well, as far as the symmetry and balance thing goes :

3 is the number of dimensions our world exists in, it is the least number of table legs that absoluely any table size must have to prevent tipping over <though the surface may not neccessarily be level> and it is also the answer to that worrisome question ' if you put 55 red socks and 99 white socks in to a sack, what is the lowest number of socks you would need to remove to be guaranteed a matching pair?')

however symmetry is what causes us to find certain people and objects more desirable than others : as in : when offered a choice between a dented can of beans and a pristine can of beans, we almost always choose the pristine.

as for how that translates in to the world of card gaming, follow along:

it doesn't.

what does however is the driving desire to succeed, even if that doesn't really mean 'win'.

it is a panic impulse that will trigger in most gamers as well as collectors. the need to have it all.

while many of us don't mind losing, none of us wants to lose because of not having the options available to our opponents, and thus we will jump at the chance to get more cards.

even if it means we have to skip lunch for a week :)

I agree with the prospect of four sets a year.
Hopefully though, they will make sure each set is no bigger than 165 card count.

It's the first year so it does seem fast. I don't mind it though, actually as of right now I'd say it makes the metagame healthy. When they start the quarter system next year it will give the pros more test time before events so complaints will probably be @ a minimum if not null.

Just remember that MOR was supposed to be out last quarter of 2003 and so they are just catching up for 2004.

Now that they are back on track (kind of), things will be much more uniform next year.

And even though it's 4 sets in a year, for those of you who like the number 3 better, then think of it as 1 set every **3** months.

Heh, actually, I just introduced the concepts of symmetry and the number 3 to reflect possible marketing decisions for the set release rate. And, while I do think this information about general consumerism would be considered in the set release rate, I do not think that this would, by any means, be the only reason they would choose it. Also, if you think marketing ideals involving learning curves and association don't come in to card games, then you are either seriously mistaken, or card games in general aren't nearly as organized in such respects as I would've thought.

Then again, I'm not actually involved in marketing. These are just concepts I've been taught by people who are, and, if they don't apply to marketing in general (or at least not this specific audience), then I am sorry for bringing up points that have absolutely no relation to set releases. Also, if marketing has no say in how often sets are released, then I would have to say that is pretty cool.