Fun little article series. I can only wish you the best of luck if you choose to tackle the Onslaught books, they got a wee bit incoherent towards the end...
Hi Paul, when Lee Sharpe was appointed to his new role over a year ago, I thought that he would achieve excellent things (win-wins for the company and the customers). He has done some good things, no doubt, but it is mixed in with so many poor decisions that I have lost faith in him.
Destroying our filters for s100 format and Legacy Tribal Wars was annoying, but quite understandable from a shareholder perspective. These treasure chests however pose a different problem. Most of us are awake and intelligent enough to realise that treasure chests in their current form are negative for the player. Even Wizards' official YouTube video which introduces the treasure chests has an overwhelming amount of negative ratings (and of course comments have been disabled on the video, because they know that the comments will generally be negative).
And putting Conspiracy cards (which is a draft format) exclusively into treasure chests (which has no connection to draft) makes no sense at all. So they decide to spend resources coding the new Conspiracy cards fully, then make them very difficult/annoying to get, then turn away customers who would have gladly bought the product from the store or directly in draft events. This is some serious incompetence - this is not a small error.
You are right that it is not purely the fault of one or two individuals. I accept that, however I still blame Lee for the majority of the blame, and then Worth Wolport for the remainder of the majority of the blame which is left over in the pot of blame (and after that, I blame the executives who heed the recommendations of such people without due analysis). Yes sir, No sir, 3 treasure chests full sir.
That's certainly our hope too. I am certain it isn't just up to Lee and Worth. WoTC being a complex company owned by an even more complex corporation. But I do think that the amount of feedback gotten will give them food for thought. And I hope however they are steering this ship (MTG/MTGO) they will digest that food well and come up with something that makes the player base happier than it is at the moment.
Thanks for commenting and listening Michelle. Glad to know you're out there, cheering us all on as part of the puremtgo experience.
I know I saw it on reddit somewhere, if you don't want to do the math yourself. I don't remember exactly, but while the EV wasn't awful, it's top-heavy with four cards above 50 tickets and assumes an equal distribution--then again, we don't know the worth of Inventions (or non-foil Expeditions for that matter).
I wish that were actually true. But I really doubt it. From past experience the changes to redemption before show that Rares that have chase value will not only retain their value but in some cases will exceed normal mythic values (Collected Company for example). Not stating that the cause of that is solely redemption but that it is already doing damage to the economy from the player's perspective because chase cards are just that much harder to obtain for a reasonable price.
More of a 'sit back and bleed/steal' deck. The tithe drinkers and Emissaries keep up a steady life drain without needing to attack, the Captivating Vampires steal anything relevant, getting to a blood baron launch state isn't that hard. It could do with some tweaking, but on the whole I was happy with how it felt when playing it, capable of giving anything a game. :)
I wonder if this means for small sets like Aether Revolt and Hour of Devastation that prices are high not just for the first two weeks that they're out but for the first four months: one while redemption is pending and then the three while players are redeeming ASAP.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Not all bot chains redeem, though I assume most do, and certain chains make 100's or more redemptions.
The real issue with the redemption change is the likely depression of prices much sooner than normal. If Kaladesh is only redeemable for 6 months, every Kaladesh card opened after will push down the value. Basically, this change tightens the pressure valve on the MTGO economy. If singles drop too much, which is likely, then bot chains will suffer because cheaper cards generally have lower (or negative) profit.
As for chaff--the vast majority of cards worth <0.05 would be worth that with or without redemption. For every set pulled out, there's 9 copies of each commons left in the system, for instance.
EDIT: After the increase to $25 in shipping, redemption lost a lot of appeal. However, physical cards hold their value much longer and better than online (mostly). So, the change could make bot chains more susceptible to market fluctuations and depressions.
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a big part of the economics of running bot-chains was set redemption; they buy up the draft chaff that players accumulate and then redeem that for physical sets that have more value, right? Is this change going to affect bot-chain operators in a big way? Because external websites like MTGOTraders are basically the only thing that makes acquiring cards on the secondary market even remotely tolerable and hurting them would seem like a very bad thing for MTGO in general.
Well done Chris! (So good you had to do it twice! :p) I like the formatting for the most part except the menu on top. But that just might require a little polish to get right.
"Wait and See" is what AJ and I are espousing for the chests. Yes it does seem like a bad idea ensconced in a poorly executed scheme. But it might work out OK. The big problem is whether or not the cards we want that are not available now will be available on the secondary market for those of us who don't engage in the leagues to get prizes. And by available I mean at non-fleecing prices.
That's essentially what I've started working up. It will be rough though, because we don't even know what exactly curated means--I doubt you will be as likely to get a Black Lotus as you would a Path to Exile. Hopefully I can get it done in time to potentially go up on Monday.
Chests, I find myself having to correct myself on that a fair bit because I think of them as untradeable three-card packs with two commons and maybe a rare. I was thinking about taking stock of the general numbers of given events firing and extrapolating how many chests would be awarded over time, then taking that two in ten curated, one in ten points benchmark from the video and using it to try and work out how many of each of the 635 curated cards we might see.
Fun little article series. I can only wish you the best of luck if you choose to tackle the Onslaught books, they got a wee bit incoherent towards the end...
Hi Paul, when Lee Sharpe was appointed to his new role over a year ago, I thought that he would achieve excellent things (win-wins for the company and the customers). He has done some good things, no doubt, but it is mixed in with so many poor decisions that I have lost faith in him.
Destroying our filters for s100 format and Legacy Tribal Wars was annoying, but quite understandable from a shareholder perspective. These treasure chests however pose a different problem. Most of us are awake and intelligent enough to realise that treasure chests in their current form are negative for the player. Even Wizards' official YouTube video which introduces the treasure chests has an overwhelming amount of negative ratings (and of course comments have been disabled on the video, because they know that the comments will generally be negative).
And putting Conspiracy cards (which is a draft format) exclusively into treasure chests (which has no connection to draft) makes no sense at all. So they decide to spend resources coding the new Conspiracy cards fully, then make them very difficult/annoying to get, then turn away customers who would have gladly bought the product from the store or directly in draft events. This is some serious incompetence - this is not a small error.
You are right that it is not purely the fault of one or two individuals. I accept that, however I still blame Lee for the majority of the blame, and then Worth Wolport for the remainder of the majority of the blame which is left over in the pot of blame (and after that, I blame the executives who heed the recommendations of such people without due analysis). Yes sir, No sir, 3 treasure chests full sir.
That's certainly our hope too. I am certain it isn't just up to Lee and Worth. WoTC being a complex company owned by an even more complex corporation. But I do think that the amount of feedback gotten will give them food for thought. And I hope however they are steering this ship (MTG/MTGO) they will digest that food well and come up with something that makes the player base happier than it is at the moment.
Thanks for commenting and listening Michelle. Glad to know you're out there, cheering us all on as part of the puremtgo experience.
Hopefully they will adjust the cards in the pool of treasure chests. Lee Sharpe cannot be ignorant of the problem now...
Nice article, and well done on your result.
Obviously a lot of cards could fit that description....Annoying cards abound.
"It didn't go that well, confirming Moat is not such a big bogey man, after all."
It was still enough to annoy the crap out of me!
I know I saw it on reddit somewhere, if you don't want to do the math yourself. I don't remember exactly, but while the EV wasn't awful, it's top-heavy with four cards above 50 tickets and assumes an equal distribution--then again, we don't know the worth of Inventions (or non-foil Expeditions for that matter).
I wish that were actually true. But I really doubt it. From past experience the changes to redemption before show that Rares that have chase value will not only retain their value but in some cases will exceed normal mythic values (Collected Company for example). Not stating that the cause of that is solely redemption but that it is already doing damage to the economy from the player's perspective because chase cards are just that much harder to obtain for a reasonable price.
More of a 'sit back and bleed/steal' deck. The tithe drinkers and Emissaries keep up a steady life drain without needing to attack, the Captivating Vampires steal anything relevant, getting to a blood baron launch state isn't that hard. It could do with some tweaking, but on the whole I was happy with how it felt when playing it, capable of giving anything a game. :)
Thank you for the comment. I wonder what kind of Vintage content people would like to read about. What would speak to you if you don't mind me asking?
Definitely a strong chance of that. However, it will really just make the mythics ridiculously expensive for those 3 months.
I wonder if this means for small sets like Aether Revolt and Hour of Devastation that prices are high not just for the first two weeks that they're out but for the first four months: one while redemption is pending and then the three while players are redeeming ASAP.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Not all bot chains redeem, though I assume most do, and certain chains make 100's or more redemptions.
The real issue with the redemption change is the likely depression of prices much sooner than normal. If Kaladesh is only redeemable for 6 months, every Kaladesh card opened after will push down the value. Basically, this change tightens the pressure valve on the MTGO economy. If singles drop too much, which is likely, then bot chains will suffer because cheaper cards generally have lower (or negative) profit.
As for chaff--the vast majority of cards worth <0.05 would be worth that with or without redemption. For every set pulled out, there's 9 copies of each commons left in the system, for instance.
EDIT: After the increase to $25 in shipping, redemption lost a lot of appeal. However, physical cards hold their value much longer and better than online (mostly). So, the change could make bot chains more susceptible to market fluctuations and depressions.
Thanks for the article, There is a severe lack of vintage content on the web
Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a big part of the economics of running bot-chains was set redemption; they buy up the draft chaff that players accumulate and then redeem that for physical sets that have more value, right? Is this change going to affect bot-chain operators in a big way? Because external websites like MTGOTraders are basically the only thing that makes acquiring cards on the secondary market even remotely tolerable and hurting them would seem like a very bad thing for MTGO in general.
You're my favorite SotP writer so far. Your modifications were improvements.
If anyone wants to play post-Modern Frontier, message The_Sensei
Well done Chris! (So good you had to do it twice! :p) I like the formatting for the most part except the menu on top. But that just might require a little polish to get right.
"Wait and See" is what AJ and I are espousing for the chests. Yes it does seem like a bad idea ensconced in a poorly executed scheme. But it might work out OK. The big problem is whether or not the cards we want that are not available now will be available on the secondary market for those of us who don't engage in the leagues to get prizes. And by available I mean at non-fleecing prices.
Then I wish you the best of luck, and may repetitive strain injuries forever be far from your door. :)
Yup, that's on my docket as well...
I really don't want to crossreference the prices on all 635 curated cards, but I hope someone else does.
That's essentially what I've started working up. It will be rough though, because we don't even know what exactly curated means--I doubt you will be as likely to get a Black Lotus as you would a Path to Exile. Hopefully I can get it done in time to potentially go up on Monday.
Essentially the chests ARE 3 card packs.
Chests, I find myself having to correct myself on that a fair bit because I think of them as untradeable three-card packs with two commons and maybe a rare. I was thinking about taking stock of the general numbers of given events firing and extrapolating how many chests would be awarded over time, then taking that two in ten curated, one in ten points benchmark from the video and using it to try and work out how many of each of the 635 curated cards we might see.
Equivalent of packs or the chests? I'm going to write something up on the numbers of all the announcements, so I'm curious what you would want.