New block structure: An epiphany
General forum
Posted on May 24, 2022, 11:02 p.m. by legendofa
I just thought of this. Up until right now, I didn't like the single set plus Commander set replacing the three- or even two-set blocks. Then it hits me: the Commander sets fill the role of the rest of the block! Every plane still has a two-set block. It's just that one of them is Commander-focused.
I don't know if this is obvious, but it makes sense to me now. I still think the stories tend to be underdeveloped, but thinking of the Commander sets as additional part of the set block makes me warm up to them a lot more as settings and products.
wallisface says... #3
The big issues I see with this, is:
-
Wotc generally only has so many sets it makes a year. With half of those being designed for EDH, this takes away from Standard, as well as detracts from other formats. Not everybody plays EDH, and these EDH specific-sets offer almost nothing for all those people that don't play in it. Standard sets, by comparison, often have "something for everyone", so that no format gets entirely left out. Keeping these specialty sets as a rarely-recurring event is imo, a good idea.
-
There's been numerous reasons why Wotc has changed to mostly doing single-plane sets lately, and that's generally because it's a lot safer for them if a plane is super-unliked, while also letting them take bigger risks with what planes they can visit. Considering how hard it was for them to commit to revisting Kamigawa, you can almost guarantee that wouldn't have happened if they had to do 2 sets from it, instead of just one (obviously, in hindsight, the return was very well received, but that doesn't change how big a risk it was for them to go there). If Wotc for whatever reason forced themselves to always be doing 2-set planes, you'd see them having to be a LOT safer with what those planes were - and imo it would generally lead to more boring sets.
May 25, 2022 3:51 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #4
My understanding was that the primary reason they went from 3-block sets to 2-block sets was because Standard was becoming saturated for 3/4ths of a year or more with the same mechanics, making carbon copy decks too much of an annoyance. So in order to diversify the format, they switched into 2-block sets as the staple, after Tarkir. While 2-block and 1-block sets did exist prior to this, they had been working with 3-block sets for quite a while. And by "quite a while", I mean probably go back to the early 2000s or even late 90s and find 3-block sets.
That said, I'm not actually sure why they switched into 1-block sets. Personally, I despise those. It is difficult for me to become invested in a block when I know that they will saturate it with 4 - 6 new mechanics, each with about a dozen or so cards for each mechanic. This means there is a lack of diversity and synergy, as you may get 1 - 3 "good" cards that represent each mechanic - and since you only have 1 - 3, there is nothing you can really build around with.
While in competitive formats where you can run playsets of those few cards, in EDH you can not. I suspect that may be why they have moved toward a Commander supplemental set after each block, because it was alienating non-Standard players. By offering a precon package after each Set, even if the precon package is just a new Commander and maybe another 1 - 3 cards, such as with Obuun, Mul Daya Ancestor, for example, non-Standard players do not feel abandoned. Likewise, Standard players don't feel saturated with the same stale mechanics for 1/2, 3/4 or even a full year straight.
So what WOTC is doing currently, I think is the best balance they are going to have. You need to diversify your income. Remember, they sell products to various consumers. EDH may be the largest format (Although I hear time and time again that the "largest" format is actually Draft), you can not focus 80% of your resources on EDH and leave out Standard, Modern, Legacy, Vintage, Brawl, etc.
That's why "garbage bulk rares" exist, why pushed uncommons exist, why mythic cycles exist. Card diversity exists because - despite how any one of us may individually feel - the game does not center around us. Even if I never play a game of Standard in my life, Standard is still millions of players strong. They need cards, too.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to two things: Finances and percentages. What percentage of each format needs to be appropriately represented, to produce the best finances? Hence things such as Commander Legends and Modern Horizons.
We can all complain all we want for a dozen different reasons, but at the end of the day these cards are what's paying the bills for Hasbro. So, given all of that, I truly feel that what they have going on for themselves right now is probably the best balance they'll achieve. Anything else would be pulling too hard in one direction, and away from another.
May 25, 2022 4:12 a.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #5
For example, we may all sit here and complain about the Warhammer 40k crossover (Although I personally am loving it!), but the reality is a little more involved than this.
Sure, you may get some Warhammer fans who have never played MTG pick up a pack or two. Sure, you may convert a small percentage of the base into MTG fans. Sure, it's all possible. But the more likely scenerio is that it's a good revenue bump for a quiet Q2.
Given how holidays and school semesters are laid out, Q1 generally aligns with summer and thus people have time off school to play the game and buy and splurge. Q3-Q4 is when the bulk of the holidays and vacations are planned. Q2 is when sales dip, in all entertainment.
In fact, Hollywood has perfected this. There is a reason the "worst selling movies of all time" happen to almost always be in Q2. They slot them for release during this time, because they know that they won't be big blockbuster hits. They'd rather save the massive billion+ dollar movies for summer / winter for the time off and holidays. While comicbook movies have largely been breaking this mould, the overwhelming vast majority of other genres still hold true.
The exception (comicbook movies) only therefore serves to define the rule (only specific genres thrive in Q2, proving Q2 is objectively weaker because school has started again, there are no holidays, and people do not yet have vacation either saved up if it is earned throughout the year, or they are saving it for later in the year when holidays happen.)
So we can see that with WOTC. Things like Warhammer & this massive sudden surge of Secret Lairs, that's to pad Q2's numbers.
Nothing more.
(Q2 referring to typical fiscal calander years, not physical calander months. Many different companies have their fiscal at different times, but most follow a pattern. I once had an interview where their end of the fiscal actually occured in October, for some dumb reason I can't recall.)
May 25, 2022 4:19 a.m. Edited.
wallisface My thought was that the world building and development space and energy that used to go to "second sets" is now filled by Commander decks. I don't play Commander much at all, but I do recognize it's a very popular "official" format. I agree that I'd prefer to see less of them even now, but I like exploring and learning about worlds and planes and fantasy settings, and this is a little push in that direction. It doesn't always help the story, but it goes a little deeper into how a plane works.
It' safer for WotC to experiment with new planes, but the Commander decks help develop them. Otherwise, I would expect more of the plane-neutral Commander supplements like C11 through C18. What is the home plane of Zedruu the Greathearted or Thantis, the Warweaver
like? Those are new planes open for future exploration, but the product they were introduced in has been discontinued, and I believe that the reason is to focus on and expand the planar settings of the Standard sets, if not the stories.
So basically, my thesis here is that each plane is receiving a Standard set and a Commander set, which is the structure replacing the two Standard sets (which in turn replaced the three Standard sets). It's the framework, just with a nod to Commander.
And there's something to be said for multi-set planes. Would the original Ravnica have been as appealing with all ten guilds crammed into one set? I remember that being an issue with Kaldheim, that the design was far too cramped to contain ten unique factions, plus gods, plus miscellaneous unaffiliated filler cards. The Commander sets acting as second sets give the setting a little more room to spread out.
May 25, 2022 4:38 a.m.
wallisface says... #7
One thing to note, Wotc has people hired specifically to look-into and address this kind of stuff - and guaranteed an idea close-to-this would have been floated before, and rejected. I think with these kinds if topics, it’s good to look at them with a lot of skepticism - if you’re unable to define/critique why Wotc wouldn’t want to pursue this option, then you’ll have a better understanding of why they haven’t. Odds are there’s more drawbacks than positives with changing their releases this way.
One other thing that hasn’t really been considered yet is format health. Non-rotating formats take on a decent amount of “strain” when sets aimed at them are released (MH2 being a perfect example). Wotc have to make a set marketable, and for non-rotating formats that often means pushing the boundary on power-level. I can’t think of a faster way to completely destroy a non-rotating format, than to constantly print new sets specifically targeted for it.
May 25, 2022 4:59 p.m.
wallisface I have to admit, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. I think I'm misinterpreting something in your position.
- "Wotc has people hired specifically to look-into and address this kind of stuff - and guaranteed an idea close-to-this would have been floated before, and rejected."
Are you saying that WotC would look into, and reject, Commander sets acting as a second set on a plane? Because that's what I think they looked into and began doing, instead of rejecting. Why would this be rejected? (Genuine question, not rhetorical.)
- "[If] you’re unable to define/critique why Wotc wouldn’t want to pursue this option, then you’ll have a better understanding of why they haven’t."
Which option are you suggesting I'm unable to define or critique, or that they haven't done?
Your second paragraph, though, I generally agree with, but I don't understand the foundation. WotC very specifically is printing products for a non-rotating set much more frequently than they have in the past. Every Standard-legal set from Ikoria onward has had an associated Commander product. I agree there's a lot of potential for damage to the Commander format, but so far it seems stable enough.
May 26, 2022 1:41 a.m.
wallisface says... #9
legendofa addressing your replies:
- ”Are you saying that WotC would look into, and reject, Commander sets acting as a second set on a plane? Because that's what I think they looked into and began doing, instead of rejecting. Why would this be rejected? (Genuine question, not rhetorical.)”
I’m not super up-to-speed with what EDH sets are released, as its not a format the personally interests me. However, I had made an assumption that this thread was suggesting a “new way” Wotc could do things. If they’re already doing what’s described here, then i’m not sure what this thread is anymore. If they’re just doing it less-frequently than you’d like, there’s probably reasons for that (or, they’re testing market-waters)
- ”Which option are you suggesting I'm unable to define or critique, or that they haven't done?”
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to suggest that at all - but instead trying to avoid the conversation heading into those pitfalls. There are a LOT of moving cogs in set-release, and there’s a multitude of reasons why Wotc wouldn’t do-a-thing. Imo figuring out why they wouldn’t-do-a-thing is useful for the narrative.
- ”Your second paragraph, though, I generally agree with, but I don't understand the foundation. WotC very specifically is printing products for a non-rotating set much more frequently than they have in the past. Every Standard-legal set from Ikoria onward has had an associated Commander product. I agree there's a lot of potential for damage to the Commander format, but so far it seems stable enough.”
That paragraph of mine had taken a large u-turn from company-focus to player-focus. Of course the company wants to print anything that brings in profits, and if they think they can get away with something, they’ll give it a go. Thar doesn’t mean its to the benefit of the players. It holds-true that the more you print cards directed at a non-rotating format, the quicker you burn-it into the ground - but i’m not sure how much Wotc specifically cares about that (i’m sure they do a little).
Admittedly EDH can probably withstand a lot more “strain” than other non-rotating formats just of how casual it is in nature.
May 26, 2022 4:48 a.m.
plakjekaas says... #10
It's drafting that killed the multi-set blocks. 3 set blocks were drafted with one pack of each, 2 set blocks were drafted with 1 booster of the first set and two boosters of the second. Rivals of Ixalan was limited in design because it had to work with Ixalan in drafting. The original Eldrazi titans are so damn expensive because they were introduced in Rise of the Eldrazi, a 3rd set of a block, which was opened 5 times less than original Zendikar, and 3 times less than Worldwake, in drafting.
Going to single sets freed up design choices for sets as comprehensive draft formats, while also improving on availability for chase rares and mythics from every set.
May 26, 2022 7:52 a.m.
wallisface Got it. Yeah, there's nothing hypothetical here. It's not my bad idea, it's WotC's. (Mostly joking about the bad part.)
This thread is simply about the apparent Standard + Commander block structure and my interpretation of it. Nothing too deep.
plakjekaas That's the simplest explanation of the dissolution if the three-block structure I've seen. I guess I didn't notice because 1. I drafted third sets as much as first sets and 2. the M:tG community where I was at the time was in hindsight pretty small, so I didn't notice any drop in participation. Out of curiosity, do you have a source for those numbers?
May 26, 2022 3:33 p.m.
plakjekaas says... #12
Assuming an LGS organizes the same amounts of drafts for every set, this is how the packs are distributed for every draft:
Original Zendikar: ZEN + ZEN + ZEN
Worldwake: WWK + WWK + ZEN
Rise of the Eldrazi: ROE + WWK + ZEN
and I just counted the frequency of every pack in the 3set block. If course it's a simplified estimate, not accounting for prize boosters and people just cracking packs and such, but I know in my LGS back then, the main source of in-demand Standard rares were drafters trading in their gains, and 2nd and 3rd set rares were a lot rarer than 1st set rares because of that.
TypicalTimmy says... #2
That... sounds pretty good to me :)
May 25, 2022 2:17 a.m.