Cross tribe cards are hard since they would have to be extra powerful to counteract not benefitting from the other tribal boosts in those decks. Knight-Captain of Eos and Hero of Bladehold, Knights that otherwise fit a Soldier deck, are the examples that come to my mind. If they themselves were Soldiers, I'd be more inclined to play them.
Otherwise, great science post.
-
- KingAlanI
- Registered User
-
Member for 16 years, 5 months, and 24 days
Last active Tue, Jun, 11 2019 10:34:46
- 0 Followers
- 976 Total Posts
- 12 Thanks
Well, okay
I mentioned that I'm "jsut a college student", you mention that you work/TO for a brick and mortar store
You worry about my lack of expertise, I worry what your status indicates - as an employee of a (presumably) successful B&M store, it's only logical that you A) have a special interest in brick & mortar stores and B) have seen a better part
Expertise is to be valued, yes. However, that doesn't completely preclude non-experts form knowing *something* about the topics in question. Furthermore, those people who seemingly have vested interests are often the experts...all of this is a (pain) to sort out, for sure.
I don't intend to discount your expertise, you may very well be more schooled business than some of the enthusiastic-hobbyist types present in this industry.
I do have some experience dealing in Magic cards, although without the issues inherent to operating a physical store - see, I use the Dad's Basement Warehouse Co. (TM) to facilitate dealing in new expansions. (My business is better known on the WotC forums than here) Sure, I may have small volumes compared to a Real Business (TM), but then again, it's a certainly more dealing [and more understanding thereof] than your average hobbyist.
* For that, I buy a few cases at a time from big online retailer; buying from a brick & mortar may be fine for your pack-a-day consumers, but it's just too much
I fully recognize that B&M stores have additional costs; however, I don't recognize why they inherently need to/deserve to get paid - basically, I wonder what's special about their service that makes the prices worthwhile...you appear to be arguing why people *should* see the different B&M service level as valuable. Some people see that value, good for them. As a player/collector, I don't.
True; experienced players like myself already know what we want in terms of MTG and where/how to get it...this is an example of the market-information problem. I referred to.
Magic products purchased online are the same thing as products purchased in-person. Heck, I find that ordering from home, paying S&H & waiting a few days is more convenient than trekking out to the local store.
As long as you work with reputable & reasonably-costed dealers (I favor a mix of CoolStuffInc, Troll & Toad, adventuresON & MagicArsenal, but other people have their preferences, I know [and I do deal with other sites form time to time]
I recognize that business models go obsolete, but I further recognize that even if the change is painful at the time, the change is probably occuring for a reason. The flailing of a now-obsolted business model isn't pretty, and I hope it doesn't lead to special-interest pressure applied by those who are vested in the old model [although it often does]. No change = stagnation.
Yep. Econ is NOT all about the laissez-faire nutters or shady financiers, so don't let that stereotype get you down.
----------------------------------
Dr. Jeebus seems to think that the stores, evne the good ones, are indispensable. Nope. Even if you're one of the good guys, don't let yourself get complacent and self-righteous
Vested interests may be truly passionate and not trying to mislead, but they're still vested interests.
I've noticed that an awful lot of people get into the game because established players they associate with in another manner introduce them to it (they're classmates, significant others, etc.), so new-player introduction doesn't have to depend on a physical store.
Economically, I recognize that open markets have a place, but that they have limitations. Considering that, problems can arise when you mess with a functioning market or fail to interfere in a nonfunctioning market. I think WotC is doing some of the former with the favoritism pointed at the brick & mortars. Maybe they're facing special-interest pressure, maybe they have their own sentimental connections...
I try not to let excessive sentimentality & emotion interfere with my decision-making; I'm afraid that it DOES mess with other people, and that I don't like what I'm seeing. (no, I'm not a Vulcan. :P) Making bad decisions because overemotion got in the way.
Think about the costs, imagined and actual, of such decisions. It's not just money/resources moved from online-store profit to nice-guy FLGS-owner profit, it comes from the customers, and it ends up going to especially-high B&M store expenses
By buying online I, and other MTG players can get more for the same pile of money, or the same stuff for less money. Market pressure (ideally) leads to this [even though it somestimes breaks down], which is clearly
A lot of FLGS managers seem to be more enthusiastic-hobbyist than successful businessmen...I recognize that some are astute businessmen, but a lot of small businesses seem to have this kind of problem. If they can't keep up because they don't have a full grasp of their situation, yeah I do feel bad in a sense, but then again, they get what's coming to them.
I'm a undergrad business management major (just wrapping up my sophmore year). So I am working on building this knowledge set; I have some of it and the inclinatrion for that side of things.
Entrepreneurship on any major scale is really tough and risky, even if tyhe parties invovled know what they're doing.
I don't mean to come off as cold-hearted, just realistic.
I love playing in person and handling real cards, but I don't depend on FLGS's - I order online, as has been discussed. I play solitaire-style, during camping trips, with other people in my university's gaming club, et cetera. The FLGS does send employees out to the gaming club to run tourneys, that I am willing to pay for, but then again, that's part of the "lesser role?" aspect I covered, and my Magic-playing experience does not depend wholly on their events.
I aim to be a holistically-focused magic player - I play a lot of formats & deck styles, I collect the cards, I deal in them; this holistic approach also means that I wish to understand the game's business side, as well as the technical aspects of its production.
I recognize that many other people approach the game differently, hence my "limited role, not no role, for B&Ms" approach
In econ terms, different people acting in the same market have different utility functions.
So, I recognize that they can't really charge much less than they do.
Charging far enough above marginal cost to cover your fixed cost & profit across your overall sales volume = yeah, that's tough to do accurately. (pricing too high and too low have their own problems, imperfect volume & cost forecasts, etc.)
The online stores are more efficient (they don't face those costs). This is reflected by the fact that they are willing to sell at lower prices. This should be reflected by people buying form them rather than brick & mortar stores.
The more efficient guy wins; that sounds EXACTLY like how market capitalism is supposed to work. Efficiency, as reflected by lower costs/prices, means that the transaction is using a smaller quantity of scarce resources.
Brick & mortar stores, to an extent, can't compete because they're inefficient, and they get driven out of business. That's the way it's supposed to work, I'm not complaining.
So why do the brick & mortar stores stay around?
* Value that they CAN offer - in-person tournaments seem like a prime example. Maybe the market price of things like that should be higher, and the market price of packs should be lower (reflecting everyone buying online)
^ If the brick & mortar stores overprice their boosters and underprice their tournaments, they shouldn't be surprised & complaining when rational players "work the system". If the tournament prices can't be raised any higher, then that's just how it rolls.
** There are a niche of people for whom the regular stores offer a better rational value proposition: small sales not worth S&H, don't have CC/paypal access, whatever
** considering the above, there is likely *some* place for physical stores
* Not-strictly-rational behavior - a big example is how a lot of people want to stick with their FLGS becuase the owner/staff are nice guys... This sentiment seems like charity and/or waste to me, however.
^ furthermore, some people don't seem to have full information on the online market - it is basic market economics that full information is a vital component of a competitive/free market.
* Market distortions that don't reflect the online-store advantages over B&M's - things like WotC's policies to restrict online dealers come to mind.
Brick & mortar stores are important to the game, sure, but I never saw them as the be-all-end-all, in large part for the above reasons.
* A lot of people play MTG in person at some location besides a physical store - even with a dminished physical-store presence, wouldn't *these* places still be around to help fuel the game?
Cool, I've been crunching these kinds of numbers myself. Just wondering how you're doing your calculations.
Here's my info and thought processes:
(I'll update the post and refine the predictions when we get more info)
[sblock=Known names+collector numbers]
1 Ardent Plea
2 Aven Mimeomancer
3 Ethercaste Knight
30 Soulquake
34 Bituminous Blast
46 Terminate
47 Thought Hemhorrage
53 Dragon Broodmother
60 Spellbreaker Behemoth
70 Knight of New Alara
74 Pale Recluse
90 Spellbound Dragon
103 Sages of the Anima
124 Unscythe, Killer of Kings
138 Jund Hackblade
140 Marisi Twinclaw
[/sblock]
[sblock = Name & colors known, collector number not]
Nemesis of Reason - U/B
Dauntless Escort - G/W
Filligree Angel - W/U
Lich Lord of Unx - U/B
Deathbringer Thoctar - B/R
[/sblock]
Summary:
White/Blue 1,2,3 1 unknown number after 3
Blue/Black 30 2 unknown numbers before 30
Black/Red 34,46,47 1 unknown number between 35 and 45
Red/Green 53,60
Green /White 70, 74 1 unknown number between 61 and 69
Blue/Red 90
Green/Blue 103
Blue, Black, Red 124
Hybrid & one-color 138,140
Assuming that the amount of at least each allied two-color pair is balanced:
No fewer than 15 of each (see the white/green at 74 - 75/5 = 15)
At least 16 of each (see the black/red at 47 - 48/3 = 16)
Counterexamples outside of that range:
14 of each = would be contradicted by the blue/black (category 2) at #30
17 of each = would be contradicted by the black/red (category 3) at #34
So, it's 16 of each allied-color pair, for sure. (assuming that the distribution is balanced)
The enemy-color pairs occupy at most the 81-123 range (43 cards).
TRUNC(43/5) = 8 of each, at most
Assuming the enemy-color pairs are organized as W/B,U/R,B/G,R/W,G/U:
Blue/Red (2nd category) 90
Green/Blue (4th category) 103
1st through 3rd categories can occupy no more than the 81-102 range (23 cards)
TRUNC(23/3) = 7 of each, at most
number ranges for 5 of each: 81-85,86-90,91-95,96-100,101-105. Possible.
Stop right there. We need to get up to at least 90 in the 2nd category (blue/red).
So, it's 5, 6 or 7 cards of each enemy-color pair.
I don't have concrete info/ideas on the hybrids and tri-colors yet, not to mention four-color or five-color potential.
Ethercaste Knight shows up with his other white/blue friends in the collector-number scheme, which makes me suspect that the colored artifacts will continue to be sorted with their colors (including the Borderposts?)
Potential existence of Backlash and/or Meddling Mage reprints don't change the numbers.
Edit1:
Orb manacost results-
seem to confirm my 16-of-allied-color-pair thoughts, and indicate 5 per enemy color.
The hybrids? 3 of each enemy color, followed by a regular-mana of the shared ally color. So, 15 of those (131-145 or 130-144 depending on where the 5-color card is put) and 5 for each shard's triple-color
I'm trying to do a rare run.
Over 9 boxes' worth of data, not noticing any useful patterns.
I notice "something not right" - a 404 Not Found error.
I'd say that it's sometimes 6 cards from Run A, then 4 cards from Run B.
However, I've opened boxes where it's 5-and-5 or 4-and-6 as well.
It's not 6-4 or 5-5 throughout an entire box; I've noticed changes from pack to pack; haven't noticed a pattern to the changes though.
Also, if the pack has a foil, the foil sometimes replaces a common from Run A, sometimes a common from Run B. (Run A and B would have a shorter unbroken sequence in those situations; the foil apparently isn't taken from the middle of a sequence)
Since the 6-4/5-5/4-6 breakdown changes from pack to pack, I wouldn't be sure what the breakdown was for that pack. Generally, I see 5-and-4 or 4-and-5 breakdowns of the nonfoil commons in a foil'ed pack.
Common should be easier because of the larger sample size, I would think.
However, there are two common print runs as far as I'm aware. How do you tell the two apart? Is it always 5 cards from run A on top of 5 cards form run B? [with the exception of foils]
I notice some patterns (such as Sylvan Bounty-Aven Squire-Pestilent Kathari); how do I correlate those small patterns into a full print sheet?
Thinking of that, how do you account for foil packs? How do you know what common was taken out to make room for the foil?
Any idea about foil print sheets, or are we simply working with too small a sample size to figure out those details properly.
Are uncommons (3/pack) from one print sheet?
Mythic Rares reside on the same print sheet as regular rares, do they not? [53+53+15=121 for Shards indicates that they do]
Obviously, position within the box matters for rares, but is the pack's position in the box useful when analyzing common & uncommon runs
Specifically, I'm looking at Conflux, but I suppose some of this is about general principles of the print-run-determining process
As a side question, how does the print run list correlate to the layout of the print sheet?
Do the lists read left-to-right? (i.e Card 1 is in Row 1 Column 1, Card 2 is in Row 1 Column 2, Card 12 is in Row 2 Column 1, etc?)
Do the lists read up-and-down (i.e Card 1 is in Row 1 Column 1, Card 2 is in Row 2 Column 1, Card 12 is in Column 2 Row 1, etc?)
I know it's been determined for Conflux commons [http://www.davef139.com/conflux.html], but I still want to leanr how to crunch the data myself.
Only noting full data on one half case (3 boxes); so as to not spend all day doing data entry.
From what I've found so far, I can confirm most of your data for commons.
Yeah, it appears that everything occurs in only two run patterns
[When the A-run repeats on its sheet and the B-run repeats on its sheet, I count those as the same pattern because they' d be identical to a pack cracker]
Indeed, for instance, Aven Squire is only occurring )after Frontline Sage & before Wretched Banquet) or (after Sylvan Bounty & before Pestilent Kathari)
The occasional error is OK, I'd assume - written off as a typo on the data-cruncher's part, or a collation error over at Cartamundi
Will probably note just-the-rares for several of the remaining boxes