5 ms·

"We did no mathematical analysis of how the stock should be priced; we didn’t have the skill to do that" Folks may not realize it while doing so, but developin

"We did no mathematical analysis of how the stock should be priced; we didn’t have the skill to do that" Folks may not realize it while doing so, but developing complex gameplay that is perfectly balanced can be considered a feat of linear algebra. So that quote made me smile :)

Beltiras 12y ago
They actually did a horrible job at making a balanced game as can be seen in the multiple revisions since. I loved it and I'm calling it a roaring success in most respects, but balance is not something I would attribute to the first several incarnations.
- pchristensen 12y ago
  They knew that it was unbalanced and that some cards (Moxen, Ancestral Recall, etc) were too powerful, but that was on purpose because they expected scarcity to be a part of the metagame. If you were playing with your own group of friends who owned a few cards, the small total number of overpowered cards would be a fun diversion. They didn't anticipate the huge success and scale the game achieved. With a worldwide metagame and market for buying/selling cards, scarcity vanished as top players would pay up to get 4 of whatever card gave them an edge, so revisions had to be designed in balance, rather than rely on scarcity to create balance. Source: I read way too much MtG history a few years ago when I was working on my own card game.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    There's more to it than that. They've re-released edition after edition to obsolete the previous. Used to be 1 mana got you a 1/0 or 1/1 creature with nothing else. Now you can get cards with 1 or two features, flying etc. Anybody using the old ones is a sucker. Its easy to think its all about the money, you have to buy new cards to keep competitive. In fact this is why our game club designed their own card game (Orion Empire, check it out on Kickstarter!) The idea is, new cards will always be different in some way from old ones, so no card is ever completely eclipsed. So you can buy new decks to keep it interesting, but your old one is probably still competitive.
    - ObligatoryRef 12y ago
      WotC, especially Mark Rosewater, has addressed this issue many many times. I would recommend checking out some of his columns and podcasts. Short answer: the game has evolved quite a bit (I've been playing for 17 years). Long answer: > Anybody using the old ones is a sucker. There are several different Constructed formats, each with its own restrictions on which cards can be played. The three most popular are Legacy, Modern, and Standard. In Modern and Standard, only newer cards are allowed, so there naturally aren't any from older sets. In Legacy, there are plenty of older cards being played. Take a look at the lists from any Legacy tournament, and you'll see a mix of old and new. Now, the power levels of each type of card have changed (in general, creatures have gotten more powerful and non-creature spells less powerful), so you'll often see earlier non-creature spells and more recent creatures, but this isn't set in stone. There's also the idea of power creep. The natural progression of a game like Magic is to allow more and more powerful effects, since not doing so will dis-incentivize buying new cards. For at least the past 10 years, then, Wizards has made a conscious decision to vary the power level between blocks (cycles of sets). Different types of cards will be more or less powerful at different times (in the last block, enchantments were the focus, now multicolor cards are being emphasized). It's true that if you want to stay competitive takes a certain amount of money, but this is true in many hobbies. Magic has been constantly getting more popular over the last few years, and it's still around when 99% of its competitors are gone. Let's check back on your game in 20 years and see where it's at.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        That sounds pretty much like what I said: card inflation keeps people buying new cards. I was being a little cynical, but if they cop to it, then great. I don't see it as a 'natural progression'. Its lazy; you can think of new cards without obsoleting old ones, but it takes effort. I know; we've got an edition and 3 expansions so far (500 cards) and they took a lot of work. As for being around; I see people come into our local card shop for tournaments, but nobody is 'playing Magic' any more. There has to be a gimmick, like a contest or draft tournament or some such. The kids in my Scout Troop were crazy about it 10 years ago; now its dropped off the radar. So maybe its still around, but its 30 year olds with money that keep it going.
DonHopkins 12y ago
Sounds like they're on the right side of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
- anonymoushn 12y ago
  Hi, The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't actually cause people who are good at a thing to say they suck at it and people who are awful to say they are good. In the paper, most tests found that estimated ability was positively correlated with ability, but had a lower slope. Thanks.
  - Udo 12y ago
    When used to describe a cognitive bias that causes highly skilled people to underestimate/under report their competence level, it is absolutely valid to refer to that as the Dunning-Kruger effect - which is exactly what DonHopkins did. Not only was he correct in using that term conversationally, the format of your reply is also unnecessarily abrasive.
  - DonHopkins 12y ago
    You must be an expert in the Dunning-Kruger effect, so I defer to your superior knowledge. I got my misinformation that "highly skilled individuals tend to rate their ability lower than is accurate" and "skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others", from the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect . Maybe you should correct that erroneous article with your competent, highly skilled insights.

Beltiras 12y ago

They actually did a horrible job at making a balanced game as can be seen in the multiple revisions since. I loved it and I'm calling it a roaring success in most respects, but balance is not something I would attribute to the first several incarnations.

pchristensen 12y ago
They knew that it was unbalanced and that some cards (Moxen, Ancestral Recall, etc) were too powerful, but that was on purpose because they expected scarcity to be a part of the metagame. If you were playing with your own group of friends who owned a few cards, the small total number of overpowered cards would be a fun diversion. They didn't anticipate the huge success and scale the game achieved. With a worldwide metagame and market for buying/selling cards, scarcity vanished as top players would pay up to get 4 of whatever card gave them an edge, so revisions had to be designed in balance, rather than rely on scarcity to create balance. Source: I read way too much MtG history a few years ago when I was working on my own card game.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  There's more to it than that. They've re-released edition after edition to obsolete the previous. Used to be 1 mana got you a 1/0 or 1/1 creature with nothing else. Now you can get cards with 1 or two features, flying etc. Anybody using the old ones is a sucker. Its easy to think its all about the money, you have to buy new cards to keep competitive. In fact this is why our game club designed their own card game (Orion Empire, check it out on Kickstarter!) The idea is, new cards will always be different in some way from old ones, so no card is ever completely eclipsed. So you can buy new decks to keep it interesting, but your old one is probably still competitive.
  - ObligatoryRef 12y ago
    WotC, especially Mark Rosewater, has addressed this issue many many times. I would recommend checking out some of his columns and podcasts. Short answer: the game has evolved quite a bit (I've been playing for 17 years). Long answer: > Anybody using the old ones is a sucker. There are several different Constructed formats, each with its own restrictions on which cards can be played. The three most popular are Legacy, Modern, and Standard. In Modern and Standard, only newer cards are allowed, so there naturally aren't any from older sets. In Legacy, there are plenty of older cards being played. Take a look at the lists from any Legacy tournament, and you'll see a mix of old and new. Now, the power levels of each type of card have changed (in general, creatures have gotten more powerful and non-creature spells less powerful), so you'll often see earlier non-creature spells and more recent creatures, but this isn't set in stone. There's also the idea of power creep. The natural progression of a game like Magic is to allow more and more powerful effects, since not doing so will dis-incentivize buying new cards. For at least the past 10 years, then, Wizards has made a conscious decision to vary the power level between blocks (cycles of sets). Different types of cards will be more or less powerful at different times (in the last block, enchantments were the focus, now multicolor cards are being emphasized). It's true that if you want to stay competitive takes a certain amount of money, but this is true in many hobbies. Magic has been constantly getting more popular over the last few years, and it's still around when 99% of its competitors are gone. Let's check back on your game in 20 years and see where it's at.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      That sounds pretty much like what I said: card inflation keeps people buying new cards. I was being a little cynical, but if they cop to it, then great. I don't see it as a 'natural progression'. Its lazy; you can think of new cards without obsoleting old ones, but it takes effort. I know; we've got an edition and 3 expansions so far (500 cards) and they took a lot of work. As for being around; I see people come into our local card shop for tournaments, but nobody is 'playing Magic' any more. There has to be a gimmick, like a contest or draft tournament or some such. The kids in my Scout Troop were crazy about it 10 years ago; now its dropped off the radar. So maybe its still around, but its 30 year olds with money that keep it going.

DonHopkins 12y ago

Sounds like they're on the right side of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

anonymoushn 12y ago
Hi, The Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't actually cause people who are good at a thing to say they suck at it and people who are awful to say they are good. In the paper, most tests found that estimated ability was positively correlated with ability, but had a lower slope. Thanks.
- Udo 12y ago
  When used to describe a cognitive bias that causes highly skilled people to underestimate/under report their competence level, it is absolutely valid to refer to that as the Dunning-Kruger effect - which is exactly what DonHopkins did. Not only was he correct in using that term conversationally, the format of your reply is also unnecessarily abrasive.
- DonHopkins 12y ago
  You must be an expert in the Dunning-Kruger effect, so I defer to your superior knowledge. I got my misinformation that "highly skilled individuals tend to rate their ability lower than is accurate" and "skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others", from the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect . Maybe you should correct that erroneous article with your competent, highly skilled insights.