A Potential Alternative to the Vault for MTG:A

Online Magic forum

Posted on Sept. 24, 2019, 9:38 p.m. by PIayswithFlRE

Short(er) and (hopefully) to the point:

  • Every 18th "fifth" common automatically produces a common wildcard; same for uncommons
    • Can't decide whether to leave "fifth" rares and mythics producing gems or switch them to this model
  • You can spend 25 gold to trade in up to 18 cards of a given rarity towards earning a wildcard of that rarity as if they were "fifths".
    • This stacks with progress made towards wildcards by opening packs, both uncommon and whichever of rare or mythic is being worked towards, with three traded cards advancing it as much as one pack
  • You can also spend 25 gold to trade in three wildcards of the same rarity to produce one of the next rarity
    • While not strictly necessary or related, I think it would also make sense to allow a conversion from higher rarity to lower, but probably at 1:2 instead of the 3:1 to going up.

More long-winded / the thought process and math behind the numbers

The current vault progression rates establish a 3:1 ratio between uncommons and commons. Before fifth rares and mythics gave gems, the same 3:1 ratio existed between rares and uncommons. I never got a fifth copy of a mythic before they changed it, so I don't know if the same was true between mythics and rares. But, currently, a fifth mythic gives twice as many gems as a fifth rare and rare wild cards are given as pack opening rewards four times as often, so it seems reasonable to keep the same 3:1 value ratio.
Having established the relative value (3:1, see previous section) of fifth/extra cards of different rarities, assert that the same relative value applies to wildcards of those rarities.

If so, then the current vault reward of 1 mythic, 2 rare, and 3 uncommon wild cards is equivalent to 54 common (or 18 uncommon or 6 rare or 2 mythic) wildcards. Since the vault is opened with 1000 fifth commons or 333 fifth uncommons (or a mix), that establishes a ratio of 18.5 fifth/extra/pulped cards of a given rarity to create a wildcard of that rarity.

Since there isn't a way to do half-cards, an alternate cost is needed; the game provides two options: gold and gems. But, how much? Applying the same 3:1 ratio logic to the cost of a pack (ignoring wild cards and the possibility of getting a mythic), commons are worth 50gp/10 gems (and uncommons are worth 150gp/30 gems, and rares are worth 450 gp/90 gems).

While the gold/gem cost could scale with the rarity, an 18:1 ratio is already pricey, so it seems simpler to just fix the incidental cost to half the cost of a common, 25gp/5 gems. I went with gold because it's always available from daily wins / rewards. The costs of crafting higher rarity cards can also be made to "scale" while keeping the incremental cost low by tacking on the same gold cost to a new system that would allow you to convert 3 wildcards of one rarity to one of the next rarity.

Ignoring the fact that it also costs an increasing amount of commons (18/54/162/486), beginning with commons, the cost to craft a wildcard scales up from 25 (common) to 100 (uncommon) to 325 (rare) to 1000 (mythic). Has the nice side benefit of mostly being round numbers (except at rare) and making the mythic rare have the same gold cost as buying a pack.

Since 18 is a multiple of 6, this conversion process can be integrated with the existing method of getting wildcards by opening packs. Still paying the 25 gold, you can trade in any number of cards up to 18 to advance the existing progressions on the packs screen, with every 3 being equal to one of the current wedges. A new wheel would need to be added for common wildcards that can only be filled by trading in.

Compared to the current vault model, it will cost between 150 and 600 gold to get the same rewards that you currently get for nothing, but, for the price, you get additional flexibility in how those rewards are paid out and you can accelerate your progress by trading out cards you know you'll never use.

I don't necessarily love all the numbers (particularly the 18), but they're internally consistent with what's been done so far with MTG:A.

Thoughts?

Boza says... #2

WOTC has no reason to do this. Making it easier to get wildcards is not in their favor. They are currently busy layering system upon system and making things more confusing. This works to incentivize you to purchase stuff and fund the free to play model.

But the idea to trade in 18 cards for a single wild card is not good. There should never be anything in the game that causes you to lose your collection.

Additionally, if that was implemented, it would be for real-cash currency rather than gold.

September 25, 2019 4:06 a.m.

PIayswithFlRE says... #3 

WOTC has no reason to do this. Making it easier to get wildcards is not in their favor. They are currently busy layering system upon system and making things more confusing. This works to incentivize you to purchase stuff and fund the free to play model.

But, the only ways to get wildcards will still be

  • Opening packs, which just gives them and, eventually, contributes to the vault
  • Doing drafts that will just fill the vault
  • New: Doing either of the above and then converting the cards you don't want to wildcards at an 18:1 ratio
and it still gives out the same amount of value (assuming my calculations are accurate) as what they're doing now+ but with smaller, incremental pieces of value given more frequently rather than infrequent big bangs when the vault fills up.

I guess it depends on how many users are where on the axis from "I'll never give them a dime" to "New set; time to pay $200 and get everything" and how this change would adjust users behavior. If there are enough people on the little to nothing end who'd increase spend something/a bit more because they see more value in it with the additional control being provided to them, that could offset any reduced purchases by users already at the top end of the spectrum. It's hard to know, but I am now curious to run various other calculations.

+barring the occasional spike around rotation if historic doesn't work out 

But the idea to trade in 18 cards for a single wild card is not good. There should never be anything in the game that causes you to lose your collection.
I can mostly agree with that, but I do have a few counterpoints:
  • Trading cards and the whole secondary market is a not insignificant part of the Magic experience and, since user <-> user trading would probably be exceedingly difficult / unlikely to work, providing a means of trading with the game is the closest they can come to that experience
  • Unless historic takes off, every rotation, I now have a bunch of useless cards
    • I realize they don't necessarily care; they got my money, whether actual or virtual
    • but allowing users to trade in cards they don't want, whether from the current sets or historic ones, is also a form of market research into what formats and styles of cards will work well for them in the future

Additionally, if that was implemented, it would be for real-cash currency rather than gold.

You're probably right, or at least gems, since you can buy them directly, but as someone in what I imagine is the low-middle portion of the purchasing curve (maybe $20 each set if I'm low on gems so I can do more sealed early on), I'd personally like it more if it were gold, so that's what I'm proposing.

They're going to do whatever they're going to do; just wanted to see what people thought of the mechanics I came up with, so I appreciate the feedback.

September 25, 2019 5:37 p.m.

Please login to comment