Suggestion

[sharknut]

Now that we have the collections going, I had an idea when it comes to ripping Gold, Platinum and Perfect cards while buying packs. Since many of us are short the higher value cards to fill up a collection, what if we had a choice of say 3 different cards when we are lucky enough to get a Gold, Platinum or Perfect card?

All 3 would be the same rating, but you could have a choice in order to either fill a specific spot on your roster or to fill out a collection. Rather than getting 86 rated Billy Grabarkewitz, you could have a choice of Grabarkewitz, 86 rated Jim Bottomley or 86 Leon Day. You may need a Bottomley or Day to fill out a collection, but you could use Grabarkewitz more in your lineup. Just something to make the ripping a little more interesting for high value cards.

[eldur00]

Originally Posted by sharknut

Now that we have the collections going, I had an idea when it comes to ripping Gold, Platinum and Perfect cards while buying packs. Since many of us are short the higher value cards to fill up a collection, what if we had a choice of say 3 different cards when we are lucky enough to get a Gold, Platinum or Perfect card?

All 3 would be the same rating, but you could have a choice in order to either fill a specific spot on your roster or to fill out a collection. Rather than getting 86 rated Billy Grabarkewitz, you could have a choice of Grabarkewitz, 86 rated Jim Bottomley or 86 Leon Day. You may need a Bottomley or Day to fill out a collection, but you could use Grabarkewitz more in your lineup. Just something to make the ripping a little more interesting for high value cards.

Wouldn't the same formula to determine the cards would be the same though ? Meaning, you would get that Grabarkewitz card, but wouldn't the chances of the other 2 cards being live cards be so much higher that you would end up picking up the historical card anyway ?


Also I'm not sure it would need to be the same overall. Not all 86 rated cards are created equal. Would probably work best with "tiers".

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by eldur00

Wouldn't the same formula to determine the cards would be the same though ? Meaning, you would get that Grabarkewitz card, but wouldn't the chances of the other 2 cards being live cards be so much higher that you would end up picking up the historical card anyway ?


Also I'm not sure it would need to be the same overall. Not all 86 rated cards are created equal. Would probably work best with "tiers".

I think the idea would be that the card is pre-determined to be either live OR historical (or future) and then you get three selections of that.

Regardless - no. You bought the pack. The vendor will not accept haggling over its contents. This includes the barely street-legal piece of old gum that comes with the pack.

[Ty Cobb]

Um...nit trying to sound creepy or anything, but...your gum is barely street legal? Mine came out out of the pack, bought the table a round, and wasn't ID'd...

[Magus978]

Originally Posted by Ty Cobb

Um...nit trying to sound creepy or anything, but...your gum is barely street legal? Mine came out out of the pack, bought the table a round, and wasn't ID'd...

The black market rate on gum is much lower, obviously. Any place that I can get Big League Chew for less than a dollar, I'm in.

[eldur00]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I think the idea would be that the card is pre-determined to be either live OR historical (or future) and then you get three selections of that.

Regardless - no. You bought the pack. The vendor will not accept haggling over its contents. This includes the barely street-legal piece of old gum that comes with the pack.

I agree with you with bought packs. I could see the OP's idea working for a collection reward though, where you could pick and choose cards of similar values depending on need.

[dkgo]

Your suggestion is just "give us better stuff" which I get everyone wants but is not really that productive

Maybe a pick of three would be an interesting mission reward

[Goliathus]

Most people will just pick the better one out of the three, so I don't see the benefit of that to the developer, aside from slightly increased pack sales I guess.

[sharknut]

Originally Posted by dkgo

Your suggestion is just "give us better stuff" which I get everyone wants but is not really that productive

Not better. Like I said, all three choices would be similarly rated. But it would allow someone to complete a collection rather than pull your 5th Will Smith.

[quickstep76]

This is a bad idea IMHO. Part of the allure of the packs are the complete randomness of who you get:l. Messing with that would be detrimental to not only the pack ripper, but the overall distribution of cards.

[atabakin]

Not all cards with the same overall rating are equal. You can't let someone pick between a 90 Toby Harrah and a 90 Ozzie Smith. Same position, same overall rating, but one goes for 30x on the auction house.

Quickstep is right above, the status quo is necessary to maintain proper distribution/frequency of cards.

[Dogberry99]

While I don't mind the recommendation made in the OP, I would prefer a small weight being added to the chance of pulling a card I don't already own.

Then again, I'm a collector playing a game that is not yet optimized for collecting.

[stl jason]

Originally Posted by Dogberry99

While I don't mind the recommendation made in the OP, I would prefer a small weight being added to the chance of pulling a card I don't already own.

Then again, I'm a collector playing a game that is not yet optimized for collecting.

would definitely support this one....


just popped back in to check on my v19 teams.... before v20 came out, my 2 pack only teams in v19 each pulled one perfect card... both of them Mike Trout... had enough points accumulated between the two teams to get 50 packs last night.... landed one perfect card out of the bunch.... guess who it was?


Mike Trout.... *sighs* (guess on the plus side he'll fetch some points in the AH to buy more packs, but a little variety would be nice )

[Goliathus]

Originally Posted by sharknut

Not better. Like I said, all three choices would be similarly rated. But it would allow someone to complete a collection rather than pull your 5th Will Smith.

Firstly, not all cards of the same rating is equal. You can give me a full list of X rated cards(X can be anything from 40 - 100) and I can easily rate them based on usefulness and value(as in "are they a part of a mission?"). No one is picking the useless one over the betters. There are always tiers in card game.

Also, you are only thinking one way - collector - while there are many customer groups to consider when you make a decision. What will happen with your suggestion is that most people will just pick the best card out of the three. To the players, that is not a problem. Screw those garbage cards, right? Not many will care if those horrible gold cards disappear. This will reduce the cost of those good cards since they will be abundant and everyone will be happy.

Well, not the dev. Lootbox works because the box contain garbage and this forces the whales to buy a lot of packs - thus profit for the dev - to be able to find gold in the garbage. What you suggested directly goes against the objective of the model which is to sell a lot of packs or a lot of PPs. Your suggestion will make good cards cheaper thus reducing the PP sales and also decrease packs sales. It will also decrease the amount of market transaction because everyone is more likely to find the cards they want with the "pick 1 out of 3" mechanism, and that will leads to PP inflation because the there are only two things taking PP out of the system: AH tax and packs. Both will be reduced with the implementation of your suggestion.