5 ms·

You do have a point, but this trope is overstated in a way that doesn't reflect reality IMO. At a competitive level the playing field is completely level. You

by qsort 5y ago

You do have a point, but this trope is overstated in a way that doesn't reflect reality IMO. At a competitive level the playing field is completely level. You have to assume players have access to all the cards, otherwise games like it make zero sense. Sure, it's an expensive game, but so are many other games and sports. It's an accessibility issue, not a balance issue: it's not like you can buy your way to victory. Plus, you can always play sealed and draft, if you really hate constructed formats!

taneq 5y ago
> It's an accessibility issue, not a balance issue: it's not like you can buy your way to victory. It's only 'not a balance issue' because you consider access to all of the cards to be table stakes.
- lmm 5y ago
  Right, but... it is table stakes. No-one is playing Magic seriously at high level without being in a position to buy any deck they want. (Indeed AIUI at this point top players devote a similar amount of time to a full-time job, and have teams of supporters to practice with).
klyrs 5y ago
You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? But limiting our attention to strictly pro-level play is a bit silly, as it ignores the overwhelming majority of players. When I was in high school, two of my friends had a lot more money than the rest of us. We'd get a few boosters of a new expansion, they'd get a case. Consequently, their decks were nigh unbeatable.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  Isn't this how many online games like World-of-Warcraft work as well? You can buy success. Is that wrong? I think that's stupid from the part of the players who spend their money that way and smart from the part of the designers of the game who are laughing all the way to the bank. But then isn't that how Football works as well. Star players get rich but who really gets rich is the company called NFL.
- qsort 5y ago
  > You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? You are moving the goalposts now. But anyway: - The entire argument doesn't even apply to 50% of Magic. - Even only considering constructed, it's objectively not the case that more money = more results. Sure, if you want to play competitively you have to dump ~1k/yr in it, but that's not unusual for games/sports. If you are not interested in competitive play, you can get away with a fraction of that. > We'd get a few boosters of a new expansion, they'd get a case Giant red herring. Unless you are playing actual competitive formats, you can make decent, almost competitive decks for literally spare change.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    OC> And richer players have access better to cards that poorer payers can never hope to be dealt. >> You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? > You are moving the goalposts now. Am I? Was it you who set the goalpost wherein Magic is only about tournament-level play and not a casual game? Or does it seem to you that the OC's comment might be a statement about the economic situation in the broader cultural context that the game exists in? I like how you say "almost competitive decks." Granted, I haven't played for over a good decade, but through the ~15 years that I did play, powerful rares were typically between several dollars and tens of dollars. The decks of my richer friends were stuffed to the gills with such cards -- it adds up, and a good deck can cost a couple hundred bucks. That might be spare change for you, but it isn't for a lot of magic players. And like, a draft game is fun but at a cost of 4 boosters per player, that's not pocket change. We'd use rules like "all commons" to level the playing field.
    - qsort 5y ago
      > Was it you who set the goalpost wherein Magic is only about tournament-level play and not a casual game? It's either a competitive game, and therefore comparable to other competitive games and sports, that can cost you similar amounts, or it's a casual game, where you are not after 100% efficiency. > I like how you say "almost competitive decks." https://www.mtggoldfish.com/decks/budget/standard#paper https://www.mtggoldfish.com/decks/budget/standard#paper Help yourself. Most of those decks are underpowered when compared to tier-1 competitive decks, but can definitely steal games. None of them are anywhere close $200, and that's at standard-legal prices. Rotated cards are effectively $0. > We'd use rules like "all commons" https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/pauper https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/paup... > And like, a draft game is fun but at a cost of 4 boosters per player, that's not pocket change If you're going to the store to draft, you're paying $12-$15 for a tournament that's going to last several hours, played in the exact same format they're playing at the Pro Tour, and with prizes. That's the price of a movie ticket. I understand that's still a lot to many people, but it's a far cry from "only the rich can compete". The prices are high and they could be lower, but they're not marginally higher than those of many other sports/games/activities. Also, there's online play. If you're good at the game, you actually NET money.

by qsort 5y ago

taneq 5y ago

> It's an accessibility issue, not a balance issue: it's not like you can buy your way to victory. It's only 'not a balance issue' because you consider access to all of the cards to be table stakes.

lmm 5y ago
Right, but... it is table stakes. No-one is playing Magic seriously at high level without being in a position to buy any deck they want. (Indeed AIUI at this point top players devote a similar amount of time to a full-time job, and have teams of supporters to practice with).

klyrs 5y ago

You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? But limiting our attention to strictly pro-level play is a bit silly, as it ignores the overwhelming majority of players. When I was in high school, two of my friends had a lot more money than the rest of us. We'd get a few boosters of a new expansion, they'd get a case. Consequently, their decks were nigh unbeatable.

galaxyLogic 5y ago
Isn't this how many online games like World-of-Warcraft work as well? You can buy success. Is that wrong? I think that's stupid from the part of the players who spend their money that way and smart from the part of the designers of the game who are laughing all the way to the bank. But then isn't that how Football works as well. Star players get rich but who really gets rich is the company called NFL.
qsort 5y ago
> You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? You are moving the goalposts now. But anyway: - The entire argument doesn't even apply to 50% of Magic. - Even only considering constructed, it's objectively not the case that more money = more results. Sure, if you want to play competitively you have to dump ~1k/yr in it, but that's not unusual for games/sports. If you are not interested in competitive play, you can get away with a fraction of that. > We'd get a few boosters of a new expansion, they'd get a case Giant red herring. Unless you are playing actual competitive formats, you can make decent, almost competitive decks for literally spare change.
- klyrs 5y ago
  OC> And richer players have access better to cards that poorer payers can never hope to be dealt. >> You've demonstrated that only the rich can compete; not really refuting the point, is it? > You are moving the goalposts now. Am I? Was it you who set the goalpost wherein Magic is only about tournament-level play and not a casual game? Or does it seem to you that the OC's comment might be a statement about the economic situation in the broader cultural context that the game exists in? I like how you say "almost competitive decks." Granted, I haven't played for over a good decade, but through the ~15 years that I did play, powerful rares were typically between several dollars and tens of dollars. The decks of my richer friends were stuffed to the gills with such cards -- it adds up, and a good deck can cost a couple hundred bucks. That might be spare change for you, but it isn't for a lot of magic players. And like, a draft game is fun but at a cost of 4 boosters per player, that's not pocket change. We'd use rules like "all commons" to level the playing field.
  - qsort 5y ago
    > Was it you who set the goalpost wherein Magic is only about tournament-level play and not a casual game? It's either a competitive game, and therefore comparable to other competitive games and sports, that can cost you similar amounts, or it's a casual game, where you are not after 100% efficiency. > I like how you say "almost competitive decks." https://www.mtggoldfish.com/decks/budget/standard#paper https://www.mtggoldfish.com/decks/budget/standard#paper Help yourself. Most of those decks are underpowered when compared to tier-1 competitive decks, but can definitely steal games. None of them are anywhere close $200, and that's at standard-legal prices. Rotated cards are effectively $0. > We'd use rules like "all commons" https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/pauper https://magic.wizards.com/en/game-info/gameplay/formats/paup... > And like, a draft game is fun but at a cost of 4 boosters per player, that's not pocket change If you're going to the store to draft, you're paying $12-$15 for a tournament that's going to last several hours, played in the exact same format they're playing at the Pro Tour, and with prizes. That's the price of a movie ticket. I understand that's still a lot to many people, but it's a far cry from "only the rich can compete". The prices are high and they could be lower, but they're not marginally higher than those of many other sports/games/activities. Also, there's online play. If you're good at the game, you actually NET money.