Shadow Era

[Cyborg]

Just say no to pay to win card games.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Just say no to pay to win card games.

Aren't they all pay to win?

[Cyborg]

Just say no to pay to win card games.

Aren't they all pay to win?

No. Take spectromancer, for example. When you have games that certain people have cards that others don't because they bought some super minion, it's so scammy.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Just say no to pay to win card games.

Aren't they all pay to win?

No. Take spectromancer, for example. When you have games that certain people have cards that others don't because they bought some super minion, it's so scammy.

imo, Trading card games are more luck based than anything. You could have the richest deck on the planet and it won't do you a bit of good if your draws are all wrong. That said, I get your point. I just don't view TCG's as "scammy" right now when I could list off a whole list of games that I would classify pay-to-win-scams. heh. I myself am playing this particular game very rarely these days. It's not high on my priority list.

[Wanderer]

Just say no to pay to win card games.

Aren't they all pay to win?

No. Take spectromancer, for example. When you have games that certain people have cards that others don't because they bought some super minion, it's so scammy.

imo, Trading card games are more luck based than anything. You could have the richest deck on the planet and it won't do you a bit of good if your draws are all wrong. That said, I get your point. I just don't view TCG's as "scammy" right now when I could list off a whole list of games that I would classify pay-to-win-scams. heh. I myself am playing this particular game very rarely these days. It's not high on my priority list.

One of the things I used to love about MtG was that you didn't need ultra rares (well, after 2nd edition, but everyone has issues starting off) to actually win.  Once for giggles (and to prove a point) I went into a massive competition with a deck built of nothing but commons.  Errr, wait, sorry, there were four uncommons in that deck, a couple of artifacts to cover my tail.  Either way, I made it to the final 32 simply on mechanics and proper deck building.  Unfortunately someone had a literal counter to my deck (was a rare build at the time) and washed me right out of the tourney.

For the curious it was a Green/Black deck based on neutral mana and Dark Rituals to drop pummelers right out of the gates.  Most of those matches took about 5 minutes, one way or the other.  The deck in question that stopped me was a counter/steal deck that I could usually outrun but he'd included enough walls to jam me up early.  Biggest problem in that deck was card draw.

However, my point is any well designed collectors game shouldn't require a pay to win strategy.  It should open up alternate strategies if you want to chase down specific tactical cards, but all the base counters and mechanisms should be in play via low-end cards.  Any system that avoids that design will end up either as a niche market because too many people 'can't afford to play' (Star Trek TCG did that, relying on the brand too much) or become nuke-card rare that are utterly ineffective so that you CAN'T pay to win, which also defeats the purpose.  Paying should open up more options, not be ineffective because only a few players can have them so they have to be easy to shut down or be so effective it's the only way to win.

I got waaaay too in MtG at one point.  Then WotC pissed me off.

[Minotaar]

My perspective on this as a competitive M:tG player is that the game has a high barrier to entry, but is not "pay to win". You can compare your deck to sports equipment: you have to have it to play, and it costs a certain amount of money, but it's not like football or hockey are now "pay to win" because of that, it's just that you're expected to have appropriate equipment at a certain level of play.

As for Shadow Era, I play a bit of it. The game's fun, but not really that compelling, mostly because of the small card pool that's made even smaller by the fact that picking a class restricts your choices. There isn't a ton of difficult ingame decisions to be made either, though the luck factor in this game is probably the lowest of all I've seen (not that it is necessarily a good thing), what with the very small decks and the forgiving resource system. I view the game mostly as a deckbuilding challenge, but there's just not enough options right now. That they did a pretty shabby job with the iPad version doesn't help, as I'd really love to play an actual TCG on my iPad (Duels of the Planeswalkers doesn't count in that regard as it's basically Magic: The Demo Version. Man I'd kill for Magic Online on iPad, and I'm sure many others would too  )

Edit: also the flavor text makes me cringe every time I zoom in on a card. I feel they would be better off without it if they can't come up with anything interesting or funny.

[zebramatt]

The thing with Magic the Gathering, for me, is that they're constantly bringing out spangly new abilities and counters and whatnot. In my experience, few strategies can afford to stagnate. Which is great for the game in a way - it keeps it fresh. But I simply don't have the dedication to it to keep updating my stuff every six months to a year. And yeah, I know there are a few old builds which, played right, can still kick butt - but, well, meh... basically!

 

[keith.lamothe]

but it's not like football or hockey are now "pay to win" because of that

It's been a while since I followed sports, but I recall some difficulties with football (the american version where you only rarely touch the ball with your foot) and baseball where a team's owners would basically dump an obscene quantity of cash to hire a bunch of really high-ticket players for a season (or more) and do dramatically better as a result.

[zebramatt]

That's equally true of football (the other version where the ball is in contact with someone's foot for 80% of the game) as Manchester City's performance last year attests.

[Minotaar]

but it's not like football or hockey are now "pay to win" because of that

It's been a while since I followed sports, but I recall some difficulties with football (the american version where you only rarely touch the ball with your foot) and baseball where a team's owners would basically dump an obscene quantity of cash to hire a bunch of really high-ticket players for a season (or more) and do dramatically better as a result.

Well, that problem is on an entirely different level

[keith.lamothe]

but it's not like football or hockey are now "pay to win" because of that

It's been a while since I followed sports, but I recall some difficulties with football (the american version where you only rarely touch the ball with your foot) and baseball where a team's owners would basically dump an obscene quantity of cash to hire a bunch of really high-ticket players for a season (or more) and do dramatically better as a result.

Well, that problem is on an entirely different level

I think the MtG player's role is far more like the owner/coach than the individual player on a team, but I don't know what the current mechanics are like

[chemical_art]

but it's not like football or hockey are now "pay to win" because of that

It's been a while since I followed sports, but I recall some difficulties with football (the american version where you only rarely touch the ball with your foot) and baseball where a team's owners would basically dump an obscene quantity of cash to hire a bunch of really high-ticket players for a season (or more) and do dramatically better as a result.

It's actually a big problem with American Basketball. I don't follow it much, but the same dozen or so teams out of dozens always are the ones who win because they outspend 2 to 3 times as much as the smaller teams.

American football at least has a salary cap so it doesn't get too out of hand, so there is some degree of parity.

[tigersfan]

That's equally true of football (the other version where the ball is in contact with someone's foot for 80% of the game) as Manchester City's performance last year attests.

As a Man U fan, I object to this being brought up!

[zespri]

As a Man U fan, I object to this being brought up!

Look out, a moderator with his ban-hammer unsheathed!

[Minotaar]

but it's not like football or hockey are now "pay to win" because of that

It's been a while since I followed sports, but I recall some difficulties with football (the american version where you only rarely touch the ball with your foot) and baseball where a team's owners would basically dump an obscene quantity of cash to hire a bunch of really high-ticket players for a season (or more) and do dramatically better as a result.

Well, that problem is on an entirely different level

I think the MtG player's role is far more like the owner/coach than the individual player on a team, but I don't know what the current mechanics are like

Damn, I should have used individual sports as an example  Still, backbones of decks are very often formed by 50c commons, while a football team will always strive for the most expensive player they can afford. In competitive Magic it is pretty much assumed that you can afford to buy/borrow/etc whatever it is you want to play, and that's what I refer to as the barrier to entry. If you can't meet this requirement, then you might not be as flexible or as effective as you could be, but past that point money spent has no effect whatsoever.