gwyned's picture
By: gwyned, gwyned
Jul 10 2012 8:40am
Login to post comments

I. Introduction

And now for something completely different.

Today, I will not be bringing you a spotlight analysis of a recent winning decklist from the world of Standard Pauper. There will not be any tips or strategies to share, nor any discussion about the relative merits of a particular card and how to best take advantage of that card. Nor will there be a videocast of an interesting Standard Pauper match, either from my own experiences or from any of the matches that took place from the most recent Monday Pauper Deck Challenge. There is still so much to write on these topics, and I am eager to return to discussing the components of my favorite format. But in many ways the purpose of this article is so much bigger than any of those things.

Allow me a brief, personal anecdote. Like so many who currently play on Magic Online, I discovered Magic the Gathering back in the early 90s, and spent many hours with my friends building decklists, playing out games with our favorite decks, and driving a considerable distance to purchase more cards from the closest comic book store that carried them. I had no idea of the value of those few Revised Dual Lands I sometimes played with, nor could I appreciate the sheer brokenness of cards like Mana Vault, Demonic Tutor, or Necropotence. I was truly that often-mythologized kitchen-table Magic player. Eventually, I graduated from high school, bid farewell to my playgroup, sold all my cards to a friend, and moved away to attend college. Now, fast-forward nearly two decades and my understanding of this game is dramatically different. I now spend countless hours each week reading, writing, and analyzing information about this great game. I listen to podcasts, chat with players, and watch videocasts of matches from the pros. I gladly spend the meager amount of money I have set aside for hobbies to play Limited on Magic Online. All in all, I have a deeper love, understanding, and passion for the game than I would have ever imagined possible in high school. And, while like many I would admit that it is the convenience and availability of Magic Online that has played a major role, I also know that I never would have signed up for my account and received my first 10 tickets had it not been for the existence of one little-known format: Standard Pauper.

It is thus the purpose of this article to demonstrate that Standard Pauper as a format is good not only for Magic Online players but also for Wizards of the Coast, and that as such it deserves official support in some capacity. To defend this bold thesis, I will discuss how this format benefits new and veteran players alike, present arguments for how Standard Pauper is financially advantageous for Wizards, and respond to common objections about why this format should not receive official support. I will then conclude with some thoughts about what this official support might entail and discuss what we as the player base can do to make this a reality.

II. Why Standard Pauper is Good for Players

The first reason that Standard Pauper deserves official support is that it is good for both new and existing players. As many have noted over the years, the learning curve for someone new to the client is quite steep. Even if one comes to the game with a fairly solid understanding of the rules, it takes some time to learn all of the various intricacies and idiosyncrasies of Magic Online. And for those who only have a basic level of understanding of rules of Magic, competing in this online environment requires a considerable amount of time, effort, and money. Just the simple act of deciding what to do with the tickets and the booster pack you start with can be daunting. What is needed is a format where new players can play in a competitive format that is still cheap, is relevant to what's going on in the competitive Magic world, and is supported by a community of players. Such a low risk, low complexity environment would be the perfect way for new players to master the Magic Online client and rules before risking considerable time and money in more costly formats such as Standard or Limited.

In a similar way, there is certainly a significant segment of existing players that do not regularly participate in the dominant formats or events on Magic Online. Such players often are constrained by either money or time. As such, they would benefit from a format that has a low cost of entry, requires less time to master, and yet still offers a chance for fun and competitive play. For both new players and this segment of existing players, Standard Pauper is a great option. Let me explain why.

1. It is cheap to play.

Assuming a new player sells off his or her booster pack and holds on to the tickets that are provided with a new account, he or she has access to approximately 6-7 tickets in value. Even without making use of the various free resources offering in the online classifieds, one could easily purchase two or three different competitive decks for Standard Pauper through one of the major retail bots such as MTGOTraders. Even at full retail, most Commons in the Standard pool cost between 2 and 5 cents each, with even the most expensive cards rarely going for more than 25 cents. In fact, at the time of writing, the most expensive Common in the Standard set is tied between Geth's Verdict, Vapor Snag, Mutagenic Growth, and Gitaxian Probe, each for a mere 15 cents.

For existing players, this means that the cost to stay competitive after the release of a new set and/or major rotation remains quite low. Earning a finish in the Top 4 in just a few Standard Pauper PREs would easily cover the costs of purchasing a playset of most of a new expansion's Commons. Similarly, one can freely switch between different archetypes and tune one's decklist for the metagame without any significant financial constraints. At least for the vast majority of people, this may be the only format on Magic Online where one's finances are not a factor in how competitive one can be.

2. It uses the most popular and relevant format.

It should come as no surprise that the most relevant format on Magic Online, as for Magic in general, is Standard. While there are certainly several other healthy formats, it is Standard that by and large gets the attention. Since Standard Pauper is directly tied to this format, it keeps the focus of new players on what is going on in Standard. But even beyond that, Commons play a small but important role even in most competitive Standard decks. By playing Standard Pauper, new players immediately become familiar with these cards and can take advantage of the wide variety of strategy and information that exists about the Standard format. The lower complexity also helps new players learn the essentials faster.

For certain existing players, Standard Pauper offers the perfect blend of the relevance of Standard with the low complexity of playing only Commons. On the one hand, the complexity is much lower than competing in a Standard or Limited tournament, allowing players the chance to master a format without taking as much of their time. On the other hand, Standard Pauper is still competitive, relevant, and diverse enough to support a variety of archetypes and strategies, keeping many players' interest over a long period of time.

3. It is well supported by the Player Run Events community.

One of the best ways for new players to compete on Magic Online is through Player Run Events, which offer a semi-competitive tournament environment that are free to enter but still offer small prizes for the winners. Currently, there are two such weekly PREs that feature Standard Pauper: Monday Pauper Deck Challenge (MPDC) and Standard Pauper Deck Challenge (SPDC). Certain clans also offer events in Standard Pauper, such as the league style events offered by the Pauper Krew clan. These free events are a great way for new players to cut their teeth in a competitive event, potentially win a few tickets in prizes, and receive encouragement and assistance from a great community of players.

And, for existing players, it is this great community that keeps them coming back and staying plugged in to what's going on in the world of Magic. The Player Run Events give players the chance to interact in a friendly environment, discuss the game, and learn from each other. In fact, I know for a fact that there are players who, apart from these communities, probably would no longer participate in Magic Online in any meaningful fashion. For these players, Standard Pauper isn't just one option among many - it's all they play.

It should come as no surprise that this community, in fact, is quite vocal about their desire to see Standard Pauper become an official format. You can read some of these discussions here and here.

4. It enjoys an interesting and varied metagame.

One of the charges often brought against Standard Pauper is that with such a small cardpool the format would quickly be solved or grow stale. Quite simply, this is not the case. While a full explanation backed by solid data is beyond the scope of this article, two responses will suffice for now. First, having a large cardpool is no guarantee that a format will not be solved or grow stale. Of late, several Classic Pauper players have noted that their format is dominated by three or four of the same decklists which make up the bulk of competitive play. Second, even a cursory glance at the Top 8 finalists from the Standard Pauper PREs would show a surprisingly amount of diversity in the format. Just in the last five MPDC tournaments, the Top 8 has featured 15 different archetypes, with the strongest showing from Mono Black, Izzet, B/W Flicker, RDW, GW Wolves, and White Weenie. Such diversity means there is plenty of room for choice and experimentation for new and veteran players alike while still remaining competitive.

In short, Standard Pauper is the perfect format for new players and a great option for many existing players as well. Participating in the free PREs that feature this format teaches the essentials of both Magic and the Magic Online client in a low risk, low complexity environment. It's fun, cheap, relevant, interesting, and there's a great community that supports it. Standard Pauper is how I got my start, and I would recommend it to anyone without any hesitation. What more could you ask for?

III. Why Standard Pauper is Good for Wizards

In a perfect world, the fact that Standard Pauper is good for players would be enough to warrant giving it official support. But Wizards of the Coast is first and foremost a business, and so any changes ultimately must make sense for them financially as well. In this case though, that is not a problem. As it turns out, the second reason that Standard Pauper should be an officially supported format is that it is good for Wizards as well. For a small investment of time and programming resources, the company should expect a significant increase in revenue. Let me explain why.

1. There is little additional programming involved.

The ability to filter cards for either all Commons or for Standard already exists on Magic Online, as both of these are officially supported formats. While I certainly am not a programmer, it seems intuitive that writing code that limits decklists to include only those cards that fit both criteria would not be difficult. And given the apparent ease that has been demonstrated in the past by adding even complex formats such as Kaleidoscope (a multicolor only format that currently is supported only with a game-filtering option but no events), implementing Standard Pauper as a format on Magic Online should be an easy and painless process, consuming very few precious programming hours.

2. Players can actually use the majority of cards opened in new booster packs.

One fringe benefit of supporting Standard Pauper is the sudden viability of a booster pack. There is not currently a single format in which one can open up any of the booster packs sold in the Store on Magic Online and expect to be able to play even a third of the cards opened in any competitive event. But almost every booster from a set in Standard will contain cards that are relevant in Standard Pauper. In the world of paper magic, many players purchase boosters to increase their collection of cards; in Magic Online, this is much rarer. But if new players were driven towards Standard Pauper as a great beginning format, Wizards could expect to see an increase in the purchase of boosters.

3. Standard Pauper is a "gateway-drug."

But by far the strongest reason that Wizards should give official support to Standard Pauper is that it will drive players towards Standard and Limited. I would propose that there is a parallel between this phenomena and that associated with so-called gateway drugs in the world of illegal narcotics. A gateway drug is one that is more accessible, less dangerous, and less expensive that is thought to lead towards the use of more toxic and dangerous substances. Whether this progression is based on psychological, chemical, or environmental factors is debated, but such a progression certainly does occur. For Magic Online, both Standard and Limited are the formats from which Wizards makes the majority of their money from players, either from the sales of boosters for Limited or the entry fees for Standard events. Quite simply, the more people who participate in these two formats, the more money the company will make. But as was mentioned previously, the learning curve for both of these formats is quite steep, and the competition is increasingly strong. How many players have tried Magic Online, lost a significant amount of money trying to compete in one or both of these formats, and then given up and taken their money elsewhere? What if there was another way?

Standard Pauper is the perfect solution to this problem. Players both new and existing play in the format, experience the thrill of competitive play with only a minor investment of time and money, and discover that they enjoy the process. Gradually, they become more and more interested in other formats, and begin to slowly invest more time and energy into them. Limited is a natural next step for Standard Pauper players, as the bulk of the Limited experience is about making use of the best Commons. Standard is also a natural progression, as a player becomes aware of the interactions of his existing cards with more complicated cards in that format. Either way, Standard Pauper acts as a safety net, allowing players to grow in skill and experience before moving on to more complex and expensive formats.

In short, Standard Pauper is good for Wizards of the Coast because it will generate additional revenue for them. While any direct increase in sales will probably be minimal compared to other formats, indirectly the format would increase the number of players participating in the more mainstream formats and thus increase revenues from these formats. And the fact that it is good for new and existing players is the icing on the cake.

IV. So What Can You Do?

At this point I am going to assume that if you're still reading this article you care about seeing Standard Pauper become an officially supported format on Magic Online. If that is indeed the case, the most logical question then is this: What can you do about it? What can you do to help make this desire a reality? I'm glad you asked.

1. Create visibility.

The first thing you can do is to create greater visibility for the Standard Pauper format. Participate regularly in Standard Pauper PREs. Play matches and single games in the Just for Fun room with Standard Pauper in the description. Tell others how you enjoy the format on your blog, on your Facebook page, on your Twitter account, or anywhere else you interact with other people online. Talk to your friends and other Magic Online players about what a great format Standard Pauper really is. The perception exists that this format is small and fringe. Do your part to make it more and more mainstream.

2. E-mail the appropriate people.

The second thing you can do is make your voice heard at Wizards of the Coast. Thanks to my good friend Joe Dillard's (known to many as joekewwl) tireless support in beta-testing Magic Online and his participation in last year's Community Cup, Wizards is increasingly aware of Standard Pauper as a format. Indeed, at last week's chat with the Magic Online Development Team, Standard Pauper players joekewwl and VIP raised the topic of Standard Pauper. Check it out here. So it's time to let them know that you want to see Standard Pauper supported as an official format. Here is the relevant contact info:

  • E-mail Chris Kiritz, who is the business manager for Magic Online and runs the day to day operations, at
  • You can also E-mail Magic Online's Customer Service at this link: You will need to be logged into your WotC forums account to use this link.

3. Link others to this article.

At the risk of being labeled a shameless self-promoter, the final thing you can do is to link others to this article. This isn't about creating visibility for me. It's about letting other people know why this format is such a great candidate for official support. Use social media, like Facebook or Twitter, and post the link for others to see. Include a link in your E-mail to Wizards of the Coast. Leverage whatever relationships you have in the world of Magic Online to point others to this article. Let's get the Magic Online community talking about Standard Pauper.

V. Conclusion

Imagine what could happen if Standard Pauper became an official format. Games would be much easier to find in the Just for Fun room. Attendance at weekly Player Run Events would increase dramatically. Sponsorship for such events would be the norm rather than the exception. Eventually, its popularity could lead to the creation of special community events featuring Standard Pauper or official 2-man queues in the Tournament Constructed Queues. Think about how amazing it could be to see even a Daily Event for the Standard Pauper format! Whatever dreams you might have about the Standard Pauper format, you can play a part in seeing those dreams become reality.

Next week, I'll follow-up this article with another one answering some of the most common objections to giving official support to the Standard Pauper format. Included with that article will be some hard data collected from the years I have personally spent as the host of Monday Pauper Deck Challenge. But for now, let me remind you that if you would like a sneak peak at my content before it goes live here at, you can always browse over to, search for "gwyned42," select one of my video-casts, and click the Subscribe button. You can also now follow me on Twitter at the username gwyned42; check out my profile here and click on Follow. Thanks so much for reading and for your comments on this article. See you next time!


Excellent article. Wizards by Roman at Tue, 07/10/2012 - 10:36
Roman's picture

Excellent article. Wizards really need Standard Pauper and with the arguments presented in this article, I believe it is only a matter of time. What exactly does Wizards stand to lose?

sorry to rain on your parade by Cownose at Tue, 07/10/2012 - 14:14
Cownose's picture

...but Std Pauper becoming an actual supported format would not make any business sense for WotC, it is in no way good for Wizards (which is why they are slowly retracting support for classic pauper as well). Sure, it would fire a lot of tournaments, but WotC actually loses money on tournaments (they generally pay out more in prizes than the total cost of entry into them). The point of sanctioned play is to drive sales of their core product (packs of Magic cards).

Allowing players to play a competitive format that, for all intents and purposes, does not require them to buy packs of Magic cards (who would buy packs to build pauper decks? you can buy a whole deck for the cost of a single pack) is a terrible business move. Plus, pauper formats erode interest in other tournament formats by giving players looking to play for prizes and much cheaper alternative to "normal" formats. Why pay hundreds of dollars to build a standard deck when I can spend 5 and play for the EXACT SAME PRIZES with a pauper deck? A lot of people would do the math and find that the EV of pauper is just sooooo much better than other formats (see: Legacy and Classic) that they will choose to just play pauper instead of anything else.

Pauper is bad for Wizards, and I really think it is bad for every other format as well =/

Other than buying packs, how by gwyned at Tue, 07/10/2012 - 18:06
gwyned's picture

Other than buying packs, how does Wizards profit from one format more than another? Now if WotC sold individual cards, than giving support only to format with more expensive cards makes sense. Building packs for Standard, Modern, or Block Constructed is *even worse* than buying packs for Standard Pauper.

The Pauper format already exists, and pays out prizes for events. Thus, since Pauper events already exist, and are *considerably* cheaper than Standard, Modern, or Limited, it would seem that having an alternative format with tournament events is perfectly acceptable. Yet by no means does this detract from participation in other formats.

I have a very hard time believing that Wizards makes a significant amount of money on Magic online from people buying packs to play in Constructed formats. Whether or not they make money off these events is outside the scope of this article, but I have a VERY hard time believing that they lose money on these events, considering their frequency and level of participation.

The proof is in the pudding by Cownose at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 01:21
Cownose's picture

The proof is in the pudding though: WotC cut support for pauper even though it fired more events than any other non-standard format. Why would they do that if what I said isn't true?

Also, while nobody online cracks packs to play constructed formats, constructed formats do give the cards in packs value, which is the reason drafters open the packs in the first place. Without rare/mythic constructed magic cards the sets are worthless and people will not draft them because they would lose money. Supporting a popular format that escews the use of those rare and mythic cards undercuts the value of them and the value of a pack and discourages people from buying them from the store.

on the flip side if the by Ranth at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 11:55
Ranth's picture

on the flip side if the popularity of standard pauper shot through the roof, then a fair number of commons would be more then just 200:1 bulk filler. Thus raising the average value of said packs.

Sorry to say Cownose plenty of people gave the exact same argument you are here now when classic pauper was being presented to be a possible format and classic pauper did not hurt classic or legacy at all infact both of those formats seen their primes during that time,while pushing singles prices up to unheard of amounts for commons (ex: crypt rats jumped from 25cent to 4 dollars almost overnight)

It's modern that killed Classic/Legacy,because of card availability, pauper was not to blame.

Same thing would happen here. Standard pauper would just be another outlet to play a fun game in an interesting format rather then kill any sales it would infact help the drafters out because the commons from the packs they were cracking would have a higher overall EV.

not sure by LOurs at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 12:30
LOurs's picture

pauper contributing to increase the average value of recent set packs seems just not correct to me : the only real expansive pauper cards are mostly coming from pre-IPA sets. Pauper doesnt have any impact on newer set, so no, it doesnt help drafters that much, pre-IPA draft aside.
This is a huge difference with other eternal formats, especialy with classic/legacy, because the most relevant cards for these format often are mythics & rare cards which drives sales.
I have no problem with pauper, but the cownose argument about tourney prizes, makes a lot of sense to me.

re-read what i just said.IF by Ranth at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 13:29
Ranth's picture

re-read what i just said.
Im talking not about what is but what would be:
IF they were to make standard pauper an official format with sanctioned tournaments then it would push up the prices of commons from standard legal packs thus helping out the drafters.

Also as for the tourney prizes, even if wizards takes a "loss" they really don't for two reasons.

A) the packs are digital thus they have no overhead other then an insanely low amount stress on a database.

and B) Even if they take a overall "loss" they can just write that off as a business expense on their taxes thus not actually losing anything in the process.

There is overhead of a sort. by Paul Leicht at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 16:53
Paul Leicht's picture

There is overhead of a sort. They have to account for what they produce. If they are paying out packs then that balances against what they are taking in. Even if the manufacturing costs are insignificant.

Taking a loss instead of a profit isn't good business. Even if you can justify it, wipe it away with a tax write off.

Wizards loses money on tournaments? by Echuck215 at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 17:53
Echuck215's picture

I am so flabbergasted by this line of reasoning, that I registered just to comment.

That anyone can honestly hold the opinion that wizards loses money by running a tournament is... stunning, to say the least.

For a draft or sealed event, its just quite clear they are making a profit: those events consume more packs than they give out. So, I'll look at constructed tournaments.

Let's say a daily tournament gets exactly 16 players.

Then, barring something strange, that's AT MOST 1 person at 4-0, and 4 folks at 3-1. So let's suppose that's what happens. Then they are paying out 11 packs for the 4-0 guy, and 6 packs each to the 3-1's, for a total of 35 packs.

This tournament collected 96 tix in entry fees, so they just sold 35 packs at a cost of $2.74 per pack. I can tell you with a high degree of confidence, that's a good bit MORE than what Wizards gets per pack from their distributors and retailers for paper packs, and there are actual manufacturing costs involved there!

In MTGO, all the costs associated with packs are sunk costs - coding, support, all are the same whether or not I play in a given tournament. (Unlike paper magic.)

And though a few players now have more packs than they did before, those packs didn't cost wizards anything. And the other 11 players simply saw 66 tix disappear from their accounts. To replace them, they'll need to purchase $66 worth of tix from Wizards.

(You could argue that they're slightly devaluing packs by doing this. But here's the thing: anyone who knows what they are doing, if they want to buy something from the Wizards store, buys tix, since you can then use them to get packs from a bot. Packs are ALWAYS cheaper from a bot. If that weren't the case, people would just buy from the Wizards store until the value dropped.)

Now, that per pack number only gets BETTER for wizards the higher attendance gets. (For example, 17 players gets them 6 more tix worth of entry, but the maximum payout is the same.)

So, am I missing something glaring? How exactly is this process supposed to be losing wizards money?

This was pretty much exactly by Ranth at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:24
Ranth's picture

Echuck215 that was pretty much exactly my point thank you.

What i was getting at about tax write off was this.

They retail the online packs at $4 so they could in theory say that each pack given out was "costing them" $4

Which while we all know isn't true (but let's be honest when it comes to taxes businesses use fuzzy math like this all the time)

They could in theory then claim that $1.26 "loss" per pack against their annual income thus being able to make it look like on paper that they would be taking a loss from said events.

When in reality they are making a profit even if its not nearly as much compared to a larger event.

only loss could be obtained by JustSin at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:39
JustSin's picture

only loss could be obtained would be implied... in other words if they use a time slot to run a less popular tournament and it doesnt fire they gained nothing, but if they use that slot for something like std that is very popular people join and they get money hence the recent schedule revamp (really don't want to get between this argument, just wanted to add that thought)

I don't think they actually by Paul Leicht at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:47
Paul Leicht's picture

I don't think they actually lose money (except as profit) but I was trying to make a point that it doesn't cost them $0 for a pack. It doesn't matter that there is no Carta Munde (or some other printer) actually making cards, or a warehouse, or shippers, etc. There ARE costs associated with producing packs be they digital or paper. Servers, coders for the myriad stupid tasks and maintenance scheduals that must take place each week, not to mention whatever else is associated with making and developing sets that aren't just good for offline play and there is redemption at the end of all that. So it isn't all profit. There is overhead OF A SORT. Reading is fun.

(No subject) by Ranth at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:27
Ranth's picture
This whole conversation lacks by Cownose at Thu, 07/12/2012 - 02:36
Cownose's picture

This whole conversation lacks economics...Packs come from one of two places in MTGO: the store or as prizes from tournaments. More prizes = less sales in the store, that is a fact--meaning that WotC DOES ACTUALLY LOSE MONEY from tournaments that pay out packs at a rate of less than 3.99/pack. Every single pack that is given out as a prize represents less packs that will be bought from the store, costing WotC money in the form of future sales. Cannibalizing your own sales is not a shrewd business move.

As for the average pack value thing, pauper in no significant way effects the value of Std.-legal packs. Look at delver...hes heavily played in pauper and is still .11--Std sets are valued based on Mythics and the odd rare and no amount of Std pauper would significantly raise the average value of a std-legal pack...there is simply too great a supply of commons coming from those sets.

Also, it is quite ridiculous to say that WotC has no overhead in producing virtual products--of course they have overhead. They need to store the data, track the data, maintain the servers, and a million other things that cost real money.

Seems clear to me, really by LOurs at Thu, 07/12/2012 - 04:31
LOurs's picture

Seems clear to me, really sounds as a correct reasonning. It's time to rename you foxnose instead of cownose ;)

Actually each pack given out by Ranth at Thu, 07/12/2012 - 10:04
Ranth's picture

Actually each pack given out represents packs potentially bought from the store, because not every pack given out would have been guaranteed to be purchased.

Granted your right I was wrong to say that the packs have no overhead value what so ever because obviously everything has some overhead of some type.
However my point was that the true overhead cost per pack given out is very very likely less then $1 each and honestly likely much lower then even that.

WE can go in circles around this subject forever and honestly get no where, but obviously Hasbro makes a killing off MTGO, else they would not have outright scrapped the sliverlight version of the client and then be working on developing yet another version to be a v4.0 client for us.

I still disagree. I think by LOurs at Thu, 07/12/2012 - 04:28
LOurs's picture

I still disagree.
I think you're way underestimating the number of commons coming from drafts. The most recent releases gave us lots of very powerful commons. These commons cards took place in many different decks of many different formats. The best example is delver, which is a house in from standard to legacy and even classic format. Its price is below 0,2. Which is extremly cheap compared to its potential. If there were more standard pauper tournaments, I really dont believe that its price would skyrocket that much, maybe the card value would reach 0,3/0,4 at best. I would be interested to see how this could help drafter in any ways ...
Commander in example does much for drafters than pauper would ever do. Same goes with pretty much all eternal formats.

a 100 to 200% increase is not by Ranth at Thu, 07/12/2012 - 09:49
Ranth's picture

a 100 to 200% increase is not considered skyrocketing? O.o

Remember that drafters typically try to sell everything from a pack they an to obtain more packs or tickets so they an continue drafting.

In the case of saying if delver were to jump from .11 to .25 even (which would be very possible if standard pauper became a sanctioned format)
That would add 14 cents value to each time they opened delver which isn't alot but then add in all cards the commons that jumped from .02 to even .05 because of it and you would add alot of expected value to each draft.

Values don't need to raise in the amounts that classic pauper made them raise to have dramatic effects. For example if that EV of a pack rose even by .20 cents ,that would mean that every draft would gain up to .60 value.
Granted it might not sound like alot but it's exactly these type of margins that drafters deal with on a daily basis.

Now is the time by joekewwl at Tue, 07/10/2012 - 14:41
joekewwl's picture

Great job sir. Keep these coming. Now is the time WoTc, if not events then atleast filter support.

If anything, a rotating by ricklongo at Tue, 07/10/2012 - 14:52
ricklongo's picture

If anything, a rotating pauper format would make me very interested - which is more than can be said for classic pauper.

I'm all for the idea.

Exactly right by howlett23 at Tue, 07/10/2012 - 23:47
howlett23's picture

I have already emailed Chris, as have 2 of my real world friends who play MTGO as well.

Fix it already Wizards by Brooky_Djinn at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 00:21
Brooky_Djinn's picture

Thanks for the continued efforts Gwyned. MPDC is about the only time I play at all anymore, so it really is greatly appreciated.

The only reason I play magic at all these days is standard pauper. So, nothing is more aggravating than popping into the just for fun area and clearly posting a STANDARD PAUPER message in the description box only to have your opponent drop an artifact land or something similar on the first turn. It would be nice if they added support for standard pauper, but at the very least I'd love to see a filter for it to help ratchet down the frustration level of spoiled games/matches because so many people just completely ignore the game descriptions. Come on Wizards, fix it already.

agreed if nothing else by Ranth at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 11:56
Ranth's picture

agreed if nothing else getting a standard pauper filter would allow us to show just how much demand there is for this format.

It seems to me it could be by Paul Leicht at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 16:54
Paul Leicht's picture

It seems to me it could be even better. They could develop the client (v4 I guess at this point) to have flexible filters that players could use to create their own unique formats.

absolutely by Brooky_Djinn at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 17:19
Brooky_Djinn's picture

That would be ideal, for then we could even play pauper block format or other similar concepts. I'm trying to temper my expectations, cause really just adding the standard pauper filter would increase my enjoyment and time spent playing significantly. Anything more would just be gravy.

And tribal could have by Ranth at Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:31
Ranth's picture

And tribal could have sideboards, but honestly I do not expect to see either ever happen.

At the very least standard pauper has a ever so slight prayer of happening because it could in-fact add to WotC's bottom line.

Just purely from a coder's by Paul Leicht at Thu, 07/12/2012 - 13:32
Paul Leicht's picture

Just purely from a coder's perspective this change to how the editors work seems like a fairly intuitive one (true sandbox mode may never exist because we will never get proxies but otherwise I don't see the obstacles here). Obvious even. I know sometimes things don't get developed just because they can be but there has been a lot of words and passion given in support of this type of thing for a long time from the casual community.

As an aside, I wouldn't play tribal with sideboards but it would be cool to have the option.

Yes by joekewwl at Thu, 07/12/2012 - 16:44
joekewwl's picture

Paul they already told us that the long term goal is to be able to scale the client to set filters of all types.
This was over a year ago. Granted they werent going to be able to do this until V4 was up and running.
Short term, they cold make Standard pauper happen, but long term Chris K said he wanted a cleint that could do any format aplayer might dream up of playing.

I would love to have by oraymw at Sat, 07/14/2012 - 21:52
oraymw's picture

I would love to have sanctioned Standard Pauper. All of your arguments are solid and definitely reflect my thoughts.

It's a good pc game. I play by annikalongton at Mon, 12/17/2012 - 13:14
annikalongton's picture

It's a good pc game. I play this game in my spare time as my theraphy.
buy tumblr followers and get tumblr followers

There is overhead of a sort. by Genelia at Tue, 08/27/2013 - 06:45
Genelia's picture

There is overhead of a sort. They need to record for what they handle. Assuming that they are paying out packs then that adjusts against what they are taking in. Regardless of the fact that the assembling expenses are irrelevant.

Taking a hit in place of a benefit is bad business. Regardless of the fact that you can advocate it, wipe it away with a tax benefit. Click Here