PDA

View Full Version : Too Much Rarirty is Going to Hurt this Game



Flight
05-01-2014, 09:15 PM
Too many power cards are too rare.

You've probably met the guy that spent thousands while playing games - deck full of power cards. You know by turn three or four that he has a deck full of them. Doesn't matter what you throw out he just keeps pumping out those legendary power cards.

And that's the difference between this and MtG - the Legendary rarity and the fact that there is legendaries making rares even less common. If you pump out a few hundred dollars 3 or 4 times a year you could probably keep up a play set of rares. Probably. But not Legendary.


Draft scene will obviously be fine but Constructed - and to a slightly lesser degree Limited - is going to hurt.


I love me some collectibles and there's always an element of play2win in CCGs, but there's pay2win and then there's 95% of people can't afford thousands of dollars a few times a year to pay2win.

Cotton
05-01-2014, 09:19 PM
Ummm

BlindMan
05-01-2014, 09:20 PM
And that's the difference between this and MtG - the Legendary rarity and the fact that there is legendaries making rares even less common.

I understand what you are trying to say here, but modern M:TG has Mythic Rares, which are basically the exact same thing as Legendaries.

Gwaer
05-01-2014, 09:22 PM
I think the legendaries are going to be pretty cheap as singles on the AH.

Also the power curve of cards by rarity in this game is pretty flat. There are a ton of killer rares, and even commons and uncommons. If that keeps up you'll have a lot of options for running great decks with very few legendaries.

TJTaylor
05-01-2014, 09:28 PM
You can win legendary cards just spinning the wheels of fate on a chest. I'm not so sure they will be nearly as rare as many of us first thought they would be.

Cotton
05-01-2014, 09:40 PM
I've opened 300+ boosters and like 15 Primals. I only have 2 Living Totem 2 Eldritch (rares) while I have 7 Jadiim and 5 King Gabriel 4 Mastery of Time 4 Eye of Creation (Legendaries). Rarity doesn't matter, some Rares will be more valuable then the majority of the Legendaries.

Jacklau89
05-01-2014, 10:07 PM
I have ZERO experience on magic but I would like to share my thought here regarding this topic. Technically speaking, I have all the cards and thus I went on to build my first sapphire deck of which only 4 out of 60 is legendary (as most of the legendary are pretty difficult to play). Not surprisingly, I lost my first few matches to decks that contain only a handful or even no legendary.

To conclude I just do not see them being as important as my rares and uncommons, which more than likely brings me victory in most cases. There is little need to obtain a full playset of legendary to compete imo.

Idus
05-01-2014, 10:18 PM
Bucanneer, one of the best value for cost cards in the game, is a common.

I just played a guy with multiple Fist of Briggadon's, Urunaaz's & Eye of Creations in his deck, and my rares/uncommons/commons deck beat it. A simple common Inner Conflict completely nullified his invincible legendary Fist. Oh and as for legendaries, I'd rather have an Eldritch Dreamer over a Comet Strike any day.

Sure some of the super cards like Vampire King may cost a lot as its so versatile and legendary, but if you can't make a competitive deck without dozens of legendaries in, I don't think you're looking hard enough.

Badger
05-01-2014, 10:41 PM
I don't think it will be a big deal but I did think that after looking over the set that maybe there were too many rares.

Not expecting it to be a problem, but was expecting a smaller percentage of the set to be rare.

cferejohn
05-01-2014, 10:53 PM
These days a tier-1 standard-legal magic online deck costs $150-400 or so (prices spitballed here): http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/standard

Hex has its prices pegged at 1/2 that of magic. Furthermore with primal packs, chest spins, to say nothing of the massive initial flood of cards from the kickstarter, I would expect prices to be driven below that. I would expect tier-1 hex tournament decks to be in the $60-150 range once the format shakes out a bit. Again using the magic metaphor, it would not surprise me if competitive aggressive decks could be fielded for less than that. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

Gorgol
05-01-2014, 10:56 PM
I would expect tier-1 hex tournament decks to be in the $60-150 range once the format shakes out a bit.
That's a lot! Wow. $150? :(

Cotton
05-01-2014, 11:22 PM
That's a lot! Wow. $150? :(

Guessing this is your 1st card game?

cferejohn
05-01-2014, 11:24 PM
That's a lot! Wow. $150? :(

That's a complete guess based on the Magic online economy. In that economy top-tier singles go for $20-30. Version 1 of Hex has, for example, no equivalent of multi-colored lands, which cost a pretty significant amount in magic.

That's also the price to buy one starting from nothing. Most folks will draft and have other ways to get cards, and then it will be a question of buying or trading for the rest of the cards.

This of course will all get affected by how robust the tournament scene turns out to be and how it is formatted. I haven't looked into it (since I am mostly interested in draft) but I don't I don't know if Hex is planning to start out with something similar to magic's 'standard' format where sets will rotate out - that will generally help to keep costs down.

Gorgol
05-01-2014, 11:32 PM
Guessing this is your 1st card game?

No, I played Magic for many years.

Lyckan
05-01-2014, 11:34 PM
This of course will all get affected by how robust the tournament scene turns out to be and how it is formatted. I haven't looked into it (since I am mostly interested in draft) but I don't I don't know if Hex is planning to start out with something similar to magic's 'standard' format where sets will rotate out - that will generally help to keep costs down.
They have said earlier that there will be a 2 block rotation and 3 sets is one block.

Flight
05-01-2014, 11:39 PM
I understand what you are trying to say here, but modern M:TG has Mythic Rares, which are basically the exact same thing as Legendaries.


This is a decent point but I'd suggest a disproportionate number of the true power cards which players will want/need a play set of are Legendaries , which is the core of my point.


We'll soon see in a short number of months when the expansion sets hit, but I suspect people are going to get tired of spending the same amount as they might have on other CCGs and not getting the same bang for their buck.

I'm not speaking as some noob btw, I've been playing CCGs since they launched in '93 and have spent many thousands on them.


In summary this is what that other company said when they introduced Mythic Rares :



We want the flavor of mythic rare to be something that feels very special and unique. Generally speaking we expect that to mean cards like planeswalkers, most legends, and epic-feeling creatures and spells. They will not just be a list of each set's most powerful tournament-level cards.

On top of that the those cards top out at 15 Mythics per set. Hex has 20-odd and almost every single one is a power card.



IMO - and this is feedback for Cryptozoic to consider and weigh - the balance of Legendaries in Hex is not quite right in this regard. I see more than one Tarmogoyf (holding well at $200 per) here and this is just the opening - and well distributed - KS set.


Time will tell.

cferejohn
05-02-2014, 12:15 AM
I don't think the statement from wizards is inaccurate. The best deck in the current standard is mono-black. None of its most important cards are mythics. The thing that is driving its price (and lets face it the price of a lot of standard decks right now) is mutavault being something almost everyone wants 4-of.

Malakili
05-02-2014, 12:49 AM
People forget that Tier 1 decks are Tier....1... decks. They are the BEST decks possible. Most people in a paper TCG have *never* played a deck that is Tier 1 unless they are really serious about it. I don't know why suddenly everyone gets it into their head that they need to in Hex.

I guess on the flip side, to be fair, most people have never played AGAINST tier one decks either in a paper TCG. Even if they go to Friday Night Magic all the time most people aren't running top end stuff at their local store. But in Hex, a quick tap of the "Play" button can easily match you against someone running a legitimate deck while you are playing a slightly modified starter and I can understand why that is frustrating.

They really need to create different areas for practice/casual play. That would probably solve some of the problem straight away.

Khazrakh
05-02-2014, 12:53 AM
They really need to create different areas for practice/casual play. That would probably solve some of the problem straight away.

And that's something we'll see soon enough, but I guess it's not too high on the priority list.
Once more and more ways to play make it into the game there'll be a place for every kind of deck. Right now it's more about testing and less about giving everybode the perfect way to play ;)

Axle
05-02-2014, 01:38 AM
IMO - and this is feedback for Cryptozoic to consider and weigh - the balance of Legendaries in Hex is not quite right in this regard. I see more than one Tarmogoyf (holding well at $200 per) here and this is just the opening - and well distributed - KS set.
.

Really....? I'm pretty sure only 3 of the 23 legendary cards will see competitive play in playsets right now outside of EoC ramp decks which you should know to be expensive going into it. A good chunk of the legendary cards in the game right now are big doods that don't replace themselves and die to the abundant removal half the cost of themselves and most of the ones that are cheap enough in cost or do replace themselves have only been seeing play in 1 or 2 copies in our current card pool.

Of the good legendary cards..only EoC might stand the test of time and not lose out to power creep. It gets stronger as the creatures it can put into play do and it is least likely for a straight up better version of it to be printed.

Vamp/Dawn are good but they cannot hold a toothpick to Tarmogoyf in value to the game. Vampire King is comparable to and overall worse than Nighthawk. Better cards will probably come out for Blood at the 4 drop by the time the number of players with cards from the first block diminishes (3+ years from now?). Though there is nothing like Dawn in mtg and it's good even as a 5 drop right now, as the game progresses through means of card draw becoming better which makes running it more of a liability and 5 drops become better, the value of the card outside of the draw phase will diminish greatly and so will the threat of it from being miracle'd.

Outside of reprints making them standard legal again, Eye of Creation is the only legendary card I could see retaining value 4 years into this game as long as we don't suddenly stop printing good cards in future sets.

LLCoolDave
05-02-2014, 01:49 AM
Taking a look at the legendaries of Set 1 from a competitive point of view:

Uruunaz: Strong card, but probably not something that you put more than 1 or 2 copies in a deck.
Vampire King: I can see your complaints about this. Will see tons of play as a 4-of. Could have been rare instead? Doesn't feel all that special to me.
Zombie Plague: Quite frankly, I still don't see it. If it's played, it looks like the typical two-of sideboard card.
King Gabriel: I can see a metagame where this has 3/4 copies in a deck, but likely no more than 2 as curve toppers in certain archetypes.
Ozawa: Probably not, definitely not in huge numbers. Has strong casual appeal though.
Argus: Having to untap with it after broadcasting it for turns in advance is harsh. Might see some play, will probably drop in popularity.
The Kraken: Just seems too expensive to me. Probably won't see any real play.
Rampaging Tarasque: Frankly, I don't see it. I have quite some experience with red beatdown decks and I don't see wanting this card right now.
Zoltog: Good in a very specific archetype and won't see play outside of it.
Pack Raptor: Still not a fan of this. It's just so inefficient, and in a world of Extinction there's a real risk of diluting your deck into terrible cards. Pack Rat this is not.
Jadiim: Can definitely see this is as a 4-of in wild lists.
Eye of Creation: My latest alpha builds only had 2-3 copies of this card. I'm not sure the ramp lists really want 4 of it anymore after the changes. Still has potential down the line and casual appeal.
Archmage Wrenlocke: Like Zoltog, great in a specific archetype but just doesn't quite make the cut in most lists. Conflict between playing many actions to trigger them versus playing enough troops to stress their removal.
Comet Strike: Useless.
Cosmic Transmogrifier: See above.
High Tomb Lord: This thing can get enormous but eh, it's still just an expensive vanilla beater. Probably not going to see any real play.
Eternal Guardian: Powerful effect, but not something you can jam 4 in your deck. Will see some play in low numbers.
Reginald: Pure casual fodder.
Angel of Dawn: Decks that want it want 4 copies. Might have seen a tad more play in the late alpha than it will in a balanced metagame but certainly is one of the chase cards of the set.
Resurrection: Nothing to see here, move along.
Fist of Brigadon: Used to be the big bad baddy of early alpha, might see some return in mono wild ramp. Quite possibly just outclassed by Jadiim.
Mastery of Time: Has proven to be a surprisingly strong piece of the metagame in the late alpha phase. Will see more play than you'd expect.
Crown of the Primals: I can see a world where this is a good sideboard card, possibly. Probably not though.

Going through the list, there's only 3 to 4 legendaries that are clearly cut out to be 4-ofs in multiple archetypes with widespread play. Most of the remaining playable legendaries are either very restrictive to the deck they can go into or are just too expensive to run multiple copies of. Most of these won't be very expensive on the AH at all. Also keep in mind that legendaries aren't actually that much more rare than ordinary rares: There's going to be 1.7 copies of each rare for each copy of a given legendary.

In a lot of cases, cards that are rare/legendary but seem like they could be a lower rarity are placed there due to limited concerns. Vampire King is not a card I want to regularly face at a draft, and neither is something like life syphon.

Khazrakh
05-02-2014, 02:00 AM
Very good List LLCoolDave, I more or less agree with every single card but Rampaging Tarasque.
Right now there are very few first strike troops so it can be used as a nice finisher to get the last points of damage through after your opponent tapped out to stabilize the board.
Definitely not a 4 of though and I'd assume we'll see something to replace it in set 2.

Patrigan
05-02-2014, 02:48 AM
Disagree with Cosmic Transmogrifier though.

I've had some degree of success in a control deck that ramps up to turn 7 Prophet of Lodegan, turn 8 Cosmic Transmogrifier. All other cards were pure control.

You almost certainly win turn 7, because your 4 lousy Lodegans, suddenly became big ass 7 cost cards, like Uruunaz. In the event that your opponent received a really awesome troop as well, you can always send it back to his hand with Time Ripple (chance is high they can't play it due to the treshold).

If anything, the card will be a jank favourite!

Rapkannibale
05-02-2014, 03:19 AM
I don't see this as a huge problem. And even though Hex has a certain pay-to-win component for constructed so does Magic and any other competitive TCG out there.

Plus, so far I haven't seen any legendaries that don't have an answer. You may not have those answers in your deck, but that is all part of the meta game.

Flight
05-02-2014, 03:24 AM
In a lot of cases, cards that are rare/legendary but seem like they could be a lower rarity are placed there due to limited concerns. Vampire King is not a card I want to regularly face at a draft, and neither is something like life syphon.


That's not a bad list, but there's a few I'd disagree on. I want a set of :

Vampire King
Plague of Zombies (boy are you undervaluing this card)
Jadiim
High Tomb Lord
Wrenlocke
Fist of Brigadon
Eye of Creation



But then there's another 6-8, as you rightly point out, that we want 3 of.

There simply shouldn't be 12-16 unique Legendaries seeing such widespread demand in one set.


We'll soon see. The thing is a lot of perspective is being lost right now because so many people are opening so many packs. I see it getting messy if the spread is the same in the expansions.

ossuary
05-02-2014, 03:30 AM
CT definitely has jank potential, there's no doubt there. It's also fun as hell (hence, jank!).

But Dave was looking at the legendary list in terms of tier 1 meta. CT has no place there... for the most part, high level competitive HATES random chance, even if it is extremely good random chance. Tier 1 is all about consistency and hard answers, not leaving things up to fate.

Poetic
05-02-2014, 03:37 AM
I think people worry too much about things we shouldn't. Its set 1, there's sooooo many boosters being opened. We have no idea where the value will settle.

Hell, until there's bigger tournaments I don't see prices being bad.

Xenavire
05-02-2014, 03:38 AM
That's not a bad list, but there's a few I'd disagree on. I want a set of :

Vampire King
Plague of Zombies (boy are you undervaluing this card)
Jadiim
High Tomb Lord
Wrenlocke
Fist of Brigadon
Eye of Creation



But then there's another 6-8, as you rightly point out, that we want 3 of.

There simply shouldn't be 12-16 unique Legendaries seeing such widespread demand in one set.


We'll soon see. The thing is a lot of perspective is being lost right now because so many people are opening so many packs. I see it getting messy if the spread is the same in the expansions.

I want to say, Plague is a sideboard card because of low/no troop control. Plague is awesome, but it is horribly useless versus control and chances are it will be a total dead draw, that they wont even bother countering. For that reason, it will be cheaper, and will not be maindecked, almost ever.

LLCoolDave
05-02-2014, 03:42 AM
The issue with Zombie Plague is that it needs to face a rather specific deck to be really efficient. The deck has to be troop heavy for it to have any effect at all. You want to face preferably 1 defense troops to get some zombies out of it as even the odds of zombifying a 2 defense troop in a reasonably time frame aren't all that high. A large portion of the cards hit each turn are unaffected as they are no troops, and a large amount of the troops you hit are essentially blanks as well because they will survive the -1/-1 AND never be drawn that game. Even in a matchup where this card looks strong it's still fairly inconsistent and will probably average out to having a minor effect on 0.7 relevant cards per turn, with an occasional zombie bonus.

My concern with the card is that in the exact matchups where I'd want the effect it might just be too slow to be reliable and there just are better stabilizing 3 drops, even if it's just a mediocre troop. I'm willing to be surprised by this card, but for the time being I just don't buy it. For whatever it's worth, the original version that flipped a random troop instead of 3 random cards was significantly better, imo.

Most of the cards that aren't 4-ofs are probably not 3-ofs either. I think you are overestimating how powerful some of these cards actually are.

Myrgard
05-02-2014, 03:49 AM
I also dont think of it as a huge problem, as people in guilds(or with friends) are going to be able to share ressources,

I played with tier 1 decks in some tournaments and in one granprix (MTG) and always borrowed some cards from friends (we combined before the tournaments what decks to take so we could make diferent tier 1 decks, where i lend some cards and borrow other) and this is going to be possible in hex.

Also my guild just organized a tounament where everybody is only be able to make decks out of commons and uncomons(no rare or legendary) for the sake of making the possible to put everibody on more even conditions either people who spend 1000$ or 50$, and the game is going to be lots of fun, we even have real prizes added.

Make no mistake if people love this game, and do a litle research i think they are always going to find something for them, be it drafts, tier 1 tournaments or events where no rares are used and many more.

So thanks Criptozoic and Cory for making this game, and thanks to the community for opening so many possibilities and for the way it welcomes new players.

DoctorJoe
05-02-2014, 04:04 AM
Isn't having more desirable Legendaries a good thing, especially while set 1 is still available?

There is a price ceiling for cards set by the sum of the probability of each card multiplied by its value. If card value goes higher than that, it becomes profitable to buy packs and open them to drive costs back down. Basically, if the expected value of cards in a pack is greater than the going rate for buying a pack, someone is going to make some money and correct the market.

Once set 1 is no longer for sale, things might get interesting. It is up to CZE to balance preserving value to collectors that already possess the card against providing a game that is accessible. Banned/Restricted lists, reprints, and diverse constructed formats are a few of the tools they have, plus maybe some more creative solutions since being digital is a thing.

Turtlewing
05-02-2014, 11:01 AM
These days a tier-1 standard-legal magic online deck costs $150-400 or so (prices spitballed here): http://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/standard

Hex has its prices pegged at 1/2 that of magic. Furthermore with primal packs, chest spins, to say nothing of the massive initial flood of cards from the kickstarter, I would expect prices to be driven below that. I would expect tier-1 hex tournament decks to be in the $60-150 range once the format shakes out a bit. Again using the magic metaphor, it would not surprise me if competitive aggressive decks could be fielded for less than that. That doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

Pack prices are pegged at 1/2 the cost of magic, but that has very little to do with demand for the cards that make up popular tier 1 deck builds. At that point supply/demand rules (what will you pay and what will someone else sell for) not price to get one from packs.

Axle
05-02-2014, 11:15 AM
Um..what? If packs cost half the price then supply is doubled for the same value as mtg. Someone has to buy the packs to get the cards after all. Vendors for example. Therefore the price of packs have a huge effect on the price of singles. If vendors inflate the prices of cards by setting them too high then the average players will just crack packs themselves and sell the contents for more value than the average pack cost and the market will realize the prices set by hype are a load of bull and will settle. If the auction house works out great then vendors won't even have much say in prices and prices will be even more fair. This discussion is for set 2 and beyond though, since set 1 already has 1.6 million packs opened and is much larger than the average set size which would affect prices.


At that point supply/demand rules (what will you pay and what will someone else sell for)
this is not what supply and demand means

Turtlewing
05-02-2014, 11:37 AM
Um..what? If packs cost half the price then supply is doubled for the same value as mtg. Someone has to buy the packs to get the cards after all. Vendors for example. Therefore the price of packs have a huge effect on the price of singles.


this is not what supply and demand means

A market is a series of transactions where a willing buyer meets a willing seller. In aggregate they can be modeled by a "supply curve" (the quantity of willing sellers as a function of price) and a "demand curve" (the quantity of willing buyers as a function of price). Where those curves meat is the "equilibrium price" (where quantity demanded exactly equals quantity supplied).

Efficient markets will tend towards their equilibrium price as sellers who ask to much will not find a willing buyer, and buyers who offer too little will not find a willing seller.

The price of production (in this case cost of packs) will affect the supply curve, and a reduction in cost would tend to shift the demand curve such that equilibrium price will usually fall (but a fixed 1:1 ratio between reduced cost of production and reduce equilibrium price is unlikely). However the equilibrium price still depends on the demand curve, and changes to demand can push the price back up.

As an example, say that the cost reduction does not actually result in a larger average number of packs per person being opened (perhaps most people open packs in draft so the limiting factor number of drafts played per week not cost), but does increase the total number of people opening packs. In that case supply of a given card remains fixed but demand increases as there are more people to want the specific card (thus equilibrium price for the card will be higher than the base-line).

Axle
05-02-2014, 11:42 AM
Right..so as my point is..your claim that the supply of a card meaning almost nothing on its value opposed to the demand for it is pointless. No shit the demand of it also matters. I was just pointing out a fault in your post..don't try to cover it up by stating the opposite of what you originally said.


As an example, say that the cost reduction does not actually result in a larger average number of packs per person being opened (perhaps most people open packs in draft so the limiting factor number of drafts played per week not cost)


This is a bullshit scenario. Cost of drafts affects drafts played and drafts are less costly due to cheaper packs.

LLCoolDave
05-02-2014, 11:46 AM
What you seem to be missing is that in this economy, there's always a willing seller in the form of CZE offering closed booster packs at 200 platinum and the right to open a booster pack for the contents (well, more like, the rare, which from a value point of view is essentially the same) by participating in a draft tournament at an effective 133 platinum. If individuals are unwilling to sell single cards below a certain threshold, there's always the option of creating supply by cracking packs in one form or another. This sets a very effective soft limit to how expensive single cards can get, especially as a lot of these cards end up in the hands of people that are very willing to part with them for platinum, undercutting prices until willing buyers are found.

Turtlewing
05-02-2014, 01:28 PM
Right..so as my point is..your claim that the supply of a card meaning almost nothing on its value opposed to the demand for it is pointless. No shit the demand of it also matters. I was just pointing out a fault in your post..don't try to cover it up by stating the opposite of what you originally said.



This is a bullshit scenario. Cost of drafts affects drafts played and drafts are less costly due to cheaper packs.

My argument is that price singles is in no way "pegged to" (meaning changing in step with at a 1:1 ratio) booster prices. there are a lot of other factors involved and it's naive to think that because packs cost half as much that the singles in a tier 1 PvP deck will also cost half as much.

There are so many other variables here: player base size, ratio of draft/constructed play, ratio of PvE to PvP play, size of the set, time bound vs price bound tournament rates, etc.

And Tier 1 PvP decks are going to be a lot less sensitive to increased supply than singles in general (mainly because demand tends to be rather large since everyone would like to have a tier one deck if they can afford it, but getting the right cards in packs is very unreliable).

cferejohn
05-02-2014, 01:42 PM
My argument is that price singles is in no way "pegged to" (meaning changing in step with at a 1:1 ratio) booster prices. there are a lot of other factors involved and it's naive to think that because packs cost half as much that the singles in a tier 1 PvP deck will also cost half as much.


I never said they would. I was just spitballing for the exercise. There will be some link of pack cost to card cost simply because there is a point where rather than pay $30 for a card (for example) your money would be better spent buying 15 packs because the average value of the cards in those packs will be more than $30. I know that's pegging to a moving target, but there's still a relationship there.

To the degree that Hex is different than magic (other than basic price point), my intuition is that it will drive PvP card prices downwards:

* Huge number of packs that have been/are being opened due to kickstarter rewards. This will be a temporary effect, but it should persist through set 1.

* Vip program puts more packs cheaply into play.

* Chest spinning and primal packs put more high value cards into play.

* Once PvE is started there will be a significant player base (that has no corollary in Magic) that has little to no interest in seriously competitive PvP. Commander players kind of fill this niche in Magic, but there will be casual PvP players in Hex that map to them pretty well.

So I'm taking the 1/2 price as a very rough baseline, but all of the other factors seem like they will conspire to generally push prices down. This is far into the realm of speculation of course.

oncewasblind
05-02-2014, 01:50 PM
My argument is that price singles is in no way "pegged to" (meaning changing in step with at a 1:1 ratio) booster prices.

Your argument is wrong, as others have stated. I'd explain why, but judging from how fervently you hold to your opinion, it would do little use.

Turtlewing
05-02-2014, 01:57 PM
So I'm taking the 1/2 price as a very rough baseline, but all of the other factors seem like they will conspire to generally push prices down. This is far into the realm of speculation of course.

And I'm saying I think those other factors will be more dominant and my estimate is that tier one decks will not be much less expensive than in Magic (but less desirable singles will be).

Axle
05-02-2014, 02:22 PM
How? Supply for the same $ spent is doubled but the number of maxed copies of a card necessary (4) is still the same. It's not like decks play 6+ copies of a card now to go with this new pack price. Assuming most players who sell cards on the auction also buy cards on it (due to how easy it is to use opposed to binder trading or ebaying), there will be a significant difference of price. Unless decks were made entirely of legendary but as we just talked about that is far from the case. Players also don't have to spend a fortune on lands at the moment which reduces the price of decks from many tier 1 MTG decks by $200 or more. That may be the case later but right now there is no confirmation of unique shards being given a high rarity. Shards of Fate itself (The name of the set!) is only a common.

These "other factors" can't be assumed to be any different from the factors imposed on MTG as well and as said previously are leaning to pulling the prices down.

Turtlewing
05-02-2014, 03:09 PM
I don't think people buy cards based on a fixed dollar budget independent of how many cards that gets them. I think they buy as many cards as they want and lower price means they spend less to do it (but also means more people will be willing to pick up the game due to lower barrier to entry)

There are diminished returns to opening packs so at the high end you already buy as many packs as it takes to collect all the cards or to play in as many drafts as you have time for, and at the low end FtP PvE will mean a large player base who isn't buying many packs at all but still wants some of the better PvP cards (they'll sell the PvE drops they grind for to get the plat to buy them).

Thus I anticipate the average number of packs being opened per player to be equal to or less than in Magic, so even with a much larger total number of packs sold the demand for singles still increases at least as quickly as supply.

I may be wrong (my estimates of the demographics are based on anecdotes not data), but I think 1/2 price is completely unrealistic, and even if I am wrong we're looking at a smaller decrease than that.

cferejohn
05-02-2014, 03:09 PM
And I'm saying I think those other factors will be more dominant and my estimate is that tier one decks will not be much less expensive than in Magic (but less desirable singles will be).

I don't see how that could possibly be true. There will come a point where it will be more worth your while to buy packs for $2 (or more likely quite a bit less from the secondary market) than to buy singles because the expected trade value of the rares/legendaries in the packs will be greater than the price of the card you are buying.

Things change somewhat (though not entirely - there's still a point at which some number of packs represents greater value than a single and packs correlates directly to $$) once certain cards are out of print. Again as a comparison in MTGO modern decks at the top end can clear $1000 and Legacy can get close to $2000. However that presupposes a large back catalog of no longer available cards and it will be quite some time until that is true of Hex and we'll understand a lot more about the economy by then.

Turtlewing
05-02-2014, 03:14 PM
I don't see how that could possibly be true. There will come a point where it will be more worth your while to buy packs for $2 (or more likely quite a bit less from the secondary market) than to buy singles because the expected trade value of the rares/legendaries in the packs will be greater than the price of the card you are buying.

Things change somewhat (though not entirely - there's still a point at which some number of packs represents greater value than a single and packs correlates directly to $$) once certain cards are out of print. Again as a comparison in MTGO modern decks at the top end can clear $1000 and Legacy can get close to $2000. However that presupposes a large back catalog of no longer available cards and it will be quite some time until that is true of Hex and we'll understand a lot more about the economy by then.

Do keep in mind I'm only talking about the chase cards and cards that make up tier 1 constructed decks.

Singles in general will probably be worth a lot less than their MTG counterparts, but the cards that the advice blogs say "every deck needs 4 of this legendary!!!" are probably not going to get the same downward pressure from lower pack prices.

cferejohn
05-02-2014, 05:01 PM
Do keep in mind I'm only talking about the chase cards and cards that make up tier 1 constructed decks.

Singles in general will probably be worth a lot less than their MTG counterparts, but the cards that the advice blogs say "every deck needs 4 of this legendary!!!" are probably not going to get the same downward pressure from lower pack prices.

I don't see how this is relevant. If there are cards that *every* deck really needs, yes they will be pushed up, and they will be pushed up to roughly half the value of a card that fits that description in MtG. For example, Mutavault (which is a rare, not a mythic) comes pretty close to that description in the current Magic standard meta and it runs about $20-25.

There may be mythic cards that are almost always 4-of *in their archetypes*. A good example of this right now in Magic is Sphinx's Revelation, which is pretty much always a 4-of in Esper or UW control (2 of the more popular archetypes) - it goes for ~$27 online.

I'd expect Hex cards with similar demands to shake out to around 1/2 those prices or less (due to the other factors creating downward pressure).

*If* there is in fact a legendary card that *is* a 4-of in nearly every archetype, than yes, the price will be quite high. A card fitting that description in magic would probably be upwards of $100 while standard legal. I don't think there are cards that in fact fit that description.

Flight
05-03-2014, 02:25 AM
they will be pushed up to roughly half the value of a card that fits that description in MtG.



How? Supply for the same $ spent is doubled but the number of maxed copies of a card necessary (4) is still the same.


This would only begin to make sense (let alone be true) if the rarity/occurrence of each card per set/pack were equivalent. The numbers in MtG and the numbers in Hex are nowhere near so trying to equate the cost per pack into a straight argument about cost per rare is nonsense.

There are significantly more unique Mythic rares in this set of Hex than in a set of MtG for starters.

If the cards in Hex end up having even close to the cost of rares in MtG then (in my opinion) Hex is not optimizing its potential in terms of attracting players into the scene.

Presently my opinion is that Turtlewing is right in just about everything he suggests. There are a number of cards that just about everyone will want multiples of. If you polled 100 players who know their stuff on the top five or six cards they want to buy or trade for multiples of then I expect at least 3 or 4 cards would appear in nearly all cases.


I'd also suggest that easier availability of a secure transaction medium will not keep costs down for these cards. This is a brand new market, with a set of factors that are quite disparate to MtG. Folks with experience of the MtG scene and the market for those might just be in for a surprise at how many folks wouldn't go out of their way to buy MtG cards but will buy Hex cards.

Axle
05-03-2014, 03:30 AM
Oh wow it's almost like the first set of HEX has more cards because the game has to have a foundation for variety. The next sets will have much less cards as said by CZE (And therefore a lower number of legendary cards). Which means I would be talking about set 2..as I said in a previous post. Then the prices are higher during first set you say? No because there are 1.6 million kickstarter packs for a very small start-up player base! At the very least I hope you can understand these kickstarter packs were bought at $1 value for most kickstarters ($150 for 150..and thats ignoring early kings and bonus packs) and will shrink the prices and make up for the large set just by themselves.

Obviously all the planets would have to align for Flight and Turtlewig to stop throwing random things into their argument and actually admit there is something wrong in their theory of high card prices.

Malakili
05-03-2014, 04:08 AM
The bottom line is that if you are a person who wants to be a top end competitor in a TCG, you have to know going in you are going to spend for Tier 1 decks. That's just the reality of it. Scarcity is what makes the collecting part of the game fun too, but when it comes to competition, you must have the exact deck you think will win, not a knock off.

That's one of the reasons this kickstarter was so successful in the first place. People understood that being able to pay a lot up front to get continued value (like free drafts) is a smart choice. The question is about expectations and being able to play against like minded opponents. Most people who play magic play kitchen table magic. The fact that they aren't ever going to have 4x Jace the Mind Sculptor isn't ruining their fun, and the fact that you might never have 4x Angel of Dawn shouldn't ruin your fun either if you are the Hex equivalent of a kitchen table player.

Revoluketion
05-03-2014, 07:35 AM
I don't think you'll have trouble with card cost. This game is pretty cheap ^_^

cferejohn
05-03-2014, 08:59 AM
22 Legendaries vs 15 mythics doesn't exactly strike me as a massive difference. The only point I'm trying to make is that pack price *does* create downward pressure on single prices. If card values are high, that means that the value of pack contents will also be high, which means that collectors will be incentivised to buy packs rather than singles at some point, which will drive single prices down.

Yes there are lots of other factors, and of course the numbers aren't in lock step with Magic, but with pack prices being 1/2 (and given the massive glut of packs right now, real prices probably being significantly depressed) it would amaze me if the top legendaries have prices equivalent to the top mythics in magic. You talk like there will be more people in Hex who will be collecting *every* tier 1 deck than there are in magic. By that logic "Just about everyone" would want 4x Sphinx's Revelation, and that is a dramatic overstatement of how many people in magic actually want and pursue that.

teasel
05-03-2014, 09:04 AM
i'm kinda worried about this too, a lot of the mythical in this game looks like MTG card but better and rarer just because...

for example eye of creation is just genesis wave but rarer and without the "creature that cost X or less" clause, just because
angel of dawn is serra angel but with miracle (0) tackled upon it... just because

LLCoolDave
05-03-2014, 09:27 AM
Don't forget about primal packs. These add an additional 2 legendaries each 50 packs for an increase of almost 40% (!). Including primals, there will be just over 15 legendaries per 100 boosters, or one of each legendary roughly every 152 (regular) set 1 boosters. That's not that far off from the one every 121 boosters that large MtG expansions have. Set 1 rares in Hex are a lot rarer than in MtG expansions though. I also doubt the future sets will be as large as this one, you just got to establish a ground set of cards to have some variety.

The lack of expensive mana bases should also help set 1 being relatively affordable for the time being, there really aren't any "universal" legendaries or rares in this set as far as I can tell.

Yoss
05-03-2014, 01:30 PM
there really aren't any "universal" legendaries or rares in this set as far as I can tell.

Comet Strike! ;)