Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Okay, so basically what it comes down to is that occasionally I get somewhat frustrated with the way cards are valued.  Everyone seems to use Three Lion's for pricing, which does a good job for some of the things, but I think that most would agree that there are some cards that are severely over or under valued.  I'd be willing to take time out of my summer to create a new price list based on my trading experience, game play, availability of cards, research of trades and purchases on ebay and the boards, and other miscellaneous categories.  It would be subject to peer review and be posted for open discussion on possible changes.  I would also have some more experienced traders take a look at it before releasing it.

But basically I'm posting this to see if this is something:
       1. People would be interested in.
       2. People would use.
       3. Others would contribute to the review process (I'm willing to do the initial brute work).
       4. People have ideas about the best way to do this (ie... we don't have to necessarily use monetary value
           for a price guide that is for trading purposes).  For example, we could have commons start at the arbitary   
           value of 1 and then have every other card be a multiple of that.  But I'm leaning toward monetary right
           now just because that is what everyone is used to. 

Long story short, is it worth my time?

Hey,

Have you looked into the collectability page of URCL?  It's designed to combine the prices from various sellers and come up with an average price.  There's not a lot of people selling cards these days and I don't know how recently Gil has updated that page, but that's the intent.

I am also frustrated at times by the use of Three Lions prices, but it's not really the prices that bother me but how rigidly some people hold to them.  I think the enjoyability of trading stems from the fact that different people have different values for different cards and thus the challenge/fun comes in finding people whose values best serve your trading interests.  If everyone is using the same values for all of the cards then the whole point of trading is kinda lost, not to mention that based on economic principles people have to be wrong because uniform value of items isn't a realistic free market equilibrium.  (Not that I really do much trading myself, so I'm really just talking in theory here.)  I think the trading environment of Redemption is kinda out of whack because so many of the major players have all of the cards or have access to all of the cards.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

As a seller I greatly disagree with this system. My price differences are what keeps me marketable compared to the other major sellers. If a player does not like the prices they should make up their own. A peer pricing is not a good idea for a free market system...

I'm not a seller, but I agree with Brad's reasoning.  If something like this would be done, I can envision a "split" that would evolve among the Redemption players where some use TLG prices and some use "peer pricing"...  The net effect would be a lot of time and effort would go into this, and what would happen is everyone would have a harder time to get the cards they need via trading because half (or whatever percentage) of players would want to trade under a different system.

Specifically to you Brad... upon thinking about this initially, I knew mainline sellers wouldn't like this idea all that much.  That is why I thought about not pricing the cards with a monetary value, but rather given them all arbitrary worth (as in a number). 

As far as economics, I realize that a free market cannot have a uniform pricing system.  This would be put into place more to let players new and old see how much a specific card is worth compared to others based on what the majority of the Redemption community thinks.  As it is now I think some of Ken's prices are based on the stock of the item he has, or how he can obtain it.  For example, FooF and RoA cards are all worth the same.  From a seller's point of view, that's just fine because they know exactly how to obtain a specific card and are able to sell it at that price.  But from a trading perspective, I think this is rediculous.  A TGT, uzzah and Amalikite's Slave all being worth the same as Abdon or Mephibosheth...

I would like a new pricing system TLG prices are fine for trade but terrible for buying/selling

Yeah Ken should have seperate prices for selling too.

Sounds good Ken.  Just a specific question... is there any reason Philistine Outpost is priced so low compared to all the other TexP???  It just seems like a powerful card...

Oh, and can someone link me to this URCL??? I don't think I've ever seen it before.

Sounds good Ken.  Just a specific question... is there any reason Philistine Outpost is priced so low compared to all the other TexP???  It just seems like a powerful card...

I priced the Thesaurus cards based on 9 months of sales, and it wasn't in very high demand. 

I just finished and uploaded the Rock of Ages as well.

I tried the link to the URCL and got a bunch of card abilities and references with some garbled dingbat type font between.

I remember the pre-priests trading time. It seemed to be a battle between 3 lions and C. Bany's spreadsheet pricing. I can see the problem with a new pricing system being similar. I would like to see a system with the number or star type of pricing for trades so as not to effect the selling of the cards.

Kind of like this


*****  Highly valuable/playable cards in high demand
****  Very Good cards that are sought out often with good playablity
***  Good playability, average demand
**  Common type cards that you need to fill a collection
*  Cards that aren't very valuable but still in the mix to get the trade finalized.

Two things came to mind as I read this thread:
 First:  I like what RCuz is considering doing.  He is right...there are a lot of cards either over or under priced.  Which is okay, in one respect, because I have only bought from Ken once maybe twice and that was complete sets (which I feel his prices are fair.)  However, it is when someone sticks to those prices hard during trading is when it gets annoying.  Like Tim said, I like to have a mix of value with how much does the card mean to you.
  Second:  I'm glad to see Ken weigh in on this, adjust some of the prices, and consider adjusting others.  Because then maybe people will realize: card prices fluctuate in price & playability, and people should have a little flexibility when working out a trade.

For example:  on paper (by Ken's prices).... Primary Objective is worth way more then TeP Gomer (last I looked anyway).  However, majority of people will go after the Gomer in a Booster draft (provided AW Primary Objective was ever an option.)  Why?  Because Gomer is more playable and versatile...where PO is just for one style of play. 
     One has to have flexibility when working out a trade.

I'm hoping that the price changes will be beneficial and make sense when I have a chance to get to the other sets. I have not done a complete re-evaluation since Thesaurus came out, which completely changed the distribution of cards from a few sets. Disciples will do the same. As I'm able to get cards cheaper through those means, I would like to then offer them for less, which is my goal in these revisions. I had a lot of time this weekend to get the tin cards repriced, which I've really been needing to do. It will take quite a bit longer to make the changes for the older sets, but they'll be coming.

As you mentioned, and as others have here, people need to realize that you shouldn't require an "even trade" every time based on listed prices. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and the trading dynamics of the players on the message board are very different than the overall Redemption community. For example, I have a hard time keeping some tournament promos in stock, but many players on here have multiples of them that they don't need. It's this type of situation that causes the prices at Three Lions Gaming to seem over- or undervalued even when they make sense from my end.

As far as booster draft, though, I have to say that I'll take a $0.25 10/10 character over an ultra rare most of the time.

no objections here. it would be nice.

OBJECTION!




*just kidding...would love to see your results of the pricing structure...