hey @nateaguila
I'm a really involved Magic player from the past 10 years. I'm Maverick too and wrote a lot about the topic of entry point for competitive. I'm also the Italian translator for SM, spent quite some money on the game itself.
I point out numerous time how the comparison with MTG is totally wrong. In the Maverick chat this has been a long discussed topic, people throw the MTG reference without knowing formats or anything. Each card game as an entry barrier to play. As it is, the SM one is INSANELY high. This is a fact.
I consider competitive a full regular deck with all cards maxed. That would still me not play gold tournaments, but let's try to exclude that for a second.
A full regular deck, as it is, it's what. ALPHA + UNTAMED alone, full regular maxed is 8K.
https://monstermarket.io/cost-estimator
I've a 4K deck and am far from everything maxed. I'm holding only regular cards from original set, maxed or towards maxed.
MTG references:
Standard (rotating format, cards rotate every 3/6 months or year depending on releases)
Price for a competitive deck is 300/400$. Some season it's 700$, that's top.
Modern (non-rotating format, you have to add cards over time to stay on top as new release happen)
Price for a competitive deck is 800/1000$. 1200$ at best.
Legacy (Eternal format, almost no need to change any cards over several years of play. Non rotating)
Price for a competitive deck 1000/1500$.
Please use https://www.mtgtop8.com/index to check events and price of competitive decks.
Throwing the MTG reference as it is it's extremely wrong. I'm not saying that the investment shouldn't be made (and this validates your point of investing on assets that can be resold), but I'm pointing out since I joined this how not welcoming this game is for competitive players.
A casual one won't care about the cost of a maxed out deck, he won't buy that many boosters anyway.
Please let me know what do you think, I'm bafi#8941 on Discord too.
We are surely building something big.
Just so that we're on the same page of music...
Regarding the entry to play, you're saying that Splinterlands is INSANELY high. How do you define "entry barrier to play"? Last I checked, the entry has been reduced to zero to play the game. The bottom two leagues should be fine for those who have only level 1 cards, no? Yes, zero money invested will make the games more challenging...but not impossible. I expect you'd still win SOME of the time. Toss in a few bucks to buy some single Common cards off the market, and suddenly the win rate starts looking tolerable.
Is it the $10 Summoner Spellbook (account upgrade) that we're talking about? Maybe you think 10 bucks is too much for what they receive?
Regarding attaining a competitive deck, you'd have to define "competitive". Does competitive = MAXed? If so, I could understand why. In some of the other comments here, it's been pointed out that we should have different leaderboards for each league. If we do this, I think it will alleviate the idea that to be "competitive" requires MAX cards. Each league will feel competitive in its own right if players can see how they stack up against others in the same "investment tier".
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
sorry, was mentioning the "competitive entry barrier" that's why.
Replying to your question in order:
1- the entry to play is really acceptable for what is offered.
2- It's difficult to place a definition of what competitive is. From my background, I would say that if I play competitive I'm in a game where my choices are the same as other people and where my "weapons" won't differ from others.
the idea of investment tier is right, it will probably even out imbalances between players' deck.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit