Why austerity is the wrong plan

babar3355

It has been nearly three months since D3 hit the MTGPQ community with the first round of austerity measures.  The stated goal was to make the game more accessible to newer players. The result has been the continued domination of the game by individuals and coalitions who were dominating before austerity occurred.  In the most recent ToS you saw the same familiar names at the top of the brackets both in gold and platinum. 

How could this be?  D3 removed mythic rewards from all events, they nerfed the amount of mythics from opening packs, they slashed other prizes across the board.  They removed the ability to get "free mythics" from grinding QB. They even removed the power heavy SOI and BFZ blocks in standard. Why has the new era of players not emerged? 

1. Good players are good players.  Obvious, but seemingly people think this game is all about the cards you have.  Guess what, that is far less important than hand management, gem matching prowess or overall deck building skill.  Admittedly, you need some good cards, but this is EXACTLY what austerity prevents... which leads to my next point.

2. Newer players with a lot of talent are going to have a much harder time collecting a set of cards that can actually compete. The way to make the game more fair and more competitive is not to REDUCE everyone's prizes, but to INCREASE everyone's prizes. 

I just don't understand putting so much effort into making cards that 95% of the community never gets to play.  If almost every player could eventually get all of the rares (say a 10% drop rate), many players could get a full set of mythics (say a 5% drop rate), and masterpeices could at least be chased (say a 1% drop rate), I believe you would get a much more competitive and fun game. I also believe the community would stop hating D3 and be much more willing to pull out their wallet.

Alternatively, they could go back to mythic rewards (even progression), make the crafting system not suck, or any other number of ways to allow people to actually get the cards they develop.

When D3 released the new card sets I used to drool over the ones I wanted to get.  Even in a top coalition and a top player I wouldn't get a full set form any block. (even EMN or SOI).  However, I at least had a high expectation of getting them, and it made the game enjoyable.  Now I don't even enjoy opening packs... I have 27 unopened AKH boosters that I just don't even care to open.  Maybe there is a mythic... but it won't give me an "OH BOY" moment... it will give me an "it's about time" moment. 

And the masterpeices are so rare that I don't bother learning what the cards do.  How is that a good use of developer time?

I really find it hard to believe that these lousy drop rates and the removal of the competitive feel to the game has led to more money spending.  I sure know that it has cost them a lot of my money and my coalitions money.  I just hope they eventually come around.

wereotter

I don't think that gauging the success of this system of Terror in the Shadows is a fair assessment as this is a legacy event that suffers directly from the problems that the reduced rewards was meant to address.

It will be some time before things that start to even out as even the early Kaladesh events had better rewards than we are seeing today, but it's fair to say that when you can play with the full collection of overpowered cards you were able to win during the time that top players were being given out mythics like friggin puffy stickers that the event will always show that bias toward those players.

I believe that if you're going to make the comparison, you'd need to look at the rankings in an event like Trial of Ambition where the sets are more restricted. I have not paid enough attention to the leaderboard from that or from Trial of Strength that just ended to know if there was a change up in who was at the top ranking to know if your point carries there too, but it is where you should be looking to determine if the reduced rewards are making an impact.

gruntface

I thought OP was referring to trial of strength (ToS) and not terror in the shadows hence why the point is valid in the current game state. 

wereotter

gruntface said:

I thought OP was referring to trial of strength (ToS) and not terror in the shadows hence why the point is valid in the current game state. 

oh you're probably right! I think I misread ToS as TiS (this is the problem using abbreviations rather than typing things out )

Though I have tangentially related complaints regarding that event. It seems that as rewards went up, the type of events we faced off against were different too. Looking at the competition from Trial of Ambition verses Trial of Strength, I noticed a lot more Koths and Nahiris using decks that had zero cards set up to meet any secondary objectives which exacerbated the problem of those who have being able to meet objectives and those who have not struggling.  I honestly was ready to rage quit that entire event by the end after the 5th time of trying to meet zombie objectives with my Sorin deck while getting Scab Clan Berserkers into Boomship into Abbot of Keral Keep into Unlicensed Disintegration and Exquisite Firecraft killing all my creatures from Koth decks.

So, to that end, I feel that more than anything decreased rewards has made the game MORE enjoyable if it means that when you go to play an event, people are actually playing to objectives, especially if progression isn't too hard to obtain. If lower rewards means more fun, then it's something I can actually support, though with only the sample pool of one even with higher rewards it's hard to made a final conclusion regarding if higher rewards contributed to the behavior and decks faced.

julianus

gruntface said:

I thought OP was referring to trial of strength (ToS) and not terror in the shadows hence why the point is valid in the current game state. 

I thought the same thing.

I didn't follow the top rankings for the event, however, and wouldn't recognize the "same familiar names" in any event. And I'd probably want a bit more detail or to see the same view expressed by a larger number of people before I'd form an opinion on whether it's really all the same players.

DuskPaladin

I agree @babar3355 Added to that, we can’t even use our new shiny power cards because of all the secondary objectives heavily limiting ourselves. “I opened Samut?! Oh wait, I can’t play with her, she would end the game too fast. I’ll just play with this 8 mana cost underpowered 2/2 Embalm cat instead…”

That’s why we need more events like TotP, or old NoP, allow us to brew decks and play with our best cards. Trial of Zeal is a really bad example, because you pushed the HP, mana gains and abilities too much on the AI’s decks, that unless you can cheese the game like by locking the board, you have nearly no chance of winning with “fair decks” and it’s limiting deck building immensely.

@wereotter think about the Top players from the old system, why do you think they got to the top, how did they manage to join Top Coalitions? It is because they were and still are good players. Being dedicated and good allowed them to score high in events.

Take the draft format in paper Magic. You would think that building decks from newly opened packs would even the playing field, but in fact, the top players will still be the ones winning, and it won't be because of their huge card collection.

You had a few paths leading to the top:

1. Time: Play a lot (you earn runes/crystals which allowed you to level your PWs and buy packs also you get better by practising a lot, which brings us to the second point)
 
2. Skill: Play well and score highly in events and earn good cards (maybe you would be hunting key uncommons, then rares, and finally, mythics)

3. Resource: Spend money to skip on the time needed to grind and get key exclusives (it’s only a shortcut though, and by no means would assure you to crush all oppositions)

We had a kind of balance, and everyone had a shot at reaching the top, and the rewards were good enough that you would feel it worth your time and money to compete for the top. Not anymore.


So yea, they’ve accomplished nothing, and it certainly wasn’t motivated by the Newer players’ sake. Except that even then it backfired. Before, you may be tempted to spend money because it would allow you to get something more valuable. Not anymore. 

I would be tempted to spend $60 if it can reap me $600.

I would never spend $60 to earn nothing, worse yet, for it to devaluate to zero. (I agree with the standard format, but it can’t be the only real format)

But anyways, in every game, you’ll have different classes of players, some will be at the top, some won’t, it’s no use to bash them incessantly.

wereotter

@DuskPaladin

I would counter that our argument has valid points, but also assumes a few things. I consider myself a competent player, not highly competitive, I enjoy deck brewing for "how much fun is it to play" as opposed to "how quickly will this win" and as such really enjoy when new events come out with new objectives to try to meet, so my frustration comes from feeling as though the events with higher rewards aren't on a level playing field when some are playing to objectives and others are only playing to win and ignoring anything else.

But, I digress. Part of how people got to and were able to maintain high positions was and is length of time in the game. Coming into things just before the launch of Eldritch Moon, I can speak to my own experience of seeing cards like Mirrorpool, Drowner of Hope, Tyrant of Valakut, and Undergrowth Champion played frequently yet never being able to combat and play against or win the cards myself (to this day I still own very few cards of the important cards from the Zendikar block). This length of time in play gives longer time players a built in advantage. Because they had the good cards from the previous set (and I do just mean good cards, not mythics specifically) it enabled better strategies so that you could place higher in later events, securing more rewards, meaning more cards from the current set, and the cycle repeats.

This is something that diminishes over time, and the introduction of Standard has really helped reduce that handicap. However, arguing skill becomes a mute point when I'm trying to play an event "let me summon enough zombies in Sorin" deck and I'm staring down Nahiri with her Chrome Mox, Sword of War and Peace, and Platinum Angel on the field, there's only so much "skill" someone can have to dig their way out of that scenario (and yes, this scenario did happen to me in the event, this is not an exaggeration)

madwren

wereotter said:

@DuskPaladin

my frustration comes from feeling as though the events with higher rewards aren't on a level playing field when some are playing to objectives and others are only playing to win and ignoring anything else.

So, something to consider is that those people who have the resources to obtain new cards have the flexibility to play to objectives AND win.  I mean, I bought about 11 premium packs and filled my card inventory with rares. I can not only meet the objectives, but do so using powerful cards that facilitate that goal.

Compare to a newer player, or someone with a smaller collection. If they did not have that hoard of crystals (or cash) to invest in the new set, then they may lack the ability to fulfill the objectives. If that's the case, then they're likely going to do whatever it takes to win the game, regardless of objectives.

That's why austerity hasn't been working. By starving everyone of resources and currency, you penalize the newer or lower-tier players far more than those at the top. Instead of helping the little guy overcome his lack of cards, they've simply made it worse.

I had some optimism that over the long haul, this advantage would be mitigated. However, now that we're a month in, I'm starting to lose faith that will actually occur.

Also, real quick, it's a "moot" point. Thanks. ><

mournfen

This is still not a fair assessment, the mythic pool top players won from most of KLD is still enough to help win in standard. Let's talk about the tops spots since standard has been implemented I am pretty constantly a top performer in any bracket I have been in since standard introduction. You keep saying skill, skill, skill: well not true. Apparently the 11 PP you have purchased was enough to be betters than the 26 yes that's right 26 AKH PP, still missing the best rares and only have garbage mythics. 3 of 6 came from elite packs. One of the players preaching how much skill is important had a deck loaded with great Rare and above cards, minus the 2/2 embalm kitty. I won but because I locked the board and barely still. Playing "the same old faces" at the top of a bracket is a lot like playing temmut or the gods. Give me my hang and points on G3 and I would have graced your top 10 easily. 

Sirchombli

I really wish players would stop complaining so much about the changes and learn to work with them. Qb is gone. It's not coming back. We have to adjust. Do you want the game to be easier, or harder? It seems as if the people will revolt no matter what. Since akh released I've spent 10 dollars in game. I needed crystals for Gideon. I'm not hurting for cards. I'm not struggling in events and I've never been a whale. This is a strategy game. If your strategy doesn't work, try something else. It's about adaptability. There are plenty of ways to be successful in game, they just removed most easy buttons. If the events are too challenging, build a Drake haven deck and scoop up some free wins. It isn't really fun, but it's effective. If you want to actually play the game, step yours up. Crazy turn one cascades are brutal. Play more removal. In order to have a strong deck, you need to be able to deal with other strong decks. A lot of the people at the top worked hard to get there. It's the nature of the game. I promise it gets easier, though. Jumping mastery levels is a struggle at first, but you learn to handle it 

Ohboy

Austerity hurts. Why can't we just print more money like we used to do? That was fun! 

madwren

mournfen said:

. You keep saying skill, skill, skill: well not true. Apparently the 11 PP you have purchased was enough to be betters than the 26 yes that's right 26 AKH PP, still missing the best rares and only have garbage mythics. 3 of 6 came from elite packs.

To be clear, I haven't said a word about skill, skill, skill. My point was that generally, people with more resources to sink into a set (such as myself) will be able to build decks to both win and meet objectives, while those with fewer resources will find it much harder to do so. This makes it harder for those with fewer resources to effectively compete in events.

A system of austerity prevents those with fewer resources from obtaining them.

babar3355

Of course the usual faces show up to contest, but no one has refuted my point.  In fact @wereotter gave a strong argument for why drop rates should improve here:

But, I digress. Part of how people got to and were able to maintain high positions was and is length of time in the game. Coming into things just before the launch of Eldritch Moon, I can speak to my own experience of seeing cards like Mirrorpool, Drowner of Hope, Tyrant of Valakut, and Undergrowth Champion played frequently yet never being able to combat and play against or when the cards myself (to this day I still own very few cards of the important cards from the Zendikar block). This length of time in play gives longer time players a built in advantage. Because they had the good cards from the previous set (and I do just mean good cards, not mythics specifically) it enabled better strategies so that you could place higher in later events, securing more rewards, meaning more cards from the current set, and the cycle repeats

You still have a hard time competing.  Has the new austerity helped? Also, Sorin on zombies? Why? Ob was tailor made for that. T2 would have sufficed.

@Sirchombli - I'm not complaining about the format. I like standard and only lost 1 point in Trials of Strength.  I just want to be able to use the new cards.  

@Ohboy it's cute that you think this game is a real economy.  It's not. They can print more cards if they want.  And upping drop rates to something closer to paper drop rates is not ridiculous, especially in standard format. Do you just reject that any drop rates but the status quo is possibly better?

Look guys, we are talking about what is fun and good for the game.  Sorry, it's not **** prizes with miniscule drop rates from packs.  It's balance.. it's access to most of the cards, it's good content, etc

Ohboy

Of course more cards is more fun. No one ever refutes that. 

I don't understand why you think the people in charge are in it for the fun. Of course it's like an economy. When the "nation" goes bankrupt you just find a new game. That's why you don't care. 

The guys up there? It's their job. They care. As long as you never care, your suggestions are never going to be taken seriously by them. 

"So for you this is just a good time
But for me this is what I call life" 

-city high 

//Removed Demeaning Language -Brigby

babar3355

You still make the assumption that the current drop rates are optimal for the profits and longevity of the game. Is there evidence of this? 

They can't seem to settle on the number of game nodes, timer refreshes, crystal distribution, cost per card, or any other aspect of the game.

They don't communicate well, they can't code cards, objectives, or user interface without bugs galore.

Yet, @ohboy in all of your infinite wisdom has deemed D3 beyond reproach or questioning on drop rates.

 They are selecting the drop rates that give them the highest potential revenue for the life of the game, and they are certain of the number? Oh boy, you sure do have a lot more faith in D3 than I do.

Ohboy

They aren't. 

That's why they're changing it around all the time. They're trying to find the optimum spot. 

Meanwhile, you're advocating they switch back to the system they already tried and knows did not work. 

Do you hear yourself, or just blindly lash out at me? 

The answer to "Damn we screwed up... Is there any way to avoid long term austerity measures" is not "let's just keep doing what we did and pretend the problem will go away instead of compounding" 

wereotter

babar3355 said:

Of course the usual faces show up to contest, but no one has refuted my point.  In fact @wereotter gave a strong argument for why drop rates should improve here:

But, I digress. Part of how people got to and were able to maintain high positions was and is length of time in the game. Coming into things just before the launch of Eldritch Moon, I can speak to my own experience of seeing cards like Mirrorpool, Drowner of Hope, Tyrant of Valakut, and Undergrowth Champion played frequently yet never being able to combat and play against or when the cards myself (to this day I still own very few cards of the important cards from the Zendikar block). This length of time in play gives longer time players a built in advantage. Because they had the good cards from the previous set (and I do just mean good cards, not mythics specifically) it enabled better strategies so that you could place higher in later events, securing more rewards, meaning more cards from the current set, and the cycle repeats

You still have a hard time competing.  Has the new austerity helped? Also, Sorin on zombies? Why? Ob was tailor made for that. T2 would have sufficed.

I had a hard time competing, not because of card collection, but because of the way players decided to play the event. I only lost matches against decks that were obviously not designed to meet any secondary objectives. Nahiri decks with no zombies or cycling cards, Koth decks built the same. Sure, if I'd have decided to throw away all the secondary objectives I might have won more matches, but I trusted people to actually play to the objectives like they did with Trial of Ambition.

Sorin zombies I did both because it sufficed before and because Hixus, Binding Mummy, Cast Out, Forsake the Worldly. Also being able to combine Trial of Solidarity with Cartouche of Ambition. In hindsight, it might not have been the strongest choice, but it wasn't a poor one when taken in the context of the event as a whole.

losdamianos

Ohboy said:

Meanwhile, you're advocating they switch back to the system they already tried and knows did not work. 
" 

Are you suggesting that current system works better than the previous one ?

andrewvanmarle

I agree with the OP:  last year I spent more than a thousand $, but this year knowing i wont get the same result from my money i've'spent maybe 10%.....

If the devs want to entice our money out of our pockets, then the reward for spending should be much much higher.

Volrak

babar3355 said:

It has been nearly three months since D3 hit the MTGPQ community with the first round of austerity measures.  The stated goal was to make the game more accessible to newer players. The result has been the continued domination of the game by individuals and coalitions who were dominating before austerity occurred.  In the most recent ToS you saw the same familiar names at the top of the brackets both in gold and platinum.

I'm still in "wait and see" mode, for two reasons.

1. The effects of massive rewards for the top players certainly did not disappear immediately when the reward structure changed; there's some lag time during which the benefits of those massive rewards continue to have a significant impact, compared to if we'd had flatter rewards all along.  That means looking at current outcomes isn't necessarily informative about the ongoing impact of the "austerity" changes.  A simple example is that top players were likely to have had large stockpiles of packs and/or crystals going into AKH because of their past bounty, and so are currently better equipped, while lower level players were more likely to have had no stockpiles of anything.
2. In ToS they've given out a total event reward which is possibly even greater than total event rewards when mythics were the top prizes, yet distributed in a far less unequal way down the reward ranks.  If there's a healthy mix of such events in the schedule then I think they'll be onto a good thing; in this case it would not even be clear whether "austerity" remains a valid label.

babar3355 said:

They don't communicate well

To me, this has been and still is one of the biggest problems with the game, if not the biggest.  If long-term strategies and goals are explained well then customers can get on board.  But there just doesn't seem to be any channel from design to player which communicates that level of intent.

A current case in point is 4-hour node timers in Trial of Zeal.  Imagine if the devs had told us in advance something as simple as "We think that overall, 8-hour timers are working well, but for this event, we want to evoke a feeling of rushing to beat competing players, and we will be using 4-hour node timers to achieve that.".  There would still be some who dislike it, but at least we would have known what to expect, we would have known why the change was happening, and if there was logic in the rationale then I think many people would have defended it as a perfectly reasonable way to add a bit of variety.

Instead, the first we heard about it was that 8-hour timers was actually a bug!  Predictably, this was not received well.  Good communication can work magic with customer sentiment.  Of course, realistically, to devote more time to communication, some other cost needs to be reduced.  But personally, I think almost any marginal opportunity cost would be worth it.

Ohboy

losdamianos said:

Ohboy said:

Meanwhile, you're advocating they switch back to the system they already tried and knows did not work. 
" 

Are you suggesting that current system works better than the previous one ?

No I'm suggesting that instead of constantly talking about going back to the previous one that already had a year to prove its worth (and didn't), anything else would be preferable. 

So suggestions should be made that are not related to going back to the one they abandoned at great cost because it's either not going to happen, or they cave and we get another worse reversion to mean later on. 

It's not that the current situation is perfect. And you can tell they know because they are experimenting all the time. 

The only thing we know is that the previous one has had a long time to prove it works and failed. So I'm suggesting people stop talking about going back to it.