|
On December 01 2015 10:01 deth2munkies wrote:My worst sealed ever was in Innistrad. I remember I had 4 removal spells: Geistflame, 2 Bonds of Faith, and Blasphemous Act. I had 1 Slayer of the Wicked, 2 Selfless Cathars, and 0 other white playables. I did, however, have 3 Moon Herons, 2 Battleground Geists, Grasp of Phantoms, and Lantern Spirit. So I ended up playing Blue/Red with a couple of Kessig Wolfs and stuff as filler splashing white for the Slayer and 2 Bonds. The kicker, my final deck had Snapcaster Mage and only 3 spells: Geistflame, Grasp, and Blasphemous Act.* It was a PTQ and I went like 2-2 drop since X-2 couldn't top 8. Even the games I won weren't fun (I just played fliers and my opponent durdled), it was a shitshow. * + Show Spoiler +For those unfamiliar, that's 2 spells that already have Flashback and one that costs 11 to flashback with Snapcaster.
Ambush Viper!
|
On December 02 2015 00:00 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 10:01 deth2munkies wrote:My worst sealed ever was in Innistrad. I remember I had 4 removal spells: Geistflame, 2 Bonds of Faith, and Blasphemous Act. I had 1 Slayer of the Wicked, 2 Selfless Cathars, and 0 other white playables. I did, however, have 3 Moon Herons, 2 Battleground Geists, Grasp of Phantoms, and Lantern Spirit. So I ended up playing Blue/Red with a couple of Kessig Wolfs and stuff as filler splashing white for the Slayer and 2 Bonds. The kicker, my final deck had Snapcaster Mage and only 3 spells: Geistflame, Grasp, and Blasphemous Act.* It was a PTQ and I went like 2-2 drop since X-2 couldn't top 8. Even the games I won weren't fun (I just played fliers and my opponent durdled), it was a shitshow. * + Show Spoiler +For those unfamiliar, that's 2 spells that already have Flashback and one that costs 11 to flashback with Snapcaster. Ambush Viper!
I did use it as an Ambush Viper more than once 
|
yep yep good limited card
Besides, saving mana on geistflame flashback isn't exactly value but it's better than nothing.
Definitely worth running the card even if it wasn't ideal and didn't work out
|
On December 01 2015 14:41 Whole wrote:
I think the luck factor of sealed is actually overstated. Owen Turtenwald went 9-0 at like 4 or 5 sealed grand prixs in a row because he was simply practicing sealed more than anyone else at the time.
This. Most people don't practice sealed, so they rely on card quality more than they probably should.
|
On December 04 2015 23:20 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 14:41 Whole wrote:
I think the luck factor of sealed is actually overstated. Owen Turtenwald went 9-0 at like 4 or 5 sealed grand prixs in a row because he was simply practicing sealed more than anyone else at the time. This. Most people don't practice sealed, so they rely on card quality more than they probably should.
I often find the people who work the hardest, get the luckiest. Weird correlation really, I wonder why that is 
|
On December 04 2015 23:20 Judicator wrote:
This. Most people don't practice sealed, so they rely on card quality more than they probably should.
I think it's also that the majority of people don't approach sideboarding correctly in sealed.
One of the biggest improvements I ever made to my sealed play was learning that if I had a sealed pool that supports multiple different decks, I should be building out ALL of those decks (even if they have completely non-overlapping colors), and while I could only play one of them in game 1s, I should expect to play most of them in game 2s and 3s. For a long time, I approached deckbuilding and sideboarding in sealed the way you do in constructed and in draft--where you build ONE deck and stick to that deck through the entire tournament, with sideboarding meant to tune some of those cards to particular matchups while preserving the same core of the deck. From my experience, most other people I've talked to or played against also approach sealed this way.
In sealed, unlike any other format however, it's possible to have equally good versions of multiple different decks, and so it's reasonable to be playing all of them since a) they will have widely varying effectiveness in matchups against other decks, and b) since the vast majority of people will not be doing this, you can gain a big advantage in game 2s where you play your other deck and blank a large portion of your opponent's sideboard choices due to their assumption that your deck in game 2 will play the same core cards as your deck in game 1. On the whole this vastly increases the skill-dependence of sealed, both due to the higher complexity of sideboarding decisions, as well as rewarding more overall experience playing with the deck archetypes you're building since you cannot learn to play all of those decks on the fly (whereas if you're playing just 1 deck it's easier to just figure it out as you go).
The consequence of this being uncommonly practiced is that most people incorrectly judge the relative strength of a pool that supports a good version of one deck vs. one that supports average versions of two different decks. While the former probably is still usually better (even without the deck switch sideboard plan, it'll just have better game 1 win %), most people who are building just one deck out of their pool will miss the advantages of the second type of pool and see the format as being more luck-based since they'll lose a lot more with the second type of pool than they should compared to the first.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On December 01 2015 03:10 RoieTRS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2015 11:36 Fecalfeast wrote:
If we look at it from this angle it's no different from game devs only allowing purchased copies of the game play on official servers. Wizards requires you to have purchased your cards in order to play in DCI events.
Don't like the rules don't play the game. That would be fine except this copy of the game is several thousand USD... for one deck.
Which actually doesn't add to nor does it take away from my analogy.
|
|
|
Mark is really lowballing the bad effects in that article.
|
The second half of the article is a lot of hot air, but honestly limited Magic is a good enough reason for me to prefer the current system over an LCG.
Hell, even an LCG like Netrunner started producing draft products with the clunky solution of making not-constructed-legal draft-only cards so that stuff opened from randomized draft packs has no market value for constructed play.
|
Given your complaints about Magic's current business model, posting an article that defends and justifies that business model probably isn't in your best interest. Just saying.
|
On December 09 2015 04:48 TheYango wrote:
The second half of the article is a lot of hot air, but honestly limited Magic is a good enough reason for me to prefer the current system over an LCG.
Hell, even an LCG like Netrunner started producing draft products with the clunky solution of making not-constructed-legal draft-only cards so that stuff opened from randomized draft packs has no market value for constructed play.
Why don't we draft more
|
On December 09 2015 04:48 TheYango wrote:
The second half of the article is a lot of hot air, but honestly limited Magic is a good enough reason for me to prefer the current system over an LCG.
Hell, even an LCG like Netrunner started producing draft products with the clunky solution of making not-constructed-legal draft-only cards so that stuff opened from randomized draft packs has no market value for constructed play.
The second half was linked to the first half.
Less drafts means less money for stores and WotC
Less money means less resources for R&D and Prize Support
Less R&D and Prize Support means a worse Pro Scene
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
A fixed card pack distribution won't make as much money as the current model.
And while I'd love a world where mtg would be cheaper and I could build whatever crazy deck concept that I could imagine, the reality is that less money for Wizards means less money spent designing and developing magic cards and sets.
|
The thing about "fixed pack distribution" aka "buy each set completely for X dollars" is it is rough for LGS's and is completely fatal for organizations like ChannelFireball and StarCityGames.
|
The price of magic's secondary market is purely based on supply and demand.
The reason its expensive is because people love playing it.
When people stop liking it for whatever reason (say that its too expensive) then the free market will cut the price points of the secondary market until people love playing it again.
|
The price of magic's secondary market is purely based on supply and demand.
The reason its expensive is because people love playing it.
When people stop liking it for whatever reason (say that its too expensive) then the free market will cut the price points of the secondary market until people love playing it again.
However true or not that may be (hint it's not true), it doesn't change the fact that WotC is effectively precluding a large part of society from playing their game past a basic level.
Which is all fine and dandy if you want to be some kind of elitist society but not for something that should be a open, inclusive experience like a card game. That's not even considering the growth dampening effect you're getting from the game having such a high price of entry. I'd much rather see them return to a early 2000s release structure than mtg become more and more alike to Games Workshop produced games. 
|
Haha yeah it's not like WH40k is expensive or anything.
|
On December 09 2015 20:35 dismiss wrote:
However true or not that may be (hint it's not true), it doesn't change the fact that WotC is effectively precluding a large part of society from playing their game past a basic level.
Why is it that people seem to pretend that limited Magic doesn't exist in these discussions?
If you want to play competitive Magic, limited still gets more GPs than any individual constructed format other than Standard. Only if you're playing at the level where you're actively trying to qualify for the Pro Tour does the need really arise to foot the bill for a deck in a constructed format, and that's well beyond just "a basic level".
|
On December 10 2015 00:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 20:35 dismiss wrote:
However true or not that may be (hint it's not true), it doesn't change the fact that WotC is effectively precluding a large part of society from playing their game past a basic level.
Why is it that people seem to pretend that limited Magic doesn't exist in these discussions? If you want to play competitive Magic, limited still gets more GPs than any individual constructed format other than Standard. Only if you're playing at the level where you're actively trying to qualify for the Pro Tour does the need really arise to foot the bill for a deck in a constructed format, and that's well beyond just "a basic level".
You and I are maybe a rare breed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
