Stop being greedy. Give us Pauper historic in MTGA

[Minmataro]

I've heard the excuses. Pauper would bring in no money. They already do pauper events once in a blue moon.

Who cares. Listen we could use the uncommon WC dump anyway, Idc if pauper gets ranked or not either. Just give us more ways to play. As for the mid-week events. You can still run singleton pauper events. Thats fine.

[Sonic Mirage 🎸]

+1

[Kurt Angle's Neck]

Stop being greedy. Enjoy what you've already been given.

[DontMisunderstand]

Counterpoint: Pauper is very near the bottom of the list for formats to add to the game. It has nothing to do with greed, and everything to do with the fact that there are objectively more important things to give the players higher on the list of priorities.

[Minmataro]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Counterpoint: Pauper is very near the bottom of the list for formats to add to the game. It has nothing to do with greed, and everything to do with the fact that there are objectively more important things to give the players higher on the list of priorities.

Sure i can wait.

[Sonic Mirage 🎸]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Counterpoint: Pauper is very near the bottom of the list for formats to add to the game. It has nothing to do with greed, and everything to do with the fact that there are objectively more important things to give the players higher on the list of priorities.

Apples to oranges...

There are many hurdles to overcome in order to add 4-player game modes but the ONLY THING stopping Pauper from being added IS GREED.

Implementing pauper requires almost zero time/money investment .

All of you that endlessly beg for 2HG mode never realize that adding 4-player mode to a client designed from the ground up for 2 players is a HUGE financial investment.

One ask is a big ask. One ask is a very small ask.

[Kurt Angle's Neck]

Originally posted by Sonic Mirage 🎸:

the ONLY THING stopping Pauper from being added IS GREED.

Implementing pauper requires almost zero time/money investment .

If it required almost zero time/money investment, and would profit from implementing the new mode, then why haven't they implemented it? You say greed, yet you simultaneously argue that it would cost next to nothing.

At the end of the day it comes down to resource management. There are only a certain amount of people working on the game, so they have to choose where they spend their time... adding pauper is certainly not a priority, regardless of how easy you think it would be to implement. You people that sit here and complain that WotC isn't doing what you want are the same ones that say to boycott the game, thus robbing the company of the very resources it needs to provide you with what you want.

[Minmataro]

Originally posted by Kurt Angle's Neck:

Originally posted by Sonic Mirage 🎸:

the ONLY THING stopping Pauper from being added IS GREED.

Implementing pauper requires almost zero time/money investment .

If it required almost zero time/money investment, and would profit from implementing the new mode, then why haven't they implemented it? You say greed, yet you simultaneously argue that it would cost next to nothing.

At the end of the day it comes down to resource management. There are only a certain amount of people working on the game, so they have to choose where they spend their time... adding pauper is certainly not a priority, regardless of how easy you think it would be to implement. You people that sit here and complain that WotC isn't doing what you want are the same ones that say to boycott the game, thus robbing the company of the very resources it needs to provide you with what you want.

They already have the format in place. we play pauper historic events. i doubt it would take much manpower at all to make a format section in the play queue.

[Kurt Angle's Neck]

Originally posted by Minmataro:

They already have the format in place. we play pauper historic events. i doubt it would take much manpower at all to make a format section in the play queue.

Right, sooo... why haven't they implemented it then? You assert that the reason must be greed, but that doesn't make any sense as they aren't gaining anything by not implementing the mode.
I agree that it could be very easily implemented, but I don't understand why you claim it's a greedy decision. What is WotC gaining by not implementing the mode, and why do you assume it's intentionally not being released as opposed to simply not being a top priority?

[Winter Wolf]

If I read this thread correctly I think the assertion is they are not prioritizing it because it doesn't promise to bring in money. Which may or may not be true. You could argue that having a free to play Pauper event or format while not bringing in direct sales of gems, could incentivize the fish (us f2p players) to better feed the whales (the p2p players) who need to play against other players and the more active players there are at a time the more likely that is to happen thus making the economy (such as it is) "go around".

I am not sure that would be enough of a reason to put in the work to make it a regular fire and forget part of the program (it would need to be relatively bug-free, rules enforced as per the expected pauper rules, not just some weird thing on a whim. And it would need to be able to played autonomously without staff needing to activate it.) Obviously there is SOME interest on WOTC's part because they have included Pauper and a version of SilverBlack in past events. And while they haven't done so in a long time, they could do so again at any time.

They have shown that the company does like and support Pauper in the past. But in their own good time and when there is nothing else brewing. They brought it officially to MTGO long after it was an unofficial format championed by Alex Ullman and others. Keep in mind this is the company that took over a decade to bring back Leagues to MTGO and when they did they were different but they are definitely Leagues and no one can argue that they aren't.

While it isn't perhaps hard to do the actual work, I think it is fair to say there are enough tasks that have to be done to make Pauper or any new format good enough to run on Arena before they will do it aside from their priority being getting Pioneer finished, and carrying on with whatever weird things they already have planned.

I think some of their decisions really stink and I hate how they have responded to criticism of those decisions, But I think WOTC is better intentioned towards its customers than they are given credit for here and other places.

My general advice when dealing with gaming companies like WOTC even if you think they personally hate your guts and want to just rip your wallets out of your pockets and eat them, give them the benefit of the doubt and keep things positive. If you want something being positive is 99% more likely to get results than being negative or apathetic. This doesn't mean don't be critical. If something is wrong there are few ways to affect change if you don't say anything. But while being critical don't build up monsters in your haste to construct the nastiest invective you can imagine.

Very few people respond well to that kind of thing. Instead keep asking or even demanding if you think you must. "We want Pauper! When do we want it? Yesterday! But tomorrow morning will do!" etc, but don't go dark. Just keep hammering away at the "we want you to know we want to play pauper" bell until they answer it.

[Minmataro]

Originally posted by Kurt Angle's Neck:

Originally posted by Minmataro:

They already have the format in place. we play pauper historic events. i doubt it would take much manpower at all to make a format section in the play queue.

Right, sooo... why haven't they implemented it then? You assert that the reason must be greed, but that doesn't make any sense as they aren't gaining anything by not implementing the mode.
I agree that it could be very easily implemented, but I don't understand why you claim it's a greedy decision. What is WotC gaining by not implementing the mode, and why do you assume it's intentionally not being released as opposed to simply not being a top priority?

It doesn't make them money and pulls from other formats. Wizards wants u to stay in standard/historic spending money on packs and wildcards.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Sonic Mirage 🎸:

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Counterpoint: Pauper is very near the bottom of the list for formats to add to the game. It has nothing to do with greed, and everything to do with the fact that there are objectively more important things to give the players higher on the list of priorities.

Apples to oranges...

There are many hurdles to overcome in order to add 4-player game modes but the ONLY THING stopping Pauper from being added IS GREED.

Implementing pauper requires almost zero time/money investment .

All of you that endlessly beg for 2HG mode never realize that adding 4-player mode to a client designed from the ground up for 2 players is a HUGE financial investment.

One ask is a big ask. One ask is a very small ask.

Yes, it would likely be very easy to implement Pauper, as the game already has all of the formatting required to do so. However, a 4 player free for all game mode already has all of the formatting required to implement it as well, the only thing that would need added for that would be the graphical interface, which is the easy part; all they have to do is decide whether to quarter the screen space or form a circle and the game already has everything else required implemented.

You do have a point for specifically 2HG. Not for other 4 player modes, just 2HG. Having teammates is a new thing they'd have to figure out. The game already knows how to handle passing priority, and distinguishes between "each opponent" and "target opponent". It also already knows how to handle different possible targets for attacks. nothing about free for all multiplayer requires investment or dev time.

There's an irony of your use of "apples to oranges" when you try to equate all multiplayer with specifically 2HG.

[GarbageCollector]

Pauper of any sort would be awesome.

And the allegation that it would take players away from standard is absolutely true, at least to an extent.

I, for one, would never play standard on this game ever again.

[Blackfrost]

Originally posted by Minmataro:

Pauper would bring in no money.

/thread

[StuffedPlatypusLuvsOrigamiRabbit]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Counterpoint: Pauper is very near the bottom of the list for formats to add to the game. It has nothing to do with greed, and everything to do with the fact that there are objectively more important things to give the players higher on the list of priorities.

All they would have to do is flip a switch, and boom the servers are down for 2 days for half the player base. But after that they would be good to go. I don't think they are asking for every pauper card to be added to arena. The only reason I could see them not wanting to add a queue is so they don't split the... I mean so there isn't an eternal format that doesn't eat wild cards and make you want to buy more.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by StuffedPlatypusLuvsOrigamiRabbit:

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Counterpoint: Pauper is very near the bottom of the list for formats to add to the game. It has nothing to do with greed, and everything to do with the fact that there are objectively more important things to give the players higher on the list of priorities.

All they would have to do is flip a switch, and boom the servers are down for 2 days for half the player base. But after that they would be good to go. I don't think they are asking for every pauper card to be added to arena. The only reason I could see them not wanting to add a queue is so they don't split the... I mean so there isn't an eternal format that doesn't eat wild cards and make you want to buy more.

Commons are already the hardest lock on collections as-is. Maybe they're afraid of the flaws in the wildcard system becoming more obvious by releasing the game mode as a permanent fixture?