Your thoughts on the Mastery system and Tier assignment?

Irgy

Buret0 wrote:

mouser wrote:

I know you mean well, but that would be a bad idea to change a card's stats just because you mastered it. Mastering any individual card is trivially easy--just use it in your deck. Changing card stats depending on your mastery would be incongruous with paper MTG and only confuse newer players more IMO.

Yeah, but did you look at the rest of the post?

Currently there is a mentality that moving to platinum is a bad idea.

(1) This isn't paper magic;
(2) You give more deck building options to players by limiting the number of mastered versions they can use;
(3) Mastery isn't in paper magic;
(4) The ease of mastering a card isn't the point, it is a small reward for mastering more cards and actually makes mastering cards a goal in itself, rather than mastering to gain harder events.

The newer players aren't going to be confused by the mechanic, because they unlock the new abilities as they play. The bonuses aren't intended to drastically change the cards, but rather to make small changes to reward play and to give players (a) incentives to master, (b) interesting deck building mechanics, and (c) alternate ways to play existing cards.

Having the player base go through and discover all of the new bonuses is part of the fun of playing a game like this.

I don't know, it is certainly something I would love to see added to the game.

Mastery was designed to encourage players to play a wider variety of cards. It's failing at that slightly because the rewards for it aren't actually positive (though at least it's spreading out the player base as a result), but it's still clearly the intention.

Your system would directly discourage people from trying new cards, because the cards are weak until they're mastered. So I don't think it's likely to happen because it's working against what the mastery sysem was designed to achieve.