PDA

View Full Version : Rare/Legendary per set?



Lidralyn
05-21-2013, 01:39 PM
What are the speculations for the amount of cards that will be at each rarity tier for the PvP cards? The set is 300 cards, so how many of each rarity do we expect there will be?

Truhls
05-21-2013, 01:44 PM
150 commons, + 100 unc + 50 rares for a 300 set is about right. Of course not exact numbers but looking at MTG thats pretty close.

Karnegal
05-21-2013, 01:45 PM
10-20 legendaries (15 is a good number)

ringlord
05-21-2013, 01:49 PM
The old Magic sets used to have the same number of each, for example: 121 commons, 121 uncommons, 121 rares in 10th edition.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 01:52 PM
The old Magic sets used to have the same number of each, for example: 121 commons, 121 uncommons, 121 rares in 10th edition.

The editions were special cases though.

I think 150/90/45/15 seems like a good spread, and reasonably likely with the current information.

Diplo
05-21-2013, 01:54 PM
I just want a card with a cow called Legend Dairy. I'll be content.

houjix
05-21-2013, 02:08 PM
Last few WoW sets have been roughly 35% common, 32% uncommon, 33% rare/epic with the rare/epic ratio being between 6:1 and 5:1. So maybe something in the range of 105C, 95UC, 85R, 15L

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 02:20 PM
Last few WoW sets have been roughly 35% common, 32% uncommon, 33% rare/epic with the rare/epic ratio being between 6:1 and 5:1. So maybe something in the range of 105C, 95UC, 85R, 15L

Ouch. Glad I stopped around the first planes set (after Ravnica/Cold snap).

Fireblast
05-21-2013, 02:55 PM
It's 350 PvP cards

~

WWKnight
05-21-2013, 04:46 PM
I hope we dont go down the WoW (MMO, not TCG) path where there are more rare and epic gear than there is Uncommon. Thats a gamer logic that sits wrong with me IRL.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 04:50 PM
I hope we dont go down the WoW (MMO, not TCG) path where there are more rare and epic gear than there is Uncommon. Thats a gamer logic that sits wrong with me IRL.

Agreed. I think 33% split is already bad. I would much rather 15% at max. I don't want it to be unplayable, but the boosters are cheaper than any other game - I don't mind buying a few extra for better cards. If there are less rares, and epics are TRULY rare, it gives a better balance, in my eyes.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 04:56 PM
Agreed. I think 33% split is already bad. I would much rather 15% at max. I don't want it to be unplayable, but the boosters are cheaper than any other game - I don't mind buying a few extra for better cards. If there are less rares, and epics are TRULY rare, it gives a better balance, in my eyes.

Actually if there are more rares, then you'll get less of any individual one on average per pack. If there are less commons, then the packs will be more consistent for drafting. It's not bad at all.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 05:01 PM
Yes, but I would like a more equal spread of common to rare, but have the legendary/epic level type to be rarer by a good deal... If that makes sense.

I want my normal high power cards to be available, but to have something to aim for - that gives more people time playing, which helps the game in my opinion. I don't know that 15% is a good number, I just pulled it outta my nether region, but I just feel that 33% is a bit too high.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:03 PM
Yes, but I would like a more equal spread of common to rare, but have the legendary/epic level type to be rarer by a good deal... If that makes sense.

I want my normal high power cards to be available, but to have something to aim for - that gives more people time playing, which helps the game in my opinion. I don't know that 15% is a good number, I just pulled it outta my nether region, but I just feel that 33% is a bit too high.

As far as legendary rares go, it doesn't matter how many of them there are. In fact, if you want your cards to be more valuable, you want more of them. Legendary rares replace the single rare in a booster pack, so you want a lower drop rate of legendary rares. Furthermore, if there are more legendary rares, then it becomes harder to actually get a particular one, making it more valuable. I don't even know why I bother trying to explain this to people.

You also want there to be more rares in a set, since you only get one rare per pack, it makes them harder to get.

WWKnight
05-21-2013, 05:04 PM
Then dont. No-one asked for your antagonism.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:06 PM
Then dont. No-one asked for your antagonism.

More incentive to keep doing it.

WWKnight
05-21-2013, 05:06 PM
Then stop being a whiny bitch while you are at it.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 05:07 PM
As far as legendary rares go, it doesn't matter how many of them there are. In fact, if you want your cards to be more valuable, you want more of them. Legendary rares replace the single rare in a booster pack, so you want a lower drop rate of legendary rares. Furthermore, if there are more legendary rares, then it becomes harder to actually get a particular one, making it more valuable. I don't even know why I bother trying to explain this to people.

You also want there to be more rares in a set, since you only get one rare per pack, it makes them harder to get.

You did not read what I said at all, did you? I wan't normal rares to have an even spread, not bursts opened at random times or whatever - and have legendaries be the rare cards to shoot for. I don't see how it hurts anyone to have a more stable metagame.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:09 PM
Then stop being a whiny bitch while you are at it.

Pass.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:10 PM
You did not read what I said at all, did you? I wan't normal rares to have an even spread, not bursts opened at random times or whatever - and have legendaries be the rare cards to shoot for. I don't see how it hurts anyone to have a more stable metagame.

I understood about 0 of what you are saying.

Talreth
05-21-2013, 05:10 PM
Yeah but who wants a set with a bunch of legendaries? Kind of makes it a misnomer.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 05:11 PM
Cool it WWKnight, you are too awesome to risk being banned over this guy - he just likes picking fights (I have seen it in so many threads.)

WWKnight
05-21-2013, 05:12 PM
Im not upset. Im just pointing otu if he is going to troll for the sake of being a troll, he should at least not bitch and whine about how he has to troll. Just makes him look like a basement dweller and insults the fine arts of trolling.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:12 PM
Im not upset. Im just pointing otu if he is going to troll for the sake of being a troll, he should at least not bitch and whine about how he has to troll. Just makes him look like a basement dweller and insults the fine arts of trolling.

How did you know I spend my free time dwelling from basement to basement, looking for cool guy dragon lords to fight?

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 05:13 PM
I understood about 0 of what you are saying.

Let me lay it out. If you have 50 rares, there is less RNG involved with getting the rares you want to play - and it keeps the AH stable. The metagame flourishes. With 100 rares, the rares opened are influenced much more by RNG, numbers opened could fluctuate, the AH has inflated prices, the metagame suffers.

Legendaries being rare gives people something to shoot for, and if they are the same power as normal rares, they are just a nice bonus - making them non-vital to the metagame.

Is that a little clearer? I want an even spread of rares to keep it at a stable level, and have legendaries be your really rare cards, the money makers so to speak.

WWKnight
05-21-2013, 05:14 PM
Us cool guy dragon lordss have innate psychic powers. I also know you touch yourself at night. :P

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:16 PM
Yeah but who wants a set with a bunch of legendaries? Kind of makes it a misnomer.

Yeah, but imagine a set has 100 cards (for simplicity's sake). Normal breakdown for a pack is 13 COMMON, 3 UNCOMMON, 1 RARE/LEGENDARY.

Now let's assume that 1 out of every 10 packs a legendary replaces a rare.

If the set has a 25/25/25/25 split; 25 COMMONS, 25 UNCOMMON, 25 RARE, 25 LEGENDARY, then you'd see a lot less of any given legendary. You can design all 25 legendary cards to be really cool and unique, but let's say that out of those 25 legendaries, only 5 of them are really top tier PvP caliber cards. You'd have those singular 5 legendary cards be extremely sought after and rare, because of the "legendary" status they have, making them truly legendary. As a plus, the rares in the set will still be valuable, and things like draft would be really consistent because you're opening from a pool of less commons.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:17 PM
Let me lay it out. If you have 50 rares, there is less RNG involved with getting the rares you want to play - and it keeps the AH stable. The metagame flourishes. With 100 rares, the rares opened are influenced much more by RNG, numbers opened could fluctuate, the AH has inflated prices, the metagame suffers.

Legendaries being rare gives people something to shoot for, and if they are the same power as normal rares, they are just a nice bonus - making them non-vital to the metagame.

Is that a little clearer? I want an even spread of rares to keep it at a stable level, and have legendaries be your really rare cards, the money makers so to speak.

No, I still don't get it. Can you give me a better example?

dogmod
05-21-2013, 05:17 PM
Unfortunately Jugan is right about this

WWKnight
05-21-2013, 05:18 PM
Unfortunately Jugan is right about this


^

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:19 PM
Unfortunately Jugan is right about this

Just like how I was right about the other 4 threads I was forced to interact with you 3 amigos :D

Talreth
05-21-2013, 05:19 PM
Yeah, but imagine a set has 100 cards (for simplicity's sake). Normal breakdown for a pack is 13 COMMON, 3 UNCOMMON, 1 RARE/LEGENDARY.

Now let's assume that 1 out of every 10 packs a legendary replaces a rare.

If the set has a 25/25/25/25 split; 25 COMMONS, 25 UNCOMMON, 25 RARE, 25 LEGENDARY, then you'd see a lot less of any given legendary. You can design all 25 legendary cards to be really cool and unique, but let's say that out of those 25 legendaries, only 5 of them are really top tier PvP caliber cards. You'd have those singular 5 legendary cards be extremely sought after and rare, because of the "legendary" status they have, making them truly legendary. As a plus, the rares in the set will still be valuable, and things like draft would be really consistent because you're opening from a pool of less commons.

Yeha but that'd be boring as fuck to play with so few commons.

WWKnight
05-21-2013, 05:21 PM
Just like how I was right about the other 4 threads I was forced to interact with you 3 amigos :D

Please provide a link :)

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:21 PM
Yeha but that'd be boring as fuck to play with so few commons.

Think of it more as a ratio than an actual representation.

250 commons / 250 uncommons / 250 rares / 250 legendary. My point is that the less commons you have, especially if a good percentage of them are playable in limited, the better drafting will be. That's kind of how it is worth the current MTG set; commons are more consistent in packs because the ratios are closer to each other across rarities.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:22 PM
Please provide a link :)

I thought your were psychic/semi-omniscient. You can do it buddy :)

Talreth
05-21-2013, 05:23 PM
Think of it more as a ratio than an actual representation.

250 commons / 250 uncommons / 250 rares / 250 legendary. My point is that the less commons you have, especially if a good percentage of them are playable in limited, the better drafting will be. That's kind of how it is worth the current MTG set; commons are more consistent in packs because the ratios are closer to each other across rarities.

I guess, but I still get caught up on the misnomer. :l But the math is right.

dogmod
05-21-2013, 05:23 PM
Think of it more as a ratio than an actual representation.

250 commons / 250 uncommons / 250 rares / 250 legendary. My point is that the less commons you have, especially if a good percentage of them are playable in limited, the better drafting will be. That's kind of how it is worth the current MTG set; commons are more consistent in packs because the ratios are closer to each other across rarities.

You should also have pointed out how commons being common is somewhat implied in the name. Also you should have pointed out his argument was a non sequitur. Do better next time

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:25 PM
You should also have pointed out how commons being common is somewhat implied in the name. Also you should have pointed out his argument was a non sequitur. Do better next time

Throw me a bone.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 05:25 PM
But commons being more random is a lot more interesting. I don't want to open the same commons every time, I would rather they were spread around.

And the ratios could be tweaked, but I would rather a smaller chance to open a legendary than a 1/10 - 1/20 is more interesting for example. And it wouldn't hurt drafts if they are the same power as rares - they are just... Rarer.

I don't know what it is I am saying that isn't making the connection here - Commons should always dominate the numbers because you get a far larger number of them - uncommons should be the middle number, since you get less of them, and rares should have the lowest number, because it is a single card per pack. It gives the commons more RNG and less of a boring feeling, uncommons are interesting, and rares feel rewarding, but you aren't trying to find a needle in a haystack - theres RNG, but not so punishing.

And you know what? If you pull that legendary, you feel lucky - you got something really rare. It isn't just handed to you - would it matter if theres only 5 different ones? Probably not.

Your points make no sense - I am suggesting a stable flow, interesting drafts. Not anything broken, just tweaking numbers a little. I really don't see where the problem is here.

dogmod
05-21-2013, 05:26 PM
Throw me a bone.

*bone* :)

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:32 PM
Your points make no sense

Clearly.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 05:37 PM
I am simply asking for a more stable metagame at the rare end. And if there is no variation in the commons, it will become stale and boring.

I mean, unless you rare draft, you will probably end up drafting the same cards over and over (at some point you are just going to run out of interesting cards to pick). Sure, you will be good at the format if you have that info, but will you even want to play anymore?

I was under the impression that rare drafting was usually a pretty poor decision. When there is a good card, you would grab it anyway, does it matter if theres a few less crap rares and a few more crap commons in your drafts? I don't see where that is going to make things worse.

dogmod
05-21-2013, 05:38 PM
But commons being more random is a lot more interesting. I don't want to open the same commons every time, I would rather they were spread around. This seems to be partly a question of how many and not just ratio but you really can't argue against your opinion that the game would be more interesting with a more diverse common base, you an have a differing opinion though.


And the ratios could be tweaked, but I would rather a smaller chance to open a legendary than a 1/10 - 1/20 is more interesting for example. And it wouldn't hurt drafts if they are the same power as rares - they are just... Rarer. Changing the dynamic mid argument is not great (it deviates from the initial point of disagreement making your argument weaker) but this would be one way to make legendaries rarer/more valuable without increasing their number. A different strategy resulting in the same rarity. Distinction without a difference perhaps?


I don't know what it is I am saying that isn't making the connection here - Commons should always dominate the numbers because you get a far larger number of them - uncommons should be the middle number, since you get less of them, and rares should have the lowest number, because it is a single card per pack. It gives the commons more RNG and less of a boring feeling, uncommons are interesting, and rares feel rewarding, but you aren't trying to find a needle in a haystack - theres RNG, but not so punishing. The first part no one is disagreeing with. The second part about "RNG" is just you saying again it would be more interesting with a larger variety of commons which again can be debated in a ratio vs. absolute numbers game but boils down to opinion of what is interesting. Saying you wouldn't like the RNG to be so punishing on the legendary/rare cards basically says you would like to make them less valuable. If it is easier to get them ("RNG less punishing") they are less valuable. And some might find things that are easier to get less interesting (opinion)


And you know what? If you pull that legendary, you feel lucky - you got something really rare. It isn't just handed to you - would it matter if theres only 5 different ones? Probably not.

Your points make no sense - I am suggesting a stable flow, interesting drafts. Not anything broken, just tweaking numbers a little. I really don't see where the problem is here. The first part goes back to your argument of making legendaries less prominent probablistically in the pack which might "Make the RNG more brutal" or whatever, but again changes the base argument that we are debating. As for the second part, I don't know what stable flow means, it may make for more interesting drafts agreed (less consistent, more luck, whether this is better is debatable for another argument)

Talreth
05-21-2013, 05:43 PM
I hope 200 of the cards are legendaries each with 0.01% drop rate BOA unique, one per game.

Jugan
05-21-2013, 05:56 PM
Empirically, drafts are most interesting when there's some degree of consistency between the commons, and a large degree of inconsistency for the rares.

Talreth
05-21-2013, 05:59 PM
Empirically


most interesting

what

dogmod
05-21-2013, 06:02 PM
what

Zzzz I feel like the dissonance here is that people are talking about two different types of things... one that is impacted by absolute numbers and one that is impacted by ratios... now if you could nail down which one you are talking about... and use the actual numbers or ratios... you could have nuanced conversation about your differing opinion about what makes a draft more interesting...

I won't hold my breath

Talreth
05-21-2013, 06:05 PM
Zzzz I feel like the dissonance here is that people are talking about two different types of things... one that is impacted by absolute numbers and one that is impacted by ratios... now if you could nail down which one you are talking about... and use the actual numbers or ratios... you could have nuanced conversation about your differing opinion about what makes a draft more interesting...

I won't hold my breath

Imo you can't say "empirically this is the most interesting" as what interests people is subjective.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 06:15 PM
Imo you can't say "empirically this is the most interesting" as what interests people is subjective.

This is kind of my point - I find variation in commons more interesting than hit and miss rares - I would rather end up playing the same rares more often if I have more freedom for the rest of my deck.

I don't care about win/loss as much as actually enjoying what I am playing - I want to play, not grind.

And I don't want to pin down exact numbers - I just want something that feels more natural. I mean I don't want 1/3rd of all the cards in the set to be power cards, people will just stack them and ignore the other 2/3rds of the set. That doesn't seem natural, does it?

dogmod
05-21-2013, 06:26 PM
This is kind of my point - I find variation in commons more interesting than hit and miss rares - I would rather end up playing the same rares more often if I have more freedom for the rest of my deck.

I don't care about win/loss as much as actually enjoying what I am playing - I want to play, not grind.

And I don't want to pin down exact numbers - I just want something that feels more natural. I mean I don't want 1/3rd of all the cards in the set to be power cards, people will just stack them and ignore the other 2/3rds of the set. That doesn't seem natural, does it?

In reference to Talreth I agree that you can't say what is more interesting empirically. But if you guys could decide that you are talking about "What ratios/number make a draft more interesting" vs "What ratios/number make collecting cards more interesting" vs " What ratios/numbers would make constructed tournaments more viable/less costly" you could have a less muddied and more interesting conversation. The fact of the matter is that you are all talking past each other because you vary from post to post what you are talking about and your arguments are muddied by the fact that you argue multiple points on multiple fronts and conflate so many issues.

Now as to your point about variation in commons... do you mean that you would prefer commons to have enough numbers that it is very unlikely to have the same commons in a single pack? do you mean that you want it to be hard(relative) to collect all the commons due to their ratio/relative numbers in the set? Do you want your deck building choices in draft to be more based on the commons available than the rares available?(forget about uncommons lol)... Some of you are talking about a consistent metagame for rares/legendaries but if you have a consistent metagame for rares/legandaries in constructed, what type of impact does that have on drafts?

All of these can boil down to differences of opinion and at that point you can talk about why you have different opinions which gets really intersting... However just shouting past each other because you don't take the time to understand why you are shouting past each other is boring.

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 06:36 PM
OK, for draft - since commons make up most of the deck (33 cards versus 9/3, and not counting what you pass or grab), yes it would be nice to have some variation. The same is true of collecting and constructed - having a little variation wouldn't hurt anyone in the commons department.

Drafts and rares - I think consistancy here would stabilise things, but that could make it stale. It could go either way, but with legendaries, they could make it more dynamic. I guess my point isn't super strong, but I will stand by it here.
For constructed and collecting, more stable, safer bets. The legendaries will become worth a lot more than rares, so collectors will have something to throw money at. Don't see an issue here except maybe drafts.

Uncommons. I don't see an issue here, if they are balanced the same way - you only get 3 per pack, so having slightly less variation will make it more stable, but there will be more variation than you would have with rares - the middle point so to speak (which they are meant to be.) Constructed and collectors wouldn't be greatly affected here, it would be the most minor of the changes.

those are my thoughts on the matter. If anything is unclear, I apologise, but my stance is this - drafts will be slightly more dynamic and random, and constructed will be slightly more stable.

DeusPhasmatis
05-21-2013, 06:50 PM
Imo you can't say "empirically this is the most interesting" as what interests people is subjective.

Psychology and Sociology disagree! You can create empirical studies that aggregate subjective experiences and discuss the breakdowns of the aggregates. In such studies "empirically the most interesting" is equivalent to "scored highest on our aggregation of subjective experiences".

Back to the topic, the roughly 1-1-1 split of commons-uncommons-rare works well for M:TG and WoW:TCG, so you'd need a good reason to risk breaking it. I don't think "I'd like it" is a sufficient argument in that case.

dogmod
05-21-2013, 06:54 PM
OK, for draft - since commons make up most of the deck (33 cards versus 9/3, and not counting what you pass or grab), yes it would be nice to have some variation. The same is true of collecting and constructed - having a little variation wouldn't hurt anyone in the commons department.

Drafts and rares - I think consistancy here would stabilise things, but that could make it stale. It could go either way, but with legendaries, they could make it more dynamic. I guess my point isn't super strong, but I will stand by it here.
For constructed and collecting, more stable, safer bets. The legendaries will become worth a lot more than rares, so collectors will have something to throw money at. Don't see an issue here except maybe drafts.

Uncommons. I don't see an issue here, if they are balanced the same way - you only get 3 per pack, so having slightly less variation will make it more stable, but there will be more variation than you would have with rares - the middle point so to speak (which they are meant to be.) Constructed and collectors wouldn't be greatly affected here, it would be the most minor of the changes.

those are my thoughts on the matter. If anything is unclear, I apologise, but my stance is this - drafts will be slightly more dynamic and random, and constructed will be slightly more stable.

Xenavire what you just said makes perfect absolute sense... What you describe though would make collecting less difficult and possibly less interesting... Also I feel like a lot of this depends on the size of the set. If we all played more drafts based on the # of cards in the set then it wouldn't affect your argument but if there were more cards in the set I think tending towards decreasing the # of commons and thus increasing the relative ratio of rares to commons would make collecting more interesting, make drafts more dynamics (at the cost of making constructed more expensive and less consistent) and increase the anticipation of opening packs....

I am just stoked for this game :)... I feel like it really depends on the # of drafts you do whether the commons will get stale at the current numbers... i forget but using 350 as the opening PvP card #... if you had 25% commons then you would have 88ish commons...equaling about a 7% chance that you wouldn't see that common at all throughout the rest of the draft (through all 3 packs).. 50% commons results in 174ish... 25% chance that any common you have in your starting pack will not be repeated throughout the rest of the draft... Just some #s to quantify the kind of things we are debating... I bet the cryptozoic guys sit down, crunch these things, and have good conversations about balancing vs fun vs competition etc... I love it

Xenavire
05-21-2013, 07:08 PM
Yeah, thats basically my stance in a nutshell. I don't want to trivialise collecting, and it would have to be based off the set size, but the 1/3rd thing was not in MTG in the early sets, and it seemed to work out fine. This was before Mythic rares though - I find mixing the two may have led to changing the system.

I do admit though, I could be a little off on some of my MTG 'facts', as I was not as hardcore about that as I will be about this game. I was in a bad state for getting that kind of information back then - so I missed a fair amount, and just focused on enjoying the game. But I do have experience from other TCG's where the system somewhat worked (like Yugioh - they just screwed it completely after the first year or so.)

ramseytheory
05-21-2013, 07:23 PM
Here's my take on things as someone fairly new to TCGs. We have two competing sets of constraints.

Firstly, the more rares there are, in absolute terms, the more difficult it is to get any particular rare. Let's say I want four copies of Time Bug in my deck. If there are 50 rares in Set 1, then on average there will be one Time Bug in circulation for every 50 boosters sold. If there are 100 rares in Set 1, on average there will be one Time Bug in circulation for every 100 boosters sold - half as many. I'll need to open more boosters to get one, and they'll be more expensive to buy on the open market. So the more rares there are, the more expensive optimal constructed play becomes. In moderation this is good for Cryptozoic, but in excess it kills the game. The same holds, to a lesser extent, for uncommons.

At the same time, there's the question of drafting. For drafts to vary significantly from each other, there can't be too few commons, uncommons or rares in absolute terms. (Imagine having just 10 rares, for example - you'd have the same rares cropping up every single draft.) This matters far more for commons than it does for uncommons, and far more for uncommons than it does for rares, simply because you get more commons than uncommons and more uncommons than rares in each draft. There's also the question of pauper format (commons only), which certainly for Magic seems to bring a lot of people into the community - you can't play commons only if there aren't enough commons to sustain a metagame!

So the situation is this:

- We need a *lot* of commons for drafting to be satisfying and for pauper format to work.
- We need quite a few uncommons for drafting to be satisfying, but not a huge number or we make constructed prohibitively expensive.
- We need a non-trivial number of rares for drafting to be satisfying, but not too many or we make constructed prohibitively expensive.

This tells us that the overall ratio of cards in our set should be biased towards commons, then uncommons, then finally rares.

dogmod
05-21-2013, 07:39 PM
Here's my take on things as someone fairly new to TCGs. We have two competing sets of constraints.

Firstly, the more rares there are, in absolute terms, the more difficult it is to get any particular rare. Let's say I want four copies of Time Bug in my deck. If there are 50 rares in Set 1, then on average there will be one Time Bug in circulation for every 50 boosters sold. If there are 100 rares in Set 1, on average there will be one Time Bug in circulation for every 100 boosters sold - half as many. I'll need to open more boosters to get one, and they'll be more expensive to buy on the open market. So the more rares there are, the more expensive optimal constructed play becomes. In moderation this is good for Cryptozoic, but in excess it kills the game. The same holds, to a lesser extent, for uncommons.

At the same time, there's the question of drafting. For drafts to vary significantly from each other, there can't be too few commons, uncommons or rares in absolute terms. (Imagine having just 10 rares, for example - you'd have the same rares cropping up every single draft.) This matters far more for commons than it does for uncommons, and far more for uncommons than it does for rares, simply because you get more commons than uncommons and more uncommons than rares in each draft. There's also the question of pauper format (commons only), which certainly for Magic seems to bring a lot of people into the community - you can't play commons only if there aren't enough commons to sustain a metagame!

So the situation is this:

- We need a *lot* of commons for drafting to be satisfying and for pauper format to work.
- We need quite a few uncommons for drafting to be satisfying, but not a huge number or we make constructed prohibitively expensive.
- We need a non-trivial number of rares for drafting to be satisfying, but not too many or we make constructed prohibitively expensive.

This tells us that the overall ratio of cards in our set should be biased towards commons, then uncommons, then finally rares.

I like your analysis and I tend to agree with it if you are looking for a balance between all the elements. Some people I don't think are looking for a balance though and favor certain elements over others. Some people would prefer a more stable common base for drafting with the interest being provided by uncommons/rares. Some people would prefer an expensive amount of rares as it makes collecting more interesting and maybe makes their draft packs more valuable as the real value of draft packs is derived from uncommons/rares. And all of the ratios between the cards to achieve this optimal balance would likely be dependent on the total number of cards within the set.

Very interesting :)

ramseytheory
05-21-2013, 07:47 PM
I like your analysis and I tend to agree with it if you are looking for a balance between all the elements. Some people I don't think are looking for a balance though and favor certain elements over others. Some people would prefer a more stable common base for drafting with the interest being provided by uncommons/rares. Some people would prefer an expensive amount of rares as it makes collecting more interesting and maybe makes their draft packs more valuable as the real value of draft packs is derived from uncommons/rares. And all of the ratios between the cards to achieve this optimal balance would likely be dependent on the total number of cards within the set.

Very interesting :)

I'm actually interested in collecting too - it just seems to me that an unusually large pool of PvP rares isn't the best way of making it interesting in this setting. Being in digital format means that it's far cheaper to produce promos or alternate art versions of cards than it otherwise would be, and having the MMO side of things available means that they can be distributed in more interesting ways. I'd much rather spend a few days trying to solo a raid boss for a promo than spend a few days opening booster packs for a legendary rare. And that's ignoring equipment and PVE cards, of course. :)

dogmod
05-21-2013, 07:53 PM
I'm actually interested in collecting too - it just seems to me that an unusually large pool of PvP rares isn't the best way of making it interesting in this setting. Being in digital format means that it's far cheaper to produce promos or alternate art versions of cards than it otherwise would be, and having the MMO side of things available means that they can be distributed in more interesting ways. I'd much rather spend a few days trying to solo a raid boss for a promo than spend a few days opening booster packs for a legendary rare. And that's ignoring equipment and PVE cards, of course. :)

And of course we have only been talking about the balance of the pvp set versus itself.. balancing pvp set rarity vs PvE rarity and how the economy will balance on the auction house(s) is another interesting topic... Would opening packs for a few days be equivalent to raiding for a few days? What will the expected cost to find a rare/legendary based on probability, versus the actual price of the card based on availability and utility, measure up to PvE with ostensibly "free" cards but weighted by the expected # of hours it takes to get a card/equpiment... It will be interesting to see what your "hourly wage" will be from running raids..

houjix
05-21-2013, 07:53 PM
And the approximate 1/3 ratio has shown time and again to be the sweet spot between all of those competing philosophies.

Karnegal
05-22-2013, 07:59 AM
The current ratios in Magic (which has smaller sets) are: 101C : 80U : 53R : 15M (Return to Ravnica)
From experience, this feels far better than it did back in the day when you had sets like Mirage with 110C : 110U : 110R

As people have noted, having a 4th rarity that is not guaranteed in each pack already skews the prices of those singles upward while reducing the average cost of rares. What's interesting to note from the MtG case is that the commons are about the same between the two above sets. The top-heaviness of Mirage made individual rares cost more because they occured less frequently. Here's more more data from Magic sets:

Shadowmoor (last large set w/o Mythics): 121C : 80U : 80R
Shards of Alara (1st set with Mythics): 101C : 60U : 53R : 15M

As you can see, when they added mythics, they trimmed the overall set size and reduced the quantity of cards across the tiers with the biggest reductions coming at the top. Now, Hex has a bigger set, and I think that's appropriate since Set 1 will be the entirety of the card pool for some time. However, Magic has had decades to figure out what the sweet spot is before you make cards too difficult to get particular singles of. In any given set, there will be a finite number of top tier cards. If it is extremely rare to open one of those cards, you reduce the appeal of opening packs. Magic has gotten to the point where you generally see a pretty good card in your draft pool every couple drafts. This is appealing to casual players learning to draft who can pocket a good card here and there. If you increase the size of the rare/mythic pool too much, you'll have new players losing games AND getting few good cards from the draft. This can be quite discouraging, which is something you should avoid if possible.