The Nadu Situation

This has become a big topic in the community this week, so I wanted to add my thoughts to the discussion. My focus isnā€™t on the banning, but on the behind-the-scenes processes that led to it. Iā€™m Head Designer, so I want to focus on the design elements of the situation.

When we make Magic there are a few things we do to try and make it the best it can be. First, we design in what we call an iterative loop. That is, we make something, we playtest it, we get feedback, we make changes on that feedback, and begin the next iteration of the loop. We try to get as many iterative loops in as we can before the set is locked (aka ā€œno more changesā€).

No matter where we set that line, thereā€™s a last day to make changes. Moving that line earlier doesnā€™t change anything other than giving us less iterative loops to improve things. Also, we make lots and lots of last minute changes. The vast majority of them make the game better. I understand thereā€™s more focus on the times we make a mistake, but it represents a truly small percentage of the changes.

Also, whenever we design a card, we ask ourselves, who is this card for? If weā€™re trying to make game play the best it can be, it helps to understand who will use the card, where they will use it, and what they will do with it. Obviously, in a game as modular as Magic, the players can often zig when we expect them to zag, but in general, this process leads to the best design.

We have two play design teams, one focused on competitive play and one focused on casual play. The competitive play design teams determines which cards they think have a shot at competitive play (remember weā€™re making predictions as where we think the environment might go,we donā€™t definitively know; we need to make an environment complex enough as to entertain tens of millions of players). The casual play design team then looks as the cards that donā€™t play a competitive role to see what casual role they can play.

With that said, let me respond to a few popular lines this week:

ā€œStop designing for Commanderā€ - The nature of competitive formats is that only so many cards can be relevant. As you start making more competitive relevant cards, they displace the weakest of the existing relevant cards. Thatā€™s how a trading card game works. That means that not every card in a set (or even just the rares and mythic rares as the commons and uncommons have a big role making the limited environment work) has a competitive role. As such, we examine how they will play in more casual settings. Thereā€™s no reason not to do that. And when you think of casual settings, you are remiss if you donā€™t consider Commander. Itā€™s the 800-pound gorilla of tabletop play (aka the most played, heavily dominant format). Us considering the casual ramifications of a card that we didnā€™t feel was competitively viable is not what broke the card. Us missing the interaction with a component of the game we consider broken and have stopped doing (0 cost activations), but still lives on in older formats is the cause.

ā€œStop making late changesā€ - Whenever you see an airplane on the news, something bad has happened. It crashed, or caught on fire, or had an emergency landing, or a door fell off. Why do we still make planes? Because planes are pretty useful and whatā€™s being highlighted is the worst element. That focus can lead people to false assumptions. Magic would not be better if we stopped making last changes. A lot more broken things would get through (things we caught and changed), and many more cards just wouldnā€™t be playable. Our process of fixing things up to the last minute does lots and lots of good. Maybe it doesnā€™t get the focus of the screw ups, but it leads to better design.

ā€œEverything needs to get playtestedā€ - My, and my teamā€™s, job is to take a blank piece of paper and make something that doesnā€™t exist exist. Thatā€™s not an easy thing to do. I believe play designā€™s job is even harder. Theyā€™re trying to make a balanced environment with thousands of moving pieces a year in the future. And if weā€™re able to solve it on our end, that means the playerbase will crack it in minute one of playing with it. One minute, by the way, is the time it takes the Magic playerbase to play with a set as much as we can. There are tens of millions of you and a handful of us. There simply isnā€™t time in the day to test everything, so the play design team tests what they think has the highest chance of mattering. They take calculated gambles (based on years of experience) and test the things most likely to cause problems. Will things slip through? Thereā€™s no way they canā€™t. The system is too complex to not miss things.That doesnā€™t mean we donā€™t continually improve our processes to lower the chances of mistakes, but nothing weā€™re going to do can completely eliminate them.

Designing Magic is difficult. Next year is my thirtieth year working on the game, and I think we have the most talented team weā€™ve ever had. Plus, just as we iterate on the designs in a set, we iterate on design processes of making Magic. How we make Magic today is light years different, and I believe better, than how we made Magic when I started. (ā€If I have seen further, itā€™s because I stand on the shoulder of giants.ā€)

One final thing. Iā€™ve always pushed for transparency in Magic design. No one on the planet has written/spoken about it more than me. I truly believe Magic is better as a game because its players have the insight to understand what we, the people making it, are doing. We do ask for one thing in exchange. Please treat the designers who take the time to share with you the behind-the-scenes workings of Magic design with kindness. We are all human beings with feelings. Thereā€™s nothing wrong with feedback, but it can be delivered with common courtesy.

  • Spzi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    Ā·
    3 months ago

    ā€œstop printing undercosted legends with as many abilities as you can jam into a text boxā€

    So much this. So often I come across a card. Start to read. Nice! Continue reading. Whoa, nice! And then Iā€™m only half through.

    I then like to ask myself if this card would still be nice if it had less/weaker features. And then Iā€™m shaking my head again, going AngryVideoGameNerd ā€œWhat were they thinking!?ā€.

    Examples:

    • [The End]. Exiling any number of copies is strong on itā€™s own, doesnā€™t have to become cheaper at low life.
    • [Ocelot Pride]. Not sure if it needs first strike. It definitely does not need the extra with the Cityā€™s Blessing.

    I feel there are much better examples, but I wanted to stop thinking about it.

    • Evu@mtgzone.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      Ā·
      3 months ago

      I feel there are much better examples, but I wanted to stop thinking about it.

      A relatable sentiment.