Sure, but are you telling me there were no others playing different decks with good records that could have been featured?
Identifying interesting matchups is based upon the players involved, not the decks they play. It's really hard to keep track of who's playing which deck , as doing so would give away non-public information about that player's deck.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Twitter - @MTGKoby | MODO - Koby 5x SCG Legacy Open T8
16th place GP Indianapolis 2012
Identifying interesting matchups is based upon the players involved, not the decks they play. It's really hard to keep track of who's playing which deck , as doing so would give away non-public information about that player's deck.
Except that the produces have all the decklists and whatever the players named the decks so they could find what they believe to be the more interesting matchups. They've done it before with trying to get certain decks onto the camera to show them off. I'm not saying that they should do away with showing any of the staple decks (deathblade, rug, etc.) because yes, then we would be giving the players at the feature match area an advantage because they would know that there were only the more rare decks were being shown in the feature match area.
Except that the produces have all the decklists and whatever the players named the decks so they could find what they believe to be the more interesting matchups. They've done it before with trying to get certain decks onto the camera to show them off. I'm not saying that they should do away with showing any of the staple decks (deathblade, rug, etc.) because yes, then we would be giving the players at the feature match area an advantage because they would know that there were only the more rare decks were being shown in the feature match area.
They have access to the decklists, but it requires far too much research in between the time pairings are posted to make it realistic. You have to sort and match decklists to pairings then decide whether this matchup would be interesting to view/discuss. The difference you're discussing is that the have already identified the feature matches (say a pool of 4) and can select which one gets put under the camera. The criteria used to select those feature matches (not necessarily the ones under the camera) is a player; not their deck.
Players, then decks. That's the criteria.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Twitter - @MTGKoby | MODO - Koby 5x SCG Legacy Open T8
16th place GP Indianapolis 2012
Except that the produces have all the decklists and whatever the players named the decks so they could find what they believe to be the more interesting matchups. They've done it before with trying to get certain decks onto the camera to show them off. I'm not saying that they should do away with showing any of the staple decks (deathblade, rug, etc.) because yes, then we would be giving the players at the feature match area an advantage because they would know that there were only the more rare decks were being shown in the feature match area.
It's a livestream. They only have so much time to pick a feature match once pairings go up before people on MTGS start to complain that there's too much downtime between rounds. It's much easier to pick a player that is known than to scour each player's decklists for an interesting matchup. If word gets around that a player is playing something wacky then they'll feature it. This is why if you know a friend that is playing a brew and is doing well, tweet @scglive and get your friends to do it too. They listen to this kind of stuff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Twitter: @mtgtwin1 Arizona players, click above! MTGDeckBlog - a place for me to dump my deck ideas (mostly Legacy). Some good, some bad, but mainly you decide
Totally forgot this is one of those Sat & Sun, Standard palooza they got...guess Legacy wasn't ranking in the money according to the SCG staff here in Utah...
Totally forgot this is one of those Sat & Sun, Standard palooza they got...guess Legacy wasn't ranking in the money according to the SCG staff here in Utah...
Jokes on them sat/sun had attendances of ~245 and ~150 respectively. Neither day even giving them the 10,000$ needed to support the prizes they promise (disregarding other expenses or sales). Most standard/legacy opens bring in 500+/250+ at least.
Jokes on them sat/sun had attendances of ~245 and ~150 respectively. Neither day even giving them the 10,000$ needed to support the prizes they promise (disregarding other expenses or sales). Most standard/legacy opens bring in 500+/250+ at least.
That is absolutely pathetic.
I've noticed that the Sundays of Double Standard consistently see less turnout than the Saturdays. I bet a large part of this difference could be attributed to people going to church, so I imagine if there were Legacy Opens on Saturdays, attendance numbers would seem even higher than we're used to.
Due to real-life obligations, I am taking a long break from Magic which may include missing the local Legacy GP. Apologies for not being able to keep my threads updated.
I do think the commentators really drop the ball sometimes in terms of explaining strategy nuances and non-Tier 1 decks, and I also agree that they ought to find a way to ensure they aren't showing the same deck 7-8 times; however, I also think they do a decent job considering the events aren't huge money for the company (well, the 200-something player ones probably aren't anyway, huge turnout tourneys perhaps should get better funding for more labor hours devoted to improving the stream). Professional live video coverage with all the features players would want ideally is a very complicated endeavor.
People love to hate SCG, but personally I'm very grateful they bring a large Legacy event to the Seattle area. There is literally nowhere else in the state where magic was born that I can get into competitive magic (not willing to play Standard), which is sad but it's where we're at.
I've noticed that the Sundays of Double Standard consistently see less turnout than the Saturdays. I bet a large part of this difference could be attributed to people going to church, so I imagine if there were Legacy Opens on Saturdays, attendance numbers would seem even higher than we're used to.
Edit: Forgot to say, "justice".
Its not just Kind of lower though, its less than half of what they usually get for the whole weekend, and no one there will be buying legacy staples, only standard cards.
I dont think regular church goes make up a significant amount of competitive mtg players. But regardless that is a good point, if your working a mon-fri 9-5 job, a saterday tourney (with or even without a long travel) is WAY easier to make than a sunday one that will potentially last till 9-12pm.
Jokes on them sat/sun had attendances of ~245 and ~150 respectively. Neither day even giving them the 10,000$ needed to support the prizes they promise (disregarding other expenses or sales). Most standard/legacy opens bring in 500+/250+ at least.
Those numbers have nothing to do with the formats. You could put any combination of formats and it would still be low because it's Utah.
What is the motivation for double-standard? Is it not possible for draft or sealed if there is no legacy or modern scene? Its certainly not interesting to watch and I can't imagine it's particularly fun to play.
Well they are going to feature decks that are doing well. Not the players going X-3 with fringe decks.
I'm not sure if anyone has already said this or not, but the livestream, while it does feature the players with better records for the day, tends to feature WELL-KNOWN players with better records for the day. This is to say that SCG coverage in general tends to be nepotistic, highlighting professional or otherwise big name players. I mean, half the SCG livestream coverage is of SCG writers, like BBD and CVM and whoever else has a name that can be condensed to an acronym. SCG often, when reporting decklists after a tournament, will go so far as to put up the decklists of pro players even though they dropped after losing the first two rounds. For example, after SCG Columbus back in the summer, the decklists of both Adam Prosak and Chris Andersen, who finished 248th and 180th respecetively, were posted online. If there is a better example of coverage favoritism, I'd like to see it. For my part, I'd much rather see the top 32 decklists from these tournaments (which SCG once posted) than the lists of well-known players who finished poorly.
I'm not sure if anyone has already said this or not, but the livestream, while it does feature the players with better records for the day, tends to feature WELL-KNOWN players with better records for the day. This is to say that SCG coverage in general tends to be nepotistic, highlighting professional or otherwise big name players. I mean, half the SCG livestream coverage is of SCG writers, like BBD and CVM and whoever else has a name that can be condensed to an acronym. SCG often, when reporting decklists after a tournament, will go so far as to put up the decklists of pro players even though they dropped after losing the first two rounds. For example, after SCG Columbus back in the summer, the decklists of both Adam Prosak and Chris Andersen, who finished 248th and 180th respecetively, were posted online. If there is a better example of coverage favoritism, I'd like to see it. For my part, I'd much rather see the top 32 decklists from these tournaments (which SCG once posted) than the lists of well-known players who finished poorly.
I think they tend to post the decklists of decks that they have in feature matches or that they do a deck tech on.
That's partly my problem. I'd rather see an 4-3 player with enchantress, mouldy cheerios or aluren than the third deathblade match of the day featuring the same SCG grinder, just because they're known and 7-0. If they're placed that high, they're gonna get played in the T8 anyway.
I don't mind seeing players like Brad Nelson & Reid Duke in the feed, but when I see the same guy on screen in 5 out of 9 streamed rounds, it gets very dull. Mix it up a bit in the early rounds and show the good decks in rounds 8-9 & the top 8.
Yo dawg! I heard you like BBD! So here's some BBD in your BBD matchup vs BBD! BBD! Want more BBD? Here's some more BBD action! And again! Are we having fun yet?!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Twitter - @MTGKoby | MODO - Koby 5x SCG Legacy Open T8
16th place GP Indianapolis 2012
Yo dawg! I heard you like BBD! So here's some BBD in your BBD matchup vs BBD! BBD! Want more BBD? Here's some more BBD action! And again! Are we having fun yet?!
That's an unfortunate acronym.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Due to real-life obligations, I am taking a long break from Magic which may include missing the local Legacy GP. Apologies for not being able to keep my threads updated.
Identifying interesting matchups is based upon the players involved, not the decks they play. It's really hard to keep track of who's playing which deck , as doing so would give away non-public information about that player's deck.
5x SCG Legacy Open T8
16th place GP Indianapolis 2012
Check out my Legacy stream
Except that the produces have all the decklists and whatever the players named the decks so they could find what they believe to be the more interesting matchups. They've done it before with trying to get certain decks onto the camera to show them off. I'm not saying that they should do away with showing any of the staple decks (deathblade, rug, etc.) because yes, then we would be giving the players at the feature match area an advantage because they would know that there were only the more rare decks were being shown in the feature match area.
They have access to the decklists, but it requires far too much research in between the time pairings are posted to make it realistic. You have to sort and match decklists to pairings then decide whether this matchup would be interesting to view/discuss. The difference you're discussing is that the have already identified the feature matches (say a pool of 4) and can select which one gets put under the camera. The criteria used to select those feature matches (not necessarily the ones under the camera) is a player; not their deck.
Players, then decks. That's the criteria.
5x SCG Legacy Open T8
16th place GP Indianapolis 2012
Check out my Legacy stream
RUG
Enchantress
Decks I play and stuff.
Legacy Burn
Modern Mono U Tron
It's a livestream. They only have so much time to pick a feature match once pairings go up before people on MTGS start to complain that there's too much downtime between rounds. It's much easier to pick a player that is known than to scour each player's decklists for an interesting matchup. If word gets around that a player is playing something wacky then they'll feature it. This is why if you know a friend that is playing a brew and is doing well, tweet @scglive and get your friends to do it too. They listen to this kind of stuff.
Arizona players, click above!
MTGDeckBlog - a place for me to dump my deck ideas (mostly Legacy). Some good, some bad, but mainly you decide
Standard: UWR
Modern: RDW, Twin
Legacy: I am 3 Candelabra of Tawnos from being able to build almost any tier 1 or 1.5 deck. Here are the ones I care about right now:
-Aggro: UWR/RUB/WUB/RUG/UR Delver; Affinity; Burn
-Control: Stoneblade; UWr Miracles; UB Tezzeret
-Combo: Hive Mind; Combo Elves; Omni Tell; T.E.S.
Vintage: Grixis Painter
EDH: Rith, the Awakener
Adblock plus means I never see any ad.
Like Squandered Resources on Facebook for updates on article releases, deck lists, and more!
Getting Started in Legacy and Legacy Budget Primer 5!
Special thanks to Bornnover for the banner used in those articles.
Jokes on them sat/sun had attendances of ~245 and ~150 respectively. Neither day even giving them the 10,000$ needed to support the prizes they promise (disregarding other expenses or sales). Most standard/legacy opens bring in 500+/250+ at least.
That is absolutely pathetic.
I've noticed that the Sundays of Double Standard consistently see less turnout than the Saturdays. I bet a large part of this difference could be attributed to people going to church, so I imagine if there were Legacy Opens on Saturdays, attendance numbers would seem even higher than we're used to.
Edit: Forgot to say, "justice".
Legacy
UWR Miracles UWR
GWB Maverick GWB
GB Elves GB
UBR ANT UBR
RG Combo Lands RG
Vintage
BUG BUG Fish BUG
Modern
GBW
Junk PodMagic: the BuylistingPeople love to hate SCG, but personally I'm very grateful they bring a large Legacy event to the Seattle area. There is literally nowhere else in the state where magic was born that I can get into competitive magic (not willing to play Standard), which is sad but it's where we're at.
Its not just Kind of lower though, its less than half of what they usually get for the whole weekend, and no one there will be buying legacy staples, only standard cards.
I dont think regular church goes make up a significant amount of competitive mtg players. But regardless that is a good point, if your working a mon-fri 9-5 job, a saterday tourney (with or even without a long travel) is WAY easier to make than a sunday one that will potentially last till 9-12pm.
Their turn out on the sealed weekends was less than for legacy weekends as well.
Those numbers have nothing to do with the formats. You could put any combination of formats and it would still be low because it's Utah.
Standard
W.I.P.
EDH
WNorn Tokens
They could just make it an invitational location next year, that should make a lot of people come for sure...
I'm not sure if anyone has already said this or not, but the livestream, while it does feature the players with better records for the day, tends to feature WELL-KNOWN players with better records for the day. This is to say that SCG coverage in general tends to be nepotistic, highlighting professional or otherwise big name players. I mean, half the SCG livestream coverage is of SCG writers, like BBD and CVM and whoever else has a name that can be condensed to an acronym. SCG often, when reporting decklists after a tournament, will go so far as to put up the decklists of pro players even though they dropped after losing the first two rounds. For example, after SCG Columbus back in the summer, the decklists of both Adam Prosak and Chris Andersen, who finished 248th and 180th respecetively, were posted online. If there is a better example of coverage favoritism, I'd like to see it. For my part, I'd much rather see the top 32 decklists from these tournaments (which SCG once posted) than the lists of well-known players who finished poorly.
I think they tend to post the decklists of decks that they have in feature matches or that they do a deck tech on.
Standard: UWR
Modern: RDW, Twin
Legacy: I am 3 Candelabra of Tawnos from being able to build almost any tier 1 or 1.5 deck. Here are the ones I care about right now:
-Aggro: UWR/RUB/WUB/RUG/UR Delver; Affinity; Burn
-Control: Stoneblade; UWr Miracles; UB Tezzeret
-Combo: Hive Mind; Combo Elves; Omni Tell; T.E.S.
Vintage: Grixis Painter
EDH: Rith, the Awakener
Yo dawg! I heard you like BBD! So here's some BBD in your BBD matchup vs BBD! BBD! Want more BBD? Here's some more BBD action! And again! Are we having fun yet?!
5x SCG Legacy Open T8
16th place GP Indianapolis 2012
Check out my Legacy stream
That's an unfortunate acronym.
Legacy
UWR Miracles UWR
GWB Maverick GWB
GB Elves GB
UBR ANT UBR
RG Combo Lands RG
Vintage
BUG BUG Fish BUG
Modern
GBW
Junk PodMagic: the Buylisting