Your example may work for a between set comparison where card EV can variate. But you assume that card EV and pack prices are perfectly correlated which they are not. As I argue in the article most suggestions for increasing pack prices will not increase card EV.
If you look at a specific pack, say, FTR, then the pack price is around 1.5. Constructed players want that to be higher. But since the card EV is fixed then higher pack price will be a 1:1 cost for limited players. In this case pack prices matter exactly the same for both group of players.
Most viewer comments are bad advice especially for the stronger streamers. Even when there is a good play, the distraction (not to mention the hardware slowdown) of having to constantly read the chat overcomes any marginal advantage.
Ghosting can't be stopped because streamers choose to share their streams but it should certainly not be encouraged.
Hmmm I always assumed the Tarasque (through 36+ years of D&D) was a world breaking juggernaut of a lizard with no cow or feline parts at all...Maybe turtle and pachyderm...But apparently it is a real world myth...
Also aren't Lammassu Flying Oxen OR Lions with Human heads?
Thanks for the comment. Yeah, I hadn't seen anything quite like it which is why I wanted to give it a try. It actually packs a decent punch.
The deck is a bit more versatile that it looks as at the very least your Grenades and Shrapnel Blasts can finish out the game if it does go long. However, generally you do want to finish out the game quickly or you will suffer.
I don't really care if singles were more expensive as not only that is a one time cost, but it should not be looked at as a cost anyway. It's more of an investment. I didn't mind paying 80 for each copy of Jace TMS at the time because not only it was expected to retain value but since the card was so good, it was part of my decks the whole time. I sold the card before the ban and lost a couple tix on each copy but it allowed me to play a lot of matches and win a lot of packs. If prices were halves, I'd have lost 4-6 tix instead of 8-12 tix total in the Jaces but I would also have lost much more if each pack was worth 0.1 less (and the real decrease is much higher than that).
So the cost of singles doesn't really matter if you are able to get back a big percentage of your tix back by selling your deck when you are done with it (sometimes you get much less because you sold it at the wrong time but other times you get even more). The value of the packs you win matter much more.
Cheap pack prices seem good for limited players, but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. When pack prices were higher, limited and constructed both worked fine but now that pack prices are lower, only limited works fine. So an increase in pack prices doesn't really mess with limited players (if done the right way), it just sets things on track.
Let's see if pack prices really affect limited players:
Let's assume a 50% winning percentage and let's do it for 3 of the same pack and a swiss draft to make it easier.
pack = 4 tix, open pack EV = 2 tix:
The average draft costs 14 to enter and gets 6 tix back from cards as well as 1.5 packs so in this situation the player loses 2 tix per draft.
pack = 3 tix, open pack EV = 1.5 tix:
The average draft costs 11 to enter and gets 4.5 tix back from cards as well as 1.5 packs so in this situation the player loses 2 tix per draft as well.
pack = 2 tix, open pack EV = 1 tix:
The average draft costs 8 to enter and gets 3 tix back from cards as well as 1.5 packs so in this situation the player loses 2 tix per draft.
Obviously it depends on the open pack EV and someone with lower than 50% winning percentage is better with pack prizes lower but the difference is minimal and pack prices affect constructed players much more than limited players.
Yes, I know the nix tix sealed would increase the "something extra" but not that much and it would provide another type of limited events as well. I maybe biased because I play much more constructed than limited but limited will always be "playable" while there is a point where constructed is "not playable". What I mean is: there is a point when packs are so low that most players won't bother playing constructed but there is no pack prices that make limited unplayable. If packs for some reason were so expensive that they would go above 4 tix, there's always the option of entering limited events with tix and if they are very low (1 tix or less) a draft will cost 5 tix to play. Sure the cards and packs will not be worth much but since most limited players lose money in the long run, this way they lose it slower.
No, releases can only be joined with tix (I mean sealeds not drafts). I think it would have a positive effect on constructed because it would delay the price decrease. Yes, it's one of those "pull the short blanket" situations but it helps a bit. If the packs are at 3 when releases are over it's worse for constructed than them being at 3.5.
Maybe it would affect proft a bit but in my opinion only things like PTQs and Pre-Releases should be tix only because those are special events. One connects to real life, the other is a way to play sooner so people have to pay for it (although this sooner is already later than in paper).
Limited players should like cheap packs. It is hard to find a reason why limited players should not like having cheap packs?
If I am to stay true to my arguments above then I disagree with the statement that cracking open more packs should drive down the price of singles. I would argue that for redeemable sets the price of singles is linked to the total set price which is derived from the paper set price through redemption.
In fact Wizards should drive up the price of singles online (for example by reducing the redemption fee). But you are right that this would then be a cost for constructed players which should hopefully then be balanced out by the increased EV of events. Ideally singles are a one-time cost for the constructed players whereas higher pack prices would benefit them over and over again for every tournament they play.
I agree with most of your analysis and arguments. I try to mostly focus on constructed versus limited, whereas your arguments are in some sense more directly concerned with the profits of WotC which is ultimately the only thing that matters (for them).
Bringing back a booster sink like nix-tix 4 pack sealed would increase demand for boosters and increase pack prices. However, it would not increase the set value if it is still being determined by paper prices through redemption. Therefore it would increase the cost of playing limited. The cost increase would be countered by the nix-tix entry but only for the 4 booster sealed. Drafting and other sealed events with a tix entry fee would become more expensive.
I think that releases are usually allowed to be joined with packs? I guess that you are thinking about pre-releases? It would benefit limited players to be allowed to enter with product during the pre-release, but it would not affect constructed players since the rotation in prizes for those events happens at a later time. And allowing packs as entry fees during a pre-release is also likely to affect the profit of WotC?
It would be interesting if, as you suggest, MTGO and customer services improved to such a degree that the online-paper redemption link became redundant. If they could create a strong casual environment then that could be a way to break the link. And that also has the potential to benefit the EV of sanctioned tournaments.
Yea, I'm on Grixis Control right now, more or less Pat Chapin's list from GP Charlotte, and having a lot of fun with that. I also incidentally have a Delver list since I have the cards from Vintage, just missing the Blood Moons and running Fulminators for now. The reason I'm considering buying Twin is all the Tron decks I'm seeing. I appreciate the advice and will definitely consider it if I decide to pull the trigger this weekend.
What does that say about the Lamassu species as a whole?
Your example may work for a between set comparison where card EV can variate. But you assume that card EV and pack prices are perfectly correlated which they are not. As I argue in the article most suggestions for increasing pack prices will not increase card EV.
If you look at a specific pack, say, FTR, then the pack price is around 1.5. Constructed players want that to be higher. But since the card EV is fixed then higher pack price will be a 1:1 cost for limited players. In this case pack prices matter exactly the same for both group of players.
This makes me happy! I have been waiting to play a solid White Weenie deck again!
Most viewer comments are bad advice especially for the stronger streamers. Even when there is a good play, the distraction (not to mention the hardware slowdown) of having to constantly read the chat overcomes any marginal advantage.
Ghosting can't be stopped because streamers choose to share their streams but it should certainly not be encouraged.
Hmmm I always assumed the Tarasque (through 36+ years of D&D) was a world breaking juggernaut of a lizard with no cow or feline parts at all...Maybe turtle and pachyderm...But apparently it is a real world myth...
Also aren't Lammassu Flying Oxen OR Lions with Human heads?
Other feline-bovine hybrids: Lammasu, Tarasque, Quilin, and certain chimerae.
Ah, that explains it, thanks.
I guess I can't really be surprised by a feline/bovine hybrid in a game with a flying purple hippo.
Different species, common ancestor. These are Leotau.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=+%5BLeotau%5D
Anyone trying to put kitten mittens on a lion is going to go though a *lot* of squires.
Thanks for the comment. Yeah, I hadn't seen anything quite like it which is why I wanted to give it a try. It actually packs a decent punch.
The deck is a bit more versatile that it looks as at the very least your Grenades and Shrapnel Blasts can finish out the game if it does go long. However, generally you do want to finish out the game quickly or you will suffer.
I don't really care if singles were more expensive as not only that is a one time cost, but it should not be looked at as a cost anyway. It's more of an investment. I didn't mind paying 80 for each copy of Jace TMS at the time because not only it was expected to retain value but since the card was so good, it was part of my decks the whole time. I sold the card before the ban and lost a couple tix on each copy but it allowed me to play a lot of matches and win a lot of packs. If prices were halves, I'd have lost 4-6 tix instead of 8-12 tix total in the Jaces but I would also have lost much more if each pack was worth 0.1 less (and the real decrease is much higher than that).
So the cost of singles doesn't really matter if you are able to get back a big percentage of your tix back by selling your deck when you are done with it (sometimes you get much less because you sold it at the wrong time but other times you get even more). The value of the packs you win matter much more.
Cheap pack prices seem good for limited players, but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. When pack prices were higher, limited and constructed both worked fine but now that pack prices are lower, only limited works fine. So an increase in pack prices doesn't really mess with limited players (if done the right way), it just sets things on track.
Let's see if pack prices really affect limited players:
Let's assume a 50% winning percentage and let's do it for 3 of the same pack and a swiss draft to make it easier.
pack = 4 tix, open pack EV = 2 tix:
The average draft costs 14 to enter and gets 6 tix back from cards as well as 1.5 packs so in this situation the player loses 2 tix per draft.
pack = 3 tix, open pack EV = 1.5 tix:
The average draft costs 11 to enter and gets 4.5 tix back from cards as well as 1.5 packs so in this situation the player loses 2 tix per draft as well.
pack = 2 tix, open pack EV = 1 tix:
The average draft costs 8 to enter and gets 3 tix back from cards as well as 1.5 packs so in this situation the player loses 2 tix per draft.
Obviously it depends on the open pack EV and someone with lower than 50% winning percentage is better with pack prizes lower but the difference is minimal and pack prices affect constructed players much more than limited players.
Maybe they are shoes?
Yes, I know the nix tix sealed would increase the "something extra" but not that much and it would provide another type of limited events as well. I maybe biased because I play much more constructed than limited but limited will always be "playable" while there is a point where constructed is "not playable". What I mean is: there is a point when packs are so low that most players won't bother playing constructed but there is no pack prices that make limited unplayable. If packs for some reason were so expensive that they would go above 4 tix, there's always the option of entering limited events with tix and if they are very low (1 tix or less) a draft will cost 5 tix to play. Sure the cards and packs will not be worth much but since most limited players lose money in the long run, this way they lose it slower.
No, releases can only be joined with tix (I mean sealeds not drafts). I think it would have a positive effect on constructed because it would delay the price decrease. Yes, it's one of those "pull the short blanket" situations but it helps a bit. If the packs are at 3 when releases are over it's worse for constructed than them being at 3.5.
Maybe it would affect proft a bit but in my opinion only things like PTQs and Pre-Releases should be tix only because those are special events. One connects to real life, the other is a way to play sooner so people have to pay for it (although this sooner is already later than in paper).
Ok, that part I figured out.
How did they get the lions to grow hooves on their front feet? Or is that something else?
Thanks for this article.
I have never faced against this deck. I feel prepared for it now.
Speaking of glass cannon decks! WOW this deck must be a the top of the Glass Cannon Archetype! :)
Limited players should like cheap packs. It is hard to find a reason why limited players should not like having cheap packs?
If I am to stay true to my arguments above then I disagree with the statement that cracking open more packs should drive down the price of singles. I would argue that for redeemable sets the price of singles is linked to the total set price which is derived from the paper set price through redemption.
In fact Wizards should drive up the price of singles online (for example by reducing the redemption fee). But you are right that this would then be a cost for constructed players which should hopefully then be balanced out by the increased EV of events. Ideally singles are a one-time cost for the constructed players whereas higher pack prices would benefit them over and over again for every tournament they play.
I agree with most of your analysis and arguments. I try to mostly focus on constructed versus limited, whereas your arguments are in some sense more directly concerned with the profits of WotC which is ultimately the only thing that matters (for them).
Bringing back a booster sink like nix-tix 4 pack sealed would increase demand for boosters and increase pack prices. However, it would not increase the set value if it is still being determined by paper prices through redemption. Therefore it would increase the cost of playing limited. The cost increase would be countered by the nix-tix entry but only for the 4 booster sealed. Drafting and other sealed events with a tix entry fee would become more expensive.
I think that releases are usually allowed to be joined with packs? I guess that you are thinking about pre-releases? It would benefit limited players to be allowed to enter with product during the pre-release, but it would not affect constructed players since the rotation in prizes for those events happens at a later time. And allowing packs as entry fees during a pre-release is also likely to affect the profit of WotC?
It would be interesting if, as you suggest, MTGO and customer services improved to such a degree that the online-paper redemption link became redundant. If they could create a strong casual environment then that could be a way to break the link. And that also has the potential to benefit the EV of sanctioned tournaments.
In Bant, the lions are used as riding mounts.
Because it's not a lion. It's a stallion...I'm done now.
That's it, I can't take it anymore. I'm building a white weenie deck in Standard again!
Ok, clearly everyone else is missing the most important question.
Why does that lion have hooves?
It's a lot harder to write previews about cards that we already know are good, but are not sure about being good in the new format.
I like it. It's a solid popular card, has a good effect, and can make your opponent play differently if they know you have it.
That's a sweet reprint. Glad it's back.
Casting Cryptic Command is a dream. That's all I know about it!
Yea, I'm on Grixis Control right now, more or less Pat Chapin's list from GP Charlotte, and having a lot of fun with that. I also incidentally have a Delver list since I have the cards from Vintage, just missing the Blood Moons and running Fulminators for now. The reason I'm considering buying Twin is all the Tron decks I'm seeing. I appreciate the advice and will definitely consider it if I decide to pull the trigger this weekend.