fyrfytr998's views on digital vs physical

[Gondorian]

Magic's 4 sets a year pace is probably there to keep Limited fun and exciting. It's really tough to see and play the same limited format for months and 3 months per limited format is both enough time to experience and refine the format as well as enough to get bored of it before the next set comes out.

And yes, limited can be seen as a massive money grab but it's fun and it gives a reason for players to open packs.

One set per 4 months would be a better compromise, in my opinion. For all those who might get a bit bored in month 4, there will be some players who will find it a bit more affordable to stay involved with MTG per set and make time to take part in limited. Month 4 is probably when the next set is being previewed anyway.

Once you step out of standard, surely a lot of very broken decks are possible? As a new player who just wanted to make use of my rotated Dark Ascension, I would get stomped, wouldn't I? This does kind of prove the point of the need for rotation, but if there were 2 sets a year then each set could be in standard for up to 4 years. If that were the case, I'd still be buying MTG now, and I would have worked towards a playset of each set because I'd have six months to do so and I'd know I could get more value from it.

I'm not sure what the right rate of expansions for SE is going to be in the future, but I'd hope the wait for each set would be more like 6-9 months. And maybe we would go back to releasing parts of a larger set at shorter intervals instead of a very long wait. We've learned a lot from how things have gone over the past three years, so we'll let that guide our decision!

Cheers!

[Bootsiuv]

Two sets a year seems like a good minimum.

There are many formats in magic where a newer player can use his small collection and still have fun. Granted, any competitive play can become quite costly.

SE is very fairly priced, but as you grow, your prices will increase. It is the way of things.

[fyrfytr998]

On the flip side, all this time waiting for art has given us a chance for a lot of balance testing and bug fixing. If SF had all the art a long while ago, the number of bugs in the beta may well have put off all the people so drawn to it due to how great it looked.

The digital game bugs are not relevant to art work. They are a persistent thing and are fixed as they appear. No one can predict when a bug is gonna happen. The only thing waiting for the art has provided really is time for balancing, which is also irrelevant to art. As you say, nothing is final until it goes to print. So there could be pictures just the same while balancing.

[Gondorian]

The digital game bugs are not relevant to art work. They are a persistent thing and are fixed as they appear. No one can predict when a bug is gonna happen. The only thing waiting for the art has provided really is time for balancing, which is also irrelevant to art. As you say, nothing is final until it goes to print. So there could be pictures just the same while balancing.

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying.

If there is great art, then that pulls in more people. Those people then PLAY, I hope. If they run into bugs, then those bugs may turn them off the game, despite the great art.

The current lack of art means some people just don't try it, as you say. When there is finally art, they will try and will be unlikely to run into bugs. Similarly, they miss out on things being less balanced than they might otherwise have been. End result should be more new players who come for the art and stay because the game is so great.

As you pointed out in your reference to GenCon, that's exactly what happens with the physical game!

Does that make sense now?

NOTE: I am not saying art has taken a long time deliberately, for those reasons, just that it is possible to see a positive in it.

[fyrfytr998]

NOTE: I am not saying art has taken a long time deliberately, for those reasons, just that it is possible to see a positive in it.

Only if you're a glass half full kind of chap. Clearly I am not.

[Airact]

One set per 4 months would be a better compromise, in my opinion. For all those who might get a bit bored in month 4, there will be some players who will find it a bit more affordable to stay involved with MTG per set and make time to take part in limited. Month 4 is probably when the next set is being previewed anyway.

Once you step out of standard, surely a lot of very broken decks are possible? As a new player who just wanted to make use of my rotated Dark Ascension, I would get stomped, wouldn't I? This does kind of prove the point of the need for rotation, but if there were 2 sets a year then each set could be in standard for up to 4 years. If that were the case, I'd still be buying MTG now, and I would have worked towards a playset of each set because I'd have six months to do so and I'd know I could get more value from it.

I'm not sure what the right rate of expansions for SE is going to be in the future, but I'd hope the wait for each set would be more like 6-9 months. And maybe we would go back to releasing parts of a larger set at shorter intervals instead of a very long wait. We've learned a lot from how things have gone over the past three years, so we'll let that guide our decision!

Cheers!

Well, yes, chances are that if you have a smaller card pool, your chances of winning are smaller. Eternal formats are pretty much meant to be quite broken (from Commander to Vintage). The thing about eternal formats is that decks don't completely change that often so you really just invest once and then get the low amount on singles that actually do something in the format every time a set comes out. You can pretty much do what you want to do in larger formats.

I mean, you can kinda do that in Standard but the reason why I like to play larger formats is that I have the power to do what I want to. I'm the type of player that doesn't really want to involve themselves in board control fights, which is why I have had, and I'm currently having troubles in SE deckbuilding. I just can't figure a way to build decks that don't want to involve themselves to board control fights and still be tournament legal. That's what I mean by having the power to do what I want to do.

In Modern, I can play control (I like control, as in permission based play, not as in board control) with quite a bit of creatures which can be quite unheard of in Standard. My current control list runs 14 (18 if we count lands that can become creatures) creatures which is quite an insane amount for a blue based control deck. The reasons why I play those creatures are:

1. Game-enders. The deck has a creature based combo kill. The creatures can also attack and block which has won me quite a bit of games, even if the creatures are generally weak at that.
2. They don't cost that much tempo. Most of them can be played as instants so if I need to play control, I can do that but if I don't have to, I can play a creature... At the end of their turn, or during attackers or whatever.
3. Most of them pay themselves back when I play them. One of them draws a card, one of them allows me to play a spell from my graveyard, one of them exiles and replays a creature I have in play, one of them disrupts the opponent. Stuff like that. Even if I enable opposing removal spells, I don't necessarily lose card advantage in order to play creatures.

That's just an example of one of the lists I like to play in Modern. The game certainly goes to be more explosive and complex as more cards are added but I don't think that's a bad thing.

In Magic I want more sets because of limited play and to see if there are any cards that splash eternal formats. In Netrunner I want more sets so I get more cards to do cool things with. I think SE goes to category two. I want more cards so I can better do what I want to.

[oggtheman]

Or maybe more sets but each one is smaller, like 100 cards? Makes them quicker to come out whilst keeping the money needed to get playsets smaller?