2/17/2012 TWTW: "The Happy Recap and Below the Line"

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is for discussion of this week's The Week That Was, which goes live Friday morning on magicthegathering.com.
Thumbs up for mentioning Estratti's nice bluff vs Martell.

So many twitter commentators (and Martell himself it seemed) just thought it was a horrible play when it in fact was quite brilliant.
So, where is this Friday Night Countdown?
Three U/B decks, four W/U decks, and one U/w/b deck. I'm glad the top 8 was more varied than that.
Someone forgot to read the [FMC Here] note in the text lol
Thumbs up for mentioning Estratti's nice bluff vs Martell.

So many twitter commentators (and Martell himself it seemed) just thought it was a horrible play when it in fact was quite brilliant.

Why in your opinion is Black never competitive in standard format these days? Do you think the creators are aware of this and want to change it?


 


I mean besides Red Deck Wins, Red and black are never used.......Why is this?


 


Also, it is impossible for kids to be good at competitive Magic if everyone is playing multi-color decks and the use of dual lands. I mean, I am 29 and I can’t even hang in my local tournaments because guys just pour hundreds and hundreds of dollars on duel lands and they can copy pro level decks to win. Don't you think Magic now, is all about who can afford the most expensive cards? I personally believe the fun depends on where you play? Amongst my own group, my mono black infect deck is really good, I go to a standard tournament and all I see is [Kessig Wolf Run],[Tempered Steel], [B/W Delver]........Magic has turned into the haves and have nots.


 


Kind of Sad if you really want to be a competitive player one day......You pretty much can't endless you make lots of money and can afford to buy cards.


Why should I continue to try and compete against these powerful decks? I mean I even email pros and try to side deck against these decks and I still can’t win. I think and read up on every weakness on the top level decks out there and I just cant one. How can your average 12 year old afford the cards in Kessig Wolf run (with inferno titans?). 


 


Magic players knock professional sports. But Magic has now turned in the NBA but you can't compete on a high level endless you have the most expensive pair of Nikes. I understand prices are driven by what the pros use, but come one, give your teens some hope to be competitive. Magic the gathering should be ashamed of themselves for the current state of Magic.

You have a point. I was thinking actually about the counter in that we as players decide what we're willing to pay for a given card (the secondary market).

However, despite the fact that Primeval Titan is $21, Snapcaster Mage is $26, Darkslick Shores is $14, and Sword of War and Peace is $46, it's still much cheaper to buy these cards if you want them than to open packs. Packs are at a lottery-level of gambling. ~%20 make their money back in the form of trading cards, ~%80 never see a penny of profit (their money turned into cards of equal value or higher value.

Now, while it's true that as players we could all just deny paying what these cards are worth, we won't do that because it truly is cheaper to buy singles, despite our secondary market making them so expensive.

If I had things my way, you would get a lot for $30 worth of packs. As is, you just don't really see a lot of value in packs. You spend $30 on packs and on average you see like $10 worth of cards. If I had my way, you would spend $5 on a pack and get $5 worth of cards (not necessarily the cards you want, that is all a game of chance, but $5 of cards you can use to find the cards you want-- the experience of a trading card game).

As is, packs are just not worth the fancy casing they're printed in. They're neat, they're fun, they're a lottery, but they're not feasible for someone trying to just play MtG. You play a stiff premium for that fun you get out of a pack, because after that moment of tearing and perusing, you're left with a lot of throwaway value. (The invention of limited tries to give these worthless piles a chance to provide more fun for the value.)

Things need to change. Cards need to become more available. I'm not saying the packs have to be a quarter each-- this doesn't have to cut deep into their pockets. One obvious solution is based on the fact that they don't want to change booster prices-- just include more cards in a pack. You don't even have to change the number 15. Make it 7 commons, 5 uncommons, 3 rares/mythics. You print the same number of cards, you have the same pack prices, you see just as many packs bought (because players actually have more incentive to buy them-- you don't lose profit by making players happier, you make them more likely to buy packs, it's called positive reinforcement. :/), and you make players happy and the game more affordable by slashing the prices of every uncommon almost in half, and the price of rares/mythics in a third.

As for me, I'm a normal, money-valuing member of the playerbase. All of us know packs are rip-offs. We very rarely buy packs just for the fun lottery aspect, we're much more logical than that, we like to see results from our actions. So we don't buy packs. We draft packs sometimes (the fun is arguably worth it), we play sealed for new sets, we play constructed elsewhere. In all these cases, we enter tournaments and put our skills on the line just as much as the luck we see from the games/prize packs. That's where the real value is-- winning 15 packs for $15. That's the only place we're willing to participate in the MtG experience.

For everything else, there's ebay. 
Awesome bluff indeed!  But must be some mis-information somewhere.  The deck list provided does not have any copies of Moment of Heroism in either the main deck or sideboard. 
Awesome bluff indeed!  But must be some mis-information somewhere.  The deck list provided does not have any copies of Moment of Heroism in either the main deck or sideboard. 



Well yeah, it happened in draft, not standard.
That makes sense.
Things need to change. Cards need to become more available. I'm not saying the packs have to be a quarter each-- this doesn't have to cut deep into their pockets. One obvious solution is based on the fact that they don't want to change booster prices-- just include more cards in a pack. You don't even have to change the number 15. Make it 7 commons, 5 uncommons, 3 rares/mythics. You print the same number of cards, you have the same pack prices, you see just as many packs bought (because players actually have more incentive to buy them-- you don't lose profit by making players happier, you make them more likely to buy packs, it's called positive reinforcement. :/), and you make players happy and the game more affordable by slashing the prices of every uncommon almost in half, and the price of rares/mythics in a third.



This is wishful thinking. 10 players all want 4 Huntmaster of the Fells. Under the current system, they have to buy 3200 packs for that. Under your system, they have to buy only about 1100 packs. Why would they ever buy those 2100 other packs? They won't. So Wizards will lose profit. 
Nobody buys that many packs at all. There's no incentive to. There's no reason to under any system.

If you want 4 Huntmaster of the Fells, buy them. That's what everybody does already. If don't want to buy them, buy packs. Under my idea, at least you have a lot higher chance of pulling something you can trade for Huntmaster of the Fells.


The problem with any idea, though, is that there's no way to convince Wizards that a change is guaranteed to positively affect sales... guaranteeing the positive effect of the playerbase isn't enough.
Nobody buys that many packs at all. There's no incentive to. There's no reason to under any system.

If you want 4 Huntmaster of the Fells, buy them.



Buy them from a dealer who opened those 3200 packs. Under that suggested system, that dealer only needs 1100 packs.
The dealer doesn't only want 4 copies... He wants as many copies as he can get a hold of. The more he gets, the faster they go, the more he profits.


I may have already said this, but another factor I like about this plan is that many more players buy packs due to them actually being positively rewarded often enough to enjoy it. There's a certain amount of reward where you get too much of what you want of a thing and you no longer desire it, and there's an amount that you very rarely get anything you want and you hate it... I'm very much of the opinion that this isn't balanced, and that packs are don't reward you often enough to excite you into buying more packs. I know none of my crowd buy packs just to buy packs ever. There's no incentive.