PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk: Resources



Patrigan
06-18-2015, 11:30 AM
Let me open, by giving props to CZE regarding the quality of the various non-standard resources. The latest set really shows a couple of interesting ones, Starsphere being on top of my list.

When I first saw Starsphere, I felt like "who would want to play that." Then, however, I realized how few treshold one actually needs. Many mono-color decks only need 2. The power of the resource system that CZE designed really starts to shine here. I can easily see myself adding a couple of these (and a couple of Crackling Vortex) in quite a few decks I play. The effect is so minimal, but the end result, even as a random one, could be pretty strong.

The 4 allegiance resources introduced this set all benefit from similar advantages, but are even more powerful. Early on, they give you the opportunity to get a good treshold fix, later in the game they become a small cantrip that aids you in some small way. I see myself playing them in each allegiance deck, even when the effect is not part of the actual gameplan. In fact, I can see me playing the elf and Vennen ones when I even only have a couple of that race in my deck. Allegiance does trigger when the race card is in your hand. Worst case scenario, late game, you only have a 1/1 charge resource. But I feel like most of my standard resources are exactly that. Best case, late game, I get 3 free health, or add some free spiders to the opposing deck. Who doesn't like free?! Something could be said for bad hands, where you get the allegiance but no troops to go with it.

That's not even mentioning the amount of treshold fixing you can do with those...

Even when Crackling Vortex set the precedent, I still could not anticipate the depth that CZE could reach with these resources and how useful even the most utilitarian are. Looking forward to the future and perhaps a time where I don't even play any standard resource anymore...

So what are your thoughts? What crazy shennanigans do you see with the resources? What kind of resources would you like to see in the future?

Let's talk!

Let me already add a small cool idea: Allegiance Chaostouched: bury a card.

Xexist
06-18-2015, 11:58 AM
Woot! Resource thread!

Malakili
06-18-2015, 12:15 PM
I'm glad we are finally getting some rare resources. Having higher power level resources is actually quite good for the game. I know some people don't like the idea of resources that are hard to come by or are expensive because they are going to be wanted by pretty much everyone who plays those archetypes, but I'm all for it. Starsphere is very nice and I see myself incorporating it into some decks as I have been with Crackling Vortex.

nicosharp
06-18-2015, 12:24 PM
Woot! A Positive Resource thread!

Fixed!

Sparrow
06-18-2015, 01:26 PM
Wow, I thought for sure this would be a thread about changing the resource system. A nice surprise.

I really like the new resources. As far as future types, we already have a couple ways to pull excess resources out of a deck, but I wouldn't mind something else along those lines that was an actual shard. For example a shard that when played gives you one threshold and allows you to void X shards of the same color from your deck. X could be determined by # of resources spent, troops sacrificed, charges spent, etc.

Malakili
06-18-2015, 02:02 PM
I would like to see some higher power level straight up dual shards at some point too. Something like Gain 1/1, :diamond: or :blood: , and a charge. Probably with some added downside. Lose a couple of life is the obvious one.

The tribal shards are a step in this direction, but they are of course far more situational when it comes to deck building. Shards that do non-resource things will probably be pretty limited in this game compared to that OTHER game because resources don't exist on the battlefield. But if they were going to go in that direction they could have resources that generate an artifact when you play them. This does actually make a difference compared to just printing the effect as a 0 cost artifact because you are still limited to one resource per turn and that plays into your deck building and sequencing.

Thoom
06-18-2015, 02:52 PM
I'm glad we are finally getting some rare resources. Having higher power level resources is actually quite good for the game. I know some people don't like the idea of resources that are hard to come by or are expensive because they are going to be wanted by pretty much everyone who plays those archetypes, but I'm all for it.

Can you explain why rare resources are a good thing? It seems to me that they primarily serve to raise the barrier to entry for constructed.

Rycajo
06-18-2015, 03:01 PM
I would like to see some higher power level straight up dual shards at some point too. Something like Gain 1/1, :diamond: or :blood: , and a charge. Probably with some added downside. Lose a couple of life is the obvious one.

The tribal shards are a step in this direction, but they are of course far more situational when it comes to deck building. Shards that do non-resource things will probably be pretty limited in this game compared to that OTHER game because resources don't exist on the battlefield. But if they were going to go in that direction they could have resources that generate an artifact when you play them. This does actually make a difference compared to just printing the effect as a 0 cost artifact because you are still limited to one resource per turn and that plays into your deck building and sequencing.

Yeah, I fully expect they will design resources at some point that will put a constant/artifact into play. Would be silly not to.

Svenn
06-18-2015, 03:01 PM
Can you explain why rare resources are a good thing? It seems to me that they primarily serve to raise the barrier to entry for constructed.

It matters for drafts. You can do really interesting things with a Rare resource and not worry everyone will have them in draft.

nicosharp
06-18-2015, 03:01 PM
Can you explain why rare resources are a good thing? It seems to me that they primarily serve to raise the barrier to entry for constructed.
They are, and that's why you want the cards that truly help people play cards to be easily obtainable, not hunted rares and legendary cards. I think that's why the rare resources are still rather "gimmick" in that there is an association to the benefit.
I also don't think they want to develop true "Dual Lands", which would be chase, and will drive away casual constructed players. We have cheap uncommon lands from set 2 and we have many competitive decks with little to no reliance on splash. I think we will be okay competitively for a while, and that they keep this in mind when designing both cards, and resources to play them.

Erukk
06-18-2015, 04:27 PM
I also don't think they want to develop true "Dual Lands", which would be chase, and will drive away casual constructed players. We have cheap uncommon lands from set 2 and we have many competitive decks with little to no reliance on splash. I think we will be okay competitively for a while, and that they keep this in mind when designing both cards, and resources to play them.

I agree. I'm perfectly fine with how they've worked the uncommon dual shards. With how the threshold system works, we really don't need much else between them and SoF. If they really wanted to make more rare shards, i'll hope they keep them to either towards interesting (like starsphere) or as you said "gimmick" (tribal flavored, etc.).

Malakili
06-18-2015, 05:35 PM
Can you explain why rare resources are a good thing? It seems to me that they primarily serve to raise the barrier to entry for constructed.

Actually the stable value generally associated with good resources is a "good thing" when you're talking about a TCG because the value of your collection is part of the attraction to this kind of game. There is always going to be a high barrier for entry into competitive constructed, rare resources or not. I like the deck building options powerful resources open up.

Xenavire
06-18-2015, 05:50 PM
Actually the stable value generally associated with good resources is a "good thing" when you're talking about a TCG because the value of your collection is part of the attraction to this kind of game. There is always going to be a high barrier for entry into competitive constructed, rare resources or not. I like the deck building options powerful resources open up.

There is zero reason ever for the resource base to cost potentially as much or more than the rest of the deck. Make the useful cards cost more, leave the must-have resources at uncommon and the interesting/unusual ones at rare.

Malakili
06-18-2015, 07:24 PM
Resources ARE "the useful cards." Why is there some magical barrier here that you and other people see? Frankly, I don't care if they are uncommon or rare, but the reality is the higher power level ones are likely to be printed at rare or not at all. And I'd prefer to have them at rare to not at all, for the reasons in my previous post.

Xenavire
06-18-2015, 07:36 PM
Resources ARE "the useful cards." Why is there some magical barrier here that you and other people see? Frankly, I don't care if they are uncommon or rare, but the reality is the higher power level ones are likely to be printed at rare or not at all. And I'd prefer to have them at rare to not at all, for the reasons in my previous post.

Resources are useful enough, but they should be readily available. The true test of deckbuilding shouldn't be 'do I have an extra $200 for shards', it should be about finding the rest of the deck and assembling it.

I mean, I don't see anything particularly clever about needing 4x a dual shard in a 2 colour deck, but using Vampire King and Filk Ape to steal troops is neat (even if not a brilliant idea.) Thats where the emphasis should lie.

And I would prefer that OP shards were not printed at all, as that has a ripple effect. Solid shards should be possible at uncommon.

Malakili
06-18-2015, 07:44 PM
If you don't see the deckbuilding skill it requires to build a well functioning resource base, then I really don't think anything I can say will make a difference to you, so I'm not going to try to get through to you on the deckbuilding front.

But then, in an age of "netdecking" it's not as if most people are really brewing tier 1 decks anyway, so I guess you can appeal to some abstract "test" of skill if you want but it's kind of pointless. Meanwhile, having those powerful shards available actually DO give a lot more options to the people who are actually trying to build interesting decks.

Finally, as for the cost part of it. The game is expensive. TCGs are expensive. If those $200 go to shards or to other cards, what does it matter? So you're either saying shards specifically should not be a large part of the expense, or you're just saying the game should cost less in general. If its the first, its an arbitrary distinction, if it's the second well, tough luck?

In fact, putting that money into shards is probably MORE friendly because those are going to be reused a lot more than something like Vampire King in the long run. Once you have the resource base, you've got it.

schild
06-18-2015, 07:47 PM
I mean, I don't see anything particularly clever about needing 4x a dual shard in a 2 colour deck, but using Vampire King and Filk Ape to steal troops is neat (even if not a brilliant idea.) Thats where the emphasis should lie.

Joke post? Joke thread? Joke line of thought?

Tell me this is all an act. Some elaborate long troll. That would be amazing.

Thoom
06-18-2015, 07:55 PM
Finally, as for the cost part of it. The game is expensive. TCGs are expensive. If those $200 go to shards or to other cards, what does it matter? So you're either saying shards specifically should not be a large part of the expense, or you're just saying the game should cost less in general. If its the first, its an arbitrary distinction, if it's the second well, tough luck?

In a degenerate case (where people play decks with 100% rare shards), rare shards could double the cost of having a competitive deck. You say "tough luck", but clearly there has to be some point at which the cost becomes unreasonable.

If the bare minimum to have a tier 1 competitive deck was something absurd like $1,000,000, I'm guessing you wouldn't be so thrilled about that. So to quote Churchill, "we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."

Xenavire
06-18-2015, 07:55 PM
So what part of any of that means those solid, strong, reliable shards can't be uncommon? There isn't any reason for them to go higher except for special cases, and that would mean everyone had the same access to a strong shard base without a ridiculous investment.

You have all these preconceptions that aren't acutally explaining anything relevant, you are just trying to pull down the idea because you are too used to the status quo.

What harm would it do to the competitive meta of duals were more common? It would likely breed a higher quality of deck, because even the 'casual' players would be able to create more consistent decks. And honestly, that is appealing to me.

Malakili
06-18-2015, 08:04 PM
That's not how TCGs work? You know what would also breed a higher quality of deck? Just giving everyone a playset of everything for a 10 dollar monthly fee. But that isn't how a TCG works. Again, this just seems like an appeal to "I think Hex shouldn't be too expensive." Ok, whatever.

I'm aware of how expensive dual lands are in THE OTHER GAME. But there's two things there. 1) They don't reprint them anymore for historically contingent reasons having to do with collection values and being on the pioneering end of TCGs and dealing with these issues. Hex would be under no obligation not to reprint particular resources.

And 2) even if they did go out of print forever, thats why we have multiple formats. Some formats are more expensive than others.

Xenavire
06-18-2015, 08:08 PM
That's not how TCGs work? You know what would also breed a higher quality of deck? Just giving everyone a playset of everything for a 10 dollar monthly fee. But that isn't how a TCG works. Again, this just seems like an appeal to "I think Hex shouldn't be too expensive." Ok, whatever.

I'm aware of how expensive dual lands are in THE OTHER GAME. But there's two things there. 1) They don't reprint them anymore for historically contingent reasons having to do with collection values and being on the pioneering end of TCGs and dealing with these issues. Hex would be under no obligation not to reprint particular resources.

And 2) even if they did go out of print forever, thats why we have multiple formats. Some formats are more expensive than others.

I still see zero coherent reason why they can't be uncommon. It is you that seems to be attaching value to them, I think that shards could be given free for all it matters. The bones of the deck should be widely available. The meat of the deck should be the chasey stuff.

Gwaer
06-18-2015, 08:12 PM
They can't be uncommon 'because limited' you can't have powerful resources dominating your draft/sealed as uncommon. I mean, you can, but it's much less fun to draft in a format like that.

schild
06-18-2015, 08:18 PM
It is you that seems to be attaching value to them, I think that shards could be given free for all it matters. The bones of the deck should be widely available. The meat of the deck should be the chasey stuff.

Ok, now officially considering you as definitely going for the long-troll. I'm hoping one day we'll have something worthy of display in MOMA.

Zophie
06-18-2015, 08:19 PM
Interesting topic, I think I would also prefer unique resources not be made Rare unless they did something really powerful. Hard to say. Resources are one of those basic building blocks that makes the rest of the deck run, so I don't see why they'd need to be anything higher than Uncommon in most cases, just save the Rares for the rest of the deck. I know they have to balance rarities with the other cards in a set to make it all balanced in draft and all that, so maybe once in a while it's gotta be like that for a reason, but the less resources that get made Rare the better, in my opinion.


They can't be uncommon 'because limited' you can't have powerful resources dominating your draft/sealed as uncommon. I mean, you can, but it's much less fun to draft in a format like that.

Yeah I can see that too, that's a tough one though, wouldn't having more flexibility with resources in limited allow for more diversity in metas?

Xenavire
06-18-2015, 08:26 PM
They can't be uncommon 'because limited' you can't have powerful resources dominating your draft/sealed as uncommon. I mean, you can, but it's much less fun to draft in a format like that.

Which is why I think the powerful resources should have unique effects (allegiance, vortex) and those can be rare, because not every deck would want them, limited or constructed.

I just feel there is a balance that can be struck without shifting the power too far in one direction. And I would rather explore the possibility before defaulting to a tried and true method.

schild
06-18-2015, 09:03 PM
And I would rather explore the possibility before defaulting to a tried and true method.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Erukk
06-18-2015, 09:38 PM
The bones of the deck should be widely available. The meat of the deck should be the chasey stuff.

+1

Resource and threshold efficiency really shouldn't be tied to $$$ at all. We don't have the same problems that Magic does when it comes to needing a diverse threshold/mana base. There is no point in creating more powerful shards than what we already have unless you're doing it to just to create a better, rarer, and more expensive shard. Which is really not a good reason to do something.

Zophie
06-18-2015, 09:46 PM
Shine on, you crazy diamond.

so yeah I guess now I'm listening to pink floyd tonight, thanks for putting that in my head ;)

Malakili
06-18-2015, 10:04 PM
+1

Resource and threshold efficiency really shouldn't be tied to $$$ at all.

Taking the money aspect out of it for a second, I don't understand why you guys treat resources as a second class card type. This is a core part of the game - gameplay, deck building, collecting, everything. I'm not saying every good land needs to be rare, I'm just saying that having a powerful set of resources to work with is good. And some powerful resources are not going to get printed at less than rare. An equivalent of shocklands for example, or scrylands, or fetchlands. Fine, toss out the original dual lands as a mistake or as too powerful, or whatever. Those other effects are still highly unlikely to get printed at common or uncommon for a variety of reasons, but are overall a boon for deckbuilding, especially when we get a few years down the road and start to have a "legacy" format of some kind. These are interesting cards that are powerful, add decision making in terms of deckbuilding, gameplay and so forth.

The idea that resources are just a means to an end is silly. They are an integral part of the game that add a lot beyond just the ability to play other cards.

Xexist
06-18-2015, 10:25 PM
You guys make me lol. Man. What a great night :)

Thoom
06-18-2015, 10:42 PM
Taking the money aspect out of it for a second, I don't understand why you guys treat resources as a second class card type. This is a core part of the game - gameplay, deck building, collecting, everything. I'm not saying every good land needs to be rare, I'm just saying that having a powerful set of resources to work with is good.

The money aspect is really my only bone of contention. I like the idea of powerful resources, I just don't like the idea of them making the game twice as expensive.

Erukk
06-18-2015, 11:21 PM
We don't think of the shards as second class cards. We think of them as a core mechanic of the game, and a part of the game that shouldn't discriminate against players not willing to shell the cash to upgrade to the bonus model.

You can't really take away the price component in these types of equation. You're suggesting adding additional effects, effects which might bump these cards to a rare rarity or greater no less, to a core component to the game. If it's a core component, everyone would be able to benefit from these. Value+rarity=big bucks. There is no way around that fact.

In the end, what would be the point competitively to using basic shards or simple duel shards when you can get the same effect with this card plus an added bonus as well? There isn't any. They would suffer the same fate as basic lands do in Magic. You only use them if you don't have the upgraded version of them.

Patrigan
06-19-2015, 12:20 AM
I think the main issue with non-standard magic lands was that you would only have a limited amount of them in your deck, the majority would still be standard lands.. If CZE plays their cards well, they could have you making decks where there are NO standard resources. This in turn will slightly devaluate all resources, because players make a choice from a broader spectrum. There would be less resources that are must haves, without replacements.

magic_gazz
06-19-2015, 12:26 AM
I really don't understand people on this issue.

Basic Resource - Common/uncommon
Better Resource - Rare/Legendary

How is that any different to

Basic creature - common
Better creature - rare

The arguments about money don't make sense. You can either afford rare cards or you cant, it doesn't matter what type of card they are.

You cant afford Vampire Kings, use a cheap replacement, you cant afford the good shards, use the free ones.

Thoom
06-19-2015, 12:30 AM
I really don't understand people on this issue.

Basic Resource - Common/uncommon
Better Resource - Rare/Legendary

How is that any different to

Basic creature - common
Better creature - rare

The arguments about money don't make sense. You can either afford rare cards or you cant, it doesn't matter what type of card they are.

You cant afford Vampire Kings, use a cheap replacement, you cant afford the good shards, use the free ones.

It's a matter of degree. If resources are cheap and plentiful, then you generally need at most 35 rare cards for a competitive deck. If rare resources become mandatory to compete, suddenly that number jumps to 60. That's a huge difference.

And if resources can be rare and expensive, what's standing in the way of rare/expensive champions or gems?

If money is no object, why are booster packs $2 instead of $4 or $10 or $100?

Malakili
06-19-2015, 05:56 AM
It's a matter of degree. If resources are cheap and plentiful, then you generally need at most 35 rare cards for a competitive deck. If rare resources become mandatory to compete, suddenly that number jumps to 60. That's a huge difference.


Right, so your objection boils down to not wanting to have to spend more on competitive decks. I just don't have any sympathy for this line. I can't afford every card I ever want in that other game either, but I don't go around crying I can't play in legacy tournaments without borrowing cards, I'm just priced out of owning all of them myself. That's life. We're not talking about food here, we're talking about a TCG.

Playing a TCG competitively is expensive and/or requires that you borrow cards for a tournament deck you want to play. The latter happens ALL THE TIME I might add, in that other game. Meanwhile, we'll end up with a casual singleton format and PvE where eeking out that totally optimal decklist isn't as important, so people will have options anyway.


The game is more interesting with powerful resources available. They aren't going to print those at uncommon in all likelihood.

nicosharp
06-19-2015, 06:44 AM
Right, so your objection boils down to not wanting to have to spend more on competitive decks. I just don't have any sympathy for this line. I can't afford every card I ever want in that other game either, but I don't go around crying I can't play in legacy tournaments without borrowing cards, I'm just priced out of owning all of them myself. That's life. We're not talking about food here, we're talking about a TCG.

Playing a TCG competitively is expensive and/or requires that you borrow cards for a tournament deck you want to play. The latter happens ALL THE TIME I might add, in that other game. Meanwhile, we'll end up with a casual singleton format and PvE where eeking out that totally optimal decklist isn't as important, so people will have options anyway.


The game is more interesting with powerful resources available. They aren't going to print those at uncommon in all likelihood.
I see where you are coming from, but I don't think it is as contrast as you are making it sound.
What we are seeing in the resource releases is exactly what is mentioned above:
Common = Basic
Uncommon = Better
Rare = Best

However, how HEX is choosing to develop them is important to note
Common = 1/1 + 1 locked thresh
Uncommon = Lose something from the above, but gain a decision point
Rare = gain a decision point or two, meet condition, gain more than 1 benefit.

Rare shards are better, but there is no unconditional rare/legendary shard yet. I don't think one will be designed. There are a lot of people that believe a "true" Dual Land, was a mistake in MTG, and their ridiculous prices reflect the true impact of their overall powerlevel.

EntropyBall
06-19-2015, 06:48 AM
Gotta say, super disappointed that this thread isn't complaining about mana-screw. I feel horribly misled by the title, and it's been a few weeks now....

Malakili
06-19-2015, 07:11 AM
There are a lot of people that believe a "true" Dual Land, was a mistake in MTG, and their ridiculous prices reflect the true impact of their overall powerlevel.

There's many ways to make good interesting resources without a "true dual shard." See also: all the other interesting lands that give more than one color in MTG and are printed at rare. I mentioned some of them in my post. We have three sets to work with right now. MTG printed tri-lands in the latest block at uncommon (comes into play tapped). There is plenty of design room at both uncommon and rare for good, powerful resources.

Let me put this another way: The current set of tribal lands are fine, but if we NEVER get a similar effect without the allegiance mechanic or an 0/1 effect, then they are choosing to limit deck building pretty heavily in a way that I feel is overall detrimental to Hex. As a player I don't care if they print them at uncommon (except of the fact that the limited environment will probably be silly). I assume some effects will only get printed at rare or not at all, and I prefer to have them.

On another point with regards to the MTG duals, part of the reason those cards are so expensive is because they are not being reprinted. Yes, power level matters in their demand of course, but their ridiculous prices also reflect that they haven't been printed since revised (which came out in 1994) went out of print.

Thoom
06-19-2015, 09:13 AM
Let me put this another way: The current set of tribal lands are fine, but if we NEVER get a similar effect without the allegiance mechanic or an 0/1 effect, then they are choosing to limit deck building pretty heavily in a way that I feel is overall detrimental to Hex. As a player I don't care if they print them at uncommon (except of the fact that the limited environment will probably be silly). I assume some effects will only get printed at rare or not at all, and I prefer to have them.

As a digital game, there *are* other options that could satisfy both of us. I don't necessarily think it's likely (I think you're going to get what you want in the long run), but it is possible. For example, they could print powerful resources at uncommon or common with a stipulation that they're weaker in some way in limited formats. Or they could distribute the powerful resources somehow outside of the normal pack system.

I'm not arguing this for my own benefit, really. I can afford playsets. But I don't think it's healthy for the game for prospective players to see a "you must be this rich to ride" barrier being too high, and I think super powerful rare/legendary resources probably cross that line.

Malakili
06-19-2015, 09:26 AM
But I don't think it's healthy for the game for prospective players to see a "you must be this rich to ride" barrier being too high, and I think super powerful rare/legendary resources probably cross that line.

Except that's not true. People get into competitive most of the time by playing cheaper end decks (tending towards aggro decks that have lower overall card quality). That's "riding" just the same as playing the most expensive deck in the format. It's not uncommon to see those kind of decks placing well in tournaments and keeping a check on the overall meta game. They also tend to be pretty light on the resource/land requirements too.

It's really important not to confuse Legacy with Standard when it comes to pricing, and it feels like that is what you are doing. It's like you're saying an average person will see a list like this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1241244 and decide a TCG isn't for them. When in practice the kind of deck they need to participate in competitive play in the format they are actually likely to be seeing at their local store is something like this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1241660

We are never going to be at the point in Hex where the first deck I linked is what the average player is looking at to get into the game regardless of the resources they implement.

Xenavire
06-19-2015, 09:32 AM
Except that's not true. People get into competitive most of the time by playing cheaper end decks (tending towards aggro decks that have lower overall card quality). That's "riding" just the same as playing the most expensive deck in the format. It's not uncommon to see those kind of decks placing well in tournaments and keeping a check on the overall meta game. They also tend to be pretty light on the resource/land requirements too.

It's really important not to confuse Legacy with Standard when it comes to pricing, and it feels like that is what you are doing. It's like you're saying an average person will see a list like this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1241244 and decide a TCG isn't for them. When in practice the kind of deck they need to participate in competitive play in the format they are actually likely to be seeing at their local store is something like this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1241660

We are never going to be at the point in Hex where the first deck I linked is what the average player is looking at to get into the game regardless of the resources they implement.

I was playing when they introduced shock lands, and in my local shop those cards were about 30% of the cost of the entire deck. There was no reason for it except for the rarity - and Hex doesn't need to fall into that kind of habit.

Legacy formats just show the extremes these sorts of things can have. I mean, I think a lot of newer players would be looking a little shifty at the meta if every aggro deck ran 4x vortex and the price went up to 1k plat per. Luckily Vortex isn't strong enough to be required, but we don't want a slippery slope do we?

Malakili
06-19-2015, 09:37 AM
I was playing when they introduced shock lands, and in my local shop those cards were about 30% of the cost of the entire deck.

And once you have them, those lands are going to be a big part of a variety of decks. That's a ton more value than even something like Vampire King or Angel of Dawn that are going to cost more and only be playable in certain decks. Shocklands retain value because they are playable in Modern. Pity on the fool who pays out the nose for playsets of the current rare tribal lands while they are all the rage and then the bottom drops out of their value when they rotate out.

Xenavire
06-19-2015, 09:42 AM
And once you have them, those lands are going to be a big part of a variety of decks. That's a ton more value than even something like Vampire King or Angel of Dawn that are going to cost more and only be playable in certain decks. Shocklands retain value because they are playable in Modern. Pity on the fool who pays out the nose for playsets of the current rare tribal lands while they are all the rage and then the bottom drops out of their value when they rotate out.

There seems to be no reasoning with you - you have your mind made up. You have seen a model that works one way and can't be bothered imagining a world where another could work, regardless of whether or not it was better. I have attempted to put forth the discussion in a carefully reasoned manner but you just ignore the points and say 'this way is better'. You have zero proof that uncommon shards could not work, especially in a digital game (I really liked the idea that you could have powerful uncommon shards that work differently in limited environments).


I'm done with this discussion, and I am sure HexEnt will have examined the implications and options carefully.

Erukk
06-19-2015, 09:46 AM
As a digital game, there *are* other options that could satisfy both of us. I don't necessarily think it's likely (I think you're going to get what you want in the long run), but it is possible. For example, they could print powerful resources at uncommon or common with a stipulation that they're weaker in some way in limited formats. Or they could distribute the powerful resources somehow outside of the normal pack system.


That, or they could make the majority of their really powerful resource ideas into PvE cards. No one is going to argue that a resource is too powerful in the middle of a dungeon or raid, and they would probably feel right at home if/when they ever get around to making a sort of tournament where players can use their PvE cards.

Zophie
06-19-2015, 09:48 AM
They can't be uncommon 'because limited' you can't have powerful resources dominating your draft/sealed as uncommon. I mean, you can, but it's much less fun to draft in a format like that.


As a player I don't care if they print them at uncommon (except of the fact that the limited environment will probably be silly).

I'm just wondering why would that make things less fun/silly? You guys probably have more draft/limited experience than I do, so I'd honestly like someone to help me understand this: Why is it a bad thing to have more resource options available for deckbuilding in limited? Is there some kind of benefit to limiting their availability? I appreciate any insight you guys can share regarding this, thanks!

Tazelbain
06-19-2015, 09:49 AM
I hope introduce dual resources better then new duals, but I hope they have a lot more of them. Not just for races but for the classes and constants. Deck building duals is ripe for exploration. "Your deck must contains 20 actions of different names" to use this dual. Anydual that you can just throw into deck no-brainer should be off the table.

Malakili
06-19-2015, 09:51 AM
Except the fact that several times - in this very thread - I said that, AS A PLAYER, I don't care if they print them at uncommon, I will play whatever is available at whatever rarity if the card is good enough. As a collector, my feeling is that they won't print them (them being the kinds of lands I think would add the most to deckbuilding options) at uncommon. And as both, I would rather have them at rare than not at all. You'd think that after 11,500 posts on a forum you might have learned basic reading comprehension, but I guess that's just asking too much.

Your position is "It's expensive and I don't like that." That's not "reasoning" with me, that's just telling me you don't like it. Ok, great.

Xenavire
06-19-2015, 10:00 AM
Except the fact that several times - in this very thread - I said that, AS A PLAYER, I don't care if they print them at uncommon, I will play whatever is available at whatever rarity if the card is good enough. As a collector, my feeling is that they won't print them (them being the kinds of lands I think would add the most to deckbuilding options) at uncommon. And as both, I would rather have them at rare than not at all. You'd think that after 11,500 posts on a forum you might have learned basic reading comprehension, but I guess that's just asking too much.

Your position is "It's expensive and I don't like that." That's not "reasoning" with me, that's just telling me you don't like it. Ok, great.

Heres my counter - I would rather not have them at all if they were going to exist only as rare or higher. That isn't the kind of game I want to play, and was a big factor in me leaving MTG. And frankly, cost is less of a concern for me personally than you assume (I currently have a complete playset of 1+2, not to mention all equips and PvE cards) but the barrier of entry should be as low as possible. If someone wants to play that $200 blood saph control deck, so be it, but the cost shouldn't be $100 for the shards and $100 for everything else. On the flip side, a cheap aggro deck could be wild/ruby, but again, if the shards cost $100... That's not appealing.

And regardless of cost, I just want to see where the shards can go. I didn't sign up to play a carbon copy of other TCG's, I came for something new.

I think thats as clear as I can make my argument, and I won't respond again.

nicosharp
06-19-2015, 10:03 AM
Malakili,
Don't you think there is a reason why the Dual lands we were talking about were never reprinted?

I understand what you are saying about shock lands, and other cool resource types.

I think we may see that kind of stuff in the future. It goes hand in hand with my examples of common/uncommon/rare resources.
Some of these conditional fixings will be in the form of artifacts. I think we will see very few "crack land" type of fixing, at least not built into the shard itself. We shall see.

With time, it will only get better, and dynamically, fixing will have to continue to improve to make constructed meta more enjoyable and diverse.

Patrigan
06-19-2015, 10:07 AM
Gotta say, super disappointed that this thread isn't complaining about mana-screw. I feel horribly misled by the title, and it's been a few weeks now....

Don't worry, the thread quickly devolved in another heated discussion xD

But I still stand by my original comment, I'm really liking the evolution of the resources.

Malakili
06-19-2015, 10:10 AM
I'm just wondering why would that make things silly? You guys probably have more draft/limited experience then I do, so I'd honestly like someone to help me understand this: Why is it a bad thing to have more resource options available for deckbuilding in limited? Is there some kind of benefit to limiting their availability? I appreciate any insight you guys can share regarding this, thanks!

When it comes to sealed especially, land flexibility means you are going to lean heavily towards everyone sort of playing 5 color "all their best stuff" decks, which isn't especially interesting.

It is a little less important in draft, but you do see that sort of thing creep in there as well. We saw this in a recent draft format (Khans of Tarkir) in MTG that had gain lands (when it comes into play, gain 1 life, comes into play tapped, tap for X or Y mana) at Common and Tri-lands (comes into play tapped, tap for X, Y or Z mana) at Uncommon in the same set. This was very much an intentionally 3 color "wedge" set. Make those come into play UNTAPPED lands in that slot and it would have an absolutely enormous impact on the limited environment. The comes into play tapped (or in Hex, gain 0/1) lands fit much better into that kid of thing because draft and sealed tend to be slow, midrangey environments.


But in constructed that's actually a really big cost to play and your deck building options open up DRAMATICALLY when you have the ability to (in Hex terms) gain 1/1 and choose your color. That's powerful and the equivalent lands in Magic tend to come with a draw back (paying life has been the effect we've seen lately). Keep in mind tap lands still get played in Magic - particularly in standard in an in some decks in modern.

Erukk
06-19-2015, 10:14 AM
Don't you think there is a reason why the Dual lands we were talking about were never reprinted?


Technically, they might not have been reprinted for standard, but the duel lands were reprinted for MTGO with Vintage Masters last year. Them AND the Power 9. Because, you know, that wasn't two cash grabs and a half on their part.

Zophie
06-19-2015, 10:16 AM
When it comes to sealed especially, land flexibility means you are going to lean heavily towards everyone sort of playing 5 color "all their best stuff" decks, which isn't especially interesting.

Hmm, I guess I can see that, but I tend to be a Johnny player and always felt letting people play a larger variety of cards that they enjoy is more interesting to me, and having more resource options available helps facilitate that in my mind. Thanks for the response!

Xenavire
06-19-2015, 10:16 AM
Malakili - would it have been a disaster if those 'come into play tapped lands' had only had that line for limited, and for constructed they had a different drawback that let them enter play normally? It would have been an identical experience in limited, zero impact at all, yet you still would have had powerful constructed lands.

I think we can see a lot of ideas that would give us that balance without anything breaking.

Thoom
06-19-2015, 10:16 AM
It's really important not to confuse Legacy with Standard when it comes to pricing, and it feels like that is what you are doing. It's like you're saying an average person will see a list like this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1241244 and decide a TCG isn't for them. When in practice the kind of deck they need to participate in competitive play in the format they are actually likely to be seeing at their local store is something like this: http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1241660

FWIW, that's exactly the sort of thing that made me decide TCGs weren't for me for about 20 years, and why I completely missed out on the WoW TCG.

Gwaer
06-19-2015, 10:35 AM
Malakili - would it have been a disaster if those 'come into play tapped lands' had only had that line for limited, and for constructed they had a different drawback that let them enter play normally? It would have been an identical experience in limited, zero impact at all, yet you still would have had powerful constructed lands.

I think we can see a lot of ideas that would give us that balance without anything breaking.

This isn't a digital innovation. It's just card text and easily could be done in a paper TCG. There are tons of reasons why it isn't done. You want your cards to behave the same way all the time. Thats part of why equipment is so genius. Instead of cards just working differently in Pvp and pve you go on and modify them. Rare lands aren't a bad thing. But fracturing the play experience between formats very much could be.

Ariathor
06-19-2015, 10:45 AM
I agree that I would prefer resources to stick to uncommon. I consider myself a fairly competent drafter and I don't believe their impact on the draft environment would be that huge (in my opinion they even make it more fun). On the other hand, having good resources at rare (or possibly even legendary) makes the barrier to entry significantly higher, which is generally bad for new players.

Xenavire
06-19-2015, 10:45 AM
This isn't a digital innovation. It's just card text and easily could be done in a paper TCG. There are tons of reasons why it isn't done. You want your cards to behave the same way all the time. Thats part of why equipment is so genius. Instead of cards just working differently in Pvp and pve you go on and modify them. Rare lands aren't a bad thing. But fracturing the play experience between formats very much could be.

It isn't the only idea, its just one I was having fun thinking about.

Xexist
06-19-2015, 10:48 AM
There seems to be no reasoning with you

https://i1.wp.com/static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1535/15354834/2438326-laughing-hysterically.gif

Xenavire
06-19-2015, 10:52 AM
https://i1.wp.com/static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1535/15354834/2438326-laughing-hysterically.gif

Funny, because he finally gave a reason that had some sort of actual reason after I had said that. Before that he was just avoiding and dismissing.

As it stands, I can see merit to the idea that limited would be warped by having too many strong shards, but I see that as something that can be overcome. Not something that should be avoided. But at least the discussion moved forwards.

Xexist
06-19-2015, 10:57 AM
I wasnt laughing at this conversation specifically, just that you said that and you are notoriously bad at listening to other peoples opinions.

Xenavire
06-19-2015, 11:02 AM
I wasnt laughing at this conversation specifically, just that you said that and you are notoriously bad at listening to other peoples opinions.

I listen. I just rarely agree. I definitely listen to ideas I see merit in, and Mal has given me something new to think about (which most people don't do, they just sit and stick to the same tired arguments without bringing anything new to the table.)

Thoom
06-19-2015, 11:03 AM
This isn't a digital innovation. It's just card text and easily could be done in a paper TCG. There are tons of reasons why it isn't done. You want your cards to behave the same way all the time. Thats part of why equipment is so genius. Instead of cards just working differently in Pvp and pve you go on and modify them. Rare lands aren't a bad thing. But fracturing the play experience between formats very much could be.

There's already precedent. Jank Bot, anyone?

You could also do a cute thing that isn't necessarily making them behave conditionally on format while still achieving the same goal. For example:

Shard of Demonstration

<0/1>
Gain a charge.
Choose either [BLOOD] or [DIAMOND] threshold.
If your starting deck size was 60 or greater, gain <1/0>.

Zophie
06-19-2015, 11:06 AM
I agree that I would prefer resources to stick to uncommon. I consider myself a fairly competent drafter and I don't believe their impact on the draft environment would be that huge (in my opinion they even make it more fun).

Yeah this has been my thought too, but I'm a Johnny so maybe I'm missing something. I'm open to hear more opinions from others on this subject though, especially would like to hear Gwaer's take on this if he gets a chance ;) (don't mean to call him out I just trust his experience, anyone else can chime in too)

Gwaer
06-19-2015, 11:25 AM
There's already precedent. Jank Bot, anyone?

You could also do a cute thing that isn't necessarily making them behave conditionally on format while still achieving the same goal. For example:

Shard of Demonstration

<0/1>
Gain a charge.
Choose either [BLOOD] or [DIAMOND] threshold.
If your starting deck size was 60 or greater, gain <1/0>.

That's a good point, though jankbot does function the same in both places he just has different deck building constraints. It's not bad. I think it's something better used sparingly. I wouldn't want an entire cycle of shards that do something different based on deck size, but if they all add 1/0 + 60 it may be okay. I still would prefer just having rare resources I think, but it seems like a workable idea.

Thoom
06-19-2015, 11:57 AM
I suspect this matter has already been decided internally one way or the other. I just want to make it clear that there is room in the design space to make both the "powerful resources are good for constructed", "powerful, common resources are bad for limited" and "rare resources are bad for accessibility" crowds happy.

Whether that's the way the actual design will go is something we'll have to see.

Tazelbain
06-19-2015, 12:06 PM
Just create true dual threshold resources and put them in the Primal Chests. Problem solved. *evil grin*

Thoom
06-19-2015, 12:13 PM
Stepping the evil down a bit, putting powerful shards in the chest loot table (at all rarities) would be a hypothetically good way to give constructed players a supply of them without burdening limited. Whether PvP cards that aren't available from boosters is a thing that's on the table is another question (I suspect it's not).

x78089
06-19-2015, 01:53 PM
Just create true dual threshold resources and put them in the Primal Chests. Problem solved. *evil grin*

That is evil and awesome, but it seems highly unlikely.