|
Part 1 of this series generated quite a bit of good discussion and even a response article. I received quite a bit of good constructive feedback and would like to thank everyone who participated in leaving comments.
One issue that was brought up that I found quite interesting was a post brought up by ArchGenius:
“My major issue with classifying formats as casual or competitive is that it is a very heavy handed way of WotC telling us which formats we should be playing.
How competitive a format is highly dependant upon how much time good players are willing to spend playing and testing decks for that format.
By classifying formats as competitive or casual, Wizards is trying very hard to tell us which formats to play. As I see it, the problem with this philosophy is that it completely ignores what formats we enjoy playing…”
He goes on to give an analogy using a candy store dictating the kinds of candy its customers should buy by setting prices to make one kind look better than another instead of letting the customers decide for themselves what kind of candy they would like to buy and the owner providing that kind of candy. I disagree with the part of his post that WotC completely ignores the formats that we enjoy playing, because I know that there are people who enjoy Standard and Extended and Classic. I agree very much though with the poor impression that is given by classifying formats as “competitive” and “casual”. When WotC calls a format “casual”, it can falsely lead players to these formats thinking that there will be no Tier 1 decks and that their all ouphe deck will finally have a home. Only to find that many people are competitively playing what was called a “casual” format by WotC. It also gives the impression, as ArchGenius stated, that you should be playing the other formats if you want to play in tournaments. What about all of the players that want to play tournaments in the formats that they enjoy, not the ones that WotC thinks we should play tournaments in?
I would propose that if WotC would like to make a distinction that they call Standard, Extended, and Classic/Vintage/Legacy something such as “Core Formats” instead of "Competitive" and just not call the other ones anything; just call them "formats" or "online formats" as they do when they group them for B/R announcements. Labeling them as “casual”, “secondary”, or anything like that implies that those formats are in some way inferior to the core formats.
While, I understand that WotC has a desire to support formats that meet its business goals, I also think that there is plenty of room to give players options and cater to those looking for something other than the core formats as well as have a positive impact for WotC. They have stated that they hope that the “casual” formats, Pauper in particular if I remember the post on the WotC boards correctly, are meant to serve as a jumping board into their core formats. While this might be the goal in their mind, I’m not sure that it is the reality of the situation. I know plenty of players who stick to these formats and only these formats with no desire to play standard, extended, or classic.
For instance, I have played Singleton ever since the initial v1 Beta and I have played in Singleton PEs at the various times they have been offered through MTG:O’s history, but I have never once been tempted to jump into Standard or Extended or Classic as a result of playing Singleton competitively. I also found that Prismatic appealed to me and started that format as well, but it was not because of another format leading me there. I was attracted to it on its own merits. While I was disappointed in the fall of Prismatic; it did not make me want to jump into any of the core formats either and I accept its demise. There will perhaps be a day that I will be interested in classic but it won’t be from another format leading me there. What exists at the moment, in my eyes, is a large gap in the formats. There are a large amount of cards that just cannot be played competitively in any format. Singleton100 can use a few of them, but one only needs singleton copies not playsets and many cards that would be fun to build a deck around in a 4 of format just don’t work in a large deck singleton format. Prismatic filled this role to some extent but it was not a sustainable format due to a number of reasons discussed in my article and one million word’s/Pete Jahn’s article.
I believe that there are two formats that have a very large potential to be sustainable, have widespread appeal, and fill the void. The void where once giants of their time now reside idle and waiting, cards like: Mirari's Wake, Absorb, Astral Slide, Tradewind Rider, Man-o'-War, Wall of Blossoms, Mutilate, Tooth and Nail, Decree of Justice, Coalition Relic, Gifts Ungiven, and Keiga, the Tide Star.
What are they?
Build Your Own Standard (BYOS) and Block Party / Block Wars. I will discuss the details of these later in the article, but first want to talk about a major difference between the Paper world and the online world or the pants world and the no pants world if you prefer.
|
31 Comments
build your own standard and byob both sound like alot of fun id love to see them supported on mtgo with real tournaments, it sure would make constructed a more viable format for budget players, well at least for a little while, and help keep the secondary market fresh.
I'm curious as to how these formats you propose would be viable in an online environment.
BYOS for example.
Who decides what the 'standard' is? If I decide I want to build a deck using Kamigawa+Shards+9th as 'my' standard do I have to find an opponent that has a deck valid in 'my' standard? My issue with this is that it's hard enough for me to find Classic or Pauper games in a reasonable time frame (I'm not in a US time zone). With such a large number of possible 'standard' formats I'm never going to see a game fire. There could be a dozen other players online wanting to play 'their' standard and none of them able to get a game.
The other option is that all these BYOS decks can play each other. So in effect my Kamigawa+Shards+9th deck is going up against your 'Tempest+Mirrodon+M10' deck. I'm sorry but I really don't see the benefit of that set up at all. I can't see that a metagame is ever going to develop because deck builders have different restrictions and that means the format is a 'casual' one and can already be played between people who want to do that in the casual room.
BYOB makes the above issues even worse.
Block Wars is a much more viable option but again I'm not sure where there is any real need for anything other than a line of text in the description of a game that could be set up currently in the casual room.
I'm not trying to be negative however I'm struggling to see how these 'new' formats are going to be popular and make WotC want to support them when they could, with a little effort, be played already and as far as I can tell that just isn't the case.
Well worth writing an article on however. I'm sure that if there was enough support WotC would consider supporting any format. I was very surprised when they took on Pauper. OK, there are a few things that I dislike about what they did but on the whole it has been a very positive move for that format.
The premise is that all decks are 'standard' even if they're made out of different pieces.
Meaning that a Lorwyn Block + Tempest Block + 10th would be allowed to face an Time Spiral Block + Mirage Block + M10, you wouldn't have to find someone in your Standard.
OK, that clears up one issue I had, thanks Ham.
I'm still not sold on the idea but..... I'd give it a shot if it was available.
Any online format has to have three things to make me want to play it. It must be fun to play, it must provide me with opponents before I fall asleep at the keyboard and it must fit into my available spending budget.
I know that my definition of 'fun' and 'budget' are stricly personal things and there is nothing WotC or anyone else can do about that but hey. I'm trying to throw together a Commander deck after it was mentioned in an article here so there is proof that I will at least try things.
Part of the point of offering the format as an official option is that it would help one find games faster and get more people interested in the format, because there are a lot of people like yourself that will give things a shot and who knows there could be a lot of interest or there may not be.
The point is that WotC won't really know until they try.
As Hammy already stated. Its your second option where all of the BYOS can play each other. Of course a metagame would develop. All deck builders have the same restrictions and as tournaments are offered and T8 decks are published a metagame would develop just like in every other format.
Sure these formats can be played already but it is much easier to play a format when you can select it from the option list instead of relying on the comment field. Under your scenario WotC could potentially only offer Freeform, get rid of every other format, and then let people just use the game description. I assume that you would understand how selecting a format from the list is much easier than the chaos this type of things would bring.
Yes, there is no doubt that a filter for a format makes things easier. I don't question that. When I played Pauper before it was sanctioned deck legality was always an issue because it had to be checked manually and there was no way to enforce it. Even with the best will in the world mistakes happen.
What I was trying to say, probably badly, is this. People played Pauper before it was sanctioned using just comments and good will and that is what made WotC look at it. From there it was a business decision of thiers if they wanted to sanction it or not.
We would ne be playing sanctioned Pauper today without all those good folks who put in a ton of effort supporting it with PREs and websites hadn't done all tha simply for the love of the format.
BYOS or BYOB or Block Wars might be fantastic ways to play Magic, I just don't know. What I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, if they were that good there would be people playing them now despite the handicap of not being supported. If there are people out there playing it then I'm sorry, I just hadn't spotted you.
I see what you are saying now.
I guess that I would like to see WotC experiment a little more in this area because they own the "Kitchen Table" I don't think that it should have to take the effort and time that people put into Pauper to get WotC to try out some new things to see if there is interest.
It made me want to read your article, and I agree that calling them "casual" formats is a complete misnomer.
Rainbow stairwell would be a really fun format to allow people to play. The biggest issue has to be coding the filters. How exactly would you set up a BYOB event? Block wars would be easier.
"I disagree with the part of his post that WotC completely ignores the formats that we enjoy playing, because I know that there are people who enjoy Standard and Extended and Classic."
I never meant to say that WotC completely ignores the formats we enjoy playing. Pauper is an obvious example of WotC responding to what players like playing. I meant that some of the actions WotC makes completely ignores user feedback such as naming formats "casual" or "competitive" or offering Tempest packs as prizes for 100 singleton tournaments and most likely using the firing rate of those tournaments to judge the popularity of the format.
At least in 2-man queues if the prize for winning is barely worth more than the entrance fee, not too many people are going to join those queues, even if they love the format.
Yes, this I agree with.
I apologize if I misconstrued your quote. I think that when I was writing the article I found the word "completely" to be a little harsh. When used as a comment to an article it is fine, but I wasn't sure if I would get all kinds of comments saying that they don't ignore this and they don't ignore that, if I "completely" agreed with the quote as part of the article.
I hope that makes sense.
Excellent ideas put forth in a well written article!
I do hope wizards would read and give thought to articles such as this.
As a player, I would totally play deep and fun formats like BYOS, BYOB and Block Party if they were supported.
What would really make me play more MTGO though would be if they found a way to make type 4 work. Being able to actually draft the stack would make it that much better but I would be fine with just randomized decks as well.
My suggestion on labelling:
Standard, Extended, Block, and Classic/Vintage/Legacy - Core Formats
The Remaining Formats - Specialty Formats
This will give off the fact that there are special facets to these formats as opposed to the core formats, which are just bound by set legality and B&R lists.
I really like this suggestion. It does not imply that the Specialty formats are in any way inferior. It just implies that they have special restrictions beyond the basic Core Formats.
I would love BYOS, not because I would go way deep into mixing and matching blocks for some perfect combination, but because it would make what I call my "Historical Standard" decks viable in a format other than Extended or Classic. I have so many Standard decks from throughout Magic just sitting there--massively underpowered for extended or classic, but not playable anywhere else. I hate that my current Standard decks are rendered competitively unplayable with each set rotation.
This is the beauty of the format; It gives things to every one. It allows people to play glory decks of old, it allows deck designers and endless opportunity, and it gives a use to many of those cards you have lying around that you know used to be good, but just cannot compete in Classic.
Problem is that there would be huge power difference between old standard decks and 'properly' designed byos decks.
I probably wouldn't play either of build your own gamemodes, because it would take forever to make good decks.
The block wars sound fun though. manageable card pools and not having to cross reference sets sounds easy fun.
Somewhat how I feel. The BOYS seems particularly prone to brokeness though I guess I would have to see it in action first.
There is a chance this could happen, but that is what a B/R list would be for and also keep in mind that this format uses the Legacy banned list, which should help keep it in check.
I'm not sure the format needs to use the block banned lists other than to possibly do something about affinity.
Awesome article. Byos seems like such a great format to me, and I recall when MaRo wrote about the invitational where it was used. Though I agree that it does seem somewhat prone to random broken combos (It would have a not insignificant portion of the classic card pool to pull from), and consequently would need to be monitored more carefully, the fact that you could play virtually any set you want and be decently competitive seems like a huge incentive to create the format. The only real problem I'd foresee with it would be corner cases like the master's edition sets (I, II, and soon III as well). Counting them as core sets might work, except that then the deck power level threshold leaps drastically (MED II Duals, Force of Will, Necro... you get the idea; and any of those could easily force the threshold of expenses into the realm of classic; meaning you haven't done anything but make a weird version of classic...).
I don't think they would have the MED sets count. They don't exist in Paper, and they aren't designed for something like this format in mind. You could use MED cards that are reprints from other sets though.
I want to again thank the author for putting the effort to write this very nice article. There seems to be interest in the format, and as one of the replies stated: pauper was already played before there was a filter (and queues) for it.
I'm willing to host some PREs with BYOS (I discussed this with Hamtastic some time ago). It would of course be great if I could get a sponsor for some small prizes, but even without I think people would come to try it out.
I know the PDC community did a build your own std event last year I think.
Block wars sounds like a blast, especially since the price reductions inherent with a set rotation. You could probably build a killer cbs block deck for budget prices nowadays.
That's a good point about Wizards owning the kitchen table. But I don't think I'd want them to do anything about it. We can dream, but oh well. I'll accept that as part of digital Magic, along with players being unable to cheat or steal, automatic rules enforcement, and the rest. So maybe if we want a new format then we have to 'prototype' it in paper first? Especially if it's as messy as BYOS.
I agree with your negative assessment of Extended. It's kind of funny how too many cards in the pool start to 'eat' each other. FoW + Counterspell doesn't just 'eat' Cancel, the presence of fish.dec also prevents random junky aggro from appearing. (Okay, well, combo is really what prevents that. That's not my point.) I think it might be an exaggeration to say that Extended has more viable cards than Classic as a result, but I can see how it would seem that way. Classic and Legacy decks sure are piles of staples, but they also have a loose definition of staple. Seething Song and Nettle Sentinel are played, after all. Cards can "wake up" in Classic just like how dredge or Ichorid "woke up" Bazaar of Baghdad.
Of all the formats you mentioned, BYOS sounds the most interesting to me. But our choice of core sets might be a problem. Imagine if BYOS existed in paper. I can't choose Legends because it wasn't in a block. Boo. But I can pick Urza's block + Time Spiral block + Revised, can't I? This is inconvenient online. Ice Age and 6th edition are certainly valid choices and I think I should be able to use MED cards that represent those sets. Everyone on MTGO is a lapsed player anyway, right? We'll understand. Could I set the card filter to BYOS, select Urza's + Time Spiral + 5th edition, and pick the following 3 cards: 9th edition Thran Golem, Onslaught Akroma, and MED2 Necropotence? It's perfectly sane. But if tribal is still having problems with changelings then they'll never get this right.
Fortunately, the tribal changeling bug was eventually fixed some time ago. Ergo, they might get this right.
As far as legality in formats goes, 7th Crypt rats and Befoul are legal in Pauper alongside 10th Drudge Skeletons. It's one of the aspects of the format that Online can manage better than offline.
Yes you would be able to pick those cards except you would find out that necro is banned.
You would be able to use any MED cards that are a part of a legal block or base set. Revised would likely not count as a base set as it was only 5th or 6th ed onward for the Invitational.
BYOS sounds like an amazing idea. If it were me, I'd probably say go with BYOS and leave BYOB as a possible future idea for the start of things.
If you look at this as a potential business decision by Hasbro, there might be a bit of tension between the following two forces: a) people will buy more cards if they think they will have additional uses 2 or 7 years from now after they rotate, and b)people might switch from standard/extended to BYOS, which means they can keep playing the same decks forever and never buy new cards. If new blocks continue to be good, players will want to use them as part of their standard, so maybe this isn't a big deal.
Still, this one seems like a slam dunk. I think players would love it once it got rolling, and any constructed format that players really like is probably a good business decision when all is said and done.
Starting with something like the Legacy banned list seems like a great idea, especially for some of the cards in Urza's block.
Aside from Urza's and Mirrodin, are there any other blocks with broken decks that we'd need to worry about?
Faeries could get pretty annoying when you combine them with counterspell and Force Spike. I don't know how many of the good faeries are from Shadowmoor - would a Fae player be likely to try Lorwyn + Shadowmoor + 7th? 7th also has Opportunity and Inspiration, so the deck would be able to draw cards and play creatures without ever tapping out until opponent's EOT.
Katastrophe: As far as choices go: I envision making the format 6th ed onward (or even 7th); and Mirage onward in terms of sets so that it can mirror exactly between online and its eventual implementation. If 6th ed is chosen, then they should add 6th ed (as the first "modern" core set) to MTGO (e.g. when they reach Masques block). It is true that this leaves Ice age, Legends, and old "core sets" out, but Standard didn't really exist at the time and the sets were really designed rather differently that I believe this is a "necessary" evil. Making the format in a way that it can be mirrored in MTGO and paper is (IMO) really important.
Zimbardo: As far as a possible conflict of interest for WotC's profit - as far as I see, what gets people into standard / block (instead of extended or any of the "eternal" formatS) is mostly the novelty. BYOS does not threaten Standard / Block in any way that Extended, Legacy, Classic or Vintage don't already do. In terms of power level BYOS is probably going to be a bit more powered than "regular" standard, so once again it seems like it would be more or less an alternative to Extended.
Zimbardo: Faeries would probably want some sort of quality instant speed card drawing (or something cheap like Ancestral V.) - inspiration simply sucks, opportunity can be good in the right format but I doubt this one would be it. 7th doesn't seem to offer this, despite the quality permission available to complement Cryptic Command, so perhaps Mirrodin for TfK or Time Spiral (which has other quality choices for Faeries) along with 7th and Lorwyn would be best (I think most of the best Faeries are in Lor and not Shm).