Magic the Gathering needs to put hard caps on how many Rares and Uncommons a deck can have

This is an interesting solution.

They should create a separate format for people who already blew their money on filling their deck with rares and uncommon. That way the core game and tournaments will open up and the people who already invested a bunch of money can still play with their decks.

Something tells me it'll be like netdecking. Something they refuse to do anything about, because it won't make headlines.

Is this faggot serious

>They should create a separate format for people who already blew their money on filling their deck with rares and uncommon.
That's called Standard/Modern/Legacy/Vintage.

Nah, those all share the core problem.

It's interesting that no one has been able to present a counter-argument outside of trolling.

1. Quit being a poorfag
And/or
2. Git gud

Not an argument.

So they've done thigns this way for decades, and done fine all the way basically, so... Until they start limiting the rarer cards perhaps? For all that's said about doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome, doing something different and expecting the same outcome may not be all that clever either.

It's almost as if the problem you have with Magic is your problem, and not Magic's.

So your argument isn't to look at the system, but to assume that it's perfect because the company has survived so long.

No one's provided an argument for why it's killing the game either.

Are you an idiot? What could they possibly do about netdecking?

Check everyones decks against an Internet search engine and ban them if their deck is mentioned anywhere?

On one hand we have that historic precedent.

On the other hand we have the evidence and analysis you've given us... which is none. Just another entitled kid who can't stand that there's some obstacle, price in this case, between him and the toys he want.

His completely unique special snowflake deck should be able to beat all decks because it's unique. He shouldn't have to account for what people are actually playing and play around it.

And yours is to change something to suit your personal preferences without any evidence on why that change is good.

Why would one have to argue facts?

You think that a company's long existence is evidence of the quality of their content?

OH you wanted evidence? Why didn't you say so earlier?

No one has asked for one.

Neither is the OP of this thread, and yet here we are.

No, but it is evidence of the effectiveness of their business model, which implies quality as an aspect which appeals to customers.

if you wanted an argument then ask for one

Veeky Forums stands for traditional games, not business models. I don't understand how you can confuse the two.

Okay, seriously, what the fuck is going on?

Someone's whining about being poor in a roundabout way

Where are you getting this from?

They want a cap on rares and uncommons in decks. Both of those cost money. Commons do not for the most part

But hey its not like there are Pauper events every GP this year or something

They're likely a new player and didn't know about pauper or peasant existing

So you think it's healthy for a card game to have the vast majority of its cards to be unplayable?

Can you name a successful cardgame where this isn't the case?

>because it doesn't exist it's impossible to exist

Is that a no?

I've found Gwent and Netrunner to have no cards that are pure crap or otherwise purely outclassed by other cards.

Same with draft based card games.

Is your argument meaningless?

To be perfectly honest, Hearthstone does a good job on that front. Since you can have at least 9 different play archetypes, you use mostly different cards for each class.

Not gonna say ALL cards are viable, but I'd say 70%-75% of cards on rotation have a place in some deck.

I'll accept netrunner as an example since it's been around for a while, but The digital nature and relative newness of Gwent makes me skeptical
Well you don't seem to have a counter argument. The other guy does, but not you

I agree with this, although overall I find a lot of Hearthstone cards to be niche. It feels almost Yu-Gi-Oh with how much you need specific cards to work with other specific cards. It's hard to just crack open boosters and get a deck that feels like it works.

Hearthstone is riddled with so many other issues that I'm reluctant to take it as an example of good game design in any regard. That game is rotten

They don't really. WotC just needs to learn how to not design cards like fucking retards. Rares and mythical that are Standard playable should primarily be cards that are powerful but very narrow, making them playable in only very specific strategies. Uncommon should be a mix of support cards for said strategies and solid role players within their colors. And commons ought to be the bread and butter that creates the foundation for your deck to stand on.

Based advice.

No counter argument is needed for an argument that is meaningless.

>So you think Magic needs to change, huh? Well do you know how many games the Globetrotters have played?

It's nice that you agree with the examples, but you should really be focusing on how being provided examples works into the point you are trying to make.

Well, it would be hard anyway, since each booster only has 5 cards and there's 9 classes, with class specific cards.

Not saying hearthstone doesn't has tons of problems, I'm just saying the chaff is much lower than in MTG, at least in terms of the usual pile of crap cards the standard rotation usually has.

Also, the dust mechanic downplays the chaff a little bit.

Mtg is a draft-based card game, you just have to pay for each time your play it. Constructed is an afterthought in their design process these days.

I like this. It helps maintain the feeling of being free to create your own deck while also creating a system where players aren't going to stuff their decks full of rares and uncommons

So because it's hard we shouldn't expect a multi-billion dollar company to do it?

That sounds pretty scammy. Are they marketing the game as draft based?

I don't think the marketing does that, no. They don't sell the game as a draft-based game in open houses or when they give free beginner's deck.

I think lots of people would not be as eager to get in the game when the company expects you to play in such a way you HAVE to spend money to play in the way the balanced for.

Older players are getting wiser about that and Cubes are getting more and more popular.

Nah, I'm just pointing out that, in 5 cards boosters, it would be hard to get cards that go along together anyway.

Well that's pretty evil of Wizards.

I'm glad that players are taking it on themselves to make their investments worthwhile.

*HAVE to spend money EACH TIME you want to play in the way they balanced for.

>make their investments worthwhile
Welp, that's it, wrap it up. Time to go home.

Well that depends on how all the cards are designed.

What? You think its okay for Magic to sell their game as a scam?

Fair point. But it gets harder to keep all cards somewhat viable with eachother the longer the game goes. Yu-Gi-Oh itself is an example.

Every company sells their product as a scam. The fact that you're trying to come off as ignorant of this is blatant bait.

if you agree that Blizzard is being needlessly lazy given their massive wealth, why say something that is only meant to evoke sympathy for the company?

I don't think Hearthstone has been around as long as Yu-Gi-Oh

as long as they cater to the SJW they will have money thrown at them.

>everyone does it so it's okay

Come back when you realize subjective morality is retarded.

What?

It's simple to point out something that is clearly difficult to keep "balanced" using the system they use.

The fact that they use this system, at all, is the scummy part by itself. Not allowing trades, not allowing 1:1 trades for higher rarity cards through dust, etc.

Obviously not, just pointing out the issue that will occur sooner or later. And the fact that hearthstone has the class system that limits who can use certain cards makes the possibility of getting cards that can be played together even lower, which will lead to this problem much faster.

Uh, you have done a survey of every company to support this claim?

I know right? All these products that I buy by the price advertised and does exactly what was advertised and I get satisfied with my purchase.

All fucking scammers.

Ah, so what you meant to say was "Yeah I agree. They fucked themselves with the system they set up."

Well, they fucked their userbase. They'll have to buy more boosters to get the cards they want.

It works wonders for them.

Classes should make this less of a problem. They can make sure that the classes have a limited amount of playstyles available. That way, your starter deck will be one of those playstyles. From there you have the rest of the cards either go hard on another playstyle or otherwise allow for variations in the playstyles.

Sorry, that's terribly worded.

"Well, Blizzard fucked their userbase. The players will have to buy more boosters to get the cards they want.

It works wonders for Blizzard's finances"

So you think companies should scam their buyers?

Riiiight

No, just telling how it is.

Last time I ever bought a Hearthstone booster was during beta.

Since then, I didn't spend a single cent on the game cause I don't think it's worth my money.

Let me see if my train of thought is right:

>Game has a class system, limiting which types of cards can be played for different characters. In hearthstone's case, they can be divided in 10 different types,if you incluse the general cards (Also, the guild ones)

>Each booster only gives you 5 cards

>Let's say you only play 1 character, so the chances to get a card you can use in your deck, not even taking in consideration if it fits your decklist, is 2 for each card draw, 5 card draws in each booster.

>With those chances diminished if the rarity of the card you want is anywhere above common.

That seems like a real bitch to build a deck, even with the dust system, without spending at least a dozen of bucks.

If you were "satisfied with your purchase" it just means you fell for the scam.

Yeah, this axe that I bought cut the wood I need to cut really well.

What a waste of money, should have just chomped the wood with my bare teeth, just to make sure I never get duped again.

I would argue that it is not good for them because their product has grievous flaws that will need to be addressed if they want their content to survive.

Except they really don't. At least not in Blizzard's case. Cause they have a shitton of fanboys, the market presence to keep making shiny things that casuals love to buy and enough polish that discourages people from even looking somewhere else that might have better content, but with a slightly worse coat of paint.

It's called Pauper and the hard cap is 0

I don't know if anyone here is aware but there's this really cool thing about magic. You don't, like, HAVE to play standard. I know I know it sounds fucking crazy, but when you buy the cards you can actually do whatever the fuck you want with them! You don't HAVE to play by sanctioned event rules! Fucking crazy like I said but give it a try, it may just solve literslly every problem you seem to be having. :^)

Well, WotC tried that with Magic Duels. The caps were:

>4 commons
>3 uncommons
>2 rares
>1 mythic

I mean, you could only have 2 copies of the same rare card, 1 copy of the same mythic, etc for each deck.

I found it pretty fun, allowed for decks that relied more on consistent damage dealers strategies with the occasional bomb here and there.

I'm saying those problems are fixed when the starter deck has a clear plan with strong synergy and there is a healthy pool of neutral and class cards that allow you to tinker with the starter deck's core strategy so it's easy for any booster to hook you up with something and it's hard to make a bad decision when it comes to crafting cards. If you see a good synergy then it's easy to pick up the card and find room for that synergy.

It's also helpful to have your core game be very transparent.

False equivalency

Except they really do. People can only be scammed for so long until they catch on.

What events does the company support and advertise?

Magic Duels was SUPER fun

>What events does the company support
Literally everything. You can have a fucking un-highlander pauper tournament sanctioned at your LGS with prize support if you can get enough people you blithering retard.
>What events do they advertise
Many, from the community cup that involves fucking wacky drafting, the Pro Tour which is usually just standard, to GPs that have been every regular formst from Vintage to Standard and always have massive showings for side events including pauper, but again you're fucking retarded and apparently don't know the first thing about the game.

That STILL doesn't negate the fact that WotC won't break into your house and steal your fucking cards if you DARE to play a non-standard format. If you're argument is instead that the pro-tour specifically should function by your personal house rules I'd love to hear your reasoning.

You got the ads that support your claim? Cuz all that I know of is FNM and Draft tournies

Ah yes, how silly of me. I seem to have completely made up the existence of the pro tour, all GP's that happen world wide, and the yearly community cup. How foolish I have been. Truly you are a master to have seen so easily through my ruse, such a master in fact that you need not even supply an argument.

Retard.

>but isn't the game doing perfectly fine?
They announced a drop from 20 to 12 million players over the past few years, so no.

1. They didn't anounce anything, the numbers you have are from two disparate blogatog posts, one from 2015 and one from 2017 if I remember correctly.
2. The 20,000 number was total players as estimated, the 12,000 was given by Maro as the number of active players by DCI. There is no reason to beleive a downward trend and Wizards will never tell us if there is.

Not saying you're wrong, but we don't know it as fact like you're insinuating. I wouldn't be surprised if 2017 was the worst year for magic since Affinity in terms of growth.