Preview: Magic the Gathering Tactics
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
the game has a huge feel of Heroes of might and magic wich I like very much, but like everyone I am not very eager to spend money to buy virtual stuff.
That game has a lot of potential if it don't cost too much to be competitive rather than who has the more cash wins style
A good compromise would be that booster cost way less than 4$ for 10 card
That game has a lot of potential if it don't cost too much to be competitive rather than who has the more cash wins style
A good compromise would be that booster cost way less than 4$ for 10 card
Well, it's a classic if you refer to old lineage in the form of Prodigal Sorcerer, which was pretty much the exact same card but blue instead of red. When they realised this didn't fit with the colour system they turned it red and made Prodigal Pyromancer.WopWopWop said:
I've always preferred Vulshok Sorcerer anyway, partly due to how useful Haste is with it's activated ability but mainly because of the flavour of it.
Hmmm interesting, but the 'virtual booster' business model remains a bit tricky.
I don't know how viable it is in the long run. Online versions of most CCG's haven't lasted that long.
And there's some amusing games like this which no longer seem to be around. When the game fails, what happens to your collection?
Years ago I just managed to scrape into the Beta for ConQuest Online. It wasn't based on an existing game, but it had the same kind of feel to it as a collectible game.
Despite the highly amusing dialog provided by John De Lancie (The Q in the title is indeed that Q), and gameplay that was quite fun, 10 years on there is pretty much no sign the game even existed.
This has the virtue of being based on Magic: The Gathering, which somehow still survives when most CCG's fail eventually, so it might not be forgotten so easily, but the same questions still remain.
I don't know how viable it is in the long run. Online versions of most CCG's haven't lasted that long.
And there's some amusing games like this which no longer seem to be around. When the game fails, what happens to your collection?
Years ago I just managed to scrape into the Beta for ConQuest Online. It wasn't based on an existing game, but it had the same kind of feel to it as a collectible game.
Despite the highly amusing dialog provided by John De Lancie (The Q in the title is indeed that Q), and gameplay that was quite fun, 10 years on there is pretty much no sign the game even existed.
This has the virtue of being based on Magic: The Gathering, which somehow still survives when most CCG's fail eventually, so it might not be forgotten so easily, but the same questions still remain.
Can't see paying $4 per booster working out here - on Magic Online, the only thing that keeps the secondary market going is the promise of being able to redeem the digital cards for paper equivalents if you collect a whole set. Since this doesn't even use the same cards that's clearly not an option. The secondary market on MODO is also dominated by a few "bot" owners rather than individual trading thanks to the awful way trading works in the current system. If this doesn't provide a better system then the "collectible" element will flop. Maybe it'll appeal to a different audience that doesn't get much service from Magic Online, namely more casual players.
Not for me though - I already spend way too much on this game.
Not for me though - I already spend way too much on this game.
For those looking to avoid simply paying $4 per pack, Wizards learned how to play Casino from running MTG:Online. Therefore, it's inevitable that you'll be able to gamble via tournaments. With a winning record you could sell off the prizes to pay entrance fees and retain enough to keep you supplied. "Going Infinite" as it's known on MTGO.
Of course that requires a starting supply, a lot of time spent grinding, the willingness to gamble, and a lot of skill. But I'm sure it will lure some prospects who see the potential to play on someone else's dime.
Personally I find it a ridiculous cash grab and it bothers me that it might work. They're trying to establish a world where you have a paper collection, an online collection, and now a Tactics collection - each of which requires $100s a year in upkeep. So many good games are being unappreciated in the discount bin and those guys are printing money. It horrifies me, really.
Of course that requires a starting supply, a lot of time spent grinding, the willingness to gamble, and a lot of skill. But I'm sure it will lure some prospects who see the potential to play on someone else's dime.
Personally I find it a ridiculous cash grab and it bothers me that it might work. They're trying to establish a world where you have a paper collection, an online collection, and now a Tactics collection - each of which requires $100s a year in upkeep. So many good games are being unappreciated in the discount bin and those guys are printing money. It horrifies me, really.
From playing an online CCG (there is no trading allowed) called Alteil, first of all, if there is no way to get cards for free, then that's a killer right then and there.
And even if there were to be a way to grind cards, odds are, it'd be a lot slower than outright buying them.
In these kinds of games where cash is king, what exactly is the point of playing them to begin with?
And even if there were to be a way to grind cards, odds are, it'd be a lot slower than outright buying them.
In these kinds of games where cash is king, what exactly is the point of playing them to begin with?
I don't like the idea of having to base success on chance when money is being spent. IE: Random chances to get cards is a major turn off. I like MTG as a game, I just hate the prohibitively expensive collection part.
I loved Magic: Duels of the Planeswalkers (Microprose, 1997) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_%28MicroProse%29], but I can't justify paying for a "chance" at collecting.
I loved Magic: Duels of the Planeswalkers (Microprose, 1997) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic:_The_Gathering_%28MicroProse%29], but I can't justify paying for a "chance" at collecting.
i see a lot of people claiming that the people with the most money will be able to make the best decks, this is not always true. back when i used to play MTG and YGO regularly i used to sweet talk the guys buying boxes of boosters into giving me the 'useless' commons they got, and would often build decks, that although they weren't going to win lots, could still give even meta-decks a good match. my best successes at this strategy where in yugioh, when i built a deck of normal monsters, and when cloudians where released i built a deck from them. (which i still use if any of my friends are playing each-other.) overall both those decks probably cost me about £5 allowing for trading for the one or two rarer cards (although people would often donate rarer cards they had multiple copies of to the cause of my decks that where particularly powerful)
so anyone who says that spending a lot of money on a deck means auto win, it doesn't, with better tactics, a half decent deck and a little bit of luck you can beat a player with a much better deck.
anyway, this game has tickled my fancy!
so anyone who says that spending a lot of money on a deck means auto win, it doesn't, with better tactics, a half decent deck and a little bit of luck you can beat a player with a much better deck.
anyway, this game has tickled my fancy!