Should rarer cards just be straight upgrades of lower rarity cards?

I dont think so. it would have been so god damn easy for them to make the lower rarity card be just a 3 mana bolt but add an upside to it, just like how grizzly bears now have upsides to them (funny how times change) like an exile effect if it died or giving a creature haste or making a kobold or SOEMTHING. im not a professional developper but there is no fucking person in R&D that possibly said "Yep, this 3 mana lightning bolt sure feels good to play right after my opponent played a 3/3 for 3 with a useful ETB effect!"

Yes, there are diminishing returns. It's still pay to win.

> but stats are different,
Considering what those cards do, 2 toughness is more desirable than 1 power.

It isn't though. It's pay to play. Competitive Magic is not a free-to-play game. Even casual Magic is not a free-to-play game.

It being pay to play doesn't prevent it from being pay to win.

It isn't pay to win at all. Once you have purchased an optimized deck, spending additional money offers zero in-game benefit, and a cheaper optimized deck can be advantaged against a more expensive optimized deck and even be better positioned in the field. Calling it pay to win is simply wrong.

power creep in unavoidable in all games i love how mtg fanboys think theyre above it because they are told to trash their cards every six months or whatever it is

>

>

>

>

>

>
As much fun as this is, unless you actually have a case to make I'm going to go now.

>

>It isn't pay to win because in some scenarios somebody who didn't pay out the nose might still be able to win
Why do people always get so absurdly pedantic when the concept of pay to win is brought up? You're not stupid dude, stop acting like it. Language isn't always literal. The person who dropped more money on an optimised deck has an advantage over somebody who doesn't unless the cheap deck is built to counter the kind of deck that the optimised deck is. Even then the cheap deck would do it's job much better if it had money pumped into it. It's pay to win.

In Magic it is more complicated than that because sometimes the Limited environment works better with 3-mana Lightning Strike than a 2-mana one. That said, LS being uncommon is absolutely bullshit, Theros had it at common and whatever failings the format had, LS at common wasn't it.

>If a game is so pay to win that you need an expensive, optimized deck to even begin to play, it's no longer pay to win
wut

>Why do people always get so absurdly pedantic when the concept of pay to win is brought up?
Because pay to win is a meme that gets inappropriately used outside of its intended context.
>The person who dropped more money on an optimised deck has an advantage over somebody who doesn't
The person who dropped money on an optimized deck has an advantage over somebody who doesn't. Pay to play. Dropping more money doesn't imply that you'll do better. Not pay to win. The best deck in a format and the most expensive deck in a format are often not the same.

If your PC is too low end to properly run a game but my more expensive PC can properly run a game and as a result you lose, is that game pay to win?

An example of a pay to play card game would be a deckbuilding game wherein all the cards are available to every player that paid the entry fee (yes they exist). Magic the gathering not only has an entry fee but an optimisation fee, in fact their (cheaper) entry level decks are very deliberately designed to be trash. If you pay more money, you are more likely to win. Pay to win. Don't talk shit.

A PC game is not reliant on RNG to get better parts, and that case you pulled out of your ass never happens due to the fact that you can lower the graphics to look like dogshit and save performance that way.
Even if you say "just buy singles lol" we all know that stores open up boosters to stock up on singles, and the price for them is high due to the RNG of finding a card.

>An example of a pay to play card game would be a deckbuilding game wherein all the cards are available to every player that paid the entry fee (yes they exist).
Sure, those are also pay to play.
>Magic the gathering not only has an entry fee but an optimisation fee
The "entry fee" and the "optimization fee" are combined. You enter the game by purchasing a deck, which can be optimized.
>If you pay more money, you are more likely to win.
False.

Invalid comparison. A PC is a tool used to do many things and play many games. The TCG equivalent of a computer would be the car you drive to the tournament. It is not a part of the game.

>Even if you say "just buy singles lol" we all know that stores open up boosters to stock up on singles, and the price for them is high due to the RNG of finding a card.
The price for them is high due to supply and demand, not simply card rarity. Stores that open a sufficient amount of boosters effectively eliminate RNG.

BEHOLD
BOLTS
ON
CURVE

It's also high due to card rarity, since there are also junk rares and mythics that either barely see play or are very casual. So if they open the junk rares and mythics, the price for the pre-order prices and post-release prices will be high because of how much money it took to find them.

>A PC is a tool used to do many things and play many games.
A card is a tool used to do many things and play many games.
>The TCG equivalent of a computer would be the car you drive to the tournament.
You do not need a car to play the game. Your comparison is invalid.

>It's also high due to card rarity
It's high due to supply and demand. There is a relationship between supply and card rarity, but this is going off into another topic.

>A card is a tool used to do many things and play many games
No. MTG cards are only useful for MTG. And many of them only certain standards of MTG.
>You do not need a car to play the game.
You need transport. You could also hitch a ride or borrow, but similarly you could use someone else's PC. But a TCG deck? Either you have to pay or someone else has to pay twice.

False equivalence. The only thing I can think of that would be similar to a gaming computer for magic would be a gaming table; An outside cost that the developers have nothing to do with that is just assumed to be owned by every player. In the case of PC gaming said minimum specs are also posted publicly on just about every means of buying the product.
>The "entry fee" and the "optimization fee" are combined.
Bollocks. If I went out and bought a starter planeswalker deck for magic and took it to a tournament I'd be creamed. Just because game is p2w to the point where you can't even think about competing till you've dropped money on an expensive deck does not mean the entry point is in that place. The entry point is the point where you can start playing, which is much lower.
>False.
True. Unless you want to bring up non-arguments like "I could go out and buy only expensive cards without thinking about anything and lose!" Which is stupid beyond reason. Of course you have to think about deck makeup but I'm going to have a better deck with an infinite budget than somebody with a £50 budget. But wait, you didn't say any argument. Wonder why that may be user.

>MTG cards are only useful for MTG.
PCs are only useful for PC tasks.
>You need transport.
You can play at home.

I always thought "why in the love of fuck is Ember shot so expensive?

on any case, we still missing a 5R Bolt

>PCs are only useful for PC tasks
Which are infinitely more broad than a single TCG. A PC is the most versitile tool in existence. A TCG deck does one thing.

>I could go out and buy only expensive cards without thinking about anything and lose!
No actually. I mean you can go out, thinking about everything, buy a more expensive deck, and still be disadvantaged in the field compared to a cheaper deck. An expensive, optimized deck can in fact be worse than a cheaper, optimized deck.

As the flavor text implies, it's because dwarves are cheap cunts

And the cheaper, optimised deck is
>Already expensive just not as nose-bleedingly expensive as yours
or
>Could do it's job objectively better with more money spent on it
The ability for some decks to build towards countering others does stop you from being to buy advantages.

>Already expensive just not as nose-bleedingly expensive as yours
The differences are not minor. They can be less than half the cost.
>Could do it's job objectively better with more money spent on it
No, I am strictly talking about optimized decks. They already have all the cards they would want, and putting a more expensive card in them would actually make them worse.

Now tell me: How would an entry-level deck fair against this "cheaply" optimised deck? Y'know, the actual Pay to Play point in the game.

No, higher rarity cards should be more complex than lower rarity cards.
They should be more powerful overall but more niche. Cards like grim flayer and heart of kiran are egregious examples of not implementing this philosophy.
Cards like Aetherworks marvel are decent examples of cards that follow this philosophy well: they're incredibly powerful, but require being built around.
Cards like that, past in flames, ad nauseam, lion's eye diamond, deserve their rarity. Fetchlands, cards like noble hierarch, don't.

That's the thing, I don't accept your contention that the preconstructed products are the pay to play point for competitive magic. You are effectively talking about a different game, like how Limited is a different game.

One of them is legendary tho, that's not good. If you have like 4 Neheb in your deck and you get three in your hand and you play 1, the other 2 in your hand are pretty worthless except for discarding.

I'm not up on current sets. Are these in the same draft rotation? Are they in the same standard block?

Remember there are lots of different formats and rarity/cost fits in to more than just constructed formats.

They are both in Standard, but not the same draft set.

maybe is that the excuse?
the weak one will rotate out of standar once the new set comes out.
and the other wont.

You can reject it, you can also reject that the earth is round. The entry decks are designated and advertised by the developers as the way to get into playing magic the gathering. They are also deliberately hampered to ensure that the person who falls into the trap product then spends money on improving it. Magic the Gathering doesn't magically stop being Magic the Gathering simply because people are taking it seriously. Different meta-games, sure. But the same game. They're not even different formats.

> The entry decks are designated and advertised by the developers as the way to get into playing magic the gathering
However, they are not designed or advertised by the developers as the way to get into playing competitive magic the gathering. They are in fact advertised to be played against one another.
>Different meta-games, sure.
The products you are talking about are the pay to play point for one, very specific meta-game, not the others.
>But the same game.
Sub-games within an overarching game-system have to be taken into account.

>Sub-games within an overarching game-system have to be taken into account.
Yes. Formats. There's no format exclusively for entry level decks.

You've just named it. The format for entry level decks is just entry level decks. That is what they are designed for and how they advertise them. They are legal in Standard in the same way Standard decks are legal in Vintage.

Standard, draft, and constructed staples need different power levels based on the intended speed of the format, the bulk of early drops, et cetera et cetera.

I'm not saying wizzzzards is good at balance and always makes good decisions, but the bulk of commons and uncommons should be viewed with an eye toward more limited formats while most rares/myths and some uncommons need to be viewed within standard/modern/legacy/EDH/two-headed-giant/reverse-commander. Generally I put powercreep/unblance to either fanboyish developers or incompetence more than a malicious intent, particularly because wizzzzards doesn't have a direct hand in the secondary market.

What are you even arguing anymore at this point? You made a poor comparison and are now just digging your heels in not actually saying anything.

Making the more impactful cards rarer sells more packs.

>Should rarer cards just be straight upgrades of lower rarity cards?
No, but it's been the case through all of Magic's history that a rarity upgrade essentially lets a card shave one mana of its cost. It's a limited thing where WotC has gotten it in their heads that powerful cards aren't fun in draft unless they also happen to be mythic, and that when you get to play a powerful mythic it's no fun if your opponent can remove it.

It's backwards and I don't like. Despite that, however, I kinda get what they're trying to do, so I can't really say that it doesn't make any sense, except it doesn't make any sense.

Ideally, rarity should only impact complexity and, maybe, narrowness, where commons are primarily generic, simple cards that go in almost any deck, uncommons are a mix of slightly more complex generic cards and support cards for specific strategies, and rares and mythic are wordy and very narrow to the degree that they are powerful in certain strategies but not something you just jam in any deck, even in limited.

You have to re-buy that competitive deck over and over again. A Standard deck makes you re-buy it roughly every two years. Bigger formats rotate out more slowly, but the new cards you have to buy every year are more expensive. And for what? Magic provides the worst value for money of any tabletop game short of maybe Warhammer. Consider the total amount of money you've dumped into this hobby and if it's worth the amount of enjoyment you've experienced playing it.

Why the fuck did they make trash like lightning strike uncommon?

Lightning strike was originally common too, so still a bad example.

>mfw they change its name so people can't use their bolts from core sets

They wouldn't let there be 2 bolts in literally every format besides standard and pauper.

cant do nothing with muh "whenever another merfolk etbs, this one gets +1/+1" if it dies to 2 cmc removal at common. you cant really have great limited archetypes based around tribal synergies if the individual tribal creatures are too easily sniped

>bolt becomes an 8 of

Maximum overwew

>>If you pay more money, you are more likely to win.
>False.

you already fucked up here, just stop trying to argue already holy shit

>"Oh no, I drew another Geist of Saint Traft" he said, swinging in for lethal

When was Standard at it's highest power level post-8ED?

Common: 3 mana for 3
Uncommon: 3 mana for 2
Rare- Bolt
Mythic bolt- 3 for 0 at instant?

I'm fairly certain there has been a time in standard history, where the prominent was mostly commons (barring basic lands).

don't say things like that, it gets me unreasonably turned on

balanced for limited

Mythic Bolt would be bolt with flashback or scry tacked on to it.

new pirexia set?

It's the exact opposite. Power determines rarity, because too many powerful effects at common and uncommon can fuck up the draft environment. Hence, more powerful cards show up less often.

As to , Lightning Strike is a reprint that was a common in previous sets. It's only uncommon here for the sake of limiting the amount of cheap removal in a set centered around largely small squishy creatures.

of Standards that I've been in, Scars/Innistrad
Otherwise, although I wouldn't know for sure, Zendikar/Scars and whenever original Mirrodin was in Standard would be my guess

Sad we didn't get this back in Theros with the god of lightning and prophecies

obviously caw blade
legacy-tier power level

in theros block they printed that same exact card but at 2ur cost

bolt is to be printed at common. always has,always will.

In their current model, no rare should fill the same slot as an uncommon or a common.

If they just set maximum counts of rares and uncommons you can put in a deck then they can make rarer cards be straight upgrades.

Those cards are meant for different formats, not a good comparison.

Manticore is a OK card in draft
Neheb is for EDH

>always has
bolt was un uncommon in MM15

Pay to Play is Pay to Win. That's what it means. That's what all those Pay to Win phone games do. They give a "Whale" willing to spend the money an advantage over users not willing to pay the same amount. This doesn't auto-win the game for the Whale, but heavily tilts it in their favor.

For the short time Skullclamp was legal in Mirrodin Standard.

Jesus you people are stupid.

Pay to win is battlefield. You pay extra money, you save yourself thousands of hours of bullshit, and have objectively stronger everything.

Magic has prices determined by the secondary market for singles. You'd need on average 3 boxes to get playsets of everything you'd need for a deck, regardless of context, out of a particular set. For a full standard deck, that's 3 boxes times the number of sets currently in standard. BUT the fallacy is that you can often purchase cards at an extremely low price relative to desire if you read the fucking spoilers and understand how to evaluate card advantage. Because of this, simply spending money doesn't give you an objective advantage, understanding what to spend money on gives you an objective advantage.

Another example: edh. You can spend $10k on a deck, and a $200 Brago deck can push your shit in despite all your fancy lands and chains of Mephistopheles or whatever the new hotness is now. You can run 3 ABUR duals, for $9k, and never see any significant upgrade to your deck's power level if you don't know how to play the game. Even still, they only offer a marginal advantage over shocks, putting it at the same speed as a monocolour deck filled with basics.

Cards which make draft too swingy because their power levels are so high aren't good for draft at common. This means that anything with too much obvious raw power can't be put at common. The other thing is that common isn't supposed to get complex, unintuitive cards, which prevents most things which are powerful in constructed but not in draft. In effect this means that the only things common can get that at tier 1 are narrow hate cards (which seem to be getting phased out altogether) and aggro cards.
The fact that commons tend to be weaker than other rarities for constructed is an unintended consequence of other design principles, but it is clearly one that Wizards is okay with.

>that same exact
Actually...
Prophetic bolt puts one card in hand and three into the library bottom.
Steam augury lets you separate the cards in two piles (0-5,1-4, 2-3) one pile in hand the other in the graveyard... and does not damage

m:tg should just get a point system and be done with it

I thought rarity was meant to represent complexity, not power?

>Laughing MaRo wringing his hands

>an arrow deals 3 damage
wow, mtg is really low-power when you think about it. A guy with a 1911 would probably be a 7/2 card.

The main problem with Steam Augury is that your opponent gets to choose which pile you get. Sure, sometimes you get five great cards and can separate them into two piles where you'd be happy to get either one, but most of the time that's not gonna be the case. Instead you're gonna have one pile with a card you really need and another pile that you're much less excited about.

Compare that to FoF where your opponent gets to separate the piles but you always get to pick the best one.

some soldiers and squirrels are 1/1
which is the strong one or the weak one?

Then you take the pile with the card you need. Duh.

You don't get to decide with Steam Augury. Your opponent does.