|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 5:50AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Nov 16, 2011
|
- 4 booster sealed should never have existed as a format, and what wotc writes about it being unbalanced/awkward is totally correct - we know about the horror degenerate milling strategies involved with this.
- 8 tickets for 6-sealed phantom is way to costly with this pay-out. As it stands the entry fee should be 5 or even 4 tickets.
To avoid negative feedback and attitudes WotC has to make the lacking booster in 4-3-2-2's their most daring "cash-grab". Offers grabbing more than this only causes dismay. MtG players can do math, think about that =).
- This is, honestly, a grotesque advantage.
Noah Weil on scouting, an attorney from Seattle with 20 Pro Tour appearances.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:11AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2005
|
I'll throw my hat in the ring for loving 4-booster sealed and I'll be missing it terribly when it's gone.
You know, some of us need to complete our sets AFTER release weeks. I now have zero useful options to do so, so I will not be playing limited after release weeks anymore, and will just buy on the secondary market.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:17AM
#33
|
|
|
I joined the forums to register my displeasure with the removal of 4 pack sealed. I enjoy sealed far more than drafting, and I don't have the financial ability to do 6 pack DEs all the time. I will not play phantom sealed because getting the cards and collecting sets is very important to me. I actually just came back to MTGO for the first time since Time Spiral this summer and thought I was hooked back for good, but the removal of my favourite format might mean I'll be out again before too long. We'll see. All I know is that I'll never touch these phantom events, and hope Wizards bring back 4 pack soon!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:23AM
#34
|
|
|
- 4 booster sealed should never have existed as a format, and what wotc writes about it being unbalanced/awkward is totally correct - we know about the horror degenerate milling strategies involved with this.
- 8 tickets for 6-sealed phantom is way to costly with this pay-out. As it stands the entry fee should be 5 or even 4 tickets.
To avoid negative feedback and attitudes WotC has to make the lacking booster in 4-3-2-2's their most daring "cash-grab". Offers grabbing more than this only causes dismay. MtG players can do math, think about that =).
4 or 5 tickets for these events is absolutley crazy. They're giving out 3-2-2-2-1-1-1-0 prizes for a total of 12 packs. That's "48" tickets worth of packs, and you want them to only take in a total of 32 tickets.
At least be reasonable with your suggestion. 3-2-1 is an okay, but not great, prize structure (4-2-1 would be fairer), assuming packs stay at 4 tickets each. You can reenter into the event even going just 2-1. The problem is that packs never stay at 4, and with these queues, and the elimination of 4-pack sealed queues, the prices of packs will only drop further. If packs drop to 3 tickets each, you'd have to go 8-1 over 3 of these events just to break even.
I think Wizards really needs to make phantom universal boosters that will have a steady currency of around 4, and make the entry fee, 8 tickets or 2 phantom boosters, and then pay-out in these phantom boosters.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:27AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2004
|
If packs drop to 3 tickets each, you'd have to go 8-1 over 3 of these events just to break even.
I think Wizards really needs to make phantom universal boosters that will have a steady currency of around 4, and make the entry fee, 8 tickets or 2 phantom boosters, and then pay-out in these phantom boosters.
Someone above asked if WoTC ever listened to suggestions above. I'm gonna bet a super-quick way to get them to skip your post is to talk about the EV of the product and how hard it will be to "break even"
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:31AM
#36
|
|
|
I really think the doing away with the 4-pack sealed and moving to a 6-pack phantom sealed events will create a big problem with pack deflation. That will be so many more packs entering the system as prizes, while even fewer packs will be used to buy into events. The prizes for these events will be 3-2-1, but they'll only be worth like 3 tickets each. I will not play these if going 2-1 gives me no hope of buying me back into another event, especially if 3-0 doesn't come with a huge reward.
I really think you need to make the entry-cost 8 tickets or 2 packs of the given set for the prizes to be even close to worthwhile. If it's 2 sets that make up the sealed pool, make it 1 pack of each. If 3 different sets that make up the sealed pool, give the users some choices.
The other thing they could do is have it payout in phantom packs. 2 phantom packs or 8 tickets for entry, with 3-2-1 payouts.
Edit.....I should add that what I wrote above should be the bare minimum they do to improve the prize structure of these events. The structure still seems incredibly greedy for WOTC. 3-2-1 still seems stingy. 4-2-1 seems fair.
WARNING: WALL OF TEXT INCOMING
I also worry about pack deflation and as a result the EV of these events will suffer even more. Suppose pack prices decrease to 3.5 (or heaven forbid even lower) you'll need 77% win percentage to break even.
I agree giving people the option to use packs as an entry fee would solve this problem cause then costs and winnings both move along the same axis. For instance same example as I posted earlier with RTR pack price of 3.67, the entry fee would be 8*2*3.67=58.67, winnings 12*3.67=44 giving players a net loss of 14.67 instead of 20 if you can only use tickets to enter. So for the average player using packs instead of tickets to enter increases the EV by 0.67 tickets, which is huge!
The other problem of the phantom sealed events is price payout is not top heavy enough. As I showed in my examples it's nearly impossible to go infinite in these new events (70-75% win percentage needed to break even given realistic pack prices). Adding to the payout like some suggested isn't really an option since Wizards is a company and needs to make money off these events. Let's compare the current 4-booster swiss sealed with the new phantom sealeds from Wizards' perspective and you'll see it's not as big as a cashgrab as some are suggesting:
Current 4-booster sealed:
Entries: 4*8 = 32 boosters * 4 tickets each = 128 tickets
Payout: 5/3/3/3/1/1/1 17 boosters * 4 tickets each = 68 tickets
Product opened: 32*1.25 = 40 tickets (note this obv. not a cost for Wizards, but it is value for players, so it should be taken into account for calculation purposes)
So any 4-booster sealed nets Wizards 60 tickets, but players gain 40 tickets of value by opening product, so the net cost for players is 20 tickets or 5 boosters (once again I'm using 4 ticket a booster prices cause that's the price Wizards charges in the store, so that is their cost of a booster)
New phantom 6-booster sealed:
Entries: 8*8 = 64 tickets
Payout: 3/2/2/2/1/1/1/ = 12 boosters * 4 tickets = 48 tickets
Profit Wizards: 16 tickets, loss players 16 tickets.
So instead of gaining 60 tickets (or if you discount opened product 20 tickets) Wizards now gains 16 tickets for each event. This is hardly a moneygrab!
So we've established no increase in revenue for Wizards in the new phantom-events compared to the 4-booster sealed events, however for the players it's worse cause a) booster prices on the secondary market are lower than 4 tickets and b) there's no way to go infinite in these events, there's no realistic dream.
Let's use the 16-20 tickets Wizards wants to earn and see if we can come up with a better payout for players at no extra costs for Wizards. First like tcclemson suggested we use packs to enter events instead of tickets. Second we need to find a split that better rewards players winning more than 50% of their matches.
Some suggestions:
1) Increase entry fee to 2 boosters and 1 ticket (or optional just 9 tickets) and increase payout to 5/2/2/2/1/1/1.
Note the extra 8 tickets are used to increase total extra payout by 2 booster, so no cost or gain for Wizards.
However, for players winning above 50% this makes the dream of going infinite realistic as the breakeven winpercentage is now 61% and this is almost independent of pack prices (since packs are also used to enter events).
2) Only pay people winning at least 2 matches. This means after losing R1 and R2 you're done, which might not be what Wizards want. But let's face it, after losing 2 rounds in a row the motivation to play that last round is already low and I frequently see people at that point anyway.
This frees up 3 boosters to go to the winner of the event, making the payout: 6/2/2/2
Once again we let people enter the event with their own 2 packs and there's is no extra cost or revenue for Wizards.
Winning is promoted even more than in the previous example and the breakeven winpercentage is now 58%, once again independent of pack prices.
3) Increase the entry fee even more to 3 boosters (or 12 tickets for people without packs) and increase payout to 5/3/3/3/2/2/2.
Note the extra 8 boosters entry are all used for increased payout, total payout increases from 12 to 20 boosters, so no extra loss or gain for Wizards.
Again breakeven is around 61% matchwin percentage and unlike example 2) everybody who wins a match wins back some of their entry.
The most important part to make these events attractive is letting people use their own boosters to enter. As I've shown in my examples, simple tweaks can be made at no additional costs for Wizards to make these events better EV for the just above average player. Gotta keep the dream alive baby!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:36AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2012
|
I think Wizards really needs to make phantom universal boosters that will have a steady currency of around 4, and make the entry fee, 8 tickets or 2 phantom boosters, and then pay-out in these phantom boosters.
I disagree strongly. There are two main forms of currency in the MTGO economy:
- Tickets
- Packs in the current Limited environment
Packs from old Limited environments do circulate, but in much reduced numbers and generally lower prices. Every additional kind of "currency" that you add to the economy makes for extra transaction costs and extra confusion and overhead for players who are trying to make trades and enter events. Having "phantom packs" would have most of the same drawbacks as Cube Tix.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:47AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2012
|
I liked the 4-booster sealed. I liked 6-booster sealed. I played more four boosters than six, but I did play both. I don't know that I will participate in a phantom event at that price. Typically, the reason I participate in sealed events is to boost my ownership in a set. Buy packs, play with them, keep the cards, maybe win 1-3 packs for the 2 ticket entry fee. Paying 8 tickets to possibly come away with nothing? That's okay for a novelty like Cube, but for Limited?
Also, how do you think people are going to feel when they open their pool to find that chase rare they were really wanting (the fist pump moment), only to have it be taken away for packs that have a bunch of random jank in them if lucky enough to win their matches. At a fundamental level, I have to win two matches just to break even?
This seems like a colossally bad idea that will severely curtail sealed play. It would make more sense to run this option alongside the 4-booster sealed to see which one people prefer. This decision seems like one that was made by people who don't actually enjoy Magic.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:51AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
I would really like to see those awesome old Limited formats - e.g. Invasion, Ravnica, Shards, Scars - offered as 8-4 drafts. I flat-out ignore them when they're only offered as 4-3-2-2. If I'm bored with the current set, that means I'm not drafting/spending money at all.
Also, when Shards block drafts return, it would be great if it could be drafted as Shards-Conflux-Reborn, as it was originally designed and intended, rather than the collated boosters. I understand why that might have been done with Masques block, in which Nemesis blue and green were basically worthless, but Shards block is wonderfully balanced and in no need of tinkering.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Dec 18, 2012 - 6:54AM
#40
|
|
|
"The four-booster Sealed queue was immediately more popular..."
It sure was with me. I was in a 4 pack sealed event when I read the article. I am in one now.
Looking at the packs won in my MTGO summary, I win almost twice as many packs in sealed as I do in drafts. Some of that is prerelease and release events, but the rest is mainly 4 pack sealed (and some TNMO, before phantom.)
Personnally, I play a lot of limited, but mainly to use up packs I have and to build up my collection for constructed. I have zero interest in phantom events. I have not played in a TNMO since they went phantom, and will not play in the phantom 6 pack sealeds.
Sorry to see this change.
PRJ - "one million words" on MTGO
|
|
|
