I don't think he's reading everything I said or getting that I was putting all sort of effects out that I thought relevant, not just ones that fully supported my thesis.
Not sure how that applies. I mean Heirloom while it seems broken in several ways and the pricing limit is arbitrary does seem to have a fairly dynamic meta. Not only that but it is not a hardship to take any top8 deck and reproduce it and tweak it and thus change it's function. Therefore while being a budget conscious format, it does not lose any of it's diversity. How does that equal no diversity?
Well in the paper world it may be a number of things that produce that result, some of which contradict my thesis, others that support it others that don't have a dog in the fight.
1) in paper you have unique regional metagames (this produces variety even as those regional metas overlap) (this is a neutral factor not transportable to MTGO since we essentially have one monolithic meta for each/most formats)
2) in paper you can test with proxies, on MTGO this doesn't work, you have to take the additional step of testing offline or with a free program and need to find others to work on that with you or a similar meta in a different locale. (This prefers paper I think, and promotes my thesis if that is true the opposite if the opposite, a split if neutral)
3) in both paper and online there is a big commitment to buying the actual deck for real events, most people don't have the time or money or confidence o go rogue with real dedication.
4) these major formats are often defined by a few degenerate cards (eg in standard jace, mana leak, koth, titans, pulse, blightning, bloodbraid, vengevine ect) which essentially narrow the playable card range to a fairly small number of actually powerful cards, limiting innovation in those formats by effectively trimming the card pool down a great deal (this prefers Heirloom, but not standard pauper, and not having access to all cards or not, its just an important detail)
5) I may think of more on the specific relevance of paper vs online data, for now I've scribbled enough lol
In the paper world, where there is no limit to access to cards, the top decks are all very diverse, and are not dominated by a small group of archetypes, thus proving your point?
I think there is a facet to innovation that is being missed here. In formats like standard, legacy, extended, in fact in any format where it is cost prohibitive to obtain any cards you want to mess around with there is more stagnation, not less. There is a simple reason I think this to be true:
If it's cost prohibitive to try new ideas for many people there will simply be fewer people actually innovating. A small group of players with motivation, resources and payoff great enough to justify spending a lot on magic will be the innovators. Those that cannot afford any cards at any time will copy what the innovators have found to be successful because they can't or won't afford to do otherwise. You see this same trend in capitalistic business if you look at it, only the very wealthy can afford the losses of time(not always theirs) and money(access to investment not necessarily theirs) on experimentation.
*Formats that change very little, have card pools without a large enough variety of powerfully interactive cards and don't have cards cycling out and few ground breaking cards cycling in are where stagnation will still occur. This is why Pauper Standard and Heirloom both can be very dynamic while everyone has access to all the cards in the format at little cost. The former because it changes so much and so dramatically and the latter because it has such a massive card pool of powerfully interacting cards and still will shift enough in content to snuff out degeneration and to give frequent new opportunity for experimentation.
Still with shard, I may have missed the point in an attempt to keep up with your logic... :P but no. No matter the format if everyone has access to every card, it gets stale. Period.
A format is as much defined by its B&R list as it is the new boosters being opened.
I am not sure casual would be diverse.... Some kids would, out of principle, but I think it would polarise the game...
Think back to when you first played Doom 2. Fun right... awesome, tense, exciting... then you discovered cheats for it... maintain your interest then?
i meant the real more serious formats where innovation tends to be important like standard, extended, legacy...standard pauper is great to play in, but i dont give it much weight as far as formats go, same with tribal, heirloom, or any other non-sanctioned event. Wow you made a PRE, good job. Sorry for not taking into account every possible format that could exist. But alot of magic already has a huge hivemind atmosphere to it. And if everyone could afford every card in the game, sure casual may be more diverse but tournaments seem like they would get old fast...mainly because tournaments have a tendency of skewing towards the "best deck" if everyone has every card...they all have the best deck...
That said, nor was proof offered as to indicate they don't care. ;) Slightly compelling, logical reasons that seem to show their attentiveness to (or awareness of) the secondary market still beats nothing offered to signify they don't. ;p
'meh I could miss the point there. Certainly there are "Staples" in pauper the same as in classic, just because they are cheaper doesn't eliminate their analogous relationship to wasteland and co.'
Yeah, I think you did miss the point. Shard was saying that if everyone had all the cards, it would lead to stagnation. My counterpoint was that some formats like Standard Pauper and Heirloom, where players have access to all cards, still have dynamic metagames. It wasn't about saying those formats don't have staples, it was regarding everyone has access vs. stagnation.
Pauper is open with lots of innovation? Not how I hear it? I don't play the game, FoW is not a common apparently, BUT what I read on the boards indicates Pauper is stagnant? meh I could miss the point there. Certainly there are "Staples" in pauper the same as in classic, just because they are cheaper doesn't eliminate their analogous relationship to wasteland and co.
As per you 'Why do you think... etc stuff" interesting, but not compelling, and doesn't in any way prove WOTC cares about secondary market.
@Stealth: I think we can all agree that games are won on tempo.. now perhaps my definition of tempo is a bit different from others, but what I'm trying to say is that card advantage is the best way to control the tempo of a game
Where have you seen that they don't care about the secondary market value? Why is it the next premium deck series only has one Chain Lightning and why did Aaron Forsythe tweet that he wanted to subdue the fervor by stating it only contained one? Why do you think the FTV: Relics only gave us mid-level cards and not, I don't know, Time Vault? Why is it we haven't seen Grim Tutor reprinted but we saw Ambition's Cost reprinted? Do you really think Grim Tutor is broken to the point of it being un-reprintable? =/ All of these questions are, of course, rhetorical. Of course secondary market value goes into their decisions about what to reprint and what not to reprint. When you see Mox Diamond's price (both online and in paper) dropping after FTV: Relics, how can you not see that they "control" prices. True, of course they cannot control what people play and what is hot, but once a card has established itself in Eternal formats as a staple, it doesn't take a fortune teller to see a Wasteland, as Paul said, becomes worth more than some Std played mythics when you limit availability.
Your argument about having access to all cards stifles innovation is countered by Standard Pauper. They innovate all the time and the common cards in Standard are virtually free. A bunch of bots sell commons 100 tor 1 ticket. Or how about Xiao's Heirloom format. Decks come out to less than five bucks. Surely they innovate as well.
Often times real problems get brushed aside because they're pejoratively labelled as "whining" or people go to extremes and say things like "should they be free" or "if everyone had all the cards why would that be fun". But those kinds of responses don't solve the problem. Wasteland is different from Jace or Primeval Titan because it's a card that is needed for most tier 1 Eternal decks across a spectrum of archetypes. So, I view it as a potential problem inasmuch as it acts as a barrier to entry into competitive Eternal Magic.
I am fairly certain his comment was entirely sarcastic...Marked by the comment about whining. (ie: It isn't WoTC's fault Mythics are in general the priciest cards online and it isn't their fault that a hot uncommon from an underdrafted set is worth more than most mythics.)
Elspeth vs Tezzeret is a premade set and so does not determine the rarity for a card in any way for the purposes of establishing the price cap for that card. So Journey to Nowhere is still a common. Also Journey's legality was set when the Heirloom Legal Card List was first iterated. Now if Elseth vs Tezz journeys are available on Mtgotraders for .05 when a revision occurs that considers Journey to Nowhere than it would become legal. However such a revision will not occur until 1 Month after Scars of Mirrodin is released and at the time of the revision I will pay close attention to whether any Journeys are available at or below 5 cents that are in stock. This will be a little tricky since I don't want to base the legality of a card in Heirloom off a price that was never relevant to Mtgotraders. Usually they will wind up having gotten some stock of such a set but we will see, more Journeys being printed certianly helps the cards chances of making the cut when that first major revision occurs.
Just remember, not on the list, not legal, not going on the list till the next relevant revision (or in the case of my error which has happened on occasion but not in this case)
wizards controls the prices of cards? not really. There are cards online that are rarer than wasteland and not nearly as expensive...
not to mention wizards really doesnt care about the secondary market...i fail to see why people believe this fallacy of wotc controlling individual card prices. They just dont do anything about it. Which is how it should be. If every card was available to every person then innovation would die. Everyone would play the best decks no matter what. at least people are forced to be somewhat creative based on their own finances and what cards they do or do not have access too.
Yes, because Wizards controls the prices of the cards.
The good news is, you won't have to whine much longer, because Wasteland is a judge foil now, which means soon you will only reach tier 8 and 9 in Magic Online Player Rewards.
In almost every case, Fact or Fiction is in pure CA terms at least as good as Ancestral (you can always get three cards) and in Virtual advantage, actually has it beat, as if you can take advantage of cards in your gravyard in anyway it's a 5 for 1. Though of course, It's 4x more expensive to cast, if you were in any way talking about card advantage, it's an excellent example to illustrate all cases.
Assassinate is significantly worse than Doom Blade, Pacifism, and Lightning Bolt. But it's still removal, and I'd rate it as "Second Tier" removal, better than Ice Cage, Hornet Sting, etc. The drawback to Assassinate is pretty significant, but some people under-rate it for that, I think. If you can take one hit from their fattie and live (or chump block with a little guy), it will still often save the day or swing a race into your favor. In a pack with no bombs, I'll still take Assassinate over most non-removal cards. Whereas I might pick a solid but not bomby creature or spell over something like a Hornet Sting.
LSV has written a number of times that when you're learning a draft format, it's good to pick rares that you don't know exactly how to value. Because you WILL learn the sets commons and uncommons eventually, but you might not learn about that unusual rare before you find yourself in a big tournament having to decide about it.
And that thing is removal, too - even if it costs you some of your guys, when your opponent gets out a dragon or baneslayer, that enchantment will make it dead, rather than just leaving you to die in the next 2-3 turns. So I suspect casting it there is almost always the right play.
and does being .05 cents in elspeth vs tezzeret help the legality of journey to nowhere i mean not right now i know but in the future or does it mater which version of the card has the price whe determining legality
Boltslinger actually values higher. There's 3 more $8 Price of Processes hiding in the board. The math works out so the red deck creeps ahead in value by about $5.
Just to elaborate a bit, as I'm slightly baffled at your post...
I don't think he's reading everything I said or getting that I was putting all sort of effects out that I thought relevant, not just ones that fully supported my thesis.
Not sure how that applies. I mean Heirloom while it seems broken in several ways and the pricing limit is arbitrary does seem to have a fairly dynamic meta. Not only that but it is not a hardship to take any top8 deck and reproduce it and tweak it and thus change it's function. Therefore while being a budget conscious format, it does not lose any of it's diversity. How does that equal no diversity?
I think your points just proved that if money wasn't an issue, there would be no diversity. Which is what I was saying...
Well in the paper world it may be a number of things that produce that result, some of which contradict my thesis, others that support it others that don't have a dog in the fight.
1) in paper you have unique regional metagames (this produces variety even as those regional metas overlap) (this is a neutral factor not transportable to MTGO since we essentially have one monolithic meta for each/most formats)
2) in paper you can test with proxies, on MTGO this doesn't work, you have to take the additional step of testing offline or with a free program and need to find others to work on that with you or a similar meta in a different locale. (This prefers paper I think, and promotes my thesis if that is true the opposite if the opposite, a split if neutral)
3) in both paper and online there is a big commitment to buying the actual deck for real events, most people don't have the time or money or confidence o go rogue with real dedication.
4) these major formats are often defined by a few degenerate cards (eg in standard jace, mana leak, koth, titans, pulse, blightning, bloodbraid, vengevine ect) which essentially narrow the playable card range to a fairly small number of actually powerful cards, limiting innovation in those formats by effectively trimming the card pool down a great deal (this prefers Heirloom, but not standard pauper, and not having access to all cards or not, its just an important detail)
5) I may think of more on the specific relevance of paper vs online data, for now I've scribbled enough lol
Too - Da - Lou,
X-
In the paper world, where there is no limit to access to cards, the top decks are all very diverse, and are not dominated by a small group of archetypes, thus proving your point?
Hey guys,
I think there is a facet to innovation that is being missed here. In formats like standard, legacy, extended, in fact in any format where it is cost prohibitive to obtain any cards you want to mess around with there is more stagnation, not less. There is a simple reason I think this to be true:
If it's cost prohibitive to try new ideas for many people there will simply be fewer people actually innovating. A small group of players with motivation, resources and payoff great enough to justify spending a lot on magic will be the innovators. Those that cannot afford any cards at any time will copy what the innovators have found to be successful because they can't or won't afford to do otherwise. You see this same trend in capitalistic business if you look at it, only the very wealthy can afford the losses of time(not always theirs) and money(access to investment not necessarily theirs) on experimentation.
*Formats that change very little, have card pools without a large enough variety of powerfully interactive cards and don't have cards cycling out and few ground breaking cards cycling in are where stagnation will still occur. This is why Pauper Standard and Heirloom both can be very dynamic while everyone has access to all the cards in the format at little cost. The former because it changes so much and so dramatically and the latter because it has such a massive card pool of powerfully interacting cards and still will shift enough in content to snuff out degeneration and to give frequent new opportunity for experimentation.
Well that's my wall of two cents anyway,
X-
Still with shard, I may have missed the point in an attempt to keep up with your logic... :P but no. No matter the format if everyone has access to every card, it gets stale. Period.
A format is as much defined by its B&R list as it is the new boosters being opened.
I am not sure casual would be diverse.... Some kids would, out of principle, but I think it would polarise the game...
Think back to when you first played Doom 2. Fun right... awesome, tense, exciting... then you discovered cheats for it... maintain your interest then?
i meant the real more serious formats where innovation tends to be important like standard, extended, legacy...standard pauper is great to play in, but i dont give it much weight as far as formats go, same with tribal, heirloom, or any other non-sanctioned event. Wow you made a PRE, good job. Sorry for not taking into account every possible format that could exist. But alot of magic already has a huge hivemind atmosphere to it. And if everyone could afford every card in the game, sure casual may be more diverse but tournaments seem like they would get old fast...mainly because tournaments have a tendency of skewing towards the "best deck" if everyone has every card...they all have the best deck...
That said, nor was proof offered as to indicate they don't care. ;) Slightly compelling, logical reasons that seem to show their attentiveness to (or awareness of) the secondary market still beats nothing offered to signify they don't. ;p
'meh I could miss the point there. Certainly there are "Staples" in pauper the same as in classic, just because they are cheaper doesn't eliminate their analogous relationship to wasteland and co.'
Yeah, I think you did miss the point. Shard was saying that if everyone had all the cards, it would lead to stagnation. My counterpoint was that some formats like Standard Pauper and Heirloom, where players have access to all cards, still have dynamic metagames. It wasn't about saying those formats don't have staples, it was regarding everyone has access vs. stagnation.
Pauper is open with lots of innovation? Not how I hear it? I don't play the game, FoW is not a common apparently, BUT what I read on the boards indicates Pauper is stagnant? meh I could miss the point there. Certainly there are "Staples" in pauper the same as in classic, just because they are cheaper doesn't eliminate their analogous relationship to wasteland and co.
As per you 'Why do you think... etc stuff" interesting, but not compelling, and doesn't in any way prove WOTC cares about secondary market.
thanks for the comments guys
@Stealth: I think we can all agree that games are won on tempo.. now perhaps my definition of tempo is a bit different from others, but what I'm trying to say is that card advantage is the best way to control the tempo of a game
Where have you seen that they don't care about the secondary market value? Why is it the next premium deck series only has one Chain Lightning and why did Aaron Forsythe tweet that he wanted to subdue the fervor by stating it only contained one? Why do you think the FTV: Relics only gave us mid-level cards and not, I don't know, Time Vault? Why is it we haven't seen Grim Tutor reprinted but we saw Ambition's Cost reprinted? Do you really think Grim Tutor is broken to the point of it being un-reprintable? =/ All of these questions are, of course, rhetorical. Of course secondary market value goes into their decisions about what to reprint and what not to reprint. When you see Mox Diamond's price (both online and in paper) dropping after FTV: Relics, how can you not see that they "control" prices. True, of course they cannot control what people play and what is hot, but once a card has established itself in Eternal formats as a staple, it doesn't take a fortune teller to see a Wasteland, as Paul said, becomes worth more than some Std played mythics when you limit availability.
Your argument about having access to all cards stifles innovation is countered by Standard Pauper. They innovate all the time and the common cards in Standard are virtually free. A bunch of bots sell commons 100 tor 1 ticket. Or how about Xiao's Heirloom format. Decks come out to less than five bucks. Surely they innovate as well.
Often times real problems get brushed aside because they're pejoratively labelled as "whining" or people go to extremes and say things like "should they be free" or "if everyone had all the cards why would that be fun". But those kinds of responses don't solve the problem. Wasteland is different from Jace or Primeval Titan because it's a card that is needed for most tier 1 Eternal decks across a spectrum of archetypes. So, I view it as a potential problem inasmuch as it acts as a barrier to entry into competitive Eternal Magic.
im exhausted. and too hungry to discern sarcasm. so i failed...lol
my sarcasmometer peaked at the comment to.
I am fairly certain his comment was entirely sarcastic...Marked by the comment about whining. (ie: It isn't WoTC's fault Mythics are in general the priciest cards online and it isn't their fault that a hot uncommon from an underdrafted set is worth more than most mythics.)
Well you're both kind of right,
Elspeth vs Tezzeret is a premade set and so does not determine the rarity for a card in any way for the purposes of establishing the price cap for that card. So Journey to Nowhere is still a common. Also Journey's legality was set when the Heirloom Legal Card List was first iterated. Now if Elseth vs Tezz journeys are available on Mtgotraders for .05 when a revision occurs that considers Journey to Nowhere than it would become legal. However such a revision will not occur until 1 Month after Scars of Mirrodin is released and at the time of the revision I will pay close attention to whether any Journeys are available at or below 5 cents that are in stock. This will be a little tricky since I don't want to base the legality of a card in Heirloom off a price that was never relevant to Mtgotraders. Usually they will wind up having gotten some stock of such a set but we will see, more Journeys being printed certianly helps the cards chances of making the cut when that first major revision occurs.
Just remember, not on the list, not legal, not going on the list till the next relevant revision (or in the case of my error which has happened on occasion but not in this case)
X-
This.
wizards controls the prices of cards? not really. There are cards online that are rarer than wasteland and not nearly as expensive...
not to mention wizards really doesnt care about the secondary market...i fail to see why people believe this fallacy of wotc controlling individual card prices. They just dont do anything about it. Which is how it should be. If every card was available to every person then innovation would die. Everyone would play the best decks no matter what. at least people are forced to be somewhat creative based on their own finances and what cards they do or do not have access too.
best interview ever
Yes, because Wizards controls the prices of the cards.
The good news is, you won't have to whine much longer, because Wasteland is a judge foil now, which means soon you will only reach tier 8 and 9 in Magic Online Player Rewards.
Oh, wait, let me brace for more whining.
In almost every case, Fact or Fiction is in pure CA terms at least as good as Ancestral (you can always get three cards) and in Virtual advantage, actually has it beat, as if you can take advantage of cards in your gravyard in anyway it's a 5 for 1. Though of course, It's 4x more expensive to cast, if you were in any way talking about card advantage, it's an excellent example to illustrate all cases.
Assassinate is significantly worse than Doom Blade, Pacifism, and Lightning Bolt. But it's still removal, and I'd rate it as "Second Tier" removal, better than Ice Cage, Hornet Sting, etc. The drawback to Assassinate is pretty significant, but some people under-rate it for that, I think. If you can take one hit from their fattie and live (or chump block with a little guy), it will still often save the day or swing a race into your favor. In a pack with no bombs, I'll still take Assassinate over most non-removal cards. Whereas I might pick a solid but not bomby creature or spell over something like a Hornet Sting.
LSV has written a number of times that when you're learning a draft format, it's good to pick rares that you don't know exactly how to value. Because you WILL learn the sets commons and uncommons eventually, but you might not learn about that unusual rare before you find yourself in a big tournament having to decide about it.
And that thing is removal, too - even if it costs you some of your guys, when your opponent gets out a dragon or baneslayer, that enchantment will make it dead, rather than just leaving you to die in the next 2-3 turns. So I suspect casting it there is almost always the right play.
No. Only printings in sets count. Theme decks do not.
and does being .05 cents in elspeth vs tezzeret help the legality of journey to nowhere i mean not right now i know but in the future or does it mater which version of the card has the price whe determining legality
Boltslinger actually values higher. There's 3 more $8 Price of Processes hiding in the board. The math works out so the red deck creeps ahead in value by about $5.
Just to elaborate a bit, as I'm slightly baffled at your post...
Boltslinger
Goblin Guide - 3.50 (14.00)
Price of Progress - 8.00 (32.00)
Fireblast - 3.00 (12.00)
Magmae Jet - 1.75 ( 7.00)
Total ------------------ (65.00)
Exiler
Stoneforge Mystic - 6.00 (24.00)
Karakas - 3.75 (15.00)
Flagstones of Tro - 0.60 ( 2.40)
Ethersworn Canont - 0.90 ( 3.60)
Aether Vial - 2.50 (10.00)
Mangara - 0.15 ( 0.60)
Total ------------------ (55.60)
I'll take the burn deck any day.
EDIT: Those numbers on exile are off, as I had the (4x) value in for cards that actually only had three copies, so it's worth even less than that.