CPA Voting Issues Revisted: Size/Speed of new sets for Magic

[Dune Echo]

How does everyone feel about the size and speed of sets now? The earlier consensus last year was that if the speed of release for sets needs to slow down to improve card quality and people would be happy about it. Here's a link to that thread: http://www.casualplayers.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=917.

There is a great article on Star City about card quality and rare chasing that might relate to this issue: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandsub.php?Article=2063.

Also, someone told me today that Jamie Wakefield is quoted as saying "Every card could be constructed-worthy." I wish I could find this exact quote somewhere, but it sounds like a certifiable statement to me.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, here's what I said then:

I think they should do away with the stand-alones and just have the basic sets with expansions, the way it used to be in days of yore

And I still think that way

I'm not sure about the justification of the Star City guy's logic behind old rares. I think he had the right reason: special, but the wrong example by using dragons. They don't have to be rare. Heck, you could argue Angels and Vampires ae "rare". Same with the "complex" idea. The Laces certainly weren't complex, but they sure were narrow. What I believe Garfield said about rares was that they have a narrow and specialized use.

Perhaps the rare idea needs to be re-visited in that Magic is not what the creators envisioned when first thinking of commonality, but I am hesitant to rally behind the author of Star City for his reasons.

 

[Duel]

Actually, I agree. Rares should have a narrow and specified use, and be the best at it. Which is why I object to Undermine, Absorb, Vindicate, et all....

 

[Gizmo]

Im happy with speed of sets. Sometimes a set can seem to fly past when you want it to linger, other times you can be sat waiting FOREVER for something to rotate out finally.

I do agree about rares. Cards like the counterspells and Vindicate are not narrow, are simply rare to make people buy packs.

 

[Mikeymike]

I think the yearly refreshment is necessary for competitive environment. Set balance right now is probably better than its ever been before. Invasion block gives us simple, yet extremely powerful rares in the gold cards to give virtually every color combination a viable deck type. The bad part is that although there are nearly an unlimited number of viable decktypes, it is the same cards that are getting played over and over again. The power of these cards forces players to use them, and in turn lowers originality & discovery in deckbuilding. I think Odyssey will change the environment (further down the road) as more power cards might prove to be unique combo cards that have their own decks built around them.

I hear Tony's argument (the starcity article) and I think he makes a valid point. But there are too many holes in his argument. He can't say that the over-simple rare is a recent occurance b/c I can go through each set in Magic's history and find multiple cards which both support and reject his theory. Moxen, A.Recall, Juzam Djinn, Vampiric Tutor, Paladin en-Vec, and Treachery are all examples of relatively straight-forward rares. They aren't narrow in their application either, finding homes in many different decks.

I do agree that with Tony and Duel regarding Absorb, that card is not worthy of being a rare when looking strictly as its utter simplicity. Its main goal is to counter a spell, and its 'gain 3 life' ability adds 2 steps to the rarity ladder and $10.50. However, I do believe that Undermine and Vindicate are justified of their rare status do to their shere power and the fact that they are the best at what they do. Undermine is a different (and more dangerous) card b/c it has the potential to kill your opponent (getting around a CoP also).

 

[Zadok001]

I agree on the rarity issue. But personally, I believe it would be nice to slow down the release of Magic sets a tad - two sets a year, instead of three. HOWEVER! I would only recommend that change if the additional time for each set allowed for a set with a higher quality of cards in general. While I don't think EVERY card can be constructed worthy, surely 80% could be achieved. I'd be happy with 60%. If the extra time could be put to use making a set better and more interesting, then I'd be all for slowing it down a tad.

 

[Gizmo]

I think those figures are unrealistic. The simple fact is that more of the sets are aimed at limited playability than they are at constructed playability.

 

[Chaos Turtle]

I am happy with the time between sets the way it is. I like the Standalone/Expansion/Expansion rhythm we have going.

I agree that very simple cards that happen to be powerful ought to be uncommon, generally. They're continuing their trend of rare staples with Odyssey, with Call of the Herd, Persuasion, and Divert all being more rare than they should be.

Oh well.

 

[TomB]

Because I couldn't afford to keep up with it anymore. Plus, the $300.00+ a year I had been spending on the game wasn't giving me enough of the more powerful cards, so I still couldn't play, and be competitive, despite spending that much.

To me - and it took me a long time to realize this - if I can't be competitive for $300.00+ annually I'm not getting my money's worth out of this deal...

Changing the release schedule, or, at least, making the cards you do release, more playable, would be about the only way someone like me will go back to supporting WotC.

And I just don't see that happening...

 

[Spiderman]

Gizmo:

The simple fact is that more of the sets are aimed at limited playability than they are at constructed playability

How so? I thought the designers strive to get a balance between all formats.

 

[Gizmo]

Yeah, but the balance is intended to be in favour of limited. No matter how many good constructed cards they make only the best 10% will ever get played. But its critically important for a strong limited environment that it be well balanced and dynamic. A single over-powered common can destroy a whole limited environment, but its impact would barely even be noticed in T2.

 

[EricBess]

I agree with Gizmo. I think WotC does aim for a reasonably good balance between the three groups, but limited has to be the focal point. The reason for this is that if WotC simply created three separate card pools (limited, constructed, casual) and threw them together, calling it a set, many of the constructed cards would be very playable (and perhaps unbalancing) in the limited environment. Every card has the potential to be opened in limited and therefore, every card must meet a balance in limited. Cards that stretch this balance should be rare to avoid overpowering the environment too often (Irridescent Angel is one example).

I'm not saying that they don't put cards in that are blatently for constructed play. I'm just saying that when they do, they need to take the limited environment into account in doing so. They don't really need to go the other way around so much.

 

[Zadok001]

My previous statement was erroneous, in that I managed to completely forget about Limited.

However, I still think that it would be possible to make at least RARES better. Some are so clearly and unnessesarily underpowered that it's just painful to look at the things. Reducing the colorless mana cost of some rares by one or two would make them only borderline playable as filler - So why are they so expensive?

 

[Spiderman]

So what I'm getting is that perhaps some cards are rare because of the Limited environment? Or does the environment not matter for card's commonality?

 

[EricBess]

Spidey, I believe that it is definitely the case. Obviously, WotC has to let some cards through that may be a bit more powerful than others. A risk is run that these cards may be just a bit overpowering in limited, but I think that for the most part, common answers are included where possible.

But to have too many people get those would be a problem.

I remember one sealed deck tournament I participated in where the distribution was so bad that nearly half of the people playing pulled Worship . One or two people getting such a card isn't too bad because there is a decent amount of enchantment removal in the set. That many people getting Worship swings the odds heavily against the players that didn't get a Worship in their packs. As for myself, that is perhaps one of the only limited tournaments I have played where I didn't even get any enchantment removal. Guess how I did that day

 

[Hetemti]

I'm with TomB...

The Odyssey prerelease was WizCo's last chance to keep me buying packs.

And they failed.

I played three sealed events and walked home with ONE rare I could put in a deck, and two others that I might use one day.

I'll still be picking up singles, but I'm nolonger buying packs...cept maybe a little more Apocolypse...Apoc only screws me 60% of the time, not 85%.

 

[orgg]

Originally posted by EricBess

I remember one sealed deck tournament I participated in where the distribution was so bad that nearly half of the people playing pulled Worship . One or two people getting such a card isn't too bad because there is a decent amount of enchantment removal in the set. That many people getting Worship swings the odds heavily against the players that didn't get a Worship in their packs. As for myself, that is perhaps one of the only limited tournaments I have played where I didn't even get any enchantment removal. Guess how I did that day

Honestly, folks, who here got the Worship/Angelic Chorus/Phrexian Processor run of Saga?

I got one that I had to pass in the Legacy PR, and I was passed one back in the Destiny PR.

I pretty much have nothing else to add that hasn't been said, I agree that the rarities of some things are stupid, the costs of some cards are too high, and that uncommons should be to a certain extent the most powerful type of card, within limits.

 

[Gizmo]

Yeah, but to be honest Hetemti, from what I remember your idea of a playable rare wasnt exactly very accurate. Besides, whatever happened to trading away bad cards for good cards?

 

[Spiderman]

Maybe he ran out of people who would trade for the bad cards...

 

[FoundationOfRancor]

You guys should do what I do, my amigo's and myself have a really cool system.

We play alot online (Or use too, until my apprentice stopped working) so we have alot of expirirence with the new Type II, new decks, good cards, etc. However, we also play alot in real life. And we usually blow all our money on food or pool or women or drugs, so we dont have alot of dough for magic. So we usually end up buying a box per set and just playing with those cards. We rarely trade. Its like playing limited, but we also get to contruct decks with a wide range of cards. For example, a green speed deck I played with today used Rancor, Natural Order, and Wild Mongrel all in the same deck. My oppenent was capsizing my creatures will beating down with a thresheld Krosan Beast. It's great fun.

I hope this post has made sense.