Are you really telling me the average level in the old days is higher than the average level now? Look at alara's tri-lands and compare them to invasion's lairs. Look at the zendikar refuges (at uncommon even) and compare them to tempest's cycle (was it tempest? I think it was... pine barrens and company). This is pure power creep. And don't get me started on the vivid lands!
Average.Or do you honestly think that the A/B/R duals are bad? And that doesn't even count the snow versions of them which are just as good or better depending on the cards around them.
You should be aware that there is much more than that around, so I'm going to ignore this comment and assume you're just choosing to ignore the obvious.Mana fixing doesn't mean better lands. It means that they finally started printing duals that don't just make allied colors. It wasn't until Ravnica that we really had enemy dual lands. Accessing those of course means you can now play more or better things.
DONE. Check above.Show me lands that are power creep that their only purpose is mana.
4-color control was not only a small portion of the metagame, it also only hade 4-5 of those ravnica duals that you say changed everything. Check out the worlds of that year for example: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazin...rlds05/t8decksRavnica had more than just 2-3 colors running around. 4 color control was a thing and even now when mana fixing is at it's normal we have 4 color decks with FRites and the only reason that deck is around right now is because of Birds of Paradise.
So if creatures were always poor and now they are stronger, is it, or is it not, a case where the average power level... is higher? Power level shouldn't be measured in comparison to other card types, it should be measured in comparison to the SAME card type.It matters because creatures were always poor in comparison to their spell counter parts. What person would play the 1/2 for 4 that gets you a basic land when you could do it for 2 with Rampant Growth or play Llanowar Elves/Birds of Paradise?
Sigh, fine. Look, I give up. I'm not "people", I'm "me". It's a different concept. I'm not mad because "blue got a good creature", I'm mad at _EVERY_ _SINGLE_ _COLOR_ being stronger now than they were. And heck, I'm not even mad at that, power creep is bad but we have to deal with it. I'm mad at you continuously sidetracking the argument and coming up with things that have nothing to do with it.It isn't a 3/2 100% of the time, nor is it assured it will become one on turn 2. People are mad cause blue got a good creature for once.
And why does that have anything to do with power creep? Again, metagames do not power creep define or influence. It does not matter what TYPE of card or what TYPE of deck was stronger at a certain point in time. It matters what the average power level of cards of a A CERTAIN TYPE is over the evolution of a card game. That is power creep, not relative power level of card types. We could STILL be in a world of spells > creatures and could have power creep, we could be in a world of spells > creatures with no power creep, we could be in a world of creatures > spells with power creep and we could be in a world of creatures > spells without power creep. The two concepts have, again, NO. RELATION.Yes it does. It shows that spells were ruling the meta that entire season.
Could you PLEASE start comparing spells to spells and creatures to creatures? :| What can I do to get you to focus and keep on topic ?We are talking about power creep for creatures here and my examples showed that spells have been more powerful for a long time. You agreeing that Ponder, Preordain, and Brainstorm shows that spells are powerful.
And? One deck dominating doesn't mean a format becomes unfun. Not to me, but again, fun is subjective, and we're talking about something that is not subjective: power creep. And yet, there was turbofog, doran, even whacky stuff like elementals, BR disruption, 5c control, BG elves. You had control, lock, tempo, midrange, aggro. And there was also that combo deck with time warps and stuff. All in all, it was the last rich format with a wide range of decks, but that's something for a totally different discussion. I'd rather finish the power creep first before moving on.I don't know what you were playing, but Faeries were dominating the format for almost the entirety of the season. Go back and see multiple top 8 finishes in almost every tournament. It wasn't until Alara Reborn that we saw Jund starting to have any chance against them. It was either play Faeries or Jund.
Again, irrelevant. Did it not happen to creatures in the old days? Did people not have removal? Look, power creep is comparing same thing to same thing over a lengthy period of time. Yes a 4/4 for 3 is better than a 3/4 for 5 if everything else is equal, even if both can be removed, even if both can be chump blocked or dealt with. It's power creep because the average new is better than the average old! It's such a simple concept man, how can I explain this to you, you keep speaking of metagames, other card types, decks, removal, strategies, symmetry, none of that has anything to do with power creep This is so frustrating!!!You mean the 4/4 that comes down and immediately gets destroyed or chumped? Like Loxodon Smiter? Just because it comes down doesn't mean it can't be stopped.
Do you think domination is the only way something can damage a format? Do you want to be explained why it is not? Are you willing to listen and learn a bit? Honestly, humbly listen and try to understand?I can keep going farther back, but over the last two months he no more destroyed Legacy than any other big creature and the only decks that really used him are Reanimator as a 2-4 of or in Omni-Tell as a 2 of. Do remember to look into the numbers. I don't even look at Legacy and I knew Griselbrand wasn't as bad as you made him out to be.
Exactly, things were overcosted back then, undercosted now. POWER.CREEP.
Which is over costed. If destroying every creature for 4 is fine than how does nine make sense for one person?That is strategy, playing and deckbuilding well, it has no relevance. Please... PLEASE... At least TRY to understand that strategy does not relate to power creep. Look at braids, ok? A good example. It's a 4 cmc 2/2. It was seen in regionals and got several wins and was impactfull enough that people needed to prepare sideboard cards against it and know how to play against it. If they launched a 3 mana creature that did the same thing, it would be better even if it was unplayable in today's standard and it would be an example of power creep. Same if it was a 2/2 for 4 that only did the same to the opponent. Same if it were a 3/3 by 4. Even if all these examples were unplayable and considered crap now.Which means that for control you are only really blowing up their side of the field, so it, basically, means a one sided wipe.
Yes. Yes as you stated something that is totally irrelevant and besides the point, if people build strategically sound decks things are different from people building unfocused decks. However, what does that have to do with analysing power creep: nothing. Look, I'm practically begging you. FOCUS. PLEASE! Discussing things on the internet is so aggravating. I don't want you to stop thinking like you do. Fine. I want you to, for a moment, try to understand what is the common definition of power creep. Just for a moment, think about it, and then come up with your definition, so I can at least decide whether to drop this as it is pointless or to continue cause something decent might come of this. Please.Because, as I stated, in a control or combo deck where you use 4-8 creatures max, you will only really be blowing up their side of the field more often than not or if you do blow up something of yours it really doesn't matter.
Baneslayer costs 5, akroma costs 8. Baneslayer is much, much better. It impacts the game earlier, has lifelink which is stronger than most of akroma's abilities, and getting to 5 mana is much easier than getting to 8. Akroma was only seen in reanimator decks, which could circumvent that, but again, you cannot compare different things. You need to compare the same things. Compare high mana cost creatures, midgame cmc creatures and early game cmc creatures... Dont mix them up.Having protection from one of the colors that will kill it is sure as hell a lot better than protection from dragons and demons. Not to mention Akroma would have stood a chance against the Titans and Wurmcoil. Besides lifelink you can tell that Baneslayer is Akroma's little sister with abilities like that. Plus she is part of one of my favorite Magic characters.
Correct!You mean where he was only in, at most, 3 decks, and in, at most, the top 32 of the last 2 months of Legacy Opens
Irrelevant in concern to power creep, and I disagree. As I said above, will you be willing to listen to me for one minute before starting to mindlessly contradict it? If so, I'll take the time, if not, I wont. Your decision.where he isn't really causing any trouble?
You know, this is what you're getting right, but you don't understand the implications of it. If you can see that a certain style of decks forced a metagame to change, then why is it so hard to understand that that change might make it go from a more rich metagame to a less rich one? Domination isn't the only damage that something can do to a format, shifting balance can do far more harm than a card dominating a format can.I see more Maverick G/W decks than I do Griselbrand cards showing up total in the Legacy Opens. Looks like legacy players already know what to do.
It should. That was not what I said, now was there?Story shouldn't make cards?
1998.How long have you been playing?
So you're (again) saying I'm right. I know. Look, that is exactly what I am saying. Sometimes they take it too far. That's what's wrong. They should never do it. Flavor and function are two different things. You mentioned akroma above, great flavor. I mentioned braids. Great flavor. None were overpowered. Jaya ballard's card? Excelent flavor, not overpowered. Hell, doran, I mentioned his deck. AWESOME flavor. Strong as heck in a vacuum, not overpowered. This is how legends/story relevant cards should be designed. It should make the story lovers drool when they see them, but that doesn't mean they should be undercosted by 1 or 2 mana, or get stuffed with abilities beyond their sense just because of it. Griselbrand is important in the story (and damn wizards for not releasing an innistrad book >_< I have most of the books and would love one for this block) but his card should, while still representative of his flavor, still be balanced.Yes, they take it far sometimes, but if the card doesn't match what the story has, then there is a disconnect.
We also have times when cards are strong with no story like Jace 2, does that mean there is no reason at all to make a strong card, at least with a story you can see why a character has power or not, like Tibalt. Part of the reason he is so cheap, mana cost wise, and bad is because he is a baby planeswalker. No, not because of his age, but because his spark had just activated in the story and didn't know enough about this powers yet.
Staying on topic and not digressing a conversation or straying it from the point shows respect to me. The opposite then shows disrespect.Not sure what you are talking about. You seem to be the one disrespecting me for little reason.
Can I cry now? This means you agree that there is power creep. Everything is stronger. That's the pure definition of power creep. That is what I've been saying all along. Fact is cards are stronger, everywhere. It's not surprising, that is the easy way out in developing a game. In fact, the opposite would have been surprising. However, I very much would rather see the game without spells, creatures, enchantments, artifacts, lands growing in power over the years. Yes I would.Fact is cards are stronger, everywhere.