Overvalued Cards

[The United Peoples of Centrism]

no cap :flushed:

well said

[Fhaengshia]

Let market value of a card evolve towards the highest bid on that card (IF the MV of the card > highest bid)

• Maximum MV should not surpass current highest ask/match price

This one seems obvious, if I'm offering the card for .50 and there aren't any takers, it's clearly not worth 5.50

Spot on, the lowest indeed. I agree that this could be used to manipulate, perhaps a time delay would help (a day on the market or something)

Context: Ioavollr's second quote here is responding to a clarification (that it should be the lowest ask, not the highest ask) and offers a more thought-out idea.

My Idea based on these: Every major update (or minor): If a card (maybe only in the top cards pages) has an ask lower than its MV and has no recent moves (bids/asks/sales/buys), then MV lowers as if it had been traded at that value.
(easy to get around, but offers a self-correcting measure for the market)

[Briteannia]

Caps are a horrible idea. I agree with Riemstagrad, though. Junking should affect a card's MV.

[Bawkie]

I am someone who has taken part in and has benefitted from inflation, but I feel it has gone too far.

I agree with Toerana's suggestion in The Rejected Times to make CTE nation cards be found at the same rate as any other. A simple solution which makes sense. Although this may affect the prices of some rarer cards with owners who may never return, most CTE cards have little value other than for collections or transfers. There should also be some level of risk to transfers which there currently lacks.

Caps just restrict the open market.

The best question to ask is, does the value of a card truly represent what it is worth?, or just what the inflator wants it to be worth?

[9003]

A suggestion I posted in technical but should bring it here as well.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=502423

changing the MV formula is a more effective way to keep the ability to inflate but also to curb the empty inflation that creates issues.

[Toerana]

This would help immensely ^^^^


I would still love an idea that makes deflating these CTE'd commons easier though. (Wink Wink admins)

[Coffin-Breathe]

I´d say, removing the "artwork-badge" as well as the ranking for valuable collections (which, imo, is rather unfair, because it does not differentiate between "collections in paid space" and "collections simply accumulated without paying for sufficient storage space") would be a much easier and more practicable way, as imo the main, if not the only incentive for inflating cards is to climb up in ranking.

[Fauzjhia]

I´d say, removing the "artwork-badge" as well as the ranking for valuable collections (which, imo, is rather unfair, because it does not differentiate between "collections in paid space" and "collections simply accumulated without paying for sufficient storage space") would be a much easier and more practicable way, as imo the main, if not the only incentive for inflating cards is to climb up in ranking.

I would certain support removing the artwork badge or restricting the card market.

Because right, the market is just manipulated by some players who PRINT the value of card, solely to boost their deck value. of the 50 highest value card, none are legendary, and nearly all of the cards have been inflated to ridiculous number by a single player trading between themselves.

[Cerata]

I´d say, removing the "artwork-badge" as well as the ranking for valuable collections (which, imo, is rather unfair, because it does not differentiate between "collections in paid space" and "collections simply accumulated without paying for sufficient storage space") would be a much easier and more practicable way, as imo the main, if not the only incentive for inflating cards is to climb up in ranking.

I would certain support removing the artwork badge or restricting the card market.

Because right, the market is just manipulated by some players who PRINT the value of card, solely to boost their deck value. of the 50 highest value card, none are legendary, and nearly all of the cards have been inflated to ridiculous number by a single player trading between themselves.

Imagine if the values were set back to default every few days.... I can hear the inflaters screaming already.

[Coffin-Breathe]

Imagine if the values were set back to default every few days.... I can hear the inflaters screaming already.

...would be very funny - but I already hear the uproar of the mobs, assembling to lynch everyone who votes for this... ...besides, this would make big farming and collecting as many cards as possible on the main nation even more attractive.

[Fauxia]

All I want to say is that I think adding junking to the MV formula would be a terrible idea.

I, personally, often junk cards that I find that aren't worth a ton but are worth something above their junk price, because I don't want to wait to get paid for them through a fair auction but don't want to screw people with the card in their deck. This, for me, would mean I would either have to sell it short if I want bank quickly, or else wait and have it take up space in my deck. Or I can hurt the MV, but I don't really think that's fair for the cards I'm talking about.

I also don't think anyone wants to junk something with, you know, 150+ MV, so you aren't likely to even have it make much of a difference. Especially since the cards are rare.

[Ronodin]

I've recently been pondering this, and recent discussion in the cards discord has inspired this.

You can look at cards this way, there are 2 types of inflation, mass-copy inflation like Farrakhan, and low-owner inflation, like what I do. Within these two types, there is backed up mass-inflation like with 9003 and Farrakhan, where they are willing to pay bank to back up the MV, and then there is just regular inflation like with Holland DS6, where they acquire many cards and inflate it once, without backing up the MV. For the low-owner inflation there is mainly just inflation, probably the most common type you have seen, especially with my cards and this recent inflation arms race.

Thus, the solutions lie either how inflation occurs and the resulting changes to the MV, or you can change where it happens, which cards and whatnot. Changing how inflation occurs would be to cap the possible mv, or to lower the maximum bidding cap, but that is very forced and not a great solution in my honest opinion and others by the looks of it. Thus, you also have where inflation occurs, the cards chosen are either cards that have low-owners, and we happen to acquire 2 copies of that card, or cards that are hoarded on a large scale and then inflated. Instead of changing cte spawn rates and all that, instead just make the MV representative of the owners of the card, so my inflated cards with fewer than 10 owners wouldn't be inflated so high, and legs and popular cards would have more representative MV's as they are more popular. With this, when I have 2 copies of a card and inflate it, the MV doesn't skyrocket as there are very few owners, while legs have high(er) MV's representative of their popularity and stuff.

Inflation is a real tactic, and I'm not very supportive of those who want to cut down inflation entirely, as that only favors the pioneers of cards, like Koem Kab, TNL, and others. Inflation was the only way I could make my way into the top 10, and any system without this inflation would kill the game as it favors only the people who have been around a long time, and the people who spend way too much time on cards. Instead, I am fully supportive of a solution to make card values more authentic, and I agree, some cards aren't representative of their true value (guilty as charged), but inflation is a real tactic, and this doesn't make it impossible but does reduce the payoff. Others say that inflation has no risk compared to the reward, and want to target the risk factor, but this targets the reward part, making it more favorable to collect legendaries as well as inflate, which will bring equilibrium to the market, that's how it should be.

Ronodin

[Saarz]

If you think inflation is abusing the game design, why are pull events perfectly fine then? That's just heavy abuse of TCALS to pull legendaries that """deserve""" having high MV.

[Ronodin]

If you think inflation is abusing the game design, why are pull events perfectly fine then? That's just heavy abuse of TCALS to pull legendaries that """deserve""" having high MV.

Exactly, this is a great point I fully agree with. Along with the inflation of commons, there are more legendaries found every day, and the accelerated use of TCALS to hold pull events distributes these copies even more... legs start losing value as well. The disparity between inflation and legendary collecting grows twofold, and only one aspect, the inflation side, is looked at by most. They are quick to assign blame to inflation for the market. However, I do believe that inflation contributes more (marginally) to the overhaul of the market than legendary decline, but still that is not an excuse to ignore the other part of this problem.

Still, I am trying to do my best along with Giovanniland and others to try and find a good solution. As inflators, I think we should recognize that there is in fact a problem here, but to find a proper solution where both sides can meet in the middle, instead of some radical proposal to "cap inflation" or "remove inflation". I personally wouldn't change a thing if I had my way as the system works to benefit me fine, but I try to see through the eyes of the other side, and I think they should emulate.

[Land Without Shrimp]

As long as the S2 cards continue to be pumped into circulation and current mechanics stay the same, I see no easy solutions here. No matter what, there will always be those that use ("abuse" to some people) the system to their own benefit. The real problem here is that S2 has gone on so long that the sheer number of cards out there (including unbalanced number of legendaries / former high-MV-cards due to pull events) and the massive amounts of bank in the system have made the card market much less dynamic and interesting. Just my opinion though, as someone that doesn't get into the game intricacies but enjoys pulling cards and trying to build a high DV collection. I've kinda given up on that though, with all the "special tactics" that majority of serious card-gamers employ. Definitely the card game for me has lost a lot of the fun that it used to have. I miss the S1 days, to be honest.

[Fauzjhia]

Actually. I think the Ronodin Idea might be good.
A mininum market value bonus, dependent on the number of owners, might bringsome activity to some the market. the higher the number of owners, the higher the minimum market value bonus, up to a certain max, which will ensure some legendaries will often by bought, and this might protect their values,without allowing people to abuse that system too much, given their junk price.

for exemple. Default market mv could be something like
1-0.25 for commons
0.05 - 0.50 for uncommons
0.1-1.00 for rares
0.2-2 for ultra-rares
0-5-5 for epics
and 1 to 10 for legendary.

so with that, a legendary with high number of different owners will never fall bellow 10 of market value.

of course, that does nothin to combat inflation tactics on CTE nations with few owners.
for that, I believe TACLS changes, to give inflated cards a the same chance to spawn as normal nations card, might be solution.

we could look at something like
50 MV for commons
100 for uncommons
200 for rares
400 for ultra-rare
1000 for epics
2000 for legendaries



my personal idea would be more simple.
Ho I suggest removing that artwork badge. it bring nothing to a nation.

and give us more capacity for deck, as the current capacity limits only serve as a detriment to those who do not engage in puppet farming.

[Boris Cult]

I like the fact of cards, whatever rarity, being extremely valuable or not valuable at all. Of course, that’s just because most of my Deck Value is made up of those extremely overinflated cards, but those are my two cents.

[Coffin-Breathe]

and give us more capacity for deck, as the current capacity limits only serve as a detriment to those who do not engage in puppet farming.

Don´t you think, that "not paying" for sufficient storage space is already enough an abuse of the system ? If something is to change, than this flaw, which has lead to an incredible inequity between the "honest" players, which have to pay more and more for every expansion (and therefore paying fair and by the rules), and those overgreedy "farmers" and "hoarders", which not only store unimaginable ammounts of "farmed" cards (often without any intention to sell or trade) while ruining the whole game greatly, but also amass great ammounts of "bank money" because they don´t spend it on deck storage expansion (as intended by "the system").
And don´t go for "everyone could do the same", as this is far from being correct - not everyone has the time or the computing skills to abuse the (otherwise relatively very good balanced) system, or the will to do so.
But in one thing we are consistant with - the "card game" should not have any influence on the regular NS-game, so no "arts badge", "rankings" or other "benefits" for any nation.

[Fauzjhia]

and give us more capacity for deck, as the current capacity limits only serve as a detriment to those who do not engage in puppet farming.

Don´t you think, that "not paying" for sufficient storage space is already enough an abuse of the system ? If something is to change, than this flaw, which has lead to an incredible inequity between the "honest" players, which have to pay more and more for every expansion (and therefore paying fair and by the rules), and those overgreedy "farmers" and "hoarders", which not only store unimaginable ammounts of "farmed" cards (often without any intention to sell or trade) while ruining the whole game greatly, but also amass great ammounts of "bank money" because they don´t spend it on deck storage expansion (as intended by "the system").
And don´t go for "everyone could do the same", as this is far from being correct - not everyone has the time or the computing skills to abuse the (otherwise relatively very good balanced) system, or the will to do so.
But in one thing we are consistant with - the "card game" should not have any influence on the regular NS-game, so no "arts badge", "rankings" or other "benefits" for any nation.

I can't disagree with you
I don't think its fair for me, to be paying bank for my deck's expansion, while everyone else just store infinite cards without ever paying, i have to limit my collection, to junk myself so I don't collect too many of my cards.
meanwhile those people are not using their bank, just collect an infinite amount of cards, while never paying for deck expansion.

[L Kuan Yew]

Don´t you think, that "not paying" for sufficient storage space is already enough an abuse of the system ? If something is to change, than this flaw, which has lead to an incredible inequity between the "honest" players, which have to pay more and more for every expansion (and therefore paying fair and by the rules), and those overgreedy "farmers" and "hoarders", which not only store unimaginable ammounts of "farmed" cards (often without any intention to sell or trade) while ruining the whole game greatly, but also amass great ammounts of "bank money" because they don´t spend it on deck storage expansion (as intended by "the system").

The root of the problem lies in the inequity inherent in ALLOWING for EXCESSIVE disparities in storage space. This creates unfair PRIVILEGE and ADVANTAGE for those who have the resources to build insanely diverse and numerically large 'COLLECTIONS' at the expense of the overwhelming majority of players who don't have those same resources. For example, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason why you should be allowed to amass 784 CARDS when 99 percent of NS players will NEVER come anywhere near that number. That this is even possible within the current system is indefensible.

And don´t go for "everyone could do the same", as this is far from being correct - not everyone has the time or the computing skills to abuse the system with forum posts SOLICITING for specific types of cards, the private funds to buy SITE SUPPORTER, the spare time to FUND BANK to pay for storage space, or the will to do so.

The solution is to level the playing field COMPLETELY with only 50 cards per account (which is the DEFAULT DECK CAPACITY FOR ALL PLAYERS), ZERO capacity to expand beyond, and a complete END to public displays of the toxic concept of COLLECTIONS. In concert, BAN SOLICITATION THREADS on this forum OFFERING and/or REQUESTING cards for collections. It encourages GRANDSTANDING that benefits the interests of a MICROSCOPIC subset of the NS Community.

"the "card game" should not have any influence on the regular NS-game, so no "arts badge", "rankings" or other "benefits" for any nation."

In addition, PUBLICLY DISPLAYED COLLECTIONS and SOLICITATIONS thereof should be COMPLETELY DIVORCED from the NS-game as well. Every account should have an equal MAXIMUM number of cards, NO EXCEPTIONS, and NO PUBLIC DISPLAY.

[Riemstagrad]

The solution is to level the playing field COMPLETELY with only 50 cards per account (which is the DEFAULT DECK CAPACITY FOR ALL PLAYERS), ZERO capacity to expand beyond, and a complete END to public displays of the toxic concept of COLLECTIONS. In concert, BAN SOLICITATION THREADS on this forum OFFERING and/or REQUESTING cards for collections. It encourages GRANDSTANDING that benefits the interests of a MICROSCOPIC subset of the NS Community.

Yes, ban cards!

[Coffin-Breathe]

...

I´m afraid, you don´t really get it - the "card subgame" is a game and meant to be fun (for everyone willing to participate); and so it would be, if not some (a relatively small group of players) people would abuse the existing system. It rewards players for participating over long periods, as their nations get more cards over time (based on luck, but in the end it´s a game), and allows collecting specific cards in growing storage space, as long as the expansions are payed for (in game money,called "bank money"), which is perfectly o.k., as long as the sub-game is played by the rules.
What I/we do protest here is the abusement and dodging of those rules, which creates great inequality in favour of the "cheaters" (shut up, you all, abusement is cheating in some ways !).
Banning public transport, for example, is no solution to prevent some people from riding a bus without a ticket (that´s, what you´re proposing), but stricter controls could be...
Therefore restricting the number of "storage puppets" and reducing storage capacity to "space payed for" could be a real solution to many of the existing problems and help to keep this game fair and fun for everyone.
The game was meant (read the rules again) to have to decide, if to keep a card or junk it, when your storage limit is reached, and to save up for expanding it further; "volume collections" without sufficient payed storage space could be frozen, till the price is payed (and since those hoarders usually have incredible ammounts of puppets, they often even have the "bank" to pay for), or could be abandoned and junked; my further proposition would be, to reduce the costs for storage space (a hundred bank for thousand cards is immense, and I don´t even want to know, what´s the recent cost for two- or threethousand...But if someone decides to want to possess a collection this big, he/she should have to pay for it.
Btw., dear Kuan something, who you do neither participate in the card sub-game nor exist in the NS-game for more than a few days, my nation exists for more than a decade in here, I´m playing the card sub-game almost from it´s beginning on (like a lot of other players), and I´ve payed for my storage space of recently 800 cards without creating storage or bankrolling puppets - that´s a privilege that comes with participating over a long time.
While accusing and demanding a ban of everything, without even trying to provide any reasonable solution or having any idea might be a privilege of the youth and/or "newbies", but also could easily been seen as simple "trolling".

[L Kuan Yew]

"I´m afraid, you don´t really get it"

Hypocrisy and cognitive bias, are something I can identify quite succinctly.

"the "card subgame" is a game and meant to be fun (for everyone willing to participate); and so it would be, if not some (a relatively small group of players) people would abuse the existing system."

You have ZERO capacity to define what makes the game 'fun' for anyone participating other than YOURSELF. Yet you enter into this Alice and Wonderland realm where you pretend to be able to define how it 'would be fun', if only you could miraculously end the actions of ABUSERS who merely interpret and play the game differently from you. Furthermore, your actions can just as easily be labeled as ABUSES OF THE SYSTEM that make the game less FUN for other players, acting to the detriment of others, to the selfish benefit of yourself.

"It rewards players for participating over long periods, as their nations get more cards over time (based on luck, but in the end, it´s a game), and allows collecting specific cards in growing storage space, as long as the expansions are payed for (in game money,called "bank money"), which is perfectly o.k., as long as the sub-game is played by the rules."

Everything stated above is PURE FANTASY with no relation to how the game really works. The game does not REWARD players with any intended outcome. Nor do stream of consciousness thoughts posted by Max Berry in the News section three years ago on a possible FRAMEWORK constitute set in stone RULES, of which there has been no governing, as real-world gameplay has long since superseded those unenforced suggestions. This originalist interpretation of how the game 'should' be played as the gospel is ALL IN YOUR HEAD!!! The NS Card Sub-Game provides players who answer issues with resources (in the form of cards culled through a Random Number Generator format) to deploy HOWEVER THEY CHOOSE. You are in NO POSITION to decide for other players how THEY should deploy those resources. Max Berry, the man who CREATED AND RETAINS THE FULL AND COMPLETE CAPACITY TO EDIT AND OVERSEE THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CARD GAME SYSTEM SINCE 2018, does not micromanage Bank deployment, the Auction process, Storage Space strategies, or various other aspects of the MUSIC BETWEEN THE NOTES that compromise what is OK for those playing the NS Card Game. It is the height of DELUSION for YOU to think that YOU are acting as a moral arbiter of a SYSTEM that has been in operation for YEARS in STARK CONTRAST to your stated ideals. The card game system is OPEN-ENDED, like various other aspects of Max Berry games, which for many is the SECRET SAUCE that makes his games FUN for a broad subset of the community.

"I´m playing the card sub-game almost from it´s beginning on (like a lot of other players), and I´ve payed for my storage space of recently 800 cards without creating storage or bankrolling puppets - that´s a privilege that comes with participating over a long time."

Your DELUSIONS aside, I would NEVER begrudge you the right to chose YOUR strategy, or however misguided, religiously follow your ORIGINALIST INTERPRETATION of the game. Given your level of Deck Value and Bank, I wouldn't recommend your chosen path to other players as a model for a strong return on time invested, and I most certainly wouldn't suggest it as MORALLY SUPERIOR to those with other styles of play. Yet if your style is FUN for you, more power to you!

[Cereskia]

-snip-

Um, i'm sorry.

WHAT IN THE WORLD?!?

[Ronodin]

...

Well then, HOW ABOUT you THINK about WHAT will HAPPEN if you CAP all deck CAPACITIES to 50 CARDS. INFLATION will run more EMINENT as with ONLY 50 cards, COLLETING legendaries is DEFINITELY not a WINNING strategy. To TRY and MAXIMIZE deck VALUE, COLLECTORS will turn TOWARDS inflation, and THINGS ONLY get WORSE. MOREOVER, the NUMBER of NATIONS that one can MAKE is LARGE (to say THE LEAST), so EVEN THEN, your PROBLEM isn't SOLVED. With this, in THE END you INCREASED the "ABUSE" you claim THIS WILL circumvent, and NOT TO mention, it will KILL THE GAME.

It's almost laughable that the problem you say you solve actually worsens the situation with your radical solution. Instead of finding 'solutions' and blurting them out, take time to think about whether or not this will restore balance and maintain the system to how it was (pre-January), as is the point.