The Anti-Laundering System is a Card Duplication System

[Ransium]

The anti-laundering system, wherein a card, when placed on the market is much more likely than normal to be pulled, is meant to protect small time card farmers from larger farmers dominating the market. However, recently exploits have been discovered in the card farming system, where, if multiple bids are placed in very small incremental amounts repeatedly, the card becomes a great deal more likely to pull than if a single bid is placed. Practically, this means that a single player or small group of players can exploit the anti-laundering system to duplicate rare, valuable cards. Since the player(s) can choose when to put the card on the market, and can choose times where few others are pulling cards, therefore they can more or less control who gets a lions-share of the extra copies of the rare card. For example, last night, Noah used the exploit to gain 2(-4) copies of Nervun https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/ ... _history=1 or a Pergamon (and other high value cards?) self made pull that temporarily vaulted Feu de glace to second place https://www.nationstates.net/nation=feu ... ensusid=86. Note that in a couple hours for farming Feu was able to farm about 50k in cards.

I've been told that a counter argument is that the market should just adjust with the value of the increased copies. The problem is that a very few select players can use this exploit to guarantee they get a large portion of the additional copies that are placed on the market. Again, the point of the anti-laundering system is to make it so large transfers aren't safe in order to favor small time players, so the fact that, in practice, it is being used to greatly enhance the number of high value cards held by the richest few nations is both ironic and demonstrative the system is quite broken. Besides, transfers are fairly safe regardless, for example I regularly transfer $50+ bank while paying 0-4 bank to heists using the exact strategy that the current system seems designed to stop (see https://www.nationstates.net/page=deck/ ... 8/season=1).

So fixes:
1) The odds of pulling a card should not stack if multiple bids are placed.
2) Perhaps the overall odds of a pulling a card while it is on the market should increase to compensate somewhat

Honestly, the anti-laundering system is not that effective at deterring me and others from making large transfers. I would prefer no system over the current system. It's not all that fun that farming is many orders of magnitude more profitable at some times over others, and it's kind of game killing that players with the most high value cards and largest farms can control when farming is most profitable so they can selective farm then and gain thousands to tens of thousands of deck value in a single farming session when a typical farming session opening the exact save number of packs would yield only a few hundred bank.

[Noahs Second Country]

EDIT: Stance has since changed, see my latest replies.

Thank you for writing this up. I wholeheartedly agree that something definitely needs to change.

With mass copy transfers being a thing, I don't really see too much of a point in the anti-laundering system as it hurts small farmers more than larger ones with established transfer cards.

For those unfamiliar, we don't actually know the exact mechanics behind the system. For example, The Northern Light tried to use it and pull more copies of Abacathea, with no success, while I pulled 2 NERVUNS with very few packs a short while later.

1) The odds of pulling a card should not stack if multiple bids are placed.

Just a clarification: we don't actually know if they stack. Cards have been pulled at the first match, or even 10 minutes after the most recent bid.

Honestly, the anti-laundering system is not that effective at deterring me and others from making large transfers. I would prefer no system over the current system. It's not all that fun that farming is many orders of magnitude more profitable at some times over others, and it's kind of game killing that players with the most high value cards and largest farms can control when farming is most profitable so they can selective farm then.

I agree with this statement.

[Bormiar]

Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me what you guys are able to figure out.

[Noahs Second Country]

EDIT: Stance has since changed, see latest replies.

Pull events started with good intentions, but now that we understand the system much better, it's easy to see what happens when the event goes on too long or is organized independently.

This card was, at one point, the second most expensive card in the game, with very few copies existing of such an influential player.

Edit: As demonstrated here, I've transferred more than 2000 bank recently with less than 1% of that being lost. Cards has evolved to a point where the system only ever comes into play when a new player makes a mistake (enabling certain large farmers to capitalize on it) or when it's being abused in a pull event.

Edit 2: And here's a different kind of transfer of more than 1000 bank at once. The system does not work.

[Noahs Second Country]

EDIT: There are clear flaws with this solution, see later replies.

I'd like to reiterate that we only have a general idea of how this system works.

With that in mind, my proposed solution is simple:

Keep the increased probability of a card being pulled during an auction.

Remove the mechanic where the probability is increased by new matches, increased bids, etc..

For example, the early TNP pull events were much better as they produced very few pulls, since we didn't realize that bidding is what made the difference.

[The Northern Light]

I agree with all of this. Ever since the bid mechanic was discovered, the anti-laundering system has become completely exploitable.

What is worse is that this is an exploit that primarily favors players with big card farms, who can trivially stock up large amounts of decks and open them during self-created "pull events". Additionally, the competitive way in which the anti-laundering system works (a card pulled by one player is a card that all other players can no longer pull until new bids are placed) leads to an arms race of scripts, browser plugins, and so on, that are meant to accelerate pack opening during the pull events. This makes it even more difficult for casual players to benefit from this exploit, and it further concentrates power in the biggest farmers. (I say all these as a person that is in this category, and benefits from the exploit.)

Another problem with this exploit is that it comes essentially free of risk. Given that you can increase your bids by 0.01, you can have a card on the market for hours upon hours without spending more than 4-5 bank (an amount negligible given that the bids themselves are typically more than 500 bank). One could argue that the fact that the auction lasts longer means your bank is at greater risk of being heisted. But this is typically counterbalanced by the fact that, given that the bidding player pulls so many cards, they can use these copies to easily defend against heists. Even if some bank is lost, the pulled cards more than make up for it. (I am once again speaking from personal experience here.) And of course, players can always do their pull events at times when there is not much market activity (e.g., early morning ET), further reducing the risk. All these combined make the exploit essentially free of risk.

The argument that the price will adjust accordingly is not very convincing, as it generally does not happen in practice. For example, we recently held a pull event for the Soops season 1 card. The card remains the most valuable in the game, despite the fact that 40 copies of it were spawned. The reason why price adjustment does not work goes back to what I said above: the new copies are generally owned by a small group of players, corresponding to systematic farmers. These players can choose to just keep the cards in their deck for their market value, and never trade them. With no trades, the value never changes. And as the copies are concentrated on so few players, nobody can do anything about it.

Finally, as Ransium stated, the system is simply not an effective deterrent against large transfer. I'll add my own testimonial of transferring 875 bank in one go, with a single card, fully aware of this exploit. I also routinely (about twice per month) transfer around 2000 bank split over many cards, losing no more than 10 bank in the process. In unsuccessfully trying to fix transfers, the system has created an awful exploit that is leading to enormous gains by select few players.

I think the best solution is to introduce (or reinstate? unclear) a system where a card that is at auction simply has increased odds of being pulled for the duration of the auction. There can be modifiers (if these aren't already in place), e.g., the pulling odds can increase as a function of the number of copies at auction or the price/junk value ratio. But it should definitely not be dependent on new bids, or any other such easily manipulated mechanic. This is similar to what Ransium and Noah are also suggesting above. It is also how most players assumed the anti-laundering system worked, at least up until the beginning of season 2.

[Ballotonia]

The anti-laundering system, wherein a card, when placed on the market is much more likely than normal to be pulled, is meant to protect small time card farmers from larger farmers dominating the market.

Correction: the system was put in place to make transferring value from puppets to main nations more difficult, the idea being that heisting would be more likely this way and thus making transferring value more costly.

I'm aware things are not working out as initially envisioned. That's business as usual for NationStates

Ballotonia

[Ransium]

The anti-laundering system, wherein a card, when placed on the market is much more likely than normal to be pulled, is meant to protect small time card farmers from larger farmers dominating the market.

Correction: the system was put in place to make transferring value from puppets to main nations more difficult, the idea being that heisting would be more likely this way and thus making transferring value more costly.

Okay? And is the ultimate reason this was done not to make it a bit harder for the players with the largest farms to dominate the market?

I'm aware things are not working out as initially envisioned. That's business as usual for NationStates

Ballotonia

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying admins stance is from this remark. If it is that nothing needs to be done, then I think I am done playing cards. I don't need a game to interact with a system that claims to reward hard work and maybe give the little guy a bit of boost, but actually can be easily rigged to make the wealthier way more wealthy because they are wealthy.

[9003]

It is really disheartening to see this as a response becuse the existence of a method to easily duplicate cards takes away a key element of a trading card game and that's scarcity. If everyone has ever card or has cheap access to every card there's no point, no ladder to climb, if your (the admin team) busy I think I can speak for all of us and say we know that with the new waves of folks it's been crazy and real life is crazy too we get that and knowing it is on the list to be fixed is better then just saying meh it's a "feature" not a bug.

[Racoda]

I think the main problem here is not so much TCALS, but the monopoly that it grants.

Changing TCALS is one way to fix that. However, implementing a fix now without simultaneously correcting the massive inequality created by the spawning of duplicates will result in the monopoly that's been created being unchallengeable, and will only profit those who've already effortlessly gained the duplicates: let those who've had the time and resources to abuse the system keep their riches, which have been in many instances already traded away for more stable assets (ex. Testlandia cards).

Honestly, I find it ironic that those who've abused TCALS because of their vanity or for monetary/DV benefit would now cry foul — simultaneously claiming that changes are for the benefit of smaller farmers — after milking the system as much as possible (you know who you are).
What is truly disheartening is people having the impudence to claim they're bringing light to the issue and that they want a fix yet delaying posting this thread in technical (not you, Ransium) until they can cash out the cards they've spawned. Edited 12/05/2020 17:20 UTC
What is truly disheartening is some people having the impudence to claim they're bringing light to the issue and that they want a fix yet cashing out the cards they've spawned before a fix is implemented.

A fix to TCALS is needed, but unless something is done to correct the damage done; I'd say let everyone abuse it: let the abuse of TCALS be a way to fight the problems it's created.

There is no easy way to correct the abundance of duplicates, but possible solutions would be removing the duplicates (and any money/assets gained from selling them), resetting their MV, or make MV decay if no trades are made after some time (I suppose the last one is the hardest to implement).

As to TCALS working as intended: it is possible to increase bids on a transfer in order to pull multiple copies of a card, to heist the transfer. Most profitable on piggyback transfers.

[Noahs Second Country]

I think the main problem here is not so much TCALS, but the monopoly that it grants.

Changing TCALS is one way to fix that. However, implementing a fix now without simultaneously correcting the massive inequality created by the spawning of duplicates will result in the monopoly that's been created being unchallengeable, and will only profit those who've already effortlessly gained the duplicates: let those who've had the time and resources to abuse the system keep their riches, which have been in many instances already traded away for more stable assets (ex. Testlandia cards).

There is no easy way to correct the abundance of duplicates, but possible solutions would be removing the duplicates (and any money/assets gained from selling them), resetting their MV, or make MV decay if no trades are made after some time (I suppose the last one is the hardest to implement).

As to TCALS working as intended: it is possible to increase bids on a transfer in order to pull multiple copies of a card, to heist the transfer. Most profitable on piggyback transfers.

There is no easyway to correct the damage that has already been done.

Removing the duplicates is harmful to the people who didn't benefit from the system since a lot of bank and cards have already changed hands... reverting every single one of these trades and tracking down all of the bank spent is complex, error prone, and very difficult. Resetting MV would be easier and less harmful, but it would still hurt those that didn't benefit from TCALS. (For example, I traded a MC for various other cards with Elegarth; how is it fair to them that the card now has a MV of 1?).

The market will partially correct itself in some cases, and I think that's the only real fix for what has already happened. The question becomes whether this will continue to happen in the future.

[Ballotonia]

Okay? And is the ultimate reason this was done not to make it a bit harder for the players with the largest farms to dominate the market?

Not as far as I've ever heard about it. The concern was it being too easy to transfer value. Note that the gift system (paying junk value) was implemented at the same time, so it is clear to me that some level of value transfer was deemed OK in the design at that time.

I'm aware things are not working out as initially envisioned. That's business as usual for NationStates

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying admins stance is from this remark. If it is that nothing needs to be done, then [...]

No, it is not.

I'm pointing out that features having unintended effects happens a lot in NS. The most notable is the invader/defender Gameplay, which was made possible as an unintentional side-effect. It should be noted that in that case changes have also been made. Multiple times. Keep also in mind that the game isn't modified in the direction to favor whomever screams the loudest, or whomever makes the biggest threats. Let's have an open discussion on the basis of relevant arguments with the goal of improving the game for as many players as possible.

It is really disheartening to see this as a response [...] just saying meh it's a "feature" not a bug.

That is so totally not what I wrote.

Ballotonia

[Zeritae]

I want the old card features like on April 1 back.

[Land Without Shrimp]

I am by no means a Cards expert, let me point that out first. I'm probably what you guys would call "a little guy" or something of the sort. I enjoy the Cards game but I have exactly two puppets and really don't use any of these crazy exploits that I'm reading about here!! Reading this topic has been extremely informative for me, a "casual" that just enjoys collecting cards and making small moves to increase deck value. I've gotten a few lucky pulls in my time, but just random chance. And I think from my perspective, I agree with Ransium's top post. To make high value cards ridiculously easy to pull with incremental bids on cards at auction? That seems exploitative to a degree that really only benefits a few players, and harms others. (My few high value cards I have will just see their value diluted over time because of this, surely?) So appreciate you all who are analyzing and thinking these things over, because I certainly don't have the time for it. Props and thanks!

[Vedan]

Who's idea was it in the first place that cards spawn more when theres bids on them? That seems like a flawed design from the start, the game should be trying to make cards more scarce and valuable instead of making more whenever people start too take a intrest in a card. What if instead we made it to where a card cannot spawn for a rarity scaling period of time after someone pulls one? For example if you pull a (uncommon) Vedan card then no other Vedans may spawn for 1 IRL week, while if you pull a (rare) Mzeusia card then it'll be a month before another can be pulled and a (Ultra rare) Leonism will take two months, and so on and so on as the rarity increases. This should stop the current exploit and ensure that high rarity cards keep there value for a longer period of time.

[Noahs Second Country]

Who's idea was it in the first place that cards spawn more when theres bids on them? That seems like a flawed design from the start, the game should be trying to make cards more scarce and valuable instead of making more whenever people start too take a intrest in a card. What if instead we made it to where a card cannot spawn for a rarity scaling period of time after someone pulls one? For example if you pull a (uncommon) Vedan card then no other Vedans may spawn for 1 IRL week, while if you pull a (rare) Mzeusia card then it'll be a month before another can be pulled and a (Ultra rare) Leonism will take two months, and so on and so on as the rarity increases. This should stop the current exploit and ensure that high rarity cards keep there value for a longer period of time.

The issue then becomes people utilizing these cards (even the lower interval ones) to make transfers at no risk. While the current system is flawed, it is probably better than this system, where you'll see commons with transfers of 5000 on them dominating the card MV leaderboards.

For example: if I find a common that can't be found for another day, I can immediately transfer 5000 bank on it, inflating my deck value. Even if other people find it, nobody will actually want to sell the card for a reasonable price, and a card with no actual value is now producing the same runoff MV effect produced by large farmers generating high MV cards with ease.

[Vedan]

Who's idea was it in the first place that cards spawn more when theres bids on them? That seems like a flawed design from the start, the game should be trying to make cards more scarce and valuable instead of making more whenever people start too take a intrest in a card. What if instead we made it to where a card cannot spawn for a rarity scaling period of time after someone pulls one? For example if you pull a (uncommon) Vedan card then no other Vedans may spawn for 1 IRL week, while if you pull a (rare) Mzeusia card then it'll be a month before another can be pulled and a (Ultra rare) Leonism will take two months, and so on and so on as the rarity increases. This should stop the current exploit and ensure that high rarity cards keep there value for a longer period of time.

The issue then becomes people utilizing these cards (even the lower interval ones) to make transfers at no risk. While the current system is flawed, it is probably better than this system, where you'll see commons with transfers of 5000 on them dominating the card MV leaderboards.

For example: if I find a common that can't be found for another day, I can immediately transfer 5000 bank on it, inflating my deck value. Even if other people find it, nobody will actually want to sell the card for a reasonable price, and a card with no actual value is now producing the same runoff MV effect produced by large farmers generating high MV cards with ease.

What if we introduced a market cap then? Make it to where no card can be assured sold for higher than say, four times its junk value.

[Unibot III]

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying admins stance is from this remark. If it is that nothing needs to be done, then I think I am done playing cards. I don't need a game to interact with a system that claims to reward hard work and maybe give the little guy a bit of boost, but actually can be easily rigged to make the wealthier way more wealthy because they are wealthy.

This is classic NS stuff though. The site has always been creatively exploited by players.

[Ransium]

I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying admins stance is from this remark. If it is that nothing needs to be done, then I think I am done playing cards. I don't need a game to interact with a system that claims to reward hard work and maybe give the little guy a bit of boost, but actually can be easily rigged to make the wealthier way more wealthy because they are wealthy.

This is classic NS stuff though. The site has always been creatively exploited by players.

Sure, but I don’t think you get how much this skews things in this case. It’d be like playing poker with one player having the ability to spawn aces virtually at will. Not much of game anymore is it?

[Noahs Second Country]

What if we introduced a market cap then? Make it to where no card can be assured sold for higher than say, four times its junk value.

Something tells me that legendary cards being worth 4 bank won't go over well with anyone.

Even with a more reasonable cap on cards, some cards are genuinely worth a ton of money. Regulating the free market is an unnecessary and irrelevant step to solving the problem presented here.

[Recuecn]

As someone who has not benefited from "the exploit" (TCALS) as much as others have (more on that in a sec) I think it's a great mechanic that the community has found creative uses for and I'd be happy for it, or something resembling it, to stay. As far as I can tell, there's two main reasons people don't like it. The first is that a few people can use it to get very rich very quickly, but the trading card game already has lots of wealth disparity and some people complain but in general we seem fine with it. Anyone who knows how it works can use TCALS just like anyone who can figure out how a transfer works can farm using puppets. This is another case where people have equal opportunity but unequal results. Trying to 'fix' that seems like trying to 'fix' the fact that some people are richer because they've spent more time farming. If people are jealous that others are too rich, then it's the mindset that's the issue.

On the other hand, the fact that this is being brought up by those who have already benefited from TCALS makes me wonder if the real, unspoken concern is that this is "ruining" the value of some of these cards that used to be worth thousands of bank. Higher up someone was complaining about how the market value of the Pergamon card crashed. So really, if this mechanic were removed, it would help the big farmers by assuring that their high-value cards won't drop in value. Prices dropping helps the little guy and also makes the game a lot more interesting since it's a change from the usual status quo which is just endless inflation. Having a market that goes both ways is a lot more exciting, and if it's a result of people creating too many copies of valuable cards, then they're suffering from their own success.

Going back to how I have benefited from TCALS: I did pull an Old Tyrannia card during one of TNL's publicized pull events, which I was able to trade for a Pergamon card (at that time worth about a thousand bank) to finish my collection of cards with gif flags. But that wasn't the only time TCALS helped me with the collection. With the help of Big Shot, another gif collector, we were able to produce more copies of Akavet, a card of which only one copy existed (before that it had been a cte'd 0-owner). That was probably my favorite moment in the trading card game: just me and a friend, independent farmers, producing more copies of a card not for its market value but just because it was a cool card we wanted. The TNL pull events have also always been very fun as well: in a minigame that is mostly mindless farming by yourself for literal hours, the pull events provide an opportunity for the community to come together, be online at the same time, get excited over something, and gossip about who's pulled what. Past changes to card mechanics have pleasantly surprised me, even after I argued against them, and I think the admins have done a great job creating and maintaining a game based on the philosophy that a few simple mechanics can go a long way with a great community, so I trust that whatever response they give will work out. But I'd hate to see TCALS go away entirely.

TL;DR: If you're complaining that other people are getting too rich, quit whining. If you're worried that your expensive cards' values are dropping... quit whining.

[Noahs Second Country]

As someone who has not benefited from "the exploit" (TCALS) as much as others have (more on that in a sec) I think it's a great mechanic that the community has found creative uses for and I'd be happy for it, or something resembling it, to stay. As far as I can tell, there's two main reasons people don't like it. The first is that a few people can use it to get very rich very quickly, but the trading card game already has lots of wealth disparity and some people complain but in general we seem fine with it. Anyone who knows how it works can use TCALS just like anyone who can figure out how a transfer works can farm using puppets. This is another case where people have equal opportunity but unequal results. Trying to 'fix' that seems like trying to 'fix' the fact that some people are richer because they've spent more time farming. If people are jealous that others are too rich, then it's the mindset that's the issue.

As a mechanic, anyone can abuse TCALS in theory. However, doing so requires large sums of bank for some of these cards since they don't have low standing asks or they don't have asks at all. People who own the card, on the other hand, are free to host their own private pull events whenever they feel like it. This gives a major advantage to the [rich] people who own these cards already. As for farming time, TCALS enables someone to make a lot more money off of one farming run than a typical farming run. This is just a mechanic that increases wealth disparity, somewhat unnecessarily. Wealth inequality will always remain an issue in this game, but there is no need for this mechanic in its current state.

On the other hand, the fact that this is being brought up by those who have already benefited from TCALS makes me wonder if the real, unspoken concern is that this is "ruining" the value of some of these cards that used to be worth thousands of bank. Higher up someone was complaining about how the market value of the Pergamon card crashed. So really, if this mechanic were removed, it would help the big farmers by assuring that their high-value cards won't drop in value. Prices dropping helps the little guy and also makes the game a lot more interesting since it's a change from the usual status quo which is just endless inflation. Having a market that goes both ways is a lot more exciting, and if it's a result of people creating too many copies of valuable cards, then they're suffering from their own success.

I'm not trying to take some kind of higher moral stance, I've definitely benefited quite a bit from pull events. I think that TNL stated it quite nicely though,

The argument that the price will adjust accordingly is not very convincing, as it generally does not happen in practice. For example, we recently held a pull event for the Soops season 1 card. The card remains the most valuable in the game, despite the fact that 40 copies of it were spawned. The reason why price adjustment does not work goes back to what I said above: the new copies are generally owned by a small group of players, corresponding to systematic farmers. These players can choose to just keep the cards in their deck for their market value, and never trade them. With no trades, the value never changes. And as the copies are concentrated on so few players, nobody can do anything about it.

Going back to how I have benefited from TCALS: I did pull an Old Tyrannia card during one of TNL's publicized pull events, which I was able to trade for a Pergamon card (at that time worth about a thousand bank) to finish my collection of cards with gif flags. But that wasn't the only time TCALS helped me with the collection. With the help of Big Shot, another gif collector, we were able to produce more copies of Akavet, a card of which only one copy existed (before that it had been a cte'd 0-owner). That was probably my favorite moment in the trading card game: just me and a friend, independent farmers, producing more copies of a card not for its market value but just because it was a cool card we wanted. The TNL pull events have also always been very fun as well: in a minigame that is mostly mindless farming by yourself for literal hours, the pull events provide an opportunity for the community to come together, be online at the same time, get excited over something, and gossip about who's pulled what. Past changes to card mechanics have pleasantly surprised me, even after I argued against them, and I think the admins have done a great job creating and maintaining a game based on the philosophy that a few simple mechanics can go a long way with a great community, so I trust that whatever response they give will work out. But I'd hate to see TCALS go away entirely.

I agree that the system can be used in a positive manner too. Hence, the proposal to remove the pull % boost caused by bidding rather than eliminating it entirely.

[Racoda]

There is no easyway to correct the damage that has already been done.

Removing the duplicates is harmful to the people who didn't benefit from the system since a lot of bank and cards have already changed hands... reverting every single one of these trades and tracking down all of the bank spent is complex, error prone, and very difficult. Resetting MV would be easier and less harmful, but it would still hurt those that didn't benefit from TCALS. (For example, I traded a MC for various other cards with Elegarth; how is it fair to them that the card now has a MV of 1?).

The market will partially correct itself in some cases, and I think that's the only real fix for what has already happened. The question becomes whether this will continue to happen in the future.

In that case, I don't see the problem.

If the cards game is about collecting cards themselves, and/or creating collections of specific types of cards with badges/flags/regions, then TCALS is a benefit. It allows players to spawn more copies of rare, hard to find cards — more people will be able to complete their collections.

If the cards game is about collecting MV/DV, and we're complaining about the unfairness the current system creates, changing the rules without giving players an equal start will only cement existing inequalities. Keeping TCALS allows everyone to challenge those inequalities in the same way, with the same techniques with which they were created. Potentially, someone can use TCALS to create their own monopoly on a high MV card they've boosted or will boost. Hence, fairness is preserved better than by changing TCALS without giving players an equal start.
Someone without a large farming setup wouldn't be able to get these high MV cards in the first place: the exploit favouring Big Farma is a red herring. A small(er) farmer can abuse the system just as well by creating multiple copies of a card they can afford.

If the cards game is about collecting MV/DV, and we're not complaining about the unfairness... Then what are we complaining about? Highly volatile decks crashing? Others having the same opportunities, playing by the same rules, now that they are publicly known?

Side note: I did benefit from the system, but I also traded a Testlandia for MC. I wouldn't mind the MV of MC being reset.

[Aclion]

TL;DR: If you're complaining that other people are getting too rich, quit whining. If you're worried that your expensive cards' values are dropping... quit whining.

What about if you're worried about an exploit rendering intended play obsolete?

[Holland DS6]

So I don't have to reread all the replies, what is the chance of getting a certain card for a certain rarity if only a small amount of bids are placed and is it an exponential function as more bids are placed or a linear function?