It's easy to think that, but in practice that would not really be the case. 1st) The maximum investment that the community can spend on the game each release cycle is the maximum, regardless of the rules for competitive (or casual) deck building. 2nd) Part of how multiple decks would work is similar to how team constructed works: the "no more than 4x" card limit applies to all decks that you bring. From a supply/demand perspective, that means a much more varied list of cards is in demand. Because the community literally can't spend any more than it already is, the value of powerful cards normalize on the secondary market, which is to say: the most powerful cards in the current way of doing things drop in value, while other powerful cards utilized by different strategies increase in value.
I don't know how community spending factors into this. I certainly don't spend money from a communal pool.
The money you can spend on MtG is limited in some fashion: either you can afford to buy all the cards (so you're limited by available product) or you can't (so you're limited by your finances). The same goes for everyone else, and the total of all that spending power determines the baseline value of in-demand cards. If production doesn't go up, but a wider variety of cards are in-demand, then the value of individual cards goes down.
What I do know that, to break into a given format now, I'd need to buy 75 cards if I don't have an established collection. If I try to break into a format under your idea, I'd need to buy 180 cards. Market forces alone certainly don't allow you to claim that the 180 card format is somehow cheaper even though certain cards would take a price hit, so I want to know how your comment is relevant to my situation, as an individual.
Obviously that's going to depend a lot on your situation. Are you a new player looking to get into Standard or an existing player trying to get into a bigger format? WotC's concern is for new players getting into Standard, in order to replace older players who are dropping out of the game. Someone transitioning to Modern or another eternal format is effectively dropping out of the game in their eyes, because that player's money is now going to the secondary market rather than to them.
Someone "breaking into" competitive Standard spends about $400, and then because of the rotating format continues to spends another $200-$300 per set. That number wouldn't really change...what would change is the average price per card.
I'm asking a micro question and getting a macro answer. There's no way that switching to a 3 deck format would depress prices so much that it wouldn't cause a huge jump in price of entry. You answering my question with another question feels like a deflection. If you don't want to tackle this head-on, then I'll be happy to take another angle.
There's also the question of low-level play such as FNM. Introducing a three deck limit at that level of play is definitely going to alienate some players and scare away new ones. Some players have trouble adjusting to the idea of rotation, and requiring two additional decks isn't going to help. If you take an alternate route of only having the 3 deck version at higher levels of play, it would weaken FNM as a preparatory tool. Higher rules enforcement and a potential best-of-5 and fairly minor differences between levels of play, enough for FNM to be good practice. Introduction at the FNM level would also require a massive re-education effort, which is the biggest weakness of your idea. Big changes always come with big backlash, and you've glossed over the effort required to handle this caliber of upheaval. This isn't a ban or minor rules tweak we're talking about here.
My last point is that Magic is not Hearthstone, and the differences between the two games mean what works for one does not necessarily work for the other. Hearthstone does what it does because the game is not designed for sideboard play in the first place. Its ladder play is best-of-1, so it makes sense that its tournament format be, too. Interaction is much lower, variance is much higher, and the game has fewer strategies that demand specialized answers to beat. HS's class system also factors into its tournament format by letting player see their opponents' 3 classes beforehand (correct me if I'm wrong here), which Magic simply cannot replicate. The sideboard fits much better into the fact that Magic has a huge number of decks that always win against decks that don't specifically hose them, which would turn your format into a rock-paper-scissors affair where you hope you don't roll a bad matchup.
You're being quite hostile; did I offend your religion or something?
I expressed an opinion about what I would love to see and I stand by that opinion, which is that I have never liked sideboards (that would be going back to 1994) and would prefer the game was played more like Hearthstone at a competitive level, but not necessarily identically. FNM is not competitive-level play, so I wouldn't expect it to require a 3-deck format. Would there be a transition period before prices stabilized? Yes, obviously an economy cannot auto-correct instantly for changes in the environment that governs it. But prices for Standard cards *absolutely* would stabilize in such a way that the cost for new players would be equivalent to what it costs currently. Would such a change affect non-Standard formats a lot more? Yes, and I don't think WotC would care one bit.
But whatever...I'm not the DCI, so no need to be so angry.
But prices for Standard cards *absolutely* would stabilize in such a way that the cost for new players would be equivalent to what it costs currently.
When standard players need 3 decks to attend a tournament, that means there will be 3 times the demand for good cards. How does that lower prices? Do you have any evidence to suggest that prices would drop?
Your idea that prices would drop only applies if there isn't a significant fraction of buyers who are limited by supply rather than finances.
If there are enough people with enough money to buy whatever cards they need (and in the real world, this is the case, especially when it comes to sponsored players), then the sellers have no incentive to reduce prices to move product. Card A stays at roughly the same price (most likely with a slight bump), and Card B which wasn't previously good enough to make it into decks now is, so it rises in price.
You're being quite hostile; did I offend your religion or something?
I expressed an opinion about what I would love to see and I stand by that opinion, which is that I have never liked sideboards (that would be going back to 1994) and would prefer the game was played more like Hearthstone at a competitive level, but not necessarily identically. FNM is not competitive-level play, so I wouldn't expect it to require a 3-deck format. Would there be a transition period before prices stabilized? Yes, obviously an economy cannot auto-correct instantly for changes in the environment that governs it. But prices for Standard cards *absolutely* would stabilize in such a way that the cost for new players would be equivalent to what it costs currently. Would such a change affect non-Standard formats a lot more? Yes, and I don't think WotC would care one bit.
But whatever...I'm not the DCI, so no need to be so angry.
Hostile? Don't be ridiculous, I'm just paying more attention than, um, might be appropriate in this situation. I still don't follow your claim that prices will drop. I don't know if you get this reference, but the three deck idea, as applied to Magic, reminds me a little of New Coke.
3 games, 1 point per game won. 3 copies max per card, no sideboard.
Voila.
The rate at which you'd lose your non favored matchups would rise dramatically if you had no sideboard. The whole point of the sideboard is to cover your deck's weaknesses against other decks.
First off, I'd like to express that I mis-represented how the Hearthstone style of tournament works: the loser doesn't pick a new deck, the winner does. Winning the match requires the player to navigate 3 decks against up to 2 decks that an opponent would play every match. Winning competitive matches can't be about simply building the single best deck in that kind of environment.
But prices for Standard cards *absolutely* would stabilize in such a way that the cost for new players would be equivalent to what it costs currently.
When standard players need 3 decks to attend a tournament, that means there will be 3 times the demand for good cards. How does that lower prices? Do you have any evidence to suggest that prices would drop?
Your idea that prices would drop only applies if there isn't a significant fraction of buyers who are limited by supply rather than finances.
If there are enough people with enough money to buy whatever cards they need (and in the real world, this is the case, especially when it comes to sponsored players), then the sellers have no incentive to reduce prices to move product. Card A stays at roughly the same price (most likely with a slight bump), and Card B which wasn't previously good enough to make it into decks now is, so it rises in price.
If that happened, it would become cheaper for competitive players to buy unopened boxes, which in turn would force the card shops to drop their prices on singles. Also, are you suggesting that pro players all have enough money to own playsets of every card they might need in their decks? Because I've been reading dailymtg.com pretty faithfully for as long as it's existed, and I see stories of shared decks happening somewhat regularly.
Choosing decks more or less randomly is just plain random if the decks are very different from each other.
It simply does not work for Magic in a reasonable way to bring multiple decks.
----
Simply imagine a player to bring Dredge, Affinity and Deathshadow , without sideboards the game becomes completly stupid.
In the end, you play MORE games with sideboards than without and you would adapt your maindeck to fit a given metagame and tweak it further with your sideboard.
Extremly linear and extrem decks will be hated out by sideboard cards, for that they have a higher pre-sideboard win% and have to adapt specificly to fight the hate or snitch under the radar as people remove sideboard hate against them.
Choosing the "correct" deck for a metagame is a skill on its own and requires research, playtesting and knowing your players.
----
Simply having multiple decks, and especially expensive mana-bases in multiples (or you would need to swap them in/out, which is just extra annoying), its extremly stupid for what it gives.
----
Using a different point system for a tournament is totally valid however and it works well too, it just means you change a lot what is established for so long (and if it doesnt bother enough people, it wont really be changed).
In the end, a lot people like to ID in the Top8, while some really dislike it and you could avoid it, by simply not giving points to a draw at all (which further makes drawing in itself completly worthless) , so yes, people would indeed scoop and let others win, if they cannot win and would "force" a draw otherwise.
Another option is to actually use a game-tie-breaker , either let it be higher life-total wins the game (and if life-totals are the same, you could go as far as the starting player "wins").
Balancing and thinking this over would require a lot of changes and would in the end just "change" things, not likely really fix any essential problems (as the game will include luck anyway, so its never a game that is 100% about skill and you will always have players working the system for loopholes and hidden stuff to abuse something, it cannot be avoided).
But prices for Standard cards *absolutely* would stabilize in such a way that the cost for new players would be equivalent to what it costs currently.
When standard players need 3 decks to attend a tournament, that means there will be 3 times the demand for good cards. How does that lower prices? Do you have any evidence to suggest that prices would drop?
Oh good now I can read all about how when demand increases and supply doesn't prices go up.
Again: provide a single shred of evidence that a demand increase will result in a price decrease because I can provide hundreds of examples to show the prices will increase. Summer Bloom rose and fell in price with the popularity and ban updates around Amulet Bloom. Baneslayer Angel tanked in price after leaving standard because the demand only existed in standard. Simian Spirit Guide went through the roof when it became a 4 of in modern eldrazi.
Now if you'd like to actually propose some sort of argument for how increasing demand without increasing supply is going to reduce prices I'd love to read it.
I'm fairly certain those economics textbooks you so trollingly linked for me are going to tell me exactly this: economic equilibrium is reached when the quantity produced at a price matches the demand at that price.
This is why prices on virtually every card in a set fall in the first week of its release. The quantity of singles available is rising rapidly and the demand for specific cards varies a lot because nobody has been to a standard tournament yet. As more tournaments happen, the meta is shaped and the important cards for that meta see an increase in demand (i.e. SSG in modern eldrazi) and an increase in price accordingly. Saheeli Rai went up ~$16 with the release of Felidar Guardian as the demand shot up.
Increasing the number of decks people take to a tournament doesn't increase the number of tournament viable cards. It only serves to reduce the supply of those that are tournament viable.
While I personally think that the current 2/3 game structure is the best and that any idea of going to a three deck setup is completely ridiculous, I think at least potentially one point being made by the poster of that idea has at least some basis in reality.
Firstly, anything like this only works in an environment where all sets are currently "in-print" and thusly the printed supply of cards via booster boxes can be continually increased to demand. (So basically only works for the standard format and nothing else)
Secondly, the idea that the cost for each player wouldn't increase if they had to have 3 decks versus only 1 deck is essentially impossible when one is using the baseline of the current 1-deck structure and comparing it to what a future 3-deck supply/demand structure would look like.
Thirdly, one point that was made that does have some sense to it though, is that if demand increases and thusly the value of the cards from a particular set, it makes opening boxes of that set more viable to profit from and thusly would be likely to increase the amount of supply accordingly until equilibrium would be reached again to where it would no longer be a profitably viable method to use.
However, the problem with the third point is that all that is going to do is help in keeping prices down to the current 1-deck pricing setup potentially, and will never be able to actually decrease the cost from the current 1-deck setup for those cards. Thusly players will always have to spend more under a three-deck system than they will under a 1-deck system.
Perhaps the poster making this argument isn't aware that for the vast majority of non-supply-constrained standard legal sets, the overall average box value tends to be (after reasonable costs to sell the cards out of said boxes), about equal to, or even sometimes less than the actual cost of the boxes once the set has been available for a couple months(Even for stores themselves, who tend to pay right around $80 a box these days from distributors).
I mean sure, wizards would potentially sell more boxes, and more boxes would get opened/sold under such a scenario, but realistically one has to consider how many people it could push out of the standard format due to the increase in costs of having to build 3 decks instead of 1, which just adds to the many reasons that makes it such a terrible idea.
There is never anything wrong with tossing out ideas, but it is important to understand and be willing to take into account feedback and true economic and cost impacts of such ideas in the process of discussion.
For an economics example (supply/demand/pricing/etc)....:
Lets say a current standard set has an overall average box value (after reasonable costs to sell) of $80, equal to the shop's cost to buy those boxes form their distributors.
Now then, you have a standard format where there is a variety of decks that are considered tier 1 for purposes of having the best chance to win a tournament with. Lets say each of those decks costs, say, $300 (making up a number simply for example purposes). That puts the entry cost for a player at that $300 price if they are trying to be as competitive as possible with the current 1-deck needed to play in a tournament structure. Because there are several decks that are viable, the demand for the singles that make up those decks is split within the playerbase among the cards that make up those various decks.
Now, you suddenly change the format to requiring players to have 3 decks to play in tournaments. From a strictly baseline standpoint that would increase the cost from $300 for 1 deck, to around $900 for 3 decks. However that doesn't account for the sudden increase in demand that will occur as demand would suddenly at minimum double for all tournament viable deck cards in the format, if not triple depending upon how many tier-1 decks existed in the format. The balancing act to that, in this case being that as demand increases the value of singles, it will raise the overall average box value accordingly for many of the standard sets, thus making them more viable to open for singles to sell, which will increase supply to a point where equilibrium could once again be reached, however not to a point where the cost would decrease below the current 1-deck format supply/demand/box value structure because why would shops or individuals who are explicitly opening boxes to sell singles from do so when the overall average box value is below their cost (they wouldn't, that's the thing).
In the end no matter what, you still end up in a structure where with the current 1-deck required to play in a tournament structure, the cost will be x amount (I used $300 above as just a random example), whereas when you increase that to three decks required, the cost will be 3x (or around $900 as the above example I used). All the increase in supply from boxes being more viable to open for singles would do would be to keep the individual deck costs from increasing, it would never help in them actually decreasing from current costs/values.
If anyone wishes to dispute any of the above, please feel free to do so, but just make sure you use factual economic examples with supply/demand with specific sources to back up those claims.
And as before, this setup wouldn't work at all with non-standard formats, as those sets not being in print would only see demand increase, with no increase in supply to match. Thusly creating a massive increase in cost.
well, I reality, if they did this format, with having to use 2-3 decks, the formats would eventually be solved. And there would be 3 clear cut best decks to play together. This wouldn't make 3 decks worth $300 become $900 for all 3. 3 separate players buying one deck at $300 would be $300 each. 3 players buying 2 decks at $300 each would make each card more expensive and likely doubling the cost, making each deck cost $600 each, meaning to buy 2 decks it now cost $1,200. now if they each need to buy a third, it would make each deck cost 3x as much for each deck, making it $900 times 3= $2,700. and that's only if each deck only originally cost $300. those 3 best decks would have each card skyrocket in value and each other deck would plummet into a clear teir 1 strategy versus everything else. That would destroy the secondary market and make current standard prices equal to current legacy prices. that's not a good idea on any level
To have cards, someone has to pay and open a booster. Pay for the booster. People only buy boosters if the money the spent has a realistic expectation to be paid back. So the value of cards is directly linked to the cost of a booster box and its EV (expected value). Unless Wizards would massively reduce the price of a booster box, needing 3 decks is going to be much more expensive than 1.
I think it could be in part to some games where players may be land screwed, and there is an instant gratification for your deck coming back and wining 2 straight. That or it could come down to who rolls higher, or wins a tie-break to start the game. In most formats, a turn 1 win can happen, which means it wouldn't matter who you're playing if you can end them turn 1. At that point it's just a coin flip for who is going to win, so why have a card game in the first place? That's just my thought on the matter, and there may be an actual WotC answer, but it makes sense to me.
I think it could be in part to some games where players may be land screwed, and there is an instant gratification for your deck coming back and wining 2 straight. That or it could come down to who rolls higher, or wins a tie-break to start the game. In most formats, a turn 1 win can happen, which means it wouldn't matter who you're playing if you can end them turn 1. At that point it's just a coin flip for who is going to win, so why have a card game in the first place? That's just my thought on the matter, and there may be an actual WotC answer, but it makes sense to me.
Most formats? Which ones? Vintage, Legacy, (really unlikely) Modern, (maybe) EDH. This hardly seems like most, it isn't even half, unless you take out all fan formats but that leaves EDH in an awkward place due to being a 'official' fan format.
Doesn't the one that uses all the power go off turn 1? And if that's so far off, what turns do legacy/vintage usually win in?
Also the first 2 you mentioned didn't have parenthesis with their likelihood which would be half lol.
Some Vintage decks can go off turn one, but it's not common. I haven't lost turn one yet online.
Legacy also has a deck that can go off turn one, but it's magical Christmas land.
Doesn't the one that uses all the power go off turn 1? And if that's so far off, what turns do legacy/vintage usually win in?
Also the first 2 you mentioned didn't have parenthesis with their likelihood which would be half lol.
Some Vintage decks can go off turn one, but it's not common. I haven't lost turn one yet online.
Legacy also has a deck that can go off turn one, but it's magical Christmas land.
Okay fair, I think I was referencing decks that win off the play instead of draw wining because they get the tie break rather than better play.
Doesn't the one that uses all the power go off turn 1? And if that's so far off, what turns do legacy/vintage usually win in?
Also the first 2 you mentioned didn't have parenthesis with their likelihood which would be half lol.
Yes, half of the ones I listed, which I stated weren't even half the Formats. So half of less than half and inconsistently at best(maybe worse?) doesn't come any where close to half.
Doesn't the one that uses all the power go off turn 1? And if that's so far off, what turns do legacy/vintage usually win in?
Also the first 2 you mentioned didn't have parenthesis with their likelihood which would be half lol.
Some Vintage decks can go off turn one, but it's not common. I haven't lost turn one yet online.
Legacy also has a deck that can go off turn one, but it's magical Christmas land.
Okay fair, I think I was referencing decks that win off the play instead of draw wining because they get the tie break rather than better play.
What?
On the play is even harder to combo on turn one - you have one fewer card.
Regardless, it's not even close to half unless you're making up numbers.
Doesn't the one that uses all the power go off turn 1? And if that's so far off, what turns do legacy/vintage usually win in?
Also the first 2 you mentioned didn't have parenthesis with their likelihood which would be half lol.
Yes, half of the ones I listed, which I stated weren't even half the Formats. So half of less than half and inconsistently at best(maybe worse?) doesn't come any where close to half.
You dispelled "fan formats" as well, which I was agreeing with, but it doesn't matter, really. So what is the reason for the 2 of 3 game structure then? My theory about off-chute turn one wins was too far off so any other thoughts would be welcome.
Saying "because sideboarding" is just stating a fact of the matter, more so the product of best of 3 rather than a cause of it. You said the pro tour is first to 3, so why is that instead of to 2? Why not 4 or 5? Probably because you're going to see the games play out after sideboarding within the first 3 games anyway. Why not just play one game and have more rounds? (This is a specultuon no need for full tilt)
I'm asking a micro question and getting a macro answer. There's no way that switching to a 3 deck format would depress prices so much that it wouldn't cause a huge jump in price of entry. You answering my question with another question feels like a deflection. If you don't want to tackle this head-on, then I'll be happy to take another angle.
There's also the question of low-level play such as FNM. Introducing a three deck limit at that level of play is definitely going to alienate some players and scare away new ones. Some players have trouble adjusting to the idea of rotation, and requiring two additional decks isn't going to help. If you take an alternate route of only having the 3 deck version at higher levels of play, it would weaken FNM as a preparatory tool. Higher rules enforcement and a potential best-of-5 and fairly minor differences between levels of play, enough for FNM to be good practice. Introduction at the FNM level would also require a massive re-education effort, which is the biggest weakness of your idea. Big changes always come with big backlash, and you've glossed over the effort required to handle this caliber of upheaval. This isn't a ban or minor rules tweak we're talking about here.
My last point is that Magic is not Hearthstone, and the differences between the two games mean what works for one does not necessarily work for the other. Hearthstone does what it does because the game is not designed for sideboard play in the first place. Its ladder play is best-of-1, so it makes sense that its tournament format be, too. Interaction is much lower, variance is much higher, and the game has fewer strategies that demand specialized answers to beat. HS's class system also factors into its tournament format by letting player see their opponents' 3 classes beforehand (correct me if I'm wrong here), which Magic simply cannot replicate. The sideboard fits much better into the fact that Magic has a huge number of decks that always win against decks that don't specifically hose them, which would turn your format into a rock-paper-scissors affair where you hope you don't roll a bad matchup.
I expressed an opinion about what I would love to see and I stand by that opinion, which is that I have never liked sideboards (that would be going back to 1994) and would prefer the game was played more like Hearthstone at a competitive level, but not necessarily identically. FNM is not competitive-level play, so I wouldn't expect it to require a 3-deck format. Would there be a transition period before prices stabilized? Yes, obviously an economy cannot auto-correct instantly for changes in the environment that governs it. But prices for Standard cards *absolutely* would stabilize in such a way that the cost for new players would be equivalent to what it costs currently. Would such a change affect non-Standard formats a lot more? Yes, and I don't think WotC would care one bit.
But whatever...I'm not the DCI, so no need to be so angry.
When standard players need 3 decks to attend a tournament, that means there will be 3 times the demand for good cards. How does that lower prices? Do you have any evidence to suggest that prices would drop?
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
If there are enough people with enough money to buy whatever cards they need (and in the real world, this is the case, especially when it comes to sponsored players), then the sellers have no incentive to reduce prices to move product. Card A stays at roughly the same price (most likely with a slight bump), and Card B which wasn't previously good enough to make it into decks now is, so it rises in price.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Hostile? Don't be ridiculous, I'm just paying more attention than, um, might be appropriate in this situation. I still don't follow your claim that prices will drop. I don't know if you get this reference, but the three deck idea, as applied to Magic, reminds me a little of New Coke.
My deck that uses two Gemstone Caverns sometimes does not want to play first.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread
The rate at which you'd lose your non favored matchups would rise dramatically if you had no sideboard. The whole point of the sideboard is to cover your deck's weaknesses against other decks.
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
Here are some Economics text books.
If that happened, it would become cheaper for competitive players to buy unopened boxes, which in turn would force the card shops to drop their prices on singles. Also, are you suggesting that pro players all have enough money to own playsets of every card they might need in their decks? Because I've been reading dailymtg.com pretty faithfully for as long as it's existed, and I see stories of shared decks happening somewhat regularly.
Play-testing multiple decks is annoying.
Choosing decks more or less randomly is just plain random if the decks are very different from each other.
It simply does not work for Magic in a reasonable way to bring multiple decks.
----
Simply imagine a player to bring Dredge, Affinity and Deathshadow , without sideboards the game becomes completly stupid.
In the end, you play MORE games with sideboards than without and you would adapt your maindeck to fit a given metagame and tweak it further with your sideboard.
Extremly linear and extrem decks will be hated out by sideboard cards, for that they have a higher pre-sideboard win% and have to adapt specificly to fight the hate or snitch under the radar as people remove sideboard hate against them.
Choosing the "correct" deck for a metagame is a skill on its own and requires research, playtesting and knowing your players.
----
Simply having multiple decks, and especially expensive mana-bases in multiples (or you would need to swap them in/out, which is just extra annoying), its extremly stupid for what it gives.
----
Using a different point system for a tournament is totally valid however and it works well too, it just means you change a lot what is established for so long (and if it doesnt bother enough people, it wont really be changed).
In the end, a lot people like to ID in the Top8, while some really dislike it and you could avoid it, by simply not giving points to a draw at all (which further makes drawing in itself completly worthless) , so yes, people would indeed scoop and let others win, if they cannot win and would "force" a draw otherwise.
Another option is to actually use a game-tie-breaker , either let it be higher life-total wins the game (and if life-totals are the same, you could go as far as the starting player "wins").
Balancing and thinking this over would require a lot of changes and would in the end just "change" things, not likely really fix any essential problems (as the game will include luck anyway, so its never a game that is 100% about skill and you will always have players working the system for loopholes and hidden stuff to abuse something, it cannot be avoided).
----
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Oh good now I can read all about how when demand increases and supply doesn't prices go up.
Again: provide a single shred of evidence that a demand increase will result in a price decrease because I can provide hundreds of examples to show the prices will increase.
Summer Bloom rose and fell in price with the popularity and ban updates around Amulet Bloom.
Baneslayer Angel tanked in price after leaving standard because the demand only existed in standard.
Simian Spirit Guide went through the roof when it became a 4 of in modern eldrazi.
Now if you'd like to actually propose some sort of argument for how increasing demand without increasing supply is going to reduce prices I'd love to read it.
I'm fairly certain those economics textbooks you so trollingly linked for me are going to tell me exactly this: economic equilibrium is reached when the quantity produced at a price matches the demand at that price.
This is why prices on virtually every card in a set fall in the first week of its release. The quantity of singles available is rising rapidly and the demand for specific cards varies a lot because nobody has been to a standard tournament yet. As more tournaments happen, the meta is shaped and the important cards for that meta see an increase in demand (i.e. SSG in modern eldrazi) and an increase in price accordingly. Saheeli Rai went up ~$16 with the release of Felidar Guardian as the demand shot up.
Increasing the number of decks people take to a tournament doesn't increase the number of tournament viable cards. It only serves to reduce the supply of those that are tournament viable.
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
Firstly, anything like this only works in an environment where all sets are currently "in-print" and thusly the printed supply of cards via booster boxes can be continually increased to demand. (So basically only works for the standard format and nothing else)
Secondly, the idea that the cost for each player wouldn't increase if they had to have 3 decks versus only 1 deck is essentially impossible when one is using the baseline of the current 1-deck structure and comparing it to what a future 3-deck supply/demand structure would look like.
Thirdly, one point that was made that does have some sense to it though, is that if demand increases and thusly the value of the cards from a particular set, it makes opening boxes of that set more viable to profit from and thusly would be likely to increase the amount of supply accordingly until equilibrium would be reached again to where it would no longer be a profitably viable method to use.
However, the problem with the third point is that all that is going to do is help in keeping prices down to the current 1-deck pricing setup potentially, and will never be able to actually decrease the cost from the current 1-deck setup for those cards. Thusly players will always have to spend more under a three-deck system than they will under a 1-deck system.
Perhaps the poster making this argument isn't aware that for the vast majority of non-supply-constrained standard legal sets, the overall average box value tends to be (after reasonable costs to sell the cards out of said boxes), about equal to, or even sometimes less than the actual cost of the boxes once the set has been available for a couple months(Even for stores themselves, who tend to pay right around $80 a box these days from distributors).
I mean sure, wizards would potentially sell more boxes, and more boxes would get opened/sold under such a scenario, but realistically one has to consider how many people it could push out of the standard format due to the increase in costs of having to build 3 decks instead of 1, which just adds to the many reasons that makes it such a terrible idea.
There is never anything wrong with tossing out ideas, but it is important to understand and be willing to take into account feedback and true economic and cost impacts of such ideas in the process of discussion.
For an economics example (supply/demand/pricing/etc)....:
Lets say a current standard set has an overall average box value (after reasonable costs to sell) of $80, equal to the shop's cost to buy those boxes form their distributors.
Now then, you have a standard format where there is a variety of decks that are considered tier 1 for purposes of having the best chance to win a tournament with. Lets say each of those decks costs, say, $300 (making up a number simply for example purposes). That puts the entry cost for a player at that $300 price if they are trying to be as competitive as possible with the current 1-deck needed to play in a tournament structure. Because there are several decks that are viable, the demand for the singles that make up those decks is split within the playerbase among the cards that make up those various decks.
Now, you suddenly change the format to requiring players to have 3 decks to play in tournaments. From a strictly baseline standpoint that would increase the cost from $300 for 1 deck, to around $900 for 3 decks. However that doesn't account for the sudden increase in demand that will occur as demand would suddenly at minimum double for all tournament viable deck cards in the format, if not triple depending upon how many tier-1 decks existed in the format. The balancing act to that, in this case being that as demand increases the value of singles, it will raise the overall average box value accordingly for many of the standard sets, thus making them more viable to open for singles to sell, which will increase supply to a point where equilibrium could once again be reached, however not to a point where the cost would decrease below the current 1-deck format supply/demand/box value structure because why would shops or individuals who are explicitly opening boxes to sell singles from do so when the overall average box value is below their cost (they wouldn't, that's the thing).
In the end no matter what, you still end up in a structure where with the current 1-deck required to play in a tournament structure, the cost will be x amount (I used $300 above as just a random example), whereas when you increase that to three decks required, the cost will be 3x (or around $900 as the above example I used). All the increase in supply from boxes being more viable to open for singles would do would be to keep the individual deck costs from increasing, it would never help in them actually decreasing from current costs/values.
If anyone wishes to dispute any of the above, please feel free to do so, but just make sure you use factual economic examples with supply/demand with specific sources to back up those claims.
And as before, this setup wouldn't work at all with non-standard formats, as those sets not being in print would only see demand increase, with no increase in supply to match. Thusly creating a massive increase in cost.
To have cards, someone has to pay and open a booster. Pay for the booster. People only buy boosters if the money the spent has a realistic expectation to be paid back. So the value of cards is directly linked to the cost of a booster box and its EV (expected value). Unless Wizards would massively reduce the price of a booster box, needing 3 decks is going to be much more expensive than 1.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
Also the first 2 you mentioned didn't have parenthesis with their likelihood which would be half lol.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
Some Vintage decks can go off turn one, but it's not common. I haven't lost turn one yet online.
Legacy also has a deck that can go off turn one, but it's magical Christmas land.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
What?
On the play is even harder to combo on turn one - you have one fewer card.
Regardless, it's not even close to half unless you're making up numbers.
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar
(W/U)(B/R)GForm of Progenitus, Shape of a Scrubland
BRGJund Tokens with Prossh, the Magic Dragon Foil
URGAnimar, the RUG CleanerFoil
RRRFeldon of the Third Path 2.0 Foil
BG(B/G)Not Another Meren DeckFoil
UR(U/R)Mizzix, Y Control and X Burn Spells
(W/U)(B/R)GHarold Ramos - The 35 Foot Long Twinkie (In +1/+1 counters)
UB(U/B)Dragonlord Silumgar