We often talk of (or see others talk of) testing cards. We discuss card quality, slotting, and look for consensus opinions on usage/playability. Yet we don't ever really discuss the actual methodology of testing itself. So I'm asking the question: How Do You Test?
What's the criteria for testing, and how does it differ from straight inclusion (if at all)?
Do you have a rotating group of borderline/placeholder cards that you swap out and in with every release?
How long does a card's testing period last?
What, specifically, are you're looking for during the process?
(There's probably more testing-related questions, but these are the top four that sprung to mind.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
What's the criteria for testing, and how does it differ from straight inclusion (if at all)?
You can slot the cards directly into sealed pools or into already built decks. By doing so, you can immediately see it in action, make sure it winds up with a player that can use it, and don't have to wait for it to show up in the right pool at the right time. It takes too long to test cards by just tossing it into the cube and waiting for it to show up naturally.
Quote from Edward Mass »
Do you have a rotating group of borderline/placeholder cards that you swap out and in with every release?
No. For testing, it'll usually replace the most like-for-like card in the deck it's being tested in, and see how it performs in comparison to something that we have a good understanding of.
Quote from Edward Mass »
How long does a card's testing period last?
Long enough to get a good feeling for how the card plays in different matchups and situations. It varies from card to card. I like to see the card resolve about 10 or so times if I can. Gives a nice round number for evaluating how it works by percentage.
Quote from Edward Mass »
What, specifically, are you're looking for during the process?
If it's something that can replace an existing effect, how it compares in relation to the card it might replace, and/or if it's a card that would perform better as part of a critical mass of similar effects. (Should I run X instead of Y or in addition to Y?)(Can this card provide an effect I actually need, or just want?)
I usually seed cards into a draft but I typically find the "on the fly" method (creating a deck where it'd fit, play some games vs another deck) to see how it works out.
Whenever I find something that looks fun and adventurous, I swap it for something that gets cut a lot from decks, or picked very late by people playing those colors and seeing how it works. Then I see how it acts in the cube, if it's drafted pretty highly, or played frequently.
I do have about 20 or so cards sitting outside my cube that can rotate in if I feel that some cards just aren't pulling their weight.
What's the criteria for testing, and how does it differ from straight inclusion (if at all)?
Do you have a rotating group of borderline/placeholder cards that you swap out and in with every release?
How long does a card's testing period last?
What, specifically, are you're looking for during the process?
(There's probably more testing-related questions, but these are the top four that sprung to mind.)
I'm officially proposing we retire the word "insane" from the MtG vocabulary.
"The best way to be different is to be better" - Gene Muir
Cubes:
Modern Banlist Cube
Monocolor Budget Cube
You can slot the cards directly into sealed pools or into already built decks. By doing so, you can immediately see it in action, make sure it winds up with a player that can use it, and don't have to wait for it to show up in the right pool at the right time. It takes too long to test cards by just tossing it into the cube and waiting for it to show up naturally.
No. For testing, it'll usually replace the most like-for-like card in the deck it's being tested in, and see how it performs in comparison to something that we have a good understanding of.
Long enough to get a good feeling for how the card plays in different matchups and situations. It varies from card to card. I like to see the card resolve about 10 or so times if I can. Gives a nice round number for evaluating how it works by percentage.
If it's something that can replace an existing effect, how it compares in relation to the card it might replace, and/or if it's a card that would perform better as part of a critical mass of similar effects. (Should I run X instead of Y or in addition to Y?)(Can this card provide an effect I actually need, or just want?)
My 630 Card Powered Cube
My Article - "Cube Design Philosophy"
My Article - "Mana Short: A study in limited resource management."
My 50th Set (P)review - Discusses my top 20 Cube cards from OTJ!
I usually seed cards into a draft but I typically find the "on the fly" method (creating a deck where it'd fit, play some games vs another deck) to see how it works out.
I used to write cube articles on StarCityGames, now for GatheringMagic and podcast about cube (w/Antknee42.)
I do have about 20 or so cards sitting outside my cube that can rotate in if I feel that some cards just aren't pulling their weight.
I do use the same technic. This way, you never end up wasting a entire draft to actually don't get to test the card you wanted to see in action.
Zetsu's Cube on CubeTutor.com
Zetsu's Ebay MTG Online Store
Zetsu's Poker Draft Method