Spring 'V Forces Tins' Revealed!

ShaQuL said:
I agree completely, while the pack rates got better (I keep spreadsheets of booster box pull rates), they are still not good enough due to the lack of value placed on non-Ultra cards. At this point, I think a pack structure itself rather than pull rates need to be adjusted. Since regular rates and 95% of non-Ultra holos are worthless in terms of monetary value as well as playability, they should not be the climax of the pack.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure but it's nice to see confirmation of this, I wasn't positive if box rates improved or not, at least with Sword and Shield compared to Sun and Moon (Unless I'm missing something that's what you meant, yeah?)

ShaQuL said:
what I'm trying to say is that the 5-3-1-1 split doesn't make sense with the amount of Ultras in our sets nowadays. Instead, I think it would be better if they stopped counting Holos as a white code overall, since so few are actually usable or sellable. Instead, each pack could come with 4 commons, 3 uncommons, 1 rare, 1 reverse and 1 guaranteed Holo or better (I guess similar to Shining Legends, etc, but keeping regular rares), changing the 5-3-1-1 split to 4-3-1-1-1. That way you still get shiny packs, rares keep a place in the pack, but instead of getting 6 holos in a booster box, and 8 Ultra+, you'd get 14 Ultra+. That way the game is more accessible, better for collectors and consumers, and overall more exciting. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a hopeful nerd that likes spreadsheets.
Click to expand...
That's actually a really good way of putting it! I never thought about changing the pack structure itself, but that actually seems like a really solid idea. It goes for the same sort of idea we both mutually want-better packs. But the structural change rather than just the ratio change improves a lot more than just the rates itself. Really interesting to hear, considering I never even thought of that.

I totally agree with your last point though. In my small experience with learning about marketing, one of the things you don't want to do is create buyer's remorse. I think this is why sets like Hidden Fates and the like work so well-even if I'm not breaking even with some of the times I've opened it I've still come out with something, rather than getting absolutely nothing and feeling bad. When you have your consumer feel like they've gained nothing from the product, it's not good for both them as well as the company-you won't be coming back if you didn't enjoy the thing you bought.

And I'm all for making the game more accessible and enjoyable, whether it be for collectors and competitive people, or just the casual fan. It's sad that I doubt there's going to be any structural change to packs anytime soon, I doubt Pokemon would listen in on just some hopeful people talking ratios, but man... If only. For now I just stick to either sales or singles. Mostly the latter.
 
AshCo said:
Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure but it's nice to see confirmation of this, I wasn't positive if box rates improved or not, at least with Sword and Shield compared to Sun and Moon (Unless I'm missing something that's what you meant, yeah?)


That's actually a really good way of putting it! I never thought about changing the pack structure itself, but that actually seems like a really solid idea. It goes for the same sort of idea we both mutually want-better packs. But the structural change rather than just the ratio change improves a lot more than just the rates itself. Really interesting to hear, considering I never even thought of that.

I totally agree with your last point though. In my small experience with learning about marketing, one of the things you don't want to do is create buyer's remorse. I think this is why sets like Hidden Fates and the like work so well-even if I'm not breaking even with some of the times I've opened it I've still come out with something, rather than getting absolutely nothing and feeling bad. When you have your consumer feel like they've gained nothing from the product, it's not good for both them as well as the company-you won't be coming back if you didn't enjoy the thing you bought.

And I'm all for making the game more accessible and enjoyable, whether it be for collectors and competitive people, or just the casual fan. It's sad that I doubt there's going to be any structural change to packs anytime soon, I doubt Pokemon would listen in on just some hopeful people talking ratios, but man... If only. For now I just stick to either sales or singles. Mostly the latter.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I meant! I've been keeping track since Celestial Storm (I think, I haven't got access to my spreadsheets at the moment) and they have steadily increased from 12 White codes to 14 (or 15) over the sets. Huh, I assumed there would be others like me, who would keep track of this stuff. Once I get my Vivid Voltage box (been waiting ages...), I may post all my findings on here :)

And yeah, you put it very eloquently, there's so many times whee I'm in a shop, getting something else, be it groceries or a book, and I think screw it, I'll spend the extra £4 on a booster, just to pull a Stage 2 rare, with 2 non-effect attacks, no trainers and a common reverse. I hate that feeling more than anything haha, if I recall correctly, Unified Minds had the worst pull rates for trainers in recent sets.

But yes, we can be hopeful, but 1: Pokemon won't even see this and 2: they don't care, I'll still but products because I love collecting and playing is my main hobby, and sometimes (I blame my gambling brain) I still think that buying 20 boosters in hopes of a certain card is better value than just going for the damned single.

But anyways, I should get back to work now, if I remember I'll make a post about pull rates that I've collected :)
 
With one of the tins having a champions path V card do we think these tins may have a Champs Path Booster inside? Even if its just one out of the 5?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top