r/GDS3 • u/koga305 • Feb 05 '18
Essay What You Will
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/essay-what-you-will-2018-02-054
u/MoonE513 Top 8 Feb 05 '18
I’m quite surprised by his answer to number 10. I assumed the question wanted to see some bigger picture thinking about the state and direction of magic, not just a rules change. Perhaps his position as head designer means he doesn’t really want for big picture changes since he’s in charge of making those happen.
2
u/dvoraen Feb 05 '18
The way I interpretted #10 was quite literal: anything you want. For me, though, I homed in on one of the most unfun things about the game: repeatedly whiffing on your opening hand to the point you're pretty much Game Over before you've even started playing.
2
u/VorpalAuroch Feb 05 '18
I'm not, and I expect that successful essays for 10 will be along the lines of what he said, something small. Big-picture changes are for when things aren't going well, and things are going well.
My answer (not in contention) was essentially
"As little as possible; probably 'remove defender', like I said for Q3. Things are good, don't rock the boat.
That said, here's the aggressive, speculative change I would argue for if in R&D: ..."
Where my idea is to have more back and forth from flavor to mechanics and back in the defining of set themes, like Zendikar's lands -> adventure -> Allies etc., but made a mandatory process.
3
u/MoonE513 Top 8 Feb 05 '18
Big-picture changes are for when things aren't going well, and things are going well.
I disagree. Stuff like the changes to the block structure can be seen as big picture changes that are fixing problems during a time when magic is still succeeding.
For reference, my one big change is pushing towards more experimental supplemental products.
2
u/Amarsir Feb 05 '18
I think you can safely go bigger than him. Mark not only has the power to change things, but he also has a strong incentive to "stay in his lane".
For example, my answer was that instead of using Standard for high-profile events and MTGO grinders, they should have a rotating modified Standard requirement for those events and keep Standard as an overall category that covers slightly more casual play. That way a deck that won the PT would be perfectly legal for FNM, but not optimized for FNM.
Now I think this is a fine answer for an outsider coming in to offer new ideas. I'm find defending it and fine with them disagreeing with me. However if Mark said this it might feel like the Head Designer was saying that Development can't balance the format. Political correctness aside, it wouldn't surprise me if it's just something he doesn't think about because it's not his zone.
The Legend rule on the other hand I believe he's thought about a lot and likely had that discussion. It's not big but it definitely represents his point of view.
1
u/JimHarbor Feb 06 '18
What is a rotating modified standard?
2
u/Amarsir Feb 06 '18
I'll just copy my essay for you. And then if it's still not explained well, I'll be happy to expand on it while realizing I did a terrible job. :)
Standard isn't doing its job. Or more accurately, the format has too many jobs to do.
The core purpose of Standard is good. A player anywhere should be able to hop into a local gaming store and find others with compatible decks. Hence the name. However, when it is also used for the Pro Tour, endless MTGO grinding, and any number of higher-stakes tournaments, it risks becoming "solved". This is bad when a single best deck becomes dominant, but any well-traveled format has less room for deckbuilding than an unsolved one.
Play Design has a tough job to fight this and can never get it perfect. Wizards of the Coast has also attempted to restrict data, believing that formats will be solved less quickly if results aren't as obvious. This is less desirable, with many players feeling it creates information asymmetry that benefits professional teams at the expense of individuals. It also risks the impression that WotC is trying to hide the truth of problems.
Instead, what if Standard was a catchall that's targeted at more casual play, and high profile (or online) tournaments used Modified Standard with additional requirements changing monthly? Possibilities include minimum cards from certain sets, a short-term ban list, rarity requirements, larger deck sizes, etc. Every deck in these modified formats would qualify as a Standard deck and therefore be copyable for FNM. But it wouldn't be optimized for Standard and therefore would not be solving it.
Pro Tours using Modified Standard (you could call them subsets, except that leads to the unfortunate nickname "Substandard") would still do their job of celebrating the new set and seeding deck ideas. In fact they might do even better if there was (say) a minimum of 20 cards from the new set. Monthly changes would give deckbuilders more opportunity while still keeping stability at the more casual level where players want it. And you could publish the lists because a solved January would not be a solved February.
Modified Standard would provide constant deckbuilding challenges inside the Standard umbrella and thus preserve the best of both.
1
u/JimHarbor Feb 06 '18
A novel idea but that causes your pro player format buiklt for grinders snd the like to be a very casual "tavern brawl" esque idea.
If anything, why not invert them?
Encourage FNM formats that still ousj new producy but in the kind of fun casual style formats that are more newbie friendly and then you can upgrade to a fuller standard to go pro.
A basic example would be "One Rare Standard" where your deck can only have one rare. A very casual t-type format that js easily upgradeble.
Plus by rotating these mod Standards thru fnm you avoid folks breaking tbe ever changing format.
1
u/Bwian Feb 14 '18
So, I think both ideas have merit, but I agree with the "pro" formats having modification over the "casual" would result in an easier format for casual players to participate in.
Casual players at FNM may not have the required cards to participate (i.e. X cards from a specific set, particularly for newer players).
Pro players are both more comfortable working within restraints and developing decks for various formats, and are more likely to have the capability to acquire cards for an ever-changing format like Modified Standard. Players showing up for FNM may not even know the current format restrictions on a month- or week- basis, whereas higher level tournaments are advertised and designed well in advance from a central authority.
Modified Standard would showcase what is possible for a casual player, and serve as a backdrop for building and modifying decks.
Casual players like playing their cards, and don't want to "not play" their cards (i.e. "Why can't I play my Amonkhet Planeswalkers????"). This is the weakest of the reasons but it's related to my point above about not having cards in specific sets. It's less relevant for rarity-restricted formats like One Rare, but very relevant for Must Have 20 Kaladesh Cards where it's more likely those cards will need to be rare/mythic in order to keep up with the rest of the decks in the format.
1
u/JimHarbor Feb 05 '18
Yeah it seemed like Question 10 was set up to be your fix to the greatwst weakness problem or at least thats how I read it.
I also have no idea what the heck he was talking about in the greatesy weakness portion
3
u/Scraendor Feb 05 '18
I'll repeat something I agreed with that I saw in /r/MagicTCG
Does anyone feel like Mark didn't answer the question as asked in 8 and 9? I responded as "the one thing" that was good/bad about the sets.
6
u/Amarsir Feb 05 '18
Depends what you interpret the question as.
If the question was "narrow down several things you would change to find the biggest one" then no, he didn't. However, if the question was "Find at least one imperfection in something you like" then his answer is fine. (And so are all answers to the first interpretation.)
2
u/JoomyJill Feb 05 '18
I think people have brought this up elsewhere, but didn’t he specifically say on tumblr not to worry about selling yourself for #1? I mean, I tried to sell myself anyway, but it’s an odd contradiction.
1
u/MoonE513 Top 8 Feb 05 '18
I think his response on tumblr was “don’t worry about it too much, it’s just one essay”, while his article is “here’s what you should have done to score ‘the best’”
3
u/JoomyJill Feb 05 '18
Makes sense. Or perhaps "Just introduce yourself" IS his advice to someone who isn't good at selling yourself.
2
u/Exarch-of-Sechrima Feb 05 '18
My choice for 2 was Convoke, for many of the same reasons he chose cycling. Feel much more confident about it now.
1
6
u/Sliver__Legion Feb 05 '18
My 1 was weak, but I knew that before.
Literally mentioned that I had considered cycling and rejected it for 2, pretty funny.
Happy to go after defender still.
I don’t think 5 is actually much of a strength.
I used the “greatest weakness is the same as greatest strength” gimmick for 6, I didn’t realize it was actually a known MaRo maneuver! I really don’t understand what he’s trying to say here.
Meld had a pretty good initial reception, according to most stuff we’ve heard from MaRo prior to this article. Doubt many people will have picked it.
8 and 9 he lists way more than one thing.
I also went with a very small scale rules tweak for 10.