RE: SPS Governance Proposal - Amend Miniset Proposal
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Its in the first sentence KZ:
Eliminate Alchemy and Legendary Packs to simplify the experience, and leave less negative feelings if picking the “wrong pack type”.
Because of the changes in both the initial proposal and also this proposal there would be an impact on the value of the pack types. Its very hard to say ahead of time how much the changes would affect the different foils. So simplifying it for this set is a way to eliminate players from feeling bad if they picked the wrong pack type. However I think after the release of this set, going back to the additional pack types will be good for the next core set - since we will all have much more experience with how the conflicts worked and the value given to them.
Please define "wrong pack type"?
really, you don't understand this? You must not hang out in Discord a ton, there was quite a few seething players over this issue on the last set.
Players bought packs in the last set, only to find out that the Alchemy packs were the "best buy" for the money. They complained that they should've been told ahead of time which pack type was the "best buy" for the money. To those people, they bought the wrong pack type and it was our fault.
While I believe that all the packs had all the information given out ahead of time, that doesn't stop people from being upset. It was new and thus no one knew how the new foil was going to be received for sure (thus the pricing implications). Plus the fact of the matter is that whenever there are more than one way to do something, then there will be one way that is better than another. Some people like that, and some people hate it.
The bottom line is because there are many changes happening with the Black Foil calculations, plus the changes in the price of the pack types in the original proposal, then there was a good chance that the "best buy" for the money could've shifted to something else.
We could just go with the "buyer beware" or "do your own due diligence" approach, but given this was an issue to players that caused a lot of negativity, then it seemed like a good compromise to remove the packs and eliminate the disparity between pack types for now.
We can always include the various pack types in the future, but considering people were unhappy last time, the goal is to eliminate as many bad feelings as possible on this time. Of course if you liked this dynamic, then it doesn't apply to you, but that doesn't mean it didn't apply to others.
I have asked this question on discord and didn't get an answer. So here it goes :)
Looks like this proposal will pass. So, with these changes, do you think people who complained are now happy? Will they buy packs and invest in the game?
Hey AZ, I think they don't have anything to complain about now after this, this addresses their objections. Whether they come back and buy packs or not, we will have to see. I certainly hope so though.
Thanks for the response Dave
I am in discord a fair amount, but there are no wrong packs. depends what we want and what we are willing to pay for it.
By that logic, all packs are wrong, as none are better value than buying individual cards.
The pack variants, imo, was the best thing that happened to the game since aggie left.
again, my vote doesn't matter, so not sure why i voice an opinion.
I hope I am wrong and we get floods of buyers due to the newfound fairness.
I agree that the pack variants are fun and are a good marketing tool, I would like to see them come back on the next set. I think the only place we would differ is that I'm ok with simplifying that part of the mini-set as a compromise to get the other things resolved that I think are far more important.
Put another way, I think the Black Foils and the various pack types did a lot of good and enabled us to sell more than we did on Rebellion, even with less players. But those also created negativity for some which also cost us.