Did this guy even play magic in the beginning? He has no evidence to back up this theory of his, so remember it is just his opinion.
When i started playing magic, people traded moxes away pretty easily because they are only important to Spikes. Johnnys and Timmys all wanted Northern Paladins and Sleight of MInds. More people fought over Royal Assassins than they did Time Twisters early on. ONLY when the game exploded did people realize that Time Twisters and Recalls were really powerful. But... they are fairly boring. Everyone I know that started playing during Beta quit because the game started to target Spikes, and not Timmys and Johnnys. They all hated just playing black knights and lightning bolts, when they wanted to play more *fun* stuff. Today there is EDH and limited for those type players, but back then people just played what was fun.
So it was being able to sleight of mind a northern paladin that made the game take off, not ancestral recalls. When one guy in my area figured out how to do turn 1 kills with 4 of each mox and other power 9 cards... no one played him, and people complained about the game. Out of a dozen friends who played in Beta, only myself continued on playing as things got more competitive.
Anyway, only spikes loved the power 9, to a johnny or timmy, a Nightmare or Shivan Dragon was the card that was fun to play. Does Rosewater think that people traded 2 moxes for a Shivan Dragon because Moxes were the reason people enjoyed playing the game? Sheesh.
I dont see why statiscaster is dead vs larger creatures, i thought that was it was made for... to give burn more oomph. Now a pillar of flame in hand and a statiscaster on the board will kill something with 3 toughness.
Plus if you get two of them out vs human/thalia type decks, it's basically game over.
I play a janky statiscaster/chemister/stuffy doll/blasphemous act deck and it's fun as hell. Statiscaster with the doll lets you start pinging them directly, etc.
The problem is with the miracles, really, and increased power of cards overall.
Try playing constructed with Beta, Arabian Nights, and Antiquities... if you were beating on an opponent and were winning by a good margin, there was really no one single card that could turn the entire game around. At best there were cards that could equalize the board and give him time, like a wrath of god or whatever. (Forgot about time twister and cards that provide huge card advantage, those could turn a game around of course, which was partly why they were removed...just like your argument, you could be winning a game, have an opponent draw Ancestral, draw 3 to get another Ancestral... bam, all your work down the drain, because they topdecked a bomb.)
Even if he drew a big creature to hopefully control the board, you could easily have the answer in your hand. With Entreat, there are few answers, and non in avr limited, i think. Even in standard, there arent many answers to it.
Now go back to my idea of early constructed, there were no cards that could drop multiple threats at once, so a swords to plowshares or terror could always negate an opponent's good top deck, and you still win. Murder vs entreat? Laughable.
Before standard rotated people would say 'oh just use ratchet bomb'... who maindecks ratchet bomb? But in the old magic, everyone would have terrors, or lightning bolts, or plowshares in their deck, so it ws likely that every player would have SOME sort of answer to any topdeck. Vs entreat, you either have one of the few answers, or just scoop. Miracles in general just suck.
The last time i lost to an infect deck, the guy said 'well this deck works because people dont play instant removal, just put instant removal in your deck and you stop this deck'
Except... not all instant removal, and not JUST removal beats the deck, it is only INSTANT removal. Got shot vs green infect? Almost useless. Almost all red removal is weak vs green infect. Green has very little instant removal, neither does white (in standard). And you have inkmoth, which in a green infect deck is very hard to kill. red removal vs pump spells, no go for the throat, no DOJ, no black suns zenith, no terminus etc etc etc. It basically dies to doom blade. Tragic slip even loses to mutagenic growth, other than with morbid.
The other problem is the pump spells are insane with infect, but the creatures have to be inefficient to be balanced. So infect creatures are weak in creature combat, which only promotes less interaction between players. The whole idea needs to go.
I got so lost reading the initial post and trying to understand the purpose of it that I started asking myself an entirely different question...
What if ogres were more like trolls?
Answer: They'd regenerate faster and create more pointless threads like this one!
P.S. As an avid, skilled, and highly experienced chess (and go) player, I honestly find it offensive when anyone even considers lumping the game(s) in the same category as any game which involves cards or dice. However strategic card games may seem, the randomization factor of the "luck of the draw" puts MTG, any other CCG, Risk, Backgammon, etc in an entirely different category than chess. If you think otherwise, you obviously don't even know what a real strategy game (a game based exclusively on skill and strategy) is to begin with.
And this means... what? I see this type of arguemnt all the time. "Well the games are different!" Well, sure. Was there any discussion about luck in the game though, in my original post? The point was show how chess would work if it was run like Magic is. It illustrates how strange the magic system is, when you show that a game everyone is familiar with would be ridiculous if run the same way.
Most games cost money, but you don't have stronger aspects or pieces of the game cost more money,making it hard for poorer players to compete.
Your knowledge of legal history is somehow even worse than your knowledge of economics.
And yes, I am in law school.
Here's a link or two. Please read them and educate yourself. And once you know at least the basics from Wikipedia, you can move on to more advanced readings.
True, I should have said weak patent laws. THe US strengthened its IP laws when it started to be a leader in technology. When i lagged behind europe in technology, it had weak IP laws. This was the book i read about it:
They had every intention of the game sticking around. You don't design a whole new style of game with the plan of it dieing in a year or two.
Well i remember reading this many many years ago. Deckmaster was supposed to be a whole line of games, with each one being
released for a year or so. Garfield was going to print Alpha and Beta *and then stop and make a new game under the Deckmaster title*. They decided not to do that when Alpha and Beta sold out in a couple months, instead of the year they had hoped it would take to sell all the cards.
So... YES, they do design a whole game thinking it would only last a year.
The cluelessness of some people here in regards to copyright laws and how not having them would kill the entertainment industry totally boggles my mind. Those who have no idea what they're talking about shouldn't talk.
It's a radical idea for today's society to contemplate, but telling people they shouldn't contribute to the conversation? pfft, go away fascist. Flame warning —Annorax
Nobody pays for top end talent or makes "good" movies. We end up with, as another poster said, B Movies and a load of crap.
Yes, you DESERVE $200 million dollar movies. On the flip side of your argument, without copyright laws, music would be free. Musicians would make money dong live shows, but music would be free. Oh you're right, that would be horrible.
The entire mtg buisness model is based on a secondary market and/or rarity. Point invalid. It had always been this way.
Actually alpha and beta were printed and were intended to be sold for about a year, then Garfield was going to release a new game. So YES when they made the game, the secondary market was not thought of, as the game was going to be abandoned after they printed what they thought would sell.
Well, you'd get sued horribly. The DCI wouldn't recognize you, so you'd need to get foundation form another tournament organization, you would anger many players for copying MTG. I honestly doubt it.
It never ceases to amaze me that people cannot envision a world other than what we live in. Take a minute, imagine a world without copyright laws. My point was to say IF the laws were changed, what would happen if i printed magic cards.
Indeed. If I paid a quarter for bonfire, mtg wouldn't exist.\
As for the copyright argument:
thats how most countries work. Lack of laws, laissez faire spurs development and growth. Once a solid economy is founded, laws are put in place to keep existing businesses safe, so that they have reasons to keep existing.
Actually magic WOULD exist, as it did when they printed cards not caring what their worth was after they printed it. They WERE happy to sell one card for a quarter, and the game existed when they just printed cards and didnt realize that boosting the aftermarket price of cards would push people to buy more packs.
The US was never laissez faire, we used tariffs and subsidies from the time the country was founded until present day. My point was to say copyright laws did not exist when the country was innovating and growing, why do people argue that we need them to be successful?
Because when Black Lotus was IN PRINT and you could play FOUR of them in a deck, it only cost $6-8.
Now you have cards that are in print that are $40 or more.
By making mythic rares, wizards ensures more packs get opened, as Bonfires go up in price, a store will buy more boxes just to open up packs, just to get a few good rares.
This makes junk rares cost LESS, because now you have an OVER supply of them compared to the demand for them.
So to use Limited as an example, you would still pay $1 for just about any rare, but even the rares most in demand at the time weren't over $10 each. Today you see the best cards in a set selling for $40, and junk rares selling for pennies.
It has nothing to do with how many types of rarities there are, it has to do with wizards deliberately reducing the amount of the best cards, which forces players or stores to open more packs to meet demand.
So i could make a competetive magic deck back in unlimited era for under $100. not just one, like rdw, just about any deck would cost under $100. Can you do that today? People think they beat the system by not buying packs and buying singles, but someone, somewhere, had to open more packs to get more Bonfires into the card pool. Wizards doesn't care who, just as long as they sell.
Right, the cards were often also misprinted, there were more bannings, and powerlevel was much higher, with certain cards being hundreds of times more powerful than others. But you want that back.
Actually if you paid attention, I was pointing out that they made the game originally without any idea of a pro tour or antying else that you could argue accoutns for most costs of doing business today vs when they released the game. The guy said they have to pay artists, designers, etc. They just released those cards, with no intention of a secondary market, and planned to make money on it at less than $.40 per card. So this shows they could sell cards cheaply and make money at it. Just not as much money as they make today.
Exactly, [republican rant mode]but copyright laws are necessary for that purpose because they incentivize people to make music. If producers and artists had no way of making money, they wouldn't make music. Same with mtg cards. If wizards could only sells cards for 40 cents each, and knew that no one would ever buy more than four of any product, well then then they couldn't cover overhead costs and employee salaries.[/republican rant mode]
Actually the US became a world power without copyright laws. In the 17 and 1800s, Europe tried to push their copyright and patent laws on the US, and the US would claim 'oh so sorry, we dont have those laws here'. We didn't want those laws, copyright and patent laws only benefit the countries that *hold all the patents*. 80% of patent payments go into the US. Small wonder that the US wants stronger patent laws, but 100+ years ago wanted nothing to do with them. And now poor countrieshave to pay more for technology. Money they dont have.
South Korea is a modern day example. Just a few decades ago students in korea were using pirated textbooks in colleges, even using pirated computer software until recently, etc. If copyright laws spurred innovation, why did the US and S Korea have the msot innovation back before copyright laws existed?
Copyright and patents also stop innovation. "Hey ive got an idea for a new invention! It's an electric car! Oh wait, GM bought all the patents on existing electric car technology. Huh, even if I have the same idea, I can't use it without paying GM a ton of money that I don't have"
New companies today hire patent lawyers to find out who has patented some of the technology they are going to use to make a NEW product.
And lastly, you pay more for a Mickey Mouse doll, an idea that was created 100 years ago, than a generic doll, so Disney can make money off of a 100 year old idea. Does this make sense?
[/quote]The game would end. I shouldn't even need to explain how bad this would be. There would be infinite powercreep instantly, and no decrease in prices. The tournament scene would disappear.[/QUOTE]
So if i made a game called magic, used all the mechanics of the game, and released my own sets at $.25 per card, you think people wouldnt play? When people could spend $20 for a deck, not $200, this would ruin the game?
It amazes me that paying $40 for a Bonfire vs a quarter is considereed a bad idea here.
Take a look at the decks of Alpha, beta, unlimited, and revised.
The cards are dead simple. Tap for mana. Exile creature, gain life. Counter target spell. Tap, draw a card. The most complicated cards would be stuff like serra angel, which is flying and vigilance, or sengir vampire, hypnotic spectre, and shivan dragon. No legends. No multicolor spells. Durhur. Sure there were more complicated cards (chaos orb had at least 16 different interpretations prior to clarifications), but very few played them seriously. When it came to competitive magic, the decks were designed so that a trained monkey could play them -- draw card, play card or wait until you could in the case of counterspell and swords to plowshares.
People who say magic is being dumbed down compared to the past just have a rosy view of magic. During the time they were starting out, when everything was fresh, new, and unknown, they were grasping with the rules and mechanics.
Even then cards don't only cost a penny to make. For each card you have to pay a designer, commission artwork, have it play tested cards are expensive to make, and what would happen if they only cost 25 cents to buy? People would spend $19 to make a deck (because we would only have constructed. All forms of limited require booster packs) and then maybe spend up to a dollar per year tweaking it.
Magic would go bankrupt and this message board wouldn't exist.
They sell cards today for $.40 each, so obviously they don't cost much to make.
When wizards first released beta and alpha they had no intention of a pro tour or a long term game. They sold cards back then for under $.40 each, and were going to make money on it, so it doesn't cost much to make the cards, pay designers, etc.
Originally Posted by Ravengm
I don't get the "It only costs Wizards pennies to make the cards, so we should only have to buy them for a quarter!" argument, since it pertains to a high-demand and limited-quantity collectible.
It's only limited because one company determined it should be limited. Copyright laws make a music CD cost $15 when it would be free without copyright laws. Magic costs hundreds of dollars to make a deck because wizards designed it that way, but it could be much cheaper if they decided to change things.
Or... if another company could make magic cards. Competition you know, it's apparently good for consumers. Copyright laws give one company a monopoly on their product. Having a monopoly means you can set up ridiculous scenarios like how magic is designed today.
having tons of netdeckers block my 2/1 with their 3/4 restoration angel, then i hardcast bonfire for 2... and they don't realize their angel dies.
Yeah netdeckers are my pet peev. I said it. Magic is a game that requires skill to pilot a deck, and skill to understand how to build one. Netdeckers bypass half the skill needed to win. Conclusion? They have less skill.
Full disclosure: I play pod sometimes in standard because it's a control deck without counterspells, which is my favorite type of deck to play, and when I win I think 'well this deck style helped me win this game, I can't take all the credit here'. It's like a Nascar driver. he admits his team is part of why he wins, not just 'piloting' the car. Why wont netdeckers at least admit that they had help to win? Personally if I play Pod and lose to a homebrew, i congratulate him. Well done mate. Well done.
Please look at what Fallen Empires and Homelands almost did to this game.
That only had to do with reverse power creep, and boring cards. Hardly anything in those sets made people say 'oh cool!' and the cards were less powerful than current cards, so no one played most of them. It doesn't mean some cards have to be super powerful, it means if you have a bunch of cards at a set power level, and release cards less powerful, you're going to have a bad time. IMO.
People had tons of fun in alpha and beta even when playing decks that did not have any of the big power cards in them. I used to sleight of mind white knights and other such fun stuff. The point was it was FUN. Homelands cards didn't offer fun things to do, they were boring. Many had very narrow applications.
It's a narrow application. No one played it because for 2 mana there were other choices, and even those that did play it found they could often not tap what was on the board, and even if they did, they would have been better off with a white knight on the table, because to even stop a 2 power creature, you had to tap yours.
So a white knight was always better to have in the deck than this.
5 mana for a 4/4 trample, sac a creature to untap it each turn. ugh. Red had Fire Elementas that were 5 mana for a 4/5. Black had Sengir Vampires for 5 mana, 4/4 flier with another ability. Who is going to use this when better alternatives exist?
They just made imbalanced cards in those sets, the negative aspect of Black Carriage was not worth paying the cost. If the standard black 5 mana creature was a 1/1, then this card would be worth using. Eh, maybe. But 5 mana generally got you a 4/4 at the least, or a 4/4 with abilities at best, why would soeone use a 5 mana 4/4 creature with a downside?
Again, it had nothing to do with being weak, it had to do with better alternatives already existing.
Did this guy even play magic in the beginning? He has no evidence to back up this theory of his, so remember it is just his opinion.
When i started playing magic, people traded moxes away pretty easily because they are only important to Spikes. Johnnys and Timmys all wanted Northern Paladins and Sleight of MInds. More people fought over Royal Assassins than they did Time Twisters early on. ONLY when the game exploded did people realize that Time Twisters and Recalls were really powerful. But... they are fairly boring. Everyone I know that started playing during Beta quit because the game started to target Spikes, and not Timmys and Johnnys. They all hated just playing black knights and lightning bolts, when they wanted to play more *fun* stuff. Today there is EDH and limited for those type players, but back then people just played what was fun.
So it was being able to sleight of mind a northern paladin that made the game take off, not ancestral recalls. When one guy in my area figured out how to do turn 1 kills with 4 of each mox and other power 9 cards... no one played him, and people complained about the game. Out of a dozen friends who played in Beta, only myself continued on playing as things got more competitive.
Anyway, only spikes loved the power 9, to a johnny or timmy, a Nightmare or Shivan Dragon was the card that was fun to play. Does Rosewater think that people traded 2 moxes for a Shivan Dragon because Moxes were the reason people enjoyed playing the game? Sheesh.
So far I have been told that the Reverberate still resolves, but I can't see how, as when it resolves, there is no valid target to copy.
Plus if you get two of them out vs human/thalia type decks, it's basically game over.
I play a janky statiscaster/chemister/stuffy doll/blasphemous act deck and it's fun as hell. Statiscaster with the doll lets you start pinging them directly, etc.
Try playing constructed with Beta, Arabian Nights, and Antiquities... if you were beating on an opponent and were winning by a good margin, there was really no one single card that could turn the entire game around. At best there were cards that could equalize the board and give him time, like a wrath of god or whatever. (Forgot about time twister and cards that provide huge card advantage, those could turn a game around of course, which was partly why they were removed...just like your argument, you could be winning a game, have an opponent draw Ancestral, draw 3 to get another Ancestral... bam, all your work down the drain, because they topdecked a bomb.)
Even if he drew a big creature to hopefully control the board, you could easily have the answer in your hand. With Entreat, there are few answers, and non in avr limited, i think. Even in standard, there arent many answers to it.
Now go back to my idea of early constructed, there were no cards that could drop multiple threats at once, so a swords to plowshares or terror could always negate an opponent's good top deck, and you still win. Murder vs entreat? Laughable.
Before standard rotated people would say 'oh just use ratchet bomb'... who maindecks ratchet bomb? But in the old magic, everyone would have terrors, or lightning bolts, or plowshares in their deck, so it ws likely that every player would have SOME sort of answer to any topdeck. Vs entreat, you either have one of the few answers, or just scoop. Miracles in general just suck.
Except... not all instant removal, and not JUST removal beats the deck, it is only INSTANT removal. Got shot vs green infect? Almost useless. Almost all red removal is weak vs green infect. Green has very little instant removal, neither does white (in standard). And you have inkmoth, which in a green infect deck is very hard to kill. red removal vs pump spells, no go for the throat, no DOJ, no black suns zenith, no terminus etc etc etc. It basically dies to doom blade. Tragic slip even loses to mutagenic growth, other than with morbid.
The other problem is the pump spells are insane with infect, but the creatures have to be inefficient to be balanced. So infect creatures are weak in creature combat, which only promotes less interaction between players. The whole idea needs to go.
And this means... what? I see this type of arguemnt all the time. "Well the games are different!" Well, sure. Was there any discussion about luck in the game though, in my original post? The point was show how chess would work if it was run like Magic is. It illustrates how strange the magic system is, when you show that a game everyone is familiar with would be ridiculous if run the same way.
Most games cost money, but you don't have stronger aspects or pieces of the game cost more money,making it hard for poorer players to compete.
True, I should have said weak patent laws. THe US strengthened its IP laws when it started to be a leader in technology. When i lagged behind europe in technology, it had weak IP laws. This was the book i read about it:
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991
Can you hear me up on that high horse of yours?
Well i remember reading this many many years ago. Deckmaster was supposed to be a whole line of games, with each one being
released for a year or so. Garfield was going to print Alpha and Beta *and then stop and make a new game under the Deckmaster title*. They decided not to do that when Alpha and Beta sold out in a couple months, instead of the year they had hoped it would take to sell all the cards.
So... YES, they do design a whole game thinking it would only last a year.
Here, read a book:
http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1174678/?site_locale=en_GB
It's a radical idea for today's society to contemplate, but telling people they shouldn't contribute to the conversation? pfft, go away fascist. Flame warning —Annorax
Yes, you DESERVE $200 million dollar movies. On the flip side of your argument, without copyright laws, music would be free. Musicians would make money dong live shows, but music would be free. Oh you're right, that would be horrible.
Actually alpha and beta were printed and were intended to be sold for about a year, then Garfield was going to release a new game. So YES when they made the game, the secondary market was not thought of, as the game was going to be abandoned after they printed what they thought would sell.
It never ceases to amaze me that people cannot envision a world other than what we live in. Take a minute, imagine a world without copyright laws. My point was to say IF the laws were changed, what would happen if i printed magic cards.
Actually magic WOULD exist, as it did when they printed cards not caring what their worth was after they printed it. They WERE happy to sell one card for a quarter, and the game existed when they just printed cards and didnt realize that boosting the aftermarket price of cards would push people to buy more packs.
The US was never laissez faire, we used tariffs and subsidies from the time the country was founded until present day. My point was to say copyright laws did not exist when the country was innovating and growing, why do people argue that we need them to be successful?
Now you have cards that are in print that are $40 or more.
By making mythic rares, wizards ensures more packs get opened, as Bonfires go up in price, a store will buy more boxes just to open up packs, just to get a few good rares.
This makes junk rares cost LESS, because now you have an OVER supply of them compared to the demand for them.
So to use Limited as an example, you would still pay $1 for just about any rare, but even the rares most in demand at the time weren't over $10 each. Today you see the best cards in a set selling for $40, and junk rares selling for pennies.
It has nothing to do with how many types of rarities there are, it has to do with wizards deliberately reducing the amount of the best cards, which forces players or stores to open more packs to meet demand.
So i could make a competetive magic deck back in unlimited era for under $100. not just one, like rdw, just about any deck would cost under $100. Can you do that today? People think they beat the system by not buying packs and buying singles, but someone, somewhere, had to open more packs to get more Bonfires into the card pool. Wizards doesn't care who, just as long as they sell.
Actually if you paid attention, I was pointing out that they made the game originally without any idea of a pro tour or antying else that you could argue accoutns for most costs of doing business today vs when they released the game. The guy said they have to pay artists, designers, etc. They just released those cards, with no intention of a secondary market, and planned to make money on it at less than $.40 per card. So this shows they could sell cards cheaply and make money at it. Just not as much money as they make today.
Actually the US became a world power without copyright laws. In the 17 and 1800s, Europe tried to push their copyright and patent laws on the US, and the US would claim 'oh so sorry, we dont have those laws here'. We didn't want those laws, copyright and patent laws only benefit the countries that *hold all the patents*. 80% of patent payments go into the US. Small wonder that the US wants stronger patent laws, but 100+ years ago wanted nothing to do with them. And now poor countrieshave to pay more for technology. Money they dont have.
South Korea is a modern day example. Just a few decades ago students in korea were using pirated textbooks in colleges, even using pirated computer software until recently, etc. If copyright laws spurred innovation, why did the US and S Korea have the msot innovation back before copyright laws existed?
Copyright and patents also stop innovation. "Hey ive got an idea for a new invention! It's an electric car! Oh wait, GM bought all the patents on existing electric car technology. Huh, even if I have the same idea, I can't use it without paying GM a ton of money that I don't have"
New companies today hire patent lawyers to find out who has patented some of the technology they are going to use to make a NEW product.
And lastly, you pay more for a Mickey Mouse doll, an idea that was created 100 years ago, than a generic doll, so Disney can make money off of a 100 year old idea. Does this make sense?
[/quote]The game would end. I shouldn't even need to explain how bad this would be. There would be infinite powercreep instantly, and no decrease in prices. The tournament scene would disappear.[/QUOTE]
So if i made a game called magic, used all the mechanics of the game, and released my own sets at $.25 per card, you think people wouldnt play? When people could spend $20 for a deck, not $200, this would ruin the game?
It amazes me that paying $40 for a Bonfire vs a quarter is considereed a bad idea here.
haha.. Word of Command. ಠ_ಠ
They sell cards today for $.40 each, so obviously they don't cost much to make.
When wizards first released beta and alpha they had no intention of a pro tour or a long term game. They sold cards back then for under $.40 each, and were going to make money on it, so it doesn't cost much to make the cards, pay designers, etc.
It's only limited because one company determined it should be limited. Copyright laws make a music CD cost $15 when it would be free without copyright laws. Magic costs hundreds of dollars to make a deck because wizards designed it that way, but it could be much cheaper if they decided to change things.
Or... if another company could make magic cards. Competition you know, it's apparently good for consumers. Copyright laws give one company a monopoly on their product. Having a monopoly means you can set up ridiculous scenarios like how magic is designed today.
Yeah netdeckers are my pet peev. I said it.
Full disclosure: I play pod sometimes in standard because it's a control deck without counterspells, which is my favorite type of deck to play, and when I win I think 'well this deck style helped me win this game, I can't take all the credit here'. It's like a Nascar driver. he admits his team is part of why he wins, not just 'piloting' the car. Why wont netdeckers at least admit that they had help to win? Personally if I play Pod and lose to a homebrew, i congratulate him. Well done mate. Well done.
That only had to do with reverse power creep, and boring cards. Hardly anything in those sets made people say 'oh cool!' and the cards were less powerful than current cards, so no one played most of them. It doesn't mean some cards have to be super powerful, it means if you have a bunch of cards at a set power level, and release cards less powerful, you're going to have a bad time. IMO.
People had tons of fun in alpha and beta even when playing decks that did not have any of the big power cards in them. I used to sleight of mind white knights and other such fun stuff. The point was it was FUN. Homelands cards didn't offer fun things to do, they were boring. Many had very narrow applications.
Look at this one, Aysen Bureaucrats:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=3014
It's a narrow application. No one played it because for 2 mana there were other choices, and even those that did play it found they could often not tap what was on the board, and even if they did, they would have been better off with a white knight on the table, because to even stop a 2 power creature, you had to tap yours.
So a white knight was always better to have in the deck than this.
Or look at this one:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=2911
5 mana for a 4/4 trample, sac a creature to untap it each turn. ugh. Red had Fire Elementas that were 5 mana for a 4/5. Black had Sengir Vampires for 5 mana, 4/4 flier with another ability. Who is going to use this when better alternatives exist?
They just made imbalanced cards in those sets, the negative aspect of Black Carriage was not worth paying the cost. If the standard black 5 mana creature was a 1/1, then this card would be worth using. Eh, maybe. But 5 mana generally got you a 4/4 at the least, or a 4/4 with abilities at best, why would soeone use a 5 mana 4/4 creature with a downside?
Again, it had nothing to do with being weak, it had to do with better alternatives already existing.