, make it subscription based, or have cards be priced at low prices depending on rarity(for example: mythics-$2,rares-$1,uncommons-$0.50,commons-$0.25,basiclands-free) getting rid of the secondary market which is responsible for the outrageously high costs of some decks; 2. make the UI and visuals better, this is pretty obvious and they've done a decent job with DotP; 3. get a better coding team to reduce bugs. MtGO, I think would be a very good investment for WotC because last I heard mtgo accounts for like half profits or something like that. The Magic Digital Next thing theyve been hinting at could be a better version of mtgo but it could also be a watered-down version of magic to compete with Hearthstone, hopefully it's the latter...

[Lord Seth]

Or you could just change the mulligan rule to something like this: Once you decide to keep your opening hand, subtract the number of cards in your hand from 7, and scry x where x is that number. For example, if I mulligan to 3 I'd be able to scry 4.
That would cause big problems with combo decks. I don't think it's feasible.

[btm10]

Yeah I agree with all of this 100%. There is some low hanging fruit when it comes to making MTGO less crappy, but MTGO will always serve the role as 'something you're doing because you can't play magic in real life right now'. The idea that real life games will fully be 'disrupted' by digital is silly, they are different markets. Hearthstone might make exponentially more money than MTGO, but so does Uber, doesn't mean Wizards is a failure if it doesn't conquer the taxi industry.

There are so many things that could be done to make paper tournament magic better. Some of them are super easy - text people their matches. Some of them might be harder and more expensive - ensure that larger tournaments have bathrooms that are regularly cleaned and not-food options, stuff to do beyond buy cards. And some of them are kinda abstract, like improve LGS environments and ensure that the ones that really are 'magic stores' are economically viable in the long-term.

These are all good ideas, especially with regard to MTG-focused LGSs since those are really where Magic differentiates itself from Hearthstone and the like.

As for design and non-rotating formats, which have come up several times in this thread: I think making a statement by firing the folks at the top had value, but it's reasonably likely that firing Stoddard and Rosewater would spawn a competitor that had built-in marketing strength from MaRo's fans. I doubt that fear was the key motivating factor (loyalty and confidence in their abilities almost certianly played larger roles), but it's still worth considering. In terms of how to support non-rotaing formats that people want to play, a potential casual/competitive divide could emerge between Commander and Pauper. Both are somewhat well-established already, have easy-to-follow deckbuilding rules, and Pauper has been spared both the most egregious combo-enablers/interaction reducers and the lion's share of threat power creep that's created problematic Modern, Legacy, and Vintage decks. There are some issues with monetizing it because it's all commons, but explicitly making it pseudo-rotating (with annual/semi-annual B&R action) isn't nearly as onerous for players as doing the same thing in Legacy or Modern.

[maharis]

I agree with everyone that says the best move for MTG is to embrace its uniqueness and make meeting up in person to play a game, at the store or at home, the core of their marketing or whatever. That is probably better than trying to duplicate what the digital-first games are doing or hoping to make it 1997 again through science or magic.


I agree, I don't think Wasteland+Shocks would make a fun dynamic, but Wizards is not limited to the cards currently printed. They can print land-hate stronger than Ghost Quarter but weaker than Wasteland and duals stronger than Shocks but weaker than ABU. Similarly, FoW is also not necessarily the only way you can print playable t0 interaction, Brainstorm+fetches not the only way to design a tool that gives decks card selection / profitable ways to trade off dead cards in hand.

If they want this format they can have it. Modern could conceivably be *better* than legacy. I just don't think they really care - if anything, it's bad for business if formats that don't require constantly spending money are way more fun than formats that do. That sounds kinda conspiratorial and I don't think they purposely make modern bad, but they also really don't spend that much energy finding ways to make it better.

We're on the same page. My contention is that they wouldn't have to worry about making a slightly-more-powerful-but-not-quite-the-same eternal/non-rotating format if they could simply support the one they have. But we don't have to belabor it.

Funny how you would suggest they may purposely make modern bad... until the bannings I would've told you they were purposely making Standard bad. Obviously I don't believe that, but I definitely think Wizards 2017 would much rather the game was all limited... sells more cards, no secondary market to worry about, easier to balance. Hopefully a few people over there still understand that brewing is a big part of the reason many players love this game for the long term.


I think making a statement by firing the folks at the top had value, but it's reasonably likely that firing Stoddard and Rosewater would spawn a competitor that had built-in marketing strength from MaRo's fans. I doubt that fear was the key motivating factor (loyalty and confidence in their abilities almost certianly played larger roles), but it's still worth considering.

I just threw that in to be cheeky. I know why it didn't happen. However I think a lot of players would've appreciated the message. Many players smarter than I had been expressing a lot of the concerns about the game that came to bear, for months if not years. I think new thinking is needed in design and development as the game seems to be losing customers (as indicated by the Standard Showdown and bannings, which never happen unless there's a drop in attendance). Growth in revenue can be attributed to things like Eternal Masters (uh, $10 packs, hello) more than a vibrant and growing player base given the company's own actions.


In terms of how to support non-rotaing formats that people want to play, a potential divide could emerge between Commander and Pauper. Both are somewhat well-established already, have easy-to-follow deckbuilding rules, and Pauper has been spared both the most egregious combo-enablers/interaction reducers and the lion's share of threat power creep that's created problematic Modern, Legacy, and Vintage decks. There are some issues with monetizing it because it's all commons, but explicitly making it pseudo-rotating (with annual/semi-annual B&R action) isn't nearly as onerous for players as doing the same thing in Legacy or Modern.

I don't think Commander and Pauper solve the non-rotating format issue as it relates to the health of the game. It's all about preventing customers from feeling like their holding the bag from a value perspective. A store literally invented a format to prop up prices last year. The MTG economy is a major shitshow but it's also a major part of the game. I think we'd all be better off if more people would look at cards as sunk cost, like you do with most other hobbies, but that's just not happening. Granted that's easy for me to say as a professional adult and not a high school/college kid. I certainly felt differently back then.

[btm10]

I don't think Commander and Pauper solve the non-rotating format issue as it relates to the health of the game. It's all about preventing customers from feeling like their holding the bag from a value perspective. A store literally invented a format to prop up prices last year. The MTG economy is a major shitshow but it's also a major part of the game. I think we'd all be better off if more people would look at cards as sunk cost, like you do with most other hobbies, but that's just not happening. Granted that's easy for me to say as a professional adult and not a high school/college kid. I certainly felt differently back then.

I definitely agree with your assessment of how people seem to feel, though I also don't understand it. I'm certianly not suggesting that WotC drop support for Vintage, Legacy, or Modern to encourage people to play Pauper, I was just trying to point out that paper Pauper is a pretty popular format (at least here) and that it offers a lot of advantages as a competititive format relative to other non-rotating formats. They'd have to get creative to to effectively make money off of it, but that's a feature for the playerbase, not a bug.


If they're serious about trying to make the game itself sustainable, the biggest problems (at least from my perspective) are the sunk cost/player psychology problem wih Standard and the casual/competitive divide. Casual players' distase for having their plans disrupted are the reason that Standard has highly restricted axes of interaction, which necessarily leads to competitive problems when threats (or even just new card types) are pushed even a little bit too much (Smugglers' Copter wouldn't have been nearly the problem it was if Fragmentize were an Instant...or they just printed Shatter in their artifact block). Modern has basically the same problem, but it's magnified by how many of the cards in the format (Tron lands, Valakut) line up extremely favorably with the best answers (Fulminator Mage, Ghost Quarter), and the huge number of non-competitive players who are financially invested in somehing called "Modern" that has little to do with the real, competitive format. Legacy has thornier structural issues (Counterbalance, Chalice, cantrips), but most Legacy players seem to prefer hands-off format management even if it lowers the average quality of Legacy games. Being a less competitive format also helps Legacy, but the barriers to entry are obviously too high to center the commercial game around it. There isn't a great solution; 6 or 7 year Extended may end up being the best lomg term solution, but we've learned that it all but demands an R&D team to look after if they want players to take it seriously as a competitive format.

[Barook]

These are all good ideas, especially with regard to MTG-focused LGSs since those are really where Magic differentiates itself from Hearthstone and the like.

As for design and non-rotating formats, which have come up several times in this thread: I think making a statement by firing the folks at the top had value, but it's reasonably likely that firing Stoddard and Rosewater would spawn a competitor that had built-in marketing strength from MaRo's fans. I doubt that fear was the key motivating factor (loyalty and confidence in their abilities almost certianly played larger roles), but it's still worth considering. In terms of how to support non-rotaing formats that people want to play, a potential casual/competitive divide could emerge between Commander and Pauper. Both are somewhat well-established already, have easy-to-follow deckbuilding rules, and Pauper has been spared both the most egregious combo-enablers/interaction reducers and the lion's share of threat power creep that's created problematic Modern, Legacy, and Vintage decks. There are some issues with monetizing it because it's all commons, but explicitly making it pseudo-rotating (with annual/semi-annual B&R action) isn't nearly as onerous for players as doing the same thing in Legacy or Modern.
Maro does have a legion of rabid fanboys for whatever unholy reason. At the very least, they should cut his supply of cocaine to improve the situation (I get that he's enthusiastic about his job, but every time he's on stream, all I can think of is "CALM THE FUCK DOWN!").

Maro I can see, but Stoddard? How has that guy fans? Besides, it seems the current issues are more a problem of development than of design.


talking about making MTGO better, I think that there are a few things that could be done to immensely boost the popularity of it. first of all, make it subscription based, or have cards be priced at low prices depending on rarity(for example: mythics-$2,rares-$1,uncommons-$0.50,commons-$0.25,basiclands-free) getting rid of the secondary market which is responsible for the outrageously high costs of some decks; 2. make the UI and visuals better, this is pretty obvious and they've done a decent job with DotP; 3. get a better coding team to reduce bugs. MtGO, I think would be a very good investment for WotC because last I heard mtgo accounts for like half profits or something like that. The Magic Digital Next thing theyve been hinting at could be a better version of mtgo but it could also be a watered-down version of magic to compete with Hearthstone, hopefully it's the latter...
MTGO has the problem that it competes with Paper Magic, it least in Wizards' eyes. That's also the reason why WotC tries to double-dip by forcing you to buy the same deck twice instead of synergy effects between paper and online, like other games have demonstrated.

A subscription-based system either is so outrageously expensive that nobody uses it or it's so cheap people would stop quitting Paper in droves to jump in the cheaper, more convenient alternative. I don't think a reasonable middle ground exists due to the high cost of Magic in general.

[H]

Anybody right in their mind would put up with MTGO, either.

And yet there are still people who use it. It speaks to how appealing the actual game is, that people would put up with such horrible software at all.


I think there is some genius in the distribution model - people like collecting things, that becomes a game in itself and it's easier to spend large amounts of money on Magic when you do it over tons of small purchases. Opening up packs is a more socially acceptable way to play the lottery.

But I agree that it's important to realize how far we are from average consumers. This forum has a dedicated thread where people show off their $20,000 Japanese foil decks and then other people insult them for not spending enough money on their deck.

Genius? Well, in a way, yes, and no doubt went a long way to keeping the game profitable in the early days, since it is definitely a money maker. The issue is though that now there is a lot more competition. Not just competition of other card games, but video games, board games and so on. Also, lets not pretend that the economy (in many places for many people) simply isn't great. So, we have less capital at large and more things competing for it.

So, indeed the distribution model worked then, but the question is how is it impacting the game now? While Wizards questionnaires and surveys which look to identify barriers of entry focus on the game itself, I think the fundamental issue of actually acquiring the cards is something I don't think anyone there is really willing to admit is bigger than any aspect of the game itself.


I agree with this. But the difference between this and the RL is that no one in 1994 knew how the internet was going to upend business models. E-commerce has drastically changed MTG by removing the barrier of card availability (assuming unlimited financial resources). That's not even to discuss the very concept of a living card game. Hell they were still issuing straight-up errata that you had to track down in the mid-90s. They had no concept of the potential audience for this game or how the economy would grow around it. So I wouldn't call it an original sin just because it wasn't an unforced error like the RL. If anything, it's amazing that this game and the LGS model has survived to this point when titans like Borders, Tower Records, and Blockbuster, that were similarly dependent on their roles as distributors of leisure content, have been relegated to the dustbin of history.

While I don't really disagree that the Reverse List was (and still is) a mistake, I still think that the distribution model is something that really takes a much larger toll on the game's more widespread marketability. As iatee alluded to earlier, not everyone is looking for the complexity level of Legacy and this is part of why I caution people here as using themselves as an example. We simply are not the average consumer, in any way. So, while the Reserve List certainly is an issue and is a barrier to some new players because of the cost of entry to something like Legacy, I think this is missing the forest for the trees.

There simply is only so many people who are going to be willing to ford the distribution model and make it to really playing, long term. Many more are going to be lost along the way, frustrated by wasting money on packs, Standard metagame shifts/bans/general crappiness, and so on.

We here are largely dinosaurs here, ancient by gaming standards, born and bred into this system, so we know how to navigate it, we know how to allocate our capital to acquire what we really want, we know not waste money on packs, we know when a sealed product is worth opening. A random 17 year old kid doesn't know that. And so, when he or she "gets into the game" the barriers are higher, the burnout is quicker, and they are likely to spend their scant entertainment dollars elsewhere. Video games and board games all are "self-contained" and a one time purchase basically gives you "the whole thing."

Sure, a video game probably isn't going to give you the same "replayability." A board game isn't going to give you the same "depth" of play. But in this day and age of instant gratification, people largely don't care much about that on average. They only have so much money and even less patience. Are you really going to sell them on an odyssey to build a Magic collection that will span months or years, cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars, and take what is (to them) seemingly countless hours? But wait, they still don't know if they actually like the game or not.

Just because we here weathered all that really doesn't mean most people could or would. I'm definitely not saying that simply changing the distribution model is going to "fix" all these things. It's not a simple problem and a simple solution isn't going to fix it. But I think pretending it isn't an issue, even if it is intractable, is short sighted. I would hope that Wizards is looking at these issues, but I doubt if they are interested in fundamental change.

[Lemnear]

talking about making MTGO better, I think that there are a few things that could be done to immensely boost the popularity of it. first of all, make it subscription based, or have cards be priced at low prices depending on rarity(for example: mythics-$2,rares-$1,uncommons-$0.50,commons-$0.25,basiclands-free) getting rid of the secondary market which is responsible for the outrageously high costs of some decks; 2. make the UI and visuals better, this is pretty obvious and they've done a decent job with DotP; 3. get a better coding team to reduce bugs. MtGO, I think would be a very good investment for WotC because last I heard mtgo accounts for like half profits or something like that. The Magic Digital Next thing theyve been hinting at could be a better version of mtgo but it could also be a watered-down version of magic to compete with Hearthstone, hopefully it's the latter...

You cant fix the secondary market once taken off the leash. If you mass reprint stuff or just cap the cost like you suggested, people will riot because of their "lost money" by buying R.Ports for 120$ which are 1-2$ in your system. There is no fix for thst broken system without community outcry other thsn letting is slowly die and see who ends up paying the bill

[Zombie]

Of course, without the RL, the necessity to invent Standard never would've existed.

This is wrong. Standard was created because of the realization that Eternal as a tournament format would make most cards worthless and to avoid power creep. The RL is just a shitpile, but wasn't a factor in Standard's creation AFAIK.


As for design and non-rotating formats, which have come up several times in this thread: I think making a statement by firing the folks at the top had value

Have missed this. Link to news?

[wcm8]

Or you could just change the mulligan rule to something like this: Once you decide to keep your opening hand, subtract the number of cards in your hand from 7, and scry x where x is that number. For example, if I mulligan to 3 I'd be able to scry 4.

I really like this suggestion. It helps un-screw yourself from a bad mulligan, and also introduces an additional strategic angle to the game. It increases the power of sideboard cards quite a lot, as it makes it a bit easier to mull/scry for your hate card, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[Richard Cheese]

Sure, a video game probably isn't going to give you the same "replayability." A board game isn't going to give you the same "depth" of play. But in this day and age of instant gratification, people largely don't care much about that on average. They only have so much money and even less patience. Are you really going to sell them on an odyssey to build a Magic collection that will span months or years, cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars, and take what is (to them) seemingly countless hours? But wait, they still don't know if they actually like the game or not.

Hey there, your grumpy old man is showing. I think you need to take a break from telling the kids to get off your lawn and check out what they're actually doing. People are still pouring crazy amounts of time and money into all kinds of gaming, often for completely randomized rewards. Counterstrike, Overwatch, PoE, Hearthstone, maybe DOTA/LoL (not sure what the transactions are like for those), all have randomized loot systems, and some even have a sizeable secondary marketplace.

I guess maybe the one advantage those have is that you can mostly just jump in and start playing after your initial purchase or download. Magic has that to some extent too with drafts, sealed, and fairly decent precons for EDH. I just think WotC needs to put more emphasis on those "drop in and play" events, as a social event as well as a good value. Also maybe dial back on the bomby mythics to make limited a little more balanced, but that's a whole different can of worms.

[maharis]

This is wrong. Standard was created because of the realization that Eternal as a tournament format would make most cards worthless and to avoid power creep. The RL is just a shitpile, but wasn't a factor in Standard's creation AFAIK.

You may be right. I tend to remember that whole period as a beating to my psyche and a lot of the stuff runs together. The combination of a couple of garbage sets, the excitement of Chronicles met by the horror of the RL, and the creation of Standard where you had to play 5 cards from each set, then of course finally getting powerful cards in Urza's block that were immediately rendered unusable, was a lot to take back then. Reminds me why I ended up leaving the game.


Have missed this. Link to news?

He's talking about what I said I would've done in Wizards' position. Everyone in R&D is still gainfully employed despite what I think is a pretty brutal error.


Just because we here weathered all that really doesn't mean most people could or would. I'm definitely not saying that simply changing the distribution model is going to "fix" all these things. It's not a simple problem and a simple solution isn't going to fix it. But I think pretending it isn't an issue, even if it is intractable, is short sighted. I would hope that Wizards is looking at these issues, but I doubt if they are interested in fundamental change.

Just saying, I agree with your assessment, but that highlights the problem. I'm a business journalist by trade and it is nothing short of a miracle that Magic has been successful enough for so long by distributing packs of paper cards through LGSes, especially in the context of being part of a big company like Hasbro. Hasbro said in its latest earnings report that as much as 80% of Wizards' revenue comes through those stores.

Magic and the LGSes are tied to each other. If the stores go away, a lot of what's unique and exciting about Magic goes with it. I know Wizards likes to talk about how much of their game is kitchen table, but if that's the case why do they entice tournament attendance with special rewards and standard bannings. This game can't survive as a curiosity in the Target checkout line. They need the competitive itch to strike people so that their investment is more than a few packs and a few kitchen-table games. It needs people going into stores and playing the game, and transacting in the singles market, and all that stuff, to keep the momentum going.


Hey there, your grumpy old man is showing. I think you need to take a break from telling the kids to get off your lawn and check out what they're actually doing. People are still pouring crazy amounts of time and money into all kinds of gaming, often for completely randomized rewards. Counterstrike, Overwatch, PoE, Hearthstone, maybe DOTA/LoL (not sure what the transactions are like for those), all have randomized loot systems, and some even have a sizeable secondary marketplace.

I guess maybe the one advantage those have is that you can mostly just jump in and start playing after your initial purchase or download. Magic has that to some extent too with drafts, sealed, and fairly decent precons for EDH. I just think WotC needs to put more emphasis on those "drop in and play" events, as a social event as well as a good value. Also maybe dial back on the bomby mythics to make limited a little more balanced, but that's a whole different can of worms.

I think you're really on the right track. Magic can't hope to compete with the digital games for a lot of reasons. I used to think they should try harder to do that but as the gulf grows wider I don't think it can be done. Magic needs to emphasize the IRL aspect of the game. I would love to see their market research because I honestly can't believe they think pushing the hackneyed stories is a winning plan.

[ironclad8690]

I wish that pushing the IRL aspect of the game coincided with having more legacy tournaments :(

Don't get me wrong I really appreciate the stuff that shops have been doing to keep legacy going, I just want more sweet legacy action. I really hope they throw us a bone in 2018, maybe bring back the non-US gps.

[TsumiBand]

Hey there, your grumpy old man is showing. I think you need to take a break from telling the kids to get off your lawn and check out what they're actually doing. People are still pouring crazy amounts of time and money into all kinds of gaming, often for completely randomized rewards. Counterstrike, Overwatch, PoE, Hearthstone, maybe DOTA/LoL (not sure what the transactions are like for those), all have randomized loot systems, and some even have a sizeable secondary marketplace.

I dare say this describes the problem better than it defeats it. There are a *ton* of kinds of games out there, the mobile gaming scene is A Real Thing, getting good at any of the above games is not a small time investment unless you're like the Doogie Howser of Steam or something and you just intuit every game you download -- oh and speaking of Steam, unless you're frugal and cautious as fuck and you methodically play through a game before you buy a new one, your Steam library probably looks like my Netflix library; a ton of titles that you look at over and over and are kind of unwilling to touch. This doesn't directly affect Magic, but it still has to find space and time among a given player's backlog of Humble Bundles that they haven't even cracked yet.

TLDR, consumers have only so much time and trend towards owning an embarrassment of riches in the choices they have at their disposal, so it's only naturally that people would favor activities with the least perceived points of failure. This sucks for Magic because it is not only a terrible video game (it's secretly a real-time game involving very patient people that ignore the rules until they don't want to anymore), but it has always been a lousy one-player game; you need to either have a venue or set a date to have people over for a game or two. Meanwhile, you can reach into your pocket and dick around with Hearthstone (for example) on your lunch break.

[H]

I dare say this describes the problem better than it defeats it. There are a *ton* of kinds of games out there, the mobile gaming scene is A Real Thing, getting good at any of the above games is not a small time investment unless you're like the Doogie Howser of Steam or something and you just intuit every game you download -- oh and speaking of Steam, unless you're frugal and cautious as fuck and you methodically play through a game before you buy a new one, your Steam library probably looks like my Netflix library; a ton of titles that you look at over and over and are kind of unwilling to touch. This doesn't directly affect Magic, but it still has to find space and time among a given player's backlog of Humble Bundles that they haven't even cracked yet.

TLDR, consumers have only so much time and trend towards owning an embarrassment of riches in the choices they have at their disposal, so it's only naturally that people would favor activities with the least perceived points of failure. This sucks for Magic because it is not only a terrible video game (it's secretly a real-time game involving very patient people that ignore the rules until they don't want to anymore), but it has always been a lousy one-player game; you need to either have a venue or set a date to have people over for a game or two. Meanwhile, you can reach into your pocket and dick around with Hearthstone (for example) on your lunch break.

Yeah, pretty much this is what I was trying to say. I mean, in a vacuum the distribution model for Magic isn't really all that bad, but it isn't really conducive to dabbling. You are either in for a lot (you want to play competitively), or not in for much at all (friends at the kitchen table).

I mean, I am grumpy but I am not so old to not know how video games work, :wink:

[Barook]

Hasbro said in its latest earnings report that as much as 80% of Wizards' revenue comes through those stores.
Hold on a second - are we talking about revenue from paper or total revenue? :eyebrow: If it's total revenue, than MTGO certainly is far away from the former ~40% revenue for Wizards.

[Richard Cheese]

I dare say this describes the problem better than it defeats it. There are a *ton* of kinds of games out there, the mobile gaming scene is A Real Thing, getting good at any of the above games is not a small time investment unless you're like the Doogie Howser of Steam or something and you just intuit every game you download -- oh and speaking of Steam, unless you're frugal and cautious as fuck and you methodically play through a game before you buy a new one, your Steam library probably looks like my Netflix library; a ton of titles that you look at over and over and are kind of unwilling to touch. This doesn't directly affect Magic, but it still has to find space and time among a given player's backlog of Humble Bundles that they haven't even cracked yet.

TLDR, consumers have only so much time and trend towards owning an embarrassment of riches in the choices they have at their disposal, so it's only naturally that people would favor activities with the least perceived points of failure. This sucks for Magic because it is not only a terrible video game (it's secretly a real-time game involving very patient people that ignore the rules until they don't want to anymore), but it has always been a lousy one-player game; you need to either have a venue or set a date to have people over for a game or two. Meanwhile, you can reach into your pocket and dick around with Hearthstone (for example) on your lunch break.

Oh yeah, not saying those things aren't still competing with MtG for attention, just that they aren't currently winning because "kids these days" are all about instant gratification. I just think WotC is doing a fairly poor job at making the idea of investing that time and energy into Magic an attractive option. Quality of experience between LGSs is all over the map. Same for coverage, even for major events. What little advertising they do never speaks to the strengths of the game. Remember this from the late 90s?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svgntEThit4

That still makes me want to play more than anything I've seen on the WotC site in years. Here I Rule? Get the fuck out! Here I bring some janky brew and go for margaritas between rounds to shoot the shit with other aging nerds.

[Lord Seth]

Of course, without the RL, the necessity to invent Standard never would've existed.
I don't know exactly when the Reserved List happened, but it happened sometime after Chronicles' release (as backlash to Chronicles was why it was made). Chronicles was released in June of 1995, whereas Standard was created in January of 1995. Unless some kind of time travel was involved, I don't see how Standard could have been the result of the Reserved List when Standard predated the Reserved List by at least half a year.

The actual reasons for Standard's creation were chiefly:
1) By keeping the card pool small, it made playtesting easier.
2) It created an incentive to keep getting new product without having to resort to constant power creep.


(I would've immediately fired Sam Stoddard and Mark Rosewater when the Standard bannings were announced, since that was the pure implementation of their vision of what standard should look like in order to avoid bannings like JTMS and SFM, and they clearly misjudged what to do.)
While I've had my issues with those two, especially Stoddard, this seems as much of an overreaction as the Reserved List itself was (would it even be possible to fire them immediately? I'd expect they'd have some kind of tenure). Getting angry at Rosewater for the bans seems especially odd, as the problems that resulted in said bans seem to have been mostly on the development side of things.

[Barook]

Oh yeah, not saying those things aren't still competing with MtG for attention, just that they aren't currently winning because "kids these days" are all about instant gratification. I just think WotC is doing a fairly poor job at making the idea of investing that time and energy into Magic an attractive option. Quality of experience between LGSs is all over the map. Same for coverage, even for major events. What little advertising they do never speaks to the strengths of the game. Remember this from the late 90s?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svgntEThit4

That still makes me want to play more than anything I've seen on the WotC site in years. Here I Rule? Get the fuck out! Here I bring some janky brew and go for margaritas between rounds to shoot the shit with other aging nerds.
Imho one of the worst offenders of all time were the player cards - who greenlighted that shit? Who wants to aspire to become that?

http://940ee6dce6677fa01d25-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.r99.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/151508.jpg

As for the instant gratification part, here's a little tidbit I haven't noticed before: Look at the number of creatures in AER that either have "enter the battlefield" or other effects that can be used immediately in some way, be it sacrifice effects or crewing vehicle boni. A vast majority of creatures have them aside from a few vanilla/limited filler combat creatures. Tap abilities are almost non-existant due to the 1-turn-delay.

[Begle1]

Getting angry at Rosewater for the bans seems especially odd, as the problems that resulted in said bans seem to have been mostly on the development side of things.

I'm interested in knowing who keeps making the call to not include "safety valves" in Standard. Do Rosewater's enthusiastic, creative "designers" do that, or is it the judgment of the technical, experienced-player "developers"?

It currently costs red 3 mana to kill an artifact and the only available gravehate costs 2 mana to bury one card. Cranial Archive would've been playable against Emrakul and Delirium, and I think lots of decks would currently have playsets of Shatter in their 75 if they could.

I feel like when they push a particular strategy, they should also make hate for that strategy. Narrow, effective answers only punish the greedy. So you can either play the high-risk/ high-reward game, or go where there's less synergy but less risk. Four Smuggler's Copter/ Heart of Kiran is just a target rich environment in a format with Smash to Smithereens...

That's what I like about Legacy, there's always an answer. There isn't a zig that can't be zagged. (Except Miracles, evidently.)


Also, I find the player cards embarrassing as well.

[rufus]

I'm interested in knowing who keeps making the call to not include "safety valves" in Standard. Do Rosewater's enthusiastic, creative "designers" do that, or is it the judgment of the technical, experienced-player "developers"?
...

I think it's a deliberate attempt to push cards while avoiding power creep.


Look at the number of creatures in AER that either have "enter the battlefield" or other effects that can be used immediately in some way, be it sacrifice effects or crewing vehicle boni.

I think it's part of their 'make creatures good' effort. Another factor is that planeswalkers have displaced creatures as 'efficient win condition' cards.

[Begle1]

I think it's a deliberate attempt to push cards while avoiding power creep.



How does printing Shatter or not effect power creep?

A 3/3 flying artifact creature for 2 mana is power creep, even if it does suck in its format. No matter how powerful artifact or graveyard recursion cards are, if they print good anti-artifact and anti-graveyard cards, then there's a good chance for the format to balance itself.

[rufus]

.... No matter how powerful artifact or graveyard recursion cards are, if they print good anti-artifact and anti-graveyard cards, then there's a good chance for the format to balance itself.

Right, but if there are no good anti-artifact or anti-graveyard cards, then even relatively weak or otherwise overcosted graveyard synergies and artifacts can be powerful in the meta.

[Claymore]

I don't play standard, but I do know that older sets used to have deliberate safety valves or straight up powerful hosers for that set's theme. Rest in Peace, Grafdigger's Cage, etc. It seemed to start after Mirrodin and Affinity, where Kataki was printed in Kamigawa as an apology to Ravager and all.

I imagine there's been some backlash to putting a super powerful hoser in a set that directly answered the entire theme of the set...so maybe they've changed the recent set designs to limit or remove those answers, allowing the Standard meta to have a bunch of synergy and have the look that Development wanted. So now they have to ban Emrakul and Copter, and the tournament winning card is Chatter of the Gremlins or whatever.

[Megadeus]

One issue they see is that if there is a powerful hate card they don't get to show off their new mechanic in constructed as much. The problem is though, they don't need Rest In Peace, and end all be all hate card, but something better needs to exist. Like is a Tormods Crypt or Relic of Progenitus (I know it wouldn't fit the flavor, but a card like it) too much to ask for? I remember when Tunnel Ignus got printed in the format everyone thought it was going to hose Valakut decks. Rest on Peace in Innistrad. Melira in Scars block. also Creeping Corrosion.

[nedleeds]

The actual reasons for Standard's creation were chiefly:
1) By keeping the card pool small, it made playtesting easier.
2) It created an incentive to keep getting new product without having to resort to constant power creep.
.

This is false. The first reason was to create a shifting play environment, they feared staleness from a play perspective. The original vision of expansions having different backs was a failed attempt at implementing this. The second reason was to ease any alienation of newer Magic players who never had the chance to get their hands on some of the older, out-of-print expansions. It was to grow the player base.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Imho one of the worst offenders of all time were the player cards - who greenlighted that shit? Who wants to aspire to become that?

http://940ee6dce6677fa01d25-0f55c9129972ac85d6b1f4e703468e6b.r99.cf2.rackcdn.com/products/pictures/151508.jpg


Wow I don't think I've ever felt so much physical pain for cringing so hard.

[Crimhead]

How does printing Shatter or not effect power creep?
He did say the goal was go "push cards" while avoiding power creep. Having good answers hinders their ability to push the flashy cards.

[maharis]

Hold on a second - are we talking about revenue from paper or total revenue? :eyebrow: If it's total revenue, than MTGO certainly is far away from the former ~40% revenue for Wizards.

Second, it does not capture hobby stores, where we execute more than
80% of our Wizards of the Coast business, including MAGIC: THE
GATHERING.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/HAS/3759168124x0x926576/6176F09D-81B9-413B-AC73-F89D4BC3F4C5/Hasbro_Q4_FY_2016_Earnings_Management_Remarks.pdf


I don't know exactly when the Reserved List happened, but it happened sometime after Chronicles' release (as backlash to Chronicles was why it was made). Chronicles was released in June of 1995, whereas Standard was created in January of 1995. Unless some kind of time travel was involved, I don't see how Standard could have been the result of the Reserved List when Standard predated the Reserved List by at least half a year.

The actual reasons for Standard's creation were chiefly:
1) By keeping the card pool small, it made playtesting easier.
2) It created an incentive to keep getting new product without having to resort to constant power creep.

Yeah, I posted above that I got my dates mixed up. In fairness, they were close enough and I was 11.


While I've had my issues with those two, especially Stoddard, this seems as much of an overreaction as the Reserved List itself was (would it even be possible to fire them immediately? I'd expect they'd have some kind of tenure). Getting angry at Rosewater for the bans seems especially odd, as the problems that resulted in said bans seem to have been mostly on the development side of things.

I'm not really angry about the bans, I was able to pick up some cheap copters and play them in Legacy last night.

The point is that the current state of the game is the implementation of the vision of the leaders of design and development. Their task was to create a game that didn't have the huge feel-bad of the JTMS/SFM standard. Not only did they fail to prevent that, there are good arguments that there should've been standard bannings at several other times over the course of the past couple years, if the penetration of Copter/Emrakul/Mage was the baseline.

I look at it like a coach and GM in sports. Do you trust these two to rebuild? I definitely don't with Stoddard. Maro is sort of a figurehead at this point but they would benefit from new thinking in my opinion.

[Begle1]

He did say the goal was go "push cards" while avoiding power creep. Having good answers hinders their ability to push the flashy cards.

I think it goes the other way. Probably depends on the definition of "pushed".

The 6-mana titans were "pushed" cards, famously defended as "this is what it takes for creatures to be relevant in a format with efficient Doom Blade/ Go for the Throat removal". Creatures can be a lot stronger (more pushed), without dominating the meta, if there are efficient answers for them.

That does increase overall power level of the format, though. And also usually makes things swingier.

[Richard Cheese]

The point is that the current state of the game is the implementation of the vision of the leaders of design and development. Their task was to create a game that didn't have the huge feel-bad of the JTMS/SFM standard. Not only did they fail to prevent that, there are good arguments that there should've been standard bannings at several other times over the course of the past couple years, if the penetration of Copter/Emrakul/Mage was the baseline.

I look at it like a coach and GM in sports. Do you trust these two to rebuild? I definitely don't with Stoddard. Maro is sort of a figurehead at this point but they would benefit from new thinking in my opinion.

Good points. MaRo consistently feels like he's pushing boundaries for the sake of pushing boundaries, because he's a design guy and that's what design guys do. The problem is that it feels like he's basically been running the show for a decade, and it's like an auto manufacturer just taking concepts straight to production every year. I've been saying since Ice Age that the constant push to add new mechanics to the game is unnecessary and hurts more than it helps. I might just be wrong though, since it's a shitload bigger than it was back then, but I'm not sure if it's succeeding because of R&D or despite them.

[iatee]

Yeah, the never-ending quest for new mechanics relates to the path dependency thing I brought up a few pages ago. They do it because...they do it. That's what they do. That's what they've always done. In Maro's head there's some deep player demand for x amount of new mechanics a quarter or whatever. The result is a bunch of nonsense like 'Cohort' and 100 kicker mechanics, the rules get a tiny bit more confusing while the game doesn't actually get better. I think people are excited about powerful cards more than they are about any given mechanic, and the game has so many to recycle already. A good chunk of players playing Shadows of Innistrad probably had never played with Madness before - it might as well be a new mechanic as far as they're concerned.

[Dice_Box]

Not only that but the unwillingness to use old keywords in sets they are not a part of seems odd. Inventors Fair has two instances of Metalcraft, neither are keyworded. Whats the point of the keyword if your not planing to use it?

[Octopusman]

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/154148449513/why-does-it-seem-like-hate-cards-are-getting-less

truetranssoulalesha asked: Why does it seem like hate cards are getting less printed in standard? is this a shift we should expect to see continue in the future?

Maro: It was a shift that happened many years ago.

From December 6th, 2016

[Phoenix Ignition]

Yeah, the never-ending quest for new mechanics relates to the path dependency thing I brought up a few pages ago. They do it because...they do it. That's what they do. That's what they've always done. In Maro's head there's some deep player demand for x amount of new mechanics a quarter or whatever. The result is a bunch of nonsense like 'Cohort' and 100 kicker mechanics, the rules get a tiny bit more confusing while the game doesn't actually get better. I think people are excited about powerful cards more than they are about any given mechanic, and the game has so many to recycle already. A good chunk of players playing Shadows of Innistrad probably had never played with Madness before - it might as well be a new mechanic as far as they're concerned.

This also really pisses me off. I've gotten a couple of people into magic and part of that is by having my own Cube that's power level is on the order of what UG madness used to be in Legacy. Thing is, it's insanely hard to come up with a bunch of fun, unique cards for every color without being bogged down by stupid, unnecessary new keywords. I basically can't use any new cards because I don't want to have shit like "crew" "revolt" "ENERGY COUNTER" "Fabricate" "Emerge" "Escalate" "Conspire" and all the other stupid 1-ofs that would be semi-fun to play with but only have one instance and therefore increase the complexity unnecessarily for beginners. Not to even go into all the dumb flip and meld cards that happened and make Cube-play for newcomers impossible.

For the most part I can just completely ignore the new mechanics because they won't hit Eternal, but every once in a while you have to add on more almost useless rules to your knowledge base. Crew and Monarch being two that just came in the last few months, with at least 3x as many that will be lost in magic history once Standard rotates.

[Begle1]

Not only that but the unwillingness to use old keywords in sets they are not a part of seems odd. Inventors Fair has two instances of Metalcraft, neither are keyworded. Whats the point of the keyword if your not planing to use it?

I think it makes a lot of sense not to throw a keyword like Metalcraft out there if a set only uses it a couple times; people read that and think, "what's Metalcraft mean?" even though it says it right on the card.

I think it's a good sign they're re-using mechanics without stamping the keyword on it; like Deep-Sea Terror out of Origins, if it said "Threshold" it just would've made the card more confusing for new players.


It has been a Rosewater-theme recently, that he thinks they've been cycling through new mechanics too fast. Which I agree is excruciatingly obvious. They've had a "must have X new mechanics in each set" fetish for a long, long time. I think it's largely due to how they do "marketing research"; they'll ask players, "what do you think of Cohort? What about Converge?" If they don't have new named mechanics, I don't think they could get their dumb metrics that they operate off of.

Rosewater will say things like "market research says everybody hates this mechanic, so we don't want to reuse it"; but he'll invariably say that about mechanics that have been utilized on weak filler cards, so it always seems less of an indictment of the mechanic than how they used it.

It breaks my heart that genuine depth-inducing mechanics like Converge and colorless mana are abandoned as quick as they're adopted and hardly fleshed out.


As for not printing hosers, it's a pretty clear decision. Makes deck-building more like dueling solitaire than Chess, but I get the argument that more players enjoy just smashing their over-the-top nonsense against their opponent's over-the-top nonsense. The EDH-ification of Standard... I just wonder if that's Design's call or Development's?

[Lemnear]

I am all with you guys. I am so long in the game, I can't even tell you what 3/4 of the mechanics printed over the years do. WotC added 3 new mechanics PER expansion at times, just to completely forget them the next block. There is so much stuff with potential just being wasted and forgotten in time like Final Hour which was printed on 7 cards only, despite being such a great comeback mechanic. I hate keywords for the sake of flavor and marketing.

[Barook]

The issue with mechanics/keywords is an interesting one:

1) On the one hand, Wizards is still traumatized by the failure of Mercadian Masques block, which nearly killed Magic back then. Part of this failure is blamed on the mechanics like free mana or Rebels which weren't recognized due to the lack of keywords.
2) Yet on the other hand, too many keywords were disliked, too, since it confused the masses, which was then used to justify the failure of Time Spiral block.

So WotC is torn between keywording fucking everything and not keywording too much, which results in stuff like Chroma/Devotion and Sunburst/Converge which are essentially the same mechanic with a new paint of color for the sake of marketing alone.

And yet we get stupid shit like Tireless Tracker after a landfall block or the already mentioned Inventor's Fair.

[Zombie]

It's not a 10 on the Storm Scale if we don't call it that.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=417621&type=card

[Lemnear]

It's not a 10 on the Storm Scale if we don't call it that.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=417621&type=card

I bet the reasoning, if you ask WotC, for not using "Affinity" here is simply that people associate the keyword with the Mirrodin Block

For me however, them desperately trying to evade "Affinity" and "Metalcraft" as keywords despite being present through the block, is just brickheaded and childish

[LarsLeif]

The level one thinking would definitely be that if a mechanic has been named before in blocks years ago they should adhere to that name now. The level two aspect to this is asking the question whether cognitive load for new players decreases or increases when keywords they haven't seen before (that's not in the set otherwise, or in the set but on very few cards) are included. Affinity is a good example.

I don't have an answer to the level two question, it seems that sometimes wizards gets it wrong (Tireless tracker etc). But I think it is important to ponder that R&D definitely have discussed this (they know that Gearseeker Serpents mechanic is the Affinity mechanic) and arrived at the conclusion that that it is for the best not to toss in too many keywords. Probably as you say because they have data and experience from earlier sets to back up the claim that too many keywords add too much cognitive load and lowers the enjoyment and ease of new players.

Design is difficult, but fun! :)

[Megadeus]

Why keyword something if you don't plan on using that keyword with a functionally same card? You could even put the reminder text on there.

[frogczar]

Why keyword something if you don't plan on using that keyword with a functionally same card? You could even put the reminder text on there.

This sums up a lot of the problem with what's going on with the game. What is the point?

There needs to be a separation between card design and set design for the health of the game as discussed earlier. I think MaRo is a decent card designer, but is he a good manager of the health of Standard? I'm not sure these things live in the same space.

[Dice_Box]

I would be intersted to hear what people who play a lot of Standard think. I can not comment on the health of the Standard format, last time I was playing that format Goblin Sharpshooter was legal. I think with the change in perspective, things may reveal themselves that we miss. Not that I think everything would be suddenly sunshine, but the view would be an interesting one to hear all the same.

[Jonathan Alexander]

I have not played Standard in the last year or so, but in the time from RTR up until OGW (which is where I stopped playing Standard) it was a lot more interesting to me than any of the other constructed formats. One of my favourite things about Magic is metagaming though, and that is usually pretty big in Standard - the choice between maindeck Lifebane Zombie and Nightveil Specter in Mono Black was super interesting to me, but I can see how that kind of thing is not appealing to other players.

[Phoenix Ignition]

But I think it is important to ponder that R&D definitely have discussed this (they know that Gearseeker Serpents mechanic is the Affinity mechanic) and arrived at the conclusion that that it is for the best not to toss in too many keywords. Probably as you say because they have data and experience from earlier sets to back up the claim that too many keywords add too much cognitive load and lowers the enjoyment and ease of new players.


Kind of, but a lot of the problems can be easily solved if you make your keyword obvious enough. Some added mechanics are incredibly intuitive in gaming, take colors for example. People naturally will group things into colors in their minds. If Magic added a 6th color, purple, and had a new purple symbol everyone would understand what was happening fairly quickly. If they instead made a keyword "Lavender" and made cards with Lavender need to be cast with lands that also have Lavender, it would be unnecessary complication.

Landfall is a perfect keyword example, even if only one card in the entire Standard rotation has "Landfall" on it, it's still very easy to understand what it does after 1 read through. It does X when a land falls on your side of the table. Making connections easy is key.

Words like Chroma or Revolt are much worse offenders of this, and I don't imagine putting those keywords on the card would help much if it were just 1 card in a whole set. Slightly tweaking the keyword (chroma/devotion for example) is a huge red flag to me as it is far too similar.

[phonics]

WOTC only develops for standard and limited, so if the keyword isn't evergreen, they aren't using it unless it is a core mechanic of the set. Its basically them saying 'look this mechanic is significant to the set in some way' rather than using it like a traditional/ evergreen keyword.

[Dice_Box]

Kind of, but a lot of the problems can be easily solved if you make your keyword obvious enough. Some added mechanics are incredibly intuitive in gaming, take colors for example. People naturally will group things into colors in their minds. If Magic added a 6th color, purple, and had a new purple symbol everyone would understand what was happening fairly quickly. If they instead made a keyword "Lavender" and made cards with Lavender need to be cast with lands that also have Lavender, it would be unnecessary complication.

Landfall is a perfect keyword example, even if only one card in the entire Standard rotation has "Landfall" on it, it's still very easy to understand what it does after 1 read through. It does X when a land falls on your side of the table. Making connections easy is key.

Words like Chroma or Revolt are much worse offenders of this, and I don't imagine putting those keywords on the card would help much if it were just 1 card in a whole set. Slightly tweaking the keyword (chroma/devotion for example) is a huge red flag to me as it is far too similar.

I do understand this. It is the reason that so far that there is no Keyword for Mill. Because Mill is not a term that you can tell someone and have them just understand. Like Flying or Trample. The issue I have is when they come out and say "There are no returning keywords in this set" and what they really mean is "We did not keyword anything in this set". Its a pain. Because while I understand new players may not know ahead of time what Metalcraft is, everyone has a bloody phone now and shit like that comes up with a google search with no effort.

Edit:
Is it not the point of keywords to be used in place of text blocks? Whats the point if your just going to write out the rules long form?

[rufus]

...
Landfall is a perfect keyword example, even if only one card in the entire Standard rotation has "Landfall" on it, it's still very easy to understand what it does after 1 read through. It does X when a land falls on your side of the table. Making connections easy is key.
...



Sure, but landfall is a fake keyword in the sense that every card has to get rules text anyway, and they already have 'not quite landfall' cards like Stone-Seeder Hierophant and Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle.

In general, I dislike the "keyword as a theme" thing, and would prefer to only see keywords when they facilitate clarity or actually shorten the text on cards. For me there's little difference between keywords like chroma and landfall where every card gets its own rules text and ones like devoid, ingest, and unleash where they could have just printed the "reminder text" on the cards and did it for every card that has the ability. When you can throw away the keyword, and the card works the same way with shorter text, it's bad design.

Keywords are good for things like protection, bestow or flashback where there's rules baggage that has to go somewhere else, when the key word is relevant for interaction like flying, and when they make for simpler or clearer templates like monstrous/monstrosity.

It's like WotC R&D did a survey and, interpreted the results as "people like novel key words" instead of "people like novel mechanics."

[Phoenix Ignition]

Sure, but landfall is a fake keyword in the sense that every card has to get rules text anyway, and they already have 'not quite landfall' cards like Stone-Seeder Hierophant and Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle.

In general, I dislike the "keyword as a theme" thing, and would prefer to only see keywords when they facilitate clarity or actually shorten the text on cards. For me there's little difference between keywords like chroma and landfall where every card gets its own rules text and ones like devoid, ingest, and unleash where they could have just printed the "reminder text" on the cards and did it for every card that has the ability. When you can throw away the keyword, and the card works the same way with shorter text, it's bad design.

Keywords are good for things like protection, bestow or flashback where there's rules baggage that has to go somewhere else, when the key word is relevant for interaction like flying, and when they make for simpler or clearer templates like monstrous/monstrosity.

It's like WotC R&D did a survey and, interpreted the results as "people like novel key words" instead of "people like novel mechanics."

This is fair, and you make a lot of good points. The main benefit for adding more keywords is that if they are used frequently enough then they are a lot less memory intensive when you're looking at the board. If done correctly the single word makes a lot of sense.

Problem is they don't even do that correctly. They make up keywords for the sake of doing it, making it more memory intensive rather than less, and don't standardize what things should do (chroma vs devotion, all the variations of kicker). Which like I said before leads me to not even using cards that would be fun because I don't want stupid keywords in my cube when they only show up once.

[Zooligan]

It's like WotC R&D did a survey and, interpreted the results as "people like novel key words" instead of "people like novel mechanics."

That is hilarious. And potentially true!

[Griffith]

Marketing: "What's the new mechanics and keywords for this block to get players excited?"
Dev: "ermm... converge?"
Marketing: "Sounds great!"
Dev: "sigh"

[Barook]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/return-nationals-and-changes-grand-prix-2017-02-09

Kinda suprising how fast they're continously killing off support for Modern. Hopefully that heavy focus on Standard is going to bite them in the ass.


I would be intersted to hear what people who play a lot of Standard think. I can not comment on the health of the Standard format, last time I was playing that format Goblin Sharpshooter was legal. I think with the change in perspective, things may reveal themselves that we miss. Not that I think everything would be suddenly sunshine, but the view would be an interesting one to hear all the same.
Not a Standard player, but given that Kaladesh Standard was a 3.5/10 according to the playerbase that lead to multiple bans, just to result in a PT with 6/8 Mardu Vehicles, I'd say Standard is in a pretty shitty shape right now.

[Begle1]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/return-nationals-and-changes-grand-prix-2017-02-09

Kinda suprising how fast they're continously killing off support for Modern. Hopefully that heavy focus on Standard is going to bite them in the ass.


Not a Standard player, but given that Kaladesh Standard was a 3.5/10 according to the playerbase that lead to multiple bans, just to result in a PT with 6/8 Mardu Vehicles, I'd say Standard is in a pretty shitty shape right now.

What percentage of players care about results in huge tournaments, I don't know. First big tournament Top8 was half B/G, then the next week it was over half CopyCat, now it was over half Vehicles. Kinda weird. There's a balance there between at least three decks, with Control and some other role players sprinkled in. I think it's a very open and fun format right now, maybe everywhere outside of the top half of a 10-round tourney.

[maharis]

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/return-nationals-and-changes-grand-prix-2017-02-09

No more GPTs seems like a real kick in the nuts to stores. How are you supposed to hit the planeswalker points threshold without them anyway? Just PPTQs?

[Lord Seth]

[URL="http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/return-nationals-and-changes-grand-prix-2017-02-09"]Not a Standard player, but given that Kaladesh Standard was a 3.5/10 according to the playerbase that lead to multiple bans, just to result in a PT with 6/8 Mardu Vehicles, I'd say Standard is in a pretty shitty shape right now.
I don't necessarily know how good Mardu Vehicles is. Yes, it spiked the Pro Tour big time, but it wasn't really on the public radar; before the Pro Tour, it was CopyCat and BG Constrictor that were getting all the attention. So it's hard to know how much of Mardu Vehicle's performance was the particular metagame, where it had game against the decks that everyone was expecting while not many people seemed to be expecting it (well, not counting the people who actually played the deck). I don't think 6 of the Top 8 being the same deck is particularly good PR, but we're going to need to see a few more weeks before we can really figure out what Standard will be like. If it is just a Mardu Vehicles-athon, though, that will be a real issue because what's even worse than banning cards is banning cards and the format staying bad.

[LarsLeif]

Is it not the point of keywords to be used in place of text blocks? Whats the point if your just going to write out the rules long form?

Not primarily I think, it has more to do with recognition of key mechanics in an environment. Sure, some evergreen keywords like trample etc are used without the rules text, but usually it is to make it easier to get a feel for which cards behaves in the same way and what the general themes in a set are. Revolt, Improvise, Landfall etc are all examples of this. Thinking about it, that's probably why they didn't make use of the Landfall keyword for Tireless Tracker, as making multiple land drops and having that trigger your permanents isn't a theme otherwise in SoI.

If you start leaving out rules text and only make use of keywords that people have to be familiar with to play the game then complexity starts creeping up real fast I think. Would be nicer for experienced players of course, but not for beginners. Can't please everybody. :p

[Lemnear]

Just a question for the peeps deeper into format schedules:

How much is actually left of Modern? Is that still a real format?

[Dice_Box]

Just a question for the peeps deeper into format schedules:

How much is actually left of Modern? Is that still a real format?
Yes. Granted here in Brisbane the GP happens next week, so the numbers are booming artificially. But Modern is popular. I have seen people play shit like Mono Green Devotion and just destroy others. The format is open, but a lot of decks seek to play in very liner styles leading to some "Ships passing" feelings.

[Parcher]

Yes. Granted here in Brisbane the GP happens next week, so the numbers are booming artificially. But Modern is popular. I have seen people play shit like Mono Green Devotion and just destroy others. The format is open, but a lot of decks seek to play in very liner styles leading to some "Ships passing" feelings.

I don't think its necessarily the linear decks that causes this perception in Modern. Its the relative power level of certain cards and synergies, combined with the almost total lack of deck manipulation in most decks. I'd say Jund vs Affinity, for example, can be one of the most interactive matchups in the format. And I've seen Jund keep a perfectly fine blind hand of Bob, Goyf, Lily, Inquisition, Bolt, 3 lands and die on turn 4 vs Affinity. Basically doing nothing. This to me is more indicative of the "ships passing in the night" phenomenon. Some love the linear decks, and that's what draws those types to Modern. But those decks are often dismantled by sideboards. Those are my two main problems with the format. Unfortunately, all due to the ban list. Decks that are based on forcing interaction can still just be blanked by drawing the wrong part of their deck in the wrong matchup, with no way to recover. And the linear decks keep getting castrated by the ban list, while all the best cards to fight them are freely available and keep getting functional reprints. I mean, every Legacy player knows the breadth and depth of GY hate available. And in almost every color. If GY decks become relevant in the meta, its a foregone conclusion that they will get hated out. And Dredge never has had as large a meta share, nor a Top 8 share as Dredge in Modern a few months ago. Can you imaging trying to play Dredge without GGT in Legacy? Can you ever imagine a need to ban anything in Legacy Dredge?

[Dice_Box]

If you sit down and play Infect v Affinity, it's often a game of little interactivity and mostly a rush to the end goal. I mean, SCG just did Paladin v Infect. That's a game of "Who's the faster Goldfish?".

Some decks, Company, Jund, Junk, Grixis, they have a lot of interaction. These decks normally are a lot of fun to play against and with, but they are a subset of decks. You can sit them next to Titanshift, Paladin, Elves, Infect or Affinity and you see the difference though. These other decks are often built not to interact. Elves and Fish often have at most, 4 cards that can do anything to the opponent before sideboarding. It really depends on what you play yourself. If you seek inaction in Modern, you need to bring it yourself, because a large amount of the format doesn't plan to interact with you.

[s&s]

If wizards continue to try to push standard, I'm out. Have played over 15 years total. Legacy is very popular in my area, its the only thing besides limited that has weekly FNM / tournaments / active community. Standard simply doesn't offer the same experience, and certainly not the complexity.

Only an idiot would think that forcing people out of their favorite type will get them to play a dumbed down version of the same game.

You don't take support away from product A in an attempt to sell more of product B, you improve product B so it sells well based on its own merits .. doing the former is simply a bad practice that will drive customers away.

[rufus]

If wizards continue to try to push standard, I'm out. ...

Their economic incentives are clearly to push the fastest-rotating formats. So standard and limited are always first in on their agenda.

[s&s]

Their economic incentives are clearly to push the fastest-rotating formats. So standard and limited are always first in on their agenda.

I'm fine with them promoting standard, just not with them cannibalizing legacy.

If the only way they see to pursue their economic goals is to try to wreck communities and formats by no longer offering support, its probably time to quit, as that doesn't bode well for the game at all.

[Fox]

The problem I see more in standard and modern is high cmc cards, which means lots of lands, which means low hand size...to the point that you're quickly playing topdeck wars, the statistics simulator. Fewer things can go horribly awry when cheaper removal spells undo whatever threat they likely tapped out to cast, and the player with the threat is just trying to play around a known removal option such that they never get 2 for 1'd. The gamestate rapidly devolves into having more mana than you can possibly use; this is especially pronounced in standard. R&D seems to at least understand the issue (things like Tireless Tracker or new Nissa ult), but seem hesitant to reintroduce meaningful lines of play at low cmcs.

[Dice_Box]

The problem I see more in standard and modern is high cmc cards, which means lots of lands, which means low hand size...to the point that you're quickly playing topdeck wars, the statistics simulator. Fewer things can go horribly awry when cheaper removal spells undo whatever threat they likely tapped out to cast, and the player with the threat is just trying to play around a known removal option such that they never get 2 for 1'd. The gamestate rapidly devolves into having more mana than you can possibly use; this is especially pronounced in standard. R&D seems to at least understand the issue (things like Tireless Tracker or new Nissa ult), but seem hesitant to reintroduce meaningful lines of play at low cmcs.
In Modern, unless you are ramping the cmc of your cards will normally top out at 4. I am not sure where you are thinking the cmc is high. Also for a long while removal in the format has been mostly Path and Decay. Not really that different from Legacy having Swords and Decay. As for having more mana then you can use, most of the midrange decks play effective sinks, Man lands, Gavony Township, Ooze. I can not speak for Standard, but at one point the only difference between Legacy Jund and Modern Jund was the choice of lands (The amount was the same) and Punishing Fire. Then Bloodbraid ate the hammer and shit started to change.

[rufus]

...no longer offering support...

That's basically inevitable. WotC is a business. If they can't make money on legacy they won't spend resources on it.

[Fox]

You're never really fighting over mana though, so any land you get you're going to play and it's going to be relatively safe. Worst case generally is that a utility land gets turned into a basic by Ghost Quarter. High land counts without predators doesn't make a ton of sense design-wise, then that is coupled with a lack of useful proactive plays on the cmc floors. In legacy you get to play a few answers, but there is also a diversity of strategies where they may do nothing; you're making some pretty bold life choices if you start running >6 removal (for the sake of removal) spells. In legacy you're more pressured to also pursue a coordinated, proactive game plan than getting to the point of topdeck a dude, a land, or a removal spell and jam it.

[nedleeds]

In Modern, unless you are ramping the cmc of your cards will normally top out at 4.

Tough to justify a high end of cards when you can't just exchange them and shuffle them back. In modern way more that Legacy your opening hand will define whatever tactics you take and the outcome. So having 2 5's in your opener is an auto-mulligan, a hand with a 5 and 6 meh cards is probably a mulligan also. In Legacy a 2 Terminus, Brainstorm, Fetch x 2, Top, Ponder hand is a Sneep.

[Phoenix Ignition]

You're never really fighting over mana though, so any land you get you're going to play and it's going to be relatively safe. Worst case generally is that a utility land gets turned into a basic by Ghost Quarter. High land counts without predators doesn't make a ton of sense design-wise, then that is coupled with a lack of useful proactive plays on the cmc floors.

What are you talking about? Tectonic edge is everywhere in Modern. It's sole purpose is literally to keep land counts low (3 or less, some might say...).

I get we won't ever have a discussion on a Legacy thread about another format being good, but it's hilarious to see such incorrect comments.

[Dice_Box]

You're never really fighting over mana though, so any land you get you're going to play and it's going to be relatively safe. Worst case generally is that a utility land gets turned into a basic by Ghost Quarter. High land counts without predators doesn't make a ton of sense design-wise, then that is coupled with a lack of useful proactive plays on the cmc floors. In legacy you get to play a few answers, but there is also a diversity of strategies where they may do nothing; you're making some pretty bold life choices if you start running >6 removal (for the sake of removal) spells. In legacy you're more pressured to also pursue a coordinated, proactive game plan than getting to the point of topdeck a dude, a land, or a removal spell and jam it.
There are other cards that hit at lands, but I agree, that is often not a main point of attack. At the same time I actually enjoy that (And I am a Lands guy) because it feels different. The format is not Land or stack control based. Mostly its hand and creature control. A very different format.

As for Tectonic edge, I have not seen that played in at least a year and a half. These days its seen as secondary to Ghost Quarter. Because Tec Edge does not stop Tron, so it is left by the wayside. Fact I have not seen it around since DRS was banned.

[Megadeus]

I admittedly don't play modern, but isn't ghost quarter far more prevalent than Tec Edge? Edge doesn't hit tron if they assemble it quickly so it's useless isn't it?

[iatee]

Tech edge is only played in hard control decks that can toss a few copies in, but it's always been pretty bad. It's not just Tron that it's bad against, the format is just too fast.

With no Wasteland (another part of why the format is so fast, abstractly 'faster' than Legacy) there's more room in Modern to abuse non-basics. You can't build anything as busted as actual legacy-Lands, but the % of decks trying to do funny stuff with their lands is way higher than Legacy. Tron and Valakut strategies are fully dependent on their non-basics, Infect and Affinity aren't fully dependent but win a decent % of games off their manlands, and basically all midrange and control decks throw in some manlands. Whereas in Legacy there are a few t1 decks that abuse funlands (Lands, DnT) but most people are just trying to cast their spells.

[s&s]

That's basically inevitable. WotC is a business. If they can't make money on legacy they won't spend resources on it.

They do make a profit, legacy players attend events (too bad WotC does so few) and buy cards. I collect all the FTV just because, and usually open at least 2 boxes / expansion for the fun of it.

Its like saying car companies should not offer a repair network, selling new cars is more profitable. Bad practice and consumers should/will find alternatives.

EOR (end of rant)

[Dice_Box]

I collect all the FTV just because, and usually open at least 2 boxes / expansion for the fun of it.
You are the minority.

[rufus]

They do make a profit, legacy players attend events (too bad WotC does so few) and buy cards. ...

Its like saying car companies should not offer a repair network, selling new cars is more profitable. Bad practice and consumers should/will find alternatives.


WotC doesn't make significant money off event attendance. (I expect that large WotC events are put on at a loss.) The money is in selling cards, and WotC doesn't deal in most of the cards that legacy players are interested in.

As for the simile, auto manufacturers do make money off the 'repair network' and from selling parts.

[Phoenix Ignition]

I admittedly don't play modern, but isn't ghost quarter far more prevalent than Tec Edge? Edge doesn't hit tron if they assemble it quickly so it's useless isn't it?

On paper you'd think so but in practice no. The only possible way they can assemble it turn 3 is if they don't play any other land than tron lands (which with 12 total in their deck is unlikely to happen), and they don't play any repeating tron lands. They play Explorer's Maps but you need 2 mana to activate that and like I said, unless they have two different tron lands as their first plays they won't be getting turn 3 tron. RG Tron frequently plays turn 1 green land to get Ancient Stirrings, so they'll rarely have Tron on turn 3.

In addition to that if you're playing Tec edges you're likely playing either blue or Death and Taxes. Almost every blue control deck has Remand, so if the tron player assembles it on turn 4 they get one activation (which you can normally remand), and then you tec edge whichever one you expect they don't have a repeat of. If you don't have Remand for whatever it is, you might be able to just Path it (Wurmcoil). Death and Taxes eats Tron for breakfast, it's one of their better matchups as Ghost Quarter + Tec Edge + Leonin Arbiter + Aven Mindcensor ruin their day.

Now all this isn't to say that Wasteland wouldn't help the format out a lot. Most broken/linear strategies in Modern right now would be extremely easily knocked down a peg with land hate. Dredge would have suffered a lot if people were able to waste their turn 1 land, Affinity + Infect's backup plan of Inkmoth Nexus wouldn't be nearly as effective, Tron would have to actually try hard to get the 3 pieces to stick, and a lot of the combo decks are on the tenuous edge of mana screw as it is. Eldrazi would actually probably benefit even though they play some broken lands, but that one's hard to say. They never would have had to ban anything from Bloom Titan since wastelanding one of those lands is game over.

[Begle1]

On paper you'd think so but in practice no. The only possible way they can assemble it turn 3 is if they don't play any other land than tron lands (which with 12 total in their deck is unlikely to happen), and they don't play any repeating tron lands. They play Explorer's Maps but you need 2 mana to activate that and like I said, unless they have two different tron lands as their first plays they won't be getting turn 3 tron. RG Tron frequently plays turn 1 green land to get Ancient Stirrings, so they'll rarely have Tron on turn 3.


A lot of Tron lists run Chromatic Star and/ or Chromatic Sphere... Turn 1 Tronland into Chromatic allows Turn 2 Tronland into Ancient Stirrings or Sylvan Scrying, which allows for Turn 3 Karn Liberated. Expedition Map has the perfect 1 CMC with 2 mana activation cost as well. So there's really quite a bit of redundancy to Turn 3 Tron, provided that you are lucky and get copies of 2 out of the 3 in your opening 8.

Those sequences leading to Turn 3 Karn/ All is Dust, Turn 4 Ugin/ Oblivion Stone are some of the most feared in Modern. Yet I'd be petrified to go for those sequences in Legacy; Force of Will or a Wasteland leaves you in a miserable state.



If Modern suddenly is cancelled, the Pop! of the price bubbles would be extreme. It's knocking on the door of Legacy price-wise, even if people don't entirely realize that. I mean, Mishra's Bauble is a $15 card, so there's gotta be a huge player-base, even if it isn't anybody's favorite format. And with Modern Masters 3 coming out, they're not going to kill it anytime soon.


It isn't an unenjoyable format, but I'll play any format with Magic cards, so I'll always be like an alcoholic saying "it's not a terrible drink". From what I've seen anecdotally, Modern at the LGS level is a blend of A. well-enfranchised, competitive people who'd rather be playing Legacy and, B. less-enfranchised players who are under the delusion that it's easier to build a brew for and less expensive or competitive than Standard.

[Dice_Box]

There is the group I sit in as well, people who enjoy the format for its merits and do not bother to take it seriously. I mean I sometimes play a deck that uses Life from the Loam and Stinkweed Imp to find Haakon, Stromgald Scourge. Then you can play Nameless Inversion and Crib Swap from the grave and beat down with Knight of the Reliquary. Its dumb, its not going to win, but its fun. You can do shit like this in Legacy too sure, but if you can play both Modern and Legacy, I find your more likely to do the dumb shit in the format that you care about a little less.

[Phoenix Ignition]

From what I've seen anecdotally, Modern at the LGS level is a blend of A. well-enfranchised, competitive people who'd rather be playing Legacy and, B. less-enfranchised players who are under the delusion that it's easier to build a brew for and less expensive or competitive than Standard.

Your categories are weird and make me question your judgment. I've played all formats extensively at one time or another, except perhaps Standard since I only tried that right when I was getting into Magic, and I can say that Legacy is the stalest by far. In order of enjoyment I'd rather play Modern, Old School, Vintage, Pauper, competitive EDH (barf), and then Legacy, in that order. Some people enjoy playing the exact same Brainstorm shell with slightly different win conditions, but most people I know don't. Vintage is at least up front about how broken Blue is, and there are some strategies to fight it consistently.

Just look at it (image credit Janchu88, but quotes aren't allowed in locked threads) https://abload.de/img/therapyprobelraao.png

Modern is still much more open a format than Legacy, especially for dumb brews. They make it into top 8s of big tournaments all the time. If you're not playing the tier 1 best deck at the time it doesn't mean you're delusional thinking you can win. Except for Legacy where the "brew" is just Blue Shell + whatever new OP creature they printed. I've 4-0'd with Death Cloud twice now in Modern, which to me means the format is closer to where Legacy was in 2008 when you could play metagame decks that weren't 1) Blue shell or 2)Red Elemental Blast.deck

[maharis]

SCG has a good article on standard bannings, their interaction with digital strategy, and the implications for MTG. The end is pretty hardcore. Good on SCG for printing this.

These are some of the considerations against an aggressive banning policy, especially in Standard. This isn't necessarily to say the recent bans were a mistake, but to show some of the factors at play – factors overcome for the sake of more pressing concerns. With Wizards of the Coast's announcement of a new digital push and the thrust of recent developments, it's clear that they're trying to figure out how best to tailor and monetize Magic for mobile platforms, with their distinct interface advantages and disadvantages.

The big question is how close Magic can and should be tailored to these digital mediums and payment structures so that its original appeal is retained and the game doesn't just terminate in a clunkier version of Hearthstone. The drive toward digital adaptation is in tension with another possibility – coming to terms with Magic's partly analogue nature and the fundamental limits it presents, such as tangible cards that can't be instantly remade and intricate mechanics that tend to play better over a table than on a tablet.

The new approach to Standard bannings is part of an overall plan to compete with digital-native games. The challenge is difficult, and the particular approach is riskier than it looks, destabilizing the game on several levels to allow it to do what games like Hearthstone can do more seamlessly by design. So it's an open question. Most recently, six of the same deck just finished in the Top 6 of Pro Tour Aether Revolt.

Now what?

http://www.starcitygames.com/article/34534_The-Dangers-Of-Banning-Standard-Magic-Cards.html

[Lemnear]

SCG has a good article on standard bannings, their interaction with digital strategy, and the implications for MTG. The end is pretty hardcore. Good on SCG for printing this.

These are some of the considerations against an aggressive banning policy, especially in Standard. This isn't necessarily to say the recent bans were a mistake, but to show some of the factors at play – factors overcome for the sake of more pressing concerns. With Wizards of the Coast's announcement of a new digital push and the thrust of recent developments, it's clear that they're trying to figure out how best to tailor and monetize Magic for mobile platforms, with their distinct interface advantages and disadvantages.

The big question is how close Magic can and should be tailored to these digital mediums and payment structures so that its original appeal is retained and the game doesn't just terminate in a clunkier version of Hearthstone. The drive toward digital adaptation is in tension with another possibility – coming to terms with Magic's partly analogue nature and the fundamental limits it presents, such as tangible cards that can't be instantly remade and intricate mechanics that tend to play better over a table than on a tablet.

The new approach to Standard bannings is part of an overall plan to compete with digital-native games. The challenge is difficult, and the particular approach is riskier than it looks, destabilizing the game on several levels to allow it to do what games like Hearthstone can do more seamlessly by design. So it's an open question. Most recently, six of the same deck just finished in the Top 6 of Pro Tour Aether Revolt.

Now what?

http://www.starcitygames.com/article/34534_The-Dangers-Of-Banning-Standard-Magic-Cards.html

LOL. Ripperino Standard.

So they will keep pushing strategies without providing answer to them and if they noticed that they fucked up a bit too much, so a single strategy becomes to powerful, they just ban it, because they cant just NERF & BUFF cards like Hearthstone does?

[wcm8]

All they need to do is print decent ANSWERS to problems. The format can self-regulate as long as there is access to decent sideboard cards.

There is no reason that a card like Shatter isn't printed in the same set as an artifact heavy block. I understand some hesitation in allowing for, say, Ancient Grudge, at least initially when the block first comes out (so as to allow for players to use the shiny new toys), but the following block should certainly have access to Ancient Grudge or equivalent.

And not every set has to have a Swords to Plowshares, but what's wrong with having Doom Blade?

It seems like a lot of cards don't need to be banned when there are sufficient ways of dealing with them. That's why Legacy is mostly able to regulate itself -- if anything becomes too problematic, generally there is an answer tailor-made to respond to it. This is especially obvious when you have things like Daze and Force of Will -- counterspells that can technically answer everything, un-counterable cards aside.

[tescrin]

Honestly it seems goofy that they don't have Daze, or at least Force Spike in standard fairly often. The whole point of blue is slow the opponent down a bit by them wasting resources (mana put into a countered spell, mana not spent for fear of being countered, mana spent multiple times for bouncing.)

Daze is such an intricate part of the flavor of legacy play that I think they need to jam it in. Counter protection, should help with giant tron spells, and without brainstorm it's a risk to run.

[Barook]

Honestly it seems goofy that they don't have Daze, or at least Force Spike in standard fairly often. The whole point of blue is slow the opponent down a bit by them wasting resources (mana put into a countered spell, mana not spent for fear of being countered, mana spent multiple times for bouncing.)

Daze is such an intricate part of the flavor of legacy play that I think they need to jam it in. Counter protection, should help with giant tron spells, and without brainstorm it's a risk to run.
Manal Leak is considered too strong in Standard and you want to give them Daze? :really:

It isn't really fun to play around Daze and considering they overcost so much stuff for Standard, getting your expensive spell countered by a free spell rubs even more salt into the wound. I agree Standard would be better off with cheap answers, but Eternal-tier free counter magic isn't the way to go.

[Zombie]

Just give us back
Rune Snag
Cryptic Command
Spellstutter Sprite
Cursecatcher
Delay
Draining Whelk
Mystic Snake
Sage's Dousing
Faerie Trickery
Flashfreeze
Glen Elendra Archmage
Guttural Response
Mana Tithe
Negate
Pact of Negation
Remove Soul
Trickbind.

... that was one Standard format. Damn, times have changed. And that's not mentioning useless paperweights like Counterbalance.

[Fox]

All they need to do is print decent ANSWERS to problems. The format can self-regulate as long as there is access to decent sideboard cards.
This sentiment has issues. Land heavier formats and now advocating for "answer" cards, that don't advance how a deck wins, more quickly accelerates a format towards hellbent state of topdeck and deploy 1 card wincons (i.e. the best creature at a given mana cost). This approach removes strategy from the game, which is why standard is especially unfun to watch or play.

Modern at least has multiple types of combo, and if we ignore the no real LD/countermagic interaction, you'll get games of "you do your thing, I'll do mine" where both players are focusing on being proactive. The ships in the night matches are more likely to have very strange interactions rather than "I'm going to mull to [insert hate card], and then you can't possibly win." Standard generally lacks multiple types of competitive combo decks, so 'swing with creature' decks are reduced to needing answer cards if a combo deck becomes viable. In modern the combo decks/overall strategies are generally too linear to have novel interactions.

In terms of the mardu vehicles debacle, I don't see how standard gets healthier if you were to say reprint a hoser like Null Rod (even though it's reserved list). Start printing dedicated artifact kill spells and it's just a pointless grindfest of who draws better. Start printing cards like Goblin Welder, LD +/- Kataki effects, Dack Fayden, Meekstone, etc and you allow players to create decks that can accidentally screw over a deck like vehicles while proactively trying to distort the rules of the game. Sadly R&D wants people to keep playing straight-up so you see answer cards or an answer on a creature with no requirement to put work into distorting the gamestate.

[Lord Seth]

I admittedly don't play modern, but isn't ghost quarter far more prevalent than Tec Edge? Edge doesn't hit tron if they assemble it quickly so it's useless isn't it?
As someone who plays a lot of Modern, I can say Ghost Quarter is way more prevalent than Tectonic Edge. In fact, I've barely even see Tectonic Edge played for quite a while. Normally it's only played when you're already running 4x Ghost Quarter but want more copies.

Neither one (by themselves) works very well as mana denial, unlike Wasteland. Ghost Quarter just makes them get their basic land and Tectonic Edge you can't use until they have 4 lands, so you're not doing much in the way of mana denial if you're just knocking them down to 3, especially in a format where 4-drops are generally uncommon unless you're on a ramp strategy.

Since they're lousy at mana denial, people play them instead to try to get rid of utility lands, like manlands, the Tron lands, Cavern of Souls, and Eldrazi Temple. And Ghost Quarter is much more effective at that job than Tectonic Edge due to it not requiring mana investment and being usable right away.

Even if your goal is for outright mana denial, Ghost Quarter is still better because it can be used in conjunction with Crucible of Worlds or Life from the Loam to actually blow your opponent out over time (or Leonin Arbiter to turn it into a Strip Mine), whereas Tectonic Edge is not so good at that.

[Admiral_Arzar]

As someone who plays a lot of Modern, I can say Ghost Quarter is way more prevalent than Tectonic Edge. In fact, I've barely even see Tectonic Edge played for quite a while. Normally it's only played when you're already running 4x Ghost Quarter but want more copies.

Neither one (by themselves) works very well as mana denial, unlike Wasteland. Ghost Quarter just makes them get their basic land and Tectonic Edge you can't use until they have 4 lands, so you're not doing much in the way of mana denial if you're just knocking them down to 3, especially in a format where 4-drops are generally uncommon unless you're on a ramp strategy.

Since they're lousy at mana denial, people play them instead to try to get rid of utility lands, like manlands, the Tron lands, Cavern of Souls, and Eldrazi Temple. And Ghost Quarter is much more effective at that job than Tectonic Edge due to it not requiring mana investment and being usable right away.

Even if your goal is for outright mana denial, Ghost Quarter is still better because it can be used in conjunction with Crucible of Worlds or Life from the Loam to actually blow your opponent out over time (or Leonin Arbiter to turn it into a Strip Mine), whereas Tectonic Edge is not so good at that.

I also play a lot of Modern and can confirm this. The only time I see Tec Edge is usually in addition to Ghost Quarter (and often Spreading Seas) in a Ux hard-control kind of list. These lists are actually a problem for Tron and Valakut.dec, which otherwise are rough for Control in general. I will also second the earlier statements about Modern being better for brewing at this point. I see all kinds of different decks, whereas in Legacy usually I'm the one on the brew while most everyone else is on some blue deck, DnT, BR Reanimator, etc.

[phonics]

In terms of the mardu vehicles debacle, I don't see how standard gets healthier if you were to say reprint a hoser like Null Rod (even though it's reserved list). Start printing dedicated artifact kill spells and it's just a pointless grindfest of who draws better. Start printing cards like Goblin Welder, LD +/- Kataki effects, Dack Fayden, Meekstone, etc and you allow players to create decks that can accidentally screw over a deck like vehicles while proactively trying to distort the rules of the game. Sadly R&D wants people to keep playing straight-up so you see answer cards or an answer on a creature with no requirement to put work into distorting the gamestate.
This is exactly what I see as the divergent philosophy that new card design has taken from the past. WOTC wants everything to fit into the rulesbox and snuff out anything that even touches the edges.

[rufus]

... WOTC wants everything to fit into the rulesbox and snuff out anything that even touches the edges.

I don't think that's the case at all. They did a bunch of whacky stuff in commander. They do seem to want an obvious chase card is obvious meta game though.

[Lord Seth]

Shareholder earnings remarks (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/HAS/3759168124x0x926576/6176F09D-81B9-413B-AC73-F89D4BC3F4C5/Hasbro_Q4_FY_2016_Earnings_Management_Remarks.pdf)

Go to Page 7.

Game category up my 9%, led by PIE-FACE (the fuck is this? :eyebrow: ) and then MtG as the fastest growing games.

I've also looked through the other shareholder papers. Nothing disproves the slowed down growth of Magic, especially how certain categories are lumped together.
Hrm... it's true categories are lumped together, but looking at previous years when growth was supposedly higher, that was true then also. There might not be anything disproving the slowed down growth, but that doesn't mean it's proving it either.

[Darkenslight]

This sentiment has issues. Land heavier formats and now advocating for "answer" cards, that don't advance how a deck wins, more quickly accelerates a format towards hellbent state of topdeck and deploy 1 card wincons (i.e. the best creature at a given mana cost). This approach removes strategy from the game, which is why standard is especially unfun to watch or play.

Modern at least has multiple types of combo, and if we ignore the no real LD/countermagic interaction, you'll get games of "you do your thing, I'll do mine" where both players are focusing on being proactive. The ships in the night matches are more likely to have very strange interactions rather than "I'm going to mull to [insert hate card], and then you can't possibly win." Standard generally lacks multiple types of competitive combo decks, so 'swing with creature' decks are reduced to needing answer cards if a combo deck becomes viable. In modern the combo decks/overall strategies are generally too linear to have novel interactions.

In terms of the mardu vehicles debacle, I don't see how standard gets healthier if you were to say reprint a hoser like Null Rod (even though it's reserved list). Start printing dedicated artifact kill spells and it's just a pointless grindfest of who draws better. Start printing cards like Goblin Welder, LD +/- Kataki effects, Dack Fayden, Meekstone, etc and you allow players to create decks that can accidentally screw over a deck like vehicles while proactively trying to distort the rules of the game. Sadly R&D wants people to keep playing straight-up so you see answer cards or an answer on a creature with no requirement to put work into distorting the gamestate.

Annul would have been a good start to hard-hose Vehicles; a reverse Winding Constrictor would be cool to see in Amonkhet, and for the love of GOD give us some decent graveyard hosers! I mean, this isn't really that hard. Cards like Fatal Push help, don't get me wrong; but as it stands, we have a dearth of powerful one-on-one removal in Standard, and all of the good mass-removal doesn't hit the problem cards.

[Barook]

Good article on current R&D:

Future Future League: Failures and Fixes (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/future-future-league-failures-and-fixes)

[Darkenslight]

Good article on current R&D:

Future Future League: Failures and Fixes (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/articles/future-future-league-failures-and-fixes)

Oh, yeah. That is a really good, and more importantly, valid criticism of the design of the testing that Wizards does. By all means, push cards like Reflector Mage. But don't just have glaring misses like Crazy Cat Lady and Iam'Rakul. There are three BIG misses, adding on to the BIG miss of Siege Rhino from Khans block. There have been more misses in the last eighteen months than there have been in the last Ten Years, just looking at Standard. Modern's also had a couple of Big Misses that should have been caught, but those are marginally more tolerable, given the suite of answer cards available.

The core rpoblem is that there are relatively few Hard Answer cards in Standard. In Shadows over Innistrad block, for example, there was a wonderful chance at reprinting Stony Silence, which could have been a huge flavor win as well as a powerful 'signal hoser'. Or we could have had a card like Rest in Peace in Kaladesh, which would also have been a flavor win. Yes, those cards are absolutely powerful, but they're also effective, and in particular, narrow Hard Answer cards for particular strategies. Would the Vehicles deck have been so dominant at the Pro Tour had RIP or Stony Silence been in Standard? I find that extremely unlikely. It also has a side-hate solution, dealing splash damage to other deck whose nut-draws were just as vicious as the Vehicles decks, like Delerium.

[s&s]

WotC doesn't make significant money off event attendance. (I expect that large WotC events are put on at a loss.) The money is in selling cards, and WotC doesn't deal in most of the cards that legacy players are interested in.

As for the simile, auto manufacturers do make money off the 'repair network' and from selling parts.

Ultimately none of that shit is my problem. I can throw my money at other things.

Looking at WoTC - their digital department, their FFL testing, their communication with the community .. its a pretty poorly lead company, can see them go belly up within a decade easily.

Find a business model that allows to support various formats or expect to lose players. Sure, there are standard players that bring in more revenue then me, there are also tons of players that do not (I used to be top customer at my LGS..).

Stopping support for older formats is in no way going to increase the income WoTC generates. It simply doesnt' work that way.

"oh you stopped supporting my favorite, complicated format, in which I've invested money and more importantly time .. let me just spend a few thousand on standard boxes while I throw all my outdated cards in the bin!"

Again, it doesn't work like that. Growth of standard has diminished, driving away players from older formats, I don't see which part of this scenario benefits WoTC, then again I didn't think Smugglers Copter would be healthy for standard either, so what do I know :)

[s&s]

he BIG miss of Siege Rhino from Khans block

who could have known that a legacy playable 4 drop would hurt standard

made me lol, thx

splinter twin was also a really nice one, they really stacking the blunders quite fast

[LarsLeif]

who could have known that a legacy playable 4 drop would hurt standard

made me lol, thx

splinter twin was also a really nice one, they really stacking the blunders quite fast

Lol "legacy playable" gets thrown around so easily these days. Sure you can put it in your deck, but you will never win anything because you're playing Siege Rhino in legacy for crying out loud. :p

[morgan_coke]

I think showing Wolpert the door was a huge upgrade, and the new CEO seems to better "get it". We'll have to wait and see obviously, but they do seem aware they've got some real problems to be solved. And they already took the two biggest steps to solving them in getting rid of the dead weight that was causing them and acknowledging that they need to be fixed.

[s&s]

Lol "legacy playable" gets thrown around so easily these days. Sure you can put it in your deck, but you will never win anything because you're playing Siege Rhino in legacy for crying out loud. :p

I play nic-fit on mtgo, along with manaless dredge and some other budget decks.

4 colour nic fit has gotten me the most 4-1's.

Its not T1 but its a playable deck for sure, maybe T2-T3. A deck like rug-delver has 0 single cards that can remove a rhino, the life-gain helps a lot against their main strategy, its an A+ card in such a matchup. At worst I gain 3 and they bolt / chump, or double bolt. Either way its a 3v1 pretty much.

[Barook]

I think showing Wolpert the door was a huge upgrade, and the new CEO seems to better "get it". We'll have to wait and see obviously, but they do seem aware they've got some real problems to be solved. And they already took the two biggest steps to solving them in getting rid of the dead weight that was causing them and acknowledging that they need to be fixed.
Worth was definitely a problem, but as long as ALL of the incompetent management (which is the root of all evil) isn't purged, it's merely like a drop in the bucket.


Ultimately none of that shit is my problem. I can throw my money at other things.

Looking at WoTC - their digital department, their FFL testing, their communication with the community .. its a pretty poorly lead company, can see them go belly up within a decade easily.

Find a business model that allows to support various formats or expect to lose players. Sure, there are standard players that bring in more revenue then me, there are also tons of players that do not (I used to be top customer at my LGS..).

Stopping support for older formats is in no way going to increase the income WoTC generates. It simply doesnt' work that way.

"oh you stopped supporting my favorite, complicated format, in which I've invested money and more importantly time .. let me just spend a few thousand on standard boxes while I throw all my outdated cards in the bin!"

Again, it doesn't work like that. Growth of standard has diminished, driving away players from older formats, I don't see which part of this scenario benefits WoTC, then again I didn't think Smugglers Copter would be healthy for standard either, so what do I know :)
I fully agree. I fail to see how the current shitting on enfranchised players that is going on is going to benefit them. I'll never ever play Standard as long as it's boring "Creatures: The Tappening feat. Planeswalkers". I've quit playing Legacy (and thus spending money on MTGO) because of their neglect of format management. Their new, excessive focus on Standard seems to be a mistake on par with the quickened Standard schedule that will bite them in the ass sooner or later:

"I shot your beloved dog. Now hurry up and buy my cat!"

[rufus]

Ultimately none of that shit is my problem. I can throw my money at other things.

Similarly, your unhappiness with legacy isn't WotC's problem. They can throw their money at other things.



...Find a business model that allows to support various formats or expect to lose players. ...


How do you change the business model so that WotC can significantly profit off the eternal formats without burning the intermediary businesses (which WotC is reliant on) that have bought into expensive singles?



Stopping support for older formats is in no way going to increase the income WoTC generates. It simply doesnt' work that way.

That's probably not the calculus that's going on at WotC (or Hasbro). Rather, I think they see support for eternal formats as an expense with little or no return.

[jmlima]

...
I fully agree. I fail to see how the current shitting on enfranchised players that is going on is going to benefit them...

It depends on the end results (which is obvious, I know).

But really, it can be a no brainer. If they piss off 100000 guys and gals, and get 1000000 in return, it was well worthwhile.

It's a bit like the MTGO conundrum. If it was only pissing off existing players to trade that player base for Hearthstone's player base, they would do it instantly , I'm pretty certain. But in there they have a much bigger issue, since a huge bet on digital, might mean a huge decrease on paper. So they are a bit stuck which you can see in their constant indecisiveness to break the link between both.

Ultimately, they want direct continuous revenue. Quite honestly, Modern and Legacy, through supplemental products might provide a minor bsoot to the bottom line, but bread and butter comes from Standard and draft and they, quite rightfully, focus all their marketing and promotion effort son that avenue. A lot of guys mention enfranchised players. But how many standard players become enfranchised? What is the percentage? 10%? Less? A bit more? Anyway, point is, the majority of new Standard players will play for a while and then move on to other things, not being like us sad old farts debating a card game where you get to play wizards and spells.

[Barook]

How do you change the business model so that WotC can significantly profit off the eternal formats without burning the intermediary businesses (which WotC is reliant on) that have bought into expensive singles?

That's probably not the calculus that's going on at WotC (or Hasbro). Rather, I think they see support for eternal formats as an expense with little or no return.
All they need to do is print actual duals in some way or the other (doesn't need to abolish the RL, we've had already another thread where this has been discussed to death).

As for money making, Legacy League on MTGO alone should pull at least 1+ million $/year by rough estimations from entries.

And it's been said over and over again that singles that aren't outrageously expensive are better for business. It would mainly hit the hoarders/speculators, but fuck those assholes in particular.

[iatee]

Yeah, I enjoy playing Eternal formats, presumably everyone here does. But if you've somehow come to the conclusion that 'Legacy could be good business for WotC', you're just not capable of looking at this stuff objectively. The company needs to sell new cards. Constantly. That is how they make money. Anything that gets in the way of 'Wizards is selling new cards, constantly' is bad business. Pretty sure Hasbro shareholders aren't gonna accept 'Well sales were down but Legacy had a really sweet year, lots of cool new decks and the format is really fun right now.'

If I were a Wizards exec I would try to make eternal formats worse. It is probably a bad thing that people enjoy playing Modern more than Standard. The Reserved List is in some ways a blessing in disguise - 'Sorry - you guys can't play a competitive format that's more fun and lets you play with your favorite old cards, you're gonna have to buy new cards instead.'

There are aspects of older formats that could possibly be better leveraged - e.g. maybe people would enjoy Standard more if it looked more like Legacy or Modern, was more spell-based, played with tight mana, free spells, resource constraints, etc. etc. It is possible that the drive towards Siege Rhino Standards isn't as well thought out as they believe, since most people ultimately want to pretend they're wizards, not zookeepers.

[Darkenslight]

Yeah, I enjoy playing Eternal formats, presumably everyone here does. But if you've somehow come to the conclusion that 'Legacy could be good business for WotC', you're just not capable of looking at this stuff objectively. The company needs to sell new cards. Constantly. That is how they make money. Anything that gets in the way of 'Wizards is selling new cards, constantly' is bad business. Pretty sure Hasbro shareholders aren't gonna accept 'Well sales were down but Legacy had a really sweet year, lots of cool new decks and the format is really fun right now.'

If I were a Wizards exec I would try to make eternal formats worse. It is probably a bad thing that people enjoy playing Modern more than Standard. The Reserved List is in some ways a blessing in disguise - 'Sorry - you guys can't play a competitive format that's more fun and lets you play with your favorite old cards, you're gonna have to buy new cards instead.'

There are aspects of older formats that could possibly be better leveraged - e.g. maybe people would enjoy Standard more if it looked more like Legacy or Modern, was more spell-based, played with tight mana, free spells, resource constraints, etc. etc. It is possible that the drive towards Siege Rhino Standards isn't as well thought out as they believe, since most people ultimately want to pretend they're wizards, not zookeepers.

Ah, but that's, "cutting off your nose to spite your face," economically-speaking. It harms the long-term health of the game, as larger companies are far less willing to support he formats that keep older players in the game. Remember that there are Legacy-playable cards that can be reprinted, and wouldn't do that much damage to the current Standard. And no, I'm not talking about the Masterpiece series.

[iatee]

Legacy players aren't your nose, they're some small wart on your back.

[nedleeds]

I play nic-fit on mtgo, along with manaless dredge and some other budget decks.

4 colour nic fit has gotten me the most 4-1's.

Its not T1 but its a playable deck for sure, maybe T2-T3. A deck like rug-delver has 0 single cards that can remove a rhino, the life-gain helps a lot against their main strategy, its an A+ card in such a matchup. At worst I gain 3 and they bolt / chump, or double bolt. Either way its a 3v1 pretty much.

Pretty sure if your 3 color 4 mana spell resolves vs. RUG they already lost. The idea is to mana screw you, rewind the turn and pressure you into soft counters, all while chimping out with a flying Wild Nacatyl for U.

[Barook]

Yeah, I enjoy playing Eternal formats, presumably everyone here does. But if you've somehow come to the conclusion that 'Legacy could be good business for WotC', you're just not capable of looking at this stuff objectively. The company needs to sell new cards. Constantly. That is how they make money. Anything that gets in the way of 'Wizards is selling new cards, constantly' is bad business. Pretty sure Hasbro shareholders aren't gonna accept 'Well sales were down but Legacy had a really sweet year, lots of cool new decks and the format is really fun right now.'

If I were a Wizards exec I would try to make eternal formats worse. It is probably a bad thing that people enjoy playing Modern more than Standard. The Reserved List is in some ways a blessing in disguise - 'Sorry - you guys can't play a competitive format that's more fun and lets you play with your favorite old cards, you're gonna have to buy new cards instead.'

There are aspects of older formats that could possibly be better leveraged - e.g. maybe people would enjoy Standard more if it looked more like Legacy or Modern, was more spell-based, played with tight mana, free spells, resource constraints, etc. etc. It is possible that the drive towards Siege Rhino Standards isn't as well thought out as they believe, since most people ultimately want to pretend they're wizards, not zookeepers.
Player retention is already terrible and enough cards already lose value after leaving Standard. No desirable Modern/Eternal format means that you're going to lose alot of money each Standard season with no chance of recovery - even worse than now.

If more people enjoy older formats, then Wizards should look at why people enjoy said formats instead of continously delivering boring, dumbed-down, ill-received Standard formats.

[maharis]

Player retention is already terrible and enough cards already lose value after leaving Standard. No desirable Modern/Eternal format means that you're going to lose alot of money each Standard season with no chance of recovery - even worse than now.

This is right, and the potential impact of this on the long-term health and viability of the game is the key disagreement between people.

What seems to have happened is that their player growth ballooned and plateaued very quickly. I'm not sure what drove that -- though if I had to guess -- it seems to have coincided with the rise of Modern. RTR was the boom time -- and that's when the shocks were reprinted.

It seems that Wizards' market reacted positively more to the accessibility of a long-term format than their short-term options. But they took the major growth as a validation of their Standard strategy. Smash cut to 3 years later... And you're banning stuff because attendance is suddenly falling.

People like the depth of the card pool. I mean, how long are people going to pay $15 for the thrill of playing three rounds of draft? Sure, maybe for a few months -- but constructed is retention, and deeper formats even more so. They are the reward for starting out.

Wizards is trying to acquire more customers, but even then there's an upper limit on who this game will appeal to. I think it's a big mistake.

[iatee]

Player retention is already terrible and enough cards already lose value after leaving Standard. No desirable Modern/Eternal format means that you're going to lose alot of money each Standard season with no chance of recovery - even worse than now.


Wizards is a business. Their business goals are not 'make sure people have a good way to recover the money they spent on Magic'. Their business goals are to take as much of your money as possible. When you're having fun, it's easier to forget how much money you're spending. When you're not having fun, you begin to question why you just bought into another Standard deck.

When you're an eternal player, obviously the issue with Standard is that you don't get to play with cool cards like Brainstorm and Daze. But honestly most Standard players aren't actually complaining about 'too many creatures' or saying 'why can't I cast Brainstorm, I love Brainstorm'. They are complaining about losing to a Mindslaver effect 5 times in a tournament, mono-black devotion mirrors, etc. So their core problem is that they still haven't figured out how to reliably construct good Standards. This is actually not an easy problem to solve. They're better at it than they used to be - they don't print Memory Jars very often. But if 20 people at Wizards can successfully solve a Standard they just designed and 'hey, it's fun' - well then 20 pros can obviously do it in one weekend too. It's possible that this is why this problem will never disappear.

On the other hand, Wotc have more or less figured out how to make new limited formats. New limited formats aren't always amazing, but they're almost always playable, pretty fun for a while, skill-testing and not immediately solvable. Pros will disagree pretty strongly on pick order and color preferences, sometimes even late into a format. Old school players know that today's limited formats are incomparably superior to limited back in the day. Limited is great.

The % of people who play legacy is a tiny drop in the bucket for this business. When you play legacy on MTGO, you play against the same people again and again. It is an adorable little bunch of wizards, most of whom are also on this site. I play paper legacy in the East Coast - which probably has the highest density of eternal players overall - and I expect to bump into and play the same people again and again. The idea that this raggedy crew is or could ever be responsible for real money for Wizards is totally delusional.


What seems to have happened is that their player growth ballooned and plateaued very quickly. I'm not sure what drove that -- though if I had to guess -- it seems to have coincided with the rise of Modern. RTR was the boom time -- and that's when the shocks were reprinted.


Seriously doubt Modern had anything to do with it. The two driving factors were demographics (huge number of people who played as kids in the original boom came back to the game at the same time) and the development of Duels as a digital entry point for new players.

[Barook]

Wizards is a business. Their business goals are not 'make sure people have a good way to recover the money they spent on Magic'. Their business goals are to take as much of your money as possible. When you're having fun, it's easier to forget how much money you're spending. When you're not having fun, you begin to question why you just bought into another Standard deck.
Cost of Standard is definitely an issue and recuperating money helps with that. WotC dropped the greedy 1.5 year rotation rather quickly due to the amount of people that complained and quit due not being able to keep up with Standard anymore.

As for the business standpoint, Wizards makes money, yes, but they're utterly terrible at maximizing their profits. Eternal formats could be monetized alot better.


Seriously doubt Modern had anything to do with it. The two driving factors were demographics (huge number of people who played as kids in the original boom came back to the game at the same time) and the development of Duels as a digital entry point for new players.
Duels was/is their main way to get new people into the game. That's probably one of the reason why things started to stagnate, as Hearthstone wipes the floor with its digital competitors. And it isn't just HS, several other games have popped up that try to take market share from MtG, hence Hasbro's push to get the dinosaurs at WotC into the digital age for real this time instead of their amateurish, half-assed attempts in the past.

Latest example: MTGO bring back old Standard formats to relive their past glory, starting with various decks from Mirage/Tempest Standard. That's fucking awesome, I nostalgia'd hard since that was the time when I started playing Magic. But I'll be damned if I pay 10 bucks for 3 matches with a random deck to win more Itchy & Scratchy money. Their price gouging is absurd compared to their way cheaper competitiors.

[rufus]

...
On the other hand, Wotc have more or less figured out how to make new limited formats. New limited formats aren't always amazing, but they're almost always playable, pretty fun for a while, skill-testing and not immediately solvable. Pros will disagree pretty strongly on pick order and color preferences, sometimes even late into a format. Old school players know that today's limited formats are incomparably superior to limited back in the day. Limited is great.
...

That's a question: Is standard languishing because WotC is focusing on limited instead (and is that a good business move for them)?

[TsumiBand]

I'm not just being shitty here, what was the actual problem with Siege Rhino? Was it just a super midrange-to-end-all-midrange beatstick and that was too much for Standard?

[CptHaddock]

I'm not just being shitty here, what was the actual problem with Siege Rhino? Was it just a super midrange-to-end-all-midrange beatstick and that was too much for Standard?

I thought that overall people enjoyed the Siege Rhino format? From my understanding the Junk deck that played Rhino was basically the equivalent of The Rock, you were basically playing the best cards in the format period and you had basically answers to everything your opponent was trying to do. The lists (https://www.mtggoldfish.com/archetype/frontier-wbg-33343#online)were very similar to what are being played in frontier right now.

[Barook]

That's a question: Is standard languishing because WotC is focusing on limited instead (and is that a good business move for them)?
If it was a good business move to screw over Standard in favor of Limited, they wouldn't nuke Standard with bans while getting ready to hand out more bans.


I'm not just being shitty here, what was the actual problem with Siege Rhino? Was it just a super midrange-to-end-all-midrange beatstick and that was too much for Standard?
Siege Rhino Standard in a nutshell:

http://i.imgur.com/a3CG49b.jpg

[Julian23]

It's like throwing Spiritmonger into Homelands. Why play anything else?

[Megadeus]

I'm not just being shitty here, what was the actual problem with Siege Rhino? Was it just a super midrange-to-end-all-midrange beatstick and that was too much for Standard?

In a format with fetches, plus fetchable duals, it was easy to cast and yes the best thing to do. It was basically the Goyf of the format from what I saw.

[rufus]

In a format with fetches, plus fetchable duals, it was easy to cast and yes the best thing to do. It was basically the Goyf of the format from what I saw.

I thought there was a stack of cards - Abzan Charm,Siege Rhino and Dromoka's Command.

[NeckBird]

We can infer that people enjoy Modern for the card depth and number of options you have to build a deck. With that in mind, why doesn't Wizards extend the length blocks are in Standard by six months (two-and-a-half years)? Makes it harder to playtest, but cards retain their value for a bit longer and if there are more decks to choose from that could lower the average cost of a deck. With blocks only having two sets each from now on, this should be feasible. I suppose WotC doesn't want to try anything fancy after the last change to Standard rotation was a failure.

[rufus]

We can infer that people enjoy Modern for the card depth and number of options you have to build a deck. With that in mind, why doesn't Wizards extend the length blocks are in Standard by six months (two-and-a-half years)? ....

Bring back extended?

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Extended

[NeckBird]

Bring back extended?

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Extended

Well, Extended was 4 years, right? Not advocating for that, just thinking out loud.

[Megadeus]

RIP Extended. I used to love it when I first started playing.

[iatee]

That's a question: Is standard languishing because WotC is focusing on limited instead (and is that a good business move for them)?

I don't think they're focusing on it, they're just better at it. And their mistakes in limited don't totally ruin formats - maybe Pack Rat shouldn't have been printed at rare (or printed) for RtR limited. It sucked to lose to Pack Rat in RtR limited. But it was still a fun format, because you still would only face a Pack Rat maybe 1/20 games.

When they make a mistake in Standard, it's very apparent. You face mistake that over and over again.



As for the business standpoint, Wizards makes money, yes, but they're utterly terrible at maximizing their profits. Eternal formats could be monetized alot better.


What would maximizing their profits look like? Every human being on the planet plays Magic? It's too abstract. They've done very well with the game in the last few years, and might be hitting a ceiling that was gonna exist no matter what. Obviously they could do a better job on the digital side.

The idea that eternal formats could be a cash cow for Wizards if they only got rid of the reserved list, did what we suggested etc. etc. is a convenient opinion for people who prefer eternal formats anyway. It is totally wishful thinking. They need to sell cards. Constantly. Every day. If I were made CEO of Wizards I would say fuck legacy and purposely print more cards that make the format worse. Chalice, TNN, etc. Maybe we could print a Dredge 8 in a commander set...

[morgan_coke]

In business, there is always a "chase the new guy" school and companies that follow it. The basic idea takes your existing customers for granted and focuses solely on acquiring new customers. You also see this with employees, especially in retail and other low-wage industries, where newer, cheaper workers are more valued than longer-tenured, more experienced ones.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. A company follows this philosophy it works great for a few years, then crashes and burns, hard. The strategy uses up accumulated resources - customer/brand loyalty and reputation, existing employee base, etc. that has high delivered value but low growth value. An example would be Wal-Mart working to crush wages and employee expenses to the point where they could no longer - and still can't reliably at most stores - keep their shelves stocked with product. This led to mass drop in customers going to the stores, because why go to Wal-Mart for some cheap junk over the internet when they don't even have it in stock and you still have to wait for it? Wizards' new world order and never ending focus on a simplified Standard/Limited are great examples of this. It drives new sales and customers, but has a high churn rate, meaning if the growth ever hiccups, the whole house of cards crashes, and the growth ALWAYS hiccups, because sooner or later you run out of suckers for your current marketing/acquisition strategy, or enough of your existing base starts getting sick of being ignored for the new kid all at once - see the old cell phone company commercials with kindergartners - that they bail earlier than you expected.

Wizards is seeing these effects now. They've neglected the eternal formats, which hurts Standard players because there is even less of a market for their cards after rotation, or because they can't continue to play with their favorite cards in a larger format. They're only attracting one type of Spike with the self-limited card pools, but their attracting less of them since games like Hearthstone have an even more simplified friendly system at a dramatically lower cost that they will NEVER be able to match.

If they were smart, they'd go heavy on tech, and bring back a lot of the spell effects they've either gotten rid of or tacked solely onto creatures, especially instants, because that would help differentiate their product from stuff like Hearthstone, because they literally cannot compete successfully with them on HS's terms. They also need to print more answer cards. Hard answers cover up for a lot of playtesting mistakes, because they tend to self-correct each other. it's not fun to have every spell you cast countered, but it's even less fun to lose to a combo deck that mind-slavers you for six turns straight or takes 7 turns in a row until it can finally kill you. This also gets back to letting colors besides blue interact with the stack in meaningful ways. They almost printed two decent white counterspells during the Time Spiral era, but costing the memory lapse at 2W killed it, and any kind of non-blue hard control with it. They have gotten better about letting other colors get access to draw spells, except white.

Maybe the new team releases a version of MTGO that's not hot garbage and starts fixing Standard and Modern and eventually Legacy, but it won't happen fast, because at least another year of card sets is already baked in, and it takes time to code. In the meantime, expect the financial numbers to get worse before they get better.

[Darkenslight]

I'm not just being shitty here, what was the actual problem with Siege Rhino? Was it just a super midrange-to-end-all-midrange beatstick and that was too much for Standard?

It was a card that fit literally every strategy that the color combination could do, and it was, simply put, the single biggest creature without help. In fact, there were nominally four cards that could deal with it in Standard and were Constructed playable, and keep it dealt with, and all but one of them shared a color with the Rhino. So there were relatively few decks that could straight-up race, and you were already behind, thanks to being Thoughtseized on Turn 1.

Abzan Aggro decks could have you dead-on-board through a removal spell on Turn 4. The Midrange decks would use the Rhino to hold the board, then drop Elspeths or Ajanis and just gain life out of easy reach or thump you with 6 3/3 flyers. Now, don't get me wrong - Rhino wasn't the be-all and end-all of that. But it outclassed the supposed "power" clan of the plane, with simply had a 3-mana 4/4. For that extra colorless maan, you were getting a relevant ETB, a keyword native to the card, and an extra point of toughness.

[Barook]

http://magicorganizedplay.tumblr.com/post/157244798901/grand-prix-sunday-ptq-formats

Wizards is on a roll right now. All PTQs at Modern/Legacy GPs are Limited now - with a 75$ entry fee. :really:

[square_two]

http://magicorganizedplay.tumblr.com/post/157244798901/grand-prix-sunday-ptq-formats

Wizards is on a roll right now. All PTQs at Modern/Legacy GPs are Limited now - with a 75$ entry fee. :really:

Hm, all those poor folks travelling halfway around the world in order to play at a large competitive Legacy GP...bet they are sure glad they don't have to worry about having a second deck, or having to play their usual deck for an entire weekend. They'll be so happy to get to play Limited. How awful having to wait for the 2 er, 1 GP per year that is attendable, and then being expected to play your favorite deck all weekend.

[Lord Seth]

who could have known that a legacy playable 4 drop would hurt standard

made me lol, thx

splinter twin was also a really nice one, they really stacking the blunders quite fast
It seems a stretch to call Siege Rhino "Legacy playable." As for Splinter Twin, I don't have any problems with that. Twin was a good deck in Standard, but it didn't dominate because back then they actually printed decent answers.

Of course, it’s looking like CopyCat won’t dominate either, and Mardu Vehicles looks like it’s the actual issue. But we’ll see if it has staying power or was just a good metagame choice for the Pro Tour.


Yeah, I enjoy playing Eternal formats, presumably everyone here does. But if you've somehow come to the conclusion that 'Legacy could be good business for WotC', you're just not capable of looking at this stuff objectively. The company needs to sell new cards. Constantly. That is how they make money. Anything that gets in the way of 'Wizards is selling new cards, constantly' is bad business. Pretty sure Hasbro shareholders aren't gonna accept 'Well sales were down but Legacy had a really sweet year, lots of cool new decks and the format is really fun right now.'

If I were a Wizards exec I would try to make eternal formats worse. It is probably a bad thing that people enjoy playing Modern more than Standard. The Reserved List is in some ways a blessing in disguise - 'Sorry - you guys can't play a competitive format that's more fun and lets you play with your favorite old cards, you're gonna have to buy new cards instead.'
This is goofy reasoning. The apparent idea is that if Modern/Legacy was uninteresting, people would head to Standard. I do not think that's the case. The people who are playing Modern/Legacy instead of Standard are largely people who wouldn't be interested in Standard (as it is) even if there wasn't Modern/Legacy to play. You don't get them to pick up Standard by making the alternatives worse, you do it by making Standard more interesting to them. Maybe that's not possible for some of those players (who'd be uninterested in Standard no matter what), but in that case, again, they wouldn't be interested in Standard so making Modern/Legacy worse wouldn't get them to check it out!

Modern/Legacy wsan't hurting Standard; Standard was hurting Standard because people just don't like the current environment and the last few weren't very popular either.


I'm not just being shitty here, what was the actual problem with Siege Rhino? Was it just a super midrange-to-end-all-midrange beatstick and that was too much for Standard?
Siege Rhino gets a lot of the blame but in truth, much like any time there's a dominant deck in Standard (which is most of the time), it's the general card pool. Compare Monoblack Devotion. There really wasn't any one card that made that deck; it was the combination of cards that all happened to go straight into it. The cards that got the most hate were probably Thoughtseize and Pack Rat, but Pack Rat barely saw play in Innistrad-RTR and Thoughtseize, while still good, dropped off significantly when the format because Theros-Khans wasn't as good of an environment for it. What generally happens with any given Standard deck that dominates or even a particular card is that the supporting cast manages to be really great. There are a few exceptions (e.g. Skullclamp) but MOST cards that were a key part of a dominating deck in Standard would have been mediocre to worthless if placed in most other Standard formats. Something like Tolarian Academy probably wouldn't have even seen play in Innistrad-RTR, for exapmle.

That brings us to Siege Rhino. Siege Rhino was in formats with good mana fixing but also benefitted from Abzan probably getting the best cards of all of the clans. People forget, for example, just how good Anafenza the Foremost was, which saw play in the Siege Rhino decks as well. Siege Rhino was just the most "obvious" of the cards that did well in Abzan so it got all the blame. If we kept Siege Rhino legal but swapped the amount of support Abzan and Temur got, I think we would've seen Savage Knuckleblade instead be the 3-color creature that people complained about the most. Similarly, if Siege Rhino had been legal in RTR-Theros Standard, it would've been mostly ignored.


Bring back extended?

http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Extended
But that wouldn't really do anything to solve the various problems of Extended that resulted in it being cancelled. People are quick to blame the shift from a 7-year Extended to a 4-year Extended, but that happened because Extended wasn't popular already and that was an attempt to try to fix things. Maybe it failed, but Extended wasn't in a good state even before it.


Well, Extended was 4 years, right? Not advocating for that, just thinking out loud.
Extended was 7 years for most of its time, but towards the end it was changed to 4 years in the hope of bringing its popularity back, as Legacy was beating it in popularity. It didn’t work, and if anything made it less popular.

[Julian23]

Oh man, seeing WotC desperately trying to keep Extended alive was one of the saddest things I have witnessed in Magic.

It was like...it was already on the ground, dying and ready to go out with good memories about the times when everyone loved it. I think most Magic players have very fond memories of "Old Extended". But instead of letting it die, WotC put it on life support, performed tons of surgery on it and told everyone Extended was gonna be fine. And Extended tried, but it was already too late. Everyone, including once enthusiastic Extended players like myself, knew that its time had come. The game was over. But WotC couldn't let go. They tried this whole 4-year thing. Almost nobody cared. Extended was down on the floor, ready to go out but it had to hang on, for Wizards. It was ugly. Instead of going out the way it should have, WotC disfigured it and tried to made it into this new and exciting abomination that ended up being liked by absolutely no one.


The most depressing thing was seeing it still around on Magic Online for over a year after its death. It was like as if a once good friend had died in your living room, but you still had to look at him for over a year until someone eventually removed him. Never forget those 2/8-Man Queues that never fired. So sad. Maybe I got carried a bit off-topic here. It's just, Extended was my first competitive format. I played all my early tournaments in it and I loved it so much.

[Soldier of Fortune]

Oh man, seeing WotC desperately trying to keep Extended alive was one of the saddest things I have witnessed in Magic.

It was like...it was already on the ground, dying and ready to go out with good memories about the times when everyone loved it. I think most Magic players have very fond memories of "Old Extended". But instead of letting it die, WotC put it on life support, performed tons of surgery on it and told everyone Extended was gonna be fine. And Extended tried, but it was already too late. Everyone, including once enthusiastic Extended players like myself, knew that its time had come. The game was over. But WotC couldn't let go. They tried this whole 4-year thing. Almost nobody cared. Extended was down on the floor, ready to go out but it had to hang on, for Wizards. It was ugly. Instead of going out the way it should have, WotC disfigured it and tried to made it into this new and exciting abomination that ended up being liked by absolutely no one.


The most depressing thing was seeing it still around on Magic Online for over a year after its death. It was like as if a once good friend had died in your living room, but you still had to look at him for over a year until someone eventually removed him. Never forget those 2/8-Man Queues that never fired. So sad. Maybe I got carried a bit off-topic here. It's just, Extended was my first competitive format. I played all my early tournaments in it and I loved it so much.

I miss the format when Oathing into Morphling, Spike Weaver and Spike Feeder was the most powerful thing you could do with Oath of Druids.

[Lord Seth]

I miss the format when Oathing into Morphling, Spike Weaver and Spike Feeder was the most powerful thing you could do with Oath of Druids.
Well, I think that was the Extended people liked. From what I can tell, the format was generally liked in its original form (Revised and The Dark onward) and after its first rotation (removal of Revised (except the dual lands, which stayed legal), The Dark, and Fallen Empires), as it offered much of the appeal of Legacy. But after its second rotation (when Ice Age and Mirage left), it seems people liked it less, and its popularity dwindled with each successive rotation, and people started shifting over to Legacy.

[morgan_coke]

I miss the format when Vampiric Tutor and friends were something that was played by decks, and not combo. Storm really ruined combo decks in general and did a lot of damage to the format overall. Worst mechanic ever printed tbh.

[s&s]

It seems a stretch to call Siege Rhino "Legacy playable."

http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=20349&iddeck=155228

7th in a field of 117 with 4 unplayable cards as the bigger creature core?

http://tcdecks.net/deck.php?id=20060&iddeck=152827

6th out of 92?

Try comparing the results of decks containing siege rhino, to say goblin matron? Not T1, def playable.

[s&s]

That's a question: Is standard languishing because WotC is focusing on limited instead (and is that a good business move for them)?

If standard doesn't get enough attention, cards will drop in price, and the return players get from playing limited will drop accordingly.

As the return from limited is lowered due to lower card prices, WotC will have to reduce the entry cost of limited events or less players will participate.

So no, this would not be a good move, its the start of a downward spiral in fact.

Basically try to imagine limited if there were no other formats. Cards would be worth nothing after the limited event ends, because there is no other format to play in. More popular the constructed formats are, higher the value of cards opened in limited gets ..

[taconaut]

I miss the format when Vampiric Tutor and friends were something that was played by decks, and not combo. Storm really ruined combo decks in general and did a lot of damage to the format overall. Worst mechanic ever printed tbh.

Storm is awesome, engine combo is way cooler than things like splinter twin. That being said, I get that people like different things (which is more the point I'm trying to make).

[Claymore]

Why did Extended die a miserable death? That was during a time I quit magic (relevant: because of standard rotations).

Wizards might be playing it easy with Modern because of the experience they had with Extended. Not the same format since Modern doesn't explicitly rotate...but now they're forcing rotation...might be seeing them make the same mistakes again anyway.

I know I largely quit modern because the format became hugely uninteractive/"did you draw your sideboard", partially because they banned the decks that were able to squash the uninteractive combo decks.

[Ace/Homebrew]

Why did Extended die a miserable death?
IIRC... 7-Year Extended was unpopular by most metrics and was considered a format you'd play only because you had to (to qualify for an event or because the format of the next big event was Extended). WotC felt they could fix this by playing with the card pool and rotation schedule, going from 7-years of cards to 4. At the time, cards in Standard lasted 2 years before rotation, so 4-Year Extended was nicknamed 'Double Standard'.

These changes occurred as Faeries rotated out of Standard and Bloodbraid Jund began to dominate. This led to an extension of Faerie's domination of a format, only to inevitably be replaced by Jund as time continued. Players hated the idea that whatever had previously dominated Standard will then dominate 4-Year Extended. So an already unpopular format, played because sometimes you had to, became a completely undesirable format played by no one.


That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed 7-Year Extended. The format was distinct from Vintage/Legacy and Standard, and ever-changing (at a slow pace) due to the rotation. Most decks would lose a piece or two each year and have to find something to fill the gaps. The decks I remember from when I played were Hypergenesis, Foundry-Depths, Affinity, Dredge, All-In-Red, and Elfball.

[maharis]

The problem with this view:


Anything that gets in the way of 'Wizards is selling new cards, constantly' is bad business. Pretty sure Hasbro shareholders aren't gonna accept 'Well sales were down but Legacy had a really sweet year, lots of cool new decks and the format is really fun right now.'

If I were a Wizards exec I would try to make eternal formats worse. It is probably a bad thing that people enjoy playing Modern more than Standard. The Reserved List is in some ways a blessing in disguise - 'Sorry - you guys can't play a competitive format that's more fun and lets you play with your favorite old cards, you're gonna have to buy new cards instead.'

Is this:


They've neglected the eternal formats, which hurts Standard players because there is even less of a market for their cards after rotation, or because they can't continue to play with their favorite cards in a larger format. They're only attracting one type of Spike with the self-limited card pools, but their attracting less of them since games like Hearthstone have an even more simplified friendly system at a dramatically lower cost that they will NEVER be able to match.

There is a firm upper limit on the amount of people who are just going to buy new cards, buy new cards, buy new cards. Just imagine trying to sell someone on playing Magic. Let's assume they like the game.

Newbie: "So how do I get started?"
Veteran: "Head on down to your LGS and pick up some cards for your own deck!"
Newbie: "Great! Then I can play in those Friday tournaments?"
Veteran: "Well, sure, but you won't have an optimal deck, so you might not win a ton."
Newbie: "Oh... how do I optimize my deck?"
Veteran: "Well, it's probably going to cost somewhere between $150 and $300."
Newbie: "Whoa! I could just buy an iPad and play Hearthstone for that, any time I want. Is there any other way?"
Veteran: "Sure, you could play limited, where you build a new deck every week... that's about $15 for a tournament."
Newbie: "Oh... so what do I do with those cards?"
Veteran: "Well, you can save them for your collection."
Newbie: "Then I'll have an optimal deck?"
Veteran: "Well, not guaranteed... you still might have to trade and buy other cards."
Newbie: "Wait, don't I just spend the same amount as a regular deck over the course of a few of these limited tournaments?"
Veteran: "Yes, but you see we rotate the format every few months so---"

This is exhausting to even type out but you get the point.

It gets to what we were talking about upthread. You can't sell this game just as one of a zillion games. You have to sell its depth, breadth, community aspects. That's what you pay the premium for.

Supporting non-rotating formats keeps people invested in their cards and reduces the feel-bad of the up-front costs. And it allows people to keep going with the game as their life changes.

Obviously they need to sell new cards, but you can't just expect that to float you forever. This post put it well:


In business, there is always a "chase the new guy" school and companies that follow it. The basic idea takes your existing customers for granted and focuses solely on acquiring new customers. You also see this with employees, especially in retail and other low-wage industries, where newer, cheaper workers are more valued than longer-tenured, more experienced ones.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. A company follows this philosophy it works great for a few years, then crashes and burns, hard. The strategy uses up accumulated resources - customer/brand loyalty and reputation, existing employee base, etc. that has high delivered value but low growth value. An example would be Wal-Mart working to crush wages and employee expenses to the point where they could no longer - and still can't reliably at most stores - keep their shelves stocked with product. This led to mass drop in customers going to the stores, because why go to Wal-Mart for some cheap junk over the internet when they don't even have it in stock and you still have to wait for it? Wizards' new world order and never ending focus on a simplified Standard/Limited are great examples of this. It drives new sales and customers, but has a high churn rate, meaning if the growth ever hiccups, the whole house of cards crashes, and the growth ALWAYS hiccups, because sooner or later you run out of suckers for your current marketing/acquisition strategy, or enough of your existing base starts getting sick of being ignored for the new kid all at once - see the old cell phone company commercials with kindergartners - that they bail earlier than you expected.

Another thing to note is that this approach really pressures the LGSes who make up the backbone of the MTG economy. If Wizards is always focused on selling new cards, the singles that don't sell because they lack utility just rot in cases or back rooms. You end up with all this inventory that is just dead money. Eternal formats give old cards value. I was at the LGS last night and a friend picked up a set of Holy Day for some modern deck. That 80 cents isn't much, sure, but it's better than 0. Singles are how LGSes make a profit margin more than "buy pack for $2, sell pack for $4." Rotation is basically a huge game of musical chairs between the players and the stores and the one that's left holding the bag feels terrible.

[Richard Cheese]

Supporting eternal formats is also really in WotC/Hasbro's best financial interest, because it's the only way they build/maintain reprint equity in existing cards. How many packs of Theros got sold just because of Thoughtseize? Why was Thoughtseize a $50 card to begin with? Why are the Masters sets so popular?

Reprints are also comparatively cheap from a development standpoint.

[Lemnear]

Supporting eternal formats is also really in WotC/Hasbro's best financial interest, because it's the only way they build/maintain reprint equity in existing cards. How many packs of Theros got sold just because of Thoughtseize? Why was Thoughtseize a $50 card to begin with? Why are the Masters sets so popular?

Reprints are also comparatively cheap from a development standpoint.

They will never do anything to seriously hurt vendor card stocks

[Fox]

Singles are how LGSes make a profit margin more than "buy pack for $2, sell pack for $4." Rotation is basically a huge game of musical chairs between the players and the stores and the one that's left holding the bag feels terrible.
A fine point, but it's important to remember that magic is also the only 'board' game where you can reliably walk into a game store and pay for a competitive platform with prize payout. At best [in a metropolitan setting] I could find maybe one pay-to-play tournament of a random board game - and it will be a shorter one like Race, 7 Wonders, or Star Realms...other than that you're talking about finding poker tables or maybe an LGS that wants to deal with the cluster that is miniatures [mostly X-Wing atm] league play.

The added incentive of opening money cards probably sells more limited than the mechanism by which those cards get value (using them for constructed play). Regardless, limited magic (and it's competitive structure) is still a quality 'board' game worth paying for; healthy constructed formats are only really important in that they keep up high player count [critical mass to reliably fire limited] and equitability [financial incentive, especially for newer or less-skilled players]. Maybe WotC will start to realize that something like block constructed [out of print sets] would be a useful tool for distracting people from particularly poor standard environments and reinforcing the idea of limited cards having value.

[iatee]

There is a firm upper limit on the amount of people who are just going to buy new cards, buy new cards, buy new cards. Just imagine trying to sell someone on playing Magic. Let's assume they like the game.

Newbie: "So how do I get started?"
Veteran: "Head on down to your LGS and pick up some cards for your own deck!"
Newbie: "Great! Then I can play in those Friday tournaments?"
Veteran: "Well, sure, but you won't have an optimal deck, so you might not win a ton."
Newbie: "Oh... how do I optimize my deck?"
Veteran: "Well, it's probably going to cost somewhere between $150 and $300."
Newbie: "Whoa! I could just buy an iPad and play Hearthstone for that, any time I want. Is there any other way?"
Veteran: "Sure, you could play limited, where you build a new deck every week... that's about $15 for a tournament."
Newbie: "Oh... so what do I do with those cards?"
Veteran: "Well, you can save them for your collection."
Newbie: "Then I'll have an optimal deck?"
Veteran: "Well, not guaranteed... you still might have to trade and buy other cards."
Newbie: "Wait, don't I just spend the same amount as a regular deck over the course of a few of these limited tournaments?"
Veteran: "Yes, but you see we rotate the format every few months so---"

This is exhausting to even type out but you get the point.

It gets to what we were talking about upthread. You can't sell this game just as one of a zillion games. You have to sell its depth, breadth, community aspects. That's what you pay the premium for.

This narrative assumes everyone is at heart a competitive player who wants to be constantly playing magic without wasting too much money. That is an easy trap to fall into, because basically everyone on this legacy forum is a competitive player who wants to play a lot without wasting too much money.

Most of the time the answer to "Well, sure, but you won't have an optimal deck, so you might not win a ton." is
"That's fine, I have a life, it's not like I'm going to spend every Friday night of my life playing."

And the answer to "Sure, you could play limited, where you build a new deck every week... that's about $15 for a tournament." is
"Cool, I guess I'll go to a few drafts this year."

Wizards doesn't need everyone to show up with a pimped out Standard deck every FNM. But if you are a very competitive player who wants to be constantly playing Magic at the highest level with a tier 1 deck, you're going to spend a lot of money. That is built into the hobby. This model has done well for 20 years without Wizards spending too much time or energy ensuring that the market for older cards is supported.

Right now, most people playing with older cards are playing kitchen table or commander. Old cards keep their value forever in those contexts. We ignore all of these casual scum players, but they are a major, major part of the business. People who go to a few drafts a year get to bring home their cards and can play with their new cards forever.

Wizards is not freaked out right now not because they need to find a better way to prop up a pyramid scheme where older cards will always have some monetary value and buying into the game is always a great investment. They're freaked out because Standard is the focus of competitive magic and recent Standards have been unpopular.

[maharis]

This narrative assumes everyone is at heart a competitive player who wants to be constantly playing magic without wasting too much money. That is an easy trap to fall into, because basically everyone on this legacy forum is a competitive player who wants to play a lot without wasting too much money.

Most of the time the answer to "Well, sure, but you won't have an optimal deck, so you might not win a ton." is
"That's fine, I have a life, it's not like I'm going to spend every Friday night of my life playing."

And the answer to "Sure, you could play limited, where you build a new deck every week... that's about $15 for a tournament." is
"Cool, I guess I'll go to a few drafts this year."

Wizards doesn't need everyone to show up with a pimped out Standard deck every FNM. But if you are a very competitive player who wants to be constantly playing Magic at the highest level with a tier 1 deck, you're going to spend a lot of money. That is built into the hobby. This model has done well for 20 years without Wizards spending too much time or energy ensuring that the market for older cards is supported.

Right now, most people playing with older cards are playing kitchen table or commander. Old cards keep their value forever in those contexts. We ignore all of these casual scum players, but they are a major, major part of the business. People who go to a few drafts a year get to bring home their cards and can play with their new cards forever.

Wizards is not freaked out right now not because they need to find a better way to prop up a pyramid scheme where older cards will always have some monetary value and buying into the game is always a great investment. They're freaked out because Standard is the focus of competitive magic and recent Standards have been unpopular.

I guess the heart of our disagreement is that you think Wizards will do just fine attracting a mass of casual players while I think they need to cultivate long-term customers.

Someone with a small business once told me that something like half of their revenue comes from only a few hundred very loyal customers, while their total customer universe is in the thousands. That's what morgan_coke was getting to up thread. You can't ever assume perpetual growth, and strategizing as though your total customer universe is infinite is a losing proposition. Competitive players spend the most money on this game, even if it's not just ripping raw packs. When a player pays $300 for the latest Standard deck or a Usea from a store, that store can buy a case from Wizards.

I don't think Wizards is panicking just because Standard is poor. Their issues are structural. A strategy shift is required, even if it's not as drastic as gutting the RL.

[Lord Seth]

Why did Extended die a miserable death? That was during a time I quit magic (relevant: because of standard rotations).
According to my understanding, Extended was initially quite popular. As I said, it had much the appeal of Legacy. However, unlike Legacy (or Modern), Extended rotated. The first rotation wasn't a big fuss, but it seems the format took a hit when Ice Age and Mirage left, and continued to lose popularity in successive rotations.

The basic problem, as I understand it, is that Extended took the worst aspects of Standard and Legacy but without the things people like about either. You had a lot of crazy powerful decks like Legacy, but you didn't have cards like Force of Will around to do anything about them. Then you had rotation to deal with, like Standard, but in Standard the rotation was a way to keep the card pool small to do a better job playtesting (which they don't always succeed at, but they have a better success rate than Extended) and also as a way to make anything problematic rotate out in short order. So you have the rotation, except without the advantages that rotation brings. Well, I suppose it helps keep things "dynamic" but it's slower than Standard at doing so.

But whatever the reason for Extended's lack of popularity was, it was losing popularity. Legacy, which Wizards of the Coast had largely ignored and only created because people wanted a format they could play the dual lands that wasn't dependent on another format's restricted list (as type 1.5 had been), on the other hand, started booming, and not counting what WOTC calls "forced" play (i.e. PTQs, Grand Prix), Legacy was more popular than Extended.

Wizards of the Coast looked at this and figured that the problem with Extended was that it was such a different format than Standard that people weren't really able to import their Standard decks into it, and so people would rather play the nonrotating Legacy than Extended. So their solution was to cut Extended from 7 years to 4 years. This did, technically speaking, accomplish the goal of making it easier to move from Standard to Extended. The problem is that it more or less turned into the format where you got to play against all the decks you were sick of in Standard and were glad to see rotate out. Even more problematically, Caw-Blade happened. The deck dominated Standard to an extent not seen since Affinity, and perhaps even more so than Affinity did, and so Stoneforge Mystic and Jace got banned in Standard. But they didn't do it in Extended... for some reason. I guess there weren't enough Extended tournaments to really judge things. At any rate, an Extended Pro Tour was coming up soon, and Caw-Blade was completely legal in Extended, and nearly as powerful as it was in Standard. Likely accurate fears of a Pro Tour dominated by Caw-Blade caused them to make a last-minute adjustment to make it into Modern, and that was basically it for Extended, though they did at least care enough to usher out a bunch of bans in the next announcement before they stopped caring about it at all.

[Claymore]

Thanks for the explanation. I imagine a lot of the older extended decks utilized cross-block synergies so a rotation could be crippling to more than one deck. Plus once you got rid of the old sets you got into the newer inbred mechanics based blocks, where you really were just limited to playing Standard all stars.

---

So this is fun:


This was a solid month, topping at 1860 points. A rise out of the recent slums. Add to that last months data and we have a overall total of 2666. Two times the evil. The cut off is 123 total and 86 for Jan alone. Either way we get the same list. This leaves us with the following:

Miralces
Bug Control (Both Leo and Shardless)
Sneak Attack
Grixis


This means we lose this month DnT, BR Reanimator, Infect and Eldrazi. Yes, that is correct, the menace that was going to come and destroy the format, end life as we know it and kill our game has fallen from grace. In fact it placed 12th overall in January.

[Moosedog]

A lot of people have been alluding to this concept, which is explained well here; 1000 true fans. http://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/

The example refers to individual creators but the concept applies here. Wizard’s growth and success is because they did a great job (initially) cultivating true fans. As people here pointed out, recently the casual fan is getting more focus. The past decade wizards was able to increase the number of true long term fans while still appealing and growing the casual fan base. As others have explained this is a precarious balance because too much attention one way or other threatens the integrity of the entire structure. I think they have done a great job so far maintaining this balance, but to echo what others have said if they continue down this chasing the low hanging fruit to help quarterly numbers path it will alienate both sides long term.

[icedagger]

A lot of people have been alluding to this concept, which is explained well here; 1000 true fans. http://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/

The example refers to individual creators but the concept applies here. Wizard’s growth and success is because they did a great job (initially) cultivating true fans. As people here pointed out, recently the casual fan is getting more focus. The past decade wizards was able to increase the number of true long term fans while still appealing and growing the casual fan base. As others have explained this is a precarious balance because too much attention one way or other threatens the integrity of the entire structure. I think they have done a great job so far maintaining this balance, but to echo what others have said if they continue down this chasing the low hanging fruit to help quarterly numbers path it will alienate both sides long term.

Kind of agree. A lot of Wizards' problems right now is that they've relied too much on making money off Standard, but haven't really found a good way to cash in on and retain long-term customers who have grown tired of constantly keeping up with Standard.

[iatee]

They have Modern and it is extremely successful.

[Richard Cheese]

I wonder what percentage of Standard's popularity comes from people that actually like how the format works vs. how much support it gets in the form of large, competitive tournaments.

[Megadeus]

I wonder what percentage of Standard's popularity comes from people that actually like how the format works vs. how much support it gets in the form of large, competitive tournaments.

According to that poll they did, mostly the latter.

[Megadeus]

Thanks for the explanation. I imagine a lot of the older extended decks utilized cross-block synergies so a rotation could be crippling to more than one deck. Plus once you got rid of the old sets you got into the newer inbred mechanics based blocks, where you really were just limited to playing Standard all stars.

---

So this is fun:
We finally did it. Pushed all of the non brainstorm heresy out of the DtB section!

[Barook]

They have Modern and it is extremely successful.
And they monetize it rather poorly.


We finally did it. Pushed all of the non brainstorm heresy out of the DtB section!
Let's not go there and let another thread get closed by B&R discussion.



According to that poll they did, mostly the latter.
What poll?

[icedagger]

They have Modern and it is extremely successful.

Popular yes. Successful, not really; Or at least they aren't directly making much money off of supporting Modern.

Edit:
@Barook: I assume it's that poll where they tweeted asking how everyone liked Standard. Responses were ranging from 1-4 out of 10.

[Gheizen64]

We finally did it. Pushed all of the non brainstorm heresy out of the DtB section!

Blue mages master race confirmed :cool:

Heil Brainstorm.

[Lemnear]

Blue mages master race confirmed :cool:

Heil Brainstorm.

Gedankenwirbel!

[Darkenslight]

Popular yes. Successful, not really; Or at least they aren't directly making much money off of supporting Modern.

Edit:
@Barook: I assume it's that poll where they tweeted asking how everyone liked Standard. Responses were ranging from 1-4 out of 10.

That was arguably because of being able to hard-lock people out of the game from Turn 3, or being able to hardcast 13/13 Flying Spaghetti Mindslavers on turn 4 with some consistency, and almost no way to disrupt them effectively.

[iatee]

Popular yes. Successful, not really; Or at least they aren't directly making much money off of supporting Modern.

Edit:
@Barook: I assume it's that poll where they tweeted asking how everyone liked Standard. Responses were ranging from 1-4 out of 10.

There's an upper limit to how much money they can make on a format designed to let people not constantly spend money on it. With Modern Masters, they managed to find a way to get new players into the format without crashing prices, and they've somehow gotten people to accept the idea of paying $10 for a booster pack. How else could they be making money off Modern?

[s&s]

There must be something dramatically wrong with WoTC's structure if selling packs of painted cardboard at 2$ isn't profitable enough. Not even going to mention MTGO.

[rufus]

There must be something dramatically wrong with WoTC's structure if selling packs of painted cardboard at 2$ isn't profitable enough. ....

But is Hasbro looking for profit or for growth? Sometimes raking in money hand over fist isn't enough to slake corporate greed.

[s&s]

But is Hasbro looking for profit or for growth? Sometimes raking in money hand over fist isn't enough to slake corporate greed.

They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Making a profit should be trivial, whether they turn that profit into dividends for the shareholders, or growth of the game to increase future profit - is their call and their call only.

I find it entertaining that they are running one of the most lucrative business models ever, and claim they can't support certain formats due to "not enough profit".

Its like being able to turn lead into gold and complaining the transport costs for gold are too high.

[maharis]

It's a rock and a hard place.

Entrenched players with big collections want outlets to play with their old cards. Their ceiling for investing in new cards has been reached, or slows dramatically. They cease being direct customers of Wizards, but become important customers of Wizards' primary retail outlets. But that doesn't mean they still don't want competitive games or to play for decent stakes.

If you start taking away the juice for playing with old cards, it's easier for people to just walk away when they are done with the Standard/Limited portion of their Magic careers. They aren't trading up at LGSes, or playing in those stores' events. That means you have to acquire new customers, and that's where you run into competition with other games that are a lower skill cap/buy in/headspace. And if you can't bring them in, your distribution network falls apart, and you can't get product into your customers' hands.

[Barook]

So WotC just showcased "Magic Digital Next" on the Toy Fair for the first time. It seems that it isn't exatly a program, but an umbrella term (http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/magic-digital/magic-digital-next-2017-02-17) for various stuff. The only screenshot we got is this:

https://i.redd.it/tn3xmp74tfgy.jpg

We Heartstone now! :rolleyes:

[Megadeus]

How is it any different from Duels?

[rufus]

How is it any different from Duels?

Duels is something that exists.

[Barook]

How is it any different from Duels?
Maybe it is a new version of Duels. Hard to say.

[Barook]

Sorry for the double post. We got now info on Magic:

http://imgur.com/a/52mdF

For how long does MtG have a playerbase of 20 million now? The number seems to stagnate quite a bit.

[phonics]

All potential players went to hearthstone or shadowverse or that wrestling card game instead.

[Claymore]

there's another screenshot of Digital Next in that imgur album. Looks a little more normal, but still features damage confetti.

[TsumiBand]

there's another screenshot of Digital Next in that imgur album. Looks a little more normal, but still features damage confetti.

I've always assumed that when a Squirrel token tanks an 8/8, confetti comes out

[Sansian]

Sorry for the double post. We got now info on Magic:

http://imgur.com/a/52mdF

For how long does MtG have a playerbase of 20 million now? The number seems to stagnate quite a bit.


They really do get forever mileage out of that picture of the red head playing magic while three guys are focusing on her...

[Warden]

All potential players went to hearthstone or shadowverse or that wrestling card game instead.

I really thought you were being sarcastic, but the numbers support it. I believe some of these "facts" were reported on earlier paged, but I'm adding some new material.

Top digital CCG's in 2016 by revenue (USD): https://www.statista.com/statistics/666594/digital-collectible-card-games-by-revenue/
Hearthstone Growth (March 2014 - April 2016): https://www.statista.com/statistics/323239/number-gamers-hearthstone-heroes-warcraft-worldwide/
On the digital front MTG cannot compare to the big 2. Even if you combine its MTG Online + MTG Duels properties.

For paper MTG, a mid-2015 article by TheGuardian "estimated 20M MTG players worldwide". https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/10/magic-the-gathering-pop-culture-hit-where-next
Assuming the numbers from that 2015 article were accurate, our early 2017 investor's day numbers signal the notion of stagnant growth for the paper game.

*I'll stand by my earlier comments in this thread. The writing is on the wall and for whatever reason, WotC/Hasbro feels they don't need to compete. IMO, they're shooting themselves in the foot long-term.

[Claymore]

My earlier post is mistaken, that new imgur album doesn't have a new picture of MDN. It's just a screenshot of Magic Duels again. That 2015 article has a very similar picture.

Which makes me wonder, are they continuing Duels? Still advertising it in over MDN at the Investor Day...

http://i.imgur.com/0ZL3Uzx.webp

[Julian23]

@Claymore: MDN has been revealed to be the name of the entire team/project working on the future of the online Magic experience; it is not a piece of software. WotC plans on going ahead with Duels of the Planeswalkers and MTGO.

[Crimhead]

How else could they be making money off Modern?By planting Modern staples in Standard boosters ala Thoughtseize in Theros.

[Dice_Box]

Also Inquisition in Conspiracy, Fatal Push in Revolt, all of Karns... They make decent bank off Modern because it's a simpler format to push cards into.

[Barook]

There's also the whole Masterpieces shebang which can also include Modern staples.

I wish Wizards would get their heads out of their asses and started making supplementary products aside from Modern Masters that introduced new cards. But despite regularly being asked for that, they continue to come up with excuses.

I made a poll on Twitter regarding that topic (https://twitter.com/Barook1985/status/834100998914396161) - feel free to retweet to reach as many people as possible.

[morgan_coke]

It's cool that they've done things like bring back leagues, and are ending the 1-2 month delay for new sets to appear in MTGO - which was just beyond insane, but a lot of this feels like too little too late.

If they're really going to push Frontier over Modern... that's a lot of people who bought into Modern and aren't necessarily going to transfer over. I dunno, I like what the new team is doing, they seem to have far less of the head-ass-insertion issues the old one did, but a lot of straws are piled on that camel's back right now, and if they decide to follow the path of least resistance - "we'll make MTG just like Hearthstone, then people will love us again!" they're going to fail, badly. If they follow the path of second least resistance - franchising MTG into other properties like TV/Comics/RPG's/video games, they're not going to have as much success as they think because story has always been something less than even half of the regular player base has even pretended to care about.

[rufus]

...
If they're really going to push Frontier over Modern...

I was under the impression that Frontier is a store-created format, and has very little to no support from the mother ship.

[Dice_Box]

I was under the impression that Frontier is a store-created format, and has very little to no support from the mother ship.This is correct. Maro has stated that his preferred "Post Modern" Format would not included fetches. (Likely stating at Origins.)

[Barook]

This is correct. Maro has stated that his preferred "Post Modern" Format would not included fetches. (Likely stating at Origins.)
They could also just ban fetches in said format to prevent the trouble of having to deal with fetch reprints in the future.

[rufus]

They could also just ban fetches in said format to prevent the trouble of having to deal with fetch reprints in the future.

The fetch/dual paradigm really makes multicolor mana bases much stronger, but shuffling all the time is not great in a paper game.

[Claymore]

It also makes Wastelands much more powerful. They could help Modern with this one simple trick...

[jmlima]

They could also just ban fetches in said format to prevent the trouble of having to deal with fetch reprints in the future.

No chance in hell of that ever happening. Modern would cease to exist before that happens.

[Barook]

No chance in hell of that ever happening. Modern would cease to exist before that happens.
I was talking about the Post-Modern format, call it Frontier or whatever silly name Wizards comes up with.

Fetches in Modern are here to stay, simply because they're guaranteed sells.

On a different note:

Hex now offers weekly tournaments that pay out 1k $ cash total. Makes me wonder why they can do it while Wizards can't on MTGO.

[rufus]

...

Hex now offers weekly tournaments that pay out 1k $ cash total. Makes me wonder why they can do it while Wizards can't on MTGO.

One of the challenges that MTGO has is that it's competing with the 'core business' of paper magic so there will always be internal tension at WotC.

[Barook]

One of the challenges that MTGO has is that it's competing with the 'core business' of paper magic so there will always be internal tension at WotC.
Well, the official reason given by WotC why they can't do cash prizes on MTGO are gambling laws. Yet Hex doesn't seem to care about that.

As far as paper vs online goes, WotC sucks at maximizing profits because they're a terrible company with a good IP.

[PirateKing]

Seams like a fail to me.To their credit, at least they're consistent in their incompetence.
Still rings true :|

[MaximumC]

I wish Wizards would get their heads out of their asses and started making supplementary products aside from Modern Masters that introduced new cards. But despite regularly being asked for that, they continue to come up with excuses.


I... what? They do exactly this. On top of all the reprint sets, we're looking at three such products just in the last year:

1. Conspiracy 2
2. Commander 2016
3. (Upcoming) Archenemy Nicol Bolas

And each year we end up with more Conspiracy / Commander / Archenemy / Planechase / whatever.

[PirateKing]

Archenemy Nicol Bolas has 0 new cards

[Barook]

I... what? They do exactly this. On top of all the reprint sets, we're looking at three such products just in the last year:

1. Conspiracy 2
2. Commander 2016
3. (Upcoming) Archenemy Nicol Bolas

And each year we end up with more Conspiracy / Commander / Archenemy / Planechase / whatever.
And none of them are Modern-legal. You're missing my point.

[T-101]

And none of them are Modern-legal. You're missing my point.

Modern legal supplementary sets has been the obvious choice since Modern's inception... but they just don't do it. It would make so much sense: get cards into Modern, cards that would benefit the format, without upsetting Standard.

It's a real frustrating problem. WotC has this baffling duality going on in their approach to Modern.

1.) Modern is being pushed out of the spotlight.

2.) They maintain the old systems that were put in place to keep Modern approachable.

I understand they wanted Modern to be easy to understand. To keep things simple, they just said "No supplementary sets, no exceptions." That sucked, but I could at least understand it. But now that Modern is off the Pro Tour, and there will be no Modern GPTs, why the hell don't they let the players do something to improve the format?

- - -

It's like they said, "Hey, we don't like this format anymore, so we're abandoning it."

And the players are like "Fine, we'll take care of it, because we like it. Here are some things we could do to improve it..."

WotC - "NO! We give up, AND we won't let you try to fix it!"

[Barook]

Modern legal supplementary sets has been the obvious choice since Modern's inception... but they just don't do it. It would make so much sense: get cards into Modern, cards that would benefit the format, without upsetting Standard.

It's a real frustrating problem. WotC has this baffling duality going on in their approach to Modern.

1.) Modern is being pushed out of the spotlight.

2.) They maintain the old systems that were put in place to keep Modern approachable.

I understand they wanted Modern to be easy to understand. To keep things simple, they just said "No supplementary sets, no exceptions." That sucked, but I could at least understand it. But now that Modern is off the Pro Tour, and there will be no Modern GPTs, why the hell don't they let the players do something to improve the format?

- - -

It's like they said, "Hey, we don't like this format anymore, so we're abandoning it."

And the players are like "Fine, we'll take care of it, because we like it. Here are some things we could do to improve it..."

WotC - "NO! We give up, AND we won't let you try to fix it!"
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157339438533/i-dont-get-wotcs-policy-why-modern-legal-cards
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157343215168/testing-for-standard-is-a-way-to-safeguard-for

tl;dr: WotC are lazy fucks.

[jmlima]

http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157339438533/i-dont-get-wotcs-policy-why-modern-legal-cards
http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157343215168/testing-for-standard-is-a-way-to-safeguard-for

tl;dr: WotC are lazy fucks.


Testing for Standard is a way to safeguard for Modern.


LOLLLLLLLLLLLL. Oh, what a comedy show they are.

[Lemnear]

LOLLLLLLLLLLLL. Oh, what a comedy show they are.

its totally unheared of the new cards may become broken, if paired with older cards. /s

[phonics]

It also makes Wastelands much more powerful. They could help Modern with this one simple trick...


B-but muh land destruction!

[Richard Cheese]

LOLLLLLLLLLLLL. Oh, what a comedy show they are.

Jesus, it's almost worth making a Tumblr account over this. Has nobody ever considered that they might have a better product if they just allocated the same amount (or more) resources to testing/balancing as they do to design?

Feels like competitive video games are a lot more careful about balance testing, and they have a much easier time rolling back if something isn't right. You can't really 'patch' a card once it's been printed. Functional errata are miserable, and bans are not only a giant admission of failure, they also piss off all the players that invested real time and money in a card/deck.

[T-101]

1.) Splinter Twin deemed too good for Modern.

2.) Test for Standard to safeguard Modern.

3.) Make Sahelli Copy Cat in Standard.

Doesn't take a Doomsday pilot to see how backwards this is.

[iatee]

Probably would take a doomsday pilot 15 minutes to come to the conclusion, though.

[Lemnear]

Probably would take a doomsday pilot 15 minutes to come to the conclusion, though.

Yeah, because they need to stack 1), 2) and 3) into the right order /s

[Lord Seth]

Modern legal supplementary sets has been the obvious choice since Modern's inception... but they just don't do it. It would make so much sense: get cards into Modern, cards that would benefit the format, without upsetting Standard.
The problem is that if they make new non-Standard sets specifically for Modern, then if cards in it break the format, they can't rely on their usual "we develop for Standard" excuse. It also leads to additional confusion as to what's legal in it and what's not because there's more sets to keep track of.

Better would be to just have all cards printed in the new face be Modern legal (perhaps with an exception for judge promos). Then starting it with 8th Edition would actually help with easier recognition of what's legal (whereas by now the face doesn't help out AT ALL when determining legality), and you'd also get all the good answer cards into the format.

Obviously, this would require some extra bannings (luckily, Mox Diamond--the only Reserved List card ever printed in the new face--can be justified on power level), but it would solve a lot of the problems. Though it'd also send the format into complete chaos due to obsoleting a lot of decks...

[Barook]

Better would be to just have all cards printed in the new face be Modern legal (perhaps with an exception for judge promos). Then starting it with 8th Edition would actually help with easier recognition of what's legal (whereas by now the face doesn't help out AT ALL when determining legality), and you'd also get all the good answer cards into the format.
It's been a staple that you can use old cards in tournaments as long as the newer version is also legal.

Just imagine how pissed people would be if they suddenly couldn't use their Onslaught fetches anymore due to a dumb policy change.

[Crimhead]

It's been a staple that you can use old cards in tournaments as long as the newer version is also legal.

Just imagine how pissed people would be if they suddenly couldn't use their Onslaught fetches anymore due to a dumb policy change.
Lord Seth is suggesting all cards printed in the newer frames should be Modern legal. Nowhere has he suggested that only those cards should be legal.

[nedleeds]

(luckily, Mox Diamond--the only Reserved List card ever printed in the new face--can be justified on power level), but it would solve a lot of the problems. Though it'd also send the format into complete chaos due to obsoleting a lot of decks...

Phyrexian Negator.

[T-101]

The problem is that if they make new non-Standard sets specifically for Modern, then if cards in it break the format, they can't rely on their usual "we develop for Standard" excuse. It also leads to additional confusion as to what's legal in it and what's not because there's more sets to keep track of.

I understand the value of simplicity. That argument held a lot more water when they actively pushed Modern as one of their flagship formats.

But more recently, they've been pushing Modern away. It's not on the Pro Tour, GP Trials are no longer a thing, and they are launching all these promotions for Standard (but not a single one for Modern). Now if they don't want Modern to be a flagship anymore, for whatever reason, that's fine. The players will keep it alive if they want to.

But they maintain these "keep it simple and approachable" guidelines, while at the same time pushing the format away. If it's not their shiny new baby anymore, there's less reason to make sacrifices solely for simplicity's sake. Currently, when you see an old border card, and you're curious about it's legality, you just look it up, and find out it' usually in 8th or 9th. If Force got reprinted in MM4, or a supplemental "From the Vault: Make Modern Great Again", and someone rocks their Alliances Force, it wouldn't be a whole lot different. "Oh is that old card legal? I'll be damned, it WAS reprinted in [name of Modern reprint set]."

I feel like if people are into Modern these days, they are keenly aware of the legality rules. The Modern players could probably handle a supplemental set (or a Modern Masters set that introduced otherwise illegal cards). Maybe they test the waters with some "safer" cards, like Force of Will, and some of the Onslaught tribal guys. When that turns out to be fine, they could tinker around with some more powerful, but not necessarily broken stuff, like Hymn to Tourach, Predict, or Tendrils of Agony.

[Lord Seth]

It's been a staple that you can use old cards in tournaments as long as the newer version is also legal.

Just imagine how pissed people would be if they suddenly couldn't use their Onslaught fetches anymore due to a dumb policy change.
Huh? I don't know how you somehow got the idea that only the versions in the new face would be legal. I was suggesting that all cards printed in the new face at any point, with a possible exception for judge promos, would be legal. So for example, you could play Counterspell in Modern because it was printed in the new face, but it wouldn't have to be a new face Counterspell.

On the other hand...

Phyrexian Negator.
Huh, forgot about that one. I thought it was just Mox Diamond that caused the uproar. That does pose a problem, though I'm not sure if Phyrexian Negator would even be good in the format.