Metamorphosis
Spoilers, Rumors, and Speculation forum
Posted on Aug. 25, 2014, 11:14 a.m. by spyroswiz
According to today's article in Daily MTG, Mark Posewater announced the new structure of blocks. We are going to have 2 rotations each year( one in fall and one in spring). Also, in summer 2015 its going to be the last core set. From then we are going to have 2 blocks each year. Whats your thoughts about the new model? For more informations: http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/mm/metamorphosis
Rhadamanthus - how will an 18 month window crash prices? People are still going to open packs at the same rate, we're still applying roughly the same supply and demand. If anything, this will raise prices because with blocks will be pritned for less time. Typically a block stops being printed when the new one comes out - with new blocks coming out more often old blocks will be printed for less time.
- The pre rotation decrease will still crash prices for like the last month or two of a block but that pre rotation window wont increase in time. This means you get 1 or 2 months of low prices out of a total of 18, instead of a total of 24.
August 25, 2014 1:56 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #3
And I forgot to include what I came here to post.
I am one of the players who gets worn down by metagame fatigue. The constant churn of information from multiple major and/or significant events every weekend causes the Standard format to settle into a groove very quickly, and it will remain in that groove for a long time (of course, until the next expansion or rotation) with little noticeable variation. Anything that will keep things a little fresher will be welcome.
August 25, 2014 1:56 p.m.
isn't 2 months out of 18 better than 2 out of 24 if you're talking about low prices?
11% of the time the prices are lower versus 8%?
August 25, 2014 1:59 p.m.
Rhadamanthus you forget that the people that will still play standard will pay higher prices for cards so scenario 1 probably wont happen since there will always be a demand and people who pay high prices. The second scenario has the problem of people have to get their cards right away and dont have time to wait for hype prices to drop so the prices wont drop by an accelerated post rotation drop it will just accellerate the loss money peple make by buying the cards in the first place.
August 25, 2014 2 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #7
I didn't say I actually thought it would happen. Those were the only possibilities I saw, so I listed them.
Like you say, if we're applying the same supply and demand then nothing changes. In terms of how long a set is in print, cutting off the last N months of supply will be balanced by the new rotation schedule cutting off the last N months of demand.
August 25, 2014 2 p.m.
shuflw It's irrelevant because the low prices only arise due to standard players trying to sell their old stuff pre rotation. No standard player will benefit or lose from that window. It's just the same as it was. All that happens is they lose normal time before the rotation-ish time.
We have to assume that standard players DONT try and buy loads of cards in the pre rotation window.
August 25, 2014 2:01 p.m.
trentfaris242 says... #9
@ChiefBell That was kind of my point. I think this new system will cause the market to have lower initial costs for the cards with higher drop rate in price. I don't think it will be any different for anyone in terms of price (except maybe the chase mythics thing, we'll see). I think this is a positive thing for the community. More rotations without extra out of pocket expenses = more exciting meta that everyone gets to enjoy.
August 25, 2014 2:01 p.m.
Rhadamanthus - which isn't true when you consider that there are eternal formats.
August 25, 2014 2:02 p.m.
trentfaris242 - but WHY? Why will the market have lower initial costs? We're not reducing demand - demand is still there! There's no reason to assume that there will be lower intial prices.
There's also no reason to assume that the pre rotation price drop will increase in time.
August 25, 2014 2:05 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #12
EmblemMan - For the type of player described in this thread as saving up ahead of a release, I hope that player is also intelligent enough to never pay pre-order prices.
ChiefBell - The demand for a playable card in an eternal format extends literally forever, since that's what eternal formats are all about. A 3-month supply difference is insignificant on that scale.
August 25, 2014 2:06 p.m.
Rhadamanthus - that could be true or it might not be. Imagine if they printed fetchlands for 3-6 fewer months. It might make a massive difference. How many hundreds of fewer packs does that mean are in the world? How many hundreds of fewer fetchlands?
It's an interesting question.
August 25, 2014 2:08 p.m.
Magic has always been a game of "Who spent more money?" This aspect won't change.
August 25, 2014 2:08 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #15
ChiefBell - Then the values of chase cards in eternal formats will appreciate faster than they currently do. How does that affect a Standard player with a fixed budget? What point are you trying to make?
August 25, 2014 2:16 p.m.
meecht thats not entirely true. If you spent, lets say 200$ for a deck, which is consider tier 1 and you dont know how to play it, then you waste your money. I predict with this new system, they want to create a diverse format, which everything is open and the standard metagame will likely change every week.
August 25, 2014 2:16 p.m.
trentfaris242 says... #17
I don't understand why people are saying the supply will change? The only people who open enough packs to make an impact on the market are people who play limited (this change could easily increase those numbers). The supply will remain relatively the same.
August 25, 2014 2:16 p.m.
I like that the new block structure progresses the story/lore much faster. It will give them more time and space to give us the "Return to ~" blocks we ask for.
August 25, 2014 2:17 p.m.
Rhadamanthus - my points are two-fold.
Poor standard players get less time to save up for the cards they want before they rotate.
We'll see reprints being opened in smaller numbers due to increased block rotations which may have a knock-on effect on modern / legacy / other prices.
trentfaris242 - when wizards release a whole new block the stop printing the older one. With an increase in the quantity of blocks there'll be a decrease in the print runs of each block.
August 25, 2014 2:20 p.m.
Also could we please get yeaGO or Epochalyptik to rename the thread to spell Metamorphosis correctly? It is driving me insane.
August 25, 2014 2:22 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #21
To my knowledge they print the 4 most recent sets at a given time and thus these changes should have no effect upon the amount or schedule of cards being printed.
August 25, 2014 2:25 p.m.
I like the changes. I think they'll keep the metagame constantly shifting making people have to constantly work to come up with decks, vs. just picking one strong deck and riding it out for 2 years as other tier 2 decks try to make an impact.
With all of the people who've complained about how they thought standard has been stale since Theros was released, I'm a little suprised by all of the negative comments towards something that greatly prevents that from happening again. I saw comments about how it's going to be harder to pick standard cards because they're going to rotate so much more quickly, which I just don't understand. They'll rotate every 18 months compared to every 24 months. If you can't find those cards in the year and a half that they're legal then your not trying. Also if you actually read the whole article you'd see he started off listing problems that Magic's R&D have been having for a while, include some that have been going since the beginning. If these changes are designed to help fix those problems so they can put out a better product, what makes you immediately jump to all of these negative conclusions? I for one could care less if rotation happens 6 months earlier than what it does now. If it means improving on what we already all consider a great product then I'm all for it.
August 25, 2014 2:25 p.m.
Devonin sorry for that. Typing too fast is not good!
August 25, 2014 2:30 p.m.
trentfaris242 says... #24
@ChiefBell Do you have a source that it's Block based and going to stay block based in this new system? Because if not, that's pure speculation. In addition, when new sets are released older sets are opened much less frequently. That's the case even now. Printing does virtually nothing for the Standard environment if the packs aren't bought and opened.
"Poor standard players get less time to save up for the cards they want before they rotate." Again, this isn't true if the cards cost less (which will almost certainly be the case since they will face a shorter time in the format).
"We'll see reprints being opened in smaller numbers due to increased block rotations which may have a knock-on effect on modern / legacy / other prices." Once more, it isn't about set printing. It's about set opening. Reprints aren't bought per pack, but as singles. This new system doesn't affect that.
August 25, 2014 2:33 p.m.
If we are to assume that, to stay semi-competitive in Standard, players (whether poor or not) have to purchase a number of cards from each set around the time of their release, then the timing of the rotation does not make a difference in the overall cost of playing Standard.
For example: "Blood" is released... spoilers have shown me that I will need 15 cards from the set, (4x copies of 3x cards, and 3x copies of another). - I will need those in my deck to improve/maintain it appropriately.
The need for those cards will be based on required changes due to cards rotating out.
Many people seem to be assuming that rotation happening after 18 months means that the cards needing to be replaced is occurring more often... what is being overlooked is that the number of cards rotating out at a time is also being reduced. - Instead of 4 sets rotating out every 12 months, 2 sets will be rotating out every 6 months. - The number of sets rotating per year is the same, thus the average number of cards in a deck needing to be replaced each year (or set) remains the same as it is now.
How the 18 month vs. 24 month window will effect the cost of individual card prices remains to be seen... but the number of cards needing to be purchased each year will remain relatively the same.
Another thing to remember is that card pools will be smaller... 5-6 sets at a time as opposed to the 5 to 8 sets at a time for current Standard. - I'm not sure if/how this will affect prices, but it's something to consider.
As well, when a block rotates all the mechanics will rotate with it, making certain deck archetypes obsolete. If a deck is based on the rotating Mechanics, it will cost more to remain in Standard, as a larger number of cards will need to be replaced (start new deck from scratch)... but if the deck was based around a Mechanic that is remaining, it will likely bring down the cost for the players of that deck as the core cards for the deck will remain unchanged.
TL;DR: Personally, I think the average cost of playing Standard will remain the same, but there will be greater fluctuations in "when" you have to invest.
August 25, 2014 2:36 p.m.
Rasta_Viking29 says... #26
I'm all for these changes. Should help keep Standard fresh and interesting.
The current structure allows players plenty of time to learn the meta and become better prepared which helps offset the amount of technical skill required for success in the format. With the blocks rotating faster and adding a third block the complexity of the format will increase and skilled players will be rewarded. Should be fun.
August 25, 2014 2:40 p.m.
I compeltely agree with Rayenous - prices stay the same but you have to invest more often.
I'm speculating on how the printing process will change trentfaris242 so I am unsure. Although you're assuming that prices will be lower because cards won't be in standard for long?
I'm not sure that's the case either.
August 25, 2014 2:42 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #28
ChiefBell - Point #1 assumes Standard-legal cards will rise and fall in value at the same rates as they do today. As if, for example, making a card like Sphinx's Revelation only legal for 18 months instead of 24 would end its Standard life at $16.00 instead of $8.00. That doesn't make sense.
A sleeper card like Desecration Demon that doesn't become hot until something in a subsequent block wakes it up will probably already have been acquired by a budget-minded player because it will still be dirt-cheap near the beginning of its life. Again, the accelerated rotation schedule should take some of that edge off as more time passes.
A card that starts high and either stays high or goes even higher was always going to be outside the reach of the budget-minded player.
In Point #2, yes, the appreciation curve for after the card is out of print and the Standard selloff is finished will get steeper. Eternal formats are not cheap.
August 25, 2014 2:43 p.m.
trentfaris242 says... #29
@ChiefBell I am assuming that, but I'm basing it off of economic principals. Players won't, or rather shouldn't, be willing to pay the same price for a card that they will only get to play for 18 months rather than 24. That's really more of a call based on how smart/stupid our community is. We dictate the price of cards via our purchase of them.
August 25, 2014 2:46 p.m.
Rhadamanthus - using the s.rev example:
I think that the card will end up at the same price ($8 by the end) but it will do it quicker. Their depreciation curve will be slightly steeper. However we have to assume that standard players want the cards when they're priced highly because standard players dont want to buy things when they're about to rotate out.
August 25, 2014 2:46 p.m.
@ChiefBell. While true that the shorter print time means that the "Standard pre-rotation" price drop will come sooner... your own statements show that Eternal format cards will increase in price sooner, or at least not drop as much, due to a shorter print run.
This, although not likely to fully mitigate the pre-rotation price crash, will make for a pool of higher priced cards. Standard players (who don't play Eternal formats) will then be able to sell or trade these cards to help off-set their increased costs in Standard (which I'm not fully convinced there will be a noticeable increase).
August 25, 2014 2:47 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #32
Okay, then if the card becomes more affordable faster, the missing months of "saving" aren't as necessary.
August 25, 2014 2:48 p.m.
trentfaris242 - that's not an economic principle. The card will still have the same worth whilst its in standard. I don't think worth of a card is at all dictated by how long it'll be useful but rather by how useful it actually is.
August 25, 2014 2:48 p.m.
Biggest problem is the additional cost this adds to anyone trying to stay in standard, as any rotation is naturally going to see drops in value of rotating cards and spiked prices of cards when they are introduced.
I guess it's fine as long as some more cards that have eternal format potential get printed.
With the core sets gone, looks like we'll be seeing less of the main 4 planeswalkers... although if patterns hold from Inistrad, RTR and Theros we can probably expect to see about 7-9 planeswalkers a year, and about 10-15 planeswalkers legal in any given standard format.
August 25, 2014 2:49 p.m.
trentfaris242 says... #35
@ChiefBell Card prices are determined by both their usefulness and the term of their play. A card isn't worth something because it wins 1 tournament, but because it wins 100. The amount of time a card is "good" affects its price. If it rotates out sooner, it has a lower value.
This is literally the main reason so many eternal format cards are so expensive. It's because they're both good and not leaving the format.
August 25, 2014 2:57 p.m.
golffore297 says... #36
Ok, so this is what I want to get at. People have been complaining that Standard in it's current state is getting too stale, as cards that have staples in early sets (RTR with something like Sphinx's Revelation and Theros with Elspeth, Sun's Champion , etc.) rotate out very slowly. "Faster" rotation allows for new strong cards and new decks and new solutions to decks in the meta. Cards will still be in Standard for 18 to about 15 months, meaning cards will still be in Standard for a good period of time, but not long enough to get old and boring. It also may mean some strong cards weaken quicker or vice versa. This will bring with it a fresher Standard environment, and yes, decklists may have to make changes every six months as opposed to a year, but it means you'll have to be smarter in building lists, to make sure it's strong enough to hold up in the coming times.
That being said, this isn't all about Standard, there's a lot more to it than just that. This means that we will be getting a lot more stories, a lot more progress, more "return to" blocks, and just a lot ore variety in general. They have already been world building for these two set blocks, and with the FFL, I'm sure they've already seen how it can work with formatting.
So I'm going to welcome the change, I think that with it a new and very different life will be breathed into the game, and there's a lot of cool new stuff that will be able to come with it.
August 25, 2014 2:57 p.m.
Rhadamanthus - well not really because most players still want the card as soon as possible, rather than waiting.
August 25, 2014 2:57 p.m.
TheRedDude says... #38
if they made it so that they would have 3 blocks in at one time it would solve some of these issues.
August 25, 2014 3:02 p.m.
The other thing I guess i'm hoping for is that they decide to shift the 2 block sets from Large-Small into Large-Large to give sets more contribution to the standard pool.
August 25, 2014 3:04 p.m.
@TheRedDude. - That is what they will be doing... 3 Blocks will be in Standard at all times. When the first set of a 4th block enters Standard, the First block will rotate out, leaving blocks 2, 3, and 4 in.
@jchudz - MaRo has stated that this can still be a possibility. Although Large-Small will be the "Norm" it will not always be how Blocks will be formed.
August 25, 2014 3:14 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #41
I personally am looking forward to people building "post rotation" decks twice a year!
August 25, 2014 3:35 p.m.
First of all, let me point out that I have not read the five pages of comments, so I don't know if what I'm saying is redundant or not. Second, I found a nice visual that shows how Standard is going to start looking. Again, I don't know about redundancy.
Now onto my thoughts regarding this change. I'm interested to see what happens. More rotation means a constantly shifting meta. That could be nice. This could actually lower the price of standard. Since nothing is going to be around for a really long period of time, it's possible that Standard staples will not be worth as much. I could be horribly wrong here, I don't know much about economics.
Most importantly, I don't have to see those stupid "Post Rotation" decks three months in advance.
August 25, 2014 4:45 p.m.
Thank you for the name change and feature. Now, can you please hyperlink the article.
August 25, 2014 4:50 p.m.
lookoutimscary says... #45
I honsetly think it'll made it harded for the developers with two blocks but no core sets, core sets are usually a repeat of old cards and mechancics, making them easier to develop. Expansions however are all unique in their own way and the developers having to do an additonal one may make each one less unique.
August 25, 2014 4:52 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #46
Featured.
I've read almost none of the discussion, but here are my thoughts:
Firstly, I agree with the proposal in its intent. Core sets have been, in my experience, kind of like the speedbump in the path. They're necessary for controlling the tempo of Standard, but people tend to consider them insignificant in the overall scheme of where that path is going and how it's going to get there. Core sets were a useful tool for infusing Standard with cards necessary for its balance and cards necessary to support or answer certain decks. These cards didn't have to be thematically tied to a certain location because core sets could pull from the entire Multiverse.
Removing the core sets and switching to a two-block year makes sense, and it seems on paper to do everything R&D wants it to do. The third sets of our current block system ends up being an odd child out because, as the article says, they seems a bit stale by the time they're released. In some instances, they shake the Standard meta a bit with new mechanics and cards, but there's a lot more potential in visiting a new location and bringing both new flavor and new functionality to Standard.
Second, the two-block calendar and modified 18-month rotation cycle will make for a more stable Standard. Currently, we have a problem with maintaining the flow of Standard come rotation. We lose three sets, and a good number of mechanics, when blocks rotate out, and the community seems to often feel like release week for a new block is a bittersweet moment because we're starting with a barebones meta. Yes, it's true that we still have another block in Standard, but the changeup shakes the game a bit too much.
Currently, we have a minimum of five sets in Standard: The three sets of the oldest block, the core set, and the first set of the new block. We have a maximum of eight sets in Standard: The three sets of the oldest block, the oldest core set, the three sets of the newest block, and the newest core set. Moving from eight to five is a hard reset in some respects because it drastically cuts the card pool.
In the new system, we have a minimum of five sets in Standard: The two sets of the oldest block, the two sets of the intermediate block, and the first set of the newest block. We have a maximum of six sets in Standard: the two sets of the oldest block, the two sets of the intermediate block, and the two sets of the newest block. Moving from six to five is not nearly as drastic a change as our current rotation cycle creates, and it will lead to a more stable rotation schedule and Standard meta.
Third, the proposed schedule has a positive impact on the deckbuilding process and player growth. As was stated in the article, the meta puzzle was solved rapidly, and, for most purposes, it changes very little in the time between releases. There's about a one to two week delay after each release where the meta adjusts to the new cards, and then several months of stagnantion. Sometimes, the meta doesn't really change at all.
In the proposed cycle, we have "fresh" material every half year instead of every full year, so there's greater potential for the meta to shift in meaningful and exciting ways. The game won't be as static as it is during third-set releases. Additionally, the new material should promote faster growth in players because they are going to be experiencing new environments more often than in the current system. Skills will be tested during meta shifts of greater magnitude.
**Fourth, the exact impact of this new rotation schedule on the secondary market remains to be seen. We have several forces at work here.
- Because we're getting new blocks more regularly and eliminating a fairly stagnant core set model, there's more opportunity for explosive economic prospects, and there are likely to be more total value cards (third sets and core sets probably provide fewer value cards than a second block would).
- The 18-month legality window will mean a decrease in the time for which a card could be relevant in Standard, BUT it is difficult to draw direct parallels between the current 24-month model and the new 18-month model because the meta is likelier to shift in the 18-month model. Right now, we tend to have value cards that can remain value cards for up to and over a year because we only experience one block per year. In the new model, we get two blocks per year and a lot more changes in the meta, so the golden era for a card may last only six months.
- The elimination of the core set will drive spend. In the current model, core sets are relatively insignificant because they don't provide a truly flavorful Limited experience and because only a handful of cards are relevant to the meta (and many of these cards could be reprints). An all-block model will drive spend because it constantly promises a new and (hopefully) exciting Limited experience and because it may incentivize more active acquisition (i.e. players buy sealed product). Greater active acquisition would mean greater singles supply in the secondary market, which may help to stabilize and even lower costs.
- The community -- and R&D -- is obviously concerned about the impact that 18-month legality windows have on players' willingness to buy into Standard. There will be a lot of regular changes in the meta, and cards have a reduced lifespan. If Standard wants to remain in favor, R&D needs to do some extra work to make sure the players see it as a dynamic format with plenty of opportunity. A stagnant Standard would only worsen players' fears and drive them away from product.
The obvious statement to make here is that we'll have to wait and see, but we should roundly consider the possibilities and the probabilities instead of allowing fear to set in and bias our perception of the new model.
August 25, 2014 5:08 p.m.
@DrFunk27 - Why would you spend that much all at once on a deck anyway? Besides, rotation happens every 18 months, not 6. Some peices may rotate out, new ones rotate in, the deck overall may still work.
I like and don't like this at the same time. I always thought core sets were a necessary evil, the glue holding this whole 3-set structure together. Ever since they got black borders back in Tenth Edition, I've loved every one of them. I'll be sad to see them go. But more blocks means faster storytelling and more deck variety, so it can't be a bad thing.
I wonder if the new player product line will bring back the old school labeling of "Beginner" "Intermediate" and "Expert".
August 25, 2014 5:18 p.m.
Dalektable says... #48
I'll post a link to a video I'm making on the subject later today. Sneak peak: More money = more problems, but change is good.
August 25, 2014 5:25 p.m.
Blind_Guardian says... #49
I feel about the same. Core set has always been the core of magic but it has become less and less important. Therefore this change is well needed, but I feel there is more changes coming to the other formats as well since they want modern and legacy to be popular too.
August 25, 2014 5:27 p.m.
TheAnnihilator says... #50
While people talk so much about a "fresh" new meta, I want to point out that the only reason I've been playing Standard is that I don't have to constantly buy new cards after I have assembled a deck that I am content with. I LIKE to have a good deck and "ride it out" for a while. (Heads up, and I expect maybe a little hate, but I've been running Esper Control for many months now.)
While it may make the meta a bit more fresh, if my cards have to rotate out more frequently, and I have to update them... I just don't have that kind of money. It's taken me since just a while before Innistrad rotated out to assemble the Esper that I run now, with very few occasional deposits of ~$10-15 and LOTS of trading for a span of months. I've been sitting comfortably on the 95% finished deck for around a month, and I'll stick with it until Khans (I don't care about the other 5% unfinished), but for more than half a year it was still under construction, and I played it even when it wasn't 50% complete. This slow construction isn't really possible with the new change.
If I have to replace cards every two sets, rather than every new block after a new core-set, I'll be forced to quit standard (which I may already do so I can rotate my control deck into modern and not have to keep spending.) To end on a high note, yay for more frequent Modern reprints, though =D.
GoldGhost012 says... #1
Yeah, this may eventually kick me out of actually playing Standard.
August 25, 2014 1:52 p.m.