Just a thought...meta related
Standard forum
Posted on Aug. 29, 2014, 8:59 a.m. by capriom85
The rotation format for Standard cycles blocks twice as quickly. Thumbs down? I know that this is the general concensus but don't be so hasty. Most of the negatives of this I have seen center around the idea that we will be investing a large value into cards that we rotate in half the time that they do now. Maybe not. Here is my logic, and it may be wrong, but...As humans we adapt to changes. This change to the standard format may cause the kind of changes that make new archetypes emerge where they would have been ignored. This would cause a lot more cards to see play and effect the demand for the usual Tier 1 cards to be less. So maybe the cards that will see eternal play may be expensive still, but no one ever complains about that investment. Perhaps the cards that will be standard bombs and then go to the dollar bin (I'm looking at you Jace, Architect of Thought ) will never become the $20+ format staples that we have come to dislike. To rephrase what I mean...This may create a healthy standard meta in which we don't have 2 or 3 top decks but a plethora of different decks that actually rely on decent piloting more than just running the "best" cards in the format and winning. Thoughts?
ChiefWannaHacka says... #3
Cards won't rotate in half the time... with the upcoming changes it'll just be about 18 months vs. 24. That being said, just because cards will rotate 6 months sooner, good cards will still be good and bad cards will still be bad.
August 29, 2014 9:34 a.m.
The way I understand it, a spring block and a fall block will make rotation happen every 6 months to make room for the new one. Am I wrong?
Also, I agree good cards are good and bad ones aren't, but will the demand for the good ones necessarily be as high? Prices are driven by this and I'm not sure people are willing to spend $20+ on a card that will clearly only be good for less time. Shortening a standard cards life will effect it's value...at least I think it will.
August 29, 2014 9:38 a.m.
quesobueno123 says... #5
I don't play standard so only care about no core sets which I think is awesome, it means more flavorful cards.
August 29, 2014 9:39 a.m.
Yes it does. Core sets have always been a sink hole of $ for me. I buy a box because I feel like I should and usually end up with maybe 1 of what I want. With M15, most of my box went out the window in trades. I kinda feel like I bought a Chord of Calling reprint for $90. :(
August 29, 2014 9:45 a.m.
ChiefWannaHacka says... #7
@capriom85 Sets will rotate every 18 months. The new standard will consist of three 2 set blocks at any given time.
August 29, 2014 10:11 a.m.
Oh...so blocks will only be 2 sets deep?! I did not know that. Makes sense now...my knowledge of the new structure was based on word of mouth. I guess it wasn't clear enough. That should make for some flavorful standard
August 29, 2014 10:17 a.m.
CommanderOfBolas says... #9
@TheDevicer: Although there will be 2 rotations a year, Wizards does not need to produce twice as many cards. here is why: We currently have 2 blocks legal at any given time. that is roughly 6 sets, plus 1-2 core sets, meaning as many as 8 sets will be legal in standard. With the new block structure, we will have 3 blocks, each consisting of 2 sets. that means there will be 6 sets legal in standard. this is actually less work for wizards
August 29, 2014 12:13 p.m.
the work doesnt come from the new cards as much as the new flavor and story which will be moving much faster, number of cards created will go up slightly id imagine since most of the core sets are reprints
August 29, 2014 12:39 p.m.
_SeriosSkies_ says... #11
"Thumbs down? I know that this is the general concensus but don't be so hasty"....I thought the general Census liked this. Maybe i should browse the forums here more often...but i haven't talked to a single soul who hates the changes.
August 29, 2014 1:57 p.m.
_SeriosSkies_, yes, a lot of people were not in favor of the change because they see standard as a waste of money and this will cost more $ in theory to stay in it.
August 29, 2014 2:11 p.m.
Nobody has complained about core sets being removed though. And also not about the lore being sped up. I wonder if people will miss having Jace around so often...hmmm
August 29, 2014 2:12 p.m.
@capriom85 No one complains about core sets being removed because no one really liked core sets. They're boring, and are usually just filled to the brim with reprints. They have very little flavor, usually have next to no lore or story, and generally have about 3 good cards in them (often reprints). I'm glad they're gone, and so are most players.
As for Jace, it wouldn't be hard or even unreasonable for them to include Jace (or any of the Lorwyn five for that matter) in one out of every three blocks. They've already said they'll still have about the same number of planeswalkers each year, and I sincerely doubt they'll just be ignoring Jace and the others especially with the funko figurines, the movie which will more than likely star at least one of them, and just the fact that having some recognizable faces stick around is good for any brand. I doubt Jace or the rest will show up much less than they do now. This just means that we will be getting reprints of things like Jace, Memory Adept , Chandra, Pyromaster , Liliana Vess , etc. in blocks rather than only in core sets.
August 29, 2014 2:27 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
I disagree wholly with TheDevicer's argument.
First, we'll still have the same number of releases per year. We're taking one three-set block and one core set and turning it into two two-set blocks. There's no significant change in the number of cards being printed; if anything, the pressure is on WOTC to advance the storyline.
Second, Standard will absolutely still have a metagame. Rotation will happen twice per year, which means that players are almost guaranteed to see new decks in one form or another at least every six months. Three to six months (three being the case if the second set of a block significantly changes the meta) is plenty of time to play with and against a deck without that deck, or the meta in general, becoming too stale. While it's true that stability in a meta is important, don't confuse stability as a comparative equality amongst decks with stability as a long-term persistence of decks. The former is what we should want.
While it may be reasonable to assume that control will have a harder time to experiment, the basic tenets of control remain approximately the same, and control players shouldn't take longer than two or three weeks to become functionally familiar with their opposition.
As for the sheer number of decks in Standard, on which capriom85 commented at the end of the original post, I don't know if it's necessarily accurate to say that Standard will have a plethora of decks rather than two or three top decks. That part of the game doesn't seem like it will change. Good cards, as was said, will still be good, and players will still netdeck and adapt to the winning lists. Because we don't actually have more cards, I don't think the number of viable decks will expand in a meaningful way within any one Standard season. We'll still have stratification between the tiers, and people will still want to play what's winning.
I will say, however, that having six months between rotation may encourage people to experiment for one season if they decide they'd like to take a break from the beaten trail. Part of the problem with an annual rotation is that there's no easy opportunity for players to digress from the meta like that. If you don't like a season, you're kind of screwed for a year. In this sense, I do agree that we may see more variation in decklists overall.
Current Standard: 5-8 sets, depending on date.
New Standard: 5-6 sets, depending on date.
Current Standard:1 rotation per year, 24-month block lifespan
New Standard: 2 rotations per year, 18-month block lifespan
Current Standard has this very awkward time at rotation where we lose four sets (three block sets and one core set) and gain only one, meaning there is a drastic change in the Standard card pool. New Standard will remove two sets and add one set, so there's a less drastic change.
August 29, 2014 2:43 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #16
The only place I have seen any negative feelings for the new block structure has been on here. Most people I have talked to outside of here feel it will lead to a standard like Timespiral/Lorwynn-Shadowmoor where there were many diverse archetypes being well represented.
August 29, 2014 3:22 p.m.
I really feel like people are just misinterpreting the two rotation idea. The complaints all seem to be about cards only being legal half as long (which obviously isn't true) and having to continuously replace them at rotation. Then they're taking that misinterpretation and comparing it to the way rotation is now so they see two rotations as half the standard card pool being dumped a year. Like Epochalyptik points out, rotation will cause change but it's not going to completely reset the standard meta like it does now because we aren't losing near as many cards without replacing them with more. Remember folks, rotation will happen twice a year but the only thing that is rotating out is the first block (the two oldest sets). This is after it just spent 18 months as standard legal. It's not like there will be cards rotating out 6 months after they're released.
August 29, 2014 3:22 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #18
To the point that cards will need to be continuously replaced, though, this may be true. But we shouldn't automatically assume that it's a bad thing. I think many opponents (or at least critics) of this change are worried about losing on investment when it comes to rotation, but I don't see any evidence that suggests we'll lose more over the course of a double-rotation calendar than we would over the course of a single-rotation calendar.
It all depends on how much of the deck is rotating out, and you should be aware of your deck's financial risk in terms of its dependence on a given block. It could just as easily be argued that the double rotation cycle is better, financially speaking, because players could theoretically adapt by replacing a few cards. This won't put an immediate financial strain on your competitive play in the same way that losing half your deck might.
August 29, 2014 3:31 p.m.
My main points mostly hinged on the idea of losing half the card pool upon rotations. That was cleared up, and I'm not upset about that anynore. I mere wanted to point out quicker rotations will mean (in theory) less likely hood of stale metagames.
August 29, 2014 3:44 p.m.
Yeah, it seems people are under the impression that people will be losing half their deck every six months. That can only happen if your deck is entirely dependent on the oldest block. With 3 blocks worth of cards and mechanics I feel like decks won't be entirely dependent on one block like they are now. With the 2 block system we have now if one block has an obviously higher power level than the other then it's very easy for decks to come almost entirely from one block and then we end up with entire decks being lost at rotation. With the 3 block system, the power level can be balanced better. If one block ends up being considerably weaker you'll still have 2 blocks people will be using to build their decks from. That means come rotation we should be less likely to see entire decklist leaving standard. Which means less overhaul to your deck at rotation time. Essentially we should start to see rotation as less of a complete meta overhaul. You'll be working on deck maintenance after losing a few cards instead of working on an entirely new deck.
August 29, 2014 3:47 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
Well, it may also be the case that you lose your entire deck if the meta shifts unfavorably in relation to it, but you've got the essential point there. It's less of a guaranteed loss than our current model. Of course, we will need to wait to see how it all pans out, but I don't think it's worth worrying so greatly.
August 29, 2014 3:54 p.m.
Oh no, I'm much in favor of these changes. I know there's a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know about that this will affect as well.. Even as open as the company is on social media and such about things going on, we still don't know everything. Just with the problems specifically mention in the article they put out though, this feels like it's a step in the right direction to tackle those problems. We obviously have to wait and see though, there are always unintended consequences, but I'm optimistic about the changes.
August 29, 2014 4:02 p.m.
WovenNebula says... #23
I'm one of the few that'll miss core sets, since I've been around for most of them. I personally thought they were good for teaching new players and casual. They were never meant for money cards and I think they should go the old ways where they'd stay for two years and not the now every year change or maybe instead make a new portal set. For the other topic of faster rotations, yeah I agree that'll it'll be more expensive but I believe it's good because standard won't be that stale. I personally like the resemblance to lorwyn.
August 29, 2014 9:59 p.m.
Named_Tawyny says... #24
What I really really love about it is that it allows for greater continuity of decks (at least at the FNM level; I really don't care much about the PT level of play).
Right now, with half of the cards dropping during rotation, most decks are completely gutted - it's not so much adjustment, as wholesale change; you're very nearly better off just starting from scratch.
But with only 1/3rd of the cards dropping under the new system, there's much greater deck stability. Put some sideboard cards, or cards that didn't quite fit before, and slot them in, then find new release cards to improve thing. Rather than tossing deck 1 for deck 2, it'll be more like evolving deck 1 into deck 1a. Over the course of two years, the deck will (obviously) become completely different to the deck you started with, but the process will be more gradual and, I think, more enjoyable.
September 1, 2014 12:21 a.m.
that's the hope Named_Tawyny, it would be nice to see standard be a constant evolution like that. Then someone will win an event on the pro tour and everyone will jump all over that deck and it'll be like there's no change... lol. What you described I believe is the goal. Instead of standard just being decks made up of the most recent blocks, it'lll be a continuously evolving meta. It should make standard feel less like an over sized block format.
Arvail says... #2
You'd have to create twice as many cards. This puts a lot of pressure on WotC to print stuff. Also, the existence of a metagame is healthy for any competitive game. You want one to exist. Rotation throws it out of the window. Control also relies heavily on knowledge of different archetypes. It would become a lot harder for control players to keep up with all the changes.
August 29, 2014 9:17 a.m.