NoDot wrote:I hate to bring back up the discussion from two pages back, but I feel the issue of card rarity wasn't resolved satisfactorily.
(Well, my satisfaction)
Either the value of more than two* rarities wasn't explained sufficiently (I accept this possibility), or I still feel it's a waste of card design.
There's an explanation, but I've changed my mind and I agree with you. You really only want 2 rarity levels.
It's a waste of design in draft.
Maybe there are some cards that you want to show up once with low variance, but I doubt it.
Suppose you've got:
130 commons (20 * 6 + 10)
65 uncommons (10 * 6 + 5)
260 rares (40 * 6 + 20)
and you get 7 + 1 + 1 per pack.
Well, in a draft, if you get E(each common) = 3, you've got E(each uncommon)~=4/7 and E(each rare)~=1/14 and you may or may not have 1 of them, either way.
However, you will get a complete suite of 3 of any given uncommon in 195 packs, but a complete suite of 3 of any given rare in *780* packs.
So the purpose of uncommons is to make collecting a set of 3 (for use in constructed deck) easier, thus lowering the gating.
But I think it is an exercise doomed to failure, because each constructed deck
will require a suite of 3 of *some* rare to be competitive, which means you need to have opened 780 packs to get there. So instead, I think it's better to go something like:
165 commons (25 * 6 + 15)
295 rares (45 * 6 + 25)
and get 7 + 2 per pack.
That means you get, on average, 3 of each rare in about 450 packs, which is still a lot but far fewer than you needed in the original release of MtG, for example.
Chaosium rules are made of unicorn pubic hair and cancer. --AncientH
When you talk, all I can hear is "DunningKruger" over and over again like you were a god damn Pokemon. --Username17
Fuck off with the pony murder shit. --Grek