No, but really, this is actually fascinating. I'd assumed it was the other way around in most sets, that creatures generally had more power than toughness, but apparently that's not the case. Maybe the disparities aren't actually all that pronounced in practice, because the majority of limited creatures still have square stats. But I'm beginning to understand why core set limited games are more likely to clog up and lead to board stalls.
In addition to the number of creatures with larger/smaller power/toughness, I'd also like to see the average power in each of the sets and average toughness in each of the sets, to see the degree to which the power or toughness.
I liked the article and look forward to the next part!
Great conclusion and very true. I'm glad I bailed out of Type 1/1.5 while it was still relatively fun. I'd say that the time period in between "Balance gets restricted" and "Mirage is released" was really good for the eternal formats.
CML, this series was absolutely fantastic. Well thought out, entertaining, incisive, and fun to read. And with several useful conclusions for cube designers to take home, too. I loved it.
Funny enough, I heard the exact same comment a few years ago about M11 from a local veteran, someone who'd basically played nonstop since the mid-nineties and was at the time eating up M11 limited. My conclusion too was that M11 probably didn't actually mimic old-school Magic draft formats, so much as it evoked a back-to-basics style of gameplay that was resonant with newbies and experienced players alike.