Hey everyone, I'm in a bit of a bind here. I want to help my girlfriend build a deck that suits her tastes as best I can but when I asked her what she likes/dislikes I was pretty perplexed:
Likes:
- Big green creatures.
- Pumping said big green creatures via simple +x/+x style instants/sorceries. Think Giant Growth, not Gift of Dromoka. (too complicated)
- Turtling.
- Killing the opponent in one big attack, sometimes with the help of something like Overrun.
I sort of get that stuff, sounds like a typical Timmy. But here is where I'm a bit stuck.
Dislikes:
- Any creature abilities. Creatures should as plain as possible whenever possible sans a few bombs here and there. Think Leatherback Baloth plain.
- Shuffling decks. She really really hates shuffling decks. Which sort of rules out most ramp.
- Any sort of card interactions between her permanents. She wants her creatures to be super simple so she can basically just focus on her spells and when is the best time to use them.
- Losing more than 50% of the time.
Soo... I'm actually more of a Johnny/Spike myself that likes to have crazy combos. I play Twin in modern and my idea of "fun" is using my thoroughly banned Tolarian Blue deck whenever the opportunity arises. As you can imagine, building a deck that is as plain as plain can be is a bit difficult. She absolutely knows how to play more complicated stuff, she's been playing since Zen block, but she enjoys simple so she's okay with a few cards that are a bit more complicated. We're playing with the Origin's Clash Pack at the moment for example and she finds all the Renown to be annoying to keep track of.
I figured mono green Stompy is a good place to start. Creatures seem like a good place to start so I figured these are the obvious ones that could fit the above constraints:
I personally would love to add stuff like Experiment One, Strangleroot Geist, or Scavenging Ooze but I don't think she'd like them. I think I could probably swing Aspect of Hydra but it definitely seems like she's most forgiving of complexity the more bomb-like the card. For example, she said Gaea's Revenge would be fine.
Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. While I do have listed that she doesn't like to lose, she only really plays against me so I can certainly try to tailor my decks to be of similar power level so don't be too concerned about that. She won't really have to worry about things like graveyard shenanigans or busted combos ruining her day as I won't use them. I'll try to keep it to "fair" decks.
Building a very "simple" deck is surprisingly difficult. Thanks to anyone that wants to help take a shot at it!
After seeing the fetchlands spoiled for KTK I just bought up the playset of Steam Vents I was waiting for rotation to pick up figuring they would probably go up in price. In hindsight, maybe I was being too impulsive and should have waited the 3ish weeks for Steam Vents to rotate out of standard to buy. Was this incredibly stupid on my part? And if they were going to go down in price approaching rotation, what sort of price drop do you think would have been expected? $2 lower perhaps?
Bleh, this is why you don't make purchases at 3am in the morning lol.
Theoretically, if the ban list was completely removed from Modern I was curious what you think would be the prevailing boogeyman. What would be the most degenerate plague on the Modern meta given every tool at your disposal?
Just a fun thought exercise. I'm relatively new to Modern so my knowledge of past scary stuff that resulted in cards getting banned is pretty lacking but I do remember hearing about Dark Depths/Hexmage and Thopter/Sword both being very scary.
I'm looking to pick up some Sulfur Falls and Steam Vents which look to be selling for $7 and $9 respectively at the moment. Is there any timing window I should be looking for?
I know Sulfur Falls rotated out awhile ago so I'm guessing it will not change in price anytime soon. Steam Vents on the other hand will be rotating soon. Do cards tend to go down in price shortly before, during, or shortly after rotation most?
Sorry if this is supposed to go somewhere else but I couldn't find another forum/thread that seemed more appropriate.
I recently purchased 3x Urza's Power Plant and while I know it's not worth much I still thought it was strange that all three copies had the exact same imperfection. I've attached photos of the cards below. The imperfection is a small black mark above the "P" in "Power" in the title of the card. The copy I had prior that doesn't have the imperfection is in the bottom left of the picture with four cards for comparison.
I know this will probably get a ton of hate but I really want to voice my opinion on the subject of Tarmogoyf.
I think its fine where it is price wise and availability wise. Of the 15 people I usually play magic with, 14 of us don't own Goyfs. But every single one of us would totally play them in decks if we had them. For us, its not about the price. Most of us can afford them but we choose not to spend that amount. Now, my playgroup is a mix of both casual players and a few who go to PTQ's and GPT's at EVERY chance they get. Now, assume most play groups know about the Modern format and the price Goyf is at. If, suddenly, every player obtained a set then what is going to stop them from trying to play it in every deck or effectively reduce the meta/format to X Deck with 4 Goyf in the main. Hell, if I had them id run them in Pod even if it doesn't seem like a good idea, they are ******* Tarmogoyfs!
I do think that people should have access to cards and cheap cards are always cool but I feel if Goyfs were easier to get then it would be bad for the format.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the price/availability of cards should be used to balance the game? This seems like a bad idea. Let me see if I follow your logic.
1) You assert that if everyone had access to as many Goyfs as they'd like for dirt cheap, everyone would use Goyfs without question.
2) The game is more fun when there is a more diverse meta so everyone running 4x Goyfs in every deck wouldn't be fun.
3) The fact that Goyf is rare/expensive keeps your meta from devolving into Goyf all day every day.
So, if Goyf is so powerful that everyone would use it given the opportunity but not everyone can afford it then it's difficulty to obtain seems like a bandaid solution to a larger issue of balance. Powerful enough to warp a meta and practically be an auto include in every deck that could possibly support it BUT only available to those willing to shell out around $800 for a playset? Reeks of "pay to win" to me and general poor game design.
The above logic hinges on the notion that Goyf is powerful enough that everyone would in fact use a playset of it if they had it, always. At the highest levels of play that doesn't seem to be the case thankfully. My point is that balancing through rarity/cost in a constructed environment almost always flies too close to "pay to win" and is detrimental to balance and the health of the game.
As a thought experiment, how much do you all think a modern deck should cost?
And how competitive do you play?
And is price influencing that?
Q: How much should a modern deck cost?
A: I personally think that MTG would be at it's best with as many people being able to play competitively as possible without watering down the game design itself. When you price out players from competitive play, the scene suffers. When you give new players the impression that this game is pay 2 win, the scene suffers. The mark of most great competitive games is that it ultimately pits your skills against another player's skills with minimal effect from their wallets. Most great competitive games also tend to measure dedication in time, not dollars invested.
So, to answer this question I would say that analysis of the desired target market should be done in order to figure out what they can afford. If your demographic is largely people age 10-18 then disposable income is at a premium and MTG is competing with video games, shows, etc for their very limited dollars and thus MTG should be priced aggressively. If the target market is say... 22-30 years old though, that demo tends to be in that sweet spot of single or dual income, no kids, and lots of disposable income. Then you can theoretically price higher. That said, I think it's still in the MTG scene's best interest to price lower to keep the potential player pool as high as possible instead of setting up price walls. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd like to think around $100 for a tournament worthy deck sounds fair, going up to perhaps $150-$200 if you really want to squeeze out every drop of efficiency.
Looking at this question from the viewpoint of "whatever the free market dictates" is probably not the best way to grow this game. One only needs to look to free to play video games to see that.
Q: How competitive do you play?
A: I play competitively with in a group of friends, I don't go to larger tournaments aside from pre-releases for fun.
Q: Is price influencing that?
A: Absolutely. The most popular format amongst my play group is Draft because it eliminates the Pay 2 Win nature of constructed. We still play constructed but we have a gentlemen's agreement with each other that none of us will simply drop $500-$1000 on singles to outclass each other over night. We fall into the aforementioned "22-30" age demo and we can certainly afford it but we choose not to in favor of other entertainment that is a better bang for our buck.
I'll just say that the market dictating prices has resulted in the game growing faster and stronger than ever. Remember more people means more bad people. The higher the influx the higher the risk of negative things happening. One way to reduce this is having people involved that have made an investment. They are more likely to value the game because they have shown by buying the cards that they are putting forth effort and finance into the game. Further, those who come into the game easily are just as likely to leave the game as well in the same manner. The likelihood of someone who puts a lot of money into a deck up and leaving at the first disappointment is, I would imagine, significantly less than someone who has put little into the deck. As to the comparison to free to play video games, ask King how that's going. Sure they are wildly popular, for a while. Then the population loses interest and the game is tossed aside and forgotten. That's not a business model that a card game like mtg can sustain.
Do you honestly think that if MTG was cheaper to get into at a competitive level there would be a large influx of "bad people" (whatever that means) that would somehow damage MTG as a whole? I'd really like you to clarify what you mean by "bad people" and "negative things" as well. Until you do I'll assume you mean people with poor sportsmanship and... I don't know what, respectively. Paying a higher fee doesn't guarantee a better behaved player base by any means. Xbox Live for example charges and monthly fee and they're user base can be just as toxic as any free game community out there. I hope you understand just how incredibly elitist your statement sounds. That said, let's get into the rest of your points.
Assuming that someone that has not invested much money is more likely to leave the game and vice versa is non-sense. This assumes the game in question, MTG, is a bad game and not fun enough to stand on it's own merit. If someone is staying for the primary reason that they invested money into the game then you have a bad game on your hands. You've got cause and effect mixed up. How much money someone is willing to spend is caused by a combination of their means and how much they enjoy the game. Someone that has spent a lot of money on MTG is only less likely to quit for one of two main reasons:
1) I really enjoy this game, that is why I invested so much into it. Why would I quit?
2) This game sucks but I put so much money into it so I guess I need to get my money's worth.
It is considerably healthier for the game to be affordable to many and hold it's users on the basis of fun than the game to filter only those that are willing to dump hundreds to thousands of dollars and hold them because they don't want to feel bad about wasting money.
You state that "market dictating prices" has been a boon for the game's growth, I'd be interested in see you cite a source that indicates that this is the primary reason for growth and not something else like... better design or better marketing for example.
Lastly, I like how you cherry pick King as an example of free to play games gone wrong. Comparing a game clearly targetted at a casual demographic that is known to be historically fickle to an incredibly hardcore and niche game is silly. Let's look at another game perhaps like say... Team Fortress 2 or DotA 2. TF2 is considerably older and shows little sign of dying any time soon, makes tons of money, and it isn't pay 2 win. DotA2 is younger but is only getting larger, is built on a fanbase from the original game stretching back ages, makes even more money, and is absolutely not pay 2 win. I'm not saying MTG should go free to play, MTG's design inherently doesn't work like that. The point is that much can be learned about making a game more affordable and accessible while not dumbing it down from certain free to play games that do it right, like TF2 and DotA2.
As a thought experiment, how much do you all think a modern deck should cost?
And how competitive do you play?
And is price influencing that?
Q: How much should a modern deck cost?
A: I personally think that MTG would be at it's best with as many people being able to play competitively as possible without watering down the game design itself. When you price out players from competitive play, the scene suffers. When you give new players the impression that this game is pay 2 win, the scene suffers. The mark of most great competitive games is that it ultimately pits your skills against another player's skills with minimal effect from their wallets. Most great competitive games also tend to measure dedication in time, not dollars invested.
So, to answer this question I would say that analysis of the desired target market should be done in order to figure out what they can afford. If your demographic is largely people age 10-18 then disposable income is at a premium and MTG is competing with video games, shows, etc for their very limited dollars and thus MTG should be priced aggressively. If the target market is say... 22-30 years old though, that demo tends to be in that sweet spot of single or dual income, no kids, and lots of disposable income. Then you can theoretically price higher. That said, I think it's still in the MTG scene's best interest to price lower to keep the potential player pool as high as possible instead of setting up price walls. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd like to think around $100 for a tournament worthy deck sounds fair, going up to perhaps $150-$200 if you really want to squeeze out every drop of efficiency.
Looking at this question from the viewpoint of "whatever the free market dictates" is probably not the best way to grow this game. One only needs to look to free to play video games to see that.
Q: How competitive do you play?
A: I play competitively with in a group of friends, I don't go to larger tournaments aside from pre-releases for fun.
Q: Is price influencing that?
A: Absolutely. The most popular format amongst my play group is Draft because it eliminates the Pay 2 Win nature of constructed. We still play constructed but we have a gentlemen's agreement with each other that none of us will simply drop $500-$1000 on singles to outclass each other over night. We fall into the aforementioned "22-30" age demo and we can certainly afford it but we choose not to in favor of other entertainment that is a better bang for our buck.
Thanks for the advice! I actually have all of those commons/uncommons you listed except Swan Song and Electrolyze, I just wasn't sure what to cut and which to fit in. I definitely end up in grindier matchups with my opponents running as much discard and/or creature removal as humanly possible, not sure how that would impact these choices. We usually end up staring across the board at each other stockpiling counters and removal with a crap ton of lands on the board until I figure it's time to try to go off.
2 Snapcaster Mage and 1 Kiki sounds great! A few people have suggested Blood Moon but in my playgroup we're all working with mana bases like mine. (90% basic lands) Not sure if it makes sense to run Blood Moon in that sort of meta.
For the "common fetches" are you referring to Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse? I have playsets of both, how many would you suggest I run?
Thanks so much! (@Mods: sorry again if this discussion is too budget, should I have created a thread in the Budget forum?)
Not sure if this is the place for it, my apologies if there is some other place more appropriate to post this. I was looking for some advice for my budget/casual UR Twin deck:
Due to the cards I have to work with I find myself unable to combo out early due to my meta being filled with loads of removal so it's slowly gravitating towards a deck that uses the combo more as a plan B hence strange things like 2 Wurmcoil Engine maindeck.
Things I've been thinking about:
1) I've got 2 Into the Roil and 2 Boomerang instead of 4 Boomerang. Does the ability to target land really make Boomerang worth running over Into the Roil with a mana base as bad as mine? I do also play it with the cantrip more often than not. Maybe I shouldn't even be playing any bounce? The UR tempo lists don't seem to run any. Maybe Izzet Charms make more sense?
2) My counter spell suite is all over the place. I only have 2 Remand but I have full playsets of all the other cards listed. Negate, Dispel, and Condescend. Can the ratio be improved?
4) I've been thinking about using Gigadrowse in the deck. Seems like being able to tap down most or all of an opponent's lands on their turn then attempting to combo out on my turn would either guarantee the combo or severely limited my opponent's options. It has the added benefit of generally being all around versatile. After some searching though almost no one seems to have mentioned or considered this idea. If someone could offer some insight into why this might be bad I'd be very interested.
I mentioned this over in the Modern Prices thread but I'm looking to drop around $100 into improving the deck as well. A playset of Snapcaster Mage seems like the best bang for the buck with 1-2 Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker also being a strong option.
Any and all feedback would be much appreciated, I apologize if budget list discussions aren't welcome here.
This may seem like a strange question since I only really play among friends, not even FNM, but here goes.
We decided on Modern as our format of choice for our playgroup so I decided to build a UR Twin deck as I already had 4 Splinter Twins laying around but not much else. I've cobbled together something vaguely resembling a UR Tempo Twin deck with whatever cards I had or could get for less than a few dollars a piece. It's currently built more like a control deck I think than a tempo shell due to the cards I have to work with. After playing the deck a bit I like it a lot so I'd like to treat myself to a few more expensive cards and thus was curious what would improve the deck the most for the money. It's really really budget at the moment but I think I'd be willing to drop about $100 into improving the deck.
My first thought was that a playset of Snapcaster Mage at about $28/card would be the best investment to increase the deck's overall power for the money. Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker seemed like another option as a one of, perhaps replacing one of the Snapcasters to fit the budget. Vendilion Clique and improving the mana base with fetches seem far too expensive for not enough impact compared to the above. Batterskull and Keranos, God of Storms both seemed like really fun cards but again have less impact, this time because they are sideboard cards. (although, technically the Wurmcoil is acting as a poor man's Batterskull and it's maindeck for me at the moment due to lack of other options)
1. The most recognizable face of magic, some would even argue that he is the mascot of magic
2. The most powerful planeswalker every printed by a huge margin
3. One of the most powerful cards in legacy, a format in which thousand dollar cards are not unheard of.
4. A card so powerful it was one of few cards to be banned in standard and is still banned in modern.
With a card being that iconic, powerful and format defining I have no issue with it being $80. The way I look at it is this:
For $130 you get:
1. JTMS see above
2. Foil Hymn to Tourach NEVER before modern border, never before foiled
3. Foil Swords to Plowshares previously only available as Judge Foil
4. Dark Ritual, again previously only available as Judge
5-20. 16 other foils to pimp out your EDH decks
I've always thought that FTV20 was one of the best deals wizards ever offered even at the $130 price tag. It was such am amazing deal for someone who loves foiling out their decks.
I noticed that in your justification of Jace's price tag you focused a lot on the power of the card. You seem to be asserting that powerful cards should be very expensive, roughly proportional to their power. I sort of understand this idea but I disagree with it to the extent that is occurring at the moment. You feel that $80 is a more than fair price while I'd prefer it be closer to $20. Absolutely not saying you're wrong, it's a matter of opinion of course. I'm currently trying to get a handful of new players into the game so when I think about prices I think about the sorts of reactions I could expect when I explain to a new player that this card I just beat them down with cost $70 and that a truly competitive deck could cost them upwards of $1k, depending on the format. Considering everyone in my playgroup is an employed adult we certainly have the income to support splurge purchases now and then but that doesn't change the difficulty in getting them to wrap their head around some of those price tags.
So with what you said in mind, would it bother you if WotC released a box set of tournament staples like Jace, Tarmogoyf, fetchlands, etc that were nothing particularly fancy collector wise (non-foil, same art, no frills) but were obviously tournament legal for let's say... $60? And let's say the print run was large enough to counter the possibility of hoarders/re-sellers so the price remained at that number. So for the price of a video game a new player could get themselves 70% of the way to a competitive deck so they could emulate their favorite pros and such. An FTV product perhaps more in line with the Modern Event Deck in intent but considerably more aggressive in it's pursuit of that goal.
Would that bother you as a player? If so, I'd be very curious why. I've got a number of theories as to the psychology behind the desire for a high entry fee to one's hobby of choice but I'd like to hear from you first.
One of the reasons Magic has be as successful as it has been is that it will NOT do what your are saying it should do. If they did this the price of the cards mention would plummet and WoTC would lose the confidence that the collector base has in them. (See yugiho for proof) I cracked my playset of Jaces when they came out which is what Wizards want's you to do for whatever the next big thing is. That's what sells packs. Complaining that you don't have cards because you didn't open cards isn't a WE issue it's a YOU issue. Your "solution" works for you but screws over a lot of other people and would end up destroying the game.
This sounds like a lot of speculation. I don't believe either of us has data to show the distribution of WotC profit between people that buy cards strictly to display in binders/resell vs people that primarily intend to play with the cards so let's not over emphasize the importance of either. I'm not super interested in the resell value of cards personally since I just don't ever intend to sell them and I don't trade often. I get the vast majority of my cards by purchasing booster boxes for drafts with friends so I certainly crack my fair share of packs, more if we like the set.
Complaining that I don't have certain cards unless I want to dump a ton of cash is an issue for anyone that wants to play on an even remotely even playing field anywhere but the kitchen table or limited. I get that you want there to be a healthy collector community but I'd argue increasing access to tournament staples would give a potentially larger boost to player acquisition and retention on the whole. These aren't mutually exclusive goals though, as I mentioned before.
This assertion certainly seems reasonable until we see the FTV series printing stuff like Jace TMS where there is a very real want from non-collectors.
JTMS dropped from $150 to $100 after FTV was printed, that's a a 33% reduction in price. $50 cheaper is a huge drop, and greatly helped out the non-collectors.
Of course it doesn't matter that it dropped 33%; unless they flooded the market until JTMS was $15, people would still be complaining.
What do you think is a fair price for a top end card? I think this will be very telling as I think there is a fundamental disagreement over what we each think is a fair price.
In a vacuum, I don't mind super rare cards existing. It makes for exciting moments within a tight nit playgroup when someone pulls something very rare and powerful out of a pack. It also adds a uniqueness to that player's deck vs his/her peers which is very powerful. However, once you begin interacting with other players that are willing to drop a few hundred on their decks to gain a drastic advantage over anyone that hasn't... it just feels bad. I'm a reasonably seasoned player having been around since 4th edition so I can get over this. Try telling that to the new player though that just picked up a preconstructed or two and customized it with their draft spoils. Ideally, I believe a new player should look at a seasoned player after a loss and think "Wow, I got outplayed" instead of "I've got no chance unless I spend a grand." Both realizations are potential points of player retention loss. The first you can't really do too much about, players need to be able to handle losing to a better player. The second is something that many people flee from in real life, the notion that whoever has the bigger wallet wins. Before someone freaks out, I'm absolutely not asserting that "more expensive deck = more winning always." Rather, that is the feeling a new player might have.
Full disclosure, I come from the world of video game development so I'm very sensitive to the impact "pay 2 win" can have on the growth of a game. In many ways Magic is a master class on balancing money vs power cards. I would assert that they can still do better though, there is room to improve.
Likes:
- Big green creatures.
- Pumping said big green creatures via simple +x/+x style instants/sorceries. Think Giant Growth, not Gift of Dromoka. (too complicated)
- Turtling.
- Killing the opponent in one big attack, sometimes with the help of something like Overrun.
I sort of get that stuff, sounds like a typical Timmy. But here is where I'm a bit stuck.
Dislikes:
- Any creature abilities. Creatures should as plain as possible whenever possible sans a few bombs here and there. Think Leatherback Baloth plain.
- Shuffling decks. She really really hates shuffling decks. Which sort of rules out most ramp.
- Any sort of card interactions between her permanents. She wants her creatures to be super simple so she can basically just focus on her spells and when is the best time to use them.
- Losing more than 50% of the time.
Soo... I'm actually more of a Johnny/Spike myself that likes to have crazy combos. I play Twin in modern and my idea of "fun" is using my thoroughly banned Tolarian Blue deck whenever the opportunity arises. As you can imagine, building a deck that is as plain as plain can be is a bit difficult. She absolutely knows how to play more complicated stuff, she's been playing since Zen block, but she enjoys simple so she's okay with a few cards that are a bit more complicated. We're playing with the Origin's Clash Pack at the moment for example and she finds all the Renown to be annoying to keep track of.
I figured mono green Stompy is a good place to start. Creatures seem like a good place to start so I figured these are the obvious ones that could fit the above constraints:
Ramp:
Elvish Mystic
Big Plain Green Stuff:
Kalonian Tusker
Leatherback Baloth
Pump:
Titanic Growth
Giant Growth
I personally would love to add stuff like Experiment One, Strangleroot Geist, or Scavenging Ooze but I don't think she'd like them. I think I could probably swing Aspect of Hydra but it definitely seems like she's most forgiving of complexity the more bomb-like the card. For example, she said Gaea's Revenge would be fine.
Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. While I do have listed that she doesn't like to lose, she only really plays against me so I can certainly try to tailor my decks to be of similar power level so don't be too concerned about that. She won't really have to worry about things like graveyard shenanigans or busted combos ruining her day as I won't use them. I'll try to keep it to "fair" decks.
Building a very "simple" deck is surprisingly difficult. Thanks to anyone that wants to help take a shot at it!
Bleh, this is why you don't make purchases at 3am in the morning lol.
Just a fun thought exercise.
I know Sulfur Falls rotated out awhile ago so I'm guessing it will not change in price anytime soon. Steam Vents on the other hand will be rotating soon. Do cards tend to go down in price shortly before, during, or shortly after rotation most?
I recently purchased 3x Urza's Power Plant and while I know it's not worth much I still thought it was strange that all three copies had the exact same imperfection. I've attached photos of the cards below. The imperfection is a small black mark above the "P" in "Power" in the title of the card. The copy I had prior that doesn't have the imperfection is in the bottom left of the picture with four cards for comparison.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the price/availability of cards should be used to balance the game? This seems like a bad idea. Let me see if I follow your logic.
1) You assert that if everyone had access to as many Goyfs as they'd like for dirt cheap, everyone would use Goyfs without question.
2) The game is more fun when there is a more diverse meta so everyone running 4x Goyfs in every deck wouldn't be fun.
3) The fact that Goyf is rare/expensive keeps your meta from devolving into Goyf all day every day.
So, if Goyf is so powerful that everyone would use it given the opportunity but not everyone can afford it then it's difficulty to obtain seems like a bandaid solution to a larger issue of balance. Powerful enough to warp a meta and practically be an auto include in every deck that could possibly support it BUT only available to those willing to shell out around $800 for a playset? Reeks of "pay to win" to me and general poor game design.
The above logic hinges on the notion that Goyf is powerful enough that everyone would in fact use a playset of it if they had it, always. At the highest levels of play that doesn't seem to be the case thankfully. My point is that balancing through rarity/cost in a constructed environment almost always flies too close to "pay to win" and is detrimental to balance and the health of the game.
Do you honestly think that if MTG was cheaper to get into at a competitive level there would be a large influx of "bad people" (whatever that means) that would somehow damage MTG as a whole? I'd really like you to clarify what you mean by "bad people" and "negative things" as well. Until you do I'll assume you mean people with poor sportsmanship and... I don't know what, respectively. Paying a higher fee doesn't guarantee a better behaved player base by any means. Xbox Live for example charges and monthly fee and they're user base can be just as toxic as any free game community out there. I hope you understand just how incredibly elitist your statement sounds. That said, let's get into the rest of your points.
Assuming that someone that has not invested much money is more likely to leave the game and vice versa is non-sense. This assumes the game in question, MTG, is a bad game and not fun enough to stand on it's own merit. If someone is staying for the primary reason that they invested money into the game then you have a bad game on your hands. You've got cause and effect mixed up. How much money someone is willing to spend is caused by a combination of their means and how much they enjoy the game. Someone that has spent a lot of money on MTG is only less likely to quit for one of two main reasons:
1) I really enjoy this game, that is why I invested so much into it. Why would I quit?
2) This game sucks but I put so much money into it so I guess I need to get my money's worth.
It is considerably healthier for the game to be affordable to many and hold it's users on the basis of fun than the game to filter only those that are willing to dump hundreds to thousands of dollars and hold them because they don't want to feel bad about wasting money.
You state that "market dictating prices" has been a boon for the game's growth, I'd be interested in see you cite a source that indicates that this is the primary reason for growth and not something else like... better design or better marketing for example.
Lastly, I like how you cherry pick King as an example of free to play games gone wrong. Comparing a game clearly targetted at a casual demographic that is known to be historically fickle to an incredibly hardcore and niche game is silly. Let's look at another game perhaps like say... Team Fortress 2 or DotA 2. TF2 is considerably older and shows little sign of dying any time soon, makes tons of money, and it isn't pay 2 win. DotA2 is younger but is only getting larger, is built on a fanbase from the original game stretching back ages, makes even more money, and is absolutely not pay 2 win. I'm not saying MTG should go free to play, MTG's design inherently doesn't work like that. The point is that much can be learned about making a game more affordable and accessible while not dumbing it down from certain free to play games that do it right, like TF2 and DotA2.
Q: How much should a modern deck cost?
A: I personally think that MTG would be at it's best with as many people being able to play competitively as possible without watering down the game design itself. When you price out players from competitive play, the scene suffers. When you give new players the impression that this game is pay 2 win, the scene suffers. The mark of most great competitive games is that it ultimately pits your skills against another player's skills with minimal effect from their wallets. Most great competitive games also tend to measure dedication in time, not dollars invested.
So, to answer this question I would say that analysis of the desired target market should be done in order to figure out what they can afford. If your demographic is largely people age 10-18 then disposable income is at a premium and MTG is competing with video games, shows, etc for their very limited dollars and thus MTG should be priced aggressively. If the target market is say... 22-30 years old though, that demo tends to be in that sweet spot of single or dual income, no kids, and lots of disposable income. Then you can theoretically price higher. That said, I think it's still in the MTG scene's best interest to price lower to keep the potential player pool as high as possible instead of setting up price walls. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd like to think around $100 for a tournament worthy deck sounds fair, going up to perhaps $150-$200 if you really want to squeeze out every drop of efficiency.
Looking at this question from the viewpoint of "whatever the free market dictates" is probably not the best way to grow this game. One only needs to look to free to play video games to see that.
Q: How competitive do you play?
A: I play competitively with in a group of friends, I don't go to larger tournaments aside from pre-releases for fun.
Q: Is price influencing that?
A: Absolutely. The most popular format amongst my play group is Draft because it eliminates the Pay 2 Win nature of constructed. We still play constructed but we have a gentlemen's agreement with each other that none of us will simply drop $500-$1000 on singles to outclass each other over night. We fall into the aforementioned "22-30" age demo and we can certainly afford it but we choose not to in favor of other entertainment that is a better bang for our buck.
2 Snapcaster Mage and 1 Kiki sounds great! A few people have suggested Blood Moon but in my playgroup we're all working with mana bases like mine. (90% basic lands) Not sure if it makes sense to run Blood Moon in that sort of meta.
For the "common fetches" are you referring to Evolving Wilds and Terramorphic Expanse? I have playsets of both, how many would you suggest I run?
Thanks so much! (@Mods: sorry again if this discussion is too budget, should I have created a thread in the Budget forum?)
13 Island
4 Mountain
1 Steam Vents
2 Izzet Guildgate
1 Temple of Epiphany
2 Desolate Lighthouse
4 Deceiver Exarch
4 Pestermite
2 Grim Lavamancer
2 Wurmcoil Engine
Instants (15)
2 Dispel
2 Condescend
2 Remand
1 Negate
2 Boomerang
2 Into the Roil
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Serum Visions
Planeswalker (2)
2 Jace, Architect of Thought
Enchantment (4)
4 Splinter Twin
Due to the cards I have to work with I find myself unable to combo out early due to my meta being filled with loads of removal so it's slowly gravitating towards a deck that uses the combo more as a plan B hence strange things like 2 Wurmcoil Engine maindeck.
Things I've been thinking about:
1) I've got 2 Into the Roil and 2 Boomerang instead of 4 Boomerang. Does the ability to target land really make Boomerang worth running over Into the Roil with a mana base as bad as mine? I do also play it with the cantrip more often than not. Maybe I shouldn't even be playing any bounce? The UR tempo lists don't seem to run any. Maybe Izzet Charms make more sense?
2) My counter spell suite is all over the place. I only have 2 Remand but I have full playsets of all the other cards listed. Negate, Dispel, and Condescend. Can the ratio be improved?
3) Is Jace, Architect of Thought terribad in this deck?
4) I've been thinking about using Gigadrowse in the deck. Seems like being able to tap down most or all of an opponent's lands on their turn then attempting to combo out on my turn would either guarantee the combo or severely limited my opponent's options. It has the added benefit of generally being all around versatile. After some searching though almost no one seems to have mentioned or considered this idea. If someone could offer some insight into why this might be bad I'd be very interested.
I mentioned this over in the Modern Prices thread but I'm looking to drop around $100 into improving the deck as well. A playset of Snapcaster Mage seems like the best bang for the buck with 1-2 Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker also being a strong option.
Any and all feedback would be much appreciated, I apologize if budget list discussions aren't welcome here.
We decided on Modern as our format of choice for our playgroup so I decided to build a UR Twin deck as I already had 4 Splinter Twins laying around but not much else. I've cobbled together something vaguely resembling a UR Tempo Twin deck with whatever cards I had or could get for less than a few dollars a piece. It's currently built more like a control deck I think than a tempo shell due to the cards I have to work with. After playing the deck a bit I like it a lot so I'd like to treat myself to a few more expensive cards and thus was curious what would improve the deck the most for the money. It's really really budget at the moment but I think I'd be willing to drop about $100 into improving the deck.
13 Island
4 Mountain
1 Steam Vents
2 Izzet Guildgate
1 Temple of Epiphany
2 Desolate Lighthouse
4 Deceiver Exarch
4 Pestermite
2 Grim Lavamancer
2 Wurmcoil Engine
Instants (15)
2 Dispel
2 Condescend
2 Remand
1 Negate
2 Boomerang
2 Into the Roil
4 Lightning Bolt
4 Serum Visions
Planeswalker (2)
2 Jace, Architect of Thought
Enchantment (4)
4 Splinter Twin
My first thought was that a playset of Snapcaster Mage at about $28/card would be the best investment to increase the deck's overall power for the money. Kiki-Jiki, Mirror Breaker seemed like another option as a one of, perhaps replacing one of the Snapcasters to fit the budget. Vendilion Clique and improving the mana base with fetches seem far too expensive for not enough impact compared to the above. Batterskull and Keranos, God of Storms both seemed like really fun cards but again have less impact, this time because they are sideboard cards. (although, technically the Wurmcoil is acting as a poor man's Batterskull and it's maindeck for me at the moment due to lack of other options)
Thanks for the feedback!
I noticed that in your justification of Jace's price tag you focused a lot on the power of the card. You seem to be asserting that powerful cards should be very expensive, roughly proportional to their power. I sort of understand this idea but I disagree with it to the extent that is occurring at the moment. You feel that $80 is a more than fair price while I'd prefer it be closer to $20. Absolutely not saying you're wrong, it's a matter of opinion of course. I'm currently trying to get a handful of new players into the game so when I think about prices I think about the sorts of reactions I could expect when I explain to a new player that this card I just beat them down with cost $70 and that a truly competitive deck could cost them upwards of $1k, depending on the format. Considering everyone in my playgroup is an employed adult we certainly have the income to support splurge purchases now and then but that doesn't change the difficulty in getting them to wrap their head around some of those price tags.
So with what you said in mind, would it bother you if WotC released a box set of tournament staples like Jace, Tarmogoyf, fetchlands, etc that were nothing particularly fancy collector wise (non-foil, same art, no frills) but were obviously tournament legal for let's say... $60? And let's say the print run was large enough to counter the possibility of hoarders/re-sellers so the price remained at that number. So for the price of a video game a new player could get themselves 70% of the way to a competitive deck so they could emulate their favorite pros and such. An FTV product perhaps more in line with the Modern Event Deck in intent but considerably more aggressive in it's pursuit of that goal.
Would that bother you as a player? If so, I'd be very curious why. I've got a number of theories as to the psychology behind the desire for a high entry fee to one's hobby of choice but I'd like to hear from you first.
This sounds like a lot of speculation. I don't believe either of us has data to show the distribution of WotC profit between people that buy cards strictly to display in binders/resell vs people that primarily intend to play with the cards so let's not over emphasize the importance of either. I'm not super interested in the resell value of cards personally since I just don't ever intend to sell them and I don't trade often. I get the vast majority of my cards by purchasing booster boxes for drafts with friends so I certainly crack my fair share of packs, more if we like the set.
Complaining that I don't have certain cards unless I want to dump a ton of cash is an issue for anyone that wants to play on an even remotely even playing field anywhere but the kitchen table or limited. I get that you want there to be a healthy collector community but I'd argue increasing access to tournament staples would give a potentially larger boost to player acquisition and retention on the whole. These aren't mutually exclusive goals though, as I mentioned before.
What do you think is a fair price for a top end card? I think this will be very telling as I think there is a fundamental disagreement over what we each think is a fair price.
In a vacuum, I don't mind super rare cards existing. It makes for exciting moments within a tight nit playgroup when someone pulls something very rare and powerful out of a pack. It also adds a uniqueness to that player's deck vs his/her peers which is very powerful. However, once you begin interacting with other players that are willing to drop a few hundred on their decks to gain a drastic advantage over anyone that hasn't... it just feels bad. I'm a reasonably seasoned player having been around since 4th edition so I can get over this. Try telling that to the new player though that just picked up a preconstructed or two and customized it with their draft spoils. Ideally, I believe a new player should look at a seasoned player after a loss and think "Wow, I got outplayed" instead of "I've got no chance unless I spend a grand." Both realizations are potential points of player retention loss. The first you can't really do too much about, players need to be able to handle losing to a better player. The second is something that many people flee from in real life, the notion that whoever has the bigger wallet wins. Before someone freaks out, I'm absolutely not asserting that "more expensive deck = more winning always." Rather, that is the feeling a new player might have.
Full disclosure, I come from the world of video game development so I'm very sensitive to the impact "pay 2 win" can have on the growth of a game. In many ways Magic is a master class on balancing money vs power cards. I would assert that they can still do better though, there is room to improve.