Honestly as much as I admire the sentiment I can't be bothered slogging through that mess. And yes you do need to pay a bit more attention to your English if you want your points to come across. Syntax is troubling to non-native speakers (and some of us natives too) but it is key to deciphering what is inherently a vague language.
Feel free to copy what you consider to be the gist of your response and paste it here. Or better yet, write an article on the subject (with serious proofreading) and let us converse over that.
No-no-no-no-no-no-no and no-no =) and besides yes-yaY-Splendid !!!!
The OP is NOT mine - thats Wynzermann. You must look at GONNY's posts in that thread. It starts out JUST like what you are saying, my voice says(said) what ure saying right now.
PLX take the time to read it, Edit: and its no rush ofc - use weeks =)
And to make the hardship complete: my "true" arguements dont become clear until quite long into the thread.
The difference is very important to WoTC. They can't legally condone gambling. They can however promote gaming for in-game prizes.
By the way that thread you linked to is 21 pages long is in my opinion a complete waste of time. Naming people as "scrubs" is pretty much just hoping to troll them. I don't care if there is an archetype of a person who develops their own artificial rules for the game. Calling them scrubs is a guarantee of hostility. So that thread negates it's own validity.
When I was playing competitively pros used to use the term all the time to describe anyone they could wipe the floor with. "Random" was another such term. Pejoratives are a way of excluding and labeling in a tribal manner those who you wish to be your scapegoats. Pigeonholing people does not allow them to grow. It merely puts them and "YOU" into boxes. (You referring to the pigeonholer, not you personally.)
I say "you" because the use of pejoratives to categorize people is itself a self labeling. (I believe the common pejorative used here is "douche" or "jerk".) Mainly I think it is a better use of time to explain to people why artificial rules limit them to non-competitive play and how that may hurt their progress in learning the game.
I will note that thread has several people misunderstanding the application of the terms to mean "casual" players and others correcting them so it has some value in that sense but even so the whole context is skewed by the overall condemning tone.
Diff between legal meaning and spirit, absolutely YES.
Question that rises then is: What reason does WotC then have to have such an outspoken policy on it ? I think the answer is reasonable: Because the game attracts ppl/players with "not-so-outspoken"-attitude about it. Ppl in the target group for MtG are also the ones most prone to use time, resources and money on gambling in general. Age, demography, before marriage "snatches them away", etc...
Its then that I want to express my main "case" with how to improve MtG and its integrity with a "simple" thing from WotCs side: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/26257605/Scrubism_vs._...
Its a thread on Wiz-web MtG-General, and its way long. My posts are under name "GONNY" there. I must have like 20 postings spread out in the whole thread, suggesting that Pre-Registered Booster Packs is a good thing.
Would be cool if ya (and anyone interested) commented on that, and plx read the whole thread/all my posts =)
Edit: Im not the best of english-typers, best I write is prolly towards the end of that thread.
Well there is a difference between the legal meaning of the word and the spirit of it. :) And yes I agree on all counts. But there has never been any doubt that this is what Card games are about. Otherwise we'd be collecting chess pieces.
There were avatars that you got only if your rating was over a threshold (1800 and I think 2000). And some tourneys you could only enter at those thresholds if I remember right.) Other than that it was a way of selecting clannies for some clans I guess and a way of checking to see what strength your opponents were. In a draft with a lot of sub 1700s I knew I was going to see some random signals and adjusted accordingly for instance.
RE: Limited play.
I think it is clear that the process is like any gambling game. You either are good and place in the money continually or you struggle.
There are several reasons why people choose each of the different formats. Swiss rewards you with more game time and if you are good enough a consistent renewal of packs. Assuming your cards drafted = cost of 2tix entry then you are breaking even. Sort of.
84s fire because there are plenty of people who think they are good enough to win against the best. Some are. The rest are suckers. Or to put it another way, some players will take the challenge knowing they aren't as good as their opposition hoping to gain skill and also get lucky. Plus there are the usual rare drafters. I am sure people who play consistently enough start to break even eventually. But it is a process. Not something that happens magically. As with any gamble there is a bit of random chance involved and the smart players play the odds.
I assume that Online-Rating had some practical function back then, since you two -kitten and bus- talk about the possibility of cheating it upwards or not ?
I know drafting is pointed out to be the hardest field to break-even++ in, also from personal experience with Modo. Whilst I certainly wont call someone a liar, what reads in the other things you say Paul is something I agree with and that is:
- very many ppl writing articles/forum-threads fails to present a reasonable picture about what it takes to break even++ when it comes to Limited play. ...ofc this would mean to compare with a whole lot of internet-articles, going way back - its just the impression I have gotten, personally =)
Beta modo was 24/7 drafting for me. I played every day and fired a lot of drafts. I would say I earned my rating but that would only be half true. I won vs a lot of really bad players. I lost to a lot of really good players. RE: Bribery/Collusion I heard nothing of that and I think I would have. My team NY Magic was one of the tops in beta in terms of ratings so that would have poed a lot of our members. Now I wasn't around for the initial alpha or closed beta. (I joined as soon as the beta opened.) So maybe there was something odd going on then. I can say I would draft 24/7 still if I had the money/time. It is a ton of fun and even losing isn't all that bad since you get new cards and jumping in another queue ameliorates any ego hurt from the loss.
While Im sure a large chunk of the MtgO users have a "live-alone" situation when they are online, consider those who are:
siblings/household family/answer "yes" when phoned from neighbour about TVmatch&beer drinking=social stuff etc, etc...
Paper-Magic at least requires some kind of planning before going there =)
, and when they are there, no matter how social/casual it is, they can spend their match-minutes without having to worry about or be disturbed with irrelevant stuff.
Only the breast-feeding mommy would have something non-magic to worry about when playing rated-store-tournaments =), and we never see them there ofc.
From what I heard quite a few of the accounts that were parked in the upper 1900's-low 2000's used bribery and collusion to artificially inflate their rating and then "retired" the account so that it would be permanently parked in the top 50. It took a while before wizards started cracking down on this.
That said, I am talking about live -- I missed the beta but started on day 1 of live. I'm not sure what factors might have been different in the beta, although the K values of tournaments are a major factor that might have been important.
While I absolutely agree that casual drafting has increased quite a lot over time, I'm not sure why that would depress overall ratings especially since more people draft casually IRL too and it doesn't seem to have that effect there. I mean, the difference between IRL and online is huge, with the top RL players owning ratings some 200-300 points higher than the top online players.
First, why doesnt no one like Prototype Portal? I think it should be awesome but I havent yet seen one in my packs.
Second, and more importantly: True Conviction in Pack 1 Pick 5. Seriously?
I mean, Magnet is some good, I can see that. But True Conviction basically just ends the game when you cast it. And you get it fifth. For me, that would mean White is somewhat underplayed on your right. And Pack three kinda reinforces that signal with those Arrests.....
Sticking to an archetype is a fine idea - I think you stuck to your archetype a little too early!
While I wouldn't generally force an archetype myself, prefering to see what's most open, I know hall of famer Darwin Kastle advocated a strategy he called "Power Drafting" in his articles over on Mana Nation. Basically he says an awesome player like Kai Budder might learn and master all the archetypes available in a given draft format, a more normal human might do well to learn 2 or 3 archetypes really well, and then stick mainly to those, cutting cards/colors aggressively from early on to end up in them every time. The approach has its merits.
That said, of course the benefit of knowing at 3 different archetypes is if you're getting cut heavily from your favorite, you have a backup plan and don't end up with a trainwreck. While blue is very often underdrafted in this format, that's not going to happen every time. If you're highly set on control, I'd suggest doing a review of all the cards in the set, and fix in your mind what you think the best control options are in each color. Of course you'd also prioritize artifact control cards the highest - like Tumble Magnet, black and blue trigons (even if they're off color, 3 uses or proliferating them are good), Contagion Clasp and Contagion Engine, Heavy Arbalest (I totally agree with the earlier poster, it's both removal AND card advantage), etc.
Removal in any color is a valid part of a control strategy, couple that with some card advantage, finishers, and possibly early blockers & any colors can do control. Red/white is good for aggro, but I drafted an insane red/white control deck at my local FNM last night, because it was open. Three Razor Hippogriff, two Glimmerpoint Stag, a Clone Shell, Furnace Celebration, Perilous Myr, 3 artifact sacrifice outlets, etc. One game I returned the Clone Shell from graveyard to hand four times, driving my opponent nuts (and gaining 20 life!)
Glint Hawk is even secretly a control card, reseting tumble magnets, trigons, and contagion clasps all day. The green and black replicas are good for control too. I also think Accorder's Shield is a fine control card, letting you sneak in a point or two and still hold up a vigilant blocker most things can't batter through without a pump spell.
Interesting draft, I would have chosen a ton of picks differently, but it's nice to see someone else's approach to the same set of packs.
Yes, I think ppl in general take modo more casually. And I think noone can argue that paper has an extra gear, if not two - thus creating larger rating-differences in paper.
What those extra gears "consist of" is certainly an almost endless discussion in itself, which is good for the game =)
During the intial modo beta I was rated fairly high into the 1800s..Ratings then definitely hit over 2k. I think the difference now is how much casual players draft vs people who draft more seriously.
1. Very good point: the 4-drops in infect are awesome, but cost... 4!
2. Throne is SUPER-important to the deck, along with the others you mentioned. I think Instill Infection belongs on the list too; it can cantrip-removal a blocker, or just let your poison guy live through combat and kill their guy.
3. Makes sense
4. Sure. Do you go "oh my a FALLEN" and forget that the infect drafter may have just been disciplined and taken 2-3drops or the ball-0lightning guy
5. gotcha. Shifting into Green dinosaurs might be an option, since you theoretically can hold the ground early
That's a great example at the end, but I also see drafts where people become too white-knuckled, "I can give him infect if I pay 1 mana! that's so much better than instill/pinions/lifestaff!", which is where it seems like a lot of infect decks go wrong also; they're too worried about taking even subpar infecters.
nicely written article nik. im sure most people, including myself, appreciate some good speculation. more than anything, it gives a nice push to 'think' in a more long term fashion.
@the guy making accusations: he attempted to state no more than the obvious, which apparently was not for some. sure writing an article could boost card value a little. but as it is stated in the article and can be logically concluded, it is difficult to liquidate large quantities of cards. the inflation caused by any article more than likely will not earn the type of $ to sell any cards (especially with a LONG term investment goal as stated) nor will it hold out very long. there are more reasons but i think you get the picture. to make the offhanded statement then say there or no implications in your words reflects upon your own character. perhaps you should write your own speculation article, 'a quixotic guide to nearsightedness'
About todays' SOM-limited on MtgO:
Having played a year (but 14 years paper before that), where first 2-4 months ofc for anyone starting MtgO is a learning process (more than just the interface-quirks), my rating has fallen quite much since SOM arrived.
Im looking at 1730 limited now, which is almost a 100 points below my average float for the 8 months before that. I acknowlege the impact the SOMinfect can make for more random drafts, but refuse to acknowledge its' validity over series of drafts.
Do I underestimate the poison-randomness, and how it also makes for other archetypes in the SOMset being smaller paths/harder to draft, when it comes to MtG's normal/natural variance in general/previous sets ?
Right, but I think in such a case having knowledge of the archetype is strictly better. BREAD might lead you to take something like Instill Infection over Cystbearer, which is almost never going to be correct if you are drafting infect. Unless the infect content of the packs is really high (or you are the only one drafting it), it's going to be pretty rare that you want to take instill over Contagious Nim too simply because having a solid creature count is so important.
If a player is in a rut drafting infect, then I think archetype knowledge will help you do either of two things: learn to draft something else to get out of your rut, or troubleshoot your own drafting strategy for infect in a more thorough way. For example, if a player came to me wanting help with infect the first questions I'd want to ask are:
1. Are you undervaluing 2 drops and/or overvaluing 4 drops? (curve concerns)
2. What kinds of enablers (Throne of Geth, Untamed Might, Bladed Pinions, etc.) are you drafting and how aggressively are you drafting them (could be too aggressive or not aggressive enough).
3. When are you moving into infect? (Could tend to be too early or too late)
4. What kinds of picks lead you to believe that infect is open?
5. What are your backup plans if you are struggling to get enough creatures that have infect, and at what point in the draft do you put those plans into effect?
If anything, infect is an excellent example of where BREAD can really screw you up. I've definitely seen people sitting in pack 3 happily snapping up their fourth Grasp of Darkness over a Plague Stinger or Cystbearer despite the fact that they only have six or seven infect creatures so far.
Now this is just conjecture, but I don't think the DC factor on MTGO is very high. I very rarely see opponents time out or disconnect from a draft. It does happen though, so the effect isn't zero.
That said, there are also plenty of "real life DC" situations too. On the PT and GP circuit it's not uncommon for people to not show up for a round because they oversleep or what not. Similarly, players get autolosses in tournaments all the time because they drop from the tournament but forget to inform the TO.
I actually think that online ratings are less random than RL ratings. More compressed, absolutely, but more random not so much. In general, I think MTGO ratings are a much better indicator of someone's actual skill level than RL ratings are simply because there is a higher level of variance IRL due to higher K value tournaments and it's easier to beat up on a weak local metagame IRL than it is online. Online there are few if any places to hide, so if someone has a limited rating over 1800 you know they have to be pretty legit. Note that I'm talking about fundamental skill at magic here, not the RL skillset of jedi mind tricks/tells/etc.
Very interesting small child, what you wrote should go up in some sticky at MtgO-Wiz-Forum.
Based on ***more random makes for flattened ratings*** (as in lesser rating difference between higher skilled to lower skilled players) Id like to comment the following:
In mtgo there is such a thing as the computer-connection - which either eats a players clock or plain looses his match. Connection issue also make for skewed drafts where players on his sides get awesome draft-picks, whilst the DCed player gets a horrible deck if he returns - thats at least 3/8 decks skewed into oblivion.
When getting 2nd pick Wurmcoil-Engines one wonders =)
Question is: how big is this DC-factor in general for mtgo COMPARED to what YOU wrote ??? and are there even further factors that make for randomness in MtgO ?
And ofc lastly: are there factors that make for MtgO-rating being LESS random than Paper-Magic ?
Yes, generally speaking online ratings are much lower than IRL ones for a few reasons.
One is that on MTGO you are basically competing against everyone, including all of the top pros and MTGO sharks. Most players don't face this level of competition in their local metagame. IRL you can grind up a relatively high rating against mostly weak competition just by going to a bunch of local sanctioned events. In MTGO you just can't do this.
The other major factor is that there are more high K value events IRL, particularly for high level players. GPs, PTQs, PTs, and GPTs all provide players with opportunities to move their ratings by large amounts over the course of one tournament. On MTGO you don't see many tournaments with these kinds of K values. As such, it takes a much longer streak of top play (and luck) to reach particularly high ratings.
The last time I checked, constructed ratings were even more constricted than limited ratings, with the top constructed players sitting almost 100 points below the top limited players. I think this is because the competitive constructed environment is (or at least was at the time) smaller and more top heavy in terms of skilled players. When there are fewer players and fewer opportunities to grab a lot of rating points, the best players have an overall lower rating and thus it becomes harder and harder for any individual player to break through.
A limited rating that is consistently in the 1800-1900 online range means that you are a very, very good limited player, probably a legitimate PT player or hopeful. A rating consistently in the 1900+ range online makes you one of the top limited players in the world, straight up. I doubt the ratings are quite as constricted now as they used to be, so you can probably knock 50 points off the limited numbers to get the ranges for constructed. A constructed rating of 1800 is very, very good!
Definitely don't feel bad if your online ratings don't match your IRL ones. In fact, if your IRL numbers and your online numbers are equivalent despite similar amounts of play in each arena, it probably means that you have some serious issues reading people or giving off tells IRL, and that your fundamental game is stronger than it appears to be because of this. If your IRL rating is way higher than your online rating then it probably doesn't mean much either way since the variance is so much higher IRL.
Honestly as much as I admire the sentiment I can't be bothered slogging through that mess. And yes you do need to pay a bit more attention to your English if you want your points to come across. Syntax is troubling to non-native speakers (and some of us natives too) but it is key to deciphering what is inherently a vague language.
Feel free to copy what you consider to be the gist of your response and paste it here. Or better yet, write an article on the subject (with serious proofreading) and let us converse over that.
No-no-no-no-no-no-no and no-no =) and besides yes-yaY-Splendid !!!!
The OP is NOT mine - thats Wynzermann. You must look at GONNY's posts in that thread. It starts out JUST like what you are saying, my voice says(said) what ure saying right now.
PLX take the time to read it, Edit: and its no rush ofc - use weeks =)
And to make the hardship complete: my "true" arguements dont become clear until quite long into the thread.
The difference is very important to WoTC. They can't legally condone gambling. They can however promote gaming for in-game prizes.
By the way that thread you linked to is 21 pages long is in my opinion a complete waste of time. Naming people as "scrubs" is pretty much just hoping to troll them. I don't care if there is an archetype of a person who develops their own artificial rules for the game. Calling them scrubs is a guarantee of hostility. So that thread negates it's own validity.
When I was playing competitively pros used to use the term all the time to describe anyone they could wipe the floor with. "Random" was another such term. Pejoratives are a way of excluding and labeling in a tribal manner those who you wish to be your scapegoats. Pigeonholing people does not allow them to grow. It merely puts them and "YOU" into boxes. (You referring to the pigeonholer, not you personally.)
I say "you" because the use of pejoratives to categorize people is itself a self labeling. (I believe the common pejorative used here is "douche" or "jerk".) Mainly I think it is a better use of time to explain to people why artificial rules limit them to non-competitive play and how that may hurt their progress in learning the game.
I will note that thread has several people misunderstanding the application of the terms to mean "casual" players and others correcting them so it has some value in that sense but even so the whole context is skewed by the overall condemning tone.
Diff between legal meaning and spirit, absolutely YES.
Question that rises then is: What reason does WotC then have to have such an outspoken policy on it ? I think the answer is reasonable: Because the game attracts ppl/players with "not-so-outspoken"-attitude about it. Ppl in the target group for MtG are also the ones most prone to use time, resources and money on gambling in general. Age, demography, before marriage "snatches them away", etc...
Its then that I want to express my main "case" with how to improve MtG and its integrity with a "simple" thing from WotCs side:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/26257605/Scrubism_vs._...
Its a thread on Wiz-web MtG-General, and its way long. My posts are under name "GONNY" there. I must have like 20 postings spread out in the whole thread, suggesting that Pre-Registered Booster Packs is a good thing.
Would be cool if ya (and anyone interested) commented on that, and plx read the whole thread/all my posts =)
Edit: Im not the best of english-typers, best I write is prolly towards the end of that thread.
Well there is a difference between the legal meaning of the word and the spirit of it. :) And yes I agree on all counts. But there has never been any doubt that this is what Card games are about. Otherwise we'd be collecting chess pieces.
"process is like gambling...". Those are your words ofc, and I agree with them. But...
Gambling <---> WotC's spoken policy about it. Is there a clash here ?
(Mythic rarity ?).
There were avatars that you got only if your rating was over a threshold (1800 and I think 2000). And some tourneys you could only enter at those thresholds if I remember right.) Other than that it was a way of selecting clannies for some clans I guess and a way of checking to see what strength your opponents were. In a draft with a lot of sub 1700s I knew I was going to see some random signals and adjusted accordingly for instance.
RE: Limited play.
I think it is clear that the process is like any gambling game. You either are good and place in the money continually or you struggle.
There are several reasons why people choose each of the different formats. Swiss rewards you with more game time and if you are good enough a consistent renewal of packs. Assuming your cards drafted = cost of 2tix entry then you are breaking even. Sort of.
84s fire because there are plenty of people who think they are good enough to win against the best. Some are. The rest are suckers. Or to put it another way, some players will take the challenge knowing they aren't as good as their opposition hoping to gain skill and also get lucky. Plus there are the usual rare drafters. I am sure people who play consistently enough start to break even eventually. But it is a process. Not something that happens magically. As with any gamble there is a bit of random chance involved and the smart players play the odds.
I assume that Online-Rating had some practical function back then, since you two -kitten and bus- talk about the possibility of cheating it upwards or not ?
I know drafting is pointed out to be the hardest field to break-even++ in, also from personal experience with Modo. Whilst I certainly wont call someone a liar, what reads in the other things you say Paul is something I agree with and that is:
- very many ppl writing articles/forum-threads fails to present a reasonable picture about what it takes to break even++ when it comes to Limited play. ...ofc this would mean to compare with a whole lot of internet-articles, going way back - its just the impression I have gotten, personally =)
Beta modo was 24/7 drafting for me. I played every day and fired a lot of drafts. I would say I earned my rating but that would only be half true. I won vs a lot of really bad players. I lost to a lot of really good players. RE: Bribery/Collusion I heard nothing of that and I think I would have. My team NY Magic was one of the tops in beta in terms of ratings so that would have poed a lot of our members. Now I wasn't around for the initial alpha or closed beta. (I joined as soon as the beta opened.) So maybe there was something odd going on then. I can say I would draft 24/7 still if I had the money/time. It is a ton of fun and even losing isn't all that bad since you get new cards and jumping in another queue ameliorates any ego hurt from the loss.
While Im sure a large chunk of the MtgO users have a "live-alone" situation when they are online, consider those who are:
siblings/household family/answer "yes" when phoned from neighbour about TVmatch&beer drinking=social stuff etc, etc...
Paper-Magic at least requires some kind of planning before going there =)
, and when they are there, no matter how social/casual it is, they can spend their match-minutes without having to worry about or be disturbed with irrelevant stuff.
Only the breast-feeding mommy would have something non-magic to worry about when playing rated-store-tournaments =), and we never see them there ofc.
From what I heard quite a few of the accounts that were parked in the upper 1900's-low 2000's used bribery and collusion to artificially inflate their rating and then "retired" the account so that it would be permanently parked in the top 50. It took a while before wizards started cracking down on this.
That said, I am talking about live -- I missed the beta but started on day 1 of live. I'm not sure what factors might have been different in the beta, although the K values of tournaments are a major factor that might have been important.
While I absolutely agree that casual drafting has increased quite a lot over time, I'm not sure why that would depress overall ratings especially since more people draft casually IRL too and it doesn't seem to have that effect there. I mean, the difference between IRL and online is huge, with the top RL players owning ratings some 200-300 points higher than the top online players.
First, why doesnt no one like Prototype Portal? I think it should be awesome but I havent yet seen one in my packs.
Second, and more importantly: True Conviction in Pack 1 Pick 5. Seriously?
I mean, Magnet is some good, I can see that. But True Conviction basically just ends the game when you cast it. And you get it fifth. For me, that would mean White is somewhat underplayed on your right. And Pack three kinda reinforces that signal with those Arrests.....
Sticking to an archetype is a fine idea - I think you stuck to your archetype a little too early!
While I wouldn't generally force an archetype myself, prefering to see what's most open, I know hall of famer Darwin Kastle advocated a strategy he called "Power Drafting" in his articles over on Mana Nation. Basically he says an awesome player like Kai Budder might learn and master all the archetypes available in a given draft format, a more normal human might do well to learn 2 or 3 archetypes really well, and then stick mainly to those, cutting cards/colors aggressively from early on to end up in them every time. The approach has its merits.
That said, of course the benefit of knowing at 3 different archetypes is if you're getting cut heavily from your favorite, you have a backup plan and don't end up with a trainwreck. While blue is very often underdrafted in this format, that's not going to happen every time. If you're highly set on control, I'd suggest doing a review of all the cards in the set, and fix in your mind what you think the best control options are in each color. Of course you'd also prioritize artifact control cards the highest - like Tumble Magnet, black and blue trigons (even if they're off color, 3 uses or proliferating them are good), Contagion Clasp and Contagion Engine, Heavy Arbalest (I totally agree with the earlier poster, it's both removal AND card advantage), etc.
Removal in any color is a valid part of a control strategy, couple that with some card advantage, finishers, and possibly early blockers & any colors can do control. Red/white is good for aggro, but I drafted an insane red/white control deck at my local FNM last night, because it was open. Three Razor Hippogriff, two Glimmerpoint Stag, a Clone Shell, Furnace Celebration, Perilous Myr, 3 artifact sacrifice outlets, etc. One game I returned the Clone Shell from graveyard to hand four times, driving my opponent nuts (and gaining 20 life!)
Glint Hawk is even secretly a control card, reseting tumble magnets, trigons, and contagion clasps all day. The green and black replicas are good for control too. I also think Accorder's Shield is a fine control card, letting you sneak in a point or two and still hold up a vigilant blocker most things can't batter through without a pump spell.
Interesting draft, I would have chosen a ton of picks differently, but it's nice to see someone else's approach to the same set of packs.
Face to face paper versus modo:
Yes, I think ppl in general take modo more casually. And I think noone can argue that paper has an extra gear, if not two - thus creating larger rating-differences in paper.
What those extra gears "consist of" is certainly an almost endless discussion in itself, which is good for the game =)
During the intial modo beta I was rated fairly high into the 1800s..Ratings then definitely hit over 2k. I think the difference now is how much casual players draft vs people who draft more seriously.
Sure, I can see those.
1. Very good point: the 4-drops in infect are awesome, but cost... 4!
2. Throne is SUPER-important to the deck, along with the others you mentioned. I think Instill Infection belongs on the list too; it can cantrip-removal a blocker, or just let your poison guy live through combat and kill their guy.
3. Makes sense
4. Sure. Do you go "oh my a FALLEN" and forget that the infect drafter may have just been disciplined and taken 2-3drops or the ball-0lightning guy
5. gotcha. Shifting into Green dinosaurs might be an option, since you theoretically can hold the ground early
That's a great example at the end, but I also see drafts where people become too white-knuckled, "I can give him infect if I pay 1 mana! that's so much better than instill/pinions/lifestaff!", which is where it seems like a lot of infect decks go wrong also; they're too worried about taking even subpar infecters.
nicely written article nik. im sure most people, including myself, appreciate some good speculation. more than anything, it gives a nice push to 'think' in a more long term fashion.
@the guy making accusations: he attempted to state no more than the obvious, which apparently was not for some. sure writing an article could boost card value a little. but as it is stated in the article and can be logically concluded, it is difficult to liquidate large quantities of cards. the inflation caused by any article more than likely will not earn the type of $ to sell any cards (especially with a LONG term investment goal as stated) nor will it hold out very long. there are more reasons but i think you get the picture. to make the offhanded statement then say there or no implications in your words reflects upon your own character. perhaps you should write your own speculation article, 'a quixotic guide to nearsightedness'
Good thoughts SmallChild.
About todays' SOM-limited on MtgO:
Having played a year (but 14 years paper before that), where first 2-4 months ofc for anyone starting MtgO is a learning process (more than just the interface-quirks), my rating has fallen quite much since SOM arrived.
Im looking at 1730 limited now, which is almost a 100 points below my average float for the 8 months before that. I acknowlege the impact the SOMinfect can make for more random drafts, but refuse to acknowledge its' validity over series of drafts.
Do I underestimate the poison-randomness, and how it also makes for other archetypes in the SOMset being smaller paths/harder to draft, when it comes to MtG's normal/natural variance in general/previous sets ?
Right, but I think in such a case having knowledge of the archetype is strictly better. BREAD might lead you to take something like Instill Infection over Cystbearer, which is almost never going to be correct if you are drafting infect. Unless the infect content of the packs is really high (or you are the only one drafting it), it's going to be pretty rare that you want to take instill over Contagious Nim too simply because having a solid creature count is so important.
If a player is in a rut drafting infect, then I think archetype knowledge will help you do either of two things: learn to draft something else to get out of your rut, or troubleshoot your own drafting strategy for infect in a more thorough way. For example, if a player came to me wanting help with infect the first questions I'd want to ask are:
1. Are you undervaluing 2 drops and/or overvaluing 4 drops? (curve concerns)
2. What kinds of enablers (Throne of Geth, Untamed Might, Bladed Pinions, etc.) are you drafting and how aggressively are you drafting them (could be too aggressive or not aggressive enough).
3. When are you moving into infect? (Could tend to be too early or too late)
4. What kinds of picks lead you to believe that infect is open?
5. What are your backup plans if you are struggling to get enough creatures that have infect, and at what point in the draft do you put those plans into effect?
If anything, infect is an excellent example of where BREAD can really screw you up. I've definitely seen people sitting in pack 3 happily snapping up their fourth Grasp of Darkness over a Plague Stinger or Cystbearer despite the fact that they only have six or seven infect creatures so far.
Now this is just conjecture, but I don't think the DC factor on MTGO is very high. I very rarely see opponents time out or disconnect from a draft. It does happen though, so the effect isn't zero.
That said, there are also plenty of "real life DC" situations too. On the PT and GP circuit it's not uncommon for people to not show up for a round because they oversleep or what not. Similarly, players get autolosses in tournaments all the time because they drop from the tournament but forget to inform the TO.
I actually think that online ratings are less random than RL ratings. More compressed, absolutely, but more random not so much. In general, I think MTGO ratings are a much better indicator of someone's actual skill level than RL ratings are simply because there is a higher level of variance IRL due to higher K value tournaments and it's easier to beat up on a weak local metagame IRL than it is online. Online there are few if any places to hide, so if someone has a limited rating over 1800 you know they have to be pretty legit. Note that I'm talking about fundamental skill at magic here, not the RL skillset of jedi mind tricks/tells/etc.
The reason he didn't take your Masticore is because he couldn't. Inquisition of Kozilek can only take cards with CMC of 3 or less.
Very interesting small child, what you wrote should go up in some sticky at MtgO-Wiz-Forum.
Based on ***more random makes for flattened ratings*** (as in lesser rating difference between higher skilled to lower skilled players) Id like to comment the following:
In mtgo there is such a thing as the computer-connection - which either eats a players clock or plain looses his match. Connection issue also make for skewed drafts where players on his sides get awesome draft-picks, whilst the DCed player gets a horrible deck if he returns - thats at least 3/8 decks skewed into oblivion.
When getting 2nd pick Wurmcoil-Engines one wonders =)
Question is: how big is this DC-factor in general for mtgo COMPARED to what YOU wrote ??? and are there even further factors that make for randomness in MtgO ?
And ofc lastly: are there factors that make for MtgO-rating being LESS random than Paper-Magic ?
Interesting I have a 360 but not Settlers I didn't even know it was on there..../me disconects internet from PC to check out the Xbox arcade.
Yes, generally speaking online ratings are much lower than IRL ones for a few reasons.
One is that on MTGO you are basically competing against everyone, including all of the top pros and MTGO sharks. Most players don't face this level of competition in their local metagame. IRL you can grind up a relatively high rating against mostly weak competition just by going to a bunch of local sanctioned events. In MTGO you just can't do this.
The other major factor is that there are more high K value events IRL, particularly for high level players. GPs, PTQs, PTs, and GPTs all provide players with opportunities to move their ratings by large amounts over the course of one tournament. On MTGO you don't see many tournaments with these kinds of K values. As such, it takes a much longer streak of top play (and luck) to reach particularly high ratings.
The last time I checked, constructed ratings were even more constricted than limited ratings, with the top constructed players sitting almost 100 points below the top limited players. I think this is because the competitive constructed environment is (or at least was at the time) smaller and more top heavy in terms of skilled players. When there are fewer players and fewer opportunities to grab a lot of rating points, the best players have an overall lower rating and thus it becomes harder and harder for any individual player to break through.
A limited rating that is consistently in the 1800-1900 online range means that you are a very, very good limited player, probably a legitimate PT player or hopeful. A rating consistently in the 1900+ range online makes you one of the top limited players in the world, straight up. I doubt the ratings are quite as constricted now as they used to be, so you can probably knock 50 points off the limited numbers to get the ranges for constructed. A constructed rating of 1800 is very, very good!
Definitely don't feel bad if your online ratings don't match your IRL ones. In fact, if your IRL numbers and your online numbers are equivalent despite similar amounts of play in each arena, it probably means that you have some serious issues reading people or giving off tells IRL, and that your fundamental game is stronger than it appears to be because of this. If your IRL rating is way higher than your online rating then it probably doesn't mean much either way since the variance is so much higher IRL.
Oh man! And I have zero $ for that...I will have to find the link and post to FB.