This is GREAT news. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I haven't been able to follow the forums like I normally used to lately, mostly because of the forums finking out every time I try to get to reading a whole one. I would be thrilled to do full-week full-event replays. I'll have to think up a new way to do analysis though, as it should be obvious that someone who 0-2 drops may not be a huge input.
Here's hoping that it comes sooner rather than later - it's really difficult to gather meta as it is.
I'd like to point out one thing though, regarding your statement:
"This means that you can't go scouting the other tables, and you can count out any other full metagame analysis of a single event like I've had a couple times in the article before."
Gordon - "We will implement replays for matches in completed PEs. There needs to be some UI work to allow this. I will be submitting a proposal to add round number buttons to the lower pane in the Event Info scene (something like the page number buttons in the collection binder probably). Then the list of matches will be available for each round, and the user would be able to select a match to replay via a right click context menu. This will go into the hopper of items that the usability group prioritizes and implements."
So, whenever they get all that worked out, there will be full event round by round replays. :) Someday.
You know PDC week sounds like fun, If i had enough advance warning of when it started I could do what I do best and write the Scrubs Guide to PDC. It would basically be nothing more than a huge essay of how not to play pdc and such, but it could be funny. IM sure there would be some deckbuilding too.
I think the 2 man events would be a bad idea. For all the sellers, they have guarunteed 4 tix packs. Set up two accounts, concede to the other, then sell the packs at 1 for 5, 2 for 9, 3 for 13, whatever. Its extremely easy profit for them. It would force the market for packs down to 4 tix = 1 pack.
When did V3 development begin? I think it started in 05/06? Way, way, way before Worth came into the picture. Worth has been at the helm for about 18 months now (feb 07 IIRC).
This decision may have been made by Scott and Justin Ziran in 05, and not actually pointed out to Worth until V3 went live. Remember, the guy isn't the project lead for the V3 project, he's the Brand Manager for all digitial initiatives. Meaning that he's not the one who keeps track of each piece of the Client's functionality, just the overall health of the product.
Imagine if you will coming into a project like MTGO and being responsible for everything. The person who just left didn't hand off anything, didn't tell you any outstanding issues and didn't tell you that you were almost out of stock on redemptions sets. Now add in the disaster that the V3 development project has been, and likely a complete lack of documentation surrounding it, I have no doubt that a lot of these 'upgrades' weren't explained to him when he took over the product. Seeing how poorly everything else was handed off to him really makes me think that this is the case. Of course, Worth won't hang out his predecessor out to dry, because that's just not what he does.
All that typing to say: I doubt that Worth even knew that there was a previous discussion about this, and that it was chosen years ago until it was brought up. After it was brought up he considered it, and kept the previous plan of no ID's/no active replays.
Of course I have no way of proving any of that and it's all just speculation on my part. And I'm probably biased after dealing with Worth's predecessor around the boards... so keep that in mind as well. :)
When did V3 development begin? I think it started in 05/06? Way, way, way before Worth came into the picture. Worth has been at the helm for about 18 months now (feb 07 IIRC).
This decision may have been made by Scott and Justin Ziran in 05, and not actually pointed out to Worth until V3 went live. Remember, the guy isn't the project lead for the V3 project, he's the Brand Manager for all digitial initiatives. Meaning that he's not the one who keeps track of each piece of the Client's functionality, just the overall health of the product.
Imagine if you will coming into a project like MTGO and being responsible for everything. The person who just left didn't hand off anything, didn't tell you any outstanding issues and didn't tell you that you were almost out of stock on redemptions sets. Now add in the disaster that the V3 development project has been, and likely a complete lack of documentation surrounding it, I have no doubt that a lot of these 'upgrades' weren't explained to him when he took over the product. Seeing how poorly everything else was handed off to him really makes me think that this is the case. Of course, Worth won't hang out his predecessor out to dry, because that's just not what he does.
All that typing to say: I doubt that Worth even knew that there was a previous discussion about this, and that it was chosen years ago until it was brought up. After it was brought up he considered it, and kept the previous plan of no ID's/no active replays.
Of course I have no way of proving any of that and it's all just speculation on my part. And I'm probably biased after dealing with Worth's predecessor around the boards... so keep that in mind as well. :)
Here Worth says "I didn't announce the decision because WE DIDN'T KNOW THE DECISION!", but in <a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1042097">the announcement</a> Scott says "This decision was made long before the actual work on Magic Online 3.0 began". So which is it? Was the decision made years ago, or just before the announcement?
You may think I'm nitpicking here, but I'm not pissed that we don't have Intentional Draws back as much as I am pissed that it seems like the decision was made YEARS ago and never communicated to the players.
I am drafter, skilled enough to draft cheap. I also draft at FNM once a week. It's always 321 swiss at my location, exact with this price structure, one pack for each win and on top of that the 3-0 guy gets a Foil and other foils are given away randomly, or sometimes to a new player as encouragement. All are happy with this and bad players come back and learn and get better.
I see one big problem online. Dropping. People still might drop after going 0-1 for various reasons. let's say you draft are really bad deck and go 0-1. You just know the chances that you win the next 2 are minuscule and you hate your deck.. So you drop. Now somebody will get a bye and a free pack. 7 people left. The 3rd round another guy will get a bye and a free pack.
Or maybe you thought you had 3 hours, but during round 1 your mum / girlfriend/ boss calls..... you have to go.
Sum of all SHM cards week1 : 350.06 Sum of all SHM cards week2:161.08
Which is a difference of 188.98, and a price drop of 53.99%, which the other two previous sets didn't reach until week two.
However, the previous two sets had release leagues dumping a lot of cards into the system around that time. So I think it's possible that we've seen the card price do it's two week drop in one week. Maybe. I hope.
They are definitely overpriced when they first come out. That's just simple supply/demand though. There's more demand than there is supply, even if the set isn't great. The supply is largely created by limited events, and the longer those take to start the longer the overpriced time lasts.
As for the cards being tied to the paper prices, that's probably going to continue as long as we lag so far behind the paper release times, unfortunately. Since the two (MTGO and MTGP) are tied very closely together it makes some sense to tie the two prices together. However, they're different enough that the prices will move around based on other factors. Like Painter's Servant. In paper there's an eternal decklist or two around him. On MTGO, he doesn't have a home yet. As such, the paper version is proportionally more than the MTGO version. (I expect this to change in Dec when Tempest is released, though).
Every set follows the 'start high, tank', it's just that SHM seems to have tanked faster than the last two and people have gotten a bit concerned. I think that after the next week we should know a bit more about the health of MTGO's release events though. :)
About the "price drop" thing, it's not that maybe they are overpriced when they come to the market?
Old cards'sets had not their paper counterpart price when they went out, i can recall the 1/2 $ of akroma memorial and the 2/5 $ for tarmogoyf; then goyf made its big explosion, and lorwin cards went magically to the market with prices set on their paper counterparts'ones: Garruk and thoughtsize at 22 $, commands at 10 etc. And even morningtide cards were overpriced: from vendilion clique to murmuring bosk, a bunch of cards lost half their price in a week, because people know the real utility of them, and what is constructed worthy and what not. Probably shadowmoor prices are dropping a bit too fast, but it's not that maybe people are not going to spend 3 $ on semiuseless lieges or audury adepts? or 5 $ on crappy cards like deus of calamity? we have to face the fact that paper prices cannot be the same for digital objects, and probably going back to the old policy of giving cards their right prices would be better for the market and the sellers (and this could be even truer in case of bad/mediocre sets like shadowmoor)
Given that there will be only 5, and that they do NOT count as "basic", I doubt the 5 lands are the original dual-lands. (They count as their respective basic land types, but are not basic, and I don't think Worth's wording is nearly leniant enough for that interpretation.) I'm betting Snow, which would also mean MED2 has some Ice Age snow-related cards. Thermokarst? Avalanche? Wooly Mammoths? The dreaded Goblin Ski Patrol?
But there's just no way that I can see them doing that, as awesome as that would be. I mean seriously, a dual in every pack?
W
O
W
That would be insane! I really think it's more likely to be snow-covered or promo type lands. But dang, imagine the market for the dual lands... buy 4 for 1! LOL
This is GREAT news. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I haven't been able to follow the forums like I normally used to lately, mostly because of the forums finking out every time I try to get to reading a whole one. I would be thrilled to do full-week full-event replays. I'll have to think up a new way to do analysis though, as it should be obvious that someone who 0-2 drops may not be a huge input.
Here's hoping that it comes sooner rather than later - it's really difficult to gather meta as it is.
Great jorb there, don't ya know.
I'd like to point out one thing though, regarding your statement:
"This means that you can't go scouting the other tables, and you can count out any other full metagame analysis of a single event like I've had a couple times in the article before."
That's actually not true. While the in event replays are going away they are slated to be replaced with full event replays (Per what the PM Gordon Culp says here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16164426postcount=27).
Gordon -
"We will implement replays for matches in completed PEs. There needs to be some UI work to allow this. I will be submitting a proposal to add round number buttons to the lower pane in the Event Info scene (something like the page number buttons in the collection binder probably). Then the list of matches will be available for each round, and the user would be able to select a match to replay via a right click context menu. This will go into the hopper of items that the usability group prioritizes and implements."
So, whenever they get all that worked out, there will be full event round by round replays. :) Someday.
You know PDC week sounds like fun, If i had enough advance warning of when it started I could do what I do best and write the Scrubs Guide to PDC. It would basically be nothing more than a huge essay of how not to play pdc and such, but it could be funny. IM sure there would be some deckbuilding too.
And just what I asked for! Thanks!
How much time would you say you spend per tournament practicing? How many good playtest partners do you have to help?
I mean its pretty clear its Ice Age lands.
#1 only 5 means only one set of art
#2 they are "'basic' lands" not "basic lands"
I think the 2 man events would be a bad idea. For all the sellers, they have guarunteed 4 tix packs. Set up two accounts, concede to the other, then sell the packs at 1 for 5, 2 for 9, 3 for 13, whatever. Its extremely easy profit for them. It would force the market for packs down to 4 tix = 1 pack.
whenevr anyone has tried to vote in or out on my site this is what we see
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80040e4d'
Login failed for user 'sa'.
/clanlistingout.asp, line 20
so is this the reason that the Clan Listing has not been working for w couple weeks now?
That's a good point, jamuraa.
When did V3 development begin? I think it started in 05/06? Way, way, way before Worth came into the picture. Worth has been at the helm for about 18 months now (feb 07 IIRC).
This decision may have been made by Scott and Justin Ziran in 05, and not actually pointed out to Worth until V3 went live. Remember, the guy isn't the project lead for the V3 project, he's the Brand Manager for all digitial initiatives. Meaning that he's not the one who keeps track of each piece of the Client's functionality, just the overall health of the product.
Imagine if you will coming into a project like MTGO and being responsible for everything. The person who just left didn't hand off anything, didn't tell you any outstanding issues and didn't tell you that you were almost out of stock on redemptions sets. Now add in the disaster that the V3 development project has been, and likely a complete lack of documentation surrounding it, I have no doubt that a lot of these 'upgrades' weren't explained to him when he took over the product. Seeing how poorly everything else was handed off to him really makes me think that this is the case. Of course, Worth won't hang out his predecessor out to dry, because that's just not what he does.
All that typing to say: I doubt that Worth even knew that there was a previous discussion about this, and that it was chosen years ago until it was brought up. After it was brought up he considered it, and kept the previous plan of no ID's/no active replays.
Of course I have no way of proving any of that and it's all just speculation on my part. And I'm probably biased after dealing with Worth's predecessor around the boards... so keep that in mind as well. :)
That's a good point, jamuraa.
When did V3 development begin? I think it started in 05/06? Way, way, way before Worth came into the picture. Worth has been at the helm for about 18 months now (feb 07 IIRC).
This decision may have been made by Scott and Justin Ziran in 05, and not actually pointed out to Worth until V3 went live. Remember, the guy isn't the project lead for the V3 project, he's the Brand Manager for all digitial initiatives. Meaning that he's not the one who keeps track of each piece of the Client's functionality, just the overall health of the product.
Imagine if you will coming into a project like MTGO and being responsible for everything. The person who just left didn't hand off anything, didn't tell you any outstanding issues and didn't tell you that you were almost out of stock on redemptions sets. Now add in the disaster that the V3 development project has been, and likely a complete lack of documentation surrounding it, I have no doubt that a lot of these 'upgrades' weren't explained to him when he took over the product. Seeing how poorly everything else was handed off to him really makes me think that this is the case. Of course, Worth won't hang out his predecessor out to dry, because that's just not what he does.
All that typing to say: I doubt that Worth even knew that there was a previous discussion about this, and that it was chosen years ago until it was brought up. After it was brought up he considered it, and kept the previous plan of no ID's/no active replays.
Of course I have no way of proving any of that and it's all just speculation on my part. And I'm probably biased after dealing with Worth's predecessor around the boards... so keep that in mind as well. :)
Here Worth says "I didn't announce the decision because WE DIDN'T KNOW THE DECISION!", but in <a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1042097">the announcement</a> Scott says "This decision was made long before the actual work on Magic Online 3.0 began". So which is it? Was the decision made years ago, or just before the announcement?
You may think I'm nitpicking here, but I'm not pissed that we don't have Intentional Draws back as much as I am pissed that it seems like the decision was made YEARS ago and never communicated to the players.
I like both ideas.
I am drafter, skilled enough to draft cheap. I also draft at FNM once a week. It's always 321 swiss at my location, exact with this price structure, one pack for each win and on top of that the 3-0 guy gets a Foil and other foils are given away randomly, or sometimes to a new player as encouragement. All are happy with this and bad players come back and learn and get better.
I see one big problem online. Dropping. People still might drop after going 0-1 for various reasons. let's say you draft are really bad deck and go 0-1. You just know the chances that you win the next 2 are minuscule and you hate your deck.. So you drop. Now somebody will get a bye and a free pack. 7 people left. The 3rd round another guy will get a bye and a free pack.
Or maybe you thought you had 3 hours, but during round 1 your mum / girlfriend/ boss calls..... you have to go.
Sum of all SHM cards week1 : 350.06
Sum of all SHM cards week2: 161.08
Which is a difference of 188.98, and a price drop of 53.99%, which the other two previous sets didn't reach until week two.
However, the previous two sets had release leagues dumping a lot of cards into the system around that time. So I think it's possible that we've seen the card price do it's two week drop in one week. Maybe. I hope.
Question, what do the numbers mean.
I guess 350.06 is prices week 1, 161.08 prices week two. complete set?
but what is the 188 below it? Same for Lor and Mor
Shadowmoor Prices:
Thank for for the comment!
Regarding card prices...
They are definitely overpriced when they first come out. That's just simple supply/demand though. There's more demand than there is supply, even if the set isn't great. The supply is largely created by limited events, and the longer those take to start the longer the overpriced time lasts.
As for the cards being tied to the paper prices, that's probably going to continue as long as we lag so far behind the paper release times, unfortunately. Since the two (MTGO and MTGP) are tied very closely together it makes some sense to tie the two prices together. However, they're different enough that the prices will move around based on other factors. Like Painter's Servant. In paper there's an eternal decklist or two around him. On MTGO, he doesn't have a home yet. As such, the paper version is proportionally more than the MTGO version. (I expect this to change in Dec when Tempest is released, though).
Every set follows the 'start high, tank', it's just that SHM seems to have tanked faster than the last two and people have gotten a bit concerned. I think that after the next week we should know a bit more about the health of MTGO's release events though. :)
About the "price drop" thing, it's not that maybe they are overpriced when they come to the market?
Old cards'sets had not their paper counterpart price when they went out, i can recall the 1/2 $ of akroma memorial and the 2/5 $ for tarmogoyf; then goyf made its big explosion, and lorwin cards went magically to the market with prices set on their paper counterparts'ones: Garruk and thoughtsize at 22 $, commands at 10 etc. And even morningtide cards were overpriced: from vendilion clique to murmuring bosk, a bunch of cards lost half their price in a week, because people know the real utility of them, and what is constructed worthy and what not. Probably shadowmoor prices are dropping a bit too fast, but it's not that maybe people are not going to spend 3 $ on semiuseless lieges or audury adepts? or 5 $ on crappy cards like deus of calamity? we have to face the fact that paper prices cannot be the same for digital objects, and probably going back to the old policy of giving cards their right prices would be better for the market and the sellers (and this could be even truer in case of bad/mediocre sets like shadowmoor)
Awww! But I figured as much. That would just be ridiculous, and I certainly couldn't see them flooding out so many duals. :)
Which leans me back towards Snow covered lands to support other IA/Al reprints, or promo lands.
Probably the former, is my guess at this point.
Not duals. :)
thanks for the shout out! Getting that far is just going to make me try harder
Given that there will be only 5, and that they do NOT count as "basic", I doubt the 5 lands are the original dual-lands. (They count as their respective basic land types, but are not basic, and I don't think Worth's wording is nearly leniant enough for that interpretation.) I'm betting Snow, which would also mean MED2 has some Ice Age snow-related cards. Thermokarst? Avalanche? Wooly Mammoths? The dreaded Goblin Ski Patrol?
Common duals would certainly lower the barrier to entry in classic.
My first thought was the duals as well...
But there's just no way that I can see them doing that, as awesome as that would be. I mean seriously, a dual in every pack?
W
O
W
That would be insane! I really think it's more likely to be snow-covered or promo type lands. But dang, imagine the market for the dual lands... buy 4 for 1! LOL
Dual lands? Put one of THOSE in every pack, they'll sell!
Great article, hamtastic! Article is still wider than my screen, FYI.
Great interveiw, I think Worth was reffering to the duals as they count as basics
Yeah, I wrote an article for classic week but I ended up putting it on CQ since the attack was still going on at the time.
Hit me up again next classic week (I suggest 3 months from now ould be good) and I'll have lots of wordy things to type!