|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 1:47AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Feb 22, 2005
|
Is Standard popular because people like to play it, or because it's the format that most tournaments are held as? If, for example, WotC turned around tomorrow and said "Starting today, FNMs will be held as Block Constructed tournaments", would Standard still be the most popular Constructed format? If the answer to that is "no", I'm not sure you can call Standard the most "popular", only the most "played". Judging by personal anecdotal experience, I would venture to guess that, aside from the financial barrier to entry (which actually isn't that high anymore compared to Standard), Legacy is actually the most "popular" format (in that most players actually find enjoyment in playing Legacy).
Honestly, I think that Standard really is popular. I love casual legacy/vintage as a format, and I know a lot of others who do, but at anything more competitive than a kitchen table I prefer Standard. I like that the gulf between cheap decks and expensive decks is a lot smaller, and I like that I can find all the staples easily at any given game store.
Plus, I do like the rotating decks. I enjoy not playing against the same decks year after year, and frequently different decks every time a new set comes in. And I like that which strategies are viable change. There are a number of strategies that will just never be viable in Vintage or Legacy that rotate in and out of standard playability. (At least at the FNM level)
I think the biggest advantage is one that he didn't really touch on: New players don't get bricks dropped on them from the beginning. Give a new player access to a $500 budget and any singles retailer he wants, I guarantee the deck he builds for Legacy will be so hilariously outclassed by any real deck that he won't be able to win a single game. In standard it's a lot easier to get a deck to within a playable range, especially because the smaller pool makes spotting useful cards easier. Yes, a veteran player will beat a new player 95+% of the time regardless of format, but I think a new player stands a better chance at getting up to speed in standard than in Legacy/Vintage.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 4:09AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Oct 23, 2003
|
For those complaining about the lack of diversity in Standard, I'm often one of the first to complain about that sort of thing. At States in 2008, I played against five Faerie decks in eight rounds. It was horrible. (I won three of those five matches - that's not the point.) However, I played in a Standard PTQ two weeks ago, and another one yesterday, and my opponents were quite diverse. Each event was 8 rounds long, and all of my opponents in each event were playing quite distinct decks (although both events had a U/W Delver opponent and a mono-Green Infect). The decks in the two top 8's (not me, sadly) also appeared to cover a range of archetypes with little overlap. Perhaps we're still seeing shake-up from M13, and the metagame will eventually settle down into just a few lists, but right now Standard seems to be doing quite well.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 4:09AM
#13
|
- Warm, wet and squishy inside
|
Standard is actually a fairly painful format to *come back* to if you take a year or two off.
I know from experience, my interest in MTG has gone up and down over the last few years due to varying reasons, and every time I try to come back and play anything in standard it's a pita to get ahold of cards from last years set (that you can't get in limited normally as everything is about the latest set/block). It's one thing that was definately made much worse by the change of core sets to be yearly and have only half reprints, half new cards/functional reprints.
I also have to agree with previous people that I'm not sure whether standard is the most popular format, or just the most played. To be honest it's been a long time since standard hasn't had one or two real groanworthy decks that people hate playing against (with the current one being delver, it's like the first miracle spell)
I have to agree with this sentiment. I used to be able to count on the core set letting me have a reasonable supply of reprints to build with, and it's not as true as it used to be. Add to it the fact that so much of the power gets wrapped up in mythic rares and I feel like I have to choose between playing Magic and doing anything else. Add to it the fact that the competitive decks have literally been called things like "Chase rare control" and you have Magic at its worst. Yes, the game is a business, and a damned good one. But when it stops being fun, it stops making money. Magic for years defied industry standards that were "obvious", like making over powered super-rares that can't be answered and win the game single-handedly. When people have the game figured out, they quit playing, and when the solution is "throw more money at your opponent" that solution is too obvious. And Standard is by far not the most popular format. People only play Standard to play in tournaments, and the go-to tournament that you can play each week is Friday Night Magic. FNM plays three formats: Sealed, Draft, and Standard. If you don't want to drop $15+ a week for a tournament, your only option is Standard. It's competitively robust and more dynamic than many of the older formats, but those things aren't the same as being the most fun.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 4:09AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 16, 2004
|
I think another factor in Standard's popularity over Block Constructed is cross-block synergy. R&D have been doing a pretty good job of setting up cards that play well with Block N from core sets and Blocks N-1 and N+1. As for what's most fun, clearly that's Casual :P On a more nitpicky note: to pretend like there isn't also a business side of game design
Yuck! "pretend like"? Did you really just write that? I always thought the flavour text on the new Fact or Fiction  was making out Jace to be an arrogant know-it-all kid showing off his ignorance of proper grammar. But to see a premier MtG author writing that? And it not being corrected by the editor? Ugh. I tut once at Mark and twice at Kell or Trick (whoever's meant to be editing these articles).
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 5:33AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2010
|
I've finally decided to question Mark's belief that bad cards must exist. If every card is different, if true variety exist, then there is no bad card, there are just cards that are not relevant at that time. 2/2 for 2 in your UW Control is bad until it becomes the only early drop that can stop the aggro deck that has nothing but 3/2s in it.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 7:55AM
#16
|
|
|
While everything may or may not be true (from differing perspectives), one universal truth is inescapable.
It sells packs.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 9:41AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
|
Standard seems like a lot of fun because designers/devlopers have much more control over the environment. If I had more disposable income I play. Standard is just so expensive (at least if you want to be able to win).
To be fair... most formats are very expensive.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 9:42AM
#18
|
|
|
It doesn't sound like Mark has played Vintage, or seen a Vintage deck list.
There are tons of prominent cards from recent sets: Snapcaster Mage, Lodestone Golem, Mental Misstep, Delver, Jace, ...
Obviously the "power cards" from the early sets also have not disappeared.
Mark's claim that power creep must preclude either old or new cards from being relevant is puzzling and observably false.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 10:00AM
#19
|
|
|
I played magic starting at the original Mirrodin block with a large stock of Onslaught cards on the side and stopped after Timespiral....
Standard was fun then....
I came back to magic at Innastrad and with the exception of Alara, I don't think I missed much in between....
After getting back I played Standard until about mid way through Dark Ascension and decided that with all the Mythics (still amazed that Wizards decided to do that) and the Plainswalkers (which I hate just as much) running around where I play, Standard was not something that I could rummaging around the Common/uncommon/bulk rare box....
After talking about it with some of the more experienced magic players at the local store they suggested EDH, and since then I have played nothing else....
I don't know about a popularity contest, but EDH sure wins out in fun....
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 06, 2012 - 10:42AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2010
|
Like others have said Standard at the moment at least feels too constricted in the amount of viable decks. I'm a pretty new magic player having started during Worldwake. I always feel discouraged making new standard decks, because if it isn't x, y, or z, there's no point in making it. This might just be coming from someone who played magic a fair bit. New players play in standard because as you said the cardpool is less overwhelming, but as their knoledge of the game and older cards increases they tend to play more eternal formats. I'm just generalizing, but I'd bet if you did a poll on what 5+ year magic players play, chances are much less that it will standard. It's just too expensive and boring to constantly get a viable deck every new season. I just wish there was a little push to get newish players to try older formats. Reprints of staples would be nice.
|
|
|
Kicker Aggro (Invasion Block)
