|
|
Post by Ringel on Mar 28, 2012 18:02:04 GMT -5
The “ultrarare” threads have grown long and contentious, so here is a summary for the devs:
The effect of limiting cards to at most 4 of each color has had some unforeseen(?) results on the distribution of rare and (most likely) uncommon cards.
Templar Packs contain noticeably fewer than the expected number of Order rares and Order uncommons compared to a pure random distribution, and more of the other colors.
Assassin Packs contain noticeably fewer than the expected number of Crime rares and Crime uncommons compared to a pure random distribution, and more of the other colors.
Mixed Packs, however (as far as we can tell), contain exactly the expected number of all cards—they are purely random.
Whether or not this should be fixed is up to the devs. One possible fix is to pick rares and uncommons in a pack before picking commons. This would create an uneven distribution of commons, but the effects should be less pronounced than they are with rares and uncommons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Mar 29, 2012 0:17:58 GMT -5
I like it how it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 29, 2012 0:35:21 GMT -5
Actually in a mixed pack there would be more chance for an assassin crime rare or a Templar order rare, cos there's simply more of them in the sets than any other type of cards. But, there would be an even chance of a rare in all 6 colours, regardless of Templar or assassin in all 6 colours. Anyhoo I have no qualms about how it is now  |
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Mar 29, 2012 1:30:59 GMT -5
Actually in a mixed pack there would be more chance for an assassin crime rare or a Templar order rare, cos there's simply more of them in the sets than any other type of cards. But, there would be an even chance of a rare in all 6 colours, regardless of Templar or assassin in all 6 colours. Anyhoo I have no qualms about how it is now Right, all because it is completely random in mixed packs like I said. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on Mar 29, 2012 3:37:06 GMT -5
Whether or not this should be fixed is up to the devs. One possible fix is to pick rares and uncommons in a pack before picking commons. This would create an uneven distribution of commons, but the effects should be less pronounced than they are with rares and uncommons. I vote for this! |
|
|
|
Post by Ringel on Mar 29, 2012 13:19:43 GMT -5
Yes, I think you deserve credit for originally suggesting that idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by jefmajor on Mar 30, 2012 1:18:35 GMT -5
I think they should flat out make an ultra rare category and be done with it. It's still a rare, but, rarer. Cesare, Femme Fatale, Juno, etc, would be great cards to be ultra-rares. It would increase the joy of getting one and people would understand the situation without feeling like something shady was going on.
I don't know any TCG or CCG where all cards were equal. There are always the ones that people seek and chase and covet. Just make it official and then you can have your cake and eat it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on Mar 30, 2012 2:13:18 GMT -5
I don't like the idea of ultra-rares. It's basically only a means to get more money from the collectors and puts those with lesser budgets in a bad position.
I really like it the way it is now. Even though the Assassin rares are great to have, they are not 100% winners but allow for a greater variety of decks.
I really like the idea that you can win (some) games using the default sequence. Introducing effective ultra-rare cards (like Cesare, FF, etc.) would unbalance the game in favor of the big-spenders (of which I'm probably one with 150 assassin rares). That's what I really disliked about MTG.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on Mar 30, 2012 2:19:35 GMT -5
Oh, and the ultra-rare doesn't exist.
There are just a few types that are more or less rare. I will not try to do the calculations (I'll leave that to Ringel from now on), but Assassin Crime rares are probably only a few percent rarer than Faith, Gold, Media and Scholar. Nothing you will notice until you've bought hundreds of boosters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hurdler on Mar 30, 2012 7:38:02 GMT -5
In fact, since Marc is back it has been decided that we will indeed change the order in which the memories are drawn. This is going to be effective in a couple of days (since it's a server change, no need to wait for an update).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Mar 30, 2012 7:53:49 GMT -5
Would be interesting to know how the ratios will work out, would you guys give us that info?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Mar 30, 2012 9:32:42 GMT -5
In fact, since Marc is back it has been decided that we will indeed change the order in which the memories are drawn. This is going to be effective in a couple of days (since it's a server change, no need to wait for an update). interesting. |
|
