Printable View
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.
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.
It's not a 10 on the Storm Scale if we don't call it that.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers...7621&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 BlockQuote:
Originally Posted by Zombie
For me however, them desperately trying to evade "Affinity" and "Metalcraft" as keywords despite being present through the block, is just brickheaded and childish
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! :)
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Megadeus
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LarsLeif
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix Ignition
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix Ignition
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
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.
That is hilarious. And potentially true!Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
Marketing: "What's the new mechanics and keywords for this block to get players excited?"
Dev: "ermm... converge?"
Marketing: "Sounds great!"
Dev: "sigh"
http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles...rix-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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barook
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemnear
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Their economic incentives are clearly to push the fastest-rotating formats. So standard and limited are always first in on their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by s&s
I'm fine with them promoting standard, just not with them cannibalizing legacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
That's basically inevitable. WotC is a business. If they can't make money on legacy they won't spend resources on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by s&s
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dice_Box
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...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
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.
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rufus
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)
You are the minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by s&s
As for the simile, auto manufacturers do make money off the 'repair network' and from selling parts.