MTg set weighting

GoblinOutpost

I uploaded my newly acquired PSA cards yesterday. The numbers for my Unlimited set did not jive since I thought the ranking sheet should say I beat Tony's. But looking at the actual card qualify shows Tony's is better than mine.

I got curious about why the numbers for the weighted GPA, completion, and Set Rating behave unlike those of Alpha/Beta. Putting on my detective hat, low and behold, the individual card rating is not 1-for-1 like they are in A/B. (I.e. Lotus is rated as 10, Chaos Orb as 2, Jump as 1, etc.) So someone added qualifier to each card. To see the card rating, on the page that shows All-Time Finest and Current Finest. Click on "View Set Composition" below the 2 charts.

Ok, that may not look strange as most of you are aware of this feature. The thought crossing my mind is if weighting is set for A/B, it might joust the positions of some of the sets there. And I am sure Steve's Spacebaby set would get an overall rating boost because he has all the key cards in 10 already. Someone's number X set might end up being X+4. Ouch. The pride.

Right now, registering an A/B Lotus (1000+) is worth as much as a lowly Benalish Hero (4+) on the set rating. That just doesn't quite feel right.

Any of you care about getting the weights in place for A/B. So the P9 and such will get their proper status. Personally I feel Lotus = 10 is not proper if Jump = 1. (Unless we are using an exponential curve like the PSA grading curve. ) I don't mind pursuing this if there are interests, but I would think some of you might have a better idea about the weights than I would. Unless we just want to mimic the Unlimited set.

Ideally, the weights assigned should have some basis behind it like rarity, popularity, price, usefulness, etc. Kinda like a formula that these price guides use to come up with current prices.

-- Joe

GoblinOutpost

BTW, there are no weights for AN, AQ, and LG.

CORRECTION: There are weights. All cards have equal weights. That's all.

-- Joe

Spacebaby

Hey Joe,

Thanks for cluing me in on this converastion. I too noticed that the unlimited set is weighted while alpha and beta are not. I emailed Cosetta Robbins at PSA to ask if the alpha nad beta sets could be weighted the same as the unlimiteds. It makes sense to me since they're the same cards, they should be weighed similarly. Do most people agree???

Osguard

Hi Steven,

Good to see you on the boards!

Can someone explain how the weight system here works? I do agree that some sort of system should be used, yes. Joe makes some very good points, even if he does use my wimpy little Unlimited "Set" as an example!

-Tony

Thulnanth

Hey Guys,

Weighting of sets is a common feature on the sports end of the Registry as well as PCGS (coins). It came from a desire to show that certain cards are more "important" in a set than others. As Joe pointed out, in Beta a Black Lotus is worth more than all the commons and uncommons combined!!! Weighting helps to recognize this difference by awarding a higher set rating to those cards. The 1-10 scale works well for many sets, but not those where there is a major difference in importance (like A/B/U). On the other hand, some credit does need to be given to people who are actually trying to get a SET, rather than just a couple of nice cards. A group of Beta P9 is worth more than the other 293 cards in the set total, but comparing the two from a Registry perspective, which is the better "set"? I think the current system does a good job of balancing both.

In order to get a set weighted, you just need someone to send in a list of weights for the cards. For a set with many participants, the person who is #1 or those near the top will need to be the one(s) to make the request (ahem...Steven?).

I, like Joe, first noticed the weights on Unlimited when I fell from 2nd to 4th, even though I had more cards . I went through the weightings and felt they were pretty accurate, so I never complained. I have thought about getting the other sets weighted, but didn't know how others would feel. I have a list of weights for Antiquities and Legends I could share and get feedback on, if you are inclined. As for Alpha and Beta, I think we need to discuss what we think would be fair there (no matter what, Steven will still be #1, that's for sure ). The weights on Unlimited are based on dollar value, which is a little different when you move from A/B to Unlimited. For example, Gauntlet of Might, Forcefield, and Berserk are pointed higher than the Duals, since in Unlimited they are worth more $$$. In Alpha and Beta the value of Duals is equal to or greater than Gauntlet/Forcefield/Berserk. To get a fair weighting, I think we will have to set dollar ranges, where the cheapest cards are 1 and the priciest are 10. That being said, the difficulty will be in establishing the ranges. For example - should the Black Lotus be the only 10, or should Ancestral and Sapphire get a 10 too? How about all P9? I'm open to discussion if others are - please chime in .

Take it easy,
Jared

Spacebaby

Hmmm,

Joe - while I agree that a lotus is worth more than all the commons combined, Jared makes a great point. While reward should be given to the premium cards, a few cards does not a set make. If we assigned high weights 1-100, then all one has to do is complete the P9 and you'd have a set rating near 5. While this correlates more closely to the dollar amount, it doesn not reward those who pursue the complete set. It was far easier for me to find big rares graded and ungraded, it was the little used commons and uncommons that were the hard ones to find. look at Osguard's set. he has alot of the big rares, to complete the set he has to find gradeable or graded little cards. Believe me, that is a challenge. Therefore, I dont feel you should overweight the big cards just to correlate to dollar value, as it demeans the effort to find a psa 10 Karma...which by the way doesnt exist, In fact Tony just got the first 9 graded. Does that make sense?

I feel kind of strongly that the weights between the A/B/U sets should be uniform. The cards are the same, the distributions are the same. Although there are differences in the dollar amounts between A/B & U stes for dual lands, it doesn't change the rational that these sets are identical in almost every way as far as distrubution of cards are concerned.

In regards to the unlimited dual lands relative to the big rares(Forcefield, illusionary mask, etc) there is something important to remember. The dual lands were reprinted in revised. Many people view an unlimited dual land as marginally better than a revised dual land. Yes it has the more vibrant color than revised, but its still white bordered. Now a black bordered dual land is different. I think the big rares should be weighted higher than the dual lands because they were not reprinted in revised. You had to go to the original sets to get them. Therefore, they are rarer.

I think whoever, suggested the weights put some good thought into it. Was it Bastien? It does give appreciable credit to the premier cards, while still rewarding a collector for compiling alot of little cards. I see the logic. Most cards are 1's. Really desirable/ out of print rares and uncommons are 2's (dual lands and a few out of print cards), big out of print cards are 3-4's, and P9 are 7-10.

Of course there are some inconsistencies. Why are the psionic blast and icy 2's when the demonic tutor, serra and sol rings ones. These are the cream of the uncommons and should be relatively equal. Also, the berserk is a 3 and the Birds of paradise is a 2...Should't those be reversed???

Regardless of the final numbers, I think uniformity in the weights of the three sets is important. Since we have a working weight in unlimited, it just makes sense to apply it to alpha and beta. I can live with the inconsistencies because they are relatively minor.

PEACE!

AlphaInvestments

Steven,

lets trade for some alpha 10's!!!

I know you want those beta cards

Spacebaby

Tony,

To see the set weights, click on the set composition tab on the main page for the set. The math works like this. Multiply the grade by the cards weight and add that number to the set total. Instead of dividing the set total by the number of cards in the set, divide the set total by the set divisor to get the set rating.

Thats why Bastien's (Tromagic) unlimited set has 49.66% completion and a set rating of 5.95. He has most of the P9 and big cards in his set. If it were not weighted, he'd have a set rating of about 4.75.

Your beta set would benefit by weighting. You have alot of big cards, and need alot of commons and uncommons. Therfore, your set rating would jump significantly.

Weighting is a good thing.

Thulnanth

Hello All,

Thanks for your input Steven - well reasoned and different from my stance, forcing me to look at other possibilities (always a good idea). The first time I read your post I didn't agree at all (my opinion of couse being better - just ask my wife ). After coming back and rereading it, I think you do make a good point - consistency across all three sets is a good thing. Your plan is to use values closer to ABSOLUTE rarity and demand, rather than just set rarity and demand. I can see this approach - OOP's being worth more than cards that were reprinted. Along those lines, I think this is why whoever weighted Unlimited (Bastien?) put Berserk higher than Birds and Psionic/Icy above Serra/Demonic/Sol - they were reprinted in Revised. Perhaps we can get more input and try to get weighting that we all can agree on? Just my $.02 worth.

Take it easy,
Jared

GoblinOutpost

Hi Guys.

Welcome to the fray, Steven.

Glad I stirred up the hornet's nest. Just wasn't expecting so much so quickly. And I wasn't picking on Tony's wonderful Unlimited set. Now that I got you guys attention, here is my little take on it. It's just an idea, so my feelings won't be hurt if no one likes it. I just like to tinker with algorithm and measuring methods.

First, I dug up info on the weighting system. It is as Jared has mentioned with the addition that the weights are ranged from 1 to 10.

Second, (don't think too hard on this for now) are we putting ourselves up as the overseer to the weighting system? Right now, this little group being so vocal, I don't see why not. Of course, my real question is what is the process PSA uses to adjust weights. If we can change it, why couldn't someone else change it also. Just food for thought.

Jared posed an interested pt about whoever is #1 or near the top having the right to change the weights. With PSA giving awards every year to the top set, there might be undesirable intent here. :-)

Third, (yet another FYI for now) are these weights set once for eternity, or they get change thru time? I'd suspect they change thru time. In which case, how frequent or under what circumstances should the weights be reviewed. We can actually turn this into a recurring event to encourage some sort of MTG discussion on the forum.

Four, how to weigh the cards? Obviously someone made an effort on the Unlimited set already. Below is my idea for you guys to consider in addition to what others have suggested so far.


=== GOBLINOUTPOST MTG CARD WEIGHTING METHOD ===
The idea is that the weight of a card is based on 3 criteria (rarity, play value, $ value). For the 9 pt spread on the weights (1-10 scale has a spread of 9), I rate rarity with 2 pts, play value with 3 pts, and $ value with 4 pts.

(1.) Every card is assigned a base value of 1 (the weights are 1-10 so can't go below that).
(2.) (2 pts) Rarity bonus
+0.5/+1 if card is uncommon/rare (adjust this for AN, AQ, & LG)
+0.5/+1 for OOP status (i.e. Use 0.5 for duals & 1 for Black Lotus to address Steven idea)
(3.) (3 pts) Game play bonus
+1 if card is restricted (from DCI Vintage rule perspective; power has its privilege)
+0 to +2 for card usefulness (half pt increment)
(4.) (4 pts) Monetary bonus
+0 to +4 depending on value of card in set (half pt increment; 0 means it is cheap)

Each card is measured to arrive at an overall value (fractions are dropped). Based on the above method, here are some calculations: The number left of the card name is the weight in the current Unlimited set for your reference. I used the high prices of the Sep issue of Scrye to calculate monetary value rating. (Why the high price and not the median or low price ... because PSA uses NM-MT condition in its calculation, and the high value is more representative to this condition than median or low.) I have placed the scale at the end for those interested.

(10) Black Lotus 10 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
(8) Time Walk 8 = 1 + 2 + 2.5 + 3
(2) Tundra 6 = 1 + 1.5 + 2 + 2
(1) Aspect of Wolf 2 = 1 + 1 + 0 + 0
(3) Berserk 4 = 1 + 1.5 +0.5 + 1.5
(1) Sengir Vampire 2 = 1 + 0.5 + 0 +0.5
(1) Red Ward 1 = 1 + 0.5 + 0 + 0
(1) Llanowar Elves 2 = 1 + 0 + 1 + 0
(1) Benalish Hero 1 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0

It is true that the monetary value will most likely be influenced by rarity and game play values. Other factors that may have an effect are collector desirability, supply availability beyond just rarity, prestige, etc.

I originally put more emphasis on rarity since the actual count between rare, uncommon, common can be very wide. But I think that will artificially inflate all rares up front.

How to identify "card usefulness" is up to debate and probably best be evaluated by people who are familiar with the current gaming environment.

What to use as a basis for monetary worth? Scrye, InQuest, .... something else? And how should the increments be measure? I'd suggest using a semi-exponential curve to mirror that of the PSA grading scale. Of course, this almost guarantees that only the Lotus gets a 4. But seeing that a Lotus is worth more than twice the next card, the method will crown the Lotus king.

Hope you guys enjoy this.
-- Joe

=== Monetary scale used === (based on Sep Scrye high prices for Beta set)

0.0 pt = up to 29
0.5 pt = 30+
1.0 pt = 55+
1.5 pt = 100+
2.0 pt = 175+
2.5 pt = 300+
3.0 pt = 550+
3.5 pt = 1000+
4.0 pt = 2190 (Black Lotus)

Osguard

You guys have got some great ideas and I really like where this is going.

Thanks for explaining how the current system works. And I have to even admit that I didn't look close enough to the registry lists to understand what the "Pop" and "Pop Higher" columns meant until I first understood it this morning.

One consideration on the OOP weight topic is that the popularity of a card can swing both ways there. Reprinting can have the affect of making a classic card more valuable. (Gameplay) useful OOPs obviously get a higher grade, but those that get reprinted and are in the current formats become VERY popular in vintage versions as well for the "OOO AHHHH" factor of current players.

The metagame changes also have an impact on some of these and Mishra's Workshop is a huge example. Before Mirroddin came out, and before the Workshop was unrestricted, a seller of Antiquities was lucky to get $250 a set. That price has been constant for about 10 years. Now, those single workshops are going for $300 alone.

That's the single card that I kick myself most on because when I was actually a MTG player in the 90s, the Workshop was perhaps my favorite card; I was the guy at the table always playing artifact decks. I always had at least 4 of them but then thought, "Why would I ever need that many, I can only use one in a deck." So I sold my extras for about $25-$30. Back then, I don't think we could forsee things 10 years down the road and metagame changes to allow for cards to actually be pulled from the restricted list. And back then NO ONE played artifacts other than your standard overpowered mana producers, Ivory Towers, Racks (HORRIBLE FOR THE GAME) and Black Vices (EVEN MORE HORRIBLE).

So it will be interesting to see how this goes for the intial establishment of weights, but also how those weights are maintained over time.

-Tony

Tromagic

I didn t ask for weight the unlimited. It was already done when i started.
But i don t agree with the weight they puted.
TWO-HEADED GIANT 2 and SHIVAN 1
2 shivan for one 2 head LOL !
Also, i think we need considere power of a card but also rarity in the grad. For exemple, in unlimited, the mox emerald (only 3 PSA 10) should weight twice the mox sapphire (12 PSA 10) even if the mox sapphire is higher value.
And by the way i would pay more for the emerald than the sapphire.

I read the stuff about the sol ring very played so more rare in high grade. This is true for non PSA 10.
If all the pack was open i would say sol ring PSA 10 is very rare because most of the set keep by poeple get PSA 9 after a while (you put in and out the card 4 times in a binder and they are PSA 9).
Supose there is 10 sol ring unlimited PSA 10 in the world (graded or not) and 20 cursed land (graded or not) that are out the pack.
In the sealed box and pack and in the box and pack there is 10 sol ring PSA 10 and 10 cursed land PSA 10 (there is as much cursed land than sol ring in box)
So there is total of 20 sol ring and 30 cursed land PSA 10.
Sol ring is more rare but not that more because of the unopen box.
I agree that is less true for the beta because there is less unopen beta pack.
Now i totaly agree in PSA 8-9 sol ring will be much more rare than cursed land because they are played a lot (there is maby 40 sol ring PSA 9 out the pack but there is 250 cursed land PSA 9 out the pack) and the 10 more of each that will came from the box won t change the ratio

Tromagic

GoblinOutpost

Bastien.

The weights for different grades are not in our control. That part of the formula has been set by PSA. We can only control the weights between cards. But even that is subject to system limitations imposed by PSA (i.e. weights are ranged 1 thru 10).

I guess the better question to throw at the group is what should the weights represent on the registry. Without agreement on this, we cannot meaningfully move forward as a group. Personally I hope Steven's request to PSA to mirror Unlimited happen soon. Cause that will give everyone some idea how weights can impact completion, set rating, and position of your set relative to others.

On the flip side, I would hope the weights for A/B don't get change until after the current awards season. It is too close to the award to muck around with weights. Somewhat unfair to change the rules at the last minute. Quick look at the current positioning of every MTG set says the top position will not change with weight changes.

-- Joe

Tromagic

Tromagic

Lol i did reply little too fast
Yes i think it s good A/B weight like unlim.
And if i don t think the unlim weight is perfect it s lot better than none.
I agree to keep it like that if you guys want keep it like this.
I was just telling what i think about the weight and if we follow what i say weight would change each time a card get graded ... wich is impossible.
I am happy with those what you guys decied to do.
I didn t know about the reward stuff from PSA... I was thinking you get reward only if you have the best set in the non sport cards ...
No worry i follow the group as long as i get my set unlim #1 LOL !
For the weight between cards i think the 2 head should be 1 still but if you want to keep it 2 it s perfect
Bastien

Thulnanth

Hey Bastien,

Actually, now that I've been at this a while, I've figured out what the reward is for being #1 in the Registry...



One VERY empty wallet

Take it easy,
Jared

Tromagic

They didn t forget me then !
I got rewarded many time
good night,
Bastien

Osguard

In summary to this point then, the key factors that make up the "importance" of a card withinin a set are:

RarityPlay ValueDollar Value

Are there any other factors that need to be considered? "Play value" is a factor unique in the collectible world of games. Are there other factors in the general collectible world that also apply here?

Bastien touched upon what I think amounts to "survivability" of a highly played card such as a Sol Ring. I think this factor falls into a list of things that doesn't modify the initial starting count of a print run, but of those that have had an affect upon both the surviving population and the ability of any card to obtain high grades:

Highly Played Cards (Sol Ring, P9)Cards With Notoriously Bad Centering (Birds of Paradise, Vesuvan, Volcanic Island, Dingus Egg)Cards that were never valuable enough to take care of and are now hard to find mint (Uncommons, Steven mentioned a few of these)Cards that for whatever reason have a single or low gem count

I am not sure whether the factors in the above list should have any bearing on weight since those types of things are already figured into the calculation when grade is multiplied by weight. I tend do think not.

I am also not convinced that OOP should carry any kind of a modifier. As I mentioned in a post below, OOP status can work both ways and can be tough to get a hold off. When we are looking at just the set itself, why does the Beta set care if Copper Tablet isn't reprinted? I tend to think any OOP factor can already be accounted for by both the dollar value and play value of a card.



<< <i>Jared: A group of Beta P9 is worth more than the other 293 cards in the set total... >>


According to PSA, there are only 283 more cards in the A/B/U set...

-Tony

GoblinOutpost

My original interpretation of rarity value addresses 2 angles.

1. Intra-set rarity, the standard rare/uncommon/common effect (why a mox is less available than Karma)

2. Inter-set rarity, the OOP effect (why a mox is less available than a dual land)

Thulnanth

Hey Guys,

There are so many factors that can be looked at, thus the problem with figuring out a weighting. My initial suggestion of price was because it is less arbitrary than other stats (like play value) and it really factors in all the other concerns I've heard here. Why is a Lotus worth the most? Rarity + play value + difficulty to obtain + # of PSA copies ...etc. One of the benefits of an open and free market is that it is rather good at figuring out all of these factors and settling on a $$$ value.

I don't think any one thing alone can determine pointing - all factors need to be considered. The almighty dollar does a pretty good job of that. If a card is common = low value. If a card is common but popular = higher value. If a card is tough to get = high value. If a card is tough to get but sucks = not so high value. If a card is super tough to get in 9/10 = additional value. Not trying to say price should be the only factor, but it really does do a good job of factoring in everything we seem to want to look at.

Perhaps the biggest drawback to price right now is the relative "newness" of graded Magic. Although the price for raw cards is well established, prices for graded cards are still in flux. Tony made an observation about cards that are tough to get well-centered. In the coin market this factor is know as "condition rarity" and is very well represented in price. For example, in G4 (lowest grade) most Indian cents sell for less than $1, with the major exception being the 1877 (think Lotus) due to its extremely low mintage. This is the case for most condition levels. Once you get up to highest level (MS65) however, things change. The value of the 1877 is on par with many of the other coins - why? Because collectors know that although the 1877 is rare in general, all Indians are equally rare in the highest grade. Right now the whole idea of graded Magic is so new this really isn't a factor. Long term though, as more cards get graded and the Pop reports become more reflective of the actual # of cards out there in a certain grade, you will see this happen.

Bastien also alluded to this when he talked about the # of Mox Emeralds vs the # of Sapphires in a certain grade. While this is exactly what I am getting at, unlike coins the Pops for graded MtG cards are still very new and thus rather meaningless... at least for now. Prior to Tony's last submission, you would have gotten a different view of rarity vs what you see today - and that was just ONE submission. When grading takes hold you get the problem of the best cards graded first. Looking at the Pops today, without any other info, you would have to conclude that Black Lotuses are the most common cards - not true, of course. As grading becomes more established you have more and more less desireable "set cards" come out of hiding and get graded. Steven referred to the difficulty of obtaining the little cards - this is a problem for all graded card collectors. As the popularity increases and time goes on, this will be less so. Many sportscard collectors on the other forums talk about how tough it was to get the non-stars for their sets a few years ago; now it's much easier. Why? As grading becomes the norm more cards get slabbed, making it easier to acquire the lesser cards. This will also be when the condition rarities will truely emerge. Until then, and until the prices for graded MtG become more established, we will be forced to use raw prices and our best judgement to reach a dollar value on our graded cards.

All this being said, I think price will eventually be the only way to determine weightings. For now though, we may need to modify that slightly to give a more accurate reflection of what cards are truely the most impressive in a set - which is what weighting is there to do anyway

Take it easy,
Jared

Spacebaby

Gentleman,

You are making this way too complicated. There are too many variable to jam into a single formula. One thing we should all remember is KISS - Keep It Short & Simple. Prices vary too widly to be a benchmark. Rarity alone does not take into account desirablity. etc.

I look at the weights as relative logrithmic values based on the overall card price, rarity, desirability, etc. I kinda of look at it this way, weighting should be a qualitative factor not quantitative. Dont try to add it up and come up with a weight(i.e. 30% for price, 25% rarity, 25% relative power, etc).

You should simply be able to say a 2 weight card is one magnitude better than a 1. When you look at a 3 weight, it should be relatively accepted that it is the next catagory up from the 2. And so on and so on.

Personally, I truely do like the current unlimited weights. Whoever, suggested it was pretty darn close. I think all it needs is some tweeking on which cards are 2's and which are 3's. Other than that, the numbers work quite well.

My major point still remains in the unity of the weights of the A/B/U sets. I am quite this is necessary to provide an even and mutually acceptable playing field. It provides continuity of value. I thinks having differnt weights among the sets is a huge mistake.

Remember not all statistica data is numerical. Alot of it is qualitative. Rate the following card:

average -1
good -2
great -3
unbelievable -4
OMG - 5
beyong human comprehension - 9

I know thats kinda hokey. But in essence that what weights should be based on.

Tromagic

I agree you should kee it simple like.
But we could change some :
berserk : 3 to 2
LICH : 2 to 1
2 head : 2 to 1
Other are ok i think.
Let me know what you think.
Bastien

Spacebaby

Tony,

I agree with minor cards like copper tablet not getting value due to the fact its OOP. When I look at the first 3 sets, there are basically a few rares (Gauntlet, forcefield, chaos orb, illusionary mask, cyclopean tomb-marginal) and a few uncommon (berserk, psionic blast) that were not reprinted outside these 3 sets. The fact that they are OOP can often, but not exclusively, is a significant reason why they are of high desirability, price and play value. Wizards tend to remove cards that are too powerful. Heck, there are even highly reprinted cards that have these very same characteristics ( shivan, Serra, birds, sol ring etc.) that you just know cannot be a 1. Since I collect only the really oldest cards, I tend to apply the OOP factor more rigidly than I would a card reprinted in later sets and then removed.

GoblinOutpost

I can certainly accept Jared's view of using the $$ guide to imply weights. Market value itself is a good indicator containing all the known factors.

For the logic of using qualitative assessment, we would still have to define the basis to form the assessment. Even using the simple scale like Steven has mentioned.

average - 1
good - 2
great - 3
....

Someone still has to figure what is average, good, or great.

Regardless of what approach is taken, the ultimate goal is for the weights to gain public acceptance. It's hard to dispute if the market buys into it.

So from a progress point of view, do we care if we continue the current path of discussion, or should we try to plan to put weights that this little group can agree on. I'd hate to even put an attempt on this as we might end up discussion the plan and then the plan for the plan and so on.

I for one am not too concern with the weights as I do not plan to complete any sets. The marketing power behind this set registry is quite wonderful. It creates a new explicit value (owning the best set) where the less desirable cards get attention also. Of course, if I can climb high on the list and bug someone as a consequence, .... yeah baby, now that's value. I'd almost think I am playing mind game during a MTG match.

-- Joe

GoblinOutpost

Now that I have my jolly in my last reply. Here is what I would like to propose to get this weight done once and for all. My idea is to use public (expert) opinion so everyone has a say. Since many here thinks they know enough about the cards.

1. Use the Unlimited weights as a starting pt.
2. Produce a simple spreadsheet with 2 columns, (a) card name (b) weight from unlimited
3. Anyone here who is known to be a serious MTG collector can fill in a copy of the spreadsheet by adding a 3rd column, completely fill in with his/her view of the appropriate weight for each card.
4. Everyone from step 3 submit to a designated score keeper (I can do this if no one else wants to volunteer).
5. If at least 5 submissions are received, the highest value and lowest value are discarded for each card (to reduce the impact of anormalies). This is similar to how Olympics scores.
6. The remaining scores for each card will be used to get an average (rounded of course).

Examples for scoring, assuming only 5 submissions received.

Scores for Scores Final
a card kept Average Weight
======= ==== ====== =====
1-2-3-4-5 2-3-4 3.00 3
1-1-2-1-2 1-1-2 1.33 1
3-1-3-5-6 3-3-5 3.67 4

Of course, 1 submission per caring collector.

I'd suggest a time frame of 2 weeks for all submissions so there will be sufficient time for enough people to participate. As I believe there are no way the current #1 set can be dethroned by any agreeable weightings we give, we can just proceed.

Is this a workable approach or do we want to debate more on what is a better/simplier weight method, who should determine the weights, how should it be done if more than 1 person are involved, etc, etc.

Sometimes, these ongoing discussions can be a Mastercard moment, .... PRICELESS.


-- Joe

tmmoose

Joe et. al

I think your spreadsheet idea is a pretty reasonable one.

As far as getting 'the market' to buy into the new ratings - it's the group of people on the registry that are the market, so as long as there is reasonable consensus between us as to what the ratings should be and there is an appropriate record kept of how they were set (for any new people that come along so they can understand) I think that should be fine.

In terms of who should should count as a caring collector - I think anyone with a set registered in Alpha/Beta/Unlimited should be able to contribute with 1 vote (regardless of number of sets). This would mean whoever was organising the collection of votes would need to make a reasonable effort to contact anyone on the registry a set - either via this forum or by e-mailing them at their disclosed e-mail address.

It would be an interesting exercise to go through even if we don't end up updating the weights, just to see what the individual and overall view was.

Are you stepping up to the plate to organise this? :-)

- Michael

Spacebaby

Hi all,

I contacted PSA 2 wekks ago about this very subject. I suggested that they apply the weights of the unlimited set to the alpha and beta set. It took them a while to run it through the approval process, but it looks like it was done. My alphas dropped fron #2, to #3 because Lens set has higher weighted cards of better quality.

Speaking with Cosetta Robbins, it will not be difficult to change the actual weights once a consensus is arrived at. For now, it is imperfect, but close. If the general collecting populations decides on different weights, it only takes a week or two to get changed.

tmmoose

It pushed my Alpha set up 3 places - woo hoo!

Admittedly, I went from 20 to 17, and I only have 1 card... but it's a start!

Tromagic

They reported the weight to alpha set but as some cards are missing most of cards is wrong weight... Mountain is weight 8.
go for the mountain

Spacebaby

Yeah, it seems all the weights from icy manipulator through Taiga are shifted by one. A mountain is a 8 and a mox sapphire is a 1...LOL. I'll email them tonight with the correct weights. Also, the set divisor should be 387, not 388 sice is a cop -1 weight, and volc island - 2 weight that are excluded from the set. They should be able to fix it shortly. Thanks Bastien for actually looking to see if they got it right.

Thulnanth

WHAT???

Mountains are an 8??? I knew I should have gotten more mountains!!!

Probably because Steven has been selling them for $200

Take it easy,
Jared

GoblinOutpost

Thanks Steven. For getting the weights started in A/B. I gotta laugh at the mistake of mountain = 8. Must have benn the recent Legacy domination of Goblin decks. Mountains are just everywhere and everybody wants more. Supply shortage do I hear.....

Personally I feel dual lands are under rated at 2. In terms of popolarity, they are always up there just below the Lotus and moxes. There are just no other vintage land that can rival the power of a dual. But since I am not in it for the registry ranking, I can live with that.

If you all are interested in setting the weights different than that of Unlimited, I'm still happy to coordinate and do the vote tabulation (if that is the way people agree on). If not, feel free to come up with a more suitable approach or just leave it equal to unlimited. I'd be happy to help which ever way we go as a team.

I am surprised about spacebaby dropping to 3 in the alpha set. Must have been the lack of moxes .... At least with some sort of weighting in place, it gives a better perspective to the "value" of different cards.

-- Joe

Tap4black

Hey Joe,

He might have also dropped as someone has a Lotus registered that is a 10!

I also think the weighting of the set is a good thing. When you factor in the fact that most of the Alpha set was used for play in the first few months of release, coupled with the horrible quality control, gem cards are really hard to come by. I feel that whoever came up with the scale used on Unlimited did a very good job and there are only a few cards I would have listed differently based on play value.

The idea of having the people with registered sets put our heads together and submit a list is a very good idea that I would like to see put forward. My personal opinion is that the Lotus and Chaoslace should both be valued at 200 with the rest of the cards between 1-10. Should we as a group decide to proceed with the idea, count me in for a submission.

Len
Tap4black

Spacebaby

Alpha weighting is corrected. Mountains are a 1 and The saphire is a 9...Len, Are you happy now?

Tap4black

Get back to work slacker! You have loans to process until 9 PM tonight and you took an extra long lunch!

Len
Tap4black

Tromagic

but Beta set is still buged !!! need to correct it too
Bastien

Spacebaby

I know. I sent a new correction to psa. It will take them a moment to get it posted.

GoblinOutpost

Bastien. You are such a slave driver!!!!
-- joe

Tromagic

Lol, Yes i guess i could have ask them to change this but as Steven started to deal with them, it better if he keep doing this great job.
+ he has much more credit than me
and last, my english is so bad that if i ask them to weight the alpha set they will end up weighting the fallen empires
Bastien

GoblinOutpost

Hahaha, you crack me up, Bastien.

Steven is doing a GREAT job. So if Steven is feeling used and abused. Don't worry, we're all just waiting for our turn.

Keep up the fantastic job. There's a price to pay for being high up on the registry ladder. Keke.

-- Joe

Spacebaby

Hey Tony,

Nice set of Antiquities!!! Alot of 1/1 9's and 10's. You da man in dat set.

Two things: Since the strip mines and urzas lands list all pic variants in the set list, don't you think the same should apply for the mishra's factory (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter)???

Does anyone wanna see arabians weighted?

Tromagic

I think we should weight the 6 old set :-)
3 are done ! Let s make the arabian !

Osguard

Hi Steven,

Someone always has to be first to get the ball rolling on a set I suppose. I figured as long as I was doing a couple of the other classic sets, I'd put my Antiquities into the mix to see what happened. It may be a while before it catches on, but I've heard other members express interest in all the classics. With the $5 grading special, the price was right!

The people at the set registry are going to add the four Mishra's Factory variants to the registry. They just haven't gotten around to it yet with the time the are spending on the set awards. If you look at the population report, they already appear there. I worked with Cosetta on explaining the different variants and giving them a heads-up that I would be sending in one of each as examples. My cards have the proper descriptions on the slabs, its just that when I enter them in the registry only the last one I entered appears for now.

I was a little baffled at why the strip mines were originally included and not the factories since the factories differences are much more distinctive. I'm still a little disappointed that all the land variants aren't included in the other classic and core sets because they are intended as distinct versions of the cards, with the newer sets having a different card number. I don't see it as a complete set without them. The Arabian variants I can see not including, because they weren't intended to be part of the set by WOTC.

I still think that A/B/U weights need some slight tweaking, like people talked about. Or maybe there were some tweaks made and I missed them? Arabian would be good to weight as well!

-Tony

Tap4black

I am sure they will take care of these small issues soon as alot of their effort is being put into the set competition. I asked Cosetta to see if they can separate the Alpha/Beta/Unl/CE Listings when you search the population report. As of now, they lump everything into 1 catagory and it is a bugger to search. We'll see if they can get that taken care of and how long it takes.

I too would like to see a little "tweaking" of the Gathering set weights and I think we as a group should put our heads together to make it happen. I feel the listings are close but there are a few that should be moved by a point in either direction.

Len
Tap4Black

GoblinOutpost

I'd be interested in playing the tweaking game, too. Dare I resurrect the idea about group voting I mentioned awhile back? I'd still be willing to coordinate and tabulate the votes, present to the group before submitting.

Would all those interested in this tweaking speak up whether it be YAH or NAH? Or even ABSTAIN.

My vote obviously would eb YAH to tweaking.
-- Joe

Tap4black

I'll tweak with you Joe!

AlphaInvestments

Definitly needs tweaking

Osguard

YAH!

Spacebaby

I have a proposed weighting system for arabian nights, but I cant seem to figure out how to upload an excel spreadsheet to the forum. If someone else can, I'll email it to you and someone els can upload it.

I also want to see the a/b/u sets tweaked a little to allow for some more 2 rated cards (shivan, wrath, wheel, etc). I'd like to get the arabians up for discussion. So you tech guys let me know you can upload excel and I'll email it to you to post.

GoblinOutpost

I hope someone else have better luck than me at using attachments. I can't even get the system to accept a simple text file with like 10 chars only. I was able to get the system to complain whenever I tried to load a file greater than 50k in size. (These are the file types I tried - xls, xml, txt, htm.)
Maybe the system is crippled deliberately to avoid problems with viruses and such.
-- Joe

Osguard

Yeh - same thing for me Joe. The only file type that seems to be allowed is an image.

Steven, do you just want to cut and past the text of your proposal as raw text or as a list so that we can have a look at it and comment?

-Tony