PDA

View Full Version : HEX & E-Sports: Pay to Win & Tournament Accounts



Pages : [1] 2

Mokog
06-24-2013, 04:54 PM
Hello Everyone!

I have just released a new video looking at the E-Sport needs of Hex.

Hex TCG & E-Sports!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7UVpb9w1s4)

I want to break down a little further the biggest obstacle and controversial solution I present. In my opinion the most difficult block for Hex will be the "pay to win" stigma that surrounds trading card games. The pay wall will be high to compete on the world stage and the skill wall even higher. If the cost to be competitive is no brought to a reasonable level then the concept of Hex as a serious E-sport is DoA.

What I suggest is a special tournament account that resets after each event and is open to all players who enter official CZE e-sport events. These accounts will have a play set of all relevant PvP cards available to deck build. The player will have 10-20 minutes to construct their deck prior to the event time and they will receive no double back rewards while they participate in the event. Their win/lose record is the only data that will carry over to their primary account. Winnings if any may also be sent to the primary account.

In addition when this is implemented a greater amount of digital account bound goodies are introduced at the event for those players who choose not to use a tournament account.

If this is implemented players can make the choice of which account to use. New players, returning players, and resource starved players can gain a foot hold and play with the experienced invested veterans on equal terms. World tournaments are not a special club for those with discretionary spending but a place to test your skill and deck theory. This will help eliminate the stigma of pay to win while leaving incentives for those who have dropped the money already.

I only suggest this solution for live events like regionals, nationals and worlds level of competition. Standard constructed tournaments online or in specific independent leagues are not eligible. Drafts and sealed tournaments do not need tournament accounts and the more creative formats should also be ineligible.

Providing a full play set at the highest level of competition is a radical solution but the difference of skill is not the cards you own but how you play them.

~ Mokog

hex_colin
06-24-2013, 05:09 PM
I like this idea a little. I wouldn't want it to be anywhere close to the dominant format though - hundreds of people all playing the identical "best" deck doesn't really excite me. It would end up being much less to do with skill, and more to do with who got the best draws.

Limited formats exist to level the playing field. Non-limited, and therefore "pay to win", formats exist to provide a bit of variety outside of the limited formats ;)

hex_colin
06-24-2013, 05:13 PM
Also, "Pay to win" formats are much worse in a physical TCG - regional scarcity and lack of information (not having access to all available information about the scarce cards you're trying to source) have a big impact on pricing. In an online digital marketplace, everyone will have more access to more of the cards. They still might not be as inexpensive as you'd like, but I'm willing to bet you'll have a much easier time getting a hold of the competitive tournament cards.

Shadowelf
06-24-2013, 05:15 PM
Limited formats exist to level the playing field. Non-limited, and therefore "pay to win", formats exist to provide a bit of variety outside of the limited formats ;)

Yeap draft could as well be ur e-sports fodder; cheap to play, competitive, and if u turn out to be good free. Or they could give free boosters to ppl at e-sports to draft

Kietay
06-24-2013, 05:37 PM
I dont like this idea at all. Everyone having to use their own cards is the fun of collecting.

Gwaer
06-24-2013, 05:37 PM
It's also just not pay to win. You can't buy a buff that increases your chances over someone else. You can buy cheap cards and make competitive decks, some of them will beat the most expensive decks.

hex_colin
06-24-2013, 05:41 PM
It's also just not pay to win. You can't buy a buff that increases your chances over someone else. You can buy cheap cards and make competitive decks, some of them will beat the most expensive decks.

That's what the quotes around "pay to win" were for ;) Especially in this game where it looks like you'll probably be able to "grind to win" too... Not quite as easy as cold, hard cash, but eminently possible...

hacky
06-24-2013, 05:54 PM
While I understand the direction this idea is coming from, "Tournament Accounts with all cards unlocked" are a terrible idea for a trading card game.

A player who has never played with the cards they are using will not do well at a regional-or-higher-level Constructed tournament.

hex_colin
06-24-2013, 06:01 PM
While I understand the direction this idea is coming from, this is a terrible idea for a trading card game.

A player who has never played with the cards they are using will not do well at a regional-or-higher-level Constructed tournament.

Not defending the idea, and I'm not a huge fan of it, but...

They could easily have a mode in the game where you have access to any cards you wanted to play against your friends. That would provide a training ground for the type of tournament the OP suggests.

Also, 1 YouTube video of the deck and a 30 minute discussion of how to play it probably makes a lot of people who play this game reasonably competent with a given deck.

A combination of both of these = OP suggested tournaments with lots of people with the same deck = luck and not skill deciding the outcome.

Given the number of people generating content for the game already - before it's already released - I'll be shocked to turn up at a tourney and see an completely unspoiled competitive deck that upends the metagame. There might be the occasional "oh, I haven't seen that card used that way, that's kind of cool", but a completely novel deck? Not going to happen.

hacky
06-24-2013, 06:13 PM
Not defending the idea, and I'm not a huge fan of it, but...

They could easily have a mode in the game where you have access to any cards you wanted to play against your friends. That would provide a training ground for the type of tournament the OP suggests.

Also, 1 YouTube video of the deck and a 30 minute discussion of how to play it probably makes a lot of people who play this game reasonably competent with a given deck.

A combination of both of these = OP suggested tournaments with lots of people with the same deck = luck and not skill deciding the outcome.

Given the number of people generating content for the game already - before it's already released - I'll be shocked to turn up at a tourney and see an completely unspoiled competitive deck that upends the metagame. There might be the occasional "oh, I haven't seen that card used that way, that's kind of cool", but a completely novel deck? Not going to happen.


It might be that a larger scale and the online nature of the game makes completely novel decks harder to keep under wraps, but I'm drawing on my WoWTCG experience to say that it absolutely does happen. Innovative decks, previously undiscovered combos, and known decks that take an established metagame by surprise can and will happen.

As for a deck training ground, that really defeats the purpose of a trading card game. Why would I ever buy any cards if I can playtest to my hearts content with any cards I want? A player could just play infinitely in the training ground, and then just show up to a regional-level tournament.

Not only that, the decks at the highest levels of play are so tuned for efficiency down to the single card AND to the player's playstyle, that allowing players to bypass the deck collection aspects of a TCG is a disservice to everyone who buys even a single card.

I think that the "computer game" aspect of HEX is overstated with this idea. I am definitely viewing HEX as a "trading card game".

Facilier
06-24-2013, 06:17 PM
They could easily have a mode in the game where you have access to any cards you wanted to play against your friends. That would provide a training ground for the type of tournament the OP suggests.

Having both a casual mode where you have access to all the cards and a competitive mode where you have access to all the cards would end up making quite a few players feel artificially locked out of a bunch of their cards rather than encouraged to build a collection.

funktion
06-24-2013, 06:20 PM
Yeah, I honestly think the game will be fine as is without implementing any of the multitude of options which people have suggested in regards to make the game more "affordable." By and large you're going to be able to build a competitive deck for easily under 20 dollars, it might not be the exact tier 1 deck you wanted, but there are plenty of very strong cards which are low enough rarity that the agro decks will be cheap to build.

A budget deck will cost roughly the same as 2 drafts, if that's not something that you can afford, then you've probably picked the wrong hobby.

hex_colin
06-24-2013, 06:25 PM
It might be that a larger scale and the online nature of the game makes completely novel decks harder to keep under wraps, but I'm drawing on my WoWTCG experience to say that it absolutely does happen. Innovative decks, previously undiscovered combos, and known decks that take an established metagame by surprise can and will happen.

I'd be interested in concrete examples of this from the last couple of years. An online community as large as this one will probably become will have few parallels to WoWTCG from the perspective of trading information, etc. The communities of people playing against each other, testing and refining deck ideas, etc. will innovate much quicker than traditional TCGs.


As for a deck training ground, that really defeats the purpose of a trading card game. Why would I ever buy any cards if I can playtest to my hearts content with any cards I want? A player could just play infinitely in the training ground, and then just show up to a regional-level tournament.

Actually, I can see a much more limited use of the OP's concept in invitational tournaments for the best players. 2 level playing fields: Limited and "Unlimited Constructed", both of which used to crown a winner. Might be interesting... :)


Not only that, the decks at the highest levels of play are so tuned for efficiency down to the single card AND to the player's playstyle, that allowing players to bypass the deck collection aspects of a TCG is a disservice to everyone who buys even a single card.

I think that the "computer game" aspect of HEX is overstated with this idea. I am definitely viewing HEX as a "trading card game".

This has the most merit of all your arguments, although I could easily inherit "playstyle" from a YouTube video or watching a guildie play the same deck against me 10's or 100's of times.

At the end of the day, it would be a format that you could choose to enter or not. I wouldn't play it much, if at all, but there'd be some segment of the player base who'd like it. It you disagree with it philosophically, then don't play.

Besides, it's never actually going to happen. But I'm bored with work and stuck in a hotel room with crappy cable, so I'm posting way too much ;)

hex_colin
06-24-2013, 06:27 PM
Having both a casual mode where you have access to all the cards and a competitive mode where you have access to all the cards would end up making quite a few players feel artificially locked out of a bunch of their cards rather than encouraged to build a collection.

Really? You think so? I'd be interested in the psychology of this... anyone?

It would make me want to spend more money... ;)

Facilier
06-24-2013, 06:55 PM
Really? You think so? I'd be interested in the psychology of this... anyone?

If eSports are pushed in a big equal footing way with a drive to televise and create international tournaments, people will want to play in those tournaments and practice to get into them.

To test a decent variety of decks against each other, tweaking deck choices you will look to do so with your friends in an environment where you have all the cards to do the testing, and will be looking at scores of matches to get reasonable tests.

With game lengths in the 20-30min ballpark if you want to get 100 games in to get ready for a tournament it would only take 1 of these tournaments in a month for people to have the huge social experience of playing with friends with a goal to win tournaments, 10 hours a week, without ever setting foot in the ghetto modes where for some reason you wouldn't have all the cards to build exactly the deck you want.

hacky
06-24-2013, 07:02 PM
I'd be interested in concrete examples of this from the last couple of years. An online community as large as this one will probably become will have few parallels to WoWTCG from the perspective of trading information, etc. The communities of people playing against each other, testing and refining deck ideas, etc. will innovate much quicker than traditional TCGs.

No problem. I had some examples of each in mind when I wrote this:

- Previously Undiscovered Combo:
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/north-american-continental-championship-2011/deck-recon-reproducing-rabbits
At NACC 2011, a completely oddball combo deck ripped through the Swiss rounds. Running 40 quests (totally insane), and basically running Solitaire once it finds its combo as soon as Turn 3. Tim Batow took the Bunnies deck and eventually won the championship.
There were some calls to even ban the deck due to negative play experience. However, that turned out to be unnecessary. At the following major event, EUCC 2011, players had the deck in mind, and built to have an answer to the combo in case it came up.

- Innovative Builds:
There are several WoWTCG decks that had breakout tournaments that propelled them into the metagame. Here are a couple:
NACC 2011: "Spider Solitaire" - A deck based on forcibly discarding cards for effects, and cards that benefit from doing so. The deck became a metagame staple until the sets rotated out of format.
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/north-american-continental-championship-2011/deck-recon-shake-rattle-and-roll
DMF St. Louis 2013: Brad Watson and Tim Rivera bring a solo Warrior deck and take the Swiss rounds of the tournament by storm. Many solo decks have since taken parts of the deck and adapted it into their own.
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/darkmoon-faire-st-louis-2013/darkmoon-faire-st-louis-top-16-decklists (first and second decks)

- Decks That Take The Metagame By Surprise
DMF Los Angeles 2012: A druid healing combo deck that aimed to outheal the prevalent aggro decks in the format. (I've used this example before, as I was part of the team that piloted this deck.)
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/dmf-los-angeles-2012/deck-recon-heal-deal
DMF Dallas 2013: Instead of the dominant decks in the format, Hans Hoh pilots a solo rogue deck that aims to strike out an opponent when they least suspect it. (Unfortunately, at the expense of my own victory. I took second place at that event due to tiebreakers...losing out on the first place iPad)
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/darkmoon-faire-dallas-2013/itournament-top-8-decklists (first place Hans Hoh's deck)

hacky
06-24-2013, 07:18 PM
If eSports are pushed in a big equal footing way with a drive to televise and create international tournaments, people will want to play in those tournaments and practice to get into them.

To test a decent variety of decks against each other, tweaking deck choices you will look to do so with your friends in an environment where you have all the cards to do the testing, and will be looking at scores of matches to get reasonable tests.

With game lengths in the 20-30min ballpark if you want to get 100 games in to get ready for a tournament it would only take 1 of these tournaments in a month for people to have the huge social experience of playing with friends with a goal to win tournaments, 10 hours a week, without ever setting foot in the ghetto modes where for some reason you wouldn't have all the cards to build exactly the deck you want.


A large majority of people that enter a competitive-level TCG tournament do not practice and playtest to get into them. Traditionally, many of these tournaments are completely open, or are qualifiers to the larger, premier events. Those who don't practice, by and large will not win and qualify.

Grinding out games is less effective in a TCG than it is for a more action-oriented game (as most current e-sports are). Practice in a TCG is more about two things: practice with making the correct tactical decisions during a match, and practice to determine the win chance of a particular deck matchup. Without being able to guess what decks will be played in a tournament in what quantity, picking a deck to win can often simply be a coinflip in terms of matchups.

Plus, playing in the "ghetto modes", isn't all bad. If you don't already know the cards and combos often used, that's how you'll learn what cards to look out for, and how to try to play around those cards with the limited resources you have. In fact, this is the prevailing skillset needed for any Limited format, like Draft.

hex_colin
06-24-2013, 07:22 PM
No problem. I had some examples of each in mind when I wrote this:

- Previously Undiscovered Combo:
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/north-american-continental-championship-2011/deck-recon-reproducing-rabbits
At NACC 2011, a completely oddball combo deck ripped through the Swiss rounds. Running 40 quests (totally insane), and basically running Solitaire once it finds its combo as soon as Turn 3. Tim Batow took the Bunnies deck and eventually won the championship.
There were some calls to even ban the deck due to negative play experience. However, that turned out to be unnecessary. At the following major event, EUCC 2011, players had the deck in mind, and built to have an answer to the combo in case it came up.

- Innovative Builds:
There are several WoWTCG decks that had breakout tournaments that propelled them into the metagame. Here are a couple:
NACC 2011: "Spider Solitaire" - A deck based on forcibly discarding cards for effects, and cards that benefit from doing so. The deck became a metagame staple until the sets rotated out of format.
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/north-american-continental-championship-2011/deck-recon-shake-rattle-and-roll
DMF St. Louis 2013: Brad Watson and Tim Rivera bring a solo Warrior deck and take the Swiss rounds of the tournament by storm. Many solo decks have since taken parts of the deck and adapted it into their own.
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/darkmoon-faire-st-louis-2013/darkmoon-faire-st-louis-top-16-decklists (first and second decks)

- Decks That Take The Metagame By Surprise
DMF Los Angeles 2012: A druid healing combo deck that aimed to outheal the prevalent aggro decks in the format. (I've used this example before, as I was part of the team that piloted this deck.)
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/dmf-los-angeles-2012/deck-recon-heal-deal
DMF Dallas 2013: Instead of the dominant decks in the format, Hans Hoh pilots a solo rogue deck that aims to strike out an opponent when they least suspect it. (Unfortunately, at the expense of my own victory. I took second place at that event due to tiebreakers...losing out on the first place iPad)
http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/darkmoon-faire-dallas-2013/itournament-top-8-decklists (first place Hans Hoh's deck)

Excellent examples.

My point stands though - it happens pretty infrequently in a format (physical TCG) that doesn't lend itself particularly well to YouTube videos and analysis, and in a less "efficient" environment (playtesting in-person). I'd argue that Hex will have more players, playing more often (because it's more efficient than the physical alternatives), sharing decks and strategies more easily (guilds, YouTube, Switch.tv, etc.). The "breakout decks" will debut on YouTube rather than at tournaments - someone will let the cat out of the bag! All of which will result in (significantly) less novel metagame-busting decks come tournament time. They'll be replaced with stories of people who analysed the metagame, identified the trends, and made data-based decisions (or good guesses based on FOTM) about the type of deck that's likely to play well against the expected competition.

EDIT: Hacky - A mini challenge... in the first 2 years the game is live (from general release onward) I'll send you 25 boosters from the current set for every major constructed tournament where a "breakout" deck makes an appearance and finishes in the Top 4. Something that the community acknowledges is "new" and/or "unexpected" - should be reasonably easy to gauge. If I'm right, all you need to do is necro this thread and say, "Colin - you were right!". No real downside for you... ;)

Yoss
06-24-2013, 07:46 PM
I'm not a big fan of the OP's idea. Why would anyone buy boosters if they can just get to the top by pure skill? There needs to be a strong incentive to buy packs. That's how a TCG makes money, and how we get new content.

hacky
06-24-2013, 07:47 PM
Definitely valid points. The population on HEX will definitely be much more able to create and consume content via Twitch/Youtube and other online mediums.


EDIT: Hacky - A mini challenge... in the first 2 years the game is live (from general release onward) I'll send you 25 boosters from the current set for every major constructed tournament where a "breakout" deck makes an appearance and finishes in the Top 4. Something that the community acknowledges is "new" and/or "unexpected" - should be reasonably easy to gauge. If I'm right, all you need to do is necro this thread and say, "Colin - you were right!". No real downside for you... ;)

Fair enough. I hope to be up there analyzing and playing against the competitive metagame as well. :D

Mokog
06-24-2013, 08:44 PM
I look at this issue from a sportsmanship angle. Is it sporting to defeat an opponent because they do not have the best cards? Is it fun to be defeated when you make all the best plays your deck can make but you are over powered by legendary cards? I have been in both scenarios in my WoW TCG experience. Defeating a smart opponent just because they do not have the cards is a disheartening meaningless victory.

Why should tournaments be defined by rarity to limit powerful decks? Where is the sport in buying legendary cards to be viable at regionals? In a tournament where a deciding factor is how much disposable money you have; where is the meaning and the skill? It is not skill to run 4 van cleiffs in the WoW TCG as it won't be skill to run 4 Zombie Plague or 4 Vampire King.

The skill is forced into draft and sealed formats where the playing field is level BUT it is also placed where it is even harder to generate e-sports potential and buzz. If drafts generated the star players who are looked up to, why do I see deck lists for constructed first in google search? http://This year's NACC WoW TCG coverage (http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/north-american-continental-championship-2013) has the constructed player's story first followed by a small snippet about the draft. The focus is on constructed formats.

Those in the know respect the draft as do I, but I am talking sports. It is about hype, persona, the drama and the story. It is about telling of come from behind victories and unexpected upsets. The observer has to believe that if they practice just a little bit longer they could be in the player's shoes.

You will never hear a world's tournament being won by a low cost deck after 2-3 sets. There will be too many powerful epic cards. You end up with jet setting players who have the resources to tour the world playing the game. That ends up being the dream and it is bought for hundreds of dollars a set. Why would any one watch then? Who wants to listen to the story of a middle class generally white guy playing an elitist game? Golf already exists.

All that said, Hex is going to do well. I want Hex to become a prominent e-sport that is based on skill at the top tier not a gated isolated community of moneyed players. We are forming guilds not country clubs.

For the collectors who have put in their money, I pose this question. Which is worth more, a normal vampire king or the extended art, foil, tournament winning epic from the first world championship? Under the system I described a tournament account does not carry over the double back information. It loses the card history after each event. The collectors will have the leg up and prestige that is preened and sought after from their collection. In addition I advocate increasing the digital rewards so that the choice between using your personal collection and a tournament account is agonizingly meaningful.

The system I described preserves the prestige that comes from directly supporting Hex while enabling the highest amount of competitive play for the most people in the most visible, highly discussed and externally interesting part of the game. Tournament accounts can democratize the top end TCG competition where e-sport dreams can be made. It is radical and against the grain of what trading card games have been. That is why it just might work.

~Mokog

Dralon
06-24-2013, 08:47 PM
I could see the OP idea working in the following situation. If CZE decides to rotate sets out as most TCG's do, if you get to a classic format where, say the first set rotates out of their core environment, when typically purchases of that product and play with that product would slow down dramatically, they could have these "unlimited" tournaments just using the first set. People would pay for tickets to participate in these tournaments, and still earn prizes which could include boosters of "current sets".

That would allow CZE to still make some income off the set that rotated out, and keep people playing with those cards. As more sets rotate out they add to the pool for this "classic Unlimited environment"

Dralon
06-24-2013, 08:48 PM
doh double post

nandus
06-24-2013, 08:51 PM
I'm pro anything that will make this game as accessible as possible for all players everywhere and that doesn't mean for casual/new players only, but for serious competition level players as well... however this doesn't really seem the way to do it IMO. The thing is that having tournaments accounts takes a good chunk out of the game, it suddenly stops being about collecting cards and ends up being like a regular card game(sort of a constantly changing poker), with added complexity of course. Furthermore I think I have to agree with Facilier when he/she says that people will feel left out.

I am sure many people like Colin will feel like spending more, as long as they have the money for that, however many more will not have the cash for getting that expensive legendary troop which wins tournaments and thus will feel discouraged to keep spending money on cards.

For accessible constructed tournaments, I would look for something like Pauper format in Magic, in which you only play with Common cards. That should guarantee that everyone will be able to afford the top decks without problems and thus have an equal playing field. Nevertheless the best format, for a pure skill competition in TCGs, is without a doubt Drafting.

Yoss
06-24-2013, 08:58 PM
In high end Constructed MTG, no one is losing due to lack of money. At that level everyone has access to every playset they need and it's just a giant game of rock-paper-scissors as people try to guess the metagame for a particular event. Yes, there's a barrier of money there, but if you can't afford it, then Draft can be had for fairly cheap. Also, CZE has said there will be player-run leagues eventually. You can run a Pauper league, promote it, and maybe you'll make an eSport of it!

RobHaven
06-24-2013, 09:01 PM
I'm not a big fan of the OP's idea. Why would anyone buy boosters if they can just get to the top by pure skill? There needs to be a strong incentive to buy packs. That's how a TCG makes money, and how we get new content.

I like what this guy said. Although I have nothing else to contribute, I don't want my vote to go unaccounted for. So this is me giving in...

+1

Pech
06-24-2013, 09:29 PM
I am going to have to disagree with you suggestion. If everyone got the exact same card pool for higher lvl competitions it would get rid of some of the fun of chasing the cards or trading for them. This is a TCG "TRADING" Card Game. That's part of the fun getting that last missing card or two to complete your collection.

I understand that you want fairness for all, but I think you are overlooking the value of the MMO aspect of the game i.e. guilds and friends. Swap cards, borrow cards from your friends and or guild. Do some socializing to get the cards you need to play the deck you want.

Plenty of times where in paper tcg tournaments where people borrow decks same is true for the digital TCG. Work together and achieve the same thing. If a person pays $3,000 dollars to get every single card in the game that is their choice. The person that spent maybe $200 dollars puts together a deck cause that's all the money resource they had and beats that so called "payed to win" investor of the 3K does it really come to down $ vs. Skill scenario or an ingenuity scenario playing with what you have?

maniza
06-24-2013, 09:46 PM
Its just not how tcgs work. Getting the cards at the high competitive level is not an issue, playing with cards you dont own would defeat the purpose of buying and trading for them. However what you descrive is similar to sealed tournaments. Maybe ranking limited and constructed in diferent ladders would help with players that dont have all the cards for constructed but want to compete.

Verdant
06-24-2013, 10:18 PM
Mokog, you still need to know all the cards and test them immensely to participate somewhat successfully in competitive environment. There is no way around it. While I do appreciate the sentiment of helping people get high up there, it just won't happen with your idea. You can't just give them account full of cards and show the way to victory. It's all about preparation, experience and knowledge, and it won't come if take a look at full playset one in a blue moon.

There is, however, an interesting notion of diamond in the rough - players who have everything I was talking about, excel at theorycrafting powerful non-obvious decks and yet can't afford to create their own. But that's where guilds and sponsors should come into light. Bankrolling a good player isn't something unheard of.

hacky
06-24-2013, 10:33 PM
I respectfully disagree with pretty much your entire stance on "fairness" in Constructed play. But I'd like to comment on this part in particular.


The skill is forced into draft and sealed formats where the playing field is level BUT it is also placed where it is even harder to generate e-sports potential and buzz. If drafts generated the star players who are looked up to, why do I see deck lists for constructed first in google search? This year's NACC WoW TCG coverage (http://wowtcg.cryptozoic.com/live-coverage/north-american-continental-championship-2013) has the constructed player's story first followed by a small snippet about the draft. The focus is on constructed formats.

I think you're inferring a "focus" when there is none - the top WoWTCG players in the world must be proficient at both Constructed and Draft. Day 1 is Constructed, Day 2 is Draft, Day 3 is Constructed. What you see at the top of the page is the summary after Day 3. Scroll down to the Day 2 coverage, on Saturday, and there's a whole load of Draft features; pretty much an entire day's worth. The coverage goes over name players' draft strategies, and feature matches that demonstrate the decks that the top Limited players have put together.

One player who made the Top 16 playoff on Sunday, Philippe Gareau, barely made the Day 2 cutoff, and came out with double 3-0 drafts to go from 92nd to 13th. Others who were on top of the Swiss standings after Day 1 dropped out of the running on bad Draft results. The importance of skill in Limited play might not be obvious, but is important nonetheless.

kingzzk
06-24-2013, 11:07 PM
This is basically imitating the "proxies"function in real life?

WalkingEye
06-25-2013, 12:21 AM
How about this

Pauper to Prince tourneys
entry to this tourney is limited to people who have reached a certain level in the pve game, and limited if the players card collection contains to many cards of the current standard. A person who has X% of the current standard cannot enter. Also a player who won a pauper to prince tourney is restricted from reentering for a month.
The entries to this tourney can make a proxy deck made up of any cards in the current standard. These cards self destruct after the event ends, are account bound,
Each weekly winner gets a proxy deck with sideboard for one normal tourney. This deck is created from any pvp cards available to be used in the tourney they choose.

NaryaDL0re
06-25-2013, 01:14 AM
Havent read the entire thread past the OP but ... :

This idea is shortsigthed Bullsh**.

How exactly do you propose Crypto pays for all the nice pricemoney the promised us?
Where should the entire Esport infrastructure and payroll come from?

Have you ever tried to play tennis?poker?golf?even soccer? or other low profile sports?
You arent talking about nice and cheesy PvE where the only reason for F2P in the first
palce is hooking people so they f**cking PAY for the rest of the game...

You are talking about people being able to win money, without risking any... thats
not feasible in any modern world, not if you whish hex to reach a reasonable scale.


I would argue the entire different direction. I hate F2P, because it tends to stand for
cheap, bad games with close to no longevity.

Rather would I pay 50 bucks up front to play HEX, a monthly subscription on top of that
and still have to pay for platinum and all the high end tournament staples....

Why? Because it would grant crypto a budget to expand the pve experience, stableize
and keep the quality of multiple high quality pvp-sets a year and further expand a great
and promising esport structure.


I see why poor companies as crypto have to utilize the flawed "Free 2 play" concept
to catch new players, given the obcene flodding of the gaming market right now.
But its only a necessity as long as the popularity of their game/brand isnt high enough,
or rather limited to certain areas of their game (pve, later start of pve(see wow)) etc.

No one in their right mind that wants Hex to succeed should propose a lower barier for entry.

Its simple, there should be 2 barriers... one to get to know the game and get hooked, its
as low as it can get, free, no money, easy tutorial, good advertisement... sweet.

The other is the professional TCG aspect of drafts, contructed play and tournaments.
I think that is a world to aspire to and be willing to either commit or live with the fact
that you are playing casually and not high profile.


Because you do have to realize: the only viable counterarguments would be either.
1.) you dont want big esports but more idiots to casually draft... well go to hell than =)
2.) you believe that the quantity of players playing with lower costs will turn this idea to actual profit.
This wont work because the TCG market isnt big enough, its not in its nature a casual friendly family game.

fack this idea that everything needs to be free, make beer free and sex free and education free....
Quality should have its price, otherwise everything falls apart.
Its shortsighted and superficial companies that started the F2P trend and it shouldnt be taken to far.
its advertisement ... a trap... because in the end nothing worth something will be free.

Shadowelf
06-25-2013, 02:48 AM
Come on guys let's not hide behond our little finger here, shall we?; tcg's at competitive lvl will always be pay to win; maybe not in a sense that the one who pours more money will be the best, but by spending money your buying a better chance to victory than the one who doesn't; this by having all the cards available, that allows u to play all the best decks, try every strategy, analyze formats from any angle by playtesting and generally speaking by gaining more expereince at competitive lvl.

funktion
06-25-2013, 03:04 AM
I've read pretty much the entire thing so far... I'm surprised that nobody has suggest an alternative to what the op was saying...

Why not be able to pay to proxy something? You could pay like 1 plat per proxy... that way you're still encouraged to buy the cards so that you're not haemoraging plat but you're also still getting to play with the cards you want which might be out of your price range.

Granted I don't think this is a good idea, but figured I'd throw it out there.

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 03:56 AM
While I understand the direction this idea is coming from, "Tournament Accounts with all cards unlocked" are a terrible idea for a trading card game.

A player who has never played with the cards they are using will not do well at a regional-or-higher-level Constructed tournament.

People will not suddenly play completely new decks unless they know that their own deck is not good enough to compete with, even with major reconstruction. And even if they do, if they fail they are not crowned. If they win, they they have shown one of the stronger decks available.


I'm not a big fan of the OP's idea. Why would anyone buy boosters if they can just get to the top by pure skill? There needs to be a strong incentive to buy packs. That's how a TCG makes money, and how we get new content.

You can already get to the top by pure skill through drafting. They wouldn't buy boosters, more people would then be inclined to buy tournament fees instead. There isn't "one and only way" to make money off of TCGs.

In high end Constructed MTG, no one is losing due to lack of money. At that level everyone has access to every playset they need and it's just a giant game of rock-paper-scissors as people try to guess the metagame for a particular event. Yes, there's a barrier of money there, but if you can't afford it, then Draft can be had for fairly cheap. Also, CZE has said there will be player-run leagues eventually. You can run a Pauper league, promote it, and maybe you'll make an eSport of it!
If everyone at that level has access to every playset they need, they they are essentially playing a "fully proxied" game. In other words, a tournament with "all unlocked" would work almost exactly the same as High-End Constructed in MTG without the need for everyone to shell out loads of money to have access to all the playsets.


Its just not how tcgs work. Getting the cards at the high competitive level is not an issue, playing with cards you dont own would defeat the purpose of buying and trading for them. However what you descrive is similar to sealed tournaments. Maybe ranking limited and constructed in diferent ladders would help with players that dont have all the cards for constructed but want to compete.
No because you still have to have a deck to qualify for those tournaments with. And even if there are no qualifiers to these tournaments, there is nothing to go by when it comes to prices / slots / frequency of the tournaments. If these tournaments only happen every 3 months, players without cards outside of the tournament would only be able to play every 3 months.


This is basically imitating the "proxies"function in real life?
Yes.



You are talking about people being able to win money, without risking any... thats
not feasible in any modern world, not if you whish hex to reach a reasonable scale.

Actually this is perfectly feasible as many other games (and sports for that matter) kind of do it already since we are overlooking entry fees (because otherwise you wouldn't have said there wasn't any risk). Most mainstream sports let you bring your own gear (as long as you have indicators of what team you are playing for) with the difference being that gear is usually not integral to victory since the impact is minimal. Also, E-Sports that do this include
Starcraft 2
League of Legends
DOTA2 / DotA
Counter-Strike
With League of Legends being the closest fit to Hex as you have to buy heroes to compete at the first stage (in the ranked ladders) and then, when you reach the highest competitive arenas you get "tournament accounts" with everything unlocked that can only be used in tournaments.


I would argue the entire different direction. I hate F2P, because it tends to stand for
cheap, bad games with close to no longevity.

Rather would I pay 50 bucks up front to play HEX, a monthly subscription on top of that
and still have to pay for platinum and all the high end tournament staples....

Why? Because it would grant crypto a budget to expand the pve experience, stableize
and keep the quality of multiple high quality pvp-sets a year and further expand a great
and promising esport structure.

I agree.



No one in their right mind that wants Hex to succeed should propose a lower barier for entry.

Its simple, there should be 2 barriers... one to get to know the game and get hooked, its
as low as it can get, free, no money, easy tutorial, good advertisement... sweet.

The other is the professional TCG aspect of drafts, contructed play and tournaments.
I think that is a world to aspire to and be willing to either commit or live with the fact
that you are playing casually and not high profile.

I could not disagree with you more. The barrier of entry to professional gaming should not be based on material goods but the players ability to outplay his opponents. This seems to fit with the major E-Sports titles above with LoL being the exception.


Because you do have to realize: the only viable counterarguments would be either.
1.) you dont want big esports but more idiots to casually draft... well go to hell than =)
2.) you believe that the quantity of players playing with lower costs will turn this idea to actual profit.
This wont work because the TCG market isnt big enough, its not in its nature a casual friendly family game.

Neither is starcraft but that has bloomed as an E-Sport over the years, like it or not.



fack this idea that everything needs to be free, make beer free and sex free and education free....
Quality should have its price, otherwise everything falls apart.
Its shortsighted and superficial companies that started the F2P trend and it shouldnt be taken to far.
its advertisement ... a trap... because in the end nothing worth something will be free.
With the technological singularity approaching most things will be free, like it or not. You could not imagine 50 years from now that talking to your relatives across the globe would be essentially "free" through the internet.
Also, last time I checked sex is free.
Also, Quality does not have to have its own price for a healthy industry to sustain itself. If I make better products than you at the same price, more customers should flock to my product.
Lastly, if something has infinite demand and infinite supply, is it something worth nothing or the most valuable thing in existence? Something worth something can be free if the supply is infinite. I'm also curious as to what you constitute as "worth" as there are plenty of things essentially worth nothing that are sold for values not even close to free.

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 05:28 AM
Ideas like these are horrible. It removes the ENTIRE aspect of TCG. TCG is not ment to be an easily available all resources. That is one of the challenges around that genre of game.

The point of TCG business side is for people to BUY cards. Thus this idea breaks both molds that make a TCG, thus is a plain bad idea, and if they announced they would have something like this before people started backing, I can promise you the backer # would have plummeted.

Prodygi
06-25-2013, 05:32 AM
2 of the most important criteria needed for a game to excel in the e-sports scene are:

1) Product, meaning to say the game must be fun and/or competitive.
2) Community, meaning there must be (lots of) people playing it.

We are all here 2 months before the game even goes into alpha/beta. So lets assume HEX is a good product and just talk about point number 2. Community.

I disagree to those who said that HEX needs to be B2P and/or P2P.
It would mean that there will be less people playing the game and thats not healthy for the game itself. More so for HEX due to it being in such a niche market. (MMOTCG)
Many games die off due to a lack of player base. Have you played an MMO where everywhere is a ghost town? I have, and it's not fun.
If anything, P2P is not the way to go. Look at Rift, DC Universe, etc. On the other hand, look at LoL. It's free, one can have access to whatever a PROPLAYER is using without using any money, and look at where it (and riot) is on the E-sports scene.

CZ has mentioned a few times IIRC that they are focused on the community aspect of game. I think it is a right move. More players, be it casual or competitive means more revenue. If your product is good and there are (loads of) people playing it, you WILL make money.
Again, look at LoL. People spend money on SKINS. Does SKINS make your character better in any way? No. But because the product is good (fun, does not handicap a player / force the player to spend money to compete or be competent), the player base grew. From there, revenue grow as well.

HEX has set off on the right footing. It has generate massive interest from the community. But as with all TCG, there are mistakes it can make to lose the interest of the people that are so interested in it in the first place.

People will leave once they are FORCED to spend hundreds of dollars on cards to compete. (Uneven playing field, Pay-to-win stigma) Because then, it's not longer a battle of wits, strategy or tactics. It's a battle of spending power.
For those who says that spending money is the nature of TCG, I would argue that this is where CZ is trying to be different. If it wants to be a "traditional" tcg, why incorporate a F2P PVE aspect in it? Because they know if people enjoy your product, people will spend money on it. It has to be voluntarily.

One of the solution is for CZ to sell full sets of cards at an affordable price.
It will create revenue.
It will soft "limit" the maximum price a card can go on the auction house therefore not scaring players away.
It will help more players to be able to go competitive and continue making the game fun.

Might not be the best solution. Just throwing it in as well.

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 05:39 AM
2 of the most important criteria needed for a game to excel in the e-sports scene are:

1) Product, meaning to say the game must be fun and/or competitive.
2) Community, meaning there must be (lots of) people playing it.

We are all here 2 months before the game even goes into alpha/beta. So lets assume HEX is a good product and just talk about point number 2, community.

I disagree to those who said that HEX needs to be B2P and/or P2P.
It would mean that there will be less people playing the game and thats not healthy for the game itself. More so for HEX due to it being in such a niche market. (MMOTCG)
Many games die off due to a lack of player base. Have you played an MMO where everywhere is a ghost town? I have, and it's not fun.
If anything, P2P is not the way to go. Look at Rift, DC Universe, etc. On the other hand, look at LoL. It's free, one can have access to whatever a PROPLAYER is using without using any money, and look at where it (and riot) is on the E-sports scene.

CZ has mentioned a few times IIRC that they are focused on the community aspect of game. I think it is a right move. More players, be it casual or competitive means more revenue. If your product is good and there are (loads of) people playing it, you WILL make money.
Again, look at LoL. People spend money on SKINS. Does SKINS make your character better in any way? No. But because the product is good (fun, does not handicap a player / force the player to spend money to compete or be competent), the player base grew. From there, revenue grow as well.

HEX has set off on the right footing. It has generate massive interest from the community. But as with all TCG, there are mistakes it can make to lose the interest of the people that are so interested in it in the first place.

People will leave once they are FORCED to spend hundreds of dollars on cards to compete. (Uneven playing field, Pay-to-win stigma) Because then, it's not longer a battle of wits, strategy or tactics. It's a battle of spending power.

One of the solution is for CZ to sell full sets of cards at an affordable price.
It will create revenue.
It will limit the maximum price a card can go on the auction house.
It will help more players to be able to go competitive and generate player base.

Might not be the best solution. Just throwing it in as well.

Or not... the point of TCGs is to make the it some difficult to obtain the cards you want. That is a legitimate challenge in TCGs. Also booster packs become USELESS if one can just buy a whole set.

Also look at it from a business side. It makes 0 sense. And this IS NOT trying to be an E-sport. If it becomes big and does? great! However it is a MMO-TCG. This is trying to mimic a TCG. This is the whole reason a lot of people backed it.

The minute you start making it "cheap to compete" or "Selling full sets of cards for X price" or "Allowing everyone to play everything for no money" you break away from the primary aspect of TCG models. That sounds boring, stupid and again a horrible idea.

Look at the advantages Hex is already having over other TCGs.

1) Half price boosters
2) Chance at 'proccing' more boosters and cards through chests
3) PvE that can earn cards FOR FREE for pve
4) Raids, and equipment to make cards powerful and crazy combos
5) Digital, you are no longer restricted by card physics along with finding players to play is much easier if you live in a small area.

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 06:15 AM
Or not... the point of TCGs is to make the it some difficult to obtain the cards you want. That is a legitimate challenge in TCGs. Also booster packs become USELESS if one can just buy a whole set.

The idea that boosters become useless if you can buy a whole set is false. If we assume that the price for an entire set is 300$, not everyone is going to pay 300$ for the entire set.

Redbeastmage
06-25-2013, 06:27 AM
The idea of a TCG being pay to win is like saying Golf is pay to win. Whoever buys the most expensive clubs wins. Obviously this isn't the case, but you need clubs to play golf as much as you need cards to play a TCG. Will spending alot help? Sure, if you have the skill to use them.

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 06:32 AM
The idea of a TCG being pay to win is like saying Golf is pay to win. Whoever buys the most expensive clubs wins. Obviously this isn't the case, but you need clubs to play golf as much as you need cards to play a TCG. Will spending alot help? Sure, if you have the skill to use them.

Golf does have Pay 2 Win elements. It doesn't mean the person investing 100 trillion into super clubs will win, but it does mean that 2 people of equal skill will not tie if one person simply has better equipment than the other.

NaryaDL0re
06-25-2013, 07:00 AM
Actually this is perfectly feasible as many other games (and sports for that matter) kind of do it already since we are overlooking entry fees (because otherwise you wouldn't have said there wasn't any risk). Most mainstream sports let you bring your own gear (as long as you have indicators of what team you are playing for) with the difference being that gear is usually not integral to victory since the impact is minimal. Also, E-Sports that do this include
Starcraft 2
League of Legends
DOTA2 / DotA
Counter-Strike
With League of Legends being the closest fit to Hex as you have to buy heroes to compete at the first stage (in the ranked ladders) and then, when you reach the highest competitive arenas you get "tournament accounts" with everything unlocked that can only be used in tournaments.

The difference in those games is where the money comes from.
LoL is the only one where the producer of the game truly markets the esports budget.
And guess what, lol has a high income design build around P2P...
All the other games are build from a long history of community work, sponsors and very
small budget tournaments... yes now the companies like blizzard/valve etc involve themselves,
but only after the sucess and income of their games has spiraled out of control.
Also those companies have other revenues with INSANE income (world of warcraft etc),
so they have the means to use these "promotions" without relying on the income of the game.
(Starcraft 2 didnt make nearly enough money to justify the esport support it recieves from blizzard)



I could not disagree with you more. The barrier of entry to professional gaming should not be based on material goods but the players ability to outplay his opponents. This seems to fit with the major E-Sports titles above with LoL being the exception.

I m not sure if your try to argue on an economic basis, a personal preference or moral point of view...
Anyhow I already responded to your arguments concerning these other esports.
Lets be clear. In a world where cryptozoic has insane sponsors or infinite revenue from different sources,
I dont mind if the barrier to entry is lower. (actually I do, but for other reasons like the collecting aspect,
prestige, etc)
But as long as they need to create their own budget, I dont think its feasible to lower the barrier any more
than it already is. Because I m simply convinced that the amount of people you gain wont offset the money you lose.



Neither is starcraft but that has bloomed as an E-Sport over the years, like it or not.
Yap, its has bloomed, over more than a decade with an entire nation behind it, because
People were willing to invest huge amounts of money to support it in korea.
Again, if there is enough money, than its less hurtfull for the game if crypto just gives us all cards for free.
I d still argue that it destroys the entire TCG aspect of the game though.


With the technological singularity approaching most things will be free, like it or not. You could not imagine 50 years from now that talking to your relatives across the globe would be essentially "free" through the internet.

Its not free, its cheap. And it is so because of the nature of what is being sold.
TCGs revolve around collections, which need rarity and therefor value (in money).
Its not in our perception that talking to my relatives should be rare or valuable, because
its practical to be easy and accessible.

Try making Branded clothing "accessible"... why is more expansive than other shoes/shirts?
Not because its better quality usually. So why? Because the entire reason for its existence
is our craving for exclusiveness... thats why you can sell cars for millions of €/$...



Also, last time I checked sex is free.

Where and with whom? I fear it would be a long way of and not of great quality...
Remember, talking, love, presents, sympathy... all of these are "Prices" to pay.



Also, Quality does not have to have its own price for a healthy industry to sustain itself. If I make better products than you at the same price, more customers should flock to my product.

Your mixing moral,economic and social arguments all the time.
Economically speaking if you deliver the same quality as I do for a lower price
EVERYONE should buy from you, and no one from me, which would render the metaphor pointless.

The moment you DECIDE to ask for less money, YOU decide the value on the market, because you
have the highest quality. Which means to stay competetive I would need to lower my prices or
increase my quality.

Quality always has its price... it can be artificially high or low, depending on many circumstances.
But there is always a mathematically "correct" price for any product on any market.



Lastly, if something has infinite demand and infinite supply, is it something worth nothing or the most valuable thing in existence? Something worth something can be free if the supply is infinite. I'm also curious as to what you constitute as "worth" as there are plenty of things essentially worth nothing that are sold for values not even close to free.


Sweet questions. I value everything in life on its capability to increase personal happyness.
Many things like time, money, influence, talent, etc can be "converted" to happyness and
(usually depending on a lot of circumstances) therefore have an exchange rate =).
In a homogeneous system everything would be valued correctly and no choice would exist,
because everything has the same price/value relationship.
(there is no choice without reason to take one thing over another)
But given the flawed nature of humans and the nature of the world itself, things tend to be
relative to a buttload of things all the time, therefore making some choices better than others.

Prodygi
06-25-2013, 07:12 AM
Or not... the point of TCGs is to make the it some difficult to obtain the cards you want. That is a legitimate challenge in TCGs. Also booster packs become USELESS if one can just buy a whole set.

That is not true. What Unhurtable said was what i had in mind. There can also be 1 of every card or 4 of every card packages.
To add on, we will still need boosters for drafts. And i'm sure there will be people who would want to "try their luck" too.



Also look at it from a business side. It makes 0 sense. And this IS NOT trying to be an E-sport. If it becomes big and does? great! However it is a MMO-TCG. This is trying to mimic a TCG. This is the whole reason a lot of people backed it.

I believe Cory did mention in interviews that he wants HEX to move in the E-Sports direction. Why have a F2P PVE feature if all it wants is to mimic a TCG?



The minute you start making it "cheap to compete" or "Selling full sets of cards for X price" or "Allowing everyone to play everything for no money" you break away from the primary aspect of TCG models. That sounds boring, stupid and again a horrible idea.

Keeping the game out of reach(monetarily), scaring current players who's thinking of taking the game more seriously / to the next level, keeping new players away from even trying the game due to high cost to compete is a good idea? If so, breaking away from the TCG model might not be a bad thing.

newwen
06-25-2013, 07:16 AM
This is all meaningless theorycrafting. Until the meta is established there is no best deck. Since there is no best deck, there is no price on the best deck. Also, Crypto are magic players, and WoW card designers. This isn't a brand new genre, just a new maxxed out spin on an existing one. I trust that these guys know where they want to go. It migh take a couple of sets to fine tune it, but look for a game that has combo, control and agro as their rock, paper and scissors.

DjiN
06-25-2013, 07:26 AM
Magic had super cheap decks too that where competitive and even very strong from time to time. Also there was pauper, which was one of the most competitive formats and is on a low budget as well. If your smart you can get from one block format to the new one by just selling your old deck and not having to invest much in your new deck, if that is all you seek to do in this game.

Vomitlord
06-25-2013, 07:36 AM
I think this would be a bad idea. I'd guess most of the 18,000 backers of this game like the excitement (lets be honest, gamble) of opening boosters and the thrill of the chase.

I also dislike free to play, its insulting to my intelligence to suggest a company would produce a game out of the goodness of their hearts.

This games is very aggressively priced in the marketplace which should help matters.

The cards already spoiled suggest a decent spread power wise in across the colours. Also some of the uncommons are looking very playable to me.

Lets be honest most of the cards will be available for peanuts. Only a few legendarys/ rares per set will be chased after. If you are just making one deck you should only really need 1 or 2 playsets of these.

It's personal choice but with boosters for 1.5 likely on AH I would probably buy 30 boosters before I would ever pay $40/50 for a single card.

Rieper
06-25-2013, 07:43 AM
I believe Cory did mention in interviews that he wants HEX to move in the E-Sports direction. Why have a F2P PVE feature if all it wants is to mimic a TCG?


Lets just get this right. TCGs like magic and WoWTCG might not be electronic, but they are "esports". Hell because of different tournament types that PvP in TCGs uses, hex is more or less esport from beta start(don´t need to have the tournement broadcasted for being "sports tournament"). PvE is a added feature to try hook people into game and use money (Without money HEX will not last more then a year)

Also been said before. TCG is not a TCG when there is no value on cards and collecting is easy! Hell for now we don´t even know how much top decks will be in hex, but with boosters being 2$ direct from crypto, chances of decks being cheaper then decks in magic, is good. Limited players want value, because it funds they limited stuff, and they also help supply constructed. It is a nice cycle that keeps money incomming for crypto (I expect most drafters to sell only for platinum)

Also 2nd market is gonna be 100% player controlled, if i remeber they comments right. And these idea's are bad for secondary market. Being able to get anything 100%, means value gets a upper level that it can never get over.

(Defender of cards need a value only controlled by players demand and supply!)

Turtlewing
06-25-2013, 07:59 AM
Two points:

1) The problem you are trying to solve (the "pay to win" aspect of constructed play) is already solved by limited formats like sealed and draft (particularly draft).

2) With regards to being taken seriously as a "sport", the Magic: the Gathering pr tour was televised on ESPN years ago, I'd argue that indicates minimal resistance to the acceptance of TCGs as sports.

All things considered I think Hex would be better served by a "shadow draft" system where you can enter free drafts that grant no prizes and don't let you keep the cards drafted, as practice for 'real' drafts, than by the much more deviceiv system suggested here.

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 08:00 AM
I think this would be a bad idea. I'd guess most of the 18,000 backers of this game like the excitement (lets be honest, gamble) of opening boosters and the thrill of the chase.

I also dislike free to play, its insulting to my intelligence to suggest a company would produce a game out of the goodness of their hearts.

This games is very aggressively priced in the marketplace which should help matters.

The cards already spoiled suggest a decent spread power wise in across the colours. Also some of the uncommons are looking very playable to me.

Lets be honest most of the cards will be available for peanuts. Only a few legendarys/ rares per set will be chased after. If you are just making one deck you should only really need 1 or 2 playsets of these.

It's personal choice but with boosters for 1.5 likely on AH I would probably buy 30 boosters before I would ever pay $40/50 for a single card.

You are talking as if this would ruin the normal play experience of the game. This would be limited to (I think) high-end tournaments only.



I m not sure if your try to argue on an economic basis, a personal preference or moral point of view...
Anyhow I already responded to your arguments concerning these other esports.
Lets be clear. In a world where cryptozoic has insane sponsors or infinite revenue from different sources,
I dont mind if the barrier to entry is lower. (actually I do, but for other reasons like the collecting aspect,
prestige, etc)
But as long as they need to create their own budget, I dont think its feasible to lower the barrier any more
than it already is. Because I m simply convinced that the amount of people you gain wont offset the money you lose.

I'm trying to argue from a public view as in the biggest E-Sports at the moment are very inclusive when it comes to barrier of entry. I don't have any issues with the other points you are trying to make. After all, we do not have the tools to calculate what decision is economically better at the moment.

I can see now that my wording there was a bit flawed.



Yap, its has bloomed, over more than a decade with an entire nation behind it, because
People were willing to invest huge amounts of money to support it in korea.
Again, if there is enough money, than its less hurtfull for the game if crypto just gives us all cards for free.
I d still argue that it destroys the entire TCG aspect of the game though.

OPs idea does not cover the entire game. It only covers high-end tournaments. If it was applied to the entire game then I would agree that it would destroy the TCG aspect of it just as having modern guns would destroy the "medieval fighter" aspect of Chivalry.


Where and with whom? I fear it would be a long way of and not of great quality...
Remember, talking, love, presents, sympathy... all of these are "Prices" to pay.

And breathing air costs energy inside your brain. Just because courting is a way to achieve something doesn't mean that something has that price. Two consenting adults can do anything to eachother without paying anything. If you borrow something from me, did that cost you anything?


Your mixing moral,economic and social arguments all the time.
Economically speaking if you deliver the same quality as I do for a lower price
EVERYONE should buy from you, and no one from me, which would render the metaphor pointless.

No, you are assuming the consumers are participants in a full-information economy, which is realistically speaking impossible on a larger scale.


Sweet questions. I value everything in life on its capability to increase personal happyness.
Many things like time, money, influence, talent, etc can be "converted" to happyness and
(usually depending on a lot of circumstances) therefore have an exchange rate =).
In a homogeneous system everything would be valued correctly and no choice would exist,
because everything has the same price/value relationship.
(there is no choice without reason to take one thing over another)
But given the flawed nature of humans and the nature of the world itself, things tend to be
relative to a buttload of things all the time, therefore making some choices better than others.

This explains the "nothing worth something will be free" which I had trouble understanding. The only issue I have is that this means that two people that have two different "worths" of the same item can cause one person to acquire the item for free even though it has high value. If one person puts up Item A for giveaway, and another person values that item heavily then the item itself is in my view still free, but you would argue that the cost to travel to pick up the item is what qualifies as the cost of the item, but that depends entirely on the situation.

Hatts
06-25-2013, 08:07 AM
This is a bad idea, for many of the reasons already stated in this thread. It's the first step of removing the T from TCG, it threatens the overall market, reducing the number of boosters sold and the activity of the secondary market. It encourages Crypto to find other ways of monetizing their product (selling cosmetics) which shouldn't be their focus.

Rtsands45
06-25-2013, 08:27 AM
The idea that boosters become useless if you can buy a whole set is false. If we assume that the price for an entire set is 300$, not everyone is going to pay 300$ for the entire set.

They already said they would not be involved in the secondary market. If they reneg on there promise to the backers then CZE would lose a lot of credibility. That could hurt the whole CZE brand more in the long run.

Gwaer
06-25-2013, 08:33 AM
I assume he means $300 that you give to players on the AH and they give you the complete set. Not that you can buy the full set from cze for 300 bucks.

Malcolm
06-25-2013, 08:40 AM
Draft is e-sport Skill (and luck); Constru is pay-to-win, minor skill (and luck). Digital draft keeps it honest and fair. No need for OPs idea.

Facilier
06-25-2013, 08:50 AM
Draft is e-sport Skill (and luck); Constru is pay-to-win, minor skill (and luck). Digital draft keeps it honest and fair. No need for OPs idea.

Constructed is pay-to-participate, not pay-to-win. And there is plenty of examples of exceptionally skilled players who have won and/or placed highly repeatedly in constructed tournaments. If the skill element was minor, their ability to repeatedly register good result would be negligible.

Rieper
06-25-2013, 09:04 AM
Constru is pay-to-win, minor skill (and luck)

Lets get this right. Pay to win, means no matter how good, skilled or lucky the other player is he can NEVER beat the one that paid money. Facilier´s pay-to-participate is far more accurate. both mana flood and mana screwed gives cheaper deck a win chance, Luck gives cheaper deck a win chance and then we have cheap decks that just are good(cheap deck nobody expect or a deck that build around stopping meta deck, these can also be cheap at times and anti meta decks has high win chance vs some very high priced decks.).

Constructed is a expensive format no doubt, but it is more or less ONLY market that really gives card value. If you want cheaper tournaments with not worrying about getting cards there is limited.

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 09:18 AM
If any of the "pro-free cards" people want to explain something to me...

If "money" was a factor in how popular a TCG got in terms of competition, then how in the hell did Magic become top for so long and so popular with many tournaments around the country and even huge tournaments that get televised on small TV channels. How come some under $100 decks beat $300+ decks in tournaments (regularly) when played by the right people? How can you accept this, but Hex which is a TCG you cannot accept and is even cheaper, and has other avenues to get the cards in the game... (Plus being able to play over the internet means having a much easier time playing people, of if you want to relax a PvE you can play)

The way they have it established is fine, actually no. Its good. Your few opinions do not understand the reasons TCG's are fun, (having access to all the cards makes it boring for some players FYI) or the business side behind it.

TCG's are pay to compete, so they can have prizes. They can always hold free tournaments, but then there cannot be a prize... Since there is no funds to purchase said prize. Secondly, I know smart card players that don't spend much money at all on MtG. They trade and make deals to get the cards they want. So basically its the lazy mans request to not have to "obtain the cards" to use them.

Plus the drive to keep finding the 1 card you want or obtaining it, is a whole nother part many TCG players enjoy. The feeling of finally obtaining that 1-2 cards you were aiming for.

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 09:20 AM
They already said they would not be involved in the secondary market. If they reneg on there promise to the backers then CZE would lose a lot of credibility. That could hurt the whole CZE brand more in the long run.

How is selling the entire set becoming involved in the secondary market? What promise are we talking about?


I assume he means $300 that you give to players on the AH and they give you the complete set. Not that you can buy the full set from cze for 300 bucks.

Does it really matter?


Constructed is pay-to-participate, not pay-to-win. And there is plenty of examples of exceptionally skilled players who have won and/or placed highly repeatedly in constructed tournaments. If the skill element was minor, their ability to repeatedly register good result would be negligible.


Lets get this right. Pay to win, means no matter how good, skilled or lucky the other player is he can NEVER beat the one that paid money. Facilier´s pay-to-participate is far more accurate. both mana flood and mana screwed gives cheaper deck a win chance, Luck gives cheaper deck a win chance and then we have cheap decks that just are good(cheap deck nobody expect or a deck that build around stopping meta deck, these can also be cheap at times and anti meta decks has high win chance vs some very high priced decks.).

Constructed is a expensive format no doubt, but it is more or less ONLY market that really gives card value. If you want cheaper tournaments with not worrying about getting cards there is limited.

In this case then there is no game ever that was pay to win. In every single game ever, there has always been a chance for the person who hasn't paid anything to win over the person who has paid a lot.

The definition of pay 2 win that most people use (and is therefore the most accepted one) is a game with a built-in system for gaining power in the game through real-money transactions.

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 09:27 AM
In this case then there is no game ever that was pay to win. In every single game ever, there has always been a chance for the person who hasn't paid anything to win over the person who has paid a lot.

The definition of pay 2 win that most people use (and is therefore the most accepted one) is a game with a built-in system for gaining power in the game through real-money transactions.

If we use the assumption of your definition of pay to win. That means there is NO other way to obtain the stuff you pay for ANY other way except through paying money.

-Since you can play PvE for free.
-Earn gold in PvE, sell equipment for platinum/gold
-Purchase PvP cards in Gold or platinum you earned in selling things


Since there is a complete and total avenue to obtain cards that require no money (yes time and effort however, but still not money) then the definition Pay to win is incorrect. Plus even having the best cards, and most skilled players in magic normally only have a 67% win record (on average). This is because even the best decks and players have to rely on luck. ONCE luck enters the equation, pay to win is inconceivable to think, as there is plenty of chances/luck one can lose.

Gwaer
06-25-2013, 09:31 AM
... No matter how many fallacious arguments, and ignorant people espousing truth you knock down, 5 more rise to take their place.

*Edit, I found a new signature!

Rieper
06-25-2013, 09:50 AM
How is selling the entire set becoming involved in the secondary market? What promise are we talking about?

In this case then there is no game ever that was pay to win. In every single game ever, there has always been a chance for the person who hasn't paid anything to win over the person who has paid a lot.

The definition of pay 2 win that most people use (and is therefore the most accepted one) is a game with a built-in system for gaining power in the game through real-money transactions.


First, yes it matters. As soon you sell a full set, you give people a 100% chance to get something for money, That means you now or less set the top price of a card. In other words they just put a max price on a card that it will never go over, because buying a new full set will then be a better/cheaper option.
THIS IS VERY BAD when they said they want players to control secondary market. So yes it matters alot.

Secondly, pay-to-win is a person that paid would never be able to lose a person that playing for free. Yes this did happen alot when first microtransaction stuff hit mmos, and was the whole reason it ended up being a term we use about games. In otherwords they replaced Grind with paying money. If you could buy best pvp/pve set in vanilla WoW(and no way to grind for em), you where more or less impossible to kill by some that had lower stuff (ret paladin in QA40 was fun at times! :D)

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 10:03 AM
If any of the "pro-free cards" people want to explain something to me...

If "money" was a factor in how popular a TCG got in terms of competition, then how in the hell did Magic become top for so long and so popular with many tournaments around the country and even huge tournaments that get televised on small TV channels. How come some under $100 decks beat $300+ decks in tournaments (regularly) when played by the right people? How can you accept this, but Hex which is a TCG you cannot accept and is even cheaper, and has other avenues to get the cards in the game... (Plus being able to play over the internet means having a much easier time playing people, of if you want to relax a PvE you can play)

The way they have it established is fine, actually no. Its good. Your few opinions do not understand the reasons TCG's are fun, (having access to all the cards makes it boring for some players FYI) or the business side behind it.

TCG's are pay to compete, so they can have prizes. They can always hold free tournaments, but then there cannot be a prize... Since there is no funds to purchase said prize. Secondly, I know smart card players that don't spend much money at all on MtG. They trade and make deals to get the cards they want. So basically its the lazy mans request to not have to "obtain the cards" to use them.

Plus the drive to keep finding the 1 card you want or obtaining it, is a whole nother part many TCG players enjoy. The feeling of finally obtaining that 1-2 cards you were aiming for.

Yes, some 100$ decks can beat the 300$ decks. But can a 20$ deck beat a 100$ deck? what about a 10$ deck?
In other words, if the optimal amount to pay for a good chance of winning is 100$, then the game is pay to win as the minimal cost to play is lower than the cost to play at optimal efficiency. Compare MTG to a game like Warcraft 2. If you wanted to compete in Warcraft 2, everybody paid for the same thing. They could get a different price for Warcraft 2 at different places, but once you had the game you had the same opportunities as every other player. This does not apply to MTG as one player could pay 20$ for 50% efficiency and another person could pay 100$ for 100% efficiency within the game. In other words, they are not on the same part of the pay to play / pay to win spectrum.


If we use the assumption of your definition of pay to win. That means there is NO other way to obtain the stuff you pay for ANY other way except through paying money.

-Since you can play PvE for free.
-Earn gold in PvE, sell equipment for platinum/gold
-Purchase PvP cards in Gold or platinum you earned in selling things


Since there is a complete and total avenue to obtain cards that require no money (yes time and effort however, but still not money) then the definition Pay to win is incorrect. Plus even having the best cards, and most skilled players in magic normally only have a 67% win record (on average). This is because even the best decks and players have to rely on luck. ONCE luck enters the equation, pay to win is inconceivable to think, as there is plenty of chances/luck one can lose.

You seem to apply conditions to the definition I provided that are simply not necessary for the definition to hold true.
Lets say we have 3 games. Game A, B and C. All games are free to play. All items related to A, B and C are items that give power to the player.
A has items that can only be gained through paying with money. In other words, unless you are using a 3rd market, there is no way to get those items without paying the company money. I assume anyone reading this would qualify this game as a traditional Pay 2 Win title.
B has items that can be gained through playing the game but also by buying the same items from a store. In other words, you could spend X hours playing the game and in the end get the item you want, or you could spend Y money to get the item instantly. Is this a Pay 2 Win title or not? If it isn't, then most paywalls can't be associated with Pay 2 Win as its essentially "this will take much longer for you than for people who pay us money".
C has items that can only be gained through playing the game (unless you are using a 3rd party exchange without the permission of the developer) but boosts can be bought to decrease the time to get the item by a small or significant amount (but not entirely). In other words you could spend X hours playing the game and in the end get the item you want, or you could spend Y money to reduce that time to X/Z (where obviously Z is a number above 1). Is this a Pay 2 Win title or not? We can clearly state its less pay to win than A.

A and B fit into the definition I provided, with B not fitting your interpretation of my definition. C is the only game that arguably does not fit into the definition as you are not necessarily gaining power but reducing the amount of time you have to play in order to get it. The problem here is that we can assert that outright buying the item is reducing the amount of time you have to play in order to get said item by 100%. In other words we can give each game a "P2W factor" based on how much time you save by investing money into the game, with A having items that take Infinity time to obtain and transactions causing said time to be set to 0.

As B fits into my definition and C is alike B with the exception that money has less impact on the player. Investing money will have an effect on the player overtime as they play the game.

Hex currently resembles B, as you pointed out, which from a competitive perspective is better than A but worse than C (in general).

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 10:26 AM
Yes, some 100$ decks can beat the 300$ decks. But can a 20$ deck beat a 100$ deck? what about a 10$ deck?
In other words, if the optimal amount to pay for a good chance of winning is 100$, then the game is pay to win as the minimal cost to play is lower than the cost to play at optimal efficiency. Compare MTG to a game like Warcraft 2. If you wanted to compete in Warcraft 2, everybody paid for the same thing. They could get a different price for Warcraft 2 at different places, but once you had the game you had the same opportunities as every other player. This does not apply to MTG as one player could pay 20$ for 50% efficiency and another person could pay 100$ for 100% efficiency within the game. In other words, they are not on the same part of the pay to play / pay to win spectrum.



You seem to apply conditions to the definition I provided that are simply not necessary for the definition to hold true.
Lets say we have 3 games. Game A, B and C. All games are free to play. All items related to A, B and C are items that give power to the player.
A has items that can only be gained through paying with money. In other words, unless you are using a 3rd market, there is no way to get those items without paying the company money. I assume anyone reading this would qualify this game as a traditional Pay 2 Win title.
B has items that can be gained through playing the game but also by buying the same items from a store. In other words, you could spend X hours playing the game and in the end get the item you want, or you could spend Y money to get the item instantly. Is this a Pay 2 Win title or not? If it isn't, then most paywalls can't be associated with Pay 2 Win as its essentially "this will take much longer for you than for people who pay us money".
C has items that can only be gained through playing the game (unless you are using a 3rd party exchange without the permission of the developer) but boosts can be bought to decrease the time to get the item by a small or significant amount (but not entirely). In other words you could spend X hours playing the game and in the end get the item you want, or you could spend Y money to reduce that time to X/Z (where obviously Z is a number above 1). Is this a Pay 2 Win title or not? We can clearly state its less pay to win than A.

A and B fit into the definition I provided, with B not fitting your interpretation of my definition. C is the only game that arguably does not fit into the definition as you are not necessarily gaining power but reducing the amount of time you have to play in order to get it. The problem here is that we can assert that outright buying the item is reducing the amount of time you have to play in order to get said item by 100%. In other words we can give each game a "P2W factor" based on how much time you save by investing money into the game, with A having items that take Infinity time to obtain and transactions causing said time to be set to 0.

As B fits into my definition and C is alike B with the exception that money has less impact on the player. Investing money will have an effect on the player overtime as they play the game.

Hex currently resembles B, as you pointed out, which from a competitive perspective is better than A but worse than C (in general).

You are being foolish comparing Warcraft II to a TCG-MMO. This is a TCG. TCG. Say it with me TCG. This is nothing like Warcraft II.

Warcraft II, starcraft, are 2 COMPLETE different genre's of games compared to Hex. Get that through your head. TCG's do have a money basis, if you don't like it don't play that genre. Your un-intelligence is starting to really make you look foolish.

(Again say it with me "This is a TCG")

My conditions are the reason that definition exists. If the only way to obtain something is through real money. And that real money is a MASSIVE advantage, with a game with little luck involved then that is not a Pay to win.

Pay to win REQUIRES by definition

1. Said advantage obtained is HUGE (untrue in hex, sure there is an advantage, but there is plenty of easy and cheap card combos out there)
2. Said advantage can only be obtained via real money (untrue in hex, while the obtaining of the advantage may take a while and some skill at dealings in trades anything can be gotten using the PvE side of the game)
3. No luck can be involved. (Untrue in hex, if you get an advantage via money, and still lose because of luck. You didn't pay to win. You paid to have a better chance, but not to win. Because there is mana screw, mana flood, and luck of the draw getting the better cards in hand)

Whether you like these "definitions" or not is up to you. But it is the truth. Like it or not.

Again this is a TCG. TCG. TCG. This is not warcraft II, StarCraft II, DOTA, DOTA II, LoL, HoN, Warcraft Arenas (etc.)

A TCG genre is MUCH different then those. Also your "C" definition is the same thing I have been saying... you can earn anything in this game. It just takes time, effort, and trading. Anything earned in PvE can be used to trade/sell to obtain the PvP cards required. So really Hex is just like C, but you are choosing not to look at it that way. You are blinded by your inability to distinguish TCGs from the RTS games such as (Warcraft II, startcraft II, DOTA, DOTA II, LoL, HoN).


So again. Say it

"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"

hex_colin
06-25-2013, 10:27 AM
Definitely valid points. The population on HEX will definitely be much more able to create and consume content via Twitch/Youtube and other online mediums.

Fair enough. I hope to be up there analyzing and playing against the competitive metagame as well. :D

As do I! I'm sure our paths will cross. :)

hex_colin
06-25-2013, 10:31 AM
You are being foolish comparing Warcraft II to a TCG-MMO. This is a TCG. TCG. Say it with me TCG. This is nothing like Warcraft II.

Warcraft II, starcraft, are 2 COMPLETE different genre's of games compared to Hex. Get that through your head. TCG's do have a money basis, if you don't like it don't play that genre. Your un-intelligence is starting to really make you look foolish.

(Again say it with me "This is a TCG")



I'm all about having a good argument. I'll even take the less popular side just to get a conversation going (say, for example, the beginning of this thread...). ;) But... let's not resort to name-calling and belittling other posters... please?

Diesbudt - I know you're not the only one doing it, but it was easy to grab your post to quote since it's on the last page.

Thanks!

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 11:22 AM
I'm all about having a good argument. I'll even take the less popular side just to get a conversation going (say, for example, the beginning of this thread...). ;) But... let's not resort to name-calling and belittling other posters... please?

Diesbudt - I know you're not the only one doing it, but it was easy to grab your post to quote since it's on the last page.

Thanks!

I did no name calling. I made a direct statement. Yes you could call it belittling, however its intended effect was to help him wisen up and not compare 2 different Genre's of games, if this succeeds then it no longer belittles him but helps him. And people who cannot see logic when being presented to over and over, a little more of an oomph post helps grab their attention. Sometimes using the evil side of the "language" force is good to help steer people's mindsets into a direction that will help them more in the end.

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 11:53 AM
You are being foolish comparing Warcraft II to a TCG-MMO. This is a TCG. TCG. Say it with me TCG. This is nothing like Warcraft II.

Warcraft II, starcraft, are 2 COMPLETE different genre's of games compared to Hex. Get that through your head. TCG's do have a money basis, if you don't like it don't play that genre. Your un-intelligence is starting to really make you look foolish.

(Again say it with me "This is a TCG")

My conditions are the reason that definition exists. If the only way to obtain something is through real money. And that real money is a MASSIVE advantage, with a game with little luck involved then that is not a Pay to win.

Pay to win REQUIRES by definition

1. Said advantage obtained is HUGE (untrue in hex, sure there is an advantage, but there is plenty of easy and cheap card combos out there)
2. Said advantage can only be obtained via real money (untrue in hex, while the obtaining of the advantage may take a while and some skill at dealings in trades anything can be gotten using the PvE side of the game)
3. No luck can be involved. (Untrue in hex, if you get an advantage via money, and still lose because of luck. You didn't pay to win. You paid to have a better chance, but not to win. Because there is mana screw, mana flood, and luck of the draw getting the better cards in hand)

Whether you like these "definitions" or not is up to you. But it is the truth. Like it or not.

Again this is a TCG. TCG. TCG. This is not warcraft II, StarCraft II, DOTA, DOTA II, LoL, HoN, Warcraft Arenas (etc.)

A TCG genre is MUCH different then those. Also your "C" definition is the same thing I have been saying... you can earn anything in this game. It just takes time, effort, and trading. Anything earned in PvE can be used to trade/sell to obtain the PvP cards required. So really Hex is just like C, but you are choosing not to look at it that way. You are blinded by your inability to distinguish TCGs from the RTS games such as (Warcraft II, startcraft II, DOTA, DOTA II, LoL, HoN).


So again. Say it

"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"

They are both games. I'm not comparing cars to trees here. I'm comparing meatballs to hotdogs. Would you say meatballs are long? Most likely not. Would you say hotdogs are spherical? Most likely not. Whether or not Warcraft 2 (or any other game for that matter) is an RTS is not relevant. The discussion is whether or not something is Pay 2 Win, and in this case Warcraft 2 served as an example of a GAME-

(Again say it with me, a GAME)
(By the way, this does not help the validity of your argumentation, if anything, it makes you look like you are going towards a appeal to emotion argument)

that is not Pay 2 Win in the least as once you can play the game you are on an equal footing in terms of game mechanics compared to other players.

Firstly, what constitutes as a huge advantage?
Secondly, You seem to think that this is somehow black and white, that there is no grey zone between pay to play and pay to win.
C does not fit into hex because you can have all the powers without ever actually playing the game by investing money into it, with said powers not stemming from the base cost of the game. Whether this is done through the AH or a crazy amount of booster packs the highest efficiency deck can be achieved without playing the game. As this magical deck(s) can be gained through playing the game and trading, the game falls into B instead of A.

You somehow derive that I am inable to distinguish TCGs from RTSs which is just absurd. Let me ask you something.

Did I ever in the post you quoted mention how Warcraft 2 and MTG are played completely differently? Did I ever say the two games played exactly the same?

hacky
06-25-2013, 12:42 PM
the highest efficiency deck can be achieved without playing the game

This excerpt from your post shows why you are wrong. And it has nothing to do with any opinions about "pay to win".

This is a trading card game. There is absolutely no "highest efficiency deck". If you pick a deck and buy all the cards for it and play with it, two things will happen:
- You will lose games because you are unfamiliar with the deck. As you play with it more, you'll improve.
- You will lose games because you will face decks with a better matchup against your deck. No amount of additional cards can account for this weakness.

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 12:51 PM
They are both games. I'm not comparing cars to trees here. I'm comparing meatballs to hotdogs. Would you say meatballs are long? Most likely not. Would you say hotdogs are spherical? Most likely not. Whether or not Warcraft 2 (or any other game for that matter) is an RTS is not relevant. The discussion is whether or not something is Pay 2 Win, and in this case Warcraft 2 served as an example of a GAME-

(Again say it with me, a GAME)
(By the way, this does not help the validity of your argumentation, if anything, it makes you look like you are going towards a appeal to emotion argument)

that is not Pay 2 Win in the least as once you can play the game you are on an equal footing in terms of game mechanics compared to other players.

Firstly, what constitutes as a huge advantage?
Secondly, You seem to think that this is somehow black and white, that there is no grey zone between pay to play and pay to win.
C does not fit into hex because you can have all the powers without ever actually playing the game by investing money into it, with said powers not stemming from the base cost of the game. Whether this is done through the AH or a crazy amount of booster packs the highest efficiency deck can be achieved without playing the game. As this magical deck(s) can be gained through playing the game and trading, the game falls into B instead of A.

You somehow derive that I am inable to distinguish TCGs from RTSs which is just absurd. Let me ask you something.

Did I ever in the post you quoted mention how Warcraft 2 and MTG are played completely differently? Did I ever say the two games played exactly the same?

Warcraft II being an RTS is not relevant...? Really...? That is like saying Friday the 13th being a horror movie is irrelevant. It really isn't. Its genre defines the game/movie/whatever.

Again say it "THIS IS A TCG" Have you ever played a TCG? Ever? Because right now it looks like you have not.

This is not a computer game that is a tcg. This is a TCG that is on the computer. Comparing Warcraft II to Hex, is like comparing the movie Independence Day to Toy story. Sure they are both movies; but their plots, characters, even filmography are vastly different.

(Fyi there is so many different things between a hotdog and meatball that simile fails, the only thing common really is it is based off meat aka cooked and prepared muscles and fat of animals)

I have to appeal to the emotion. Your logic part of your brain isn't understanding. And calling them both games is like calling all mammals, a mammal. Hey look, that mammal is using a hunting mammal and riding a mammal to hunt mammals. This is why game is too generic and it MUST be defined by its genre. You are not willing to accept this argument, thus looking stupid.

(Fyi that sentence can be translated to "Hey look, that Human is using a hunting dog and riding a horse to hunt deer" See how much more it makes sense?)

Firstly a huge advantage is one in which it should have a higher than 75% win chance for those that do not have it. Guess what? Even the best magic players have only reached ~70% win records after playing for years. And since this is a TCG and like Magic, using that as a comparison is completely valid, unlike Warcraft II.

Secondly, There is no grey zone. If you pay to win, you automatically win if you pay more. If you pay to play, you have chances of winning that can increase or decrease depending on factors like luck, how much effort you put in outside of money, and yes money. Pay to win is just that. I pay more. I auto win. There were things like that years ago in MMOs. This is how this term got established. Now a days it is hard to find a pay to win model, because it failed hardcore. Also TCGs have a much stronger hold on money base than other games that have money involved. That is the point of repeating the phrase "this is a TCG".

If you were to allow people to use any card whenever You destroy the CCG/TCG genre. Why?

Trading/Collecting. That is a primary reason TCGs got popular. This is why the online TCGs that don't allow trading have had a hard time appealing to people. The ability to collect cards you don't have so you can use them and the ability to trade and move cards from one person to another is a major factor in TCG. Under your though you remove the T in TCG. Thus the genre is no longer defined as TCG. (And CZE did define it as a TCG-MMO)

No, but you tried comparing Warcraft II to hex, comparing them in ANY instance, requires them to be compared in every instance to make a point/counter point. Like comparing Apples to Bananas. Only similarity is They are both fruit. And they have many more differences than similarities. Thus pointed that out you obviously do not see a difference between genres. Especially when you come in here and spout off "Say it with me GAME" proving you are trying to generalize everything which is vastly incorrect and you have to break each game and describe them in their genre's.

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 12:53 PM
This excerpt from your post shows why you are wrong. And it has nothing to do with any opinions about "pay to win".

This is a trading card game. There is absolutely no "highest efficiency deck". If you pick a deck and buy all the cards for it and play with it, two things will happen:
- You will lose games because you are unfamiliar with the deck. As you play with it more, you'll improve.
- You will lose games because you will face decks with a better matchup against your deck. No amount of additional cards can account for this weakness.

Shhhh don't tell him about Rock paper scissors. He may try and argue that rock can never lose because it is "the best deck"

And then there is also strategy in "side-decking" and being able to adjust your deck in between games in a set to fix where your deck got beaten by a decks weakness.

Kilo24
06-25-2013, 01:04 PM
I did no name calling. I made a direct statement. Yes you could call it belittling, however its intended effect was to help him wisen up and not compare 2 different Genre's of games, if this succeeds then it no longer belittles him but helps him. And people who cannot see logic when being presented to over and over, a little more of an oomph post helps grab their attention. Sometimes using the evil side of the "language" force is good to help steer people's mindsets into a direction that will help them more in the end.
Insulting someone until they wisen up rarely works in real life. And it never does when you insult a random guy on the internet. It only invites him to respond in kind, and in doing so degenerates the discussion for everyone.

Please stop using terms like "un-intelligence", making statements like "Get that through your head.", and copy-pasting strawmen like "This is a TCG not a RTS". If somebody isn't persuaded by your argument, repeating it with emphasis is quite unlikely to change their mind.

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 01:06 PM
This excerpt from your post shows why you are wrong. And it has nothing to do with any opinions about "pay to win".

This is a trading card game. There is absolutely no "highest efficiency deck". If you pick a deck and buy all the cards for it and play with it, two things will happen:
- You will lose games because you are unfamiliar with the deck. As you play with it more, you'll improve.
- You will lose games because you will face decks with a better matchup against your deck. No amount of additional cards can account for this weakness.

1. There are decks that are better than other decks.
2. Not all decks are competitive.
3. Therefore, some decks will have a higher chance of being the winning deck of a tournament or competitive event.
We could argue that there will be a number of decks at the top (as in, there will be like 4 decks with equal chance of being "the deck that wins the tournament") but I already pointed towards that being a possibility in the post you quoted.

Regardless of the number of decks at the top, having such a deck gives an inherent advantage in general over people that have a deck not part of those decks, unless the starter decks are part of those "best decks" which is highly unlikely.

I'm going to guarantee you right now that you cannot win a tournament with any deck. At best, you are at a disadvantage playing a starter deck.

Diesbudt
06-25-2013, 01:08 PM
Insulting someone until they wisen up rarely works in real life. And it never does when you insult a random guy on the internet. It only invites him to respond in kind, and in doing so degenerates the discussion for everyone.

Please stop using terms like "un-intelligence", making statements like "Get that through your head.", and copy-pasting strawmen like "This is a TCG not a RTS". If somebody isn't persuaded by your argument, repeating it with emphasis is quite unlikely to change their mind.

Good thing this is not real life but the internet right??

Also the conversation never degraded. Because it was not as bad of a statement as most other people in here. And partially truthful.

Also in any good debate you do not try to convince the other person. Their mindset is too set in their own opinion (no matter how close or far from fact they may be), it is to convince the readers that have not "picked a side" in the debate.

Because I know he won't understand what I am saying. He is refusing to believe it. I could argue with him for months until Alpha and he wouldn't see what Many of us are saying. (One reason is because his mindset is under the entitlement that is believed someone deserves same rights to something as someone else no matter the situation.)

Sidenote - [A lot of people between ages 1-20ish, are becoming heavily entitled. Just look at our nation, and 90% all other online video games. It is all "MEMEMEME" and not "whats best for the overall situation" ]

4gn0st1x
06-25-2013, 01:37 PM
This is a TCG. You will have to collect the cards you wish to play with, either through buying them, winning them, or trading for them. Once you enter a game, you can have just as much of a chance to win as your opponent can. That boils down to your in game skill, luck, and your deck construction and preparation. If you want to consider a person's ability, or lack thereof, to obtain cards 'pay to win', then that's fine. However, don't think for a second that that aspect of the game will ever change. It won't. That is the essence of a TCG.

Kilo24
06-25-2013, 01:51 PM
Also the conversation never degraded. Because it was not as bad of a statement as most other people in here. And partially truthful.
You're right that the thread has not degraded yet. But throwing around insults is an excellent way of having that happen.

As for the rest of your claim, that doesn't matter one whit even if it's true. It's very possible to have a good debate while being on the wrong side, or be an asshole who actively dissuades people from his side who still yet is right. Debates are not about being right; they're about presenting the important facts and why those facts are important.


Also in any good debate you do not try to convince the other person. Their mindset is too set in their own opinion (no matter how close or far from fact they may be), it is to convince the readers that have not "picked a side" in the debate.
I'd disagree. Since there's no universal authority on what determines a good debate, let me elaborate on my own opinion:

-A bad debate is when you have both sides insulting each-other repeatedly and not actually discussing the facts. They both are so certain that they're right that there is no content. People who already support one side come away more certain of their own position, and those who are undecided might pick up an opinion or simply leave in disgust.

-An okay debate is one that can reliably persuade the uncommitted to pick up an opinion on either side.

-A good debate can persuade someone who already picked the opposing side.

-The best debates are conducted by people who are committed to presenting the facts, not in getting people to join their side.


Because I know he won't understand what I am saying. He is refusing to believe it. I could argue with him for months until Alpha and he wouldn't see what Many of us are saying. (One reason is because his mindset is under the entitlement that is believed someone deserves same rights to something as someone else no matter the situation.)
Your mindset - and your behavior as a result of said mindset - is precisely why you'll never change his mind.


Sidenote - [A lot of people between ages 1-20ish, are becoming heavily entitled. Just look at our nation, and 90% all other online video games. It is all "MEMEMEME" and not "whats best for the overall situation" ]
People feel heavily entitled from birth and always have. A very large part of becoming mature is losing that trait.

Incidentally, another large part of becoming mature is in looking back at the today's youth and feeling disgusted by them (regardless of the reasons for the disgust). Whether or not that's actually a good thing is open for debate.

Rieper
06-25-2013, 01:51 PM
Regardless of the number of decks at the top, having such a deck gives an inherent advantage in general over people that have a deck not part of those decks, unless the starter decks are part of those "best decks" which is highly unlikely.

I'm going to guarantee you right now that you cannot win a tournament with any deck. At best, you are at a disadvantage playing a starter deck.

Sorry what..... Ofc not all decks will work. Just like a STR class in a mmo using only INT gear won´t work.
It really sounds like you want a CCG or LCG, instead of a TCG.

All esports that has stuff which changes, will have a set meta, that only changes with nerfs/buffs and new gear(Cards in hex). But there often comes a breakout build/deck that changes meta completly and these decks often can start of very cheap, because they using card nobody valued much before.

So yes there are decks that a better then other(Making a anti artifact deck, when most played deck is artifacts heavy) and not all decks will not be competitive. But it is the same damn way for every game out there. Top tournements players are good players, good deck builders and very lucky people. Good players often uses others decks and their "combat" skill to win. Good deck builders are ones that shapes the meta with new decks, and last group are just lucky bastards.
So just like with real sports, we talking something like 10% that has high enough winning % to really care about winning tournements. But in sport having right equiptment to actually play at best also cost money(sometimes alot!), even for normal person. Take badminton, the guy thats used to feather shuttlecocks and a using a racket with right string for they playstyle, will have a good advantage in tournaments, compared to someone with a cheap racket with too soft or too tight strings that used to plastic shuttlecocks. And this even if that both are at same skill.

So yes people pay to have stuff being perfect for them even in normal sports. Yet having that stuff doesn´t mean they will win. (Sorry for using badminton, but i am danish and use to play it alot as kid :P). Same can be said about hex, Giving a blue control player that use only those decks a 500$ red burn deck, will most likely mean he could lose to a cheap deck, simpelly because he doesn´t know best use off the burn spells.(Talking about myself, if i bought a red burn deck or black control, i would lose to most people if we have same luck and skill. Doesn´t matter if that red burn was 1000$)

Also you can pay for advantage in any game that doesn´t use a standard PC setup. Yes good mouse, keyboard, sound. screen, PC in general and hell even good internet do give advantages.

Also with new set every 4 month, that means hex has huge amount of meta changes overall compared to other esports, that often caught in same meta for very long time.

EDIT: ALot of edits to make it more readable
Also. But that logic from before that guy that played 1000 draft has paid to win, since his change to beat a new guy in draft. Hey draft cost money and you can only get needed exprience for now by actually pay for tournements.
(Yes this comment is kinda bad, but couldn´t keep it in :P)

funktion
06-25-2013, 02:09 PM
How is this thread even still alive? It's just going in circles with people saying the exact same statements they posted 4 pages ago... This thread makes my head hurt.

Gwaer's signature trumps all I guess.

NaryaDL0re
06-25-2013, 02:22 PM
@unhurtable

Its quite rare for someone that I temporarily (though I still disagree with some assessments
but I strongly assume that we would come to a conclusion given time to delude our missunderstandings).
have been in conflict with has so much sympathy from me later on.

Again, the overall benefit of a lower barrier of entry is something I still doubt,
but your struggle to reach any reasonable ground here is saddening.
You might be unhurtable but maybe you should stop before you go insane.

Also the reason I dont argue our points further is an injury that makes
writing not only painful but damaging to my arms ;/... I just could no
longer watch.

Unhurtable
06-25-2013, 02:22 PM
Warcraft II being an RTS is not relevant...? Really...? That is like saying Friday the 13th being a horror movie is irrelevant. It really isn't. Its genre defines the game/movie/whatever.

Is Friday the 13th being a horror movie relevant to this discussion? Is it relevant to whether or not Hex contains P2W elements?


Again say it "THIS IS A TCG" Have you ever played a TCG? Ever? Because right now it looks like you have not.

I played magic a while ago, but havent in ages. Kind of why I backed Hex tbh since I want to play TCGs again.


This is not a computer game that is a tcg. This is a TCG that is on the computer. Comparing Warcraft II to Hex, is like comparing the movie Independence Day to Toy story. Sure they are both movies; but their plots, characters, even filmography are vastly different.

How is this not a computer game? Can you play it without a computer?
Yes, EXACTLY, comparing Warcraft 2 to Hex is like comparing Independence Day to Toy Story. The problem is we are not comparing the content of the movies. We are comparing how we access the content and how we can use the content.


(Fyi there is so many different things between a hotdog and meatball that simile fails, the only thing common really is it is based off meat aka cooked and prepared muscles and fat of animals)

Yes, just like there are so many different things between Hex and Warcraft 2.


I have to appeal to the emotion. Your logic part of your brain isn't understanding. And calling them both games is like calling all mammals, a mammal. Hey look, that mammal is using a hunting mammal and riding a mammal to hunt mammals. This is why game is too generic and it MUST be defined by its genre. You are not willing to accept this argument, thus looking stupid.

(Fyi that sentence can be translated to "Hey look, that Human is using a hunting dog and riding a horse to hunt deer" See how much more it makes sense?)

I never said you appealed to emotion.
How is calling them both games like calling all mammals, a mammal? I'm putting them both under the same category called "games", not refusing to differentiate between a man and a dog. You seem to be arguing that we should not be calling humans and dogs mammals since they are different.
Lastly, that sentence makes perfect sense. Replacing mammal with a specific mammal instead just adds specificity to the sentence. Its like the difference between "you know that person Lucy is going out with?" and "you know that guy Lucy is going out with?". We specify that its a man instead of opening up the possibility that its woman that Lucy is dating.


Firstly a huge advantage is one in which it should have a higher than 75% win chance for those that do not have it. Guess what? Even the best magic players have only reached ~70% win records after playing for years. And since this is a TCG and like Magic, using that as a comparison is completely valid, unlike Warcraft II.

Where did this 75% number come from? Could it not be 60%? or 55%? How did you come up with this number?


Secondly, There is no grey zone. If you pay to win, you automatically win if you pay more. If you pay to play, you have chances of winning that can increase or decrease depending on factors like luck, how much effort you put in outside of money, and yes money. Pay to win is just that. I pay more. I auto win. There were things like that years ago in MMOs. This is how this term got established. Now a days it is hard to find a pay to win model, because it failed hardcore. Also TCGs have a much stronger hold on money base than other games that have money involved. That is the point of repeating the phrase "this is a TCG".

Just as there is nothing in between communism and capitalism. There are only those two options and none in between.
Again, point me toward a game where a person can automatically win (not just have a very high chance of winning) by investing an incredible amount of money. This also seems to contradict what you stated earlier as that only required the game to give you a 75% chance to win to be considered Pay 2 Win.



If you were to allow people to use any card whenever You destroy the CCG/TCG genre. Why?

Trading/Collecting. That is a primary reason TCGs got popular. This is why the online TCGs that don't allow trading have had a hard time appealing to people. The ability to collect cards you don't have so you can use them and the ability to trade and move cards from one person to another is a major factor in TCG. Under your though you remove the T in TCG. Thus the genre is no longer defined as TCG. (And CZE did define it as a TCG-MMO)

The argument is not whether or not people should be allowed to use all cards whenever. The argument is whether there should be a tournament structure that allows people to select any cards they want for their deck.


No, but you tried comparing Warcraft II to hex, comparing them in ANY instance, requires them to be compared in every instance to make a point/counter point. Like comparing Apples to Bananas. Only similarity is They are both fruit. And they have many more differences than similarities. Thus pointed that out you obviously do not see a difference between genres. Especially when you come in here and spout off "Say it with me GAME" proving you are trying to generalize everything which is vastly incorrect and you have to break each game and describe them in their genre's.
They must be compared in every instance to make a point?
Which is most green, a pear or a green apple?
"You can't argue about that without comparing the taste between them and their applications to modern economics".
Lastly, Trading Card Game. I'm not making the generalization. The genre is literally called Trading Card Game (or Collectible Card Game).

Tinuvas
06-25-2013, 03:43 PM
As for the rest of your claim, that doesn't matter one whit even if it's true. It's very possible to have a good debate while being on the wrong side, or be an asshole who actively dissuades people from his side who still yet is right. Debates are not about being right; they're about presenting the important facts and why those facts are important.

Ummm, yeah, this. I don't consider Hex P2W (And besides the negative cultural connotations is the question itself even relevant?), and I disagree with unhurtable on a number of key points, but I am going to actively distance myself from the counterpoint as argued by Diesbudt based on tone and attitude alone. Too bad really. There are a number of points I would have liked to have seen discussed reasonably.

Prodygi
06-25-2013, 07:42 PM
Unhurtable's arguements made more sense to me.

I stopped replying due to the attitude of some posters as well.

They look self centric in a "I'm right, you're wrong. U disagree? Well you're stupid." kinda way.

Open-mindedness is important in a dicussion and it seems lacking in them.

TheHangedMan
06-25-2013, 08:02 PM
I consider Hex (and most TCGs) to be more pay to be competitive than pay to win. You need to pony up the cash to build an effective deck, but beyond that threshold it comes down to skill and luck. A subtle difference perhaps, but once you have bought cards you need you can't spend more money to get an extra advantage over your opponent.

Auriok
06-25-2013, 08:09 PM
High end Tournaments should be sealed/ draft anyway.

CoS
06-26-2013, 09:08 PM
Most tournaments are both constructed and sealed/draft formats in all top end CCG play. There is no reason to believe that the makers of Hex (former top table players in numerous other card games) would create a competitive scene that deviates in some large degree from this established standard.

lamaros
06-26-2013, 11:43 PM
The original suggestion is wrong for a number of reasons:

1. This is a TCG/CCG. If you take the trading and collecting out of the game you are left without two of the main elements in the game.

2. The game is required to make money in order to be a success. In order to do this it need to charge people to play. It does this by making them pay for the materials they use to play the game, along with small entry fees.

3. Even if you did this it still wouldn't work, as players need to test decks and mess around with them a fair while before achieving a top level quality with it. If you don't allow this then those who "play to win" will win anyway. If you try to work around this by letting players get access to all the cards for a longer period then you're pretty much making the game free to play for most of the time, which is fundamentally changing it.

4. It sounds like you want to play another game, not a TCG. Hex is a TCG and paying for cards is the BASE of the game, not an add-on.

tyra
06-26-2013, 11:48 PM
two things to consider:

1) You forgot that to succeed at SC2 or LoL, you need to have a good gaming rig and a very good internet connection. I doubt it is that necessary for Hex to be successful, as ping/fps are not important.

2) If Hex is successful, it will have a valid and living economy. If the prices do not fluctuate too much, it is very possible to buy a deck before the tournament/testing period and sell it afterwards without much/any loss (or sometimes even gain, if the deck was successful). Thus you don't lose money, you just need a certain threshold of capital.

While I would love tournament accounts, I don't see them to be viable. Also you need to test your deck before the tournament (A LOT) and thus it won't help that much, as testing will be online and with your own account.

Also, "big" wallets and innovative deck building are not exclusive. You will need the best cards and the best brain to win. Also luck

Unhurtable
06-27-2013, 12:27 AM
The original suggestion is wrong for a number of reasons:

1. This is a TCG/CCG. If you take the trading and collecting out of the game you are left without two of the main elements in the game.

2. The game is required to make money in order to be a success. In order to do this it need to charge people to play. It does this by making them pay for the materials they use to play the game, along with small entry fees.

3. Even if you did this it still wouldn't work, as players need to test decks and mess around with them a fair while before achieving a top level quality with it. If you don't allow this then those who "play to win" will win anyway. If you try to work around this by letting players get access to all the cards for a longer period then you're pretty much making the game free to play for most of the time, which is fundamentally changing it.

4. It sounds like you want to play another game, not a TCG. Hex is a TCG and paying for cards is the BASE of the game, not an add-on.

1. This would only apply to tournaments.
2. This would only apply to tournaments.
3. A fair point, although some would still be able to make slight differences in their decks in case there are cards that are very alike (like changing out your Burns for Ragefires, they work pretty much the same).
4. This would still only apply to tournaments, so OP would still have to buy cards and boosters before he becomes a pro / in between tournaments. This suggestion only levels the playingfield in case the playingfield isn't leveled in terms of the mechanics of the game.


two things to consider:

1) You forgot that to succeed at SC2 or LoL, you need to have a good gaming rig and a very good internet connection. I doubt it is that necessary for Hex to be successful, as ping/fps are not important.

2) If Hex is successful, it will have a valid and living economy. If the prices do not fluctuate too much, it is very possible to buy a deck before the tournament/testing period and sell it afterwards without much/any loss (or sometimes even gain, if the deck was successful). Thus you don't lose money, you just need a certain threshold of capital.

While I would love tournament accounts, I don't see them to be viable. Also you need to test your deck before the tournament (A LOT) and thus it won't help that much, as testing will be online and with your own account.

Also, "big" wallets and innovative deck building are not exclusive. You will need the best cards and the best brain to win. Also luck

1. You do not need a great gaming rig to succeed at LoL or SC2. Any computer from now to about 7 years ago will do for LoL and any comptuer from now to about 5 years ago will do for SC2. In case a person did not have a computer and could choose between buying a tablet for hex or a gaming rig for LoL / SC2, both options would be equally cheap, with LoL / SC2 you having the option of increasing the quality of the gaming rig. Good internet connection? That depends on what you determine as good, but your point still stands on this issue as Hex will require very little actual messaging between the client and the server compared to real-time games.
2. This is actually a good point, since the selling/buying of the deck will contribute to the economy of the game.

The thing is you can test cards before a tournament without actually having them. The guild system will allow you to test out cards and even decks that other players put into the "guild share". Also, as I mentioned above, some exchanges might not need that much testing (like going from Burn to Ragefire) compared to others (like going from Burn to Extinction).

keldrin
06-27-2013, 05:06 AM
Not defending the idea, and I'm not a huge fan of it, but...

They could easily have a mode in the game where you have access to any cards you wanted to play against your friends. That would provide a training ground for the type of tournament the OP suggests.

Could be something in the VIP membership for that. Or even a add on to the VIP membership for that kind of access.
The guild bank though, is kinda that way. the idea of having cards to "borrow" to test deck ideas.
Of course, being in top tier guild would be really important for that to work out for you.
Anyways, even if said tournament mode doesn't exist. Having a way to test deck concepts, before committing yourself to trading or buying expensive hard to get cards would be nice.
Some ideas, don't work like you think they will.

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 05:31 AM
Ummm, yeah, this. I don't consider Hex P2W (And besides the negative cultural connotations is the question itself even relevant?), and I disagree with unhurtable on a number of key points, but I am going to actively distance myself from the counterpoint as argued by Diesbudt based on tone and attitude alone. Too bad really. There are a number of points I would have liked to have seen discussed reasonably.

Just want to point 1 thing out. You cannot tell ones attitude or tone over text. You can infer, assume and even guess. But you do not know. Nothing I said was said in a negative attitude and outside 1 simple comment that wasn't that bad, nothing was an attack on him or anything of the nature. Anything else was a description of something or a thought. No one personal. Just because it looks like I typed with an attitude does not mean I did, as everything said was said with the logic involved to say that. But believe what you want.

And no I am not going to debate unhurtable anymore. This debate is just going to spin in circles at this point, and has become pointless. So there is no reason to keep going into it. I can prove (if one really wishes to read a 500pg book I pick out for them) that it is a fact on some of the reasons I said this would be a bad idea and make the game less popular in the long run. And it all has to do with psycology and the brain center and how we interpret rewards. (and why gambling can be very addictive as well).

hex_colin
06-27-2013, 07:44 AM
I can prove (if one really wishes to read a 500pg book I pick out for them) that it is a fact on some of the reasons I said this would be a bad idea and make the game less popular in the long run. And it all has to do with psycology and the brain center and how we interpret rewards. (and why gambling can be very addictive as well).

I actually want to read this book (seriously). Amazon link?

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 07:46 AM
I actually want to read this book (seriously). Amazon link?

I will message you with a few different options if you are interested in this topic. I know I was. Ill even provide some amazon links to you.

(there is a smaller cheaper version that is more lightweight that actually deals with just games and video games and why people play them. How failing is a primary reason people keep playing. And how losing can be more fun then winning. Etc. Etc.)

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 07:57 AM
And for those interested (without links) here is a book that not only delves into why games are addicting, but how it can change how the world is run. (It also uses evidence to show the harder a simple game is, the more "fun" people have and the more rewarding we feel when we beat it. It all has to do with how our minds endorphins work when we succeed at something. This includes beating someone in cards with a weaker deck, or finally collecting X card so you can use it. (And the gambling of opening booster packs))

--> Reality is Broken: Why Games make us Better and how they can change the world.

Tinuvas
06-27-2013, 09:33 AM
Just a quick trip down memory lane...


Your few opinions do not understand...You are being foolish...Get that through your head...Your un-intelligence...Whether you like these "definitions" or not is up to you. But it is the truth. Like it or not...You are blinded by your inability...


Just want to point 1 thing out. You cannot tell ones attitude or tone over text. You can infer, assume and even guess. But you do not know. Nothing I said was said in a negative attitude and outside 1 simple comment that wasn't that bad, nothing was an attack on him or anything of the nature. Anything else was a description of something or a thought. No one personal. Just because it looks like I typed with an attitude does not mean I did, as everything said was said with the logic involved to say that. But believe what you want.


I REALLY probably shouldn't do this. I prefer to not be an instigator, but I am somewhat amused by this line of reasoning you have established and I want to see how you will reply to it, purely as an experiment. As noted above, there were a number of comments made by you that you would have a tough time defending in a court of law as NOT being personal attacks or negative, which kind of makes the bolded comment above a bit silly sounding if made in seriousness. And a couple of other points:

1. Language, whether written or spoken, has tone and emotion to it. Whether it is intentional or not, the words we use and the order in which they are used convey thoughts, which automatically include emotions, attitude, etc. Whether or not you intended it, your posts conveyed strong negative emotion to me, and based on the comments I have seen, at least a few others. If it wasn't your intention to do so, perhaps a look at your previous posts with an eye towards finding such items might reveal something that would help avoid such emotional conveyance in the future. Unless of course the tone was intentional.

2. I agree with your platform far more than your opponents. That is the one frustrating thing for me. I know the value of failure and difficulty in creating satisfaction. I agree that removing the challenge in a game removes the game itself. I have researched such things in the past and use them in my life every day to make my life more enjoyable. So that is why I am perplexed as to why you, with what I consider a superior logical position, resorted to personal, negative attacks to get your point across. Your explanation for that behavior wasn't satisfactory for me, which resulted in my original comment. Your latest comments begin to show the value of your position, in your earlier sparring I give the points to your opponent.

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 10:02 AM
Just a quick trip down memory lane...





I REALLY probably shouldn't do this. I prefer to not be an instigator, but I am somewhat amused by this line of reasoning you have established and I want to see how you will reply to it, purely as an experiment. As noted above, there were a number of comments made by you that you would have a tough time defending in a court of law as NOT being personal attacks or negative, which kind of makes the bolded comment above a bit silly sounding if made in seriousness. And a couple of other points:

1. Language, whether written or spoken, has tone and emotion to it. Whether it is intentional or not, the words we use and the order in which they are used convey thoughts, which automatically include emotions, attitude, etc. Whether or not you intended it, your posts conveyed strong negative emotion to me, and based on the comments I have seen, at least a few others. If it wasn't your intention to do so, perhaps a look at your previous posts with an eye towards finding such items might reveal something that would help avoid such emotional conveyance in the future. Unless of course the tone was intentional.

2. I agree with your platform far more than your opponents. That is the one frustrating thing for me. I know the value of failure and difficulty in creating satisfaction. I agree that removing the challenge in a game removes the game itself. I have researched such things in the past and use them in my life every day to make my life more enjoyable. So that is why I am perplexed as to why you, with what I consider a superior logical position, resorted to personal, negative attacks to get your point across. Your explanation for that behavior wasn't satisfactory for me, which resulted in my original comment. Your latest comments begin to show the value of your position, in your earlier sparring I give the points to your opponent.

No its cool dude point it out.

1. First as correct you are when it comes to everything written does have a tone, and attitude. However it is only known by the writer. You have to guess, and assume and believe what tone you think you hear. If I was a professional writer, you would be right. I gave off a bad tone. They are trained to write and have you understand their tone. However English was my worst subject, both in HS and college. So the tone I typed with and the tone you read were probably 2 very different, without you knowing who I am and know me what I do.

"You are being foolish" Is in no way a degrading term. It is defining a way someone is currently acting. If I said "you are a fool" well now I just called him a name, and have entered the degrading area. Instead "You are being foolish" is stating the way one is going about whatever was being talked about is not the intelligent way to go about it. No attack on character, just the very moment and thought process.

"Un-intelligence", while sounds like a degrading term, Ill admit rereading this I can see it as negative now. However in the terms it is ment in is not "stupid, idiot, etc." Un-intelligence is the information one doesn't know. Not information one cannot learn (thus being stupid) and I didn't even name him un-intelligent. I just said the part of his information/intelligence that is not grasping the logic is what I am appealing to.

"blinded by inability" is the same thing as ^, just in nicer terms.

Ill admit it sounds worse when I re-read it. But when I typed it there was no "negative emotions" behind it.

2. Don't know what else to say... Again I have no problem people calling me out for things I said. So you don't have to feel bad being an instigator. And my earlier "sparring" wasn't me trying to do much until I realized he was not understanding the value behind what I was trying to say. Then I decided to try and get the information across. (to no effect)

nearlysober
06-27-2013, 10:11 AM
Getting back to the original topic....

It's a well intentioned idea, but it wouldn't work well and shouldn't be done. CZE should not tamper with, interfere or create bypasses of the collectors market. They've stated this themselves multiple times. And part of the reason people collect is to have powerful card combos in tournaments.

Additionally... players at an in person "major" tournament aren't going to be trying deck builds that they've never done before, or only read about online. They're going to play a deck they've tested and played many times over. Also, if they're flying themselves to a major tournament and staying in a hotel... they can afford a couple hard to find cards.

stiii
06-27-2013, 10:17 AM
Just want to point 1 thing out. You cannot tell ones attitude or tone over text. You can infer, assume and even guess. But you do not know. Nothing I said was said in a negative attitude and outside 1 simple comment that wasn't that bad, nothing was an attack on him or anything of the nature. Anything else was a description of something or a thought. No one personal. Just because it looks like I typed with an attitude does not mean I did, as everything said was said with the logic involved to say that. But believe what you want.

And no I am not going to debate unhurtable anymore. This debate is just going to spin in circles at this point, and has become pointless. So there is no reason to keep going into it. I can prove (if one really wishes to read a 500pg book I pick out for them) that it is a fact on some of the reasons I said this would be a bad idea and make the game less popular in the long run. And it all has to do with psycology and the brain center and how we interpret rewards. (and why gambling can be very addictive as well).

Pretty sure you can read tone in text. You insulted people, that is all it takes to read some amount of tone. You can claim your posts wasn't insulting all you like, it doesn't make it true.

You're an idiot. Which apparently isn't an insult according to you.


Your posts all start from the position that you are obviously right so anyone who disagrees is clearly being foolish. If someone's argument is wrong explain how they are wrong. If you do this well enough it will be obvious that they are being foolish. Just stating it outright is just insulting because it assumes oyu must be correct and you are just educating the peons.

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 10:47 AM
Pretty sure you can read tone in text. You insulted people, that is all it takes to read some amount of tone. You can claim your posts wasn't insulting all you like, it doesn't make it true.

You're an idiot. Which apparently isn't an insult according to you.


Your posts all start from the position that you are obviously right so anyone who disagrees is clearly being foolish. If someone's argument is wrong explain how they are wrong. If you do this well enough it will be obvious that they are being foolish. Just stating it outright is just insulting because it assumes oyu must be correct and you are just educating the peons.

Incorrect. 1 statement as I said was degrading. Also you cannot tell my tone in text correctly. You can try. And you can believe whatever tone you hear. But that doesn't mean it is correct.

Example: Look, you have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

First looks if you were not the one to type that reads that as a little on-coming strong, with the word absolutely used. However in reality the tone I literally typed it with was an "a-matter of fact" tone.

Second "You're an idiot" is an insult. You name called. You didn't say "an action of mine was idiotic" which is not an insult but a statement to try and show how one is acting is of the idiot status. You straight up called me an idiot. Those are 2 very different ways of bringing something across. Whether you agree or not, does not matter to me. It is how the weird English language works.

Also "all my posts start on positions that I am absolutely right" - FYI, if you go into a debate thinking your not right, you won't have the zealotry behind your posts to get the point across like you should. Secondly, I offered books that show psychologically how humans and the reward system in the brain works which is direct evidence that what I was saying is right vs opinions of others. And if you look at his first post or so, it came out as a person under the idea of entitlement and how earning the cards shouldn't matter (which is a massive draw for TCGs)

So maybe I came on a little strong because of his post like that. I won't deny that. However you are wrong thinking you can accurately read my tone without knowing me.

Edit: (And FYI the tone I am typing now is the same as yesterday. And rereading this I see a vast difference in how I brought my information across. So can you see the similarity of the tone or are you reading it as 2 separate tones?)

Rtsands45
06-27-2013, 10:53 AM
What a bunch of thin skinned morons. Suck it up. Less crying.

stiii
06-27-2013, 11:04 AM
Second "You're an idiot" is an insult. You name called. You didn't say "an action of mine was idiotic" which is not an insult but a statement to try and show how one is acting is of the idiot status. You straight up called me an idiot. Those are 2 very different ways of bringing something across. Whether you agree or not, does not matter to me. It is how the weird English language works.


Nope

This is not how the English language work. You are being idiotic is an insult. It is not a statement of fact because you can't back it up. You might not have meant your posts to be insulting but they were. Your claiming they weren't doesn't make it true.

stiii
06-27-2013, 11:09 AM
Also "all my posts start on positions that I am absolutely right" - FYI, if you go into a debate thinking your not right, you won't have the zealotry behind your posts to get the point across like you should. Secondly, I offered books that show psychologically how humans and the reward system in the brain works which is direct evidence that what I was saying is right vs opinions of others. And if you look at his first post or so, it came out as a person under the idea of entitlement and how earning the cards shouldn't matter (which is a massive draw for TCGs)



The point being you are clearly right and other people are idiotic for disagreeing with you? It is possible to discuss thing with people without having an immovable position, in fact having an immovable position makes it rather pointless you are just dictating rather than discussing.

stiii
06-27-2013, 11:10 AM
Edit: (And FYI the tone I am typing now is the same as yesterday. And rereading this I see a vast difference in how I brought my information across. So can you see the similarity of the tone or are you reading it as 2 separate tones?)

Yeah I get the same tone. The tone is I'm smarter than all of you why don't you just give up an agree with me. In fact I'm so smart I don't really need to explain why I'm right you guys are idiotic for even trying to disagree with me.

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 11:11 AM
Nope

This is not how the English language work. You are being idiotic is an insult. It is not a statement of fact because you can't back it up. You might not have meant your posts to be insulting but they were. Your claiming they weren't doesn't make it true.

If I have not meant my posts to be insulting, thus there was not the intent to insult. No intent, means I have all rights to back up my claim, because it is true.

Also acting idiotic is an action, or moment in time of being in an idiot state. Calling someone an idiot is an overall name calling of a person. Thus is degrading. While the other points out how one is being.

Again I am not saying in any way shape or form that I couldn't have brought all my information across better. Because I totally could have. What I am saying though, is if you see all those insults, it is from your own minds perception of the words and not the intent of the writer. And without knowing who I am, you cannot claim that you know what tones I used.

Reader's perception vs the writers intent. Had a whole English class on this last year of college. Worst experience of my life. Because so many times you may think you know what tone the writer is saying or what the writer really means, but that does not mean you are correct in that assumption.

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 11:15 AM
Yeah I get the same tone. The tone is I'm smarter than all of you why don't you just give up an agree with me. In fact I'm so smart I don't really need to explain why I'm right you guys are idiotic for even trying to disagree with me.

Did you need 3 posts for this and not just do it in 1?

Yet I explained myself, and thus that alone proves your assumption of my tone is not the correct one... And I could care less if you or anyone agrees. I explained myself. Take it or leave it.

stiii
06-27-2013, 11:21 AM
Did you need 3 posts for this and not just do it in 1?

Yet I explained myself, and thus that alone proves your assumption of my tone is not the correct one... And I could care less if you or anyone agrees. I explained myself. Take it or leave it.

Ok I will pick leave it. And by leave it I mean I think you were being insulting on purpose. You decided afterwards that admitting to being insulting would weaken your position so you now you are claiming they weren't insults. Just because you claim something doesn't make it true.

It is easier to do this than edit together 3 sets of quotes.

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 11:29 AM
Ok I will pick leave it. And by leave it I mean I think you were being insulting on purpose. You decided afterwards that admitting to being insulting would weaken your position so you now you are claiming they weren't insults. Just because you claim something doesn't make it true.

It is easier to do this than edit together 3 sets of quotes.

And just because you believe/think something doesn't make it true either.

Next you may say something like "but your tone and stuff shows more evidence that you were meaning to insult" Which is just how you perceived it. That is not evidence but an observation.

Then I will respond with "I am the writer, since I am actually the one writing it I know what tone is used, thus what I claim is closer to truth than what you think" or something along those lines.

But then your argument of "just because you claim something doesn't make it true" comes back into play.

And tada we have entered a circle argument. No real reason to continue on at this point.


And as an afterthought, no besides 1 comment I admitted to. I had no intent on insulting anyone, it was describing things in ways that I will admit after re-reading sound insulting. But were not their intent. But you don't want to believe that. Fine by me. I could care less. Because again, this would just lead into ^ circle argument again. And I am certain that myself just as much as you don't wish to keep repeating ourselves for no benefit/gain.

Tinuvas
06-27-2013, 11:43 AM
1. First as correct you are when it comes to everything written does have a tone, and attitude. However it is only known by the writer. You have to guess, and assume and believe what tone you think you hear. If I was a professional writer, you would be right. I gave off a bad tone. They are trained to write and have you understand their tone. However English was my worst subject, both in HS and college. So the tone I typed with and the tone you read were probably 2 very different, without you knowing who I am and know me what I do.
Hmmm. At first I didn't agree with you, but you got me thinking here. I think there has to be some give and take here though. If you put yourself out there with writing, professional or not, at some point you do have to take responsibility for the perceived tone of your message. Reading further though, you do take that, so it's a bit of a moot point. I can see the idea that you were writing from a different perspective then I was reading. I think at this point it is my responsibility to read it in good faith trying to find the tone that you are writing from and it is your responsibility to do all you can to accurately portray your exact tone and attitude. If we're both willing to 'fudge the edges' so to speak and allow for misunderstandings, I can more than accept that.


Ill admit it sounds worse when I re-read it. But when I typed it there was no "negative emotions" behind it.
Coupled with your explanations, I can accept this. Something that came across wrong. Fair enough and good enough for me. I can't vouch for others, but what do you do? As an aside (to an aside?), I still think this forum is pretty sweet. It is more rare for a flame war to dissolve into destruction and hatred than for understanding to take place (as here). On the Internet? In this day and age? Yeah, we're good.

On topic: Diesbudt is exactly right about the value of difficulty increasing the enjoyment of the game. There is a point where it doesn't hold true (perhaps that is the point being discussed), but making things easy generally hurts, rather than helps, the game in general, even if we don't recognize it. It is the thrill of the chase (and the cards that we catch at the end) and the blood, sweat and tears that we put into making OUR deck, with OUR cards and OUR names on it, that makes the win so sweet. CZE has created a product that actually magnifies that with the double backs and other collectable elements to the game. It is the struggle to get a top tier deck that makes playing them a big deal. You take that away, you take away a large percentage of the game. Why should I even play the game (except for tourney time when I grab my 'all cards' tourney deck) when I can proxy the game on a website somewhere and do all of my testing there? If I like a deck I just put it together for tourney time and never have to own a single card. I honestly feel an idea like this would do more to foster elitism than the currently understood model.

There is a place for a level playing field experience, but I think that is more in the Limited department. Drafts, sealed, etc. are where you get your 'all cards' feel. Making an 'all cards' constructed tourney option I feel is trying to make constructed more like limited. I am of the opinion that we should let limited be limited and constructed be what it is. Both are needed for a stable game I think.

Final aside: As I go to post this, it gives me the option to 'Post Quick Reply'. While I do push this button, it is a lie. Nothing quick about it...

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 11:47 AM
If we're both willing to 'fudge the edges' so to speak and allow for misunderstandings, I can more than accept that.


Just be careful with fudging the edges. That's how you make a mess in the kitchen. I would know...:(

Tinuvas
06-27-2013, 11:52 AM
Just be careful with fudging the edges. That's how you make a mess in the kitchen. I would know...:(

Rofl. Good point.

hacky
06-27-2013, 01:12 PM
We can go back to pointing out actual nonsensical points? Sweet! I'll start.


You do not need a great gaming rig to succeed at LoL or SC2. Any computer from now to about 7 years ago will do for LoL and any comptuer from now to about 5 years ago will do for SC2.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ndQs2m0QYgc/UWZFdBdyUfI/AAAAAAAAASk/-paA_D9knW4/s200/jackie-chan-meme-489.jpg

Unhurtable
06-27-2013, 01:15 PM
I didn't originally want to post this, because I felt it's entirely off topic, but now I feel like I need to defend myself since the post-discussion perspective seems to be very skewed (in my opinion) against my position.


Also "all my posts start on positions that I am absolutely right" - FYI, if you go into a debate thinking your not right, you won't have the zealotry behind your posts to get the point across like you should.
This explains a lot.


Then Secondly, I offered books that show psychologically how humans and the reward system in the brain works which is direct evidence that what I was saying is right vs opinions of others. And if you look at his first post or so, it came out as a person under the idea of entitlement and how earning the cards shouldn't matter (which is a massive draw for TCGs)

Wait, I'm entitled now? I also don't recall this idea about not caring about how a person should earn his or her cards.
Secondly, the entire discussion never touched the subject of the importance of rewards, which is an entirely different issue.
Thirdly, you offered this book after our discussion apparently ended. This also, apparently, going against my "opinions" which I would love to hear.


And my earlier "sparring" wasn't me trying to do much until I realized he was not understanding the value behind what I was trying to say. Then I decided to try and get the information across. (to no effect)
It's kind of hard to understand that you are talking about Hex's reward system when the discussion was entirely about something else. Now I'm very confused in what information you are actually trying to get across because it seems to have shifted post-debate. Is it the reward system or what our discussion was originally about or is it that Hex is not an RTS?.

I tried to make you evaluate your claims (since they were vague and in some cases didn't seem to be grounded in anything) but you kept escaping to other issues. Example: I compared the economic model of Hex to the economic model of another game. You brought up the issue that the games were not even close to being alike since they are of different genres, despite the topic being about economic models and not gameplay.


On topic: Diesbudt is exactly right about the value of difficulty increasing the enjoyment of the game. There is a point where it doesn't hold true (perhaps that is the point being discussed), but making things easy generally hurts, rather than helps, the game in general, even if we don't recognize it. It is the thrill of the chase (and the cards that we catch at the end) and the blood, sweat and tears that we put into making OUR deck, with OUR cards and OUR names on it, that makes the win so sweet. CZE has created a product that actually magnifies that with the double backs and other collectable elements to the game. It is the struggle to get a top tier deck that makes playing them a big deal. You take that away, you take away a large percentage of the game. Why should I even play the game (except for tourney time when I grab my 'all cards' tourney deck) when I can proxy the game on a website somewhere and do all of my testing there? If I like a deck I just put it together for tourney time and never have to own a single card. I honestly feel an idea like this would do more to foster elitism than the currently understood model.

I agreed with you completely up until the point when you asked why you should even play the game. The suggestion in the OP (if implemented) would only give players access to 'all cards' at regionals, nationals and world-level physical events. If you really wanted to compete in Hex, you would have to (most likely) practice in between these major tournaments. This practice cannot be done with the tournament accounts. In other words, you still have to have a deck outside of the tournament account if you even want to be slightly competitive.

Have you considered that the OPs suggestion could be re-written as a request to make all regionals, nationals and world-level events be in Limited Formats with the pool essentially being the entire block? So far the details around the mythical "world-championship" has not been revealed, most likely because its specifics are still WIP. In my opinion they might as well have both really, if they can. I'd personally be drawn to the "full block limited" myself, but I can understand that both formats might be needed for a stable game. I can even understand if constructed becomes the only format, I would still try to bring it as best as I could. Regardless, CoS said this which is relevant:


Most tournaments are both constructed and sealed/draft formats in all top end CCG play. There is no reason to believe that the makers of Hex (former top table players in numerous other card games) would create a competitive scene that deviates in some large degree from this established standard.

In other words, unless Hex does things very differently, OP should have nothing to worry about.

Diesbudt
06-27-2013, 01:37 PM
I didn't originally want to post this, because I felt it's entirely off topic, but now I feel like I need to defend myself since the post-discussion perspective seems to be very skewed (in my opinion) against my position.


This explains a lot.

Wait, I'm entitled now? I also don't recall this idea about not caring about how a person should earn his or her cards.
Secondly, the entire discussion never touched the subject of the importance of rewards, which is an entirely different issue.
Thirdly, you offered this book after our discussion apparently ended. This also, apparently, going against my "opinions" which I would love to hear.


It's kind of hard to understand that you are talking about Hex's reward system when the discussion was entirely about something else. Now I'm very confused in what information you are actually trying to get across because it seems to have shifted post-debate. Is it the reward system or what our discussion was originally about or is it that Hex is not an RTS?.

I tried to make you evaluate your claims (since they were vague and in some cases didn't seem to be grounded in anything) but you kept escaping to other issues. Example: I compared the economic model of Hex to the economic model of another game. You brought up the issue that the games were not even close to being alike since they are of different genres, despite the topic being about economic models and not gameplay.





To not bring back up the debate, let me clear some things up.

1) Never said you were entitled. The post that I first saw which caused me to originally respond looked entitled. Whether that makes you entitled or not I do not know. It is just what I saw, nothing more.

2) I never talked about Hex's reward system. It is the mental endorphin rewards one gets for accomplishing feats. It has been shown in many psychologists study, people have a much more fun time, enjoy something more, and are more likely to keep playing if they have to work towards goals. (one being the original argument that people should have to obtain the cards, not just have them freely) And I posted the book titled posts back, if your interested. (They have also found people enjoy games more when they cannot have everything and lose at times, it gives a driving force) Also Opening packs and hoping for the cards you want is a small form of gambling, and I am sure you know people get addicted to forms of gambling.

3) No one asked for sources until then. I wasn't about to turn this into a report with a bibliography.

I was saying it was a bad idea because it ruins the #2 ^ (a top reason people psychologically get attached to games and community grows) and then you tried comparing it to other E-sports. However other E-sports are very different and I tried showing that too you because they are different genres and RTS game doesn't require the costs a TCG does. And I was stating comparing them does not work because of this very nature. An argument you did not like for whatever reason. Because Hex is being a TCG online, and means to stay that way. Which elements include obtaining rare/hard cards through the market, do tournaments (sealed, constructed, and draft), and requiring strategy and luck such as deck building and drawing cards.

You did compare 2 different economic models. But those were 2 very different games that cannot have their economic models compared. Because a TCG acts and behaves much differently in the market than an RTS. Maybe I did not make it clear enough, but it is the other reason I was trying to show you the comparisons were not working. Because an RTS is so vastly different, comparing them is a flawed argument. It is like comparing the Car market to the Book market. You cannot do that. If you wish to compare Hex's market, compare it to a physical TCG, not an RTS. Stay within the genre you are trying to compare.

Summary: It is a bad idea because of how human psychology works and enjoyment of video games. This is important because it must be enjoyable, and people have to strive for things to keep a game that requires a constant community fun and going. RTS and TCG are not only very different games, but also require very different economic models. Comparing RTS to TCG in gameplay and economic model fails to work. Comparing a computer TCG to a physical TCG will get you much closer to a realistic comparison.

Tinuvas
06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
I agreed with you completely up until the point when you asked why you should even play the game. The suggestion in the OP (if implemented) would only give players access to 'all cards' at regionals, nationals and world-level physical events. If you really wanted to compete in Hex, you would have to (most likely) practice in between these major tournaments. This practice cannot be done with the tournament accounts. In other words, you still have to have a deck outside of the tournament account if you even want to be slightly competitive.
My point was actually that you WOULDN'T need to play the game to practice with top tier decks. There are tools available for proxy playing any number of cards games, and I expect that if the 'all cards tourney' option (regionals and up etc) were implemented that a proxy option for Hex would develop shortly for just this purpose. If you didn't have to put the time in through the Hex client itself to be able to play with any card you wanted, many wouldn't. Come tourney time you would get an influx of proxy players playing 'all card' decks with no intention of buying cards from their winnings or supporting CZE in any way. I could easily see a divide among those who actually put the effort into the game with card collecting etc. becoming quite irate at the 'fake' winners and their 'all card' tourney decks, not to mention the lowering of the value of the secondary market (why buy the high dollar cards if you don't need them for the big tourneys? Is not the primary value of the high dollar cards wrapped up in their desirability for tournament play?).



Have you considered that the OPs suggestion could be re-written as a request to make all regionals, nationals and world-level events be in Limited Formats with the pool essentially being the entire block? So far the details around the mythical "world-championship" has not been revealed, most likely because its specifics are still WIP. In my opinion they might as well have both really, if they can. I'd personally be drawn to the "full block limited" myself, but I can understand that both formats might be needed for a stable game. I can even understand if constructed becomes the only format, I would still try to bring it as best as I could.

Drafting is my favorite format hands down, yet Constructed is needed in a true TCG to keep things interesting. It's an entirely different game in it's own right. And if limited formats become the only formats that matter, I, like you, will still bring my best to the table :). Gotta love Hex for that.

Avedecus
06-27-2013, 02:16 PM
Come tourney time you would get an influx of proxy players playing 'all card' decks with no intention of buying cards from their winnings or supporting CZE in any way.

Uh, I'm pretty sure pro players playing pro matches in front of spectators both physically present and online, all while drawing in the big advertising bucks, is a pretty good way of supporting CZE.

Unhurtable
06-27-2013, 03:22 PM
To not bring back up the debate, let me clear some things up.

1) Never said you were entitled. The post that I first saw which caused me to originally respond looked entitled. Whether that makes you entitled or not I do not know. It is just what I saw, nothing more.

Point taken. Still doesn't change the fact that such a statement is kind of uncalled for.


2) I never talked about Hex's reward system. It is the mental endorphin rewards one gets for accomplishing feats. It has been shown in many psychologists study, people have a much more fun time, enjoy something more, and are more likely to keep playing if they have to work towards goals. (one being the original argument that people should have to obtain the cards, not just have them freely) And I posted the book titled posts back, if your interested. (They have also found people enjoy games more when they cannot have everything and lose at times, it gives a driving force) Also Opening packs and hoping for the cards you want is a small form of gambling, and I am sure you know people get addicted to forms of gambling.

You never mentioned the reward-angle until after the discussion had ended. In other words, saying that you offered evidence or 3rd party argumentation "vs the opinion of others" is just false. The first mention of this book is in the block of text where you end our discussion.


I was saying it was a bad idea because it ruins the #2 ^ (a top reason people psychologically get attached to games and community grows) and then you tried comparing it to other E-sports. However other E-sports are very different and I tried showing that too you because they are different genres and RTS game doesn't require the costs a TCG does. And I was stating comparing them does not work because of this very nature. An argument you did not like for whatever reason. Because Hex is being a TCG online, and means to stay that way. Which elements include obtaining rare/hard cards through the market, do tournaments (sealed, constructed, and draft), and requiring strategy and luck such as deck building and drawing cards.

This does not seem to fit with this

"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"
"This is a TCG not a RTS"

How is that trying to convey that they "require" different economic costs? (which they dont). If you are referring to this:


Warcraft II, starcraft, are 2 COMPLETE different genre's of games compared to Hex. Get that through your head. TCG's do have a money basis, if you don't like it don't play that genre. Your un-intelligence is starting to really make you look foolish.

You should not have to wonder why your point isn't getting across, because here you are clearly stating that it has to do with the genres, even though RTSs can have a "money basis".


You did compare 2 different economic models. But those were 2 very different games that cannot have their economic models compared. Because a TCG acts and behaves much differently in the market than an RTS. Maybe I did not make it clear enough, but it is the other reason I was trying to show you the comparisons were not working. Because an RTS is so vastly different, comparing them is a flawed argument. It is like comparing the Car market to the Book market. You cannot do that. If you wish to compare Hex's market, compare it to a physical TCG, not an RTS. Stay within the genre you are trying to compare.

Of course "a TCG" acts and behaves much differently in the market than an RTS if it deploys a different economic model. You can compare the size of object X to the size of object Y, even though they aren't even close to being the same thing. They could have a million severe differences, but the size of the objects could still be compared. "Which is largest in terms of volume, X or Y?".

RTS and TCG are not only very different games, but also require very different economic models. Comparing RTS to TCG in gameplay and economic model fails to work. Comparing a computer TCG to a physical TCG will get you much closer to a realistic comparison.
They do not require very different economic models. You can compare the economic model of one game to the economic model of another game. Economic models are not tied to certain genres. Gameplay on the other hand is, since genres are most of the time defined by their gameplay. FPSs and RTSs are different in terms of gameplay, and therefore are named differently so that it is conveyed that they are played differently. Just as P2P and P2W are different in terms of economic model, and therefore are named differently so that it is conveyed that they are different from eachother.

My point was actually that you WOULDN'T need to play the game to practice with top tier decks. There are tools available for proxy playing any number of cards games, and I expect that if the 'all cards tourney' option (regionals and up etc) were implemented that a proxy option for Hex would develop shortly for just this purpose. If you didn't have to put the time in through the Hex client itself to be able to play with any card you wanted, many wouldn't. Come tourney time you would get an influx of proxy players playing 'all card' decks with no intention of buying cards from their winnings or supporting CZE in any way. I could easily see a divide among those who actually put the effort into the game with card collecting etc. becoming quite irate at the 'fake' winners and their 'all card' tourney decks, not to mention the lowering of the value of the secondary market (why buy the high dollar cards if you don't need them for the big tourneys? Is not the primary value of the high dollar cards wrapped up in their desirability for tournament play?).
This is a very good point if the proxy option would become popular. Otherwise the competitive practice one can get from the proxy option would not even be close to the competitive practice one can get from the actual client.

You did miss one minor thing though. They would still be supporting CZE since the tournaments would either:
A : Require a fee (which they would have to pay).
B : Require you to qualify, which would require you to invest into the actual client.

Tinuvas
06-27-2013, 03:37 PM
Uh, I'm pretty sure pro players playing pro matches in front of spectators both physically present and online, all while drawing in the big advertising bucks, is a pretty good way of supporting CZE.

While blatantly thumbing their nose at CZE's business model by utilizing third party software to circumvent any costs associated with collecting needed cards? I think that would be much more detrimental to Hex than beneficial in the long run. 'Look ma, I can play the big boy tourneys for free! And you can too!'.

Tinuvas
06-27-2013, 03:55 PM
This is a very good point if the proxy option would become popular. Otherwise the competitive practice one can get from the proxy option would not even be close to the competitive practice one can get from the actual client.

You did miss one minor thing though. They would still be supporting CZE since the tournaments would either:
A : Require a fee (which they would have to pay).
B : Require you to qualify, which would require you to invest into the actual client.

Hmmmm. There would obviously be value to using the regular client than a proxy client purely for familiarity's sake, and that edge is something that true pros would work for, but even one winner using a proxy client for practice would be a huge hit to the secondary market as a whole pile of non-winners would try to copy his methods for winning. In addition, booster sales would drop substantially, even if it was just until a 'true' pro won the next big tourney. That is speculation, but well within the realms of possibility. And for what? For the true edge, I would have needed the deck to practice with anyway, so why give me an option to use cards I can't really win with?

Concerning your other points: The fee for participating in a one time tourney would be miniscule compared to the investment in a collection of cards over time. We're talking $1-20 maybe compared to hundreds of dollars, not just for a top tier deck, but for a collection of cards. And if I understand you correctly you would make an 'all cards' option available for a World championship tourney but not the qualifying tourneys that directly feed it? If your argument that it is so things are easier for the 'financially challenged' holds for the actual Championship tourney, to forbid it at the qualifying level would seem to defeat it's purpose. If you have the resources to develop a deck that can win at a qualification tourney, you most likely have the resources to create a top tier deck for the championship tourney itself.

TL;DR
I still think that this idea would be bad for Hex. It would be bad for publicity, secondary market, elitism, and other things I'm sure I haven't thought of. IMHO of course.

Avedecus
06-27-2013, 07:55 PM
While blatantly thumbing their nose at CZE's business model by utilizing third party software to circumvent any costs associated with collecting needed cards? I think that would be much more detrimental to Hex than beneficial in the long run. 'Look ma, I can play the big boy tourneys for free! And you can too!'.

How are they qualifying for these high-level tournaments without playing with the game client, which requires using only cards you own in the online tournaments and ranked mode?

stiii
06-27-2013, 08:42 PM
How are they qualifying for these high-level tournaments without playing with the game client, which requires using only cards you own in the online tournaments and ranked mode?

Well if you need the cards to Q for the events what is the purpose of giving everyone cards in tournaments? Surely the whole point behind this idea is all big tournaments are like this.

Avedecus
06-27-2013, 08:56 PM
Well if you need the cards to Q for the events what is the purpose of giving everyone cards in tournaments? Surely the whole point behind this idea is all big tournaments are like this.
Convenience and security. I imagine that physical tournaments will be played on separate servers and clients in order to prevent outside tampering. Rather than complicate things by trying to make a system to import individual accounts to a separate server/client, just let the pros plug in their name to a blank account with all cards active and make their decks. It works pretty much the same in League, IIRC.

Kietay
06-27-2013, 09:04 PM
No free decks for tournaments ever, forever!

Tinuvas
06-28-2013, 12:32 AM
Convenience and security. I imagine that physical tournaments will be played on separate servers and clients in order to prevent outside tampering. Rather than complicate things by trying to make a system to import individual accounts to a separate server/client, just let the pros plug in their name to a blank account with all cards active and make their decks. It works pretty much the same in League, IIRC.

You almost convinced me there, and arguments could be made for the viability of this situation, but consider this: In a physical tourney setting, I'm not convinced separate servers would be used, and if they were, I doubt it would take much to import accounts, complete with cards, for usage on site. In addition, I think that spectators watching the games would be better served by seeing the actual cards played by the actual pro in an actual tourney than just a random group of cards. This is where the comparison between Hex and say Starcraft 2 breaks down. There is nothing collectable about Starcraft 2, but Hex is built on the idea of collectable cards. They are a major element of the game. Thus an esport aspect of Hex should (IMHO) play solid tribute to that idea.

In addition, CZE has already trumpeted the ability for tourney winning cards to have trophies and other identifying elements on them for collectable purposes. Taking that away would severely diminish that ability of the cards.

Finally, with all of the positive elements to be had by using the actual accounts and actual cards in the big tourneys, I'm sure that CZE would put out the effort required to make sure all accounts and associated cards would be available for play. I would even go so far as to argue that it is even MORE important to play with 'real' cards in the big tourneys with the publicity and fanfare that will be associated with them.

I just can't see a scenario where this idea would work for CZE or us.

stiii
06-28-2013, 10:14 AM
Convenience and security. I imagine that physical tournaments will be played on separate servers and clients in order to prevent outside tampering. Rather than complicate things by trying to make a system to import individual accounts to a separate server/client, just let the pros plug in their name to a blank account with all cards active and make their decks. It works pretty much the same in League, IIRC.

While this does make sense this isn't really what the OP was talking about. He mention regionals which I would assume would Q you for bigger events.

Jbizzi
06-28-2013, 10:24 AM
This is a pretty horrible idea.

Why would people even buy boosters or any such thing if they just wanted to be competitive in constructed formats. They get all the cards for free? Are you new to TCGs?

"Pay to Win" does not apply here (nor does it on a multitude of gaming formats that people are so quick to label with the term). I am really sick of hearing even the mention of the phrase these days. If you don't want to pay to participate, there are plenty of free things to do in life, take a walk, go to the park, PLAY THE PVE VERSION OF THIS F2P GAME, etc.

Hex's model is just fine.

hex_colin
06-28-2013, 10:38 AM
This is a pretty horrible idea.

Why would people even buy boosters or any such thing if they just wanted to be competitive in constructed formats. They get all the cards for free? Are you new to TCGs?

"Pay to Win" does not apply here (nor does it on a multitude of gaming formats that people are so quick to label with the term). I am really sick of hearing even the mention of the phrase these days. If you don't want to pay to participate, there are plenty of free things to do in life, take a walk, go to the park, PLAY THE PVE VERSION OF THIS F2P GAME, etc.

Hex's model is just fine.

I have as much reason as anyone, if not more, for the game/cards to remain as collectible as possible.

That being said, I'd have no issue with somewhat limited access to formats where you could play whatever cards you wanted to. You can't completely discount the argument that you'd get a true HEX World Champion if they'd had to defeat people who had access to all of the cards they wanted/needed to create what they thought would be the best deck - a truly even playing field when also combined with an assessment of skill in limited formats too. Winning = cards & the time investment to ensure that you're using them in the best possible way.

Also, people practice for tournaments all the time with proxies and then beg/borrow/steal ;) the real cards they need for the actual tournament - giving people limited access to all of the cards is just a proxy surrogate in the digital world.

stiii
06-28-2013, 11:38 AM
I have as much reason as anyone, if not more, for the game/cards to remain as collectible as possible.

That being said, I'd have no issue with somewhat limited access to formats where you could play whatever cards you wanted to. You can't completely discount the argument that you'd get a true HEX World Champion if they'd had to defeat people who had access to all of the cards they wanted/needed to create what they thought would be the best deck - a truly even playing field when also combined with an assessment of skill in limited formats too. Winning = cards & the time investment to ensure that you're using them in the best possible way.

Also, people practice for tournaments all the time with proxies and then beg/borrow/steal ;) the real cards they need for the actual tournament - giving people limited access to all of the cards is just a proxy surrogate in the digital world.

The issue is that any game with any serious level of competition the players in the world championship event will have all the cards they want. "pro" players will have access to all the cards it is pretty easy to borrow whole decks irl and it is much easier online.

These people will need to test their decks beforehand so they could argue in the same way that it is unfair they can't test with all the cards, it has the same issue with crowning the true best player.

Mokog
06-28-2013, 04:52 PM
Well the idea sparked debate.

I would like to introduce another angle into this debate. A significant aspect of the pay to win stigma that comes with constructed play is the four tier rarity effect. In collectable cards, this system pushes a collector to buy more and more boosters to acquire the higher rarity. It is mathematical at that point with CZE's 1:11 ratio. When this is tied to a game structure it becomes it becomes tricky to balance. From Cryptozoic's history they make amazing cards legendary. We have legendary cards spoiled in Hex that are amazing. Approximately 9-10% of the cards available will be legendary and highly sought after not because they are rare/shiny/valuable but because they confer the greatest power in play.

The secondary market will allocate these cards to the highest bidder enunciating the pay to win stigma. That vampire king is an amazing card is not the issue, and that you have to put money on the table is not a problem. The difference in demand for a mathematically smaller pool of superior cards is the issue. If the game employed the three tier rarity system the issue is much less aggravated but then players have less incentive to buy boosters.

We are looking at an issue of trade offs. How true does CZE want to stay with the 4 tier rarity system of game asset distribution versus having a manageable barrier to entry for constructed play. To lower the barrier you must degrade the rarity in some form.

I suggested the limited use of in person tournament accounts to minimize the host of effects suggested by this forum but open up as wide as possible the field of play. I do truly understand the effects and what it means and how it is against much of what TCGs are. When I look at how e-sports have developed I notice that MTGO, Pokémon TCGO, Duel of Champions, all of which are major online TCG offerings, are not seriously considered an e-sport. The skill threshold and dedication are similar but there are two glaring differences between the modern line up and the TCG line up. E-sport games are predominantly "twitch" games and they all have low monetary barriers to entry. TCGs are turn based and have a higher barrier to entry.

If I can steer this debate anywhere I would like it to focus on ways of lowering the barrier to entry Hex reasonably (announced and hypothetical). Also I would like to read methods of overcoming the "twitch" predominance with Hex's turn based combat system. I understand that this maybe the impossible task but I think the intelligence shown in the thread so far is up to the task of brain storming. If these issues can not be mitigated systematically then the duty of carrying the e-sport banner will fall on the player community of Hex to be engaging and supportive of new players. One possibility will be to grow the population of Hex to such a size that it can not be ignored as an e-sport and must be recognized.

hacky
06-28-2013, 06:28 PM
When I look at how e-sports have developed I notice that MTGO, Pokémon TCGO, Duel of Champions, all of which are major online TCG offerings, are not seriously considered an e-sport. The skill threshold and dedication are similar but there are two glaring differences between the modern line up and the TCG line up. E-sport games are predominantly "twitch" games and they all have low monetary barriers to entry. TCGs are turn based and have a higher barrier to entry.

I respectfully disagree with this point. The three mentioned games are not popular competitive games, but not because of barrier to entry. Each one is different, but I'm going to focus on MTGO. Keep in mind, that I equate "e-sport" to mean competitive gaming, which doesn't necessarily mean that it has to strictly be a video game.

MTGO does not need to be an e-sport, because physical MTG is. The GP Las Vegas stream was at 6500+ concurrent viewers whenever I looked at it. SCG Opens often have livestreams with a pretty good viewer count. And when these events aren't going on? There are livestreams of players simply practicing or drafting on MTGO.

In fact, given what I just said, MTG, and therefore MTGO, is a serious competitive game.

-----

One additional point, on competitive games being predominantly twitch games. I have an example that goes against this completely: poker.

Poker is competitive, poker is practiced and played online, and poker is definitely not a "twitch" game.

Poker has a pretty low barrier to entry, too. And it's not Pay-to-Win. ;)

stiii
06-28-2013, 06:59 PM
Well I think high level poker has a pretty high barrier to entry. A high level poker event might well cost $10k to enter. While you can play smaller events to earn that money you can do the same with MTGO play low level events and earn enough to cash out to buy a flight.

Vomitlord
06-28-2013, 10:14 PM
Wait until pauper style format comes in. Anyone who's played mtgo pauper events knows they are extremely brutal.

Although I've always hated the name pauper. I'd love it if this game could do it slightly different with a less insulting name and include uncommons as well.

Tinuvas
06-29-2013, 08:52 AM
I would like to introduce another angle into this debate. A significant aspect of the pay to win stigma that comes with constructed play is the four tier rarity effect.
I'm not sure that I completely agree with the above. I do agree that moving to a 3 tier rarity model would decrease the cost to be a contender, but it would still be there. If it's pay to win one way, it would still be pay to win the other way, just a bit less so. I am still thinking about the perception of pay to win on a 4 tier vs 3 tier model though. Regardless of what IS, what is perceived is often reality...hmmm...

I'm also still unconvinced as to the need to lower the cost to be a contender at the top tiers. In my experience, when someone finds that they are good at and want to play at top tier level, they find a way to do so. By hook or by crook they make it to the game with everything they need to win. I suggest that cost barriers do not create ways to keep people from playing as much as separate those willing to pay the price (and I don't mean money here) to win from those who aren't. It is an integral part of constructed play. Constructed play begins long before the cards hit the (virtual) table. If someone calls this P2W, I have yet to find a reason to care.


I suggested the limited use of in person tournament accounts to minimize the host of effects suggested by this forum but open up as wide as possible the field of play. I do truly understand the effects and what it means and how it is against much of what TCGs are. When I look at how e-sports have developed I notice that MTGO, Pokémon TCGO, Duel of Champions, all of which are major online TCG offerings, are not seriously considered an e-sport. The skill threshold and dedication are similar but there are two glaring differences between the modern line up and the TCG line up. E-sport games are predominantly "twitch" games and they all have low monetary barriers to entry. TCGs are turn based and have a higher barrier to entry.
First off, CZE did open the field of play quite wide with lower booster pack costs, VIP program, etc. Opening it up further is a goal of dubious worth IMHO and brings with it a host of possible undesirable side affects. I also don't agree with your assessment of why there are no TCG esports. As mentioned above there are a number of other reasons the games you mentioned are not esports, not because of high barrier of entry. I believe Hex has what it takes as it is to hit the esport scene in a major way.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 02:25 PM
This was a bad idea when it was started and it is still a bad idea. There should be no system in the game, tournament or otherwise, that creates free cards for people to use and play with in any setting. (PvP Cards) Most people who are good enough to compete will own all the cards they need, anyone who does not, will not. They will exist (in small numbers) but that is just how it is going to have to be.

CZE understands what makes a TCG and will not do anything to compromise the integrity of their game. If they ever allow free PvP cards in any way it will be compromised.

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 02:50 PM
hey will exist (in small numbers) but that is just how it is going to have to be.

This is the only justification I've heard in defense of "pros playing at the highest level should own every card in the game or be at a disadvantage, even after earning their place as the world's elite". If you can't actually support your argument, you should probably begin questioning its validity.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 03:12 PM
It has been supported many times. Any system that allows for the acquisition of free PvP cards will ruin the integrity of the game. You buy cards in a TCG expecting they are worth something and tied to some inherent value that relates to the number produced, availability, and efficiency of the card. If there is a second way to get cards that does not cost money, it throws the entire system into doubt.

This is why they will never even consider ideas like this. They won't risk ruining the game.

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 03:14 PM
How are pro players "getting" cards by not buying them? It's not like they go to a tournament and get every card forever. They go to tournament, log in to a secure, separate tournament account, and make their decks out of all available cards, just like every other pro player there. You're basically just saying that having equal footing at the highest levels of play is bad.

And consider this: The meta is fairly set in stone throughout the tournament season, until days before the big regionals/world finals when someone discovers a use for a previously neglected legendary card that makes it borderline OP. At that point demand for the card would skyrocket, and any of the pros in the tournament who managed to get a copy (or pay enough to get one) would have a distinct advantage over the pros who didn't. How is this healthy for competitive play? How does this demonstrate the skills of pro players, rather than the depths of their pockets?

Kietay
06-29-2013, 03:24 PM
Because half of playing the game is collecting the cards. If you are unable to collect the cards, you are bad at that portion of the game. Same as if someone is bad at playing the cards, you are bad at that portion of the game. You are removing half the point of a TCG in order to promote "fair play." If someone is unable to get the cards, then they are at a disadvantage in the same way as someone who doesnt know how to play the cards.

Competitive card games are somewhat of a joke anyways. Yes just like poker you have players who know how to play the odds the best and generally win more than others, but the amount of luck involved in them makes it hard to take them seriously at more than just an amusement level.

DjiN
06-29-2013, 03:25 PM
You need the cards to practice anyway. No one would join World Cup with a deck he never played with. Would also result in very skewed tournament results. So I don't see how tournament accounts on live events would be of any benefit for a pro player.

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 03:26 PM
You need the cards to practice anyway. No one would join World Cup with a deck he never played with. Would also result in very skewed tournament results. So I don't see how tournament accounts on live events would be of any benefit for a pro player.

Proxy programs are nothing new, yknow. Pretty sure we already have a draft sim.

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 03:28 PM
Competitive card games are somewhat of a joke anyways. Yes just like poker you have players who know how to play the odds the best and generally win more than others, but the amount of luck involved in them makes it hard to take them seriously at more than just an amusement level.

For a while I haven't liked your arguments. Now I just don't like you. I see no reason to continue to engage you when you hold such a ridiculous (and I mean that in the most literal way, your belief is in fact worthy of ridicule) views.

stiii
06-29-2013, 03:33 PM
Competitive card games are somewhat of a joke anyways. Yes just like poker you have players who know how to play the odds the best and generally win more than others, but the amount of luck involved in them makes it hard to take them seriously at more than just an amusement level.

Man that Kai guy was so lucky!

Kietay
06-29-2013, 03:33 PM
Proxy programs are part of the reason they will never have a system like this. If you no longer need the cards to practice AND play, you no longer need to buy cards. You are right, it is not worth talking about really because they would never even consider this idea much less implement it. It is good they are the developers of the game.

Edit: And yes, while I realize it may offend a lot of you who value TCG games, they are pretty silly for serious competition. Now they are still fun to play and compete in, but any game that involves the amount of luck a card game does can't ever objectively be taken seriously for a real competition between people. Chess is a real competitive game because the outcome entirely depends on your ability to play. While card games also require a good amount of ability, which I dont deny, they also rely on a lot of random components which is half the reason they are interesting, but again, very silly for a competitive scene.

stiii
06-29-2013, 03:37 PM
Proxy programs are nothing new, yknow. Pretty sure we already have a draft sim.

The issue with this is why would CZE ever do this?

They would be enabling people to put zero money in and still playing in the high level events. "pro" players on MTGO already win enough inside the system to be able to buy whatever cards they need without paying any real money. (but as it is inside the system the money just comes from others). So you'd only end up excluding people who aren't good enough to win consistently to buy whatever cards they want. Those players can hardly claim to be the best.

stiii
06-29-2013, 03:38 PM
Edit: And yes, while I realize it may offend a lot of you who value TCG games, they are pretty silly for serious competition. Now they are still fun to play and compete in, but any game that involves the amount of luck a card game does can't ever objectively be taken seriously for a real competition between people. Chess is a real competitive game because the outcome entirely depends on your ability to play. While card games also require a good amount of ability, which I dont deny, they also rely on a lot of random components which is half the reason they are interesting, but again, very silly for a competitive scene.

You keep saying they aren't serious skilled based competitions without any support. there is the obvious counter that the same players do well over and over so you need to supply something more than just blanket statements.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 03:43 PM
I already told you that in card games there still are players who consistently out perform other players. Your ability does matter otherwise no one would watch. But that doesnt change the fact that a large part of the game is based on luck.

You can't seriously tell me that I should take competitions seriously in a card game that allows you to draw 7 resources then mulligan and 6 resources and lose outright. Yes it is unlikely, but at the same time it doesnt even have to be that extreme to put you at a severe disadvantage, and it -will- happen on occasion. The fact that you rely on any luck excludes it from being taken seriously.

hex_colin
06-29-2013, 03:47 PM
I already told you that in card games there still are players who consistently out perform other players. Your ability does matter otherwise no one would watch. But that doesnt change the fact that a large part of the game is based on luck.

You can't seriously tell me that I should take competitions seriously in a card game that allows you to draw 7 resources then mulligan and 6 resources and lose outright. Yes it is unlikely, but at the same time it doesnt even have to be that extreme to put you at a severe disadvantage, and it -will- happen on occasion. The fact that you rely on any luck excludes it from being taken seriously.

That's why almost all competitive tournaments are set up so that a bad game shouldn't stop you from progressing. If you get 2 bad draws in 2 games in the same match and then in multiple matches and that leads to you not qualifying for the next stage of the tournament it might have been bad luck... but it's more likely that your deck construction is suspect. Tournament structures are set up to minimize, but not completely eliminate, the luck component...

Kietay
06-29-2013, 03:54 PM
Yes, I have no doubt that ability matters more in card games, otherwise, like I said, there would not be players who consistently out perform others. But the fact remains that even without a bad opening draw, bad drawing can be the reason you lost a game. It is not the most likely reason, or always the reason, but it -can- be the reason. I will enjoy playing hex competitively a lot. The random component makes it exciting.

But as for serious competition where the result will be meaningful to me, I will stick to games that involve no chance of luck.

stiii
06-29-2013, 03:58 PM
I already told you that in card games there still are players who consistently out perform other players. Your ability does matter otherwise no one would watch. But that doesnt change the fact that a large part of the game is based on luck.

You can't seriously tell me that I should take competitions seriously in a card game that allows you to draw 7 resources then mulligan and 6 resources and lose outright. Yes it is unlikely, but at the same time it doesnt even have to be that extreme to put you at a severe disadvantage, and it -will- happen on occasion. The fact that you rely on any luck excludes it from being taken seriously.

I can't tell you that you should take seriously. What I can tell you is you is you don't speak for everyone else. You are trying to tell us that any amount of luck is too much and only games that are 100% skill really count.

stiii
06-29-2013, 04:00 PM
Yes, I have no doubt that ability matters more in card games, otherwise, like I said, there would not be players who consistently out perform others. But the fact remains that even without a bad opening draw, bad drawing can be the reason you lost a game. It is not the most likely reason, or always the reason, but it -can- be the reason. I will enjoy playing hex competitively a lot. The random component makes it exciting.

But as for serious competition where the result will be meaningful to me, I will stick to games that involve no chance of luck.

Then stick to those things!

But don't insult everyone who plays games like magic at a serious level.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 04:15 PM
It is only insulting if you wish it to be more than it really is. All I said was that luck is involved and that excludes it from being a serious competition. It is not an opinion that luck is involved. You may not agree that competitions involving luck are not serious, and that is fine with me.

Again, the only way anyone would be insulted by it is if they refuse to acknowledge that luck plays a factor in the game they are playing and their ability is not the sole reason they win. This is not debatable. Its not a horrible thing, but it is what card games are. They are still fun and a good learning experience to adventure in. It is fun to play both kinds of games to me, but I wont pretend that one is as valid as the other as far as competitions go.

hex_colin
06-29-2013, 04:18 PM
It is only insulting if you wish it to be more than it really is. All I said was that luck is involved and that excludes it from being a serious competition. It is not an opinion that luck is involved. You may not agree that competitions involving luck are not serious, and that is fine with me.

Again, the only way anyone would be insulted by it is if they refuse to acknowledge that luck plays a factor in the game they are playing and their ability is not the sole reason they win. This is not debatable. Its not a horrible thing, but it is what card games are. They are still fun and a good learning experience to adventure in. It is fun to play both kinds of games to me, but I wont pretend that one is as valid as the other as far as competitions go.

So, Poker tournaments aren't serious competitions? Sailing races? Track and field world records? etc... All of these, and many more competitions, have an element of luck. Try as you might, you can't eliminate it's impact of most of life's activities...

Turtlewing
06-29-2013, 04:25 PM
It is only insulting if you wish it to be more than it really is. All I said was that luck is involved and that excludes it from being a serious competition. It is not an opinion that luck is involved. You may not agree that competitions involving luck are not serious, and that is fine with me.

Again, the only way anyone would be insulted by it is if they refuse to acknowledge that luck plays a factor in the game they are playing and their ability is not the sole reason they win. This is not debatable. Its not a horrible thing, but it is what card games are. They are still fun and a good learning experience to adventure in. It is fun to play both kinds of games to me, but I wont pretend that one is as valid as the other as far as competitions go.

Your definition of "serious competition" excludes the vast majority of things people have historically competed in.

Which makes it a pretty worthless definition.

Banquetto
06-29-2013, 04:37 PM
Again, the only way anyone would be insulted by it is if they refuse to acknowledge that luck plays a factor in the game they are playing and their ability is not the sole reason they win. This is not debatable. Its not a horrible thing, but it is what card games are. They are still fun and a good learning experience to adventure in. It is fun to play both kinds of games to me, but I wont pretend that one is as valid as the other as far as competitions go.

I acknowledge that luck plays a factor in the game I am playing and my ability is not the sole reason I win.

And - like many, many other people, I'm sure - I'm insulted by your assertion that my game is "pretty silly" and "can't ever be taken seriously" because it deliberately includes that element of luck.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 04:38 PM
Your definition of "serious competition" excludes the vast majority of things people have historically competed in.

Which makes it a pretty worthless definition.

It is not my concern if most people take silly things serious c: I take what is actually serious, serious. Also it is not my concern if people are offended that I think the idea of a serious TCG competition is silly. It is.

DjiN
06-29-2013, 04:40 PM
Kietay, there is game called "chess". You might like it. It is also f2p I think.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 04:43 PM
I do like chess, and I will like Hex. You can enjoy TCGs without pretending they are serious grounds for competition.

ShadowTycho
06-29-2013, 04:46 PM
i'm reading through this thread and seeing a lot of:
"why would anyone ever buy packs"
"paying that money to be competitive is how tcg's are and thats fine."

i think these statements miss huge and important things.
The point is not to make the game exclusive. exclusivity is bad. it is always bad. you want your cards to be worth something? then you want more people wanting them and for them to be /scarce/ not exclusive. the more aspects of the game that people are locked out of playing unless they have X, regardless of what X is(be it $500 or 40 hours of free time every week) the smaller the pool of people whom are actually good who can leap that barrier will be.

you don't want to exclude then greatest potential player from playing your game because he has a job flipping burgers.

why would you want the best people playing your game to not actually be the best people that could be playing your game?
crypto will find a way to make money. they are a company and they don't have to pay a printer to make trading cards they can sell. they will be fine.
just because something worked as a model in paper doesn't mean it was awesome and perfect and should never be changed.

tourney accounts are a great idea, provided they have one super important thing:
**they are only available for a short time before a tournament, and only to those whom have registered for that tournament**

i personally don't care if you have a huge collection or are just brilliant, if you want to put your name on the bracket and pay the entry fee we should see what you really have not what the limit of your pocketbook is.
sport should be about sport, not about the company making the athletic shoes.

BossHoss
06-29-2013, 05:01 PM
i'm reading through this thread and seeing a lot of:
"why would anyone ever buy packs"
"paying that money to be competitive is how tcg's are and thats fine."

i think these statements miss huge and important things.
The point is not to make the game exclusive. exclusivity is bad. it is always bad. you want your cards to be worth something? then you want more people wanting them and for them to be /scarce/ not exclusive. the more aspects of the game that people are locked out of playing unless they have X, regardless of what X is(be it $500 or 40 hours of free time every week) the smaller the pool of people whom are actually good who can leap that barrier will be.

you don't want to exclude then greatest potential player from playing your game because he has a job flipping burgers.

why would you want the best people playing your game to not actually be the best people that could be playing your game?
crypto will find a way to make money. they are a company and they don't have to pay a printer to make trading cards they can sell. they will be fine.
just because something worked as a model in paper doesn't mean it was awesome and perfect and should never be changed.

tourney accounts are a great idea, provided they have one super important thing:
**they are only available for a short time before a tournament, and only to those whom have registered for that tournament**

i personally don't care if you have a huge collection or are just brilliant, if you want to put your name on the bracket and pay the entry fee we should see what you really have not what the limit of your pocketbook is.
sport should be about sport, not about the company making the athletic shoes.

I think I would rather see "sponsorship" tournaments. Give people access to all the cards but they have to earn it. Phantom league tournaments that run for the entirety of the pre-release and the top 8 points leaders or each tourney winner gain access to complete playsets for the block. They do not own the cards but they earned the right to use any card for all constructed events

Banquetto
06-29-2013, 05:43 PM
It is not my concern if most people take silly things serious c: I take what is actually serious, serious. Also it is not my concern if people are offended that I think the idea of a serious TCG competition is silly. It is.

As long as we're absolutely 100% crystal clear that this is just your own personal opinion and preference, and in no way intended to be presented as a claim of objective fact or truth, then that's cool.

I'd replace that last sentence, though - change "It is" to "I do".

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 06:14 PM
Proxy programs are part of the reason they will never have a system like this. If you no longer need the cards to practice AND play, you no longer need to buy cards. You are right, it is not worth talking about really because they would never even consider this idea much less implement it. It is good they are the developers of the game.

Question then: if these pro players don't buy any cards from CZE, how are they qualifying for these larger tournaments? Because the only way to qualify for the big tournaments is to win smaller ones. Smaller tournaments hosted in the Hex client. Which will require their own, pre-existing card pool.

hex_colin
06-29-2013, 06:22 PM
Question then: if these pro players don't buy any cards from CZE, how are they qualifying for these larger tournaments? Because the only way to qualify for the big tournaments is to win smaller ones. Smaller tournaments hosted in the Hex client. Which will require their own, pre-existing card pool.

Exactly this.

At the very end of the process, when you've identified the best 8 players or whatever, why not completely level the playing field in both the limited and constructed formats? Ignoring the financial reasons/pressures, why wouldn't this be the fairest possible way to do the final rounds?

EDIT: And, if this is the fairest way to determine who's actually best at the game, why wouldn't you since it's possible in a digital TCG? There are obvious reasons why it's not particularly practical in a physical format, though not impossible.

dogmod
06-29-2013, 07:10 PM
It is not my concern if most people take silly things serious c: I take what is actually serious, serious. Also it is not my concern if people are offended that I think the idea of a serious TCG competition is silly. It is.

The fact that you take competition at all outside of food and resources seriously is silly. Seriously silly. How could you find things that don't matter, mattersome? Ridonkulosity. I will now spend the rest of my life eating and breathing, occasionally stopping to sleep.

lucedes
06-29-2013, 07:11 PM
isn't this what, like, 90% of the guild features are for?

if you're really that good at the game and you don't have much money, get some guildies to lend you the cards for the tournament, and return the cards afterward with a chunk of your winnings. worst case they get nothing but your thanks and you're out the entry fee, best case you win a bunch of cards and they make a free profit. this is how a significant portion of legacy players play M:tG.

you need to practice with all the cards? GUILDS HAVE BUILT-IN PRACTICE DECKS. they even include the decks that topped the most recent tournaments! for free! WHAT MORE COULD YOU WANT? they already have systems in place so that you can overcome the barriers to entry, all you need are a few friends.

hex_colin
06-29-2013, 07:20 PM
isn't this what, like, 90% of the guild features are for?

if you're really that good at the game and you don't have much money, get some guildies to lend you the cards for the tournament, and return the cards afterward with a chunk of your winnings. worst case they get nothing but your thanks and you're out the entry fee, best case you win a bunch of cards and they make a free profit. this is how a significant portion of legacy players play M:tG.

you need to practice with all the cards? GUILDS HAVE BUILT-IN PRACTICE DECKS. they even include the decks that topped the most recent tournaments! for free! WHAT MORE COULD YOU WANT? they already have systems in place so that you can overcome the barriers to entry, all you need are a few friends.

It's not the same. There are hundreds of reasons why this doesn't necessarily guarantee you access to the cards you want/need.

I still haven't seen any arguments about why giving the top 8 or whatever access to any cards they need is not the fairest possible way to decide who is best at the game... Of course, I've got no "skin in the game" either way...

dogmod
06-29-2013, 07:22 PM
It's not the same. There are hundreds of reasons why this doesn't necessarily guarantee you access to the cards you want/need.

I still haven't seen any arguments about why giving the top 8 or whatever access to any cards they need is not the fairest possible way to decide who is best at the game... Of course, I've got no "skin in the game" either way...

Fairest in that it provides the most level playing field? Or fairest because it nullifies all the work people did to get their decks up to that point?

While not a great analogy it would kind of be like saying to all the Tour de France riders... Okay whoever made the top 8 going into the last stage you now all have the same time and it is the first of you 8 to cross the finish line that win!

hex_colin
06-29-2013, 07:23 PM
Fairest in that it provides the most level playing field? Or fairest because it nullifies all the work people did to get their decks up to that point?

What are you having a world championship of? Buying cards? Or skill at playing the game?

dogmod
06-29-2013, 07:23 PM
What are you having a world championship of? Buying cards? Or skill at playing the game?

Seems to me those are all part of the game... I edited my last post with an analogy (admittedly not perfect) You could say that everyone should have the same deck then the person with the most skill would truly be known

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 07:24 PM
Fairest in that it provides the most level playing field? Or fairest because it nullifies all the work people did to get their decks up to that point?

Since when did punching in a credit card number qualify as "work"?

dogmod
06-29-2013, 07:27 PM
Since when did punching in a credit card number qualify as "work"?

Tell a collector that building a collection doesn't require work

hex_colin
06-29-2013, 07:30 PM
While not a great analogy it would kind of be like saying to all the Tour de France riders... Okay whoever made the top 8 going into the last stage you now all have the same time and it is the first of you 8 to cross the finish line that win!

I think this analogy actually works better for my argument. TCG tournaments do exactly this - take the Top 8, give them all exactly the same "record", and play as if nothing had happened prior to that (records don't carry over, etc.). I'm just suggesting taking it one step further... Everyone gets exactly the same cards in the constructed format (same bikes, support staff, etc. in your analogy).

You'd still need to have done the work - practice with the deck you planned to use, etc. But you wouldn't be limited by access to cards.

Also, this works to my personal disadvantage... I'm just interested in why people think it wouldn't actually be the fairest way to test Hex playing skill when you remove the TCG economics.

I'm going out drinking... Hilarious alcohol-fueled responses to the posts submitted in my absence... ;)

hex_colin
06-29-2013, 07:32 PM
Tell a collector that building a collection doesn't require work

It requires a combination of work and/or money. It doesn't necessarily require work... My lifetime Hex collection took about 10 clicks :P

stiii
06-29-2013, 07:39 PM
I think this analogy actually works better for my argument. TCG tournaments do exactly this - take the Top 8, give them all exactly the same "record", and play as if nothing had happened prior to that (records don't carry over, etc.). I'm just suggesting taking it one step further... Everyone gets exactly the same cards in the constructed format (same bikes, support staff, etc. in your analogy).

You'd still need to have done the work - practice with the deck you planned to use, etc. But you wouldn't be limited by access to cards.

Also, this works to my personal disadvantage... I'm just interested in why people think it wouldn't actually be the fairest way to test Hex playing skill when you remove the TCG economics.

I'm going out drinking... Hilarious alcohol-fueled responses to the posts submitted in my absence... ;)

Well you can't ever remove all the barriers in totality. Maybe the worlds best Hex player doesn't have the time due to his job. Maybe the best player can't afford any cards. We can only judge people by what results they produce. In practise the guy with no money is still perfectly able to compete at the highest level by winning events and using prizes from those events to buy whatever cards they need.

stiii
06-29-2013, 07:40 PM
The fact that you take competition at all outside of food and resources seriously is silly. Seriously silly. How could you find things that don't matter, mattersome? Ridonkulosity. I will now spend the rest of my life eating and breathing, occasionally stopping to sleep.

I assumed the different was things he is good at are serious and thing he aren't well aren't

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 07:41 PM
Tell a collector that building a collection doesn't require work

We're not talking about collectors. We're talking about pro players, playing in high level tournaments where there should be an expectation of fairness and equal-footing.

dogmod
06-29-2013, 07:58 PM
We're not talking about collectors. We're talking about pro players, playing in high level tournaments where there should be an expectation of fairness and equal-footing.

I guess my point of view is that from when you turn the game on you are playing the game. It is part playing the game during the match, it is part practicing with the deck you want to use, it is part building the deck you want to use, and it is part building the collection for that deck. To me that is ALL part of the game. Now you can say that is not fair because some people may use money to shortcut the collecting, but the fact is that people will be shortcutting other steps as well by stealing other peoples deck ideas and using them. It is not perfect but few things that people enjoy are.

You could remove the collection building but that would be removing part of the game(to me at least).

Malakili
06-29-2013, 08:06 PM
Pay to win is a myth anyway. Give a newbie a winning deck and they will fail spectacularly in any competitive situation. Anyone serious enough to play constructed competitively is going to be hamstrung more by skill than by their wallet. Just look at the competitive Magic scene, you see the same names at the top over time. If it was pay to win anyone who wanted to purchase a good deck could find their way to the top of a pro tour event. It doesn't happen.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 08:25 PM
What are you having a world championship of? Buying cards? Or skill at playing the game?

Collecting cards is a huge part of any TCG. You could essentially classify it as part of the game. If they are bad at that part of the game, they will do worse, just like if they were bad at the playing part of the game.

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 09:05 PM
Collecting cards is a huge part of any TCG.
I think you need to stop speaking for other people, and let them decide which facets of the game are "huge" for themselves. I can tell you right now that collecting cards was not a huge part of the game for any of the competitive tcg players I've known. They would shill out tons of money for the new chase rares, win tournaments, then all but throw those cards away when a new set rolled around.

Banquetto
06-29-2013, 09:09 PM
I think you need to stop speaking for other people, and let them decide which facets of the game are "huge" for themselves. I can tell you right now that collecting cards was not a huge part of the game for any of the competitive tcg players I've known. They would shill out tons of money for the new chase rares, win tournaments, then all but throw those cards away when a new set rolled around.

But collecting cards is a huge part of any TCG.

It may not be every players' favourite part, but it is what makes a TCG a TCG.

If you don't like Trading Cards, there are millions of games out there that are not Trading Card Games.

You're not going to change Hex into not being a Trading Card Game any more, so why not give it a rest?

Kietay
06-29-2013, 09:13 PM
Exactly. It doesnt matter if its not the part they enjoy a lot, it is a big part of the game. If you remove it you remove part of the game. Making people have to collect the cards they play with is integral to any TCG. This is not a CCG. If they want a balanced (everyone has all the cards) game, there are a lot of CCGs out there.

Avedecus
06-29-2013, 09:20 PM
You're not going to change Hex into not being a Trading Card Game any more, so why not give it a rest?

Who said I was trying to? I'm just arguing for efficient, streamlined, and fair high level professional tournaments.

By the way, just wanna congratulate you guys on continuing to support your arguments with the well-grounded and logically sound evidence of "just because!".

jaxsonbatemanhex
06-29-2013, 09:27 PM
Pay to win is a myth anyway. Give a newbie a winning deck and they will fail spectacularly in any competitive situation. Anyone serious enough to play constructed competitively is going to be hamstrung more by skill than by their wallet. Just look at the competitive Magic scene, you see the same names at the top over time. If it was pay to win anyone who wanted to purchase a good deck could find their way to the top of a pro tour event. It doesn't happen.
Just to touch on this, it seems you're misunderstanding what pay to win means. It's not about paying money and automatically winning or having the potential to win. It's about having a monetary barrier to having a good chance at winning, or increasing your odds of doing so significantly.

Let's take John and Fred. John has only a deck built from his booster pack openings, worth very little money. Against the field, it wins about 10% of matches. Fred has a top tier deck he built by sourcing all the appropriate rares he needed, and then including the uncommons and commons he already had for it. His deck is worth far more as it has many chase cards in it, and it wins against 62% of decks being used.

Now, John wouldn't immediately win against 62% of decks if Fred gave him his deck to use, but he'd have a much better chance at winning any particular match due to the superior strength of the more expensive deck. That's what pay to win is about. Not paying to auto-win; paying to receive a significant boost.

ShadowTycho
06-29-2013, 09:55 PM
But collecting cards is a huge part of any TCG.

It may not be every players' favourite part, but it is what makes a TCG a TCG.

If you don't like Trading Cards, there are millions of games out there that are not Trading Card Games.

You're not going to change Hex into not being a Trading Card Game any more, so why not give it a rest?
this is what i was talking about in my last post.
paper tcg's don't let me play with the whole set so this digital one shouldn't either.
the economic model i'm used to is obsolete!

hex is different, it doesn't have to do anything remotely like a paper tcg if it doesn't want to.
your view is just a view and need not apply.
this can be a e-sport if it wants to. and part of that is everyone gets the toolbox and only the skilled really figure out how to make skyscrapers with it.
they are the best.
not because of their tools but because of their skyscrapers.

Kietay
06-29-2013, 10:04 PM
They could give people paper cards to play in tournaments too if they wanted. They dont because they know collecting the cards to play with is half the game. If you cannot accomplish that aspect of the game you cannot use the cards to play with in a competitive setting. Also, while I think hex will be super fun to play and watch, and most others here will probably think that too, it will never be an esport in the same respect as SC2.

SC2 has many viewers who do not play it and some who have never played it. Hex will likely have no viewers who have never played it simply because of its nature. It's not fast paced with explosions nor is it intuitive to understand simply by sitting down and watching even if you dont know the rules.

Let me say it one more time for the turtle who keeps forgetting to read our responses before replying and thinks we are not backing up what we are saying. The reason they should not give out cards to make it even is because collecting the cards to play with is -part of the game-. If you cannot accomplish that -part of the game- then you are worse at it and will sometimes lose because of it.

jaxsonbatemanhex
06-29-2013, 10:11 PM
I can tell you now, it's not just as simple as building a 'skyscraper' that no-one else has thought of. Just ask Conley Woods (a very good MTG player known largely for crafting many rogue decks) how many pro tours he's won. Though occasionally you do get someone piloting a new deck, or an old deck with new tech, that no-one else is and winning off of it. But more often than not the high level mainstays are the decks winning, not new skyscrapers or anything of that nature.

On this topic as a whole, I'm fine with either way. On a personal note, I like having to acquire the cards myself. Makes me feel like I earnt the right to be in the tournament by putting the deck I wanted to use together off of my own back.

Banquetto
06-30-2013, 12:31 AM
hex is different, it doesn't have to do anything remotely like a paper tcg if it doesn't want to.

Sure. Look at League of Legends, or World of Tanks. They didn't have to do anything remotely like a paper TCG - and they didn't.

Hex, however, has a design goal of being the premier digital TCG. And it's a little hard to achieve that goal if halfway along you say, "you know what? this would be a better game if it wasn't a TCG."

hex_colin
06-30-2013, 02:03 AM
Hex, however, has a design goal of being the premier digital TCG. And it's a little hard to achieve that goal if halfway along you say, "you know what? this would be a better game if it wasn't a TCG."

It's a bit of a leap from "let's give the top 8 guys at World's a completely level playing field" to "screw it's, let's not have it be a TCG at all". It would have a marginal effect on a minuscule fraction of the Hex-playing population. It's complete madness to suggest that that would take CZE's well planned TCG business model and devolve it to a CCG.

Also, so many posts in my absence, and still no one can give me a cogent argument for why access to all of the cards wouldn't be the fairest possible test of constructed skill, removing all possible economic impacts on a select few's ability to use exactly the deck they think would give them the best possible chance.


On this topic as a whole, I'm fine with either way. On a personal note, I like having to acquire the cards myself. Makes me feel like I earnt the right to be in the tournament by putting the deck I wanted to use together off of my own back.

Jax, I'm of completely the same mindset. It's just entertaining to see just how vehemently opposed people are to an idea that really is the fairest possible scenario, even if it has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being implemented ;)

hex_colin
06-30-2013, 02:13 AM
The reason they should not give out cards to make it even is because collecting the cards to play with is -part of the game-. If you cannot accomplish that -part of the game- then you are worse at it and will sometimes lose because of it.

If it's really "part of the game" why aren't there 100's of posts about why CZE has basically handed the game to Producer (and temporarily [Set 1] to Primal and Immortal) level backers? I don't consider myself any better than anyone else who plans to play the game, but by your reasoning lots of people will be "worse" than me because I automatically have 4 of every card and they might not have the means, opportunity, or time to match that feat in preparation for a tournament.

Also, lost in all the angst over leveling the constructed playing field, is that the only reason anyone has ever suggested that is because constructed is a flawed way of determining who is the best at Hex. A tournament that relies solely on limited, preferably drafting, formats is likely a much better gauge of skill overall and doesn't require any other measures to "level the playing field".

Banquetto
06-30-2013, 03:17 AM
It's a bit of a leap from "let's give the top 8 guys at World's a completely level playing field" to "screw it's, let's not have it be a TCG at all". It would have a marginal effect on a minuscule fraction of the Hex-playing population. It's complete madness to suggest that that would take CZE's well planned TCG business model and devolve it to a CCG.

Also, so many posts in my absence, and still no one can give me a cogent argument for why access to all of the cards wouldn't be the fairest possible test of constructed skill, removing all possible economic impacts on a select few's ability to use exactly the deck they think would give them the best possible chance.

A minuscule fraction of the Hex-playing population.. just the absolute pinnacle of competitive play.

And by the way, I haven't heard anyone say that this wouldn't be "the fairest possible test of constructed skill" or that it wouldn't "remove all possible economic impacts" - just that it's a horrible, horrible idea.

You're basically suggesting that CZE stand on a rooftop and yell "Don't pay money for cards! Collecting cards is stupid! The TRUE ultimate test of Hex skill is picking whatever card you like and playing with it!"

Why don't we make it a truer test of skill by allowing people to play their cards in whatever order they like, remove the random element of deck-shuffling? Works for chess, surely it would work for Hex?

Kietay
06-30-2013, 03:26 AM
If it's really "part of the game" why aren't there 100's of posts about why CZE has basically handed the game to Producer (and temporarily [Set 1] to Primal and Immortal) level backers?

I dunno. I was under the impression you could buy a full set of every card for 20 years straight with $10,000. So considering the game will likely not last that long. I think anyone who wants to own a producer playset of cards can still do so, only much much cheaper.

Edit: also, there have been many people who specifically didnt buy primal tier and up because they said owning 4 of every card immediately would make the game less fun for them. Because they know collecting the cards is part of the game. And you miss out a lot if you don't do that.

Tinuvas
06-30-2013, 04:00 AM
I do like chess, and I will like Hex. You can enjoy TCGs without pretending they are serious grounds for competition.
Pro Tours in Magic put out what...40k+ in prize money every time they come to town...just to the best players. While I'm sure there is money in chess too, 40k sounds pretty serious to me. I've played both. Both are serious, competitive games, and they both involve luck at some level.


I think this analogy actually works better for my argument. TCG tournaments do exactly this - take the Top 8, give them all exactly the same "record", and play as if nothing had happened prior to that (records don't carry over, etc.). I'm just suggesting taking it one step further... Everyone gets exactly the same cards in the constructed format (same bikes, support staff, etc. in your analogy).
Back on topic: So you would take the last day of the competition, remove the rest, and even the playing field at that point? Why not 2 days back? 4 days? Where do you draw the line? Why is your line better than anyone else's? I have yet to see an argument that convinces me that 'all card' accounts will help anyone in the long run.


We're not talking about collectors. We're talking about pro players, playing in high level tournaments where there should be an expectation of fairness and equal-footing.
Define that expectation of fairness and equal-footing. Nothing is ever completely fair, and far too often when people try to 'level the playing field' they just mess it up further. That could easily be the case here. The law of unintended consequences kicks in and blows the system all to pot. The fairest way of doing it is setting up the open system of trades and collectable cards and let the natural consequences of life work on who gets to the big tourneys and with which cards. Anything else invites those 'in the know' to game the system and creates INequality rather that equality.


It's a bit of a leap from "let's give the top 8 guys at World's a completely level playing field" to "screw it's, let's not have it be a TCG at all". It would have a marginal effect on a minuscule fraction of the Hex-playing population. It's complete madness to suggest that that would take CZE's well planned TCG business model and devolve it to a CCG.
But that is exactly what you do when you give cards to tourney players. It has lost the TCG moniker. Does that matter in the spirit of fairness and equality (assuming that is the correct and most appropriate goal)? YES! You can't tell me that a pro player who uses proxy programs to get around paying CZE fairly for the cards he needs and then utilizes 'all card' tourney accounts to win his grand prizes won't affect a larger percentage of players than the elite top. The glory seekers, not all, but increasing amounts over time as word gets out, will leave the game, practice with proxy programs, and come back for the big tourneys. Over time, this will create a host of negative side affects, including but not limited to: 'pure' players demanding 'all card' free tourneys for those who don't 'cheat'; lowered revenue for CZE, making them put further restrictions and rules in place to protect their product, further splitting the elites, haves, have-nots; death of in-game draft queue's and constructed queues (why play here when proxy.com lets you play the same game for FREE!), which eventually would result in the death of the game anyway. You may suggest that I don't know that this will happen. I suggest that it is entirely within the realm of possibility and you don't know that it won't!



Also, so many posts in my absence, and still no one can give me a cogent argument for why access to all of the cards wouldn't be the fairest possible test of constructed skill, removing all possible economic impacts on a select few's ability to use exactly the deck they think would give them the best possible chance.
Once again, using the bike analogy, your test of constructed skill seems to rest only on the final day of the race. For me, constructed skill begins NOW, TODAY. I am learning the cards and listening to other people's thoughts on their interactions before the game even hits late ALPHA. I am trying to look at my limited resources and figure out which chase cards will command a premium for me, because I will not have a full set of cards as I just don't have the cash. My race has already begun. For you to say that my efforts at this point will be moot because you will arbitrarily draw the line right next to the finish line destroys the race for so many of the rest of us.

In addition, you are asking the wrong question. No wonder no one has answered it. Limited card play is the short game. You bring your skill to the table, run with the cards you are given, and try to dominate your playing field. Constructed play is the long game. As noted above, it begins long before tourney day. Your suggestion just makes Constructed more like Limited. And it does nothing to make things more fair. It may appear so on the surface, but ANY time you create unnatural rules for a system, it creates places for people to game that system. Noob hits Hex, puts time and effort and cash into the game, preps for tourney and goes up against Noob with friend who told him about proxy program. Pure Noob will lose to proxy Noob 10 to 1, every time. Why? proxy Noob had an unnatural advantage in the friends he picked. Nothing fair about it, and you've introduced legions of unintended consequences into the system.

Also, you are the one suggesting that the system be changed. The burden of proof rests with you to convince me (and/or CZE) that your suggestion a) does what you say it will, and b) does something superior to the current standard. Looking at all past the surface of the suggestion, I remain unconvinced.


If it's really "part of the game" why aren't there 100's of posts about why CZE has basically handed the game to Producer (and temporarily [Set 1] to Primal and Immortal) level backers? I don't consider myself any better than anyone else who plans to play the game, but by your reasoning lots of people will be "worse" than me because I automatically have 4 of every card and they might not have the means, opportunity, or time to match that feat in preparation for a tournament.
Note that in the following paragraph I speak of myself symbolically, not literally, for effect: You have already placed your opening moves on the board so to speak. Everyone can see that. You have dedicated an amount and type of resources you feel is needed to give you an advantage in Constructed play. I don't have that advantage. Funny thing is, I will beat you. Every card you have, every advantage you have 'bought' won't be enough when my <insert favorite race> hordes come crashing across the red zone to chew on your champion's face. There is nothing fair about it. There never will be. I challenge your resources to mine. That raw competitiveness, that long view, THAT is what drives the Constructed game of any decent TCG. Throw away your unnatural rules and changes. They don't help. They don't make fair. They just mutilate the game.

TL;DR
Unnatural rules (aka 'all card' tourney accounts) unbalance the playing field more than balance them, and introduce unintended consequences that are unknown and possibly fatal to the game. There is no fair to Constructed play prep. Don't unnaturally try to make it so as it doesn't work in the real world.

Freakin' wall of text. Sorry folks, but you asked for an explanation that was impossible in 2 sentences.

Prism
06-30-2013, 05:07 AM
im happy that there is no reason for me to post in this thread as crypto isn't retarded enough to do this braindead garbage idea. OP is stupid as fuck

Malakili
06-30-2013, 06:03 AM
Just to touch on this, it seems you're misunderstanding what pay to win means. It's not about paying money and automatically winning or having the potential to win. It's about having a monetary barrier to having a good chance at winning, or increasing your odds of doing so significantly.

Let's take John and Fred. John has only a deck built from his booster pack openings, worth very little money. Against the field, it wins about 10% of matches. Fred has a top tier deck he built by sourcing all the appropriate rares he needed, and then including the uncommons and commons he already had for it. His deck is worth far more as it has many chase cards in it, and it wins against 62% of decks being used.

Now, John wouldn't immediately win against 62% of decks if Fred gave him his deck to use, but he'd have a much better chance at winning any particular match due to the superior strength of the more expensive deck. That's what pay to win is about. Not paying to auto-win; paying to receive a significant boost.

Ok, so a trading card game is probably not for you then, at least not competitive constructed. Sorry.

jaxsonbatemanhex
06-30-2013, 06:33 AM
Ok, so a trading card game is probably not for you then, at least not competitive constructed. Sorry.
What makes you say that? I'm fine with the idea of getting an edge by playing the best (and thus likely more-expensive-than-others) deck. I'm just saying that a TCG does have elements of pay to win, in that you do gain an edge in many cases by investing more.

Unhurtable
06-30-2013, 07:01 AM
Pro Tours in Magic put out what...40k+ in prize money every time they come to town...just to the best players. While I'm sure there is money in chess too, 40k sounds pretty serious to me. I've played both. Both are serious, competitive games, and they both involve luck at some level.

Chess does not involve luck at any level, unless you count "who gets to be white" as luck, which has almost no impact on the game as the average chance of winning on either side is very close to 50%. Your opponent making a mistake is not luck.


Define that expectation of fairness and equal-footing. Nothing is ever completely fair, and far too often when people try to 'level the playing field' they just mess it up further. That could easily be the case here. The law of unintended consequences kicks in and blows the system all to pot. The fairest way of doing it is setting up the open system of trades and collectable cards and let the natural consequences of life work on who gets to the big tourneys and with which cards. Anything else invites those 'in the know' to game the system and creates INequality rather that equality.

How is nothing ever completely fair? I can think of dozens of ways you could make things completely fair.
How is this inequality created?


But that is exactly what you do when you give cards to tourney players. It has lost the TCG moniker. Does that matter in the spirit of fairness and equality (assuming that is the correct and most appropriate goal)? YES! You can't tell me that a pro player who uses proxy programs to get around paying CZE fairly for the cards he needs and then utilizes 'all card' tourney accounts to win his grand prizes won't affect a larger percentage of players than the elite top. The glory seekers, not all, but increasing amounts over time as word gets out, will leave the game, practice with proxy programs, and come back for the big tourneys. Over time, this will create a host of negative side affects, including but not limited to: 'pure' players demanding 'all card' free tourneys for those who don't 'cheat'; lowered revenue for CZE, making them put further restrictions and rules in place to protect their product, further splitting the elites, haves, have-nots; death of in-game draft queue's and constructed queues (why play here when proxy.com lets you play the same game for FREE!), which eventually would result in the death of the game anyway. You may suggest that I don't know that this will happen. I suggest that it is entirely within the realm of possibility and you don't know that it won't!

You make quite the slippery slope argument there. Proxy.com could in ANY CASE compete Hex out of business, regardless if we move to a more exclusive or inclusive system. Apparently proxy.com grows in either case.


In addition, you are asking the wrong question. No wonder no one has answered it. Limited card play is the short game. You bring your skill to the table, run with the cards you are given, and try to dominate your playing field. Constructed play is the long game. As noted above, it begins long before tourney day. Your suggestion just makes Constructed more like Limited. And it does nothing to make things more fair. It may appear so on the surface, but ANY time you create unnatural rules for a system, it creates places for people to game that system. Noob hits Hex, puts time and effort and cash into the game, preps for tourney and goes up against Noob with friend who told him about proxy program. Pure Noob will lose to proxy Noob 10 to 1, every time. Why? proxy Noob had an unnatural advantage in the friends he picked. Nothing fair about it, and you've introduced legions of unintended consequences into the system.

What is defined as an unnatural rule?
Also, proxy Noob most likely won because he was better at the game and had practiced longer (since he had access to the proxy game). I have a hard time seeing someone not winning when they are better if the playing field is fair.
The proxy-way could work in the non-leveled playing field too, as the proxy noob could have practiced with a certain deck for a long time, then pays like 20$ for his specific deck while non-proxy noob spent 100$ drafting and constructing a deck he has not practiced as much as the proxy noob. The only way the proxy option is worse than the non-proxy option is if the proxy option becomes popular, which would mean you would be able to practice against high-rated opponents and get the same practice one would get from the non-proxy option but for free.

Avedecus
06-30-2013, 07:01 AM
Prism is stupid as fuck

I agree.

Avedecus
06-30-2013, 07:07 AM
TL;DR
Unnatural rules (aka 'all card' tourney accounts) unbalance the playing field more than balance them, and introduce unintended consequences that are unknown and possibly fatal to the game. There is no fair to Constructed play prep. Don't unnaturally try to make it so as it doesn't work in the real world.

Freakin' wall of text. Sorry folks, but you asked for an explanation that was impossible in 2 sentences.

I seriously have never met someone that can say so much, while still managing to say nothing at all. Again, and again, and again I have asked for a rebuttal that consists of more than "just because" or "It's always been like that". And again and again I am failed spectacularly in this thread. If you'd like to convince me of anything, demonstrate to me how this suggested idea would unbalance the game. Keep in mind that it is entirely impossible for anyone to "proxy" their way into these larger tournaments. They WILL have to succeed largely on the virtue of their own collections.

Kietay
06-30-2013, 07:15 AM
Avedecus, most people simply don't want an equalizer to level the playing field. There is no empirical reason to have or not have one except the fact that most TCG players are of the opinion you should only ever be able to play with cards you own. You might think a perfectly fair playing field is the ideal situation, but obviously a lot of people do not in this setting.

Considering that collecting cards is a big part of the game, many feel it should never be overstepped -ever-. This is a completely legitimate stance to have and one I share. If you cant play the collection part of the game, then you will not do as well at the playing part of the game. If you don't like this, there are a lot of other CCGs to play, rather than TCGs. Don't be an upside down turtle.

jaxsonbatemanhex
06-30-2013, 07:22 AM
I think what people on both sides of the argument need to understand is that both sides genuinely have merits, so lets not get too aggressive when people disagree with us.

Avedecus
06-30-2013, 07:44 AM
Collecting can be a big part of the game. It is not, however, a big part of the competitive game. "Oh man, that legendary I always thought was crap is actually pretty good. Guess I gotta pony up thirty bucks for each copy I need." is not collecting.

nandus
06-30-2013, 07:56 AM
Collecting can be a big part of the game. It is not, however, a big part of the competitive game. "Oh man, that legendary I always thought was crap is actually pretty good. Guess I gotta pony up thirty bucks for each copy I need." is not collecting.

And don't forget to get 4 copies of it! That's pretty much what collecting is ;) Part of the skill involved on TCGs is knowing which cards will be worth more and when, so you don't end up in these situation; in which I totally suck by the way. That's why other people suggest CCGs games to you, those don't have this part and are pretty much what you want. However if you want to play Hex in a completely "equalized" level playing field and you don't want to play sealed(booster draft is the best skill only format ever), then just wait until pauper gets in and you will be competitive in PVP for less than $10 bucks. You can get tons of prizes for little investment here in queued tournaments, plus I for one would be all in for a world pauper championship.

stiii
06-30-2013, 08:34 AM
Avedecus, most people simply don't want an equalizer to level the playing field. There is no empirical reason to have or not have one except the fact that most TCG players are of the opinion you should only ever be able to play with cards you own. You might think a perfectly fair playing field is the ideal situation, but obviously a lot of people do not in this setting.

Considering that collecting cards is a big part of the game, many feel it should never be overstepped -ever-. This is a completely legitimate stance to have and one I share. If you cant play the collection part of the game, then you will not do as well at the playing part of the game. If you don't like this, there are a lot of other CCGs to play, rather than TCGs. Don't be an upside down turtle.

You speak for other people like it is your job.

stiii
06-30-2013, 08:36 AM
What makes you say that? I'm fine with the idea of getting an edge by playing the best (and thus likely more-expensive-than-others) deck. I'm just saying that a TCG does have elements of pay to win, in that you do gain an edge in many cases by investing more.

The problem is by the definition you are suing most games are pay to win. In LOL you can pay to unlock things and if you don't want to do this you can grind for x hours to get everything. In the Hex it will be pretty similar.

stiii
06-30-2013, 08:40 AM
I seriously have never met someone that can say so much, while still managing to say nothing at all. Again, and again, and again I have asked for a rebuttal that consists of more than "just because" or "It's always been like that". And again and again I am failed spectacularly in this thread. If you'd like to convince me of anything, demonstrate to me how this suggested idea would unbalance the game. Keep in mind that it is entirely impossible for anyone to "proxy" their way into these larger tournaments. They WILL have to succeed largely on the virtue of their own collections.

If someone can't proxy their way into these events what is their purpose? You aren't finding the best player because that best player will still need to own all the cards to test in the first place. You have just moved the barrier not removed it.

You have to supply some reason that this idea of unlocked cards for big events is a benefit.

jaxsonbatemanhex
06-30-2013, 09:15 AM
The problem is by the definition you are suing most games are pay to win. In LOL you can pay to unlock things and if you don't want to do this you can grind for x hours to get everything. In the Hex it will be pretty similar.
To be fair, it's very likely that the time to unlock random LoL champion X, and the time to grind enough gold to convince someone to part with a chase rare will be night and day. If you can even convince someone to part with said chase rare.

BossHoss
06-30-2013, 09:21 AM
This thread simplified: (by skimming coles notes rather than reading entire novel)
-OP suggests level playing field through "tournament accounts"
~Two obvious views, for and against

-"For" arguments:
~Attempts a solution for a level playing field
~People with less money have access to expensive top tier cards helping ^
= "For" seems to boil down to helping the less financially fortunate player

-"Against" arguments:
~Removes collectible aspect
~Less money to CZE
= "Against" wants to preserve CZE business model and the "T" in TCG

For me I thought the answer was obvious as I quickly proposed a solution earlier but now I will explain:

WSOP (World Series of Poker)
$10,000 main event buy in
Level playing field all starts with $10,000 in chips
Not everyone can afford $10,000 in chips although they may clearly be better than Doyle Brunson
Satellites are offered for a fractional buy in ($200) and you can win your entry ($10,000) into the tournament
You do not get to keep the $10,000 you won in the satellite but you have a chance to earn a real prize payout by performing well
Ex. You make it to the "money" cut off and win $15,000+

Hex
Block 1,2 containing Sets A,B,C,X,Y,Z card pool
Level playing field all starts with access to Block 1,2 containing Sets A,B,C,X,Y,Z card pool
Not everyone can afford Block 1,2 containing Sets A,B,C,X,Y,Z card pool although they may clearly be better than LSV
Why can`t we offer satellites for a fractional buy in ($2) and win access (Block 1,2 containing Sets A,B,C,X,Y,Z card pool)
You do not get to keep the cards you won access to, but have a chance to earn real prize payouts by performing well

This seems to be beneficial for everyone...
$2 phantom (don`t keep the cards) tournament at the beginning of each set pre-release
N max entries with $2N going to CZE
Top 8 win access to all cards in the block for the duration of the set
Losers have a taste of what they want/need to collect to compete
Winners at the end of the set will have a taste of what they want/need to collect after their card "rental" has been removed


1.CZE still makes money
2.Increases the competitive playing field (helps level the skill)
3.The "T" is retained, if not promoted

hex_colin
06-30-2013, 09:34 AM
I dunno. I was under the impression you could buy a full set of every card for 20 years straight with $10,000. So considering the game will likely not last that long. I think anyone who wants to own a producer playset of cards can still do so, only much much cheaper.

Edit: also, there have been many people who specifically didnt buy primal tier and up because they said owning 4 of every card immediately would make the game less fun for them. Because they know collecting the cards is part of the game. And you miss out a lot if you don't do that.

Your math is off. Even if you could buy 4 of every card released (PVP and PVE) for 20 years for $10,000, you've not considered the time investment. How much is an hour of your time worth? How much will it be worth 5 years from now? 10 years from now? I know very specifically what an hour of my time is worth, and it makes the ROI horizon on not having to spend time tracking down cards pretty short.


You have already placed your opening moves on the board so to speak. Everyone can see that. You have dedicated an amount and type of resources you feel is needed to give you an advantage in Constructed play. I don't have that advantage. Funny thing is, I will beat you. Every card you have, every advantage you have 'bought' won't be enough when my <insert favorite race> hordes come crashing across the red zone to chew on your champion's face. There is nothing fair about it. There never will be. I challenge your resources to mine. That raw competitiveness, that long view, THAT is what drives the Constructed game of any decent TCG. Throw away your unnatural rules and changes. They don't help. They don't make fair. They just mutilate the game.

They're only "unnatural" because there is 20 years of M:tG history and, more importantly, that fact that it would be almost impossible to manage the logistics of with a physical TCG. Some people embrace change, others don't - we're seeing that in this thread.

You have no idea who I am. You don't know my motivation for my purchases. I expect to play competitively, but that was way down the list of reasons why I decided to give money to CZE. "I will beat you" is a pretty bold statement. You're making a flawed assumption that having money to spend and skill at TCGs are mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Finally, you should never assume that a person's views on a particular subject completely mirror the arguments they're making in support of one side or another. That's the essence of a debate...



deˇbate (d-bt)
v. deˇbatˇed, deˇbatˇing, deˇbates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

Prodygi
06-30-2013, 09:34 AM
I think the thread is moving in a very rigid course. People are debating over 1 idea in a very "black or white" manner. (Imo)

I think the deeper question should be "can a player be competitive without spending any money". (Assuming Constructed format as it seems to be the format most associated with P2W)

The answer needs to be a yes.

To grow a game, you need to grow the community.
To grow the community, you need people to try the game.

P2W will scare people from even trying the game.
Imagine telling a player who hasn't even tried the game this "Hey, pve's fun and free. But to be competitive in pvp, you better be willing to spend"
Chances are, he'll find another game.

The casuals need to know that they have a shot going competitive if they are GOOD, not rich.

Kietay
06-30-2013, 11:31 AM
Your math is off. Even if you could buy 4 of every card released (PVP and PVE) for 20 years for $10,000, you've not considered the time investment. How much is an hour of your time worth? How much will it be worth 5 years from now? 10 years from now? I know very specifically what an hour of my time is worth, and it makes the ROI horizon on not having to spend time tracking down cards pretty short.

People will be selling entire sets of cards for sure. I have no idea how it could take you longer than 30 minutes to buy them all. Either way it is irrelevant. CZE is not insane, they won't even consider something like this. They have been super careful to protect the integrity of the game in every statement they have made.

stiii
06-30-2013, 12:02 PM
To be fair, it's very likely that the time to unlock random LoL champion X, and the time to grind enough gold to convince someone to part with a chase rare will be night and day. If you can even convince someone to part with said chase rare.

For grinding gold in pve you are probably correct. However I'm expecting a model similar to the MTGO system where there are constructed events with prizes. (2/8/64 player events which cost plat to enter and pay out packs you can then sell for plat it might not be exactly the same but it will almost certainly exist in some form)

So anyone who is even slightly good will be able to spend 100 hours and end up with a collection big enough to play whatever deck they want. (I'm not sure how long it takes in LOL to get all champs and all rune but 100 hours seems reasonable)

Malakili
06-30-2013, 12:20 PM
I think the thread is moving in a very rigid course. People are debating over 1 idea in a very "black or white" manner. (Imo)

I think the deeper question should be "can a player be competitive without spending any money". (Assuming Constructed format as it seems to be the format most associated with P2W)

The answer needs to be a yes.

To grow a game, you need to grow the community.
To grow the community, you need people to try the game.

P2W will scare people from even trying the game.
Imagine telling a player who hasn't even tried the game this "Hey, pve's fun and free. But to be competitive in pvp, you better be willing to spend"
Chances are, he'll find another game.

The casuals need to know that they have a shot going competitive if they are GOOD, not rich.

Why are we totally ignoring the example of Magic which has been growing like wildfire despite the fact that there isn't even a Free to play option AT ALL?

Diesbudt
06-30-2013, 02:14 PM
Why are we totally ignoring the example of Magic which has been growing like wildfire despite the fact that there isn't even a Free to play option AT ALL?

This has been my biggest confusion since this thread started. People trying to compare this to games not like it (LoL, etc.).

If you want to compare, compare it to WoWTCG, MtG, etc. Other card games.

Tinuvas
06-30-2013, 03:51 PM
Another wall of text incoming, TL;DR at bottom


I think what people on both sides of the argument need to understand is that both sides genuinely have merits, so lets not get too aggressive when people disagree with us.
Perhaps the only reason that I am in this debate at all is that I don't want this subject to end up on the 'everyone agrees that CZE should do something about this' on the 'CZE Hot topics' thread. I have considered this issue, really I have. I have tried to find situations in my mind where the idea proposed would benefit people. I have read the arguments for the change and deeply considered them. I cannot support the idea. I can't find value in it.


I seriously have never met someone that can say so much, while still managing to say nothing at all. Again, and again, and again I have asked for a rebuttal that consists of more than "just because" or "It's always been like that". And again and again I am failed spectacularly in this thread. If you'd like to convince me of anything, demonstrate to me how this suggested idea would unbalance the game. Keep in mind that it is entirely impossible for anyone to "proxy" their way into these larger tournaments. They WILL have to succeed largely on the virtue of their own collections.
I have valid arguments in the post. I agree that 'just because' arguments and 'it's always been like that' arguments aren't valid. I did not make those arguments. I feel that the potential for harm to the game is much greater with the changes than without them. If, after reread, you still cannot determine my arguments, I am willing to try to simplify and restate, though I have done so multiple times in this thread already, some of which were not disputed.



This seems to be beneficial for everyone...
$2 phantom (don`t keep the cards) tournament at the beginning of each set pre-release
N max entries with $2N going to CZE
Top 8 win access to all cards in the block for the duration of the set
Losers have a taste of what they want/need to collect to compete
Winners at the end of the set will have a taste of what they want/need to collect after their card "rental" has been removed


1.CZE still makes money
2.Increases the competitive playing field (helps level the skill)
3.The "T" is retained, if not promoted
While I don't find this idea needful, I do find it intriguing. The only glitch here is the model CZE has promoted of individual card identity, but they have also shown willingness to ignore that on occasion (guild banks and the previous win decks etc). It would have to be done right blah blah blah, but I could see this as an option that I could support. You want your 'all card' tourney option, you have to show you can earn it! If this were in place, I would funnel every dang friend I could find to it.



You have no idea who I am. You don't know my motivation for my purchases. I expect to play competitively, but that was way down the list of reasons why I decided to give money to CZE. "I will beat you" is a pretty bold statement. You're making a flawed assumption that having money to spend and skill at TCGs are mutually exclusive.

EDIT: Finally, you should never assume that a person's views on a particular subject completely mirror the arguments they're making in support of one side or another. That's the essence of a debate...
You are correct that I don't know who you are, but as you are commenting on this thread I must reply in that context. I am not making the flawed assumption you speak of above. What I was trying to say there is that the resources that each of us have are different. Money, time, raw talent, competitive drive, all of these play into resultant capacity to win this game. I actually assume that with your capacity to pledge at Producer that you most likely have a greater skill than I do personally at the game (as well as money available). But the law of probabilities states that with the numbers involved, someone, somewhere will have a better combination of resources than you and you will lose. I challenge you to break that idea and take World Champion. I would and will cheer your win completely. Each of us makes a decision as to what resources we will devote to the game. We get out what we put in. May the best man win.

I guess my point is that if you try to remove resources as a way to make things fair (money), you just skew the unfairness in another way. I don't have the time to devote to the game that a basement dweller will. I do have a bit more money than he probably does. This idea is patently unfair to me as it skews the 'fairness' to the basement dweller and his time advantage. Do we want to make the world championship happen 2 weeks after the full card list is released to make things more fair to those who have more/less time? It will skew things towards raw talent/time. What are we trying to measure here? Any artificial policy skews resultant fairness, it doesn't make things more equal. If CZE determines that they want to measure a particular resource, then this idea might work, but no one resource will make a good player. As in life, balance among all is the best way to determine true equality. (there's a better way to word that last sentence...but I don't know what it is right now)

TL;DR
I tried to restate my case. The concept is a bit deeper than 2+2=4 and thus might not come across, for which I am sorry. I will try to relieve all of you by backing out of the conversation, not because I have less to say, but my walls of text annoy even me. Please understand though, that if I say nothing, my opinion has not changed and stands as is.

Avedecus
06-30-2013, 04:22 PM
I feel that the potential for harm to the game is much greater with the changes than without them. If, after reread, you still cannot determine my arguments, I am willing to try to simplify and restate, though I have done so multiple times in this thread already, some of which were not disputed.

I've tried to give your previous post a good long re-reading, I really have. But all I can find in it as it pertains to my argument is the unsupported statement that it will take the "T" out of "TCG" (despite the fact that we are talking about largely uncommon events happening at the highest levels of play), and the idea that there will be unintended consequences, despite showing no willingness to outline what any possible consequences could be.

The single funniest thing out of this thread is that, while almost all of the people arguing against my own suggested idea (I've not bothered to reread the specifics of the OP in a while) have argued almost purely from emotion or tradition, I'M the one who has to think of a valid counter-point to generic tournament accounts: that being the individual achievements on each card and how having the cards of your deck marked for winning an important tournament could be a very good thing. I still believe my own idea has merit in terms of streamlining and evening the playing field of what I'd like to see become a competitive e-sport, but marked cards would be a great way for rewarding competitive skill and dedication.

So congrats guys, your counter-arguments have been so bad I had to come up with a good one myself.

Tinuvas
06-30-2013, 04:32 PM
This is where the comparison between Hex and say Starcraft 2 breaks down. There is nothing collectable about Starcraft 2, but Hex is built on the idea of collectable cards. They are a major element of the game. Thus an esport aspect of Hex should (IMHO) play solid tribute to that idea.

In addition, CZE has already trumpeted the ability for tourney winning cards to have trophies and other identifying elements on them for collectable purposes. Taking that away would severely diminish that ability of the cards.


The single funniest thing out of this thread is that, while almost all of the people arguing against my own suggested idea (I've not bothered to reread the specifics of the OP in a while) have argued almost purely from emotion or tradition, I'M the one who has to think of a valid counter-point to generic tournament accounts: that being the individual achievements on each card and how having the cards of your deck marked for winning an important tournament could be a very good thing. I still believe my own idea has merit in terms of streamlining and evening the playing field of what I'd like to see become a competitive e-sport, but marked cards would be a great way for rewarding competitive skill and dedication.

So congrats guys, your counter-arguments have been so bad I had to come up with a good one myself.

Umm, my post from 2 days ago, and yours from just recently.

Tinuvas
06-30-2013, 05:14 PM
I've tried to give your previous post a good long re-reading, I really have. But all I can find in it as it pertains to my argument is the unsupported statement that it will take the "T" out of "TCG" (despite the fact that we are talking about largely uncommon events happening at the highest levels of play), and the idea that there will be unintended consequences, despite showing no willingness to outline what any possible consequences could be.




But that is exactly what you do when you give cards to tourney players. It has lost the TCG moniker. Does that matter in the spirit of fairness and equality (assuming that is the correct and most appropriate goal)? YES! You can't tell me that a pro player who uses proxy programs to get around paying CZE fairly for the cards he needs and then utilizes 'all card' tourney accounts to win his grand prizes won't affect a larger percentage of players than the elite top. The glory seekers, not all, but increasing amounts over time as word gets out, will leave the game, practice with proxy programs, and come back for the big tourneys. Over time, this will create a host of negative side affects, including but not limited to: 'pure' players demanding 'all card' free tourneys for those who don't 'cheat'; lowered revenue for CZE, making them put further restrictions and rules in place to protect their product, further splitting the elites, haves, have-nots; death of in-game draft queue's and constructed queues (why play here when proxy.com lets you play the same game for FREE!), which eventually would result in the death of the game anyway. You may suggest that I don't know that this will happen. I suggest that it is entirely within the realm of possibility and you don't know that it won't!

Noob hits Hex, puts time and effort and cash into the game, preps for tourney and goes up against Noob with friend who told him about proxy program. Pure Noob will lose to proxy Noob 10 to 1, every time. Why? proxy Noob had an unnatural advantage in the friends he picked. Nothing fair about it, and you've introduced legions of unintended consequences into the system.



My point was actually that you WOULDN'T need to play the game to practice with top tier decks. There are tools available for proxy playing any number of cards games, and I expect that if the 'all cards tourney' option (regionals and up etc) were implemented that a proxy option for Hex would develop shortly for just this purpose. If you didn't have to put the time in through the Hex client itself to be able to play with any card you wanted, many wouldn't. Come tourney time you would get an influx of proxy players playing 'all card' decks with no intention of buying cards from their winnings or supporting CZE in any way. I could easily see a divide among those who actually put the effort into the game with card collecting etc. becoming quite irate at the 'fake' winners and their 'all card' tourney decks, not to mention the lowering of the value of the secondary market (why buy the high dollar cards if you don't need them for the big tourneys? Is not the primary value of the high dollar cards wrapped up in their desirability for tournament play?).


Once again, a trip down memory lane with specific possibilities for unintended consequences. However, the nature of unintended consequences makes them difficult to predict, otherwise they wouldn't be unintended. I say the idea you have doesn't improve the game AND has the possibility of unintended consequences. My argument does not rest on unintended consequences alone. I appreciate your willingness to take on my walls of text (ugg), but I seem to be unable to communicate through them to you. I will try to make things clearer. I do ask that you try to not miss relevant points.

stiii
06-30-2013, 05:30 PM
I've tried to give your previous post a good long re-reading, I really have. But all I can find in it as it pertains to my argument is the unsupported statement that it will take the "T" out of "TCG" (despite the fact that we are talking about largely uncommon events happening at the highest levels of play), and the idea that there will be unintended consequences, despite showing no willingness to outline what any possible consequences could be.

The single funniest thing out of this thread is that, while almost all of the people arguing against my own suggested idea (I've not bothered to reread the specifics of the OP in a while) have argued almost purely from emotion or tradition, I'M the one who has to think of a valid counter-point to generic tournament accounts: that being the individual achievements on each card and how having the cards of your deck marked for winning an important tournament could be a very good thing. I still believe my own idea has merit in terms of streamlining and evening the playing field of what I'd like to see become a competitive e-sport, but marked cards would be a great way for rewarding competitive skill and dedication.

So congrats guys, your counter-arguments have been so bad I had to come up with a good one myself.

Ignoring everyone who disagrees with you and declaring victory just comes off as absurdly arrogant.

Avedecus
06-30-2013, 05:57 PM
Ignoring everyone who disagrees with you and declaring victory just comes off as absurdly arrogant.

If I were ignoring them, I wouldn't be responding to their posts now would I? The only person to come close to making valid points is Tinuvas, and even his own examples are a little to vacuous for me to accept without further elaboration. Still, I am getting tired of this conversation. It has no practical bearing on me, and is just going in circles.

Tinuvas
06-30-2013, 06:03 PM
The only person to come close to making valid points is Tinuvas, and even his own examples are a little to vacuous for me to accept without further elaboration.

And this is why forum debates fail when dealing with complex ideas and thoughts. I elaborate and I write novels. I don't and I can't seem to make my points. Grrrr.

stiii
06-30-2013, 06:06 PM
If I were ignoring them, I wouldn't be responding to their posts now would I? The only person to come close to making valid points is Tinuvas, and even his own examples are a little to vacuous for me to accept without further elaboration. Still, I am getting tired of this conversation. It has no practical bearing on me, and is just going in circles.

I asked you a direct question which you ignored. And you have responded to a bunch of other people by just saying they aren't really saying anything.

Yet at the same time you've never said what the real benefit of this idea is. You complain other people can't support their points but don't bother to support your own. You also assume that everyone who disagrees with you is acting on emotion/tradition just because that allows you to dismiss their arguments, you don't supply any evidence that this is the case either.


No one is forcing you to post so I have no clue how you can complain about this either.

stiii
06-30-2013, 06:07 PM
And this is why forum debates fail when dealing with complex ideas and thoughts. I elaborate and I write novels. I don't and I can't seem to make my points. Grrrr.

Well I think is mostly people online don't really want to discuss they just want other people to agree with them.

Tinuvas
06-30-2013, 06:13 PM
Well I think is mostly people online don't really want to discuss they just want other people to agree with them.

lol. For some that is true. For me, debate is what passes the time for me until Hex comes :p. Please disagree with me (without drama of course). Otherwise these forums become a bit boring :)

Avedecus
06-30-2013, 07:44 PM
I asked you a direct question which you ignored. And you have responded to a bunch of other people by just saying they aren't really saying anything.

Yet at the same time you've never said what the real benefit of this idea is. You complain other people can't support their points but don't bother to support your own. You also assume that everyone who disagrees with you is acting on emotion/tradition just because that allows you to dismiss their arguments, you don't supply any evidence that this is the case either.


No one is forcing you to post so I have no clue how you can complain about this either.
I've argued my case with specific details to support my argument several times over. I assume the post you're referring to is the one asking for specifics? Well, I honestly don't feel like digging through a mountain of old posts to copy paste, so allow me to construct a synopsis:

-Streamline tournaments: No need to set up an advanced system of importing specific accounts, prone to malfunctioning and error, when you can create blank tourny accounts that a player need only sit down to and log in to in a matter of seconds.

-Security at tournaments: Having separate accounts and servers keeps the possibilities and risks of external meddling in tournament games and affairs extremely slim.

-Even playing field: The pros who have earned the right to participate at an in-person tournament have earned the right to do so without the constraints of cost for deckbuilding. What if a previously undesirable legendary becomes the biggest thing since sliced bread weeks or days before a tourny? Assuming supply is extremely limited, is it fair that some players competing at the highest level of the game get to have access to that resource while others do not, simply because of the amount of money they are willing to pay?

Esport Legitimacy: Tying in with the above, if Hex wants to be taken as a serious and legitimate e-sport (which I hope it will) it must maintain an image of fairness; it must strive to show outsiders to the game and genre that it is a game based on skill and strategy, not luck and wealth.

stiii
06-30-2013, 07:52 PM
You are correct that I don't know who you are, but as you are commenting on this thread I must reply in that context. I am not making the flawed assumption you speak of above. What I was trying to say there is that the resources that each of us have are different. Money, time, raw talent, competitive drive, all of these play into resultant capacity to win this game. I actually assume that with your capacity to pledge at Producer that you most likely have a greater skill than I do personally at the game (as well as money available). But the law of probabilities states that with the numbers involved, someone, somewhere will have a better combination of resources than you and you will lose. I challenge you to break that idea and take World Champion. I would and will cheer your win completely. Each of us makes a decision as to what resources we will devote to the game. We get out what we put in. May the best man win.




Well as you asked and this is the only bit I even sort of disagreed with,

I read hex_colin as saying he wants the fairest possible method of working out who is the best, without any outside interference. He was using the fact he will have 4x of everything just as a point to show that his motives for wanting this are pure. It is pretty easy to think that some people want everything to be free just so they never have to pay.



I guess my point is that if you try to remove resources as a way to make things fair (money), you just skew the unfairness in another way. I don't have the time to devote to the game that a basement dweller will. I do have a bit more money than he probably does. This idea is patently unfair to me as it skews the 'fairness' to the basement dweller and his time advantage. Do we want to make the world championship happen 2 weeks after the full card list is released to make things more fair to those who have more/less time? It will skew things towards raw talent/time. What are we trying to measure here? Any artificial policy skews resultant fairness, it doesn't make things more equal. If CZE determines that they want to measure a particular resource, then this idea might work, but no one resource will make a good player. As in life, balance among all is the best way to determine true equality. (there's a better way to word that last sentence...but I don't know what it is right now)


Nothing you say here is exactly wrong but it does kind of miss the point. I've played a number of TCG on a competitive level and getting cards just isn't an issue at world championship level events. To get good enough be in contention to be the world champion you need to play a lot of events and if you are good enough you should be winning prizes. Those prizes can be used to get whatever cards you need. you could also just borrow whole decks off people, I've done it for real life events and it is much easier online with guilds and instant transfers.

stiii
06-30-2013, 08:02 PM
I've argued my case with specific details to support my argument several times over. I assume the post you're referring to is the one asking for specifics? Well, I honestly don't feel like digging through a mountain of old posts to copy paste, so allow me to construct a synopsis:

-Streamline tournaments: No need to set up an advanced system of importing specific accounts, prone to malfunctioning and error, when you can create blank tourny accounts that a player need only sit down to and log in to in a matter of seconds.

-Security at tournaments: Having separate accounts and servers keeps the possibilities and risks of external meddling in tournament games and affairs extremely slim.

-Even playing field: The pros who have earned the right to participate at an in-person tournament have earned the right to do so without the constraints of cost for deckbuilding. What if a previously undesirable legendary becomes the biggest thing since sliced bread weeks or days before a tourny? Assuming supply is extremely limited, is it fair that some players competing at the highest level of the game get to have access to that resource while others do not, simply because of the amount of money they are willing to pay?

Esport Legitimacy: Tying in with the above, if Hex wants to be taken as a serious and legitimate e-sport (which I hope it will) it must maintain an image of fairness; it must strive to show outsiders to the game and genre that it is a game based on skill and strategy, not luck and wealth.

You are just making up problems with no evidence that they even slightly exist. Magic online has high level events which qualify you for the pro tour and have cash prizes.

There is no issue with importing accounts and I have no clue how this could ever be an issue under any system.

No one has ever been caught hacking MTGO so I see no reason why Hex would be any different.

Anyone who is a real pro won't be constrained by the cost of anything. People don't struggle to get the cards for real life world TCG championships and it will be much easier to source cards in an online game. Magic pro players aren't the richest ones, almost everyone playing on the pro tour has the cards for anything with a bit of effort.

Avedecus
06-30-2013, 08:36 PM
You are just making up problems with no evidence that they even slightly exist. Magic online has high level events which qualify you for the pro tour and have cash prizes.

There is no issue with importing accounts and I have no clue how this could ever be an issue under any system.

No one has ever been caught hacking MTGO so I see no reason why Hex would be any different.

Anyone who is a real pro won't be constrained by the cost of anything. People don't struggle to get the cards for real life world TCG championships and it will be much easier to source cards in an online game. Magic pro players aren't the richest ones, almost everyone playing on the pro tour has the cards for anything with a bit of effort.

I'm not making up problems that can't possibly exist, I'm making up realistic problems that have historically occurred in other games.

Good job with the "It won't be a problem because I say so" responses.

Btw, can you send me all of the unspoiled Hex cards? I won't share, I promise. I'm only asking because your apparently intimate knowledge of the Hex systems and servers clearly indicates you work for CZE and are privy to that information.

Also, when talking about competitive and highly regarded e-sports, the only thing mentioning MTGO accomplishes is laughter. So thanks for that.

Prodygi
06-30-2013, 08:38 PM
Why are we totally ignoring the example of Magic which has been growing like wildfire despite the fact that there isn't even a Free to play option AT ALL?

It's a difference in opinion i guess. Because i do not classify magic/any other dtcg atm as a sucessful enough DTCG. Which is why i find it difficult to comprehend when others suggested a similar pay model to them.

And from personal experience, i've got quite a number of friends who will probably have fun playing magic but simply refuses to try it due to the fact of knowing that most top4 decks cost upwards of 200 dollars. This is the scenario i'm trying to avoid HEX from falling into. They are the casuals who's being scare away even before trying the game. Will they spend if they've tried and liked the game? Definately!

I dont see why we can't compare LoL or SC2 with HEX. They are all games. We are not comparing their gameplay, we are comparing their pay model. We are comparing them as games. Not as a FPS/RTS/TCG etc. It's more like comparing the pay model of cars. Regardless of it being Honda or BMW or Ferrari. I believe this point has be going around in circles.

I'm not saying that giving a tournament acc whenever there is a tournament is a good idea. (Not saying that it's bad either. I'm on the fence regarding the idea) But i really believe that a low threshold for the casual to venture into competitive scene will help the game. Its up to the people who disagrees with me to tell me why i'm wrong, and for the people who agrees with me to come up with ideas to help the cause. (Make pvp card available as loot in the pve portion of the game. I believe it will lower the threshold for casuals etc.)

ShadowTycho
06-30-2013, 10:48 PM
Why are we totally ignoring the example of Magic which has been growing like wildfire despite the fact that there isn't even a Free to play option AT ALL?

because magic has problems. real problems. problems big enough that this crazy company called cryptozoic decided to go out and try and make a digital game like magic without those problems so that people who would be turned off by other tcg's would come in and try the experience, simply because of how great tcg's are.

60 year old women don't go to card stores and buy into magic.
they will however raid hardcore in world of warcraft.

TCG's are great, and the experience should be as open as possible.
buying a playset is not collecting. it is a barrier to entry.
its called a barrier because on this side you can play and this side you can't and to cross it you need to pay.
all barrier to entry to HEX should be minimized, so more people can come in and find out just how awesome it is.
part of a playing a tcg is deckbuilding. part of deckbuilding is collecting. collecting is where the barrier to entry is and it should be minimized. its up to crypt of find a way to do this without tanking the value of the collectables it makes.

Prodygi
06-30-2013, 11:14 PM
because magic has problems. real problems. problems big enough that this crazy company called cryptozoic decided to go out and try and make a digital game like magic without those problems so that people who would be turned off by other tcg's would come in and try the experience, simply because of how great tcg's are.

TCG's are great, and the experience should be as open as possible.
buying a playset is not collecting. it is a barrier to entry.
its called a barrier because on this side you can play and this side you can't and to cross it you need to pay.
all barrier to entry to HEX should be minimized, so more people can come in and find out just how awesome it is.
part of a playing a tcg is deckbuilding. part of deckbuilding is collecting. collecting is where the barrier to entry is and it should be minimized. its up to crypt of find a way to do this without tanking the value of the collectables it makes.

Agreed. A point to note however, is that having a playset can lower the barrier of entry indirectly in the form of keeping the prices of other cards under control.

Kietay
07-01-2013, 01:34 AM
If you don't want any barrier to entry you should be looking into CCGs. There are quite a few to pick from.

Unhurtable
07-01-2013, 02:31 AM
If you don't want any barrier to entry you should be looking into CCGs. There are quite a few to pick from.

AFAIK TCGs and CCGs work the same (they are different words for the same thing) but according to you there is a difference. Mind explaining that difference?

Tinuvas
07-01-2013, 02:31 AM
all barrier to entry to HEX should be minimized, so more people can come in and find out just how awesome it is.
part of a playing a tcg is deckbuilding. part of deckbuilding is collecting. collecting is where the barrier to entry is and it should be minimized. its up to crypt of find a way to do this without tanking the value of the collectables it makes.

That's the rub isn't it? Where do you place the barrier? Eliminate the barrier entirely and game tanks instantly (no revenue = no Crypto = no Hex). Make the barrier too high and you have MTGO and it's host of issues (and successes, but let's not go there). That I think is the essence of intent to this debate. Some say lower the barrier to X while others howl if it's not left at Y. Both of these are truly unknown variables and are different per person, so the discussion has a bit of a silly edge to it. Note that CZE has already lowered the barrier significantly compared to MTGO with cheaper packs, VIP, etc. I suppose a decent goal would be to lower the barrier as low as possible while still making CZE tons of cash (and by extension keep their motivation to make more Hex in place), and preserving the secondary market. I can agree with this. Unfortunately the only ones who have their fingers on the cashflow heartbeat is CZE...MAYBE, so we don't know how 'low' we could even go. I could see a list being made with a pile of barrier-lowering-2ndary-market-protecting features on it that we could present to CZE saying, "Here. If you can find a way to implement some of these while stuffing your pockets with dough, these we would like to see." I could get behind something like that.

Unfortunately, the OP suggestion should not go on that list (IMHO) because of the ideas presented above. Any other ideas though?

Kietay
07-01-2013, 02:38 AM
AFAIK TCGs and CCGs work the same (they are different words for the same thing) but according to you there is a difference. Mind explaining that difference?

A card combat game is based entirely on playing the game. It's about combat, so you are usually provided with all the cards you need, or can earn the cards for free. The goal of the game is to play it.

A card trading game is based on collecting cards, trading them, and playing with them. Cards are only ever attainable through purchase either from a source or second hand. Half of a card trading game is collecting cards. There are some people who even only collect the cards and dont play with them.

If you are unable to collect the cards, you cannot play with them, that is a big part of every TCG.

Unhurtable
07-01-2013, 02:46 AM
That's the rub isn't it? Where do you place the barrier? Eliminate the barrier entirely and game tanks instantly (no revenue = no Crypto = no Hex). Make the barrier too high and you have MTGO and it's host of issues (and successes, but let's not go there). That I think is the essence of intent to this debate. Some say lower the barrier to X while others howl if it's not left at Y. Both of these are truly unknown variables and are different per person, so the discussion has a bit of a silly edge to it. Note that CZE has already lowered the barrier significantly compared to MTGO with cheaper packs, VIP, etc. I suppose a decent goal would be to lower the barrier as low as possible while still making CZE tons of cash (and by extension keep their motivation to make more Hex in place), and preserving the secondary market. I can agree with this. Unfortunately the only ones who have their fingers on the cashflow heartbeat is CZE...MAYBE, so we don't know how 'low' we could even go. I could see a list being made with a pile of barrier-lowering-2ndary-market-protecting features on it that we could present to CZE saying, "Here. If you can find a way to implement some of these while stuffing your pockets with dough, these we would like to see." I could get behind something like that.

Unfortunately, the OP suggestion should not go on that list (IMHO) because of the ideas presented above. Any other ideas though?

OPs suggestion doesn't necessarily eliminate or even lower the barrier of entry. It merely levels the playing field in high-end tournaments (that you have to qualify to)

You are also assuming that TCGs can only have one economic model, since you claim that eliminating the barrier automatically leads to no revenue. If we use OPs suggestion, the vast majority of the population would still need to buy and trade cards, and even those at the high-end of the competitive spectrum would still need to buy / trade unless they win (presuming you get loads for winning).


A card combat game is based entirely on playing the game. It's about combat, so you are usually provided with all the cards you need, or can earn the cards for free. The goal of the game is to play it.

A card trading game is based on collecting cards, trading them, and playing with them. Cards are only ever attainable through purchase either from a source or second hand. Half of a card trading game is collecting cards. There are some people who even only collect the cards and dont play with them.

If you are unable to collect the cards, you cannot play with them, that is a big part of every TCG.

Right, I thought CCGs meant Collecting Card Games, but it standing for Card Combat Game makes more sense and creates more specificity.

Prodygi
07-01-2013, 03:00 AM
Unfortunately, the OP suggestion should not go on that list (IMHO) because of the ideas presented above. Any other ideas though?

One idea maybe, is for the PvE side to have a chance of dropping PvP cards as loots as opposed to only dropping PvE cards. Not much thought on this, but i do believe it will lower the threshold as well as creating a reason for the newer/free players to interaction with the PvP aspect. (Thus, profitting CZE)

Side note, i always thought CCG meant collectable card game.

Vorpal
07-01-2013, 09:07 AM
This is problematic for multiple reasons

-to avoid the 'pay to win' aspect there is sealed and draft
-I don't see publishers jumping at the idea everyone should get a full playset of all pvp cards. They'd lose tons and tons of money. Additionally if instead of building up your collection every time a new set came out you were just handed 4x of every card on a platter for free...that seems like it would detract from the fun of the game.

stiii
07-01-2013, 09:18 AM
I'm not making up problems that can't possibly exist, I'm making up realistic problems that have historically occurred in other games.

Good job with the "It won't be a problem because I say so" responses.

Btw, can you send me all of the unspoiled Hex cards? I won't share, I promise. I'm only asking because your apparently intimate knowledge of the Hex systems and servers clearly indicates you work for CZE and are privy to that information.

Also, when talking about competitive and highly regarded e-sports, the only thing mentioning MTGO accomplishes is laughter. So thanks for that.

Good job with the this will be a problem because I say so response. Why is exactly that I would have to work for CZE to know these problems won't exist and but you from the same position as me you know they will?

I gave an example of a very similar online game which doesn't have this problem at all. You talk about "other games" but don't bother to list any.

This is the reason people aren't refuting your argument you just aren't making one. You make up a bunch of problems with no evidence they exist then shift the burden of proof onto others. You are right I can't prove these problems won't exists because that is an impossible task.

Rtsands45
07-01-2013, 09:21 AM
One idea maybe, is for the PvE side to have a chance of dropping PvP cards as loots as opposed to only dropping PvE cards. Not much thought on this, but i do believe it will lower the threshold as well as creating a reason for the newer/free players to interaction with the PvP aspect. (Thus, profitting CZE)

Side note, i always thought CCG meant collectable card game.

CCG does in fact mean collectible card game. However, Hex is classified as a TCG which means trading card game. It has something to do with WotC Patenting CCG.

Jbizzi
07-01-2013, 09:26 AM
This is problematic for multiple reasons

-to avoid the 'pay to win' aspect there is sealed and draft
-I don't see publishers jumping at the idea everyone should get a full playset of all pvp cards. They'd lose tons and tons of money. Additionally if instead of building up your collection every time a new set came out you were just handed 4x of every card on a platter for free...that seems like it would detract from the fun of the game.

^^^ Basically.

I know that the OP and those arguing for him are not asking to be given the cards for free, simply allowing access to the cards for playing purposes. As I have stated before, this degrades the TCG economy, even if just slightly (though I see it as an infestation).

The "Barrier" to play games like these is there even if you don't have to pay a dime to play them fully. What does the game require people to have to even play? Internet connection, reliable ISP, A COMPUTER... the list goes on. So do we need to buy everyone a computer and supply free ISP? Are they not "barriers" to play the game?

So evidently, some things are not meant to be enjoyed by everyone. Such is life. I think that CZE is wisely giving both the casual player and the "pro" player something to strive towards and should be left alone.

If you cannot afford to acquire every card in the game (and 4 of them) don't assume that you will be great at the constructed tournament formats but think to yourself, "where can I be effective given my limited resources and maybe one day strive toward that goal?" Try drafts. I am sure somewhere down the line they will offer a free entry tournament to subscribers to see if you would like to dip the toes in.

There is no reason to ruin a TCG with free everything, even if that is just "for fun" or "for practice." If you want to practice with the full set... acquire it or use one the many deck builder and draw sites out there... don't degrade the value of the actual cards by needing to "have access" to whatever suits you.

/just sayin'

stiii
07-01-2013, 09:31 AM
I think living card game is the general erm for a card game where you buy one thing that gives you all the cards to play it without any boosters.

http://www.tcgplayer.com/db/game_review.asp?AID=2231&PID=336&DBID=4

CriticalFailure
07-01-2013, 11:49 AM
I'd like to weigh in a bit.

If you are talking about only adding "unlocked tournament accounts" for things like "World Championships", I don't think that's even worth asking CZE to code into the game.

The people who are making to that level of play, will already have access to this sort of card pool. They need it to get that far. People qualifying for that level of play need to win multiple tournaments and qualifiers. To do that, they need to shift decks from tournament to tournament, in order to respond to the shifting meta.

Potential high-level players watch tournament results. They note the decks that are doing well, and make sure they have a counter for that (at least in their sideboard).

If you don't have access to all (or at least the majority of) the card pool, you are going to have a tough (very nearly impossible) time keeping up with shifts in the meta.

I know it sounds cool to have a "darkhorse" player who comes out of nowhere with 1 amazing deck or play-style no one has thought of that beats everyone, but IMO that isn't reality.

Additionally, CZE has made this easier already, through guild support. If a guild has someone that has a chance to make it to a high-level tournament, their guildies can feed them whichever cards they need.

As an aside about Free-to-Play vs Pay-to-Win:

Bad F2P games have bred this mindset that putting money into a game is bad. I truly believe that if Hex had no F2P option, we would not be having this conversation. Good F2P has been done numerous times, and still involves players putting money in.

One thing that players who want to play for free or cheap should realize, is that those guys dumping money in, are subsidizing your experience. The only reason you get to keep playing, is because they keep putting coins in the jukebox.

If you take away ANY amount of incentive to buy boosters (or whatever), you will need to reclaim that sale somewhere else. Booster sales will pay for tournament prizes. If you don't encourage booster sales, then you will need tournament entry fees.

Then it really is "Pay-to-Win." If you can't even play the tournament unless you pony up, would that be better?

felmare
07-01-2013, 12:10 PM
i dont like the idea of everyone getting every card for events. but i do think that if they had a way of earning pvp currency by playing matches that would enable the player base to more easily gain cards and lower the pay wall.. just an idea.

Kietay
07-01-2013, 12:12 PM
i dont like the idea of everyone getting every card for events. but i do think that if they had a way of earning pvp currency by playing matches that would enable the player base to more easily gain cards and lower the pay wall.. just an idea.

Earning PvP currency by playing matches: Drafting.

felmare
07-01-2013, 12:14 PM
Earning PvP currency by playing matches: Drafting.

thats true but there is also the 1$ fee to play in the drafting. I'm coming from a place where i cant afford anything but i would like to compete with the good players. In most mmos you can put the time into the game like the OP said to get to the top.

Rtsands45
07-01-2013, 12:31 PM
On Saturday I paid $10 to enter a pauper(all common deck) tournament for an Underground Sea(valued at $120) and won. I see nothing wrong with paying to win more money.

stiii
07-01-2013, 01:07 PM
thats true but there is also the 1$ fee to play in the drafting. I'm coming from a place where i cant afford anything but i would like to compete with the good players. In most mmos you can put the time into the game like the OP said to get to the top.

You still have to pay X per month to play an MMO. Given enough time you could put that same amount into Hex and end up with a top deck if you are good enough to win events.

ramseytheory
07-01-2013, 01:37 PM
You still have to pay X per month to play an MMO. Given enough time you could put that same amount into Hex and end up with a top deck if you are good enough to win events.

Yeah, I ran the numbers a while ago and assuming:

- a $1.75 auction house price on boosters (which is a hard upper bound assuming a 1% primal chance, set 1 pricing will be much lower due to market flooding from the Kickstarter)
- a standard 3/2/2/2/1/1/1/0 prize structure for Swiss draft, which seems incredibly likely based on what we've been told.
- and average competence in draft (i.e. 50% win chance for each game)

then paying $16 per month (roughly the price of a WoW sub) buys you an average of about 15 or 16 boosters per month - four from VIP ($4), four from the auction house ($7), and about 7 or 8 from drafting the packs rather than opening them ($5). This is more than enough for casual play.

Granted, it almost certainly won't be enough to compete in top level constructed play. However, people good enough to do so will generally also win far more than half their games in drafts, so they'll be able to get far more boosters for their money. Hardly anyone will actually go infinite, but I wouldn't expect the best players to put that much money into the game (except in the process of getting good).

Unhurtable
07-01-2013, 02:31 PM
Yeah, I ran the numbers a while ago and assuming:

- a $1.75 auction house price on boosters (which is a hard upper bound assuming a 1% primal chance, set 1 pricing will be much lower due to market flooding from the Kickstarter)
- a standard 3/2/2/2/1/1/1/0 prize structure for Swiss draft, which seems incredibly likely based on what we've been told.
- and average competence in draft (i.e. 50% win chance for each game)

then paying $16 per month (roughly the price of a WoW sub) buys you an average of about 15 or 16 boosters per month - four from VIP ($4), four from the auction house ($7), and about 7 or 8 from drafting the packs rather than opening them ($5). This is more than enough for casual play.

Granted, it almost certainly won't be enough to compete in top level constructed play. However, people good enough to do so will generally also win far more than half their games in drafts, so they'll be able to get far more boosters for their money. Hardly anyone will actually go infinite, but I wouldn't expect the best players to put that much money into the game (except in the process of getting good).

Assuming your math is correct (which I'm still skeptical about), 15 boosters per month should be adequate from top-level constructed play (card-wise). 15 Boosters means 225 Cards in total. With 225 cards you should be able to trade enough to get at least a decent deck, and worst case scenario you might have enough cards to trade for a decent deck after 3 months (375 cards to roughly 60 cards seems really probable, unless your deck consist of only rares and legendaries in which case we have to see how valuable the different tiers are).

Now to your math. If we assume that swiss draft is 1$, and that we spend the remaining 5$ on drafts, we get 5 in total. Assuming everyone in the draft are of equal skill level, we should get about 1.5 boosters per draft (since the distribution is even). 2 After 2 drafts we now have at 5 Boosters (6 paid, 3 won). Another 2 drafts and we end up at 2 Boosters remaining. In other words, even though we have 5$ over after getting the boosters from AH and VIP, we can only (on average) do another 4 drafts.

ramseytheory
07-01-2013, 03:54 PM
Assuming your math is correct (which I'm still skeptical about), 15 boosters per month should be adequate from top-level constructed play (card-wise). 15 Boosters means 225 Cards in total. With 225 cards you should be able to trade enough to get at least a decent deck, and worst case scenario you might have enough cards to trade for a decent deck after 3 months (375 cards to roughly 60 cards seems really probable, unless your deck consist of only rares and legendaries in which case we have to see how valuable the different tiers are).

Now to your math. If we assume that swiss draft is 1$, and that we spend the remaining 5$ on drafts, we get 5 in total. Assuming everyone in the draft are of equal skill level, we should get about 1.5 boosters per draft (since the distribution is even). 2 After 2 drafts we now have at 5 Boosters (6 paid, 3 won). Another 2 drafts and we end up at 2 Boosters remaining. In other words, even though we have 5$ over after getting the boosters from AH and VIP, we can only (on average) do another 4 drafts.

Oops, my bad on that - it's late over here... Make that 14 boosters for $15, assuming you open the leftover boosters rather than reinvesting them into drafts.

Jbizzi
07-02-2013, 08:24 AM
I just don't know how this conversation exists in a TCG community, or why it's an argument at all. If you start giving away merchandise for free in any capacity it will start to become worthless.

Limiting it is one thing but once started, it is hard to stop.

It is counterintuitive to want to collect (based on value) but then want collections to be free (in any capacity).

stiii
07-02-2013, 10:01 AM
I just don't know how this conversation exists in a TCG community, or why it's an argument at all. If you start giving away merchandise for free in any capacity it will start to become worthless.

Limiting it is one thing but once started, it is hard to stop.

It is counterintuitive to want to collect (based on value) but then want collections to be free (in any capacity).

The answer is pretty much that this isn't a TCG community. there are lots of people here who have only played MMOs before.

Avedecus
07-02-2013, 02:14 PM
I just don't know how this conversation exists in a TCG community, or why it's an argument at all. If you start giving away merchandise for free in any capacity it will start to become worthless.

Seriously, when did they stop teaching kids to read in public school? I'm gonna be nice though, and not tear into you for criticizing an idea you don't understand before giving you a chance to reread this thread carefully.