PDA

View Full Version : Older sets



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Shoubushi
05-11-2013, 10:57 AM
That's fair Xenavire. I believe the opposite to be true, but that's how discussions work. No one needs to be right or wrong.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 11:04 AM
I am trying to be fair, despite my obvious bias. I am not here to incite fighting, I want intelligent discussion about pros and cons. I do get a little carried away sometimes though.

Shoubushi
05-11-2013, 11:09 AM
It's understandable. We both have visions of how we'd like this game to play out. For me personally, this is a game changing decision that I need answered from CZE before the end of the Kickstarter because it makes or breaks my decision to back it.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 11:16 AM
I am going to back it regardless, I can live with it should things head in the direction I would rather avoid. It helps to be open minded, and consider the overall impacts on both ends of the spectrum, and either choice could be amazing, or a complete disaster.

I would rather try the version that can be easily reversed however, just in case things turn sour. At least one way can be fixed with little effort, doing it the other way around could cause a whole mess of issues. (I mean what if they retired a set, or several, and brought it/them back a year later? It would be mayhem.)

Shoubushi
05-11-2013, 11:36 AM
Oh I'll still try the game, I just won't be putting $500 on a chance that it'll play like I want it to. If that's their decision then that's their decision. I would rather know now (or rather, a few days ago when I decided to back) than find out later that it's something that doesn't appeal to me and essentially wasted $500.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 11:44 AM
Yeah, I can see the reason to worry, I have been mulling it over myself, about how much I feel comfortable pledging. But thanks to casual play, PvE, and so many features, I feel like it should be a reasonably safe investment as long as the game mechanics are sound (and they look pretty perfect so far.)

As long as there is content to play, and the mechanics are solid, I think its worth at least a little money to back. And I would advise giving at least 10 for the beta access, just to help the game out - should you not like it during beta, you can opt out before release, and not waste your time waiting for it ($10 for peace of mind, so to speak.) And that $10 will still help the game, so it is at the worst a poor version of a win-win.

I mean they could show something I truly hate tomorrow, but I will still pledge a minimum, just to support the genre and get more games like this on the market.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 11:46 AM
Shoubushi, in my view, at this point in time (the game not being out yet) and the predictions we can make based on the information we have been given, I firmly believe that sets do not ever need to be removed from print. HOWEVER I am not stupid enough to suggest that will remain my stance - right now it is all guesswork.

Given some time to gather evidence and some statistics, we could revisit this and make a firm decision, I just was trying to explain to people that being closed minded on the subject will only lead to bad things, either for themselves or for others.

And fair enough, 100 is a little extreme, but a good example of cost versus profit.

And Jugan, we have yet to see how destroying cards will factor in. That's a wait and see kind of topic, so no need to tell him he is 100% wrong (yet). If it turns out badly, lots of people will change their minds about the whole thing, and the scales WILL tip. It is just the nature of the proverbial beast (called uncertainty.)

That's still not true as well. Nothing you have suggested solves the fact that cards will be massively deflated if the supply never ends. Suppose you use a model where you convert X cards for 1 card of the same rarity. Regardless of how much X is equal to, you will still have a scenario where everyone will keep converting their crap rares into the chase rares, bringing down the price. The cards will still be worthless. Why? Because the supply never ends because the set isn't retired. Not only that, but it makes collecting them a lot less impactful and valuable. Why? Because there is an infinite supply, meaning nothing is hard to get nor limited in nature, and thus less desirable from a collecting standpoint.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 11:47 AM
There are 2 ways for players to have R.O.I :
- Cash prizes
- Cash out from AH

In both case it means cards should hold value, and for cards to hold value there NEEDS to be print-out.
If both these conditions are not there, the game will fail
- No cash prize means no incentive to spend alot of $ (Whatever small TCG that fail because of no cash prize)
- No cash out means no incentive to spend alot of $ since it'll be the best players farming OP Prize support until game ends (WoW Miniatures)

~

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 11:52 AM
Not true, if it is 10 for 1 conversion rate, and rarity locked for example, you would lose 9 from circulation from every conversion. Depending on supply and demand, and the number of cards required to do the conversion, a large quantity of cards may leave permanently if there isn't a limitless supply, and influx of new players will give those cards more value as well.

There are too many factors to consider, it is clearly not black and white here. There is more grey than anything else.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 11:54 AM
It's only grey for those who have no clue on how TCG economics work

~

Jugan
05-11-2013, 11:55 AM
It's only grey for those who have no clue on how TCG economics work

~

+1

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 11:59 AM
But this isn't JUST a TCG. It has features that modify the norm, and that in itself is what makes it grey.

I don't want to argue here, but you have to admit that it is something new, and that COULD lead to new things, potentially, than even veterans are used to, correct?

And I rather resent the implication I don't know how TCG economics work - I have played and collected several over the years, and some from starting sets onwards - ended up making more than I spent off it. I know what I am talking about, I am just open to new possibilities, and not raging like an old man. (Not implying anyone else is an old man, simply describing how I feel I would act if I was on your side of the fence.)

Daer
05-11-2013, 12:00 PM
Yes it has feature that modify it but at its heart it is still mostly TCG.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 12:03 PM
But this isn't JUST a TCG. It has features that modify the norm, and that in itself is what makes it grey.

I don't want to argue here, but you have to admit that it is something new, and that COULD lead to new things, potentially, than even veterans are used to, correct?

And I rather resent the implication I don't know how TCG economics work - I have played and collected several over the years, and some from starting sets onwards - ended up making more than I spent off it. I know what I am talking about, I am just open to new possibilities, and not raging like an old man. (Not implying anyone else is an old man, simply describing how I feel I would act if I was on your side of the fence.)

Yes, this is something new, but economics is not. When supply of product X goes to infinity, cost of product X goes to negative infinity. They're inversely correlated, because the good we're talking about (a digital card), is not perishable. A non-perishable product, coupled with an infinite supply, causes massive deflation over time, even if there's a way to "convert" or "exchange" your cards into a different form. Why? Because the item itself doesn't degrade over time, and there is an endless supply of them.

Do you know why you ended up making more money than you spent on your TCG games? Because every single one of those games stopped printing the cards you bought at one point or another. We're not shooting down cool ideas for collecting in the game. We are simply saying that if you don't cut the supply of a set of cards at some point, then they will eventually become worthless. We all know what a worthless product does for a company/game/community.

Let's make it simple for you.
How much do you think a 1st edition Charizard, or an Alpha/Beta Black Lotus, or whatever you want will cost if the set was never put out of print?

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 12:11 PM
But you forget MMO economics - this not only has gold sinks, money sinks, and time sinks, it has card sinks as well. And MMO's economies are usually constantly inflating over time, and they survive.

You are still missing parts of the puzzle, and I would just like for you to think about the possibility that it wont turn out poorly, like it does in your example. What if the cards remain limited, despite having a limitless supply?
I mean, technically speaking, WoW has a limitless supply of 0.01% mount drops from raids - not every player has them. In fact, MOST don't. Including some players who were there from the very start.

Just because something is technically infinite doesn't mean there will be an infinite amount floating around. It could end up quite rare in the end.

Or it could end up like global economics - you know, where timber and meat and all sorts of products fluctaute in price depending on stockpiles and demand.

I just don't see why there should be all this doom and gloom here.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 12:25 PM
But you forget MMO economics - this not only has gold sinks, money sinks, and time sinks, it has card sinks as well. And MMO's economies are usually constantly inflating over time, and they survive.

You are still missing parts of the puzzle, and I would just like for you to think about the possibility that it wont turn out poorly, like it does in your example. What if the cards remain limited, despite having a limitless supply?
I mean, technically speaking, WoW has a limitless supply of 0.01% mount drops from raids - not every player has them. In fact, MOST don't. Including some players who were there from the very start.

Just because something is technically infinite doesn't mean there will be an infinite amount floating around. It could end up quite rare in the end.

Or it could end up like global economics - you know, where timber and meat and all sorts of products fluctaute in price depending on stockpiles and demand.

I just don't see why there should be all this doom and gloom here.

IG currency is of infinite supply, then price inflate (it's exactly what he said) meaning the value of the currency decreases.
Selling a common for 1.000.000 IG gold will probably happen at some point.

Here we're talking about the Platinum currency (which I suppose 100P = 1$ to ease things)

I've played hardcorely WoW vanilla, and I never had an epic mount because I was respec'ing for PvP and PvE on a weekly basis (that's about 10hrs of farm in Tyr's hand to pay for it + raiding + farming BGs), came BC, after 1 week of daily quests I had mounts on each rerolls
Did that UP or DOWN the value of epic mounts?

For the record I've been playing MMOs since EQ1 (before 1st expansion) and TCGs since MtG's 4th/Ice Age - 15 years. So I know how those economics work, and having 2 different games with common cards/AH is not gonna change anything.

~

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 12:36 PM
That is a vendor item for ingame currency, if you want to argue it differently, look at the guardian cub from the blizz store. It sold for INSANE amounts in the first weeks, until demand lowered and now it is rather easy to come by, if it is ever on the auction house. It is still rare, but isn't worth much ingame gold, because there is an infinite supply, but there is no sink to remove it from game. If there was, demand would be higher, and so would the price.

Just an example, and not a great one, but in-game currency is always going to inflate if there aren't enough gold sinks - and WoW did it badly anyway, all drops and quests started giving a hugely inflated amount of gold as you progressed.

Boosters are going to be bought for real currency, so it is much more restrictive than anything you can farm in-game, and with a sink to remove those same things from circulation... I just hope you see where I am coming from here.

It is a very muddy issue. I don't advise looking at it in black and white terms, because it is an untested system.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 12:38 PM
But you forget MMO economics - this not only has gold sinks, money sinks, and time sinks, it has card sinks as well. And MMO's economies are usually constantly inflating over time, and they survive.

You are still missing parts of the puzzle, and I would just like for you to think about the possibility that it wont turn out poorly, like it does in your example. What if the cards remain limited, despite having a limitless supply?
I mean, technically speaking, WoW has a limitless supply of 0.01% mount drops from raids - not every player has them. In fact, MOST don't. Including some players who were there from the very start.

Just because something is technically infinite doesn't mean there will be an infinite amount floating around. It could end up quite rare in the end.

Or it could end up like global economics - you know, where timber and meat and all sorts of products fluctaute in price depending on stockpiles and demand.

I just don't see why there should be all this doom and gloom here.

Okay, I guess I'm just going to have to smack the shit out of you with logic here. Let's break down what you said piece by piece.


But you forget MMO economics - this not only has gold sinks, money sinks, and time sinks, it has card sinks as well. And MMO's economies are usually constantly inflating over time, and they survive.
Okay, first of all, regardless of how many sinks there are, if you have limitless supply, the value of a good will always go down. ALWAYS. This is especially true if it's sold at a fixed price ($2 in this case). Look at world of warcraft - economies go down the crapper. Why? Because things like gems, ore, herbs, etc. are overfarmed by the infamous "chinese gold farmers". I'm sure we've all heard the term "flooding the market". This is exactly what happened in WoW. Gold farmers flooded the market with an overabundant supply of their goods, thus dropping the price. And what happened when the gold farmers got banned? The prices went up. Why? Because there was no longer a supply. WoW survives because of the business model of their product. First, they regulate the supply in which hits the market (banning the farmers). Second, they release an expansion, or a sequel to their game, which makes everything that came before completely obsolete. Assuming you don't stop "printing" sets, the supply would not be regulated (there would be an infinite supply). So that's one way their model differs from a successful MMO. To the second point, you don't want your TCG to follow an MMO business model in that manner, where everything that came before becomes completely obsolete (for obvious reasons).


You are still missing parts of the puzzle, and I would just like for you to think about the possibility that it wont turn out poorly, like it does in your example. What if the cards remain limited, despite having a limitless supply?

I don't think you know what those words mean.


I mean, technically speaking, WoW has a limitless supply of 0.01% mount drops from raids - not every player has them. In fact, MOST don't. Including some players who were there from the very start.
First, the rewards you are referring to require a large investment of time and resources in order to be completed. We're talking about the subject of printing sets. If a set is being printed, you buy the pack for $2. No time investment; the good is easily accessible and readily available. And if you are talking about assigning cards from the set a .01% drop rate, then a few things can happen. 1. supply overshadows, and the prices still suck. 2. the cards with the .01% MIGHT retain some value, and everything else is still worthless (due to infinite supply). Not really hard to think about.


Just because something is technically infinite doesn't mean there will be an infinite amount floating around. It could end up quite rare in the end.

Or it could end up like global economics - you know, where timber and meat and all sorts of products fluctaute in price depending on stockpiles and demand.

If you even bothered reading any of our other posts, we explained to you that those are perishable goods - and furthermore, they're not infinite. So let me break down the differences for you (once again).
Lumber/meat/whatever
1. All are perishable. Meat and lumber rots.
2. All are consumable.
3. Once consumed, they cannot be re-used in a cost-free fashion. (You have to spend resources recycling lumber, and GL recycling the meat you ate.)
4. These goods require an investment to procure. I have to hire people to go chop down trees. I have to plant trees in order for there to be trees to chop down.
5. These goods are not infinite. If I stop planting trees, there will be no pigs. If I don't keep growing pigs, there will be no pigs.
6. Market floods in real life DO HAPPEN. When there is too much supply of a crop or good, then the prices significantly drop. Furthermore, if there is a drought, and a crop is in short supply, prices spike sharply. So why do prices change? BECAUSE THERE IS A FLUCTUATING SUPPLY.

DIGITAL TCG that never stops selling booster packs from sets:
1. There is no investment cost to selling these boosters past the initial investment. It costs them nothing to sell 1 booster vs. 100 boosters.
2. They are not perishable. If my cards sit in my account for 5 years, and I don't touch them, they will still be there.
3. Even if they are consumed (say converting to a different card), they will still exist in a different form (different card). Furthermore, there is no time investment to converting.
4. The goods will be infinite. Why? Because you will be able to purchase a pack from the set until the end of time. Therefore, these goods that don't perish and have an infinite supply will stay around forever and flood the market. THE SUPPLY DOES NOT FLUCTUATE. IT IS A CONSTANT THAT IS AVAILABLE IN INFINITE QUANTITY.


I just don't see why there should be all this doom and gloom here.
Because, for starters, people don't want to invest their money into a worthless cause. But, more importantly, people actually care about the quality of the good they are receiving. People want this game to succeed, and what you are advocating for will do the opposite of that. I'm glad that there are people here fighting for sets to be put out of print after a period of time, because it shows me that people care about this game and want it to succeed. So instead of telling people that you're better than them and you know best, try thinking about it from other people's perspective instead of saying "Well I don't know why everyone is so gloomy about this".


This is a very muddy issue.
No, it's not, unless you can show us otherwise. It's a very clear cut and defined issue that is empirically proven in basic economics that are taught to 6th graders.

MirriCatWarrior
05-11-2013, 12:44 PM
There is tool to fight with cards (or virual items in online games/MMOs) losing value because supply is 'ad infinitum'.

CARD SINKS.

Soem kind of crafting, card exchange (10 normal copies for foil for example, 10 commons for a uncommon, 20 unc for rare, 50 rares for legend, etc..), .... idk honestly what will work in TCG... in some MMOs we have player PvP loot (item loss) and item decay (durability)... i dont know if TCG players will be happy if they Legendary planeswalker will vanish becasue its old. :P

There is no good and fresh economy without ITEM SINKS in one way or another.

Just sayin.

PS. GOing with "out of print' is some kind of this also but i think maybe there are better ways to control the economy.

PS2. You want good economy - just copy EVE Online in some working way :)

Jugan
05-11-2013, 12:47 PM
There is tool to fight with cards (or virual items in online games/MMOs) losing value because supply is 'ad infinitum'.

CARD SINKS.

Soem kind of crafting, card exchange (10 normal copies for foil for example, 10 commons for a uncommon, 20 unc for rare, 50 rares for legend, etc..), .... idk honestly what will work in TCG... in some MMOs we have player PvP loot (item loss) and item decay (durability)... i dont know if TCG players will be happy if they Legendary planeswalker will vanish becasue its old. :P

There is no good and fresh economy without ITEM SINKS in one way or another.

Just sayin.

PS. GOing with "out of print' is some kind of this also but i think maybe there are better ways to control the economy.

PS2. You want good economy - just copy EVE Online in some working way :)

Putting sets out of print is necessary, and it is the one surefire way to guarantee some cards will retain their value. But I think that, along with other things (such as card exchange, or some kind of usable cards or something) in addition to having an out-of-print date for sets is the way to go. Obviously one method alone is not the answer, but leaving out some methods could be fatal.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 12:54 PM
You really refuse to listen to any logic that does not mirror your own, don't you? Well, after this post I will refrain from posting anymore, as I do not want it to escalate to bans.

1) You are comparing something that can be farmed for free and turned into a profit with something that you pay for. You should encourage pack sales, the devs get more money and can make more sets. This was a very bad point to fight with.

2) Again, things you pay for. If everyone had infinite amounts of money, none of these issues would exist, but people stil have to spend time to get said money, so time is still invested on every pack. Despite that, I was using the low drop rates to show that the rarer cards will already have value, and anything else will be destroyed, in the hopes of getting those rarer cards. If you can prove to me that people would not do this given the opportunity, feel free to give some proof.

3) With card destroying, all goods are potentially perishable. But the primary market is not perishable, only the secondary market, so the devs get a lot more money that way. You should again be encouraging this, as potential player.

4) Really? If you are so dead set on investing, go play the stock market, or go play real life TCG's. We don't even know yet if we can withdraw ingame currency for real money, and if out of game transactions will be legal or illegal - you should be far more interested in that, not interested in things that may turn out wildly different than you 'predict'.

5) It is a muddy issue, very much so. And there are plenty of features that have not been clearly explained or revealed which might throw a wrench in the works. You dont need to be so agressive over something that is filled with so much uncertianty.

EDIT: skimmed over the insult thrown at me, so updating this. I could have worded that better, but it is possible to limit the circulation of something even if there is a limitless supply. And it is POTENTIALLY limitless, people still need to invest money into it to see any kind of payoff, be it good payoff or bad payoff.

MirriCatWarrior
05-11-2013, 12:54 PM
i have nothing against putting sets out of print. Im old MTG player - im used to this. :)

Honestly the 'omg look they last print this card in 2002 !!111!' adds another level of 'collectible aspect' to the game.
And maybe sometime a card from "Shards Of Fate" will be new Black Lotus or more cards will earn cult status like for example POWER NINE from MTG:

http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Power_Nine

But also i think that some card sinks (exchange of unused copies for randoms cards etc..) will have place here too because its an MMO too, not only TCG.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 12:59 PM
You really refuse to listen to any logic that does not mirror your own, don't you? Well, after this post I will refrain from posting anymore, as I do not want it to escalate to bans.

LOL Did you really threaten to ban someone for disagreeing with you? You sir, should take a look at what you wrote. You've disregarded the argument of every person who has posted in the past dozen pages. I'm used to thinking critically and evaluating the opinions presented to me. I write for the opinions section of a newspaper, and address reader questions and dissenting opinions. I've competed on the world's circuit at the highest level of collegiate debate for several years. I've played card games for the majority of my life. I've played on pro tours. I've also played card games that are well designed, fun to play, but have died due to poor management (Versus, Alteil, Carte, etc.) Oh, and I've taken an economics 101 class in high school.

You sir, need to cool off.


i have nothing against putting sets out of print. Im old MTG player - im used to this. :)

Honestly the 'omg look they last print this card in 2002 !!111!' adds another level of 'collectible aspect' to the game.
And maybe sometime a card from "Shards Of Fate" will be new Black Lotus or more cards will earn cult status like for example POWER NINE from MTG:

http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Power_Nine

But also i think that some card sinks (exchange of unused copies for randoms cards etc..) will have place here too because its an MMO too, not only TCG.


This is what we've been saying man! Everyone wants a collectible aspect to a collectible trading card game. But imagine how valuable a black lotus would be if it was still being printed today. I'm not really addressing you, so much as showing xenavire that people simply don't agree with him. I personally think a well designed card sink would be a great idea, assuming that it's well designed. But you need to first plan to limit the supply.

EDIT: Saw this tidbit and laughed again



2) Again, things you pay for. If everyone had infinite amounts of money, none of these issues would exist, but people stil have to spend time to get said money, so time is still invested on every pack. Despite that, I was using the low drop rates to show that the rarer cards will already have value, and anything else will be destroyed, in the hopes of getting those rarer cards. If you can prove to me that people would not do this given the opportunity, feel free to give some proof.


If you actually read anything that anybody wrote, you would have some kind of inkling that you're wrong. I've linked you to the supernovabots website. Look at the prices of the cards, they're incredible deflated, and they've only been sold for roughly 3 months. The packs themselves are worth almost less than half of their retail price on the secondary market($2.80 vs. $3.99). This is knowing that the set will eventually be out of print. If the set never stops being sold/printed, then you'll have people shelling out for a never ending supply of cards. If you can't even begin to admit you're wrong, then I feel sorry for you and the other people that have posted a contrary opinion to yours that you just shrugged off and accused of being a bigot, when that is clearly not the case here.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 01:02 PM
You really refuse to listen to any logic that does not mirror your own, don't you? Well, after this post I will refrain from posting anymore, as I do not want it to escalate to bans.

You're not being logical, that's the point



1) You are comparing something that can be farmed for free and turned into a profit with something that you pay for. You should encourage pack sales, the devs get more money and can make more sets. This was a very bad point to fight with.


For packs to be bought, the game as to be successfull, and I'll repeat myself, to be successful a game needs:
- Good design (this part seems to be covered)
- Cash prize (to increase the desirability of cards)
- Cash out (to maintain the will to invest)



2) Again, things you pay for. If everyone had infinite amounts of money, none of these issues would exist, but people stil have to spend time to get said money, so time is still invested on every pack. Despite that, I was using the low drop rates to show that the rarer cards will already have value, and anything else will be destroyed, in the hopes of getting those rarer cards. If you can prove to me that people would not do this given the opportunity, feel free to give some proof.


Value is based on supply and demand, how can Louis Vuitton sells ugly handbags for $1K ? By limiting supply



3) With card destroying, all goods are potentially perishable. But the primary market is not perishable, only the secondary market, so the devs get a lot more money that way. You should again be encouraging this, as potential player.


It's not perishable if there are still supplies.



4) Really? If you are so dead set on investing, go play the stock market, or go play real life TCG's. We don't even know yet if we can withdraw ingame currency for real money, and if out of game transactions will be legal or illegal - you should be far more interested in that, not interested in things that may turn out wildly different than you 'predict'.


A TCG is successful only if cards have value, because the idea of being able to have R.O.I. is what drives people in investing (thru winning tournaments or trading well)



5) It is a muddy issue, very much so. And there are plenty of features that have not been clearly explained or revealed which might throw a wrench in the works. You dont need to be so agressive over something that is filled with so much uncertianty.


Again, it's not.

~

Mushroom_C1oud
05-11-2013, 01:11 PM
Value should be based on usefulness not rarity. It shouldn't be about the money, it should be about the game.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 01:11 PM
Value should be based on usefulness not rarity. It shouldn't be about the money, it should be about the game.

Go play a LCG

~

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 01:26 PM
Wow, I love people jumping to conclusions - I do not want this to escalate, and I am concerned about MYSELF being banned for being the cause, as I am the only one on this side of the fence. I was in no way threatening anyone.

As for being logical, I have thought out my points very clearly with the information we have available. If you cannot understand where I am coming from, and ignore the validity of the points I am trying to make, this conversation will go no-where.

I just hope the devs (who have made this system) take both sides of the argument into account before making their choice. I at least will continue playing either way, while it sounds like you guys would instantly quit and 'withdraw your investment' if they were to side with my way of thinking.

I thought the community here would be different, but it looks like I was sadly mistaken.

MirriCatWarrior
05-11-2013, 01:27 PM
Value should be based on usefulness not rarity. It shouldn't be about the money, it should be about the game.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you may be in wrong place. TCG/CCG games are always about (besides skill ofc) money and luck.
It have cons and pros.

In HEX money thing will be heavily muffled because its also MMO so you will have more things achievable via grinding and playing, not only luck in drafts/boosters opening and not pnly heavy wallet. Besides that game is really reasonable priced (10 per deck for noob? nice. 2$ per 15 cards is good price too.. and if you catch playable rare or ledendary you will have your money back and you can buy more packs :) i rember catching a fat rare in MTG booster, selling it in shop in 5 mins only to buy more boosters :P good feeling).

C-Drive
05-11-2013, 01:34 PM
Xenavire (and a few others) seem to be fighting for the MMO/PVE side of things, while the remainder of us are fighting the fight for the TCG/PVP side of things.

I have no problem with PVE cards being limitless and infinite - it would be great if they were always available, that makes the PVE game stronger. I have no problem with older PVP cards becoming rare drops, as long as they are limited to PVE usage. As long as the line that seems to be separating this argument is held up, and "out-of-print" cards remain unavailable on the PVP side in order to drive demand and collectibility there, I'm fine with that.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 01:40 PM
C-Drive, you have the general gist of part of what I am looking at, but I also want to point out older sets being used in drafts etc. There is already a way to remove cards from the game, if there is enough emphasis on in, or there are more ways to do so, there wont be a reason to remove old sets from the store - leaving more options for PvP play down the line.

I see it as a shame if fun content should be removed due to greed, or lack of inventiveness.

If everything could be left in-game (from drafts to dungeons, and everything in between), you could remove old sets, without hurting anyone - but the main complaint here is having too much of those cards in circulation devalues them, so being able to grind for them would only make things worse.

It really feels like it is a lose-lose for removing sets, and unknown for keeping them (could also be a lose-lose). But if we can find a win-win, all complaints will dissapear.

Don't think that is going to happen sadly.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 01:45 PM
I do have an idea on limiting the supply somewhat while still keeping the sets in-game, and I would like open minds, please.

Let every player enter old sets as drafts (no entry fee, no prize, but boosters must be paid for) but only a single set per day (or week.) Maybe even make the set change every few days, or every week, just to prevent people farming one set. Players keep the cards they draft, and get to enjoy said old content, and a limited number of cards enter circulation (I do mean limited, unless someone really thinks that thousands of people will draft a set every day once the content has been cycled).

Would this be acceptable? No content is actually removed, but it becomes limited, and there is just enough new cards to make up for destroyed ones, or accounts/players leaving.

Any suggestions to improve or refine this idea?

M3d1vH
05-11-2013, 01:52 PM
Maybe we should create a poll or something?

Jugan
05-11-2013, 01:53 PM
I do have an idea on limiting the supply somewhat while still keeping the sets in-game, and I would like open minds, please.

Let every player enter old sets as drafts (no entry fee, no prize, but boosters must be paid for) but only a single set per day (or week.) Maybe even make the set change every few days, or every week, just to prevent people farming one set. Players keep the cards they draft, and get to enjoy said old content, and a limited number of cards enter circulation (I do mean limited, unless someone really thinks that thousands of people will draft a set every day once the content has been cycled).

Would this be acceptable? No content is actually removed, but it becomes limited, and there is just enough new cards to make up for destroyed ones, or accounts/players leaving.

Any suggestions to improve or refine this idea?

Nope, not acceptable. Stop infinite printruns.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 01:56 PM
Wow. Way to prove my points about not having open minds or anything.

And yet you had no issue when people suggested having those same cards farmable in PvE, or craftable by destroying cards?

I just don't know how to respond anymore. You baffle me.

C-Drive
05-11-2013, 01:58 PM
C-Drive, you have the general gist of part of what I am looking at, but I also want to point out older sets being used in drafts etc. There is already a way to remove cards from the game, if there is enough emphasis on in, or there are more ways to do so, there wont be a reason to remove old sets from the store - leaving more options for PvP play down the line.

I still think the line between PVE and PVP is going to be a very hard line in terms of crafting and the like. If there is crafting using PVP cards, I think in the end it will only craft a PVE card. It will be up to the player whether destroying a PVP card that may have secondary market value is worth it for the end result of the crafting. And the crafting/destroying? You've been right, there will be a limited supply of cards (if there is no out-of-print) if you can destroy PVP cards - and this would drive secondary market values up even if it's a card that's been "crafted out" of the market basically. But imagine the demand if there is out-of-print and 'crafted out' cards?


I see it as a shame if fun content should be removed due to greed, or lack of inventiveness.

Yeah, I find it funny I'm making a case for someone other than myself to make more cash at my wallet's detriment. Yet, I know for the future of the game and keeping demand among the collector side, I have to make that case.


If everything could be left in-game (from drafts to dungeons, and everything in between), you could remove old sets, without hurting anyone - but the main complaint here is having too much of those cards in circulation devalues them, so being able to grind for them would only make things worse.

I'm with you on keeping all the PVE content possible. And as I said before, if you can grind for out of print cards that are PVE restricted I see no issue with it.


It really feels like it is a lose-lose for removing sets, and unknown for keeping them (could also be a lose-lose). But if we can find a win-win, all complaints will dissapear.

Don't think that is going to happen sadly.

I honestly beleive the lose-lose would be for CZE without restricting access to older cards on the PVP side, even if it's a player's lose-lose otherwise.


I do have an idea on limiting the supply somewhat while still keeping the sets in-game, and I would like open minds, please.

Let every player enter old sets as drafts (no entry fee, no prize, but boosters must be paid for) but only a single set per day (or week.) Maybe even make the set change every few days, or every week, just to prevent people farming one set. Players keep the cards they draft, and get to enjoy said old content, and a limited number of cards enter circulation (I do mean limited, unless someone really thinks that thousands of people will draft a set every day once the content has been cycled).

Would this be acceptable? No content is actually removed, but it becomes limited, and there is just enough new cards to make up for destroyed ones, or accounts/players leaving.

Any suggestions to improve or refine this idea?

I would see no issue with revolving "classic drafts", as it was something I mentioned in one of my first posts, but I still think they would need to be a premium price compared to current set drafts in order to create demand.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 02:08 PM
You are right, I didn't mention anything about price, but increased price on the boosters themselves makes sense. I advocate dropping the entry fee (the non booster fee) if there would be no other rewards, but keep it if there are.

And having those drafts could help drain a kickstarters supply slowly, as it is content for the PvP minded person (assuming any packs are left by that point.)

Mushroom_C1oud
05-11-2013, 02:09 PM
Go play a LCG

~

No idea what a LCG is. Apparently it is supposed to be an insult of some sort. Let me guess, you want to inflate the value of out-of-print cards so you can sell them. You sound like the guy who buys a ton of boosters, opens up the packs looking for the most valuable cards, and then sells them on ebay to turn a profit. You may not even play the game but just watch the market to see when one set is going out and another is coming in, you look for trends by watching championships and see which cards the finalists used just to increase the price on those cards. You're not in it for the game, just the economics. I hope CZE decides to keep the market open just to burst your money making scam. Your location says you're from France but you're more American than me.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 02:23 PM
I actually wouldn't mind if the economy was poor, if the quality of players was high. So I sort of agree Mushroom.

I look for talent over someones monetary value anyway.

C-Drive
05-11-2013, 02:25 PM
No idea what a LCG is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_Flight_Games#Living_Card_Games

mauvebutterfly
05-11-2013, 02:26 PM
An LCG is a Living Card Game.

It's a game that periodically releases new sets of cards, but these sets are completely fixed. You always know what you are buying, and buying a couple of copies of each set guarantees you a complete playset.

An LCG can be successful from a casual perspective, and if people like the game, each new set is kind of like an expansion pack to the game. From a tournament perspective, it's a lot harder to maintain interest, since nobody will be interested in more cards as a prize; you need to create something else as a prize to incentivize more hard-core players. Obviously an LCG format isn't as interesting to collectors. That being said, it's still possible for old set to go out of print or be rotated out of the tournament scene.

I'm not familiar with too many LCG games, but Game of Thrones and Call of Cthulhu by Fantasy Flight Games would be two examples.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 02:36 PM
I love how Xenavire agrees with someone who's nice to him on the same things everyone else told him, but he refuses to even think about what the people he raged at wrote.

Also, casual drafts require no entry free. Already implemented.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 02:41 PM
Excuse me Jugen? Have you read everything I have posted? I have said I would be fine with the sets being retired, but I would like people to consider them NOT being retired, at least for a tiral period, and gave evidence to support my reasons why I think it could work.

Never have I said I do not want it at all, I would just rather try an ALTERNATIVE. Why not broaden your horizons?

Jugan
05-11-2013, 03:00 PM
Excuse me Jugen? Have you read everything I have posted? I have said I would be fine with the sets being retired, but I would like people to consider them NOT being retired, at least for a tiral period, and gave evidence to support my reasons why I think it could work.

Never have I said I do not want it at all, I would just rather try an ALTERNATIVE. Why not broaden your horizons?

Changing your story after a lot of rage I see. Well, hope you have the time to go and edit all your posts.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 03:04 PM
Wow, I love people jumping to conclusions - I do not want this to escalate, and I am concerned about MYSELF being banned for being the cause, as I am the only one on this side of the fence. I was in no way threatening anyone.

As for being logical, I have thought out my points very clearly with the information we have available. If you cannot understand where I am coming from, and ignore the validity of the points I am trying to make, this conversation will go no-where.

I just hope the devs (who have made this system) take both sides of the argument into account before making their choice. I at least will continue playing either way, while it sounds like you guys would instantly quit and 'withdraw your investment' if they were to side with my way of thinking.

I thought the community here would be different, but it looks like I was sadly mistaken.

I'm not withdrawing anything, I'm just explaining to you why they'd choose to print-out, for longevity of the game.

~

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 03:16 PM
No idea what a LCG is. Apparently it is supposed to be an insult of some sort. Let me guess, you want to inflate the value of out-of-print cards so you can sell them. You sound like the guy who buys a ton of boosters, opens up the packs looking for the most valuable cards, and then sells them on ebay to turn a profit. You may not even play the game but just watch the market to see when one set is going out and another is coming in, you look for trends by watching championships and see which cards the finalists used just to increase the price on those cards. You're not in it for the game, just the economics. I hope CZE decides to keep the market open just to burst your money making scam. Your location says you're from France but you're more American than me.

Actually, I spend alot of money and I never sell cards.
I play for the strategic challenge and tournaments.
I also collected EA in WOWTCG, Black Border Dual Lands in MtG etc...

If you read my posts on the boards i've advocated for :
- Developing content and not giving us more stuff with stretch goals (cause that would scare new players)
- Making sure the game is attractive for everyone (print-out, F2P PvE, P2W PvP)

LCG is not an insult, it's exactly what you explained, it's about who plays better and NOT who has the best cards/the bigger wallet because everyone has the same cards for about $15 every 2 months.
The thing is there are no real OP and prize support, leading to casual play only.

~

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 03:19 PM
Jugen, I have to say you are the single worst troll I have ever encountered. Go through my posts, I have mentioned it several times, at least in passing. WWKnight can back me up too, as he commented a few times during the discussion. I just advocate keeping the sets in the game, and if it fails, by all means, remove them and leave players with their collectibles. Most of my times was spent trying to have people consider the other options, but it is time wasted I see, but I never once said I didn't support the devs decision, whatever it might be.

Fireblast, I was aiming that more at the people like Jugan - outside this thread I see you doing your part to support the community and drive discussions, and I hold no resentment towards you or anyone on the other side of the issue, other than those who seem to think insulting my intelligence is acceptable.

And even then, I will let insults to my person slide rather than cause fighting - I don't want to foster that kind of community.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 03:22 PM
The thing is that the side you advocate for is the wrong one if you want the game to have a long and healthy life.
The sets will remain in game, the boosters will not be for sale.
The old encounters/dungeons/raids should be always available for whoever wanna run them and collect PvE cards.

~

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 03:29 PM
And there we disagree. I think there is potnetial for it to work, without retiring sets. It may take more work, and may slightly devalue some cards in comparison, but it makes the playing feild more even from an MMO standpoint.

As for inventive ways to balance it, they could have card amnesties, where you trade in X cards for X reward, effectively eliminating copies in circulation.

It is sad more people don't think outside the box.

I will accept it if it doesn't go my way, but I am interested in the results. Aren't you people even curious if the devs could manage it? Seems like a large lack of faith. I dunno, just seems a little strange considering you are willing to back them with kickstarter.

As for stuff sticking around, certian PvE stuff may need to be cycled the same way, due to infinite supply (more or less).

Rieper
05-11-2013, 03:32 PM
Since they said they looking for peoples opion on this, i just wanna say i want sets to retire!

Most reason have been statet already. Not sure i could add much more to discussion.
1: Rare can only stay rare if the is a limited supply(For me this canīt even be discussed, because thats just how the world works right now!). Also collecting stuff that has no value, sorry no thanks. 3 main things that makes collecting fun is getting that high value card you wanted for some time, getting a very limited card almost nobody has(This one is maybe the best one for a collector) and last thing for a TCG is getting a full set, depending on player that means 1 or 4 of each card.
First 2 points need phasing out of sets to work well. Last part is easier with unlimited supply, but also a hell of alot more boring since it will be so damn easy......
People that collect often do wanna feel special.

2: People tend to buy more if they also know they can sell of some they old stuff. This is a major thing for drafters actually IMO, if you just wanna draft you can sell of some picks for money and make next one cheaper. Hell me and few friends ones did a draft and decide lets put all cards together and sell em for a new draft(Was some really nice cards like chrome mox in em). This part affect both booster sales and auction house. Broken in those 2 place and you will lose players and money.
Makes me think off a Guild wars 2, farmer ruined auction house, people got annoyed they couldnt get anything out of they "hard work" at all, so they left. Farmer created insane supply and there was not enough demand. It ruined it for everybody else.

I would prefer if they now and then did make draft/sealed with old sets, reprints or even do a weekend "resale" of sets, IF supply on cards has gone way to low.


Actually naming GW2 made me think of all that wow stuff in read in this topic. I found those comparision to be VERY bad, because wow is a sub game. GW2 on other hand is a microtransaction game with ALOT of limited time content and gear. So if people wanna make a comparision to a MMO, this is a better one. Limited time stuff works well, makes people use more money(In gold and IRL money) and can earn you more in gold if you smart.
So yes even phasing out content can work well for MMOs!

Jugan
05-11-2013, 03:34 PM
There's a difference between thinking outside the box and being a bigot.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 03:37 PM
Excuse me? In what way am I in any sense of the word a bigot?

And really, that has nothing to do with the thread topic anyway. I haveat least been polite, except when I have had someone attacking me verbally. And even then I have done my best to be civil.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 03:49 PM
You've advocated for a system that has no incentive for CZE or players.
Or you've given incentives that we proved to be wrong with facts from both TCG and MMO.

it's not cause the 2 are mixed together (which is not true to me as players can either play 1 side or the other without issues) that the principles that are true for 17 years will be wrong.

~

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 04:09 PM
I see your point, and I never argued that it wasn't true outside of this game. But I have argued that there is a possibility that it would change in this one instance - something that is better to be tested first, rather than giving it up as a forgone conclusion. The devs can find inventive ways to lower the number of cards in circulation should numbers get out of control, and they can at a later date retire old sets.

You are denying that there is ANY possibility that it could work. Ever. Not even a chance. I see that as condemning it without giving it a chance, and that is why I have been so vocal.

Innovation is meant to be the way we progress in life, yet a TCG can't do that? I find that hard to believe.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 04:14 PM
Infinite supply means no incentive to collect, no feeling of achievement for obtaining.
World doesn't work like that.

~

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 04:22 PM
*Sigh*
They have a system to remove cards. Even if it is infinite in theory, it takes real world money for each booster, and at some point the packs will lose the buying appeal. I am not going to argue this point anymore.

They have methods that MIGHT enable it to work. You still think it is impossible. We will never see eye to eye without some solid proof. And proof requires that they try it.

With so many vocal about removing sets, they just wont. And I find that dissapointing.

Besides, digital and infinite supplies of cards could innovate the way TCG's are played permanently. You don't know how the nature of these things might change over the course of time.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 04:32 PM
*Sigh*
I am not going to argue this point anymore.


Thankfully, because it was on very shoddy grounds.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 04:37 PM
See, again with trying to insult me. I don't try to insult you just for stating your opinion, or trying to make a point and substantiate it. The way you are acting here makes me worry about the state of the game if it is going to attract more people like you. It will devolve into something worse than WoW's trade channels.

And just because you don't see the value in what I say doesn't mean it isn't there. It isn't any more shoddy than what you have claimed, as there is no proof until the game is live. And proof is EVERYTHING.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 04:43 PM
Actually, you did. I'm just treating you how you treat other people. Have you even bothered to read what you and other people wrote? There is empirical proof for what myself, and most of the people in here have been advocating for. We've constantly substantiated our points, which you have vehemently denied by clinging to your flawed reasoning. You even fervently deny the fundamentals of economics, shrugging it off as untrue through fallacious thinking. I just feel sorry for you.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 04:50 PM
I have listened to your points. I really have. And I understand where they come from, and the proof you have in a real life setting.

But you do not have that same proof in a MMOTCG setting with the features they have. Had you the proof, I would have NO argument at all. But PROOF IS EVERYTHING.

I have understood every single thing said to me, and it has infulenced how I think on the subject, but I stand by what I have said all along. It should be given a chance, and if it fails, it is entirely reversible. Meaning the whole impact of trying it would neglible.

Why is that so hard to accept? Giving new things a chance?

Jugan
05-11-2013, 04:59 PM
If you don't understand basic economics like the rest of the people on this thread seem to (or at least pretend to), then I cannot help you, and words cannot reach you. The fact that you get angry and lash out at people diminish your credibility tenfold. What you have said in your last few posts are extremely different from the nonsense you spouted before. It's not the fact that you are arguing against empirical proof, but the fact that you are arguing against sound logic and empirical proof and going as far as to say it's wrong and that the outcome won't transpire because of some fantasy you've concocted. You keep saying PROOF IS EVERYTHING. I don't think you understand what that means. We've provided you with numerous examples of empirical proof, and you have provided us with "wouldn't it be nice if the world was the way I wanted it to be." Your reasoning, even the line "Had you the proof..." is completely fallacious. The fact that we have shown you why it is fallacious coupled with the fact that you can't even begin to understand why your reasoning is flawed makes me pity you.

I hope you take this opportunity to truly learn something.

Fireblast
05-11-2013, 05:01 PM
What I think you didn't get is that by trying to have infinite availability of supplies you'll lose incentive to invest in the game and it will not grow has it could if there was print-out and some kind of cash withdrawal.

The new kind of TCG you're asking for exists already but it's either a CCG (no trading) or a LCG (everyone has all cards).
THOSE are NOT the model CZE wants to implement.

Hope it's clear enough and that we're done.

~

Jugan
05-11-2013, 05:05 PM
What I think you didn't get is that by trying to have infinite availability of supplies you'll lose incentive to invest in the game and it will not grow has it could if there was print-out and some kind of cash withdrawal.

The new kind of TCG you're asking for exists already but it's either a CCG (no trading) or a LCG (everyone has all cards).
THOSE are NOT the model CZE wants to implement.

Hope it's clear enough and that we're done.

~

This is basically what we've been trying to explain to you for the past however many pages. Thanks for summing it up, I'm done as well.

WWKnight
05-11-2013, 05:05 PM
Xenafire, stand down mate. You wont bash down this brick wall, no matter how hard you hit it with your head.

Jugan, you are being purposefully antagonising, and that aint cool man. We have a brand new community, and we can shape it to be WHATEVER WE WANT IT TO BE. Forget how the rest of the internet works, lets pretend here that everyone we talk to is an actual real person with actual real feelings. You may disagree with them, thats cool. But you dont need to talk down to anyone.

This thread has gone on way too long. I was hoping the devs would read it and get ideas, but im afraid now its too big a wall of text even for someone who is paid to do this crap :P

Anyone else want to go through it all and extract the juicy points and make a new thread for the devs to see? I said I would do it, but I woke up late (probably because I stayed up VERY late) and need to head off to work.

Xenavire
05-11-2013, 05:08 PM
I refuse to argue this any more. I have given my opinions, ideas, and perspective, and tried to validate any claims I have made, but clearly people are dead set against anything new, even if it is simply a trial run.

Thanks so much for your time, the debate was lively and gave me a lot to think about, but I pity your close-mindedness. I do hope someday you will be more open to new ideas (especially trial runs to test new things).

I also apologise for anything harsh I have said, and for anyone I have insulted. I will be around the forums, but I will not touch this topic ever again - no-one will even consider something different. I see that clearly.

See you guys in other threads. Hopefully on less hostile terms.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 05:16 PM
We have a brand new community, and we can shape it to be WHATEVER WE WANT IT TO BE.

Since when have I told you what kind of community this one had to be, and since when are you the decision maker for what the community becomes, or the spokesperson for said community?

WWKnight
05-11-2013, 05:58 PM
Im not. Im just pointing out we COULD call names and insult each other, which you have done, which says waht kind of community you want. Or we could appreciate other people and accept they dont agree with us all the time. Im doing the second one. What you do is up to you. The side with the majority wins.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 06:03 PM
I'm sorry, but if someone is going to be a bigot, I'm going to let them know. :)

I like how you insinuate that I'm throwing out baseless insults without providing any insightful remarks. Read the thread please, thanks.

P.S. really sneaky insult you snuck in to your previous post "banging head against the wall" remark, as if your line of thinking (in regards to the economics "debate") is correct, when the rest of the thread has shown empirically that it's not :(

mauvebutterfly
05-11-2013, 06:04 PM
Something to consider is that Hex is actually two separate games. It is a PvE MMOTCG and a PvP TCG.

From what I've seen and read, the PvP portion of the game is a more competitive version of the PvE, and it has had all of the MMO aspects stripped out of it. I would expect the PvE economy to function like an MMO, and I would expect the PvP economy to function like a TCG. Given that PvE cards aren't allowed in competitive play (with the exception of the occasional tournament relaxing these restrictions) I expect that the MMO portion of this game will have no impact on the economy of the PvP game.

Crafting might change some things, but if you can destroy cards from retired sets and have no way to remake them, you've effectively increased the value of the obsolete commons and uncommons. Likewise, being able to destroy lower-tier cards to get rarer cards would increase the value of commons and decrease the value of rares.

Another thing to consider is CZE's stance that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I find it highly unlikely they'll take a gamble on a new economy style when they have data available on an economy that has already proven itself.

WWKnight
05-11-2013, 06:07 PM
No, a brick wall doesnt budge, like you werent budging. I apologise for giving you the feeling I was insulting you. I understand how it could be seen that way.

My line of thinking is this is a hard topic that needs to be discussed maturely. That means not just sticking to your own line of thinking and insulting others (baseless or not) when they dont agree with you. I agree with Xena on this, im the one who started the thread saying that. I have since tried to find a compromise middle ground (move the contents of packs to crafting table, with random results, jsut like if you were buying a pack. So you can still attain older cards, but its no where near cost effective, and probably cheaper to trade).

Jugan
05-11-2013, 06:08 PM
Something to consider is that Hex is actually two separate games. It is a PvE MMOTCG and a PvP TCG.

From what I've seen and read, the PvP portion of the game is a more competitive version of the PvE, and it has had all of the MMO aspects stripped out of it. I would expect the PvE economy to function like an MMO, and I would expect the PvP economy to function like a TCG. Given that PvE cards aren't allowed in competitive play (with the exception of the occasional tournament relaxing these restrictions) I expect that the MMO portion of this game will have no impact on the economy of the PvP game.

Crafting might change some things, but if you can destroy cards from retired sets and have no way to remake them, you've effectively increased the value of the obsolete commons and uncommons. Likewise, being able to destroy lower-tier cards to get rarer cards would increase the value of commons and decrease the value of rares.

Another thing to consider is CZE's stance that, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I find it highly unlikely they'll take a gamble on a new economy style when they have data available on an economy that has already proven itself.

Right. What has occured in the past half dozen pages is WWKnight and Xenavire trying to tell us that if you keep PvP sets available for unlimited periods of time, cards will retain value despite an infinite supply (which we all know to be logically and empirically untrue).

WWKnight
05-11-2013, 06:10 PM
Thats not what ive said at all. :confused:

Jugan
05-11-2013, 06:11 PM
No, a brick wall doesnt budge, like you werent budging. I apologise for giving you the feeling I was insulting you. I understand how it could be seen that way.

My line of thinking is this is a hard topic that needs to be discussed maturely. That means not just sticking to your own line of thinking and insulting others (baseless or not) when they dont agree with you. I agree with Xena on this, im the one who started the thread saying that. I have since tried to find a compromise middle ground (move the contents of packs to crafting table, with random results, jsut like if you were buying a pack. So you can still attain older cards, but its no where near cost effective, and probably cheaper to trade).

Right, and your on a logically fallacious side. If there is an infinite supply, given a long enough period of time, the price of that good will go down. I'm not insulting others for disagreeing, i'm insulting others for insulting people and being a bigot at the same time. You still haven't been able to disprove a basic law of economics. You and Xenavire are the only people in this thread that seem to think that an infinite supply with no investment cost and easy accessibility doesn't decrease the cost of a good or service.

Jugan
05-11-2013, 06:11 PM
And if you claim that's not what you've been saying, then perhaps you actually need to read the thread before commenting.

WWKnight
05-11-2013, 06:16 PM
Have a great day Jugan :)

Jugan
05-11-2013, 06:24 PM
You too buddy :)

Shoubushi
05-11-2013, 08:02 PM
I'm glad to see some more reason has decided to enter this thread since I last checked. While I do feel for Xena wanting things to be cheaper and more available for everyone, this is not how a TCG works if it wants to be successful.

I still can't believe that CZE wanted this, and actually encouraged it to be discussed like this. I saw this going down hill far earlier in the thread and I'm sad they didn't even step in to explain their thoughts or ideas on the matter. Exactly what were they expecting to happen? IMO big decisions like this should have been made 2 years ago in the early development stages, not now or possibly a year or 2 down the road when the game finally releases. This is too big of an issue for people to gamble their money with without knowing full well what they are backing.

I'll keep my eye out for some actual news from CZE regarding this manner, as well as several other extremely important issues (i.e. Account Security) before I allow my funds to go through. I refuse to take a gamble with a large amount of money on CZE, when they are scrounging the forums looking for "input" on how to decide on decisions like this.

mauvebutterfly
05-11-2013, 09:45 PM
I refuse to take a gamble with a large amount of money on CZE, when they are scrounging the forums looking for "input" on how to decide on decisions like this.

I suspect that it's for PR purposes, actually. A lot of these decisions are likely already made, and they might just be looking to see how they should go about announcing things to avoid alienating as many supporters as possible. They may also be doing this as a "just in case" measure to make sure that there aren't any obvious things that they've overlooked; sometimes when a group of people are really passionate about something, they can get a bit of tunnel-vision. I agree that it isn't in their best interest to leave this decision up to their customers.

C-Drive
05-11-2013, 09:52 PM
At the state the game seems to be in from previews and information provided via the official sources, this decision has definitely already been made.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 05:44 AM
It's morning and I feel refreshed. I will restate my argument one more time but with a clearer head.

I do not disagree that keeping sets open for purchase will ultimately keep the cost value of cards down as sets get moved out of the current block. However, I consider this a good thing. These are digital cards not real cards, you won't be pulling these cards out of a box 30 years from now to show your grand kids. They will not hold value indefinitely.

The format of TCG is not the same as an all digital MMO/TCG hybrid. There is no production cost with continuing to sell older sets.

Longevity for players is not an issue since new PvE content and new blocks for tournaments will continue to become available and become the new focus.

Continuing to sell older boosters that are not part of the current block will slow down but will still bring in revenue for CZE. Yes, it does mean you can't turn around and sell those rares for astronomical prices to the few collectors with lots of extra money.

For example, Pack Raptor goes out-of-print but it was a favorite for construction decks, its value increases for the collector but not for the player because it is no longer viable for construction PvP. The majority of new players are unlikely to want to go back and collect that card, they will be focused on the current set. Your target selling market is very narrow.

Now, if Pack Raptor stays in print but becomes part of an older block it retains its value as a useful construction PvP deck. New players now have the option of choosing which block they want to invest. The card retains its usefulness. New players will now be more likely to seek out single cards based on feedback from other players. Your target selling market broadens at a decreased cost value due to an increase in number of cards. Due to lower cost value but retained game value it becomes more accessible and desirable to everyone.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 05:49 AM
What you still don't get is that if cards never have increased value, only a few people will invest
Leading to the game's death and nil value for everyone (few players investing and CZE)

~

Kami
05-12-2013, 05:53 AM
Pretty much.

You have to keep in mind that cards will be tradeable and on AH. If Rare/Legendary cards are devalued so much to the point of being cheaper than boosters... who would buy boosters if they are just going after specific cards? It'd be significantly cheaper for them to never buy boosters and let other people buy them and take the risk.

Then the people who buy boosters will turn around and go: "Wtf? I'm not buying these if none of my cards are worth squat."

You'd end up with two scenarios: A slowed income stream from boosters and 'vanishing' cards from people hoarding because there's no value to trading/selling. I should also add that booster drafts and similar tournaments would suffer as well for the same reason. People would stick to casuals and free games since it wouldn't cost them anything.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 05:54 AM
What you still don't get is that if cards never have increased value, only a few people will invest
Leading to the game's death and nil value for everyone (few players investing and CZE)

~

I don't see the logic in your rebuttal. You're saying people won't buy cards because the cards will retain their usefulness?

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 05:55 AM
I figure since it's a game people would buy the cards to play the game. Not so they can turn around and sell them.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 06:00 AM
You have to keep in mind that cards will be tradeable and on AH. If Rare/Legendary cards are devalued so much to the point of being cheaper than boosters... who would buy boosters if they are just going after specific cards? It'd be significantly cheaper for them to never buy boosters and let other people buy them and take the risk.

Then the people who buy boosters will turn around and go: "Wtf? I'm not buying these if none of my cards are worth squat."

If there was a demand for a card because it had a game value not a cost value people will seek it out and buy it at a cost that is affordable to all players.


You'd end up with two scenarios: A slowed income stream from boosters and 'vanishing' cards from people hoarding because there's no value to trading/selling. I should also add that booster drafts and similar tournaments would suffer as well for the same reason. People would stick to casuals and free games since it wouldn't cost them anything.

People can stick to casuals and free games whether they go out-of-print or not. Players will buy cards because of the desire to try new strategies and get new cards.

EDIT: slowed income stream is better then no stream at all.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 06:03 AM
I'm done trying to explain the same thing for 100 times.
Either my english is too poor or my arguments aren't clear enough but I did my best...

~

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 06:10 AM
I'm done trying to explain the same thing for 100 times.
Either my english is too poor or my arguments aren't clear enough but I did my best...

~

These are digital products... pixels. It's like having an art auction for wallpapers.

EDIT: Well, someone is giving the digital art auction a try http://tdaa.digitalproductions.co.uk/

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 06:18 AM
I can be digital and rare (as long as it's not downloadable product)

~

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 06:21 AM
I'm done trying to explain the same thing for 100 times.
Either my english is too poor or my arguments aren't clear enough but I did my best...

~

There's nothing wrong with your English. We are just both very passionate and stubborn. We will have to agree to disagree, perhaps find common ground somewhere else.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 06:24 AM
Mushroom, it's not a hard concept to wrap your head around. Would you be more willing to buy a packing knowing that you can sell those cards later on for other cards or booster packs? Hardly anybody is going to throw down $2 to buy a pack with cards worth $0.05 each because of an unlimited supply. Most people would rather pick them up off the Auction House for a hell of a lot cheaper. People will most definitely spend the $2 if they know there's a chance at some $20+ card that they can either sell/trade or collect for it's rarity.

With me so far? If you can agree with that then read on.

There is no way to leave every set in the game indefinitely and still keep the cards valuable. It simply can't happen. As long as a set contains a card worth buying packs for, players will buy them because their is a high demand for it. But if players keep buying packs to get that card, eventually the supply will outgrow the demand and that card is no longer as valuable as it once was.

Does that make sense? Even with card destroying, which we have no idea how it will work. There will still always be an endless supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 06:33 AM
Mushroom, it's not a hard concept to wrap your head around. Would you be more willing to buy a packing knowing that you can sell those cards later on for other cards or booster packs? Hardly anybody is going to throw down $2 to buy a pack with cards worth $0.05 each because of an unlimited supply. Most people would rather pick them up off the Auction House for a hell of a lot cheaper. People will most definitely spend the $2 if they know there's a chance at some $20+ card that they can either sell/trade or collect for it's rarity.

With me so far? If you can agree with that then read on.

There is no way to leave every set in the game indefinitely and still keep the cards valuable. It simply can't happen. As long as a set contains a card worth buying packs for, players will buy them because their is a high demand for it. But if players keep buying packs to get that card, eventually the supply will outgrow the demand and that card is no longer as valuable as it once was.

Does that make sense? Even with card destroying, which we have no idea how it will work. There will still always be an endless supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

The thing here is if you want the cards you still have to buy them, no matter the price. You could turn around and sell those commons for $0.10, the uncommons for $0.50, and the rare for $1.00 or the legendary for $2.00 and you still made profit on a booster plus the cards are still affordable for everyone.

Charging someone $20 for a card they can't use anyways seems ridiculous, you are going to have a hard time selling when you have 1000 other people trying to sell the same card for $20. This is all digital so you got thousands of people selling all in one place, not a little hobby store where they may get 1 or 2 of that rare card available.

Since the card is out-of-print I think you're overestimating the demand for that card.

Edit: also if you add a system where you can combine a certain amount of cards of the same rarity for a chance at a different or better card then you increase the value of your commons and uncommons.

C-Drive
05-12-2013, 06:38 AM
But when you can get the exact contents of a booster for $.40, with whatever your choice cards are why pay $2.00? That's the danger in unlimited availability - eventually everyone has all the cards. The example of this being digital rather than a hobby store is the exact danger in having limited availability. Those 1 or 2 cards are what creates a demand, that wouldn't be there if there were 200 regular players at the shop and they had 500 of the rare - unlimited availability practically renders all rare and legendary cards as if they were commons.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 06:39 AM
But when you can get the exact contents of a booster for $.40, with whatever your choice cards are why pay $2.00? That's the danger in unlimited availability - eventually everyone has all the cards. The example of this being digital rather than a hobby store is the exact danger in having limited availability. Those 1 or 2 cards are what creates a demand, that wouldn't be there if there were 200 regular players at the shop and they had 500 of the rare - unlimited availability practically renders all rare and legendary cards as if they were commons.

Why can't all the people have all the cards?

Rieper
05-12-2013, 06:42 AM
because if people have all cards, all cards loss worth and then collectors loss interrest in collecting

WWKnight
05-12-2013, 06:43 AM
I think the two camps are speaking two entirely different languages, tbh. Those who want the cards always available are looking at using the cards to play the game. Those who want them to become unavailable are looking to turn profits.

The fact is, we wont change each others minds because we both have different goals in the long run. What we need to focus on, instead of 30 pages of disagreement, is an acceptable compromise we would all be happy to see.

C-Drive
05-12-2013, 06:44 AM
Why can't all the people have all the cards?

This wouldn't be a TCG at that point. Players who spend money on boosters want to at least feel like there is some form of investment. No one wants to blind buy cards without the gamble of getting something that can make the purchase worthwhile.

Unfortunately, that's why booster packs are basically gambling. Folks buy them just for the chance to roll the dice and get something worth more than the booster itself. Without that chance, or that chance being trampled by all cards being less than the price of a booster, no one will buy boosters.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 06:44 AM
because if people have all cards, all cards loss worth and then collectors loss interrest in collecting

There will always be new cards to collect. Let people have their fun collecting the cards without breaking the bank. It's like Pokemon (video game not the TCG) everyone can collect all the Pokemon eventually, it just takes time and persistence. Eventually, a new game comes out and you can do it all over again with new Pokemon and you can still bring your old ones with you.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 06:48 AM
This wouldn't be a TCG at that point. Players who spend money on boosters want to at least feel like there is some form of investment. No one wants to blind buy cards without the gamble of getting something that can make the purchase worthwhile.

Unfortunately, that's why booster packs are basically gambling. Folks buy them just for the chance to roll the dice and get something worth more than the booster itself. Without that chance, or that chance being trampled by all cards being less than the price of a booster, no one will buy boosters.

This is a video game too, not just a TCG. Your cards can level up, become foils, and earn trophies. Wouldn't that Pack Raptor C-Drive won with at the World Championship be worth a lot more than Joe Snuffy's Pack Raptor?

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 06:57 AM
Those who want the cards always available are looking at using the cards to play the game. Those who want them to become unavailable are looking to turn profits.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and I can't even gather how you'd come to that conclusion.

Kami
05-12-2013, 07:00 AM
I think the question that needs to be asked is:

Why would people want to buy cards to play this game when they can buy cards for other games and also earn value on top of it?

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 07:01 AM
This is not a LCG, it's a TCG, that's why not everyone should be able to have all cards

~

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 07:04 AM
I think the question that needs to be asked is:

Why would people want to buy cards to play this game when they can buy cards for other games and also earn value on top of it?

Good one

~

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 07:04 AM
I think the question that needs to be asked is:

Why would people want to buy cards to play this game when they can buy cards for other games and also earn value on top of it?

If the game play is good people will buy the boosters if they enjoy the game.

I have played hundreds of games that offer no return value.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 07:08 AM
This is not a LCG, it's a TCG, that's why not everyone should be able to have all cards


Exactly. I think Xena, WW and Mushroom are looking to make this more of a LCG than TCG. In case anyone is wondering:

Living Card Game: Buy monthly expansions and know what cards you are getting. Everyone can buy any expansion they'd like. No booster packs.

Trading Card Game: Cards release in Sets and Blocks. Pay for Boosters with a chance to get the cards.

Jugan
05-12-2013, 07:11 AM
Exactly. I think Xena, WW and Mushroom are looking to make this more of a LCG than TCG. In case anyone is wondering:

Living Card Game: Buy monthly expansions and know what cards you are getting. Everyone can buy any expansion they'd like. No booster packs.

Trading Card Game: Cards release in Sets and Blocks. Pay for Boosters with a chance to get the cards.

Right, and I think that a lot of us are arguing under the assumption that CZE is serious about Hex being a truly competitive tcg (cash prizes, etc.) That being said, a competitive tcg is unrealistic if all of your cards are worthless. Why? Because the investment to return ratio is too low.

JoonYoungK
05-12-2013, 07:12 AM
Problem is you loose draft, sealed, pack wars, and other tournament formats in LCG form. you just have constructed and legacy if they ever restrict older cards. I do like the LCG format myself and think it is the next evolution for trading card games. I love Android Netrunner. But i think we need a bit of both. I think with this i may be able to put magic behind me and just hold on to my cube and be happy with this and Android.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 07:12 AM
Shoubushi, I have quit this discussion, but don't put words into my mouth. That was not what I was advocating in the slightest.

If you interpret it like that, fine. But keep it to yourself and don't try to slander me.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 07:16 AM
You were advocating for card availability to remain indefinite which is the model of a LCG not a TCG.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 07:17 AM
No, I know what an LCG is, they do go out of print, and each set is basically an automatic collection - very different to what I was suggesting. Do not make those sorts of assumptions, and do not put words into my mouth.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 07:22 AM
I'm sorry, you were looking to formulate some sort of hybrid TCG where everyone can still have every set available to them indefinitely and every card somehow retains their value, correct? I have a hard time understanding what your intentions for the game are because they changed over the course of this discussion.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 07:24 AM
I'm not advocating against collecting, I'm all for it. I'm arguing against the removal of selling older set boosters. This is not a LCG vs TCG argument.

Your argument is whether you will be able to sell your rare for $20 or $2. I want to collect the cards, I don't want to pay $20 for a card to complete my collection.

To add on: By keeping older sets in circulation you can continue to have tournaments for older blocks.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 07:26 AM
Collecting implies there is rareness/value.

If you agree on that, you'll see that your model cannot work

~

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 07:26 AM
You can collect in a LCG very easily Mushroom. You just need to buy the expansion of the card you are looking for. And all the cards remain the same price like your example earlier.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 07:28 AM
Collecting implies there is rareness/value.

If you agree on that, you'll see that your model cannot work

~

I don't agree. Collecting implies obtaining something which you do not have that is part of a set.

From wikipedia: The hobby of collecting includes seeking, locating, acquiring, organizing, cataloging, displaying, storing, and maintaining whatever items are of interest to the individual collector.

It says nothing about rareness or value.

Kami
05-12-2013, 07:29 AM
As a random example:

I don't think Stamp Collecting would be as worthwhile if stamps from over a hundred years ago were still in print today.

You could make the same argument for Coin Collecting or various other actual collecting hobbies.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 07:29 AM
I don't agree. Collecting implies obtaining something which you do not have that is part of a set.

Paying to collect implies there is rareness/value.

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 07:32 AM
I refuse to debate it anymore. Make conclusions from what I have said if you want, but I have not changed my stance at all, I merely tried to express my intent in different ways.

But do NOT go around putting words in my mouth. Your assumptions about me are obviously wrong, and you still do not understand my viewpoint - something I will not elaborate further on, as it is a waste of time.

Just leave me out of your discussions, unless you think I have something of value to offer. Otherwise you only serve to make other people think I am something I am not, which is slander.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 07:37 AM
Fair enough. I probably shouldn't have named anyone directly in the first place, that was a mistake on my part. And you are right, I do not understand your view point but I do understand your intentions behind them based on other things I have read posted from you. So that's why I assumed you were more in favor of a LCG than a TCG.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 07:39 AM
Paying to collect implies there is rareness/value.

~

I'm not interested in increasing the rareness. I'm interested in collecting and using my collection to develop strategic decks in which to win against my opponents. This is a game first and foremost. If you're interested in collecting items with extreme rareness and high value I would suggest art, coin collecting, or stamps.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 07:40 AM
I appreciate that you understand my feelings on the matter, but I fully support a TCG format over a LCG format - I was merely advocating the possibility of having a TCG format in a different model than normal. If it wouldn't work, fine. But I do NOT want a LCG. That I am VERY firm on.

Rieper
05-12-2013, 07:43 AM
Mushroom: It is good that how you feel and all. But alot of collectors(that i meet) arenīt like that. The time they been most happy about they collection is when getting something higher value thats also very rare to get hands on.

Like i said earlier, alot of collector WANT to feel special for having something nobody else has.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 07:45 AM
I'm not interested in increasing the rareness. I'm interested in collecting and using my collection to develop strategic decks in which to win against my opponents. This is a game first and foremost. If you're interested in collecting items with extreme rareness and high value I would suggest art, coin collecting, or stamps.

How do you not understand that is the exact reason behind why LCGs were created? Cards hold little value, it's more focused on owning them all and having more freedom around allowing you to build what you want. More focused on gameplay rather than collecting.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 07:48 AM
Mushroom: It is good that how you feel and all. But alot of collectors(that i meet) arenīt like that. The time they been most happy about they collection is when getting something higher value thats also very rare to get hands on.

Like i said earlier, alot of collector WANT to feel special for having something nobody else has.

MTG got to be too expensive. This will too if cards go out-of-print. Unless you're very rich you're going to see a high turn-over rate in players... hopefully more come in then go out.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 07:50 AM
Unless you're very rich you're going to see a high turn-over rate in players... hopefully more come in then go out.

Well just look at MTG and its huge playerbase and you'll have your answer.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 07:52 AM
Well just look at MTG and its huge playerbase and you'll have your answer.

And HEX will be dipping into that pool. Hopefully, the water isn't too cold.

WWKnight
05-12-2013, 07:55 AM
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and I can't even gather how you'd come to that conclusion.

Because those who dont want the cards to stick around keep talking about value, and those who do keep talking about being able to play with them...?

WWKnight
05-12-2013, 07:57 AM
Exactly. I think Xena, WW and Mushroom are looking to make this more of a LCG than TCG. In case anyone is wondering:

Living Card Game: Buy monthly expansions and know what cards you are getting. Everyone can buy any expansion they'd like. No booster packs.

Trading Card Game: Cards release in Sets and Blocks. Pay for Boosters with a chance to get the cards.

I want to point out on MANY OCCASIONS in this thread I have agreed that packs should be phased out. Just because I am looking at a problem objectively and trying to find a neutral ground that keeps everyone happy rather than outright shoot people down, does not mean I am trying to make the game a LCG.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:01 AM
We mention value because that's the exact reason why you have to phase out sets. I don't think there are many people who's sole intentions are to turn a profit on this game. Most of us want to play the game first and foremost, we just don't want to see our investments turn to shit because of card value slowly declining as the supply increases.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 08:05 AM
I do have to ask here - if playing is more important, and is the very core of the game, and collecting is very secondary, what is the issue if people's investments are worth less? They came for the gameplay correct?

Just curious about the defining point where collecting becomes more important than the gameplay. (Not trying to start a fight, I really want to know your opinion.)

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:05 AM
If the cards dont have value, the game will never take, since we want to play the game, we want the cards to have value

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 08:09 AM
Not to sound like a jerk, but if that was true, how come LCG exists at all? If having the cards was inherently more important than using them, those games would have no players at all, correct?

I don't see why it would kill Hex and it's player base. I don't want it to be an LCG regardless, but I do think interesting gameplay is a bigger draw than shiny things.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:10 AM
Because why should I pay $2 for a booster pack now, when I could wait a few weeks/months for some other sucker to buy them and drop the prices for me and list them on the AH so I can scoop them up for a better price?

I like to spend money, but I like to do it wisely so I get the most "bang for my buck". By leaving sets in indefinitely, it's just a waiting game until I can get the card I want for cheap. Problem being that no one in their right minds are going to keep pumping in money to buy boosters when they know there's no ROI.

Rieper
05-12-2013, 08:10 AM
Remeber since game lets you borow set from guild bank, most bigger guilds will most likely have a few collector that goes for playset of every card. So if you wanna actually test out deck before trading or using money on that good card. There is option.
Hell if you good friends you can straight up borow it and then give back later. Since this is digital, cards canīt be harm by play. Actually you help your friend getting the foil and extended art.

Actually i like phasing out even more now, because of this. I actually see this as a good thing for community, since make guild and being friendly and making friends worth even more..

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 08:14 AM
Well, wouldnt it benefit you more in the long run if dumb people supplied you with better cards? I know a lot of TCG players who did exactly that, and never spent more than an entry cost.

I don't want it to end up in that position of course (even if it sounds like that is what I want, it is not. I want the cards to be rare, and I think it can be done without removing sets. So sue me if thats how I think.)

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 08:18 AM
Because why should I pay $2 for a booster pack now, when I could wait a few weeks/months for some other sucker to buy them and drop the prices for me and list them on the AH so I can scoop them up for a better price?

I like to spend money, but I like to do it wisely so I get the most "bang for my buck". By leaving sets in indefinitely, it's just a waiting game until I can get the card I want for cheap. Problem being that no one in their right minds are going to keep pumping in money to buy boosters when they know there's no ROI.

I buy games all the time where the resale value is far less then what I bought it for. Just cause the value of the game decreases with time doesn't stop people from buying it to play it. Take Skyrim for example, the day after you buy it you can resell it to Gamestop for $30 less then what you paid for it, that didn't stop millions of people from buying it.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:18 AM
LCG exist because it doesn't cost alot to make, but the playerbase are very small.
the ones who do work are based on known universes (Game of Thrones for example).
It's like board games, and there are no board games creator/publisher that's rich, altho WOTC and Richard Garfield are rich, wonder why?

WOWTCG is dying because of a vicious circle :
- Cards have rotated out
- Player base is decreasing
- OP Prize support is decreasing
- There is no incentive to collect a game that's not popular

I've spent 10k on WOWTCG and made about 4k from tournaments prize and sold my playsets of everything for about 1k
This means 3 things :
- I'm dumb enough to buy everything (just in case)
- I'm bad at trading/reselling
- The game is not healthy and without Loot cards it would have died a long time ago

I don't want that to happen to HEX.

~

Rieper
05-12-2013, 08:21 AM
If you mean in a game where packs stay up. Making a good trade with a new player, doesnīt actually make it feel like a good trade because you value for card will diminish or even if they are good value are already low.

What make people happy about trades like that, is you get high value for something low value.

houjix
05-12-2013, 08:23 AM
I've read enough of this thread to get both sides. I'm definitly in the camp of a finite print run of cards. However if they want to maintain availability of older sets while still making them retain a value, just increase the price of boosters from older sets after a certain time period. Right now I can walk into my local game store and purchase packs of Ice Age. It's going to cost me something like $10 a pack but I can do it.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:25 AM
Well, wouldnt it benefit you more in the long run if dumb people supplied you with better cards? I know a lot of TCG players who did exactly that, and never spent more than an entry cost.

I don't want it to end up in that position of course (even if it sounds like that is what I want, it is not. I want the cards to be rare, and I think it can be done without removing sets. So sue me if thats how I think.)


I don't think it's a safe business model, and taking away potential sales from CZE just demotes the growth of the game. Under a typical TCG model, players want to spend their money on Boosters for multiple reasons. And every purchase has a potential ROI for the buyer which is good for everyone, even Joe Schmoe who starts playing 5 years down the road and missed out on the earlier sets. Because his investments now will both help grow the game, and potentially gain in value allowing him to convert that into different things like better cards or more boosters or $.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 08:26 AM
But WoWTCG is a TCG or CCG not an LCG right? I can see why an LCG would suffer - I really do, not just blowing smoke here.

But WoWTCG and Hex are basically at the same level (except Hex being digital). It has to compete with established card games. It could fail anyway - I would hope not, but it could happen.

But if players continue to support it buy buying boosters (should it be only new sets thanks to retiring, or legacy and new thanks to not retiring) the main thing is keeping interest and promoting the playerbase - right? Not card value?

I mean, I could honestly go either way and it wouldn't phase me, but if having older sets generated revenue that lead to new sets, giving players something fresh, I don't see that as a negative thing - wouldn't it attract more paying customers?

I am just trying to see things from all angles - which is more likely to follow down the path of WoWTCG? WoWTCG is not something I followed, and insight would be very helpful here.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:29 AM
I've read enough of this thread to get both sides. I'm definitly in the camp of a finite print run of cards. However if they want to maintain availability of older sets while still making them retain a value, just increase the price of boosters from older sets after a certain time period. Right now I can walk into my local game store and purchase packs of Ice Age. It's going to cost me something like $10 a pack but I can do it.

This can happen exactly as you said by still phasing out sets. Because the supply is then completely dependent on the amount that people have to sell on the AH and secondary markets (like a LGS). I guarantee you will be able to buy Set 1 boosters for an increased price after it's phased out, because players will buy up a lot of stock before the set is phased out, allowing them to sell it at a later time for an increased price.

EDIT: The only thing that would prevent this is if HEX didn't allow the resale of Boosters via AH and they were non-tradeable.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:29 AM
Constructed will be on a 2 years rotation, that means a new player will buy boosters of the 2 blocks (that are still sold by CZE) to make his decks.
Even if they have some legacy constructed they can just repring staples/give them as AA tournament prizes etc...

There are ways to up supply without having it infinite, and those ways should only be used when the demand is high.

It's not logical to think that someone who just joined a game can have the same collection/experience as someone who's been playing for 5 years and been spending $1K/year

~

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:31 AM
But WoWTCG is a TCG or CCG not an LCG right? I can see why an LCG would suffer - I really do, not just blowing smoke here.

But WoWTCG and Hex are basically at the same level (except Hex being digital). It has to compete with established card games. It could fail anyway - I would hope not, but it could happen.

But if players continue to support it buy buying boosters (should it be only new sets thanks to retiring, or legacy and new thanks to not retiring) the main thing is keeping interest and promoting the playerbase - right? Not card value?

I mean, I could honestly go either way and it wouldn't phase me, but if having older sets generated revenue that lead to new sets, giving players something fresh, I don't see that as a negative thing - wouldn't it attract more paying customers?

I am just trying to see things from all angles - which is more likely to follow down the path of WoWTCG? WoWTCG is not something I followed, and insight would be very helpful here.

You assume that not printing out means people will buy boosters, we advocate it's the opposite (backed with facts, experiences)

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 08:34 AM
Fireblast, thats why I mentioned limited draft features, on older sets. Maybe my initial suggestion was not limited enough, but the occasional burst of cards into the economy would not be anywhere near as large an impact as infinite boosters year-round.

As for my complaints about drafting old sets, they could just let people play it without keeping the cards, paying, or rewards - simply 'borrowing' the cards for fun. That alone would be enough for me to support retiring if/when it is truly needed.

Kami
05-12-2013, 08:34 AM
Not having a finite 'print' run will eventually mean that supply > demand. At that point, nobody will buy boosters of legacy packs anymore anyway since it would be cheaper to buy/trade for the cards via AH/player trading.

There is pretty much no difference in result as you guys have posed. Either way, the boosters will eventually stop being wanted.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:35 AM
Fireblast, thats why I mentioned limited draft features, on older sets. Maybe my initial suggestion was not limited enough, but the occasional burst of cards into the economy would not be anywhere near as large an impact as infinite boosters year-round.

As for my complaints about drafting old sets, they could just let people play it without keeping the cards, paying, or rewards - simply 'borrowing' the cards for fun. That alone would be enough for me to support retiring if/when it is truly needed.

People don't care about drafting old sets.
You're full of utopist/unrealistic ideas.

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 08:36 AM
I do have to point out again cards can and will be destroyed - that could still be a factor. It also may make absolutely no impact - we need to see how it will work before drawing a conclusion on that feature (which I have evangelized a little too forcefully, I admit.)

EDIT: What? I would go draft all sorts of old MTG sets, all the time - especially those I missed.

Each set would have it's own metagame, making for a nice variation of whatever is current. I can see it being a nice draw, and if it doesn't impact the economy what is the harm of it being there?

(In fact I have proof - several times I have seen people buy out a recently cycled set of booster boxes and do a ton of fun drafts. And it was a freaking blast.)

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:37 AM
People will destroy cards for 2 reasons :
- There is a positive ROI (means people will buy bulk commons in the AH and there is a living economy)
- There is no ROI but they are stupid (means supplies gets lower and everyone else is happy)

Either way it's fine

~

Kami
05-12-2013, 08:38 AM
I do have to point out again cards can and will be destroyed - that could still be a factor. It also may make absolutely no impact - we need to see how it will work before drawing a conclusion on that feature (which I have evangelized a little too forcefully, I admit.)

EDIT: What? I would go draft all sorts of old MTG sets, all the time - especially those I missed.

Each set would have it's own metagame, making for a nice variation of whatever is current. I can see it being a nice draw, and if it doesn't impact the economy what is the harm of it being there?

You also have to remember, whatever cards are destroyed will just be creating other cards. If the cards being destroyed are common enough to be worthless, the created cards would be just as worthless. The situation would still be a supply > demand issue.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:40 AM
It's simply not true that you'll find 7 players interested in drafting phased out content

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 08:40 AM
We discussed this already Kami - if the cards you could craft had a random element, it could increase the worth.

Just putting it out there, not trying to disagree with you (in fact I do somewhat agree, but it is nice to get rid of floods of commons.)

Fireblast - why not? If it is free, but has no reward, it would be similar to PvE content to PvP'ers, but it would have a PvP factor to it... I think it would have a following. And if the format already exists in-game, and there are no rewards after it is phased, I dont see the harm in just leaving the format. What is a few extra slots of drafts going to cost anyone?

I don't really see the harm in having it.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:41 AM
Xena, what if they allowed your guild to make a cube of older sets so you could play those cards and draft them? They already allow you to put decks into your guild to lend out. Would that be a solution that would work for you?

houjix
05-12-2013, 08:42 AM
This can happen exactly as you said by still phasing out sets. Because the supply is then completely dependent on the amount that people have to sell on the AH and secondary markets (like a LGS). I guarantee you will be able to buy Set 1 boosters for an increased price after it's phased out, because players will buy up a lot of stock before the set is phased out, allowing them to sell it at a later time for an increased price.

EDIT: The only thing that would prevent this is if HEX didn't allow the resale of Boosters via AH and they were non-tradeable.

I know this. I was just trying to offer a true compromise that a few others have been clamoring for. Without true knowledge of the AH and the in game economy, I defaulted on the side of Crypto being the only supplier, but with their intent to focus on new material while still leaving an option to get older sets.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:42 AM
We discussed this already Kami - if the cards you could craft had a random element, it could increase the worth.

Just putting it out there, not trying to disagree with you (in fact I do somewhat agree, but it is nice to get rid of floods of commons.)

You will have a UI with the whole set, in grey the cards you don't own and coloured the ones you do, with a number somewhere saying how many you own. Who cares if it says 2.000 on one owned common? Just click it 4 times to add to your deck

~

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:43 AM
Xena, what if they allowed your guild to make a cube of older sets so you could play those cards and draft them? They already allow you to put decks into your guild to lend out. Would that be a solution that would work for you?

And in fact, this is entirely possible (albeit a bit slow) if they didn't already allow a system like this. You could create a "virtual cube" and you would draft through some other median, than your guild would create the decks and offer them up to be lended out.

EDIT: Combined the 2 posts into one cohesive post.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 08:46 AM
Shoubushi - yeah, that would be fair to me, but if the option exists in a menu somewhere already, I don't see why it has to be removed if it could be modified. Just saying.

And Fireblast, some people have already explicitly stated they hate having more commons than they need - they also want them to have worth, so some people will use it. I personally probably will use it in certian situations where I feel a card is too common for it's worth, especially if I can get something better.

Kami
05-12-2013, 08:48 AM
Heh, for me, I don't really care if I have too many commons. My concern is whether Rares/Legendaries and Uncommons will become Commons. In fact, the more commons in the world and the less Rares/Legendaries, the better imo - within reason of course.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:48 AM
Sell cards to vendor for IG gold

~

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 08:49 AM
Fun to me is looking for the cards that will make that one deck you really want to build. What's not fun for me is seeing that card cost $20.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:49 AM
but if the option exists in a menu somewhere already, I don't see why it has to be removed if it could be modified. Just saying.

I must have missed one of your posts because I don't understand what you mean. I thought you suggested still occasionally allowing the drafting of older sets. The method I purposed lets you do this by still allowing them to phase out sets, stopping them from completely screwing up the economy.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 08:50 AM
Fun to me is looking for the cards that will make that one deck you really want to build. What's not fun for me is seeing that card cost $20.

Then don't play a TCG.
Because if all the cards that you want cost $1; then you're probably playing alone.

~

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 08:51 AM
I must have missed one of your posts because I don't understand what you mean. I thought you suggested still occasionally allowing the drafting of older sets. The method I purposed lets you do this by still allowing them to phase out sets, stopping them from completely screwing up the economy.

Drafting older sets wouldn't work because people would already have most of the cards. What would work is constructed PvP of older sets.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:51 AM
Fun to me is looking for the cards that will make that one deck you really want to build. What's not fun for me is seeing that card cost $20.

That's completely understandable, and you are also in the minority on this sadly. You honestly should try out a LCG if you do not care for the TCG model. Not trying to stop you from playing this, I'm just trying to help you find something you would enjoy more.

Rieper
05-12-2013, 08:52 AM
For me is looking a nice card, then pulling it in a booster knowing i just earn more booster(if selling) or a card i need (For deck or collection). Yes that part goes away when there is TONS of that card for sale for no money!

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:52 AM
Drafting older sets wouldn't work because people would already have most of the cards. What would work is constructed PvP of older sets.

Huh? I purposed having your guild create a cube of older phased out sets and letting guild members draft them. Keeps the economy stable and it's exactly like how every other TCG works.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 08:56 AM
Then don't play a TCG.
Because if all the cards that you want cost $1; then you're probably playing alone.

~

Why don't you go play a TCG then. Last I checked this is a video game MMO/TCG hybrid and I'm sure I would be playing with more people than you would. Continuing selling older sets is more beneficial to more people. Your sales of your overpriced cards doesn't help CZE as would CZE selling boosters of older sets to new players anyways.

houjix
05-12-2013, 08:57 AM
Drafting older sets wouldn't work because people would already have most of the cards. What would work is constructed PvP of older sets.

I would still draft some older blocks of WoW TCG mainly because they are so much better than the current block. Friends of mine still draft older Magic sets on MTGO, because they were better sets. They don't do it for the value of the cards they might get, but for the better play experience those sets provided. However, I would expect to pay an increased price for those sets since they are out of print.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:57 AM
Mushroom, the game would have no sales and would die off if we did it your way. Get with the program man. Stop ignoring what people are trying to tell you.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 08:59 AM
I would still draft some older blocks of WoW TCG mainly because they are so much better than the current block. Friends of mine still draft older Magic sets on MTGO, because they were better sets. They don't do it for the value of the cards they might get, but for the better play experience those sets provided. However, I would expect to pay an increased price for those sets since they are out of print.

Which can still happen via custom drafts if they still allow players to sell their stock of Boosters after they have been phased out.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 08:59 AM
Mushroom, the game would have no sales and would die off if we did it your way. Get with the program man. Stop ignoring what people are trying to tell you.

Wow, why don't I just tell you stop ignoring what people are telling you but that would be childish.

houjix
05-12-2013, 08:59 AM
Why don't you go play a TCG then. Last I checked this is a video game MMO/TCG hybrid and I'm sure I would be playing with more people than you would. Continuing selling older sets is more beneficial to more people. Your sales of your overpriced cards doesn't help CZE as would CZE selling boosters of older sets to new players anyways.

This game is going to be more TCG than MMO. If you don't follow the practices that maintain a healthy TCG, the MMO part will fail right along with it since the TCG part will be the money generator.

Rieper
05-12-2013, 09:00 AM
Everything i read so far has PvE split away from PvP big time. So for me this is more like 2 games, that just share the overall game mechanics. But will allow you to cross play casual stuff (PvE side so far seems rather casuel, but this is a personal opion), by taking pvp over to pve and having a casuel part where all cards are allowed.

And boosters are pvp only and everything PvE is drops. So yes the thing with phasing out is more important to look at from TCG part, then the rpg part

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 09:00 AM
Wow, why don't I just tell you stop ignoring what people are telling you but that would be childish.

You've been proven wrong on every single point you've made and yet you are still arguing in favor of a flawed system.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 09:01 AM
Mushroom, the game would have no sales and would die off if we did it your way.

Sales come from new sets, new blocks. Draft tournaments would be for the new blocks because people would not have collected those yet. The older sets would be for those who favor the older sets and do Constructive PvP.

houjix
05-12-2013, 09:03 AM
Everything i read so far has PvE split away from PvP big time. So for me this is more like 2 games, that just share the overall game mechanics. But will allow you to cross play casual stuff (PvE side so far seems rather casuel, but this is a personal opion), by taking pvp over to pve and having a casuel part where all cards are allowed.

And boosters are pvp only and everything PvE is drops. So yes the thing with phasing out is more important to look at from TCG part, then the rpg part

And that's where you are wrong. Every card opened in a booster can be used in both PVP and PVE. Cards obtained from PVE can only be used in PVE.

Taking a starter and grinding PVE will be a long and frustrating experience until people start selling bulk commons gained from boosters. Boosters will be the quickest way to improve your PVE decks.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 09:04 AM
Sales come from new sets, new blocks. Draft tournaments would be for the new blocks because people would not have collected those yet. The older sets would be for those who favor the older sets and do Constructive PvP.

Yes. But who would pay the money for those under your system is the point we have made for 40 some odd pages.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 09:05 AM
I must have missed one of your posts because I don't understand what you mean. I thought you suggested still occasionally allowing the drafting of older sets. The method I purposed lets you do this by still allowing them to phase out sets, stopping them from completely screwing up the economy.

I mentioned both within the same post - a bad idea. But yeah, I suggested leaving the drafts there - but no cards can be earned/bought, and all boosters are free. It would just be the same draft, but open to new players to try the old format, for PvE players to try PvP (for free, to decide if they want to spend money), and to anyone who wants to go relive old sets that they liked.

But in no way would it reward anyone - it would be purely for fun. I do think it would be a decent draw, and interesting more players in PvP would increase chances of those players buying boosters of newer sets, unless I miss my guess.

Rieper
05-12-2013, 09:08 AM
And that's where you are wrong. Every card opened in a booster can be used in both PVP and PVE. Cards obtained from PVE can only be used in PVE.

Maybe bad wording on my part but for pvp, they are split apart. For pve they combined. PvE will work great without thinking of value and rarety, while pvp is the one where it will hurt it alot. Only 1 way to play pvp and thats boosters, while pve has 2 ways for cards.

houjix
05-12-2013, 09:08 AM
Pro tip for forum posters. Go to your settings and set the post per page to 40. You'll thank me when you do.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 09:09 AM
I mentioned both within the same post - a bad idea. But yeah, I suggested leaving the drafts there - but no cards can be earned/bought, and all boosters are free. It would just be the same draft, but open to new players to try the old format, for PvE players to try PvP (for free, to decide if they want to spend money), and to anyone who wants to go relive old sets that they liked.

But in no way would it reward anyone - it would be purely for fun. I do think it would be a decent draw, and interesting more players in PvP would increase chances of those players buying boosters of newer sets, unless I miss my guess.

The only problem with allowing free drafts to everyone is it takes away from sales from CZE technically. I have to imagine they will have some method in place to allow players to try PvP for free. But they can't give away the barn and expect to make any money from it. I understand what you are saying though, and I'm sure it could be modified in a way that would allow it not to be abused and still limit how it can be done so people will go back to paying for drafts.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 09:09 AM
You've been proven wrong on every single point you've made and yet you are still arguing in favor of a flawed system.

What is the number one reason people stop playing TCGs? It's because it is too expensive. If I could collect the cards I want from a set and continue to play in Construct PvP tournaments for that block I would stay a customer a lot longer. There may be a period of time where I don't buy boosters but still play the game, at least I still have interest in the game. Retaining customers is extremely important in an MMO, more so then gaining new customers. At some point I am more likely to buy into a new set if I was still playing the game. If a customer loses interest and stops playing the chances of them coming back is very slim.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 09:11 AM
Yes. But who would pay the money for those under your system is the point we have made for 40 some odd pages.

People who pay are those that are interested in playing those blocks. Which I have mentioned for over 40 pages.

Rieper
05-12-2013, 09:13 AM
What is the number one reason people stop playing TCGs? It's because it is too expensive.

No, number 1 reason people stop play is lack of people to play with. That only reason i ever seen a person stop playing...(All my friends and me moving to far away from each other)

houjix
05-12-2013, 09:14 AM
Maybe bad wording on my part but for pvp, they are split apart. For pve they combined. PvE will work great without thinking of value and rarety, while pvp is the one where it will hurt it alot. Only 1 way to play pvp and thats boosters, while pve has 2 ways for cards.

Right, but without knowledge of what those PVE drops are, there no way to guarantee you will be able to build any kind of coherent deck with those drops. Plus one deck isn't going to get you through every dungeon. PVE players will probably spend money just like PVP players, just to a lesser extent. And the PVE cards will have value for that exact reason. However I do forsee PVE cards going for gold unless they are very rare, then they will go for platinum. You may see PVP cards go for gold, (mainly bulk commons), depending on what else we can spend gold on.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 09:14 AM
What is the number one reason people stop playing TCGs? It's because it is too expensive. If I could collect the cards I want from a set and continue to play in Construct PvP tournaments for that block I would stay a customer a lot longer. There may be a period of time where I don't buy boosters but still play the game, at least I still have interest in the game. Retaining customers is extremely important in an MMO, more so then gaining new customers. At some point I am more likely to buy into a new set if I was still playing the game. If a customer loses interest and stops playing the chances of them coming back is very slim.

A hobby is only as expensive as the money you are willing to put into it. No one is saying you need to pay $100 for a Bayou, but if you want to improve your deck then it's a decision you will have to make. And again, what you are purposing is more akin to how a LCG is played and that is perfectly fine. I'm not saying that wanting this is the wrong thing. That's not what this game is though, and there will always be expensive cards. They already have exclusive cards and the game isn't even out yet. So you need to face the facts and either accept that this is a TCG that will have expensive cards, or look for a different game to play.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 09:16 AM
People who pay are those that are interested in playing those blocks. Which I have mentioned for over 40 pages.

There will not be enough people who will sink money into this game without a ROI to keep it alive. Bottom line. Just look at any other TCG.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 09:17 AM
Shoubushi, they are letting people do raids and dungeons and quests for free, and you get rewarded. This would be more akin to WoW battlegrounds - without a genuine reward, but it can be a lot of fun.

I mean, a real draft lets you keep what you draft, which can be a big draw for collectors as well as PvP'ers. This wouldn't have that factor.

And houjix, I want to hit the bottom of the page every now and then!

And actually, Mushroom has a reasonable point about being too expensive - the cost versus my interest did play a factor in stopping. But that is not true for the hardcore players, some play many games and have supported them from day one.

Jugan
05-12-2013, 09:18 AM
People who pay are those that are interested in playing those blocks. Which I have mentioned for over 40 pages.

Before people continue to address this guy, I'd like to point out a fallacy in his post a few pages back... It was something like "If we allow cards to stay in print forever, then we can still play tournaments with them!" Or something like that.

If you take them out of print, it doesn't mean you can't run tournaments for those sets. MTG runs older set drafts all the time, and they're wildly popular - demand shoots up for them when they're available. Then people get tired of them, and it goes away. That's OKAY, because people still get to play with the set and the value of the set is still maintained. Furthermore, it actually increases the value of older set packs for the time that those older drafts are around. Why? Because the demand > supply. Under your model, we will never ever ever have that kind of demand > supply.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 09:19 AM
A hobby is only as expensive as the money you are willing to put into it. No one is saying you need to pay $100 for a Bayou, but if you want to improve your deck then it's a decision you will have to make. And again, what you are purposing is more akin to how a LCG is played and that is perfectly fine. I'm not saying that wanting this is the wrong thing. That's not what this game is though, and there will always be expensive cards. They already have exclusive cards and the game isn't even out yet. So you need to face the facts and either accept that this is a TCG that will have expensive cards, or look for a different game to play.

CZE right now has the opportunity from letting the game become too expensive. Human nature to gamble on boosters will not change no matter what the cost value of cards is. People will still trade those cards to get the cards they want, not because of their cost value but their game value.



I've spent 10k on WOWTCG and made about 4k from tournaments prize and sold my playsets of everything for about 1k

Too expensive, better to spend the money on an education.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 09:20 AM
I don't understand how anyone on Side B could be in favor of exclusive cards that will be FAR more expensive than what any sets cards will be worth, but then turn around and try and change the rest the game to be cheap to the point where it's not worth investing in?

Jugan
05-12-2013, 09:21 AM
What is the number one reason people stop playing TCGs? It's because it is too expensive. If I could collect the cards I want from a set and continue to play in Construct PvP tournaments for that block I would stay a customer a lot longer. There may be a period of time where I don't buy boosters but still play the game, at least I still have interest in the game. Retaining customers is extremely important in an MMO, more so then gaining new customers. At some point I am more likely to buy into a new set if I was still playing the game. If a customer loses interest and stops playing the chances of them coming back is very slim.

I'd also like to point out another fallacy here.

Say a draft costs $8. Under your system, that $8 will gauntness that the product you receive in the end is nothing. Under a successful system, like MTGO, that $8 will guarantee that you get some return on that, with the possibility of a profit. So in the long run your system costs players far more if they want to play tournaments.

Jugan
05-12-2013, 09:22 AM
CZE right now has the opportunity from letting the game become too expensive. Human nature to gamble on boosters will not change no matter what the cost value of cards is. People will still trade those cards to get the cards they want, not because of their cost value but their game value.



Too expensive, better to spend the money on an education.

Yeah, CZE also has the ability to build a competitive successful game and not go bankrupt. Furthermore, who are you to decide who gets the most utility for their spent resources?

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 09:24 AM
Mushroom, you have said something I disagree strongly about - I have owned several Yugioh games for handhelds, and once I finished my collection I just stopped buying boosters. There was no drive to collect.

Had I been able to destroy those cards for some kind of interesting effect, it may have encouraged me to buy more, but I can't gaurantee that - it is something I would like to see in action however.

But infinite supply with NO sinks will definitely end up the way they have said, and the urge to gamble doesn't have anything to do with that. In fact, the urge to gamble is created by the lure of getting something better than what you paid.

No-one would pay to lose every time.

Jugan
05-12-2013, 09:26 AM
Mushroom, you have said something I disagree strongly about - I have owned several Yugioh games for handhelds, and once I finished my collection I just stopped buying boosters. There was no drive to collect.

Had I been able to destroy those cards for some kind of interesting effect, it may have encouraged me to buy more, but I can't gaurantee that - it is something I would like to see in action however.

But infinite supply with NO sinks will definitely end up the way they have said, and the urge to gamble doesn't have anything to do with that. In fact, the urge to gamble is created by the lure of getting something better than what you paid.

No-one would pay to lose every time.

Wow, you've seen the light.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 09:29 AM
Hey, I am not stupid. I know where you guys are coming from, I just want the option of trying a new system - should the system fail, then by all means, resume retiring them, no exceptions.

I am mostly concerned about lack of PvP content for the more casual players than the impact the economy will have anyway, so if my fears about lack of content are solved, I advocate the other side in the long run.

I am a fair person who does listen - which is why I have been rather upset by people implying I am not.

Jugan
05-12-2013, 09:31 AM
I'm not too worried about casuals because the casual rooms on MTGO are always filled. I don't think you can take a "wait and see" attitude when it comes to retiring old sets. Am I for card exchange or whatever? Absolutely. I'm willing to support any sort of experiment you want to do with that. But you have to retire the sets after a set amount of time, or the value and desirability of that set will go down and have lasting impact on a new business.

Shoubushi
05-12-2013, 09:37 AM
I feel like all I said was for nothing because Jugan slew the dragon with 2 posts. ;)

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 09:42 AM
Well, considering it would take about 2 years for the first set to cycle/retire, we have that luxury, don't we? We can wait and see, since they wont go out of print before that time (thanks to being digital.)

If the impact is negative, retire it. If it is positive, wait a little longer. If it turns negative at ANY point, retire it.

Simple solution in my eyes.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 09:42 AM
Mushroom, you have said something I disagree strongly about - I have owned several Yugioh games for handhelds, and once I finished my collection I just stopped buying boosters. There was no drive to collect.

Had I been able to destroy those cards for some kind of interesting effect, it may have encouraged me to buy more, but I can't gaurantee that - it is something I would like to see in action however.

But infinite supply with NO sinks will definitely end up the way they have said, and the urge to gamble doesn't have anything to do with that. In fact, the urge to gamble is created by the lure of getting something better than what you paid.

No-one would pay to lose every time.

I have argued to include card sinks such as combining them for a chance at a different equal or better card. That, however, was another thread.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 09:44 AM
And I agree completely on the card sinks - my issue was the gambling. If those sinks do not work well enough, no-one will gamble for no payout, and that is common sense.

I have only ever asked for the sinks to be given a chance (among other things be given a chance to happen.) I know that if it goes wrong, they need to be retired for the good of the game.

Daer
05-12-2013, 09:44 AM
I think you have to make the decision to either retire sets or not before you launch the game.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 09:46 AM
Why? This is a digital format - you don't have to commit to printing runs, and it costs you nothing to prolong a set.

This is one of those real life vs digital things that could play a major factor in how things develop.

Besides, the devs have stated a wait and see attitude.

Daer
05-12-2013, 09:48 AM
Of course they have the actual ability to do it. But making a giant change to the game like that a few years in isn't in anyones interest.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 09:55 AM
Well if they make that decision at the time they would have retired it anyway, and go with retiring, no-one would notice. If they wait, and retire it later, they can bluff it and say they left it for a limited time offer, which was then over.

They have some options, and I don't think it would be any more alienating than anything Blizzard pulled over the years (and they pulled a lot of that kind of crap.) Still have 8mil subscribers, so it can't be that bad.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 10:02 AM
I am mostly concerned about lack of PvP content for the more casual players than the impact the economy will have anyway, so if my fears about lack of content are solved, I advocate the other side in the long run.

Imagine MtG was only digital with a built in AH.

$100 and be good and you could play budget decks and change deck on a daily basis thanks to the AH.

That's what should be in HEX.

Flavor of the month expensive decks and budget decks.
The good players even with budget decks would be able to win prize and upgrade their collection etc...

TCG are all about having the feeling of a positive ROI and getting added value.
That's what they have over CCG and LCG.

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:06 AM
Sorry, I wasn't clear - that part of my post was meant to be supporting my own idea of unlimited drafting cycled sets with no payout.

That is content that would be otherwise removed whenever a set was retired. I am not worried about constructed, as the cards will be in circulation (even if they cost a bundle.)

My fear is removing playable content will cause the game to become stale over time, especially in times late in the metagame between sets. Having something old to do still feels fresh if you spend day in and day out in the newest content.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 10:07 AM
It's not removed, you buy 100 boosters before the set is going out of print and you can do 33 drafts, which is more than you'll ever want to with 2 years old content :p

~

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:13 AM
But what about after 5 years? 10? TCG's can have long lives - MTG is a fantastic example. And new players could try it out as an intro to drafting (like a newb version of swiss drafting.) They could move up to current sets after some practice, meaning they would be more confidant in investing money into current drafts.

Daer
05-12-2013, 10:22 AM
Why wouldn't new players just draft the latest set since it will be the cheapest anyway?

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:25 AM
I will say this right off - PvP is daunting for new players in MMO's. Having a place to practice before spending money would encourage those players, but paying once and getting slaughtered? That is the reason many casuals give up and never go hardcore - lack of confidance.

And PvP players may have incentive to go back and play a favourite format, or polish up their drafting skills after an absence, etc. I can't see a downside YET, if you can show me one I will listen of course.

BKCshah
05-12-2013, 10:29 AM
Xenavire - the downside to unlimited 'old' format drafting is that it would significantly reduce the pay model value to a majority of people. I love card games. However, I would basically never pay to draft on MTG if I could get the same experience without paying for it.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:32 AM
BKCshah, you forget that the newer sets will add to your collection and would count towards your ranking, which the old one would not do.

Real PvP'ers will prefer the new sets by far, but may enjoy reliving the golden days now and then. (So to speak.)

Rieper
05-12-2013, 10:36 AM
no. I paid money for pro tier because it gave me sure way of getting some drafting each week. If some kinda drafting was free, i would honestly maybe lower my pledge, because why pay so much when i can get it for free (I am student, so finding money for pro tier isnīt easy)

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:40 AM
But if you get nothing out of the draft except fun, and you want something out of it (which is obvious from your pledge) why would you change your pledge? You get 3 boosters free a week per life, more or less, free entry to rated competitions, and potential rewards at the end of it, should you place/win.

Those are worlds apart. And I am sure you would regret changing your pledge later down the line.

Besides, this wouldn't kick in until a set retired, which is going to take 2 years. You would be paying for 2 years of drafting. Free.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 10:42 AM
Your point is mute if veteran go play old format and slaughter new comers

~

BKCshah
05-12-2013, 10:44 AM
No argument about 'real' PvP'ers. However I think you severely underestimate the casual market for games like this. The 'real' PVP people will splash the cash no matter what. Just look at MTG for that example. I would venture to say that is a very small percentage of the overall player base shortly after release.

I'd say one or two free phantom drafts per month (without prize support) may be a good addition to allow people to get familiar with the software/deckbuilding/etc.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:45 AM
Hmm, you have a point. Limited to once a week seems fair, they can dip a toe and get a taste, but not abuse the privilege.

At least the drafting format would still exist, rather than being removed entirely and permanently.

In fact, maybe 1 freebie a week, and more payed with an entry fee, for those who do want to abuse it or play it a lot somehow.

Rieper
05-12-2013, 10:51 AM
Yeah there will be a chance i regret, But that how life is when you get older. Choices and you have to make em :P.

I can also see advantage in having some free draft or sealed tournements now and then, but having old sets being free kills sales. a draft now and then helps hooks people and get em into normal draft, which in end can turn into money for devs. (We all know, they need money or they will most likely stop making cards on day)

So not against free draft, i just want em to be very limited and i know reading what i write, does sound like i care more about devs making money then people having fun... But in end we need find the golden middle ground that makes em money and keep cards comming

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 10:57 AM
Why should it kill sales? If anything it should promote them, as a person see's something cool they want - they even get to use it - and it isn't part of their collection. They would go to the AH and try and get it to use in constructed, wouldn't they?

And I do think this would lead to more income for the devs - people playing older formats will want to catch up on newer formats, or buy older format cards on the AH giving them an AH cut.

I want to back this up btw - when transmog became popular in WoW, demand in so many items skyrocketed. Things that were once worth a few silver became worth hundreds of thousands of gold (I am not even exaggerating.) Demand went up because people started seeing things that they had never seen before, and they wanted them, and wanted them enough to pay large amounts of gold for them.

The drafts could act the same way, correct?

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 11:02 AM
A draft is 4hrs of playtime.

With a weekly free draft and PvE to farm / Constructed tournaments to do, who would enter paying drafts ?

~

Wessex
05-12-2013, 11:04 AM
The first distinction you have to make: HEX is digital not physical, so there aren't the heavy printing and distribution costs associated with a physical card game. You don't have to guess how much of your product the consumer will buy and produce accordingly, you just have to produce enough to cover R&D, marketing, art, servers etc etc. Therefore, whilst digital has its own costs print does not, it is still cheaper and you can obviously go infinite.

Secondly, assume typical TCG and MMO release schedule, so a new set/raid/dungeon every quarter (maybe even three a year). Assume multiple formats (PvE and PvP alone are problematic issues). In a TCG one year is a block, each block (sometimes each set in a block) has its own mechanics. All old content has to be replaced by new, more exciting content to keep players hooked.

Three, finite options. Most TCGs offer multiple formats with set rotation in order to maintain interest whilst maintaining playability of older cards. This is why reprints occur from anything up to commons through epics in a base set (Class Starter Deck/Magic 2014) through to shock lands etc etc.

Four, money. The company has to make money, maintaining value in the old cards whilst making sure players part with money for new cards/experiences. Players nearly always want to play with the latest toys, so new sets and associated singles command premier currency. With a physical product you can't discount old stock: you make a loss, although you can discount it slightly to make warehouse space in order to store new products that command premiums. This isn't an issue with pixels.


Ultimately, this means that it is unlikely that as a business CZE would give you anything for free. Players who had invested in the original set would be incredibly annoyed if it was free after six months, a year, two years, possibly even three (exception to starter deck products which I think even in a TCG because of the digital freemium nature entice more players to get going). It would also flood the secondary market with cheaper copies of now more accessible chase cards causing issues with ingame economies. I would expect possible flash sales of older product but probably masked as buy five get two free or something like that, but never that any set would be made free because of the TCG economy issues.

Sets shouldn't be taken out of print, every player should have the option to enter whenever. This is where ideas like the guild bank for cards are awesome, because guilds can help new players get started with the ton of spare commons/uncommons from early sets they have available to them due to multiple drafts/dungeons what have you. Whether or not a set is going to be drafted or not depends on whether or not there are pvp prizes on offer for completing the content (apologies for the combination of TCG and MMO parlance, but that's the best way to explain it). If you offer boosters/promos/money for winning a draft, people will play it.

Rieper
05-12-2013, 11:09 AM
I could go both ways. Free at times can really help earning money, F2P games kinda shows that. But those often also often have paywalls or other stuff that hard to play without.

A free draft every now and then is close to normal F2P. You get a taste of the good stuff and then want more, go use some money. But if something is completly free, then there is also a chance that most people just keep playing the free part. Ofcourse those people could be like me and have the attitude that is "On this game gave me this much fun for no money i think they deserve some mine now".

Both can work, but i feel like overall for a game succes, the free draft option is the one with biggest chance to fail without chance on higher payback. Risk vs rewards is always a important thing

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 11:14 AM
Once a week, and only a single set, not all retired sets, would give players that taste that would drive them to want more. I think it's a fine model to follow with what we know currently - if we find out something new, then we could change the idea.

But this would let sets retire without having that feeling that you could never enjoy those cards in a draft again - which I know from real life can be a shame. I would rather a limited way to try it, and then spend my money on new sets to satisfy the rest of my draft-lust (so to speak.)

Hibbert
05-12-2013, 11:37 AM
I wanted to throw out one argument for for limited "print" runs that I haven't seen touched on much. Unlimited print runs will push people away from current block play and towards the "vintage/legacy" formats for constructed.

Why you ask? Let's imagine if M:tG had never taken any cards out of print and boosters for any set are still available in any quantity you want. You decide to build a constructed deck, and go take a look at some popular deck types for legacy and for the current block. The legacy deck uses a bunch of cards that have been in continuous print for over a decade. The current block deck uses some rares that have only just come out and are still expensive. Guess which deck might sound more appealing?

If people are driven more towards legacy play, then legacy play becomes the focus. New sets will have to be built around that power curve(or else just be flat out more powerful to entice people to buy the cards), rather than being able to change things up. New sets will also need to have cards that support legacy deck playstyles, or otherwise they will just be ignored completely. I think this would make for a very stale game. I like that Magic can shake things up, and what is overpowered for one block might be just right for another. But if they were always balancing things against Alpha/Beta/Unlimited, it just wouldn't be the same.

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 11:40 AM
While your point is very valid and we all missed it, I also think that people play whatever the tournaments and OP prize support are for.
If Worlds are in block constructed, even tho Legacy is funnier, people will buy block cards and playtest for it (that may not be true for 80% of the players tho)

~

Jugan
05-12-2013, 11:45 AM
@Wessex: PLease read the past 30 pages of discussion regarding your faulty reasoning on why cards should not be taken out of print.

I really like this tidbit though: "If packs are offered as rewards, there's going to be people around to play it."

This is presuming that the rewards, in this case packs, hold some actual value. Due to the incredible deflation your model promotes, the packs/pvp card prizes the drafts would give out would be basically worthless, and the price of entry would be much greater than the returns of drafting. People would be better of just casually drafting it if they really wanted to. Oh, guess what. You can still casually draft sets if they're out of print. People do it all the time.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 11:49 AM
That is a very valid point Hibbert, but I dont think they are planning on offering permanent legacy tournaments with prize support. And if cycled sets do not add to your rating for wins, then a lot of motivation to be a good player in that set is lost.

Look at low level battlegrounds in WoW - only a small selection of people stop and play that old PvP content, because it is not rated, and they do not progress. However in the active PvP with ratings, people are constantly playing it.

It might not be the best comparison, but competition and earning rewards are a huge part of PvP play. I could see it being a big part of keeping new sets in the limelight.

I don't dissagree that it could happen, just offering another viewpoint.

fitzgiggler
05-12-2013, 01:24 PM
Until i saw this thread i just assumed they would rotate out blocks. It never once occurred to me that they might not, I hope they address this before the Kickstarter ends, because if they don't i really need to pull my pledge

Hibbert
05-12-2013, 01:25 PM
I totally admit I could be wrong here. But to continue my M:tG example, I know I would probably use the entire power nine in just about any "casual" deck I build, if they were super plentiful. The casual market will be a force in Hex also, so we might see this kind of thing happening in an unlimited print run version of Hex. I'd prefer ultra-powerful/broken cards(the kind that are taken out of the sets) be rarer, rather than just seeing everyone use them. I know this leads to cases where jerks can use their expensive decks to demolish more casual people who can't get access to the cards. But in this kind of environment, it's a lot easier to support house rules that ban those cards altogether.

I do see the point that CZE can push people towards the current block with better prize support, and that's something I left out of my argument. The WoW example is spot on.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-12-2013, 01:40 PM
Until i saw this thread i just assumed they would rotate out blocks. It never once occurred to me that they might not, I hope they address this before the Kickstarter ends, because if they don't i really need to pull my pledge

They should have had this in place before starting the kickstarter. I think this is a make or break deal for a lot of people.

Xenavire
05-12-2013, 01:40 PM
Hmm... This makes me wonder if they cant retire singles from boosters? After a card proves it is powerful, and they decide it should be rarer, they cycle it out (or even more of the set) and leave the lesser cards for sale - that way they dont NEED to reprint? It is an interesting idea, but I am sure it has hundreds of flaws.

d00dz
05-12-2013, 05:49 PM
The same points keep cropping up over and over again.

Probably better to just give your opinions via the poll in this thread: http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=23208

Tyranth
05-12-2013, 05:57 PM
Make your voice heard on the matter in a much clearer fashion, do not clutter the thread with arguments tho.

http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=23208

d00dz beat me to it, LOL

Fireblast
05-12-2013, 10:49 PM
Hmm... This makes me wonder if they cant retire singles from boosters? After a card proves it is powerful, and they decide it should be rarer, they cycle it out (or even more of the set) and leave the lesser cards for sale - that way they dont NEED to reprint?

You man, know how to create collecting value.

~

Xenavire
05-13-2013, 03:19 AM
So you would agree with the idea? I actually feel good about my input into this thread now!
But there has to be some kind of pitfall...

Fireblast
05-13-2013, 03:22 AM
The boosters will lose value, and the "banned" cards will up in value (for either Vintage / Collecting)

˜

Xenavire
05-13-2013, 03:36 AM
Well, both of those sound like positive things in the long run, and would leave the rest of the set in print for trading/destroying fodder... Would let the drafts exist too.

I could get behind it so far.

Fireblast
05-13-2013, 05:45 AM
Well, both of those sound like positive things in the long run, and would leave the rest of the set in print for trading/destroying fodder... Would let the drafts exist too.

I could get behind it so far.

But 90% of the community would rage :)

˜

Xenavire
05-13-2013, 05:48 AM
I dont doubt it hahaha.

Still, it is proof that there are several different areas in the middle ground - one may hold the perfect solution.

Jugan
05-13-2013, 07:37 AM
I don't like that idea. The packs themselves would be completely worthless, along with anything still printed in it. Then, if a card in that set becomes a chase card, it will still be worthless.

Turtlewing
05-13-2013, 10:50 AM
I Think the best overall approach to set rotations would be to have sets go "out of print" but then have fairly infrequent events where all sets go back on sale. For example for a week around the anniversary of game launch they could do an "anniversary party" where packs from all sets can be purchased and tournaments using the old packs are scheduled.

The main advantage of this is it gives new players a chance to get older packs, without completely nuking the incentive to go to the auction house to get older cards. It also keeps the store uncluttered and cuts back on the extent to which the 'best' cards from older sets will become more common than the 'crappy cards' due to card destruction for crafting.

dasn00b
05-14-2013, 04:10 AM
I'd like to see sets go out of circulation, but have all cards potentially eligible to return in future sets or blocks (i.e. no official "reserved list" or whatever it's called in MTG). If there's a card that proves to be too broken/overpowered in a certain set, then Cryptozoic could just set that card aside and never allow it to be reprinted or crafted in the future. I believe that would maintain continued interest and anticipation from older and newer players alike wondering if card X from set Y will return in future set Z, thereby influencing price volatility on said card X. Collector vanity alone (particularly with how HEX is setting it up if I've read through all those articles correctly) should allow for the older card X to continue to command higher prices than the newer one well after the reprint.

Mushroom_C1oud
05-14-2013, 05:50 AM
I'd like to see sets go out of circulation, but have all cards potentially eligible to return in future sets or blocks (i.e. no official "reserved list" or whatever it's called in MTG). If there's a card that proves to be too broken/overpowered in a certain set, then Cryptozoic could just set that card aside and never allow it to be reprinted or crafted in the future. I believe that would maintain continued interest and anticipation from older and newer players alike wondering if card X from set Y will return in future set Z, thereby influencing price volatility on said card X. Collector vanity alone (particularly with how HEX is setting it up if I've read through all those articles correctly) should allow for the older card X to continue to command higher prices than the newer one well after the reprint.

If the reprinted cards had new art and perhaps different trophies on the double back it will keep the older cards value higher. It would also help with getting rid of broken cards. I could still build the decks I want without having to spend a ton for a card either, I would just pick up the newer version.

Drake6k
05-14-2013, 04:22 PM
Scarcity = value

I'm totally fine with reprinting old cards, but I still believe old sets must go out of print. There needs to be a limited number printed too, otherwise there will be no way of keeping the players from totally saturating the market. Beta dark rituals and wrath of gods are still worth a ton more than their 4th edition versions. New players can buy the newer prints and the collectors have the old prints to hold onto.

If digital card sets do not go out of print, the value of every single card in that set will eventually be nearly zero. Collecting old sets will be a joke and everyone will want to sell the cards they are not using right away before they lose value.

I like playing with old cards (magic player here) and I like knowing my old cards are not constantly losing value.

Turtlewing
05-14-2013, 04:47 PM
Heavily played cards will likely have more value than unused cards (due to the double back and level up mechanics). But I do agree that supply for older cards needs to taper off or collectors will throw a fit.

Personally I'm still in favor of old sets going out of print but coming back briefly during special events.

Cornholio666
05-14-2013, 05:11 PM
How about Alternate art for the set is only available in boosters for 1yr. during the set release and then the Alt art is out of print forever, but original cards are always available so new players can get all the cards but not the alt art, and of course do alternate art for every card, or uncommons and up anyway. Sort of a combinantion of always available and out of print at the same time.

Turtlewing
05-14-2013, 05:33 PM
How about Alternate art for the set is only available in boosters for 1yr. during the set release and then the Alt art is out of print forever, but original cards are always available so new players can get all the cards but not the alt art, and of course do alternate art for every card, or uncommons and up anyway. Sort of a combinantion of always available and out of print at the same time.

Sounds like a lot of work that could otherwise go towards making the next set better (artists aren't free).

TheBokononist
05-14-2013, 05:59 PM
I think both sides have some good points (and bad). I feel that a middle ground between exclusivity (which I would like as a long time MTG player) and consistent availability would be good. However almost of everything about HEX is general speculation by players at this point. That being said, I have two ideas that strike me as good for handling the collectable portion of this:

1. Cryptozoic has a digital "vault" that old sets/set boosters are added too.

Vault stored boosters would be unavailable to purchase while "locked away" but boosters can be taken out by the company for special occasions – so newer players still have a chance at them in the future but no immediate gratification and collecting/trading has the benefit of a set supply while the set is unavailable. This would work similar to League of Legend's vault for limited edition character skins. Not always available, but something nice to bring out of storage for the community from time to time.

Anyone that played MTG:O during the Power Nine drafting can tell you it was a blast (minus not being able to keep the cards). It allowed players that may not have even seen a Black Lotus (rare/expensive MTG card for those unaware) to jump in and draft some of the most broken MTG cards in existence.

2. Boosters are always available but non-format boosters have a bump in cost. A.K.A. A nostalgia tax.

How to you reduce supply so those old rare chase cards have more value? Make a booster more expensive. Increased cost combined with the really cool leveling and achievement stat unlocks on the "double-flip side" of cards rewards players that were active during the set's active period without leaving new players completely out of the loop.

I love the first idea and don't care for the second idea. Both have their problems but I also think both are a between ground for pro-exclusivity and always available arguments. Thoughts?

Cornholio666
05-14-2013, 06:05 PM
Sounds like a lot of work that could otherwise go towards making the next set better (artists aren't free).

I'm aware they are not free, I just thought maybe it would be a nice balance for the go out of print/always available dilema. Maybe all uncommons plus rares and above is too many, but certainly all rares might be feasible, we already know they are committing to at least 6 alternate arts per year, it wouldn't take too much to jump that to say 20-40; 10-20 per set or something. Then new people can always get a card with a duplicate mechanic/features but the not the Alternate Art so that's where your reseller store of value lies.

Some people are very driven to collect the rare stuff I think extra sales would probably offset the extra art costs for a pretty substantial number of alternates per set if they go out print. I think of people on mgto with full premium foil decks that have 4 of rare foil cards I don't even have one 'common' rare of.

BigDog
05-14-2013, 06:45 PM
I believe i might have a suggestion here that might address enough key arguments on both sides to be viable.

Sets stop being sold by the store after a set period of time and then relist on the store as a PVE flagged identical set.
This set would have a clearly visible different color border denoting its PVE-Only Status and you would have to click through at least 2 warnings acknowledging that these cards could only be used for pve.

The original PVP flagged set would have the same limited release schedule as other Tcgs online where the set is available to be drafted for a week or so after it had rotated from the store.

This way if you wished to play casually with friends you could do that, if you wanted the cards for pve you could do that too. However if you wanted to play in a PVP tournament, you would not be able to do so with the PVE flagged cards. Multiple comparisons have been made to the MMO side and i want to point out the fact that with an AH that is viable because supply is finite, you would be able to get cards from indemand current sets and trade them to the AH for the cards that you want for PVP. This isn't significantly different than putting time in running in a raid to get the gear you want for other mmos.

This lets the PVP flagged cards maintain value over time and makes it so that IF you can purchase/sell platinum for cash, things work like you would imagine they would in real life. Also for those of us who enjoy playing the AH, this allows us to do so since supply is relatively limited and we can play the game we want to(AH, card finance, speculation)

WWKnight
05-14-2013, 06:53 PM
I believe i might have a suggestion here that might address enough key arguments on both sides to be viable.

Sets stop being sold by the store after a set period of time and then relist on the store as a PVE flagged identical set.
This set would have a clearly visible different color border denoting its PVE-Only Status and you would have to click through at least 2 warnings acknowledging that these cards could only be used for pve.

The original PVP flagged set would have the same limited release schedule as other Tcgs online where the set is available to be drafted for a week or so after it had rotated from the store.

This way if you wished to play casually with friends you could do that, if you wanted the cards for pve you could do that too. However if you wanted to play in a PVP tournament, you would not be able to do so with the PVE flagged cards. Multiple comparisons have been made to the MMO side and i want to point out the fact that with an AH that is viable because supply is finite, you would be able to get cards from indemand current sets and trade them to the AH for the cards that you want for PVP. This isn't significantly different than putting time in running in a raid to get the gear you want for other mmos.

This lets the PVP flagged cards maintain value over time and makes it so that IF you can purchase/sell platinum for cash, things work like you would imagine they would in real life. Also for those of us who enjoy playing the AH, this allows us to do so since supply is relatively limited and we can play the game we want to(AH, card finance, speculation)

I would support this idea wholeheartedly!