Metamorphosis 2.0 - Changes to Standard
Standard forum
Posted on June 12, 2017, 11:18 a.m. by Chandrian
In his article, Metamorphosis 2.0 MaRo lays out the plans of WotC to deal with the issues they discovered with the 2-block system.
I suggest you all read the article for fulle details.
.
.
.
Done?
Less Gatewatch
No more small sets
return of a "core set" each year
new approach to worlds and sets
Less Masterpieces
What are your thoughts on these changes? Good or bad? What would you have changed? What would you have kept? Are they changing too fast and not waiting for changes to fully show?
Share your thoughts in the comments below!
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the possibility of 1-set blocks. I feel like we may not get enough of certain worlds.
Given the above gif is correct, the next 4-5 blocks will be of one set, unless the gif in hiding the makeup of each block, but given the different coloring, I would say that is correct.
June 12, 2017 11:22 a.m.
landofMordor says... #5
CheeseBro, MaRo mentioned that some worlds will have more than one set, depending on the depth of that world. So we can assume that a "Dominaria 2" would have 2-3 sets, while "Theros 2" would just be one. Or at least that's how I read it.
On the whole, I think every change they announced is super positive, especially Core sets and less Gatewatch. MagicalHacker, I'm with you on Masterpieces, but I'm willing to see them less often if it means the quality stays at the current level.
June 12, 2017 11:56 a.m.
Winterblast says... #6
Well, Ixalan having no masterpieces will probably mean I'm not buying any Ixalan displays. Without the chance of opening such a card, there's usually nothing in the new sets that justifies paying 80 euro for a whole box or even two or three boxes. What's the price of the most expensive mythic in each set...like between 10 and 15 euro? And it's not even sure it's among the 3 or 5 mythics in a whole display.
June 12, 2017 12:07 p.m.
OneItsStarted says... #7
Winterblast Personally I feel like the masterpieces reduced the prices of most sets due to how much they encouraged opening, not to mention wotc's slow downgrade of sets with the removal of 1 mana mana dorks, good 2 mana counters, 1 mana red removal.
June 12, 2017 12:40 p.m.
"Less Gatewatch"
Hoooray!
"Our new plan is to continue to design flavorful story cards but only push them for Constructed when, through playtesting, we believe that they lead to a better Constructed environment."
While this is certainly better, the implication that previously they were willing to knowingly sacrifice the quality of Standard to ensure that their marquee story cards were played is more than a little worrying.
June 12, 2017 12:45 p.m.
AgentGreen says... #9
This is interesting to say the least.
Less Gatewatch-related cards is certainly a good thing. The story by in large is untouched, The issue of always seeing a Jace or a Gideon is problematic
One large set per release is very good and a return to core sets gives WoTC a pipeline for reprints that are not plane-specific
June 12, 2017 12:58 p.m.
Winterblast says... #10
OneItsStarted I had seen them as a lottery in an otherwise cheap set...I only pulled one from an aether revolt display and unfortunately none from amonkhet, but the chance of opening one justified spending 80 euro on 36 boosters. The rest of the set is so damn cheap that it doesn't remotely make up for that price when you open a whole display. I was only satisfied with amonkhet without an invocation because there were a lot of playable rares and uncommons, even commons in the set and I would have bought a lot of singles, all with shipping costs and stuff, so the price was ok. Strip the chance of getting a high value card completely and there's no reason to go for whole displays anymore. Ixalan would have to be one hell of a set to make up for the missing lottery effect.
June 12, 2017 1:01 p.m.
Master pieces were meant to drive sales and make sets cheaper. The back lash is because the pulls have less value, drafters stopped drafting cause the lack of value if you didn't open a master piece. Not everyone who drafts expects to get full value back, but it's disappointing that you pay $15 and see no card worth more than a dollar.
June 12, 2017 1:13 p.m.
GeminiSpartanX says... #12
" it's disappointing that you pay $15 and see no card worth more than a dollar. " -> this is why I don't draft unless it's a $10 draft. I still didn't get enough value even at $10 most of the time, but since I like drafting I participate at that price point. The price point isn't on Wizards (it's the venue that determines draft prices), but it does affect them since it's all about people buying packs. No expeditions is fine by me so long as the cards in a set are worth opening.
June 12, 2017 1:20 p.m. Edited.
Regarding less Gatewatch: I honestly don't care if they all stay together and go from plane to plane together, what bothers me is their overpresence in the art and that they forced the power on these cards. I'm glad they will back down on the powerlevel. I'm guessing that because not all members of the Gatewatch will go everywhere together we'll have sets where one or more of them don't appear at all in the art, which will be very refreshing.
Only big sets: I like to draft, but I'll admit I always have trouble combining the small and big set (mainly because there's not much carry-over between them and thus some mechanics feel abandoned), so I'm glad it's only big sets soon.
Core sets: I started drafting with Magic Origins and feel that, while it was a Core Set, they did manage to make the draft interesting as well as the lore around it. For this reason I like the inclusion of new core sets and hope they'll still manage to make fun/interesting stories around them.
Regarding the new way to handle worlds, I'm really curious how they'll go about this.
As a final note I hope they take their time and wait for the changes to be effective for a while before making a big review of what works/didn't work (mainly because I think they changed their rotation schedule way too soon, before they could even see the effect it had...), they are giving themselves a lot of flexibility and they should use this wisely and not rush changes.
June 12, 2017 1:29 p.m.
So, basically, they are turning the clock back to before they decided to change everything after Origins.
Except with having one big set per block. Wonder how long THAT will last.
I think it will make the Standard environment more cost effective for some people, but less fresh for others.
I get bored with playing my decks for too long.
June 12, 2017 3:54 p.m. Edited.
@Argy what would you consider an ideal length for a set in Standard?
I find it interesting to see that they hold on to the "normal" rotation schedule, while with the way they plan to do stuff in the future they have so much more freedom and could (if they wanted to) make it so that each set stays in standard for the same amount of time (for example for 24 months, fall set of 2020 would kick out fall set of 2018).
June 12, 2017 4:17 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
I wonder how frequently a plane will be featured only once across consecutive sets. One of the advantages of a block system is that it allows the devs to introduce or reintroduce a plane and establish its identity and conflict, then introduce some climactic event that will change that identity according to the conflict. For example, Shadows over Innistrad reintroduced Innistrad (the plane) with a mystery theme, and Eldritch Moon showcased the climactic emergence of Emrakul and the effect this event had on Innistrad (the plane). The three-set block took this even further by allowing an exposition-climax-resolution approach to storytelling, wherein the third set would show how the conflict was resolved or how the plane ended up after the climactic event in the second set.
With a more freeform model, the devs are able to switch between those two approaches as necessary. But I question how often it will be necessary to visit a plane for only one set rather than for two or more sets at a time. A one-set plane could theoretically be used in the event of a chase (e.g., a planeswalker pursuing something and stopping briefly on one plane before moving to the next) or to allow devs to tell multiple stories almost consecutively (e.g., while X is happening on Zendikar, Y is happening on Innistrad). It'll be interesting to see how players respond to this; I feel that there's a lot of potential for one-set planes to fail if players don't feel like anything worthwhile was accomplished by only briefly visiting/showcasing that plane.
Edit: The above really only looks at sets from a lore perspective; I'm not exploring the potential benefits to Standard stemming from the variety possible with one-set planes.
June 12, 2017 5 p.m.
So I'm still reading, and then I'll share my thoughts (cause you all obviously want to know mine) and then read and respond to others...
... but I just had to pause after reading this and share.
"Players were unhappy when mechanics they liked dropped out between sets, yet also complained that we didn't explore new mechanics enough."
DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A MAGIC COMMUNITY! GET YOUR FRESH HOT MAGIC COMMUNITY HERE!
June 12, 2017 5:21 p.m.
From a lore/storytelling perspective the change would allow them to show a conflict between groups on different planes at the same time. For example in Lord of the Rings, half the the time you'd be following Frodo (and Sam) and the other half of the time the other characters. They could do something similar in MtG:
By switching between characters and locations without mentionning time too much you can have character B show up just in time to save character A on another plane (for example you'd have the story be first on plane A, the following set we go to plane B where we see another part of the interplanar conflict and finally we return to plane A for the climax of the story).
June 12, 2017 5:31 p.m.
landofMordor says... #19
Epochalyptik, I share your concern, but I'm overall optimistic. I think certain one-set planes could be used very effectively as interludes (for example, let's say Koth is searching for weapons for the Mirran resistance on Esper, which instigates a Gatewatch-worthy conflict on Mirrodin). I think it could work in several situations, as long as devs play it right.
However, I'm willing to endure lame or anticlimactic single sets if the new model allows us to avoid the three-set lore fatigue of Tarkir, Scars of Mirrodin, and original Innistrad, where the lore status quo was changed negatively in the third block just for the sake of originality and story resolution.
June 12, 2017 5:35 p.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #20
@TMBRLZ, while I kind of agree, the simple solution, and what imo they should have been doing all along, is to use the mechanics they make more often within the set. He goes right on to mention Meld, which had a whopping three uses in the set they introduced it. Three total cards does not warrant a whole damn keyword. And they do this all the time, there's so many keywords they brew up, print 3-8 cards with, and then abandon it forever. Of course people aren't going to be happy with it, that's a recipe for disaster.
I get that they don't want to linger on a mechanic across a lot of sets over and over, but they could just have more examples of the keyword within the single set they put it in. Maybe the elimination of small sets will help with this issue, but I don't blame the community for this at all.
June 12, 2017 5:38 p.m. Edited.
To be fair - I think he was - as subtly as possible squeezing in the rare opportunity to call out a majority of the community on being damn near impossible to please on some things. Which is remarkably true.
I've watched players react over my time working at my LGS and they are about as consistent as a tie-die drenched metal concert only covering Beethoven classical music, where the band is all American politicians.
Actually... that would be more consistent.
June 12, 2017 6:56 p.m.
Tyrant-Thanatos says... #22
yeah, I do agree that the community can be pretty hard to please in general, but the keyword mechanics scarcity seems to me a lot more like a design issue than a community issue. You've got ~250 cards to work with in a set, and you can only devote 6-12 of them to your new keyword? It seems like they're being cautious to a fault. 'what if they don't like the new keyword?' well, nobody is going to if you only print 6 cards with it, we can't even build a deck around it with that.
I don't agree with large parts of the community on a lot of things, and a lot of it can be really toxic and just plain bitchy, but this sort of stuff does bug me.
June 12, 2017 7:06 p.m.
Manifest_Destiny says... #23
This announcement gives me so much hope for the future. All the decisions made were a step in the right direction, especially draft environments. Triple all the way, if they can make every set as fun as triple khans or triple RTR they're going to please a lot of people. I wish they would remove masterpieces altogether though, its no secret ever since expeditions there has been a steady decline in quality. Having "lottery" cards in general is bad form by wizards as the system never works out.
June 12, 2017 11:26 p.m.
Chandrian it'S not the LENGTH of the set I'm talking about.
It's how often NEW cards are injected into a format.
With fewer sets that will happen less regularly.
June 13, 2017 1:51 a.m.
Hi_diddly_ho_neighbor says... #25
I think these are all great decisions by Wizards, just as long as they implement them intelligently. I always thought the abandonment of the core sets was a bad idea both in removing a good source of reprints and eliminating a great interlude set which both served as a potentially great lore support set (i.e. Origins) and a way to prevent story fatigue.
As far as only making large sets, I am totally on board. I primarily play limited and Commander, so anything to keep drafts fun and fresh is alright by me. I can also see the lore greatly benefiting from this new set approach as long as it is executed well.
I am all for less frequent masterpieces. I feel by always having them in a set cheapens the idea/excitement for of a select few blinged-out reprints of all time great cards within their respective types. By making them more scarce, they can bring back that exciting feeling of trying to open one when the first Expeditions were made (not that I would know since I never have cracked an Expedition, Masterpiece or Invocation).
June 13, 2017 1:59 a.m.
Argy there won't be less sets in Standard. We had Aether Revolt as the winter set, Amonkhet as the spring set, we'll have Hour of Devastation as the summer set and Ixalan as the fall set. What they're changing is that the sets will all be large sets (which will mean more cards are in Standard). When "Spaghetti" comes out the only small set left in Standard will be "eggs".
With them making only large sets and not making Masterpieces anymore Standard may become much more expensive than before... so let's hope they manage to spread the love around the colorpie without too much fixing and we might see a Standard with enough viable decks that cost a "normal" amount of money.
June 13, 2017 4:39 a.m.
As an LGS employee, I just don't like Wizards making me have to relearn all this stuff so I can explain it to newbies. I guess it will be easier now though.
"Yeah, they kind of just said screw it and gave themselves creative license to do whatever... sooo... yeah. Core Sets though! You can trust those."
If they believe it will make the game better and revitalize the dreadful state of Standard, I saw lez go lez go lez go.
MagicalHacker says... #2
Large sets only is like having a bigger Christmas every year rather than only some years, so obviously it's good!
Core sets? Thankfully a way to reprint cards that need them, but mainly good for helping players learn to draft.
No more blocks makes me sad, but if it helps the story telling aspect of the game and keeping the game fresh and fun, I'm all for it!
Literally the only thing about the announcement t I think is a step in the wrong direction is sporadic masterpieces. Those should be in every set. Hopefully metamorphosis 3.0 fixes that.
June 12, 2017 11:22 a.m.