I don't know. To me it just seems like yet another market manipulation in favor of early adopters at the expense of new players. I can't see how this trend will lead to anything but a closed silo of faithful players, inaccessible and unattractive to anybody not currently well invested.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's ONLY if you are thinking of wild format... once Untamed gets bumped out of modern int0 wild, any new player will be able to cycle in using current edition cards. This has nothing to do with early adaptors vs. new players.
This has EVERYTHING to do with early adopters vs new players.
Every rule that's changed ends up benefiting early adopters who, by sheer luck, purchased lots of 0.01$ cards that are now worth 250$ each. They can bulldoze their way by purchasing everything that's released and leveling everything to max just by selling 2 or 3 Llamas that they're hiding under their sleeves for the last 2 years.
While new players have to either bring 10k USD to the game, or be relegated to bronze rewards even if they're actually playing the game better (eg with more skill) than old players.
Oh cool. Then just make this apply only to modern.
I think you can't build a system that incentivizes increased ownership, leveling, etc... without also rewarding early adopters.
The modern/wild format goes a long way to help even the playing field for new players though. Each new edition release gives players a new shot to have the exact same change/buying power as long as they stay invested (which is the behavior we want to encourage).
The issue isn't so much about rewarding early adopters but hurting new players. A system such as this raises the stakes for new players forcing them to pay more in order to play. The end result is that they won't play.
It doesn't force them to pay more to play - it forces them to pay more to earn more.
That would be fine if the game wasn't still widely promoted as #playtoearn. The beginning levels are really competitive already. The easy way out is to rent. There is already a market manipulation in place which requires a new player to rent or buy in order to earn anything. There is another market manipulation in place that requires a player to rent for 2 days in order to rent any card. The end result is that this is a PAY-to-earn system and we're asking new players to pay a lot.
Play to Earn doesn't mean Play for Free, or Earn the same regardless of what you pay.
We're asking new players to Pay a Lot to Earn a Lot - that seems fine to me.
This game has always said that they want to be a blend of Invest more to earn more + More skill to earn more - not one or the other.
Yeah, it seems to be 90-10 split in favor of paying more vs skill.
ETA: this change seems to be more of an admonishment of skill rather than a reward for investment. That's just my perception.
Yeah - I think I'd agree with that assessment, though I don't know if it's the intention.
Sometimes to squash exploits you squash honest people doing honest things in the process.
Accounts are flooding battles with low level cards in an unskilled way and that might be the bigger impact than the accounts that are using low level cards to higher skilled impact.
The good news is that a decrease in rewards on an individual battle that you're winning may still work out in a players favor - because increase in rating is a bigger lever on increased rewards than most other things in the game.
Don't you see the mistake? You recommend a bot, but the game should be so much fun that you want to play it yourself. a game that isn't worth playing will die! the balance between play and investment is completely out of whack. would you buy stock in a game developer who only makes crap games that no one wants to play?
Yes early adopters should be rewarded but they should be rewarded through success of the product not through market manipulation.
I think if your bot can't beat a real player using lower level cards, you're not being penalized, you're just losing. And honestly, you kind of deserve it.