Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

So some notes now that I've had twenty minutes to think about this:

• Like the first Metamorphosis, this is one of those things that's like "oh yeah, obviously" in retrospect. Nobody does like small sets. People do want to be able to stay on different worlds for different amounts of time. Like so many other restrictions in how Magic sets are done, this one was more a carryover of history than something with a provably good reason behind it.
• I specifically cited Hearthstone in my argument for why they wouldn't go back to three-set blocks, and I think it's not at all a coincidence that three equal-sized sets, each mechanically distinct, puts them on the exact same release cadence as Hearthstone.
• Even outside CCGs, other people who make card games (Living Card Games and Deck Building Games) mostly started on a large/small set model and have all been abandoning small sets for similar reasons to this, so it's a definite industry trend already.
• The marketers are also gonna love this because now instead of all but one of the sets in a year being less exciting continuations of what came before (in the 3-set model) or half of them (in the 2-block model) now all of them are new and surprising, so they can make announcements more exciting and give every set an equal push.
• If they actually follow what they're saying about the Core Set problem, this will help the "too many products" issue a bit and also give them more breathing room for their supplemental products in the summer.
• First thing I noticed about this (and I'd put $10 on this being the specific point of debate that led to this change) is that it solves the Ravnica problem: they can use three sets to do it over one year in this model, and even have more total cards to work with.
• It also addresses some of the storytelling issues specifically by letting the ongoing story have its own beats with natural breaks where needed, instead of trying to jam 3-act structure into two parts.
• Also good to hear that they've taken the Gatewatch criticism seriously and are going to move to the rotating cast approach (where the GW are the protagonists but they split up, we see side stories that intersect with them, etc.) rather than the current full-team approach. Jace in SOI is the single best example of Gatewatch storytelling so far so anything that encourages more of that is a plus.

Reason #1 why small sets died: Innistradx3 vs Dark Ascension.

The thing about the core set is that they finally stumbled on a good gimmick w Origins. Right before they killed em.

Yeah, I agree with both parts of this. Dark Ascension is like the prototypical Small Set In A Two Block Set That's Still Bad and that ruins a wonderful draft format. There is no prototypical Small Set That Has A Good Draft Format because every AAB format is bad, every BAA format is bad, and I'm pretty sure every BBA format is bad too.

I would hope Origins would be their model in a few ways for these new core sets. They're a great opportunity to do simple mechanics, flashy stuff that isn't innately difficult to understand like the flipwalkers, and do backstory stuff including cards for dead characters.

Paging charlequin considering the core set.

Hey now, I've been predicting Magic releases for years and I take my slops where I need to, but I made my final prediction here which said they were definitely bringing something like a core set back: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=239790581&highlight=core#post239790581

I'm only gonna call the core set one half right because they don't seem to have fixed any of the problems with the old version, but I feel pretty vindicated in my beliefs about the block structure even if I didn't get all the way to the thing they actually did.

What

literally

what

did anyone predict that?

As with Metamorphosis 1, I saw lots of people get close but nobody actually nail the exact announcement because it's actually more daring than people typically guess for this stuff.

 

[Violet_0]

Would you be OK with new Pokémon games removing access to the old generations that came before it?

sure. I don't play competitive Pokemon. If I want to use old Pokemon (which is never), I can play the old games

reprints can be helpful for the standard format, but they are not very exciting for a lot of people like me - unless they reprint the value cards, in which case people are just in it for the $$$

 

[kirblar]

Yeah, being able to do the "1/2 the guilds, 1/2 the guilds, ALL THE GUILDS LOLOL" model actually works if the final set is large.

I mean, it'll be a balance nightmare, but it's doable (and lets you then do full-block team sealed for awesomeness.)

 

[traveler]

Hmm, still not a fan of making Spring/Summer sets second class; wish they'd changed that. I get that more frequent rotations devalue cards, but making sets with inherently shorter lifespans also does that, no?

 

[kirblar]

Hmm, still not a fan of making Spring/Summer sets second class. I get that more frequent rotations devalue cards, but making sets with inherently shorter lifespans also does that, no?

They're already second class. They don't sell as well. Changing the block structure and rotation didn't fix that.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Fuck off with 9 months of Ravnica again.

and I'm pretty sure every BBA format is bad too.

You're wrong Oath Oath BFZ was better than Oath Oath Oath and a great draft format.

Grimace (?) mentioned pros liking EMN in particular.

 

[traveler]

They're already second class. They don't sell as well.

As a player, that doesn't make them second class to me. Giving them less time in standard does.

And what if the revamped set structure/elimination of blocks changed consumer mindsets towards those sets? The waters are muddied now because players know they have less utility. I suspect the spring/summer sets selling worse is simply a carryover of the problem they've identified here- that small sets aren't well liked. Spring/Summer sets were traditionally the province of exclusively small sets. I think they should give them their own due now that that has changed.

 

[kirblar]

As a player, that doesn't make them second class to me. Giving them less time in standard does.

And what if the revamped set structure/elimination of blocks changed consumer mindsets towards those sets? The waters are muddied now because players know they have less utility. I suspect the spring/summer sets selling worse is simply a carryover of the problem they've identified here- that small sets aren't well liked. Spring/Summer sets were traditionally the province of exclusively small sets. I think they should give them their own due now that that has changed.

It's the school calendar.

They can't fix the issue- players have more time in the fall.

 

[traveler]

That's fair, but I guess I still don't see why this means the Spring sets have to be tied to the rotation of the Fall set proceeding them. They're still going to make them; they're still going to sell them even if they don't perform as well- why not lend them a little extra value in longer staying time?

 

[kirblar]

That's fair, but I guess I still don't see why this means the Spring sets have to be tied to the rotation of the Fall set proceeding them. They're still going to make them; they're still going to sell them even if they don't perform as well- why not lend them a little extra value in longer staying time?

Because players didn't like 2x rotation apparently.

 

[charlequin]

My reading between the lines here is that single sets are going to be how they do more returns without massive creative overhauls. A single set on Zendikar or Tarkir that doesn't take the creative team a year to reinvent

Yes, first off this lets them return to popular settings more easily because it's easier to revisit them without a massive shakeup or creative reinvention, and it also lets them treat revisits more like story beats than big momentous events; they can have a set on Ravnica that's about the Consortium or the Gateless or something without having to meet the expectations of "omg returning to ravnica!!!," or let us check in on New Phyrexia without having to deal with all the crap of doing a whole artifact block.

I'll note that this does devalue settings somewhat. Part of why Ravnica was such a huge thing in the players' consciousness was that it was this great setting with great cards attached that people were in for a whole year. However, that's a natural result of getting from 2 or 3 settings up to 10+ anyway -- the newer ones would never be quite as significant anyway.

One other thing I just thought of: this change makes a return at some point to Kamigawa or Lorwyn way more likely; there are tons of risks you can justify for a single product cycle that you can't for two, and they're gonna want to keep novelty up while keeping creative worldbuilding efforts manageable.

Ya wasn't saying he was lying, just that theres a massive issue with median pack value post BFZ.

Yeah. I think the goal of bringing down the price of staples by including stuff that doesn't impact format accessibility was good, but they veered so far over that it had negative effects.

What they might honestly want to do to tweak this is copy just the same-set part of Masterpieces and include special alt-art, alt-frame versions of specific cards in the same set as rare promos in some cases.

Wizards is so flippu-floppy
...
Why bother saying anything will ever be anything if it changes every couple sets?

This is just agile development. Their old model had big problems and the only way to fix them was to take major risks. Taking major risks means some stuff is not going to work, so if you aren't willing to iterate at that point you're gonna be stuck specifically with a failure. And because of the way their dev cycle works, they can't just hide the stuff that doesn't work from us, so they have to actually tell us somehow that stuff is changing.

Honestly, WotC is unusually open about the business decisions that go into this kind of stuff, compared to a lot of companies in the gaming world. All these changes make sense as learning from and building on the ones before so I don't think it feels like they're just flailing around or anything.

Man, they'd only burn thru mechanics faster if they added sets. They never did. They're going through them slower now that there's less sets.

I mean, they're gonna reduce the volume of mechanics per set to partially address this, but as it is they'll be doing mechanical resets 3 times a year now. That certainly has the ability to burn through mechanics faster.

The most promising thing to come out of this for me is the now fluid nature of mechanics and planes.

Yeah, both of these things were very strongly bordered by the product/marketing schedule in an unnatural way. This change should do a lot to address some of the storytelling issues, especially the long-running "there's always an apocalypse!" issue. With standalone sets they don't need massive changes in every setting to justify a mechanical evolution, so it's a lot easier to do things that are just like "Ajani needs to get this one artifact from this one plane, which is not in any danger; here's all the stuff going on around in the place he does that."

 

[Violet_0]

this also lets them return to unpopular settings more easily. I'm just sayin'

 

[y2dvd]

I've always liked the idea of smaller sets in the draft environment to accompany the large set, but the execution has been pretty poor in the last several sets. For instance, block B (and C when it was still around) had mechanics that were too different from block A, completely destroying drafts by the 3rd pack. At that point, might as well give block B it's own draft environment, so I completely agree with the change.

 

[charlequin]

Yeah, being able to do the "1/2 the guilds, 1/2 the guilds, ALL THE GUILDS LOLOL" model actually works if the final set is large.

Yeah, Dragon's Maze could actually sort of work in this. I mean, the draft situation would be rough, but it's an easier problem to solve than what they would've had to do in 2 sets.

Fuck off with 9 months of Ravnica again.

lawl

You're wrong Oath Oath BFZ was better than Oath Oath Oath and a great draft format.

Grimace (?) mentioned pros liking EMN in particular.

Okay, that's true. OOB is building off garbage so that's a downside but people definitely like it. EMN is actually one of the best second sets in general for a variety of reasons so I can credit that too. Even so, though.

It's the school calendar.

They can't fix the issue- players have more time in the fall.

Also even total nerdlingers go outside sometimes in the summer.

 

[darkside31337]

this also lets them return to unpopular settings more easily. I'm just sayin'

I would mark out hard for a new Kamigawa set. There are dozens of us.

 

[traveler]

I would mark out hard for a new Kamigawa set. There are dozens of us.

You have my Jitte!

 

[DrArchon]

this also lets them return to unpopular settings more easily. I'm just sayin'

True. It's a lot easier to sell going back to Kamigawa for one set than two or three.

They still won't do it, because why go back to Kamigawa when you can go back to Ravnica or Mirrodin for the 3rd time, but still, the possibility is there.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Okay, that's true. OOB is building off garbage so that's a downside but people definitely like it. EMN is actually one of the best second sets in general for a variety of reasons so I can credit that too. Even so, though.

I'd be curious to explore why BFZ ends up working with OGWs, I might have to ask MaRo if they know anything about that.

I would mark out hard for a new Kamigawa set. There are dozens of us.

Probably half of those are in this thread, myself included.

 

[charlequin]

I've always liked the idea of smaller sets in the draft environment to accompany the large set, but the execution has been pretty poor in the last several sets.

Every time I go back to list my favorite draft formats I just look at a lot of small-set formats and shake my head. I didn't really think about this exactly at the time, but almost all the really good formats that weren't x3s included three sets -- IPA being a classic example.

this also lets them return to unpopular settings more easily. I'm just sayin'

Yeah, my new called shot is that we'll see either Kamigawa or Lorwyn in the next three Magic years -- so by the spring expansion of 2020. The incentives about unpopular settings change pretty drastically when you change the number of "slots" available; it's much more reasonable to see if you can rehabilitate one now.

They still won't do it, because why go back to Kamigawa when you can go back to Ravnica or Mirrodin for the 3rd time

Under this new system they a) can finally return to popular settings to the point of actual saturation if they want to and b) they need to find ways to produce novelty and find new stuff that people are into. There isn't the same kind of "well we could do a popular thing instead" issue with this many spots.

 

[Santiako]

I want to go back to Kamigawa or Lorwyn badly.

 

[alternade]

So this is very interesting but im confused on some caveats:

1) Does this mean that a story block like Kaladesh +Aether Revolt will be combined into one set 3 times a year?

2) Will there be 3 ProTours a year now?

3) How big are these new single sets going to be? 400+ cards?

4) Does this mean they could a year where its set 1 and 2 are on one plane and set 3 is somewhere else or if the story is big enough have all 3 sets on one plane?

Overall I'm excited. More worlds in a year means more new cards.

 

[kirblar]

Large sets are already around ~249 cards. They're not as big as they used to be.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I'm gonna miss small sets, though. They weren't always great, but I usually found them a lot more interesting mechanically than the larger ones.

They're still doing blocks. Just not every time. It's going to be complicated to figure out what rotates.

 

[Daedardus]

Hey now, I've been predicting Magic releases for years and I take my slops where I need to, but I made my final prediction here which said they were definitely bringing something like a core set back: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=239790581&highlight=core#post239790581

I'm only gonna call the core set one half right because they don't seem to have fixed any of the problems with the old version, but I feel pretty vindicated in my beliefs about the block structure even if I didn't get all the way to the thing they actually did.

I just remembered a time a couple of months ago were I said that bringing back core sets would be a logical thing to do given their issues with reprints and answers for Standard and you denying that completely .

 

[alternade]

They're still doing blocks. Just not every time. It's going to be complicated to figure out what rotates.

Yeah so let's say they use the first 2 sets for 1 plane/story and the third is new, when rotation happens do the first 2 sets get chopped in half? That seems odd.

 

[Justin]

It could be cool to have a block span several planes. Like the first sent of a year could be setting A and the story could lead to the second set and setting B which could then lead back to setting A but after some big event has changed it.

 

[shrapnelmagnet]

Willingness to try new things and being able to admit they were wrong isn't a bad thing.

My issue is not with them making decisions but with them stating anything as if it means anything. They make an announcement to do Masterpieces in all future sets moving forward. Why? Why even phrase it like that? I don't really care, just have learned to never really believe them.

Whatevs, I guess. Just looking forward to spoilers.

 

[red13th]

Those are HUGE changes. I'm excited and looking forward to what's coming up. I'm especially fond of how they say there's a chance of sets (weird to think there are no more blocks) with zero Gatewatch members. All in all, I'm down for it. Come soon Wednesday!

 

[bigkrev]

I love Kamigawa for the weird stuff like Soulshift and Splice, which they would never do in a new set, so I hope they never go back and disappoint me

 

[darkside31337]

I love Kamigawa for the weird stuff like Soulshift and Splice, which they would never do in a new set, so I hope they never go back and disappoint me

They should go do it and bring back Splice just so I don't have to pay $35 for a copy of Goryo's Vegenance and Through the Breach shrug.

 

[Zocano]

I still want them to do one set out one set in rotations for standard but that will never happen at this point. This set structure is more conducive to it but the player base whined too hard about them trying it before.

 

[Hero]

Interesting changes! I think they're all for the better though.

I'm really glad they're returning to the Core set. That was the most baffling decision when they started this revamp a few years ago and I remember on one of the older threads I said that was something they would never do.

 

[FreedomFrisbee]

I mean, they're gonna reduce the volume of mechanics per set to partially address this, but as it is they'll be doing mechanical resets 3 times a year now. That certainly has the ability to burn through mechanics faster.

They've been reducing the volume of mechanics in sets since RtR. Block resets has nothing to do with how many mechanics they 'burn' through (burn being of dubious application here since all this mechanics are completely reusable and do get re-used). 2012 saw Dark Ascension, Avacyn Restored, M13, and RtR. Thats 3 mechanical resets plus a small set (AVR was totally a reset despite being 3rd in the block, ROE and DTK are similar). 2013 had the same Small/Large distribution with 3 resets, Gatecrash, Dragons Maze, M14, Theros. If we fast forward to last year, we only see 2 small 2 large with 2 resets. Oath, Shadows, Moon, Kaladesh.

The problem with thinking they've somehow started burning mechanics faster with the world changes is disregarding that every set has new mechanics anyways, and that half the time sets simply necessitate a lot of mechanics, regardless of block and story structure. Ravnica block required 15ish mechanics. Khans block required 15ish. BfZ block? 9 new mechanics if we're counting non-mechanics like devoid. Then Shadows block had a grand total of 6 new mechanics. Kaladesh block was down to 5.

We're not even close to unsustainable burn rate on mechanics. Time Spiral was unsustainable. We're currently at lower than normal burn rate. The story may be moving at an unsustainable pace, but the amount of mechanics hasn't changed. The number of cards using said mechanics has shifted, but a mechanic being used on less cards is only good for WotC because it allows them to revisit it with greater ease because they left ideas on the cutting room floor the first time around. Was Merge 'burnt' design space, or is it great that they dipped their toe so that they can revisit it more completely during Innistrad 3?

 

[thefil]

As a strictly limited player, I love these changes. No more mixed drafts/sealed, cards rotate out of limited faster to keep things fresh. A+. Only potential downside is return of core sets, they can be boring.

 

[Infinite Stars]

For reference, Khans was 11(13 if we count stuff like Megamorph as different from aMorph and include things like the Dragon Rider clause on cards)

RtR was.. 10? I think

I like the fact that just this week I was trying to understand how they were going to do Ravnica 3: Teysa Drift, and then they go and upend the table by removing blocks/making Core Sets have a return.

One advantage of Core Sets returning is that we can get all 5 Gatewatch Core Members in the core sets if needed, leaving the main block appearances to actual changes to their characters.

 

[charlequin]

3) How big are these new single sets going to be? 400+ cards?

Still 250-ish.

4) Does this mean they could a year where its set 1 and 2 are on one plane and set 3 is somewhere else or if the story is big enough have all 3 sets on one plane?

Yep, that's exactly what it means.

They're still doing blocks. Just not every time. It's going to be complicated to figure out what rotates.

This is an even better reason to introduce explicit branding for seasons (or, since we're already stealing the Hearthstone set model, Year of the X.)

I just remembered a time a couple of months ago were I said that bringing back core sets would be a logical thing to do given their issues with reprints and answers for Standard and you denying that completely .

My thinking evolved!

To be clear, my original thesis on this was that they wouldn't go back to the 3+1 model (which they didn't) because of all the problems with it, but at first I didn't consider ways they could have a core set while keeping the benefits of going to 2-set blocks.

My issue is not with them making decisions but with them stating anything as if it means anything. They make an announcement to do Masterpieces in all future sets moving forward. Why? Why even phrase it like that? I don't really care, just have learned to never really believe them.

I mean, because that really was their plan and then they found out from experience it was a bad plan? Like I'd rather they be honest about their current plans than try to be vague to avoid ever making a statement they have to walk back.

We're not even close to unsustainable burn rate on mechanics.

I agree, I did say I didn't think this was a problem pre-announcement.

The story may be moving at an unsustainable pace, but the amount of mechanics hasn't changed.

The new story pace was actively requested by the story and marketing teams, heh, so I suspect they can keep that going just fine.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I really want multi coloured flip walkers for EDH. They are PWs as commanders done right but right now so colour restricted and only 2 out of the 5 are really great.

They also have much greater opportunities for design.

 

[Firemind]

Reverse drafting orders with two packs of the small set have always sucked, so this is a welcome change.

Now how about dem draft leagues?

 

[charlequin]

One advantage of Core Sets returning is that we can get all 5 Gatewatch Core Members in the core sets if needed, leaving the main block appearances to actual changes to their characters.

This is still just as bad if we go back to 5 new walker cards per year + the ones in the core though. I'd prefer they keep PWs out of the core altogether and do 10 split across the three big sets.

 

[Ashodin]

All I need now is the core set to be called origins 2 and I'll be right on the money

Oh and fall 2018 = DOMINARIA. just call it that for new and old player sake. Treat it as a new plane but older players will be like "you ain't seen nothing yet kid"

 

[Angry Grimace]

All I need now is the core set to be called origins 2 and I'll be right on the money

Oh and fall 2018 = DOMINARIA. just call it that for new and old player sake. Treat it as a new plane but older players will be like "you ain't seen nothing yet kid"

I think Spring 2018 is Dominaria. I also think it will be actually titled "Dominaria."

 

[Santiako]

Dominaria will also have masterpieces that are just famous cards with old borders+old foil style.

 

[FreedomFrisbee]

For reference, Khans was 11(13 if we count stuff like Megamorph as different from aMorph and include things like the Dragon Rider clause on cards)

RtR was.. 10? I think

It depends on how you count mechanics, which is why I say 'ish'. If we're counting devoid as a mechanic that really lowers the bar on what counts as a mechanic, and if we count colorless mana, does that make hybrid mana a countable mechanic? Hazy.

I agree, I did say I didn't think this was a problem pre-announcement.

Ya, I figured I'd lay out the numbers case just because its a small thing that bugs me when I see people talking like its really an issue.

 

[thefil]

I think Spring 2018 is Dominaria. I also think it will be actually titled "Dominaria."

Dominaria would be the best.

 

[Ashodin]

I think Spring 2018 is Dominaria. I also think it will be actually titled "Dominaria."

Either is fine imo. The year of Dominaria would be killer.

 

[FreedomFrisbee]

Oh, and my shower thought on them scaling back masterpeices is that they're doing so to free up ev for MTGO codes on the ad cards. That would just further compress the value of cards in the packs.

 

[Santiako]

I wonder what's going to happen with the Pro Tour. I doubt they'll have a core set standard pro tour?

 

[SigmasonicX]

I wonder what's going to happen with the Pro Tour. I doubt they'll have a core set standard pro tour?

They did before, so I don't think they're worried about that.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I do hope they have a good plan for a masterpiece alternative I've quite enjoyed cheaper standards even after only getting a single masterpiece ever in the form of Dust Bowl.

We've been calling them running out of themes from the moment they spoiled the number of masterpieces in Kaladesh. It's unbelievable WotC didn't see this coming.

 

[charlequin]

I think Spring 2018 is Dominaria. I also think it will be actually titled "Dominaria."

I agree.

I wonder what's going to happen with the Pro Tour. I doubt they'll have a core set standard pro tour?

There's a lot of options. I don't think they'll go down to 3 PTs, so they'll just have to decide what to tack the last one onto.