You make your points well, but I find myself disagreeing with many of them. On some I just have a difference of opinion in the absence of data (magic's growth will be unsustainable), but I feel it's probably important to address one point you make directly. You say, "the regular rarity system became a full-on lottery." I disagree. The crux of my disagreement is your comment about chase cards. You assert that the average player's interest in cards is proportional to their rarity/value when you say "Zendikar Expeditions changes the basic of booster packs from 'the most desirable chase cards are something you could see with moderate luck' to 'the most desirable chase cards are something you'll probably never see'". For heavily enfranchised players with large investments (and correspondingly a larger willingness to spend money on the game) this seems reasonable, they know the value of their cards and are willing to trade, buy, and sell to turn that value into cards they want/need. That said, these players don't usually rely on opening a bunch of packs to get the cards they want. On the other hand, for players with smaller investments (casual players, some standard players, drafters, etc.) which cards are most desirable is not simply measured by value, but also by utility and personal interest. These less invested players are more likely to be excited by what they open, not disappointed by not opening the most expensive card in the set. An experienced player may see an expeditions foil as 4 times as valuable as this set's planeswalkers, but a newer player will be excited to open either. The addition of expedition cards doesn't change the behavior or response of either player. Newer players buy packs and don't worry about specific cards, more invested players buy cards and don't worry about what is available in packs. The only type of person who has a worse experience when opening a pack is someone who is trying to get expedition foils by opening packs, but as I argued above, very few players will do this because the audience for expedition foils is different than the audience for purchasing packs. Players who normally buy packs en masse may have a similar feeling, but the promotion is all upside for them because it increases the expected value of their packs.
To summarize, new players won't be hurt that they don't get expedition cards, invested players don't acquire cards through buying packs, people who buy en masse are accepting risk and have increased EV per pack, therefore no one is hurt by this promotion.
-
- Zok72
- Registered User
-
Member for 11 years, 8 months, and 15 days
Last active Sat, Jan, 7 2017 01:11:47
- 0 Followers
- 9 Total Posts
- 1 Thank
-
Sep 11, 2015Zok72 posted a message on The Magic Street Journal: Glitter, Gimmicks, and Glamours - Wizards' Reprint ShenanigansPosted in: Articles
-
Oct 12, 2014Zok72 posted a message on Off Topic: Issues with VarianceWhile you make a good point about differentiating between power level and variance, I actually think you oversold the point. Namely, you nearly ignored the strong role variance plays in the power level of a deck. The easiest way to demonstrate this is to create two example deck lists for show and tell, which are identical except that the second list has only one copy of Show and Tell(and three additional islands). To say here that the decks have the same power level is disingenuous. Though both perform the same way when successful, one does so nearly four times as often as the other (if someone wants to do the exact math be my guest). What this shows is that power level of a deck is highly correlated with the consistency. This is not to say that some cards aren't too powerful, just that the consistency of the card should definitely be a factor when considering its strength. For that reason, I believe highly inconsistent strategies like show and tell should not be banned out. If the question inherent to a game of competitive magic is "do I win a game?" then decks which say "yes 95% chance to win" with 40% of their draws are of less concern than decks which say "you have a 80% chance of winning" with 75% of their draws.Posted in: Articles
With all of this said, I am of course a fan of interactivity in magic so I always approve of altering the format to ensure interactivity. I think there are enough answers in legacy that very few cards are strictly uninteractive though I admit that force of will is definitely part of the reason for this. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
yes, that was my point, I was imagining things that would happen if a hypothetical is true, and finding them cool, oh so cool
Both of these make a lot of sense. I don't imagine there's too much design space in colorless costs (though I really hope we'll see some developmentally pushed cards with costs like R<>). If this is a symbol for colorless mana though I hope they keep using it in sets to come (imagine a sol ring that read T: Add <><> to your mana pool, that would be really cool). I also like how colorless costs bring us back towards 1 or 2 color decks for standard (easier for 1 or 2 color decks to put utility lands that produce colorless mana in if you want to "splash" colorless).
https://twitter.com/LengthyXemit
4 Rite of Replication
1 Palinchron
1 Mana Reflection
2 Mountain
2 Breeding Pool
1 Island
1 Reliquary Tower
4 Rings of Brighthearth
4 Echo Mage
1 Uyo, Silent Prophet
4 Dual Casting
4 Pyromancer Ascension
4 Fork
4 Increasing Vengeance
4 Radiate
4 Reverberate
4 Twincast
3 Wild Ricochet
1 Eye of the Storm
1 Reminisce
The gameplan for this deck is in theory somewhat simple:
1. Cast precursor golem
2. Create an infinite amount of mana
3. Cast a kicked rite of replication as many times as possible
4. Do it all again with Reminisce
Important interactions include: casting fork on a Radiate instead of Rite of Replication in order to copy Rite of Replication on every golem instead of just one golem. Mass Hysteria allows you to swing with all the golems you create on the turn you create them so you don't deck yourself.
I haven't bothered to figure out how much damage this does but if anyone feels like figuring that out I would appreciate it.
A) sitting on sealed product
This is a simple long term strategy. If you buy sealed packs of a set and don't open them for a long time (years, not months) then they frequently appreciate in value. Not all sets do this, but many do. Popular sets especially can do this, for example boxes of the original ravnica set can go for $350 (original retail price approximately $120). I would bet that return to ravnica will appreciate based on the popularity of the original set.
B) speculating on specific cards
Carefully selecting cards to buy and sell before and during the standard run of a set can make you a profit, but it is much more risky. Take the recent card Bonfire of the Damned for example. The preorder cost for the card started as low as $5 from some sites, went up to $12 before the release of the set, then, after it had some widespread tournament play, rose rapidly and is now worth approximately $45. Other cards start high and go nowhere (Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded for example started at $25 preorder and plummeted to approximately $5 now).
The best time to speculate on cards is just before and just after the release of a new set. Be cautious of cards that are splashy but not good (like tibalt) and look for cards that seem undercosted for their play value. Also, speculate mostly at rare and mythic as it is simply not likely for you to make a profit on uncommon or common cards whose prices are more stable.
With regards to the specific cards you bought, Phantasmal Image and drowned catacombs will likely make you some money back (near to your original investment in either direction) and they may go up if tournament quality decks need them, neither is rotating so they'll probably maintain value for another year or so. Phyrexian Obliterator was like tibalt (alot of hype but no tournament play and no profit to be made) but its value won't got too much lower when it rotates from standard but it will be somewhat of a loss. Darkslick shores almost definitely won't go up, but again, I don't see any reason it will drop too much when it rotates from standard, so again a small loss.
All in all you're likely looking at a small loss unless you make a good sale on the phantasmal images or drowned catacombs.
Maro was very excited about how the selesnya guild leader was multiple creatures in one. What if, like precursor golem, it copied itself, with the caveat that it didn't kill itself due to the legend rule? It would play very nicely with the new mechanic that Rootborn Defenses seems to offer. You would be able to populate extra copies of the guild leader (with whatever interesting abilities it had) onto the battlefield. I think this card is real.
Anyone else think that this makes sense? Anyone think I'm nuts?