hamtastic's picture
By: hamtastic, Erik Friborg
Jun 20 2008 3:11pm
3.75
Login or register to post comments
2324 views


Table of Contents
V3
Editorial Section
MTGO Discussion Items
Bugs
Card Prices
Conclusion

V3's First Month can be found here.  I'm going to cover the progress week to week, then break them into months so as to keep this section somewhat manageable.V3 Month of May  Again, I will be shortening up the V3 section now that we're hitting our stride.

 

The scent of V3 in June reminds me of my childhood.  I spent countless hours sitting on the banks of a river.... blowing things up.

So far the first patch of June has not gone over well.  It didn't fix everything that it was supposed to fix (the art for the cards), and the card merge broke currently working cards (like Cabal Coffers, and the "Wish" style cards, and some of the "Enhanced" spells from the Ravnica block).  Also with this patch we get the information that there may be no progress in the backlog of bugs and fixes next week because of the events and not wanting to risk breaking things.  I can understand that trepidation, however, each week of pushing back fixes pushes back the time when we can start to get NEW things into the system, as well as return some of our old missing functionality as well.  On the plus side though, we did get Commander (aka Elder Dragon Highlander) back as a multiplayer format.  That alone almost balances out the issues that they caused with this latest patch.  Almost.

Week of June 13th:
We had our first real 'crash' type issue with V3.  According to the downtime notes this week they are pushing a patch to fix this issue going forward.  Tomorrow marks the start of the first release events on V3, and based on the popularity of the Shadowmoor set we should have some hefty server load this weekend, likely moreso even than the Nix Tix events a few weeks back.  I'm excited and nervous for this weekend.

Week of June 20th:
After last week's 'crash', things have been quite good, server wise.  Although there have been sporadic reports of issues from Comcast users as well as some overseas users.  However this appears to be outside of WotC's control and largely ISP related.  However, besides that (and the client based lag some users have), the system stood up to the stress very, very well.  No server lag or server crashes to speak of, not even during the busiest most heavily hit times of the events.  This week we heard another "oh yeah, that's a feature" statement regarding PE's and replays.  Namely that the lack of replays may become a 'feature' of playing online, since if they could stop deck scouting in paper Magic, they would. 


Top

 Poll - Should Intentional Draws be added back to Premier Events?

The MTGO boards discussion can be found here, and the poll is here.  Rock on!

 


Card prices, MTGO Econimics, and Release Events

There have been a few concerns posted on the WotC message boards lately.  Some revolve around the price of cards, some revolve around the number of players, and some revolve

Theory one: There are less 'must haves' in the set.  Looking at the cards in the set there really aren't a lot of 'must have' cards.  Sure, there are some solid cards for certain decks, and some pretty unique cards like Mirrorweave, but all in all there aren't really any amazing cards like Mutavault or Bitterblossom, Garruk or Tarmogoyf.  

Theory two: There are less constructed players.
This seems possible, based on the numbers I see.  I don't think we're too far down from our V2 numbers, but I do think we're lower now than before.  This of course translates into less demand for the set as a whole.  However, here's the strangeness: the numbers in the room stay about the same during the release events.  What makes this strange is that there are a lot more people in the tournament room, but they didn't come from the casual room.  Also, it means that there's not a huge influx of casual players with the new set.  Both of those items strike me as peculiar, to be honest.  

Theory three: Release leagues contributed to lower card prices.
The amount of packs opened of a small set are about 50% of the cards opened in a release league.  What I mean is that one tournament pack = ~3 boosters.  You also provide three boosters of the new small set.  The reason I mention this will be tied back into the point below.

For fun, lets take a look and see how Shadowmoor stacks up against the previous two releases.

Lorwyn Prices:

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
416.15 243.61 178
172.54 238.15
41.46% 57.23%

Morningtide Prices:
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
250.25 135.22 113.68
115.03 136.57
45.97% 54.57%

Shadowmoor Prices:
Week 1 Week 2
350.06 161.08
188.98
53.99%

Why did I go back two weeks?  Because that's when the release league event cards would hit the market.  As I mentioned above the Lorwyn card prices dropped by 15.77% between weeks two and weeks three.  Morningtide's dropped by about 8.6%.  A small set release league drops a bit more than half as many into the system (50% of cards in a small set release league vs 100% of the large set, but three boosters + Tournament pack compared to two boosters + Tournament Pack for large sets).  And guess what I saw when I investigated the difference of percentage changes from week two to week three in Lorwyn and Morningtide? A difference of 54.53% difference.  Meaning that each set dropped a proportionate percentage after release league cards were available, given how much they changed and the percentage of packs opened in each event.  That's a lot of words to say this: release league cards seem to drop the price proportionally.
Theory four: All of the above. Interestingly enough we're already about on par with the two week difference of the previous two sets.  And card prices seem to have already stabilized for the most part.  In theory we could drop another few percentage points this week and be right on par with our last two releases.  That's the best case scenario though.  Assuming we see another double digit decrease between now and next week we'll surpass the previous release event drops, and that could be a troubling sign indeed.  However, I don't expect that to be the case.  It sure seems to me that the current release event setup has changed things a bit.  The difference from league cards being added in the front end via Premier Events should be accounted for mostly now.  Looking at the casual room numbers, they seem to stay pretty much on a pattern with pretty much the same amount of people on at respective times.  I was hoping that more players would migrate from the tournament rooms to the casual rooms, but that doesn't appear to be happening.  I'm not sure where the tournament players are coming from and I don't know where they're going, but it sure doesn't seem to be impacting the Casual Play rooms much, if at all.  So what happens when we mix the majority of the cards being pumped into the system in the first week, a lower overall number of constructed casual players, and not a lot of huge demand cards?

Low, low prices, that's what.  Look for a follow-up to this piece next week when I can see how my prediction regarding card price stabilization holds up.  /me crosses his fingers...

Interview with Worth Wolpert!

- Card Set Questions -


EF: I saw that you were credited on the "From the Vault: Dragons" list, what was your role in the project?

WW: I was more of a consultant on the project than anything else. I have some experience with price points and related secondary market values, so I was asked on that stuff. This was mostly driven by the other brand team members, specifically Mark Purvis who’s done a great job with it. Kudos to the paper folks for a great idea turned into an actual product.

EF: Are there any new, juicy dragons coming to MTGO for the first time?

WW: Umm…yes?  Not tons, but “some”.

EF:You recently stated that Master's Edition 2 was 'done'.  Spoilers aside, what can you tell us about this product?
EF: Can we know the set size?

WW: 245 cards, 80c/u/r and 5 “basic” lands *whistle*

EF: Who all worked on this set?  

WW: Hopefully I’m not forgetting folks, in no particular order: R&D – Erik Lauer, Devin Low, Aaron Forsythe, Bill Rose, Mark Gottlieb, Mike Turian, Del Laugel. Brand – Me. We have some logos, packaging, and expansion symbols being worked on right now by our very talented CAPS (Creative and Production Services) team, I’m not sure who that is, and of course the dev work is ready (but not started yet) and will be headed up by Ryan Dhuse and his team, with input from lots of people including Gordon Culp, who you all know well by now. It’s certainly a team effort.

EF: V3 is chugging along, and based on the numbers I've been gathering, it's been chugging along quite well.  Is there anything that you can share about the current status of the game? 

WW: Only that I want to be clear *again* that I do not consider us “done” by any stretch. This product is something that should be seeing noticeable improvements month to month, and week to week in most cases. I’m right in the middle of talking about re-ranking features that are still missing, when that’s all sorted out I will definitely let folks know what to expect over the next 8-10 months.

EF: How have the Shadowmoor events been doing?  Posters on the boards have been throwing around a lot of differing opinions, how do you feel that the release events went? 

WW: Honestly, I’m just happy that we’ve had events that people seem to enjoy (partially because SHM is an AWESOME set to draft, imo) and the system has been quite stable.

- EDH/Commander Questions -


EF: Have you had a chance to play this online yet?

WW: Oh yes.  Lots. It’s probably my favorite format.

EF: Do you have a favorite commander? 

WW: Savra, no question. :)

- Constructed/General Questions -


EF: As you know, many players are starting to become concerned about the lack of constructed focus from WotC on MTGO lately.  Not just prizes, but bugs being left for quite a while, formats being ignored (Prismatic), and previously firing queues (Classic and Momir) no longer firing at all... can you share some plans to regain some headway in this area?

WW: I can’t share specific plans, but this issue is definitely in the forefront of my mind, and I’ve communicated my desire to prop up constructed to our OP team, who have been thinking on similar things we can do. There should be movement (at least some) on this issue over the next few weeks.

EF: There have been a couple of changes lately that weren't communicated before hand (Intentional Draws, and now replays).  Is anything being done to improve this communication process?  Right now it seems that many players are getting frustrated, not by the changes, but by the way these changes came about.  There was no announcement, no communication... until it was brought up on the boards.

WW: Replays will definitely be back at some point, they’re not gone for good or anything. Regarding the ID’s, I still dispute whether or not that was handled correctly by me, but at the end of the day, I didn’t announce a decision because WE DIDN’T KNOW THE DECISION! I knew OP’s stance, I knew much of the arguments pro and con, but I hadn’t made up my mind yet on the matter, and until I did, there wasn’t much to announce. People started asking right around the time Scott and I had finished talking about it, I was still digesting some of the information, but I’m not sorry I took such a long time to decide on something so important, that’s for sure. I should take this opportunity to point out what a great thread arose from this on our boards, full of great points pro and con, and full of a ton of very useful data, with very little name-calling and lots of great discussion. Thanks to the community for that.

EF: The UI... oh, the UI.  There has been a lot of positive feedback from the UI design contest.  Is there any hope of getting some of those changes incorporated into the default client?  If not, can the spirit of those changes be used as inspiration for a new skin from WotC?

WW: The UI contest has been great, and I think at minimum we’re going to have our team scout those out fully, but we do have a UI specialist on staff now looking into MOL so we’re probably going to go with whatever recommendations she makes in this area. I’m not really qualified to tell what’s good for anyone other than ME (and for the record neither are 99% of other people!), so I’ll probably leave most of that up to her. It’s why she’s here, after all.

- Other Digital Initiatives -


EF: You recently hinted that other initiatives you've been over seeing are moving along nicely.  Any tidbits you can let us know about? 

WW: Progress is coming along very well on our XBLA/PC title as well as our other PC/Mac based game. I can’t say much quite yet, but for anyone in the Seattle area or anyone planning a trip to PAX later this summer, we will have fully playable demos of both products available there. To quell a bit of speculation, neither of these games (and particularly the latter one) are anywhere NEAR MOL, they’re more of a way to introduce new players to the world of Magic, and some may or may not contain actual “cards” at all. ;)

EF: The MTGO website continues to get brought up as a contentious item for some players.  We've heard numerous statements in the past (from not only you, but your predecessor as well) about it being updated.  And yet, we've never seen that happen.  What keeps getting in the way of this seemingly simple concern?

WW: I know this is an area of contention, and I apologize in advance for having to be vague here. First of all, to have a website perform the way I want it to for MOL is far from a “simple concern” :) We have plans to address this, plans which are already well in motion, but I can’t say anything about them, as some of it ties to larger initiatives that aren’t ready to be public quite yet. Keep watching this space is the best I can do right now, sorry.

 

 
This is easily my favorite part of writing: being able to interact with the behind the scenes folk at WotC from time to time.  Again, Worth doesn't disappoint, and provides some solid information for us once again.  A very sincere "Thank you" to Worth for taking time out of his day to answer some questions from a forum goer.  It's absolutely awesome.  Perhaps the most bizarre statement though is this: " WW: 245 cards, 80c/u/r and 5 “basic” lands *whistle*".  The rarity scheme for pre-Shards sets is C/U/R/L (Mark Rosewater likes to point out how many people miss 'basic land').  Generally the lands are one per pack, but why put them in double quotes and then whistle?  Obviously there's something special about those lands.  Some quick discussion in the /join bbs room had the popular ideas of the old Snow Lands or the Unglued/Unhinged/Full Art lands.  With some neat ideas of online only 'special commission' lands as well.  Time will tell what the outcome is, just a couple of months before we see what MED2 has to offer!

 

 
Top

Big MTGO fixes, again -
It seems that the plan to McNuggetize the SP1 fixes has caused issues internally and the MTGO staff are now heading down the path of a big fix to get them 'caught up' again.  I ranted about this before, and I think I'm happy to see this change back in philosophy.  I'll be happier once they push the fix and things don't break though.  Discussion of the announcement here

Shadowmoor Price Fall -
Every recent set release has followed the same pattern.  Cards start high, then dip down after a week of release events, then dip a little more the week after that.  However, the prices seem to be falling a bit faster than usual this time and that has some people concerned, as well as curious as to when the best time to buy is.


 

Budget Deckbuilding Contest! -
Hollow0n3 has a very restrictive contest brewing on the MTGO Message boards.  Think you have what it takes to win it? 

League Discussion -
Leagues, and the lack thereof.  Also, format fixes as well as discussion of shortcomings of the previous league system.  Unfortunately, there's been no official WotC communication about what is in store for V3 leagues as of yet.


No Drawing in PE's? -
Wow.  This topic exploded from last week.  One of the best discussions I've seen lately actually.  It's heated in many places but a really good back and forth without name calling.

UPDATE! 06-08-08

A forum goer took the time to create a simulation to view the ID vs No ID and the eventual top 8 in both.  He came up with some amazing findings through his tests that I feel deserve special attention.  To anyone interested in this debate I'd strongly recommend r ead from post 448 through the end of the thread.  I think you may be surprised.

Taking a break + Mailing Lists -
When yet another poster mentioned that they were leaving until <insert reason to play here> I decided to step up and make something happen.  Rather than waiting for them to come back I've created mailing lists to which interested people can subscribe.  Instead of letting them go away and hope they check back peridiocally I wanted to be proactive about letting them know when their favorite format is back.  Leagues List, Multiplayer List

Shadowmoor release event plans -
Shadowmoor's MTGO release is just around the corner and as always, there's a lot of goodies in there for the good MTGO girls and boys. I'm really excited about a lot of the Commons and some of the stranger Rares and Uncommons.  Discuss your plans in the link above!


 
The Thrifty Djinn!

DonTheMage has started a blog that was inspired by his desire to play MTGO on a "World of Warcaft" budget (which for those not used to the game is $30.00 up front and $15.00 dollars a month.  His blog is linked from the thread I've linked and looks to be a fantastic endeavor.</ font>

Top

Bugs: Client

04-20-08 Can't /join rooms Closed
05-02-08 Trades don't update Collections properly Mostly Closed

 

Bugs: Card Related

A great thread has been started here that has a lot of bugs in V3 listed and validated.  If you've seen any card bugs in V3, I'd love to see them posted (after they're submitted via the http://wizards.custhelp.com web form, of course!)

Top

 

Last week This Week Card Name Amount Changed
11.88 4.66 Oversoul of Dusk -7.22
11.88 5.39 Fire-Lit Thicket -6.49
12.62 6.37 Sunken Ruins -6.25
10.89 4.66 Fulminator Mage -6.23
9.31 3.43 Vexing Shusher -5.88
9.9 4.41 Mirrorweave -5.49
9.9 4.41 Wooded Bastion -5.49
6.62 1.46 Swans of Bryn Argoll -5.16
11.88 6.86 Mystic Gate -5.02
9.9 4.9 Demigod of Revenge -5
7.6 2.67 Painter's Servant -4.93
6.86 2.18 Heartmender -4.68
9.9 5.39 Wilt-Leaf Liege -4.51
7.84 3.92 Thistledown Liege -3.92
15.84 12.38 Reflecting Pool -3.46
5.64 2.43 Everlasting Torment -3.21
4.66 1.46 Twilight Shepherd -3.2
20.79 17.82 Destructive Flow -2.97
3.92 0.97 Runed Halo -2.95
17.57 14.85 Undermine -2.72
4.9 2.18 Deus of Calamity -2.72
3.68 0.97 Godhead of Awe -2.71
4.9 2.67 Dusk Urchins -2.23
4.66 2.43 Enchanted Evening -2.23
4.66 2.43 Kitchen Finks -2.23

Nothing too surprising here, I hope.  I went 25 cards deep because I had to go past #15 to get to a non-Shadowmoor card.  The first one?  Destructive Flow, aka a midrange IPA rare. 

Last Week This Week Card Name Amount Changed Percent Changed
6.62 1.46 Swans of Bryn Argoll -5.16 -77.95%
1.7 0.38 Elemental Mastery -1.32 -77.65%
1.7 0.38 Knollspine Dragon -1.32 -77.65%
1.7 0.38 Dire Undercurrents -1.32 -77.65%
1.46 0.33 Boon Reflection -1.13 -77.40%
0.48 0.11 Manamorphose -0.37 -77.08%
1.94 0.48 Puca's Mischief -1.46 -75.26%
0.97 0.24 Raking Canopy -0.73 -75.26%
3.92 0.97 Runed Halo -2.95 -75.26%
1.46 0.38 Knacksaw Clique -1.08 -73.97%
1.46 0.38 River Kelpie -1.08 -73.97%
0.19 0.05 Smash to Smithereens -0.14 -73.68%
0.19 0.05 Scarscale Ritual -0.14 -73.68%
3.68 0.97 Godhead of Awe -2.71 -73.64%

Again, Shadowmoor cards lead the pack when it comes to losing this week. Interesting to see how much hype some of the commons/uncommons had going around them and how much they've fallen since release, though.

Last Week This Week Card Name Amount Changed Percent Changed
1.94 3.43 Zur the Enchanter 1.49 76.80%
4.66 5.39 Slaughter Pact 0.73 15.67%
2.43 2.94 Ancestral Knowledge 0.51 20.99%
20.79 21.29 Mutavault 0.5 2.41%
3.92 4.17 Grove of the Burnwillows 0.25 6.38%
1.94 2.18 Teferi's Moat 0.24 12.37%
1.7 1.94 Beacon of Tomorrows 0.24 14.12%
1.7 1.94 Kinsbaile Borderguard 0.24 14.12%
3.68 3.92 Angel of Despair 0.24 6.52%
0.67 0.86 Austere Command 0.19 28.36%
0.67 0.86 Harbinger of Night 0.19 28.36%
0.57 0.67 Darkest Hour 0.1 17.54%
0.57 0.67 Magnigoth Treefolk 0.1 17.54%
0.29 0.33 Mind Spring 0.04 13.79%
0.14 0.15 Volunteer Reserves 0.01 7.14%

There was very little gaining this week (in fact, this is almost all the cards that increased, we're only missing one more).  We see some interesting cards in the list, like Harbinger of Night, who happens to be a great anti-Persist card, and Darkest Hour to combo with Painter's Servant for color changing shenanigans.  Oh yeah, and Zur is certainly enjoying the his new found Aura toys in Shadowmoor.  The card I don't recall hearing about (and actually had to look up) was Magnigoth Treefolk.  Possibly due to Doran decks, or maybe just a fluke... but either way a strange card to see here.  But not as strange as Volunteer Reserves.  Okay, a 2/4 for two and it only went up a penny, but still.  Demand for random old cards always makes me wonder about them.

Ham Jones SAYS!!!

Card prices dropped (duh).  But it also says that Standard dropped (the most) Extended dropped (a bit) and Classic gained (a very small bit).

 

 

 

These two charts essentially show the same thing, just in vastly different ways.  What they say is: There are more cards now than before, and a lot of cards dropped in price.  I've written about this before however, even if everything else stays the same, the price per card will naturally drop as the demand gets spread more and more.  What is needed to correct this is less cards entering or staying in the system or more demand in the system.

Again, a big thank you to Worth Wollpert for his time and his responses to the many questions I continue to throw at him.  

Also, I tried to shrink down the charts and graphics to better fit on the screens.  Please let me know if this was a step in the right direction, or if there are still issues!

- hamtastic

15 Comments

by iceage4life at Sun, 06/22/2008 - 23:18
iceage4life's picture

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"

by hamtastic at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 11:01
hamtastic's picture

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.  :) 

by hamtastic at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 11:01
hamtastic's picture

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.  :) 

by hamtastic at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 06:50
hamtastic's picture

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.

by hamtastic at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 05:24
hamtastic's picture

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.  :)

This is bugging me.. by jamuraa (Unregistered) 75.72.202.201 (not verified) at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 10:16
jamuraa (Unregistered) 75.72.202.201's picture

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. 

by Anonymous (Unregistered) 212.182.160.229 (not verified) at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 06:16
Anonymous (Unregistered) 212.182.160.229's picture

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:

Week 1 Week 2
350.06 161.08
  188.98
  53.99%
:) by Worth (Unregistered) 70.102.136.132 (not verified) at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 00:42
Worth (Unregistered) 70.102.136.132's picture

Not duals. :)

by hamtastic at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 04:28
hamtastic's picture

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.  

by Elrogos (Unregistered) 84.220.126.58 (not verified) at Sat, 06/21/2008 - 05:07
Elrogos (Unregistered) 84.220.126.58's picture

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)

Common dual lands by Jimb0v (Unregistered) 67.59.3.36 (not verified) at Fri, 06/20/2008 - 16:43
Jimb0v (Unregistered) 67.59.3.36's picture

Common duals would certainly lower the barrier to entry in classic.

by Klutz (Unregistered) 12.169.83.231 (not verified) at Fri, 06/20/2008 - 18:12
Klutz (Unregistered) 12.169.83.231's picture

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?

 

by DRAGONDUNG at Fri, 06/20/2008 - 16:11
DRAGONDUNG's picture

Great interveiw, I think Worth was reffering to the duals as they count as basics 

by khirareq at Fri, 06/20/2008 - 16:14
khirareq's picture

Dual lands?  Put one of THOSE in every pack, they'll sell!

Great article, hamtastic!  Article is still wider than my screen, FYI.

by hamtastic at Fri, 06/20/2008 - 16:17
hamtastic's picture

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