At hascon in 2017, this is how they ran all the IMA sealed and the "historic" drafts. No pairings; play someone, mark your win or loss on a slip, and then go find another game. Prize Tix were based on how many wins you got out of 5 games or something. Okay for casual play, but bad for competition and lots of people were... massaging their results for better records.
"Players love this format"... Is this actually true? I had heard things weren't so hot with Bo1s.
Never easy to tell. You tend to hear from the unhappy rather than the happy. Even if 80% of people like something, the 20% that don't are going to make such a racket people will think it's a majority opinion.
And some people simply prefer to win by their sideboard. There's no way this can satisfy those people.
I actually really like best of one for limited, in all honesty. Sideboarding is marginal to completely pointless, die roll isn't as important, and you don't really have dead cards. The free mulligan takes away some of the feel bad of not opening a functional hand (Which is half the reason people lose limited games).
Its enjoyable, but you have to look at the impact its going to have. Any of us who have played 'eternal' formats know that there are decks that are 'Game 1' decks, and those that need to sideboard.
I thoroughly detest the Bo1 format in arena limited for several reasons (most notably how much more impact on a match bombs have), but if you just look at the data, then you will see a greater number of entries into Bo1 than Bo3 drafts on my account simply because I am f2p and need to enter with gold to get gems, and the conversion rate is bad. Plus, I no longer need any cards from ravnica which is the only Bo3 format so I typically prefer to draft from other sets. And if you include Amazonian's awesome free spell format, then my Bo1 rate skyrockets. Resources are for chumps ;-p
Just how modeled after it is it? Seriously? Arena regularly matches up people that are 1-2, 2-2, 1-1 against people 5-2, 6-1, 6-0 and what not. Pay outs are a joke on Arena for prizes.... if anything Arena should think about remodeling their draft after paper magic, let people sign up and once it hits 8 people fire a pod, What Arena has now is not really drafting since all you do is pick cards and bots take random cards out after you so everyone you play saw completely different packs and thus could of had a much stronger pool to choose from or far worse....
I'm not much of a limited guy, unless i'm testing for an event, but sideboarding isn't super important for limited.
I am for this, limited should be best of one.
Best of one's are the same as they have always been. Fun for casual jank, frustrating for competitive formats. For a company whose success hinges on their game not being gambling they sure seem keen on making the game closer to gambling.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Sales 50% OFF everything for the next 48 hours.
Love this. As long as it's 3 losses and out or something.
Bring bo1 to everything and anything!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The "Crazy One", playing casual magic and occasionally dipping his toes into regular play since 1994.
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
"Players love this format"... Is this actually true? I had heard things weren't so hot with Bo1s.
My understanding is that this is a dubious claim.
I believe they have cited “XX% of games on Arena are people choosing to play Bo1!”
But they ignore the fact that they basically require that of a large chunk of games.
While I think bo1 is legit for limited (where sideboarding is a lot less of a factor anyway), I don't like the way this might lead...
If the "players love this format on arena" comes mostly from numbers of entries, this is a highly biased argument, since bo3 drafts are a lot more expensive and require premium currency that you can only get without paying real money by playing bo1 drafts.
Following this reasoning, they could also extend the bo1 mode to constructed, since it is the default mode and so far the only one with a ranking system in arena.
Not to forget, an online game is a very different environment from an FNM or similar event - you can just start it up and play a couple of games whenever you feel like it without commiting too hard. That's fine, personally I mostly play quick single games on arena too, but you can't really compare it to organized paper play.
I prefer best of three in paper simply because, if I'm gonna spend 15 dollars to draft at FNM, I want to play for several hours, not just 2-3 20 minute games.
Bo3 is also preferable as that one game in several where you get flooded or screwed doesn't overly impact your results.
Arena limited is just picking cards and throwing it against the next opponent.
Its just bad.
But it is totally fine for the casual people that dont care if they win at all, they simply get to play more, profit for them.
Best of 3 is important to mitigate some luck, as you can totally have a really bad draw and flood/screw on mana, you might lose a game simply for that, but thats not the end of the game.
For something like a PreRelease the Best of 1 can be totally fine, as the vast majority just wants to play with the new cards anyway, and prices can be spread to a wider range of players, so its not really competitive at all.
For FNM drafts its not that cut and dry, as you want to have some form of competitive nature to it as an entry level event for the competitive magic.
----
The sad part is that current sets are even DESIGNED to be viable for Best-Of-1 matches, as the cards that would been actual sideboard cards are more and more removed or have flexible modes that allow them to hit more stuff / or get cycling and the like added to not be dead.
Thats fine to some degree, but in the end, it dumbs the game down , which some people are totally fine with, others are not.
----
If you dont get paired with people and you simply seek out an opponent that is available in a store , it will be bad too, as it further increases the "anti-social" part, as some players will not be as "liked" as others and if nobody or just less players want to play them, its not really a good social gathering anymore ; thats problematic in my view.
Some might seek out the "easy" opponents just to get more wins, which is also problematic.
Pairings are fair and neutral and you get to play against different opponents.
If you get to choose who you want to play, thats just not going to end well.
If you dont get paired with people and you simply seek out an opponent that is available in a store , it will be bad too, as it further increases the "anti-social" part, as some players will not be as "liked" as others and if nobody or just less players want to play them, its not really a good social gathering anymore ; thats problematic in my view.
Some might seek out the "easy" opponents just to get more wins, which is also problematic.
Pairings are fair and neutral and you get to play against different opponents.
If you get to choose who you want to play, thats just not going to end well.
I definitely agree on this, no pairings means people will just prey on the weaker players to rack up wins, however, quick drafts with pairings don't sound so bad for CASUAL Limited, Bo1 is just plain stupid for competitive play or constructed formats.I play pretty much only Bo1 in Arena myself, but wouldn't like a Bo1 FNM at all. I'm pretty sure part of the appeal of Bo1 in Arena is that unless you're putting down serious money on the game, you usually care more about filling your card collection in the long run than about winning.
If you dont get paired with people and you simply seek out an opponent that is available in a store , it will be bad too, as it further increases the "anti-social" part, as some players will not be as "liked" as others and if nobody or just less players want to play them, its not really a good social gathering anymore ; thats problematic in my view.
Some might seek out the "easy" opponents just to get more wins, which is also problematic.
Pairings are fair and neutral and you get to play against different opponents.
If you get to choose who you want to play, thats just not going to end well.
This is true and important. Getting paired with opponents that you don't get to choose is a HUGE part of the social aspect of events, and cutting it would make FNM a lot worse. It would get incredibly awkward. Shy and awkward players could get to play less, have a bad experience and not come back.
Bo1s sound really fun for a prerelease as long as it is done orderly and, in my opinion, through pairing and result slips to avoid any "massaging" of people's records. (aka stealing packs from the store through lying)
My issue with draft or post release sealed is that it becomes a who drew their bomb(s) that one game. Losing two rounds to some BS like Aurelia, Lyra or the like in one game sounds really polarizing and takes more away from the skill side of a balanced deck build or sequencing due to sealed luck.
With this move, Wizards is behaving like your awkward uncle who has a midlife crisis and begins to listen to rap and wear hoodies when all he knew was Fleetwood Mac: they try too much to be cool it's becoming cheesy. Yes, we're in the age of online and mobile games, which MTG cardboard is definitely not. FNM are supposed to still be tournaments, not feel-good gigs where you pair against anyone because you're best buddies, exchange a few spells for 20 minutes and then high-five and walk away all happy and good from the table. Tournaments have structure, rules which allow anyone to walk in a store they never went to with people they don't know and ensure it will deliver a "standardized" experience. It's always why you pay your sessions actually.
I prefer best of three in paper simply because, if I'm gonna spend 15 dollars to draft at FNM, I want to play for several hours, not just 2-3 20 minute games.
This press release specifically states to go to 5-6 round events rather than 3-4. It might be a little shorter than before (I dunno, I kinda feel like a room full of 20 minute games will almost always have one game still undecided after 20 that goes to turns so we may be looking at more like 25 minutes per round, making a 6 round event run 2:30 plus drafting time.)
I don’t see where this paranoia about ‘pair against anyone’ is coming from. I don’t see anything in this release that suggests any different from the usual event-runner-assigned pairings.
I don’t see where this paranoia about ‘pair against anyone’ is coming from. I don’t see anything in this release that suggests any different from the usual event-runner-assigned pairings.
Its how they do it in the store "league" , where people have a tracking list and simply write the result in.
You can play people whenever you want and it ends up with lots of fake results anyway.
With this move, Wizards is behaving like your awkward uncle who has a midlife crisis and begins to listen to rap and wear hoodies when all he knew was Fleetwood Mac: they try too much to be cool it's becoming cheesy. Yes, we're in the age of online and mobile games, which MTG cardboard is definitely not. FNM are supposed to still be tournaments, not feel-good gigs where you pair against anyone because you're best buddies, exchange a few spells for 20 minutes and then high-five and walk away all happy and good from the table. Tournaments have structure, rules which allow anyone to walk in a store they never went to with people they don't know and ensure it will deliver a "standardized" experience. It's always why you pay your sessions actually.
I don't really think this is designed for ultra competitive drafting.
This is more like a casual draft night. I think it makes more sense for a lot of older players, who have more of demands on their time. They have fewer chances to come out to play and can play for smaller chunks of time, so it makes sense that they would prefer a format where they get to play more games in the same amount of time. I mean how many times have you gone to a draft, played your Bo3 game in about a half hour, then had to wait a whole other half hour before the next round begins because two players are playing a slow attrition style game? Half hour on, half hour off is not really maximizing your time, relative to a format where each round is designed to last just 20 minutes. Additionally, it mitigates the amount of time you get stuck playing "that guy" (which is often a big boon in many people's books).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Never easy to tell. You tend to hear from the unhappy rather than the happy. Even if 80% of people like something, the 20% that don't are going to make such a racket people will think it's a majority opinion.
And some people simply prefer to win by their sideboard. There's no way this can satisfy those people.
Bo1 kills the sideboard decks.
Spirits
I am for this, limited should be best of one.
i tend to lose interest in draft if it makes it to game 3
Bring bo1 to everything and anything!
Currently focusing on Pre-Modern (Mono-Black Discard Control) and Modern (Azorious Control, Temur Rhinos).
Find me at the Wizard's Tower in Ottawa every second Saturday afternoons.
My understanding is that this is a dubious claim.
I believe they have cited “XX% of games on Arena are people choosing to play Bo1!”
But they ignore the fact that they basically require that of a large chunk of games.
If the "players love this format on arena" comes mostly from numbers of entries, this is a highly biased argument, since bo3 drafts are a lot more expensive and require premium currency that you can only get without paying real money by playing bo1 drafts.
Following this reasoning, they could also extend the bo1 mode to constructed, since it is the default mode and so far the only one with a ranking system in arena.
Not to forget, an online game is a very different environment from an FNM or similar event - you can just start it up and play a couple of games whenever you feel like it without commiting too hard. That's fine, personally I mostly play quick single games on arena too, but you can't really compare it to organized paper play.
W(W/U)U Ephara - Flash & Taxes W(W/U)U || B(B/G)G Meren - Circle of Life B(B/G)G
RGW Marath - Ever shifting Wilds RGW || (U/R)C(W/B) Breya - Artificial Dominion (U/R)C(W/B)
UBR Becket Brass - take what you can, give nothing back UBR
Bo3 is also preferable as that one game in several where you get flooded or screwed doesn't overly impact your results.
Its just bad.
But it is totally fine for the casual people that dont care if they win at all, they simply get to play more, profit for them.
Best of 3 is important to mitigate some luck, as you can totally have a really bad draw and flood/screw on mana, you might lose a game simply for that, but thats not the end of the game.
For something like a PreRelease the Best of 1 can be totally fine, as the vast majority just wants to play with the new cards anyway, and prices can be spread to a wider range of players, so its not really competitive at all.
For FNM drafts its not that cut and dry, as you want to have some form of competitive nature to it as an entry level event for the competitive magic.
----
The sad part is that current sets are even DESIGNED to be viable for Best-Of-1 matches, as the cards that would been actual sideboard cards are more and more removed or have flexible modes that allow them to hit more stuff / or get cycling and the like added to not be dead.
Thats fine to some degree, but in the end, it dumbs the game down , which some people are totally fine with, others are not.
----
If you dont get paired with people and you simply seek out an opponent that is available in a store , it will be bad too, as it further increases the "anti-social" part, as some players will not be as "liked" as others and if nobody or just less players want to play them, its not really a good social gathering anymore ; thats problematic in my view.
Some might seek out the "easy" opponents just to get more wins, which is also problematic.
Pairings are fair and neutral and you get to play against different opponents.
If you get to choose who you want to play, thats just not going to end well.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I definitely agree on this, no pairings means people will just prey on the weaker players to rack up wins, however, quick drafts with pairings don't sound so bad for CASUAL Limited, Bo1 is just plain stupid for competitive play or constructed formats.I play pretty much only Bo1 in Arena myself, but wouldn't like a Bo1 FNM at all. I'm pretty sure part of the appeal of Bo1 in Arena is that unless you're putting down serious money on the game, you usually care more about filling your card collection in the long run than about winning.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
My issue with draft or post release sealed is that it becomes a who drew their bomb(s) that one game. Losing two rounds to some BS like Aurelia, Lyra or the like in one game sounds really polarizing and takes more away from the skill side of a balanced deck build or sequencing due to sealed luck.
This press release specifically states to go to 5-6 round events rather than 3-4. It might be a little shorter than before (I dunno, I kinda feel like a room full of 20 minute games will almost always have one game still undecided after 20 that goes to turns so we may be looking at more like 25 minutes per round, making a 6 round event run 2:30 plus drafting time.)
I don’t see where this paranoia about ‘pair against anyone’ is coming from. I don’t see anything in this release that suggests any different from the usual event-runner-assigned pairings.
Its how they do it in the store "league" , where people have a tracking list and simply write the result in.
You can play people whenever you want and it ends up with lots of fake results anyway.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I don't really think this is designed for ultra competitive drafting.
This is more like a casual draft night. I think it makes more sense for a lot of older players, who have more of demands on their time. They have fewer chances to come out to play and can play for smaller chunks of time, so it makes sense that they would prefer a format where they get to play more games in the same amount of time. I mean how many times have you gone to a draft, played your Bo3 game in about a half hour, then had to wait a whole other half hour before the next round begins because two players are playing a slow attrition style game? Half hour on, half hour off is not really maximizing your time, relative to a format where each round is designed to last just 20 minutes. Additionally, it mitigates the amount of time you get stuck playing "that guy" (which is often a big boon in many people's books).